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.

"Casual" people are against imbalance because they secretly like fielding broken units, because there's no other explanation with being okay with OP units. Change my mind.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
"Casual" people are against imbalance because they secretly like fielding broken units, because there's no other explanation with being okay with OP units. Change my mind.

First you have me doubting your sanity with your Castellan comments, and then you redeem yourself with this bit of wisdom.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
"Casual" people are against imbalance because they secretly like fielding broken units, because there's no other explanation with being okay with OP units. Change my mind.

Yea cause my mechanized marine list comprising mostly of tacticals in rhinos and drop pods backed by attack bikes and land speeders is really killing it at the top table. Might bring a dreadnaught to really grind out the win.

Wayniac wrote:
I think this is actually correct. But it does fracture the game. I mean, GW may be trying to balance things but they seem to be doing a poor job overall. So maybe it's time for ITC to step up again and balance the stuff GW won't, since they already have market share over competitive 40k so their word is essentially law when it comes to that. As much as I dislike ITC skewing the game, I think if they actually go whole hog like they had to in 7th and have their own houserules and such to fix competitive 40k, it at least does what GW won't: Divide Matched Play into matched play (as in points) and competitive play (with extra restrictions to help further balance the game). Things like reigning in soup, or limiting you to one battalion, or whatever the hell, you get the idea - just go full on split rather than this weird half split.

I once used a metaphor for this:

Basically, imagine an online RTS game. Ideally, all factions that you could use in this video game would be balanced against one another and do well if used correctly within their strengths and weaknesses. The real determining factor would be a player's skill and knowledge of his opponents' faction.

However, if GW ran this online RTS- two or three of the playable factions would have some 'Super Special Units' that could be purchased through online micro-transactions- and these units that you buy could be the definition of 'pay to win'- the other factions would have no real, practical way of countering these units without completely laser-focusing on it and even then, it's a huge gamble.

Sure, those 'Super Special Units' may cost $150.00 in the micro-transaction store, and you'd think that'd keep a lot of people from using them while still 'helping to fund the game'... but come on, we all know gamers. They'll pay for it if they hate losing to it enough, and want to win bad enough. They can whine on forums all they want but at the end of the day the profits will determine whether or not they are really that unhappy with the state of the game.

On top of that, why would they bother to balance the other factions to counter those $150.00 pay-to-win units? If people want to win, they'll switch factions and pay for them and GW wins without having to do more work. Everyone else is just whining and as long as they buy the game, GW still wins.

As long as people keep throwing money at the game, without so much as a hiccup- things will not change. And people keep buying it, all day long.

Some of the same people that have told me they hate cheesy soup lists and units... are usually one financial transaction away from funding the very thing they're whining about, whether they buy the units they 'hate' or spend just as much getting units to counter that... they play right into the trap.

We've all read the stories and seen it with our own eyes where guys will live on Ramen for a month, overdraft their bank account, cancel anniversary dates with their wife, skip out on their grandmother's funeral, take their childrens' Christmas presents back to the store, pawn family heirloom jewelry, and outright steal or swindle just to get a new toy that helps them win the game. Don't sit here and act like you don't know or know of at least ONE gamer whose 'addiction' would have have heroin and meth junkies saying, "Dude, I'm taking you to rehab, you've got a problem".

Why the hell would GW change that? Just like people screaming about how much they hated a movie- well, they still bought a ticket to go watch it so we can probably expect a sequel with the same formula- see the Austin Powers trilogy.

Because a legit reason to own every model in every army would drive more sales than a few uberunits.

Martel732 wrote:
Because a legit reason to own every model in every army would drive more sales than a few uberunits.

Gimme a legit reason to own a Toxicrene or a Maleceptor.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
"Casual" people are against imbalance because they secretly like fielding broken units, because there's no other explanation with being okay with OP units. Change my mind.

No one is 'okay' with broken units, I'd rather it be fixed- but "whining about it on the internet" isn't changing GW's profit margin if you're still buying into it.

Casuals like me just don't care about hyper-competitive people enough to cast our lot in with them. Their obsession with being "competitive" with a game system that isn't designed to be competitive is just spinning their wheels and going nowhere because their internet opinion says "no" while their wallet says "CHOKE ME HARDER DADDY".

