Warhammer 40K Tabletop Thread XXXVII: Highlighting the Contrasts

[Cheesegear]

then dont play at a competitive level

If I run a Battle Company, it is 100% low(er) PR Infantry units. It's also a Battle Company in Apocalypse. Is this allowed?

You tell me where the line is. Because I don't know where the line is. Because the line constantly moves depending on who I'm playing against (which means having a line at all is pretty silly). And since you're making bolded, italicised comments, I assume you have some thoughts on where the line should be.

So...Battle Company. Yay or Nay?

that it’s not enough to design what’s fun, you have to ensure that what is fun is what wins you the game.

I say this all the time. GW fails constantly when What You Like != What Is Good. However, there's also a whole bunch of times where - seemingly by accident - there are a whole bunch of models that are really cool, and good on the table (I brought this up all the time in 7th Ed., especially with Formations which were literally designed around fluff and particular play-styles). This is actually why I don't like Specialist Detachments. On the one hand, you aren't forced into taking specific units to get the bonuses you want. On the other hand, if you aren't forced into doing anything, it lets people cherry pick the models that get the bonuses, and then take whatever they were going to take anyway, as well.

(e.g; The Loyal 32. But if you pay a CP, you can chuck a Wyvern and Basilisk in there, too, for zero downsides. Why wouldn't you do that? It doesn't make sense not to.)

If you build a good list, with models you like, and you have fun playing a good list with models you like...It doesn't matter, because all's anyone will see is a good list.
Also, if you're trying win, you're definitely not having fun - this one always bugs me.
Playing by the rules, gets you ostracised. It's weird. Hell, I'm guilty of it too.

There's what I said yesterday...

My other favourite is everyone who gets on [Unit] 'wagon after it gets buffed. See, they liked the model, but couldn't justify the purchase. But now that it's buffed and/or good, they can justify the purchase.
No, wrong. You have to buy it when it's bad and a potential waste of money. Otherwise you aren't OG, even if you do genuinely like the models.

"You're a jerk 'cause your army list is good!"
...But I like my army.

Happens all the time. I've refused to play against a bunch of people - especially Eldar players in 7th Ed. And people have refused to play me - especially in 7th Ed. 'cause I had a Gladius (that I rarely used outside of tournaments). Feels bad, man. Like I said, I've called out people for having good lists, and people have called me out. It's a weird practice that I'm trying not to do anymore. The solution to not playing someone because their list is good...Is for me to get a better list. That's just...How it is. I shouldn't be allowed to tell my opponents what they can and can't play. That's not up to me. Just like it's not up to my opponents to tell me what I'm 'allowed' to have. It doesn't make sense. If I compromise the effectiveness of my list, it's because I choose to. But if I choose not to, I'm bad?

Eventually you realise that:
"I want to have fun.", and
"I want to have fun...But also win 50% or more of my games."
...aren't compatible statements for a whole bunch of people because they happened to like the wrong Faction or particular units by accident - or they can't afford to make their list better, and what they have is what they're gonna have for a while.

[Thragka]

Just out of curiosity, do you buy loot boxes? 'Cause that's what that is.

What? Loot boxes are gambling on the level of pulling the lever of a slot machine: there's a single random variable which you may know the statistics of, but have no way of modifying. There's no tactics to a slot machine. Surely you don't go into GW and buy models because that model simply has a positive expectation of winning games devoid of your tactical input. Otherwise, you may as well simply turn up at the table, compare armies with your opponent, determine the probability that you win, generate a single random number to tell you who wins, and walk away without playing the game at all.

On some level you seem to understand that the mechanic of committing resources based on incomplete information creates tactical depth, since you say:

Yep. It's X-Wing. I'm fine with it

... but immediately beforehand you're not fine with it and think that committing resources based on limited information and tactical awareness is "narrative, not gameplay"?

[Cheesegear]

... but immediately beforehand you're not fine with it and think that committing resources based on limited information and tactical awareness is "narrative, not gameplay"?

