Switch Theme:

The White Dwarf Tournament Army List (40k Balance)  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Legendary Master of the Chapter





Chicago, Illinois


Honestly, I refuse to play against tournament lists, I remember someone tried to face my ultra fluffy list in a narrative game and i was very confused as to why they even wanted to play against me of all people.

I still think the game balance should be relevant in these discussions but you can always just say "Ah no thank you."

I will run a Levi dread but its only because I find the model cool and its one of the first big models I painted (even run it with volkite weaponry if my opponent allows which they usually do!). I'll use my wraith knight but only if someone brings in their own knight.

From whom are unforgiven we bring the mercy of war. 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Connecticut

I've already said I don't care how you play Warhammer.

I won't ever care how anyone chooses to play with their toys. That seems like an awfully large waste of time.

Sorry it makes you so upset.

Blood Angels, Custodes, Tzeentch, Alpha Legion, Astra Militarum, Deathwatch, Thousand Sons, Imperial Knights, Tau, Genestealer Cult.

I have a problem.

Being contrary for the sake of being contrary doesn't make you unique, it makes you annoying.

 Purifier wrote:
Using your rules isn't being a dick.
 
   
Made in us
Legendary Master of the Chapter





Chicago, Illinois

 Cephalobeard wrote:
I've already said I don't care how you play Warhammer.

I won't ever care how anyone chooses to play with their toys. That seems like an awfully large waste of time.

Sorry it makes you so upset.



Who you talking to?

From whom are unforgiven we bring the mercy of war. 
   
Made in de
Nihilistic Necron Lord






Germany

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

My baneblade army would crush that list. Fairly trivially, actually.


No. If you manage to get past deployment it would be a draw, because you would have hours of rules discussions. Everything you try, whatever combos you may have, is probably against the rules You are playing against the RAW god
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Connecticut

 Asherian Command wrote:
 Cephalobeard wrote:
I've already said I don't care how you play Warhammer.

I won't ever care how anyone chooses to play with their toys. That seems like an awfully large waste of time.

Sorry it makes you so upset.



Who you talking to?


Anyone who cares to tell people how to play, I suppose?

Not you directly, however, I was continuing my previous line of comments.

Blood Angels, Custodes, Tzeentch, Alpha Legion, Astra Militarum, Deathwatch, Thousand Sons, Imperial Knights, Tau, Genestealer Cult.

I have a problem.

Being contrary for the sake of being contrary doesn't make you unique, it makes you annoying.

 Purifier wrote:
Using your rules isn't being a dick.
 
   
Made in us
Stealthy Warhound Titan Princeps






 Asherian Command wrote:

Honestly, I refuse to play against tournament lists, I remember someone tried to face my ultra fluffy list in a narrative game and i was very confused as to why they even wanted to play against me of all people.

I still think the game balance should be relevant in these discussions but you can always just say "Ah no thank you."

I will run a Levi dread but its only because I find the model cool and its one of the first big models I painted (even run it with volkite weaponry if my opponent allows which they usually do!). I'll use my wraith knight but only if someone brings in their own knight.


What do you consider a "tournament list" though? Where do you draw the line? Do you ask people to see their list before you agree to play or not?

In my experience, you show up at the game store, ask people for games at the point value you want to play, and eventually you find an opponent and play. Do you actually ask for their list, then sit down and review it before you decide if you want to play or not?
   
Made in ca
Discriminating Deathmark Assassin





Stasis

It sounds like the GW team was surprised by the lists and playstyle.

I'd count that as a good thing.

213PL 60PL 12PL 9-17PL
(she/her) 
   
Made in us
Legendary Master of the Chapter





Chicago, Illinois

 Horst wrote:
 Asherian Command wrote:

Honestly, I refuse to play against tournament lists, I remember someone tried to face my ultra fluffy list in a narrative game and i was very confused as to why they even wanted to play against me of all people.

I still think the game balance should be relevant in these discussions but you can always just say "Ah no thank you."