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
"Casual" people are against imbalance because they secretly like fielding broken units, because there's no other explanation with being okay with OP units. Change my mind.

No one is 'okay' with broken units, I'd rather it be fixed- but "whining about it on the internet" isn't changing GW's profit margin if you're still buying into it.

Casuals like me just don't care about hyper-competitive people enough to cast our lot in with them. Their obsession with being "competitive" with a game system that isn't designed to be competitive is just spinning their wheels and going nowhere because their internet opinion says "no" while their wallet says "CHOKE ME HARDER DADDY".

Eldar players. Eldar players are really ok with broken units. Some of them for real get grumpy if you kill one of their models, because "Eldar should not be losing to X army, they have been training for millennia etc etc."

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
"Casual" people are against imbalance because they secretly like fielding broken units, because there's no other explanation with being okay with OP units. Change my mind.

I will not, sir.

topaxygouroun i wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Because a legit reason to own every model in every army would drive more sales than a few uberunits.

Gimme a legit reason to own a Toxicrene or a Maleceptor.

They look cool.

This thread right now:

"Casual players are liars, they're all secretly super-competitive players that are part of a vast conspiracy to make certain things imbalanced so a select few chosen ones win the game."

Also

"This thing is broken, therefore I will buy three of them but anyone who uses them against me sucks, and even though I just hurled $500.00 at this company I can't figure out why they keep doing this to me. HARDER DADDY!"

Reemule wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
"Casual" people are against imbalance because they secretly like fielding broken units, because there's no other explanation with being okay with OP units. Change my mind.

First you have me doubting your sanity with your Castellan comments, and then you redeem yourself with this bit of wisdom.

Man y'all got butthurt at a joke real fast.

And yeah the Castellan is broken. You never proved otherwise outside "well the list didn't win the last tournament!!!1!", which really isn't proof if you consider how consistently it tops. Whatever though.

 Sir Heckington wrote:

topaxygouroun i wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Because a legit reason to own every model in every army would drive more sales than a few uberunits.

Gimme a legit reason to own a Toxicrene or a Maleceptor.

They look cool.

In three words he highlighted the differences on why people field a given unit.
My response other than this (but not as good) is get them "on sale" now, they will be the model of choice in the next Codex.

 Talizvar wrote:

 Sir Heckington wrote:

topaxygouroun i wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Because a legit reason to own every model in every army would drive more sales than a few uberunits.

Gimme a legit reason to own a Toxicrene or a Maleceptor.

They look cool.

In three words he highlighted the differences on why people field a given unit.
My response other than this (but not as good) is get them "on sale" now, they will be the model of choice in the next Codex.

I mean, I do own two of them, mostly because I am trying to assemble a whole hive fleet (my dream is to play an Apoc game where's my army against my whole FLGS, as in THE tyranids are coming, gotta team up against a common enemy). But it sure ain't because the Maleceptor looks good. In fact it's the most generic and forgettable monster Nids have.

If you're using the low, low bar of other GW rulesets then fine, it's "good". However, the game feels too much like a Beta release for me to say it's in "a pretty good place", with the issues of the game having stayed at fundamental rules issues (CP farming, Stratagems in general, significant Codex disparities, swathes of units failing at their intended roles) rather than the lower-level shuffling I would expect (Singular dodgy units/stratagems, QoL tweaks) of a game in a good place.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Reemule wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
"Casual" people are against imbalance because they secretly like fielding broken units, because there's no other explanation with being okay with OP units. Change my mind.

First you have me doubting your sanity with your Castellan comments, and then you redeem yourself with this bit of wisdom.

Man y'all got butthurt at a joke real fast.

And yeah the Castellan is broken. You never proved otherwise outside "well the list didn't win the last tournament!!!1!", which really isn't proof if you consider how consistently it tops. Whatever though.

Well still half wrong.

So, I'm curios on your opinion. Why don't Chaos players run it then? Its the games boogeyman, so why don't they take advantage and win some games?

Peregrine wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
There is always the need for a discussion of a game before you play. Even in Chess, there is a discussion of who uses which color. Monopoly has hundreds of house rules that people have picked up in their life time because reading rules is hard, and there is always two people who want to use the race car. Uno requires a discussion as to who deals the cards. These are things that game rules never fully cover, yet has never been considered a failure in game design. The durability of these games would attest to their success more than their failure.

