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.

auticus wrote:

For one, armies are expensive. For two, painting an entire army is a long project.

These are both relative statements.

I would say armies aren't really expensive, because you can negotiate usually around 20% off even if you're buying it all brand new from a shop if you are spending over $500, since it'll be mostly ordered anyway, so it's pure margin for the seller and he doesn't need to risk stocking his shelves with that stuff. If you get some of the models that are monopose on ebay or second hand, it can be annoying to paint them sometimes (paint then assemble, it's the secret to success), but you'll save money hand over fist. This is also not bad if you have a bunch of bits leftover, because you can easily do some quick surgery to make them what you want.

And, if you own a couple good airbrushes and a compressor you can do a fantastic job in a couple months. If you buy something you're going to love painting or really want to paint it's actually a quite enjoyable process. Painting and basing is now one of my favorite parts of the hobby. Prior to airbrushing i hated painting.

This requires you plan out your purchases way, WAY in advance. Because you buy once and then you don't for 6+ months. But you will save a lot.

Buying an army piecemeal from a shop, slowly collecting over a year or so? That is the literal most expensive way to do this hobby.

At least that's my 2c.

Blastaar wrote:

Pleasestop wrote:

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

Pleasestop wrote:
Weird, cuz I play games to have a good time with my buddies, and saying "hey man, I'd rather not play against 2000 pts of tournament prep but would rather play like, mono codex or something" shouldn't be looked down on. Your not limiting your opponents fun, your making it better for both of you. If one of you isn't having any fun, neither of you are.

Weird, that goes both ways. When I have a limited number of times to test out ideas before a tournament I tend to want to test things out, get familiar with the beats of the army, see what needs to be tweaked, that shouldn't be looked down on. You're not disrespecting your opponent's time, you're respecting your own.

Right, which was my point ? We should have aconversation before we play so we don't waste each other's time? If I bring a fun list and you bring a vagkicker all that's going to happen is your going to kick my in my bag for three hours, and neither of us have had fun, and you don't know if your list is tournament ready.

So, social contract -- a simple, hey let's play a [blank style] pickup game, with these conditions [tournament, casual, narrative] stops unfun games and wasted games. Like, maybe I want to play Scions because I've been painting them for a while and they haven't seen any play lately, and you want to play a vagkicking Prep List with a Castellan, a smash captain and a Guard battalion to get ready for a tournament. One of us either needs to change our list or we need to find another game. But not discussing it beforehand and assuming everyone is playing for the same reason is a Competitive at all Costs mind set or a Casual at all costs mindset, and it hurts the Community.

Why do you place the responsibility for a fun game solely on players? It rests with the company that produces that game, and trades it with you in return for an amount of money- which represents the time and effort of your labor- more than anyone else. It is unacceptable that there is a need to have these discussions before playing. Games Workshop has existed since the 1970's. The have been making Warhammer 40,000 for 25-30 years. They have never produced a high-quality ruleset. Their prices are astronomical. The onus is on Games Workshop, Plc. to provide a balanced, functional ruleset. It is absolutely not the responsibility of the players to repair a damaged product.

Why is there a double standard for GW? If it was Mantic, Privateer Press, Corvus Belli, or Fantasy Flight, would we be so forgiving? After having decades to get it right?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galas wrote:
I think people is using "social contract" here to define different things. Some people use it to refer to talking with your opponent about the competitive game you are gonna have. Other people is using it to refer to actually chosing if you are gonna play competitive, or a narrative game, what narrative are you gonna do, etc...
As Vaktati says, the fact that many people doesnt even thinks outside the competitive side of play is a proof that they dont quite understand how GW sees his own game, no matter how much double marketing speech about matched play they do.
(And this is not an excuse of bad balance,)

You're right, GW is clueless about how people play their games, and what they want in their games. They are so locked into their narrow mindset of how they believe the game is played that it doesn't even occur to them to ask their own players how they experience it. They don't even realize that 40k, KT, AOS, etc. are terrible narrative games! But we like the background and acquiring new minis, so we keep them in business anyway, and continue to complain and have these discussions. Thus the cycle continues.

Regardless of the game, you should be having a discussion beforehand!

My win-all-the-prizes list for Xwing is a lot different then my "let's play the movies!" List, and what I bring is obviously dependent on what we are trying to get tout of it. Is it just a fun evening out or am I preparing to go up against the top players in the world? Cuz thats going to determine how hard we both go.

The same goes for Warmahordes, though I don't play enough infinity, so I can't seitch between casual, play what we have and have fun to competitive let's try and steamroll each other and habe fun, since I don't have the amount of experience or models necessary, which means that conversation is even more important! Because a pickup game without establishing that I'm a newbie would just result in my getting my butt handed to mr and neither of us having fun at all.

This exists regardless of setting, and is why videogames have both casual and ladder online, so if your looking for a hardcore good time, you head into ladder and progress to your max skill level, but if you just want to good off and have fun, you head to the nonladder games.

Pleasestop wrote:

This exists regardless of setting, and is why videogames have both casual and ladder online, so if your looking for a hardcore good time, you head into ladder and progress to your max skill level, but if you just want to good off and have fun, you head to the nonladder games.

This is exactly correct.

Just in 40k, you should have separate armies for both goals.

I have my casual armies, and i have my competitive armies. Bringing my Eldar to a casual game is bad form, and I don't do it.

 Marmatag wrote:

Pleasestop wrote:

This exists regardless of setting, and is why videogames have both casual and ladder online, so if your looking for a hardcore good time, you head into ladder and progress to your max skill level, but if you just want to good off and have fun, you head to the nonladder games.

