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.

Bharring wrote:
The "I guess" was an attempt to just kinda let that statement float and offer an end to this madness. Nothing about you has come across as toxic. I was just trying to minimize the criticism of Slayer in my statement.

It's fair, I guess I was just still keyed up from Slayer's attitude of "my way or feth off out of the hobby".

Bharring wrote:
I hope I wind up running into more players like Clockwork than Slayer, I guess.

We're probably both better off if we don't play eachother, because we're clearly playing different games.

I would appreciate if you'd stop calling me stupid, stop rejecting my reasons as "not reasons", and such.

I'd also suggest you check out StarCraft and DOTA. Those games seem to be much more in line with caring more about the crunch than putting models together and painting them. They also have "ladder" modes so you can avoid people you feel are beneath you.

Well at least star craft has really good custom games. DOTA is just a recreation of a warcraft3 minigame (really that minigame was the best of it's kind - better than LOL and DOTA2).

So no it's not more about the crunch in those games. They just can test things a lot easier. Simulations can really test 1000's of scenarios at a time in a computer game. Plus they constantly balance the game with micro tweeks too.

But they can't have a WINGFIGHT between the Swooping Hawks my wife painted, and some well-painted Scourge.

The value in that has no notable impact on the crunch, but is a sizeable part of the value I get from the game.

I think the following solves every problem in this thread:

1. Q: Are assault Marines good? A: No. See any Marine thread for more on why.
2. Q: But what if I want to play with them anyway? A: Go for it, but they aren't good.
3. Q: Can I play them as something else? A: VV or DC, probably.
4. Q: What if I don't want to do that? A: Then don't.

jcd386 wrote:
I think the following solves every problem in this thread:

1. Q: Are assault Marines good? A: No. See any Marine thread for more on why.
2. Q: But what if I want to play with them anyway? A: Go for it, but they aren't good.
3. Q: Can I play them as something else? A: VV or DC, probably.
4. Q: What if I don't want to do that? A: Then don't.

5. Q: How many Heretics could an Assault Marine kill if the assault marine was Sanguinius?

jcd386 wrote:
I think the following solves every problem in this thread:

1. Q: Are assault Marines good? A: No. See any Marine thread for more on why.
2. Q: But what if I want to play with them anyway? A: Go for it, but they aren't good.
3. Q: Can I play them as something else? A: VV or DC, probably.
4. Q: What if I don't want to do that? A: Then don't.

Yes, thank you. Very succinct.

Very well put.

 Crimson wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

If your list is gonna be that bad, might as well concede actually. I don't have time to waste playing bad lists.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

If you have the option to play the unit as another, more excellent unit, and decide that you cannot because "fluff!!!!!1!" and nothing else outside your own dumb standards that will detract from the game experience, it's gonna be a waste of time as you might do dumb stuff in game too because it sounds "fun". I want to face a dangerous army, not a mishmash hodgepodge of whatever you painted.

When people talk about 'toxic competitive attitude' this is what they mean.

I'm looking for a good game, not just a game. That's the primary difference between you and me.

What defines a "good" game?

I think the difference is in that definition. I think just about everyone on this board is looking for a "good" game, but our definitions of "good" vary a lot.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

If your list is gonna be that bad, might as well concede actually. I don't have time to waste playing bad lists.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

If you have the option to play the unit as another, more excellent unit, and decide that you cannot because "fluff!!!!!1!" and nothing else outside your own dumb standards that will detract from the game experience, it's gonna be a waste of time as you might do dumb stuff in game too because it sounds "fun". I want to face a dangerous army, not a mishmash hodgepodge of whatever you painted.

When people talk about 'toxic competitive attitude' this is what they mean.

I'm looking for a good game, not just a game. That's the primary difference between you and me.

"Good" is relative. Or are narrative campaign games built around an escalation league not "good" if they don't try and fall into being as hard as the LVO meta?

Bharring wrote:
I hope I wind up running into more players like Clockwork than Slayer, I guess.