That is not at all the same. Discussing how to execute the mechanics of the game (which player deals the cards, who plays first, etc) is not pre-game negotiation. The rules provide a structure for making those decisions and there's no real argument to have. You just pick someone or flip a coin or whatever and then start playing the game. What you have in 40k isn't just mechanics stuff like choosing which mission to play or what point level to play at, you're having extensive negotiations about how you should approach the game: what level of competitiveness is "too much", how many copies of a unit is "spamming", etc. None of that is found in the game rules.

The closest thing in your list of comparisons is the house rules in Monopoly, but even then it has more to do with players not understanding how the game works than negotiating over, say, if it's ok to engage in a bidding war over a property just to block a player from completing the set or if it's more "fun" if you let people build their hotels.

Yet, the point I was countering was that a game's rules should require zero negotiation. Who goes first is a point of negotiation. Just because you don't think it isn't a negotiation doesn't make it not a negotiation.

More importantly, this differentiation of the type of game one plays is not unique to 40K, and was only brought about because of the people who clamored for points in AoS and keep trying to change the game from beer & pretzels to seeruz biznezz. When people go to play a basketball game on the court at the park, there is often negotiations as to who gets the ball first, half court or full, point limit, team make up.

As a side note, a bidding war on a property actually is in the rules, provided the person landing on said desired property chooses not to purchase it.

Peregrine wrote:

Warhammer endures not because of its game balance, that has never been the games' goal, but because Warhammer has always been about getting friends together to push models around and have a good time. In this, it succeeds. WMH provides a much better game balance, over all, yet the competitive aspects have led many people to ignore the non-tournament aspects of the game so that many of the metas have been hemorrhaging players and turning (or returning) to the fun of Warhammer.

Balance and social play are not mutually exclusive concepts, and the lack of balance that hurts 40k as a competitive game also hurts it in the "have fun pushing models around" context.

Never said they were exclusive. I was merely pointing out that competitive play is not Warhammer's focus and never has been. Warhammer probably succeeds because of its lack of competitive focus and I gave a pertinent example as to why. Please actually read the paragraph before responding.

Reemule wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Reemule wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
"Casual" people are against imbalance because they secretly like fielding broken units, because there's no other explanation with being okay with OP units. Change my mind.

First you have me doubting your sanity with your Castellan comments, and then you redeem yourself with this bit of wisdom.

Man y'all got butthurt at a joke real fast.

And yeah the Castellan is broken. You never proved otherwise outside "well the list didn't win the last tournament!!!1!", which really isn't proof if you consider how consistently it tops. Whatever though.

Well still half wrong.

So, I'm curios on your opinion. Why don't Chaos players run it then? Its the games boogeyman, so why don't they take advantage and win some games?

It seems you are asking the same question over and over again - getting the same answer. What is your motivation for this argument?

Reemule wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Reemule wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
"Casual" people are against imbalance because they secretly like fielding broken units, because there's no other explanation with being okay with OP units. Change my mind.

First you have me doubting your sanity with your Castellan comments, and then you redeem yourself with this bit of wisdom.

Man y'all got butthurt at a joke real fast.

And yeah the Castellan is broken. You never proved otherwise outside "well the list didn't win the last tournament!!!1!", which really isn't proof if you consider how consistently it tops. Whatever though.

Well still half wrong.

So, I'm curios on your opinion. Why don't Chaos players run it then? Its the games boogeyman, so why don't they take advantage and win some games?

1. Relics
2. Household Traits
3. More Strategems
4. No room after adding Magnus and/or Mortarion, who are already powerful as is.

It's it's the Relics, Traits, and Strats that make it broken then the Castellan itself isn't broken. That's what we're saying.

Or it's broken but not broken enough to stand up to Imperial Castellans.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Reemule wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Reemule wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
"Casual" people are against imbalance because they secretly like fielding broken units, because there's no other explanation with being okay with OP units. Change my mind.

First you have me doubting your sanity with your Castellan comments, and then you redeem yourself with this bit of wisdom.

Man y'all got butthurt at a joke real fast.

And yeah the Castellan is broken. You never proved otherwise outside "well the list didn't win the last tournament!!!1!", which really isn't proof if you consider how consistently it tops. Whatever though.

Well still half wrong.

So, I'm curios on your opinion. Why don't Chaos players run it then? Its the games boogeyman, so why don't they take advantage and win some games?