No. 'Orders', like X-Wing's and Apoc's, are fairly straightforward. You know what your Detachment can do - generally - and you also know what your opponent's can do - generally. 90% of the time what Orders you give your Detachment wont even take your opponent into account, because what your Detachment can do, will be limited. I can tell you that my 'Gunline Detachment' wont move a whole lot, and my 'Assault Detachment', will (and it would be the same almost every turn, every game, regardless of my opponent), and I can make those same predictions about my opponent's Detachments.
More importantly, making those decisions, involves no dice. What I choose to happen, will happen.

[Avaris]

Eventually you realise that:
"I want to have fun.", and
"I want to have fun...But also win 50% or more of my games."
...aren't compatible statements for a whole bunch of people because they happened to like the wrong Faction or particular units by accident - or they can't afford to make their list better, and what they have is what they're gonna have for a while.

Amen. This is the core reason why I don’t think of 40k as a good tournament game. The way it is designed fundamentally doesn’t produce an experience that will be satisfactory for a lot of players if they have mismatched expectations.

The approach I take is to not care about winning, and play in the spirit of how the thing was designed. This requires that I don’t put too much weight on what is good or bad: I can develop that understanding, but I don’t let it dictate what or how I play. And I also assess games or units on the expectation that this was how they were designed: to maximise the thing they aim to be and the game’s understanding of ‘fun’.

I believe GW is improving though, which is why I tend to look at the positives and not be weighed down by the negatives in their design.

[LeSwordfish]

I'm not going to do a purity check on your army list but my general point is that trying to break the game misses the point, and to then call the game bad because of that point you missed is just clueless. (Is every "solved" game automatically bad? Tic-Tac-Toe is broken, bad game, sucks forever.)

A battle company is more or less the example I was going to give of a good thing, though - as in, wouldn't it be way more satisfying to take the Imperial Fists battle company you've spent years building up than to mathhammer out the best thing and spam that? If you tell me that the satisfying thing for you to run also happens to be super good then so be it (remember when I was running Saim-Hann?) but I think it matters a lot about whether you choose it because it's satisfying or because its good. Ultimately that's between you and your sealclubbing concience. And your friends and whether they'll play you or not.

I know I want to run a Tank Company. Is that good or not? Who cares! I've always wanted a full organisation chart of leman russes.

[Cheesegear]

This requires that I don’t put too much weight on what is good or bad: I can develop that understanding, but I don’t let it dictate what or how I play.

That's what a lot of people say. But, I've found that instead, they dictate who they play, or what they play against.
"I can play what I want. But you can't play what you want."

Like I said, unfortunately, I'm not above doing it either. And that's made me feel ****ty the last couple of times I've done - especially if the guy doesn't get a game in the next five minutes after I've rejected him.

"You can't play with me, 'cause you're too good at the game." ...That's really how it comes off.

Spoiler: You Jel?

Show

Yes. Yes I am. My list isn't as good as my opponent's and that makes me feel sad.
How 'bout I get better at the game, or get better units, instead of being jelly?

And I also assess games or units on the expectation that this was how they were designed

Some units were designed to be bad?

I believe GW is improving though...

Oh, absolutely. But you can still be close with no cigar. 'Improving' doesn't mean 'Good', it means, 'Not good yet.' or 'Will be good, soon.'

I know I want to run a Tank Company. Is that good or not? Who cares! I've always wanted a full organisation chart of leman russes.

Lots of people don't care if it's bad. Play what you want.
However, a lot of other people, will have a problem with you flooding the board with T8 (in normal 40K), because it isn't bad. In fact it would totally negate a whole stack of army builds. By spamming Leman Russes, you're being unfair to a lot of players. Right?

[LeSwordfish]

We're not really talking about normal 40k right now. But yeah, if the list i'm enthusiastic about turns out to be really really good, i'll try and play against either people who are also running really really good lists, or people who are running something they're enthusiastic about and don't really care if they win or not. An important thing to me is that I chose what I was enthusiastic about first, and then moderated my behaviour so my opponent and I both had a fun game.

