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.

People above already complaining about having to house rule stuff rather than play by the book. And that's part of the rules.

Sure you can house rule stuff but believe it or not there are people who want game to be good out of the box without house rules needed.

tneva82 wrote:
People above already complaining about having to house rule stuff rather than play by the book. And that's part of the rules.

Sure you can house rule stuff but believe it or not there are people who want game to be good out of the box without house rules needed.

Good point!

I do consider there to be a difference between "Let's not use one rule that doesn't actually impact the game," and "Let's find a balance point between your Tau and my IG," but you've a point.

tneva82 wrote:
People above already complaining about having to house rule stuff rather than play by the book. And that's part of the rules.

Sure you can house rule stuff but believe it or not there are people who want game to be good out of the box without house rules needed.

So do i, but instead of forcing myself to play a game i dislike, i make sure that my opponent and i are on the same page. Saying "lets not bring top tournament lists" is one of the easiest things to agree with.

tneva82 wrote:
People above already complaining about having to house rule stuff rather than play by the book. And that's part of the rules.

Sure you can house rule stuff but believe it or not there are people who want game to be good out of the box without house rules needed.

Somehow, in 99% of cases, those "house rules" only need to address limits on amount of broken gak brought into the game in the list building stage. You might be surprised, but in a friendly environment an "utterly broken" 7th ed actually worked well out of the box, no rule from the BRB had to be altered. I've played more than 100 games with the only changes that were required were "if you play a stronger codex, bring a weaker list". That's it. Most of those 100+ games I've played were Eldar vs Tyranids, a matchup deemed completely impossible to balance. And yet we had tons of fun. If I've "chased the dragon" as an Eldar player and brought Aspect Lord-shrine Pale Courts Warp Spider+Scatbike+WK spam list, the game would be pointless and we wouldn't have had an ounce of fun.

I've said it before - nobody at GW forces you to bring the most powerful list to the table, other players do.

Edit: sorry, one rule "had to" be added - "redraw impossible Maelstrom card". So very much "have to be a game designer yourself" kind of houserule that it takes a genius to come up with.

So unless people buy an army for you, which for me happened for AoS, you more or less are always in the situation that if you want to play and this is your first army, and you don't have endless hobby funds, you will optimise the stuff you buy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:


So do i, but instead of forcing myself to play a game i dislike, i make sure that my opponent and i are on the same page. Saying "lets not bring top tournament lists" is one of the easiest things to agree with.

How do you "force" your opponent to do what you want and buy the stuff which doesn't make them have tournament lists, specially if their lists became "tournament" over night? Unless it is some sort I own the store, this are my tables and we there for play my way, I don't see it happening. And it would still mean that anyone who can't fullfill the criteria of non "tournament" list would have no where to play.

Pretty sure people buy what they think is cool or something new and fancy to add to their army. Maybe double up on a unit you really liked, but most new players expand outwards instead of upwards. Once you start collecting multiples of a trendy unit, I think you've started crossing the Rubicon... making decisions based on performance over aesthetics.

And that's a fine thing to do, I just think it determines the kind of game you're really looking for. If how you approach the army is to get trendy units en mass, then you probably deserve what you get (the git gud argument) and will see your value diminished in short order through churn, creep, and edition changes. That's why my advice is always play with what you want, how you want, it's the only way you survive the carousel.

nou wrote:

Somehow, in 99% of cases, those "house rules" only need to address limits on amount of broken gak brought into the game in the list building stage. You might be surprised, but in a friendly environment an "utterly broken" 7th ed actually worked well out of the box, no rule from the BRB had to be altered. I've played more than 100 games with the only changes that were required were "if you play a stronger codex, bring a weaker list". That's it. Most of those 100+ games I've played were Eldar vs Tyranids, a matchup deemed completely impossible to balance. And yet we had tons of fun. If I've "chased the dragon" as an Eldar player and brought Aspect Lord-shrine Pale Courts Warp Spider+Scatbike+WK spam list, the game would be pointless and we wouldn't have had an ounce of fun.

