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.

Seems like it was a lost opportunity to make them female marines. There's a local guy that put female heads (where they don't have helmets) on his and they're fantastic.

@Karol, you should really try and learn to view the game from the other person's perspective.

I've played plenty against suboptimal lists of all armies in the game, and i personally never build cheesy lists. I've found this to be a much more enjoyable approach to the game than when i was building cheesy comp lists. And so do my opponents.

Everytime the "for the greater good" argument is brought up in a thread, you come along and say that you not destroying your opponent by playing the most optimal list isnt fun. Thats not how the game works, the game if at tis funnest when both sides are evenly matched, which is why so many people downpower their lists or add houserules to make it more balanced.

but I think it's the worst 40k has ever been in terms of the bring-minis-you-like pick-up game.

It is nowhere near as bad as it was in 7th. Pick-up games were almost impossible then. That was the worst the game has ever been. Fateweaver and his un-killable Screamer Star, Imperial Knights that, if you brought the wrong army you literally could not hurt at all while they rained down D weapons every turn, Eldar being an "I deploy I win" army ... THAT was the worst.


8th is definitely better than that as long as you aren't playing one of the armies the edition completely broke. I think it's funny - one of the more "famous" high-level tournament players early on said Tau were going to be one of the best armies in 9th, and they've turned out to be borderline unplayable. GSC are in a similarly tough spot and Tsons, while nowhere near as bad as the other two, have really been smacked by the edition. These are temporary things fortunately (provided GW does right by their books) but this edition isn't that bad over-all imo.

Playing random pick-up games against random strangers hanging around game shops is the worst way to play 40k. Heck, to play any game really.

Nurglitch wrote:
Playing random pick-up games against random strangers hanging around game shops is the worst way to play 40k. Heck, to play any game really.

yeah, agreed. I never understood how pickup games exist anywhere. Im my area we have at the very least a facebook group to ask for games at the shop so we don't just randomly show up with a list to maybe find someone else to play.

So for us its super easy to setup even games because we go :

A:Anyone for a game tonight?
B:Sure, what pts lvl/powerlevel
A:1k, low power
B:Alright, i'll bring my NightLords
A:I'll play my Tzeentch demons then

And then we can even exchange lists if we want to make sure its as balanced as possible. Or sometimes if we feel like going all-in we prep for it so the other player doesnt get suprised with their pants down by a 9 eradicator list

I've found 40k to be one of the worst games in existence to play against random strangers.

The only games which are even more likely to go south when played with random strangers are RPGs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
yeah, agreed. I never understood how pickup games exist anywhere. Im my area we have at the very least a facebook group to ask for games at the shop so we don't just randomly show up with a list to maybe find someone else to play.

Well, that's how it has always worked for MtG - you pack four to five decks for the most popular game modes and a couple of bucks for drafting and go to the store, find random person, play them. Same thing for the munchkin card game or just board game nights.

One of the biggest mistakes I made when starting 40k was assuming that it worked the same way for this game.

 Jidmah wrote:
I've found 40k to be one of the worst games in existence to play against random strangers.

The only games which are even more likely to go south when played with random strangers are RPGs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
yeah, agreed. I never understood how pickup games exist anywhere. Im my area we have at the very least a facebook group to ask for games at the shop so we don't just randomly show up with a list to maybe find someone else to play.

Well, that's how it has always worked for MtG - you pack four to five decks for the most popular game modes and a couple of bucks for drafting and go to the store, find random person, play them. Same thing for the munchkin card game or just board game nights.

One of the biggest mistakes I made when starting 40k was assuming that it worked the same way for this game.

yeah but MTG games are like 15 minutes long, 40k more like 2 hours. And as you said, for MTG you carry multiple decks so if your opponent opens a saltmine when he sees you drop an island, you can always swap to something else after.

My comment was 100% about 40k tho, other games work much better with the "pick-up" style of play. Although at my store, we used to hit people up on facebook before going to play MTG back when i played it.

Ah right, the stories are missing context - I started playing 40k when one of my kitchen-table MtG group begun picking up 40k. I was playing everything MtG back then, from casual EDH to competitive T2.
I simply assumed 40k was the same, considering how there always was a crowd playing at stores that had tables.

