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.

Not being able to get those new models because you can't get them doesn't make you a scrub. You know that your current army is holding you back, your aren't blaming the dice or the game or the other player.

Refusing to get the better army because you must stick to your one and only faction and that makes you better than filthy band-wagoners and its all their fault that you lose makes you a scrub.

It's not about if you have the best army, it's about what's going on in your head.

Even the guy that takes his fluffy army and loses every game isn't necessarily a scrub if he understands that his self imposed limit is what's making him lose. If he comes away telling himself that its all unfair and he only lost because everyone else had cheese and spam then he's a scrub.

 Scott-S6 wrote:
Not being able to get those new models because you can't get them doesn't make you a scrub. You know that your current army is holding you back, your aren't blaming the dice or the game or the other player.

Refusing to get the better army because you must stick to your one and only faction and that makes you better than filthy band-wagoners and its all their fault that you lose makes you a scrub.

It's not about if you have the best army, it's about what's going on in your head.

How is what you just said not a complete re-wording to make the person thinking it look better or worse?

If I don't want to buy a new army and I believe my army being bad is keeping me from winning, I am not a scrub.

However, in the second instance, if I don't want to buy a new army and I believe my army being bad is keeping me from winning, I am a scrub.

Anyone who is realistic about the balance of 40k will understand that game balance between factions will contribute significantly to wins and losses.

Some of the people who take that attitude, you are labeling scrubs. Others, you are labeling not. Is it a question of it just being a financial concern? What if you could afford to buy a new army that would give you a better chance of winning for a few months, but choose not to for some other reason, like being attached to your collection? Where is the line where you become a scrub?

 Tibs Ironblood wrote:

What if the army doesn't have any "OP" stuff? Out of the people I play against, only one person plays in tournaments. Most started a few months ago, so it is not like they have a huge edge over me as skill goes. Yet when I play my friends Inari or Chaos I am not just getting tabled. I don't get to do stuff. I try to take objectives, my units gets killed with shoting in one turn. I try to do melee, my units have no buffs to charge out of deep strike. the closest games I had was against a dude whose army was made out of starter sets with primaris, till he switched to deathwatch and got a baneblade, not it is just as unfun to play vs him as other people.

the_scotsman wrote:

How is what you just said not a complete re-wording to make the person thinking it look better or worse?

Anyone who is realistic about the balance of 40k will understand that game balance between factions will contribute significantly to wins and losses.

Because what they think is the exactly the difference. Being a scrub is mindset.

If you know your army is holding you back and you just can't afford to replace it / don't want to replace it / whatever, are you a scrub?

It depends.

If your response to being in that situation is: I know that my army is a problem but I can't/won't replace it so maybe I should practice more or come up with a better plan. Not a scrub.

If your response is: look at all of these try hards with cheesy armies. I would totally be winning if they never updated their army like me which is proper and right. Scrub.

The scrub won't improve because it's always someone else's fault and he totally should be winning but he's too good to do what's required to win. We see this every edition change. Allies are a thing now? I'm too good to use allies. Super heavies? Forgeworld? Etc. The other guy will improve even if his army limits how well he can do.

I think you over estimate the scrub's self awareness. They don't want to admit that it's their fault they don't win. It's always the dice or the codex or other people's unfair armies or anything at all which isn't them.

If they acknowledge that their chosen faction is weak then they'll will come up with some justification about how sticking with it no matter what makes them better somehow.

@Karol

Your quote posts are all messed up xD. I read the first of your post outside of the quote box and was thinking "Man, this sounds familiar! All good though haha.

Oh you were not insulting at all no worries. I totally get what you are saying and it really does suck to be in a rough situation where your army is crap and you have very few options. I was giving advice on what worked for me and my group and if your group is unwilling to work with you then yeah you either need to pray for salvation or buy a new army. It sucks, it really does suck, but that's how it is.

the_scotsman wrote:





three out of the five craftworld attributes are the same as marine chapter tactics (with the small addition of 2 units getting to move and fire a couple different heavy weapon options in the case of Saim-Hann) and the stratagems are all similar in idea to marine stratagems: A particular unit does some kind of special thing. If you take a particular combination of units, they do a special thing. A unit gets a boost in close combat. The signature unit of <subfaction> or unit type does something special.

The difference is that for some stratagems they'd learned how to make the stratagem a little more difficult for your opponent to evade (auspex scan and forewarned) and for several others, the units named in the stratagem aren't crap. The farseer/Warlock stratagem for example would be a lot less good if, like Librarians, taking multiples of them was stupid because they're crazy overcosted. The Linked Fire stratagem would be a lot less good if like Whirlwinds and Land Speeders Fire Prisms were terrible.

None of the traits, stratagems or relics showed any more depth or care taken than the ones out of the marine book. What Eldar did get was big fat points rebalances, and a few units got special rules swapped around or tweaked. That's the big difference: The balance pass. Vindicators would be a damn sight better if they got a "fire twice if they move half" rule. Land Speeders would be decent if their price got slashed by half. And as a consequence the stratagems surrounding them would seem a lot less lame in comparison.

