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.

 Peregrine wrote:


But it sure does remove the "I'm too poor to afford better units" factor. If you can afford to buy 5000 points you can afford to buy some strong units in there so you can play a competitive list. So why should you be entitled to buy only the units you want to buy, while other players have the full burden of buying alternative units and altering their own armies to suit your choices?

I wouldn't ask anyone to buy more stuff, that's for sure. I haven't seen yet someone that brings competitive lists to local stores that doesn't have several stuff of the same army on his shelf at home.

It's just 99% of the times players that can field a competitive list have other stuff to tone down their armies, while casual players, even those ones that own large armies, can't tone up their list in order to have a fair match against a top tier.

Some armies also don't have answers towards specific threats. I mean drukhari for example can't do anything against a competitive horde army. So if I bring my orks against a drukhari player, no way I'd go with an optimized green tide, because there wouldn't be any chance by him to win the game. He may have 10.000 points of stuff, it doesn't matter, the game won't be fair anyway.

 Blackie wrote:

Some armies also don't have answers towards specific threats. I mean drukhari for example can't do anything against a competitive horde army. So if I bring my orks against a drukhari player, no way I'd go with an optimized green tide, because there wouldn't be any chance by him to win the game. He may have 10.000 points of stuff, it doesn't matter, the game won't be fair anyway.

Meh, catch me if you can, I'll splinter and missile and void mine your horde into oblivion piece by sticky green piece

Yeah, ok your Splinter rifles are crap against hordes lol..... (note i'm a heavy DE player). DE is missing AI for sure now that Splinter Racks are gone and Splinter Cannons are 1/2 the shots.

craftworld_uk wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

Some armies also don't have answers towards specific threats. I mean drukhari for example can't do anything against a competitive horde army. So if I bring my orks against a drukhari player, no way I'd go with an optimized green tide, because there wouldn't be any chance by him to win the game. He may have 10.000 points of stuff, it doesn't matter, the game won't be fair anyway.

Meh, catch me if you can, I'll splinter and missile and void mine your horde into oblivion piece by sticky green piece

Seriously, I play both armies quite competitively. No way DE can win against 150-210 bodies that can have high chances to assault turn 1. Optimized green tides can have deepstriking boyz (kommandos), super fast flying boyz (stormboyz) and they can teleport 30-40 boyz per turn, and I'm talking about standard competitive orks lists, nothing exceptional but quite common/popular.

Really, blame for this is mostly on GW for failing (repeatedly) to write actual balanced rules where you don't have such a huge divide that perpetuates this "100% optimal or feth off" mindset.

Also though, some blame lies on players, because players want listbuilding and finding combos to be part of, if not the most important part, of the game. Not 40k but auticus wrote Azyr comp for AOS before GHB first came out, and from what he's said here and elsewhere one of the major issues with it was people felt it was "too" balanced, and removed listbuilding as a key mechanic to "git gud" with. So I wonder if the game was balanced, if people would feel it was too balanced because it meant they couldn't find combos/exploits/loopholes/etc. to make a 2000 point army behave like a 4000 point army.

Question- If I run a mono-GK army with units other than GMDKs and strike squads what type of player does that make me?

I can't be competitive since I'm not optimizing my list by only using the above units or supplementing my army with allies.

I can't be fluffy since you would never see an army with more than 1 GM type character on the field for a normal battle.

Therefore I must be a masochist.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
Question- If I run a mono-GK army with units other than GMDKs and strike squads what type of player does that make me?

I can't be competitive since I'm not optimizing my list by only using the above units or supplementing my army with allies.

I can't be fluffy since you would never see an army with more than 1 GM type character on the field for a normal battle.

Therefore I must be a masochist.

I have always laughed that we as players refuse to take our share of the blame when it comes to breaking the game, all you need is one WAAC player to go out of his way to cheese something up, bend a rule etc. then post it online, then bitch about GW sucking at rules writing when they have gone out of their way to break the rules.

So yes GW should make better rules, and also Yes we shouldnt try our best to break them for advantage!

 Formosa wrote:
I have always laughed that we as players refuse to take our share of the blame when it comes to breaking the game, all you need is one WAAC player to go out of his way to cheese something up, bend a rule etc. then post it online, then bitch about GW sucking at rules writing when they have gone out of their way to break the rules.

