Warhammer 40K Tabletop Thread XLI: Secondary Opinions

[Mystic Muse]

Rules question, from someone with only the basic rules. If you have an ability that grants rerolls. Say "Reroll 1s to hit". You roll a 1, reroll it. Get a 1. Does the ability trigger again? Or is it "reroll once, take that roll".

Does it vary by source of the reroll (ie do specific abilities differ)? What you're rolling for (charge vs hit vs save vs...)?

The basic rules didn't say, to the best of my reading.

I'm going off of 8th edition. They may have changed this in 9th for some God-Emperor forsaken reason. You only get one re-roll on a die, regardless of the source of those re-rolls.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'm going off of 8th edition. They may have changed this in 9th for some God-Emperor forsaken reason. You only get one re-roll on a die, regardless of the source of those re-rolls.

That's what makes sense to me. I'm trying to learn by playing the intro scenarios that you get with the "get parts of two armies and the basic rules" books against myself before I actually play against a real person.

So much to keep track of, even with tiny forces. And so many rolls...

[Forum Explorer]

Rules question, from someone with only the basic rules. If you have an ability that grants rerolls. Say "Reroll 1s to hit". You roll a 1, reroll it. Get a 1. Does the ability trigger again? Or is it "reroll once, take that roll".

Does it vary by source of the reroll (ie do specific abilities differ)? What you're rolling for (charge vs hit vs save vs...)?

The basic rules didn't say, to the best of my reading.

You can never reroll a reroll.

So not only does the ability not trigger again, but you couldn't use a CP to reroll it, or any other ability either.

[Cheesegear]

Remember this is Power Level so wargear is free, take every special pistol and weapon you can into a poorly costed unit and wreck hell. Then cherrypicking upgrades you can have a brick of a unit thats stupidly unfair to go against, surrounded by all the specialized support cherrypicking your roster can provide.
[...]
None of it deals with the original premise though: carry your crusade army around, play other people's crusade armies, fun clashing narratives! THAT game simply does. not. exist.
[...]
As for 'well you're both filthy powergamers, I take fluffy choices for fluff': congrats, you could do that at whatever edition. Thats not the system you bought, thats just your own made up version that is similar to it.

When you go to a tournament, nominally, there is some sort of prize. Product, gift voucher, at the LVO you get cash for winning (something, something, Nevada). There is a reason to bring a strong list, and a strong playstyle, because there is an incentive at the end of the tunnel. You want the thing.

When you go to a casual game, there is no gain. This is the source of a lot of problems. Why do you have a good list? What's the point? Good job, you clubbed a seal, are you proud of yourself? What do you gain from bringing a strong list when your opponent has a beer in one hand and a scoop of pretzels in the the other? You don't gain anything. So the only reason you bring a competitive list is to be an ********. You (Lans) and I both know that that isn't true. But for the sake of argument, let's say that it is;

At the end of the day, there is no reward for tryharding, so there should only be funhaving - however you do that. There is nothing to gain by dunking on your opponent, so...Don't? I mean, you can if you want. But you don't have to and there's nothing to gain from it.

When you go to a Crusade game...

- When you win a game, get better,
- When your units are better, they get better exponentially.

TL;DR: Winners win, losers lose. Not only are you incentivised to play games, but you're actively incentivised to be better and/or win. For lack of a better term, there's a prize at the end of every game, and what you get is based on how you did; RP and XP.

Crusade is a Tournament RPG system, disguised as a Narrative RPG system.

The best example I have to compare this to is Dungeons & Dragons where the DM rewards PvP actions.
Who would play that game on a regular basis!?
I dunno. But people seem really psyched for Crusade, despite not actually having read it or what it's about.