I've said it before - nobody at GW forces you to bring the most powerful list to the table, other players do.

Edit: sorry, one rule "had to" be added - "redraw impossible Maelstrom card". So very much "have to be a game designer yourself" kind of houserule that it takes a genius to come up with.

What's broken? How much it too much broken stuff? That's very subjective, and doesn't take into account player skill. Low-skill players are going to complain about everyone else's stuff being overpowered because they lose more.

Hecaton wrote:

nou wrote:

Somehow, in 99% of cases, those "house rules" only need to address limits on amount of broken gak brought into the game in the list building stage. You might be surprised, but in a friendly environment an "utterly broken" 7th ed actually worked well out of the box, no rule from the BRB had to be altered. I've played more than 100 games with the only changes that were required were "if you play a stronger codex, bring a weaker list". That's it. Most of those 100+ games I've played were Eldar vs Tyranids, a matchup deemed completely impossible to balance. And yet we had tons of fun. If I've "chased the dragon" as an Eldar player and brought Aspect Lord-shrine Pale Courts Warp Spider+Scatbike+WK spam list, the game would be pointless and we wouldn't have had an ounce of fun.

I've said it before - nobody at GW forces you to bring the most powerful list to the table, other players do.

Edit: sorry, one rule "had to" be added - "redraw impossible Maelstrom card". So very much "have to be a game designer yourself" kind of houserule that it takes a genius to come up with.

What's broken? How much it too much broken stuff? That's very subjective, and doesn't take into account player skill. Low-skill players are going to complain about everyone else's stuff being overpowered because they lose more.

This is exactly why the adjustment must come from the better player instead of a typical "git gud" mantra. If I don't feel, even for a moment, that I can loose a match, then I have too strong list for the matchup. If I can reliably predict the outcome of the game and it is in my favour, then I have too strong list. If I know exactly when and where my opponent made mistakes that had cost him a match, then I'm the better player and I should play weaker list to ensure mutual fun, or play asymmetric points, because I can immediately step down, but the opponent can't immediately step up. This is how this works in any sport, any competition - the better player holds his punches.

But great many 40k "competitive players" aren't skilled enough at any part of 40k other than netlisting to actually understand how the game works and how it can be made to work in modes other than "2000pts, current GT" or how to accommodate a clearly weaker player or a clearly weaker list. Seal clubbing is a thing, because so many people in 40k simply don't want tabletop skill to matter, they want to win via list building and cannot fathom a reality, when you actually tailor your list down, so you to have to think how to solve problems on the fly instead of point-and-click your problems out of existence with the most OP gak they can find in any codex. They cannot fathom actually playing a game.

nou wrote:
This is exactly why the adjustment must come from the better player instead of a typical "git gud" mantra. If I don't feel, even for a moment, that I can loose a match, then I have too strong list for the matchup. If I can reliably predict the outcome of the game and it is in my favour, then I have too strong list. If I know exactly when and where my opponent made mistakes that had cost him a match, then I'm the better player and I should play weaker list to ensure mutual fun, or play asymmetric points, because I can immediately step down, but the opponent can't immediately step up.

Uh huh. What if you show up to play on game night and both players are like "This is what I brought." And one of the players has a list that will absolutely shellack the other one. Just not play? I don't have this problem with Infinity.

And as far as player skill goes - the better player should win, in most cases. Definitely the player who played better that day. So no, I think it's wrong to toy with players like that, unless they're new and still learning - and it's wrong for players to act entitled to that sort of treatment.

There's also the issue of, what if you make it an approximately fair fight and then still win, what if your opponent is like "No I need you to nerf yourself more so I can have an advantage."

Some people are only happy when they're winning. I'm not; I'm happiest in this hobby when I feel like my wits are being tested, win or lose. Having to coddle my opponent's army is anathema to that. I'd rather teach them how to beat my army so I can play them on even footing. The problem is that in 40k, the balance is so wack that you can't teach someone to overcome it.

nou wrote:
This is how this works in any sport, any competition - the better player holds his punches.

