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.

Racerguy180 wrote:
You could always run them as the non-named versions??? Or did that not occur to you?

Sure but answer my questions. How many "good" units is too many? Who determines that? What about things like a Dimacheron? If I paid $200+ for a model because I like the model, why can't I use it?

Case by case basis. There is no one-size-fits-all solution.

Nobody is saying you can't use it.
What's more important playing with all your toys against one person once?
Or excersing restraint and thinking about how nice it would be to have more local players to play against instead of chasing the newbie away.

Toofast wrote:
What if I'm playing crusher stampede because I like big bugs?

When I play Crusher Stampede against my local casual Death Guard opponent, I don't play them as Leviathan (so I'm not getting the new Octarius rules), I don't take the typically obligatory unit of 6 Hive Guard as fire support, and I use a single Scythed Hierodule plus a mix of other big bugs (including Carnifexes) rather than loading up on Hierodules and Dimachaerons.

There is no hard-and-fast rule for how to de-tune a list nor any objective metric to say how much is too much, but it is possible to take things you like and still balance it out for casual play. You have to go by heuristics, and there can be legitimate problems if you and your opponent are not on the same page about the relative strengths of units and lists, but it can be done.

And all that said I do agree that this should not be my responsibility and it is completely within GW's power to write better rules.

 catbarf wrote:

Spoiler:

Toofast wrote:
What if I'm playing crusher stampede because I like big bugs?

When I play Crusher Stampede against my local casual Death Guard opponent, I don't play them as Leviathan (so I'm not getting the new Octarius rules), I don't take the typically obligatory unit of 6 Hive Guard as fire support, and I use a single Scythed Hierodule plus a mix of other big bugs (including Carnifexes) rather than loading up on Hierodules and Dimachaerons.

There is no hard-and-fast rule for how to de-tune a list nor any objective metric to say how much is too much, but it is possible to take things you like and still balance it out for casual play. You have to go by heuristics, and there can be legitimate problems if you and your opponent are not on the same page about the relative strengths of units and lists, but it can be done.

And all that said I do agree that this should not be my responsibility and it is completely within GW's power to write better rules.

I 100% agree, but they're too entrenched in their current business model to change. They probably look at doing what should be done as too big a risk to make business sense.
Which is lame, but they have chosen to focus on a specific segment of the game to inform their decisions, so until something BUSINESS-wise forces them to re-evaluate their stance, they are not going to change.

Yeah it’s not an exact science on making fair lists to use against more causal opponents. Think/talk out changes you can make to your list in order to make it more fair/fun for both sides. If you don’t want to do this, then only play against more competitive minded people. Point is 1-sided slaughter games are never fun for both sides (at least IMO) and especially so if you can foresee this outcome before any dice are rolled.

Toofast wrote:
Tune your list according to what metrics? What if I just like the grimaldus and helbrecht models? Am I supposed to buy/build/paint a regular Marshal and Castellan just to appease people with weaker list? How many "good units" is too many? What if I'm playing crusher stampede because I like big bugs?

When I make a list, my criteria is x points and battleforged. I'm not sure how else I'm supposed to make a list as that's what the rulebook tells me. Who is this universal, independent arbitrator of what is a "fair list" and what is "cheese"?

How does someone with a bad list make their list better? They research and ask for help. This is not an insurmountable option for most people, if you cannot or do not wish to create a casual list then all you need to do is make this clear to your opponents beforehand. I decided to marry the idea of testing TSK, Triarch Praetorians and Skorpekh Lords because I knew TSK was meta and Skorpekh Lords filled a role in my list without providing any synergy. If you play a weak chapter or faction or you're unlucky you can get away with more. If you have a 70% win rate in casual games you're probably using lists that are too hard. That's not to say that you shouldn't strive for that 70% win rate with your casual list, if a casual list overperforms you can start using it in competitive games. That's how I originally found my favourite 8th edition list, it was absolutely brutal and I quickly found out it wasn't fit for casual play so I continued using it in competitive games and found other lists to use for casual games.

If I paid $200+ for a model because I like the model, why can't I use it?

Because casual games are not meant to be played at the expense of your opponent and it's not fun to win less than a third of the time.

It's only at the expense of my opponent if he chooses not to take a decent list. Why am I expected to tune my list down but my opponent isn't expected to improve his? When I started playing 40k I got slaughtered every game. The same happened when I took a break at the end of 7th and came back to 9th. I don't expect my opponents to detune their lists or go easy on me, I need to get better.

So, you don't see the parallel?

You stuck it out, how many new players do that?
It is probably 7/10. So is the community better for retaining only that 30% or actually thinking about your fellow player and shooting for more player retention?

The main problem we are seeing here is everyone is looking at this from an existing player viewpoint. We already have hidden information that they're not privy to. So punishing them until they "git gud"/give up/whatever for choosing the wrong models, suboptimal lists, etc seems self-defeating.

If you don't WANT to tone down your list, that's perfectly fine. But you need to be very upfront that you will not adjust your list to match the player.

If you have the capacity to do so, rock on. Build that community, it's not gonna build itself(especially if you DGAF about a newbie).

Toofast wrote:
It's only at the expense of my opponent if he chooses not to take a decent list. Why am I expected to tune my list down but my opponent isn't expected to improve his?

Why not both?

That said if you're at a higher level it's, its arguably easier to tone down that them to tone up. When I was running seriously, and running with female friends especially who were typically newer/less experienced/less 'strong'/physically weaker (ie i could run faster than them for far longer without breaking a sweat) it was far easier for me to tone down, drop my pace and run at their level/pace than it was for them to run at mine. I sure as hell did not feel offended or insulted that they weren't playing 'up'.

Personally I think it's commendable of a player/person to be able to accommodate different players with different approaches to the game. Conpromise and variety are good things. Playing one mode, especially the 'ultra hard' mode in my experience ultimstely just leads to burnout.

Lower power lists do not necessarily mean a not-decent game.

And for what it's worth, while playing hard is fine, (where appropriate imo) only about 3% of the game can play at that level. From my pov, if I tone things down a lot more of the game opens up which makes things far more interesting.

Toofast wrote:
IWhen I started playing 40k I got slaughtered every game. The same happened when I took a break at the end of 7th and came back to 9th. I don't expect my opponents to detune their lists or go easy on me, I need to get better.

Getting slaughtered like that is hardly fun though imo.

Not expecting your opponents to accommodate and not being willing to accommodate in turn is surely just doubling down on an approach that feeds into the problems?
This ultra-cutthroat-kill-or-be-killed thinking isn't always helpful. Its a game of toy soldiers. There are loads of reasons why ' I need to take harder lists' isn't always appropriate.

'Getting better' is fine, bit imo doesn't necessarily mean 'play a harder list' exclusively. 'Getting better' also means finding a healthier way of approaching the game and/or playing in a less problematic/destructive manner. I find being able to take the foot off the metaphorical accelerator, slow down and play a less cutthroat game, is a far healthier approach in the long term. So yes that's why, imo you should consider 'toning down'.

Cheers

It's not that easy to tone lists down because I don't buy units unless they're being used in meta lists. If a unit sits on my shelf for years without rotating into the meta, it usually goes on ebay. I only have 2k-2.5k points for any given army at a time and usually it's a 2k meta list with a few other competitive units to swap in for different metas. I don't intentionally try to beat noobs like I'm clubbing a baby seal but if someone asks me for a 2k game, I'm gonna bring a decently competitive list. I'll be happy to go over the game afterward and give them tips to improve. I'll happily show them painting techniques to get models done quickly and to a decent standard. I'm all about helping new people in the hobby.

Toofast wrote:
It's not that easy to tone lists down because I don't buy units unless they're being used in meta lists. If a unit sits on my shelf for years without rotating into the meta, it usually goes on ebay. I

Don't put things on ebay. Simples.

Toofast wrote:
I don't intentionally try to beat noobs like I'm clubbing a baby seal but if someone asks me for a 2k game, I'm gonna bring a decently competitive list.

If I was the cheeky sort I'd say this still sounds a bit like seal clubbing. just with a dapper suit and a hand waving of your role in it.

Toofast wrote:
I'll be happy to go over the game afterward and give them tips to improve.

And how sbout considering things you could have done? Like, was it appropriate to bring a 'decently competitive' list in the first place? It's something we always do in our games, on both the winning and the losing sides.

Look, you're not wrong... you play your game. Its like dating. If folks want what you want, it's all good. Just be open to the notion that how other people play, and what other people want can be different. And maybe considering that makes it better for everyone in the long run. And while you're probably not a bad guy, you don't need to be a bad guy to be a villain in someone else's hobby.

Just keep in mind there is another perspective to this scenario.

Deadnight wrote:

Toofast wrote:
It's not that easy to tone lists down because I don't buy units unless they're being used in meta lists. If a unit sits on my shelf for years without rotating into the meta, it usually goes on ebay. I

Don't put things on ebay. Simples.

Simpler things:
Don't just buy units because "they're being used in meta lists".

So you're fine with abusing them as long as you can tell them why the suck...?

The discussion happens before the game, not afterward. Then you show pity on them by giving them hobby tips as well due to the fact that they're unable to match in that area too. That sounds fun. I'll bet player retention is great in your meta too...

Or, you know, take 1 less unit to the game for a point handicap? Or two if your list is still too strong. Seriously, accommodating new/weaker players and their armies to ensure mutual fun is pretty straightforward when you are willing. It is only an insurmountable obstacle for people who are neck deep in the competitive rut.

I feel this is a sort of redundant conversation. If you know enough about the game to know what a meta list is, and perhaps more importantly why its a meta list, you know enough to tone it down.

At the very least you could pick a "bad" Chapter, a "bad" set of warlord traits and relics. You could try using "bad" stratagems.

Ultimately people who know what they are doing - trying to win a game by stacking everything in their favour - will have a massive advantage over people who don't know what they doing, running a pile whatever they have to hand. And that ultimately should be the case, because otherwise it means list building and in game decisions do not impact the result. The debate I guess is how tuned up a list should be by taking synergistic options rather than unsynergistic options. And points just being obviously comparatively wrong.

PenitentJake wrote:
@Chaos0Xomega:

I read your suggestions for the "unigame" proposal and what you want to do with narrative. I've just been through HUGE multithreaded debates about Crusade on other sites, so I'm a bit burnt out.

But I think that you misunderstand what it is that makes Crusade as it is so amazing. I have come around to some of HBMC's thoughts- I've always agreed with him about consolidating ALL crusade content from Campaigns into a single book. I've similarly agreed with Unit and other posters that it would have been cool if they could have released a "Big Book of Crusade" along side the BRB that contained ALL bespoke Crusade content for all factions as well as various models for linking games into campaigns. While it would have been excellent, this last idea is not as feasible as HBMC's, because bespoke Crusade content in dexes references the updated general rules in that dex... and it would be really hard to provide meaningful bespoke content without doing this.

But killing the progression system and destroying the long term quests like Sainthood, Repentance, Territorial Acquisition, Machine Construction, Planetary Insurrection, System Assimilation... This would rip the soul out of Crusade and replace it with what pretty much amounts to Armies of Renown (which we already have) in stand alone games.

Crusade players care about stories- both those that occur in single battles and those which link a series of battles together to create a longer term arc. Some of us view the entire lifespan of our force as a single, ongoing story.

We still may care about things like balance, or unified rules, but those things are not the priority. The story is the priority. Any sacrifice that you make to the latter for the sake of the former is unlikely to be appreciated.

I think that 3 ways to play and game size variation is the crowning achievement of 9th. They could push it further- lots of Matched players are objecting to bloat, so maybe limit strat use a bit more in matched- ie. BRB strats + 5 individual bespoke strats chosen before the game and paid for with points. You could keep the CP rules as is, but every game, you'd only have five of your own strats to plan around, and only five enemy strats to worry about.

And here's the important part: you make that changed for matched to address people's bloat concerns, but you leave Crusade alone. You leave open alone.

This one change allows strats to still be used in matched, but shifts their focus to narrative, where players can use the full list.

Now the truth about this is it's how everyone plays anyway. Every game I go into, before the first turn, I've got a short list of strats in my head that I might use, and the others might as well not even exist. The rule just formalizes the process for Matched play.

IMO, the progression system would be better served by being a distinct campaign system that is part of a standalone book/book series than something fully integrated into each codex, but your opinion may differ.

That being said, as far as strategems are concerned, I would prefer if strategems were cut to either a list of say 1-2 dozen (max) generic strategems and then no more than a handful of faction specific strats in each codex

OR

the entire system gets reworked so that theres a significantly smaller number of strategems but they are significantly more impactful (think something similar to a feat in Warmachine) but you will only typically be able to use about 2-3 strategems per game max.

What's unfortunate is, because fluffy armies are so gimpted no one has a good time loosing, so you just end up making a competitive list.

Definitely where I'm at. After brutally losing every game with my fluffy Militarum Tempestus list for the first year of 9th, and then for the last 6 months gradually "de-fluffing" it to try to make it more competitive (and then having most of those attempts curb-stomped by GWs changes to flyer cap) I'm at the point where I'm just abandoning MT as an unworkable army concept and building out a new competitive style army, just so I can play casually and win a game on occasion.

Toofast wrote:
It's not that easy to tone lists down because I don't buy units unless they're being used in meta lists. If a unit sits on my shelf for years without rotating into the meta, it usually goes on ebay. I only have 2k-2.5k points for any given army at a time and usually it's a 2k meta list with a few other competitive units to swap in for different metas...

I may be misreading this, so feel free to correct me, but this bit sounds like you expect new players to purchase new units that they may not want or like so that their list can be "toned up" to your standards, yet you are unwilling to keep extra units around (or potentially purchase a few yourself) to "tone down" your list to their capacity. If so, why do you consider that OK?

 waefre_1 wrote:

Toofast wrote:
It's not that easy to tone lists down because I don't buy units unless they're being used in meta lists. If a unit sits on my shelf for years without rotating into the meta, it usually goes on ebay. I only have 2k-2.5k points for any given army at a time and usually it's a 2k meta list with a few other competitive units to swap in for different metas...

I may be misreading this, so feel free to correct me, but this bit sounds like you expect new players to purchase new units that they may not want or like so that their list can be "toned up" to your standards, yet you are unwilling to keep extra units around (or potentially purchase a few yourself) to "tone down" your list to their capacity. If so, why do you consider that OK?

Sure as gak sounds like it.

 waefre_1 wrote:

Toofast wrote:
It's not that easy to tone lists down because I don't buy units unless they're being used in meta lists. If a unit sits on my shelf for years without rotating into the meta, it usually goes on ebay. I only have 2k-2.5k points for any given army at a time and usually it's a 2k meta list with a few other competitive units to swap in for different metas...

I may be misreading this, so feel free to correct me, but this bit sounds like you expect new players to purchase new units that they may not want or like so that their list can be "toned up" to your standards, yet you are unwilling to keep extra units around (or potentially purchase a few yourself) to "tone down" your list to their capacity. If so, why do you consider that OK?

Toofast sounds to me like an American counterpart to Karol- introduced to 40K in an environment where hyper-competitiveness, meta-chasing, and seal-clubbing are taken for granted, and now that they have chased the meta, they feel entitled to continue the cycle of seal-clubbing.

It's an overtly adversarial style of play where you're not looking to both have a good time; it's on your opponent to create their own fun while you do the same.

Toofast wrote:
... I don't buy units unless they're being used in meta lists...

Each to their own, I guess, but that seems like a really boring way to play.

I bought the new Gravis Captain because I think he looks cool with the Chainsword. I'm getting the new Eldar/Chaos box because I think the Warp Smith looks cool, because the new Eldar bikes look amazing, the Autarch looks like fun, and because I think having a second Maulerfiend - a model I don't like because of its Komodo Dragon head, so I'll be giving it the other head - will be more effective on the tabletop than just having one, and might pair well with my Venomcrawler.

An interesting (I think) question just occurred to me:

If 40K, entirely as it is rules wise and codex wise, would be played with dirt cheap paper tokens instead of expensive miniatures and all the rules were in the living ruleset electronic format you only have to pay once or pay a very small subscription for it, would you consider "solving the unbalanced meta" a bug or a feature?

Because as it is now, community is divided along the line of "I'm able and willing to pay to be able to list build within the meta" and "I'm unable or unwilling to pay for list building part of the game". With paper tokens this goes out of the window, there is no sunken cost falacy, no attachment to your careful painted minis you paid with your kidney for and everybody can access every broken combo there is and everybody can adjust their list between every game they play, so only the concept behind the list matters, not the money behind the list.

Would you consider 40K a mechanically interesting game in such scenario?

nou wrote:
Would you consider 40K a mechanically interesting game in such scenario?

Personally, no, because I have investment in the lore and theme of the game, along with an expectation of verisimilitude that imbalance can often break.

A wholly abstract game that makes no pretention to simulating accompanying lore or anything tied to the real world, and which is designed to be exploitable and more of a 'problem to solve', could be fun I suppose. But that's generally not why I'm into wargaming.

 catbarf wrote:


A wholly abstract game that makes no pretention to simulating accompanying lore or anything tied to the real world, and which is designed to be exploitable and more of a 'problem to solve', could be fun I suppose. But that's generally not why I'm into wargaming.

You are aware, that you just gave a pretty good description of 8th/9th ed 40K from a meta chaser POV?

chaos0xomega wrote:


IMO, the progression system would be better served by being a distinct campaign system that is part of a standalone book/book series than something fully integrated into each codex, but your opinion may differ.

I think a "Big Book of How to Build Your Own Campaigns for Crusade" would be fabulous. I definitely know that Unit would appreciate something like this too- he and I have discussed that in previous threads. It also ties into HBMC's point about gathering ALL of the Crusade content for every season in a single book rather than 3 like they did in both Octarius and Charadon.

If you're willing to collect and compile ALL the resources for each campaign and combine them, there is actually a heck of a lot of tools to work with; it's just unfortunate that you have to do that. Charadon provided a lose campaign framework; Octarius went further and provided actual campaign trees and such. Nachmund will no doubt have a slightly different campaign structure.

However, doing that doesn't mean you have to lose the handful of pages of bespoke Crusade content in every dex either. As I said, those provide some of the best material for Crusade; the Genestealer Cult Infestation rules ARE a sort of campaign structure- as are the Drukhari rules. Sainthood in the Sisters is too, but it's a bit looser. My favourite part of the Sisters content is actually not Sainthood- I mean, it's great and all, but giving units the option to swear a penitent oath and then redeem themselves in subsequent battles for me is the crowning glory of that dex.

chaos0xomega wrote:

That being said, as far as strategems are concerned, I would prefer if strategems were cut to either a list of say 1-2 dozen (max) generic strategems and then no more than a handful of faction specific strats in each codex

I don't necessarily disagree with this. But I feel like in practice, it's what everyone does anyway. I don't think anyone goes into a game thinking "I'm going to use all of the strategems in this book." I think most people pick their top five, or at most, their top ten and they use those again, and again and again. It's why I think every argument about "I have to remember 30 strategems for my own army and then 30 for every other faction in the game" is at least a little disingenuous. And some folks say, "Well then why not remove the others from the game?" The answer is that THEY are the ones that are there for the narrative players to riff on. I like crafting scenarios in campaigns that use these less practical strats in unusual ways, to bring variety to the typical load out.

I take this a step further personally, because I make my own strat cards (cheaper than GW's cards AND I have the option of adding strats from other source books to the deck). Once I see the opponent, the terrain, the mission and the Agendas, I pick 10-15 cards at most and discard the rest.

Using either of these methods makes it unnecessary to remove them from the book. It would be like a D&D group saying "You know, in 20 years, none of us have ever played Paladins. Maybe they should remove them from the game."

chaos0xomega wrote:

OR

the entire system gets reworked so that theres a significantly smaller number of strategems but they are significantly more impactful (think something similar to a feat in Warmachine) but you will only typically be able to use about 2-3 strategems per game max.

Well obviously a dude like me would be devastated by this, but I'm glad it wasn't your first or only suggestion.

chaos0xomega wrote:

What's unfortunate is, because fluffy armies are so gimpted no one has a good time loosing, so you just end up making a competitive list.

Definitely where I'm at. After brutally losing every game with my fluffy Militarum Tempestus list for the first year of 9th, and then for the last 6 months gradually "de-fluffing" it to try to make it more competitive (and then having most of those attempts curb-stomped by GWs changes to flyer cap) I'm at the point where I'm just abandoning MT as an unworkable army concept and building out a new competitive style army, just so I can play casually and win a game on occasion.

This truly sucks- I'm sorry about that, and I know you're not the only one who hates that rule; HBMC has been on a tear about this, and I'm with both of you. Air cavalry is super cinematic and fluffy as f#&%. HBMC's thought was that that they should have confined the nerf to the two particular fliers that caused the problem- a very workable solution. A similar point of contention lately is the GT 2022 elimination of mixed sub-faction armies.

BOTH of these rules were matched play only, so neither of them are ever going to apply to me. It's one of the things that is so fantastic about not playing matched. Again, I know that many people say they don't have a choice but to play matched. I know that others get a real thrill out of events or play in public spaces. I'm honestly not sure how to help those people, but whatever the fix is, it shouldn't affect those who do have the option of playing a Crusade with a group of their friends, because it would be solving a problem that none of us actually have.

nou wrote:
An interesting (I think) question just occurred to me:

If 40K, entirely as it is rules wise and codex wise, would be played with dirt cheap paper tokens instead of expensive miniatures and all the rules were in the living ruleset electronic format you only have to pay once or pay a very small subscription for it, would you consider "solving the unbalanced meta" a bug or a feature?

Absolutely a bug.
Because MY hobby is miniature gaming/miniature wargaming. And you've just taken the minis out of it.

And to add insult? Then you propose charging me a subscription fee?? FOR WHAT? I can already get every rule & pictures of the models free. So can everyone else.

nou wrote:
Would you consider 40K a mechanically interesting game in such scenario?

No, it'd just be the same as it currently is - but with no minis. So I wouldn't likely consider it at all.

Toofast wrote:
It's not that easy to tone lists down because I don't buy units unless they're being used in meta lists. If a unit sits on my shelf for years without rotating into the meta, it usually goes on ebay. I only have 2k-2.5k points for any given army at a time and usually it's a 2k meta list with a few other competitive units to swap in for different metas. I don't intentionally try to beat noobs like I'm clubbing a baby seal but if someone asks me for a 2k game, I'm gonna bring a decently competitive list. I'll be happy to go over the game afterward and give them tips to improve. I'll happily show them painting techniques to get models done quickly and to a decent standard. I'm all about helping new people in the hobby.

This was why any narrative campaign I tried to run failed. Where I was before I moved, this was a solid chunk of our 40k players as well. They couldn't play in narratives simply because they only owned tournament style lists and sold off anything that couldn't compete otherwise.

The problem was (deviated from this quote above and unrelated to that quote) they also refused to acknowledge that their lists were too much for a casual for fun narrative event, and insisted that those things were one and the same and there should not be competitive events and narrative for fun events. They should be just "events" and that everyone should chase the meta along with them to play "properly".

This is where the bad balance of the game combined with an over competitive meta destroys things for narrative players that want to field their units that the narrative talks about, but which are garbage because "meta".

If anyone is looking for a narrative campaign map for 40K just go into your FLGS gaming area and peel back some of the posters. There, you will find several well-intentioned attempts at Narrative campaigns that lasted two weeks and then fizzled out.

I expect that a pickup game will be played under Matched Play conditions. It is helpful to have a pre-game chat, though, to determine each other's goals/experience. Since COVID all of our FLGS games are pre-arranged which has actually helped. Communicating before a game with some simple things like: "I am looking to test my club-champs list - come at me!" or "I am a returning player who hasn't played since 4th - I think I have a legal 1000 CSM list" can help me do my part to ensure that we have a fun time/meet our goals.

Sometimes a pick-up game can be a blow-out, and hopefully you both manage it with enough grace to be able to play each other again.

Additionally, Dunning-Kruger can be in effect in the 40K community which contributes to some of the angst. As Clint said "Sometimes a man's gotta know his limitations." Maybe it's not always the game designer's fault when we lose?

Deadnight wrote:
Its a game of toy soldiers.

Wargame players helped the British Navy by testing strategies to defeat German submarines in their game and Yugi Muto saved the world from Yami Bakuda by winning in a children's card game, the fate of the world could be at stake here /sarcasm.

nou wrote:
...Would you consider 40K a mechanically interesting game in such scenario?

Already exists on TTS. I still want the game to be balanced. Even if you use paper tokens they still represent something, it is not unit 117 B, it's a Space Marine Eradicator from the Flesh Tearers chapter. Poorhammer can absolutely be fun, 40k has been mechanically interesting to me since 7th and I have used everything from paper tokens to Space Marines to represent Necrons.

It would be like a D&D group saying "You know, in 20 years, none of us have ever played Paladins. Maybe they should remove them from the game."

I think it should be removed if it was a common thing that nobody played Paladins for 20 years. Make room for a more interesting class if everybody hates it that much or just don't feel inspired by it. If it was just because it was mechanically weak you could house-rule it to make it deal more damage or do bigger heals or stun enemies or something.

 catbarf wrote:

 waefre_1 wrote:

Toofast wrote:
It's not that easy to tone lists down because I don't buy units unless they're being used in meta lists. If a unit sits on my shelf for years without rotating into the meta, it usually goes on ebay. I only have 2k-2.5k points for any given army at a time and usually it's a 2k meta list with a few other competitive units to swap in for different metas...

I may be misreading this, so feel free to correct me, but this bit sounds like you expect new players to purchase new units that they may not want or like so that their list can be "toned up" to your standards, yet you are unwilling to keep extra units around (or potentially purchase a few yourself) to "tone down" your list to their capacity. If so, why do you consider that OK?

Toofast sounds to me like an American counterpart to Karol- introduced to 40K in an environment where hyper-competitiveness, meta-chasing, and seal-clubbing are taken for granted, and now that they have chased the meta, they feel entitled to continue the cycle of seal-clubbing.

It's an overtly adversarial style of play where you're not looking to both have a good time; it's on your opponent to create their own fun while you do the same.

Not at all. Toofast is a meta chaser and I don't think he really complains about the state of 40k. Karol didn't/couldn't change anything and was stuck with a non functioning list made from a 2nd hand lot, he complained about everything . They only share a competitive attitude.

There's nothing wrong in being a meta chaser, and yes that means keeping small collection of models and replacing underperforming units pretty often. If he enjoys playing with that mentality good for him. Thankfully not everyone are like that, including competitive players.

PenitentJake wrote:
I'm honestly not sure how to help those people, but whatever the fix is, it shouldn't affect those who do have the option of playing a Crusade with a group of their friends, because it would be solving a problem that none of us actually have.

The best thing you can do is stop defending GW just because the issue doesn't effect you. We know GW responds if people complain loudly enough. The fix would be for GW to balance their game and make it mechanically sound so that airfleet armies are neither terrible or broken and again, what is good for Matched play is good for Crusade. Better balance in one means better balance in the other.