Competitive players to warhammer 40k are toxic to the overall game...

[chicop76]

No. He's a casual basketball player who gets upset when Michael Jordan comes into his local gym, insists on playing by NBA rules, owns everyone, and then tells them that they're playing the game wrong.

This is my favourite quote this year !

[Caitsidhe]

No. He's a casual basketball player who gets upset when Michael Jordan comes into his local gym, insists on playing by NBA rules, owns everyone, and then tells them that they're playing the game wrong.

<chuckles> The only problem with this retort is that MJ wouldn't insist on playing by NBA rules, and he would STILL own them. That is what I see happening all the time when people define themselves as competitive versus those that do not. People who don't, as a rule, play against a wide variety of opponents tend to suck. I wish there was a nicer way of saying it. Inclusive, competitive types of gamers play more often than you. They do more pick up games as well as tournaments. So they get more practice, see a wider variety of lists, and learn to adjust their battlefield tactics better. I"m not trying to be self-serving. It is only commonsense that people who play more often and against a wider field will develop a more finely honed skill set.

When I go to someone's house or garage and have been warned that they aren't "competitive" players, I tend to take things down a notch. Let's tell the truth and shame the devil, I usually have to take a handicap. I will purposely build my list to be inefficient. This is to offset the absolutely awful tactics I see employed. You don't play a list. You play an opponent, and when they don't have their act together, you are going to own them. It will be unsatisfying to me and miserable for them. That isn't to say that all self-styled non-competitive types are behind the curve. There are always exceptions, and some of them do play a lot and against a wider field. They are, sadly, more an exception though. For my own part, as my buddy Kerstan could tell you if he was around, I always want to take on the best I can find and the hardest lists that people tell me can't be beaten. That is how you get good fast. It is a difference of mindset. When I get a new video game I set it on the hardest level and start to play. I don't see the point in playing it novice mode.

[40kGamer]

<chuckles> When I go to someone's house or garage and have been warned that they aren't "competitive" players, I tend to take things down a notch. Let's tell the truth and shame the devil, I usually have to take a handicap. I will purposely build my list to be inefficient. This is to offset the absolutely awful tactics I see employed. You don't play a list. You play an opponent, and when they don't have their act together, you are going to own them. It will be unsatisfying to me and miserable for them.

A tactic I have employed as well. I know that some people I play are very casual and if I bring what I consider a well rounded list it will be a boring game for both of us. So in an effort to make the game more fun for everyone I handicap my own build. Still doesn't make a real difference in the end but it keeps the game from being completely one sided.

[Charon]

I think reading this gave me an insight into your life, I'm very very sorry, but "casual fun gamers" most certainly go exist, they play, they don't play to win, they play because the joy of being with friends and playing games with their models gives them pleasure, winning isn't even a consideration. I really do feel bad for you if you can't accept this as a reality, because it means you're missing something I and my friends find fundemental to the hobby.

Ah I see. You dont count victory points, and dont paly any missions you just place models on the table roll a dice and decide they all die at the same time because its more fun if you let your buddies win on purpose. Interesting concept but not my piece of the cake. But maybe one day you will learn to accept that not everyone shares your attitude.

The problem with 7th is people are scared of really silly things like an army of nurgle chaos marine bikes on the board for example with invisibility galore casted upon them. However lack of troops will hurt in this edition more since you simply can't contest anymore. You will need a good amount of troops to win games. What good are the nurgle bikes if they can't get rid of 30 men guard squads sitting on objectives causing the guard player to score while those bikes get crap. If anything I think you'll see more balanced list in the long run when people start losing games due to lack of troops that are durable and can move.

There already is a fundamental issue. If your army cant provide his (your army. not your list) you are screwed. Now lets go away from the nurgle bikers and choose iron hand space marine bikers with invisibility. They are standard when the captain gets a bike too. They may have 1T less but come with FnP instead. Now let them fight the nurgle biler army. They are basically exactly the same. The only difference is that the Nurgle bikers will lose hard. Thats balance.

[ElectricPaladin]

One thing I would like to disagree with is this "you play the opponent, not the list" idea. This may be true in better wargames, but it's not true in Warhammer 40k. 40k just isn't that good or balanced a game. I guarantee you that a veteran with Sisters of Battle will lose to a newbie with the new hotness - what is it now? Daemons summoning Daemons? - far more often than anyone wants to admit. How many competitive veterans play Sisters of Battle or Blood Angels these days?

If both players are representing armies that are roughly equivalent in power, perhaps you get to play the opponent. But let's see how much a Sisters player feels like he's playing you with your Tau army. Chances are, not a lot.