Definitely not. And I would feel patronized if my opponent toyed with me in that manner in most circumstances.

nou wrote:
But great many 40k "competitive players" aren't skilled enough at any part of 40k other than netlisting to actually understand how the game works and how it can be made to work in modes other than "2000pts, current GT" or how to accommodate a clearly weaker player or a clearly weaker list. Seal clubbing is a thing, because so many people in 40k simply don't want tabletop skill to matter, they want to win via list building and cannot fathom a reality, when you actually tailor your list down, so you to have to think how to solve problems on the fly instead of point-and-click your problems out of existence with the most OP gak they can find in any codex. They cannot fathom actually playing a game.

I mean that comes from the top; GW has created that culture because they want to drive people to buy more things, not to git gud.

Karol wrote:


How do you "force" your opponent to do what you want and buy the stuff which doesn't make them have tournament lists, specially if their lists became "tournament" over night? Unless it is some sort I own the store, this are my tables and we there for play my way, I don't see it happening. And it would still mean that anyone who can't fullfill the criteria of non "tournament" list would have no where to play.

i litterally just talk to them

And nobody that plays at my local store only has exactly 2000pts so adjusting a list isnt a problem for them.

even if they did only have 2000, i'd find a way to accomodate them (proxy, lend some models, whatever)

Hecaton wrote:
I'm happiest in this hobby when I feel like my wits are being tested, win or lose.

If my opponent showed up with a list that cannot beat me, or I'm playing with a person who I know is worse than me, then I already know I'm going to win if I won't up the difficulty. So exactly because I like when my wits are being tested, I'll handicap myself or my list. It's the easiest thing under the sun to simply not field a couple of units. It's not like the rest of the list will magically stop working. I value my time and I simply do not like wasting it on seal clubbing. Easy wins are not wins at all. And should the other player still complain, that my list should be nerfed more because I beat him while blindfolded, then I simply won't play that person anymore. Luckily for me, I'm long past playing random people who only enjoy the game if they won.

"The better player should win" matters only if the match is between close equals. There is an elaborate system of handicap in chess, exactly because there is simply no point in playing with large disparity of skill - contrary to common belief, you don't learn anything from helpless struggle, only from "just within grasp" loses. And in 40k there is disparity of lists on top of that. That is reality. You can moan all you like, that you don't have to adjust/compensate in Infinity - you always had to do this in 40k.

Hecaton wrote:
I'm happiest in this hobby when I feel like my wits are being tested, win or lose.

Then you should be willing to adjust your lists because the tournament mentality means it's lists that drive the result. YOU aren't being tested on your wits. Tournament games are won by lists and creating best list takes intelligence level of elementary school kid.

If you want to actually test your wit you need to work with your opponent to ensure armies are about even. Otherwise your wits aren't being tested(at least on assumption your wits are at the level of average elementary school kid)

nou wrote:

Hecaton wrote:
I'm happiest in this hobby when I feel like my wits are being tested, win or lose.

If my opponent showed up with a list that cannot beat me, or I'm playing with a person who I know is worse than me, then I already know I'm going to win if I won't up the difficulty. So exactly because I like when my wits are being tested, I'll handicap myself or my list. It's the easiest thing under the sun to simply not field a couple of units. It's not like the rest of the list will magically stop working. I value my time and I simply do not like wasting it on seal clubbing. Easy wins are not wins at all. And should the other player still complain, that my list should be nerfed more because I beat him while blindfolded, then I simply won't play that person anymore. Luckily for me, I'm long past playing random people who only enjoy the game if they won.

"The better player should win" matters only if the match is between close equals. There is an elaborate system of handicap in chess, exactly because there is simply no point in playing with large disparity of skill - contrary to common belief, you don't learn anything from helpless struggle, only from "just within grasp" loses. And in 40k there is disparity of lists on top of that. That is reality. You can moan all you like, that you don't have to adjust/compensate in Infinity - you always had to do this in 40k.