I will run a Levi dread but its only because I find the model cool and its one of the first big models I painted (even run it with volkite weaponry if my opponent allows which they usually do!). I'll use my wraith knight but only if someone brings in their own knight.


What do you consider a "tournament list" though? Where do you draw the line? Do you ask people to see their list before you agree to play or not?

In my experience, you show up at the game store, ask people for games at the point value you want to play, and eventually you find an opponent and play. Do you actually ask for their list, then sit down and review it before you decide if you want to play or not?


No its easy to tell who is there to play a 'meta game'. Once i say "Narrative or Open play." The opponent who is ultra-competitive usually walks away. Matched play doesn't come into my conversations at all. I don't find them fun anymore which is a bummer for my marines.

People who are there to drink and have fun i'll play against, but the person who is the objectively because he wants to beat the crap out of my army and call themselves a winner, yeah i won't play against them. If they ask me to play in matched play, I will bring out a competitive list. I will say no to most tournament lists... especially ynnari players >.> I swear they are out for blood.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Blndmage wrote:
It sounds like the GW team was surprised by the lists and playstyle.

I'd count that as a good thing.


As do I, I am happy its a the forefront it is clearly a problem and not intended in its current form.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/01/02 21:20:47


From whom are unforgiven we bring the mercy of war. 
   
Made in us
Morphing Obliterator





 Blndmage wrote:
It sounds like the GW team was surprised by the lists and playstyle.

I'd count that as a good thing.


I'd count it as terrifying, it signifies one of two things. Either a) the design team is so utterly ignorant of the competitive state of the game that this was surprising to them as they're getting ready to release the last of their base game codices or b) the design team is so utterly disingenuous that they lie to your face in print to avoid being called out as biased or incompetent.

Either way, if they're claiming some level of surprise at the list construction or playstyle, it's a terrifying state of awareness for the design team to be in at this point.

"In relating the circumstances which have led to my confinement in this refuge for the demented, I am aware that my present position will create a natural doubt of the authenticity of my narrative."  
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Blndmage wrote:
It sounds like the GW team was surprised by the lists and playstyle.

I'd count that as a good thing.


On the one hand, I agree. On the other hand, the fact they didn't seem to know all this stuff already is kind of worrying given they're in charge of the rules of the game. I'm not saying they should be playing every game with winning tournament lists, but I'd expect them to have not just an awareness of them but a pretty good grasp on how they play and why they are so powerful. I don't play with or against these type of lists too often but I know enough about them to understand why they're powerful.
   
Made in us
Stealthy Warhound Titan Princeps






 Asherian Command wrote:


No its easy to tell who is there to play a 'meta game'. Once i say "Narrative or Open play." The opponent who is ultra-competitive usually walks away. Matched play doesn't come into my conversations at all. I don't find them fun anymore which is a bummer for my marines.

People who are there to drink and have fun i'll play against, but the person who is the objectively because he wants to beat the crap out of my army and call themselves a winner, yeah i won't play against them.



So do you not use point values then, because those are matched play only? Still curious where you draw the line though, between a tournament army and a friendly game army. Some armies can be fluffy and powerful, like a green tide ork army, or a massed infantry + artillery guard army, while some fluffy armies like tactical marines are woefully underpowered in comparison. Is it just codex soup, where you throw multiple armies together?

You say it's obvious who's there to play a meta game, but outside the castellan + IG + smashcaps and eldar soup lists, are there any armies you'd refuse to play against, even if they are built with fluff in mind, because their codex is inherently more powerful?
   
Made in ca
Discriminating Deathmark Assassin





Stasis

Slipspace wrote:
 Blndmage wrote:
It sounds like the GW team was surprised by the lists and playstyle.

I'd count that as a good thing.