So yes GW should make better rules, and also Yes we shouldn't try our best to break them for advantage!

There will always be people who use rules to their advantage. You can't get rid of that it's part of life in general. Usually what a group responsible for a game does is mitigate the units in some way. In this case increasing the points cost. What GW does is wait till they have some other thing that is OP to replace the old thing which is OP so as to keep thier model sales up.

The word competitive is misused in 40k. A competition is something with challenge between multiple parties, in 40k "competitive" means the least amount of competition ever. It's people who don't want to actually play a game, they want to win simply by the list they bring.
I prefer to put dudes on a table and roll dice and have that decide who wins, you know have an actual competition.

I just don't get it. If your ego is so fragile that you can't handle the possibility of losing so have to find ways to break the game to avoid competition, then why are you even playing. Sad people.

You can't bring some netlist spamming nothing 20 of one broken unit then pretend you just built a good army. "I'm just being competitive" no.
If your army doesn't look like an army it's a pretty good indication that you're "that guy." No one is saying take bad units, or poor army comp, so don't try to bait and switch here, you're showing up with an army composed of 6 guard squads and 5 primarchs. You know who you are.

Danny slag wrote:
The word competitive is misused in 40k. A competition is something with challenge between multiple parties, in 40k "competitive" means the least amount of competition ever. It's people who don't want to actually play a game, they want to win simply by the list they bring.
I prefer to put dudes on a table and roll dice and have that decide who wins, you know have an actual competition.

I just don't get it. If your ego is so fragile that you can't handle the possibility of losing so have to find ways to break the game to avoid competition, then why are you even playing. Sad people.

You can't bring some netlist spamming nothing 20 of one broken unit then pretend you just built a good army. "I'm just being competitive" no.
If your army doesn't look like an army it's a pretty good indication that you're "that guy." No one is saying take bad units, or poor army comp, so don't try to bait and switch here, you're showing up with an army composed of 6 guard squads and 5 primarchs. You know who you are.

And one of each unit is a pretty bad looking army, so who are you to criticize multiples of the same unit?

To be fair, if a game is dictated more by being able to burn your wallet in order to cycle units in and out depending on their usefulness at the time (alas poor shelf-hogging Brimstones), as opposed to an actual playbook...

Creating a rapidly-cycling bandwagon is something that David Sirlin has been critical of as not actually making for a competitively sustainable game.

 Blackie wrote:

craftworld_uk wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

Some armies also don't have answers towards specific threats. I mean drukhari for example can't do anything against a competitive horde army. So if I bring my orks against a drukhari player, no way I'd go with an optimized green tide, because there wouldn't be any chance by him to win the game. He may have 10.000 points of stuff, it doesn't matter, the game won't be fair anyway.

Meh, catch me if you can, I'll splinter and missile and void mine your horde into oblivion piece by sticky green piece

Seriously, I play both armies quite competitively. No way DE can win against 150-210 bodies that can have high chances to assault turn 1. Optimized green tides can have deepstriking boyz (kommandos), super fast flying boyz (stormboyz) and they can teleport 30-40 boyz per turn, and I'm talking about standard competitive orks lists, nothing exceptional but quite common/popular.

How are those boyz going to charge or deal with 6 Razorwing Jetfighters taking down 40 odd bodies per turn before 40 Warriors and a Scourge pack also drop in on turn three?

(Ok I don't have 6 Razorwings, but then most warbosses don't have 200 boyz)

 MagicJuggler wrote:
To be fair, if a game is dictated more by being able to burn your wallet in order to cycle units in and out depending on their usefulness at the time (alas poor shelf-hogging Brimstones), as opposed to an actual playbook...

Creating a rapidly-cycling bandwagon is something that David Sirlin has been critical of as not actually making for a competitively sustainable game.

Exactly this, and to add a bit there really isn't incentive for playing tactically, things like crossfire, outflanking an enemy, shooting from the high ground, or penalties/bonus' for different ranges things of that nature. Things like that would help curb the problem. Ultimately though people have to get away from this idea that list building is part of the game, because as long as it is you are going to have crap units and good ones.