WarCom; Crusade lets you play Narrative games with your friends, and it's all a freeform storyline that you, yourself concocts to keep yourself engaged in the hobby.
Me; I like Narrative games with my friends. More Sanctus Reach, please, more Apocalypse War Zones please. Really wish you'd bring back Formations, GW. Hell yeah, if there's an active incentive to keep me in the hobby, sign me up. I love the hobby, and being rewarded for something I was going to do anyway sounds really appealing to me for some reason (*cough*SecondaryObjectives*cough).

Crusade; Just kidding. Crusade does let you play Narrative games with your friends and create a storyline...But what we've actually done is create a narrative tournament without a TO or EO. We've also set up a system where you're incentivised to keep playing and keep you engaged by giving you more and more power. We made 40K into a Skinner Box. Wanna play? It's like a tournament, but it goes on forever and you can never allow yourself to fall behind. Keep pushing the button. Always be pushing the button.

Me; ...That's not what I wanted...Not what I wanted at all.

EDIT; ION:
Death Guard Infantry now ignore penalties to Move, Advance and Charge.
The famous Tanglefoot incident will never happen again.
Blightlords OP, incentivise Blightlords.

[LansXero]

WWhat do you gain from bringing a strong list when your opponent has a beer in one hand and a scoop of pretzels in the the other? (..) At the end of the day, there is no reward for tryharding, so there should only be funhaving

Why is that the general consensus? One of the tryhardest, cuth-throatest, meanest competitions I've ever been to was ADECORE. That stands for Association of Religious Schools, its a league for church-run schools plus a couple of invites for charity and to round up numbers. Its little kids / teens playing sports and it gets SO. DAMN. UGLY. Poors (like my school) wanna beat the snot out of rich kids, rich parents wont let their precious offspring get beaten by people whose house is worth less than their car, every school's audience tries to score with the other side: poor boys want rich girls who are super pretty / poor girls want rich boys as their ticket out of poortown, etc. Best fun we've ever had, always ended up eating burgers with the guys we just got done bruising and kicking for an hour and a half.

The prize? Recognition. Church-run means they cant put any money on the line, and also that parents dont care about getting scouted for real teams. Invites get some sponsorship in the form of sport supplies and uniforms, but thats just for showing up. And yet people treat it like its freaking World Cup.

Its only online / in RPG / wargame communities that this notion of 'casual = fun' exists. I've seen guys go face first into the pavement to keep a goal from being scored, during sunday random matches with nothing in the line. Seen my GF stress like hell for some college production even her family wasnt going to attend. Its just the way people are, they like being good at stuff and doing well at things, doesnt matter if its saving lives or competitive knitting. Prizes are entirely secondary to the whole thing.

TL;DR: Winners win, losers lose. Not only are you incentivised to play games, but you're actively incentivised to be better and/or win. For lack of a better term, there's a prize at the end of every game, and what you get is based on how you did; RP and XP.

But snowball on the other hand heavily discourages playing. I dont know who my oponent was for the last 2 weeks of the league, and nobody has asked me about it, because it just fizzled out. We have a runaway IF player who's kitted out for a horrific alpha strike so thats probably who the winner is going to be. Nobody cares or knows what the story behind it all was despite weekly updates by the TO, because everyone is sore after playing a losing fight where they had no way to make it yet still had to endure all the pointless rounds.

EDIT; ION:
Death Guard Infantry now ignore penalties to Move, Advance and Charge.
The famous Tanglefoot incident will never happen again.
Blightlords OP, incentivise Blightlords.

Heavy changes to weapon profiles as well, lots of d3 damage going to 2. PBC changed quite a bit iirc, also the drone-.

[Cheesegear]

Why is that the general consensus?
[...]
Its only online / in RPG / wargame communities that this notion of 'casual = fun' exists. I've seen guys go face first into the pavement to keep a goal from being scored, during sunday random matches with nothing in the line. Seen my GF stress like hell for some college production even her family wasnt going to attend. Its just the way people are, they like being good at stuff and doing well at things, doesnt matter if its saving lives or competitive knitting. Prizes are entirely secondary to the whole thing.