My thoughts are similar on the subject. Because 40ks hasn't, isn't and likely won't ever be balanced along with me being a rather mediocre player, I don't feel slighted if my opponent takes out a 100pts or more for an actually competitive game. No more than I will take out a 100pts or more if I happen to be playing a faction with an extra strong codex (see C:SM 8.5). I just want a close game. I don't really care how it has to be manipulated to get there.

I feel the true measure of an excellent player is one that can look at both the army lists and accurately eyeball what can be done to create a game that comes down to the last few dice rolls to determine the winner. I have been able to do this in many of the miniatures war games before I started playing GW games, but since I don't take GW games (or any game in my advancing age) as serious, I have never been able to accomplish it within them.

I play a lot of new players. I also believe in, "A high tide raises all boats." So, I try to pass on the stuff I found that works. Fortunately, many new players play space marines which is in my wheelhouse in 40k. I absolutely angle games for new players to win. However, I don't give them the win. They still have to take it. I just try and make sure at the start of the game I have a handicap that as long as they don't make too many mistakes or luck fails them at critical times too many times, they should win. Being new players, they don't always capitalize on it. But I like to think they still learned something from the game. So next time, maybe they do beat me. As I'm long past the need to validate myself through winning games. I am more than happy to be the opponent that loses, so the other player has that hard-earned victory. Like to think of myself as a new player jobber to borrow a professional wrestling term.

Hecaton wrote:

Uh huh. What if you show up to play on game night and both players are like "This is what I brought." And one of the players has a list that will absolutely shellack the other one. Just not play? I don't have this problem with Infinity.

No one has that problem with infinity because no one plays infinity in the first place. To an extent, I jest; but being serious, infinity anecdotes are all well and good, but we're talking about working around the issues of 40k/gw games here.

Not play is perfectly fine by me. My gaming time is precious, I have standards. Like we tell our daughters, Its ok to say 'no'. And id rather not play than play a rubbish game, thanks.

Hecaton wrote:

So no, I think it's wrong to toy with players like that, unless they're new and still learning - and it's wrong for players to act entitled to that sort of treatment.

No.

Prople can have a way less powerful list for a lot of reasons besides 'they're new', and they're not wrong for taking what they take. If you have an s-tier codex, swapping out stuff or dropping the power level so theyre on the same level is not 'toying' with them, its showing respect. Taking your s-tier list against their d-tier, and with a straight face saying theyre both 2000pts or whatever and therefore the same - that's toying with them. Seal-clubbing is not a good thing. Claiming there's nothing you can or should do about it is worse - that's just contributing to the toxicity of the gaming community. It doesn't help anyone.

Hecaton wrote:

Having to coddle my opponent's army is anathema to that. I'd rather teach them how to beat my army so I can play them on even footing. The problem is that in 40k, the balance is so wack that you can't teach someone to overcome it.

And this is 40k. The problem with your approach and teaching them to play at the ahem, absolute pinnacle of what theyre codex can do doesn't necessarily make for a better game, a better player or a better experience. All it does is feed into and perpetuate the toxic, self-destructive meta chasing nonsense we all claim to hate.

And It's not 'coddling', Jesus christ. Youre being an elitist snob. If you actuslly want to play on an even footing as you supposedly claim, you will consider the relative level of a list, not just the absolute level. And I repeat, tou need to decouple thus ridiculous notion that the most powerful lists and the best games are synonymous.

Hecaton wrote:

nou wrote:
This is how this works in any sport, any competition - the better player holds his punches.

Definitely not. And I would feel patronized if my opponent toyed with me in that manner in most circumstances.
.

Yeah, no.

Seeing sport as just 'winning and losing' is toxic. Sport is qbout community, activity and engagement as much as anything else.

I started running again recently. Used to do marathons and injuries and life, including a house move kept me away. Anyway back at it and I joined a local running group. They gave some elite runners who act as pacemakers and run at various paces, despite their own ability to leave us in the dust if they want to. It's nice. When I run/ran with my girl friends from work, they were typically not as physically powerful as me, and I dialed it back because it was.about doing something at the same level.

On the other hand one time when I was boxing/sparring with some friends from my wifes rugby club - the guy who did it boxed in the commonwealth games years ago and knew instinctively to tone it down. Anyway a guy came along and joined us who couldnt. For the sparring he genuinely hurt people. And it left a bitter feeling in the room for everyone, especially when what we were doing was very basic and beginner level.

Toning things down is not patronising people. Stop being an elitist. It's being inclusive and showing respect. Intellectually i feel it should go both ways in regard to playing up or down, but its a lot easier for 'high' to go 'low' than the other way round. Taking a more powerful list and being a better player is not the same thing.

Hecaton wrote:

I mean that comes from the top; GW has created that culture because they want to drive people to buy more things, not to git gud.

Is it? The culture was always there, gw are simply seeing an opportunity to make money giving people what they want.

Its gw catering to and exploiting the demand for it as much as driving it, or anything else - players want this, gw are happy to oblige and make some £££ while they do. The players/community are always the other side of the coin of these thi ga, saying 'its all gw' is only a half truth if you ask me.

PL only makes sense if you calculate by hand/in your head.

Points per Model more individualistic while PL is more collectivist

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
People above already complaining about having to house rule stuff rather than play by the book. And that's part of the rules.

Sure you can house rule stuff but believe it or not there are people who want game to be good out of the box without house rules needed.

So do i, but instead of forcing myself to play a game i dislike, i make sure that my opponent and i are on the same page. Saying "lets not bring top tournament lists" is one of the easiest things to agree with.

In my experience, "let's not bring top tournament lists" is not sufficient for fun games when balances is as much out of whack as it was multiple times in 9th or was in 7th.

It also requires both parties to understand what makes top tournament lists what they are, which is very often not the case for casuals.
I remember this one eldar player who was totally convinced that he was one of the best players in the area, only to wake up to a harsh truth when 8th no longer supported his genius wave serpent/bikes/seer council army.

Makes sense. The editions so far haven't led to a balanced game.
With power levels, the range of assigning points to a unit or an army becomes smaller.
This could make it easier to balance the game.
Nevertheless, I think balancing 40k is an NP hard problem and so intractable.

tneva82 wrote:
Tournament games are won by lists and creating best list takes intelligence level of elementary school kid.

If you want to actually test your wit you need to work with your opponent to ensure armies are about even. Otherwise your wits aren't being tested(at least on assumption your wits are at the level of average elementary school kid)

How about if everyone at the tournament is playing a list that takes the intelligence of an elementary school kid? Then what determines who wins?



This should be good.

Toofast wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Tournament games are won by lists and creating best list takes intelligence level of elementary school kid.

If you want to actually test your wit you need to work with your opponent to ensure armies are about even. Otherwise your wits aren't being tested(at least on assumption your wits are at the level of average elementary school kid)

How about if everyone at the tournament is playing a list that takes the intelligence of an elementary school kid? Then what determines who wins?



This should be good.

Initiative roll Try harder

Toofast wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Tournament games are won by lists and creating best list takes intelligence level of elementary school kid.

If you want to actually test your wit you need to work with your opponent to ensure armies are about even. Otherwise your wits aren't being tested(at least on assumption your wits are at the level of average elementary school kid)

How about if everyone at the tournament is playing a list that takes the intelligence of an elementary school kid? Then what determines who wins?



This should be good.

Who goes first, specific hard counter match ups and dice rolls, some armies much better then other at generating hits, wounds and saves at the exact number they want.

One thing I can't say I have seen considered is how power levels might change games as in now players can effectively have a fee sideboard with out having to reshuffle their points in their list. There have been discussions about a taking a side board to tournaments off an on for years so why wouldn't this work in a similar way. And would that be unfair if every player had he same option to trade out and tailor a little after finding out what their opponent was playing.
Would it wreck games or create more fun.

It would be good for armies that have options that they can be used as sideboard and really bad for armies, which codex does not give such option. At worse it would be like playing tau in a psychic power focused edition, and best it will make the best armies better and the weaker armies worse.

 warhead01 wrote:
One thing I can't say I have seen considered is how power levels might change games as in now players can effectively have a fee sideboard with out having to reshuffle their points in their list. There have been discussions about a taking a side board to tournaments off an on for years so why wouldn't this work in a similar way. And would that be unfair if every player had he same option to trade out and tailor a little after finding out what their opponent was playing.
Would it wreck games or create more fun.

It'd require a rework of many armies.

Nurgle Daemons have, across all their unique datasheets, about 4 options.

GUO has Bilesword or Doomsday Bell
GUO has Bileblade or Plague Flail
Plaguebearers and Plague Drones have Daemonic Icons or not
Plaguebearers and Plague Drones have Instrument of Chaos or not

Pretty sure most Marine Sergeants have more options than the entirety of Nurgle Daemons.

Deadnight wrote:
No one has that problem with infinity because no one plays infinity in the first place. To an extent, I jest; but being serious, infinity anecdotes are all well and good, but we're talking about working around the issues of 40k/gw games here.

It's relevant because it shows it's possible to have a wargame where the community doesn't have to do large-scale rebalancing.

Deadnight wrote:
Not play is perfectly fine by me. My gaming time is precious, I have standards. Like we tell our daughters, Its ok to say 'no'. And id rather not play than play a rubbish game, thanks.

My gaming time is precious, too, and I'd rather spend it playing than doing legwork for a billion dollar corporation who should have written better rules. What you said is an argument against playing 40k entirely.

Deadnight wrote:


No.

Prople can have a way less powerful list for a lot of reasons besides 'they're new', and they're not wrong for taking what they take. If you have an s-tier codex, swapping out stuff or dropping the power level so theyre on the same level is not 'toying' with them, its showing respect. Taking your s-tier list against their d-tier, and with a straight face saying theyre both 2000pts or whatever and therefore the same - that's toying with them.

If you criticized GW for claiming with a straight face that two 2000 point armies like this are the same strength, then I might take your criticism seriously. As it stands it's hypocrisy.

Deadnight wrote:
Seal-clubbing is not a good thing. Claiming there's nothing you can or should do about it is worse - that's just contributing to the toxicity of the gaming community. It doesn't help anyone.

Sometimes it tells someone that their army setup is actually not very good. I've definitely tried out experimental lists before, and they get wrecked and don't work the way I want them to, so I go back to the drawing board. Which is the appropriate reaction, instead of saying "It's wrong that your army beat mine. Gib more points please."

Deadnight wrote:

And this is 40k. The problem with your approach and teaching them to play at the ahem, absolute pinnacle of what theyre codex can do doesn't necessarily make for a better game, a better player or a better experience. All it does is feed into and perpetuate the toxic, self-destructive meta chasing nonsense we all claim to hate.

No, toxicity is telling people it's wrong to criticize GW for doing a lazy job with the rules. Toxicity is telling people it's wrong to make a list that they think can win.

Toxicity is also bad sportsmanship and so on, but playing to win (in a game that is competitive, whether you're playing in a tournament, in a narrative league, or whatever) isn't toxic.

Deadnight wrote:
And It's not 'coddling', Jesus christ. Youre being an elitist snob. If you actuslly want to play on an even footing as you supposedly claim, you will consider the relative level of a list, not just the absolute level. And I repeat, tou need to decouple thus ridiculous notion that the most powerful lists and the best games are synonymous.

No I don't. I don't actually believe that, per se, but you need to shrive yourself of the idea that the best games are one in which players pull their punches from each other and are afraid to actually compete. That's what the handshake is for - before a game to emphasize that there's respect, after the game to emphasize that I'm done trying to outwit/outfight you and you can relax.

Deadnight wrote:

Yeah, no.

Seeing sport as just 'winning and losing' is toxic. Sport is qbout community, activity and engagement as much as anything else.

I started running again recently. Used to do marathons and injuries and life, including a house move kept me away. Anyway back at it and I joined a local running group. They gave some elite runners who act as pacemakers and run at various paces, despite their own ability to leave us in the dust if they want to. It's nice. When I run/ran with my girl friends from work, they were typically not as physically powerful as me, and I dialed it back because it was.about doing something at the same level.