I am looking at this from my army perspective. GK have specilised brotherhoods and no rules for them, unlike chapters or eldar craftworlds. When I see what a shining spear or cusodes on a bike does, and how much he cost and how much a unit of 10 GK terminators or 5 paladins cost, I don't understand how the same group of people could have written then rules for both. I look at GK hvy weapons and they downright suck, while costing more then loyalist stuff. Sure the CP stuff is important, but I think it is only important when you have the CP to cast stuff, and GK don't have those, have stratagems worth casting, and GK have one for when their Hero dies aka when your losing, and you have to have to units worth casting those stuff on. A reaper costs less then a paladin, but he can shot twice, can get buffed with psychic powers and gets even better with stratagems, I can burn 2 CP to make my stormbolters a bit better for a turn. So if eldar design was done without any depth, and going in to army synergies or combos, then I don't know what the rule set for GK can be called.The Kalahari of army design probablly.

 Scott-S6 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

How is what you just said not a complete re-wording to make the person thinking it look better or worse?

Anyone who is realistic about the balance of 40k will understand that game balance between factions will contribute significantly to wins and losses.

Because what they think is the exactly the difference. Being a scrub is mindset.

If you know your army is holding you back and you just can't afford to replace it / don't want to replace it / whatever, are you a scrub?

It depends.

If your response to being in that situation is: I know that my army is a problem but I can't/won't replace it so maybe I should practice more or come up with a better plan. Not a scrub.

If your response is: look at all of these try hards with cheesy armies. I would totally be winning if they never updated their army like me which is proper and right. Scrub.

By David Stirlin post, both of those would be scrubs. The second one in mindset and the first one in actions, because hes chosing to not take the best course of action to improve his chances of winning.

Thats the problem I was talking about. We all know theres sore losers that blame everything else by their loses, but that SF Developer was dividing ALL the community in two groups: Good players, Scrubs.
And warhammer40k, a game with much more for it than the game itself, can't be measured with that stick, because your army is not just a gaming tool with a given power in a competitive tier, is a ton of money, emotional investment, and time investment.

And I believe is an absolutely legitimate criticism to make that your army sucks, and you lose for that (You can both acknowledge that you are inexperienced and you have room to imrpove, and the fact that your army sucks). Its a Grey Knight player a scrub because he wants to play Grey Knights and be able to compete agaisnt Dark Eldar? Doesn't he paid the same money for his rules/codex than the Dark Eldar player? Why is he responsible for GW writting bad rules to his faction? As The_Scotsman sais, if you end up in the "If you chose to not use the best option, you are a scrub", then everybody that isn't playing the best armies is a scrub.
At least, based in what David Stirlin wrote and many people agreed with.

So, this is essentially where Sirlin breaks down for people and its basically because his definition of scrub logic only holds true if your single goal is to win. In reality, people play games for a number of reasons and often with a number of competing goals in mind. Personally, I find Sirlin's arguments far more compelling when I consider scrub logic to be restrictions I place on myself (often in the form of incompatible goals) that prevent me from accomplishing much of anything.

It's important to recognize and take ownership of your goals. If the only goal that matters to you is winning, then yeah, you'll probably need to have a pretty huge collection to be able to rapidly jump to the new hotness. That's essentially true of any competitive game out there, regardless of how "balanced" people consider it. I play.... pretty much everything, and they all have to lists that top (more commonly B-tier) players chase.

Most people have goals that seem simple, but have a lot of specific complications. They probably want to win an unreasonable percentage of games with a specific faction or even a specific group of models You have to evaluate these things and decide how realistic they are and what goals you really want to focus on. For example, sometimes I want to win with Grey Knights. It's a tall order, but with the right expectations it works out fine. I accept that my win percentage might be less than it is with a more tuned army; I also accept that my Grey Knights might need to be less than a full army. I'll probably run less than 1000 points of them for deep strike purposes. The point is, I understand my actual goal and have reasonable expectations of what that means. I'm not demanding to win all my games with pure Grey Knights and getting mad at the game when that doesn't align with my opponent's goals. I adapt where I can to accomplish as many of my goals as possible, and in doing so, win or lose, I find something to enjoy in the experience.

Ultimately, you need to be responsible for your own happiness and take ownership to accomplish it. That may require changing decisions, changing models, or just changing expectations. The scrub is, essentially, those that demand that the world change to achieve happiness for them.

Karol wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:





three out of the five craftworld attributes are the same as marine chapter tactics (with the small addition of 2 units getting to move and fire a couple different heavy weapon options in the case of Saim-Hann) and the stratagems are all similar in idea to marine stratagems: A particular unit does some kind of special thing. If you take a particular combination of units, they do a special thing. A unit gets a boost in close combat. The signature unit of <subfaction> or unit type does something special.

The difference is that for some stratagems they'd learned how to make the stratagem a little more difficult for your opponent to evade (auspex scan and forewarned) and for several others, the units named in the stratagem aren't crap. The farseer/Warlock stratagem for example would be a lot less good if, like Librarians, taking multiples of them was stupid because they're crazy overcosted. The Linked Fire stratagem would be a lot less good if like Whirlwinds and Land Speeders Fire Prisms were terrible.

None of the traits, stratagems or relics showed any more depth or care taken than the ones out of the marine book. What Eldar did get was big fat points rebalances, and a few units got special rules swapped around or tweaked. That's the big difference: The balance pass. Vindicators would be a damn sight better if they got a "fire twice if they move half" rule. Land Speeders would be decent if their price got slashed by half. And as a consequence the stratagems surrounding them would seem a lot less lame in comparison.

