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:
Well yes, if a joke of a tournament is going to DQ people for bringing a well designed list that's going to produce a different meta. But the OP is in the US and doesn't have to deal with that nonsense.

. I can imagine something like 2 detachments max till 2000pts, limiting the number of soup lists by a bit. Although the changes would be kind of a against what the core rules state.

Your still not getting it, YOU are the joke to them because you seem incapable of understanding that not everywhere is the same, you have stated that soup is mandatory to win, I have pointed out that it’s not the case everywhere, in fact I’m pretty sure that some of the bigger tournies in the states had top table mono lists, as in single faction, wasn’t the winner of the LVO a mono Tyranid tyrant spam list, so no soup?

Well to come in to mr Ps defense, winning in a non optimised enviroment isn't actually winning. Otherwise it would be like comparing normal and special olypmics, and say that they are equal. And from what I understand the mono wins happen in w40k in two situations, the tournament pack nerfs eldar a lot and this makes armies like tyranids win, specially pre rule of 3. The mono army is something like Inari eldar, and even those are plain better when run alongside a craftworld detachment to enable all the stratagem tricks.

Karol wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Well yes, if a joke of a tournament is going to DQ people for bringing a well designed list that's going to produce a different meta. But the OP is in the US and doesn't have to deal with that nonsense.

. I can imagine something like 2 detachments max till 2000pts, limiting the number of soup lists by a bit. Although the changes would be kind of a against what the core rules state.

Your still not getting it, YOU are the joke to them because you seem incapable of understanding that not everywhere is the same, you have stated that soup is mandatory to win, I have pointed out that it’s not the case everywhere, in fact I’m pretty sure that some of the bigger tournies in the states had top table mono lists, as in single faction, wasn’t the winner of the LVO a mono Tyranid tyrant spam list, so no soup?

Well to come in to mr Ps defense, winning in a non optimised enviroment isn't actually winning. Otherwise it would be like comparing normal and special olypmics, and say that they are equal. And from what I understand the mono wins happen in w40k in two situations, the tournament pack nerfs eldar a lot and this makes armies like tyranids win, specially pre rule of 3. The mono army is something like Inari eldar, and even those are plain better when run alongside a craftworld detachment to enable all the stratagem tricks.

Looking at the adepticon lists this year it looks like 10 of the top 16 lists were not soup or soup light, it’s hard to read some of the lists on my phone so feel free to correct me if I’m wrong.

barboggo wrote:
It helps that I'm also just not very good at the game yet so there is a lot to learn and improve on. It's very "real" content and value for relative newcomers like me.

This probably explains most of it. 40k can have the illusion of depth while you're still trying to learn the game, but once you figure out how everything works the strategy is rarely very interesting. List strength is the primary factor in who wins a game, and most of the tactics are just doing the obvious thing with your unit and rolling dice to see if it works. There isn't a lot of move vs. counter-move and trying to out-think your opponent, you pretty much set up your models, execute the plan you had when you wrote the list, and find out if the list you brought matches up against your opponent's plan and level of list optimization.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Formosa wrote:
YOU are the joke to them because you seem incapable of understanding that not everywhere is the same

I never said it was the same everywhere, but the OP is a US competitive player asking for advice. The fact that some joke of a tournament in Australia DQs people for being "too competitive" is irrelevant, we don't need to waste time talking about it.

you have stated that soup is mandatory to win, I have pointed out that it’s not the case everywhere, in fact I’m pretty sure that some of the bigger tournies in the states had top table mono lists, as in single faction, wasn’t the winner of the LVO a mono Tyranid tyrant spam list, so no soup?

You don't seem to understand how competitive play works. Obviously not every single list will be soup, but soup is an important tool in your toolbox. A player who can look at a mission packet and pick the appropriate list, including one with soup elements, because they have all of the rules available will have an advantage over a player whose list-building options are constrained by their refusal to buy more than a single codex. And if you are a competitive player conceding that advantage is not acceptable. So telling a newbie that they can get away with buying only a single codex is misleading at best, and a malicious bait and switch at worst.

Karol wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Well yes, if a joke of a tournament is going to DQ people for bringing a well designed list that's going to produce a different meta. But the OP is in the US and doesn't have to deal with that nonsense.

. I can imagine something like 2 detachments max till 2000pts, limiting the number of soup lists by a bit. Although the changes would be kind of a against what the core rules state.

Your still not getting it, YOU are the joke to them because you seem incapable of understanding that not everywhere is the same, you have stated that soup is mandatory to win, I have pointed out that it’s not the case everywhere, in fact I’m pretty sure that some of the bigger tournies in the states had top table mono lists, as in single faction, wasn’t the winner of the LVO a mono Tyranid tyrant spam list, so no soup?

