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.

"This maybe a stupid question, but besides of nerfing one thing so people buy something else, why does GW give units bad rules."
Mistakes
Short sightedness
Oversight
Downplay things

Design is hard. Really hard. It always seems like there's an easy fix, but if you played a dozen games, and for each game you applied one "well thought out" popular change suggestino from the Proposed Rules section, you'd have a lot of poorly balanced games.

40k has a lot of moving parts. There is a lot to keep track of. It's not enough just to pay attention to every stat on every model in every unit in every faction - an already very-large area. You need to keep track of that *for every game condition*, *against every other stat/model/unit/faction*, *with every possible buff/stratagem/faction trait/etc*.

It's not nearly as simple as most people think. And this isn't unique to 40k - look at almost any profession, you see the same thing. "How could MIcrosoft miss this kernal panic?" "How could Intel miss this security vulnerability?" "How could Bioware miss this bug?" "How could Blizzard not realize this skill is worthless?" "How could senator X not notice loophole Y?"

If you drill into it, you could take almost anything and it'd be true of that profession too. Digging a hole seems easy. But there are people who spend absurd amounts of effort on doing it better - and they *do* do it better.

Things are hard. The higher quality you want it to be, the harder it is. Perfection beyond the nontrivial is nearly impossible.

Consider Chess.
First player has 20 options for first turn. Second player has 20 options first turn.

How many states are there for the first two moves? 400.
After the second turn? 197,742.

(Note: I had to look up the second turn number.)

The simplicity of each individual *piece* of the system makes it all seem so simple. However, it really isn't. Anyone who tells you that it is should try fully understanding every option in Chess - a much simpler game. Which nobody has done.

For another example, consider software. For any given computer, we only have like 5 "real" things:
-On (1)
-Off (2)
-NAND(a, b)
-Not(a)
-Execute

Every piece of software can be broken down into a collection of those. Each of those is incredibly easy to understand. But who, here, fully understands every single piece of even the original Unix?

Even when each piece is simple, the sum of all the simple pieces is not.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
(Side note: most important point of the thread: that is *not* a stupid question. Stupid is assuming an answer. Smart is questioning an answer.)

Bharring wrote:
Design is hard. Really hard. It always seems like there's an easy fix, but if you played a dozen games, and for each game you applied one "well thought out" popular change suggestino from the Proposed Rules section, you'd have a lot of poorly balanced games.

This. This is also why you don't throw an entire game system out before making a truckload of small tweaks to see what can be done to bring it into line with expectations. Because the moment you roll out a new system you're at ground zero again.

Racerguy180 wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

Reemule wrote:
IN general I don't see Competitive players speaking to much about Casual player affairs. Very few that care enough to say anything about Casual play.

Offline, sure. I see plenty of sneering here on Dakka.

this is so painfully obvious but those who do are oblivious.

Some have the same approach: look at the rules and play to win.
Some like to look at the rules as a 40k scenario simulator to act out some event in the fluff or at least something interesting.
I like to try to find something in the middle.

Where it becomes the "bad place" is when those who want to win and are bad at it , they claim they are "casual": they are not being honest.

While some actually casual player looking for a game on the low side of competitiveness gets clobbered mistakenly taking on a competitive player.

It is quite the setup for hurt feelings.
One could say that possibly the best use for power levels is to signal to your opponent you do not intend to "sharpen your pencil" and max/min.
I find that the BEST means is to get a scenario together so a game has a story if "casual / fluff" is your thing.
RPG's have a DM/GM for a reason: someone to lay down the story that the conflict runs within.

GW is intentionally acknowledging the differing levels of play.
It is just infinitely harder to make the structure for a roleplay / fluff get together vs. a tournament.

Because when you play casual, you think of rules as:


While competitive go down this strange rabbit hole of thought:

Bharring wrote:
"This maybe a stupid question, but besides of nerfing one thing so people buy something else, why does GW give units bad rules."
Mistakes
Short sightedness
Oversight
Downplay things
...

Insighful. thanks. I get that fine tunning can be hard maybe even impossible. But some things are just plain weird. A centurion armed in a similar way to a dreadnought costs more points, but the dreadnought has better rules and better stats. Such stuff makes me wonder, because it seems easy to notice. Or to use a GK example,a regular NDK has has weapons, same rules, worse stats, and higher point cost, then a NDK GM. Stuff like that doesn't require testing at all. And it seems to happen often enough, to not just be a random error. But maybe I just see paterns where there are non. That is possible too.