I am looking at this from my army perspective. GK have specilised brotherhoods and no rules for them, unlike chapters or eldar craftworlds. When I see what a shining spear or cusodes on a bike does, and how much he cost and how much a unit of 10 GK terminators or 5 paladins cost, I don't understand how the same group of people could have written then rules for both. I look at GK hvy weapons and they downright suck, while costing more then loyalist stuff. Sure the CP stuff is important, but I think it is only important when you have the CP to cast stuff, and GK don't have those, have stratagems worth casting, and GK have one for when their Hero dies aka when your losing, and you have to have to units worth casting those stuff on. A reaper costs less then a paladin, but he can shot twice, can get buffed with psychic powers and gets even better with stratagems, I can burn 2 CP to make my stormbolters a bit better for a turn. So if eldar design was done without any depth, and going in to army synergies or combos, then I don't know what the rule set for GK can be called.The Kalahari of army design probablly.

One more time!

Those armies can be written by the same people because THOSE PEOPLE WERE NOT LOOKING AT THE SAME DATA.

The first five codexes released into the game were released before the index lists were even released. Asking "how can GW make Disintegrators cost 15 points while my thing costs nearly twice as many" is ridiculous because at the time your thing that costs twice as many points was released, disintegrators were 30 points, not 15.

Multi-damage weapons, particularly in the mid-range, and armor saves were very obviously overpriced in an edition where (on the surface at least) it appeared that armor saves were about to get a pretty big boost because now you'd be getting a 5+ or a 4+ save against something that previously would have gone straight through your armor.

"we're in charge of the GK codex, what should we change from the index? Well what data do we have to look at between codex and index? Oh right, NONE. We have had no additional playtesting time, no tournament results to look at, no player feedback, because the index has not been released."

this is the nature of the beast. This is why your codex stinks, I'm sorry. I do hope that the first order of business is making it not stink as soon as the last three codexes, due out within the next couple of months, are done. Don't act like it's some great mystery why they stink though.

Just remember though that models being underpowered and overpowered tend to compound. Looking over some of the stuff the Grey Knights have, for example...

Nemesis Lord warlord trait. +1 damage on all weapons. Oh look, it's the warlord trait you take on Blood Angel Smashcaptains, an extremely common tournament meta unit. Oh look, you can also give him Hammerhand so he also adds 1 to wound rolls, and he's got the very same Sadly, the units that can take it are terrible, which makes this trait, good in the context of another army, terrible. Same deal with First to the Fray - in the context of decent units, this could be amazing. Psybolt Ammunition if Land Raider Crusaders were fairly priced? Heed the Prognosticars is essentially Warp Surge with no 3++ cap that lasts the entire turn instead of 1 phase for the same cost - if GK characters were half-decently costed, that would be awesome.

Grey Knights is not impossibly far gone from the competitive meta. The units are just so ludicrously and universally overcosted that even the stuff that could be good is unsalvageable. Heck, Martel has raged about the fact that 3/5 ladies in a BSS have access to a Storm Bolter - how about we put one of those puppies on everygoddangbody? it's a good gun - too bad it's carried by a waaaaaaay overcosted body. But fix the cost of the body, now you're getting somewhere.

Also, FTR, GK have a chapter tactic. Like every other mono-subfaction army (death guard, blood angels, dark angels, soon to be space wolves) it's fixed, but it is there - +1 to cast and no smite limit. In a world where GK get errata'd so their characters actually get bigboy smite and they operate like the Thousand Sons, suddenly you're a step closer to having an actual viable army because that's actually pretty solid as a trait.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
As a big fighting game player, tbh many of us actually always found that quote from that SFII dev really dumb. It implies anyone who isn't picking the toppest tier character is playing poorly, or that self imposed rules are scrubby, or that winning with a low tier somehow makes you a scrub.

No, you aren't a scrub for character/race/army/hero/whatever you select. Scrubbiness is blaming your character or race for those losses. Also, there's something immensely more satisfying about beating top tier characters with lower or mid tier or just swag characters, than there is about doing the opposite. In a fighter, I'm very much aware every loss is my own fault, and attributing your choice in character for your loss at any level seems much more scrubby than just admitting your own play was responsible for your loss, 99% of the time.

If you really followed fighting games like you claimed you would say the quote was legit, actually.

Yeah... I only mod two of the official discords for three of the biggest fighting games in the world, have literally thousands upon thousands of hours invested in competitive fighting games, a custom Hitbox controller that I built myself from scratch, wins against some very high profile players in my country, and high level tech/combo videos with thousands of views on youtube... but hey, what would I know about following fighting games. You're probably right.


The fact that you're mindless enough to think that everyone to ever play fighting games competitively just mindlessly agrees with someones quote because they developed SFII shows you don't, have, a, clue, what you're speaking on lmao

If you REALLY that high profile you would know that people actually think the opposite of you.

Also saying you mod a discord literally means nothing.

Well, I can verify everything I just said, so check me on it if you want to. Its not even that I'm "high profile", that was literally never the point of my post - saying I mod two fighting game discords for some of the biggest fighting games on the planet, means I almost definitely follow fighting games in some capacity does it not, and that was the only thing in question here. Let's be real you tried to check someone you know nothing about, you got it wrong, and now you're backpedalling.