 MagicJuggler wrote:
To be fair, if a game is dictated more by being able to burn your wallet in order to cycle units in and out depending on their usefulness at the time (alas poor shelf-hogging Brimstones), as opposed to an actual playbook...

Creating a rapidly-cycling bandwagon is something that David Sirlin has been critical of as not actually making for a competitively sustainable game.

I would agree with this, except this is exactly what GW has done for 20years and apparently it works just fine. More so than any other game (the only one even coming close being x wing maybe), a significant number of players of 40k seem just fine -excited even-to drop hundreds of dollars every time an army book drops on the good stuff. It’s pretty much the entire reason they release codexes.

 Formosa wrote:
I have always laughed that we as players refuse to take our share of the blame when it comes to breaking the game, all you need is one WAAC player to go out of his way to cheese something up, bend a rule etc. then post it online, then bitch about GW sucking at rules writing when they have gone out of their way to break the rules.

So yes GW should make better rules, and also Yes we shouldnt try our best to break them for advantage!

WAAC people like you are describing are intentionally cheating and not discussing with their opponents places where the rules just don't hold up well. GW really needs to fix their rule set because it makes for a better experience for all players involved. If a game has clear and concise rules not only do competitive players benefit, but so do the casual players. Why? Because when a rule set is tight it means everyone can agree on exactly how the game plays and how certain interactions end up working out. If a narrative player wants to change the rules that is an entirely different story. They aren't binding themselves to the rules and they are looking to tell a story through their games which I am sure they have discussed with their opponent. But right now these WAAC players are taking advantage of the fact that GW isn't writing tight rules. Imagine a video game with huge game breaking bugs and glitches that allow people to become invincible, go through walls, etc. That's what Games Workshop's ruleset is. They need to fix their bugs.

That being said I feel like a competitive player's job is to find the best ways to win which means to find the best combos and exploit them (And no bending rules isn't part of this). By exploit I mean taking full advantage of these combos within the boundaries of the rule set. To most people this is the worst thing a person could do in a game and its usually referred to as cheese. I really do not understand why when it is perfectly legal and allowable. If you don't want to play against someone who is using a tournament level list then let them know. Talk to them about it and see if you can work out an agreement. In my experience people usually say 'This is cheesy', because they can't beat it. Sure some combos are incredibly overpowered in 40k, but in a tournament wouldn't you use the list that gives you the best chance of winning? Isn't the point of a tournament to win? That's what a competitive gamer wants out of a game of 40k and especially one at the competitive level. If a combo is so broken though that the rest of the game suffers for it then shouldn't we as players find it and let the game designers know? They need to fix it. Simply ignoring it and not talking about it is not the way to go about it. That leaves the problem in place and no one wins. Casual players are left having to deal with an extremely overpowered list that they can never beat and tournament players become bored with the game because there aren't any better combos to use.

So my point is I feel we should be taking advantage of everything written in the rule set and showing gw exactly how broken their rules are. I'm not endorsing people who cheat or bend rules, but I am endorsing that we find those rules that are simply unclear and leave too much open for interpretation. This benefits us so long as they continue to listen to us the players and continue to care about the feedback we give them.

Competitiveness isn't bad for 40k. If nothing else, competitive players are a driving force that could potentially steer the game to get more balance.

I am not a competitive player at all, I'm a 'casual' or 'fluff' player. But I do like playing something that doesn't get flattened every game.

craftworld_uk wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

craftworld_uk wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

Some armies also don't have answers towards specific threats. I mean drukhari for example can't do anything against a competitive horde army. So if I bring my orks against a drukhari player, no way I'd go with an optimized green tide, because there wouldn't be any chance by him to win the game. He may have 10.000 points of stuff, it doesn't matter, the game won't be fair anyway.

Meh, catch me if you can, I'll splinter and missile and void mine your horde into oblivion piece by sticky green piece

Seriously, I play both armies quite competitively. No way DE can win against 150-210 bodies that can have high chances to assault turn 1. Optimized green tides can have deepstriking boyz (kommandos), super fast flying boyz (stormboyz) and they can teleport 30-40 boyz per turn, and I'm talking about standard competitive orks lists, nothing exceptional but quite common/popular.