I wish GW did faster updates though. one year per one CA, means 2 years waiting minimum if your codex comes out 3-4 months before christmas and if it is true that GW has books ready 6 months in advance, then 2 years can easily turn in to 3. Such a patch system when new content comes out every month or two, seems very strange. And they do have WD. They could make FAQ or errata every month, and then at the end of a year just compile them in to an additional book for people to buy.

Bharring wrote:Design is hard. Really hard. It always seems like there's an easy fix, but if you played a dozen games, and for each game you applied one "well thought out" popular change suggestino from the Proposed Rules section, you'd have a lot of poorly balanced games.

As a case in extremis, may I present Sword Art Online ABRIDGED Episodes 1-11. The main point comes in 11, but you don't really appreciate without the other 10.

That having been said, we're talking about a game system that has literally been out longer than any other non-historical tabletop wargame, and there should be a laundry list of "don't do this" hanging up somewhere in the office, but instead it gets ignored. Now, I presented this point earlier, and I think that some don't really appreciate it, but GW doesn't care about making a balanced competitive game. For a good example of why it may not be a good idea to have a balanced competitive game focus, I point you back to what has happened with WMH and their metas of Extremerollers.

Even then, it would be nice if they considered the impact of some of the changes for a couple months or have a couple people hired on who are good at finding these weaknesses and exploiting them before putting them out for release. While I can agree to not wanting to go whole hog on the hyper-competitive band wagon, that doesn't mean that balance gets to go out with the bath water. At least a nodding attempt at balance would be appreciated. But I still accept that GW doesn't care to make 40K in to

While its true design is hard, the level of issues that are present in any GW game are typically exasperated from any other game on the market, and this game has been around for over thirty years.

The Fan comps from early AOS days were able to achieve a lot closer of a "balance" than anything GW has ever put out. And GW rules guys are paid to write rules.

Karol wrote:

Bharring wrote:
"This maybe a stupid question, but besides of nerfing one thing so people buy something else, why does GW give units bad rules."
Mistakes
Short sightedness
Oversight
Downplay things
...

Insighful. thanks. I get that fine tunning can be hard maybe even impossible. But some things are just plain weird. A centurion armed in a similar way to a dreadnought costs more points, but the dreadnought has better rules and better stats. Such stuff makes me wonder, because it seems easy to notice. Or to use a GK example,a regular NDK has has weapons, same rules, worse stats, and higher point cost, then a NDK GM. Stuff like that doesn't require testing at all. And it seems to happen often enough, to not just be a random error. But maybe I just see paterns where there are non. That is possible too.

I wish GW did faster updates though. one year per one CA, means 2 years waiting minimum if your codex comes out 3-4 months before christmas and if it is true that GW has books ready 6 months in advance, then 2 years can easily turn in to 3. Such a patch system when new content comes out every month or two, seems very strange. And they do have WD. They could make FAQ or errata every month, and then at the end of a year just compile them in to an additional book for people to buy.

Read your codex -- A NDKGM is 40 pts more expensive then a NDK.

In the last CA the GMNDK got cheaper, and the normal NDK stayed with the same points. Same with interceptors and strikes. Identical units, with one difference that one has the not really fly rule.

Karol wrote:
In the last CA the GMNDK got cheaper, and the normal NDK stayed with the same points. Same with interceptors and strikes. Identical units, with one difference that one has the not really fly rule.

Or to use a GK example,a regular NDK has has weapons, same rules, worse stats, and higher point cost, then a NDK GM

Doesn't matter -- NDKGM is not cheaper than the NDK, but is 40 pts more expensive, at 170 base vs 130 base.

You claimed that a NDKGM was cheaper than a NDK and you are absolutely, horribly wrong. Same with your claim that the codex has 2 hqs when you have 11.

So, read your codex and chapter approved before you whine!

"While its true design is hard, the level of issues that are present in any GW game are typically exasperated from any other game on the market, and this game has been around for over thirty years. "
I'm not saying GW is *good* at design (or bad). I'm not saying it's unreasonable to complain about bad design. I'm not saying there's no point in discussing bad design decisions.

I'm saying design is hard.

I'm saying most people who look at something are likely to come away with the idea that they know exactly what's wrong and how to fix it - and that they're almost always wrong (myself included).

I'm saying most of the time when you read a post about how a specific change is obviously necessary and good for the game, it's actually a terrible idea and often won't do what the poster expects.

