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.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Toning down someone's list can still affect their enjoyment.

Let's use me as an example. I super love Baneblades. If we suddenly lived in a world where Baneblades were mindbreakingly overpowered, then:
1) my opponent's enjoyment is diminished because Baneblades are stupid good
2) my enjoyment is diminished because these kickass models I spent plenty of time on (and which are my favorites!) won't see the table.

You forgot Nr.3.
my enjoyment suffers because a unit (or even faction) is so busted ruleswise that i just don't want to field it to have a fight on my hand in a wargame. (too strong or too weak)

_______________________________________________________________________________________


Personally and a friendly reminder, fw legends is also a 9th edition spawn from the main GW rules studio no less. Beyond being of course just an excercise in diversion, legends that is, it is indicative of the 0 coordination between ruleswriters that has granted us this mess in the first place and a clear highlighting in quality between authors that care about the faction they write about (f.e. GSC) compared to authors that just had to do a faction (cue Ork dex) and the "not even worth the effort " class that is f.e. R&H / Elysians legends.
And before you go legends not meant to be competitive, mind i remind you that obsec didn't work for R&H troops before they HAD to update atleast that one again, and it is STILL a 9th edition "product", so even if you just wanted a functional last hurrah for the faction, that wasn't granted to you, theres a reason why you don't see any other R&H players anymore.
So pray tell me how that faction had even a chance to partake in the game when it couldn't even hold an objective? And even now, after they had to go back and silently fixed up FW legends in that regard, have you taken a look at the list? because no matter what f.e. I and my opponents do to make the game actually enjoyable that just ruleswise is not a possibility short of houserulling or a handicap so severe depending upon faction that the time required is not worth it, in essence being now a dead army.


Sure, we players have a responsibility to make our own fun with the game, afterall personell factor is important and in general beyond GW's controll.
However we shouldn't use that to excuse GW's BS.
F.e. we now know that squats are coming, after what 2 decades not being part of the game, basically the majority of its existence? Another faction that they need to "balance", yet we lost just recently 3 factions more or less?!?

Its stuff like that, that certainly doesn't help and is just highlighting even more the favouritism and lack of general care that is endemic in the rulesdesign team at this stage.
same with the 2W chaos marines, no they even had the audacity "joke" about that, as a chaos player, that is now bound if the rumors are correct and the jumppack lord going to last chance, to lose even more options, i found that "joke " so hillarious that i am now honestly at a point where i just would (and indeed do) play any old edition, even 6th / 7th because whilest i may need to prepare and negotiate some things with my opposite on the other table end, atleast the factions i play were able to be represented AND there are far more equal pikes in these rather than 9th.

Chances are that Chaos players will be back to the point we constantly find ourselves: Playing Loyalists as 'Counts As' to better represent our chosen Legions.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Chances are that Chaos players will be back to the point we constantly find ourselves: Playing Loyalists as 'Counts As' to better represent our chosen Legions.

Ironically it would also give us access to more "old tech" that we should have but don't.

But i find that status quo personally, especially after IA13 , legion supplement or the 3.5 dex not acceptable in any shape or form, and i for one am fed up.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Chances are that Chaos players will be back to the point we constantly find ourselves: Playing Loyalists as 'Counts As' to better represent our chosen Legions.

Ironically it would also give us access to more "old tech" that we should have but don't.

But i find that status quo personally, especially after IA13 , legion supplement or the 3.5 dex not acceptable in any shape or form, and i for one am fed up.

Now, now. It isn't like being a bunch of ancient super soldiers from the dawn of the Imperium wielding equally ancient weapons was one of the original design concepts for the faction. Oh, wait......

TBH I think the original design concept was just "some of those guys are actually evil, so blue-on-blue is totally legit"

Loyalists getting better access to Volkite than Traitors really grinds my gear.


Oh and Traitors suffering from the Relic tax
Oh and traitors getting so many unique wargear stripped (soulburner on the achilles, butcher cannons)

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Chances are that Chaos players will be back to the point we constantly find ourselves: Playing Loyalists as 'Counts As' to better represent our chosen Legions.