It seems you are asking the same question over and over again - getting the same answer. What is your motivation for this argument?

Cause I keep asking if the sky if blue and getting "purple Monkey Washer" as an answer.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Or it's broken but not broken enough to stand up to Imperial Castellans.

So it is broken in chaos, but not enough to showup on the table, so your basing brokenness off what again?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Stux wrote:
It's it's the Relics, Traits, and Strats that make it broken then the Castellan itself isn't broken. That's what we're saying.

Yeah Just this. Luckily this is only hard for some dakkaites. As you haven't seen the Castellan touched, but Order of the Raven's was nerfed.

To the Castellan nerfers..

Does it sting to know GW is better at balance than you are?

 Stux wrote:
It's it's the Relics, Traits, and Strats that make it broken then the Castellan itself isn't broken. That's what we're saying.

The standard tournament Castellan does not get access to traits because it is not in a knight lance. So forget about that. Choas Castellans have access to reroll all hits stratagem - which is pretty dang good for 2 CP. The only deal breaker is relics and warlord traits. Which is why people take imperial ones and not choas ones. Kind of like people chose to be aliotoc over Ulthwe on hemlocks. The Hemlock is still OP as Ulthwe though. You must realize that Heratic knights are basically like playing 0 an army without an army trait...or picking the absolute worst army trait you can imagine. PEOPLE DON'T ACTUALLY DO THAT IN TOURNAMENTS lol.

Quote of the day - "GW is better at balance than you are".

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Stux wrote:
It's it's the Relics, Traits, and Strats that make it broken then the Castellan itself isn't broken. That's what we're saying.

The standard tournament Castellan does not get access to traits because it is not in a knight lance. So forget about that. Choas Castellans have access to reroll all hits stratagem - which is pretty dang good for 2 CP. The only deal breaker is relics and warlord traits. Which is why people take imperial ones and not choas ones. Kind of like people chose to be aliotoc over Ulthwe on hemlocks. The Hemlock is still OP as Ulthwe though. You must realize that Heratic knights are basically like playing 0 an army without an army trait...or picking the absolute worst army trait you can imagine. PEOPLE DON'T ACTUALLY DO THAT IN TOURNAMENTS lol.

Let's say both me and you have access to a gun. But you have bullets and I don't. So a gun on your hands is actually broken, but a gun on my hands is useless. This does not change the fact that the gun itself is clearly out of place, this is my grandpa's backyard, Billy, and the rest of us are playing with water baloons. The heck is the deal with that gun you carry?

 Charistoph wrote:

Never said they were exclusive. I was merely pointing out that competitive play is not Warhammer's focus and never has been. Warhammer probably succeeds because of its lack of competitive focus and I gave a pertinent example as to why. Please actually read the paragraph before responding.

Ok, so how is w40k suppose to work outside of tournaments. Two guys decide to play, both put their models down. And one says m8 your army is too strong, your going to beat me no matter what I do. And then what do they do, invent special scenarios that both agree on that balnce the two armies somehow, but don't make the dude with the better army feel like someone is forcing him to play the wrong way? Plus what does stop the dude with the better army from saying that his opponent should just have bought a good army instead of the one he has now?

In tournaments I get how w40k works. there are specific armies that work best. Some are best in a specific setting like ETC or ITC, or what ever GW plays in their events. Some armies like eldar flyer builds seem to be doing great under any setting. The rules are there, everybody knows them. You pick a bad army you are going to have a less fun day. Clear and easy to understand.

The non tournament games to work, seem to require owning multiple points of armies, maybe even mulitple armies, and transporting them all the time, in case this time your friendly game doesn't happen to be vs a knight army player, but a guy with an eldar soup. The next day it maybe someone playing a primaris army. It more less drives the starting cost of an army in to thousands of dollars. That is we assume the play what you want and your opponent has to adjust to your armies power, being true. Because the lists that are not ment for tournament and I see posted even on this forum, seem to be very much like the tournament lists. Sure the eldar player may not have 7 flyers, but he has 4. the IG player does have all the super optimised FW artilery, but just more mortars. But both lists have a swarm of dudes and a castellan.
It is the non tournament way of playing the game that I can't just get my head around.

