Warhammer 40K Tabletop Thread XXXVI: If it Ain't Broke, Nerf It

[Forum Explorer]

Oh good. I'm just being harsh. Not wrong.
I'll take it.

You're rarely wrong. But usually pretty harsh.

I mean, Terminators can be fine in a casual meta. Particularly since they dropped in points. Because they can actually do stuff, even if they are overcosted and other stuff can do it better.

But Rhinos don't do anything. They are a delivery box and a pretty crappy one. They might actually be the worst transport in the game now that Drop Pods are cheaper. Not that Chaos Space Marines can use Drop Pods for some reason.

[9mm]

LVO preview

More Battletomes

New Primaris

New CSM sculpts

And yet another Primaris lutenent

[Requizen]

https://www.warhammer-community.com/...mepage-post-1/

Primaris Scouts!

Scout Librarian!

Snipers!

CSM!

Fancy Sorcerers!

Obliterators!

Some scary thing!

A Sister sculpt!

Abbadoodle!

Not crazy, but pretty good overall. If you like SM and CSM, that is.

[Cheesegear]

So now with GSC, 40k is completely through Codexes for existing armies (excluding things like Ynnari and Inquisition), with only Sisters of Battle to come. While we know they're next on the docket, and likely we'll see a unit or two of them shown off, do you think there'll be anything else on the docket for 40k?

White Dwarf Indecies. Every odd month, with AoS getting every even month.
January was Crimson Fists, February is Stormcasts (even more ), March will be Assassins, etc.
Except how long they'll keep that up is unclear.

New models will only released be for event boxes/campaigns.

EDIT: Speak of the devil.

[LansXero]

Kill Team for AoS seems like it could be good, or it could flunk hard. Arena feels horribly underwhelming, so here is hoping they handle it better.

An imagifier, of all things to preview, now that they are merely a unit upgrade feels like crumbs and leftovers. Pass.

I hope that new box is sensibly priced, but I doubt it. Will be yet another pass, after Blackstone Fortress, Tooth & Claw, Wake the Dead, etc.

[Cheesegear]

Will be yet another pass, after Blackstone Fortress, Tooth & Claw, Wake the Dead, etc.

Except it will have new models...Not reboxes of existing models that GW just can't sell the normal way.
I have to say, I'm excited for Shadowspear. But that's mostly because Codex and Chaos Marines desperately need new models rules to stay relevant.

I think the one thing that bothers me, is that instead of Errata'ing Stalker Bolt Rifles to not be garbage (i.e; Just do what they do in Vigilus [i.e; Act like Sniper Rifles], but not for CPs), they instead make whole new models that they force you to buy. But...Business gotta business, I guess.

EDIT:
It also forces more people to Battlescribe and piracy because nobody wants to keep carrying books. I think a lot of people are happy to buy books. But when GW keeps making ~100 page hardbacks transporting 2, 3 or 4 of those starts getting heavy, because shock, most people aren't actually playing the game on their kitchen table. Well, one player out of every two, might be. Still sucks for 'the other guy' who's coming over.

[LansXero]

Except it will have new models...Not reboxes of existing models that GW just can't sell the normal way.
I have to say, I'm excited for Shadowspear. But that's mostly because Codex and Chaos Marines desperately need new models rules to stay relevant.

I think the one thing that bothers me, is that instead of Errata'ing Stalker Bolt Rifles to not be garbage (i.e; Just do what they do in Vigilus [i.e; Act like Sniper Rifles], but not for CPs), they instead make whole new models that they force you to buy. But...Business gotta business, I guess.

EDIT:
It also forces more people to Battlescribe and piracy because nobody wants to keep carrying books. I think a lot of people are happy to buy books. But when GW keeps making ~100 page hardbacks transporting 2, 3 or 4 of those starts getting heavy, because shock, most people aren't actually playing the game on their kitchen table. Well, one player out of every two, might be. Still sucks for 'the other guy' who's coming over.

GW actually encourages in-store book copies; stockists get a nice stipend to use discretionarily and whenever box sets come out you get a free one for every 6 or so you order, to open and keep around (or sell if you want to). But yeah, BattleScribe is just way too convenient, its become the default here to the point where when we're doing tournaments its much simpler to just ask for everyone's list to be on it, run it through the software to check for errors, and done. No cross-referencing several books, no checking errata, etc.

As for Shadowspear, for the already existing units like Obliterators, Chaos Space Marines, Possessed, etc. I think its just new sculpts, not new rules to go along with them. So thats going to be interesting. I really, really hope (but dont expect) they are push-fit and priced at that, because KNF / First Strike are already too much of a good deal to pass, even more so with Start Collecting boxes going up in price, so a new option is long overdue. Sure, its still SM vs Chaos, but at least its new (and generic Chaos instead of Death Guard).

