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.

 insaniak wrote:

 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:
I think it's more the fact that a list being this bad is even possible. People are told pick what you want, and the fact is if you do that you will lose most of your games. .

So what happens if both players do this? Does the table implode?

Dakkadakka screeches in rage


Oh wait... it does that already.

 insaniak wrote:

 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:
I think it's more the fact that a list being this bad is even possible. People are told pick what you want, and the fact is if you do that you will lose most of your games. .

So what happens if both players do this? Does the table implode?

Yes, lol.

I get the point, but your missing mine. The fact that we went from bottom tier army to bottom tier units leaves us in the same situation in we were in, now fewer people are getting screwed.

GW should be fixing the game not making new models. Then AFTER they have a well balanced game they can start adding new things.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sir Heckington wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:
I think it's more the fact that a list being this bad is even possible. People are told pick what you want, and the fact is if you do that you will lose most of your games. .

So what happens if both players do this? Does the table implode?

Dakkadakka screeches in rage


Oh wait... it does that already.

Because it's totally unreasonable for a person that pays 400 dollers for a product to be able to enjoy that product.

Wayniac wrote:

But let's be honest, how often do both people pick whatever the hell they want without any thought to how it performs? Outside of the GW Studio, I guess.

Far more often than you would think, I suspect. Certainly most of the lists I've made over the last 25 years.

I'm more interested in trying to do well with the units I want to see on the table than in choosing units purely based on their effectiveness on paper.

Because it's totally unreasonable for a person that pays 400 dollers for a product to be able to enjoy that product.

Then you should do some easy research on that product because you're spending 400 bucks on it, learn that it's not good, and if you are looking for that playstyle, not buy it, or do if you are.

Anyone that drops 400 dollars without any research and expecting to run a good army has what they get coming to them, as much as it sucks.

 Sir Heckington wrote:

Because it's totally unreasonable for a person that pays 400 dollers for a product to be able to enjoy that product.

Then you should do some easy research on that product because you're spending 400 bucks on it, learn that it's not good, and if you are looking for that playstyle, not buy it, or do if you are.

Anyone that drops 400 dollars without any research and expecting to run a good army has what they get coming to them, as much as it sucks.

Easy research like looking at GWs website or their magazine?

Why would you look at marketing material when researching strategies? Even when I'm trying to find good builds in videogames, I use forums and blogs.

 EnTyme wrote:
Why would you look at marketing material when researching strategies? Even when I'm trying to find good builds in videogames, I use forums and blogs.

This. Never look at the marketing material, that's like, 101 of any game.

 Sir Heckington wrote:

Because it's totally unreasonable for a person that pays 400 dollers for a product to be able to enjoy that product.

Then you should do some easy research on that product because you're spending 400 bucks on it, learn that it's not good, and if you are looking for that playstyle, not buy it, or do if you are.

Anyone that drops 400 dollars without any research and expecting to run a good army has what they get coming to them, as much as it sucks.

Research like looking at what the game developers run in a list? I mean it's not unreasonable to think a person that helped develop a game knows how to build a good list.

Look here's a list on the Warhammer Community page.

Battalion Detachment
HQs
Captain in Phobos Armour
Librarian in Phobos Armour

Troops
10 Infiltrators
5 Scouts
5 Scouts
5 Scouts

Fast Attack
3 Land Speeders

Heavy Support
3 Eliminators

Vanguard Detachment
HQ
Lieutenant in Phobos Armour

Elite
10 Reivers
10 Reivers
10 Reivers

Fast Attack
3 Suppressors

Seems legit...

I believe the problem is less "Any build should be viable" and more "Nobody should buy a unit that they like and then find that the rules for that unit are so bad that is basically pointless"

I play in a very friendly meta (last list I fielded included 4 Grav-Centurions, a Land Raider Redeemer, some Heavy Flamer Landspeeders, a couple of Dreadnoughts and a bunch of Tactical Marines), but even that list made me cringe.

At one point, a list stops being "friendly" and becomes downright "stupid". That Community-list is the latter.
It doesn't even look fun to play...

 Galas wrote:
I believe the problem is less "Any build should be viable" and more "Nobody should buy a unit that they like and then find that the rules for that unit are so bad that is basically pointless"

Which would be fine if the rules were set in stone, but there not. Even if a person does research and reasons out a good list GW can just nerf everything they have into dust and what recourse do they have? Nothing, they can be salty and discourage anyone who comes around asking about 40K to play something else.