Well to come in to mr Ps defense, winning in a non optimised enviroment isn't actually winning.

Are those goalposts heavy?

 Sim-Life wrote:

Are those goalposts heavy?

I don't understand your football referance.

Karol wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

Are those goalposts heavy?

I don't understand your football referance.

He was sarcastic: the word goes: Moving the goalposts
It means that you basically can't counter argue anymore and therefore declare an argument void by moving the goalposts/ declaring something as void via saying something along the line of "y does not count as a counter argument to x since ...(arbitrary line)... "
What it boils down to is: Your argument is void because i said it from this perspective, in this case you did say the following:
"Aussie Tornaments are not competitive since they DQ' people and since the person here lives and plays in the US, therefore all Aussie tournaments are uncompetitive because i said so."

Fact is, they are competitive, they just run another TO ruleset, therefore the Meta is diffrent.
Also the comparision with the "special" olympics to the real one is just bs, if you compare in such a fashion atleast take Hockey, which is played in diffrent nations with diffrent sizes of the field.

I came back and started plating in 8th edition again. I see a lot of arguments of weather the game is good or bad. I do not want to go into that, it is too subjective and the goal is to undefined. For instance some might think 8th edition takes to lobg to play. I can not comment on this. The same with gunlines are to good, representation in the setting etc. Here are some points they have fixed:

- Game balance, with a promice to improve it. Most units are at least playable. If a unit is to good it will get nerfed. This prevents people to buy the most cheesy army as it will be ruimed 6 months later. I remember 5th edition when the nid codex has units blatantly over priced with rumours that it was intensional to sell new models. (Rumours that to be at least got confirmed by former employes in massive reddit QnA.) Long gone is the 5th edition underpriced vendetta that in 6th edition only could be hit on a 6 with no price invrease.

- Adaption lag and cost. With most units being much more playable you do not have the problem of having painters play vs people who wanne winn. Different peoole play for different reasons and they do not winn. The painters argue cheesy. The competetive player argue incompetence. Factor in how expensive this game is and the time it takes to paint you can not ecpext any of these to 'get a new army'. This happens less now. (Orks are still sufferin here.)

- Actual FAQ. The fact that the FAQ comes so fast is good. I remember rules arguing that 5th edition SW characters should have T5 and not be insta killed by S8. But we had to wait 6 or 9 months to get it confirmed in the FAQ. Not to speak of questions they forgot to wanser in FAQs.

- Stil improving the rules of the game. The fact that they stil imrpove on the rules of the game is amazing. This is much more of a future promise then anything else. Some one at GW avtually care, and his bosses bosses boss actually allow someone who cares about the game to work with it.

- The rules are smaller, ish. I am not talking about that little phamplet. There are stil so many rules, faq and erataes in core rules and rulrbook to track. But it is less then 5th and 7th edition. This is a good trend.

- Many armies have support. There are so many armies to choose from these days. That is good. (Yes GK is bad, and orks are mono build.)

 Niiai wrote:
I came back and started plating in 8th edition again. I see a lot of arguments of weather the game is good or bad. I do not want to go into that, it is too subjective and the goal is to undefined. For instance some might think 8th edition takes to lobg to play. I can not comment on this. The same with gunlines are to good, representation in the setting etc. Here are some points they have fixed:

- Game balance, with a promice to improve it. Most units are at least playable. If a unit is to good it will get nerfed. This prevents people to buy the most cheesy army as it will be ruimed 6 months later. I remember 5th edition when the nid codex has units blatantly over priced with rumours that it was intensional to sell new models. (Rumours that to be at least got confirmed by former employes in massive reddit QnA.) Long gone is the 5th edition underpriced vendetta that in 6th edition only could be hit on a 6 with no price invrease.

- Adaption lag and cost. With most units being much more playable you do not have the problem of having painters play vs people who wanne winn. Different peoole play for different reasons and they do not winn. The painters argue cheesy. The competetive player argue incompetence. Factor in how expensive this game is and the time it takes to paint you can not ecpext any of these to 'get a new army'. This happens less now. (Orks are still sufferin here.)

- Actual FAQ. The fact that the FAQ comes so fast is good. I remember rules arguing that 5th edition SW characters should have T5 and not be insta killed by S8. But we had to wait 6 or 9 months to get it confirmed in the FAQ. Not to speak of questions they forgot to wanser in FAQs.