Some people would agree with him, others would disagree. He's just a guy, with an opinion. Citing it like its the gospel and being like "if you were really part of the FGC you'd agree with him!" is just you showing how little it is you actually understand what you're talking about. I've seen this quote come up like twice in fgc circles over my decade and a half of playing competitive fighters and both times it was met with some mixed opinions, and I gave a rational explanation to why many disagree. I can probably even link to an example of exactly this happening. This quote I see circulated much more commonly outside the FGC by people on gaming blogs and whatever else and just like what happened here. Now I know this sounds like a crazy idea, but before you dig that whole deeper, maybe you should just defer to the person with actual experience and knowledge here instead of arguing against them with your surface level impression of what it means to be in the fgc.

jcd386 wrote:

Andykp wrote:
perrigrine,

U are missing the point so much it’s funny. I DONT care if I win or lose. I want a fun game set in the universe and setting I have known for years and love. The idea of judging a list as “better” or worse is ridiculous to me. It baffles me how you can’t look at something from someone else perspective. I don’t play the same way as u. To me it’s a game, not a competion. If someone played well and beat me I applaud that. I used to play o-line in my younger days and loved a pancake and getting another one in the win column. Not in toy soldiers though. The story element is most important, characters and units are named and have histories and battles take place in a context. The list is a means to an end. It’s the cast, not the film. It’s not a moral high ground either. It’s just you sound very unhappy with the game. I’m not. I like it. It works for me. You are asking for the game to be changed to suit you but it would make it worse for me. That’s all. I’m not better or doing it right, I’m just happy with it at the minute.

And my fluffy list are so damn fluffy. It’s like a meme about unicorns from despicable me. They’re probably not as “good” as ones you can download but the are fun as heck and full of flavour.

Well it also sounds like you aren't interested in playing in tournements, which is the only place that these kinds of matched play rules are needed. So what's the problem?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

bananathug wrote:
An army of mostly hellhounds (or whatever the FW version of them is) just won a GT this weekend.

Yep, rule of 3 really works well for curbing spam...

They won't nerf princes until an army of 12 wins a couple tournaments. Then they'll do something crazy which will really hurt the game for "casual" players (+100 points for all DPs...)

GW has little to no idea how their game really plays and is stuck in a knee-jerk reaction cycle to what players are "doing to their game." Conscripts, Fire-raptor buff then nerf, rule of 3, commander nerf, SM nerfs (multiple guilliman nerfs), Ynarri nerf, incoming DE buffs (I kid)...

Again, I like the rule of 3 but it's not solving the problem that GW thought it would (poorly designed/balanced units) but it does show that they are trying (which is something new for sure).

I think they will fix these units one at a time, and each time they do the game will get better.

I commented because he claimed the rule of 3 was used universally and was the standard and wanted changed made to the game for everyone because he didn’t like it, then said I was a liar because I’m not trying to have willie measuring contest every time I play 40k. Hence my reply. The conversation does seem to have moved on now and I believe he has form for complaining. Pretty new here so will learn not to take the bait. Basically I only came here to say that it isn’t a rule it’s a suggestion for organised events. But it seems to have gone all over the place now and street fighter is going on and scrubs.

You clearly are a scrub if you're talking about competitive street fighter. Everyone knows that mortal kombat is where it's at.

Yeah, I think something we tend to lose sight of is that everyone is coming at these conversations from very different places.

Everyone's idea of what they want from the hobby, the competitive nature of their community, and general out look on the game can be very different while being perfectly valid.

The issue, as I see it, is that GW needs to balance the game so that it works in tournements. They need to do this because tournements are a large part of the hobby, are good for business, and are growing.

A tight set of matched rules are also helpful when playing pick up games, as they can already assume the other player, often a complete stranger, knows the same rules and that the game will be fairly evenly matched, and enjoyable for both players as much as the ruleset can assist that. Gimmick lists and spam lists, be they powerful, fluffy, terrible, or unfluffy, are typically not very fun to play against, some more than others.

In a closed group where you play the same people over and over, plan fluff plots, campaigns, and so on, restrictions are rarely needed because it's not difficult to match the competitive culture of the group and avoid bringing lists your opponents won't enjoy. Literally anything you can both agree on is allowed and is awesome, and GW will still you this all day long. It's why they invented power level, open play, etc.

But in pick up games and tournements it's up to GW to make sure that all legal armies are enjoyable to play against, and go along with their idea of what the game should look like. You can't really blame tournement players for wanting to win, and using any legal means to do so (thus the scrub conversation). It is however up to GW, and in some ways the community as a whole, to decide if things like mass first turn assault and 7 of the same unit is good for the game at a competitive level. I think it's pretty clear they make the game worse, and these sorts of fixes make it better.

Its not even about tournaments. This is a pure pvp game. Two players, one winner. It doesn't matter how polite or fluff driven you are, this is the game they sell. And then poor sods like karol buy into it and find that's its so imbalanced that they lost the game before they even started deploying their models. Thanks for the $500 dollars, better luck next edition. Remember to keep buying while you wait and see how things turn out.

 SHUPPET wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
As a big fighting game player, tbh many of us actually always found that quote from that SFII dev really dumb. It implies anyone who isn't picking the toppest tier character is playing poorly, or that self imposed rules are scrubby, or that winning with a low tier somehow makes you a scrub.