[Forum Explorer]

Oh joy, more bloody Space Marines.

Also more redundant roles. So taking all bets, will Scouts be replaced, or will these new Primaris Snipers be basically useless? My money is on the Primaris Snipers being useless.

[Cheesegear]

Oops...

Even more so because the [Sororitas] army is ridiculously expensive if you dont have it already, and right before a new plastic release. So why bother?

My point wasn't actually 'this is what you should buy'. My point was when it comes to 'armies that go against the meta' (AKA; Meta-busters), you do it by reading the meta, and taking a reasonable counter to it (bonus points if you already have it lying around). The Sororitas army with ~70 battleline models (5+ Invulnerable), with more than half of them having Storm Bolters and Denying the Witch is what that looks like.

It does not look like 'a couple of Infantry squads, a couple of Vehicles, and two or three Characters (none of which are Psykers), all from the same Faction which doesn't really work right given a few of the rules changes that have happened since the Codex was printed ~18 months ago'.

Unless the intent was that 'going against the meta' meant just...Not power-gaming. But, then, I have ask what that means. 'Cause that's not going to be the same for everyone. Remember kids, I'm not talking about WAAC. I'm just talking about playing to your Factions' strengths so that you don't suck. I think I already triggered something in my brain recently when I said...

Originally posted by Cheesegear
Why play Chaos Marines in the first place?
What is it that makes them good on the table, worth playing?

Just in case... I'm not talking about Theme. I'm saying, the instant you say "I would like to win more than zero games." (which is what was said) a different conversation starts takes place...

By which, and I've said this before;
If you play Dark Angels, and you put Hellblasters on the board, is that power-gaming?
If you play Blood Angels, and you put Death Company on the board, is that power-gaming?

If you're a Space Marines player and you say "I don't like Primaris Marines. I refuse to buy Guilliman." that's an arbitrary choice that you made, and it puts you in a pretty significant hole. If you said "No Intercessors." that still leaves Aggressors, Inceptors and Hellblasters (but not Reivers...**** Reivers... Unless you're Blood Angels). But if you do the opposite 'Primaris only', you put yourself in another hole. You're not playing to your Factions' strengths, and shooting yourself in the foot. That's usually how Theme...Works.

Where is the line between 'playing to your Faction's strengths', and power-gaming?

Of course, when you play Dark Angels, and you start adding in a Darkshroud, some Devastators, Azrael, maybe a Dark Talon - or three! - Black Knights if you've got points, etc. Obviously you start getting into the 'real' parts of the Codex. But, taking none of those units? ...Why even play Dark Angels? What are you getting out of it?

But where is the 'power-gaming' line between all-or-none? How can you like some of a Faction, but not all of it - especially some of the more significant units of said Faction? Where is the line between Theme and Power-Gaming? Can you have Theme and also Power-Game. Yes. Absolutely. It's called The Stormwind Fallacy.
But should Theme come at the cost of winning? Well...Who are you asking? How important is actually winning games to you?

"I like Space Wolves...But I don't like some of the more Wolfy units..." But that's like...The whole point?
When you remove the wolfier units from the Faction you're left with...Nothing special? Additionally, I think part of the intended design is that the wolfier units are what makes Space Wolves worth playing.

Which I feel might also be true for Chaos Marines; <Daemon> units and Cultists are part of the Codex. It's...Intended to be that way. If you don't take them...Uhh?

It also goes back to Word-From-GW. They have no intention of removing 32 Guardsmen from Imperium lists (probably because of sales). But, since we know that that's now an intended part of the game and not going anywhere, anytime soon...From a rules perspective, why not include 32 Guardsmen in Imperial lists from now on? Not doing it, is a choice we now make.

[Bobby Baratheon]

I was wondering if I could get any feedback on my list? I'm still waiting for a couple things to arrive in the mail, but for the moment this is roughly what I've settled on. A reminder that my meta is pretty relaxed, so mostly I just want to make sure that I didn't come up with a trash heap of a list and that it functions like I intend it to. I'd also like some advice on how to best use the Tyranid psychic powers with this list if possible.

Spoiler: Tyranids 2001

Show

Battalion (Behemoth)
HQ Hive Tyrant - 204
-wings, monstrous rending claws, 2x devourers
HQ Hive Tyrant - 204
-wings, monstrous rending claws, 2x devourers

T Rippers x3 - 33
T Rippers x3 - 33
T Termagants x20 - 160
-devourers (all)

HS Trygon Prime - 183
-Adrenal glands, biostatic rattle

Spearhead (Jormungandr)
HQ Hive Tyrant - 166
-adrenal glands, heavy venow cannon, monstrous rending claws (upgraded to Maw-Claws relic)
HQ Neurothrope - 90

(Note: each carnifex has the same loadout as the others in its squad.)
HS Carnifexes x3 - 345
-4x devourers, acid maw, spore cysts
HS Carnifexes x3 - 345
-4x devourers, acid maw, spore cysts
HS Carnifexes x2 - 238
-2x deathspitters, heavy venom cannon, enhanced senses, spore cysts

Spoiler: My rationales

Show

The idea is pretty simple. 8 carnifexes with the +1 cover from Jormungandr and the -1 to hit from spore cysts roll up the table along with a walking Hive Tyrant and a Neurothrope. 6 of the fexes have a generalist loadout where they can either shoot 24 S6 shots each or fight in melee with S6 AP5 DD3 attacks, while the other two are more shooty with heavy venom cannons and deathspitters along with enhanced senses. (I'm really tempted just to swap the deathspitters for more devourers, but the extra range seems good for shooty fexes? I'd like to try it with the deathspitters, but I'm also open to advice from people who know if they're bad in practice or not). The Neurothrope is just backup synapse for the fexes and a source of mortal wounds.

I did want bone maces on the generalist carnifexes, but it didn't quite work pointwise. I'm not sure I'm missing much - the AP1 on those seems really lackluster.

The Flyrants can either be kept in reserve or just deployed normally depending on the situation and the opponent, while the Termagants are definitely starting in reserve with the Trygon. The idea there is pretty simple, too - they pop up with the Trygon and use single minded annihilation to shoot twice. Also, with the Trygon Prime being Behemoth and having adrenal glands, I should be able to get the 9" charge off more often than not.

The list is a little light on CPs, but it also has a stupid amount of questionably accurate S6 shooting, which I look forward to rolling.

As far as psychic powers go, my idea thus far is to have Paroxysm and Onslaught on the Walkrant. This should let him beat up on stuff in melee, since he'll get to attack first and have a little more mobility to get into melee to begin with. If he gets shot off the board turn 1, oh well. Hopefully they can't kill all three hive tyrants in one go. I like The Horror as well, but I thought that might go better on the Neurothrope, who is going to be sandwiched between the two shooty fexes anyway. I'm a little less sure about the Flyrants - Psychic scream would give them a little more damage potential, and catalyst also seems like a good pick for survivability. I'm also considering putting the Horror on one of them for redundancy and because its a pretty cool power.

I still have yet to play a game of 8th, but once the rest of my stuff arrives in the mail that should change. I mention this because it's probable I made a silly newb mistake.

In other news, some of the new models they just announced seem pretty sweet. Especially that new Primaris Lieutenant, which was long overdue.

[Forum Explorer]

I was wondering if I could get any feedback on my list? I'm still waiting for a couple things to arrive in the mail, but for the moment this is roughly what I've settled on. A reminder that my meta is pretty relaxed, so mostly I just want to make sure that I didn't come up with a trash heap of a list and that it functions like I intend it to. I'd also like some advice on how to best use the Tyranid psychic powers with this list if possible.

Spoiler: Tyranids 2001

Show

Battalion (Behemoth)
HQ Hive Tyrant - 204
-wings, monstrous rending claws, 2x devourers
HQ Hive Tyrant - 204
-wings, monstrous rending claws, 2x devourers

T Rippers x3 - 33
T Rippers x3 - 33
T Termagants x20 - 160
-devourers (all)

HS Trygon Prime - 183
-Adrenal glands, biostatic rattle

Spearhead (Jormungandr)
HQ Hive Tyrant - 166
-adrenal glands, heavy venow cannon, monstrous rending claws (upgraded to Maw-Claws relic)
HQ Neurothrope - 90

(Note: each carnifex has the same loadout as the others in its squad.)
HS Carnifexes x3 - 345
-4x devourers, acid maw, spore cysts
HS Carnifexes x3 - 345
-4x devourers, acid maw, spore cysts
HS Carnifexes x2 - 238
-2x deathspitters, heavy venom cannon, enhanced senses, spore cysts

Spoiler: My rationales

Show

The idea is pretty simple. 8 carnifexes with the +1 cover from Jormungandr and the -1 to hit from spore cysts roll up the table along with a walking Hive Tyrant and a Neurothrope. 6 of the fexes have a generalist loadout where they can either shoot 24 S6 shots each or fight in melee with S6 AP5 DD3 attacks, while the other two are more shooty with heavy venom cannons and deathspitters along with enhanced senses. (I'm really tempted just to swap the deathspitters for more devourers, but the extra range seems good for shooty fexes? I'd like to try it with the deathspitters, but I'm also open to advice from people who know if they're bad in practice or not). The Neurothrope is just backup synapse for the fexes and a source of mortal wounds.

