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.

 Tyran wrote:
The issue isn't how the IoM deals with Tyranids, Orks or Chaos. It is how it deals with Eldar, Tau, Kin and countless minor races.

Most xenos species aren't the Tyranids (there wouldn't be a galaxy left if they were), some of them even managed to develop simbiotic civilizations with humanity or have been allies against larger threats (like Tyranids). And yet the IoM exterminates them as a matter of policy.

No they don't. They exterminate them if they get in the Imperium's way. The T'au wouldn't currently exist if the Imperium literally exterminated xenos on sight because their "empire" is so small it's not worth the time and resources it would cost to get rid of it. There are loads of minor xenos races knocking about the galaxy. The Imperium doesn't give a gak what they do, as long as they don't worship Chaos or try to interfere with the Imperium's business they're more or less free to be gross alien dudes.

The only reason the Tau exist is because a warp storm shielded their world from the IoM, which was planning to cleanse and colonise it.

I swear I clicked on a topic named "New meta watch data, but this last page feels like something I'd read (and normally enjoy) in the 40K Background-subforum.

Can we get the topic back on track?

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:


That's pretty horrifying to think about, that someone at GW actually thought those idiotic missile primaris marines were a good aesthetic choice. I'd assumed they had to be designed rules-first, with some poor sculptor stuck with the job of trying to turn the rules into something that doesn't look like complete .

I think the design was meant to a) not look like existing missile launcher marines so people couldn't use their old sculpts and b) be hard to convert and add parts to because feth creativity and hobbying. It has a side effect of looking like that Russian who cooked himself with an rpg recently but hey, no big deal?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Andykp wrote:


10th dropped and all of a sudden they are wildly popular, I guess for rules reasons but don’t know because I don’t follow the “meta” and I got the box and the still ugly as models now sold for £35 a sprue (5 models). So chasing the meta is expensive and the comp types don’t care how ugly the models are as long as they are good.

You can blame GW's overpowered rules for that. If they were merely "balanced" nobody would touch them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 alextroy wrote:
This is part of the absurdity of Warhammer 40,000. There is no justifiable reason in the real world for genocide, forced extinction, or the other forms of indiscriminate slaughter that the forces in 40K engage in. However, in the context of their world these reasons are very reasonable.

Nah, that ain't the reason. The same people who claim the Imperium is justified never extend that logic to the horrible things the Tau, Eldar, or Chaos do; the point is the moral fantasy of a faction with a right-Christian aesthetic being justified in genocide, tyranny, etc. Even though the setting doesn't actually justify it and instead shows how that attitude is self-defeating (or at least did before Ward et al).

 alextroy wrote:

These are just a few examples of the primal forces of destruction that the Imperium of Man deals with. There can be no quarter given. No negotiations made. If you don't destroy them first, they will certainly destroy you because "in the grim dark future there is only war. There is no peace amongst the stars, only an eternity of carnage and slaughter, and the laughter of thirsting gods."

In the case of Chaos and Genestealer cults, a big reason for why they're so successful is because the Imperium is so senselessly tyrannical that the cults look more attractive. If the Imperium wasn't so genocidal it'd actually be better off.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sim-Life wrote:


No they don't. They exterminate them if they get in the Imperium's way. The T'au wouldn't currently exist if the Imperium literally exterminated xenos on sight because their "empire" is so small it's not worth the time and resources it would cost to get rid of it. There are loads of minor xenos races knocking about the galaxy. The Imperium doesn't give a gak what they do, as long as they don't worship Chaos or try to interfere with the Imperium's business they're more or less free to be gross alien dudes.

Nah, the Tau exist because the Imperium lost the Damocles Gulf crusade. And the Imperium *does* have a policy of killing all sentient aliens, it's part of their religion. You're a lower priority if you're not attacking them at the moment, but you're still on the list. If you're pacifists, though, expect a visit from them if they think you can't fight back and have a nice planet.

Yeah, like, I know people think I was trolling with my misguided chaos cultist bit, but I think I would genuinely rather worship Slaanesh than live under the imperium (world dependent, I know not all of them are crapsack, but if the one I lived on was like, Vraks? Hell yeah the chaos cultists are the good guys).

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yeah, like, I know people think I was trolling with my misguided chaos cultist bit, but I think I would genuinely rather worship Slaanesh than live under the imperium (world dependent, I know not all of them are crapsack, but if the one I lived on was like, Vraks? Hell yeah the chaos cultists are the good guys).