I also don't think I ever experienced someone making a fuss because of a deck someone else played. Being told that my list was too powerful and that I should tone it down was also something completely new and alien to me when playing 40k.

 Jidmah wrote:
Ah right, the stories are missing context - I started playing 40k when one of my kitchen-table MtG group begun picking up 40k. I was playing everything MtG back then, from casual EDH to competitive T2.
I simply assumed 40k was the same, considering how there always was a crowd playing at stores that had tables.

I also don't think I ever experienced someone making a fuss because of a deck someone else played. Being told that my list was too powerful and that I should tone it down was also something completely new and alien to me when playing 40k.

I used to play MTG pretty competitively so when i swapped to 40k i kept that "winning matters" mentality, which kind of soiled my reputation. Eventually i realised that and changed my point of view on 40k/how i play it.

And you've really never seen someone lose their gak because you countered their finisher? When i was doing FNM there was always at least one guy getting triggered by his opponent interacting (most of the time it was me, grixis forever!)

Well, during Kamigawa I had a WAAC player lose his gak in his own home, throw half of his 700 card deck across the room, storm off and never host a game of MtG ever again.
In his last game I held his invincible angel tribal deck laced with circles of protection in a death lock with a daemons deck that kept destroying every creature and land he would play.

To be fair, I built that deck for the sole reason of pissing that player off, but it exceeded my expectations by far

But in general, when you go to a store and play pick up games, people can get emotional when the game doesn't go their way, but you generally wont get blamed for building a too powerful deck as long as it's legal. The percentage of idiots really is the same in any game.

 Jidmah wrote:
Not even semper said that, and he is the most doomsaying ork player in all of dakka

Doomsaying = called it perfectly in 7th, 8th and 9th

In fact I was one of the first to say Orkz competitiveness would be on our nerfed boyz yet again. Not because they are inherently good, but because they are counter meta. And yet again nailed it Even at 8ppm they are great because everyone is building lists to kill 20pt+ infantry models with 2 and 3 wounds each. As I have said a number of times, orkz care very little if you shoot them with a bolt rifle or a Plasma gun, they are likely dead regardless

With that said, if the meta shifts, GSC or nids getting really good horde builds, we are going to see a lot of ork players going from top 4 to bottom 4 (exaggeration for effect). The nerfed *garbage* Aggressors for example still kill 3-4 ork boyz a turn. a 24-32pt return on investment on a 45pt model, but nobody is taking them because they can instead take Eradicators for ranged combat or Bladeguard for CC who are WAY better at popping elite infantry and vehicles.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
@Karol, you should really try and learn to view the game from the other person's perspective.

I've played plenty against suboptimal lists of all armies in the game, and i personally never build cheesy lists. I've found this to be a much more enjoyable approach to the game than when i was building cheesy comp lists. And so do my opponents.

Everytime the "for the greater good" argument is brought up in a thread, you come along and say that you not destroying your opponent by playing the most optimal list isnt fun. Thats not how the game works, the game if at tis funnest when both sides are evenly matched, which is why so many people downpower their lists or add houserules to make it more balanced.

I played a majority termintor GK army the entire 8th, I think I know a thing or two about playing sub optimal lists. Doesn't change the fact, that I think that playing bad lists on purpose is a stupid thing to do.
My views have nothing to do with playing the most opitmal build. But there are very few armies in the past or right now, which can just pick up random stuff and either hit powerful carry units, that support a bad list, or have above avarge rule sets with bad units far and in between.

If someone decides that they want an army with multiple units of strikes scorpions and storm guardians it is their choice. A bad one in my opinion. They can of course want their army to be fun, everyone has the right to want that. But expecting, that the okey way to play, should be building a bad army, with knowladge that the army is bad, and that opponents should go out of their ways in both their buying choices and the ways they play is loonacy.

It would be like me expecting to make it big in a 18-21y old wrestling competition at 15, without being an uzbek.

 Blackie wrote:

Karol wrote:

 Blackie wrote:


Tournament data shows that right now it's probably the most balanced edition ever competitively speaking and in friendly games it's super easy to avoid those few cheesy combo and play fairly balanced matches with tons of different builds.

