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 ca
Discriminating Deathmark Assassin





Stasis

 Horst wrote:
 Blndmage wrote:
 Horst 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.


Also, the rules for Matched Play are far more restrictive than Narritive Play.
It's nice to run super thematic games with no summoning/psyker power cap, or to use the Sentry rules, or Preliminary Bombardment, etc.
There's a ton of cool stuff in the game outside of Matched Play and Points.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2019/01/02 22:28:46


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






 Asherian Command wrote:
 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.


I don't think they're doing that though...

The Ork codex is the newest one, and there are all kinds of customization options in there. The newest Guard codex came out after the SM codex, and it has tons of options. I have no idea why Space Marines lost so much customization honestly, it's a bit perplexing.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Connecticut

 Grimtuff wrote:
 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...


Perfection.

So, since these were very much to be expected as replies, I present the counterpoint:

Judgemental? As judgemental as, perhaps, denying an opponent with a low power list a game because you (incorrectly) judge that person to be powergaming? As judgemental as anticipating everyone who marks themselves as someone you should not, EVER play against when they don't want to play "open or narrative"?

[Edit: You are not obligated to play anyone for any reason. However, when you are wilfully providing a reason and using that to belittle others, you are the TFG in this scenario]

Now, in regards to the ego comment:

Being bad at the game doesn't make you a bad person. It doesn't mean you can or should enjoy anything less or more. However, being bad at the fundamentals of playing the game does impact your judgement of the state of the game and the types of lists your seeing.

[Edit: Yes. Thinking marines, in any form, especially "dark angels hellblasters" are OP or powergaming demonstrates you are, more than likely, not good at the game. If you're not concerned with winning, don't be concerned with being good, either.]

In all of my comments there is a very common trend: don't tell people how to play. You'll find I don't care how people play with their dolls. I'm, actively, not passing any judgement on my opponents or impacting how they should play. I am, however, calling out a series of online posts attempting to mock and belittle others when they demonstrate they have no idea what they're talking about, and exist only to pander to their own egos by insinuating if you're not playing the game their way, you're making the game worse.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/02 22:14:31


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

 Horst wrote:
 Asherian Command wrote:
 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.


I don't think they're doing that though...

The Ork codex is the newest one, and there are all kinds of customization options in there. The newest Guard codex came out after the SM codex, and it has tons of options. I have no idea why Space Marines lost so much customization honestly, it's a bit perplexing.


I mean eldar lost some units and customization as well, it was really dumb. My autarch with warp jump generator and howling banshee helmet just disappeared from the face of the planet. A very simple conversion completely gone. My apothecary on a bike gone, along with his storm bolter. Can't do anything with him now.

I've been arguing since 6th that we should crunch the data entries for space marines. Now its an unbearable mess. Lots of units to choose from but whether they are good or not is entirely up for debate. Except Vindicators

From whom are unforgiven we bring the mercy of war. 
   
Made in pl
Fixture of Dakka




In all of my comments there is a very common trend: don't tell people how to play. You'll find I don't care how people play with their dolls. I'm, actively, not passing any judgement on my opponents or impacting how they should play. I am, however, calling out a series of online posts attempting to mock and belittle others when they demonstrate they have no idea what they're talking about, and exist only to pander to their own egos by insinuating if you're not playing the game their way, you're making the game worse.

But doesn't that end with people spending money on bad models or maybe even bad factions, and having no fun at all. If people or better yet GW warned people about those factions it would be much better, people wouldn't be losing money on bad stuff.

If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Connecticut

Karol wrote:
In all of my comments there is a very common trend: don't tell people how to play. You'll find I don't care how people play with their dolls. I'm, actively, not passing any judgement on my opponents or impacting how they should play. I am, however, calling out a series of online posts attempting to mock and belittle others when they demonstrate they have no idea what they're talking about, and exist only to pander to their own egos by insinuating if you're not playing the game their way, you're making the game worse.

But doesn't that end with people spending money on bad models or maybe even bad factions, and having no fun at all. If people or better yet GW warned people about those factions it would be much better, people wouldn't be losing money on bad stuff.


That's an unfortunate side effect of just the game in general, no?

I have 30-40ish Screamers, 9 Heralds, and 12 Exalted Flamers as well as an assorted number of other Daemons I used for my lists in 7th and summoning, but now through the virtue of the edition change and rule of 3 those are all mostly useless now.