How are those boyz going to charge or deal with 6 Razorwing Jetfighters taking down 40 odd bodies per turn before 40 Warriors and a Scourge pack also drop in on turn three?

(Ok I don't have 6 Razorwings, but then most warbosses don't have 200 boyz)

Just kill the rest of the army, DE are paper things. Orks never care about flyers, they always ignore them and try to score points and to kill everything else. With that many flyers it's hard to score points and the DE player could bring only a few ground units, which can be obliterated by the artillery and the deepstriking boyz. And as you said 6 razorwings are not realistic, maybe one player in a million could own them

200 boyz are maybe an exaggeration but 180 plus characters and artillery are quite standard. For years ork boyz were sold with a significant discount on ebay so many ork players actually own tons of infantries. In a competitive meta ork players don't bring less than 150 bodies among boyz, kommandos and stormboyz.

WTF? Who is going to take 6 Flyers? Thats like 50pts shy of 1000pts..... NO ONE is going to take 1/2 their army as flyers.

Kill 1000pts = auto win

Edit: I have 6 DE flyers lol

 Blackie wrote:

Just kill the rest of the army, DE are paper things. Orks never care about flyers, they always ignore them and try to score points and to kill everything else. With that many flyers it's hard to score points and the DE player could bring only a few ground units, which can be obliterated by the artillery and the deepstriking boyz. And as you said 6 razorwings are not realistic, maybe one player in a million could own them

200 boyz are maybe an exaggeration but 180 plus characters and artillery are quite standard. For years ork boyz were sold with a significant discount on ebay so many ork players actually own tons of infantries. In a competitive meta ork players don't bring less than 150 bodies among boyz, kommandos and stormboyz.

There wouldn't be a 'rest of the army' to target - the units mentioned are pretty much it

If we're playing Eternal War there's a good chance there won't be many boyz left to hold anything by the end. If we're playing Maelstrom then you'd be relying on us both rolling/drawing a majority of take and hold type objectives throughout the game, but that's not assured or even likely.

I don't see why two Drukhari air wings shouldn't be taken in competitive play - it mops up hordes and could do a job against elite armies with sheer weight of firepower. Whether it's seen as realistic is down only to the players.

I guess what I'm saying is that I think every army has some form of extreme counter to every other army's extreme builds. Which for me means balance is more down to the players and how competitive they want to be than the game system.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
WTF? Who is going to take 6 Flyers?

Someone competitive who knows Blackie is around with his 200 boyz

One aspect where I Think competitive DOES ruin 40k (and AOS) is that it becomes the baseline expectation in a way. Loads of good ideas that GW can come out with will get summarily ignored because it doesn't fit into the "balanced play" concept so many people seem to have. Now, this isn't a competitive problem as it is a "matched play only all the time" problem but I blame the competitive mindset for that as well. It results in a very shallow pool of what is available to use, and really limits what becomes worth buying because if it's let's say a campaign book with optional extra rules, there's a very good chance those optional extra rules will never see the light of day in the majority of games, just because people will say how they aren't "balanced" for use.

This would not be a problem in a world where 3 ways to play truly exists, but let's be honest here it really does not work that way; there is one way to play (i.e. Matched) and then the "others" which maybe happen sequestered away in somebody's basement once in a blue moon among the "untouchables" who don't want to use points or balanced missions or whatnot, but the majority can ignore that those lepers even exist.

Sorry, am a bit salty that I Bought malign portents for AOS and despite being cool, I doubt any of the rules there will ever be seen because it's not 100% "balanced".

 Red Comet wrote:

WAAC people like you are describing are intentionally cheating and not discussing with their opponents places where the rules just don't hold up well. GW really needs to fix their rule set because it makes for a better experience for all players involved. If a game has clear and concise rules not only do competitive players benefit, but so do the casual players. Why? Because when a rule set is tight it means everyone can agree on exactly how the game plays and how certain interactions end up working out.

Except the rules in question for the LVO debacle were 100% clear. Tony just chose to exploit an honest mistake by the other player.