Try building a harlequin army and not end up with something that looks like a tournament list. You don't even have to try that much. Same with custodes or orks. And all those are solid lists. IH in 8th could be made out of a few starter sets of infantry, and while lacking the FW stuff, were still almost the same in efficiency. there is also the flip side of thinks to it too. Because it is one thing to play an almost tournament list with a good army, it is another to try to play a non tournament list with an army which is bad. What gaming expiriance do you think a tau player would have if he didn't pick the best of the best units tau have? Sometimes a combo is the only thing that hold a codex a float.

It's very easy with all three factions you mentioned. With orks it's actually harder to field a competitive army than an absolute trash one. Custodes and harlies can definitely be played at casual levels without bullying people: the former just need to avoid FW stuff, which is something you typically don't see outside tournaments, and the latter just need to avoid some of the cheesiest combos the army can bring. WYSIWYG troups will unlikely have the most effective loadout due to the available bitz in their kit for example and you also don't see 12-18 bikes outside tournaments.

Yes because FW is making Custodes so over the top, never mind the fact they have basically ZERO options without it and the fact various builds already thrived anyway without it.

I'd love to know how my Coronus or Achillus Dread constitute "bullying people".

 AnomanderRake wrote:
I'd love to know how my Coronus or Achillus Dread constitute "bullying people".

Because fw=OP, haven't you heard? But don't feel bad, although all fw units are OP, only Marine fw units are super OP. That's why even after their rules were either brought inline with codex units, or left at their Index levels that were already eclipsed by the rules for similar units, they had to be given a 1CP surcharge that no other fw unit has. Good thing gw did that, isn't it?

FW is the ultimate definition of OP

In before someone jumping in, saying their FW unit they use is damanged vehicle recovery IG APC used only in narrative games, and not an old school Leviathan trying to be a mini deathstar.

I feel Harlequins can tune down by bringing say 3 Voidweavers and maxing out characters.

But at the same time, I feel Harlequins are a high skill cap army rather than point and click. If you are being repeatedly destroyed by a Harlequins player, odds are they are very good/better than you and they could do the same with many other factions. Admittedly though its a dice game, so if they are just being lucky it may not feel like it.

I think this probably is the most balanced the game's been, because there is a significant skill component to the objectives. How you position matters a lot more than "I'm going to nuke your army over 3 turns and then I guess I'll throw something on to an objective". But unfortunately some armies are still at a clear disadvantage - and the first turn issue remains.

I also think "Faction Secondary Objectives" is a creeping timebomb that will do nothing good for the game, but I guess we wait and see.

I also think the melta-meta will invariably end up being nerfed, probably in CA21, because GW will want someone somewhere to buy their shiny new (and expensive) vehicles/monsters. That aspect of meta is just going to get worse as the Xenos get their own anti-vehicle weapon buffs, while vehicles seemingly remain made of paper.

I agree that Harlequins are high skill cap, but they also have crazy strong synergies and rules.

DE are also high skill cap but we are lacking in rules and weaponry.

 Denegaar wrote:
I agree that Harlequins are high skill cap, but they also have crazy strong synergies and rules.

DE are also high skill cap but we are lacking in rules and weaponry.

To be fair I think Harlequins are a bit undercosted to *the whole of 40k* but less so to the competitive factions.

By contrast most DE stuff is overcosted. Getting more interesting synergies/rules may be desirable - but really, a double splinter cannon venom for instance is just never worth 90 points in a world where the Starweaver, which is better in just about every way imaginable, only costs 80. Taking one cannon for a 75 point venom doesn't change this.

Cross faction comparisons can be misleading - but sometimes its obvious. One of these things is not like the other.

Of course you are right, Harlequins and Dark Eldar are not on the same league. It looks like Harlies are already playing with 9ed points and rules.

Venom vs Starweaver is just insulting.

Tycho wrote:

but I think it's the worst 40k has ever been in terms of the bring-minis-you-like pick-up game.

It is nowhere near as bad as it was in 7th. Pick-up games were almost impossible then. That was the worst the game has ever been. Fateweaver and his un-killable Screamer Star, Imperial Knights that, if you brought the wrong army you literally could not hurt at all while they rained down D weapons every turn, Eldar being an "I deploy I win" army ... THAT was the worst.

Yes 7th had a lot of OP as feth stuff but honestly it's not really all that different than any other edition where you bring a tournament net list vs somebody running something fluffy. Good games of 40k come from talking with your opponent to gauge what sort of game both parties are looking to have, roughly how powerful an army they are going to field, and fielding an army that is within the same ballpark in terms of power. The game has always had terrible codex balance (internal and external) and a level of mutual agreement has been needed to hammer out a good matchup and avoid one sided stomps.

 Akar wrote:
9th has been mostly great for me. In the least it's made me more active on the painting table. Loving Crusade and my only issues with it are that army specific ones aren't widely available. This will be addressed over time and we'll probably have to restart our Crusade Games a few times. Still looking forward to the Maelstrom Mission pack and secretly hoping it's removed most of the CA19 crap. The Open War mission pack has been quite fun in the meantime.

My only disappointment with 9th is end of Competitive 40k. Kudos to those who can play the same Matched Play mission over and over. Looks like we're going to have to wait another edition for it to come back, maybe even several editions until we get a functional one.

Thanks for your perspective! It’s very different from mine, and it shows the diversity in gaming communities. Crusade has been a dud around here, while the competitive Matched Play format is thriving (as much as it can under there conditions). My play group is not hyper-competitive, but our bi-monthly tournaments are the anchors of our gaming. We veered away from the GW missions in 8th, but the 9th Ed ones have been good for us. Time will tell when things get more normal if the wider tournament community will get behind the GW mission pack - I think it would be a good thing.

I would like to get a Crusade going - maybe over the holidays with my son.

 Vankraken wrote:
Yes 7th had a lot of OP as feth stuff but honestly it's not really all that different than any other edition where you bring a tournament net list vs somebody running something fluffy. Good games of 40k come from talking with your opponent to gauge what sort of game both parties are looking to have, roughly how powerful an army they are going to field, and fielding an army that is within the same ballpark in terms of power. The game has always had terrible codex balance (internal and external) and a level of mutual agreement has been needed to hammer out a good matchup and avoid one sided stomps.

The problem with 7th wasn't the OP stuff, it was that balance was so out of whack that some codices could bring their top competitive lists and had no chance of beating other codices who just brought a random coherent list from their collection.

It's also worth noting that "netlists" aren't really a thing in 9th any more...

 Jidmah wrote:
It's also worth noting that "netlists" aren't really a thing in 9th any more...

That might be more to do with the Pandemic cancelling tournaments than with the specific edition. Mind you, every time I'd tried to dig in to 9th my will to write a list is found wanting.

Not every country is in the same situation as US/UK. Down under is having regular tournaments again, and large parts of Europe also had events during summer - and then there is TTS. In addition, coverage and data of competitive gaming is more available than ever, so if anything, there should be more people copying lists from tournament winners.

Much more of a factor seems to be the massively increased internal balance in many codices compared to older editions.
While top competitive lists tend to roughly follow the same game plan, the actual units used vary wildly.
Obviously, this doesn't apply to armies that didn't have more than one list to begin with, like Harlequins or Custodes.

Karol wrote:
In before someone jumping in, saying their FW unit they use is damanged vehicle recovery IG APC used only in narrative games, and not an old school Leviathan trying to be a mini deathstar.

You're actually right even if youre trying to be ironic.

Was my :

Blood slaughterer
Tantalus
Helblade
Rapier battery
Decimator
Zarakynel
Knight Atropos
Terrax drill
Hornets
Wraithseer
Dual claw Leviathan
Contemptor

Overpowered?

No, only the leviathan with storm cannon was ever really problematic. And mostly because of one Chapter and one Legion.

Karol wrote:

 Blackie wrote:


It's very easy with all three factions you mentioned. With orks it's actually harder to field a competitive army than an absolute trash one. Custodes and harlies can definitely be played at casual levels without bullying people: the former just need to avoid FW stuff, which is something you typically don't see outside tournaments, and the latter just need to avoid some of the cheesiest combos the army can bring. WYSIWYG troups will unlikely have the most effective loadout due to the available bitz in their kit for example and you also don't see 12-18 bikes outside tournaments.

okey, but then you are just building a bad army. And I am not saying that people never play bad armies, I played a termintor based army all 8th ed. But in reality why would someone build a non 24" move harlis, or non goff orks. Maybe you don't always can or want to take ghaz, specialy before you could get his model as a separate one. But max fusion gun, always mounted all the time for harlis, jet custodes is as basic as tanking melta weapons in marine armies or running nurglings and slanesh stuff in chaos soups.

You have a point about harlequins and Custodes because these codex have like 3 options each.

Orks on the other hand have probably the most variety of possible lists after marines. Saying they can only build one thing is ridiculous.

My entire army is build around 4 kits, termintors, NDK, strikes and dreadnought. Termintors can make all GK characters, and paladins, the strikes can make everything else. So I could be biased that is true.

I mean, my Harlequin army is from 7th edition, when several weapons did COMPLETELY different stuff than they did now. So - as an example - I have a unit of Skyweaver Jetbikes with every model equipped with a star bola. Back in 7th, when those were single use blast weapons, that made some sense. Now, when they are the GRENADE type and you would need to have a railroad spike through your brain to field more than 1 model in a unit equipped with them, that unit is less competitive. I also have a Voidweaver from when GW basically made that unit mandatory to play clowns in 7th - basically every formation had 1 voidweaver in it IIRC.

Good thing that box comes with the option to build both models with Star Bolas!

Or, heck, when it comes to weaponry I have a large mix of stuff - troupes I bought when the army came out in 7th, old rogue trader harlequin models equipped with all manner of crazy crap, and models I already had of the 5th ed era metal troupe box and characters. All of it is 2 editions out of date now, so my Harlequin collection is out of date.

You don't build an army that's bad on purpose, you choose to either build an army that has a variety of equipment so that meta changes dont screw you over, or you choose to build an army that's meta for a particular edition/moment,and GW changes the rules on you like they do every 5 seconds.

 Jidmah wrote:
The problem with 7th wasn't the OP stuff, it was that balance was so out of whack that some codices could bring their top competitive lists and had no chance of beating other codices who just brought a random coherent list from their collection.

It's also worth noting that "netlists" aren't really a thing in 9th any more...

I wouldn't say netlists are gone. You clearly see "options" that slot into armies. See for example "vanguard with lightning claws+storm shield" as an example being slotted into a lot of Marine lists.

But yeah, the issue with 7th was the very explicit tier list.
I mean arguably it was *healthy*.
You could play Wraithknight+Scatbikes+Warpsiders, Riptide Wing, (or why not both), Superfriends, Free Razorback spam, Magnus and Invisible Screamer Stars or Knights and have a decent shot at winning games. I think arguably who got the first turn for that 5+ selection of lists was the biggest determinant of winning like now.
Which is why tournaments evolved to the point where those above lists were making up about 80% of attendees or so. (Not counting end of term Ynnari madness).

If you didn't then bad luck. Necrons crushed everyone else, but couldn't cope with the above. Then you had Hive Tyrant Spam and Reaver Jetbike Spam. Then... whatever the other factions were running.

I feel Harlequins/Marines/Sisters/Custodes/Daemons maybe have an edge right now - but not so much to the point where its an auto-win versus the other factions in the game. Arguably though this is because going first is too impactful (except for Tau, who seem to be toast.)

the_scotsman 794304 11003575 wrote:
You don't build an army that's bad on purpose, you choose to either build an army that has a variety of equipment so that meta changes dont screw you over, or you choose to build an army that's meta for a particular edition/moment,and GW changes the rules on you like they do every 5 seconds.

my dudes came with a mix of halabards and swords, and no "options" to build them different in a time when running anything other then a falchion strikes was a very bad idea, and that is on top of playing GK being a bad idea in the first place.

I think people have different view points, I know I do, depending on how their factions did over the years. It is a different thing to think about buying and spreading around different options, when someones faction is good most of the time or good ever 2-3 years. I played GK only in 8th and now in 9th, but if I played them the last time they were good, I would have to have waited for the PA book since 5th ed. 3 editions of waiting that, maybe GW is going to fix something, is almost as long as I live and I really struggle with the idea of just wait maybe in 15 years option X is going to be good, specialy as from time to time GW seems to phase out factions or kill whole games. I can't think what guys, that waited 6-8 years for GW to fix WFB, felt when they woke up one day and AoS became a thing. So yeah for some factions it is 5 sec, for others it is longer then people stay in the hobby. And what is worries some is that no one tells this to you when you are starting. The seller wants to get a rid of a unsellable models, people online tell you either horror stories or fairy tales about playing what you want, and stuff live love of painting models fixing everything.