[Charon]

I would change that a little. "You play not only the list but the army".
It is a fact that a more experienced player will get away with having more non optimal stuff in the list. An experienced player can afford to play a unit of swooping hawks vs T5 plaquemarines.
He still wont get away with a random list of nonsense.

Your list can vary from broken OP to broken UP. Its hard to find the same level her as the ARMY contributes heavily to this.

There are armies that are just plain better than others. Having better standards, more and cheaper options or outright unfair/broken units.
That beeing said: A hard SoB list is still worse tha a toned down IG list. A good player can make up for this a bit but only if you are really that much better than your opponent.

[Stone Edwards]

There is already an issue because for you "competitive" is synonym with "jerk" they way you describe it.

The not letting someone shoot after the forgot is I suppose a jerk move, but are you say taking a spammy list is a jerk move as well? Again nitpicking what I (or anyone else) say(s) doesn't really contribute to the discussion.

No, there is a difference. I never said create new ones (this option ALWAYS exists if your gaming group agrees - much more difficult to negotiate that with a stranger). I said feel free to ignore rules. I cant ignore what is not there. Sloppy rules mean that if I ignore the little rest which is presented, I can quit the game and make one up myself. I dont need a rulebook for that and GW loses another customer.
Many rules allow you to ignore some. Few rules dont allow you to ignore some to make the game better, it just gets worse.

Honestly this seems pretty hypocritical to me. Either way we are adjusting the rule set and either way requires agreeing with a stranger. In fact from my experience it is much harder to get someone to ignore a written rule than to make one up.

Nobody expects chess balance. But some things are just broken to a point that the game tends to get boring if you even think about taking them in your list. No spamming needed. Some armies are just bland unfun to play against. Imperial guard is my prime example of this. I had not a single fun game vs imperial guard since 5th edition. Thats not because all IG players are jerks but the way the faction is designed.
You dont even need to completely change rules each month. But to actually crank out FAQs every 2 months and take care of broken mechanics like rerollable 2++ or summon spamming. I dont think thats too much to ask for.

The thing is though most of these "game breaking" issues don't show up that much in normal games where it would be a problem, they are more problems in tournaments or in games between super competitive players. It seems GW knows this, and since they have decided not to worry about tournaments and such they aren't devoting the resources to play testing this stuff. As far as you not enjoying playing against IC that is more of a personal issue I would say and not GW's fault. I am sure every faction is disliked by quite a few people, does that mean every faction is designed poorly?

Yeah, I call bull**** on the idea that the game can't be good both casually and competitively. And if you're dismissing some of the stuff sirlin says as just waac nonsense, you missed some pretty fundamental concepts in his articles. He might not address it in that particular article, but he does discuss that sort of thing elsewhere.

It could be good for both, kind of like Warmachine, but it probably can't be great for both. OBVIOUSLY this is opinion but 40k is the best war game available for creating awesome cinematic moments and great stories.

Pretty sure I said "he makes some good points" before I criticized him in my post. I'm not dismissing the entire article but I am perfectly capable of labeling some of what he says as "WAAC nonsense". I understand everything he is saying, but I don't agree with it.

[chicop76]

One thing I would like to disagree with is this "you play the opponent, not the list" idea. This may be true in better wargames, but it's not true in Warhammer 40k. 40k just isn't that good or balanced a game. I guarantee you that a veteran with Sisters of Battle will lose to a newbie with the new hotness - what is it now? Daemons summoning Daemons? - far more often than anyone wants to admit. How many competitive veterans play Sisters of Battle or Blood Angels these days?

If both players are representing armies that are roughly equivalent in power, perhaps you get to play the opponent. But let's see how much a Sisters player feels like he's playing you with your Tau army. Chances are, not a lot.

I want to say I disagree agree with that logic since I play sisters and have done rather well with them, keep in mind majority of the games have been when they actually had a real codex and faith made them awesome with Inquisitors squads with cheap plasma 're rolling to hit.

Anyway I have played a few games with ward sisters and have done better than expected. I want to keep in mind I did have allies namely guard support.

Anyway I am waiting for an actual book for sisters, while I did download their codex for free. Anyway thanks to 7th my sister's will hit the board. Can they take on summoned horde after summoned horde, seeing it's one of the few armies that can field a ton of flame weapons I wouldn't count them out. Only thing daemons have on them is flying MCs and +2 're rolling ;*(.

Also tau i snt Santa win vs sisters. Sisters have a tom of strength 8 ap 1 weapons which helps against riptides, and broadsides. The main problem is keeping the Exorcist alive, hopefully sisters go first, but only thing that reliably can take out the Exorcist is a hammerhead which is either never used or their is only one off. Of course enough strength 8/7 shots can take out armour 13.

Against Tau it depends on the battle field and how many Immolaters the sister's player have, why use a rhino now. The game will be basically Tau have to stop x vehicles with 5 man squads from getting across the field. If too many x units get across than it will be rapid fire contest fest. Although Tau have Ethereal's, sisters is probably the best rapid fire ranged army out their, even with nerfs, Tau in general probably is the first. The main difference is one side have heavy flamers which ignore cover and regular saves while the other side gets 2+ saves. Grant it one side have big shooty Mcs and the other side don't.

Sisters are very boring to play now, but I wouldn't say they suck. You just have to get in rapid fire range and stay out of combat. Ironically against Tau which they actually can beat in combat, It's probably best to rapid fire away, or assault depending on the situation.

I just realized something. Why bother playing with the Inquisition Codex if Grey Knights are now battle brothers with all human armies. I guess I'll be fielding a few Dreadknights with my sisters now, with a few Centurians.

[Charon]

Honestly this seems pretty hypocritical to me. Either way we are adjusting the rule set and either way requires agreeing with a stranger. In fact from my experience it is much harder to get someone to ignore a written rule than to make one up.

I dont want to argue your personal experience but... is it really harder to agree on dropping "first blood" as a victory condition than explaining and agreeing on the new rules for shooting you just made up? I really dont think so.
People ignore rules all the time. Either for narrative reasons or they just forget about them because they rarely ever occur or they ignore them because they slow down the game and interrupt gamepace. This happens all the time. Is that really harder than to come up with a new ruleset while playing?

The thing is though most of these "game breaking" issues don't show up that much in normal games where it would be a problem, they are more problems in tournaments or in games between super competitive players. It seems GW knows this, and since they have decided not to worry about tournaments and such they aren't devoting the resources to play testing this stuff. As far as you not enjoying playing against IC that is more of a personal issue I would say and not GW's fault. I am sure every faction is disliked by quite a few people, does that mean every faction is designed poorly?

Every single gunline army is designed poorly. If an army just skips 3/4 of the game, it is poorly designed. If game breaking issues dont show up, there should be no problem with spamming specific units (which you addressed as competitive). If they dont devote ressources to playtest stuff, they do a poor design job. Some things are just totally stupid and sometimes you see it as soon as you open the codex. Warpstorm Table for example. Daemon player starts the game, has to roll on his table. Greater Daemon fails his check and dies. Enemy is awarded 2 VP (First blood and slay the warlord) and daemons lose over 200 points. Game is basically over after this player turn. This is a grave design issue.

[chicop76]

I dont want to argue your personal experience but... is it really harder to agree on dropping "first blood" as a victory condition than explaining and agreeing on the new rules for shooting you just made up? I really dont think so.
People ignore rules all the time. Either for narrative reasons or they just forget about them because they rarely ever occur or they ignore them because they slow down the game and interrupt gamepace. This happens all the time. Is that really harder than to come up with a new ruleset while playing?


Every single gunline army is designed poorly. If an army just skips 3/4 of the game, it is poorly designed. If game breaking issues dont show up, there should be no problem with spamming specific units (which you addressed as competitive). If they dont devote ressources to playtest stuff, they do a poor design job. Some things are just totally stupid and sometimes you see it as soon as you open the codex. Warpstorm Table for example. Daemon player starts the game, has to roll on his table. Greater Daemon fails his check and dies. Enemy is awarded 2 VP (First blood and slay the warlord) and daemons lose over 200 points. Game is basically over after this player turn. This is a grave design issue.

That scenario.for.Daemons.failed.to.happen.for.me.so.fa r. in all honesty I've found.the.warpstorm.table.actually.favors.Daemons. more.than it.hurts them. I lost two wounds.on a prince.which.really didn't.effect the game at.all. even without fateweaver the table.isn't that bad.

Now against heavy unit armies like.20+ are more.it.is.killing more.of.them.than hurting me. With Fateweaver it's crazy since you rarely get.a.negative effect since you can 're roll one or two dice.

Ill agree that gunline armies.since 5th have been hard to.face off against. Out of any rule that benefits gun line armies is tlos. If you drop tlos and go back to 3rd/ 4th rules for terrain, not rolling leadership to.shoot. you'll see a.big difference.

For example if you're.2".in trees you could not be seen. Instead of you can be seen and you lose.cover.save and.you get.blasted.where.you stand. Also assaulting out of all.transports made a big difference as well. Loved facing that Damon rhinos rush.

Although consolidating into units.was.broken. Also.rending was.broken. to be fair melee armies.did have a day in the sun for a good.while, and future combat is more.ranged than anything. It's a reason why you don't see.knives on the end of guns as much in the last 100 years.