Whilst I don't normally subscribe to the mindset of "your list must be able to win a tournament or its essentially unplayable", if a casual list is going to get tabled every game then it really isn't going to be fun. It seems like people want to deliberately be obtuse to argue about this for 5 pages (so far). As for GW''s target player base, I'm sure they've done their research. Given how popular the game is right now, and GW's profits, it really is ridiculous to suggest that they are incompetent from a business standpoint. It's entirely possible however that they haven't played this particular list, and just put it together to show that the Shadowspear armies could be used in the wider game. If it's as bad as people say then I would agree that in this instance they're risking new players spending a lot of money and being put off.

 Tibs Ironblood wrote:
I think it's clear to everyone the list in question is absolutely awful gameplay wise. We know it and probably everyone knows it but most of GW. I think the only real issue is that they advertised it as a matched play list. If it was said be a narrative army then boom no problem because that is exactly what it is. I think it is a bit of false advertising on their to pretend this list is worthy of a matched play game.

It is a matched play list. It follows the rules of have X # of units filling Y slots & uses points.

Beyond that there's no rule mandating a matched play list has to be any good. Though perhaps I've missed it in a FAQ or something & you could point it out to me?

ccs wrote:

 Tibs Ironblood wrote:
I think it's clear to everyone the list in question is absolutely awful gameplay wise. We know it and probably everyone knows it but most of GW. I think the only real issue is that they advertised it as a matched play list. If it was said be a narrative army then boom no problem because that is exactly what it is. I think it is a bit of false advertising on their to pretend this list is worthy of a matched play game.

It is a matched play list. It follows the rules of have X # of units filling Y slots & uses points.

Beyond that there's no rule mandating a matched play list has to be any good. Though perhaps I've missed it in a FAQ or something & you could point it out to me?

I think it’s covered in the “Stepping Into Dakka” FAQ document, where it states all games are 2K Matched Play ITC Chess Clock Rule Of Three or your game AND opinions are ‘objectively invalid’.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

ccs wrote:

 Tibs Ironblood wrote:
I think it's clear to everyone the list in question is absolutely awful gameplay wise. We know it and probably everyone knows it but most of GW. I think the only real issue is that they advertised it as a matched play list. If it was said be a narrative army then boom no problem because that is exactly what it is. I think it is a bit of false advertising on their to pretend this list is worthy of a matched play game.

It is a matched play list. It follows the rules of have X # of units filling Y slots & uses points.

Beyond that there's no rule mandating a matched play list has to be any good. Though perhaps I've missed it in a FAQ or something & you could point it out to me?

I think it’s covered in the “Stepping Into Dakka” FAQ document, where it states all games are 2K Matched Play ITC Chess Clock Rule Of Three or your game AND opinions are ‘objectively invalid’.

now that's comedy!
Have an exalt!

 JohnnyHell wrote:

I think it’s covered in the “Stepping Into Dakka” FAQ document, where it states all games are 2K Matched Play ITC Chess Clock Rule Of Three or your game AND opinions are ‘objectively invalid’.

It would be great if we could stop suggesting that 'Dakka' is some sort of gestalt hive mind with a single opinion on any given topic.

Particularly in threads where this is rather self evidently not true.

ccs wrote:

 Tibs Ironblood wrote:
I think it's clear to everyone the list in question is absolutely awful gameplay wise. We know it and probably everyone knows it but most of GW. I think the only real issue is that they advertised it as a matched play list. If it was said be a narrative army then boom no problem because that is exactly what it is. I think it is a bit of false advertising on their to pretend this list is worthy of a matched play game.

It is a matched play list. It follows the rules of have X # of units filling Y slots & uses points.

Beyond that there's no rule mandating a matched play list has to be any good. Though perhaps I've missed it in a FAQ or something & you could point it out to me?

Yes it is a matched play list which at least to me and apparently many others, indicates some level of rule efficiency. When I hear matched play I am thinking of a least medium strength lists and up and that if you are playing matched play (what with it's superior rule set being focused on creating a more balanced and enjoyable experience) you are doing so because you are trying to have a more competitive and balanced gaming experience. Putting this out there as an army that could be that could potentially screw over a new player by giving them a false impression. If they said hey this is a narrative army we made using these models then boom no problem because it's not being advertised as something a large part of the community deem as having to meet a certain quality level to actually be. I think the absolute inverse is true so for example when WD showcased the more competitive lists they made it very clear what they were. Imagine if they said "hey here are these narrative lists we made for open play" that completely changes the perception of people inside and outside of the hobby.

It is advertised as a viable matched play list. There is no indication that it will show up and get -hosed- in almost any match.