Honestly, after 30 years, GW has broken me, I've been selling off all my CSM stuff, keeping just TS stuff and anything I can use for double duty in AoS. The design and marketing of the game is utterly toxic, the only reason I'm even keeping my TS stuff is because it's my prettiest army and to provide something for my friends to shoot off the table. I know the CSM dex will be good, probably even OP for a month or two, but I just want out of the cycle.

*Sad chaos noises*
I miss that brief moment in 7th where we had traitor legions and chaos space marines were actually pretty damn good.

Its time for some games bred in the community that still use those awesome models but with better rules.

 auticus wrote:
Its time for some games bred in the community that still use those awesome models but with better rules.

Like OnePageRules already provides?

If one enjoys OnePageRules then absolutely.

If one desires more from their games then, continue down the path of creation instead of shackling oneself to rulesets they do not like.

 auticus wrote:
If one enjoys OnePageRules then absolutely.

If one desires more from their games then, continue down the path of creation instead of shackling oneself to rulesets they do not like.

Well its easier to get a community going if everyone agrees on one ruleset. making some custom in-house ruleset will make it a lot harder for any community to grow than having a ruleset available for everyone easily

At this juncture "building a community" is not always the answer.

"Building a community" can often just be more of the same - building one ruleset to bludgeon people with.

One Page Rules is a custom in-house ruleset. Yet people have built "communities" around it.

I'm not interested in a ruleset that is accepted globally - I'm interested in a ruleset that makes me look forward to painting and playing with my models.

This is of course all anecdotal but my local group of 15-20 players that regularly took turns hosting events at their homes is effectively dead since early 9th edition. It varies from casual players to those that attend tournaments regularly and we were able to hold everything from narrative events to team tournaments all through 8th edition with a healthy turnout, even covid didn’t stop us. Now we’re lucky to get 3 or 4 people to come out to a pre scheduled game day. People just don’t want to deal with the bs on the table, especially the more casual players that can’t keep up with the rules churn. A local aos gt just sold out on the first day and the 40k side is only half full after almost a month.

I hate to be hyperbolic but at least locally, it feels like when mk3 warmachine dropped

 auticus wrote:
At this juncture "building a community" is not always the answer.

"Building a community" can often just be more of the same - building one ruleset to bludgeon people with.

One Page Rules is a custom in-house ruleset. Yet people have built "communities" around it.

I'm not interested in a ruleset that is accepted globally - I'm interested in a ruleset that makes me look forward to painting and playing with my models.

Exactly this. I don't attend big tournaments, I don't even play anyone from outside my town. So why should we (my group) try to keep up with the "globally accepted ruleset"? My guess is that the vast majority of 40k players is in the exactly same spot of local only gaming. My group has freed itself from GW when we decided not to switch to 8th and then we just gradually shaped the game that was now ours exactly how we like it.

One thing that I always had a hard time understanding about many 40k players - most games are played 1 on 1. Why the hell so many people think that this game only works if you have multiple opponents to play against instead of truly befriend just one or two people you enjoy playing with and enjoy the game instead of constantly complain about GW, toxic community etc?

I get people who travel a lot, so the main appeal of 40k to them is the availability of games anywhere they go. But the rest?

 Kommisar wrote:
This is of course all anecdotal but my local group of 15-20 players that regularly took turns hosting events at their homes is effectively dead since early 9th edition. It varies from casual players to those that attend tournaments regularly and we were able to hold everything from narrative events to team tournaments all through 8th edition with a healthy turnout, even covid didn’t stop us. Now we’re lucky to get 3 or 4 people to come out to a pre scheduled game day. People just don’t want to deal with the bs on the table, especially the more casual players that can’t keep up with the rules churn. A local aos gt just sold out on the first day and the 40k side is only half full after almost a month.

I hate to be hyperbolic but at least locally, it feels like when mk3 warmachine dropped

So if you had 15-20 people happily playing everything from narratives to tourneys using 8e, & Covid didn't stop you, why don't you just continue doing what you were doing?

ccs wrote:

 Kommisar wrote:
This is of course all anecdotal but my local group of 15-20 players that regularly took turns hosting events at their homes is effectively dead since early 9th edition. It varies from casual players to those that attend tournaments regularly and we were able to hold everything from narrative events to team tournaments all through 8th edition with a healthy turnout, even covid didn’t stop us. Now we’re lucky to get 3 or 4 people to come out to a pre scheduled game day. People just don’t want to deal with the bs on the table, especially the more casual players that can’t keep up with the rules churn. A local aos gt just sold out on the first day and the 40k side is only half full after almost a month.