Things change over time. Grey Knights are a perfect example.

If someone from 5th-6th started playing again in 8th, and people refused to play against a GK player because they thought they were still 'OP', would this be good for any party involved?

It's bad for the GK player, because he loses a game because someone improperly perceives something.
It's bad for the return player because they now take to their local store, message board, etc and spew uneducated opinions.
It's bad for GW because it seems like it's their fault that things are "too strong" when they aren't.

If I started commenting about painting, and told everyone you ABSOLUTELY need to use minotrum varnish from a can on a humid day, or that you should always paint with two thick coats because it's "just better" and "gw sells them in the pot that way", these would be objectively incorrect opinions and I would hope to be corrected, so I could improve.


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 gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




The above post highlights the major problem with the right way to play 40k is only for fluff crowds argument.

How do you help a grey knights player have fun when their army is so poorly writen that they're doing well to not get tabled turn 2.
How is that supposed to be fun?

Or are they playing the game as wrongly as people who enjoy the more competitive style of play and we sgould just both learn to have fun the "correct" way.
   
Made in us
Legendary Master of the Chapter





Chicago, Illinois

Ice_can wrote:
The above post highlights the major problem with the right way to play 40k is only for fluff crowds argument.

How do you help a grey knights player have fun when their army is so poorly writen that they're doing well to not get tabled turn 2.
How is that supposed to be fun?

Or are they playing the game as wrongly as people who enjoy the more competitive style of play and we sgould just both learn to have fun the "correct" way.


What correct way? There is obviously a game balance issue, mechanics being used the way that the designers had no intention of working that way.

It's bad for the GK player, because he loses a game because someone improperly perceives something.
It's bad for the return player because they now take to their local store, message board, etc and spew uneducated opinions.
It's bad for GW because it seems like it's their fault that things are "too strong" when they aren't.

If I started commenting about painting, and told everyone you ABSOLUTELY need to use minotrum varnish from a can on a humid day, or that you should always paint with two thick coats because it's "just better" and "gw sells them in the pot that way", these would be objectively incorrect opinions and I would hope to be corrected, so I could improve.


I don't agree with that idea that there is one correct way to play, but there should be limits as to how people play, currently its just apocalypse mode thrown in and CP generation damaging the entire internal balance of the game.

Just deciding not to play ultra competitive people is a choice, my choice, its not like i'm saying you can't. But I know my opponents its easy to tell, and saying it is unpredictable isn't. You know when someone is "THAT GUY" relatively easily, accusing me of not wanting to face a "THAT GUY" is making me a "THAT GUY" makes no sense. If i play against others all the time, just like everyone I have qualifiers of opponents I will play or not play against. I will not face someone who only fields knights or power games. Just like how I wouldn't allow a Metagamer into a D&D game that would ruin the fun of everyone involved. There are limits to what we should allow even in social spaces, if you don't like well thats your opinion. As it is my opinion that it shouldn't be allowed. I will actively take apart of not facing opponents that abuse systems.

I gave 1 example that I even admitted "wasn't currently played." But back when it was it was competitive at one time. Saying "I'm uneducated" is insulting sorry but your very 'i don't tell people how to play' is a load of BS. When you tell someone they don't know how to play based on 0 pertaining information.

If someone from 5th-6th started playing again in 8th, and people refused to play against a GK player because they thought they were still 'OP', would this be good for any party involved?


Again it really matters what they are facing and the army, some random person isn't going to randomly pick the best units in the codex and only use them. Previous editions had the freedom and forcing armies to always have troop choices and a max amount of units per a slot. With this freeform version of 40k the sky is the limit, but in itself that is limiting the design space of each and every single army that is avaiable for players as that means that it decreases options for players to actively choose. As wide as an ocean but only puddle deep. Once you give an option for any unit, from any army being able to fill out a force organization chart it decreases design space as efficiency begins to take root in players. There may not be 'one way to play' but the culture that has developed has created that paradigm.

Players will actively seek out the best options for their armies. If you give them very little restricitons they will abuse that system.

This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2019/01/02 22:50:01


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





Connecticut

The most frustrating part is GW clearly does, and there is no refuting this, intend for there to be Competitive play.