I have a number of theories, and I've said similar in the Dungeons & Dragons part of the forum, too:

1. Hostile Attribution Bias. A lot of people in this hobby are either a) not socially adept and/or b) don't have a lot going on in their life that's positive, and 'hobby' whatever that is, is their escape. For the most part, Warhammer - and especially Space Marines - is a power fantasy. Going into a game that you like and have fun with, only to be clubbed in the head by someone who's Just Better than you isn't fun. Not only do they not have a positive life...But also this thing you like? ...You're not good at it, either. Feels bad, man. Even in a power fantasy setting, you have no power. Feels like being bullied all over again. Even though your opponent is almost definitely playing within the rules that they've been given and not actually going out of their way to hurt you.

2a. Projection and Rationalisation. If my army is bad, then I am bad. I am not bad, so therefore my army is not bad. My opponent is just being a ****. Yeah. That makes sense. Nailed it.
2b. I spent money on units I like, and I lose all the time. My opponent wins all the time, so didn't actually buy models they like. My opponent is not forging a narrative like I am.

3. "It's just a game." Toy soldiers is not serious business. Anyone who does take toy soldiers seriously is worthy of contempt. NEEERRRDS!

4. Wrongfun. I have fun my way, you have fun your way...You're having fun wrong, stop ruining what I like.

5. "No-one would actually do that, though..." Well, someone might. Tryharding...Is hard. A lot of people don't have what it takes to win games, and equally as importantly don't want to have what it takes to win games - especially if it involves spending even more money. "Get good, scrub." "...Umm...No?" Do you want to go out and buy six Basilisks so your Guard is competitive? I don't...But someone would. Succeeding in a flawed system is frowned upon. The hobby is not equal, and those who point it out by convincingly winning games by wide margins, should be shunned. Tryharding means that the game is inherently unbalanced, and thus, tryharding is synonymous to exploitation of the game. Anyone being too successful needs to stop being so successful.

I think those are the five big ones that I've seen in D&D and Warhammer.

And you're right. I don't see that in real-world sports; I don't see that in ju-jitsu or boxing, and I definitely haven't seen it at the gym.

What is different, psychologically, between someone who plays contact sports, and someone who plays tabletop wargames?

You end up with a fundamental Type A vs. Type B personality clash.

But snowball on the other hand heavily discourages playing.

Winners win and losers lose.

[LeSwordfish]

If I recall correctly, there's a few habitual Necromunda players here, and I wanted some advice. My group is planning for a Necromunda campaign once we're able to get together and play again (possibly sooner through TTS) and I'm trying to decide between two gangs: Orlocks, and Palatine Enforcers. I like the aesthetics of the Orlocks more (just want to paint a model who's in a nice sweater and jeans) but several other people will be Orlock players. I saw a tactics guide which alluded to the idea that the Enforcers were really bad. Is that still the case? Can anyone point me at a good tactics/build guide for them?

[LansXero]

I think those are the five big ones that I've seen in D&D and Warhammer.

And you're right. I don't see that in real-world sports; I don't see that in ju-jitsu or boxing, and I definitely haven't seen it at the gym.

What is different, psychologically, between someone who plays contact sports, and someone who plays tabletop wargames?

You end up with a fundamental Type A vs. Type B personality clash.

But why? I dont see it in online games either, even lousy schoolboy teams from random hill in the outskirts of town tryhards at DotA or LoL, they go around LANCafes in their area trashtalking and challenging other teams even if they get stomped. Hell, an skirmish with an actual top team, that is, a guaranteed pubstomp that will likely be streamed to further drive in the humilliation is often times the PRIZE of smaller tournaments, because it gives you a chance to realize just how far down the totempole you actually are. And people walk away from those happy. "See how I killed that pro guy's hero?" Well, he killed you 15 times but you got him that one time, so it can happen again maybe xD. Cant tell me DotA players are all Type A, and its not just peruvians being weird, tryhardism is at the core of most online players. They pore over liquipedia, cant read for school but memorize patch notes, etc. Same with WoW, kids who cant do algebra know their rotation and dps down to the half second and fractions, shift their build with every patch, memorize boss patterns, etc.