- Stil improving the rules of the game. The fact that they stil imrpove on the rules of the game is amazing. This is much more of a future promise then anything else. Some one at GW avtually care, and his bosses bosses boss actually allow someone who cares about the game to work with it.

- The rules are smaller, ish. I am not talking about that little phamplet. There are stil so many rules, faq and erataes in core rules and rulrbook to track. But it is less then 5th and 7th edition. This is a good trend.

- Many armies have support. There are so many armies to choose from these days. That is good. (Yes GK is bad, and orks are mono build.)

How excactly is it a good trend that i need index, codex, rulebook, CA, + FAQs when i want to play a game?
Also remind me how much money do we need to spend for all those books?
Often times for many armies i need additional codexes / indexes to even field a proper force.

It is not a good trend that you need index, codex, rulebook, CA, + FAQs when i want to play a game. I had in mind that if you add up the number of pages for all of this, the number of pages is less. The old rule book was staggering. But if you seperate the game from the game components, the game itself is better for the fact they are there. And then you have to consider that opposed to the game components.

But the fact that you need index, codex, rulebook, CA, + FAQs is nothing new under the sun. It seems to be build into warhammer 40K at a very basic level, or maiby build into the finasial model at a basic level.

If you want to avoid this there are many other games out there. x-wing in particular even take up less space on the table. Shadespire can even be played at a cofee house. MTG takes even less space. Many tabletop games, all tcg and most boardgames probably bypass this. But at the end of the day we are discussing 40K are we not?

I would say the points I pointed out in me previus post are legimate points. But discussions here on dakka dakka have a tendensies of getting bogged down in people thinking something is wrong instead of a beneficial exchange of ideas.

 Peregrine wrote:

barboggo wrote:
It helps that I'm also just not very good at the game yet so there is a lot to learn and improve on. It's very "real" content and value for relative newcomers like me.

This probably explains most of it. 40k can have the illusion of depth while you're still trying to learn the game, but once you figure out how everything works the strategy is rarely very interesting. List strength is the primary factor in who wins a game, and most of the tactics are just doing the obvious thing with your unit and rolling dice to see if it works. There isn't a lot of move vs. counter-move and trying to out-think your opponent, you pretty much set up your models, execute the plan you had when you wrote the list, and find out if the list you brought matches up against your opponent's plan and level of list optimization.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Formosa wrote:
YOU are the joke to them because you seem incapable of understanding that not everywhere is the same

I never said it was the same everywhere, but the OP is a US competitive player asking for advice. The fact that some joke of a tournament in Australia DQs people for being "too competitive" is irrelevant, we don't need to waste time talking about it.

you have stated that soup is mandatory to win, I have pointed out that it’s not the case everywhere, in fact I’m pretty sure that some of the bigger tournies in the states had top table mono lists, as in single faction, wasn’t the winner of the LVO a mono Tyranid tyrant spam list, so no soup?

You don't seem to understand how competitive play works. Obviously not every single list will be soup, but soup is an important tool in your toolbox. A player who can look at a mission packet and pick the appropriate list, including one with soup elements, because they have all of the rules available will have an advantage over a player whose list-building options are constrained by their refusal to buy more than a single codex. And if you are a competitive player conceding that advantage is not acceptable. So telling a newbie that they can get away with buying only a single codex is misleading at best, and a malicious bait and switch at worst.

So 10 (?) of the top 16 lists at the last adpeticon not being soup of having ONE unit from another codex is me lying about the "soup not being required" sorry peregrine, but it looks like your wrong, clearly soup is NOT required and this is in your own country and a meta you claim to know so well.

So stop telling the OP he MUST soup in other factions to be competitive, when its clearly not the case.

https://spikeybits.com/2018/03/40k-adepticon-championship-top-16-lists-revealed.html

If someone could just check this for me, its hard to read on my phone.

[quote=Not Online!!!How excactly is it a good trend that i need index, codex, rulebook, CA, + FAQs when i want to play a game?

People keeps saying you need brb+index+codex+FAQ+fw index+CA, and here Im, playing with my Codex as Dark Angel, and with 5 notes in pencil, 4 lines for FAQ and the point cost of the nephilim changed.

Most tournament armies dont use FW models or the Index, for starters.

 Galas wrote:
People keeps saying you need brb+index+codex+FAQ+fw index+CA, and here Im, playing with my Codex as Dark Angel, and with 5 notes in pencil, 4 lines for FAQ and the point cost of the nephilim changed.

Lol. My Slaanesh Daemons army needs two codexes because I soup in some Heretic Astartes. In fact, even a 3rd book since I like Zarakynel and she's FW. Bringing those three books is such a burden, I'm seriously considering never playing again and selling my armies. THREE BOOKS!? How do people manage?