Perfect rules will never defeat a rules lawyer.

craftworld_uk wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

Just kill the rest of the army, DE are paper things. Orks never care about flyers, they always ignore them and try to score points and to kill everything else. With that many flyers it's hard to score points and the DE player could bring only a few ground units, which can be obliterated by the artillery and the deepstriking boyz. And as you said 6 razorwings are not realistic, maybe one player in a million could own them

200 boyz are maybe an exaggeration but 180 plus characters and artillery are quite standard. For years ork boyz were sold with a significant discount on ebay so many ork players actually own tons of infantries. In a competitive meta ork players don't bring less than 150 bodies among boyz, kommandos and stormboyz.

There wouldn't be a 'rest of the army' to target - the units mentioned are pretty much it

If we're playing Eternal War there's a good chance there won't be many boyz left to hold anything by the end. If we're playing Maelstrom then you'd be relying on us both rolling/drawing a majority of take and hold type objectives throughout the game, but that's not assured or even likely.

I don't see why two Drukhari air wings shouldn't be taken in competitive play - it mops up hordes and could do a job against elite armies with sheer weight of firepower. Whether it's seen as realistic is down only to the players.

I guess what I'm saying is that I think every army has some form of extreme counter to every other army's extreme builds. Which for me means balance is more down to the players and how competitive they want to be than the game system.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
WTF? Who is going to take 6 Flyers?

Someone competitive who knows Blackie is around with his 200 boyz

You are aware that your not seeing these lists because GW fixed them 2 weeks into 8th right?

Per the Faq on Sudden Death:
‘If at the end of any turn after the first battle round, one
player has no models on the battlefield, the game ends
immediately and their opponent automatically wins a
crushing victory. When determining if a player has any
units on the battlefield, do not include any units with
the Flyer Battlefield Role

Wayniac wrote:
One aspect where I Think competitive DOES ruin 40k (and AOS) is that it becomes the baseline expectation in a way. Loads of good ideas that GW can come out with will get summarily ignored because it doesn't fit into the "balanced play" concept so many people seem to have. Now, this isn't a competitive problem as it is a "matched play only all the time" problem but I blame the competitive mindset for that as well. It results in a very shallow pool of what is available to use, and really limits what becomes worth buying because if it's let's say a campaign book with optional extra rules, there's a very good chance those optional extra rules will never see the light of day in the majority of games, just because people will say how they aren't "balanced" for use.

This would not be a problem in a world where 3 ways to play truly exists, but let's be honest here it really does not work that way; there is one way to play (i.e. Matched) and then the "others" which maybe happen sequestered away in somebody's basement once in a blue moon among the "untouchables" who don't want to use points or balanced missions or whatnot, but the majority can ignore that those lepers even exist.

Sorry, am a bit salty that I Bought malign portents for AOS and despite being cool, I doubt any of the rules there will ever be seen because it's not 100% "balanced".

What have always puzzled me in this context is that at least scenario-related rules like that can be made 100% ballanced if you just play double match with reversed roles. Faction-specific scenarios/scenery are a bit tougher to account for, but there is pretty much nothing against "forging a narrative" in which those features suit other factions as well. This is the very area of 40K where all blame is on the players and not on GW. This puzzles me even more in 8th, where not only "competetive" or "tournament" mindset but very matched play rules strip so much flavour away...

craftworld_uk wrote:


Someone competitive who knows Blackie is around with his 200 boyz

150-210 bodies are pretty standard for orks 8th edition lists

What you're suggesting is also pure list tailoring, which is basically what I'm trying to defend in this thread. Talk to the opponent before starting to play, fix the lists in order to make them on a similar of competitiveness: that's what I usually do when I play 40k. A list with 6 flyers isn't TAC at all. And I'm sure it would lose quite easily against any horde army.

Ordana wrote:

You are aware that your not seeing these lists because GW fixed them 2 weeks into 8th right?

Per the Faq on Sudden Death:
‘If at the end of any turn after the first battle round, one
player has no models on the battlefield, the game ends
immediately and their opponent automatically wins a
crushing victory. When determining if a player has any
units on the battlefield, do not include any units with
the Flyer Battlefield Role

That's a drawback

I'll have to find points for a dozen Razorwing flocks to play hide and seek, and maybe some Mandrakes to drop in an obscure corner. It only needs one model to stay on the table long enough for the Jetfighters to thin out the horde before the Warriors and Scourges arrive en masse to help clear up.