 Tibs Ironblood wrote:
. When I hear matched play I am thinking of a least medium strength lists and up and that if you are playing matched play (what with it's superior rule set being focused on creating a more balanced and enjoyable experience) you are doing so because you are trying to have a more competitive and balanced gaming experience. Putting this out there as an army that could be that could potentially screw over a new player by giving them a false impression. If they said hey this is a narrative army we made using these models then boom no problem because it's not being advertised as something a large part of the community deem as having to meet a certain quality level to actually be. I think the absolute inverse is true so for example when WD showcased the more competitive lists they made it very clear what they were. Imagine if they said "hey here are these narrative lists we made for open play" that completely changes the perception of people inside and outside of the hobby.

Or maybe you could just stop equating 'Matched Play' and 'Competitive Play'...?

GW is under no obligation to adhere to your preconceptions of what Matched Play should be.

Well, I remember that in the older WDs they had always battle reports.
In some of them, Gav Thorpe was playing and it is said that he NEVER won a game there.

 insaniak wrote:
Or maybe you could just stop equating 'Matched Play' and 'Competitive Play'...?

Or maybe you could stop pretending that they aren't the same thing. From the 40k rulebook:

Matched play games give you the
option to fight battles with armies
that are intentionally balanced against
one another, allowing you to test not only
your tactical skill on the battlefield, but
also your strategic ability to choose an
army that can defeat all opponents!

That's a textbook description of competitive play, and explicitly states that part of matched play is building a list that can defeat all opponents. And the list in the OP is a dismal failure at that, making it rather dishonest to pretend that it's a viable option against other players who are following GW's statements about what matched play involves.

What I think is amusing is the deployment advice, they suggest using the deep striking elements in order to see what their opponent is deploying, which is a good and valid tactic, except that the form of deployment that GW has moved into with its most recent mission set doesn't work like this.

 Peregrine wrote:
Matched play games give you the
option to fight battles with armies
that are intentionally balanced against
one another, allowing you to test not only
your tactical skill on the battlefield, but
also your strategic ability to choose an
army that can defeat all opponents!

Perhaps it's a test of your strategic ability to choose a different army?

 Brother Castor wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Matched play games give you the
option to fight battles with armies
that are intentionally balanced against
one another, allowing you to test not only
your tactical skill on the battlefield, but
also your strategic ability to choose an
army that can defeat all opponents!

Perhaps it's a test of your strategic ability to choose a different army?

the it should say it so in the description. Otherwise it would be like givng someone 10 math problems to do, and only after the exam tell them that you weren't checking if the problems are done right or wrong, but how fast you can do one.

secretForge wrote:
What I think is amusing is the deployment advice, they suggest using the deep striking elements in order to see what their opponent is deploying, which is a good and valid tactic, except that the form of deployment that GW has moved into with its most recent mission set doesn't work like this.

I mean it's the same article that quotes the beta Bolter rule, explicitly and fails to realise that walking up with csm is exactly what the rule does not boost.....

The lists themselves are bad, but also themed, nothing wrong with that but if you quote a rule and then missinterpret it, EVEN THOUGH YOU QUOTED IT, i mean that is just plain attrocious from a article writing stance.

If I write my philosophical paper and quote Russeau and state the exact opposite, that bigger states are better for a republic rather then smaller, then i will get gak on by anyone that follows the quote.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
It is advertised as a viable matched play list. There is no indication that it will show up and get -hosed- in almost any match.

Didn't you hear? The Rune Priest and his Chooser of the Slain have already consulted the ancient Runestones of farseeing and decreed this list will never EVER perform well on the battlefield, and if it does the board will implode in an explosion of a logical paradox as the universe itself cannot comprehend how this happened. If you play this list financial consultants will come to your house to take your credit card away as you clearly don't know how to use money for having the temerity to buy these models. GW designers will be stripped naked a whipped through the streets with Dakka posters shouting SHAME! and ringing the bells of the Cult of Competition as the now sacked staff go to their fates of being hung, drawn and quartered for simply making a game Perri doesn't like.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
It is advertised as a viable matched play list. There is no indication that it will show up and get -hosed- in almost any match.

Didn't you hear? The Rune Priest and his Chooser of the Slain have already consulted the ancient Runestones of farseeing and decreed this list will never EVER perform well on the battlefield, and if it does the board will implode in an explosion of a logical paradox as the universe itself cannot comprehend how this happened. If you play this list financial consultants will come to your house to take your credit card away as you clearly don't know how to use money for having the temerity to buy these models. GW designers will be stripped naked a whipped through the streets with Dakka posters shouting SHAME! and ringing the bells of the Cult of Competition as the now sacked staff go to their fates of being hung, drawn and quartered for simply making a game Perri doesn't like.