Why does tabletop get all the B type personality? Car guys tryhard, and thats expensive as ****. Muscle guys tryhard. Even simps tryhard and celebrate simpier simps. Hell even gacha whales worship the whalest whales amongst them. Why is this specific subset the, apparently, only one that says winning is wrong?

[Avaris]

If I recall correctly, there's a few habitual Necromunda players here, and I wanted some advice. My group is planning for a Necromunda campaign once we're able to get together and play again (possibly sooner through TTS) and I'm trying to decide between two gangs: Orlocks, and Palatine Enforcers. I like the aesthetics of the Orlocks more (just want to paint a model who's in a nice sweater and jeans) but several other people will be Orlock players. I saw a tactics guide which alluded to the idea that the Enforcers were really bad. Is that still the case? Can anyone point me at a good tactics/build guide for them?

Obligatory link to Goonhammer: https://www.goonhammer.com/necromund...ite-enforcers/ Their Necromunda articles are very good, so that will give an initial overview. They also update the articles as stuff comes out, so that should be up to date.

Necromunda is near the top of my list of things to play atm. The background books that are coming out for each gang are fantastic.

[Forum Explorer]

But why? I dont see it in online games either, even lousy schoolboy teams from random hill in the outskirts of town tryhards at DotA or LoL, they go around LANCafes in their area trashtalking and challenging other teams even if they get stomped. Hell, an skirmish with an actual top team, that is, a guaranteed pubstomp that will likely be streamed to further drive in the humilliation is often times the PRIZE of smaller tournaments, because it gives you a chance to realize just how far down the totempole you actually are. And people walk away from those happy. "See how I killed that pro guy's hero?" Well, he killed you 15 times but you got him that one time, so it can happen again maybe xD. Cant tell me DotA players are all Type A, and its not just peruvians being weird, tryhardism is at the core of most online players. They pore over liquipedia, cant read for school but memorize patch notes, etc. Same with WoW, kids who cant do algebra know their rotation and dps down to the half second and fractions, shift their build with every patch, memorize boss patterns, etc.

Why does tabletop get all the B type personality? Car guys tryhard, and thats expensive as ****. Muscle guys tryhard. Even simps tryhard and celebrate simpier simps. Hell even gacha whales worship the whalest whales amongst them. Why is this specific subset the, apparently, only one that says winning is wrong?

First off, it's not like tournament style 'win at all costs' attitudes don't exist. But generally, they are reserved for tournaments. In fact, complaining about people trying too hard at a tournament is a good way to get yourself mocked. It's a tournament, what were you expecting?

And I've played tournament style games outside of tournaments too. But when I've done that there is always a warning. Either I or my opponent makes an effort to tell each other early that we're practicing for a tournament, bring your A game, cause I ain't holding back.

Because the big difference between football or LoL is that you can't adjust your list once you start playing. Someone is playing hard in football, I can start to run faster and play harder. Someone is tryharding in LoL, I can start trying too. Someone brings a tournament list and I've brought my casual list? I lose and I've got to spend the next 2+ hours in a game I won't enjoy.

Another reason is that bringing a tournament list to a casual game isn't impressive. Like even if I'm getting smashed in LoL or football, I can acknowledge my opponent's skill and ability. But if someone smashes me in 40K because of a list match up? You aren't a better player than me, you just brought more OP units. It's not hard to identify which units are OP, because 40K is typically a pretty broken game. 8th was the best it has ever been for balance, and even then there was still a bunch of stuff you could do throughout the edition, even if it was patched eventually.