But I'm not saying to not have those conversations. If you don't post your ideas, they won't get gakked upon. And in the process of the communual gakking this board will take on your idea, you can learn something. Occasionally even great things that have nothing to do with this game. Other times, you'll gain a better understanding of this game - which may help you play it, may help you enjoy it, and may help your next idea be less gakky.

(To be clear, this applies to my ideas, too.)

(Edit: I've always trusted the board profanity filter, as sometimes profane terms are the proper terms for discussion. Looks like it didn't filter other congugations of gak appropriately, so I did so manually.)

Racerguy180 wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:


If I were to make a thread asking how to play necrons for example I would immediately be told that they aren't good and if I want to at all stand any chance of winning I should take destroyers and immortals. Which is all well and good but people don't start armies to take one or two units, they take armies because they like them as a whole (usually). There's no balanced opinions and general army advice is distilled down to it's most efficient units and that's all anyone talks about. If even the slightest hint of trying to make sub-par units work somewhat it just results in arguments about how much of a CP investment they are or how a unit from the same (often another army entirely) does the same thing better.
.

This happens waaaayyyyyy too much around here.

Well if someone is starting Necrons, it's important they don't waste their money on bad units.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:


If I were to make a thread asking how to play necrons for example I would immediately be told that they aren't good and if I want to at all stand any chance of winning I should take destroyers and immortals. Which is all well and good but people don't start armies to take one or two units, they take armies because they like them as a whole (usually). There's no balanced opinions and general army advice is distilled down to it's most efficient units and that's all anyone talks about. If even the slightest hint of trying to make sub-par units work somewhat it just results in arguments about how much of a CP investment they are or how a unit from the same (often another army entirely) does the same thing better.
.

This happens waaaayyyyyy too much around here.

Well if someone is starting Necrons, it's important they don't waste their money on bad units.

See, while I agree it's important for someone to understand a faction isn't good unless you spam certain units, it's also important to not make it clear that this isn't the be all end all if they don't plan to play competitively. Like, GW repeatedly states how you should pick a faction because you like their background, or their looks, or read a novel that featured them and it really caught your attention. They repeatedly state that you should buy models you feel would look good, if not play well also.

So these things have to be tempered. Someone who likes Necrons isn't going to appreciate being told "90% of your codex is garbage, you want to spam these 3 units or you'll lose constantly" and that might even sour them on the entire faction, if not the whole game because who wants to be told by the company that it's okay to pick based on looks/theme/etc. and then find out that you do nothing but lose?

It's important to know what you're getting into, but telling someone to pick a different faction if they're like hey I'm new and I really like the looks and fluff of the Grey Knights is not okay in my book.

Wayniac wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:


If I were to make a thread asking how to play necrons for example I would immediately be told that they aren't good and if I want to at all stand any chance of winning I should take destroyers and immortals. Which is all well and good but people don't start armies to take one or two units, they take armies because they like them as a whole (usually). There's no balanced opinions and general army advice is distilled down to it's most efficient units and that's all anyone talks about. If even the slightest hint of trying to make sub-par units work somewhat it just results in arguments about how much of a CP investment they are or how a unit from the same (often another army entirely) does the same thing better.
.

This happens waaaayyyyyy too much around here.

Well if someone is starting Necrons, it's important they don't waste their money on bad units.

See, while I agree it's important for someone to understand a faction isn't good unless you spam certain units, it's also important to not make it clear that this isn't the be all end all if they don't plan to play competitively. Like, GW repeatedly states how you should pick a faction because you like their background, or their looks, or read a novel that featured them and it really caught your attention. They repeatedly state that you should buy models you feel would look good, if not play well also.

So these things have to be tempered. Someone who likes Necrons isn't going to appreciate being told "90% of your codex is garbage, you want to spam these 3 units or you'll lose constantly" and that might even sour them on the entire faction, if not the whole game because who wants to be told by the company that it's okay to pick based on looks/theme/etc. and then find out that you do nothing but lose?

It's important to know what you're getting into, but telling someone to pick a different faction if they're like hey I'm new and I really like the looks and fluff of the Grey Knights is not okay in my book.

Yeah, i did that and I get constantly gak on by dissy cannons.

Before that, it was gladius and scatterbikes.

Before that, it was invisible grav star.

Before that, it was Matt Ward GK and whoever wrote the 5th ed SW codex.

Before that, it was having a WD codex.

Before that, it was terrible skimmer rules.

Before that, it was the starcannon.

Oh yeah, I had a good army early in 3rd.

