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.

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
This might be why I enjoy my army of three separate model kits that come with all the options....


Except for those blasted resin models which cost a little too much.

They cost alot less when you make friends with someone who owns a printer.

The only faction I really see this being a problem is something like World Eaters, to be honest.

 RaptorusRex wrote:
The only faction I really see this being a problem is something like World Eaters, to be honest.

If WE suffer from it then you can't ignore any of the other factions with really shallow benches - TS, EC, mono - demons, Votann, & Custodes (without resin).
Oh, & Knights of both flavors.
But these are "pre-built" lists mainly due to limited ranges.

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
I've seen this complaint around the interwebs lately:

you have to play a specific pre build GW designed lists or you may as well not play at all.

What exactly does this reference?

How some builds , as if through "magic" fit in to 2000pts. And by a list I mean the obligatory chaff, the scoring units, the uppy downy units, the ranged section. They give the optimal list for the faction. At the same time if you try something, which is not something that GW cares about (1st company, the "Imperial Fist" detachment) you find yourself with odd points left overs, not being able to take enough units for characters you want to take etc.

Also most of the time, if GW does changes . Points or rules wise, it is with thinking about that optimal pre build 2000pts. You don't like that unit X now cost more, or has bad rules , but your marine army was Venguard Detachment raptors and not ultramarines? Tough luck. Reverse stuff aka fixing a whole faction by buffing a specific build also happens. So you can have all the non ultramarine space marines wait for fixes, but GW way of helping marines is to make G-man even better . On rare occasions the geniuses at GW miss something, early ed salamanders, SW jail with storm lance or Bloodless Angels, GW tends to remove those builds rather fast, or do everything in their power to nerf them. The planned builds on the other hand can linger for months, if not years.

Also in 10th GW has this rather not nice tendency to release a codex with a build, people go out to test/buy the models. And then GW nerfs it, often giving nothing in return.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 RaptorusRex wrote:
The only faction I really see this being a problem is something like World Eaters, to be honest.

Try playing no ultramarine marines out of the sm codex.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ccs wrote:

 RaptorusRex wrote:
The only faction I really see this being a problem is something like World Eaters, to be honest.

If WE suffer from it then you can't ignore any of the other factions with really shallow benches - TS, EC, mono - demons, Votann, & Custodes (without resin).
Oh, & Knights of both flavors.
But these are "pre-built" lists mainly due to limited ranges.

GKs. But there are armies that are technicaly not limited. SW have a the same model pool as marines+ the SW specific units/characters. And yet the builds we got out of the codex were very locked in. DG are the chaos faction with the biggest number of DG specific units, and yet they end up with the same builds over and over again.

Karol wrote:




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 RaptorusRex wrote:
The only faction I really see this being a problem is something like World Eaters, to be honest.

Try playing no ultramarine marines out of the sm codex.

I do, as you would know if you checked my signature.

Play Dark Eldar and you'll see about prebuilt lists. There is no unit choices or flexibility in that book. Your army looks one way if you want to play in the tournaments. Using anything else, if you can find them, (GW has the bulk of the DE line out of stock for years), nerfs you beyond the point of competitive play. To make it worse, my group only ever does league games, EVER, so it's forever city fighting over pie plates on dirt. Consequently the scene is mostly dead except for the few sweaties who live to net list and I have no hobby for almost 2yrs now. Anecdotally the last tourney that was run in my town (my game store friend told me) was set up by person A, they looked at the lists submitted, made theirs, won the tournament, kept the prizes. This is the level of greasy that's left in my town for this hobby.

I've seen that kind of dirty before. Had a local guy who we all refused to play against we nicknamed the troll. Not only was he a known cheater (in multiple game systems not just GW) going back over a decade, when he ran tournaments strangely he would either try to play in them as an actual player and not a ringer, or all the guys in his private club would always win the top spots.

The funny part is that after my game store friend told me what went down. I suggested running a Legends only event to turn everything on it's head and force something different.

 RaptorusRex wrote:


I do, as you would know if you checked my signature.

I don't understand the argument. So you play non optimised marines, with lower win chances even in small local events or even pick up games. Playing to lose isn't really playing. I mean you could as well say you play narrative or something similar.

All the codex have clear choices that GW wants or doesn't want people to run. Sometimes it is more clear, sometimes it is less clear, sometimes it doesn't matter because the book is flawed. But often it is clear as day. Comparing something like Assault space marines vs DC, even outside of the whole scoring thing is just mind blowing. DC have points costs so high, you would think they could still run fists and inferno pistols on every model. And worse part GW wasted a whole BA detachment on DC.

If GW made an entire detachment dedicated to Death Company then that contradicts your claim that GW doesn't want people to play Death Company and only wants people to play Assault Marines.

So it sounds like people are using "GW doesn't want me to use this unit!" as a rhetorical tactic to complain about balance and goad GW into buffing the unit. It isn't something that's sincerely believed by the people saying it.

OK. I'll bite.

"GW doesn't want me to use this unit"

Bull****

If that really was the case it wouldn't be on sale.

"GW sells x" and "GW wants people to use x in game" are entirely different things.

 waefre_1 wrote:
"GW sells x" and "GW wants people to use x in game" are entirely different things.

I guess it's just coincidence that every model they sell has game rules....

Karol wrote:

I don't understand the argument. So you play non optimised marines, with lower win chances even in small local events or even pick up games. Playing to lose isn't really playing.

I don't want to put words in a guys mouth, but I think it's probably more like he's playing an army he likes win or lose, rather than playing an army he likes less for a better chance at a win.

His priority seems to be liking the army over winning the game. And funny thing, but I think a lot of players probably feel the same way, and do the same thing. It's what I've always done. An army could have a unit that almost universally guarantees victory, but if I didn't like the model, I still wouldn't buy it. Liking my army has always been more important than its win %.

That said...

Karol wrote:

I mean you could as well say you play narrative or something similar.

I agree with this entirely.

 PenitentJake wrote:

Karol wrote:

I don't understand the argument. So you play non optimised marines, with lower win chances even in small local events or even pick up games. Playing to lose isn't really playing.

I don't want to put words in a guys mouth, but I think it's probably more like he's playing an army he likes win or lose, rather than playing an army he likes less for a better chance at a win.

His priority seems to be liking the army over winning the game. And funny thing, but I think a lot of players probably feel the same way, and do the same thing. It's what I've always done. An army could have a unit that almost universally guarantees victory, but if I didn't like the model, I still wouldn't buy it. Liking my army has always been more important than its win %.

That said...

Karol wrote:

I mean you could as well say you play narrative or something similar.

I agree with this entirely.

Wrong pronouns, but that's mostly it. The other half is that I feel that meta trends do not equal a solved game.

Karol wrote:

 RaptorusRex wrote:


I do, as you would know if you checked my signature.

I don't understand the argument. So you play non optimised marines, with lower win chances even in small local events or even pick up games. Playing to lose isn't really playing. I mean you could as well say you play narrative or something similar.

You've full on gone into pro-comp black/white mode again. Playing with a none optimised army isn't "playing to lose" it's playing something for fun whilst trying to win. Having lower odds of success doesn't equate to trying to lose, it equates to being harder to win.

If anything that's suggesting they might be a better player as they're learning through hardship.

For me, this whole viewpoint you present Karol, displays a lot of what is wrong with the public perception of the game in places and why competitive play is considered a bad thing.

This is the grief I get when I show up with the Forgepact Detachment for Imperial Knights and I am asked, "Why are you playing with those guys, don't you want to win?"

And my reply is always, "I came to have fun."

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
This is the grief I get when I show up with the Forgepact Detachment for Imperial Knights and I am asked, "Why are you playing with those guys, don't you want to win?"

And my reply is always, "I came to have fun."

Heresy! Burn the heretic! No fun allowed in 40k. You should know that by now.

Kidding, obviously. The hobby needs WAY more of that attitude.

Dudeface wrote:

Karol wrote:

 RaptorusRex wrote:


I do, as you would know if you checked my signature.

I don't understand the argument. So you play non optimised marines, with lower win chances even in small local events or even pick up games. Playing to lose isn't really playing. I mean you could as well say you play narrative or something similar.

You've full on gone into pro-comp black/white mode again. Playing with a none optimised army isn't "playing to lose" it's playing something for fun whilst trying to win. Having lower odds of success doesn't equate to trying to lose, it equates to being harder to win.

If anything that's suggesting they might be a better player as they're learning through hardship.

For me, this whole viewpoint you present Karol, displays a lot of what is wrong with the public perception of the game in places and why competitive play is considered a bad thing.

Karol: plays 40K with the same unoptimized list for years.
Also Karol: "If you play with the same unoptimized list for years your opinion is invalid because nobody plays that way."

Well thankuly paladins and terminators were good for a time. But lets be frank on a teen budget(aka 0 money) do you think it would have been a good idea for me to buy in to non terminators in 8th, for like most of 8th I was stupid enought to think that with GK being so bad GW, has to fix them? Would it have helped in 9th, again on a practicaly 0 budget? Not really, the army would have been as bad as it is.

I also, by avoiding updates, dodged the "you have to buy 5-6 NDK kits". On the flip side AoS, which I played a lot more, I rebought my LoL 3 times since 3ed, and that is not counting spells, terrain etc. Why? Because the army was worth doing that. GK are not, no matter what I would have bought.

I think there is a difference between. I have 2000pts of X, can't afford anything else and it is unfun and people actualy owning multiple armies, being able to have armies or building armies the way GW intended them to be and not doing so. Especialy if the non hobby part of the hobby is being considered.
If someone who has a White Scar army. 100% bikes , and comes here and asks what can he do to have fun with it in 10th. Am I and others here enter the real of "what ifs" where he has specific terrain, non optimised lists are played by the other players, they don't play match play AND his opponents are okey with legends? Dakka seems to be full of people, that will jump out and say that it very much is a valid thing to talk about.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
This is the grief I get when I show up with the Forgepact Detachment for Imperial Knights and I am asked, "Why are you playing with those guys, don't you want to win?"

And my reply is always, "I came to have fun."

Yeah and then your opponent either runs rings around you or worse blows you up turn 1-2, and now you can go home. And that is with a legal army. GW loves to make whole builds, even armies no longer legal to play. What is the "fun" level for those people. Again in a world of possibilities, we could talk about a ton of what ifs. but in reality, if someone plays modern w40k, then you have to play it in a certain way. List being pre build? That is nothing, we have pre build tables, because playing without L shaped LoS blockers ends game turn 1 for some armies. We have whole editions shaped by specific armies being anti X. You want to take vehicles, well anti vehicle army Z is going to make you lose the game at deployment EVERY TIME. And now I do understand that in the western world people play many games, have many armies. Heck through a struck of luck, even I have two armies for two different systems. But if someone just wants to play lets say RW DA, they have one exact build.And it is not just win rates (even if there is a drastic gap between armies played right and wrong), it is being able to do anything. How legit fun were knights when terrain could be set up in such a way that the imperial knight(chaos could go through walls) player would not be able to reach objectives ? And again one could of course say that that "my opponents wouldn't set up/let me play on a table like that" etc And good for you then, but this isn't the world wide expiriance of players. Especialy if one were to follow all the different countries forums, reddit etc with their different horror stories.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 PenitentJake wrote:


I don't want to put words in a guys mouth, but I think it's probably more like he's playing an army he likes win or lose, rather than playing an army he likes less for a better chance at a win.

His priority seems to be liking the army over winning the game. And funny thing, but I think a lot of players probably feel the same way, and do the same thing. It's what I've always done. An army could have a unit that almost universally guarantees victory, but if I didn't like the model, I still wouldn't buy it. Liking my army has always been more important than its win %.

That said...


I agree with this entirely.

I sometimes forget that in other countries "forging the narrative" doesn't have the same meaning. And yes winning is more fun the losing. But it isn't just that, because if we followed that the only way to play w40k (outside of team games) would be to either be a genius pilot of a given faction and/or play one of the top 1-5 armies. It is about functionality and how the terrain, scoring rules function in the game at a given time. Black Templars are horrible right now. It doesn't matter how you build them, because GW decided to nerf in to the ground the way they were supposed to be played, the way they not suppose to be played and on top of that cut them out of the regular marine buffs to oath etc. In this case lore or no lore it doesn't matter. But then there is SW. Trying to play them with "Grey Hunters/Blood Claws" or their primaris versions is lore accurate. Cool, but the functional version of the army was a TWC spam with sled Logan, wulfen etc Can you try to play non pre build? sure, you just won't have much fun. Now there are armies, which I think are overdesigned and they can carry a lot of stuff. Early edition eldar could take 500pts of anything, heck they could play 1500pts vs 2000 and it would still work. Ynari can take 200-300pts of "nothing" right now. Necron are designed that way too. Ultramarines are the cause of other marines catching nerfs, while ther generaly (expetion being centurions in venguard) avoid getting hit too hard. All those armies especialy in a casual setting can carry some less optimal stuff. But those armies are rare. You can't just build ad mecha with robots and say "I want to have fun". Because in order for you to have fun, your opponent would have to do nothing for 2 turns, aside for maybe standing in the open.

I'd rather lose playing the Gretching Freedom Brigade than win playing a WAAC netlist.

Karol wrote:


Yeah and then your opponent either runs rings around you or worse blows you up turn 1-2, and now you can go home.

Uh... My Forgepact might not be top tier, but I win about 60% of my games.

To say that because I'm not playing with Canis Rex plus a bunch of Armigers in the Noble Lance Detachment as the Meta chasers do, does not mean I suck at the game.

And yes, this is my only army. I don't have any others, except for the small bit of Mechanicus, which is taken from a Combat Patrol.

The balance in 40k ain’t perfect.
But it’s not bad. It’s honestly in a better place than it’s been throughout most of its span.

You can most definitely run off-meta armies and still have fun. Especially since your opponents are unlikely to be optimizing perfectly as well.

 JNAProductions wrote:
The balance in 40k ain’t perfect.
But it’s not bad. It’s honestly in a better place than it’s been throughout most of its span.

You can most definitely run off-meta armies and still have fun. Especially since your opponents are unlikely to be optimizing perfectly as well.

This is true.

Also, Karol describing relaxed lists, narrative play, talking to your opponent, using legends as something from a different reality when it's just another common way to play the game. I might as well say it's the much more common way to play than the tournament/ WAAC way he usually describes, but that would be just be my experience against his.

 aphyon wrote:
Because GW is focused on tournament play now ala 10th ed, if you don't bring the optimized list of the best units/loadouts you might as well not play since your just going to lose.

Did you post this before, or after, a player won a tournament with Deathwatch? What about with Imperial Agents?

You know how some famous people say "you can just 'do things'"? That's the case with WH40k. If you have a group of friends and you want to make up rules for your custom chapter, you can just do it. Well, I mean, in the USA you can. You can be a free-thinker and just do whatever you want. You can make up a datasheet for that custom-built rhino you made (Rhino Rikarius, for example) and use it, if your friends agree to it. You can probably even get strangers in gaming stores to go along with it.

But you have to be willing to do something that isn't explicitly covered by the rules. If that's the thing you need, rules that explicitly say "you can do what you want on top of this set of guidelines" then I can't help you. Except by encouraging you to be free, and don't let anyone put your imagination in THEIR box.

Back in 7th edition I created backstories, rules, relic items and datasheets for my named Space Marine characters. Could I use them in a tournament? Not with the custom datasheet. But I could use the custom datasheet whenever I played against my friends or with strangers who were cool with it. That has't been taken away from the game.

I will say, however, that having started in Rogue Trader days I am much more aware that the CONCEPT of WH40K is far more flexible than 10th edition rules make it appear. If 10th edition was the place where you joined the game, it's not your fault that you don't know you can "just do things".