I need ONE book because I use Battlescribe and memorise the FAQ changed that effect me. I only need the codex for stratagems really.

 Sim-Life wrote:
I need ONE book because I use Battlescribe and memorise the FAQ changed that effect me. I only need the codex for stratagems really.

and those can be printed onto easy to use MTG cards

Are people really that upset about bringing more than a single book? Firstly, if it bothers you that much just play a single codex army. Secondly, am I the only one that only brings the books a point of reference in case someone asks? after playing 2-3 games you should have basically learned the rules for your specific army. I almost never even have to pull out my codex at this point, especially when you can just reference something like battlescribe for a quick glance.

Ultimate GW just needs an official version of Battlescribe, since that's the only thing I bring. Even then, I run a pretty soupy Deatwatch focused list, but I really only need the Deathwatch codex itself and CA for scenarios to play if I wanted to go tablet free.

It seems like people put more effort into book counting than they do for other games. I mean, most all of them "require" Core Rules, Scenario Packet, Army Rules, Errata minimum and most of the time you see people show up to the table with just the army rules because.... well, that's all you really NEED to play in most instances. Same is really true of 40k and even soupy lists don't really require that much more.

Codexes are just a crummy game reference. That's really nothing new. Most (all?) games are pretty terrible if you try to play your army out of a book. It's a concept so out of date its replacements are being replaced.

Asmodios wrote:
Are people really that upset about bringing more than a single book? Firstly, if it bothers you that much just play a single codex army. Secondly, am I the only one that only brings the books a point of reference in case someone asks? after playing 2-3 games you should have basically learned the rules for your specific army. I almost never even have to pull out my codex at this point, especially when you can just reference something like battlescribe for a quick glance.

Matches my experience. Usually you need the codex to either show it to an opponent or to check some non-intuitive interaction between rules.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Galas wrote:
People keeps saying you need brb+index+codex+FAQ+fw index+CA, and here Im, playing with my Codex as Dark Angel, and with 5 notes in pencil, 4 lines for FAQ and the point cost of the nephilim changed.

Lol. My Slaanesh Daemons army needs two codexes because I soup in some Heretic Astartes. In fact, even a 3rd book since I like Zarakynel and she's FW. Bringing those three books is such a burden, I'm seriously considering never playing again and selling my armies. THREE BOOKS!? How do people manage?

never play D&D

Are people really that upset about bringing more than a single book? Firstly, if it bothers you that much just play a single codex army. Secondly, am I the only one that only brings the books a point of reference in case someone asks? after playing 2-3 games you should have basically learned the rules for your specific army. I almost never even have to pull out my codex at this point, especially when you can just reference something like battlescribe for a quick glance.

What if your army sucks played without other armies, or requires something like the IG CP battery to function? Or what if GW build your index rules with a clear idea that you are also running normal tyranids and IG in your genestealer cult army.
Plus the question is not if you learn the rules. No one cares about if you know them or not, your opponent only care if you can prove that your rules work the way they say you do. And they will never trust you unless you have an official GW book, the apps etc are too easy to modify to your adventage. Plus stores don't like them, because your not buying the codex from them if you download rules.

edited by moderator

Karol wrote:

Are people really that upset about bringing more than a single book? Firstly, if it bothers you that much just play a single codex army. Secondly, am I the only one that only brings the books a point of reference in case someone asks? after playing 2-3 games you should have basically learned the rules for your specific army. I almost never even have to pull out my codex at this point, especially when you can just reference something like battlescribe for a quick glance.

What if your army sucks played without other armies, or requires something like the IG CP battery to function? Or what if GW build your index rules with a clear idea that you are also running normal tyranids and IG in your genestealer cult army.
Plus the question is not if you learn the rules. No one cares about if you know them or not, your opponent only care if you can prove that your rules work the way they say you do. And they will never trust you unless you have an official GW book, the apps etc are too easy to modify to your adventage. Plus stores don't like them, because your not buying the codex from them if you download rules.

edited by moderator

At lot of the the first half of your post is the players choice though. I don't think any army currently available NEEDS a soup to be viable. You're confusing viable with "tournament level competitive".

Asmodios wrote:
Are people really that upset about bringing more than a single book? Firstly, if it bothers you that much just play a single codex army. Secondly, am I the only one that only brings the books a point of reference in case someone asks? after playing 2-3 games you should have basically learned the rules for your specific army. I almost never even have to pull out my codex at this point, especially when you can just reference something like battlescribe for a quick glance.