No, you aren't a scrub for character/race/army/hero/whatever you select. Scrubbiness is blaming your character or race for those losses. Also, there's something immensely more satisfying about beating top tier characters with lower or mid tier or just swag characters, than there is about doing the opposite. In a fighter, I'm very much aware every loss is my own fault, and attributing your choice in character for your loss at any level seems much more scrubby than just admitting your own play was responsible for your loss, 99% of the time.

If you really followed fighting games like you claimed you would say the quote was legit, actually.

Yeah... I only mod two of the official discords for three of the biggest fighting games in the world, have literally thousands upon thousands of hours invested in competitive fighting games, a custom Hitbox controller that I built myself from scratch, wins against some very high profile players in my country, and high level tech/combo videos with thousands of views on youtube... but hey, what would I know about following fighting games. You're probably right.


The fact that you're mindless enough to think that everyone to ever play fighting games competitively just mindlessly agrees with someones quote because they developed SFII shows you don't, have, a, clue, what you're speaking on lmao

If you REALLY that high profile you would know that people actually think the opposite of you.

Also saying you mod a discord literally means nothing.

Well, I can verify everything I just said, so check me on it if you want to. Its not even that I'm "high profile", that was literally never the point of my post - saying I mod two fighting game discords for some of the biggest fighting games on the planet, means I almost definitely follow fighting games in some capacity does it not, and that was the only thing in question here. Let's be real you tried to check someone you know nothing about, you got it wrong, and now you're backpedalling.

Some people would agree with him, others would disagree. He's just a guy, with an opinion. Citing it like its the gospel and being like "if you were really part of the FGC you'd agree with him!" is just you showing how little it is you actually understand what you're talking about. I've seen this quote come up like twice in fgc circles over my decade and a half of playing competitive fighters and both times it was met with some mixed opinions, and I gave a rational explanation to why many disagree. I can probably even link to an example of exactly this happening. This quote I see circulated much more commonly outside the FGC by people on gaming blogs and whatever else and just like what happened here. Now I know this sounds like a crazy idea, but before you dig that whole deeper, maybe you should just defer to the person with actual experience and knowledge here instead of arguing against them with your surface level impression of what it means to be in the fgc.

Well I would have to guess you're not modding the Smash or Mortal Kombat communities then (but at least with Mortal Kombat there's more a semblance a balance outside specific situations), which I have been following and have attended in the SF bay with a topping here and there though that's it.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Well I would have to guess you're not modding the Smash or Mortal Kombat communities then (but at least with Mortal Kombat there's more a semblance a balance outside specific situations), which I have been following and have attended in the SF bay with a topping here and there though that's it.

I mod the discord for TestYourMight.com, which is the official site for competitive Mortal Kombat and Injustice. There isn't a lot of competitive NRS talk here right now as its kinda died off, but it'll be the right place to be come the next MK game, I'm guessing you're on the Reddit discord or something, which is a crapton more casual. I also modded the 10k member discord for DragonballFighterZ, but I ended up stepping down before the inevitable drama that shortly proceeded due to the owner of the server somehow becoming a power tripping 13 year old. We're from different countries but its actually good to see another fighting game player on here, I'm willing to start this conversation fresh if you are, but perhaps go a bit easier on the "this is the right opinion and if you disagree you don't actually follow this topic" assertions because this kind of black and white perspective doesn't make sense. Plenty of people disagree with that opinion.

yeah, but.... there is a difference in power levels. I much prefer sub zero, but scorpion is better, hands down. You can either freeze someone and then move towards him and hope to hit him before he unfreezes, or you can freeze someone and drag him next to you so you can immediately start punching the feth out of him. One character is clearly superior to the other. And i like subzero, but the differences are obvious.

 SHUPPET wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Well I would have to guess you're not modding the Smash or Mortal Kombat communities then (but at least with Mortal Kombat there's more a semblance a balance outside specific situations), which I have been following and have attended in the SF bay with a topping here and there though that's it.

I mod the discord for TestYourMight.com, which is the official site for competitive Mortal Kombat and Injustice. There isn't a lot of competitive NRS talk here right now as its kinda died off, but it'll be the right place to be come the next MK game, I'm guessing you're on the Reddit discord or something, which is a crapton more casual. I also modded the 10k member discord for DragonballFighterZ, but I ended up stepping down before the inevitable drama that shortly proceeded due to the owner of the server somehow becoming a power tripping 13 year old. We're from different countries but its actually good to see another fighting game player on here, I'm willing to start this conversation fresh if you are, but perhaps go a bit easier on the "this is the right opinion and if you disagree you don't actually follow this topic" assertions because this kind of black and white perspective doesn't make sense. Plenty of people disagree with that opinion.

So off topic: is Injustice worth playing at all?

I'm also only part of a Pokemon Go! and 40k humor discords and nothing else.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Well I would have to guess you're not modding the Smash or Mortal Kombat communities then (but at least with Mortal Kombat there's more a semblance a balance outside specific situations), which I have been following and have attended in the SF bay with a topping here and there though that's it.

I mod the discord for TestYourMight.com, which is the official site for competitive Mortal Kombat and Injustice. There isn't a lot of competitive NRS talk here right now as its kinda died off, but it'll be the right place to be come the next MK game, I'm guessing you're on the Reddit discord or something, which is a crapton more casual. I also modded the 10k member discord for DragonballFighterZ, but I ended up stepping down before the inevitable drama that shortly proceeded due to the owner of the server somehow becoming a power tripping 13 year old. We're from different countries but its actually good to see another fighting game player on here, I'm willing to start this conversation fresh if you are, but perhaps go a bit easier on the "this is the right opinion and if you disagree you don't actually follow this topic" assertions because this kind of black and white perspective doesn't make sense. Plenty of people disagree with that opinion.