Low key the best kind of life is on the planets that Astartes run where you can worship the world-spirit or whatever and nobody cares. That or Tau space.

hm wolds run by the adptus astartes are usually described as fairly harsh with poor living conditions to have a reservoir of strong individuals. Not sure it's the best you can hope for but that's a matter of fictional taste

Hecaton wrote:

Andykp wrote:


10th dropped and all of a sudden they are wildly popular, I guess for rules reasons but don’t know because I don’t follow the “meta” and I got the box and the still ugly as models now sold for £35 a sprue (5 models). So chasing the meta is expensive and the comp types don’t care how ugly the models are as long as they are good.

You can blame GW's overpowered rules for that. If they were merely "balanced" nobody would touch them.

Hence my amusement at the outrage over the wraithknight email. They just know their customer base.

Hecaton 811175 11578760 wrote:



Nah, the Tau exist because the Imperium lost the Damocles Gulf crusade. And the Imperium *does* have a policy of killing all sentient aliens, it's part of their religion. You're a lower priority if you're not attacking them at the moment, but you're still on the list. If you're pacifists, though, expect a visit from them if they think you can't fight back and have a nice planet.

I wonder if that lore was changed. I read a story about an IG transport fleet being attacked by orks, they do an evac and a warp jump and only a few dudes survive. They land on a planet with "centaur" looking people. In the culimination of the story they find out that there are two factions fighting a loyalist and chaos one, that the "centuars" were once human but they gene moded themselfs to survive the high G on the planet and the macro fauna (gigantic crabs). They even find a STC unit. The commisar decides that the population has to be purged for being mutants, and the main character shots him, and sends a memo on with his Pad that the planet only has a low civilisation level of xenos, and not mutated humans.

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:
You're making a good point. When we say the imperium is evil, it is because of what it inflicts on itself: hate, denouncing, obscurantism, corruption, authoritarian regime despotism, intolerance toward other non imperium human factions, even mass murder on them...

But as far as dealing with other factions is concerned, well, best analogy I could find is put a hornet's nest in your bedroom and we'll see if you don't terminate it or have it moved away while I'm pretty sure this is not what the hornets wish because if they built there in the first place that must suit them.

40k is that but the nest is not only in your bedroom, it is also everywhere outside and whenever you make a move you angry some of the nests and you better be ready.

And hopefully it is so, an all human version of 40k would be to much and become revulsing at that point.

With the imperium it’s more like, put a hornets nest in your room, then kill your entire family to stop them getting stung. Then kill the hornets and pretend it never happens.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dudeface wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

Andykp wrote:


10th dropped and all of a sudden they are wildly popular, I guess for rules reasons but don’t know because I don’t follow the “meta” and I got the box and the still ugly as models now sold for £35 a sprue (5 models). So chasing the meta is expensive and the comp types don’t care how ugly the models are as long as they are good.

You can blame GW's overpowered rules for that. If they were merely "balanced" nobody would touch them.

Hence my amusement at the outrage over the wraithknight email. They just know their customer base.

I blame the players. GW isn’t going score a goal with every release and those marines are damn ugly, but no matter how good the rules there aren’t making it into my marines army. If you care so little about what the models look like that you are happy with those in your army then you may as well just use card tokens for models.

Folks need to have some self respect for their poor armies.

Dudeface wrote:

Hence my amusement at the outrage over the wraithknight email. They just know their customer base.

Nah, you are just constitutionally incapable of assigning blame to GW when they do shoddy work. It's not a laudable stance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karol wrote:

I wonder if that lore was changed. I read a story about an IG transport fleet being attacked by orks, they do an evac and a warp jump and only a few dudes survive. They land on a planet with "centaur" looking people. In the culimination of the story they find out that there are two factions fighting a loyalist and chaos one, that the "centuars" were once human but they gene moded themselfs to survive the high G on the planet and the macro fauna (gigantic crabs). They even find a STC unit. The commisar decides that the population has to be purged for being mutants, and the main character shots him, and sends a memo on with his Pad that the planet only has a low civilisation level of xenos, and not mutated humans.

Don't know that story. Where's it from?

In any case the sourcebooks are clear that the Imperium is psychotically genocidal against nonhumans.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Andykp wrote:


I blame the players. GW isn’t going score a goal with every release and those marines are damn ugly, but no matter how good the rules there aren’t making it into my marines army. If you care so little about what the models look like that you are happy with those in your army then you may as well just use card tokens for models.