[Cheesegear]

Spoiler: Army List

Show

Ultramarines, Spearhead
Pri-Marneus Calgar - 200 Points
Chief Librarian Tigurius - 115 Points

(W) Primaris Ancient; Standard of the Emperor Ascendant, Storm of Fire - 69 Points
Sternguard (x10); Special Issue Boltguns (x9), SIB & Chainsword - 160 Points

Devastators (x5); Heavy Bolter, Missile Launcher, Lascannons (x2), Armorium Cherub - 150 Points
Devastators (x5); Heavy Bolter, Missile Launcher, Lascannons (x2), Armorium Cherub - 150 Points
Thunderfire Cannon; Flamer, Plasma Cutter - 92 Points

Blood Angels, Battalion
Captain with Jump Pack; Thunder Hammer, Storm Shield, Angel's Wing, Death Visions - 124 Points
Lemartes - 100 Points

Scouts (x5); Combat Blades, Storm Bolter & Chainsword - 57 Points
Scouts (x5); Combat Blades, Storm Bolter & Chainsword - 57 Points
Scouts (x5); Combat Blades, Storm Bolter & Chainsword - 57 Points

Death Company with Jump Packs (x13); Boltgun & Chainsword (x7), Thunder Hammers (x6) - 356 Points

Armoury of Baal
Death Visions of Sanguinius

Graia, Battalion
Tech-Priest Enginseer; Power Axe - 35 Points
Tech-Priest Enginseer; Power Axe - 35 Points

Skitarii Rangers (x5); Transuranic Arquebus, Omnispex - 57 Points
Skitarii Rangers (x5); Transuranic Arquebus - 50 Points
Skitarii Rangers (x5); Transuranic Arquebus - 50 Points

Reinforcements - 85 Points

Total: 1999 Points | 10 CPs

Now, I like every model in this list. My Ultramarines look like Deathwatch, my Tigurius is a converted Sevrin Loth, as an (ex-)Fists' player I love my Devastators and Thunderfire Cannon. PriMarneus looks like a beast. If I can't have yellow Space Marines, I can certainly have yellow Blood Angels. The Lamenters are a real Chapter! My Death Company look solid black against the yellow-and-white scouts, and I converted all my Death Co. to have one-handed Boltguns with a Chainsword in the other, my converted Captain looks dope with his Custodes' shield and converted Sanguinary Guard Hammer. The Skitarii have dope yellow longcoats and look sick. The Servo-Arms on my Thunderfire Gunner broke off, so I converted him to have dual Power Fists with underslung Plasma Pistol and Flamer (like Marneus has) which I've had numerous complements on...

However, it's also very clear to anyone that this list has the **** min-maxed out of it. Including the ability to tailor Assassins to my opponent. Lemartes hands out re-rolls to Charge on Turn 2, including either the Death Company or Captain making a Charge on 3d6 with a re-roll. Lemartes also hands out full re-rolls to hit so the negs on the Thunder Hammer are mitigated. The Skitarii Rangers are like Scouts, but cost less and have an Invulnerable with Ignore Wounds (6+). Pri-Marneus gives the Hellfire Shells and Flakk Missiles re-rolls to hit. Tigurius chucks out a -1 and occasionally does Mortal Wounds, or throws a Veil of Time or Might of Heroes onto the Blood Angels' Captain or Lemartes (both of them are <Astartes>, amirite?).

Did I take my models 'cause I like them? Or did I take my models 'cause they're good?
...Yes.

[9mm]

However, a lot of other people, will have a problem with you flooding the board with T8 (in normal 40K), because it isn't bad. In fact it would totally negate a whole stack of army builds. By spamming Leman Russes, you're being unfair to a lot of players. Right?

as the proud owner of 9 leman russes, no I'm not being unfair to other players when I put them all down on the table. I am putting a puzzle you'll need to know how to solve on the table though. Its no different when I put 30 Ratlings down on the table either.

[Turalisj]

When I see 9 LR across the table, I say GG and go grab my magic deck. Not even going to bother playing against that, maybe that's fun for someone else but not me.

[Blackhawk748]

I was like that when 7th started. Orks sucked majorly and Soni wanted to start the Iyanden army i had always wanted. And then they were broken as hell and I refused to do it on principle.

as the proud owner of 9 leman russes, no I'm not being unfair to other players when I put them all down on the table. I am putting a puzzle you'll need to know how to solve on the table though. Its no different when I put 30 Ratlings down on the table either.

Except some armies can't deal with 9 Leman Russe's. Hell, i don't have the models to deal with that, even if I heavily tailored, which I would have to do to deal with that.