I'm not saying it's guaranteed to work but it gives the Drukhari player at least half a chance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blackie wrote:

craftworld_uk wrote:


Someone competitive who knows Blackie is around with his 200 boyz

150-210 bodies are pretty standard for orks 8th edition lists

What you're suggesting is also pure list tailoring, which is basically what I'm trying to defend in this thread. Talk to the opponent before starting to play, fix the lists in order to make them on a similar of competitiveness: that's what I usually do when I play 40k. A list with 6 flyers isn't TAC at all. And I'm sure it would lose quite easily against any horde army.

I think it could work reasonably well as a TAC list - I'm not sure anyone would find it easy to take down six flyers (firing off over 100 shots per turn) and then 50 infantry dropping in turn three. I think the main problem would be as Ordana raised - keeping boots on the ground in the early game so not to auto lose.

I agree with what you say about opponents talking to agree the level of competitiveness they wish to play. I only took exception at the suggestion a Drukhari list could never beat an Ork horde

40K is a competitive game saying competitiveness is ruining it is like say Jonny Wilkinsons competitiveness ruined rugby or that Bill Belichecks competitiveness ruined football.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Danny slag wrote:
The word competitive is misused in 40k. A competition is something with challenge between multiple parties, in 40k "competitive" means the least amount of competition ever. It's people who don't want to actually play a game, they want to win simply by the list they bring.
I prefer to put dudes on a table and roll dice and have that decide who wins, you know have an actual competition.

I just don't get it. If your ego is so fragile that you can't handle the possibility of losing so have to find ways to break the game to avoid competition, then why are you even playing. Sad people.

You can't bring some netlist spamming nothing 20 of one broken unit then pretend you just built a good army. "I'm just being competitive" no.
If your army doesn't look like an army it's a pretty good indication that you're "that guy." No one is saying take bad units, or poor army comp, so don't try to bait and switch here, you're showing up with an army composed of 6 guard squads and 5 primarchs. You know who you are.

And one of each unit is a pretty bad looking army, so who are you to criticize multiples of the same unit?

Where did I say one of each unit? I'd like you to point it out? Nice try though to do the usual attempt at straw manning. Are you going to try to pretend there's nothing between one of every unit and spamming only one unit?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MagicJuggler wrote:
To be fair, if a game is dictated more by being able to burn your wallet in order to cycle units in and out depending on their usefulness at the time (alas poor shelf-hogging Brimstones), as opposed to an actual playbook...

Creating a rapidly-cycling bandwagon is something that David Sirlin has been critical of as not actually making for a competitively sustainable game.

And if people didn't build silly broken armies of 200 brimstone then this wouldn't happen.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Red Comet wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
I have always laughed that we as players refuse to take our share of the blame when it comes to breaking the game, all you need is one WAAC player to go out of his way to cheese something up, bend a rule etc. then post it online, then bitch about GW sucking at rules writing when they have gone out of their way to break the rules.

So yes GW should make better rules, and also Yes we shouldnt try our best to break them for advantage!

WAAC people like you are describing are intentionally cheating and not discussing with their opponents places where the rules just don't hold up well. GW really needs to fix their rule set because it makes for a better experience for all players involved. If a game has clear and concise rules not only do competitive players benefit, but so do the casual players. Why? Because when a rule set is tight it means everyone can agree on exactly how the game plays and how certain interactions end up working out. If a narrative player wants to change the rules that is an entirely different story. They aren't binding themselves to the rules and they are looking to tell a story through their games which I am sure they have discussed with their opponent. But right now these WAAC players are taking advantage of the fact that GW isn't writing tight rules. Imagine a video game with huge game breaking bugs and glitches that allow people to become invincible, go through walls, etc. That's what Games Workshop's ruleset is. They need to fix their bugs.

