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.

 MarsNZ wrote:
I hope 8th edition is just a single book called Codex: Traditio's Tacticals and the entire game is just tactical squads slinging missiles at each other.

Then we can finally get around to banning those damn missile launchers

All that'd happen is he'd make a thread entitled "OP Missile Launcher Cheese" complaining that MLs are scale creep cheese that is driving players away from the game with their AP3 and 48" range.

9th Edition - Codex: Traditio's Tacticals features Tactical Squads with Assault Cannons and Flamers. A thread appears, "OP Rending Cheese".
10th Edition - Codex: TT has only flamers and bolters, drawing complaints from Traditio about "OP Bolter Cheese".
11th Edition - Codex: TT has only CCWs. "OP First Charge Cheese" draws 50,000 comments, all people asking GW to just call time on the franchise. And with that, Traditio has won. Just as Planned.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
"...Most armies aren't even in the games, you know."

That seems even lazier.

I don't know, most RTS games have three or four factions that are completely different (by this definition AoE2 has one faction since everyone works the same way except for a unique unit and a unique upgrade). DoW1 had, what, nine by Soulstorm? (Marines, Chaos, Eldar, Orks, Guard, Necrons, Tau, Dark Eldar, Sisters of Battle).

Yep. Just avoid the flier units because they're buggy and the game is still mediocre compared to Dark Crusade.

I know there's mods to fix the bugginess of Soulstorm, and to be fair it wasn't all the company's fault.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
To answer the question in the OP, no absolutely not. That concept doesn't exist in Yugioh or Magic. When you make bad choices you need to understand the consequences of your actions. That's part of what made March 2013 in Yugioh so much fun.

Magic is a poor example - bad cards exist soley to make the good cards rare (rarity is not an issue in table top games). So people spend money to buy the good cards. There is also Magic drafts which typically the worst competitive cards dominate because a 6 mana 5/5 with no abilities is fcking awesome when your opponent doesn't have any means to remove it. However - magic is in a state of perfect balance. Why? Everyone has access to the exact same card pool.

Everyone has the same access to the model pool too. My stance still stands.

Thats not true - you want to include certian models you have to abide by restrictions to using them together (come the apoc/ detatchment taxes) Cards in magic are literally designed to be used in multi color decks with deliberate synergy. While it's true battle brothers can do this without much trouble - most units can't. So you don't have real access to everything.

It doesn't matter what "taxes" you think they are. Anyone CTA with Necrons won't have any issues because they're taking it for the Wraiths, which are fast, and the Scarabs are fast and the Spyder is likely dead by T3. Even then, neither of those units are really a tax anyway.

I was referring to say- A necron - who wanted to use a far-seer to fortune his wraiths. The units don't function together. There are endless lists of these examples. Point being - whatever your main force is basically what you are restricted to using (with the main exception being imperium of man - and you still have to take tax units to make this work). In magic if I want to use 2 colors in a deck - all I really need to do is figure how much of each type of mana to use.

Wraiths don't need Psyker support though and therefore your casting can go elsewhere. The two parts still function together, just not as you want them to.

Table wrote:Ugh. No. For so many reasons no. We get it. You either do not have the money to upgrade your army to the current edition or you are not willing to spend the money. Either way this is not the game for you. GW has to keep selling products. You cant just sell one army to one guy and expect to stay in business. You need players to keep spending. Be that edition changes or by simply adding new cool toys. GW has picked the first of the two options. Ddespite it being the inferior business model it is what we have. I am not defending GW by the way. They have done plenty of ganky stuff to their customer base such a 80 usd endtimes books that became useless in a few months time. At some point you need to analyse what you are getting from this hobby and what are you willing to invest into it, and does it match up with reality. In your case, 40k has passed you by. I would look for another game. And I am not being a jerk either.

I'm surprised that nobody has commented on this.

This basically explains the poll results.

40k players don't want balance. They like the pay-to-win scheme.

If there weren't such massive game imbalance, if tactical marines had just as much a chance of winning as anything else, they would start to feel silly about actually paying GW's ludicrous prices for the new, big, expensive, shiny models.

Its like you don't bother reading anything, and then twist a single post into validating your backwards beliefs and make a sweeping generalization about the community.

You're not even trying anymore.

OBSERVE! Proof that Traditio uses things other than Tactical Squads with flamers and missile launchers!

