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.

Funny, it seems the people who tend to use "Most playtested edition" as meme seem to be the same people who are already detractors of 8th.

 MagicJuggler wrote:

I do not get when people go "lalalalalalalala" when it is pointed out that informal rulewriting creates ammo for That Guy to turn the system into Rulelawyer Judge Judy.

I don't play That Guy. Even if the rules were perfectly written, I still wouldn't play That Guy.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I am amused by the attitude of "get the fluff out of my rules."

I find it as childish as

"Get the rules out of my fluff!"

Keep them adjacent but not mixed, like ammonia and bleach. By themselves, they provide a clean experience, but lead to a toxic atmosphere when put together.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Asmodai wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:

I do not get when people go "lalalalalalalala" when it is pointed out that informal rulewriting creates ammo for That Guy to turn the system into Rulelawyer Judge Judy.

I don't play That Guy. Even if the rules were perfectly written, I still wouldn't play That Guy.

Back in 5th, I fought a Chaos player with a Lash Prince. He tried many a "creative" use of the power, all which I called him out on since as a Psychic Shooting Attack, it was subject to all the same targeting restrictions involved in shooting.

I won the round, but to this day I don't know why got a 0 for my Sportsmanship Score...

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Funny, it seems the people who tend to use "Most playtested edition" as meme seem to be the same people who are already detractors of 8th.

As long as there is a crack they'll stick something in it and hammer it until they're blinded by the dust.

I once heard someone (you, possibly?) write that "40k players are the architects of their own misery."

That phrase boils to the surface of my mind like, fething constantly reading this forum, lol.

Daedalus81 wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Funny, it seems the people who tend to use "Most playtested edition" as meme seem to be the same people who are already detractors of 8th.

As long as there is a crack they'll stick something in it and hammer it until they're blinded by the dust.

It's more or less the same group of players that impaled themselves on "3 years of playtesting" for Warmachine MK3.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I once heard someone (you, possibly?) write that "40k players are the architects of their own misery."

That phrase boils to the surface of my mind like, fething constantly reading this forum, lol.

Just read the "Thousand sons are dead thread" for examples of this problem, especially the Original post.

7th wasn't more blanced, it was awfull. Trying to get a fun game in required at least one of the players knowing how to dodge/ gauge power. in 8th some isuues aside most "lists" tend to at lmeast produce a fun game (GK and IG aside).

 Gamgee wrote:
A high level analysis even from when everyone was at index level showed that there was much less viable armies than 7th. The "balance" of the shrinking top factions has more or less stayed the same since dex’s have dropped. They’ve only made it worse than at launch.

Typically the only people that seem to think it’s fine are imperium and chaos players. Wow what a shocker the same whiny group of people responsible for screwing up 7th so bad as well.

8th is a joke of a competitive game and the viable army lists are shrinking to power creep. Space marine, chaos, and imp players never did like a fair fight and when they ever had even a slight challenge will go online and post giant tirades about how weak they are and then GW listens and makes the meta worse.

The player base has proven itself completely incapable of self balance or regulation in friendly or competitive environments as far as I’m concerned 40k is a dead game. GW of old was only slightly better at balancing factions but at least it was something.

40k is a joke now. From lore to models to tabletop. It’s basicallyly a gakky 30k in every way with no defining features of its own.

That is funny, because I think that it was the whiny tau and eldar players that were the problem . Actually, no I dont. While Tau and Eldar could be toxic to tournament results I would not blame the players for that. It was a cash in at the end of 7th and its why those two factions were so powerful. At that point balance was thrown to the wind and they just focused on sales until the slate could be wiped clean,. But your colorful version of events just doesnt gel with me. But then again im playing chaos so that make makes me a whiny shizboy who doesnt like a fair fight and ruined everything.