I did want bone maces on the generalist carnifexes, but it didn't quite work pointwise. I'm not sure I'm missing much - the AP1 on those seems really lackluster.

The Flyrants can either be kept in reserve or just deployed normally depending on the situation and the opponent, while the Termagants are definitely starting in reserve with the Trygon. The idea there is pretty simple, too - they pop up with the Trygon and use single minded annihilation to shoot twice. Also, with the Trygon Prime being Behemoth and having adrenal glands, I should be able to get the 9" charge off more often than not.

The list is a little light on CPs, but it also has a stupid amount of questionably accurate S6 shooting, which I look forward to rolling.

As far as psychic powers go, my idea thus far is to have Paroxysm and Onslaught on the Walkrant. This should let him beat up on stuff in melee, since he'll get to attack first and have a little more mobility to get into melee to begin with. If he gets shot off the board turn 1, oh well. Hopefully they can't kill all three hive tyrants in one go. I like The Horror as well, but I thought that might go better on the Neurothrope, who is going to be sandwiched between the two shooty fexes anyway. I'm a little less sure about the Flyrants - Psychic scream would give them a little more damage potential, and catalyst also seems like a good pick for survivability. I'm also considering putting the Horror on one of them for redundancy and because its a pretty cool power.

I still have yet to play a game of 8th, but once the rest of my stuff arrives in the mail that should change. I mention this because it's probable I made a silly newb mistake.

In other news, some of the new models they just announced seem pretty sweet. Especially that new Primaris Lieutenant, which was long overdue.

Honestly it looks pretty solid. Only change I'd consider is dropping the walking Hive Tyrant for Old One Eye. Oh, and downgrading the Trygon Prime to just a Trygon.

[Cheesegear]

HQ Hive Tyrant - 204
-wings, monstrous rending claws, 2x devourers
HQ Hive Tyrant - 204
-wings, monstrous rending claws, 2x devourers

Hive Tyrants are pretty bad in 8th Ed. But yeah. The way to run them, is using Wings and having them drop in Turn 2. Unfortunately, being 200 Point models, especially if you have multiples of them, that's a lot of points to keep in Reserve. Old One Eye is good because he has less than 10 Wounds and does the same job - albeit with less Synapse. However, I also think that with so many Carnifexes in your list, you don't even need Hive Tyrants, and you're way better off using Neurothropes or Alpha Warriors for Synapse.

T Rippers x3 - 33
T Rippers x3 - 33
T Termagants x20 - 160

I don't like your Scoring presence being Rippers - especially with the current meta.
But I guess that's how NidZilla works.

HS Trygon Prime - 183
-Adrenal glands, biostatic rattle

...So many points in Reserve.

HQ Hive Tyrant - 166
-adrenal glands, heavy venow cannon, monstrous rending claws (upgraded to Maw-Claws relic)

"Dies on Turn 1."

As far as psychic powers go, my idea thus far is to have Paroxysm and Onslaught on the Walkrant.

It doesn't matter what you put on the walking Hive Tyrant because it's already dead.

This should let him beat up on stuff in melee

He'll never make it.

Hopefully they can't kill all three hive tyrants in one go.

If you're in a meta where they let you run 12 Monsters, you have to be prepared for your opponents to just run the counter. Especially with Deathwatch and Dark Angels blowing up right now.
Unless you're a big fish in a small pond. In that case, bully away!

I'm also considering putting the Horror on one of them for redundancy and because its a pretty cool power.

The only Powers you ever need to manifest, are Catalyst and Onslaught.
Psychic Scream & Smite (x3) is about as far as you get.
Then when you've done six Powers, you finally cast The Horror.

[Blackhawk748]

Scout Librarian!

Wat.

The New Obliterator looks nice though. Hate the Venomcrawler.

The Sister sculpt looks nice, and she has a helmet.

[Cheesegear]

Wat.

I'm pretty sure it will just be Primaris Tigurius.
i.e; He hands out -1 to hit.

[LansXero]

Oops...

My point wasn't actually 'this is what you should buy'.

Oh, I know. Still, its an ugly list :(

Where is the line between 'playing to your Faction's strengths', and power-gaming?

http://www.sirlin.net/articles/playing-to-win

Thats my favorite explanation of it.

[Cheesegear]

Thats my favorite explanation of it.

You don't need to link Playing to Win to me. I've linked it several times in this thread.

But, unfortunately, in an expensive, physical hobby-centric game like 40K is. Where games often take upwards of 2 hours to play. Where Theme is actively encouraged by marketing and narrative (but not by rules, lol). There's a level of expectation - especially among the casual crowd - that they should be able to win, with whatever they have and/or like. They should be able to make a good list, by using a Theme. GW markets this way - but, again they don't actually back it up.

Except what happens when a Theme is good? What happens when 'power-gaming' equals the Theme? Drop Pod Assault. It's a thing. It's what Space Marines are supposed to do.

I've talked about it before; 7th Ed. Saim-Hann. 6th Ed. White Scars Grav-Cav. 7th Ed.'s The Gladius is the second greatest Theme of all time...Right behind The War Convocation. It's why Formations were the best thing to ever happen to the game - at least in spirit until Power Creep ****ed it up because GW can't keep it in their pants. For an 8th Ed. example? Hell. A bunch of Tzaangors being led by Daemon Princes. Seems legit.

What is the line between 'simply playing to your Faction's strengths' and 'power-gaming'? There definitely is a line. You can't explain the line. But you know it when you see it. However, some people have set the bar so low for what constitutes as 'unfair' that they can't possibly win any games because they've arbitrarily removed anything even remotely good from their available choices... Especially when it comes to "I don't like and/or can't afford those models."
Not only are they choosing not to throw. But they're choosing not to use any special moves, and no heavy strikes. Light Punch and Light Kick only. Also, I can't crouch. How can you win against anyone, let alone competitive players?

A whole bunch of the Imperial Knights' Maelstrom Objectives want you to be in Melee. But taking a Landstrider-Gallant (the fastest Knight that's the best in Melee) means you're a ****.
If you have Abaddon in your army, how many Cultists and/or Tzaangors can you also have in your army, before you stop getting games? How many Cultists are you 'allowed' to have?
I get it. It's a scrub-tier mentality. But I get it.

Sirlin argues that you're either playing to win, or you're a scrub. Fair enough. I agree. I'm 'harsh, but not wrong', after all. As long as I don't have to play against Guard Brigades 5 times in a row...Then **** starts to grate on me. However, there are times when that mentality is counter-productive ("Buy more Tzaangors, scrub"). The casual 40K crowd usually doesn't agree with the 'All or Nothing' approach, because of the nature of the beast of what 40K is...A massive Sunk Cost Fallacy just waiting to happen.

The other major problem with the game, in that in order to beat the problem, the solution is often to become the problem. You beat a horde with your own horde. It takes a Knight Castellan to kill a Knight Castellan, etc.
"Why can't everyone just Ally with Guard?" No! ****! Do not think that way.
That. Sucks.

Imagine if it came out, that, "in order to beat Ryu, you have to be Ryu."
...Lame.
"Well, if you want to play Street Fighter II, that's the meta now."
Cool. I wont play Street Fighter II no more.

Tell me you haven't heard that exact line of thinking when it comes to 40K.

[LansXero]

But thats right in the middle of the article.

If your Ryu example was true, or if the truth of 40k is that it cant hold at tournament-play level, then

The game is degenerate

This is what balancing around casual play and narrative play have originated. Broken rules that work upon the unwritten assumption that 'nobody will play that way, its boring!". So its right there and its important because now GW is listening to feedback on social media and it needs to be brought to their attention.

As a TO / Store Owner, I've noticed that there is a clear divide between old guard players / customers and those who started without previous assumptions with the onset of 8th edition. Theme is cool and our guys are pretty decent hobbyists, but they dont expect to win with a sub-par list, because they know its not optimized. Much like you wouldnt take your budget goblins deckto a MTG Grand Prix and expect to win it, you dont take your All Primaris list against Aeldari and expect to win. You try and play your best, and sometimes the dice go your way, but the baseline expectation is that there are hard tiers of codices / lists and if you are not taking a top army you should expect an according result.

Maybe its our TCG background, maybe its because we are gamers first, hobbyists second, maybe its the culture that the store promotes, but everyone is in line with this mentality. I play Eldar soup when I want to win, but Im open to trying different things to see what I could change if the FAQs or the meta shake things up. We play anything from top tier netlists to random hodge-podge of proxied stuff. And we dont mind knowing we go in with a weak list, because we acknowledge thats how the game works. You still try, make cool plays, maybe eke out a win through dice and objectives, who knows? but the important thing is that its a game and its supposed to be fun, and there is nothing wrong with being good at something. We've all been kicked around and trampled by older kids when playing soccer, and never thought of going 'I wont play you anymore' or 'you are a tryhard', it doesnt happen, you just get up, clean up and keep playing.

Meanwhile, oddly enough the old guard of hobby-first, games when my wife lets me players is much more entrenched in their assumptions of how the game should work. Its them who most strongly cling to WYSIWYG, and refuse to try new stuff even when allowed to proxy things up. They bemoan 'gamey' lists as if they were not playing a game; Im not sure what a 'historic' or 'real' list is supposed to be. They tend to get confused about rule changes, have a hard time adapting and get distracted real easy. They are also very prone to unintentional and/or intentional cheating, as they consider checking rules or being asked about abilities to be 'hard ass' and 'overly competitive' to the point where I had a guy concede on me when I asked him to prove that Ratlings could move-shoot-move, get a -1 to be hit when doing so, and also got 2+ armor in ruins. I wasnt a jerk about it, I just asked for a codex page or to see his list on battlescribe or even a 1d4chan link,and he flew into a fit and conceded right there. Not like it made any difference, he was going to be tabled on my turn, but I thought I would help him get his rules correct. Nope, I was 'trying to win at all costs' and it 'wasnt fun to play that way anymore' so he gave up.

My point is, its mostly a cultural gap and I hope that as the hobby moves forward people's expectations of the rules will accomodate to what they are, and that they will become more vocal on what should be changed.

[Requizen]

I'm afraid I don't quite understand the question.

Is playing 40k to win a bad thing? Nnnnyoooo... no, given certain factors. No, assuming your opponent knows you're playing that way and is ok with it. No, assuming you're not trying to take away your opponent's enjoyment by playing "gotcha" with rules and/or trying to making them feel bad about their choices (ridiculing their list, etc). If you go to play a Matched Play game, and you and your opponent agree on point limits, the only reason to play is to win.

Of course, that's simplifying it, because obviously you can try to win with a bunch of fluffy, thematic Aeldari Biel-Tan Guardians as much as you can try to win with 3 Knights and a bunch of Guardsmen. I think it's important from a community aspect to measure your opponent's enjoyment as well and take that into account - but not so much that it ruins your own fun. Don't let anyone tell you what you can and can't play, but at the end of the day if your opponents are not having a good time, then the social experience isn't good for anybody.


Is 40k degenerate in and of itself, in that you can't continually up your game without becoming "that guy"? Then the answer is.... maybe. It depends on community, of course. If the community is casual, then that one person going over the unspoken line can ruin it for everyone. If the community is cutthroat, then you'll likely never be "that guy" by keeping up. But is the act of "keeping up" inherently degenerate? That's a tough question, and if the answer is yes, then it falls not on the shoulders of the players who are trying to improve, but on the designers of the game. If you can never take the next step to improvement without descending into what is traditionally considered filth (spamming units, building unkillable things like Deathstars, making Alpha Strikes that win the game on T1 with no comeback, etc), then the game is balanced poorly. Especially if it only applies to a subset of the factions, or applies to them all but in wildly varying amounts.

So then the follow up is - should there be a social contract to say "try hard, but don't descend into the filth"? Uh, well.... who knows? That's such personal preference and where that line is set is so variable that you can't really answer it. Do you comp? Do you just publicly shame people at your FLGS that push the limits? Neither option seems good, but there has to be some sort of boundaries for the social contract to have, no?

I don't think 40k is in and of itself degenerate, I just don't think it was ever designed to be a competitive game, and while it's very easy to have a nice, tryhard game with fluffy looking, not filth armies, it's just as easy to step over the line. Now they're trying to retrofit it into a competitive game, while still keeping all the fluffy rules and weapons and what not from before, and allowing people to basically play Unbound from 7th. I think if you play with what is (at least to me) the obvious intended design of the game, then it plays well and you can have close, exciting games, but you can't be sure everyone else is toeing that line.

It's complex.

[Destro_Yersul]

I've got some pretty strong opinions about what should be changed, but I'm not very good at balance. Also all the changes I can really think of more or less move the game back towards being 4th. Things like 'mortal wounds are dumb, get rid of those' and 'the rules for morale are shallow and terrible, maybe make them more than a paragraph long'

In terms of units? If possible, nothing should be a bad choice. Not like a suboptimal choice, but a choice that is actively terrible and means you can never win. Especially if it's the choice of codex. It should be possible to do ok with a list that's mostly power armour. It should be possible to do ok with a list that's not just the same best units over and over. I don't expect to win every time. Hell, I don't expect to actually win at all unless I do something like that degenerate turn 1 Knight powerfist thing that Cheese said was killing the game a while ago. I expect to have the feeling that I could have won if things had gone differently. One-sided games are no fun.

[LansXero]

I've got some pretty strong opinions about what should be changed, but I'm not very good at balance. Also all the changes I can really think of more or less move the game back towards being 4th. Things like 'mortal wounds are dumb, get rid of those' and 'the rules for morale are shallow and terrible, maybe make them more than a paragraph long'

There is a point though where complexity kills the game by keeping too many people out. So thats also a factor on making too detailed rules or too granular things.

In terms of units? If possible, nothing should be a bad choice. Not like a suboptimal choice, but a choice that is actively terrible and means you can never win. Especially if it's the choice of codex.

Besides GKs and Necrons, what other Codex is 100% autolose?

It should be possible to do ok with a list that's mostly power armour.

Dark Angels can. Deathwatch too, but to a lesser extent. Christmas Angels was a thing for a while. Sisters + DAs were pretty solid and are, technically, all power armor :D

It should be possible to do ok with a list that's not just the same best units over and over.

Besides Warlocks and troops, many of the Craftworlds lists I've had success with dont repeat a single unit. When stratagems can only affect one unit a turn its sometimes more efficient to run a single large unit.

I don't expect to win every time. Hell, I don't expect to actually win at all unless I do something like that degenerate turn 1 Knight powerfist thing that Cheese said was killing the game a while ago. I expect to have the feeling that I could have won if things had gone differently. One-sided games are no fun.

Thats a fine sentiment to have, but is list building also one of those things that could've gone differently that make things ok? Or is having to build things a certain way where you draw the line? No sarcasm, Im curious, because the line seems to be at different places for different people.

[Destro_Yersul]

Besides GKs and Necrons, what other Codex is 100% autolose?

The fact that there are any of them is a problem. Not a new problem, but still a problem. I remember way back DE used to be considered pretty terrible, though I can't say I ever managed to win against my friend's.

Dark Angels can. Deathwatch too, but to a lesser extent. Christmas Angels was a thing for a while. Sisters + DAs were pretty solid and are, technically, all power armor :D

Point, but it would be nice if Tacticals didn't suck.

Thats a fine sentiment to have, but is list building also one of those things that could've gone differently that make things ok? Or is having to build things a certain way where you draw the line? No sarcasm, Im curious, because the line seems to be at different places for different people.

Yeah, that's the line for me, I suppose. I was talking more about dice rolls and tactical decisions. How to deploy, where to move, etc. I've always thought of list building as the thing you have to do before you get to the actual game. Dice rolls are a thing because of exactly how bad my luck is; I did a brief stint working at GW, and you're supposed to try to let people win the demo games. I didn't have to actually try.

Back when I was originally playing, I was in high school or just out of it. GW was my second job. I didn't have a lot of disposable income, and so I couldn't afford to buy tons of minis all at once. I had kind of a mixed collection, and I liked running different combinations of things. It's a bit different now, but the mentality remains.

[Blackhawk748]

I'm of a similar mindset. I'm ok with morale being simple, but it also has to matter. In Kings of War its your units "Hit Points" as it were and that works fabulously.

Really the game shouldn't be decided in list building. Like, ever. Letting everything wound everything was supposed to help that, except ,surprise, it didn't. This is what happens when you bleed tons of your design staff during you're in your "We're a Model Company, not a Game Company" phase.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

Necrons aren't 100% auto-lose, it's just Grey Knights. Necrons can't compete against top lists, but judging from recent tournaments, they have a variety of lists that are at least taken to tournaments, which means they have several builds that can win casually.

Now I can tell you right now that 100% of those lists include 2-3 Doomsday Arks, but I've seen winning lists that run mass Tomb Blades, winning lists with giant Destroyer blobs, and winning lists with massed Tesla Immortals, either with stationary Overlords, or jumping around the map with Obyron/Zahndrekh/HQ-w/-Veil-of-Darkness.

Now are Necrons GOOD? God no. They fall HARD to anything in the current meta, lacking a RELIABLE counter to anything there (1d6 shots doing 1d6 damage is not a counter to ANYTHING).

[JNAProductions]

I'm of a similar mindset. I'm ok with morale being simple, but it also has to matter. In Kings of War its your units "Hit Points" as it were and that works fabulously.

Really the game shouldn't be decided in list building. Like, ever. Letting everything wound everything was supposed to help that, except ,surprise, it didn't. This is what happens when you bleed tons of your design staff during you're in your "We're a Model Company, not a Game Company" phase.

Eh... I'm okay with allowing for bad lists.

If I make a list of nothing but Servitors and Chaplains, I should lose to a competently built list.

BUT! Building a good list shouldn't be too hard-it might not be cutting edge competitive, but it should be in the same ballpark.

[Destro_Yersul]

Also, the stuff that's cool should probably not suck. Terminators are awesome. The minis are cool, the fluff is cool. The only thing bad about terminators is the rules. Why?

[Blackhawk748]

Eh... I'm okay with allowing for bad lists.

If I make a list of nothing but Servitors and Chaplains, I should lose to a competently built list.

BUT! Building a good list shouldn't be too hard-it might not be cutting edge competitive, but it should be in the same ballpark.

There's bad list and then theres "I don't even need to play this game to know that you lose 100% of the time". Hell, you shouldnt be able to build a list of all Servitors and Chaplains! It doesnt even make sense from a Fluff perspective.

Now, all Arco Flagellants and Chaplains...