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/683630.page

And no, it's because in a realistic, balanced, rational setting, tanks and elite units beat chaff like tactical marines. What would be the point of ever running an elite unit or tank if Tacticals can counter and kill it with a missile launcher and flamer?

 Verviedi wrote:
OBSERVE! Proof that Traditio uses things other than Tactical Squads with flamers and missile launchers!

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/683630.page

He took a Gladius!
TRADITIO WAAC CHEESEMONGER CONFIRMED

 Traditio wrote:

Table wrote:Ugh. No. For so many reasons no. We get it. You either do not have the money to upgrade your army to the current edition or you are not willing to spend the money. Either way this is not the game for you. GW has to keep selling products. You cant just sell one army to one guy and expect to stay in business. You need players to keep spending. Be that edition changes or by simply adding new cool toys. GW has picked the first of the two options. Ddespite it being the inferior business model it is what we have. I am not defending GW by the way. They have done plenty of ganky stuff to their customer base such a 80 usd endtimes books that became useless in a few months time. At some point you need to analyse what you are getting from this hobby and what are you willing to invest into it, and does it match up with reality. In your case, 40k has passed you by. I would look for another game. And I am not being a jerk either.

I'm surprised that nobody has commented on this.

This basically explains the poll results.

40k players don't want balance. They like the pay-to-win scheme.

If there weren't such massive game imbalance, if tactical marines had just as much a chance of winning as anything else, they would start to feel silly about actually paying GW's ludicrous prices for the new, big, expensive, shiny models.

Have you heard of the concept of a "Take All Comers" list?

 Pouncey wrote:

 Traditio wrote:

Table wrote:Ugh. No. For so many reasons no. We get it. You either do not have the money to upgrade your army to the current edition or you are not willing to spend the money. Either way this is not the game for you. GW has to keep selling products. You cant just sell one army to one guy and expect to stay in business. You need players to keep spending. Be that edition changes or by simply adding new cool toys. GW has picked the first of the two options. Ddespite it being the inferior business model it is what we have. I am not defending GW by the way. They have done plenty of ganky stuff to their customer base such a 80 usd endtimes books that became useless in a few months time. At some point you need to analyse what you are getting from this hobby and what are you willing to invest into it, and does it match up with reality. In your case, 40k has passed you by. I would look for another game. And I am not being a jerk either.

I'm surprised that nobody has commented on this.

This basically explains the poll results.

40k players don't want balance. They like the pay-to-win scheme.

If there weren't such massive game imbalance, if tactical marines had just as much a chance of winning as anything else, they would start to feel silly about actually paying GW's ludicrous prices for the new, big, expensive, shiny models.

Have you heard of the concept of a "Take All Comers" list?

That the problem. Tradito thinks every and any possible list should be a Take All Comers list

 CrownAxe wrote:
That the problem. Tradito thinks every and any possible list should be a Take All Comers list

That is simply a flat-out impossibility. Basic troops versus a Land Raider debunks that ever being a thing that can happen.

 Pouncey wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
That the problem. Tradito thinks every and any possible list should be a Take All Comers list

That is simply a flat-out impossibility. Basic troops versus a Land Raider debunks that ever being a thing that can happen.

With all due respect, I must disagree with this point, assuming that we are playing an objectives game.

If you have 1000 points of landraiders and I have 1000 points of tactical marines with bolters, I may or may not be able to destroy your landraider (I might actually be able to kill your landraider: #CatchThatMeltaBomb), but killing your landraider isn't the whole game.

Good luck killing that many tactical marines over the course of 5 turns. The marines have objective secured.

People complain about landraiders, but I like the landraider from a balance perspective:

It's extremely tough against anything that's not specifically supposed to kill it, but it has a high points cost and it doesn't really deal much damage. It packs a punch...against tough individual models. Against entire units of things? Not so much.

 Traditio wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
That the problem. Tradito thinks every and any possible list should be a Take All Comers list

That is simply a flat-out impossibility. Basic troops versus a Land Raider debunks that ever being a thing that can happen.

With all due respect, I must disagree with this point, assuming that we are playing an objectives game.

If you have 1000 points of landraiders and I have 1000 points of tactical marines with bolters, I may or may not be able to destroy your landraider (I might actually be able to kill your landraider: #CatchThatMeltaBomb), but killing your landraider isn't the whole game.