We're probably both better off if we don't play eachother, because we're clearly playing different games.

I would appreciate if you'd stop calling me stupid, stop rejecting my reasons as "not reasons", and such.

I'd also suggest you check out StarCraft and DOTA. Those games seem to be much more in line with caring more about the crunch than putting models together and painting them. They also have "ladder" modes so you can avoid people you feel are beneath you.

I was actually hardcore about Starcraft enough that one of my old buddies was gonna hook me up with some players that apparently go from here to Korea, but life has a way of interfering with cool stuff.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
What defines a "good" game?

I think the difference is in that definition. I think just about everyone on this board is looking for a "good" game, but our definitions of "good" vary a lot.

I'm looking for a game where my opponent challenges me rather than doing silly stuff for the "lolz".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

If your list is gonna be that bad, might as well concede actually. I don't have time to waste playing bad lists.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

If you have the option to play the unit as another, more excellent unit, and decide that you cannot because "fluff!!!!!1!" and nothing else outside your own dumb standards that will detract from the game experience, it's gonna be a waste of time as you might do dumb stuff in game too because it sounds "fun". I want to face a dangerous army, not a mishmash hodgepodge of whatever you painted.

When people talk about 'toxic competitive attitude' this is what they mean.

I'm looking for a good game, not just a game. That's the primary difference between you and me.

"Good" is relative. Or are narrative campaign games built around an escalation league not "good" if they don't try and fall into being as hard as the LVO meta?

"Narrative" armies are absolutely bad, yes. They're boring and don't look cohesive on the tabletop.

"I'm looking for a game where my opponent challenges me rather than doing silly stuff for the "lolz". "
So your definition of a good game is a tactical challenge. My definition is more about how much fun is had by all, although a tactical challenge is positive. But then, I've found other games are much, much better *for me* to find tactical challenges in. Everyone is after different things.

I would suggest you not dismiss anything short of a tight and difficult tactical challenge as "silly stuff" or "for the lolz". First, because there's a lot more to it than that, so you're being dismissive and insulting for a false sense of superiority. Secondly because 40k is not a difficult tactical challenge in almost every case.

""Narrative" armies are absolutely bad, yes."
Gladius was plently narrative.
White Scars Gravspam was, too.
Current CWE lists seem somewhat fluffy.
IG providing tactical flexibility to elite Custodes seems fluffy.
Those armies seem to be fluffy and certainly not bad.

"They're boring ..."
Boring is relative. Knowing the end of a game before the first dice roll is boring to me. Playing against the same units and lists again and again is boring to me. Narrative tends to shake those things up.

"and don't look cohesive on the tabletop."
Why does a half-painted mass of plastic look more cohesive than a fully detailed demicompany? Does a Soup list really look more cohesive than a Necron Silver Tide? What makes the "good" armies - as you rank them - look more cohesive than the "narrative" armies you hate so much?

Bharring wrote:
What defines a "good" game?

I think the difference is in that definition. I think just about everyone on this board is looking for a "good" game, but our definitions of "good" vary a lot.

I've done a lot of thinking about this and it's very difficult to pin down.

Essentially, on a case by case basis - which is all the discussion ever is on Dakka Dakka - it's impossible, because there's always at least one contrarian. Like Insectum7 saying that we can't assume standardized terrain for the purposes of balance discussions. Maybe that's true, but it makes discussion impossible if we don't have a baseline.

In any case, contrarians aside, I would say a good game is one where both players have fun. In a general sense, people enjoy close games more than blowouts. Unpacking "close game," I would say that it's one wherein both players feel like they have the power to win the game, and it comes down to decisions and rolls.

A list heavily leaning on units like assault marines reduce the impact of decisions and rolls. You can put them in the perfect position and it probably won't matter. You can roll like fire with them and in the end it probably won't matter. So, they don't contribute to a good game.