Bharring wrote:
"While its true design is hard, the level of issues that are present in any GW game are typically exasperated from any other game on the market, and this game has been around for over thirty years. "
I'm not saying GW is *good* at design (or bad). I'm not saying it's unreasonable to complain about bad design. I'm not saying there's no point in discussing bad design decisions.

I'm saying design is hard.

I'm saying most people who look at something are likely to come away with the idea that they know exactly what's wrong and how to fix it - and that they're almost always wrong (myself included).

I'm saying most of the time when you read a post about how a specific change is obviously necessary and good for the game, it's actually a terrible idea and often won't do what the poster expects.

But I'm not saying to not have those conversations. If you don't post your ideas, they won't get gakked upon. And in the process of the communual gakking this board will take on your idea, you can learn something. Occasionally even great things that have nothing to do with this game. Other times, you'll gain a better understanding of this game - which may help you play it, may help you enjoy it, and may help your next idea be less gakky.

(To be clear, this applies to my ideas, too.)

(Edit: I've always trusted the board profanity filter, as sometimes profane terms are the proper terms for discussion. Looks like it didn't filter other congugations of gak appropriately, so I did so manually.)

I would never say design is easy. I could tweak all of GWs existing units but I would be left short if I were given a new model and told to make rules for it.

HOWEVER, there is a point where the imbalance is so blatantly obvious it's ridiculous. You should already know how silly the Storm Guardian entry is, for example, but what about the point Karol brought up with the Dreadknight vs the Grandmaster variant? Can we honestly use the excuse "design is hard" for GW to cut points on the one already being ran and not touch the other one?

 Melissia wrote:

Reemule wrote:
IN general I don't see Competitive players speaking to much about Casual player affairs. Very few that care enough to say anything about Casual play.

Offline, sure. I see plenty of sneering here on Dakka.

The most common type of player in my community (and this includes myself) is someone who wants to bring a strong list, but also have fun, looking to avoid things that create resentment like extreme skew or WAAC RAW bending.

This distinction is important, because if one of us played a 'casual' player it would be an absolute bloodbath-- not super fun for either of us.

You can be competitive, but not want to spend 4 hours on a Saturday bashing your head against slow playing 180 infantry armies, or a souped 3++ Castellan Triple Knight list that your strong TAC list has no chance of beating.

Let's call it 'moderated competitive.'

"Well if someone is starting Necrons, it's important they don't waste their money on bad units."

I started Marines when they were bad. I didn't waste my money. I'm glad I started with them.

I started Eldar when they were bad. They haven't been bad since, and I clearly didn't waste my money.

I started Harlies when they were the worst entry in the CWE book. That wasn't a waste of money.

If someone's starting Necrons (or GK), it's useful to let them know that their army isn't that strong right now. But that's not the same as telling them they're wasting their money.

First off, there's a lot more to this hobby than winning tournies. That may be the pinnacle for some, but it's not even relevant to others. Some much prefer the look and feel.

I've never fielded a WK, or Spear/Reaper squads above 3/5, or ScatterBikes; it's not just because they're OP, it's also because that's not the units I want to play with. Similarly, regardless of how powerful/weak they are, I don't want to collect/build/paint/play Orkz. Every game is better with Orkz in the game, but being Orkz just doesn't appeal to me.

So a new player may start as Necrons, and have a blast. The same player, if he were to go with the current hotness, may hate the game and waste his money.

Second, who knows what'll be top dog next year?
In the past two editions (since 7th started), the top armies have included:
-CWE
-DE
-Marines (Vanilla)
-CSM
-Demons
-IG
-Necrons
-T'au
-Ynnari
-Custodes
-Nids

So who's to say what'll be better in a year or two from now?

So it does help to point out what is currently on top, but that doesn't mean a new player should not start with something that isn't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
"I would never say design is easy. I could tweak all of GWs existing units but I would be left short if I were given a new model and told to make rules for it."
To quote my post you're quoting, "I'm saying most people who look at something are likely to come away with the idea that they know exactly what's wrong and how to fix it - and that they're almost always wrong (myself included)."

"HOWEVER, there is a point where the imbalance is so blatantly obvious it's ridiculous. You should already know how silly the Storm Guardian entry is, for example, but what about the point Karol brought up with the Dreadknight vs the Grandmaster variant? Can we honestly use the excuse "design is hard" for GW to cut points on the one already being ran and not touch the other one?"
To again quote my post you're quoting, "I'm not saying GW is *good* at design (or bad). I'm not saying it's unreasonable to complain about bad design"

My dream is a good player playing a middle of the road list constantly (emphasis that word constantly) doing well and placing high against other good players with powergamer lists.