Good luck killing that many tactical marines over the course of 5 turns. The marines have objective secured.

People complain about landraiders, but I like the landraider from a balance perspective:

It's extremely tough against anything that's not specifically supposed to kill it, but it has a high points cost and it doesn't really deal much damage. It packs a punch...against tough individual models. Against entire units of things? Not so much.

exactly. That's not a fair match up for the land raiders. They have 0% of winning 5/6 eternal war missions. How is that part of you idea of fair?

 Traditio wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
That the problem. Tradito thinks every and any possible list should be a Take All Comers list

That is simply a flat-out impossibility. Basic troops versus a Land Raider debunks that ever being a thing that can happen.

With all due respect, I must disagree with this point, assuming that we are playing an objectives game.

If you have 1000 points of landraiders and I have 1000 points of tactical marines with bolters, I may or may not be able to destroy your landraider (I might actually be able to kill your landraider: #CatchThatMeltaBomb), but killing your landraider isn't the whole game.

Good luck killing that many tactical marines over the course of 5 turns. The marines have objective secured.

People complain about landraiders, but I like the landraider from a balance perspective:

It's extremely tough against anything that's not specifically supposed to kill it, but it has a high points cost and it doesn't really deal much damage. It packs a punch...against tough individual models. Against entire units of things? Not so much.

Well, in reality you wouldn't have a matchup of Land Raiders versus Tactical Marines. Neither is a sound choice for an army. The Land Raiders, while highly durable, lack killing power, and the Tactical Marines are numerous, but lack staying or offensive power.

The skill with list building is in bringing a variety of tools to deal with various threats. Different units specialize in different things, so you need to bring the capability to take on whatever you might face, which means taking a variety of different units.

I'll admit I don't know your preferences, but there have been a lot of references to your love of Tactical Marines. Tactical Marines are a fairly weak unit by modern standards, so it's not surprising that you face difficulties on the battlefield. However, it's worth noting that Space Marines don't go to war just with Tactical Marines, they bring other forces when they benefit the mission, because Tactical Squads are flexible but specialize in nothing. They will die to dedicated melee units. They will get outgunned by dedicated ranged units. They will lack the stopping power to take on highly durable foes. Space Marines bring their specialist troops to provide heavier firepower or choppier melee.

I you absolutely insist on using nothing but Tactical Marines, and there is no other option for whatever reason, then I'm sorry, but the reality is that 40k is not set up for spamming nothing but standard troops being an effective army. And it never will be. You will have to either live with the reality that your army is incredibly underpowered due to poor listbuilding choices, or break from your habit and start including other units in your army. There is no option C where an army of nothing but Tactical Marines is viable. It will simply never happen.

 Blacksails wrote:
Its like you don't bother reading anything, and then twist a single post into validating your backwards beliefs and make a sweeping generalization about the community.

You're not even trying anymore.

So true. He only hears what he wants to hear. Trying to explain this stuff to Traditio is like talking to a brick wall. We really should stop it, but it's so entertaining (much more so than actually talking to a brick wall anyway).

 ZergSmasher wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
Its like you don't bother reading anything, and then twist a single post into validating your backwards beliefs and make a sweeping generalization about the community.

You're not even trying anymore.

So true. He only hears what he wants to hear. Trying to explain this stuff to Traditio is like talking to a brick wall. We really should stop it, but it's so entertaining (much more so than actually talking to a brick wall anyway).

I don't know, I've met some interesting brick walls in my life.

 War Kitten wrote:

 ZergSmasher wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
Its like you don't bother reading anything, and then twist a single post into validating your backwards beliefs and make a sweeping generalization about the community.

You're not even trying anymore.

So true. He only hears what he wants to hear. Trying to explain this stuff to Traditio is like talking to a brick wall. We really should stop it, but it's so entertaining (much more so than actually talking to a brick wall anyway).

I don't know, I've met some interesting brick walls in my life.

I once met a very interesting person who didn't even have a visible body.

She was a space alien and we communicated telepathically for quite a few months.

Eventually the schizophrenia meds got up to the right level and she went away. Found out it was called a thought insertion delusion, though my description of our conversations to my psychiatrist made him believe she was a command hallucination.

She was very nice, curious to learn about Earth.

Pouncey wrote:Tactical Marines are a fairly weak unit by modern standards

Do you think that tactical marines should be weak?