I myself like 8th far more than 7th, It isnt perfect by any means and has a few standing issues (alpha strike and 1st turn lists seem to be to strong ect). But overall, for the armies with codex drops, its a much better game. And with the reintroduction of CA, things can only stand to get better. And i hate the smite nerf, its gak and breaks just as much as it fixes (ironically it hurts armies like GK far more than its intended target). But even with horrible rulings aside I think 8th is on the right track.

However it is not always about balance. Maybe I am blessed but I run into casual players FAR FAR more than these mystical WAAC store killers. Yes I know it is luck but I do think the WAAC crew is vastly outnumbered in actual player numbers. Its just they tend to be the loudest voices so have the illusion of a greater representation. 8th has many advantages over 7th for new players. Games have never been faster, easier to set up and more open to newer players than ever before., The lack of special mechanics is not something I enjoy but I can also see how it has done the game as a whole, good. Far less time is spent in the books looking for rules and more in playing the actual game. I have seen more new players in this edition than ive ever seen in 6th and 7th. My point is that while I do not approve of certain rulings I think 8th is on the right track.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Funny, it seems the people who tend to use "Most playtested edition" as meme seem to be the same people who are already detractors of 8th.

I fear GW has rather made a rod for their own back in pandering to the tournament scene in this addition. I'm sure it's only a minority of tournament players but the internet constantly shows what noise an entitled minority in nerd culture can make. They're ridiculous.

Dai wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Funny, it seems the people who tend to use "Most playtested edition" as meme seem to be the same people who are already detractors of 8th.

I fear GW has rather made a rod for their own back in pandering to the tournament scene in this addition. I'm sure it's only a minority of tournament players but the internet constantly shows what noise an entitled minority in nerd culture can make. They're ridiculous.

It's the best way to crowd-source game balance.

Martel732 wrote:

Dai wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Funny, it seems the people who tend to use "Most playtested edition" as meme seem to be the same people who are already detractors of 8th.

I fear GW has rather made a rod for their own back in pandering to the tournament scene in this addition. I'm sure it's only a minority of tournament players but the internet constantly shows what noise an entitled minority in nerd culture can make. They're ridiculous.

It's the best way to crowd-source game balance.

Probably true but I still feel they're more interested in making a war game rpg than a true strategic/competitive war game even in matched play. There's always going to be a disconnect especially now they are pushing this 3 ways of playing thing.

Maybe I am blessed but I run into casual players FAR FAR more than these mystical WAAC store killers.

It only takes one WAAC player in your store to transform the atmosphere from casual and open to competitive and tense.

One WAAC player can instill that culture in an entire group in short-order.

I enjoy playing in tournaments, especially when you get to know the same pool of like 20-30 people that go to the events.

It's also more fun for me now that i can actually play my army without getting brutalized, instead of trying to figure out how i can create the most points-efficient death star.

Martel732 wrote:

Dai wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Funny, it seems the people who tend to use "Most playtested edition" as meme seem to be the same people who are already detractors of 8th.

I fear GW has rather made a rod for their own back in pandering to the tournament scene in this addition. I'm sure it's only a minority of tournament players but the internet constantly shows what noise an entitled minority in nerd culture can make. They're ridiculous.

It's the best way to crowd-source game balance.

While True

lets see if GW can follow through with it.

7th wasnt even a game 8th isnt perfect but it has the foundation to be much better balanced.

 auticus wrote:

Maybe I am blessed but I run into casual players FAR FAR more than these mystical WAAC store killers.

It only takes one WAAC player in your store to transform the atmosphere from casual and open to competitive and tense.

One WAAC player can instill that culture in an entire group in short-order.

Then tell people your looking for a laid back casual match before you play.

Not everyone has to play how you like, especially when not playing with you, bra.

lol.. or he is ran out of the store b.c no one plays with him and becomes know as the ass hat.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
lol.. or he is ran out of the store b.c no one plays with him and becomes know as the ass hat.

In my experience being an ass hat and sometimes being competitive are not always one and the same. Turns out people can enjoy games differently.