We have narrative, open, matched play and GW event hosts their own Grand tournaments at their own locations.

There is no right or wrong.

There is no "good" or "best" way to play, they just want you to enjoy their products and spend money on them.

Don't impose on anyone else's personal liberty.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
You edited your response so I won't directly quote your post, because I'll be very clear.

I'm saying you are likely not good at playing based on all of the information you have willingly provided to us here. I'm still not telling you how to play. I dont care with whom or how you play. However, if you start saying things that are flatly wrong (DA Hellblasters were never good, sorry.) I will be happy to correct it.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/01/02 22:48:33


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 nl
Longtime Dakkanaut





I agree it a little disconcerting that they would be surprised by that Imperial list.
They are supposedly looking at tournament data to influence their balance decisions (see the first faq/point adjustment being pushed back to get data from a tournament close to the date) and this sort of list has been common since the Knight codex released.
   
Made in us
Legendary Master of the Chapter





Chicago, Illinois

 Ordana wrote:
I agree it a little disconcerting that they would be surprised by that Imperial list.
They are supposedly looking at tournament data to influence their balance decisions (see the first faq/point adjustment being pushed back to get data from a tournament close to the date) and this sort of list has been common since the Knight codex released.


Hence why I said :

Once you give an option for any unit, from any army being able to fill out a force organization chart it decreases design space as efficiency begins to take root in players. There may not be 'one way to play' but the culture that has developed has created that paradigm.

Players will actively seek out the best options for their armies. If you give them very little restrictions they will abuse that system.

From whom are unforgiven we bring the mercy of war. 
   
Made in gb
Plummeting Black Templar Thunderhawk Pilot






Sorry missed a lot of this.

For those asking, it was Mostly the White Dwarf editors that were with us throughout the report, and they were the ones who didn't see a lot of our plans coming until we made those moves.

What I can tell you with 100% certainty, is that the game designers are constantly looking at the game (including engaging gamers) to balance things out. Also as well, this battle report was contested in August - pre FAQ, so you can perhaps read between the lines there.

I'd also like to ask the folks hating on the imperium list from a conceptual point of view to maybe look again at this. If we were asked to bring "fluffier" lists, we definitely would have. It's not for me to tell you all how to enjoy your hobby, but see this article for what it was - a foray into a competitive environment, nothing more.

Please check out my video battle report series! 50 games in 50 weeks!

Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLF20FCCD695F810C2&feature=edit_ok
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL36388662C07B319B&feature=view_all
Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLrPdNlJMge2eUv55aJag2cMj4znP8YfOT&feature=view_all
Part 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxrTKHXULnQ&list=PLrPdNlJMge2cN6_lo1RbXvbvFZbto5wXB

=====Begin Dakka Geek Code=====
DQ: 80+S+++G+++MB+I+Pw40k98#+D+++A++++/cWD-R+++T(G)DM+
======End Dakka Geek Code======
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Connecticut

 liam0404 wrote:
Sorry missed a lot of this.

For those asking, it was Mostly the White Dwarf editors that were with us throughout the report, and they were the ones who didn't see a lot of our plans coming until we made those moves.

What I can tell you with 100% certainty, is that the game designers are constantly looking at the game (including engaging gamers) to balance things out. Also as well, this battle report was contested in August - pre FAQ, so you can perhaps read between the lines there.

I'd also like to ask the folks hating on the imperium list from a conceptual point of view to maybe look again at this. If we were asked to bring "fluffier" lists, we definitely would have. It's not for me to tell you all how to enjoy your hobby, but see this article for what it was - a foray into a competitive environment, nothing more.


You did a great job.

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

 liam0404 wrote:
Sorry missed a lot of this.

For those asking, it was Mostly the White Dwarf editors that were with us throughout the report, and they were the ones who didn't see a lot of our plans coming until we made those moves.

What I can tell you with 100% certainty, is that the game designers are constantly looking at the game (including engaging gamers) to balance things out. Also as well, this battle report was contested in August - pre FAQ, so you can perhaps read between the lines there.

I'd also like to ask the folks hating on the imperium list from a conceptual point of view to maybe look again at this. If we were asked to bring "fluffier" lists, we definitely would have. It's not for me to tell you all how to enjoy your hobby, but see this article for what it was - a foray into a competitive environment, nothing more.


