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.

 Jaxler wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
A good starting point is to remove the ability to mix factions and pile on all the best buffs from a dozen different armies. You get one detachment, preferably the old FOC, from one faction. And no, "Imperium" is not a faction, you have to pick your army and stick to it.

Okay, I guess all inquisition players can go zog off.

But Inquisition used to be sort of special that way.
Now every imperial faction can recruit every other imperial and the Inquisition isn't special in this way anymore.
Should be a limit at least, say no more than two different flavors of imperial in a single army over one thousand points...
Unless you are Inquisition. In which case no limit.

The sweet spot for me is that I play the models I like, the way I like, and if I win or lose, at least I did it my way.

Since the Marine models I like are terminators, jump packs, bikes, and dreadnoughts (with a hankering to build a Terminus Ultra) that's what I play with. It's basically an Ultramarines First Company army. Competitive? Not really. Fun? I think so.

I always preferred the percentage system. Having slots let you game the FOC (i take 2 of the cheapest, min-sized troop choices to fulfill my compulsory choices, leaving me to load up on the good stuff) vs 25% of my army minimum is troops. The percentages could be played with, but i never understood the appeal of slots.

 Scott-S6 wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
(basically I mean building a list that's designed to be tough, but not 100% min-maxed).

How is that supposed to work in practice? It's okay to take an optimized list but not TOO optimized. How do you put an objective measure against that?

It's easy when you're playing with friends, you both know how strong to aim for. For Americans that insist on mostly playing with strangers this just doesn't work in practice.

I think it's not that hard to know. If you're spamming conscripts/poxwalkers/cultists/whatever because they are the "best" choice in the codex, or spamming weapon options in basically duplicate "copy paste" squads (i.e. multiple squads with identical loadouts), then it's usually a good sign that you're building a list for what is "best". A little variety, while often not the "most optimal" choice, often goes a long way towards a more interesting game because it's not an identical list with every squad having the same equipment to maximize effectiveness. That also seems to be how GW themselves build armies; you very rarely (if ever) see lots of identical squads, you see a lot of variety and squads mixing and matching options (sometimes a little less thought goes into this than should, but the theory is sound)

The game has never been hard to "break". 8th edition has just made it even easier to do so.

This is why all players are constantly trying to "fix" 40k for "their group".

 jeff white wrote:

This is false.

I collect models to paint and convert.
Each has a role or not, in which case I find one for it.
This drives army composition, not Min max deck building bs.
This whole WAAC "everyone does it" excuse has worn too thin.
It is a lame excuse for having no depth of character, literally armies with no depth of character.
CCGs may suit such a mindset but cards are not painted and converted and aren't built from scratch.
The sweetspot of the hobby only reveals itself when the hobby becomes the goal.
Not winning the game, exploiting the rules, or min maxing whatever for the lulz.
Gw may change rulesets to sell models but that doesn't drive me to buy them.
Buying models to win only results in unused models the next time that gw marketing decides it is time to sell different models.
I am too old to be led around by an ego fed by such nonsense.
In fact the whole question is something of a zen puzzle,
The more one strives the more distant the goal.
The best slave is never free, rather is only successful in captivity.
Forty k is a hobby for free persons.
It is a leisure time activity.
There is no leisure in chasing the plastic dragon to WAAC.

This is false.

You cannot impress your own ideals, in such a sweeping manner upon such a large hobby full of so many different people with different ideologies. Some people enjoy building a lore-appropriate Army that slots in to what a little page in some dusty book declares to be "How it's meant to be played." Let them have that.
Some people enjoy Crafting their own lore, outside the bounds of what's written in a book, modelling their army to match their own, unique ideas, as the Warhammer 40,000 lore is indeed so vast, with holes purposefully left in it, so people can create. Let them have that.
Some people enjoy playing the Game, and playing their game to the best they can, drawing their enjoyment of the hobby not just from painting and building, but from creating efficient lists designed to win. Let them have that.

And there are people in between all that. So many varying people with varying ideas of how they enjoy their hobby.

YOU don't get to dictate how people enjoy the Hobby, that isn't JUST building and painting and following the lore. There's more to it than that. It's arrogant, exceptionally so, to think your opinion is the gold standard to which all must adhere to, otherwise they're Playing with their plastic soldiers wrong.