Because at that point, game play will become more influential.

auticus wrote:
My dream is a good player playing a middle of the road list constantly (emphasis that word constantly) doing well and placing high against other good players with powergamer lists.

Because at that point, game play will become more influential.

IF the game is properly balanced there is no middle of the road or power game list. It would just be list emphasis.

If the game is properly balanced there will always be mathematical imbalance. However, there should never be a good player vs a good player is decided because one good player brought the castellan. Imbalance will always exists but should always be able to be overcome through better play.

Two equally skilled players does not mean both players never make mistakes. Its who can capitalize on the mistakes of the other in that certain game should mean more than other player brought castellan so the math was so stacked against the other that it was a done deal.

The point of conflict here is that many (id say most of 40k playerbase) wants the list to mean that two equal players playing IS decided by who brought the proverbial castellan because then list building matters a lot and is more interesting to them.

You can't have both though. You can't have list building matters a lot AND have good balance in the game. You can have ok EXTERNAL balance like that where all factions have a viable powerbuild, but you cannot have good internal balance like that, which I find to be equally important.

 Xenomancers wrote:

auticus wrote:
My dream is a good player playing a middle of the road list constantly (emphasis that word constantly) doing well and placing high against other good players with powergamer lists.

Because at that point, game play will become more influential.

IF the game is properly balanced there is no middle of the road or power game list. It would just be list emphasis.

But who knows if that is possible in w40k? Maybe it is just not possible. I guess it would be better, if the gap between the best and the worse army was a bit smaller. I think the gap is the true problem. there is always going to be a list that is the best, but sometimes it feels like the best are playing a different game with how many rules they ignore or break.

Perfect balance won't happen, but it can at least get closer than it is right now.

There is perfect which is really hard to define anyways and there is as good as it gets (this is what we want). This isn't as good as it gets because as auticus points out - the game is decided in list building right now. This is because there are so many flagrantly OP units that you lose if you don't take them.

Regardless of the current state of faction balance, I was pretty pleasantly surprised that the LVO finals was between two distinct factions with VASTLY different playstyles. What that means is that 8th edition 40k as a game system still has enough flexibility and variability to prevent it from being perfectly 'solved' even at the highest competitive levels. Even when the general advice for LVO was 'bring a Castellan', that doesn't stop a clever player from developing a perfect meta buster list and having a lot of success with it.

For the rest of us 'buy the models we like' players, it seems most factions are in a pretty good place when it comes to casual games eg. the overwhelming majority of games played. I've seen Grey Knights wreck Death Guard at my local store, I've watched Necrons poop on Triptides, etc.

"Perfect balance won't happen, but it can at least get closer than it is right now."
Making things better is good.

Then, when things are better, making them better is good.

It doesn't end. But it keeps making things better. So it's worth doing.

Perfection is the enemy of excellence. You can't get there, and you can pass up so many great things by demanding it.

The issue which exacerbates the imbalance in lists is that 40k is incredibly shallow in terms of actual gameplay decisions. The only real decisions you make are where to move your dudes so they can see the enemy and then what enemy to kill and even they require little in the way of actual tactics (get opponent in line of sight, shoot/charge until dead).

For example, in 40K there is no mechanic to employ the Four Fs used in WW2 and which still serve as one of the foundations for military tactics to this day (Find the enemy, Fix the enemy in place with suppressive fire, Flank the enemy, Finish the enemy). How much more interesting would a game of 40K be if movement and positioning actually mattered more? Where the mechanics of the game encouraged the actual usage of tactics like enveloping and flanking the enemy, using suppression fire from heavy bolters to keep the enemy pinned behind a wall whilst your assault squads flanked them from behind a ruined building. And all the while you are having to counter your opponent trying to do the same thing.

I would totally want to play that game.

Another thing that is really annoying (and not in a "good" place) is the different costs of "cores" between factions. That is to say, IG can take their basic Battalion, add a few heavy hitters (Russes, Artillery, etc.) for, what, 800pts? If that? Even if the rest of their army is bottom-tier fluffy nonsense, that core will allow their list to compete in most non-tournament games without handicap AND without eating into their list space. Comparatively, when I consider core Necron units I'm thinking of 30 Tesla Immortals, an Overlord, a Cryptek, a Lord and his 3 DDAs. That's over 1100 points of units to just make my list "work", before I get to add the fluffy stuff I want to take.