We had one of those guys at my FLGS. We just collectively decided not to play against him.

 Jaxler wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
lol.. or he is ran out of the store b.c no one plays with him and becomes know as the ass hat.

In my experience being an ass hat and sometimes being competitive are not always one and the same. Turns out people can enjoy games differently.

Thats not the same.

If your that guy, your bad to them, Not all casuals or casual groups are this way, but people talk behind others backs and will let others know that "Hey he is here to win and plays net lists, dont play with that guy"

So playing to win is a bad thing?

 JNAProductions wrote:
So playing to win is a bad thing?

Its never about what you are doing but how you are doing it.

Yes the goal of playing a game is to win but sitting there being a donkey cave bringing some competitive list against some new players is not going to be enjoyable for one more more people.
just as much as taking a casual/theme list and whining about a competitive list during a Tournament involving cash money.


not being able to perceive social context is a sign that you are a TFG and or have other problems

 JNAProductions wrote:
So playing to win is a bad thing?

If to win you cheat, reflect a very bad sportsmanship, etc... then yeah, thats a bad thing. Keep the strawmans to yourself please, nobody has said that playing to win per se is a bad thing.

 JNAProductions wrote:
So playing to win is a bad thing?

You know many people play for many reasons, yes winning is one, but for some its not. Even if winning is the end goal for most, there are still other goals as well.

1) Social time, not worrying about, thinking to hard, or playing to win, instead injoying a beer and talking for 5hrs
2) Hobbist, wanting to play and show off the models they worked hard on
3) Just not wanting to place 75 models and removing 25 of them turn 1 without getting to move them (imagine if you played Chess and you had o remove 1/2 your pawns in 1 turn.. not very fun)
4) Wanting to play with different models and lists everytime, but if those models are removed and you cant play with them, thats not fun
5) Likes to play fluffy lists, enjoys the stories and that type of army, you want a long game, 3+ turns, but your 100% sure you will lose by turn 3 and its only turn 1

Should i continue?

Im a more of Comp player, tho i dont want Cheese lists (40 Dark Reapers for exmaple) i do want a strong back and forth hard game (not a rock paper scissor game) but i fully understand casual players and will make lists for those players.

 Jaxler wrote:

 auticus wrote:

Maybe I am blessed but I run into casual players FAR FAR more than these mystical WAAC store killers.

It only takes one WAAC player in your store to transform the atmosphere from casual and open to competitive and tense.

One WAAC player can instill that culture in an entire group in short-order.

Then tell people your looking for a laid back casual match before you play.

Not everyone has to play how you like, especially when not playing with you, bra.

Never insinuated otherwise. Was responding to someone saying they never had to encounter a waac player.

 Gamgee wrote:
A high level analysis even from when everyone was at index level showed that there was much less viable armies than 7th. The "balance" of the shrinking top factions has more or less stayed the same since dex’s have dropped. They’ve only made it worse than at launch.

Typically the only people that seem to think it’s fine are imperium and chaos players. Wow what a shocker the same whiny group of people responsible for screwing up 7th so bad as well.

It's really rich coming from ardent defender of one of the most garbage, unfun to play, rule-breaking, nonsense-rules and fluff army of the 7th, Tau. Now that Tau were nerfed to place where they really should be in the first place, all you produce is endless stream of complains after seeing for yourself what most Imperial players had to experience during 6th and 7th editions - except not even IG in 8th is nowhere near as broken as Tau were in 7th, you had to ""suffer"" it for several months, not years, and 8th edition Tau are nowhere near as close to the bottom as most Imperial armies were in 7th.

Maybe look for Taunar-sized beam in your eye before you start lamenting microscopic dust in other players?

8th is a joke of a competitive game and the viable army lists are shrinking to power creep. Space marine, chaos, and imp players never did like a fair fight and when they ever had even a slight challenge will go online and post giant tirades about how weak they are and then GW listens and makes the meta worse.