 Traditio wrote:

Pouncey wrote:Tactical Marines are a fairly weak unit by modern standards

Do you think that tactical marines should be weak?

No.

Personally, I don't think Space Marines should even be a playable faction.

Tradito are you just going to keep ignoring my post?

 CrownAxe wrote:

 Traditio wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
That the problem. Tradito thinks every and any possible list should be a Take All Comers list

That is simply a flat-out impossibility. Basic troops versus a Land Raider debunks that ever being a thing that can happen.

With all due respect, I must disagree with this point, assuming that we are playing an objectives game.

If you have 1000 points of landraiders and I have 1000 points of tactical marines with bolters, I may or may not be able to destroy your landraider (I might actually be able to kill your landraider: #CatchThatMeltaBomb), but killing your landraider isn't the whole game.

Good luck killing that many tactical marines over the course of 5 turns. The marines have objective secured.

People complain about landraiders, but I like the landraider from a balance perspective:

It's extremely tough against anything that's not specifically supposed to kill it, but it has a high points cost and it doesn't really deal much damage. It packs a punch...against tough individual models. Against entire units of things? Not so much.

exactly. That's not a fair match up for the land raiders. They have 0% of winning 5/6 eternal war missions. How is that part of you idea of fair?

Pouncey wrote:Personally, I don't think Space Marines should even be a playable faction.

Basically this is what annoys me.

"There should be restrictions to make the rules require a more troops heavy meta."

"No. That limits player choice. I want to run whatever I want."

"Ok. Well I want to run tacticals and have a fair shot."

"Tacticals suck."

"Ok. Should they?"

 Traditio wrote:

Pouncey wrote:Personally, I don't think Space Marines should even be a playable faction.

Basically this is what annoys me.

"There should be restrictions to make the rules require a more troops heavy meta."

"No. That limits player choice. I want to run whatever I want."

"Ok. Well I want to run tacticals and have a fair shot."

"Tacticals suck."

"Ok. Should they?"

Nobody said tacticals suck. You're putting words in our mouths (again... ). We just said that there are better units, which are more specialized at whatever job they do. Tactical squads are basically a "jack of all trades but master of none". They aren't bad at holding objectives, but lack the firepower of a shooty specialist unit and the melee strength of a dedicated assault unit. They can have a place in some lists (such as the Gladius/Lion's Blade/etc.). All we are saying is that running a list consisting of mostly tacticals is not a great strategy. You should bring some specialists for handling certain types of foes, as generalists like tacticals are not going to fair well against specialists.

Tactical squads SHOULD be weak, otherwise the entire rest of their model line doesn't need to exist. They are a basic troop, I don't care how cool you want your army to be the idea that a basic troop unit could do everything you want them to is absurd.

I have a very limited amount of units with my harlequins, my primary damage dealer is my troop slot. I still would NEVER come onto an open forum and declare that they should have an equal chance of taking on any list in the game if they're all I field.

The nonsensical idea that the game should allow you to take whatever you want and have a 50/50 chance to win destroys the idea of a local meta and collection upgrades with your friends.

Did you honestly start belittling your opponent's when they started buying units to counter your loadings because they played you a lot?

When you say the weapons you equipped to your marines were free, then you admit to trying to obtain an unfair advantage gave by manipulating the point cost for your unit to your benefit. Now that other things are eliminated by your load out AND you have to pay points for them you claim the game is becoming to rediculous and things need to be banned

IIt is the heightght of arrogance to believe that your personal and subjective taste in the game should be considered so utterly important that it requires others to subject themselves to your personal play style. I hope you enjoyed denying other people in your group the thrill of victory by denouncing their units as overpowered. Of them building a list to counter one that you have played unchanged for upwards of a decade and you declaring them to be abusing the system. If you haven't bothered to change your army to meet what is on the tables near you, then the onus is on you.

It is not the fault of the company that you refuse to change.

 Traditio wrote:

Pouncey wrote:Personally, I don't think Space Marines should even be a playable faction.

Basically this is what annoys me.

"There should be restrictions to make the rules require a more troops heavy meta."

"No. That limits player choice. I want to run whatever I want."

"Ok. Well I want to run tacticals and have a fair shot."

"Tacticals suck."

"Ok. Should they?"

Basically this is what annoys me.