I hate to be hyperbolic but at least locally, it feels like when mk3 warmachine dropped

So if you had 15-20 people happily playing everything from narratives to tourneys using 8e, & Covid didn't stop you, why don't you just continue doing what you were doing?

Because we can say "Just use old rules" all day long that wont make it popular, or a thing. There is a sort of stigma to using older rules, that a lot of people cant get over. Mostly because you are looked at like an unsupported leaper.
The other thing is, that group is most likely also not the only outlet of gaming they have. You can get get burned out and burned in general outside of the group and that will still effect the want and desire to play the game.
I agree that if it worked, keeping doing it, but at the same time, i also get why it dropped.

Big issues for myself are:
1) local scene one player buys an expansipn as it up powers their army, this creates an arms race.
2) every latest release is badly balanced and then toned down. Its become prolithic with the game such that some players are no longer looking forward to updates (imperial knoght player recently said that he'll get no games for a month).
3) players are online, its hard to separate what is innocent "i like the unit" from "this is overpowered hur hur." It creates bad blood. A good friend of mine has struggled to find fun games with his custodes because his list happened to be very close to tounament builds.


All issues can be discussed and resolved, but when you are busy and see gaming buddies at a weekly club there isn't always time to discuss how to fix the latest rules mess up.

I get people who travel a lot, so the main appeal of 40k to them is the availability of games anywhere they go. But the rest?

The biggest draw to play 40k and AOS is the massive built in community. Many players do love the rules or claim to, but many hate the rules but stick around BECAUSE OF the massive community (my own anecdotal experience is most 40k and sigmar players I have ever known or played with didn't really like the rules but loved the community - the rules were just the price you paid to enjoy the community)

* competitive players enjoy the deep pool of players to test against. Only having 1-2 players means not having a lot of players to tune against.

* competitive players love large events. Placing high at a 200 player event carries a lot more prestige, youtube subscribers, twitch subscribers, and other opportunities than winning an 8 player event that no one cares about. The more players, the bigger the events, the more prestige in the events.

* casual players enjoy having a variety of opponents and armies to play against.

* it feels good to know you're playing a game that has hundreds of thousands of players alongside you. It makes you feel your $1000 army investment and hours in painting are safe and won't be killed off like with smaller games.

* the more players in the game, the more "alive" the game feels - the more new content you can look forward to. Home based rules don't have any of that.

* playing unsupported versions or dead version is actively avoided by many if not most players.

Those are things that I hear quite a bit anyway.

Yep a competition that no one watches and few if anyone participate in means nothing. Doesn't even have to involved gaming either. Having the best painted army in a 100+ people AoS event, and having the best painted army in a 12 man Infinity event, is not the same.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sureshot05 wrote:
Big issues for myself are:
1) local scene one player buys an expansipn as it up powers their army, this creates an arms race.
2) every latest release is badly balanced and then toned down. Its become prolithic with the game such that some players are no longer looking forward to updates (imperial knoght player recently said that he'll get no games for a month).
3) players are online, its hard to separate what is innocent "i like the unit" from "this is overpowered hur hur." It creates bad blood. A good friend of mine has struggled to find fun games with his custodes because his list happened to be very close to tounament builds.
All issues can be discussed and resolved, but when you are busy and see gaming buddies at a weekly club there isn't always time to discuss how to fix the latest rules mess up.

No, not all things can be resolved by talking. If a custodes or harli or DE players had a prior codex army, and took that unoptimised army to play vs something like IG or most marines marines, then no amount of talking can change the power difference between armies. The 8th best, but still weak, GK army was NDKs and power armoured units. The actually powerful for a time GK army , pre the brotherhood nerfs, consisted of the same models. And running something else didn't make the army just a bit less powerful, it made the army really bad, and some stuff like fast moving resilient heavy weapon platforms like NDKs have no replacement in the GK codex. A harli player can have 3 voids, what was legal under old books, and troups in transports plus some bikes and his army going to outclass most of the casual lists played right now.