For that matter, a tournament style game is almost a different game in comparison to casual games. You have to focus more, every roll matters, and you've got to etch out every last bit of advantage you can squeeze out of your army in order to win. And there is nothing wrong with that, but if I'm just wanting to put down the models I like, but aren't actually good, than I'm going to lose badly. And we can probably tell right at list creation who will win.

So it's almost a communication thing. If you are open about playing a tournament style, as OP as you can make it list, no one blames you. They might curse at GW for making something too OP in the first place, but not you. Because they knew what they were getting into. Either they brought their own tournament list to try and win, or they just wanted to see how far their casual list could go.

[LansXero]

If you are open about playing a tournament style, as OP as you can make it list, no one blames you.

Thats the opposite of the impression I got. I know not everybody plays at their best all the time, plenty of times you just wanna try wacky stuff or waste some time. But online it looks like people resent those who try at all. It becomes an echo chamber of mediocrity and backpats (ugh so much of this with D&D 5E) like caring about doing well is inherently wrong.

Take 40k. List aside, I've gotten the stinkeye from older players for caring about actual LoS, actually measuring distances, what ability text actually say, etc. I even had a guy concede because I asked him to please not pick up dice before I've seen them. I didnt accuse him of anything, but he fumed and picked up his stuff. Like, if you wanna cheat, fine, just take the effort to hide it :s. I dunno, its a very odd mindset to me, since as I said pick-up non-sanctioned activities of anything else always gets people trying to do well, and being fine with being told they need to gitgud.

[Forum Explorer]

Thats the opposite of the impression I got. I know not everybody plays at their best all the time, plenty of times you just wanna try wacky stuff or waste some time. But online it looks like people resent those who try at all. It becomes an echo chamber of mediocrity and backpats (ugh so much of this with D&D 5E) like caring about doing well is inherently wrong.

Take 40k. List aside, I've gotten the stinkeye from older players for caring about actual LoS, actually measuring distances, what ability text actually say, etc. I even had a guy concede because I asked him to please not pick up dice before I've seen them. I didnt accuse him of anything, but he fumed and picked up his stuff. Like, if you wanna cheat, fine, just take the effort to hide it :s. I dunno, its a very odd mindset to me, since as I said pick-up non-sanctioned activities of anything else always gets people trying to do well, and being fine with being told they need to gitgud.

Cultural differences I suppose. But if they know you want to play a competitive game, and they do not, then why do they play you at all?

Trying in D&D always seemed like a zero-sum game to me though. It just creates work and problems for the DM if you are on a drastically different power level than the rest of your party. Or perhaps I should say, trying to be OP seems like a zero-sum game. Matching your party's power level can take a fair bit of effort and skill.

[Cheesegear]

Why does tabletop get all the B type personality?

I think it might the IP and genre, specifically; Heroic power fantasy, and the people who need and/or want that are attracted to the IP, rather than the game.
Moreso than the people looking at it as a game to be won and lost at, with a cool IP backdrop.

Why is this specific subset the, apparently, only one that says winning is wrong?

For all the reasons I already listed. A lot of people in my meta, and a lot of people I've seen online, are not healthy people with healthy lives. Perhaps myself included? ...Maybe.

Perhaps it's generational? Perhaps it's a mindset?
'Fun' and 'Effort' are seen as antonyms. You must not be having fun if you have to put effort into something, because putting in effort into something is not fun.

But generally, [tournament attitudes] are reserved for tournaments.

Tournaments are near-exclusively Type A personalities. Type Bs can't or wont go anywhere near a tournament.

But, the thing about Type As, is that they want to be doing a thing, all the time. Which means that Type As 'invade' Type Bs 'space' on a regular basis.
There are no casual games. There is only the game. And this gamestore is where the game is played, so here I am, play me.

This means that there is a space for Type As, near-exclusively.
But there is no space for Type Bs. Type Bs could join a tournament, anytime they want...They choose not to. Type As actually don't give a ****.

And that's what's so problematic about Type As and Type Bs. Type As don't care about Type Bs at all, and this makes the Bs hate the As.