That's like telling me to solve a rubics cube while wearing Chinese finger traps. I'm sure someone cane, but I can't and it won't be fun to try

[Lord Torath]

Regarding alternate unit activation and resolving wounds at the end of the turn:

To me, this strikes me as being an attempt to model simultaneous resolution of both players' turns. Each unit gets a chance to act. In a real battle, turns don't exist, and units from the same and different armies can act at the same time. This mechanic allows the same thing on the tabletop. It forces you to step away from the I-Go-You-GO mentality toward a simultaneous We-Go mentality. It doesn't eliminate tactics; just changes the kinds of tactics that are effective.

[9mm]

Except some armies can't deal with 9 Leman Russe's. Hell, i don't have the models to deal with that, even if I heavily tailored, which I would have to do to deal with that.

I don't even know what you have, but I assure you, you do have the models to deal with that. Why? because it is pathetically easy to render those tanks irrellevent.

Here's a hint: you don't need to do a single wound to remove them from the game.

[LeSwordfish]

Did I take my models 'cause I like them? Or did I take my models 'cause they're good?
...Yes.

I said I wasn't going to purity check your list, and I said we weren't really talking about 40k, and I didn't say there was an either/or dichtomy.


I'll reiterate my original point: Some games aren't designed to be robust against attempts to break them: their defense against that is the cultural expectation that people won't be trying hard to optimise their lists for competitive play. Once you design around that expectation, you can set other priorities, such as "should allow you to take all your models at once" or "should stop Timmy getting his favourite model killed before it gets to do anything". To keep my tic-tac-toe example: it's trivially easy to break, but the design assumption is that you're not tryharding, and the design priorities are "so simple a four-year-old can play it" and "needs only a scrap of paper and a pen to play."

(A counterexample is Nightvault, for instance: godawful for narrative play, but they intended it to be, because "a sharply balanced matched play game" was their priority. You can argue about whether they achieved their goal of that or not, but to say "it sucks because i can't tell a story with it" is simply showing how much you missed the point.)

[JNAProductions]

Lemartes also hands out full re-rolls to hit so the negs on the Thunder Hammer are mitigated.

Rerolls BEFORE modifiers, Cheesegear. Unless Lemartes says "You may reroll hit rolls" and not "You may reroll failed hit rolls" you can't reroll a 2 on a Captain with a Thunder Hammer.

Now, he might say that-I don't own the BA Codex. But I was pretty sure only Cawl and Abaddon had that.

[Turalisj]

I don't even know what you have, but I assure you, you do have the models to deal with that. Why? because it is pathetically easy to render those tanks irrellevent.

Here's a hint: you don't need to do a single wound to remove them from the game.

If you table your opponent before they can score, they can't score.

[LansXero]

I'll reiterate my original point: Some games aren't designed to be robust against attempts to break them: their defense against that is the cultural expectation that people won't be trying hard to optimise their lists for competitive play.

Your privilege is showing. Most places dont have the population of Apocalypse players to choose, you play who there is or you waste money on yet another alternative ruleset that you never use (hello, Arena!). There is no "cultural expectation" when its the same 4 guys and they already have what they have and wont get more just to play this alternative mode. And if one of them happens to break the game on accident? you just gutted your player base by 25%. And made him resentful about whatever new specialist thing GW puts out next. Because of lazy uninspired mechanics.

That's what a lot of people say. But, I've found that instead, they dictate who they play, or what they play against.
"I can play what I want. But you can't play what you want."

Like I said, unfortunately, I'm not above doing it either. And that's made me feel ****ty the last couple of times I've done - especially if the guy doesn't get a game in the next five minutes after I've rejected him.

"You can't play with me, 'cause you're too good at the game." ...That's really how it comes off.

Spoiler: You Jel?
Show


Yes. Yes I am. My list isn't as good as my opponent's and that makes me feel sad.
How 'bout I get better at the game, or get better units, instead of being jelly?

I told you this 2 years ago. Glad to see you're coming around to realizing shunning people for being good at things while they break no rules is just ****ty behavior. But when I entered this thread it was all "gentlemans agreement" this and "shame eldars" that, which has never made sense to me.

[lord_khaine]

"shame eldars" that, which has never made sense to me.