I think it is more people are angry that Super heavy lists are more common than they should be from a certain point of view.

Back in 5th and 4th you rarely saw anything bigger than a monolith now its knights knights, knights, and what counters knights?! Knights. That paradigm shift i think is what most of the focused hatred is upon. I too don't like seeing knights, but thats because i think they look horrible on the tabletop (opinion).

Giving players so many options might be detrimental to the game, you did great, but again some people might not like seeing super heavies as common as they are at tournaments.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/02 23:12:26


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





 liam0404 wrote:
Sorry missed a lot of this.

For those asking, it was Mostly the White Dwarf editors that were with us throughout the report, and they were the ones who didn't see a lot of our plans coming until we made those moves.

What I can tell you with 100% certainty, is that the game designers are constantly looking at the game (including engaging gamers) to balance things out. Also as well, this battle report was contested in August - pre FAQ, so you can perhaps read between the lines there.

I'd also like to ask the folks hating on the imperium list from a conceptual point of view to maybe look again at this. If we were asked to bring "fluffier" lists, we definitely would have. It's not for me to tell you all how to enjoy your hobby, but see this article for what it was - a foray into a competitive environment, nothing more.
Derp, yeah should have realized this game would have been played well in advance when the Knight meta was just developing.

Thanks for your comments
   
Made in gb
Plummeting Black Templar Thunderhawk Pilot






 Cephalobeard wrote:


You did a great job.


Thanks very much, I'm glad you enjoyed it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Thanks everyone as well for your feedback.

Also let me state as well - as far as the bar for filth goes, I'd maintain that this is the tip of the iceberg. My list was so far from optimal, it just falls into a style of army I love to play.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/02 23:13:31


Please check out my video battle report series! 50 games in 50 weeks!

Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLF20FCCD695F810C2&feature=edit_ok
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL36388662C07B319B&feature=view_all
Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLrPdNlJMge2eUv55aJag2cMj4znP8YfOT&feature=view_all
Part 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxrTKHXULnQ&list=PLrPdNlJMge2cN6_lo1RbXvbvFZbto5wXB

=====Begin Dakka Geek Code=====
DQ: 80+S+++G+++MB+I+Pw40k98#+D+++A++++/cWD-R+++T(G)DM+
======End Dakka Geek Code======
 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




Ruin wrote:
 Cephalobeard wrote:
I make lists like those and maximize efficiency.

I can absolutely guarantee each and every one of my opponents has a great time, because I am as much their opponent as my list is.

I was one of the top Daemon players in the entire ITC last year. Doubt I'd classify myself as a "miserable witch".

What a poor attitude you present, and I'm sorry you don't agree with how other people choose to have fun. I promise myself and those I know could not care at all about any of your lists or games. Glad you're playing.


Nope. IME every player I've played like that is a chore to play. Or are my experiences from 2 decades in this hobby invalid?

Take your terrible, awful warped lists and go elsewhere. Plonking 32 IG, some memetastic "smash captains" and other such bric-a-brac on the field is not a coherent, good looking list and gaks all over everything that is good about 40k. 40k is all about the visuals. It is not by any means a good game, at the very least I can say putting that stuff down is a warning sign from afar I'm not going to have a good game so I know in advance when to go get my ice cream.

Competitive lists are actually more coherent and and good looking than the terrible one-of-everything lists, and if you ever looked at the tournament threads you'll see fantastically converted and painted armies.

So yeah the visuals are there. Those people are simply having more fun than you are by staying inside your little bubble.

CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
Made in pl
Fixture of Dakka




 liam0404 wrote:

What I can tell you with 100% certainty, is that the game designers are constantly looking at the game (including engaging gamers) to balance things out. Also as well, this battle report was contested in August - pre FAQ, so you can perhaps read between the lines there.

.


Wouldn't they struggle to get any info about armies that are not being much ? I mean it is not ultra hard to gather data on how well a castellan or farseer influences an army, or how armies with or without those units work in different scenarios. On the other hand an army that is just not played may doesn't deliver any useful stuff. Am sure GW can imagine, based on sales and how often the army is played at events, how bad something is, but fixing or changing stuff can't really be done without an extensive in house testing. But then again they technicaly do that when they write the codex.

Those people are simply having more fun than you are by staying inside your little bubble.