On the one hand, I agree. On the other hand, the fact they didn't seem to know all this stuff already is kind of worrying given they're in charge of the rules of the game. I'm not saying they should be playing every game with winning tournament lists, but I'd expect them to have not just an awareness of them but a pretty good grasp on how they play and why they are so powerful. I don't play with or against these type of lists too often but I know enough about them to understand why they're powerful.


I totally agree.

I find the fact that they seemed surprised upsetting, but it should lead to better things.

213PL 60PL 12PL 9-17PL
(she/her) 
   
Made in us
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord






 Asherian Command wrote:


No its easy to tell who is there to play a 'meta game'. Once i say "Narrative or Open play." The opponent who is ultra-competitive usually walks away. Matched play doesn't come into my conversations at all. I don't find them fun anymore which is a bummer for my marines.

People who are there to drink and have fun i'll play against, but the person who is the objectively because he wants to beat the crap out of my army and call themselves a winner, yeah i won't play against them.


Damn straight. I don't get what is so hard to see about this. It's like the old adage that might still be on the address bar on these forums- "If you cannot identify the TFG in your local store, you are the TFG". Those that like to metagame are utterly a chore to play against. Every. Single. One. They've infected this game like a cancer and are doing more harm than good as others think it is acceptable to play the game in this odd way.

The game is like the one of the lowest priority things 40k has going for it. The minis, fluff and the spectacle are it's strongest points. Playing to one of 40k's weakest points is just strange and unfulfilling. These metagamers could get far more enjoyment out of a better structured game like WMH, but no, they continue to ram a square peg in the round hole that is 40k.


Games Workshop Delenda Est.

Users on ignore- 53.

If you break apart my or anyone else's posts line by line I will not read them. 
   
Made in us
Legendary Master of the Chapter





Chicago, Illinois

 Horst wrote:
 Asherian Command wrote:


No its easy to tell who is there to play a 'meta game'. Once i say "Narrative or Open play." The opponent who is ultra-competitive usually walks away. Matched play doesn't come into my conversations at all. I don't find them fun anymore which is a bummer for my marines.

People who are there to drink and have fun i'll play against, but the person who is the objectively because he wants to beat the crap out of my army and call themselves a winner, yeah i won't play against them.



So do you not use point values then, because those are matched play only? Still curious where you draw the line though, between a tournament army and a friendly game army. Some armies can be fluffy and powerful, like a green tide ork army, or a massed infantry + artillery guard army, while some fluffy armies like tactical marines are woefully underpowered in comparison. Is it just codex soup, where you throw multiple armies together?

You say it's obvious who's there to play a meta game, but outside the castellan + IG + smashcaps and eldar soup lists, are there any armies you'd refuse to play against, even if they are built with fluff in mind, because their codex is inherently more powerful?


Honestly I don't even play marines, except when someone directly asks me. I usually play my main army. (my uthwe exiles eldar).

There are some armies that are very powerful, and I know you can play with power levels, i usually don't, cause I am so used to playing with points costs.

I also love to experiment with the rules as a designer as i usually use warhammer 40k as a great example of style over balance.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/02 21:32:13


From whom are unforgiven we bring the mercy of war. 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 TwinPoleTheory wrote:
 Blndmage wrote:
It sounds like the GW team was surprised by the lists and playstyle.

I'd count that as a good thing.


I'd count it as terrifying, it signifies one of two things. Either a) the design team is so utterly ignorant of the competitive state of the game that this was surprising to them as they're getting ready to release the last of their base game codices or b) the design team is so utterly disingenuous that they lie to your face in print to avoid being called out as biased or incompetent.

Either way, if they're claiming some level of surprise at the list construction or playstyle, it's a terrifying state of awareness for the design team to be in at this point.


Pretty much as long as I could remember the GW design team has been very upfront that they don't really play the game in a competitive manner and Are often surprised by what the player base come up with.

I remember back when Lash of Slannesh was a thing people asked the design team why would GW put something that would let people put your opponents models in a perfect circle and then drop a pie plate on them, the answer was we didn't think people would do that, let alone take two princess who could do that. They just don't think like that.
   