So off topic: is Injustice worth playing at all?

I'm also only part of a Pokemon Go! and 40k humor discords and nothing else.

Some people really like it. Best I can describe is it's basically a simpler version of MK with less depth and a heavier focus on projectiles than up close tricks and aggression. I invested a few hundred hours in it based off my love for MK kept trying to love it, but it just never clicked for me and I dropped it. Best fighter on the market competitively atm is GuiltyGear imo if you want a deeper experience, but execution and combos can take a bit of getting used to.

But you're right we're well off topic. Anyone interested in talking it can feel free to PM me, I'm open to discuss this kinda thing with anyone at any time.

 Torga_DW wrote:
Its not even about tournaments. This is a pure pvp game. Two players, one winner. It doesn't matter how polite or fluff driven you are, this is the game they sell. And then poor sods like karol buy into it and find that's its so imbalanced that they lost the game before they even started deploying their models. Thanks for the $500 dollars, better luck next edition. Remember to keep buying while you wait and see how things turn out.

You aren't wrong that this happens, but I think it's incorrect that this is GWs intention. I think it's apparent they are at least trying to make things better, and I'm hopeful that CA will help things improve even more. If it doesn't, I'll likely rethink my involvement again, but I have generally liked most of the changes so far.

the_scotsman wrote:

Karol wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:







One more time!

Those armies can be written by the same people because THOSE PEOPLE WERE NOT LOOKING AT THE SAME DATA.

The first five codexes released into the game were released before the index lists were even released. Asking "how can GW make Disintegrators cost 15 points while my thing costs nearly twice as many" is ridiculous because at the time your thing that costs twice as many points was released, disintegrators were 30 points, not 15.

Multi-damage weapons, particularly in the mid-range, and armor saves were very obviously overpriced in an edition where (on the surface at least) it appeared that armor saves were about to get a pretty big boost because now you'd be getting a 5+ or a 4+ save against something that previously would have gone straight through your armor.

"we're in charge of the GK codex, what should we change from the index? Well what data do we have to look at between codex and index? Oh right, NONE. We have had no additional playtesting time, no tournament results to look at, no player feedback, because the index has not been released."

.

how can they not be looking at the same data. The index were ready before any of the codex. So when they were making lets say the IG or eldar codex, they didn't read their own books? they didn't notice that a unit of termintors costs as if they were dark reapers, and that is before not having negative modifires for moving or hiting stuff outside of LoS, or the ability to shot twice with the same unit or buff it with other stuff. I mean if this was w40k 1st ed, and the design people were made out of a mix of people that never made games, I would get it that they could have not know something. But this is the 8th ed, w40k is what 20 years old ? Plus some stuff is middle school tier problems to notice. A bs 4+ , because it has to move to get in to weapon range, unit that costs 300pts and has few shots vs 300pts of reapers is suppose to be balanced?

I also don't get the argument that they didn't change nothing in GK between the index and the codex. If GK were not played in 6th,7th and 8th ed, so that no one could remember how they armies were played, then one thing they should have not do is leave the things unchanged, because it is and was clear that with the existing rule so few people played them, that there was no data on them from tournaments. Point cost should have been drasticly changed, rules should have been added, I don't know I am not a designer, but they should have done something. But from what I was told, the "changes" they did was to rise the points cost of all GK units worth taking, because they were also used by normal marines. Only with normal marines those units were problematic because of re-roll and HQ synergy,and GK do not have those. What is worse a few months later they make a custodes codex which is nice. Instead of making those they should have made GK better, or just give the jetbike dudes to GKs.

You aren't wrong that this happens, but I think it's incorrect that this is GWs intention. I think it's apparent they are at least trying to make things better, and I'm hopeful that CA will help things improve even more. If it doesn't, I'll likely rethink my involvement again, but I have generally liked most of the changes so far.

You know from what I have been told, could have been lied to though, it seems to me that GK were bad for like 3 editions. They weren't good when other marines were good, they weren't good out of the index, their codex didn't fix anything, and the CA they already made just nerfed them, as did all the FAQs afterwards. But I do not know enough about GW history to go 100% realist mode. Was there ever a time in w40k history that GW took a bad army and fixed it rules and point costs in a faq?

jcd386 wrote:

Spoiler:

Andykp wrote:

jcd386 wrote:

Andykp wrote:
perrigrine,

U are missing the point so much it’s funny. I DONT care if I win or lose. I want a fun game set in the universe and setting I have known for years and love. The idea of judging a list as “better” or worse is ridiculous to me. It baffles me how you can’t look at something from someone else perspective. I don’t play the same way as u. To me it’s a game, not a competion. If someone played well and beat me I applaud that. I used to play o-line in my younger days and loved a pancake and getting another one in the win column. Not in toy soldiers though. The story element is most important, characters and units are named and have histories and battles take place in a context. The list is a means to an end. It’s the cast, not the film. It’s not a moral high ground either. It’s just you sound very unhappy with the game. I’m not. I like it. It works for me. You are asking for the game to be changed to suit you but it would make it worse for me. That’s all. I’m not better or doing it right, I’m just happy with it at the minute.