So when I start breaking Crusade in my meta and optimising my Roster, because the rules of the format actively incentivise me to do so (I can't stress this enough), I get yelled at for 'not having fun' because GW marketed towards people that Crusade hadn't read it yet how it actually worked (that's called the hype train and it's left the station). When other players who aren't me played 2-3 games, they saw what I saw, and the Crusade Campaign fell apart in less than a month because Crusade wasn't an 'Escalation League' which is what they actually wanted...Except they don't want that, either. Because we've done that many times in the past, too. They always fall apart and never reach a conclusion.

Happened in Kill Team, too. When I showed up with a Roster of no less than 20 models and began tailoring my Team to them at the start of the Mission. They have a Roster which is their Team, and, more importantly, their Team is 'One box and done'. Which means their Roster is only 5-out-of-20 models, and they can't tailor. When I start doing exactly what the rules tell me I'm allowed to do, I'm exploiting the system and abusing the spirit of Kill Team.
What spirit?
The spirit that says my Roster is a maximum of 20 models and I can tailor every game?
Or the spirit of the game that says Kill Team is a game for people with not a lot of time and/or money?
'Cause the latter isn't in the rulebook. It's in marketing and in peoples' heads. The former, is in the rulebook.

Someone is playing hard in football, I can start to run faster and play harder.

Well, no you can't. Eventually you hit your limit, which will inevitably be less than someone else's limit.

But if someone smashes me in 40K because of a list match up? You aren't a better player than me, you just brought more OP units...

Sounds like a generalisation. Maybe it's true in some cases. But it wont be true in all cases. As I've said many times; I 'play down' with my large collection all the time. My collection is big enough that I can do that, and the larger GW carry cases are big enough that someone playing an army with less than 100 models, can probably fit another half an army in to sub out in PUGs and 'play down'.

Even if I bring terrible units...My brain is the same. I'm not going to make stupid mistakes (well, I will, that's why they're mistakes). But I'm not going to play worse and make bad decisions on purpose, just because my units on the table aren't as good as the ones I left in my case.

In 6th Ed., when Allies first came about;
Oh? Your Codex sucks, have you tried bringing in Allies. You can cherry pick some units that do what your main Codex, doesn't, which will help you out.
"No."
But the rules say you can do it. Look! You're allowed. Says right here in the rules.
"No."
Do you want to be bad? 'Cause it sounds like you're choosing to be bad, and then blaming me for it.

For that matter, a tournament style game is almost a different game in comparison to casual games.

Do the rules change? I missed that.

So it's almost a communication thing. If you are open about playing a tournament style, as OP as you can make it list, no one blames you.

Yes they do. Lots of people do. Maybe you don't. But I know that you've seen it. You must have.

They might curse at GW for making something too OP in the first place, but not you.

"WAAC Players are scum."
Didn't see [corporate entity] in there being blamed.

Next point.

It becomes an echo chamber of mediocrity and backpats (ugh so much of this with D&D 5E) like caring about doing well is inherently wrong.

Like I said; Taking something seriously, that isn't serious (e.g; Toy soldiers), is worthy of contempt.

It's only sparring. You don't have to try. It's not a real fight. ...Said no-one ever.

It's only a fire drill. You don't have to try. ...Said, okay, surprisingly a lot of people.

But if they know you want to play a competitive game, and they do not, then why do they play you at all?

But why does it matter?

Trying in D&D always seemed like a zero-sum game to me though. It just creates work and problems for the DM if you are on a drastically different power level than the rest of your party.

Why why does that different power level exist? Why aren't the other players making characters that aren't terrible?

It goes back to the greatest argument on this forum I've ever seen - you know the one:
I chose to be bad, so I see it as good. Anyone who points out that I am, in fact, bad, is wrong, because intentional choices can't be bad choices. That's why they're intentional.