The sweet spot of 40k, is where a specific player gets enjoyment out of whichever aspect of the hobby they tend to enjoy the most, or different parts of the hobby. I personally, am loving the new Primaris marine models, painting them, changing them as I see fit, and now, playing the game and making efficient lists to win.

Holy gak.

Your all pretty.

The sweet spot is what you and your group make it.

Wayniac wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
(basically I mean building a list that's designed to be tough, but not 100% min-maxed).

How is that supposed to work in practice? It's okay to take an optimized list but not TOO optimized. How do you put an objective measure against that?

It's easy when you're playing with friends, you both know how strong to aim for. For Americans that insist on mostly playing with strangers this just doesn't work in practice.

I think it's not that hard to know. If you're spamming conscripts/poxwalkers/cultists/whatever because they are the "best" choice in the codex, or spamming weapon options in basically duplicate "copy paste" squads (i.e. multiple squads with identical loadouts), then it's usually a good sign that you're building a list for what is "best". A little variety, while often not the "most optimal" choice, often goes a long way towards a more interesting game because it's not an identical list with every squad having the same equipment to maximize effectiveness. That also seems to be how GW themselves build armies; you very rarely (if ever) see lots of identical squads, you see a lot of variety and squads mixing and matching options (sometimes a little less thought goes into this than should, but the theory is sound)

Of course GW armies have lots of variety - they are trying to showcase all of the different stuff they sell for that army.

 Scott-S6 wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
(basically I mean building a list that's designed to be tough, but not 100% min-maxed).

How is that supposed to work in practice? It's okay to take an optimized list but not TOO optimized. How do you put an objective measure against that?

It's easy when you're playing with friends, you both know how strong to aim for. For Americans that insist on mostly playing with strangers this just doesn't work in practice.

I think it's not that hard to know. If you're spamming conscripts/poxwalkers/cultists/whatever because they are the "best" choice in the codex, or spamming weapon options in basically duplicate "copy paste" squads (i.e. multiple squads with identical loadouts), then it's usually a good sign that you're building a list for what is "best". A little variety, while often not the "most optimal" choice, often goes a long way towards a more interesting game because it's not an identical list with every squad having the same equipment to maximize effectiveness. That also seems to be how GW themselves build armies; you very rarely (if ever) see lots of identical squads, you see a lot of variety and squads mixing and matching options (sometimes a little less thought goes into this than should, but the theory is sound)

Of course GW armies have lots of variety - they are trying to showcase all of the different stuff they sell for that army.

Right, and I'm saying that's not a bad way to build armies, instead of immediately trying to theorycraft/mathhammer/min-max the "most optimal" choices.

War game red dragon has over 1600+ units split accross 15+ factions and each units stats are x10 more complex than an 8th edition 40k stat line. On top of this about 76% of those units are balanced and usable.

Between the two major sides despite the vast differences the game maintains a nearly even win rate between factions. They even allow coalitions and single nation armies to be built.

Then I look at 40k and how they keep fething it up every edition and face palm. -_-

It is possible to have a huge game with proper balance. I just don't think GW is committed. Or if it is committed it's efforts are being hindered by something (internal bias or frontline).

 Gamgee wrote:
War game red dragon has over 1600+ units split accross 15+ factions and each units stats are x10 more complex than an 8th edition 40k stat line. On top of this about 76% of those units are balanced and usable.

Between the two major sides despite the vast differences the game maintains a nearly even win rate between factions. They even allow coalitions and single nation armies to be built.

Then I look at 40k and how they keep fething it up every edition and face palm. -_-

It is possible to have a huge game with proper balance. I just don't think GW is committed. Or if it is committed it's efforts are being hindered by something (internal bias or frontline).

At this point, I honesty don't think they can. Coupled with the fact they have no desire to (which again, I think is because they know they can't) and it's a recipe for disaster. But the biggest issue is that the COMMUNITY has perverted the game to be this highly competitive, MtG-esque tournament game, so GW has to cater to that demographic while not really wanting to (this is evident in how they play the game themselves), so you end up with an awful mess. that's been the case for years, GW has sort of adapted the game (poorly) to be a tournament game only because that's what people seem to want and clamor for. Players want to theorycraft/min-max everything, immediately, to find the "best" combinations instead of just building and playing with what seems good or comes in the box or whatnot, like GW tends to do. You rarely if ever see actual hardcore powergaming from GW (even from their "tournament" type guys), there will be strong lists, but they aren't like mathhammering out "Well taking 5 plasmas is the best option in this squad" kinda stuff. But the community wants that.

