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.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
No, because infinity has no restriction, you can chose to not bring specialists but you'd be penalised on the mission, in 40k, you cannot bring a list with no character.

Technically this is true, though in the past there were lists like Guard Tank platoons that didn't take anything that would typically be thought of as a character. Also, why didn't you address the other units that you can avoid bringing in 40k? Are you dodging that issue?

really dude?.....
The current edition of 40k doesn't let you bring a list with no characters, thats the only restriction there is (all other force orgs can be bypassed).
In infinity you have no minimum requirement, meaning you can chose to not bring certain units.

40k has a maximum of 3 copies of a datasheet.
Infinity has variable maximum copies of datasheets (presented on the datasheet).

So yes, infinity gives you more true freedom. But in reality, you will want to bring some sort of specialist and that is something that is very clearly explained to newer players. And these "mandatory" units are super varied and can each be played differently.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

I honestly don't get why you seem so hellbent on the idea that infinity is inferior to 40k on the listbuilding/mission aspect.

Where did I ever say that? I'm merely pointing out that Infinity has its own restrictions on what is and isn't good and that it doesn't allow for the same kind of flexibility that some people want in 40k list building.

You're saying it right here.

Infinity has more flexibility and balance at the listbuilding level, not even close. Play the game and you'll see for yourself.
I would 100% pick Infinity's listbuilding over 40k's.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Pretty sure Smaug isnt a knight, hes a warlord titan (i don't play LotR).
Tau are one dimensional but still function with mostly the same concepts as other armies (infantry + monsters/vehicles) they're bad now because theyre the army that suffers most from the new missions and are in dire need of a new codex.

We've been given examples of armies that aren't playable - to a competitive level - in LotR without allies and that game is held up as an example of a game that is better than 40k. Yet, 40k is decried as being terribly balanced if any of its factions are bad without allies... I'm just trying to square this circle.

Yeah but theyre not saying LotR is 100% perfect, theyre saying that overall its better than 40k (in mission design/listbuilding)

 Canadian 5th wrote:

In lotr you need more things than just effective units. Cavalry does something infantry cant.

In 40k you need more things than just effective units. Jump pack models do something infantry cant.

Different heroes unlock different heroic actions that you might need depending on the rest of the list.

Different units unlock different stratagems that you might need depending on the rest of the list.

Hmm...

Heroic Actions in lotr do way more than most stratagems do in 40k. They can change the whole turn order and isnt just a slight boost.

Jump infantry doesnt do much normal infantry cant do. For most purposes JP infantry are just slightly faster infantry. I as a BA player knows that very well. If I instead got auto 6" advance and charge instead on foot infantry there wouldnt be much of a difference. I dont take JP infantry because they do something no other unit could do. Depending on point costs I could just take something else that is fast and hit hard that dont have a JP. Their efficiency is what is most important They are just more effective. Cavalry in lotr can knock down models, counter other cavalry and are one of the few things with a higher speed that helps with flanking and some scenarios. There arent replacement for them in most factions but there are in Space marines. Bikes, landspeeders, transports, deepstrikes/infiltrate etc exists there.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

None of this means that Infinity doesn't have some models/gear options/synergies that are objectively better than the rest or moves, or series of moves, that are objectively better than others in a bunch of broadly similar scenarios. Can a skilled player build a list by randomizing their units and gear and still have a fair match against an equally skilled player who built a list with synergies in mind? If they can't then Infinity doesn't have the same balance you seem to want 40k to have.

Actually, yeah, there's a random list generator tool and people do win games with it against other players.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:


Yeah but theyre not saying LotR is 100% perfect, theyre saying that overall its better than 40k (in mission design/listbuilding)

Exactly this. And it is a game that Games Workshop made 2 decades ago and have only slightly tweaked along the way. I just started playing it a few months ago and the players at my club was surprised on how good and robust the system really is. I dabbled a little in some battle company campaigns close to a decade ago but never really took the plunge until recently. The game is so much better and more balanced that it is surprising how bad 40k is.

At least one of the lotr designers is apparently a very good and competitive player that plays at the top tables at tournaments. So Lotr works both in competitive play and casual play with a ton of scenarios. GW can make good games if they want to. They should try to look at the games they have that their players actually like the rules and think they are mostly good as it is and see what they are doing right there. They have decades of rules and experience to take advantage of. At some point they should be able to consolidate that.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Karol wrote:

It's almost like what's good and what's bad is completely meta dependant and that you need to adapt to the meta you play in... What a fething shock that is!

Well it is a shock when only on place in the world one person manage to make your army work. And people all around the world who run similar or identical list could not, and at the same time your army isn't dripping in unit options, so it is not like you just didn't check the other things. Also sometimes, like lets say in case of the tau, they are bed everywhere, even in Australia. And it is even more odd when there is an army with just as limited unit option, for which GW could write good rules. So it is clearly not a case of too few unit options translating in to an always bad army.

I'd be willing to be that a better player than you would have made your faction work in your meta.

While that might be, you also need to factor in Karol's exact inventory of models, not just what options his Codex contains.
Given what he owns, other than flukes of the dice, no amount of skill will greatly change the poor results he's been experiencing.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
really dude?.....
The current edition of 40k doesn't let you bring a list with no characters, thats the only restriction there is (all other force orgs can be bypassed).
In infinity you have no minimum requirement, meaning you can chose to not bring certain units.

40k has a maximum of 3 copies of a datasheet.
Infinity has variable maximum copies of datasheets (presented on the datasheet).

So yes, infinity gives you more true freedom. But in reality, you will want to bring some sort of specialist and that is something that is very clearly explained to newer players. And these "mandatory" units are super varied and can each be played differently.

So would you be willing to enter an Infinity tournament without any of these' mandatory' units? If you did would you expect to do well?

You're saying it right here.

Infinity has more flexibility and balance at the listbuilding level, not even close. Play the game and you'll see for yourself.
I would 100% pick Infinity's listbuilding over 40k's.

What I'm saying is that Infinity has it's own list building peculiarities. There are units that are designed to work together and that, for most players, the infinite choices, are actually limited by some choices that 90% of players will take.

Yeah but theyre not saying LotR is 100% perfect, theyre saying that overall its better than 40k (in mission design/listbuilding)

That's both 100% opinion-based and doesn't seem like it's even objectively true.

Klickor wrote:
Heroic Actions in lotr do way more than most stratagems do in 40k. They can change the whole turn order and isnt just a slight boost.

Jump infantry doesnt do much normal infantry cant do. For most purposes JP infantry are just slightly faster infantry. I as a BA player knows that very well. If I instead got auto 6" advance and charge instead on foot infantry there wouldnt be much of a difference. I dont take JP infantry because they do something no other unit could do. Depending on point costs I could just take something else that is fast and hit hard that dont have a JP. Their efficiency is what is most important They are just more effective. Cavalry in lotr can knock down models, counter other cavalry and are one of the few things with a higher speed that helps with flanking and some scenarios. There arent replacement for them in most factions but there are in Space marines. Bikes, landspeeders, transports, deepstrikes/infiltrate etc exists there.

Jump Infantry can ignore terrain and usually come with the ability to deep strike without paying CP. Are those things normal infantry can do in 40k?

Also, are you arguing that to balance 40k we need MORE special rules and unique abilities?

Hecaton wrote:
Actually, yeah, there's a random list generator tool and people do win games with it against other players.

Would you take a random list to a tournament where other players are running lists they built by hand? Going further, would you let an opponent build your list for you before each round of a tournament and still expect to win?

My argument isn't that Infinity isn't better than 40k, I haven't played it and thus can't say either way, my point is that it does have some choices which are better than others and thus has more and less competitive options. Thus it is just as easy to simulate as something like 40k would be assuming anybody wanted to make the wargaming version of Deep Blue.

ccs wrote:
While that might be, you also need to factor in Karol's exact inventory of models, not just what options his Codex contains.
Given what he owns, other than flukes of the dice, no amount of skill will greatly change the poor results he's been experiencing.

Why should I factor in what he purchased? Nobody forced him to buy what he bought nor did anybody force him to keep it rather than flipping it and getting new models to shape his army differently.

Karol had, and still has, other options that he doesn't bother taking them and instead complains on the internet is his issue, not mine.

The difference is, as far as I can tell, that in 40k, "mandatory" units are a singular datasheet. Eradicators are bonkers good, no matter what else, for instance.

In Infinity, you need a Specialist, but there's a bunch of different types of Specialists, each with their own advantages, disadvantages, and playstyle.

It's sorta like saying "To be a good army in 40k, you need some HQs." Every army has multiple HQs that do different things, excepting Knights, I guess.

Now, I've not played Infinity, so anyone who has, correct me if I'm wrong, but that's the gist of what I've gathered.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
really dude?.....
The current edition of 40k doesn't let you bring a list with no characters, thats the only restriction there is (all other force orgs can be bypassed).
In infinity you have no minimum requirement, meaning you can chose to not bring certain units.

40k has a maximum of 3 copies of a datasheet.
Infinity has variable maximum copies of datasheets (presented on the datasheet).

So yes, infinity gives you more true freedom. But in reality, you will want to bring some sort of specialist and that is something that is very clearly explained to newer players. And these "mandatory" units are super varied and can each be played differently.

So would you be willing to enter an Infinity tournament without any of these' mandatory' units? If you did would you expect to do well?

No, i made it clear that i could but i wouldn't. You're just purposefully missing the point now.

You're saying it right here.

Infinity has more flexibility and balance at the listbuilding level, not even close. Play the game and you'll see for yourself.
I would 100% pick Infinity's listbuilding over 40k's.

What I'm saying is that Infinity has it's own list building peculiarities. There are units that are designed to work together and that, for most players, the infinite choices, are actually limited by some choices that 90% of players will take.

Thats not at all how Infinity works.... you saying that shows that you don't play the game at all. Netdecking isnt a thing in Infinity, there is no clear definite "best list".
Infinity lets you pick the strategy you want and build a list around it, instead of picking wombo combo units + factions like in 40k.

Yeah but theyre not saying LotR is 100% perfect, theyre saying that overall its better than 40k (in mission design/listbuilding)

That's both 100% opinion-based and doesn't seem like it's even objectively true.

... yeah, thats what i said. Everything said here is opinion based...

 JNAProductions wrote:
The difference is, as far as I can tell, that in 40k, "mandatory" units are a singular datasheet. Eradicators are bonkers good, no matter what else, for instance.

In Infinity, you need a Specialist, but there's a bunch of different types of Specialists, each with their own advantages, disadvantages, and playstyle.

It's sorta like saying "To be a good army in 40k, you need some HQs." Every army has multiple HQs that do different things, excepting Knights, I guess.

Now, I've not played Infinity, so anyone who has, correct me if I'm wrong, but that's the gist of what I've gathered.

Close, at least back when I played. Different missions would be easier to accomplish with specific types of specialists, so from the start you're usually looking at how you can fit a Hacker, an Engineer, a Doctor, and a Forward Observer in your list to get all your possible bases covered. From there, your list might have multiple options for those types of specialists, or they may not, and they may have cheap options or they may have expensive options.
I always hated how from the beginning I had to use what I considered too many points on units that aren't even good at what they're supposed to do (as PanO Military Orders I had 2 Doctor choices and 1 Engineer choice, and they either bad Willpower which was the stat used for accomplishing missions or were an expensive heavy infantry unit)

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Which means that List Building Skill is more important than Tabletop Tactics Skill. That's what I've been saying this whole time. If you are learning 40k, you should learn to build your list first because that has more impact than actually learning to play the game. This is a bad state of affairs.

No, it just means that list building is a gatekeeper skill, one which can be bypassed by looking at tournament results and participating in the community before you spend money on models.

Why is this a good and desirable quality in a wargame? I read what you wrote and it makes me wince, because gatekeeping is bad and having to research tournament results before even getting into the game for a new player is also bad.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

It's not okay in LOTR, and the community has banned Smaug in every event I can think of, expressing their displeasure at GW for releasing that model in the state it's in. He is more akin to a Warlord Titan than a Knight. One dimensional lists in LOTR exist, but play against the scenario AND the opponent, while a less one-dimensional list only has to play against the opponent. Skilled players can still win with bad lists against regular players with good lists, though. Which is the point. To repeat myself.

So LotR has list building traps, requires list building as a skill, and can result in one-sided matches if the wrong armies match up to play the wrong mission... That sounds a lot like 40k to me.

LOTR is not perfect but it is a damn sight better than 40k.

 JNAProductions wrote:
The difference is, as far as I can tell, that in 40k, "mandatory" units are a singular datasheet. Eradicators are bonkers good, no matter what else, for instance.

So tell me, how do Orks win without these Eradicators that are 'mandatory'?

In Infinity, you need a Specialist, but there's a bunch of different types of Specialists, each with their own advantages, disadvantages, and playstyle.

How is that different from the current state of 40k where you need units to buff, units to hold objectives, units to kill, and units to infiltrate? I think the issue isn't with 40k but with a group of people hyperfocused on 40k and thinking that the grass in literally every other miniatures game is greener.

 JNAProductions wrote:
The difference is, as far as I can tell, that in 40k, "mandatory" units are a singular datasheet. Eradicators are bonkers good, no matter what else, for instance.

In Infinity, you need a Specialist, but there's a bunch of different types of Specialists, each with their own advantages, disadvantages, and playstyle.

It's sorta like saying "To be a good army in 40k, you need some HQs." Every army has multiple HQs that do different things, excepting Knights, I guess.

Now, I've not played Infinity, so anyone who has, correct me if I'm wrong, but that's the gist of what I've gathered.

Thats exactly how it is.

A Monstrucker (Engineer) plays super differently from a simple Machinist (Engineer) and depending on what your overall strategy is , you might want to pick one or the other yet they are both Engineers.
Hackers are even more varied, in my army, about half the datasheet can be hackers, and there are 8 different types of hacking tools, all with various effects.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
The difference is, as far as I can tell, that in 40k, "mandatory" units are a singular datasheet. Eradicators are bonkers good, no matter what else, for instance.

So tell me, how do Orks win without these Eradicators that are 'mandatory'?

strawmen gonna strawmen.
We're talking about mandatory units on an army-per-army basis.

In Infinity, you need a Specialist, but there's a bunch of different types of Specialists, each with their own advantages, disadvantages, and playstyle.

How is that different from the current state of 40k where you need units to buff, units to hold objectives, units to kill, and units to infiltrate? I think the issue isn't with 40k but with a group of people hyperfocused on 40k and thinking that the grass in literally every other miniatures game is greener.

Honest question, have you played infinity?

In 40k, you don't just need "units to buff, units to hold objectives, units to kill, and units to infiltrate", you need precise datasheets as you pointed out yourself with the prevalence of trap units in 40k.
There is a difference between needing a role and needing a specific unit.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
No, i made it clear that i could but i wouldn't. You're just purposefully missing the point now.

So there are trap options - in this case combinations of units rather than single units as in 40k - in Infinity that would lower your chances of winning. Thanks for admitting it.

Thats not at all how Infinity works.... you saying that shows that you don't play the game at all. Netdecking isnt a thing in Infinity, there is no clear definite "best list".
Infinity lets you pick the strategy you want and build a list around it, instead of picking wombo combo units + factions like in 40k.

Where did I mention any netdecking of lists? My 90% comment was about the way players approach list building in Infinity. There is clearly a right and a wrong way to build lists and my guess is that 90% of players will build lists the suggested way.

This means that there aren't actually infinite lists in practice as many list combinations simply won't work or won't be enjoyable to play.

... yeah, thats what i said. Everything said here is opinion based...

I'm not looking for opinions. I'm looking for objective proof that 40k's secondary objectives are 'Ill -conceived' when compared to the systems used in other games. If you're unable to provide proof for your claims I'm done conversing with you.

Honest question, have you played infinity?

Genuinely curious here. I have not played it, but have seen it played and have a passing familiarity. A lot of people bring it up in different situations as examples of what should be happening in 40k, but when I look at it, I see what appears to be a squad level skirmish game. This is fairly far off from what 40k has become over the years. Do you feel there is still enough cross over that comparisons work? If it's that good I may have to give it a try. lol

Canadian, I'd like you to stop strawmanning.

No one is saying Listbuilding shouldn't be important. They're saying Listbuilding shouldn't be the primary determinator of victory.

You're claiming that listbuilding should be the primary determinator of victory, but the only arguments you are presenting claim that listbuilding should matter at all.

Your counterarguments are targeting straw men, and your arguments aren't supported by the words you use.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Why is this a good and desirable quality in a wargame? I read what you wrote and it makes me wince, because gatekeeping is bad and having to research tournament results before even getting into the game for a new player is also bad.

Name a single game where your list is player-generated that doesn't require some foreknowledge of the game to help avoid making poor purchases. Even in Infinity, it's going to be possible to buy an incorrect set of models if you go in with literally zero knowledge of the game, the difference between that and 40k is merely one of degrees.

LOTR is not perfect but it is a damn sight better than 40k.

Prove it. Are the tournament results for LotR more balanced than 40k, does it have greater diversity among top tier lists, by which objective measures is it a better game?

Tycho wrote:

Honest question, have you played infinity?

Genuinely curious here. I have not played it, but have seen it played and have a passing familiarity. A lot of people bring it up in different situations as examples of what should be happening in 40k, but when I look at it, I see what appears to be a squad level skirmish game. This is fairly far off from what 40k has become over the years. Do you feel there is still enough cross over that comparisons work? If it's that good I may have to give it a try. lol

I will concede that its much closer to Killteam in terms of scope. I still think the design approach could apply to 40k and would make it better.
Infinity is much more tactical than 40k at every level. It feels a lot more like playing a strategy game.

I'm pretty sure it will never become bigger than 40k because of many factors (Inertia of the WH name, metal minis, lack of publicity, bigger learning curve, etc.) but it's still a really enjoyable game IMO.
Now, keep in mind that i havn't played it since the virus and i havnt looked at the newest edition that came out.

Oh, and since the game is based on a reaction system, both players are always actively playing instead of mindlessly rolling saves during the opponents turn.

 Canadian 5th wrote:
So there are trap options - in this case combinations of units rather than single units as in 40k - in Infinity that would lower your chances of winning. Thanks for admitting it.

An army that is built to synergize being better than one composed of totally random elements is not the same as some units, on their own, being intrinsically and arbitrarily good or bad.

The latter is what you have first praised as a good element of design, then said is unavoidable in any game. The former hasn't been disputed by anybody, and isn't what any reasonable person is talking about when they describe a 'trap option'.

This is an incredibly dishonest argument.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
strawmen gonna strawmen.
We're talking about mandatory units on an army-per-army basis.

So which units are mandatory for Orks to win? I keep using them because I know of three distinct lists they've used to place well in tournaments since the start of 9th.

Honest question, have you played infinity?

I've already answered that question. Read my posts and you'll see it.

In 40k, you don't just need "units to buff, units to hold objectives, units to kill, and units to infiltrate", you need precise datasheets as you pointed out yourself with the prevalence of trap units in 40k.
There is a difference between needing a role and needing a specific unit.

If it's that easy why don't you give me a list of winning and losing units in 40k so I can prove you're full of gak.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Why is this a good and desirable quality in a wargame? I read what you wrote and it makes me wince, because gatekeeping is bad and having to research tournament results before even getting into the game for a new player is also bad.

Name a single game where your list is player-generated that doesn't require some foreknowledge of the game to help avoid making poor purchases.

Why? That's not what you claimed. Foreknowledge of the game is different than tournament results. You said you have to look up tournament results to get into 40k, not just know that there's an assault phase. Your goalposts are moving again.

 Canadian 5th wrote:
Even in Infinity, it's going to be possible to buy an incorrect set of models if you go in with literally zero knowledge of the game, the difference between that and 40k is merely one of degrees.

Exactly. That's what we've been saying this whole time. It's a matter of degrees. Adjust the degrees up too high, and listbuilding becomes too dominant; too low, and listbuilding becomes irrelevant. 40k is too high right now. I'm glad you're beginning to understand.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

LOTR is not perfect but it is a damn sight better than 40k.

Prove it. Are the tournament results for LotR more balanced than 40k, does it have greater diversity among top tier lists, by which objective measures is it a better game?

No, I won't prove it. You made the first claim and have yet to prove it, so why should you hold me to a higher standard than you hold yourself?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
No one is saying Listbuilding shouldn't be important. They're saying Listbuilding shouldn't be the primary determinator of victory.

The primacy of list building in any given game is always a matter of meta and player skill such that for any given game there is a level of player skill where list building is the primary factor in that player winning or losing games. The degree to which this is true for a given game will always vary to some degree.

You're claiming that listbuilding should be the primary determinator of victory, but the only arguments you are presenting claim that listbuilding should matter at all.

No, I'm not. Please quote me as ever having said that. My arguments are that all games are determined to some degree by list building and that the scope of 40k requires a greater degree listbuilding - or a nearly mathematically impossible level of balancing - than other games with smaller model counts and/or smaller differences in scale between models.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
strawmen gonna strawmen.
We're talking about mandatory units on an army-per-army basis.

So which units are mandatory for Orks to win? I keep using them because I know of three distinct lists they've used to place well in tournaments since the start of 9th.

I don't know, i don't play orks.

Honest question, have you played infinity?

I've already answered that question. Read my posts and you'll see it.

then you should play it to hopefully understand what we mean when we say that infinity is much more in-game skill based than listbuilding-skill based

In 40k, you don't just need "units to buff, units to hold objectives, units to kill, and units to infiltrate", you need precise datasheets as you pointed out yourself with the prevalence of trap units in 40k.
There is a difference between needing a role and needing a specific unit.

If it's that easy why don't you give me a list of winning and losing units in 40k so I can prove you're full of gak.

If i play my nightlords without a Discolord + Sorcerer (warptime) i'm basically throwing the game. If i don't also bring havocs i'm also throwing the game.
If i don't play DT raiders with Ossefactor wracks with my drukhari i'm basically throwing the game.
If i don't play 3 keepers of secrets in my Daemons, i'm basically throwing the game.

 catbarf wrote:
An army that is built to synergize being better than one composed of totally random elements is not the same as some units, on their own, being intrinsically and arbitrarily good or bad.

The latter is what you have first praised as a good element of design, then said is unavoidable in any game. The former hasn't been disputed by anybody, and isn't what any reasonable person is talking about when they describe a 'trap option'.

This is an incredibly dishonest argument.

I'd argue that there aren't arbitrarily good or bad units in 40k either and that the codex as a whole matters more than any single unit in said codex. As an experiment let's give Tau access to Eradicators and allow them to benefit from the same level of buffing from Tau characters as they would from SM characters. Are Tau now a good faction? If not how many good units does it take to make them good?

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
No one is saying Listbuilding shouldn't be important. They're saying Listbuilding shouldn't be the primary determinator of victory.

The primacy of list building in any given game is always a matter of meta and player skill such that for any given game there is a level of player skill where list building is the primary factor in that player winning or losing games. The degree to which this is true for a given game will always vary to some degree.

And in 40k, the degree is too high for the game to be fun.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

You're claiming that listbuilding should be the primary determinator of victory, but the only arguments you are presenting claim that listbuilding should matter at all.

No, I'm not. Please quote me as ever having said that. My arguments are that all games are determined to some degree by list building and that the scope of 40k requires a greater degree listbuilding - or a nearly mathematically impossible level of balancing - than other games with smaller model counts and/or smaller differences in scale between models.

You forgot the part where you are arguing that 40k should be that way. Everything you say here is true, and I wholly agree. What I disagree with is the missing premise you've conveniently omitted:

that this fact about 40k - "it requires a greater degree of listbuilding" - is desirable or a good thing.

That's the part you haven't proven to me.

And that value judgement is what I mean when I say "you've claimed that listbuilding should be the primary determinator of victory".

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Why? That's not what you claimed. Foreknowledge of the game is different than tournament results. You said you have to look up tournament results to get into 40k, not just know that there's an assault phase. Your goalposts are moving again.

You're reading a lot into things what I actually said is, "[L]ist building is a gatekeeper skill, one which can be bypassed by looking at tournament results and participating in the community before you spend money on models." Nowhere did I say that you had to do anything, I merely said that you could bypass a large part of list building as a skill by engaging with the community before making an investment into the game. This is a true statement and one which will be true of literally any game that requires more than one play. Even for Infinity, you'd still want to meet the players at your FLGS before buying anything just in case you find out you wouldn't want to play with that group of players.

Exactly. That's what we've been saying this whole time. It's a matter of degrees. Adjust the degrees up too high, and listbuilding becomes too dominant; too low, and listbuilding becomes irrelevant. 40k is too high right now. I'm glad you're beginning to understand.

Is it though? I've yet to see any evidence of that.

No, I won't prove it. You made the first claim and have yet to prove it, so why should you hold me to a higher standard than you hold yourself?

My first post in this thread was this:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Mezmorki wrote:
Personally, I'd like to change this state of affairs, at least within my own group. My vision for 40K is one where the tactics you employ on the battlefield matter far more than the list you bring. This likely means, among other things, restricting the force organization charts a bit more (i.e. everyone use a single battalion detachment) and re-thinking entirely the secondary victory system.

My issue with this is that it's never going to happen.

For one there will always be a meta. Even in a game where rock has its best match-up versus scissors with a 60% win-rate and still wins 40% against paper and the same holds for all other match-ups. No list is ever purely rock or purely scissors and eventually combos that tilt either the wins in good matches or even up the disadvantage in losing matches will be discovered and that will set a meta. Metas are always exclusionary to some styles of play so any given list may not work even in such a balanced system.

The other issue is that an anti-horde skew list might run into an armored list that it can only wound on 6's. Regardless of how that game plays out and who wins, it'll be a match that doesn't exactly showcase the game in a great light. The thing is, that's realistic. We know what happens when light infantry meets tanks, bunkers, or fortified positions and it doesn't go well for the light infantry, there's a reason why there has always been an interest in airdropped and amphibious armor and yet that same armor is rarely good enough to be worth fielding.

In short, the game where both players have a choice in listing building can never escape being dominated by list choices.

 Xenomancers wrote:
What does a kill secondary actually accomplish anyways? Other than reward you for what you were going to do anyways? That is my issue with them?

Also - why do some objectives offer more points and some less? The pregame minutia of trying to figure out the max points you can achieve in a game by picking secondaries is pretty lame...your opponents armies basically determines your objectives. Pretty backwards to how objectives should be. Objectives should be determined by the mission not your opponents army..

That's nonsense. Your pregame planning should always be heavily influenced by the enemy's forces. No sane commander is going to instruct his soldiers to focus on something that either doesn't exist in the enemy's force or which the enemy can easily make impossible by employing skill in their own actions.

This has always been my argument.

 Canadian 5th wrote:
This has always been my argument.

Then why are you fighting so hard against people that want listbuilding to matter less in 40k?

What's written in that post doesn't have anything to do with that desire.

"Listbuilding should matter less" is not addressed by, concerned with, or even really that relevant to "Listbuilding always matters."

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
And in 40k, the degree is too high for the game to be fun.

If that's the case why isn't this reflected in the game's popularity or GW's profitability? If 40k is as awful and unplayable as people on this forum claim why is it that only a tiny tiny minority of us seem to notice?

You forgot the part where you are arguing that 40k should be that way. Everything you say here is true, and I wholly agree. What I disagree with is the missing premise you've conveniently omitted:

that this fact about 40k - "it requires a greater degree of listbuilding" - is desirable or a good thing.

That's the part you haven't proven to me.

And that value judgement is what I mean when I say "you've claimed that listbuilding should be the primary determinator of victory".

I don't recall ever having said that list building should be the biggest component in any game. I've stated that it is in 40k and that there is a degree to which it should be in all games that offer player choice. I've made arguments that due to its scope 40k is likely never going to be as balanced as games with tighter focuses and thus will continue to be dominated by list building. I've argued that even the best games that have been suggested here still have situations in which list building will dominate skill at the table.

You're reading the rest into what I've been typing.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
And in 40k, the degree is too high for the game to be fun.

If that's the case why isn't this reflected in the game's popularity or GW's profitability? If 40k is as awful and unplayable as people on this forum claim why is it that only a tiny tiny minority of us seem to notice?

Argument to popularity isn't an argument at all.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

You forgot the part where you are arguing that 40k should be that way. Everything you say here is true, and I wholly agree. What I disagree with is the missing premise you've conveniently omitted:

that this fact about 40k - "it requires a greater degree of listbuilding" - is desirable or a good thing.

That's the part you haven't proven to me.

And that value judgement is what I mean when I say "you've claimed that listbuilding should be the primary determinator of victory".

I don't recall ever having said that list building should be the biggest component in any game. I've stated that it is in 40k and that there is a degree to which it should be in all games that offer player choice. I've made arguments that due to its scope 40k is likely never going to be as balanced as games with tighter focuses and thus will continue to be dominated by list building. I've argued that even the best games that have been suggested here still have situations in which list building will dominate skill at the table.

You're reading the rest into what I've been typing.

I see the problem, you've missed the whole "40k is a designed game" thing.

The claim is that 40k should be designed such that listbuilding should matter less.
Scope and scale are part of game design.
Therefore, claiming that "scope and scale prevent the game from being designed such that listbuilding should matter less" is, by Premise 1 and 2, saying that "game design prevents the game from being designed such that listbuilding should matter less."

This is not only a tautology, but also utterly irrelevant and trivial, because changing the game design is the entire point.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Then why are you fighting so hard against people that want listbuilding to matter less in 40k?

What's written in that post doesn't have anything to do with that desire.

"Listbuilding should matter less" is not addressed by, concerned with, or even really that relevant to "Listbuilding always matters."

What I want is for people to demonstrate a system by which 40k can change in this direction without destroying the things that 40k has had since its inception.

Merely having a desire for something is useless unless one actually takes tangible steps to change what they have issues with for the better. With the exception of Mezmorki very few players actually take this step and progress beyond whining about how the game should be. Even Mezmorki's system is highly unlikely to have changed 40k such that list building isn't the most important factor in who wins a game.

Thus I challenge all who have opposed me to present a system by which 40k can be balanced such that list building is not the largest determiner of skill, which keeps intact the scope and scale of the game as it presently exists, and which remains popular enough to maintain the current level of interest in 40k.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
And in 40k, the degree is too high for the game to be fun.

If that's the case why isn't this reflected in the game's popularity or GW's profitability? If 40k is as awful and unplayable as people on this forum claim why is it that only a tiny tiny minority of us seem to notice?