Made in us
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord






 Horst wrote:
 Asherian Command wrote:


No its easy to tell who is there to play a 'meta game'. Once i say "Narrative or Open play." The opponent who is ultra-competitive usually walks away. Matched play doesn't come into my conversations at all. I don't find them fun anymore which is a bummer for my marines.

People who are there to drink and have fun i'll play against, but the person who is the objectively because he wants to beat the crap out of my army and call themselves a winner, yeah i won't play against them.



So do you not use point values then, because those are matched play only? Still curious where you draw the line though, between a tournament army and a friendly game army. Some armies can be fluffy and powerful, like a green tide ork army, or a massed infantry + artillery guard army, while some fluffy armies like tactical marines are woefully underpowered in comparison. Is it just codex soup, where you throw multiple armies together?

You say it's obvious who's there to play a meta game, but outside the castellan + IG + smashcaps and eldar soup lists, are there any armies you'd refuse to play against, even if they are built with fluff in mind, because their codex is inherently more powerful?


It's not about power. I'll happily play a powerful list that is coherent and not a hodgepodge of units that is less an army and more the top units just skimmed from every codex available.

The former you know you'll get an enjoyable game even in loss as you're more or less on the same wavelength as your opponent. The latter is an utter chore and not something I'd like to waste a couple of hours of my life on just for the ego boost of some individual.


Games Workshop Delenda Est.

Users on ignore- 53.

If you break apart my or anyone else's posts line by line I will not read them. 
   
Made in us
Legendary Master of the Chapter





Chicago, Illinois

 Grimtuff wrote:
 Horst wrote:
 Asherian Command wrote:


No its easy to tell who is there to play a 'meta game'. Once i say "Narrative or Open play." The opponent who is ultra-competitive usually walks away. Matched play doesn't come into my conversations at all. I don't find them fun anymore which is a bummer for my marines.

People who are there to drink and have fun i'll play against, but the person who is the objectively because he wants to beat the crap out of my army and call themselves a winner, yeah i won't play against them.



So do you not use point values then, because those are matched play only? Still curious where you draw the line though, between a tournament army and a friendly game army. Some armies can be fluffy and powerful, like a green tide ork army, or a massed infantry + artillery guard army, while some fluffy armies like tactical marines are woefully underpowered in comparison. Is it just codex soup, where you throw multiple armies together?

You say it's obvious who's there to play a meta game, but outside the castellan + IG + smashcaps and eldar soup lists, are there any armies you'd refuse to play against, even if they are built with fluff in mind, because their codex is inherently more powerful?


It's not about power. I'll happily play a powerful list that is coherent and not a hodgepodge of units that is less an army and more the top units just skimmed from every codex available.

The former you know you'll get an enjoyable game even in loss as you're more or less on the same wavelength as your opponent. The latter is an utter chore and not something I'd like to waste a couple of hours of my life on just for the ego boost of some individual.


Its also easy to tell a ynnari list because of what they bring to the table.

If a tyranid player brings out a ravenor and old one eye. Then I know they are trying to have fun.

If I see a marine player with three squads of hellblasters and azrael, loyal 32, and six single characters then I know what list he is running. I ain't stupid.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/02 21:41:28


From whom are unforgiven we bring the mercy of war. 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Connecticut

Lmao

Blood Angels, Custodes, Tzeentch, Alpha Legion, Astra Militarum, Deathwatch, Thousand Sons, Imperial Knights, Tau, Genestealer Cult.

I have a problem.

Being contrary for the sake of being contrary doesn't make you unique, it makes you annoying.

 Purifier wrote:
Using your rules isn't being a dick.
 
   
Made in ca
Discriminating Deathmark Assassin





Stasis

Personally I'm finding PL far more enjoyable in comparison to points.

Points makes me want to break out math and squeeze out what efficiency I can from my inefficient collection.

PL makes me want to make lists and play.

213PL 60PL 12PL 9-17PL
(she/her) 
   
Made in gb
Furious Fire Dragon




UK

 Grimtuff wrote:
 Horst wrote:
 Asherian Command wrote:


No its easy to tell who is there to play a 'meta game'. Once i say "Narrative or Open play." The opponent who is ultra-competitive usually walks away. Matched play doesn't come into my conversations at all. I don't find them fun anymore which is a bummer for my marines.

People who are there to drink and have fun i'll play against, but the person who is the objectively because he wants to beat the crap out of my army and call themselves a winner, yeah i won't play against them.



So do you not use point values then, because those are matched play only? Still curious where you draw the line though, between a tournament army and a friendly game army. Some armies can be fluffy and powerful, like a green tide ork army, or a massed infantry + artillery guard army, while some fluffy armies like tactical marines are woefully underpowered in comparison. Is it just codex soup, where you throw multiple armies together?

You say it's obvious who's there to play a meta game, but outside the castellan + IG + smashcaps and eldar soup lists, are there any armies you'd refuse to play against, even if they are built with fluff in mind, because their codex is inherently more powerful?


It's not about power. I'll happily play a powerful list that is coherent and not a hodgepodge of units that is less an army and more the top units just skimmed from every codex available.

The former you know you'll get an enjoyable game even in loss as you're more or less on the same wavelength as your opponent. The latter is an utter chore and not something I'd like to waste a couple of hours of my life on just for the ego boost of some individual.


Some of my most enjoyable games in 8th have been versus highly competitive soup lists.

How do you explain this? I thought it was meant to be un-fun. How did you calculate the fun value?

Nazi punks feth off 
   
Made in us
Morphing Obliterator





HoundsofDemos wrote:
Pretty much as long as I could remember the GW design team has been very upfront that they don't really play the game in a competitive manner and Are often surprised by what the player base come up with.

I remember back when Lash of Slannesh was a thing people asked the design team why would GW put something that would let people put your opponents models in a perfect circle and then drop a pie plate on them, the answer was we didn't think people would do that, let alone take two princess who could do that. They just don't think like that.


Yes, and still, one has to ask, how many fething times does the design team need to learn this lesson before we call them idiots? It's been 18 months, really, as you pointed out, this has been going on for 20+ years. There are truckloads of data out there, there are numerous venues online to find this information that don't involve them having to interact with their playerbase at all (which seems to be the real goal).

It is lazy. It is insulting. They should be called out for it at every opportunity until they fix it or admit that balance is simply of no concern to them. Then we can stop having 30 page discussions about the lack of competitive balance in the game.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/02 21:44:05


"In relating the circumstances which have led to my confinement in this refuge for the demented, I am aware that my present position will create a natural doubt of the authenticity of my narrative."  
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Connecticut

The very notion that someone who shows up with:

Space marines
Hellblasters
Azrael
DARK ANGELS
Assorted characters

Is a powergamer, in any sense of understanding, is astounding.

All of those things are very, very bad power wise. They're not used, period, in competitive play.

That's probably a very new Primaris player you're choosing to turn into a bad person because, and I'll put this bluntly based on your series of comments, you're bad at the game.

Incredible.


Blood Angels, Custodes, Tzeentch, Alpha Legion, Astra Militarum, Deathwatch, Thousand Sons, Imperial Knights, Tau, Genestealer Cult.

I have a problem.

Being contrary for the sake of being contrary doesn't make you unique, it makes you annoying.

 Purifier wrote:
Using your rules isn't being a dick.
 
   
Made in us
Damsel of the Lady




 Grimtuff wrote:
 Asherian Command wrote:


No its easy to tell who is there to play a 'meta game'. Once i say "Narrative or Open play." The opponent who is ultra-competitive usually walks away. Matched play doesn't come into my conversations at all. I don't find them fun anymore which is a bummer for my marines.

People who are there to drink and have fun i'll play against, but the person who is the objectively because he wants to beat the crap out of my army and call themselves a winner, yeah i won't play against them.


Damn straight. I don't get what is so hard to see about this. It's like the old adage that might still be on the address bar on these forums- "If you cannot identify the TFG in your local store, you are the TFG". Those that like to metagame are utterly a chore to play against. Every. Single. One. They've infected this game like a cancer and are doing more harm than good as others think it is acceptable to play the game in this odd way.

The game is like the one of the lowest priority things 40k has going for it. The minis, fluff and the spectacle are it's strongest points. Playing to one of 40k's weakest points is just strange and unfulfilling. These metagamers could get far more enjoyment out of a better structured game like WMH, but no, they continue to ram a square peg in the round hole that is 40k.


And people like to complain that competitive posters on this forum are hostile.

I think you're also mistaking your personal preferences for an objective reality.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/02 21:50:35


 
   
Made in us
Stealthy Warhound Titan Princeps






 Blndmage wrote:
Personally I'm finding PL far more enjoyable in comparison to points.

Points makes me want to break out math and squeeze out what efficiency I can from my inefficient collection.

PL makes me want to make lists and play.


Problem is PL makes me want to just take nothing but the "best" options with no regard for cost... Why would anyone take a leman russ without sponsons when playing PL games? Or why would anyone take a baneblade without 4 sponsons? Instead of worrying about efficiency, you'd just end up taking the strongest option without bothering to make sacrifices for it elsewhere.
   
Made in ca
Discriminating Deathmark Assassin





Stasis

 Horst wrote:
 Blndmage wrote:
Personally I'm finding PL far more enjoyable in comparison to points.

Points makes me want to break out math and squeeze out what efficiency I can from my inefficient collection.

PL makes me want to make lists and play.


Problem is PL makes me want to just take nothing but the "best" options with no regard for cost... Why would anyone take a leman russ without sponsons when playing PL games? Or why would anyone take a baneblade without 4 sponsons? Instead of worrying about efficiency, you'd just end up taking the strongest option without bothering to make sacrifices for it elsewhere.


Mostly because I play the models I have. I try not to proxy unless I'm sure I'll be able to buy what I'm proxying.
The only time I'm 100% behind ignoring that is with my Counts As forces, but they quickly develop their own stock configurations, leading back to my issue above.

Also, I play Necrons. We have very little customization.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/02 21:48:29


213PL 60PL 12PL 9-17PL
(she/her) 
   
Made in us
Stealthy Warhound Titan Princeps






 Cephalobeard wrote:
The very notion that someone who shows up with:

Space marines
Hellblasters
Azrael
DARK ANGELS
Assorted characters

Is a powergamer, in any sense of understanding, is astounding.

All of those things are very, very bad power wise. They're not used, period, in competitive play.

That's probably a very new Primaris player you're choosing to turn into a bad person because, and I'll put this bluntly based on your series of comments, you're bad at the game.

Incredible.



I played a guy this weekend with an army kind of like that. He had 3 inquisitors, a bunch of primaris marines, and some scions, a leman russ, and a hellhound from the Guard. A soup army... but a very bad one. I brought what I consider a reasonably fluffy guard list that still has competitive teeth, 80 infantry, some tank commanders, a Shadowsword, and some other stuff. By turn 3 he was almost tabled, (a few stragglers left from the remnants of squads) and I'd lost maybe 50 guardsmen... nothing significant.

Real nice guy though, had a fun game, just a case where soup does not always mean "competitive".
   
Made in us
Legendary Master of the Chapter





Chicago, Illinois

Some of my most enjoyable games in 8th have been versus highly competitive soup lists.


I don't dispute that YOU have fun with that.

But, I don't.

oblem is PL makes me want to just take nothing but the "best" options with no regard for cost..


Most don't open and narrative play really isn't for 'competitive players'. You could always have that one asshat who goes in and slaughters a bunch of newbies and lore fanatics, but they are pretty rare. But I do agree, points do mitigate that problem.

That's probably a very new Primaris player you're choosing to turn into a bad person because, and I'll put this bluntly based on your series of comments, you're bad at the game.


Honestly. I just said "I know what list they are playing, I am not stupid." The list is horrible, I know what they are trying to do, but that was relevant a year ago, now its utter gak. Back when azrael's bubble was for everyone it was quite good now due to an FAQ it isn't.

Calling someone bad without ever having played against them or seen them play is a bit, judgemental mate.

From whom are unforgiven we bring the mercy of war. 
   
Made in us
Stealthy Warhound Titan Princeps






 Blndmage wrote:


Problem is PL makes me want to just take nothing but the "best" options with no regard for cost... Why would anyone take a leman russ without sponsons when playing PL games? Or why would anyone take a baneblade without 4 sponsons? Instead of worrying about efficiency, you'd just end up taking the strongest option without bothering to make sacrifices for it elsewhere.


Mostly because I play the models I have. I try not to proxy unless I'm sure I'll be able to buy what I'm proxying.
The only time I'm 100% behind ignoring that is with my Counts As forces, but they quickly develop their own stock configurations, leading back to my issue above.

Also, I play Necrons. We have very little customization.


Yea, Necrons don't really have this issue. I play guard though, and a 100 PL army can vary wildly in strength depending on wargear and vehicle loadouts... I see using PL as being far more imbalanced than using points because of that. I don't magnetize my forces, so I can't swap things out, but I really enjoy the "puzzle" of messing around in Army Builder or Battlescribe to try to fit all my units I want into a list... I've ended up with some interesting loadouts for a few models for that reason alone, things I'd never have built if I was using PL as a primary method of building lists.
   
Made in us
Legendary Master of the Chapter





Chicago, Illinois

 Horst wrote:
 Blndmage wrote:


Problem is PL makes me want to just take nothing but the "best" options with no regard for cost... Why would anyone take a leman russ without sponsons when playing PL games? Or why would anyone take a baneblade without 4 sponsons? Instead of worrying about efficiency, you'd just end up taking the strongest option without bothering to make sacrifices for it elsewhere.


Mostly because I play the models I have. I try not to proxy unless I'm sure I'll be able to buy what I'm proxying.
The only time I'm 100% behind ignoring that is with my Counts As forces, but they quickly develop their own stock configurations, leading back to my issue above.

Also, I play Necrons. We have very little customization.


Yea, Necrons don't really have this issue. I play guard though, and a 100 PL army can vary wildly in strength depending on wargear and vehicle loadouts... I see using PL as being far more imbalanced than using points because of that. I don't magnetize my forces, so I can't swap things out, but I really enjoy the "puzzle" of messing around in Army Builder or Battlescribe to try to fit all my units I want into a list... I've ended up with some interesting loadouts for a few models for that reason alone, things I'd never have built if I was using PL as a primary method of building lists.


Which is probably what they are trying to fix right now. Limiting the options marines can take and all that it sacrifices is customization which kind of sucks but is expected after Chapterhouse.

From whom are unforgiven we bring the mercy of war. 
   
Made in us
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord






 Asherian Command wrote:


That's probably a very new Primaris player you're choosing to turn into a bad person because, and I'll put this bluntly based on your series of comments, you're bad at the game.


Honestly. I just said "I know what list they are playing, I am not stupid." The list is horrible, I know what they are trying to do, but that was relevant a year ago, now its utter gak. Back when azrael's bubble was for everyone it was quite good now due to an FAQ it isn't.

Calling someone bad without ever having played against them or seen them play is a bit, judgemental mate.


Nah, just let them have the ego stroke. They truly have mastered 40k and if you don't take these handful of units your are a bad player.

Because being a bad player is supposed to be a dent to my sense of pride or something...

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/02 21:55:12



Games Workshop Delenda Est.

Users on ignore- 53.

If you break apart my or anyone else's posts line by line I will not read them. 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: