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.
Sure, but taking the best units in a codex isn't WAAC, it's just using your brain for the listbuilding stage rather than solely after dice start rolling. I wouldn't intentionally take a slower car to a race, a less accurate gun to a shooting competition, etc. Why would I take a less useful unit in my army if I have better choices available?
Yeah, I never understood the idea that in order to play casually you need to just... slap together a hodgepodge list based on some ephemeral theme or models you like, or something to that effect, without regard for how it will actually perform on the table. The objective of the game is to beat your opponent, and the listbuilding stage is where you devise the strategy that will accomplish that goal. It's hardly WAAC to pick units and synergies that will contribute towards winning the game.
Because my casual Votann list has no chance of beating your competitive Eldar list, so for me to have fun I need you not to build a competitive Eldar list. Slapping together a hodgepodge list is sometimes not even good enough, taking a hodgepodge list for the worst faction might be so bad that it's basically impossible for most factions to roughly match the power level and you might need to deliberately take a few overcosted Eldar units to power down your list if most of the datasheets are undercosted since a hodgepodge Eldar list might still generally be far better than a regular Votann list. If you want to play casually with a competitive list you can just say that, but it's not really a mystery why people don't want to deal with the unfiltered garbage that is GW balance.
Great if you can beat Votann in the list building phase with Eldar, congratulations, do you want a sandwich, high five or video proving how you stomped a casual Votann list with a competitive Eldar list? Now that's taking things to the extreme and I've come across casual players that were obnoxiously whining about my list, I get the hate towards those specific people, but there are tonnes of casual players that are pretty large with allowing you to take whatever list you like as long as you aren't trying to club seals.
Building a list with no restrictions is kind of silly, how often are you going to find a list that is better than a tournament list? Once, I think I came up with a list that was superior to what was being run in tournaments. Obviously, there's more to list building than trying to win, you could insist on including some number of datasheets or avoid bringing too much of something to forge a narrative or to see if something works.
catbarf wrote: The objective of the game is to beat your opponent, and the listbuilding stage is where you devise the strategy that will accomplish that goal. It's hardly WAAC to pick units and synergies that will contribute towards winning the game.
"But I don't play to win!"
The amount of people I've heard repeat that line over the past decade makes me really wonder.
And it never made any sense to me in the first place. I mean, no one plays to lose, and no one plays to draw (forcing a draw on the other hand), so of course everyone plays to win.
That’s really not true, now to make something clear before I start to avoid any confusion here, I am not a ”casual” player I have invest thousands of pounds and untold hours into this hobby over 30+ years, t takes up huge amounts of my time and effort. But I am what I like to call a narrative player. It is ALL about the story.
So when I was playing my game yesterday my mate and I were both playing to achieve the objectives the narrative had set out but were both playing them in ways appropriate to our armies and in a fun way for each other “Winning” was not the object of the game but telling the story was.
In the end he “won” the game on VPs but the narrative outcome was much more interesting, he had achieved his goals but my army had had a very crucial narrative shift with an old stalwart warboss having been shown up by a newcomer and their being a shift in power in my ORKS.
During and after the battle we have discussions about what is happening narratively, what the story is. This takes as long as the battle most the time. We also discuss how things went tactically, how we played and what mistakes we made etc (mostly about learning the new edition at the minute).
Now this is very nuanced and different from how you would play in a pick up game for sure and it isn’t how everyone plays but we have known each other for a long time and been playing for a long time so we can play this RP style of game. Neither of us know the rules inside out and there’s an awful lot of going back to do things we forgot or suddenly remembering a rule the army or unit has that would have helped but two turns after the event. We would get battered by anyone who knows the rules well and is setting out purely to win the game so wouldn’t let us go back or re roll a shooting with the lethal hits we just remembered we had. But that is not how we do it.
So we don’t play to win. Our aims when we play are in this order of priority; BOTH have a fun experience, use our collections (as in we will pick units we won’t to use for lots of reasons, such as they are a new model, just painted or they are just cool), add to our narrative in universe. We don’t pull gotcha moments on each other, we discuss army composition while making our lists together so we can make our lists fit each others, if either of us are bringing something potentially powerful we let the other know so we can be prepared and not have it dominate the game in a boring way and we discuss any tricks or special abilities our units have.
There are others like me out there too, we don’t all play to win. It’s a big big hobby with lots of different motivations for playing a game.
If winning doesn't matter then why does your objectives have VP? Just try to achieve the objectives you find the most narratively satisfying as much as possible while trying to deny the objectives your opponent has that seem most narratively satisfying for you to deny him.
We barley kept track of VPs to be honest, it wasn’t you til turn 4 we realised we were doing it wrong and had to start again, it wasn’t a big thing, but drawing the mission cards gave us the structure to build our narrative around and worked really well! I like those. It tied in with the terrain and everything. All we had to do was move a few bits about.
What I really don’t understand is why you would question what I said like I was lying to you for some reason. It’s very odd behaviour I have seen a few times from you and others.
I totally understand you and that's really why I play 40k: to tell a story. It matters not if I win or lose, though I try to make intelligent battlefield choices of course. What matters is that it was fun and that we collectively push our imagined story further.
If I play for the competitive aspect, the "battle of wits" aspect, then I play Bolt Action or Project Z. 40k is too poorly balanced to make this take on the hobby worthwhile in my opinion.
But this is my way of enjoying this game and setting. I'd say it with a catch all phrase: there are as many ways to enjoy the game as there are players.
I think it’s a great way to enjoy the game and it means all the faults with balance and the system don’t matter but you really have to have a like minded group to do it. I feel for all those who don’t get chance to experience 40K like this. It’s such an immersive and narrative experience, for me you get all aspects of the hobby out of it, story telling, painting and crafting and rolling dice.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/08/16 13:25:30
catbarf wrote: The objective of the game is to beat your opponent, and the listbuilding stage is where you devise the strategy that will accomplish that goal. It's hardly WAAC to pick units and synergies that will contribute towards winning the game.
"But I don't play to win!"
The amount of people I've heard repeat that line over the past decade makes me really wonder.
And it never made any sense to me in the first place. I mean, no one plays to lose, and no one plays to draw (forcing a draw on the other hand), so of course everyone plays to win.
That’s really not true, now to make something clear before I start to avoid any confusion here, I am not a ”casual” player I have invest thousands of pounds and untold hours into this hobby over 30+ years, t takes up huge amounts of my time and effort. But I am what I like to call a narrative player. It is ALL about the story.
So when I was playing my game yesterday my mate and I were both playing to achieve the objectives the narrative had set out but were both playing them in ways appropriate to our armies and in a fun way for each other “Winning” was not the object of the game but telling the story was.
In the end he “won” the game on VPs but the narrative outcome was much more interesting, he had achieved his goals but my army had had a very crucial narrative shift with an old stalwart warboss having been shown up by a newcomer and their being a shift in power in my ORKS.
During and after the battle we have discussions about what is happening narratively, what the story is. This takes as long as the battle most the time. We also discuss how things went tactically, how we played and what mistakes we made etc (mostly about learning the new edition at the minute).
Now this is very nuanced and different from how you would play in a pick up game for sure and it isn’t how everyone plays but we have known each other for a long time and been playing for a long time so we can play this RP style of game. Neither of us know the rules inside out and there’s an awful lot of going back to do things we forgot or suddenly remembering a rule the army or unit has that would have helped but two turns after the event. We would get battered by anyone who knows the rules well and is setting out purely to win the game so wouldn’t let us go back or re roll a shooting with the lethal hits we just remembered we had. But that is not how we do it.
So we don’t play to win. Our aims when we play are in this order of priority; BOTH have a fun experience, use our collections (as in we will pick units we won’t to use for lots of reasons, such as they are a new model, just painted or they are just cool), add to our narrative in universe. We don’t pull gotcha moments on each other, we discuss army composition while making our lists together so we can make our lists fit each others, if either of us are bringing something potentially powerful we let the other know so we can be prepared and not have it dominate the game in a boring way and we discuss any tricks or special abilities our units have.
There are others like me out there too, we don’t all play to win. It’s a big big hobby with lots of different motivations for playing a game.
First off, I see nothing wrong with how you are playing. Whatever way you play where you and your opponent have fun is the right way to play. However, I don't think you are really playing Warhammer 40K the game. More like you are playing a game with Warhammer 40K miniatures. You could literally pull any edition off the shelf--any TT ruleset for that matter--and have just have about the same fun time. I mean, you'd probably have an even better time adapting Fate to the TT.
So, I wonder, why so invested in a discussion about the meta for the new edition? Meta is crunch. It's for people playing the rules as written. As soon as you start playing by narrative fiat, all meta goes out he window. You might like the current edition, but I don't think GW could put out any ruleset that you couldn't have fun with due to the way you play the game.
(also lots of competitive people will let you rollback actions in games so long as you haven't moved too far ahead and it doesn't break the game state)
I’ll be honest this thread is so off topic now I forgot it was the meta one. I keep track of these chats because it intrigues me how differently people play the game, I only really respond to comments that I have an interest in replying too, look back at the thread and you will see I haven’t waded in on what’s good or bad or competitive aspects. I really don’t know about these things so don’t have a valid opinion on them. But when someone says “everyone plays to win” I will comment.
catbarf wrote: The objective of the game is to beat your opponent, and the listbuilding stage is where you devise the strategy that will accomplish that goal. It's hardly WAAC to pick units and synergies that will contribute towards winning the game.
"But I don't play to win!"
The amount of people I've heard repeat that line over the past decade makes me really wonder.
And it never made any sense to me in the first place. I mean, no one plays to lose, and no one plays to draw (forcing a draw on the other hand), so of course everyone plays to win.
That’s really not true, now to make something clear before I start to avoid any confusion here, I am not a ”casual” player I have invest thousands of pounds and untold hours into this hobby over 30+ years, t takes up huge amounts of my time and effort. But I am what I like to call a narrative player. It is ALL about the story.
So when I was playing my game yesterday my mate and I were both playing to achieve the objectives the narrative had set out but were both playing them in ways appropriate to our armies and in a fun way for each other “Winning” was not the object of the game but telling the story was.
In the end he “won” the game on VPs but the narrative outcome was much more interesting, he had achieved his goals but my army had had a very crucial narrative shift with an old stalwart warboss having been shown up by a newcomer and their being a shift in power in my ORKS.
During and after the battle we have discussions about what is happening narratively, what the story is. This takes as long as the battle most the time. We also discuss how things went tactically, how we played and what mistakes we made etc (mostly about learning the new edition at the minute).
Now this is very nuanced and different from how you would play in a pick up game for sure and it isn’t how everyone plays but we have known each other for a long time and been playing for a long time so we can play this RP style of game. Neither of us know the rules inside out and there’s an awful lot of going back to do things we forgot or suddenly remembering a rule the army or unit has that would have helped but two turns after the event. We would get battered by anyone who knows the rules well and is setting out purely to win the game so wouldn’t let us go back or re roll a shooting with the lethal hits we just remembered we had. But that is not how we do it.
So we don’t play to win. Our aims when we play are in this order of priority; BOTH have a fun experience, use our collections (as in we will pick units we won’t to use for lots of reasons, such as they are a new model, just painted or they are just cool), add to our narrative in universe. We don’t pull gotcha moments on each other, we discuss army composition while making our lists together so we can make our lists fit each others, if either of us are bringing something potentially powerful we let the other know so we can be prepared and not have it dominate the game in a boring way and we discuss any tricks or special abilities our units have.
There are others like me out there too, we don’t all play to win. It’s a big big hobby with lots of different motivations for playing a game.
First off, I see nothing wrong with how you are playing. Whatever way you play where you and your opponent have fun is the right way to play. However, I don't think you are really playing Warhammer 40K the game. More like you are playing a game with Warhammer 40K miniatures. You could literally pull any edition off the shelf--any TT ruleset for that matter--and have just have about the same fun time. I mean, you'd probably have an even better time adapting Fate to the TT.
So, I wonder, why so invested in a discussion about the meta for the new edition? Meta is crunch. It's for people playing the rules as written. As soon as you start playing by narrative fiat, all meta goes out he window. You might like the current edition, but I don't think GW could put out any ruleset that you couldn't have fun with due to the way you play the game.
(also lots of competitive people will let you rollback actions in games so long as you haven't moved too far ahead and it doesn't break the game state)
I’ll be honest this thread is so off topic now I forgot it was the meta one. I keep track of these chats because it intrigues me how differently people play the game, I only really respond to comments that I have an interest in replying too, look back at the thread and you will see I haven’t waded in on what’s good or bad or competitive aspects. I really don’t know about these things so don’t have a valid opinion on them. But when someone says “everyone plays to win” I will comment.
Hmm, how do things get off topic....the world wonders.
I'm not upset that people don't get why we would act strangely tacticaly wise in our game to get a good laugh, an epic outcome, or just moving the scenario. It is really a particular mindset and if you're not into it, it will look strange. Matter of tastes. The important think is to play with like minded people though because otherwise both will be desappointed.
As an anecdote, the most extreme length one of my buddy has come is in our current campaign. He stomped me with his needs and following our story, he said "dude, what if instead of just being stomped we put the game upside down and you play your retreat?". Suddenly, a game that was about to be boring became a frantic session of me trying to hold him back to evacuate vs his nids trying to catch me. We had a blast in the end. But that's totally silly but that's a very peculiar mindset.
This topic went well out of hand but although it's gone off track it's come back to a healthy discussion so I'm happy with it.
40k: Necrons/Imperial Guard/ Space marines
Bolt Action: Germany/ USA
Project Z.
"The Dakka Dive Bar is the only place you'll hear what's really going on in the underhive. Sure you might not find a good amasec but they grill a mean groxburger. Just watch for ratlings being thrown through windows and you'll be alright." Ciaphas Cain, probably.
catbarf wrote: The objective of the game is to beat your opponent, and the listbuilding stage is where you devise the strategy that will accomplish that goal. It's hardly WAAC to pick units and synergies that will contribute towards winning the game.
"But I don't play to win!"
The amount of people I've heard repeat that line over the past decade makes me really wonder.
And it never made any sense to me in the first place. I mean, no one plays to lose, and no one plays to draw (forcing a draw on the other hand), so of course everyone plays to win.
That’s really not true, now to make something clear before I start to avoid any confusion here, I am not a ”casual” player I have invest thousands of pounds and untold hours into this hobby over 30+ years, t takes up huge amounts of my time and effort. But I am what I like to call a narrative player. It is ALL about the story.
So when I was playing my game yesterday my mate and I were both playing to achieve the objectives the narrative had set out but were both playing them in ways appropriate to our armies and in a fun way for each other “Winning” was not the object of the game but telling the story was.
In the end he “won” the game on VPs but the narrative outcome was much more interesting, he had achieved his goals but my army had had a very crucial narrative shift with an old stalwart warboss having been shown up by a newcomer and their being a shift in power in my ORKS.
During and after the battle we have discussions about what is happening narratively, what the story is. This takes as long as the battle most the time. We also discuss how things went tactically, how we played and what mistakes we made etc (mostly about learning the new edition at the minute).
Now this is very nuanced and different from how you would play in a pick up game for sure and it isn’t how everyone plays but we have known each other for a long time and been playing for a long time so we can play this RP style of game. Neither of us know the rules inside out and there’s an awful lot of going back to do things we forgot or suddenly remembering a rule the army or unit has that would have helped but two turns after the event. We would get battered by anyone who knows the rules well and is setting out purely to win the game so wouldn’t let us go back or re roll a shooting with the lethal hits we just remembered we had. But that is not how we do it.
So we don’t play to win. Our aims when we play are in this order of priority; BOTH have a fun experience, use our collections (as in we will pick units we won’t to use for lots of reasons, such as they are a new model, just painted or they are just cool), add to our narrative in universe. We don’t pull gotcha moments on each other, we discuss army composition while making our lists together so we can make our lists fit each others, if either of us are bringing something potentially powerful we let the other know so we can be prepared and not have it dominate the game in a boring way and we discuss any tricks or special abilities our units have.
There are others like me out there too, we don’t all play to win. It’s a big big hobby with lots of different motivations for playing a game.
First off, I see nothing wrong with how you are playing. Whatever way you play where you and your opponent have fun is the right way to play. However, I don't think you are really playing Warhammer 40K the game. More like you are playing a game with Warhammer 40K miniatures. You could literally pull any edition off the shelf--any TT ruleset for that matter--and have just have about the same fun time. I mean, you'd probably have an even better time adapting Fate to the TT.
So, I wonder, why so invested in a discussion about the meta for the new edition? Meta is crunch. It's for people playing the rules as written. As soon as you start playing by narrative fiat, all meta goes out he window. You might like the current edition, but I don't think GW could put out any ruleset that you couldn't have fun with due to the way you play the game.
(also lots of competitive people will let you rollback actions in games so long as you haven't moved too far ahead and it doesn't break the game state)
I’ll be honest this thread is so off topic now I forgot it was the meta one. I keep track of these chats because it intrigues me how differently people play the game, I only really respond to comments that I have an interest in replying too, look back at the thread and you will see I haven’t waded in on what’s good or bad or competitive aspects. I really don’t know about these things so don’t have a valid opinion on them. But when someone says “everyone plays to win” I will comment.
Hmm, how do things get off topic....the world wonders.
Me?.. maybe a bit.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote: I'm not upset that people don't get why we would act strangely tacticaly wise in our game to get a good laugh, an epic outcome, or just moving the scenario. It is really a particular mindset and if you're not into it, it will look strange. Matter of tastes. The important think is to play with like minded people though because otherwise both will be desappointed.
As an anecdote, the most extreme length one of my buddy has come is in our current campaign. He stomped me with his needs and following our story, he said "dude, what if instead of just being stomped we put the game upside down and you play your retreat?". Suddenly, a game that was about to be boring became a frantic session of me trying to hold him back to evacuate vs his nids trying to catch me. We had a blast in the end. But that's totally silly but that's a very peculiar mindset.
This topic went well out of hand but although it's gone off track it's come back to a healthy discussion so I'm happy with it.
Had very similar games, love them.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/08/16 17:20:39
Because my casual Votann list has no chance of beating your competitive Eldar list, so for me to have fun I need you not to build a competitive Eldar list. Slapping together a hodgepodge list is sometimes not even good enough, taking a hodgepodge list for the worst faction might be so bad that it's basically impossible for most factions to roughly match the power level and you might need to deliberately take a few overcosted Eldar units to power down your list if most of the datasheets are undercosted since a hodgepodge Eldar list might still generally be far better than a regular Votann list. If you want to play casually with a competitive list you can just say that, but it's not really a mystery why people don't want to deal with the unfiltered garbage that is GW balance.
Great if you can beat Votann in the list building phase with Eldar, congratulations, do you want a sandwich, high five or video proving how you stomped a casual Votann list with a competitive Eldar list? Now that's taking things to the extreme and I've come across casual players that were obnoxiously whining about my list, I get the hate towards those specific people, but there are tonnes of casual players that are pretty large with allowing you to take whatever list you like as long as you aren't trying to club seals.
Building a list with no restrictions is kind of silly, how often are you going to find a list that is better than a tournament list? Once, I think I came up with a list that was superior to what was being run in tournaments. Obviously, there's more to list building than trying to win, you could insist on including some number of datasheets or avoid bringing too much of something to forge a narrative or to see if something works.
Ok, so if my faction will auto win or lose against my opponent's faction due to GW's gak balancing, we'll go play something else instead. The point is that 40k *should* be a game that allows for the contest of wits.
Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:I'm not upset that people don't get why we would act strangely tacticaly wise in our game to get a good laugh, an epic outcome, or just moving the scenario. It is really a particular mindset and if you're not into it, it will look strange. Matter of tastes. The important think is to play with like minded people though because otherwise both will be desappointed.
My friends and I do this all the time. But I draw a distinction between what my friends and I do with the game, versus how it is designed to be played.
That these two things are not the same is why we rely on social contract to ensure everyone's on the same page.
Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:I'm not upset that people don't get why we would act strangely tacticaly wise in our game to get a good laugh, an epic outcome, or just moving the scenario. It is really a particular mindset and if you're not into it, it will look strange. Matter of tastes. The important think is to play with like minded people though because otherwise both will be desappointed.
My friends and I do this all the time. But I draw a distinction between what my friends and I do with the game, versus how it is designed to be played.
That these two things are not the same is why we rely on social contract to ensure everyone's on the same page.
Well, I proclaim again: silly RPG gimmicks and a balanced, well made games ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE! (cheering crowd)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kanluwen wrote: Listbuilding isn't "a battle of wits", no matter how hard people want it to be.
Could we consider that it even becomes an issue when the game is such imbalanced that in the end, what matters is not wits and tactical acumen of sorts but putting the best units on the table?
This is sometimes an impression I have: that 40k is in such bad state most of the times whatever you do this unit or that combo will destroys you. This is catastrophic for people who enjoy using their brain to win a fair fight and this is not the point of a board game.
That's an impression though I don't claim it's true.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2023/08/16 18:31:51
40k: Necrons/Imperial Guard/ Space marines
Bolt Action: Germany/ USA
Project Z.
"The Dakka Dive Bar is the only place you'll hear what's really going on in the underhive. Sure you might not find a good amasec but they grill a mean groxburger. Just watch for ratlings being thrown through windows and you'll be alright." Ciaphas Cain, probably.
Tyran wrote: No, but it is a "can you make basic mathematical comparison and basic planning" which is technically speaking a skill.
You would have had an argument for that fifteen or twenty years ago.
Not now. Not when every book is dissected and ranked into tiers the second it leaks. Now it's just "Can you google?"...which I guess some people view as a skill?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/08/16 18:55:15
Even then you will likely see some variation in high performing lists. Sure a lot of the same units repeat but there is usually a variance in support units that cover the holes left by more high their units
So even then you need to analyse the your meta and understand why each unit is taken. Specially if you are playing a second or third tier faction against a top tier one.
If we talk wargaming at large, list building usually is a skill though. Deciding what units to take to play your advantage and your opponents disavantages plus thinking about all of this will coordonate during the game is totally a skill.
Then, related to this topic, the question is: in 40k and its balance issues, can we still say it is?
In relaxed playstyle it is, you may ban things you know unfair or unfunny to play with/against though, but then within these boundaries you pick units for a task nontheless.
In lore friendly playstyle on the other hand I acknowledge that often it is dictated by the circomstances of the scenarios you play and the story, so it's more about what you do with said units that you might have taken to make the story alive, to follow the theme.
In competitive/ "serious" play, I can't tell.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/08/16 19:13:03
40k: Necrons/Imperial Guard/ Space marines
Bolt Action: Germany/ USA
Project Z.
"The Dakka Dive Bar is the only place you'll hear what's really going on in the underhive. Sure you might not find a good amasec but they grill a mean groxburger. Just watch for ratlings being thrown through windows and you'll be alright." Ciaphas Cain, probably.
The issue with list building being a skill depends on what context you expect to find yourself.
I.E. "competitive 40k" tends to work in tournaments. Listbuilding skill therefore tends to be in tailoring to who you expect to see at the top tables. There's no point tailoring into DG or LoV that you should just stomp over early on. You do however want your list to stack up against Eldar/Knights/GSC etc when played properly.
This is a very different format to a random 1v1 pick up group. People take a dim view on list tailoring - often because it exaggerates imbalances between books. But if you are to avoid tailoring, you tend to end up with "Faction X goodstuff" into "Faction Y goodstuff". Or I guess you can take a less optimised idea, and pick stuff according to what you like, or a theme.
But the thing is the meta can often shift. People often do play units which are considered suboptimal.
A good example of this I think was in early 9th with Dark Eldar Talos. They were considered by some to be on the weaker side of a pretty busted codex. With a meta dominated by Marines they were not that efficient compared with other choices. As the meta shifted - with more DE, Ad Mech, Orks and finally Grey Knights, Talos started to be more attractive. And then, rather inexplicably, they got a 10 point per model reduction (while other DE stuff got nerfed) presumably because everyone had been saying they were weak and not running them. Cue being everywhere.
List building can be a skill. We saw for example Siegler win the LVO with Ad Mech when everyone thought they were terrible. We saw I think it was Siegler again win a tournament with Tau during 8th's Marine meta prompting lots of "are Tau broken now" debates (not really, the Riptide was just quite good into mass Intercessors).
But usually its easier to just take up (and learn) an OP faction/build rather than try to identify a counter.
But I mean as another example, I think most would say Eldar are the best faction at the moment. The best Eldar list is however more debatable - we see quite a few variants (with, admittedly, usually some certain units) performing well. You could I guess say a certain swathe of the book is busted, just make your selection from those S-tier units, but I'm not convinced its that simple.
It's funny though, how the loudest arguments about 40k list building having no strategy always seem to come from people who have no interest in or understanding of competitive play.
kodos wrote: because GW said so
they say the players have to chose an appropriate list that is balanced against a weaker army otherwise you are a TFGWAAC that wants to kill the fun
and this is were we are and why people thing that "matched play" is the same as "ultra competitive" and all tournament players are WAAC players simply because they take the best units in their army for a list
I have the rulebook in front of me, can you tell me the page numbers for those quotes? I just bought a ticket to a huge tournament in Tampa, several hundred players. You get a big trophy for winning. The whole point is to take the most competitive list you can possibly put together and win as many games as you can. It's put on by...checks notes...GAMES WORKSHOP. It sounds weird for a company to say "if you play to win the game, you're TFGWAAC" and then spend tens of thousands of dollars hosting the March Madness of Warhammer 40k for hundreds of players all around the country to go and play with competitive lists with the intention of taking home a big trophy and having articles written about how good they are at competitive warhammer...
Because my casual Votann list has no chance of beating your competitive Eldar list, so for me to have fun I need you not to build a competitive Eldar list.
So the onus is on me to get worse rather than you to get better? Weird how it doesn't work like that in golf, racing, shooting, football, basketball, hockey, soccer, chess, or literally anything else I can think of with a winner and a loser. I'm not spending money and time buying/building/painting subpar units just to play down to the level of someone who refuses to try to get better. I would rather just not play you. I can only play tournament games and tournament prep games and play way more 40k than I even want to in a year. There's multiple 100+ person events in my state yearly. If you just want to push random units around and make laser noises, you can find someone else who is content playing that way. For me it sounds about as interesting as watching nuln oil dry.
I'm not using a 50 year old set of clubs just because my buddy is a 25 handicap. I'm not unplugging one coil pack from my 911 just because the guy in the other lane has 100 less hp. I'm not taking a factory Glock 19 to a shooting competition if it allows a tricked out race gun with a trijicon. Why would I take a bunch of crappy units to a Warhammer game?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2023/08/16 23:51:31
ThePaintingOwl wrote: It's funny though, how the loudest arguments about 40k list building having no strategy always seem to come from people who have no interest in or understanding of competitive play.
From the outside looking in it does seem as though all you have to do is Google what is winning, and spam it. Now I’m sure that’s a massive over simplification of what’s happening but that’s how it looks to those of us who don’t play competitively.
I just did a quick Google search and thousand a of results came up, I found this list of winning eldar lists, all very very similar.
Andykp wrote: So we don’t play to win. Our aims when we play are in this order of priority; BOTH have a fun experience, use our collections (as in we will pick units we won’t to use for lots of reasons, such as they are a new model, just painted or they are just cool), add to our narrative in universe. We don’t pull gotcha moments on each other, we discuss army composition while making our lists together so we can make our lists fit each others, if either of us are bringing something potentially powerful we let the other know so we can be prepared and not have it dominate the game in a boring way and we discuss any tricks or special abilities our units have.
I... genuinely don't know how to respond to this. From the sounds of it, you're just making up a story and rolling dice to achieve random results and then incorporating that into the story. One wonders why you even bother with the rules in the first place?
So I believe you. You're not playing to win because you're not really playing 40k.
Back in 2006 we did a series of massive narrative games just before Apocalypse launched (ahead of our time!). There were three scenarios - the initial attack against our defensive lines, our armoured counter-attack, and the final battle at the fortress. The organisers (in this case myself and a friend of mine) designed all the lists, and we knew walking into the first game that it was a losing battle. We were under no illusions that we could win (a smattering of Guardsmen and light Eldar forces against an overwhelming tide of Nurgle Terminators and vehicles).
We still tried!
We knew that the narrative would play out as we suspected, and outside of some truly incredible dice-based luck we knew that we wouldn't be victorious at the end, but we still gave it our all, playing it like desperate defenders trying to buy as much time as possible and we had a blast.
A few years later, after Apocalypse had launched, we organised a few massive games where we, again, had the lists all ready to go well in advance of the game. The idea was to stop a ritual from bringing a powerful Daemon Prince back into reality (he had been banished during the last big event in 2006). It would be more fun if he was revived, as it would give us greater narrative options later down the line for our evolving story, but our goal was to stop it. I never stopped trying to win. I never just decided to throw the game or agree to not use the forces I had brought with me. In the end we lost, and the Daemon Prince was resummoned. My lead Inquisitor even faced him 1-on-1 in melee, a silly prospect for an squishy Ordo-Hereticus Inquisitor in the days of 3rd-5th, and he died. Didn't care that he lost, but I still tried to do what I could. We played the game, as it and creating narratives are not mutually exclusive.
So I amend my statement:
No one plays to lose. No one plays to draw. Everyone plays to win. Anyone who isn't, isn't actually playing the game.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2023/08/17 01:50:03
Exactly. People from the outside looking in are the loudest voices saying "all you have to do is google a winning list and anyone can succeed with it". It's rarely the people who actually play competitively saying that's how it works.
Toofast wrote: I can only play tournament games and tournament prep games and play way more 40k than I even want to in a year.
Because???
Anyways, while that sounds like a perfectly awful way to play 40k, it's just a you problem. Especially that last bit - if you want to play less, just... play less.
Andykp wrote: So we don’t play to win. Our aims when we play are in this order of priority; BOTH have a fun experience, use our collections (as in we will pick units we won’t to use for lots of reasons, such as they are a new model, just painted or they are just cool), add to our narrative in universe. We don’t pull gotcha moments on each other, we discuss army composition while making our lists together so we can make our lists fit each others, if either of us are bringing something potentially powerful we let the other know so we can be prepared and not have it dominate the game in a boring way and we discuss any tricks or special abilities our units have.
I... genuinely don't know how to respond to this. From the sounds of it, you're just making up a story and rolling dice to achieve random results and then incorporating that into the story. One wonders why you even bother with the rules in the first place?
So I believe you. You're not playing to win because you're not really playing 40k.
Back in 2006 we did a series of massive narrative games just before Apocalypse launched (ahead of our time!). There were three scenarios - the initial attack against our defensive lines, our armoured counter-attack, and the final battle at the fortress. The organisers (in this case myself and a friend of mine) designed all the lists, and we knew walking into the first game that it was a losing battle. We were under no illusions that we could win (a smattering of Guardsmen and light Eldar forces against an overwhelming tide of Nurgle Terminators and vehicles).
We still tried!
We knew that the narrative would play out as we suspected, and outside of some truly incredible dice-based luck we knew that we wouldn't be victorious at the end, but we still gave it our all, playing it like desperate defenders trying to buy as much time as possible and we had a blast.
A few years later, after Apocalypse had launched, we organised a few massive games where we, again, had the lists all ready to go well in advance of the game. The idea was to stop a ritual from bringing a powerful Daemon Prince back into reality (he had been banished during the last big event in 2006). It would be more fun if he was revived, as it would give us greater narrative options later down the line for our evolving story, but our goal was to stop it. I never stopped trying to win. I never just decided to throw the game or agree to not use the forces I had brought with me. In the end we lost, and the Daemon Prince was resummoned. My lead Inquisitor even faced him 1-on-1 in melee, a silly prospect for an squishy Ordo-Hereticus Inquisitor in the days of 3rd-5th, and he died. Didn't care that he lost, but I still tried to do what I could. We played the game, as it and creating narratives are not mutually exclusive.
So I amend my statement:
No one plays to lose.
No one plays to draw.
Everyone plays to win. Anyone who isn't, isn't actually playing the game.
Equally mot sure how to respond. Because I don’t go out to win the battle, I’m not actually playing the game? Really? Okay I think it’s best we agree to disagree, because these discussions don’t lead to good things.
Exactly. People from the outside looking in are the loudest voices saying "all you have to do is google a winning list and anyone can succeed with it". It's rarely the people who actually play competitively saying that's how it works.
That in its self doesn’t mean that isn’t how it works. All the winning lists for all the factions I could find were all remarkably similar, so did all the players skilful come up with the same thing or did one or two and everyone else just copy it?
If there is more to it please enlighten me, I am genuinely interested to see what goes into making a competitive list.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2023/08/17 02:25:46
Toofast wrote: I can only play tournament games and tournament prep games and play way more 40k than I even want to in a year.
Because???
Anyways, while that sounds like a perfectly awful way to play 40k, it's just a you problem. Especially that last bit - if you want to play less, just... play less.
My point was that there are plenty of people out there willing to bring a decent list and play a competitive mission that I don't need to tune my list down to play casual games just so I can play Warhammer. There are also plenty of people willing to play garagehammer that nobody is forced to play against WK/fire prism or GSC hordes just to get a game. I'm not sure why people are so determined to tell me that I'm having fun wrong. They can play their way in their group and I can play my way in mine, and we don't really have to interact much. I don't set out to go seal clubbing at the FLGS because I don't get any better at the game that way.
Equally mot sure how to respond. Because I don’t go out to win the battle, I’m not actually playing the game? Really? Okay I think it’s best we agree to disagree, because these discussions don’t lead to good things.
Yup. 40k is a competitive game. Not giving your opponent a good game is bad sportsmanship.
Campaign and progressive play really blur the simple win/loss dichotomy.
We're usually concerned with 4 sets of goals:
Mission Objectives, Agendas, Campaign Goals and Long-Term Narrative Goals.
Sometimes these align and sometimes they don't. Games tend to be more interesting when these various sets of goals are in tension, so that pursuing an Agenda might cost you the victory, but might accelerate a Long-Term Narrative goal.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2023/08/17 04:36:20
Equally mot sure how to respond. Because I don’t go out to win the battle, I’m not actually playing the game? Really? Okay I think it’s best we agree to disagree, because these discussions don’t lead to good things.
Yup. 40k is a competitive game. Not giving your opponent a good game is bad sportsmanship.
Competitive 40k is gw's marketing department idea to exploit guillible ones to get their money as easily as possible.
40k is as competitive as emperor's clotres were stellar in the famous story.
Toofast wrote: I can only play tournament games and tournament prep games and play way more 40k than I even want to in a year.
Because???
Anyways, while that sounds like a perfectly awful way to play 40k, it's just a you problem. Especially that last bit - if you want to play less, just... play less.
My point was that there are plenty of people out there willing to bring a decent list and play a competitive mission that I don't need to tune my list down to play casual games just so I can play Warhammer. There are also plenty of people willing to play garagehammer that nobody is forced to play against WK/fire prism or GSC hordes just to get a game. I'm not sure why people are so determined to tell me that I'm having fun wrong. They can play their way in their group and I can play my way in mine, and we don't really have to interact much. I don't set out to go seal clubbing at the FLGS because I don't get any better at the game that way.
So to clarify, you won't go to the flgs and play randoms in case they're not serious enough for you? Probably do you look at their lists, guffaw and walk away? Or do you just pound them into the dust as they were obviously serious and trying their best? You're painting yourself up as TFG of your flgs with these comments.
Equally mot sure how to respond. Because I don’t go out to win the battle, I’m not actually playing the game? Really? Okay I think it’s best we agree to disagree, because these discussions don’t lead to good things.
Yup. 40k is a competitive game. Not giving your opponent a good game is bad sportsmanship.
Competitive 40k is gw's marketing department idea to exploit guillible ones to get their money as easily as possible.
40k is as competitive as emperor's clotres were stellar in the famous story.
Further to that "good game" is a subjective statement.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/08/17 06:28:54
tneva82 wrote: Competitive 40k is gw's marketing department idea to exploit guillible ones to get their money as easily as possible.
40k is as competitive as emperor's clotres were stellar in the famous story.
Yes, we get it, you don't like competitive play. Can you stop spamming every thread with "UR HAVING FUN THE WRONG WAY"?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dudeface wrote: So to clarify, you won't go to the flgs and play randoms in case they're not serious enough for you? Probably do you look at their lists, guffaw and walk away? Or do you just pound them into the dust as they were obviously serious and trying their best? You're painting yourself up as TFG of your flgs with these comments.
Lolwut? How is it TFG behavior to only want to play competitive games? Why are you assuming they are being rude and laughing at people instead of just playing with like-minded opponents? This all sounds like more of a problem with you than with the person you're criticizing.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/08/17 07:02:10
PenitentJake wrote: Sometimes these align and sometimes they don't. Games tend to be more interesting when these various sets of goals are in tension, so that pursuing an Agenda might cost you the victory, but might accelerate a Long-Term Narrative goal.
Couple of questions:
Why is it better that the objectives are in tension? Wouldn't it be better to use a purely narrative mission with objectives tailored to the specific scenario instead of a matched play mission that you have to reinterpret into something related to the story? If the in-universe goal of the army is to do X to advance their long-term plan to accomplish Y then how is it a benefit to have a separate mission condition where you win by standing on six arbitrary spots on the table and accumulating VP? Why play with the primary mission at all?
And how do agendas really help with this? Most of them are just stock matched play style secondary objectives, only with a slightly different reward for accomplishing them. I might see if it agendas were something interesting, like "your warlord must kill this specific enemy character to avenge his defeat in the previous battle", but is "gain XP for killing vehicles" really adding much narrative to the game? Or making it play differently from a tournament mission where you get VP for killing vehicles?
(cheering crowd)