Current metagame doesn't affect us, nor do we 'chase the meta dragon'.

Collaborative game-building all the way; we have no interest in 'list-building-for-advantage'.

Aside from the Infinity models on my desk im repainting after three years of having them stripped and bagged, and a smattering of old wmh models ive not painted any non-gw figures in a long long time . And I'm genuinely not bothered about that fact. Aside from the occasional foray into bolt action, all the games I've enjoyed playing have been gw ones these last 5 years.

 Blackie wrote:
Definitely not your fault, but I don't believe that someone who doesn't sound as a meta chaser is now unstoppable and wins everytime. It's certainly possible that you won 4 times in a row and I definitely believe you when you say so, but your opponents aren't doomed. I doubt you can spam 4+ voidweavers if you bought the army thematically AND before the codex release, I doubt you even have more than 1 or 2. Dropping the voidweavers from 6-9 to 1-3 and replacing them with bikes, toys for the troupes and maybe additional HQs tones down the army by a large margin. Armies like necrons and SM can definitely manage the clowns then, assuming they can field reasonably optimized lists.

I own 2 voidweavers atm, I've never run more than 1 in a game. But the point is, if I win a game, since I'm playing Harlequins, other players assume that it's because of how broken my army is, so the meta is negatively affecting my casual play.

 Blackie wrote:
Both harlequins and custodes are elite armies that can be massively OP but also not. Custodes in particular have lots of garbage options in their codex. Even bloody land raiders.

Yes but if someone is like "Custodes are cool, imma run these big golden guys" and another player is like "IG are cool, imma run some tanks and infantry" they cannot have a good game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tiberias wrote:
Show you the proper respect?! With all the strawmen you've built and baseless accusations you've thrown around on this very forum? You have got to be kidding me. We can talk about politeness, but respect is earned and you have done everything in your power over multiple threads in this forum to not be worthy of any respect. fething delusional...

You came in here insulting me first. Get off your gak.

Tiberias wrote:
How is talking to a person before the game and agreeing to not bring tooled up meta lists akin to a participation trophy? You still have to play against the person an win.

Tiberias wrote:
Then you know little about Custodes. I play them, one of my best firends plays Guard. You can tone down a Custodes list by going mostly infantry and sisters, throwing in an assassin here and there.

What if they don't own any SoS or Assassins because the former were only added to the codex recently and the latter have always been optional? Then they can't really have a good game without house ruling extensively - which is an unreasonable ask for a game that charges a lot for rulebooks. You need to start holding GW to task here.

Tiberias wrote:
Before you start building strawmen again, nobody said GW wasn't at fault here btw. And yes, trying to have a game with friends where both parties have fun requires more effort. So what? Better than wallowing in self pity about the meta and pointing fingers at GW for how bad the game is....we all know that they messed up, that's not the fething point.

You immediately followed your statement saying nobody isn't saying GW's at fault with a statement that it's wrong to blame GW for the current situation. That's an incredibly two-faced comment.

Tiberias wrote:


And you seriously complain about scarecrows?

Everyone here can read your previous posts and knows you're bullshitting.

Tiberias wrote:


It's deliciously ironic the way you purposefully misconstrue other peoples words and then have the gall to demand respect. Utterly obnoxious.

Don't ask me to believe contradictory statements *within the same paragraph* and we can talk about respect. You find it obnoxious that I actually expect you to say things that make sense, and expect you to say accurate things to earn the right to be called correct. I bet it's frustrating.

Tiberias wrote:


That's why you would have to talk to people beforehand. Shocking, I know.

This is a meaningless statement. I've played against players who run nothing but Firstborn armies that might have been good in previous editions, and insist that anything that their army is weak against is overpowered. If I talk to them, I'll get stuff like "Harlequins are just too fast, I need multiple turns of unopposed shooting against them to be fair." and "Having objectives in the midfield is unfair because it means I have to run to where Harlequins can kill me. They should have to run towards my gunline."

What do you do about takes like that? You can't really come to a consensus with them. If the rules for 40k weren't so trash, it wouldn't matter, because these people would be playing a reasonably fair game to begin with.

So GW's gakky rules writing is messing with my ability to get a game and enjoy the armies I find thematically interesting.

I wish I could get a game in with my Firstborn to see just how nasty the boogieman Harlequins are.

Tiberias wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

Tiberias wrote:
God you are so full of yourself it's actually unbelievable. Btw how long until you derail the thread by starting to accuse people again of being fascists because they play an imperium faction and enjoy the lore? Seen it so often it's basically a given with you.

I'm calling the police, we know who's been vandalizing all those scarecrows.

In all seriousness, act your age, show me the proper respect, and we can continue to have a conversation.

Show you the proper respect?! With all the strawmen you've built and baseless accusations you've thrown around on this very forum? You have got to be kidding me. We can talk about politeness, but respect is earned and you have done everything in your power over multiple threads in this forum to not be worthy of any respect. fething delusional...

Tiberias wrote:
How is talking to a person before the game and agreeing to not bring tooled up meta lists akin to a participation trophy? You still have to play against the person an win.

It requires way more effort. At least with Harlequins, I can choose not to run Voidweavers, but if someone has Custodes, and his opponet is playing, say, Imperial Guard, how do you talk before a game to have a fun game? You essentially can't, and that's GW's fault. Moreover, you can run into big problems with players who are just terrible at the game and who insist that any army they lose to is terrible and needs to be toned down.

Then you know little about Custodes. I play them, one of my best firends plays Guard. You can tone down a Custodes list by going mostly infantry and sisters, throwing in an assassin here and there.
Before you start building strawmen again, nobody said GW wasn't at fault here btw. And yes, trying to have a game with friends where both parties have fun requires more effort. So what? Better than wallowing in self pity about the meta and pointing fingers at GW for how bad the game is....we all know that they messed up, that's not the fething point.

Tiberias wrote:
I also did not imply that winning is not fun.

When you said that if your goal was playing competitively it can't be having fun.

And you seriously complain about scarecrows?

Tiberias wrote:
The feth did you get that from again?

Your own words. Take some responsibility, kid.

It's deliciously ironic the way you purposefully misconstrue other peoples words and then have the gall to demand respect. Utterly obnoxious.

Tiberias wrote:
The point is that playing against harlequin void weavers with guard is a forgone conclusion and not fun for the guard player....you can try to remedy that at least in a friendly game by talking to the person you are playing with and maybe agreeing that the Harlequin player tries out a more experimental list, that maybe even specifically plays badly into guard. Guard player actually gets to play the game, Harlequin player doesn't win by default. How is that concept so difficult to understand?

What if the balance isn't clear? What if players have different ideas about balance? You need a common ground that has a reasonable level of fairness, and GW fails to provide that, which is why GW is bad at game design, and it's why the current metagame negatively affects my play experience.

That's why you would have to talk to people beforehand. Shocking, I know.

If the answer is "Buy and paint worse units to have a fairer game", that's not super compelling dude.

Like, I play custodes, but I don't own any sisters yet. I don't even own that many guards. I own 21 jetbikes because I thought they were the coolest unit in the codex, but you can't even do 2000 points of just jetbikes currently and, like, 19 jetbikes and a guy on foot ruins the whole theme of the meme. So when I line units up using what I have, it's terminators, 3 by 3 guard, some jetbikes and some dreadnoughts (I own one of each), and I don't feel particular need to rush out and buy all the sister of silence so I can play a fairer game. I don't even dislike SoS, I'm literally just waiting for them to finally release the patrol so I can get SoS and some guard to make into sags.

Sometimes the levers the games give you to balance things are poor. Instead of jamming myself into a mass of expensive models I wasn't passionate for, I bought an entirely different army (also so I could stop playing imperium v imperium games against space marines).

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Chances are that Chaos players will be back to the point we constantly find ourselves: Playing Loyalists as 'Counts As' to better represent our chosen Legions.

I doubt this considering the leaks.

 auticus wrote:
At this juncture "building a community" is not always the answer.

"Building a community" can often just be more of the same - building one ruleset to bludgeon people with.

One Page Rules is a custom in-house ruleset. Yet people have built "communities" around it.