In any event, if you do something like "All Poxwalkers" or "All Cultists" I'm gonna assume that you are aware of the limitations of the list and you're doing it on purpose. Hell, in Kings of War where Zombie Legions are flipping amazing I don't run more than 3 of them. Not only are they massive and take up a tone of space, but I need stuff that actually kills things. Which is what my Vampire Cavalry is for. 40k should be no different.

In short, KoW incetivises making an army that, well, looks like an army. 1 Regiment unlocks 2 Troops and 1 Hero or Warmachine or Monster. 1 Horde or Legion unlocks 4 Troops and 1 Hero and Warmachine and Monster. The game is centered around big blocks of people fighting other big blocks of people, and the list building mechanic backs that up. On top of this, getting into the flank is super important, so having fast flankers is necessary (its why Dwarf lists all look so similar, they only have two fast units), which then makes people want to bring cavarly or werewolves or something. Then you realize that you want a screen or two to keep your big hammers safe and so you bring some cheap archers.

When its all done you realize that your army actually looks like a fairly well built Fantasy army, what with your big anvil units and your hammers and then your scouts and Heroes playing support. 40k needs to figure out how to do this and then try and build the game around this concept.

Also, the stuff that's cool should probably not suck. Terminators are awesome. The minis are cool, the fluff is cool. The only thing bad about terminators is the rules. Why?

Becasue they overvalue 2+ armor. Meganobz somehow are decent though. Or, were. Im not sure if they still are.

[LansXero]

incetivises making an army that, well, looks like an army. (...) The game is centered around big blocks of people fighting other big blocks of people, and the list building mechanic backs that up. On top of this, getting into the flank is super important, so having fast flankers is necessary. When its all done you realize that your army actually looks like a fairly well built Fantasy army, what with your big anvil units and your hammers and then your scouts and Heroes playing support.

That game was called Warhammer Fantasy Battles and died due to poor sales. Its had a few spiritual successors with very niche appeal and little success in terms of players / sales. Most egregious would be Runewars, which crashed and is now burning (although thats also because FFG cant run OP to save their lives. Or their games. literally, in this case).

[Renegade Paladin]

Unfortunately, power armor sucking is inherent to the AP system this edition uses. As long as AP subtracts from Sv, rather than certain Sv values being immune to everything but certain AP values, power armor is next to useless. To make Tactical Marines not suck, they either need an invulnerable (that'll be the day) or to scrap the AP system.

[Forum Explorer]

Becasue they overvalue 2+ armor. Meganobz somehow are decent though. Or, were. Im not sure if they still are.

They have an extra attack and wound. That's huge. Also an extra strength but that's not as big of a deal. Their shooting is worse, but who cares because it's a melee unit. They don't have an invulnerable, but who cares because 2+ is almost a 5++ in of itself. The rare AP -4 weapon will hurt more, but whatever. They can't Deep Strike naturally, but they get around that with the Jump or a Stratagem.

Also they have reroll charges which is massive for getting that crucial 9 inch charge off. Fail that and your Terminators lose so much power it's not funny.


On the subject of 40K competitiveness though, I will say that the game is degenerate as defined by the Playing to Win guy. It's getting better, but there keeps being 'best options' that are just, well the best. At the highest levels things get really samey and gross to play against.

The other problem is sunk costs. Like you can accidentally build a really garbage list, which even looks like it makes sense. Like taking Rhinos for all your Marine squads. Mechanized infantry should be a thing right? And why is giving your guys more protection and increased movement bad? Well because it's 70 points and you don't get anything for that. More importantly though it's 50$ for that Rhino that is now not doing anything.

But again, it's getting better. They are patching things, and slowly fix things are they go.

[Cheesegear]

Is playing 40k to win a bad thing? Nnnnyoooo... no, given certain factors. No, assuming your opponent knows you're playing that way and is ok with it.

For me, it's an asinine question of what will my opponent accept? A whole bunch of people have come through this thread, and my local store/s since 8th Ed. started looking to get back in the game, only for me - or Lans, maybe Drasius - to tell them that their old army is garbage and they need to buy new models. This doesn't go down to well. Why not? Why are people so averse to buying new models?* Why are people so averse to buying specific models? They'll be these models, but not those models. My problem is that at some point, it's impossible to help people because they arbitrarily can't be helped. Some players literally put so many restrictions on themselves that not only will they 'lose more', but it gets to the point where they can't win.
It's impossible to get games with certain people because they arbitrarily limit what you can and can't play - and at that point, they'll always win, because you're playing their game.

LansXero's point is that your opponent shouldn't have to know anything, and doesn't have to be okay with anything. Everyone should be playing to win as the default. Which is exactly correct, for tournament play. However, that falls apart in the casual scene because nobody wants to play a losing game. Thus, go to my argument.

* Again, I'm not talking about finances. That's different.