Ok, but how does knowing someone will always have more fun then you help the person with the bad army. Or how is it going to make GW fix stuff. happy customers spend money, unhappy don't. I can easily imagine someone playing an eldar list and buying some DE stuff or harli stuff just to try it out. I don't think there are many GK players who after playing with strikes, decide to buy 5 boxs of termintors just to see if maybe that works.

If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Connecticut

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Ruin wrote:
 Cephalobeard wrote:
I make lists like those and maximize efficiency.

I can absolutely guarantee each and every one of my opponents has a great time, because I am as much their opponent as my list is.

I was one of the top Daemon players in the entire ITC last year. Doubt I'd classify myself as a "miserable witch".

What a poor attitude you present, and I'm sorry you don't agree with how other people choose to have fun. I promise myself and those I know could not care at all about any of your lists or games. Glad you're playing.


Nope. IME every player I've played like that is a chore to play. Or are my experiences from 2 decades in this hobby invalid?

Take your terrible, awful warped lists and go elsewhere. Plonking 32 IG, some memetastic "smash captains" and other such bric-a-brac on the field is not a coherent, good looking list and gaks all over everything that is good about 40k. 40k is all about the visuals. It is not by any means a good game, at the very least I can say putting that stuff down is a warning sign from afar I'm not going to have a good game so I know in advance when to go get my ice cream.

Competitive lists are actually more coherent and and good looking than the terrible one-of-everything lists, and if you ever looked at the tournament threads you'll see fantastically converted and painted armies.

So yeah the visuals are there. Those people are simply having more fun than you are by staying inside your little bubble.


What? No. Us competitive players would never care about things like painting and converting their armies to look as visually impressive as possible.

These definitely aren't my AM Characters, and I definitely didn't do any of that.
[Thumb - IMG_20181009_213419_740.jpg]


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 au
Furious Raptor




Sydney, Australia

With thanks to liam0404 for their input, it actually makes me want to buy this WD and read the battle report.

One thing a lot of people in this thread seem to be forgetting is that this is a hobby, and it's meant to be fun. Like literally any board game you sit down and play, you have an unspoken contract with your opponent that you're there to have fun. I would argue that both casual gamers like myself and competitive gamers like those featured in the battle report have a responsibility to communicate their gaming goals at the start of the game.

There's nothing wrong with how either camp plays the game. Heck, there's probably a very large, very non-vocal group that sit in the middle of the CAAC and WAAC (I've only used those acronyms as outliers, not intended to insult either camp) that just want to play a fun game with units they think are good.

God knows back when I used to play tournaments (we're talking a while ago, 4th/5th ed), some of the best games I played were against people whom that this forum would have you believe have bought their army specifically to match a list they downloaded off the internet, slapped the minimum three colours on and decided they would sweep a tournament. Except they were lovingly painted armies to their owners highest standard, played in a game with laughter, cheering and good-natured "benefit of the doubt" type attitudes. Yes, it was a trademark "power list" of the day, but it didn't matter because we both had a fun game. Heck, if I went down too fast, I often found myself apologising for not giving them the challenge they were expecting, and they apologised for wiping the floor with me. Both of us wanted the game to go on longer because we were having fun.

It's so easy to take the opponent and their character, their sportsmanship and their hobby energy out of the equation when playing a game like this. Which is easy to do given how a lot of people like to argue hypotheticals in determining unit optimization (which is fine, it's a lot better than comparing anecdotes to determine unit viability), but when it comes to how enjoyable a game is?

If you want to shake my hand before and after the game, have a good laugh whilst we yell at our dice and in a few weeks time forget who actually won or lost? You're my kind of opponent, regardless of what list you bring. Otherwise, you can have a masterclass painted, straight-outta-fluff list and be a sour, rules lawyering individual and I'm not going to have a good time.
   
Made in pl
Fixture of Dakka




But isn't it because ITC has a painting score? Where I live that is the only difference between tournament and non tournament lists. The tournament ones are for better or worse all painted, while the ones used by people who don't go to tournaments are almost never painted.

If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. 
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut





Karol wrote:

Ok, but how does knowing someone will always have more fun then you help the person with the bad army. Or how is it going to make GW fix stuff. happy customers spend money, unhappy don't. I can easily imagine someone playing an eldar list and buying some DE stuff or harli stuff just to try it out. I don't think there are many GK players who after playing with strikes, decide to buy 5 boxs of termintors just to see if maybe that works.