I'm not interested in a ruleset that is accepted globally - I'm interested in a ruleset that makes me look forward to painting and playing with my models.

Yes, all you introverted nerds out there should go create a ruleset and then force people to play it!

XD

If you want a way worse balanced game that is

Hecaton wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
Definitely not your fault, but I don't believe that someone who doesn't sound as a meta chaser is now unstoppable and wins everytime. It's certainly possible that you won 4 times in a row and I definitely believe you when you say so, but your opponents aren't doomed. I doubt you can spam 4+ voidweavers if you bought the army thematically AND before the codex release, I doubt you even have more than 1 or 2. Dropping the voidweavers from 6-9 to 1-3 and replacing them with bikes, toys for the troupes and maybe additional HQs tones down the army by a large margin. Armies like necrons and SM can definitely manage the clowns then, assuming they can field reasonably optimized lists.

I own 2 voidweavers atm, I've never run more than 1 in a game. But the point is, if I win a game, since I'm playing Harlequins, other players assume that it's because of how broken my army is, so the meta is negatively affecting my casual play.

 Blackie wrote:
Both harlequins and custodes are elite armies that can be massively OP but also not. Custodes in particular have lots of garbage options in their codex. Even bloody land raiders.

Yes but if someone is like "Custodes are cool, imma run these big golden guys" and another player is like "IG are cool, imma run some tanks and infantry" they cannot have a good game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tiberias wrote:
Show you the proper respect?! With all the strawmen you've built and baseless accusations you've thrown around on this very forum? You have got to be kidding me. We can talk about politeness, but respect is earned and you have done everything in your power over multiple threads in this forum to not be worthy of any respect. fething delusional...

You came in here insulting me first. Get off your gak.

Tiberias wrote:
How is talking to a person before the game and agreeing to not bring tooled up meta lists akin to a participation trophy? You still have to play against the person an win.

Tiberias wrote:
Then you know little about Custodes. I play them, one of my best firends plays Guard. You can tone down a Custodes list by going mostly infantry and sisters, throwing in an assassin here and there.

What if they don't own any SoS or Assassins because the former were only added to the codex recently and the latter have always been optional? Then they can't really have a good game without house ruling extensively - which is an unreasonable ask for a game that charges a lot for rulebooks. You need to start holding GW to task here.

Tiberias wrote:
Before you start building strawmen again, nobody said GW wasn't at fault here btw. And yes, trying to have a game with friends where both parties have fun requires more effort. So what? Better than wallowing in self pity about the meta and pointing fingers at GW for how bad the game is....we all know that they messed up, that's not the fething point.

You immediately followed your statement saying nobody isn't saying GW's at fault with a statement that it's wrong to blame GW for the current situation. That's an incredibly two-faced comment.

Tiberias wrote:


And you seriously complain about scarecrows?

Everyone here can read your previous posts and knows you're bullshitting.

Tiberias wrote:


It's deliciously ironic the way you purposefully misconstrue other peoples words and then have the gall to demand respect. Utterly obnoxious.

Don't ask me to believe contradictory statements *within the same paragraph* and we can talk about respect. You find it obnoxious that I actually expect you to say things that make sense, and expect you to say accurate things to earn the right to be called correct. I bet it's frustrating.

Tiberias wrote:


That's why you would have to talk to people beforehand. Shocking, I know.

This is a meaningless statement. I've played against players who run nothing but Firstborn armies that might have been good in previous editions, and insist that anything that their army is weak against is overpowered. If I talk to them, I'll get stuff like "Harlequins are just too fast, I need multiple turns of unopposed shooting against them to be fair." and "Having objectives in the midfield is unfair because it means I have to run to where Harlequins can kill me. They should have to run towards my gunline."

What do you do about takes like that? You can't really come to a consensus with them. If the rules for 40k weren't so trash, it wouldn't matter, because these people would be playing a reasonably fair game to begin with.

So GW's gakky rules writing is messing with my ability to get a game and enjoy the armies I find thematically interesting.

Harlequings are actually broken without voidweaver spam. They're a strong army on every axis, void weavers are just the tip top nonsense. So, there is, in fact, a good chance you are winning games, especially if you are playing casually, just because you have harlies.