^This.

What the designers wanted and what the community "does" are two different things, and have been for years. As such, it's just simply up to the players to create their version of the game and how they enjoy it, and go with that.

Wayniac wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:

Of course GW armies have lots of variety - they are trying to showcase all of the different stuff they sell for that army.

Right, and I'm saying that's not a bad way to build armies, instead of immediately trying to theorycraft/mathhammer/min-max the "most optimal" choices.

I don't agree at all. The one-of-everything army is annoying to play with, doesn't look as good and doesn't make any sense. An army with a strong theme is just better.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Thadin wrote:

This is false.

You cannot impress your own ideals, in such a sweeping manner upon such a large hobby full of so many different people with different ideologies. Some people enjoy building a lore-appropriate Army that slots in to what a little page in some dusty book declares to be "How it's meant to be played." Let them have that.
Some people enjoy Crafting their own lore, outside the bounds of what's written in a book, modelling their army to match their own, unique ideas, as the Warhammer 40,000 lore is indeed so vast, with holes purposefully left in it, so people can create. Let them have that.
Some people enjoy playing the Game, and playing their game to the best they can, drawing their enjoyment of the hobby not just from painting and building, but from creating efficient lists designed to win. Let them have that.

And there are people in between all that. So many varying people with varying ideas of how they enjoy their hobby.

YOU don't get to dictate how people enjoy the Hobby, that isn't JUST building and painting and following the lore. There's more to it than that. It's arrogant, exceptionally so, to think your opinion is the gold standard to which all must adhere to, otherwise they're Playing with their plastic soldiers wrong.

The sweet spot of 40k, is where a specific player gets enjoyment out of whichever aspect of the hobby they tend to enjoy the most, or different parts of the hobby. I personally, am loving the new Primaris marine models, painting them, changing them as I see fit, and now, playing the game and making efficient lists to win.

He also falls into the classic CAAC fallacy - that powerful armies are not fluffy armies and vice versa. It's perfectly possible to make a flavourful, fluffy army that is also hard as nails. Of course, I'm sure he'd find something else to complain about at that point.

LunaWolvesLoyalist wrote:
Holy gak.

Your all pretty.

The sweet spot is what you and your group make it.

^This exactly and succinctly stated! The game is ponderous and vague in so many ways, and quite deliberately so. Therefore it falls upon to individuals to seek out what they prefer, and hopefully find like-minded players. Yes, I'm a part of one of those lucky groups that realized back in 4th Ed. Games Workshop was not really trying to improve and clarify its rules but simply shift them laterally on occasion. And many people support this concept because they believe this is how a company continues to gain revenue and it keeps its game from getting stale.

I happen to disagree with that business model. I also disagree with the notion that somehow it's the community's fault for the way GW runs its business model. This is utter nonsense akin to blaming the victim in a crime.

There is no sweet spot. IGOUGO fundamentally poisons the game to the core, to the point where it's impossible to balance.

Wayniac wrote:

 Gamgee wrote:
War game red dragon has over 1600+ units split accross 15+ factions and each units stats are x10 more complex than an 8th edition 40k stat line. On top of this about 76% of those units are balanced and usable.

Between the two major sides despite the vast differences the game maintains a nearly even win rate between factions. They even allow coalitions and single nation armies to be built.

Then I look at 40k and how they keep fething it up every edition and face palm. -_-

It is possible to have a huge game with proper balance. I just don't think GW is committed. Or if it is committed it's efforts are being hindered by something (internal bias or frontline).