I admittedly have no idea of how good or bad GK currently are (aside from everyone telling me it's the worst faction atm), but I'd assume that they are not as heavily outmatched in open/narrative play as they are in matched play.

So the question is wheter GK players regularly do get tabled in those environments in the first place.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/03 00:02:33


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Connecticut

Many claps.

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
Decrepit Dakkanaut




 Cephalobeard wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Ruin wrote:
 Cephalobeard wrote:
I make lists like those and maximize efficiency.

I can absolutely guarantee each and every one of my opponents has a great time, because I am as much their opponent as my list is.

I was one of the top Daemon players in the entire ITC last year. Doubt I'd classify myself as a "miserable witch".

What a poor attitude you present, and I'm sorry you don't agree with how other people choose to have fun. I promise myself and those I know could not care at all about any of your lists or games. Glad you're playing.


Nope. IME every player I've played like that is a chore to play. Or are my experiences from 2 decades in this hobby invalid?

Take your terrible, awful warped lists and go elsewhere. Plonking 32 IG, some memetastic "smash captains" and other such bric-a-brac on the field is not a coherent, good looking list and gaks all over everything that is good about 40k. 40k is all about the visuals. It is not by any means a good game, at the very least I can say putting that stuff down is a warning sign from afar I'm not going to have a good game so I know in advance when to go get my ice cream.

Competitive lists are actually more coherent and and good looking than the terrible one-of-everything lists, and if you ever looked at the tournament threads you'll see fantastically converted and painted armies.

So yeah the visuals are there. Those people are simply having more fun than you are by staying inside your little bubble.


What? No. Us competitive players would never care about things like painting and converting their armies to look as visually impressive as possible.

These definitely aren't my AM Characters, and I definitely didn't do any of that.

Not colorful enough. 0/10 try harder

Anyone remember that one White Scars army with the matching Riptides an edition back? That was glorious for example.

CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Connecticut

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Cephalobeard wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Ruin wrote:
 Cephalobeard wrote:
I make lists like those and maximize efficiency.

I can absolutely guarantee each and every one of my opponents has a great time, because I am as much their opponent as my list is.

I was one of the top Daemon players in the entire ITC last year. Doubt I'd classify myself as a "miserable witch".

What a poor attitude you present, and I'm sorry you don't agree with how other people choose to have fun. I promise myself and those I know could not care at all about any of your lists or games. Glad you're playing.


Nope. IME every player I've played like that is a chore to play. Or are my experiences from 2 decades in this hobby invalid?

Take your terrible, awful warped lists and go elsewhere. Plonking 32 IG, some memetastic "smash captains" and other such bric-a-brac on the field is not a coherent, good looking list and gaks all over everything that is good about 40k. 40k is all about the visuals. It is not by any means a good game, at the very least I can say putting that stuff down is a warning sign from afar I'm not going to have a good game so I know in advance when to go get my ice cream.

Competitive lists are actually more coherent and and good looking than the terrible one-of-everything lists, and if you ever looked at the tournament threads you'll see fantastically converted and painted armies.

So yeah the visuals are there. Those people are simply having more fun than you are by staying inside your little bubble.


What? No. Us competitive players would never care about things like painting and converting their armies to look as visually impressive as possible.

These definitely aren't my AM Characters, and I definitely didn't do any of that.

Not colorful enough. 0/10 try harder

Anyone remember that one White Scars army with the matching Riptides an edition back? That was glorious for example.


How about a Kairos? :^)
[Thumb - received_260340178005171.jpeg]

   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




Too competitive for the painting score. 0/10 try harder

CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
Made in us
Savage Khorne Berserker Biker





Asherian Command wrote:
 liam0404 wrote:
Sorry missed a lot of this.

For those asking, it was Mostly the White Dwarf editors that were with us throughout the report, and they were the ones who didn't see a lot of our plans coming until we made those moves.

What I can tell you with 100% certainty, is that the game designers are constantly looking at the game (including engaging gamers) to balance things out. Also as well, this battle report was contested in August - pre FAQ, so you can perhaps read between the lines there.

I'd also like to ask the folks hating on the imperium list from a conceptual point of view to maybe look again at this. If we were asked to bring "fluffier" lists, we definitely would have. It's not for me to tell you all how to enjoy your hobby, but see this article for what it was - a foray into a competitive environment, nothing more.