Now, I personally don't mind said list because I like an Immortal-based army, but for people who liked playing carpets of Warriors or a coterie of Terminators or anything vaguely Grey Knights, the game isn't in a "good" place, because it feels like you have to try way too hard to make your list "work", even in a casual game.

 slave.entity wrote:
Regardless of the current state of faction balance, I was pretty pleasantly surprised that the LVO finals was between two distinct factions with VASTLY different playstyles. What that means is that 8th edition 40k as a game system still has enough flexibility and variability to prevent it from being perfectly 'solved' even at the highest competitive levels. Even when the general advice for LVO was 'bring a Castellan', that doesn't stop a clever player from developing a perfect meta buster list and having a lot of success with it.

For the rest of us 'buy the models we like' players, it seems most factions are in a pretty good place when it comes to casual games eg. the overwhelming majority of games played. I've seen Grey Knights wreck Death Guard at my local store, I've watched Necrons poop on Triptides, etc.

Castellans dominated LVO and dominate all tournaments. There are no clever meta busters. Just the same old crap AKA - Ynnari spears/doom - Eldar flyers - blocking moving paths - Orks abusing SAG relic and ofc...shooting twice because nothing is competitive without shooting twice . Dont mistake a little bit of diversity for the same old thang. OP = playable. Not OP? Dumpster.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
The issue which exacerbates the imbalance in lists is that 40k is incredibly shallow in terms of actual gameplay decisions. The only real decisions you make are where to move your dudes so they can see the enemy and then what enemy to kill and even they require little in the way of actual tactics (get opponent in line of sight, shoot/charge until dead).

For example, in 40K there is no mechanic to employ the Four Fs used in WW2 and which still serve as one of the foundations for military tactics to this day (Find the enemy, Fix the enemy in place with suppressive fire, Flank the enemy, Finish the enemy). How much more interesting would a game of 40K be if movement and positioning actually mattered more? Where the mechanics of the game encouraged the actual usage of tactics like enveloping and flanking the enemy, using suppression fire from heavy bolters to keep the enemy pinned behind a wall whilst your assault squads flanked them from behind a ruined building. And all the while you are having to counter your opponent trying to do the same thing.

Yeah I'd love some actual tactics but the reality is things are to lethal for tactics to even come into play. Fire arcs are meaningless and you can shoot through a 2 inch holes just as well as in the open. Also the real tactics in warfare (finding the enemy) are actaully the most tactical. We just deploy our armies into desperate situations and start shooting. It's still fun but actual tactics don't come into play. It's really just - focus fire to take away their firepower - this is 40k.

40k never had much in the way of tactics though. It was always pretty much mostly the list you brought, and then just applying firepower to the right thing. It's always been woefully shallow with reliance on lots of options as pretending to have meaningful depth.

The past few editions with True LOS have made that worse because it means most terrain (barring things like ITC houserules) might as well only be for decoration as they have lots of holes/windows/etc. where you can see *some* part of virtually any model, which makes the entire terrain piece usless as though it wasn't there at all.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 slave.entity wrote:
Regardless of the current state of faction balance, I was pretty pleasantly surprised that the LVO finals was between two distinct factions with VASTLY different playstyles. What that means is that 8th edition 40k as a game system still has enough flexibility and variability to prevent it from being perfectly 'solved' even at the highest competitive levels. Even when the general advice for LVO was 'bring a Castellan', that doesn't stop a clever player from developing a perfect meta buster list and having a lot of success with it.

For the rest of us 'buy the models we like' players, it seems most factions are in a pretty good place when it comes to casual games eg. the overwhelming majority of games played. I've seen Grey Knights wreck Death Guard at my local store, I've watched Necrons poop on Triptides, etc.

Castellans dominated LVO and dominate all tournaments. There are no clever meta busters. Just the same old crap AKA - Ynnari spears/doom - Eldar flyers - blocking moving paths - Orks abusing SAG relic and ofc...shooting twice because nothing is competitive without shooting twice . Dont mistake a little bit of diversity for the same old thang. OP = playable. Not OP? Dumpster.

That's definitely one way to look at it. For casual pickup games, 40k does seem to be in a pretty good place among the cities I've lived in and among the groups I've played with. No one actually brings a Castellan or seven Ynnari flyers to a pickup game as that would be considered extremely bad etiquette unless both players have agreed in advance to play 'competitive'. I'm assuming this isn't the case for you and your scene?