That being said I feel like a competitive player's job is to find the best ways to win which means to find the best combos and exploit them (And no bending rules isn't part of this). By exploit I mean taking full advantage of these combos within the boundaries of the rule set. To most people this is the worst thing a person could do in a game and its usually referred to as cheese. I really do not understand why when it is perfectly legal and allowable. If you don't want to play against someone who is using a tournament level list then let them know. Talk to them about it and see if you can work out an agreement. In my experience people usually say 'This is cheesy', because they can't beat it. Sure some combos are incredibly overpowered in 40k, but in a tournament wouldn't you use the list that gives you the best chance of winning? Isn't the point of a tournament to win? That's what a competitive gamer wants out of a game of 40k and especially one at the competitive level. If a combo is so broken though that the rest of the game suffers for it then shouldn't we as players find it and let the game designers know? They need to fix it. Simply ignoring it and not talking about it is not the way to go about it. That leaves the problem in place and no one wins. Casual players are left having to deal with an extremely overpowered list that they can never beat and tournament players become bored with the game because there aren't any better combos to use.

So my point is I feel we should be taking advantage of everything written in the rule set and showing gw exactly how broken their rules are. I'm not endorsing people who cheat or bend rules, but I am endorsing that we find those rules that are simply unclear and leave too much open for interpretation. This benefits us so long as they continue to listen to us the players and continue to care about the feedback we give them.

And this is why I'll never play "tournament" players, they aren't interested in a game, tactics, and rolling dice. They only want to build a cheese list that's won before any models even get put on the table, not through tactics but through smarmy rule bending.

Daedalus81 wrote:

 Red Comet wrote:

WAAC people like you are describing are intentionally cheating and not discussing with their opponents places where the rules just don't hold up well. GW really needs to fix their rule set because it makes for a better experience for all players involved. If a game has clear and concise rules not only do competitive players benefit, but so do the casual players. Why? Because when a rule set is tight it means everyone can agree on exactly how the game plays and how certain interactions end up working out.

Except the rules in question for the LVO debacle were 100% clear. Tony just chose to exploit an honest mistake by the other player.

Perfect rules will never defeat a rules lawyer.

You bring up a fair point BUT does anyone actually like Tony now? I don't think so. This means at any major or local event people are going to do the same thing to him over and over. He'll be made into an example of the kind of player no one wants to play with. I hate what he did and he's exactly the kind of WAAC/tournament player that shouldn't play any game that's a social contract like 40k.

Danny slag wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Danny slag wrote:
The word competitive is misused in 40k. A competition is something with challenge between multiple parties, in 40k "competitive" means the least amount of competition ever. It's people who don't want to actually play a game, they want to win simply by the list they bring.
I prefer to put dudes on a table and roll dice and have that decide who wins, you know have an actual competition.

I just don't get it. If your ego is so fragile that you can't handle the possibility of losing so have to find ways to break the game to avoid competition, then why are you even playing. Sad people.

You can't bring some netlist spamming nothing 20 of one broken unit then pretend you just built a good army. "I'm just being competitive" no.
If your army doesn't look like an army it's a pretty good indication that you're "that guy." No one is saying take bad units, or poor army comp, so don't try to bait and switch here, you're showing up with an army composed of 6 guard squads and 5 primarchs. You know who you are.

And one of each unit is a pretty bad looking army, so who are you to criticize multiples of the same unit?

Where did I say one of each unit? I'd like you to point it out? Nice try though to do the usual attempt at straw manning. Are you going to try to pretend there's nothing between one of every unit and spamming only one unit?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MagicJuggler wrote:
To be fair, if a game is dictated more by being able to burn your wallet in order to cycle units in and out depending on their usefulness at the time (alas poor shelf-hogging Brimstones), as opposed to an actual playbook...

Creating a rapidly-cycling bandwagon is something that David Sirlin has been critical of as not actually making for a competitively sustainable game.

And if people didn't build silly broken armies of 200 brimstone then this wouldn't happen.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Red Comet wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
I have always laughed that we as players refuse to take our share of the blame when it comes to breaking the game, all you need is one WAAC player to go out of his way to cheese something up, bend a rule etc. then post it online, then bitch about GW sucking at rules writing when they have gone out of their way to break the rules.

So yes GW should make better rules, and also Yes we shouldnt try our best to break them for advantage!