Karol wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Never said they were exclusive. I was merely pointing out that competitive play is not Warhammer's focus and never has been. Warhammer probably succeeds because of its lack of competitive focus and I gave a pertinent example as to why. Please actually read the paragraph before responding.

Ok, so how is w40k suppose to work outside of tournaments. Two guys decide to play, both put their models down. And one says m8 your army is too strong, your going to beat me no matter what I do. And then what do they do, invent special scenarios that both agree on that balnce the two armies somehow, but don't make the dude with the better army feel like someone is forcing him to play the wrong way? Plus what does stop the dude with the better army from saying that his opponent should just have bought a good army instead of the one he has now?

In tournaments I get how w40k works. there are specific armies that work best. Some are best in a specific setting like ETC or ITC, or what ever GW plays in their events. Some armies like eldar flyer builds seem to be doing great under any setting. The rules are there, everybody knows them. You pick a bad army you are going to have a less fun day. Clear and easy to understand.

The non tournament games to work, seem to require owning multiple points of armies, maybe even mulitple armies, and transporting them all the time, in case this time your friendly game doesn't happen to be vs a knight army player, but a guy with an eldar soup. The next day it maybe someone playing a primaris army. It more less drives the starting cost of an army in to thousands of dollars. That is we assume the play what you want and your opponent has to adjust to your armies power, being true. Because the lists that are not ment for tournament and I see posted even on this forum, seem to be very much like the tournament lists. Sure the eldar player may not have 7 flyers, but he has 4. the IG player does have all the super optimised FW artilery, but just more mortars. But both lists have a swarm of dudes and a castellan.
It is the non tournament way of playing the game that I can't just get my head around.

Non tournament games are usually played among friends or local players you hope to play again in the future. They are governed by the single most powerful rule: Don't be an a-hole. If you are, you will be excommunicated. Play for fun with your buddy, even if their army sucks. It's actually a fairly simple and effective concept if you are, like, a social person.

Ok this maybe a language barrier, but play for fun even when it your army sucks, sounds in my langue like someone saying eat your hot meal even when it is cold. Plus it sounds as if tournament players are doing the stuff they do not for fun. I from little expiriance I have, most of them seem to have a lot more fun, then casual players. The only ones that are not feeling fun are those caught cheating with a life long ban or whose army got nerfed.

I just don't see where the fun part of playing the game is suppose to be when you get dominated, even when your opponents try to pull punchs. It is rather deaming to be honest. Am not sure it is very fun, although here I don't have expiriance, to the other side either. Plus how does it work, you don't play with the units your bought and use 1600 something points vs a 2000pts list. what if your army is based around combos, which part of it do you drop, the farseer that cast doom, the jetbikes that haywire stuff.
The only solution seem to be buying way over 2000pts of stuff, and making a new army from scratch pre every game.

And even then am not sure if it would work. Against someone who is a skilled player and learned how to properly roll his dice, one army could be a hard match up, but still within the range of an actual gaming expiriance. VS someone else the same army could be super OP, even if they have the same kind of army.

That is why I was saying that non tournament play seems to me like a multi thousand dollar investment, if it is suppose to be played with more then one other person.

 Stux wrote:
It's it's the Relics, Traits, and Strats that make it broken then the Castellan itself isn't broken. That's what we're saying.

The Castellan itself is still a broken model. I simply listed why the Chaos ones are not used, and Magnus/Mortarion is part of the reason.

You do realize that the common way to field the Castellan is in a aux detachment. So it doesn't get House Raven traits?

So the idea that Chaos doesn't field it as it gets no house traits, when the Imperium one, in general also goesn't get any house traits is just silly right?

Chaos doesn't field it because they don't have access to Cawl's Wrath, and Order of Companions. That is all. And I expect Cawl's to get nerfed, eventually.

Karol idk if you have a dedicated gaming group or not but yea what you described is pretty much how most players in my area play. Most people don't run out and buy thousands of dollars of models in one go. You acquire more and more models over time and that allows you to have a wide range of options and units. Over time the group will come to a consensus of what they are cool with and what will get groans and eye rolls.

I've been playing for over 10 years and even when not actively playing I still bought models cause I thought they were cool. I would recommend playing either at a lower point level so you have more flexibility, find players who recognize that Grey Knights are not in a great spot and are willing to tone their list down to help compensate for that and slowly start collecting another army.