This is exactly correct.

Just in 40k, you should have separate armies for both goals.

I have my casual armies, and i have my competitive armies. Bringing my Eldar to a casual game is bad form, and I don't do it.

Nonsense, I'll play competitive with my under-balanced armies, Especially with orks because if you have fun WAAAGH!ing you never lose.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
Nonsense, I'll play competitive with my under-balanced armies, Especially with orks because if you have fun WAAAGH!ing you never lose.

This is precisely why I bust out my 2 Lord of Skulls with my Thousand Sons Battalion every once in awhile. It's not a world beater, but it's almost impossible for my opponent to prevent me from enjoying a few moments of glorious carnage, and it's a lot of fun.

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
Nonsense, I'll play competitive with my under-balanced armies, Especially with orks because if you have fun WAAAGH!ing you never lose.

This is precisely why I bust out my 2 Lord of Skulls with my Thousand Sons Battalion every once in awhile. It's not a world beater, but it's almost impossible for my opponent to prevent me from enjoying a few moments of glorious carnage, and it's a lot of fun.

Exactly, If I can get Kharn near enough to my opponents HQ and defeat him in CC, I don't really care if I win,

 Xenomancers wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Galef wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
LOL - Some people get it. The game is making tons of money so it's in a good place. Balance be damned.

To be fair, it couldn't be doing so well money-wise if it wasn't doing something good game-wise.
Are there still balance issues? You betcha, but it's far more balanced than so, so many of the prior editions.

I think the biggest issue people struggle with is that they really hoped 8E was going to be the end-all, be-all edition for balance.
And honestly, I feel that is always going to result in a let-down. There are just too many factions/models and rules to ever have an air-tight balance 40K edition.

But 8E has certainly made it closer than any prior edition and continues to tweak for said balance. Enough people recognize this that the sales have been positively impacted.
Ergo, 40K is in a pretty good place

Thanks for the good laugh! I really needed it.
-

Well all we really want is an honest attempt. Infantry at 4 ppm while a termagant and a conscript is 4ppm is NOT an honest attempt. DW ammo is not an honest attempt. I agree the game is probably the most balanced it has been except perhaps the prevalence of double moves and free actions (possibly the most busted stuff to ever exist in this game) saying your game is more balanced than previous editions of 40k isn't saying too much. Their tweaks IMO have done more harm than good. The game was the most fun during index 40k.

How common were abilities to fight twice/shoot twice/get free actions in previous editions. Not to mention first turn charging. This stuff ranged from IMPOSSIBLE - to extremely rare in previous editions. At least in 7th eddition you knew you weren't getting charged turn 1. At least in 7th eddition you had to roll to get your psychic powers. Now you can start the game automatically with Quicken/Protect/Fortune/Doom AUTOMATICALLY. I'm not singling out Eldar here just using them as an example. Many aspects on 8th eddition are better for balance like cover being +1 armor instead of a 4++ save. The elements I pointed out above are actually less balanced than before.

Man are you seriously implying that a puny shoot/fight twice is among the most broken things this game ever had?

You are talking about 40K!
This game has known invisible 2++ rerollable units! At some point we had infantry weapons which could destroy an entire army in a single shot!

Spoletta wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Galef wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
LOL - Some people get it. The game is making tons of money so it's in a good place. Balance be damned.

To be fair, it couldn't be doing so well money-wise if it wasn't doing something good game-wise.
Are there still balance issues? You betcha, but it's far more balanced than so, so many of the prior editions.

I think the biggest issue people struggle with is that they really hoped 8E was going to be the end-all, be-all edition for balance.
And honestly, I feel that is always going to result in a let-down. There are just too many factions/models and rules to ever have an air-tight balance 40K edition.

But 8E has certainly made it closer than any prior edition and continues to tweak for said balance. Enough people recognize this that the sales have been positively impacted.
Ergo, 40K is in a pretty good place

Thanks for the good laugh! I really needed it.
-

Well all we really want is an honest attempt. Infantry at 4 ppm while a termagant and a conscript is 4ppm is NOT an honest attempt. DW ammo is not an honest attempt. I agree the game is probably the most balanced it has been except perhaps the prevalence of double moves and free actions (possibly the most busted stuff to ever exist in this game) saying your game is more balanced than previous editions of 40k isn't saying too much. Their tweaks IMO have done more harm than good. The game was the most fun during index 40k.

How common were abilities to fight twice/shoot twice/get free actions in previous editions. Not to mention first turn charging. This stuff ranged from IMPOSSIBLE - to extremely rare in previous editions. At least in 7th eddition you knew you weren't getting charged turn 1. At least in 7th eddition you had to roll to get your psychic powers. Now you can start the game automatically with Quicken/Protect/Fortune/Doom AUTOMATICALLY. I'm not singling out Eldar here just using them as an example. Many aspects on 8th eddition are better for balance like cover being +1 armor instead of a 4++ save. The elements I pointed out above are actually less balanced than before.

Man are you seriously implying that a puny shoot/fight twice is among the most broken things this game ever had?

You are talking about 40K!
This game has known invisible 2++ rerollable units! At some point we had infantry weapons which could destroy an entire army in a single shot!

Yeah I am saying that. Whats more stupid? being practically indestructible with 1 unit or doubling /tripling your damage with a huge units due to stratagems and spells letting you shoot twice / wound better - or heck just getting these abilities for free lol. You can be the judge.

How is that any different from a 3++ 28 wound knight or 2+/3++ 2 wound shinning spears with -2/-3 to hit? Both are basically impossible to kill.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The point is this game isn't really balanced. It has way too powerful combos that are only available to certain armies. The ones that don't have these abilities are seriously underpowered compared to the ones that do.

It doesn't really matter if 8th is more or less balanced than 7th. It's still a very poorly balanced game.

auticus wrote:
The divide, issue, conflict, whatever we want to call it comes from players that are not interested in collectiing a bunch of factions that are over optimal to compete in tournaments.

For one, armies are expensive. For two, painting an entire army is a long project.

So bearing those two things in mind, a lot of people go "wow I really like that faction" and then buy the models they like and then put months into painting them only to discover that they are trash in the game.

The issue is that they are rather different mindsets - so its weird to mix them together.
"I pick any old faction cos I like the looks - then I end up in a super competitive meta where its all Ynnari possibly with Eldar flying circuses, and Guardsmen+Knights as far as the eye can see."

I know Marmatag tends to go "that's how it is round me" - but for most people it isn't. You are either playing very competitive games, attending tournaments semi-regularly and chasing the meta accordingly - or you are playing other people typically with sub-optimised lists and if you are endlessly losing thats probably more on you than your faction.

Things are miles closer than they have ever been for random stuff versus random stuff. Does that mean better optimised lists tend to win over suboptimised lists? Sure - but how on earth could it ever be otherwise?
Doesn't mean I don't think Ynnari, the Castelan and Guardsmen could do with a nerf and some units could still do with a buff - but its still the best edition.

" 2+/3++ 2 wound shinning spears with -2/-3 to hit?"
-9 Shining Spears
-Warlock for Protect
-Warlock for Conceal
-Get both powers off
-CP for LQR
-Being Alaitoc
-Being outside 12" from all threats, while being within 6" to shoot and close enough to charge

VS:
-Seer Council
-Farseer
-Archon w/Shadowfield
-Get Fortune off
-Can split off into 3

The first is much more likely to fail one of the conditions, and is somehow both within 6" and outside 12" at the same time.

"3++ 28 wound knight"
Invisible Revanant Titan says hai.

The game isn't balanced. Chess isn't balanced. But Chess is more balanced than 40k 8th Ed. However, 8th ed being unbalanced *doesn't* mean its even less balanced than 7th.

"Whats more stupid? being practically indestructible with 1 unit or doubling /tripling your damage with a huge units due to stratagems and spells letting you shoot twice / wound better "
Depends on the details.
A 13-man Seer Council and friends (or large CentStar) representing half your list being practically unkillable is certainly more impactful than a 20-man Guardian squad shooting twice. But are you seriously arguing 7th Ed didn't have shoot twice/move twice/fight twice?

Tyel wrote:

The issue is that they are rather different mindsets - so its weird to mix them together.
"I pick any old faction cos I like the looks - then I end up in a super competitive meta where its all Ynnari possibly with Eldar flying circuses, and Guardsmen+Knights as far as the eye can see."

I know Marmatag tends to go "that's how it is round me" - but for most people it isn't. You are either playing very competitive games, attending tournaments semi-regularly and chasing the meta accordingly - or you are playing other people typically with sub-optimised lists and if you are endlessly losing thats probably more on you than your faction.

I always take issue with this though because where's the proof that's not how most people are? My meta is like Marmatag's, for example. It's cutthroat tournament practice and tournaments 24/7.

I find as me and my friends get older and we went from Rogue Trader all the way through to now we look for all our units to pretty much do what they always have done with a tweak here or there.
We are looking for a "simple" 40k simulator for our units to beat the heck out of each other.
Our armies have got to rather "Apocalypse" levels of volume and quality.
Some simplification and less fussing over silly details like killing the closest model rather than kill a model in a unit is helpful (thinking of the dreaded 6th/7th there).
We save our more competitive gaming for games that are frankly more worthy of those efforts.
40k is all about the spectacle of the thing and with all the massive D6 rolling, the only real tactics are to try to buff or auto-hit/wound/AP/1st turn charge as much as possible.
The Orks vs Imperial Guard has been insane carnage as of late.

I would say the rules are "serviceable" and meet the need, I REALLY want random/alternating unit activation however... badly.
I pretty much stopped playing between 2012-2017 and sold 2 decades of white dwarf magazines.
I would say that the company GW is handling communication MUCH better since the Kirby years and have pumped out many units/armies people have wanted to see.

Sick and tired of people moaning about 1st turn charges and fighting twice. Shooting has been dominant for so long and (still is). Its not easy to 1st turn charge now, you had your golden age so please stop moaning because it falls on death ears, with people that have been playing CC armies since the end of the genestealer glory days. Shooting was horrifically overpowered and is still overpowered.

Blastaar wrote:
I don't play games to entertain my opponent, I play them for my own enjoyment. Claiming gaming is a "social contract" is a way of attempting to exert control over your opponent and prevent them from using units, cards, or tactics that one personally dislikes playing against, limiting their fun. Pre-game negotiating, outside of my or a buddy's home, too easily becomes an exercise in who can limit their opponent's enjoyment of the game before it even starts. I'm happy to socialize during games, but pre-game has no business going through committee.

There's a line between "negotiation of your opponent's models" and "trying to make some tool with a Knight Crusader understand that it's not very fun to play a 500-point game against him when all you've got is a couple of squads of Marines". And I mean, that's a line big enough that it might as well pass for a 4-lane highway, and you can't really miss it.

You play to have fun, okay- fine. Well, so does the other person, and if they're not having fun and you don't care about trying to have a somewhat-balanced challenge, well... I don't think you'd be that kind of guy, but I can tell you- that kind of guy is the one that usually sits in the corner, alone, ignored, on his big case of models that never get on the table because he comes off as a putz.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
This brings up a point though.

Why SHOULD I have to have any discussion besides point level and missions?

Because you're enjoying a social activity involving other people. And if they're not enjoying it, they're going to stop playing with you. And then word will travel fast. And then, again, see above- sitting alone in a corner with your models.

You know, if you're only out for your own personal enjoyment- I can recommend another activity that isn't anywhere as expensive as 40k, you just need some tissues and an internet connection, and it helps to have a lock on your door. It's really fun, I do it all the time.

You know, when I see these "it's all about my experience", I start to realize why a lot of FLGS's smell like the inside of Chewbacca's foreskin on a hot day of butt-stuff.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
"trying to make some tool with a Knight Crusader understand that it's not very fun to play a 500-point game against him when all you've got is a couple of squads of Marines".

Ah yes, because taking a list that is "too powerful" is TFG behavior. Do you also feel that the guy with only a couple of squads of marines is a tool because he is bringing a weak list instead of something that can take on a knight? Or is only one player expected to take on the burden of adjusting their list to match the opponent?

Because you're enjoying a social activity involving other people.

Plenty of social gaming activities don't require nearly as much pre-game negotiation over how competitive you're "allowed" to be. The fault here is GW's alone.

auticus wrote:
Which always astounds me how everyone flocks to 40k and AOS for tournament play, despite there being much better competitive options for that style of play.

Because some people take more pride in 'being the winner' than 'earning a victory', and there's a huge difference. Sort of like 'getting money' and 'earning a paycheck'.

These are the same people that would start a fist-fight with someone who has rickets arms and brag about it like they took out Floyd Mayweather, but the moment an able-bodied man their own size shows up and cracks his knuckles they scurry away like rats.

I doubt the two I've previously mentioned come near that, but you'd be shocked at how common it is. And I am, fortunately, in a position to chase those types out of our local community like the disease-ridden rats they are.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

Blastaar wrote:
I don't play games to entertain my opponent, I play them for my own enjoyment. Claiming gaming is a "social contract" is a way of attempting to exert control over your opponent and prevent them from using units, cards, or tactics that one personally dislikes playing against, limiting their fun. Pre-game negotiating, outside of my or a buddy's home, too easily becomes an exercise in who can limit their opponent's enjoyment of the game before it even starts. I'm happy to socialize during games, but pre-game has no business going through committee.

There's a line between "negotiation of your opponent's models" and "trying to make some tool with a Knight Crusader understand that it's not very fun to play a 500-point game against him when all you've got is a couple of squads of Marines". And I mean, that's a line big enough that it might as well pass for a 4-lane highway, and you can't really miss it.

You play to have fun, okay- fine. Well, so does the other person, and if they're not having fun and you don't care about trying to have a somewhat-balanced challenge, well... I don't think you'd be that kind of guy, but I can tell you- that kind of guy is the one that usually sits in the corner, alone, ignored, on his big case of models that never get on the table because he comes off as a putz.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
This brings up a point though.

Why SHOULD I have to have any discussion besides point level and missions?

Because you're enjoying a social activity involving other people. And if they're not enjoying it, they're going to stop playing with you. And then word will travel fast. And then, again, see above- sitting alone in a corner with your models.

You know, if you're only out for your own personal enjoyment- I can recommend another activity that isn't anywhere as expensive as 40k, you just need some tissues and an internet connection, and it helps to have a lock on your door. It's really fun, I do it all the time.

You know, when I see these "it's all about my experience", I start to realize why a lot of FLGS's smell like the inside of Chewbacca's foreskin on a hot day of butt-stuff.

I can socially interact with them DURING the game. I shouldn't have to do it beforehand like with literally any other game. I haven't had to have ONE pregame discussion when I played MtG, Yugioh, or during the year I played Warmahordes.

So why is 40k exempt?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

auticus wrote:
Which always astounds me how everyone flocks to 40k and AOS for tournament play, despite there being much better competitive options for that style of play.

Because some people take more pride in 'being the winner' than 'earning a victory', and there's a huge difference. Sort of like 'getting money' and 'earning a paycheck'.

These are the same people that would start a fist-fight with someone who has rickets arms and brag about it like they took out Floyd Mayweather, but the moment an able-bodied man their own size shows up and cracks his knuckles they scurry away like rats.

I doubt the two I've previously mentioned come near that, but you'd be shocked at how common it is. And I am, fortunately, in a position to chase those types out of our local community like the disease-ridden rats they are.

Ah yes, play the game YOUR way or you don't get to play at all!

 Peregrine wrote:

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
"trying to make some tool with a Knight Crusader understand that it's not very fun to play a 500-point game against him when all you've got is a couple of squads of Marines".

Ah yes, because taking a list that is "too powerful" is TFG behavior. Do you also feel that the guy with only a couple of squads of marines is a tool because he is bringing a weak list instead of something that can take on a knight? Or is only one player expected to take on the burden of adjusting their list to match the opponent?

Because you're enjoying a social activity involving other people.

Plenty of social gaming activities don't require nearly as much pre-game negotiation over how competitive you're "allowed" to be. The fault here is GW's alone.

Are you seriously arguing that it's reasonable to take a knight in a 500 point game? Or that people a 500 point list that can't beat a knight is automatically weak as a result?

And yeah, actually, plenty of social games often include an element of pre-game discussion of expectations (or an unspoken agreement of the same) - have you never played a board game with house rules, or played a shooting game with a group that discouraged spawncamping with a sniper, or agreed not to use a broken character in a fighting game etc? These are pretty common things for a lot of people across a lot of games.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I can socially interact with them DURING the game. I shouldn't have to do it beforehand like with literally any other game. I haven't had to have ONE pregame discussion when I played MtG, Yugioh, or during the year I played Warmahordes.

Yeah, I'm calling BS on this. I don't know warmahordes, but I know both MTG and Yugioh have several different formats with different banlists. If you don't agree the format ahead of time, the game's almost certain to be heavily unbalanced - if one person brought a Standard deck and the other brought a Legacy deck for MTG, the game would be far less balanced than even the most extreme 40K matchup.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I can socially interact with them DURING the game. I shouldn't have to do it beforehand like with literally any other game. I haven't had to have ONE pregame discussion when I played MtG, Yugioh, or during the year I played Warmahordes.

So why is 40k exempt?

40k is not 'exempt'. If you're playing in a tournament, or you're making it clear that you're playing in the same competitive manner as a tournament would be- then this is how you SHOULD be playing. You don't want people tailoring their list to your tournament build, it's going to throw off your testing.

For a friendly pick-up game, even with a stranger- where the goal is for both of you to have a pretty solid match-up and have fun, it's a bit wise to talk to them beforehand if you plan on bringing anything other than the 'take all comers' sort of combo for a casual game.

You can feel free to do things how you like. If your mentality is "I bring what I want, I don't care if it's balanced so that me and my opponent both have fun, it's about what I want", then I only hope that others share that same mindset where you play so that you can enjoy lots of games your way. Otherwise, well- look on the bright side, with the very few times you'll take your models out of the case- it'll feel like they're new every time!

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Ah yes, play the game YOUR way or you don't get to play at all!

Oh, never once did I say you had to do this. At all.

But, play the way that is reasonable to my standards, or you don't get to play with me. And every person I know feels the same way.

Yes, you are playing to have fun. I want you to have fun. But I also want to have fun. So we need to help each other out with that, and if you can't do it- it's very easy for me to find a better match-up.

At best, you'd get that game where the whole purpose of the other player is to troll you and waste your time- usually by building a massive model count list of nothing but units that would be absolutely useless, and even then using them in the stupidest and most useless ways possible and marching them straight at you with the HQ's out front leading a conga-line. Then we'd all clap patronizingly and cheer for your 'win' and have a good laugh. Oh, well- you're not laughing? It's okay, I played that joke because -I- wanted to laugh, I shouldn't have had to concern myself with whether or not you'd think it was funny.

There's no 'social contact'. That's a stupid phrase. You're not 'bound' to do anything by any sort of 'agreement'.

But if you've not learned by now that when two people are doing a recreational activity together, it's not entirely about you and what you want it to be. Otherwise, I'll let you in on a secret: She'll eventually just stop faking the orgasms.

Aelyn wrote:
Are you seriously arguing that it's reasonable to take a knight in a 500 point game? Or that people a 500 point list that can't beat a knight is automatically weak as a result?

He's got a weird fixation on me, it's like some kind of fetish where despite me not responding to him for months or even acknowledging him as a person- he just keeps on, and yes- he's arguing... well, let's put it this way, if I said "water is wet" he'd come in here screaming about how it's bone dry and then trying to get the thread closed with his bickering with everyone.

I have been behaving and not trying to get myself into more trouble, therefore 'not responding to him'- but I see what he says, and quite honestly I'm shocked that he's still allowed on this forum, because every single contribution he makes is to start an argument. At a certain point it's just absurd and disruptive and 'warnings' haven't worked, assuming he's had them.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

Blastaar wrote:
I don't play games to entertain my opponent, I play them for my own enjoyment. Claiming gaming is a "social contract" is a way of attempting to exert control over your opponent and prevent them from using units, cards, or tactics that one personally dislikes playing against, limiting their fun. Pre-game negotiating, outside of my or a buddy's home, too easily becomes an exercise in who can limit their opponent's enjoyment of the game before it even starts. I'm happy to socialize during games, but pre-game has no business going through committee.

There's a line between "negotiation of your opponent's models" and "trying to make some tool with a Knight Crusader understand that it's not very fun to play a 500-point game against him when all you've got is a couple of squads of Marines". And I mean, that's a line big enough that it might as well pass for a 4-lane highway, and you can't really miss it.

You play to have fun, okay- fine. Well, so does the other person, and if they're not having fun and you don't care about trying to have a somewhat-balanced challenge, well... I don't think you'd be that kind of guy, but I can tell you- that kind of guy is the one that usually sits in the corner, alone, ignored, on his big case of models that never get on the table because he comes off as a putz.

The thing is, the game should be balanced enough that these pre-game "hey, can you not take XYZ overpowered thing?" discussions aren't necessary. You want to blame the player for taking a strong list and. yes, some people are jerks and bring cheese to stomp people. But the crummy rules allow that to be an issue in the first place. Blaming players merely personalizes the issue and attempts to absolve one's responsibility in encouraging poor rules by financially supporting the company making them. If someone wants this to change they should not buy products from the company making the poor rules. Framing this as an issue of interpersonal player behavior distracts and solves nothing.

Adeptus Doritos it isn't worth it. I can admit, yeah, GW should balance their game better but theres no tabletop or wargame game where you can have a fun game with random people if you don't engage on it with the same mentality, be it fun relaxed play or competitive hardcore style.

Not Warmahordes, not Infinity, not X-Wing, not Malifaux. It is worse in GW, and it becomes worse the more unbalanced the game is. But this is the internet and Slayer-Fan won't settle for a balanced and reasonable middle ground.

Some people here work in absolutes just like Sith.

Blastaar wrote:
The thing is, the game should-

I stopped there. On that word, for a specific reason.

It "should be" and "what it is" are two different things, and explaining how it "should" be does not change the state of the game as it is now, with the current system. We could go all day long about what "should" be and probably agree on a lot of things- but again, that's not changing what "is" and right now- we have the game as it "is". Therefore, I intend to work with it as it "is" and adjust to that in order to enjoy the game until the recommendations for what the game "should" be become the way the game "is".

 Galas wrote:
Adeptus Doritos it isn't worth it. I can admit, yeah, GW should balance their game better but theres no tabletop or wargame game where you can have a fun game with random people if you don't engage on it with the same mentality, be it fun relaxed play or competitive hardcore style.

Not Warmahordes, not Infinity, not X-Wing, not Malifaux. It is worse in GW, and it becomes worse the more unbalanced the game is. But this is the internet and Slayer-Fan won't settle for a balanced and reasonable middle ground.

Some people here work in absolutes just like Sith.

So here's a question:
Is it okay for bad balance just because you should talk to your opponent first?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Aelyn wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
"trying to make some tool with a Knight Crusader understand that it's not very fun to play a 500-point game against him when all you've got is a couple of squads of Marines".

Ah yes, because taking a list that is "too powerful" is TFG behavior. Do you also feel that the guy with only a couple of squads of marines is a tool because he is bringing a weak list instead of something that can take on a knight? Or is only one player expected to take on the burden of adjusting their list to match the opponent?

Because you're enjoying a social activity involving other people.

Plenty of social gaming activities don't require nearly as much pre-game negotiation over how competitive you're "allowed" to be. The fault here is GW's alone.

Are you seriously arguing that it's reasonable to take a knight in a 500 point game? Or that people a 500 point list that can't beat a knight is automatically weak as a result?

And yeah, actually, plenty of social games often include an element of pre-game discussion of expectations (or an unspoken agreement of the same) - have you never played a board game with house rules, or played a shooting game with a group that discouraged spawncamping with a sniper, or agreed not to use a broken character in a fighting game etc? These are pretty common things for a lot of people across a lot of games.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I can socially interact with them DURING the game. I shouldn't have to do it beforehand like with literally any other game. I haven't had to have ONE pregame discussion when I played MtG, Yugioh, or during the year I played Warmahordes.

Yeah, I'm calling BS on this. I don't know warmahordes, but I know both MTG and Yugioh have several different formats with different banlists. If you don't agree the format ahead of time, the game's almost certain to be heavily unbalanced - if one person brought a Standard deck and the other brought a Legacy deck for MTG, the game would be far less balanced than even the most extreme 40K matchup.

Formats only exist for particular tournaments and otherwise you follow the most current ban list for any pickup game. That's how it's always been. When was the last time you played?

 Galas wrote:
Some people here work in absolutes just like Sith.

I work in absolutes as well.

I absolutely don't have to play with someone whose focus is "I'm playing so I can have fun, I shouldn't have to work with you to have fun". I'm not so self-absorbed to believe removing myself from their pool of potential opponents is going to be detrimental. But I am pretty certain that if I was to be the first to step away from the table and refuse to play them, I'd probably not find myself alone for long. Just the way things work.

But I won't tell people how to play the game. I tell them how I play, and if they don't seem to care about my recreational enjoyment? Well, then I don't play with them at best, at worst I make them feel like they're wasting their time just like I am.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Formats only exist for particular tournaments and otherwise you follow the most current ban list for any pickup game. That's how it's always been. When was the last time you played?

Saturday.

When was the last time you had someone just delighted to join you for a second game?

Don't answer that, we can both lie here and we'll never know otherwise. But I'll just hazard a guess to myself and I won't doubt it at all.

Aelyn wrote:
Are you seriously arguing that it's reasonable to take a knight in a 500 point game?

Is it a legal list? Yes. Therefore it's reasonable.

Or that people a 500 point list that can't beat a knight is automatically weak as a result?

Yep. Or at least it's a list with a very back rock/paper/scissors matchup problem, assuming it's very strong against other 500 point lists.

And yeah, actually, plenty of social games often include an element of pre-game discussion of expectations (or an unspoken agreement of the same) - have you never played a board game with house rules, or played a shooting game with a group that discouraged spawncamping with a sniper, or agreed not to use a broken character in a fighting game etc? These are pretty common things for a lot of people across a lot of games.

Yes, there are badly designed games that require that discussion. Your FPS example is a great one. Spawn camping with sniper rifles is only a problem when poor design allows it to be a problem. Better map design breaks LOS around spawn points, has you spawn in unpredictable locations, etc. In a good game there's no discouragement necessary because the only people complaining about camping with sniper rifles are people who suck at the game and would rather whine and cry about losing than use the available counters to snipers.

Yeah, I'm calling BS on this. I don't know warmahordes, but I know both MTG and Yugioh have several different formats with different banlists. If you don't agree the format ahead of time, the game's almost certain to be heavily unbalanced - if one person brought a Standard deck and the other brought a Legacy deck for MTG, the game would be far less balanced than even the most extreme 40K matchup.

"Let's play standard" is hardly an extensive pre-game conversation.

Bharring wrote:
" 2+/3++ 2 wound shinning spears with -2/-3 to hit?"
-9 Shining Spears
-Warlock for Protect
-Warlock for Conceal
-Get both powers off
-CP for LQR
-Being Alaitoc
-Being outside 12" from all threats, while being within 6" to shoot and close enough to charge

VS:
-Seer Council
-Farseer
-Archon w/Shadowfield
-Get Fortune off
-Can split off into 3

The first is much more likely to fail one of the conditions, and is somehow both within 6" and outside 12" at the same time.

"3++ 28 wound knight"
Invisible Revanant Titan says hai.

The game isn't balanced. Chess isn't balanced. But Chess is more balanced than 40k 8th Ed. However, 8th ed being unbalanced *doesn't* mean its even less balanced than 7th.

"Whats more stupid? being practically indestructible with 1 unit or doubling /tripling your damage with a huge units due to stratagems and spells letting you shoot twice / wound better "
Depends on the details.
A 13-man Seer Council and friends (or large CentStar) representing half your list being practically unkillable is certainly more impactful than a 20-man Guardian squad shooting twice. But are you seriously arguing 7th Ed didn't have shoot twice/move twice/fight twice?

Well not as bad as Beaststart in 6th lol

20 4++ wounds, cant be shot at with outside of X range, Hit and run, multiply 2++ and 3++, +1 to going first, additional +1 to saves when in cover, Re-roll hit and run and dangerous, terrain test, gains PFP, and Re-roll all saves, yes all saves, finally +5 to run so turn 2 into combat no matter what. The key to it is, turn 1 you cant shoot it, and its almost unlimited movement once its into combat, the ability to charge, take almost 0 damage, deal lots of damage, and then run away in the direction you want is very strong.

For sure the strong deathstar in 40k history after 3rd (b.c i dont know anything about 2nd).

Shadowseer, Farseer, The Baron, 3 Beastmaster with 10 Khymerae and 2 Flocks (can have 5 BM's FYI), Archon, this was possible b.c 5th DE codex and new CWE 6th codex.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Some people here work in absolutes just like Sith.

I work in absolutes as well.

I absolutely don't have to play with someone whose focus is "I'm playing so I can have fun, I shouldn't have to work with you to have fun". I'm not so self-absorbed to believe removing myself from their pool of potential opponents is going to be detrimental. But I am pretty certain that if I was to be the first to step away from the table and refuse to play them, I'd probably not find myself alone for long. Just the way things work.

But I won't tell people how to play the game. I tell them how I play, and if they don't seem to care about my recreational enjoyment? Well, then I don't play with them at best, at worst I make them feel like they're wasting their time just like I am.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Formats only exist for particular tournaments and otherwise you follow the most current ban list for any pickup game. That's how it's always been. When was the last time you played?

Saturday.

When was the last time you had someone just delighted to join you for a second game?

Don't answer that, we can both lie here and we'll never know otherwise. But I'll just hazard a guess to myself and I won't doubt it at all.

I don't recognize most of my opponents outside a couple of friends. So I could've played the same person five times and not have realized. I also could've played a different opponent each time and never ran into the same person. With that said I'm sure I've had like a couple of "I remember you!" statements here and there.

It's a mystery, really.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

Blastaar wrote:
The thing is, the game should-

I stopped there. On that word, for a specific reason.

It "should be" and "what it is" are two different things, and explaining how it "should" be does not change the state of the game as it is now, with the current system. We could go all day long about what "should" be and probably agree on a lot of things- but again, that's not changing what "is" and right now- we have the game as it "is". Therefore, I intend to work with it as it "is" and adjust to that in order to enjoy the game until the recommendations for what the game "should" be become the way the game "is".

Way to have a discussion, pal. You're rather angry about this, aren't you? Take a breath.

Right, I said should. Because the game as it is sucks, plain and simple. Shallow gameplay and shoddy balance are unacceptable. Being the person with the weaker army and needing to ask the other person to tone it down is one of many reasons I don't play anymore. That is how I deal with "what is." It isn't fun to be that guy, especially when most of the players at my former LGS had far more powerful armies than I did.

How do you enjoy a game that requires so many adjustments and haggling? Why bother with it at all, when there are many more enjoyable games out there? To dismiss where the game could be is to be complacent. 8th 40k is not some inevitable, immutable thing that will persist whether we like it or not- it isn't a natural law. it exists in this state because we allow it to. The game will never shift from "should" to 'is" if we don't discuss it, and change our own behavior. Change doesn't simply appear to people sitting on the couch. It happens because people make it happen.

 Peregrine wrote:

Aelyn wrote:
Are you seriously arguing that it's reasonable to take a knight in a 500 point game?

Is it a legal list? Yes. Therefore it's reasonable.

Or that people a 500 point list that can't beat a knight is automatically weak as a result?

Yep. Or at least it's a list with a very back rock/paper/scissors matchup problem, assuming it's very strong against other 500 point lists.

So legal and reasonable are equivalent? Does that mean any list which is illegal is automatically unreasonable?

And yeah, actually, plenty of social games often include an element of pre-game discussion of expectations (or an unspoken agreement of the same) - have you never played a board game with house rules, or played a shooting game with a group that discouraged spawncamping with a sniper, or agreed not to use a broken character in a fighting game etc? These are pretty common things for a lot of people across a lot of games.

Yes, there are badly designed games that require that discussion. Your FPS example is a great one. Spawn camping with sniper rifles is only a problem when poor design allows it to be a problem. Better map design breaks LOS around spawn points, has you spawn in unpredictable locations, etc. In a good game there's no discouragement necessary because the only people complaining about camping with sniper rifles are people who suck at the game and would rather whine and cry about losing than use the available counters to snipers.

There are plenty of other examples I could name for some very well loved games which are generally considered balanced and fair and yet which frequently involve pre-game conversations (playing rugby / american football at a local field and agreeing to play touch-contact instead of full-contact, handicaps in go, bidding conventions in bridge...) My point is that "benefits from pre-game discussion" and "badly-designed" are not even close to the same thing, and that reaching an understanding before a game of what people are trying to get out of it is hardly unique to 40K.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Formats only exist for particular tournaments and otherwise you follow the most current ban list for any pickup game. That's how it's always been. When was the last time you played?

Since I actually played? Two weeks ago, roughly. Maybe a month. But your comment shows a fundamental lack of understanding of how MTG works. There is no banlist for "pickup games" by default - formats are what define which sets are legal and which specific cards are banned, and it's (almost) unheard of for formats to exist for a single tournament. That's how it works now, and that's how it worked when I started playing 20 years ago.

I like your attempt to throw shade at me by implying I was out of touch, though.

Blastaar wrote:
Way to have a discussion, pal. You're rather angry about this, aren't you? Take a breath.

The fact that people confuse 'being direct' with 'angry' makes me wonder if straightforward and honest people are just going extinct. If I were angry, you wouldn't be getting a response.

But then again, if something on an internet forum about plastic space war toys upsets me- I'm going to check to ensure I've not swapped around the asprin and adderall again.

I'll let you know when that happens again, because I assure you- things will get interesting for all of us because I usually pop 3 Asprin for a headache and wash it down with coffee... and you can imagine what mixing them up will do.

Blastaar wrote:
Right, I said should. Because the game as it is sucks, plain and simple. Shallow gameplay and shoddy balance are unacceptable. Being the person with the weaker army and needing to ask the other person to tone it down is one of many reasons I don't play anymore. That is how I deal with "what is." It isn't fun to be that guy, especially when most of the players at my former LGS had far more powerful armies than I did.

Yep. But that's just what we've got to deal with until they finally get around to fixing the glaring problems with the game, and there's plenty that needs to be addressed. I'm not a fan of someone being able to stuff a Knight or a Baneblade into a 500-point game. I'm not okay that for just a bit more, you can take an entire army of nothing but tanks. I'm not a fan of the fact that for every glaring problem the game has, that there's someone making an excuse for being a WAAC-a-doodle and using the excuse that "It's legal and valid". Removed - BrookM

Now, there's something to be said about the dude that brings in the two squads of tactical marines that he built like they were on the box, and not stepping up his game. There's a reasonable expectation that he's got to improve and learn how the game works without having his hand held. He's got to learn to get a few more things so he can deal with more enemies- otherwise he'll just expect everyone to take it easy on him, until he meets the guy that plays a normal game and stomps him with little effort. So, let's admit it- there's a time to put on big boy undies and learn to stand own your own two feet.

Blastaar wrote:
How do you enjoy a game that requires so many adjustments and haggling? Why bother with it at all, when there are many more enjoyable games out there? To dismiss where the game could be is to be complacent. 8th 40k is not some inevitable, immutable thing that will persist whether we like it or not- it isn't a natural law. it exists in this state because we allow it to. The game will never shift from "should" to 'is" if we don't discuss it, and change our own behavior. Change doesn't simply appear to people sitting on the couch. It happens because people make it happen.

Easy. It's a 3-step program.

1- I stop treating it like something it isn't- 40k is only "competitive" because the people who are competitive pretend it is. There's not a whole lot of tactical depth or strategic nuance to 40k, no one is pulling off some cunning ploy. When you get down to it, it's more about putting things in the right spot at the right time and rolling the right dice, and knowing what other peoples' toys can do. I mean, 'netlisting' is popular because it works and it wins a lot of times. It's a game, it has rules, but let's not sit here and make the card game "Bullsh*t" out to be "Baccarat". When it comes down to it, I've watched "Skilled tournament-winners" from 40k end up sucking their thumb in a corner after getting slapped around in a game of Infinity.

2- Get with people you know and try to find other people that want to enjoy the game as you do- which is, as I see it "a war toy game with some rules". It's not that hard, give it time and you'll get people sick and tired of the "competitive" meta. Oh, yeah- and the "competitive" meta will usually lie and pretend they aren't WAAC players after a while to hide themselves, but rest assured when it comes time for a friendly game- they're throwing their tournament list down. Essentially, it's like being a Pool Shark... but for 40k. Which I guess makes one 'a nippy little goldfish', because it's not even that serious.

3- Make a private club, group, etc. or simply build our own community and start gatekeeping. And I don't care what anyone says about gatekeeping being 'bad', there's a lot of valid reasons to refuse association with someone. Start pushing out people who want to exploit a flawed system for the sake of winning, cultivate people who want to enjoy the game- and those people can be competitive, there's a lot of good competitive people out there.

Now, I get to ask you a question.

If you think the game is so awful right now- what the hell are you doing on a site that's pretty much entirely dedicated to it? I mean, is it like one of those things where you fart and sniff at it- and it smells awful, so you gotta take a few more sniffs? I'm not being facetious, I've done this before.