That bit did always annoy me.
In part since i had played Eldars from 2nd to 7th edition.

[Forum Explorer]

as the proud owner of 9 leman russes, no I'm not being unfair to other players when I put them all down on the table. I am putting a puzzle you'll need to know how to solve on the table though. Its no different when I put 30 Ratlings down on the table either.

Those specialized armies are often very binary. Like you throw down 9 Leman Russes at me and the game becomes 'did I bring enough of 'anti-tank unit? Yes? Then I win. No? Then I lose.'

Which can be fun. And is a lot more manageable now in 8th, rather than 7th when you might legitimately be unable to hurt your opponent. And you are right, it is very much a puzzle in a way. The problem is that you don't know what you're facing, so you might not have the tools to solve the puzzle in the first place.

If you table your opponent before they can score, they can't score.

All you have to do is get into melee with them and they become useless. Doesn't matter what charges them, so long as one model pokes them. Even a gretchin would do. Most melee armies have a way to get in Turn 1, or failing that, a way to protect themselves til Turn 2.

If you are running a gunline, well then it's a shoot fest. I say that's fair game.

[Turalisj]

Unless they use the strat to leave combat and shoot of course. Next?

[9mm]

If you table your opponent before they can score, they can't score.

If you let me table you with that list, its your fault, not the models, not mine, yours. It is literally one of the weakest lists I have access to.

Unless they use the strat to leave combat and shoot of course. Next?

that's not a strat. thats an order that can only be given to guardsmen,

[Avaris]

Your privilege is showing. Most places dont have the population of Apocalypse players to choose, you play who there is or you waste money on yet another alternative ruleset that you never use (hello, Arena!). There is no "cultural expectation" when its the same 4 guys and they already have what they have and wont get more just to play this alternative mode. And if one of them happens to break the game on accident? you just gutted your player base by 25%. And made him resentful about whatever new specialist thing GW puts out next. Because of lazy uninspired mechanics.

Ok, so you absolutely have a point about the problem of needing to invest into another game system with a small gaming population, but calling Apocalypse lazy and uninspired is just ridiculous. The use of d12s alongside d6s, using the same stat, is something I’ve never seen before, and there is a lot of inventive stuff going on with use of detachments as the basic ‘unit’.

Yes, there are potential problems with ‘balance’, but with so many units available and needing rules I don’t think it would ever be possible to have a system that is strong in this regard, particularly when designing it alongside all the work on base 40k. Apocalypse is designed with a specific goal in mind, streamlined larger games, and it looks to achieve this extremely well, perhaps to the detriment of its ability to deliver an unbreakable game, but that isn’t what it aimed for.

Previous editions of Apocalypse, which simply upscaled already creaking 40k rules, were lazy and uninspired. This absolutely is not.

[LansXero]

Ok, so you absolutely have a point about the problem of needing to invest into another game system with a small gaming population, but calling Apocalypse lazy and uninspired is just ridiculous. The use of d12s alongside d6s, using the same stat, is something I’ve never seen before, and there is a lot of inventive stuff going on with use of detachments as the basic ‘unit’.

Yes, there are potential problems with ‘balance’, but with so many units available and needing rules I don’t think it would ever be possible to have a system that is strong in this regard, particularly when designing it alongside all the work on base 40k. Apocalypse is designed with a specific goal in mind, streamlined larger games, and it looks to achieve this extremely well, perhaps to the detriment of its ability to deliver an unbreakable game, but that isn’t what it aimed for.

Previous editions of Apocalypse, which simply upscaled already creaking 40k rules, were lazy and uninspired. This absolutely is not.

But I didnt. I called the breakable design, namely, reduced number of shots, power rating not accounting for wargear and units being reduced to 1 wound so their durability not mattering enough, lazy and uninspired. Which it is, and its this reductionist nature which enables the "cheaper is better, dialed to 11" that Apocalypse is bound to become. Worse if you tack WYSIWYG as a hard rule to a system that does a crappy job at balancing wargear AND thats not focused on individual models anyways.

As for your thought on Apoc as whole, I've read them, and I disagree. You and I have too different backgrounds to see eye to eye and I accept that, but I'd suggest not stating things as facts. Your own preferences are not the same as objective quality in a system, and what triggers these long back and forths are people trying to prove that.

[LansXero]

If you let me table you with that list, its your fault, not the models, not mine, yours. It is literally one of the weakest lists I have access to.
that's not a strat. thats an order that can only be given to guardsmen,

What are you playing on, a featureless plain? You can play keep-away with terrain for a long time, keeping all the tanks tied up in melee is as much of a pipe dream as the tabling on T1 is. Even if it WAS a featureless plain, you can probably use 5 of them to make a ring for the others to shoot from inside, thus still staying functional. Now, if you are Mordian one of them had OW on 4s, so thats not nothing, or if you're tallarn your tank commanders can move and shoot or shoot and move while keeping grinding advance. Oh and your warlord trait lets you fall back and charge, which is probably useless but its there.

Or you can use the strat that lets you crush stuff in melee, and tie up the incoming hordes of S4 AP0 hits. Because fall back and charge is more infrequent than fall back and shoot, and they arent figthing their way out of 12 T8 wounds anytime soon. Next turn it falls back and you scythe them down like wheat

[Requizen]

Getting in some Kill Team tonight. Still only have my Necrons, though I'm picking up some Marines (and something else like Nids or AdMech, perhaps?) this weekend. I'm not sure which "format" they play in, I'm pretty sure everyone uses Elites, and Arena seems relatively common? So I'll build with that in mind:

Spoiler: Command Roster

Show

Dynasty: Mephrit

Deathmark [Leader]

Deathmark [Sniper]
Immortal [Gauss, Comms]
Flayed One [Combat]
Lychguard [Warscythe, Zealot]
Lychguard [Warscythe, Combat]
Praetorian [Rod, Zealot]

Warrior
Warrior
Warrior
Flayed One
Flayed One
Flayed One
Immortal [Gauss]
Immortal [Gauss]
Immortal [Tesla]
Immortal [Tesla]
Lychguard [Sword and Shield]
Praetorian [Rod]
Lychguard [Warscythe]

20 Models. There's not a lot of variety in the Necron lists, so it was really just a couple models of everything so I could increase flexibility a little bit.

Spoiler: TAC Kill Team

Show

Dynasty: Mephrit

Deathmark [Leader]

Deathmark [Sniper]
Immortal [Gauss, Comms]
Flayed One [Combat]

Immortal [Gauss]
Immortal [Gauss]
Flayed One

98/100

Spoiler: I want to use an Elite for kicks

Show

Dynasty: Mephrit

Deathmark [Leader]

Deathmark [Sniper]
Praetorian [Rod, Zealot] OR Lychguard [Warscythe, Zealot]
Flayed One [Combat]

Warrior
Warrior
Flayed One

100/100

If they're using Commander, drop an Immortal for an Overlord, but I don't think anyone runs Commander rulesets/missions. Necron Rosters aren't exactly complex, it's mostly "how many of each unit do you want?". I would like to try out a Praetorian or Lychguard to see if they're worth the points, but I guess it'll depend on what I play against.



Will likely pick up some Intercessors and Reivers soon as well (already getting the Imperial half of Shadowspear from someone) - what are the best weapon loadouts for them? Obviously need a couple Aux Grenade Launchers for the Intercessors, but is there a reason to swap their basic Bolt Rifle? Stalker looks like it could have some use on straight away corridors, and the Auto has some extra mobility, but the regular Rifle seems the most flexible.

For the Reivers, the Knife doesn't seem worth dropping the Carbine for imo, maybe if it had any AP. The Grapnel doesn't seem to have as much impact in Arena, though it does let them charge over the scatter terrain with impunity, which is nice. I guess it depends on how much 1 point wiggle room comes up.

[Forum Explorer]

Unless they use the strat to leave combat and shoot of course. Next?

If someone pulled that on you, they are cheating. The Imperial Guard do not have access to that stratagem, and they don't have any other way for their tanks to fall back and shoot.

On that note, Crush Them! only works on the charge now. I still see people make that mistake.


As for what Lans is saying, I find terrain is more in the favor of the army facing Leman Russes. Most variants don't have that much AP, so the cover save actually makes a big difference, Leman Russes can't move through ruins, (well walls) so there are limited paths they can move and they are easier to completely surround. And most importantly, terrain blocks LoS so you can avoid their shots altogether. Particularly if you are playing with the ITC 'ruins block first floor LoS entirely.'