I think it is more people are angry that Super heavy lists are more common than they should be from a certain point of view.

Back in 5th and 4th you rarely saw anything bigger than a monolith now its knights knights, knights, and what counters knights?! Knights. That paradigm shift i think is what most of the focused hatred is upon. I too don't like seeing knights, but thats because i think they look horrible on the tabletop (opinion).

Giving players so many options might be detrimental to the game, you did great, but again some people might not like seeing super heavies as common as they are at tournaments.


It's also frustrating that Forge World is a source of superheavies for most factions. There's this competing design philosophy between the two studios for some reason that has them pricing FW units much higher in points than those in GW codices. Units that could pose a risk to knights based on rules and loadouts are just ridiculously expensive.

Compare the Shadowsword to the Falchion, for example. And then there are the asinine pantheon-themed prices on the daemon lords. But at first they were "reasonably" priced. Then some jackass decided that those units, out of all others in the game needed fluff-based points.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/03 00:19:57


 
   
Made in pl
Fixture of Dakka




 BertBert wrote:
Karol wrote:

Ok, but how does knowing someone will always have more fun then you help the person with the bad army. Or how is it going to make GW fix stuff. happy customers spend money, unhappy don't. I can easily imagine someone playing an eldar list and buying some DE stuff or harli stuff just to try it out. I don't think there are many GK players who after playing with strikes, decide to buy 5 boxs of termintors just to see if maybe that works.


I admittedly have no idea of how good or bad GK currently are (aside from everyone telling me it's the worst faction atm), but I'd assume that they are not as heavily outmatched in open/narrative play as they are in matched play.

So the question is wheter GK players regularly do get tabled in those environments in the first place.


Well one would have to play open or narrative games vs chaos or demon lists. And GK are one of the worse armies, to play against demons. Probably the worse, because nothing beats bringing back units for free.

But to be honest considering open/narrative aren't even played that much, I doubt it would matter. It would be fun to see GW do social gymnastics trying to explain how being not totaly unplayable in those, balances matched play.

If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran





 Raichase wrote:

If you want to shake my hand before and after the game, have a good laugh whilst we yell at our dice and in a few weeks time forget who actually won or lost? You're my kind of opponent, regardless of what list you bring.


This basically. I'd enjoy getting stomped by the latest netlist if only because I want to taste all the flavors of cheese.

--- 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




 Wolf_in_Human_Shape wrote:
Asherian Command wrote:
 liam0404 wrote:
Sorry missed a lot of this.

For those asking, it was Mostly the White Dwarf editors that were with us throughout the report, and they were the ones who didn't see a lot of our plans coming until we made those moves.

What I can tell you with 100% certainty, is that the game designers are constantly looking at the game (including engaging gamers) to balance things out. Also as well, this battle report was contested in August - pre FAQ, so you can perhaps read between the lines there.

I'd also like to ask the folks hating on the imperium list from a conceptual point of view to maybe look again at this. If we were asked to bring "fluffier" lists, we definitely would have. It's not for me to tell you all how to enjoy your hobby, but see this article for what it was - a foray into a competitive environment, nothing more.


I think it is more people are angry that Super heavy lists are more common than they should be from a certain point of view.

Back in 5th and 4th you rarely saw anything bigger than a monolith now its knights knights, knights, and what counters knights?! Knights. That paradigm shift i think is what most of the focused hatred is upon. I too don't like seeing knights, but thats because i think they look horrible on the tabletop (opinion).

Giving players so many options might be detrimental to the game, you did great, but again some people might not like seeing super heavies as common as they are at tournaments.


It's also frustrating that Forge World is a source of superheavies for most factions. There's this competing design philosophy between the two studios for some reason that has them pricing FW units much higher in points than those in GW codices. Units that could pose a risk to knights based on rules and loadouts are just ridiculously expensive.

Compare the Shadowsword to the Falchion, for example. And then there are the asinine pantheon-themed prices on the daemon lords. But at first they were "reasonably" priced. Then some jackass decided that those units, out of all others in the game needed fluff-based points.

Honestly I wouldn't care about the Demon Lords having the "fluffy" pricing as long as they weren't terribly for said pricing.

CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: