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.

 Blackie wrote:
I was talking about friendly games, not random pick up games between players who desire to prove each other. I honestly don't care about balancing pick up games, as I believe those should be only intended for competitive gaming and competitive gaming is already reasonably (for the standards of 40k at least) balanced. So no, I don't think that situation exists.

The idea that "friendly" games are ones in which the players are not invested in having a fair game is a straight lie. You're using it to evade responsibility for your "just talk it out" farce. No - just talking it out doesn't work. If you don't care about balancing pick up games, why do you *ever* talk it out? Don't you just accept when you get beaten 100 times in a row by the new Tyranid codex that that's cool?

 Blackie wrote:

I played with and against tyranids multiple times in this edition. Never had a problem. Again, just avoid the flavour of the month and field "highlinder-ish" style forces. I had much more problems in 8th. Check a few of the most popular youtube channels that release battle reports, you'll find plenty of balanced games involving tyranids.

Getting exact 50/50 games is not the goal here, a balanced game means that if I play against the tyranid player, out of 10 games, at least 7-8 of them end up pretty close, regardless of the outcome.

Sure, and you will not get 7-8 that are pretty close with the new Tyranids codex. The youtube channels have cherry-picked army lists to make the game seem more interesting than it is; they're not going to post the ones that are just blowouts as often.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Interesting that you consider CoB more like Night Lords than the actual Night Lords rules. For my part, I think that the Alpha Legion rules are far closer to what Night Lords were in 3.5 than the actual Night Lords rules, myself.

well i started playing 40k with 8th so i never got to experience the mythical 3.5e dex. For me night lords are all about striking fast from the unseen. PA had buffs for charges which made our deepstrike charges more reliable. Now that these are gone, CoB's +1 movement and Advance+charge strat means that i can kinda do the same thing (raptors/warp talons moving 13"+D6 before charging kinda feels like striking from the unseen). And the +1S effectively acts like the +1 to wound against factions for which it matters (Loyalists) where our trait wouldnt actually activate.

I wasn't aware that CoB had an advance + charge stratagem. Yeah, I can definitely see how that feels more like the 8th edition codex + Faith and Fury. And I agree, those rules felt more fun than these, even with the 1W infantry.

I see the Alpha Legion rules as being closer to Night Lords 3.5 because their -1 to hit rule is the closest thing to the +1 to cover saves granted by the "Night Lords only" Veteran Skill Stealth Adept (later replicated in Traitor Legions simply by giving our infantry the Stealth USR), and their fallback + charge rule replicates Raptors having Hit and Run, which was very important for how Night Lords played, because we were the only Legion that could have more than 1 squad. Either way though, definitely feels like a step down.

Hecaton wrote:

The idea that "friendly" games are ones in which the players are not invested in having a fair game is a straight lie. You're using it to evade responsibility for your "just talk it out" farce. No - just talking it out doesn't work. If you don't care about balancing pick up games, why do you *ever* talk it out? Don't you just accept when you get beaten 100 times in a row by the new Tyranid codex that that's cool?

What's the difference bewteen a friendly game and a game from a tournament? By your definitions they're exactly the same.

In my idea of friendly games players are extremely invested in having a fair game. In fact in such context having a fair game is much more important than winning or proving players' skills. To achieve that pre-game talk is one fo the most common tools.

In my opinion blind games, random pick up games, or whatever you want to call them are not friendly games. I mean, it's a format that is not good for friendly games, in fact it's the format that is used in tournaments. For a good reason. Pick up games can be "friendly" only if pretty much every players know each other and each other's armies so everyone knows exactly what to bring in to keep up with the meta or to avoid dominating it. People that want to prove something are playing the competitive game, there's nothing friendly in their attitude. For this people the pre-game talk invalidates their success, that's why they hate it. They can't brag about how good they are then.

My idea of a friendly game is: I call someone to play, or write on a chat. Cool, I know I'll going to play Player X. Now I know approximately what he/she has, she/he knows approximately what I have. Not what army I'll bring, definitely not the exact list. But still with little or even no pre-game talk we'd definitely be able to bring reasonably on par lists. If the game ends up one sided then next times we'll try to play with more knowledge about the lists, toning them up/down before meeting if necessary. Another example: I know I'm going to play against a noob so I'll just bring all the units I typically don't use, or maybe the army with the lowest rate I currently have. I'm more experience and skilled, I don't need to win against him/her and playing with something that is usually shelved is fun and also a challenge. Alternatively: I show up at the store, knowing what the local meta is so I bring a list according to that. If someone with different goals in mind (aka he brought a netlist and can't tone it down or refuse to do it) ask me to play I politely refuse, simply because there would be no point of playing that game.

Hecaton wrote:

Sure, and you will not get 7-8 that are pretty close with the new Tyranids codex. The youtube channels have cherry-picked army lists to make the game seem more interesting than it is; they're not going to post the ones that are just blowouts as often.

Naaah, at this point I just assume you are one of those posters who don't even play the game and only comment based on the numbers they read on the internet. I don't believe that everyone plays the netlists. Most competitive lists I see on goonhammer max out multiple specific units, and they're nowhere near what I see in real life. They're nowhere near what I can field as well. Those cherry-picked army lists are what I think average collections are, what the majority of players actually has, and how I believe the majority of games are actually played.

This would be my last reply about this matter though, since this discussion is no longer connected with the CSM codex.

 Blackie wrote:
What's the difference bewteen a friendly game and a game from a tournament? By your definitions they're exactly the same.

In a tournament there's a time limit, there are different expectations of sportsmanship, one wouldn't rewind a game state or allow "take-backs" as easily, and most importantly in a tournament there's a TO who's the final authority on things. In a friendly game there are just two players.

 Blackie wrote:
In my idea of friendly games players are extremely invested in having a fair game. In fact in such context having a fair game is much more important than winning or proving players' skills. To achieve that pre-game talk is one fo the most common tools.

Skills can only be proven in a fair game, so you're drawing a distinction where there isn't on, meaningfully.

 Blackie wrote:
In my opinion blind games, random pick up games, or whatever you want to call them are not friendly games. I mean, it's a format that is not good for friendly games, in fact it's the format that is used in tournaments. For a good reason. Pick up games can be "friendly" only if pretty much every players know each other and each other's armies so everyone knows exactly what to bring in to keep up with the meta or to avoid dominating it. People that want to prove something are playing the competitive game, there's nothing friendly in their attitude. For this people the pre-game talk invalidates their success, that's why they hate it. They can't brag about how good they are then.

In order to have a meaningful "pre-game talk" you *also* must keep up with the meta, otherwise you won't know what to change.

Also, your denigration of people who play "competitive" smacks of catty, scrubby behavior, and is anti-growth mindset. It's very common to agree to a test of wits with your friends, which is what a good strategy game *should* be. It's the mental equivalent of play wrestling, which every mammal from rodents to humans does; being phobic of competing in an environment where you can't be hurt is something you should work on, and is likely a result of some kind of insecurity. It's not unsportsmanlike to try your best to beat your opponent, as long as you follow the rules of the game and are gracious in your demeanor.

 Blackie wrote:
My idea of a friendly game is: I call someone to play, or write on a chat. Cool, I know I'll going to play Player X. Now I know approximately what he/she has, she/he knows approximately what I have. Not what army I'll bring, definitely not the exact list. But still with little or even no pre-game talk we'd definitely be able to bring reasonably on par lists. If the game ends up one sided then next times we'll try to play with more knowledge about the lists, toning them up/down before meeting if necessary. Another example: I know I'm going to play against a noob so I'll just bring all the units I typically don't use, or maybe the army with the lowest rate I currently have. I'm more experience and skilled, I don't need to win against him/her and playing with something that is usually shelved is fun and also a challenge. Alternatively: I show up at the store, knowing what the local meta is so I bring a list according to that. If someone with different goals in mind (aka he brought a netlist and can't tone it down or refuse to do it) ask me to play I politely refuse, simply because there would be no point of playing that game.

I have too many gaming buddies to know all their collections by heart. Also, the only way to match up lists to be "on par" is to have extensive knowledge of the current meta, which changes week-to-week, and is something *you* decried in this very post I'm replying to.

 Blackie wrote:

Naaah, at this point I just assume you are one of those posters who don't even play the game and only comment based on the numbers they read on the internet. I don't believe that everyone plays the netlists. Most competitive lists I see on goonhammer max out multiple specific units, and they're nowhere near what I see in real life. They're nowhere near what I can field as well. Those cherry-picked army lists are what I think average collections are, what the majority of players actually has, and how I believe the majority of games are actually played.

Given you exist in some sort of magical realm where people both are so casual they don't follow tournaments and are capable of rebalancing the game on the fly to a better degree of precision than GW themselves, I think it's more likely you don't play that often yourself. fething *everything* in the Tyranid codex is off the chain.

As far as maxing out specific units goes... it's not that uncommon. Some people just like, say, dreadnoughts or terminators. When Iron Hands were bonkers one of my friends who was an Iron Hands fan went from having an anemic list to having a crazy powerful one overnight. I like Mega-armor, I think the models are cool; if they were overpowered I'd be stomping people flat with them as I've fielded 3 units of them fairly often.

Yeah theme lists have always been potential problems and that is where pre game talks come in. You dont have to be absolutely on top of the meta to know a certain skew is overpowered.

Either the weaker player can throw in some stronger units if they own them or the stronger players can weaken the list or a mix of both but for good times something may have to give at times. Its all about compromise.

Blackie, your approach is flawed in such a way that there are too many conditions that need to be met in order to create such a "friendly" game.
1) at least one of the players needs to have a very in-depth knowledge of how the game works
2) one or both player need to have a large collection to swap around parts of their army
3) toning down or up for enough to the level of the other army is possible
4) at least one player can properly evaluate the other player's abilities
5) either both or neither player is trying to win game to the best of their abilities

If any of those 5 conditions are not met, the game crashes and burns and there are plenty reasons why each of them might not be true.

1) Is actually by far the biggest one. In our group the vast majority of players are seeking friendly games, yet many lack the knowledge to properly assess unit and army strength. Whenever two less informed player match, there is an extremely high chance of the game being a one-sided curb-stomp.
2) Two words: new players. Tim and Jake join your group at the same time, both buy a combat patrol of their favored army, Tim starts with the drukhari box, Jake starts with the BA box and both add a few models they like. Unless the miracle happens, Tim will always walk all over Jake unless one of them buys, paints and builds more models. And it's not just limited to new players, there are a lot of people who just own 2-3k of ten different armies. There is a good chance that their collection ends up to be too powerful for the average highlander army, no matter what they build.
3) One issue are just extremely weak codices or armies. For example, there was no way for an 8th edition WE army to have a fighting chance against 9th edition orks or DG unless I was deliberately tossing the game. Another issue are armies like harlequins, knights, custodes and to some extend GK, TS or DG - there just aren't many ways to build those armies, so there is naturally little room for tuning your game.
4) This is something which happens to me from time to time. I play against someone who is great at playing a certain army, or talks a lot about 40k tactics and list building, so I assume they are somewhat adept at the game. And then they field some janky list fully of weird units or just completely suck at playing their army and despite holding back as much as I can, I totally curb-stomp them. You can even artificially have this effect when someone tones down their list because they have read that orks are a weak army, while you are bringing your a-game to match the power of their army.
5) If one player is at the table to yell "blood for the blood god!" and charge everything he can while scoring 0 VP and the other player is trying to have a close game for the win, one of them will be going home unsatisfied.

I'm also someone always trying make those "friendly game" happen, but claiming it's easy or even shifting the blame for games not happening that way onto the players is not honest at all. Enabling and facilitating friendly games clearly lies with GW, and they are to blame for making the hurdles for such games as high as they are.

Okey, but what happens durning the talk.
Guy A I have 20 rubrics, 10 tzangors and a magnus.
Guy B I don't want you to use the magnus, because it makes you win.
Guy A what am I suppose to do then without magnus I don't have a legal force
etc etc

The whole talk thing works only works for people who both own and carry multiple thousands of points in multiple armies. That is an expiriance a 30+ year old may have, but not a teen. Unless they are using their dads or older brothers armies.

Karol wrote:
Okey, but what happens durning the talk.
Guy A I have 20 rubrics, 10 tzangors and a magnus.
Guy B I don't want you to use the magnus, because it makes you win.
Guy A what am I suppose to do then without magnus I don't have a legal force
etc etc

The whole talk thing works only works for people who both own and carry multiple thousands of points in multiple armies. That is an expiriance a 30+ year old may have, but not a teen. Unless they are using their dads or older brothers armies.

Proxy and get models as and when you can afford. Its what we did as teens?

Frankly the fetish of GW for overpriced charachter centerpieces like Magnus is anyway an unhealthy way to start any army...

When you play at the store, the option to "proxy" in w40k is maybe a thing if you play your first 2-3 games. If 2-3 months down the roads, you try the same the store owner will just not let you play, probably giving you a fair number of warrning before that.

On top of that it is heck of confusing. My army is bad aka I like and use models which are bad for my faction. Could I take my dudes call each termintors either a strike or a interceptors and both my dreads NDKs? FOr 2 editions? People would just say that I either have to rebuy the army, or they won't play me.

And yeah there maybe differences, you are liked at the store, have many friends. One of the veterans or store owners is your uncle, dad, brother etc But if you are a fresh new player who starts the game mid edition or at the end, like now, there is no huge 20+ people wave of other new people to play against. People are streamlined in to a way of playing and will expect you to get proficient at it in a resonable amount of time.


As the "get models" things goes for some people this can be an edition of collecting a specific army, only for GW to nerf it when the new edition starts. Not many people who buy their armies are willing to do that. Unless again, they have income which makes a cost of a w40k or AoS non impactful.
Try explaining to your parent, who makes 600$, why you need 1000$ for plastic soldiers in a span of 6-9 months, assuming a power faction picked and not something that dips in 2-3 months, And why you will need another 1000$, in 2-3 years to update or switch the army, if it gets too unfun to play with. Confusion is the best thing you could expect, followed by an assumption you have high fever or something.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Frankly the fetish of GW for overpriced charachter centerpieces like Magnus is anyway an unhealthy way to start any army...

Try playing GK without 4, 5 at the start of 9th ed codex run. Or DE/Harlis without their opent top transports and tanks etc.

Karol wrote:
Okey, but what happens durning the talk.
Guy A I have 20 rubrics, 10 tzangors and a magnus.
Guy B I don't want you to use the magnus, because it makes you win.
Guy A what am I suppose to do then without magnus I don't have a legal force
etc etc

Let's assume no additional models are on hand.
The TS player pays for the cheapest HQ unit in his codex. Then he puts the thing in strategic reserve. And finally, because no actual model is on hand, simply doesn't bring it out of reserve.
Meanwhile the other player adjusts their pts lv down to match the TS players new total.

Karol wrote:
The whole talk thing works only works for people who both own and carry multiple thousands of points in multiple armies. That is an expiriance a 30+ year old may have, but not a teen. Unless they are using their dads or older brothers armies.

No, talking is cheap. Anyone can do it. You don't need to be a certain age. You don't need thousands of pts, multiple armies, & wagon train to carry it all with you all of the time. And you don't need to be super knowledgble about the game or know anything about the weekly world-wide meta. All you have to do is come up with something you both think will be fun to play.
Maybe that's equel pts. Maybe one side has certain additional restrictions. Maybe one side gets some extra perks.

Let's assume no additional models are on hand.
The TS player pays for the cheapest HQ unit in his codex. Then he puts the thing in strategic reserve. And finally, because no actual model is on hand, simply doesn't bring it out of reserve.
Meanwhile the other player adjusts their pts lv down to match the TS players new total.

Karol,
Take a breath.

Relax. It's just a game.
A game we all enjoy, or else we wouldn't be here.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Frankly the fetish of GW for overpriced charachter centerpieces like Magnus is anyway an unhealthy way to start any army...

Many people get drawn to the game or armies by those models though. We just had an eldar player return after a 20 year hiatus just because of the new Avatar and Maugan Ra, another player started TS just because of Magnus.

Doesn't change the fact that it IS an unhealthy way to start an army.

NVM that gw can't into balance and such models always skew and are overly problematic (OP /UP)

 Blndmage wrote:

A game we all enjoy, or else we wouldn't be here.

I often wonder and disagree on this one, plenty of resentful people who are on here.

Dudeface wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:

A game we all enjoy, or else we wouldn't be here.

I often wonder and disagree on this one, plenty of resentful people who are on here.

Could we agree on it being a game that we all want to enjoy, perhaps?

GW makes that damn difficult sometimes.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Doesn't change the fact that it IS an unhealthy way to start an army.

NVM that gw can't into balance and such models always skew and are overly problematic (OP /UP)

Is it unhealthy because they are centerpiece models or is it unhealthy because big models have their rules written in a way that they can't function in small games?

There is a reason why you don't see any threads where people complain about Helbrecht, Lelith or the Triumph of St. Catherine, but you do see people complaining about redemptors all the time.

 Dysartes wrote:
Could we agree on it being a game that we all want to enjoy, perhaps?

Yes.

However, the frustration is real.

Played two games against the new Chaos Marines and finally got to read through the codex.

I like it. For me, it harkens back to the 3.5 codex, but lacking the Lash Prince or 9 Obliterator lists of 3rd edition. I'm sure folks heavy in the tournament scene will find strong builds and place. It won't come from folks like me who only play once or twice a week.

So, to answer the OP question. Maybe? The Master of Executions feels a bit under costed: my first game I allowed that model a Heroic Intervention and then had my opponent slap my unit with 6 Mortal Wounds. Ouch. I completely underestimated its ability.

After a solid review of the codex, I'm building an Emperors Children army. It's the first Chaos army I've built since 3rd edition. I found an 3d print company who made sonic weapons fit the new Horus Heresy Marines which really inspired me.

GW got me again with a new release.

 Sarigar wrote:
... but lacking the Lash Prince or 9 Obliterator lists of 3rd edition...

Lash Prince was 4th. It was not in the 3.5 'Dex.

 Sarigar wrote:
Played two games against the new Chaos Marines and finally got to read through the codex.

I like it. For me, it harkens back to the 3.5 codex, but lacking the Lash Prince or 9 Obliterator lists of 3rd edition. I'm sure folks heavy in the tournament scene will find strong builds and place. It won't come from folks like me who only play once or twice a week.

So, to answer the OP question. Maybe? The Master of Executions feels a bit under costed: my first game I allowed that model a Heroic Intervention and then had my opponent slap my unit with 6 Mortal Wounds. Ouch. I completely underestimated its ability.

After a solid review of the codex, I'm building an Emperors Children army. It's the first Chaos army I've built since 3rd edition. I found an 3d print company who made sonic weapons fit the new Horus Heresy Marines which really inspired me.

GW got me again with a new release.

Master of executions feels like the dumbest unit in the dex right now. So many ways to kit him out where he's an absolute monster in combat. Played a few games with him last weekend and he was killing more than twice his cost in points per turn, no matter his loadout

TwinPoleTheory wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
Could we agree on it being a game that we all want to enjoy, perhaps?

Yes.

However, the frustration is real.

Aye. Especially when the biggest roadblock to that enjoyment is because gw made one. Stupid. Pointless. And absolutely mean spirited, decision.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Sarigar wrote:
... but lacking the Lash Prince or 9 Obliterator lists of 3rd edition...

Lash Prince was 4th. It was not in the 3.5 'Dex.

This has to be the most common mistake about 3.5. Lash Prince was the 4th edition codex. 3.5 was the Siren Prince. And only two, out of nine Legions could do it. And yet we all continue to pay the price.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
And only two, out of nine Legions could do it. And yet we all continue to pay the price.

Siren prince wasn't even the strongest list of 3.5

But I would bet real money that GW doesn't take the 3.5 into account when writing their current rulesets. I have to wonder at this point how many of the designers at GW have even seen the book.

A.T. wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
And only two, out of nine Legions could do it. And yet we all continue to pay the price.

Siren prince wasn't even the strongest list of 3.5

But I would bet real money that GW doesn't take the 3.5 into account when writing their current rulesets. I have to wonder at this point how many of the designers at GW have even seen the book.

None.
They went into the 5/6th edition progress of writing the codex for CSM in wd at the time.... touting how great the 4th edition dex was... all we got there was a uniqe looking warpsmith unlike the new one incoming which is just a primaris techmarine an apostle model that also was better than the current one and dino bots aswell as the hellturkey.

Dai wrote:
Yeah theme lists have always been potential problems and that is where pre game talks come in. You dont have to be absolutely on top of the meta to know a certain skew is overpowered.

I think you do.

Dai wrote:
Either the weaker player can throw in some stronger units if they own them or the stronger players can weaken the list or a mix of both but for good times something may have to give at times. Its all about compromise.

"My units aren't overpowered. I'm just a better player than you."

How do you deal with this?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ccs wrote:
No, talking is cheap. Anyone can do it. You don't need to be a certain age. You don't need thousands of pts, multiple armies, & wagon train to carry it all with you all of the time. And you don't need to be super knowledgble about the game or know anything about the weekly world-wide meta. All you have to do is come up with something you both think will be fun to play.
Maybe that's equel pts. Maybe one side has certain additional restrictions. Maybe one side gets some extra perks.

And what if it turns out it's not fun to play because you both have no idea what you're doing trying to rebalance the game?

And what if one player is just bad, like the stereotypical "complains about competitive players but throws a hissy-fit if their opponent doesn't let them win" CAAC git? And their idea of "fun" is one in which their opponent doesn't have a fair chance?

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
That's a shame. Because HH2.0 has taken that fluffyness and cranked it up to 11. Not only do we get more ways to play the dirty fighters with A Talent For Murder, but the revamped Night Fighting rules and Night Lords ability to take Preysight (Night Vision) on everything (for a price now, and for good reason) truly makes the 8th Legion the "Lords of the Night". Nobody wants to deal with the 8th Legion after the sun sets.

What are the night fighting rules now? I would think that something that is situational and usually only in turns 1/2 wouldn't be quite so useful even if it's on point for the legion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Not just Jumppacks, but also the removal of double shooting and Votwl

Uhhh...good riddance. What a crutch that was.

Further the avoidance of the hairbrained restrictions of Icons and marks

Personally, I find that it's pretty clear as to why some units get icons/marks and others don't as a matter of both internal and external balance.

Hecaton wrote:
"My units aren't overpowered. I'm just a better player than you."

How do you deal with this?

"Then being a better player surely you can cope with running a slightly softer list"?

Blackie's proposals undoubtedly work better for a relatively small group of friends playing garagehammer, as against going to a store and playing a stranger you will likely never meet again.
But a lot of people do play the former over the later, and I don't think its that much of a bar. Mainly because so much power in 40k often comes from combos.

Take the majority of lists in 40k. Change chapter A to chapter B. Change Relic/WLT/Psychic power choices from A to B. At a stroke its likely seemingly quite a bit worse and we have not yet begun messing with unit choices. Maybe at some point this seems so irrational you are "throwing" the game - but probably not. After all, you are the better player, running the better faction.

I don't think that means someone who's played the game twice is going to have an equal chance against someone who is serious, plays in tournaments every other week etc. But two players of roughly equal interest in the game shouldn't be so far apart.

If by successful you mean that GW has intended to push me further away from 40K then yes, it has been very successful.