At this point, I honesty don't think they can. Coupled with the fact they have no desire to (which again, I think is because they know they can't) and it's a recipe for disaster. But the biggest issue is that the COMMUNITY has perverted the game to be this highly competitive, MtG-esque tournament game, so GW has to cater to that demographic while not really wanting to (this is evident in how they play the game themselves), so you end up with an awful mess. that's been the case for years, GW has sort of adapted the game (poorly) to be a tournament game only because that's what people seem to want and clamor for. Players want to theorycraft/min-max everything, immediately, to find the "best" combinations instead of just building and playing with what seems good or comes in the box or whatnot, like GW tends to do. You rarely if ever see actual hardcore powergaming from GW (even from their "tournament" type guys), there will be strong lists, but they aren't like mathhammering out "Well taking 5 plasmas is the best option in this squad" kinda stuff. But the community wants that.

Elbows wrote:^This.

What the designers wanted and what the community "does" are two different things, and have been for years. As such, it's just simply up to the players to create their version of the game and how they enjoy it, and go with that.

The thing is, the default game *IS* a competitive one. One player vs another player (pvp). Yes there are varying degrees of competitiveness, and social behaviour while playing the game. But ultimately, this is a head-to-head deathmatch with a winner and a loser. That's just the nature of the game. With that in mind, then yeah it is important that rules and factions be balanced. I don't think that it's a matter of can't, i think it's a matter of not interested. Kirby was on record as saying gw was a model company first and foremost, and i haven't seen anything from rountree to suggest different. If 40k was a piece of medical equipment, they'd be facing multiple lawsuits and criminal charges. Blame the game, not the player.

 Thadin wrote:

 jeff white wrote:

This is false.

I collect models to paint and convert.
Each has a role or not, in which case I find one for it.
This drives army composition, not Min max deck building bs.
This whole WAAC "everyone does it" excuse has worn too thin.
It is a lame excuse for having no depth of character, literally armies with no depth of character.
CCGs may suit such a mindset but cards are not painted and converted and aren't built from scratch.
The sweetspot of the hobby only reveals itself when the hobby becomes the goal.
Not winning the game, exploiting the rules, or min maxing whatever for the lulz.
Gw may change rulesets to sell models but that doesn't drive me to buy them.
Buying models to win only results in unused models the next time that gw marketing decides it is time to sell different models.
I am too old to be led around by an ego fed by such nonsense.
In fact the whole question is something of a zen puzzle,
The more one strives the more distant the goal.
The best slave is never free, rather is only successful in captivity.
Forty k is a hobby for free persons.
It is a leisure time activity.
There is no leisure in chasing the plastic dragon to WAAC.

This is false.

You cannot impress your own ideals, in such a sweeping manner upon such a large hobby full of so many different people with different ideologies. Some people enjoy building a lore-appropriate Army that slots in to what a little page in some dusty book declares to be "How it's meant to be played." Let them have that.
Some people enjoy Crafting their own lore, outside the bounds of what's written in a book, modelling their army to match their own, unique ideas, as the Warhammer 40,000 lore is indeed so vast, with holes purposefully left in it, so people can create. Let them have that.
Some people enjoy playing the Game, and playing their game to the best they can, drawing their enjoyment of the hobby not just from painting and building, but from creating efficient lists designed to win. Let them have that.

And there are people in between all that. So many varying people with varying ideas of how they enjoy their hobby.

YOU don't get to dictate how people enjoy the Hobby, that isn't JUST building and painting and following the lore. There's more to it than that. It's arrogant, exceptionally so, to think your opinion is the gold standard to which all must adhere to, otherwise they're Playing with their plastic soldiers wrong.

The sweet spot of 40k, is where a specific player gets enjoyment out of whichever aspect of the hobby they tend to enjoy the most, or different parts of the hobby. I personally, am loving the new Primaris marine models, painting them, changing them as I see fit, and now, playing the game and making efficient lists to win.

Tell us which of the above statements specifically you find false.

I issued no dictates.
I countered a generalization with a specific instance, my own.
That serves well enough as a counterexample to disprove the original general statement.
But, you must study logic, or some other magical art.
So please advise, oh wise one, which statement offends your circuitry?

As stated previously, the best way to have some sort of balance is to talk it out with the group you are playing with.
This of course is easier if you have a stable group of friends to play with.

In every game, there are always those who play to win no matter what, and those who play just to have fun. Just try to find a group that plays with the same "mindset".

In our group, we can play fluffy lists or "tournament" lists without minmaxing. Depends of what we agree before hand.