I think it's more than one of the reasons 7th gets so much hate is 'but I needed to bring all those books!'. 8th is shaping up to mandate even more books only a year in - and the way AoS is going, we'll probably see a rulebook for Psychic Powers before too long - but people are rushing to it's defence this time. There's a weird cognitive dissonance at play when hating on 7th (or 30k) and defending 8th.

 Arbitrator wrote:

Asmodios wrote:
Are people really that upset about bringing more than a single book? Firstly, if it bothers you that much just play a single codex army. Secondly, am I the only one that only brings the books a point of reference in case someone asks? after playing 2-3 games you should have basically learned the rules for your specific army. I almost never even have to pull out my codex at this point, especially when you can just reference something like battlescribe for a quick glance.

I think it's more than one of the reasons 7th gets so much hate is 'but I needed to bring all those books!'. 8th is shaping up to mandate even more books only a year in - and the way AoS is going, we'll probably see a rulebook for Psychic Powers before too long - but people are rushing to it's defence this time. There's a weird cognitive dissonance at play when hating on 7th (or 30k) and defending 8th.

It's less defending 8th and more of a reality check vs the extremes some people are claiming to be absolutely necessary to play a single game.

The theoretical maximum number of books with relevant rules to a chaos soup army is huge (5 codices, 1 index, 1 FW index, CA, BRB plus all the FAQs).

For codices you usually have one CSM/TS/DG force supported by daemons, or if full soup it's CSM plus daemons plus DG OR TS OR Renegade Knights.
Almost everyone has a smart phone these days, should you need a FAQ, there is no reason to not just look it up. Bonus points
The BRB is not needed after army list composition, and since almost every one uses software to build armies these days, you don't need it at all - unless you are using the narrative rules for your mission.
CA is usually needed to play missions from there, since they are vastly superior to the BRB missions. One CA per location suffices for this though, unless there is an event with more than two games starting at once.
FW index is not needed if you don't own FW models, which is the case for most players. Index is not needed if you are not fielding any units that have been dropped in the codex, which is also pretty rare. Discontinued war gear options are only needed during list building.

The reality is that people usually have 1-2 codices with them, the battle primer and maybe print-outs of a FAQ, usually only if there is a rule in that FAQ that is constantly disputed.
So the answer to "what do I need to play a game" is not "bring everything that could have a rule that could ever influence one of your games" but "print out the battle primer and bring your codex".

So, could the rules be arranged in a better way? Hell yes!
If I had anything to say about it, you could go to the WH40k community page/download their app and just search for FAQs by keyword. Type "nurgling" and get all FAQs relevant to nurglings. Type "Codex Tau" and get the whole codex Tau FAQ. Type "charge" and get everything related to the charge phase.
The unit rules would be available from a webpage, you could build your list there, and then download all datasheets in that list as a PDF with newest errata, of course. No more "look at he shooty weapons list" nonsense, your selected weapons are simply part of the datasheet and all other irrelevant options are not. Print or store on the device of your choice.
As a bonus feature, I would be able to collect data about how people are actually building lists and make design decisions based on that.

 Arbitrator wrote:

Asmodios wrote:
Are people really that upset about bringing more than a single book? Firstly, if it bothers you that much just play a single codex army. Secondly, am I the only one that only brings the books a point of reference in case someone asks? after playing 2-3 games you should have basically learned the rules for your specific army. I almost never even have to pull out my codex at this point, especially when you can just reference something like battlescribe for a quick glance.

I think it's more than one of the reasons 7th gets so much hate is 'but I needed to bring all those books!'. 8th is shaping up to mandate even more books only a year in - and the way AoS is going, we'll probably see a rulebook for Psychic Powers before too long - but people are rushing to it's defence this time. There's a weird cognitive dissonance at play when hating on 7th (or 30k) and defending 8th.

I didn't even play 7th so that has nothing to do with my comment. I currently play IG all I bring to a game is
1. chapter approved- just for missions
2. My codex (that only ever gets opened if my opponent asks a question)
3. My data card box
It's really not much stuff. Like I said after the first few games I know my unit stats and if I need a reference for some weird reason I just pull up my list on battlescribe. Say I wanted to run another army like knights I would just toss the knights codex in my bag. It doesn't seem like much stuff at all to me. I also don't see why its a complaint that you need another book if you run another army...... this seems like really obvious and the only way around it would be to have everything in 1 book with all armies and that book would be 10x larger then what i bring now and make it 10x harder to find what you need when you do crack it open. Not to mention you would be paying for the rules of every army even if you just wanted to play 1.