And my fluffy list are so damn fluffy. It’s like a meme about unicorns from despicable me. They’re probably not as “good” as ones you can download but the are fun as heck and full of flavour.

Well it also sounds like you aren't interested in playing in tournements, which is the only place that these kinds of matched play rules are needed. So what's the problem?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

bananathug wrote:
An army of mostly hellhounds (or whatever the FW version of them is) just won a GT this weekend.

Yep, rule of 3 really works well for curbing spam...

They won't nerf princes until an army of 12 wins a couple tournaments. Then they'll do something crazy which will really hurt the game for "casual" players (+100 points for all DPs...)

GW has little to no idea how their game really plays and is stuck in a knee-jerk reaction cycle to what players are "doing to their game." Conscripts, Fire-raptor buff then nerf, rule of 3, commander nerf, SM nerfs (multiple guilliman nerfs), Ynarri nerf, incoming DE buffs (I kid)...

Again, I like the rule of 3 but it's not solving the problem that GW thought it would (poorly designed/balanced units) but it does show that they are trying (which is something new for sure).

I think they will fix these units one at a time, and each time they do the game will get better.

I commented because he claimed the rule of 3 was used universally and was the standard and wanted changed made to the game for everyone because he didn’t like it, then said I was a liar because I’m not trying to have willie measuring contest every time I play 40k. Hence my reply. The conversation does seem to have moved on now and I believe he has form for complaining. Pretty new here so will learn not to take the bait. Basically I only came here to say that it isn’t a rule it’s a suggestion for organised events. But it seems to have gone all over the place now and street fighter is going on and scrubs.

Yeah, I think something we tend to lose sight of is that everyone is coming at these conversations from very different places.

Everyone's idea of what they want from the hobby, the competitive nature of their community, and general out look on the game can be very different while being perfectly valid.

The issue, as I see it, is that GW needs to balance the game so that it works in tournements. They need to do this because tournements are a large part of the hobby, are good for business, and are growing.

A tight set of matched rules are also helpful when playing pick up games, as they can already assume the other player, often a complete stranger, knows the same rules and that the game will be fairly evenly matched, and enjoyable for both players as much as the ruleset can assist that. Gimmick lists and spam lists, be they powerful, fluffy, terrible, or unfluffy, are typically not very fun to play against, some more than others.

In a closed group where you play the same people over and over, plan fluff plots, campaigns, and so on, restrictions are rarely needed because it's not difficult to match the competitive culture of the group and avoid bringing lists your opponents won't enjoy. Literally anything you can both agree on is allowed and is awesome, and GW will still you this all day long. It's why they invented power level, open play, etc.

But in pick up games and tournements it's up to GW to make sure that all legal armies are enjoyable to play against, and go along with their idea of what the game should look like. You can't really blame tournement players for wanting to win, and using any legal means to do so (thus the scrub conversation). It is however up to GW, and in some ways the community as a whole, to decide if things like mass first turn assault and 7 of the same unit is good for the game at a competitive level. I think it's pretty clear they make the game worse, and these sorts of fixes make it better.

I have to disagree, I think making one game to satisfy tournament players isn’t good for the game at all. Hence my earlier opinion that there needs to be two serarate rule sets, a tournament edition if you like. The tournament scene is so obsessed with winning and maximaising yiur lists that it bears no relation to the universe the game is set in. And the setting is what makes 40k so great. It dictates the models we see and the army’s we have to play with. It appears irrelevant to tournament list builders which army or units the use as long as the are good. So make the rules so tight, which can mean restrictive could suck the flavour out of the game. I admit the tournament scene is very vocal but I doubt they are the biggest part of GWs income compared to all other gamers, collectors and random purchases. Hence why they push the 3 ways to play.

I don’t believe this mythical balance that everyone is after is better for everyone as has been said on here so many times, if that were the case I would be playing games like x-wing or shadespire. But I dint. They hold no interest for me as they seem bland and lack character, they might be more tactically deep and balanced but they don’t tell a story.

Andykp wrote:

jcd386 wrote:

Spoiler:

Andykp wrote:

jcd386 wrote:

Andykp wrote:
perrigrine,

U are missing the point so much it’s funny. I DONT care if I win or lose. I want a fun game set in the universe and setting I have known for years and love. The idea of judging a list as “better” or worse is ridiculous to me. It baffles me how you can’t look at something from someone else perspective. I don’t play the same way as u. To me it’s a game, not a competion. If someone played well and beat me I applaud that. I used to play o-line in my younger days and loved a pancake and getting another one in the win column. Not in toy soldiers though. The story element is most important, characters and units are named and have histories and battles take place in a context. The list is a means to an end. It’s the cast, not the film. It’s not a moral high ground either. It’s just you sound very unhappy with the game. I’m not. I like it. It works for me. You are asking for the game to be changed to suit you but it would make it worse for me. That’s all. I’m not better or doing it right, I’m just happy with it at the minute.

And my fluffy list are so damn fluffy. It’s like a meme about unicorns from despicable me. They’re probably not as “good” as ones you can download but the are fun as heck and full of flavour.