My Runepriest forced me at gunpoint to exalt this comment. So i do.

Karol wrote:

 Brother Castor wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Matched play games give you the
option to fight battles with armies
that are intentionally balanced against
one another, allowing you to test not only
your tactical skill on the battlefield, but
also your strategic ability to choose an
army that can defeat all opponents!

Perhaps it's a test of your strategic ability to choose a different army?

the it should say it so in the description. Otherwise it would be like givng someone 10 math problems to do, and only after the exam tell them that you weren't checking if the problems are done right or wrong, but how fast you can do one.

Or maybe I was joking and you need to chill out a bit. Not everything posted on dakka needs arguing against.

 Peregrine wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
Or maybe you could just stop equating 'Matched Play' and 'Competitive Play'...?

Or maybe you could stop pretending that they aren't the same thing. From the 40k rulebook:

Matched play games give you the
option to fight battles with armies
that are intentionally balanced against
one another, allowing you to test not only
your tactical skill on the battlefield, but
also your strategic ability to choose an
army that can defeat all opponents!

That's a textbook description of competitive play, and explicitly states that part of matched play is building a list that can defeat all opponents. And the list in the OP is a dismal failure at that, making it rather dishonest to pretend that it's a viable option against other players who are following GW's statements about what matched play involves.

I had previously assumed that matched and competitive play were the same thing, but on reflection I think that a distinction really can be drawn:

"Matched play" is a set of rules that seek to balance the structure of gameplay.
As such, the game mode is value neutral; it tells you what you can and cannot do, as well as what counts as winning, but that need not imply that people who play matched play are actually playing in order to win.

"Competitive play" is an attitude towards the act of playing.
It's the attitude that says that what is important about play is the winning, that what counts as good play, is play that stays within the rules and gets one closer to the win.
(I don't mean this as judgement by the way, good competitive play is exhilarating both to watch and be a part of - if you care about it)

It is logically possible to play matched play with a non-competitive style (where winning is non-normative). Similarly, there is no reason that narrative play and open play can't be played with a competitive mindset (although this often ends with matches played this way becoming horrific dumpster fires).
The GW quote above points to the fact that matched play provides options for a certain mode of play which removes certain areas of fuzziness from the game, attempting to make skill the primary differentiating factor between the win and the loss. However, while a test of skill is a competition, it's not always a competitive practice (cheese rolling is a competition, but no one cares who wins).

The equivocation between the two can be harmful, because it can make people who don't care about winning think that they are being accused of playing wrong. That said, it's people with a competitive attitude that are most likely to be useful in achieving a balanced game. That's because balance is about who wins, and why they win, in any given match up, and competitive people care the most about that.

In my opinion GW don't have a competitive attitude, their company atmosphere is more about sheer enthusiasm and creativity. Further, I think that there is an assumption within the company that competition is the enemy of creativity, and because they see creativity as their USP, they are shy of letting the game devs take control of the production process.
As a consequence, matched competitive play kind of sucks in 40K, and all the other game modes suffer because they share a flaccid balance that is unlikely to make for actually interesting narratives on the tabletop. To suggest that they fire all their game devs is ass-backwards, the devs have almost no control of the models that they are given - IMO there's not a dev team in the world that could balance the strange melange of 40k models and leftovers in an interesting way.

This is the game we play, and it probably will always be this way. I enjoy it, but it does make me sad that I know a lot of people can't.

I think that a lot of confusion between GW and matched pick-up playerbase arises from the fact, that most of those players never played an elaborate, cooperatively developed narrative scenario and does not have a reference in their minds how much of a step down on preparation time matched play confines and restrictions really are. If you look at WD batrep history, they were usually narratives focused on showcasing new storytelling/one-off scenarios opportinities that new model introduces. An example: when Eldar Vypers (or Falcons, don’t remember which one exactly) were first introduced in late 2nd ed, the batrep to show them off was a Gorkamorka/Ash-Wastes style, rolling ground race like mission - nothing about how they would add to cookie cutter, planet bowling ball clash against a castled up gunline...

If you consider that, then how exactly GW sees Matched Play and why they think it is a reasonably “level ground” for “zero effort preparation” mode of play become much clearer. Is it enough for this particular playerbase? Obviously not, as complaining never stopped for the last 30 years...