There are a thousand Chapters of a thousand Space Marines each. One million Marines strong.

Spread over one million planets in the Imperium.

Space Marines are so rare it's like having a military force composed exclusively of Planetary Governors.

Then they give half a dozen of the Chapters their own Codices and model ranges.

Then they take WH30k and make it a GW game with full support, developing tons of new models.

Virtually all the WH40k video games are about Space Marines.

Back in 2006 I start what becomes my favorite army. Sisters of Battle. A common sight on Imperial worlds, tasked with guarding pilgrimage routes, with guarding Ecclesiarchy personnel, with guarding Ecclesiarchy property, with guarding relics, shrines, taking out rogue Marine chapters on occasion, dealing with heresy, acting as the Chamber Militant of the Ordo Hereticus, and even embarking on entire wars on their own. If you are an Imperial citizen, you are very familiar with Sisters of Battle. You have seen them all your life. Their medics are a sight of relief for Imperial Guard troops, because it means high-quality care is imminent.

If you are an Imperial citizen, you have almost certainly never seen a single Space Marine in your entire life, of any kind. Sisters of Battle outnumber Space Marines so much it's not funny.

And I collect my new army, the models are very spiffy despite their age. Five years go by, until I buy my second Exorcist and finally have nothing more to buy. My collection of Sisters of Battle is complete for now, and I'll just wait for plastic models to come out so I can start doing conversions and rebuild my army.

And I wait, and wait, and wait...

Oh look, Mechanicus get their own plastics.

Oh look, Imperial Knights are their own force.

More waiting. Years pass.

Oh look, GW's doing WH30k now, a Space Marine versus Space Marine game set 5,000 years before Sisters of Battle would exist in the lore.

More waiting.

Video game after video game comes out. Marines. Marines. Marines. Marines versus Marines. Marines. Marines. Some of these games look so similar I wonder if I'm seeing the same one twice. Still just Dawn of War: Soulstorm with Sisters of Battle, the most awful of the series, with buggy units and a godawful campaign.

More waiting.

Then it's a few months ago, and I've pretty much given up. But then I hear of a video from GW that's teasing plastic Sisters of Battle. I'm skeptical, but I watch it. It comes off like a joke.

Still, maybe GW just sucks at dealing with Sisters of Battle. Let's wait a few months, see what happens.

Three months pass, December comes, I've already forgotten about it. A friend tells me there are Sisters of Battle preorders on GW's site.

Could this be it? Could this be the moment I've waited for for five years?

Nope, just repackaged metal squads and a terrible Canoness model. And Celestine's been removed. And we don't have our own Codex anymore.

And that's when my spirit breaks completely.

 Traditio wrote:

Pouncey wrote:Personally, I don't think Space Marines should even be a playable faction.

Basically this is what annoys me.

"There should be restrictions to make the rules require a more troops heavy meta."

"No. That limits player choice. I want to run whatever I want."

"Ok. Well I want to run tacticals and have a fair shot."

"Tacticals suck."

"Ok. Should they?"

Should a unit be bad in basically every way without the aid of formations that give tons of free points? No
Tacs need a buff, probably a price reduction, but that shouldn't happen until the Gladius is either removed or changed drastically.

It's a fun idea, having it so no matter what I take there's always a 50/50 chance of me winning. Would mean I always have time for a game. It would go something like this.

Find opponent. Agree points. Write lists. Deploy army. Admire opponents list and models. Flip coin. Congratulate opponent/wish hum better luck next time (delete where appropriate). Pack up models. Go home.

Optional steps include forging a narrative as to how the battle could have played out if the game was more engaging rhan always being 50/50 win chance because "balance".

 HANZERtank wrote:
It's a fun idea, having it so no matter what I take there's always a 50/50 chance of me winning. Would mean I always have time for a game. It would go something like this.

Find opponent. Agree points. Write lists. Deploy army. Admire opponents list and models. Flip coin. Congratulate opponent/wish hum better luck next time (delete where appropriate). Pack up models. Go home.

Optional steps include forging a narrative as to how the battle could have played out if the game was more engaging rhan always being 50/50 win chance because "balance".

After flipping the coin, you could do battle with your now-useless army of models like they're army men. Complete with human-made sound effects.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Tactical squads SHOULD be weak, otherwise the entire rest of their model line doesn't need to exist. They are a basic troop, I don't care how cool you want your army to be the idea that a basic troop unit could do everything you want them to is absurd.