Well it also sounds like you aren't interested in playing in tournements, which is the only place that these kinds of matched play rules are needed. So what's the problem?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

bananathug wrote:
An army of mostly hellhounds (or whatever the FW version of them is) just won a GT this weekend.

Yep, rule of 3 really works well for curbing spam...

They won't nerf princes until an army of 12 wins a couple tournaments. Then they'll do something crazy which will really hurt the game for "casual" players (+100 points for all DPs...)

GW has little to no idea how their game really plays and is stuck in a knee-jerk reaction cycle to what players are "doing to their game." Conscripts, Fire-raptor buff then nerf, rule of 3, commander nerf, SM nerfs (multiple guilliman nerfs), Ynarri nerf, incoming DE buffs (I kid)...

Again, I like the rule of 3 but it's not solving the problem that GW thought it would (poorly designed/balanced units) but it does show that they are trying (which is something new for sure).

I think they will fix these units one at a time, and each time they do the game will get better.

I commented because he claimed the rule of 3 was used universally and was the standard and wanted changed made to the game for everyone because he didn’t like it, then said I was a liar because I’m not trying to have willie measuring contest every time I play 40k. Hence my reply. The conversation does seem to have moved on now and I believe he has form for complaining. Pretty new here so will learn not to take the bait. Basically I only came here to say that it isn’t a rule it’s a suggestion for organised events. But it seems to have gone all over the place now and street fighter is going on and scrubs.

Yeah, I think something we tend to lose sight of is that everyone is coming at these conversations from very different places.

Everyone's idea of what they want from the hobby, the competitive nature of their community, and general out look on the game can be very different while being perfectly valid.

The issue, as I see it, is that GW needs to balance the game so that it works in tournements. They need to do this because tournements are a large part of the hobby, are good for business, and are growing.

A tight set of matched rules are also helpful when playing pick up games, as they can already assume the other player, often a complete stranger, knows the same rules and that the game will be fairly evenly matched, and enjoyable for both players as much as the ruleset can assist that. Gimmick lists and spam lists, be they powerful, fluffy, terrible, or unfluffy, are typically not very fun to play against, some more than others.

In a closed group where you play the same people over and over, plan fluff plots, campaigns, and so on, restrictions are rarely needed because it's not difficult to match the competitive culture of the group and avoid bringing lists your opponents won't enjoy. Literally anything you can both agree on is allowed and is awesome, and GW will still you this all day long. It's why they invented power level, open play, etc.

But in pick up games and tournements it's up to GW to make sure that all legal armies are enjoyable to play against, and go along with their idea of what the game should look like. You can't really blame tournement players for wanting to win, and using any legal means to do so (thus the scrub conversation). It is however up to GW, and in some ways the community as a whole, to decide if things like mass first turn assault and 7 of the same unit is good for the game at a competitive level. I think it's pretty clear they make the game worse, and these sorts of fixes make it better.

I have to disagree, I think making one game to satisfy tournament players isn’t good for the game at all. Hence my earlier opinion that there needs to be two serarate rule sets, a tournament edition if you like. The tournament scene is so obsessed with winning and maximaising yiur lists that it bears no relation to the universe the game is set in. And the setting is what makes 40k so great. It dictates the models we see and the army’s we have to play with. It appears irrelevant to tournament list builders which army or units the use as long as the are good. So make the rules so tight, which can mean restrictive could suck the flavour out of the game. I admit the tournament scene is very vocal but I doubt they are the biggest part of GWs income compared to all other gamers, collectors and random purchases. Hence why they push the 3 ways to play.

I don’t believe this mythical balance that everyone is after is better for everyone as has been said on here so many times, if that were the case I would be playing games like x-wing or shadespire. But I dint. They hold no interest for me as they seem bland and lack character, they might be more tactically deep and balanced but they don’t tell a story.

The rule book has narrative and open play rules in it, that I believe might be what you are looking for. Have you tried playing that way with friends? Are those systems lacking something that you feel would improve them? Do you see another way for strangers to play each other easily and without any complex conversation in a way that is scalable to large events other than having a tight set of matched play rules?

Genuinely curious.

Oh dear Scotsman you schooled Karol about how to use the quote function... while failing to use the quote function properly!

kombatwombat wrote:
Oh dear Scotsman you schooled Karol about how to use the quote function... while failing to use the quote function properly!

wait, he quoted right, he just got the spoiler wrong I think.

It's easy to read tho and thats the underlying point

Hasn’t he written his own response within the quote box?

I agree with his point I just cackle at the irony of his specific cock-up.

kombatwombat wrote:
Hasn’t he written his own response within the quote box?

I agree with his point I just cackle at the irony of his specific cock-up.

Actually, weirdly enough I think mine might be a bug. Because I have all my text after a "[\spoiler]" (obviously with the slash going the right way) but everything within the spoiler box is a quote, so I think something got fluffed up there? It seems to have just put my text in some kind of a square box.

It seems to be doing what I wanted to do though, i.e. hide all the quotes behind a spoiler so its not a wall of text, but its just showing it a bit oddly.

I have noticed that sometimes when you hit "Quote" it boops you to the end of the text and you can start typing immediately, while other times it boops you right in the middle for no reason and if you start typing, you're typing inside the quote.

I think this inconsistency has made me check every post time and again.

ON TOPIC STUFF:
My opinions are perhaps known, but while winning might be the objective of the game, fun is the objective of the activity, and for some people, winning and fun are divested.