[Avaris]

But I didnt. I called the breakable design, namely, reduced number of shots, power rating not accounting for wargear and units being reduced to 1 wound so their durability not mattering enough, lazy and uninspired. Which it is, and its this reductionist nature which enables the "cheaper is better, dialed to 11" that Apocalypse is bound to become. Worse if you tack WYSIWYG as a hard rule to a system that does a crappy job at balancing wargear AND thats not focused on individual models anyways.

Apologies: you didn't specify which bits you were criticising, so I took it as criticism of the system as a whole. I agree that all of those points could be better, though I still don't think 'lazy and uninspired' is the right way to think about it. It's certainly a case of not recognising or paying enough attention to these particular bits of the system, though I don't think it's laziness so much as not seeing the woods for the trees. Laziness would be identifying a thing necessary and thinking 'that'll do', whereas I genuinely think this is a blindspot in GW design - it simply didn't occur to them to care about this sort of thing. Naive, not lazy and uninspired.

As for your thought on Apoc as whole, I've read them, and I disagree. You and I have too different backgrounds to see eye to eye and I accept that, but I'd suggest not stating things as facts. Your own preferences are not the same as objective quality in a system, and what triggers these long back and forths are people trying to prove that.

For what it's worth, your past comments about the vastly different gaming experiences and backgrounds really struck a chord with me, because you're absolutely right. I am in an extremely privileged gaming position, with sufficient disposable income to support multiple systems. It's absolutely right that your metric for what is worth playing is higher than mine. GW's distribution models really frustrate me from this perspective: Apocalypse at least has unit stats freely available, but the base rules should be too, as then there would be no real cost to entry into the game, which would make it a viable option for any gaming community (Command asset cards perhaps, but a group can club together for a single set, or proxy them simply). But GW's distribution methods leave a lot to be desired.

Also, "Your own preferences are not the same as objective quality in a system" is a mantra we should all try to remember. I'll admit that when told something is bad I tend to counter with why it is good without specifying it as my opinion, but I'll try to be better at that.

[Mystic Muse]

The only time I'll ask people not to play something is if I asked for a friendly game, and they had a vastly different interpretation of friendly.

Like when a guy asked for a game, and he brought a mostly fluffy Salamanders list, and his opponent brought Magnus, and a Knight Atrapos.

Otherwise, there are specific people I won't play, but that's because they're jerks.

[LansXero]

The only time I'll ask people not to play something is if I asked for a friendly game, and they had a vastly different interpretation of friendly.

Like when a guy asked for a game, and he brought a mostly fluffy Salamanders list, and his opponent brought Magnus, and a Knight Atrapos.

Otherwise, there are specific people I won't play, but that's because they're jerks.

We have this friend that loves his marines and his Custodes and his FW stuff. Tons of money spent, lukewarm results to show.

So one day he brings his fully painted just-received FW Custodes army. We had like an hour before Kill Team league would start. He says: "hit me as hard as you can, I want to know what to fix".

Seal clubbing doesnt cut it. He had like 20 models total, and I went all craftworld gunline and planes. It was more seal-rocketing or something. Even with BS2, he is out of range to kill anything, dark reapers + jinx evaporate terminators, doom on his grav-tanks make guardians lethal (go figure) and he cant pin me down in melee because Eldar. It was over with enough time left to set up terrain for the KT league.

He then bought me chicken for lunch. Because its a game, and people being better than you will happen in ANY game, and getting salty that the other guy didnt 'do it right' by whatever arbitrary metric you set up is just being a sore loser. Yes, he put love and care and money into his models, but the rules dont say "the best hobbyist" wins.

Now, of course, had he asked me to pull the punches I wouldve ran with beta sisters and gotten properly wiped, but thats under the admission of 'yes, this doesnt perform at the top bracket, lets see where it fits'.

[Renegade Paladin]

I know I want to run a Tank Company. Is that good or not? Who cares! I've always wanted a full organisation chart of leman russes.

It's fantastic right up until the Orks are in your grill, and then you're gonna have a bad time. :P