WAAC people like you are describing are intentionally cheating and not discussing with their opponents places where the rules just don't hold up well. GW really needs to fix their rule set because it makes for a better experience for all players involved. If a game has clear and concise rules not only do competitive players benefit, but so do the casual players. Why? Because when a rule set is tight it means everyone can agree on exactly how the game plays and how certain interactions end up working out. If a narrative player wants to change the rules that is an entirely different story. They aren't binding themselves to the rules and they are looking to tell a story through their games which I am sure they have discussed with their opponent. But right now these WAAC players are taking advantage of the fact that GW isn't writing tight rules. Imagine a video game with huge game breaking bugs and glitches that allow people to become invincible, go through walls, etc. That's what Games Workshop's ruleset is. They need to fix their bugs.

That being said I feel like a competitive player's job is to find the best ways to win which means to find the best combos and exploit them (And no bending rules isn't part of this). By exploit I mean taking full advantage of these combos within the boundaries of the rule set. To most people this is the worst thing a person could do in a game and its usually referred to as cheese. I really do not understand why when it is perfectly legal and allowable. If you don't want to play against someone who is using a tournament level list then let them know. Talk to them about it and see if you can work out an agreement. In my experience people usually say 'This is cheesy', because they can't beat it. Sure some combos are incredibly overpowered in 40k, but in a tournament wouldn't you use the list that gives you the best chance of winning? Isn't the point of a tournament to win? That's what a competitive gamer wants out of a game of 40k and especially one at the competitive level. If a combo is so broken though that the rest of the game suffers for it then shouldn't we as players find it and let the game designers know? They need to fix it. Simply ignoring it and not talking about it is not the way to go about it. That leaves the problem in place and no one wins. Casual players are left having to deal with an extremely overpowered list that they can never beat and tournament players become bored with the game because there aren't any better combos to use.

So my point is I feel we should be taking advantage of everything written in the rule set and showing gw exactly how broken their rules are. I'm not endorsing people who cheat or bend rules, but I am endorsing that we find those rules that are simply unclear and leave too much open for interpretation. This benefits us so long as they continue to listen to us the players and continue to care about the feedback we give them.

And this is why I'll never play "tournament" players, they aren't interested in a game, tactics, and rolling dice. They only want to build a cheese list that's won before any models even get put on the table, not through tactics but through smarmy rule bending.

'Rules bending' is called cheating. If they are doing that then please call them out on it. If they are just using a really good and over powered army build then they are doing nothing wrong. People who bring strong armies to the table via actual legal armies are usually looking for a tactical game. But in my experience playing 40k I've found that the game is very lightweight when it comes to tactics. Warmachine/Hordes and Imperial Assault have been two games where I feel table tactics mattered a ton. In 40k it feels like your list can carry you harder than it should.

dosiere wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:
To be fair, if a game is dictated more by being able to burn your wallet in order to cycle units in and out depending on their usefulness at the time (alas poor shelf-hogging Brimstones), as opposed to an actual playbook...

Creating a rapidly-cycling bandwagon is something that David Sirlin has been critical of as not actually making for a competitively sustainable game.

I would agree with this, except this is exactly what GW has done for 20years and apparently it works just fine. More so than any other game (the only one even coming close being x wing maybe), a significant number of players of 40k seem just fine -excited even-to drop hundreds of dollars every time an army book drops on the good stuff. It’s pretty much the entire reason they release codexes.

It works as a business model, but not for making a competitive game. Let's not equate the two.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Danny slag wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MagicJuggler wrote:
To be fair, if a game is dictated more by being able to burn your wallet in order to cycle units in and out depending on their usefulness at the time (alas poor shelf-hogging Brimstones), as opposed to an actual playbook...

Creating a rapidly-cycling bandwagon is something that David Sirlin has been critical of as not actually making for a competitively sustainable game.

And if people didn't build silly broken armies of 200 brimstone then this wouldn't happen.

If the game were competitive, there wouldn't be so many obvious discrepancies (Take Brimsto...I mean Pink Horrors!). Not to say that a game will be perfectly balanced (banning Akuma is common and Old Sagat is an interesting edgecase), but cycling units is innately a sign of the game itself being broken rather than units per se.