Insert dakka-dakka contrarian stance here:

Slayer-Fan, you sound like the sort of person who thinks copying netlists is the height of skill. I'd like to think I have pretty good grasp of which units are good and which are bad, yet sometimes I still include 'bad' units because I liked the models or they fit the army thematically etc. This doesn't mean that once the game starts, I don't play to win. Of course I do. And if my army selection effectively resulted a self-inflicted handicap, so be it. It is more of a challenge then.

 Marmatag wrote:

Bharring wrote:
What defines a "good" game?

I think the difference is in that definition. I think just about everyone on this board is looking for a "good" game, but our definitions of "good" vary a lot.

I've done a lot of thinking about this and it's very difficult to pin down.

Essentially, on a case by case basis - which is all the discussion ever is on Dakka Dakka - it's impossible, because there's always at least one contrarian. Like Insectum7 saying that we can't assume standardized terrain for the purposes of balance discussions. Maybe that's true, but it makes discussion impossible if we don't have a baseline.

In any case, contrarians aside, I would say a good game is one where both players have fun. In a general sense, people enjoy close games more than blowouts. Unpacking "close game," I would say that it's one wherein both players feel like they have the power to win the game, and it comes down to decisions and rolls.

A list heavily leaning on units like assault marines reduce the impact of decisions and rolls. You can put them in the perfect position and it probably won't matter. You can roll like fire with them and in the end it probably won't matter. So, they don't contribute to a good game.

Insert dakka-dakka contrarian stance here:

Well since we need a Tzeentch's Advocate here:
The above is true unless both players are playing the same level of list. Which is true for all of 40k. If you both grab less than optimized choices in your lists the game can be just as close, though it could take longer since you may end up in less of a hard punch out and in more of a pillow fight for dominance.

And to play Khorne's Advocate here:
If you're fielding a bad list, and still winning over 50% of your games, wouldn't fielding a less bad list *reduce* the challenge?

Bharring wrote:
And to play Khorne's Advocate here:
If you're fielding a bad list, and still winning over 50% of your games, wouldn't fielding a less bad list *reduce* the challenge?

If you're fielding a good list and losing 100% of your games, wouldn't fielding a terrible list be essentially equivalent? We can do this nonsense all day.

Bharring wrote:
And to play Khorne's Advocate here:
If you're fielding a bad list, and still winning over 50% of your games, wouldn't fielding a less bad list *reduce* the challenge?

Yep. I really don't like completely one sided games, not even if it is me winning. The best games are those where the battle is hard-fought and every turn matters. I really don't want to win in the list building stage.

 Crimson wrote:

Bharring wrote:
And to play Khorne's Advocate here:
If you're fielding a bad list, and still winning over 50% of your games, wouldn't fielding a less bad list *reduce* the challenge?

Yep. I really don't like completely one sided games, not even if it is me winning. The best games are those where the battle is hard-fought and every turn matters. I really don't want to win in the list building stage.

Then just play 5 tac marines with no special weapons versus another squad of 5 tac marines with no special weapons.

There is more to it. Decisions need to matter.

But this is dakka, and it's impossible to have a discussion in a general sense as that requires a baseline set of assumptions.

I'm not sure how they're equivalent.

One is someone who's clearly at par for his meta, where changing up his list may make most games have no difficulty at all.

The other is someone who's not even challenging anyone in his meta already, and then makes it even easier for his opponent.

Discounting draws, the average W/L rate in an NvN game is 50/50. That's inescapeable. The further a subset deviates from 50%, the less likely the games involved are to be a challenge.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
A game with 50/50 odds doesn't need to be a bland mirror match.

It's possible to have an Aspect Host, Demi Company, Silver Tide, Speed Freaks, and more all in a meta, each with a very different army, yet still have each player be within a couple percent of eachother in W/L/D.

 Marmatag wrote:

Then just play 5 tac marines with no special weapons versus another squad of 5 tac marines with no special weapons.

Sounds kinda boring.

There is more to it. Decisions need to matter.

And once the game begins they will. But seriously, trying to build best possible list doesn't require skill; they're not even your decisions, you can just copy tournament winning lists from the net. Or even without doing so, experienced players just know which units are good and that dictates the optimal list for them.