Folks need to have some self respect for their poor armies.

Don't hate the player, hate the game. When do you hold GW responsible for doing shoddy work, if at all?

 Sim-Life wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
The issue isn't how the IoM deals with Tyranids, Orks or Chaos. It is how it deals with Eldar, Tau, Kin and countless minor races.

Most xenos species aren't the Tyranids (there wouldn't be a galaxy left if they were), some of them even managed to develop simbiotic civilizations with humanity or have been allies against larger threats (like Tyranids). And yet the IoM exterminates them as a matter of policy.

No they don't. They exterminate them if they get in the Imperium's way. The T'au wouldn't currently exist if the Imperium literally exterminated xenos on sight because their "empire" is so small it's not worth the time and resources it would cost to get rid of it. There are loads of minor xenos races knocking about the galaxy. The Imperium doesn't give a gak what they do, as long as they don't worship Chaos or try to interfere with the Imperium's business they're more or less free to be gross alien dudes.

Ah, yes. Hence the famous phrase, "Suffer Not The Xenos To Live When They Get In Our Way".

Andykp wrote:

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:
You're making a good point. When we say the imperium is evil, it is because of what it inflicts on itself: hate, denouncing, obscurantism, corruption, authoritarian regime despotism, intolerance toward other non imperium human factions, even mass murder on them...

But as far as dealing with other factions is concerned, well, best analogy I could find is put a hornet's nest in your bedroom and we'll see if you don't terminate it or have it moved away while I'm pretty sure this is not what the hornets wish because if they built there in the first place that must suit them.

40k is that but the nest is not only in your bedroom, it is also everywhere outside and whenever you make a move you angry some of the nests and you better be ready.

And hopefully it is so, an all human version of 40k would be to much and become revulsing at that point.

With the imperium it’s more like, put a hornets nest in your room, then kill your entire family to stop them getting stung. Then kill the hornets and pretend it never happens.

Yes, but not for the sake of it but because the Imperium sees the nest, is to stupidly run to find a better solution than bomb the house, then has an ambitious and corrupted representative executiong the family because obviously it was their fault if the nest came there in the first place even if it is not, and the other representative next to him agrees because base on his variant of the cult of the emperor hornets are chaos tainted even if they may not be so good thing.

The problem is real, the decision making and the solutions brought range from suboptimal to criminal.


On topic though, to non tournament players, is the game at such a state of imbalance that your games are sorely affected, or is the issue mostly in the tournament community?

Hecaton 811175 11578857 wrote:

Don't know that story. Where's it from?

In any case the sourcebooks are clear that the Imperium is psychotically genocidal against nonhumans.

Had to make my mom look from stories on her old PC at home. It is called "Children of the Emperor" by a dude called Barrington Bayley. The books cover has Huron Blackheart on the cover.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:



On topic though, to non tournament players, is the game at such a state of imbalance that your games are sorely affected, or is the issue mostly in the tournament community?

I have never played a tournament in my life, aside for a store league for new players. My games vs knights look like this. I can't kill anything they have, besides the 5 arbiter models. They can kill anything they see or reach in melee. My games vs custodes look like this. We cost the same points. We have the same number of models. Same save. They have better shoting, better melee, longer charges and in melee they strike first, killing entire squads of my dudes. There is no counter play, no objective play and again the only thing I can kill is 5 arbitors. Vs necrons. I can not kill a Lychguard or warrior brick fast enough for it to not regrow in melee. I can't kill it at all in the shoting phase, even if you use the entire army to target one unit. There are no arbitors to kill. If the necron player starts there is no game to play. Vs marines, I do a ton of stuff that make my turns take twice or three times as long as my opponents, I have to get lucky with charges and even then I sometimes fail to do secondaries or primaries. My opponent focus fires 1-2 units per turn, and I don't have that many of them, so by turn 4, my turns are much faster. Mostly because I have one unit or left overs to play with. I played one time vs GSC and eldar, both pre FAQ/nerfs, decided to not waste my time trying to do that again.

Hecaton wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Hence my amusement at the outrage over the wraithknight email. They just know their customer base.

Nah, you are just constitutionally incapable of assigning blame to GW when they do shoddy work. It's not a laudable stance.

Firstly im very capable pf stating GW did a crap job balancing them, so you're fundamentally wrong there. It also doesn't matter if I personally assign blame to them or not, desolation squads and eldar units are in high demand because some people (i.e. not me as i arent buying them) value winning 40k so highly. Those people are the ones rewarding the shoddy work. Be angry at them.

Dudeface wrote:

Firstly im very capable pf stating GW did a crap job balancing them, so you're fundamentally wrong there. It also doesn't matter if I personally assign blame to them or not, desolation squads and eldar units are in high demand because some people (i.e. not me as i arent buying them) value winning 40k so highly. Those people are the ones rewarding the shoddy work. Be angry at them.

Considering in other threads you were furious at people for pointing out that GW did a crap job at the 10e points system, that doesn't track.

 Altruizine wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
The issue isn't how the IoM deals with Tyranids, Orks or Chaos. It is how it deals with Eldar, Tau, Kin and countless minor races.

Most xenos species aren't the Tyranids (there wouldn't be a galaxy left if they were), some of them even managed to develop simbiotic civilizations with humanity or have been allies against larger threats (like Tyranids). And yet the IoM exterminates them as a matter of policy.

No they don't. They exterminate them if they get in the Imperium's way. The T'au wouldn't currently exist if the Imperium literally exterminated xenos on sight because their "empire" is so small it's not worth the time and resources it would cost to get rid of it. There are loads of minor xenos races knocking about the galaxy. The Imperium doesn't give a gak what they do, as long as they don't worship Chaos or try to interfere with the Imperium's business they're more or less free to be gross alien dudes.

Ah, yes. Hence the famous phrase, "Suffer Not The Xenos To Live When They Get In Our Way".

Yeah. Like all those times the Imperium allied with the Eldar and then exterminated them immediately afterwards, or the stories of them meeting T'au diplomats then shooting them on sight or the rogue traders who have xenos crew members they just have sitting about so they can kill at random or when the Blood Angles teamed up with Necrons to fight tyranids then kept fighting them. The Imperial Creed is like any other religion, some people adhere to it more than others and some people pick and choose when it benefits them to follow it or not. Some worlds only venerate the Emperor because the Imperium visited them and the officials just said "your local forest deity with 9 legs and a chair for a head was actually the Emperor. We can't hang around to elaborate so just make sure everyone knows that now and carry on worshipping it and not any other gods because we'll shoot you okay bye" and left it at that. People who think the Imperium is some galaxy widehive mind of shithole industrial planets full of pathological psychopaths need to read some lore outside of modern Black Library.

Hecaton wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Firstly im very capable pf stating GW did a crap job balancing them, so you're fundamentally wrong there. It also doesn't matter if I personally assign blame to them or not, desolation squads and eldar units are in high demand because some people (i.e. not me as i arent buying them) value winning 40k so highly. Those people are the ones rewarding the shoddy work. Be angry at them.

Considering in other threads you were furious at people for pointing out that GW did a crap job at the 10e points system, that doesn't track.

No I was open in stating the system had problems and wasn't fully executed or well. What I was furious about were peoples needs to "win" against someone else's opinion, blindly blame incompetence or promotive exclusivity in the community. Or just outright insult others, but seemingly that does track here.

 vict0988 wrote:
Starcraft has 3 balanced factions, not 1. Each faction has multiple openings, not 1. Every Chess game does not open the same way, every time and Chess computers figured out new ways to strategize during the game. If the right move was to always use queen rockade to switch all your pawns with queens by paying a rook and a knight then it would be a different story. League of Legends is an example from the video, if tanks are strong in the League of Legends meta then the meta will evolve to include more anti-tank champions, that change in the meta makes tanks less powerful and assassins more powerful. If tanks are waaay too powerful in League of Legends then picking anti-tank champions will be worse than just picking tank champions to beat them, like in 40k when Castellans were the answer to Castellans.

Just like Chess has the troll opening bong cloud you could make a deliberately bad list, but factions should not have only bad lists.

Okay I can't really comment on Chess or League - but I think this is overstating things in Starcraft.

Starcraft was uniquely balanced because asymmetric factions had builds/strategies which were balanced enough that the outcome of the game came down to micro - rather than tempo, as was usually the case in other RTS games.
But this didn't mean there were multiple openings. If Terran did "Strategy A", the Zerg player (or vice versa) had to go "Anti-Strategy A". There were lots of other openings they could pick yes (we can say Anti-Strategy B through Z) - but those would be giving up that tempo advantage. Which means, assuming roughly equal skill, you are going to be at a significant disadvantage. This is very different from there being multiple openings that are all valid because they all reach some similar level of ability/power at the same moment in time.

Age of Empires (any of them imo) for instance has often been much less balanced than Starcraft - which might be surprising given how the factions are more similar to each other. But this in turn mean that one faction's advantage was just superior to the rest - giving that tempo advantage as seen above.

The problem with applying this to say 40k, is that you don't get to decide your list once you know your opponent. In Starcraft you can go "I'm playing Terran, he's playing Zerg, I can assume he's doing the anti-Terran Zerg strategy, and if he isn't it will be inefficient so I'll just run him over." 40k would likely be more balanced if people could tailor their lists (i.e. he's running Eldar good stuff? I'll run my anti-Eldar list) but practically the game/tournament scene doesn't really work that way. Really, given a computer game's flexibility, people would just not run certain weak factions - much like how in League/DOTA some heroes are picked (and banned) constantly, while others scarcely get chosen at all.

The perfect imbalance video is great in theory - but I think the evidence of it happening continuously is quite weak. I.E. when there's a rule reset we sometimes see an approach that appears too strong into a broad field of strategies. But as the meta evolves into people either playing that strategy - or explicitly playing the anti-strategy - it may eventually get pushed down - or entirely out. I think however players relatively quickly cycle through to the "uncounterable" strategies - i.e. those that put you in, at worst, a neutral position versus anything else. This is often why seeing a tournament straight after a big patch can be fun for games - as various players bring different approaches to a new problem. But relatively quickly it starts to be "solved" and micro takes over. Or in 40k (or say card games), hard stats.

Ultimately I'm interested to see how GW fixes this. I think they should take a serious look at the 10th indexes and re-write them. Faction abilities, detachment rules, which units can go with which units, points changes etc. But I imagine it will just be the last. So blanket 10% points increases for Eldar, GSC, Knights and Custodes. 10% points cut for Guard->Voltan?

Isn't that going in to definition of words like "what is incompetence". Does it really matter to the players, not game designers, what ever GW creating eldar rules is on purpose by someone at the design team or an oversight?
Desolation squad single handly is holding up marine factions. Is it annoying that they have to be run, or that maybe the models look kind of a wierd? maybe. But without them the armies don't work, and they already aren't that good.

We can of course go for 90 pages, what ever GW designers know how people play the game their design and how different those two game styles are. But in the end what is important is the results. 70% win rate armies are bad for the game, as are sub 40% win rate ones. It creates trap options, feels bad moment when a player can't do a thing to not just win, but participate in game. And I don't think that outside of the game activities are the fix to this. A votan player right now is not fond of being told to paint more models and stop being a WAAC, especialy if the person telling him that has an army with an over 50% win rate.

Hecaton wrote:


Nah, the Tau exist because the Imperium lost the Damocles Gulf crusade. And the Imperium *does* have a policy of killing all sentient aliens, it's part of their religion. You're a lower priority if you're not attacking them at the moment, but you're still on the list. If you're pacifists, though, expect a visit from them if they think you can't fight back and have a nice planet.

This. The Tau survive because the resource cost to eliminate them is too high whilst the Imperium is battling other fronts. And, due to the Imperium's creed being that all sentient aliens must be exterminated and that the entire galaxy must be under the control of humans, it will always be too pressured to be able to commit it's forces in large enough numbers to actually achieve final victory on any front against external enemies.

It's like asking whether the Nazis really had an intention of conquering the USSR because they didn't commit their entire military force to it, ignoring that they couldn't do that if they wanted to hold their occupied lands in France, North Africa etc.

PS: add in that you don't need to win all your games to win an event but need to win most of them with a big difference

So playing an "anti list" that is easily stomped by 1 faction, but makes sure you win high against any other can be placed much higher than a balanced list that wins all games but does not wipe them off the table

And 40k is the only game I know were winning is not the most important metric to place 1st in a single event

 kodos wrote:
PS: add in that you don't need to win all your games to win an event but need to win most of them with a big difference

So playing an "anti list" that is easily stomped by 1 faction, but makes sure you win high against any other can be placed much higher than a balanced list that wins all games but does not wipe them off the table

And 40k is the only game I know were winning is not the most important metric to place 1st in a single event

I actually never knew that you didn't have to win all games.

Can you elaborate on the fact winning the most is not the most important thing to be in first place?

As I never attended a tournament I have no idea how points are counted and so on so this is a genuine question.

Tyel 811175 11579037 wrote:
Ultimately I'm interested to see how GW fixes this. I think they should take a serious look at the 10th indexes and re-write them. Faction abilities, detachment rules, which units can go with which units, points changes etc. But I imagine it will just be the last. So blanket 10% points increases for Eldar, GSC, Knights and Custodes. 10% points cut for Guard->Voltan?

The problem with video games comperation is also the fact that, if X is OP and you bought the game, you can just play with the OP too. If someone bought Votan, they can't play eldar. Point costs are also a tricky thing to use as a balance tool. Eldar are undercosted, GSC are being handed out ton of free points with respawn mechanics. But neither of the armies is just that. GW does this with eldar every edition. Make them OP, the try fixing them over and over again, and then they get a new codex and we start everything from the start. Fate dice were already "fixed" in 9th, and in 9th eldar were top army too. Knights and Custodes, the way they are right now, is not a being OP problem. It is other armies being really bad comparing to them. Custodes and knights , minus the stupid towering rule, are IMO perfect the way they are. The problem with them is that a marine/melee army in to custodes is an auto lose game. Knights vs any faction that has trouble with killing vehicles, can get so bad, one may a well not play the game.

I don't know what IG problems are, besides the fact that the army units seem to have not enough synergy with each other as far play types IG were given and the fact that they are a shoting army trying to hit stuff on +4 (tau have the same problem). What they need is someone to know how the army is suppose to be played, and writing the rules so that it works.
Votan may, same with sisters, be fixed with points. Armies with on death mechanics require having enough stuff after other stuff dies to play or win the game. Can't do that when you are pointed as a semi elite army.

With the point drops aspect there is also one extra thing. If all armies get it then no army gets point drops. And bringing something like GSC or eldar 10% up, is just bringing them to the level other armies were (the top ones), but leaving them with the very good mechanics. Armies with bad mechnics would still stay bad and people with armies that feel bad playing, may not be fond of suddenly being made to buy 1-2 extra box of stuff to play 2000pts, with an army which is still not fun to play.

Yeah the problem of how much money you should spend to not be stuck with a bad army looks like a thing to me. Quite an important one at that. Or wait another edition but that sucks waiting 3 years and hope for the best.

 kodos wrote:
PS: add in that you don't need to win all your games to win an event but need to win most of them with a big difference

So playing an "anti list" that is easily stomped by 1 faction, but makes sure you win high against any other can be placed much higher than a balanced list that wins all games but does not wipe them off the table

And 40k is the only game I know were winning is not the most important metric to place 1st in a single event

Flames of War used to have a good scoring system, not sure if it still does as not playing it much these days.

you have a win condition, thats a pure win/lose, your score is based on how many loses your side took, what you caused on the enemy only matters if you lost. essentially the winner scores (it was a 7 point system, so if you win you score six, your opponent one), but the score reduces based on casualties

as such you can win an event without winning all games so long as in the games you do win you take few casualties, and in the games you lose you inflict damage

it sort of discouraged MSU spam type armies such as armoured car lists and light tank lists that could do a lot of damage against the right sort of targets but would themselves get hammered in the process

so in effect it became a game not so much of winning to place 1st, but of casualty management.

for 40k & fantasy events it usually appears the win/draw/loss count generally matters more with the actual VP score being a tiebreaker, but I have seen outright VP, or outright kill ratios used as the event scoring as well - its all fine as long as you know in advance

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:
As I never attended a tournament I have no idea how points are counted and so on so this is a genuine question.

usually there are 20 total points and you get 11 to 20 tournament points for a victory based o the difference scored during the game (and 9 to 0 for losing)

With a 5 game event, winning 3 games 20:0 and losing 2 games 0:20 will place you higher than winning all 5 games 12:8 or lower

So lists are built to win 20:0 as much as possible even if this means losing 0:20 against certain other builds rather than trying to handle all common lists

 A Town Called Malus wrote:


It's like asking whether the Nazis really had an intention of conquering the USSR because they didn't commit their entire military force to it, ignoring that they couldn't do that if they wanted to hold their occupied lands in France, North Africa etc.

I always jump an nazi example when I see one. And it fits here especialy well. The Imperium of Men "dislikes" all its enemies and is willing to genocide the living hell out of them, if given the chance. But all things are not equal. Just like the Unforgiven don't do a 180 at every sign of any csm sighting, but they do it for every Fallen. The imperium is willing to accept the existance of certain xeno races, it can be a mix of cost, utility and use of the xeno, that makes the Imperium act so. At the same time the Imperium does not accept three things and goes after them no matter the cost, time and situation. Imperial tax avoiders, detractors of any big branch of the Adeptus, non sanctioned abhumans not under control of the Imperium. Things like that generate an response from Imperium every time, at imperial speed of course, but they just do. The humans did find the tau, when they were a race of people living in caves, their planet wasn't interesting enough, nor were the tau themselfs important enough to wipe out. But if tau were a group of miners and engineers seers operating an STC and rejecting any control from the Mechanicus, and punitive fleet would be sent ASAP. Troops would be pulled from other engagment just to burn out the renegades.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:
Yeah the problem of how much money you should spend to not be stuck with a bad army looks like a thing to me. Quite an important one at that. Or wait another edition but that sucks waiting 3 years and hope for the best.

There was a meme for GK in 8th, which I think would be accurate for DG in 9th too. It went something like this. Wait for the autum FAQ to fix it. Wait for the Codex to fix it. Wait for the IA to fix it, Wait for the next spring FAQ to fix it. Wait for the next edition to fix it. It is not for all faction, and not 100% accurate for all w40k armies, but for some it is. And it ain't fun seeing people ask themselfs why they spend ton of time and money, on something that is not fun.

leopard wrote:
40k & fantasy events it usually appears the win/draw/loss count generally matters more with the actual VP score being a tiebreaker, but I have seen outright VP, or outright kill ratios used as the event scoring as well - its all fine as long as you know in advance

is win/draw/los more common now?

Most 40k events i know still use a 20:0 system which is based on difference in VP with total VP being first tie breaker and win/draw/los 2nd tie breaker

Hecaton wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Hence my amusement at the outrage over the wraithknight email. They just know their customer base.

Nah, you are just constitutionally incapable of assigning blame to GW when they do shoddy work. It's not a laudable stance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karol wrote:

I wonder if that lore was changed. I read a story about an IG transport fleet being attacked by orks, they do an evac and a warp jump and only a few dudes survive. They land on a planet with "centaur" looking people. In the culimination of the story they find out that there are two factions fighting a loyalist and chaos one, that the "centuars" were once human but they gene moded themselfs to survive the high G on the planet and the macro fauna (gigantic crabs). They even find a STC unit. The commisar decides that the population has to be purged for being mutants, and the main character shots him, and sends a memo on with his Pad that the planet only has a low civilisation level of xenos, and not mutated humans.

Don't know that story. Where's it from?

In any case the sourcebooks are clear that the Imperium is psychotically genocidal against nonhumans.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Andykp wrote:


I blame the players. GW isn’t going score a goal with every release and those marines are damn ugly, but no matter how good the rules there aren’t making it into my marines army. If you care so little about what the models look like that you are happy with those in your army then you may as well just use card tokens for models.

Folks need to have some self respect for their poor armies.

Don't hate the player, hate the game. When do you hold GW responsible for doing shoddy work, if at all?

I hold them entirely responsible for the god awful models. Those things are vile and a stupid concept. Massive fail on the part of GW and I Love the primaris range, they are the first big miss of the range for me. And that trumps rules and everything else.

The rules being bad isn’t good either. The fact that one unit is so much stronger than others so that players will exploit that isn’t great, but that is a facet the players have agency over. We can’t remake the models, we can convert them or proxy but the models are the models. The fact that players will exploit these things to try and win and be happy to play piss ugly models to boot is on the players. You don’t have to exploit a strong unit to get an edge, winning isn’t everything and maybe other things should be more important.

End of the day, a player looks at their army and sees it is full of ugly ass models they hate just so they might win, and they know they paid over the odds for these horrible models and had to spend time painting them instead of enjoying themselves then that is on them for being so obsessed with trying to win so hard. They deserve an ugly army just for that.

They could not play them, play a unit that is a bit “worse” but still not bad and maybe win but have an army they were proud of. Instead they are being WAAC, even if that cost is over paying for horrible models you know you hate.