I have a very limited amount of units with my harlequins, my primary damage dealer is my troop slot. I still would NEVER come onto an open forum and declare that they should have an equal chance of taking on any list in the game if they're all I field.

The nonsensical idea that the game should allow you to take whatever you want and have a 50/50 chance to win destroys the idea of a local meta and collection upgrades with your friends.

Did you honestly start belittling your opponent's when they started buying units to counter your loadings because they played you a lot?

When you say the weapons you equipped to your marines were free, then you admit to trying to obtain an unfair advantage gave by manipulating the point cost for your unit to your benefit. Now that other things are eliminated by your load out AND you have to pay points for them you claim the game is becoming to rediculous and things need to be banned

IIt is the heightght of arrogance to believe that your personal and subjective taste in the game should be considered so utterly important that it requires others to subject themselves to your personal play style. I hope you enjoyed denying other people in your group the thrill of victory by denouncing their units as overpowered. Of them building a list to counter one that you have played unchanged for upwards of a decade and you declaring them to be abusing the system. If you haven't bothered to change your army to meet what is on the tables near you, then the onus is on you.

It is not the fault of the company that you refuse to change.

This is so right.
Should armies suck because they have no good units? No, I don't believe so.
Should some units suck because they've been left behind in the big scheme of things? I' fine with that.
I hate to insert logic into a 40k setting but from a gaming level war is an arms race. From a sales perspective arms races sell models.
Keeping up or getting left behind is up to you.

Dakka Wolf wrote:This is so right.
Should armies suck because they have no good units? No, I don't believe so.
Should some units suck because they've been left behind in the big scheme of things? I' fine with that.
I hate to insert logic into a 40k setting but from a gaming level war is an arms race. From a sales perspective arms races sell models.
Keeping up or getting left behind is up to you.

I wish to point out that this is the second user IN THIS THREAD to express the view: "No, there shouldn't be balance because I LIKE pay to win."

You all recognize this, yes?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 HANZERtank wrote:
It's a fun idea, having it so no matter what I take there's always a 50/50 chance of me winning. Would mean I always have time for a game. It would go something like this.

Find opponent. Agree points. Write lists. Deploy army. Admire opponents list and models. Flip coin. Congratulate opponent/wish hum better luck next time (delete where appropriate). Pack up models. Go home.

Optional steps include forging a narrative as to how the battle could have played out if the game was more engaging rhan always being 50/50 win chance because "balance".

This is a massive misrepresentation of what I'm saying. It's a complete strawman. Because you are leaving out the essential clause of what I say: "Apart from player skill."

The fact that you would have a roughly 50% chance apart from player skill wouldn't make the game not be worth playing. It would mean that the outcome of the game wouldn't be decided in advance of us rolling dice and you'd actually have to make good IN-GAME decisions.

But of course, someone who is a fan of pay-to-win would never actually want to have to make good in-game decisions, right?

 Traditio wrote:
I wish to point out that this is the second user IN THIS THREAD to express the view: "No, there shouldn't be balance because I LIKE pay to win."

You all recognize this, yes?

Yes, I do in fact recognize your straw man argument here. You've turned "I understand why GW, as a for-profit business that wants to make lots of money selling plastic toys, uses power creep to sell the newest releases" into "I like 'pay to win' games".

But of course, someone who is a fan of pay-to-win would never actually want to have to make good in-game decisions, right?

List construction is part of the game, like it or not. Winning or losing based on your ability to make good in-game decisions during the list building part of the game is no different than winning or losing based on your ability to make good in-game decisions during the movement phase.

 Traditio wrote:

Dakka Wolf wrote:This is so right.
Should armies suck because they have no good units? No, I don't believe so.
Should some units suck because they've been left behind in the big scheme of things? I' fine with that.
I hate to insert logic into a 40k setting but from a gaming level war is an arms race. From a sales perspective arms races sell models.
Keeping up or getting left behind is up to you.

I wish to point out that this is the second user IN THIS THREAD to express the view: "No, there shouldn't be balance because I LIKE pay to win."

You all recognize this, yes?

No. I recognize an utter misuse of the "pay to win" label.

That's like saying "This video game is pay to win, I have to pay 60 bucks in order to play it and I can't win if I don't play!"