In 6e, I had the choice of playing DAVU spam. Sure, I liked the models. But if I picked that choice, suddenly 95% of all my choices in-game either went away or didn't matter.

So perhaps there are, at times, tradeoffs between having choices that matter in list prep, and choices that matter in-game?

Bharring wrote:
What defines a "good" game?

I think the difference is in that definition. I think just about everyone on this board is looking for a "good" game, but our definitions of "good" vary a lot.

I think a good game goes something like this.

I put a dedicated assault unit into assault with a non dedicated assault unit - This should more or less create a beneficial situation for me. If it's assault marines though - it's doing the damage of a tactical squads shooting in melle. It's going to produce a few wounds - they will fall back and the ASM will be blasted off the table but chaff units. That is not a good game.

My point earlier (while giving the obligatory counter-point) was that any game can be a close one. If you know you're playing someone who doesn't play super hard lists, toning yours down doesn't hurt either of you and can let you dust off some units that used to be good but now suck while giving both of you a good game.

Bharring wrote:

At times, the rules did *not* explicitly say that. They do now. However, the game didn't break back when they *did* say that.

You might want to check your rule book - it's always been in the print version of the book.

Scott,
Previous editions.

 Crimson wrote:
Slayer-Fan, you sound like the sort of person who thinks copying netlists is the height of skill.

Oh look, the netlist argument! The height of laziness in arguments for games! People have done this crap with "netdeck" in Yugioh and Magic The Gathering. When the card is bad, it's really just a bad card. At minimum MTG has past format games, and you STILL have people in Yugioh that sometimes do "Goat Format", but otherwise your old cards are SOL unless you get new support.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Slayer-Fan, you sound like the sort of person who thinks copying netlists is the height of skill.

Oh look, the netlist argument! The height of laziness in arguments for games! People have done this crap with "netdeck" in Yugioh and Magic The Gathering. When the card is bad, it's really just a bad card. At minimum MTG has past format games, and you STILL have people in Yugioh that sometimes do "Goat Format", but otherwise your old cards are SOL unless you get new support.

Copying a net list often isn't an act of creative thinking or problem solving and too often it's done without understanding of the deeper mechanics behind why certain units are included in an army.

Sure, it gets you to Crunchtown the fastest, but it isn't always the best way for people to play certain armies due to particular habits or ways they approach the game.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Slayer-Fan, you sound like the sort of person who thinks copying netlists is the height of skill.

Oh look, the netlist argument! The height of laziness in arguments for games! People have done this crap with "netdeck" in Yugioh and Magic The Gathering. When the card is bad, it's really just a bad card. At minimum MTG has past format games, and you STILL have people in Yugioh that sometimes do "Goat Format", but otherwise your old cards are SOL unless you get new support.

I haven't the foggiest about this card game nonsense and I have never argued that Assault Marines are not a bad unit. You just completely missed my point, which is probably why you cut it from the quote. I know which units are bad, if I choose a bad unit, I do it intentionally.

 Marmatag wrote:

Essentially, on a case by case basis - which is all the discussion ever is on Dakka Dakka - it's impossible, because there's always at least one contrarian. Like Insectum7 saying that we can't assume standardized terrain for the purposes of balance discussions. Maybe that's true, but it makes discussion impossible if we don't have a baseline.

Is that observation really contrarian though? Tournament tables seem really different to the tables I often play on, and different than tables displayed in White Dwarf magazines. The density of terrain at tournaments is, I think, generally considered more sparse, and that will absolutely have an effect on unit performance.

Now if this thread was posted in the tournament subforum, or headed with a title that said "tournament" or the OP mentioned tournament play, then you'd have more of a claim. But it doesn't, and this is 40K General, which includes all sorts of players and metas.

Nor does this make discussion impossible, all it does is require a qualifier to statements made. "In context A, unit has more value than context B." instead of lazy statements like "Trash tier, unuseable." Which I'd argue are far worse for discussion than a simple acknowledgement of context dependency.