You mean like their "BEST IN GAME SNIPER"? Or are you talking about their psyker who makes almost everyone elses look like trash? Or are you talking about their bikes which aren't considered good by Harly standards but which smoke check almost everyone else?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Ok.

What if I thought Baneblades were cool and don't have enough for 2k? I hope my opponent likes 1400 points games only.

Or, more pertinently, what would you suggest the Custodes player do to make it fun for the Khorne Daemons player in the example that you both quoted and ignored?

This was challenging- a lot of my go-to solutions really don't work for Guard or Daemons, because they don't have bespoke Crusade content yet. I checked a few sources really quickly looking for ideas- I wanted to do something around a ritual and altars of skulls, but I can't find altar of skulls rules anywhere. So I think what I would do instead is find two or three warp related theatres of war and link them to game outcomes (whether that takes the form of victory conditions or it's linked to the achievement of specific secondaries/ agendas). This would represent the ritual taking place over the span of multiple games; as the phases of the ritual are completed, additional Theatre of war effects are activated, but the Imperial player can undo previously activated Theatres as well, so there's a real push/ pull to the narrative.

I'd also build in story triggers that would draw the attention of the Ordo Malleus, so that certain missions would require the Inquisitor to appear as an Imperial Agent to achieve a specific Investigation type secondary/ agenda while the Custodes were responsible for keeping the enemy at bay long enough for the Inquisitor to get the job done.

The baneblade is very interesting to me- I didn't deep dive here either, but what I started thinking about was the BL Baneblade novel where all the characters are the baneblade crew. I've never read the book, but the premise sounded so cool, I always wanted to bring it to a table. I don't know if there is a baneblade chasis variant with a transport capacity, but my idea for the baneblade fan would be that sort of idea. I don't know, maybe use a baneblade as a base of operations for a handful of kill/ fire teams- in some of the spin-off KT games, you could use it as terrain. That's asking a lot of our hypothetical players- KT isn't just an alternate way to play, it's a whole other game, but it's what I'd do. Even if you don't take it that far, the principle is that if a player loves baneblades that much, you make them the anchor of the narrative and choose your missions, agendas/ secondaries to highlight that aspect of the force. You'd also need one or two pieces of terrain that could literally block LOS to the whole model, barring visibility reduction theatres of war.

As for Custodes, well, funny enough I'm actually interested in them for the first time ever, but not for the reason other people are interested. I would play them as either part of a Torchbearer Fleet using the White Dwarf Crusade rules, as a pure SoS force (with or without an attached Hereticus Inquisitor depending on Mission), or a mixed Aleya/ Valerian Talons force. As such, any games against MY Custodes would be interesting and less likely to be OP. Getting generic SoS Hq, the decoupling of Aleya and Valerian and Prosecutors as troops were the three best things to happen to the Custodes dex in 9th, but of course we only ever talk about 2k matched here, so no one else cares.

Again, I know you're looking for PUG 2k matched solutions and I understand why it's important to be able to do that. I'm not enough of a matched player to even know whether or not any 2k matched solutions exist, and that is a problem that needs to be remedied. Hopefully the upcoming dataslate fix and the new codices for those factions still waiting will go some distance to remedying the situation.

But if either of our theoretical players are ever able to actually stray outside the boundaries of the lowest common denominator of 40k formats, and try something that ISN'T 2k Matched, I assure you there is plenty of potential to provide very engaging and mutually enjoyable games.

Hecaton wrote:

Tiberias wrote:
Show you the proper respect?! With all the strawmen you've built and baseless accusations you've thrown around on this very forum? You have got to be kidding me. We can talk about politeness, but respect is earned and you have done everything in your power over multiple threads in this forum to not be worthy of any respect. fething delusional...

You came in here insulting me first. Get off your gak.

Oh, don't sweat it buddy, you deserve it.

Hecaton wrote:

Tiberias wrote:
How is talking to a person before the game and agreeing to not bring tooled up meta lists akin to a participation trophy? You still have to play against the person an win.

Tiberias wrote:
Then you know little about Custodes. I play them, one of my best firends plays Guard. You can tone down a Custodes list by going mostly infantry and sisters, throwing in an assassin here and there.

What if they don't own any SoS or Assassins because the former were only added to the codex recently and the latter have always been optional? Then they can't really have a good game without house ruling extensively - which is an unreasonable ask for a game that charges a lot for rulebooks. You need to start holding GW to task here.

Again, never said GW isn't to blame or should not be scrutinized. If someone doesn't have the collection you can play smaller games for example. If a custodes player bought only jetbikes and Trajann for example in 8th because those were the coolest models to them, then thats a situation you can't remedy in this example, sure....I didn't claim it solves EVERYTHING for everyone.
What irks me is that you seem to be opposed to the general concept, so you hang yourself on to specific examples and then condemn the whole thing. But it's no surprise really, you always do this.

Hecaton wrote:

Tiberias wrote:
Before you start building strawmen again, nobody said GW wasn't at fault here btw. And yes, trying to have a game with friends where both parties have fun requires more effort. So what? Better than wallowing in self pity about the meta and pointing fingers at GW for how bad the game is....we all know that they messed up, that's not the fething point.

You immediately followed your statement saying nobody isn't saying GW's at fault with a statement that it's wrong to blame GW for the current situation. That's an incredibly two-faced comment.

Great example of you purposefully misconstruing other peoples words to make an intellectually dishonest point, yet again. I did not say it's wrong to blame GW, I said it's better to try to do something about it, at least in friendly games, instead of wallowing in self pity about the situation until GW releases a balance slate or something.

So again, real slow this time: suggesting something might be better or more useful in a given situation than x does not equal doing x or saying x is wrong, terrible or immoral.

Hecaton wrote:

Tiberias wrote:


And you seriously complain about scarecrows?

Everyone here can read your previous posts and knows you're bullshitting.

Everyone can do the same with your posts, over multiple threads, where you've made staggeringly intellectually dishonest comments to further your points...you are not fooling anyone.

Hecaton wrote:

Tiberias wrote:


It's deliciously ironic the way you purposefully misconstrue other peoples words and then have the gall to demand respect. Utterly obnoxious.

Don't ask me to believe contradictory statements *within the same paragraph* and we can talk about respect. You find it obnoxious that I actually expect you to say things that make sense, and expect you to say accurate things to earn the right to be called correct. I bet it's frustrating.

I guess you can interpret everything as contradictory as long as you want to further your point.

Hecaton wrote:

Tiberias wrote:

That's why you would have to talk to people beforehand. Shocking, I know.

This is a meaningless statement. I've played against players who run nothing but Firstborn armies that might have been good in previous editions, and insist that anything that their army is weak against is overpowered. If I talk to them, I'll get stuff like "Harlequins are just too fast, I need multiple turns of unopposed shooting against them to be fair." and "Having objectives in the midfield is unfair because it means I have to run to where Harlequins can kill me. They should have to run towards my gunline."

What do you do about takes like that? You can't really come to a consensus with them. If the rules for 40k weren't so trash, it wouldn't matter, because these people would be playing a reasonably fair game to begin with.

So GW's gakky rules writing is messing with my ability to get a game and enjoy the armies I find thematically interesting.

Yeah again, so you really, really understand it this time: GW is to blame, but you can still try to talk to people and come to a consensus about how to maaaybe have a bit more fun and not be miserable pushing toy soldiers across a table....and the times it didn't work for you are as anecdotal as the multitudes of times it worked great for me....it doesn't mean the concept has no merit, I'd even suggest it's just freaking common sense to at least try to make the best of that situation and have fun.

stratigo wrote:
I doubt this considering the leaks.

The leaks show that I can't take Berzerkers anymore. Yet Space Wolves, Black Templars and Blood Angels might be able to better rep my Khorne-based Chaos army.

Tiberias, your comment isn't worth replying to line by line. You, again, are contradicting yourself and refusing to cop to what you're saying. You want to castigate everyone who doesn't perform an ad hoc rebalancing of 40k before every game, but you don't want any of the smoke when called out on how cumbersome that is. That's childish.

I don't want to have to rebalance the game every Friday night for a few hours before I spend a few hours playing the game. GW's supposed to do that for me. And you say it's wrong to criticize them, get off it. The meta is not fine, and it's fine to point that out.

Khorne without berserkers? W T F?