On the other hand one time when I was boxing/sparring with some friends from my wifes rugby club - the guy who did it boxed in the commonwealth games years ago and knew instinctively to tone it down. Anyway a guy came along and joined us who couldnt. For the sparring he genuinely hurt people. And it left a bitter feeling in the room for everyone, especially when what we were doing was very basic and beginner level.

Toning things down is not patronising people. Stop being an elitist. It's being inclusive and showing respect. Intellectually i feel it should go both ways in regard to playing up or down, but its a lot easier for 'high' to go 'low' than the other way round. Taking a more powerful list and being a better player is not the same thing.

I'm not being an elitist; when someone is training, you don't go full force in a contact sport, most of the time. But if someone is pulling their punches and refusing to use proper technique in training, they're not going to teach the less experienced trainee properly. I don't see sports, or games like tabletop miniatures games, as about "winning and losing." If that were true, I would be afraid to play in tournaments for the risk of losing, afraid to play against top lists, and would insist my opponents tone down their lists so I could get that sweet ego rush of winning. Instead it's about growth - and you want to push yourself past what you're comfortable with to grow. What you're advocating for is a stagnating complacency.

Deadnight wrote:

Is it? The culture was always there, gw are simply seeing an opportunity to make money giving people what they want.

Its gw catering to and exploiting the demand for it as much as driving it, or anything else - players want this, gw are happy to oblige and make some £££ while they do. The players/community are always the other side of the coin of these thi ga, saying 'its all gw' is only a half truth if you ask me.

Other miniature games do not have this culture, necessarily. Like I said, GW cultivates it because they don't want player skill to be the primary determiner of how well players do at the game, but rather how much money people keep shoveling at GW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nou wrote:
If my opponent showed up with a list that cannot beat me, or I'm playing with a person who I know is worse than me, then I already know I'm going to win if I won't up the difficulty. So exactly because I like when my wits are being tested, I'll handicap myself or my list. It's the easiest thing under the sun to simply not field a couple of units. It's not like the rest of the list will magically stop working. I value my time and I simply do not like wasting it on seal clubbing. Easy wins are not wins at all. And should the other player still complain, that my list should be nerfed more because I beat him while blindfolded, then I simply won't play that person anymore. Luckily for me, I'm long past playing random people who only enjoy the game if they won.

That isn't a test of wits to me, because beating the list in question is already solved - you just didn't use the solution.

nou wrote:
"The better player should win" matters only if the match is between close equals. There is an elaborate system of handicap in chess, exactly because there is simply no point in playing with large disparity of skill - contrary to common belief, you don't learn anything from helpless struggle, only from "just within grasp" loses.

Citation needed. If you get blown out on the 1st turn you've learned something very important. Probably about how not to deploy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:

Hecaton wrote:
I'm happiest in this hobby when I feel like my wits are being tested, win or lose.

Then you should be willing to adjust your lists because the tournament mentality means it's lists that drive the result. YOU aren't being tested on your wits. Tournament games are won by lists and creating best list takes intelligence level of elementary school kid.

That's just an argument against 40k, not an argument against competitive 40k.

tneva82 wrote:
If you want to actually test your wit you need to work with your opponent to ensure armies are about even. Otherwise your wits aren't being tested(at least on assumption your wits are at the level of average elementary school kid)

No. At that point it's not a test of wits - the problem is already solved, the solution is just not employed. There aren't enough on-table decisions for it to feel like a test of wits in 40k, either, like it is for other games.

Deadnight wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

Uh huh. What if you show up to play on game night and both players are like "This is what I brought." And one of the players has a list that will absolutely shellack the other one. Just not play? I don't have this problem with Infinity.

No one has that problem with infinity because no one plays infinity in the first place. To an extent, I jest; but being serious, infinity anecdotes are all well and good, but we're talking about working around the issues of 40k/gw games here.

Not play is perfectly fine by me. My gaming time is precious, I have standards. Like we tell our daughters, Its ok to say 'no'. And id rather not play than play a rubbish game, thanks...

And yet you still play 40k?

Hecaton wrote:


No. At that point it's not a test of wits - the problem is already solved, the solution is just not employed. There aren't enough on-table decisions for it to feel like a test of wits in 40k, either, like it is for other games.

Oh, I see you managed to edit the embarrassing question for citation on chess handicap before I replied

This right here shows all the problem with you and popular approach to 40k - 100% focus on list building. I wonder how would you fare in games that do not have list building and you actually have to test your wits on the fly instead of "solving" the problem pre-game by applying listbuilding crutches.

And regarding enough on-table decisions in 40k, this is directly tied to a list building problem - I suggest you play a few low damage output games and feel for yourself, how this game works without listbuilding as a winning factor.

nou wrote:

Hecaton wrote:


No. At that point it's not a test of wits - the problem is already solved, the solution is just not employed. There aren't enough on-table decisions for it to feel like a test of wits in 40k, either, like it is for other games.

Oh, I see you managed to edit the embarrassing question for citation on chess handicap before I replied

This right here shows all the problem with you and popular approach to 40k - 100% focus on list building. I wonder how would you fare in games that do not have list building and you actually have to test your wits on the fly instead of "solving" the problem pre-game by applying listbuilding crutches.

And regarding enough on-table decisions in 40k, this is directly tied to a list building problem - I suggest you play a few low damage output games and feel for yourself, how this game works without listbuilding as a winning factor.

He probably fairs fine in non-list building games. Not sure why you're trying to imply otherwise as though 40k was skilled when you dumb yourself down, playing wise and list wise.

nou wrote:
Oh, I see you managed to edit the embarrassing question for citation on chess handicap before I replied

Huh? Nah, I was constructing a large post. I never asked you for citation on that.

nou wrote:
This right here shows all the problem with you and popular approach to 40k - 100% focus on list building.

It's an incredibly important part of the game.

nou wrote:
I wonder how would you fare in games that do not have list building and you actually have to test your wits on the fly instead of "solving" the problem pre-game by applying listbuilding crutches.

I greatly enjoy board games and so on. I wish 40k had more decisions to make on the tabletop and the solution to problems wasn't "play a top tier codex, run the top tier units."

nou wrote:
And regarding enough on-table decisions in 40k, this is directly tied to a list building problem - I suggest you play a few low damage output games and feel for yourself, how this game works without listbuilding as a winning factor.

The game still isn't that deep, by design. But your comment is so general - I don't really see it as a concrete argument. What is a low damage output game? How are we defining that? Are you saying 40k only works when you design two lists to face each other and robustly playtest them so they're balanced against each other? In that case, it's a gak game.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

nou wrote:

Hecaton wrote:


No. At that point it's not a test of wits - the problem is already solved, the solution is just not employed. There aren't enough on-table decisions for it to feel like a test of wits in 40k, either, like it is for other games.

Oh, I see you managed to edit the embarrassing question for citation on chess handicap before I replied

This right here shows all the problem with you and popular approach to 40k - 100% focus on list building. I wonder how would you fare in games that do not have list building and you actually have to test your wits on the fly instead of "solving" the problem pre-game by applying listbuilding crutches.

And regarding enough on-table decisions in 40k, this is directly tied to a list building problem - I suggest you play a few low damage output games and feel for yourself, how this game works without listbuilding as a winning factor.

He probably fairs fine in non-list building games. Not sure why you're trying to imply otherwise as though 40k was skilled when you dumb yourself down, playing wise and list wise.

Speaking from personal experience - people who see 40k and MTG entirely through the list/deck building glasses tend to become helpless when deprived of the opportunity to skew the odds in their favour pre-game.

nou wrote:
Speaking from personal experience - people who see 40k and MTG entirely through the list/deck building glasses tend to become helpless when deprived of the opportunity to skew the odds in their favour pre-game.

Luckily for me, I'm far better than that. 40k is still mostly a listbuilding game though.