*cough* Riptidewing *cough* was sure epitome of no creep and list variety, eh?

The player base has proven itself completely incapable of self balance or regulation in friendly or competitive environments as far as I’m concerned 40k is a dead game. GW of old was only slightly better at balancing factions but at least it was something.

Yup, I agree. See Tau "we're totally not broken, pretty weak in fact!" players in 7th

If something has shown me 8th with Imperial Guard players is that theres no such thing as "Tau players", or "SM players", or "Eldar players".
Theres just players that play armies that can be OP, balanced or be trash in any given edition, but most players will defend their armies, be it OP or trash.

And everyone is kind of right. I stoped playing 7th edition because it was garbage, but even playing Tau I just didn't wanted to play the 3 units that were busted to have a chance.
There hasn't never been such thing has a "OP army", theres an army that normally has 2-5 options that are OP. So is totally plausible to have a 7th Tau or Eldar player that thinks their army is weak, because their actual army is composed of the units that are weak, as is possible to have a 8th Imperial Guard player that thinks his army is weak because he plays something like IG veterans in chimeras.


Of course, who I'm kidding, this is the internet so everything is black or white.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
So playing to win is a bad thing?

You know many people play for many reasons, yes winning is one, but for some its not. Even if winning is the end goal for most, there are still other goals as well.

1) Social time, not worrying about, thinking to hard, or playing to win, instead injoying a beer and talking for 5hrs
2) Hobbist, wanting to play and show off the models they worked hard on
3) Just not wanting to place 75 models and removing 25 of them turn 1 without getting to move them (imagine if you played Chess and you had o remove 1/2 your pawns in 1 turn.. not very fun)
4) Wanting to play with different models and lists everytime, but if those models are removed and you cant play with them, thats not fun
5) Likes to play fluffy lists, enjoys the stories and that type of army, you want a long game, 3+ turns, but your 100% sure you will lose by turn 3 and its only turn 1

Should i continue?

Im a more of Comp player, tho i dont want Cheese lists (40 Dark Reapers for exmaple) i do want a strong back and forth hard game (not a rock paper scissor game) but i fully understand casual players and will make lists for those players.

1) why play 40k instead of, say the RPG itself?
2) Not mutually exclusive with playing to win.
3) If a system puts so much emphasis on first-turn advantage...(incidentally, I got seized on in my last 3 games of 7th, and was srill able to recover).
4) So...don't play 8th? Or find a system that isn't IGOUGO?
5) If a game requires a massive disconnect between efficiency to adhere to subjective fluff...

1a) B.c people like the models
1b) B.c they have friends that play it
1c) B.c they they like the game and not RPGs
1d) B.c they enjoy the hobby and the game
1e) They invested into the game but have changed what they want out of it
2) I said it could be 2ndary goals apart from winning, never said they didnt fully care about these, but could greatly effect them and even said most players will still want to win, but again might also have other gaosl
3) what? going 1st shouldn't mean to much if the game was balance
4) See #1

Also like to note that the rules over and over again tell you to "talk" to your opponent about what type of game you 2 are going to have. If you are not doing this then its both players fault.

I'm just trying to show you there are many players out there for different reason and if you truely think everyone is in this game to only win games with toys then you are insanely naive.

Spoken like a LOSER!

In all seriousness, I want to feel like I *earned* my win. I want to compete, and actually play the game without having to wait for my opponent to do everything.

Hence why 40k sticks to IGOUGO continues to baffle me, alongside the general removal of what few choices a player had when it wasn't their turn.

 MagicJuggler wrote:
Spoken like a LOSER!

In all seriousness, I want to feel like I *earned* my win. I want to compete, and actually play the game without having to wait for my opponent to do everything.

Hence why 40k sticks to IGOUGO continues to baffle me, alongside the general removal of what few choices a player had when it wasn't their turn.

Then you agree with me, if your in an area with casuals you taking a fully optimised list and winning turn 2 isnt an Earned win.