At my first job, I remember being asked by one of my co-workers to slow down, because I was making some of the others look bad. It's not their problem for being bad. It's my problem for being 'too good'.
I said 'No.' Doing more than everyone else, makes me look better. If I can work at my current speed without hurting myself or burning out, why shouldn't I go as fast as I can? Maybe I get a promotion or a pay raise or bonus for doing well?
...I got a pay raise.

Someone who is successful, should stop being so successful - it makes everyone else look and/or feel bad.

[Ronnoc]

Sounds like a generalisation. Maybe it's true in some cases. But it wont be true in all cases. As I've said many times; I 'play down' with my large collection all the time. My collection is big enough that I can do that, and the larger GW carry cases are big enough that someone playing an army with less than 100 models, can probably fit another half an army in to sub out in PUGs and 'play down'.

Speaking as someone who plays far more MTG (specifically commander) than 40k there is a very legitimate fear for players without a lot of money about being priced out of their local meta.

It's only sparring. You don't have to try. It's not a real fight. ...Said no-one ever.

This is blatantly false sparring is often an opportunity to focus on technique, establish a rhythm with your opponent and work on improving rather than to win at all costs.

More generally on this entire topic, Cheese do you remember what you had to say about Craftworlds players circa 7th edition?

[Blackhawk748]

Perhaps it's generational? Perhaps it's a mindset?
'Fun' and 'Effort' are seen as antonyms. You must not be having fun if you have to put effort into something, because putting in effort into something is not fun.

Maybe it's me playing harder or less forgiving games or something but I've never seen that. It's more "Is all this effort worth it?" Like, is my payoff worth it for all the effort I'm doing and increasingly, for me anyway, that keeps being "No" in 40k.

Could I make a proper 9th ed Ork list? Sure. It requires me to run Gazghkull and Meganobs, two units I have 0 desire to run, let alone assemble. So there's multiple hours of stuff I already don't want to do, and that's ignoring the money sink.

Could I go try and retool my Ad Mech? Sure, but they were very specifically built for 7th and they functioned fine enough in 8th that I didn't care. Now my low Robot count is coming to haunt me and I don't find myself caring enough.

And I put hours of time into other things. Like DnD characters being optimized for dumb things, or my YuGioh Decks, most of which aren't competitive, and I'll do the same thing for the new Digimon TCG that I'm getting into. All of these seem to have higher payouts for me than 40k, and I'm wondering if that's why some people are so against the more Try Hard folks.

Cuz in Magic, you just grab a different deck, it takes all of 10 seconds, and pretty much no one has one deck. In 40k, you may literally only have one list, and even with proxies you have very limited options AND you've sunk 6+ hours already putting all the crap together. So you're damn right someone is gonna get pissed because they got clubbed on turn 3, particularly if it isn't their fault and they played something like Death Company, something that SHOULD be good.

The issue is, they aren't upset with GW, who they should be.

This is blatantly false sparring is often an opportunity to focus on technique, establish a rhythm with your opponent and work on improving rather than to win at all costs.

More generally on this entire topic, Cheese do you remember what you had to say about Craftworlds players circa 7th edition?

I do, and he's said that not playing them was dumb on his part, but it sure as hell wasn't for me. Unless I was playing someone who I knew, I sure as hell wasn't gonna play against Craftworlds in 7th with my Orks. What would be the point? It was a forgone conclusion the moment the lists were drawn up

[Forum Explorer]

Tournaments are near-exclusively Type A personalities. Type Bs can't or wont go anywhere near a tournament.

But, the thing about Type As, is that they want to be doing a thing, all the time. Which means that Type As 'invade' Type Bs 'space' on a regular basis.
There are no casual games. There is only the game. And this gamestore is where the game is played, so here I am, play me.

This means that there is a space for Type As, near-exclusively.
But there is no space for Type Bs. Type Bs could join a tournament, anytime they want...They choose not to. Type As actually don't give a ****.

And that's what's so problematic about Type As and Type Bs. Type As don't care about Type Bs at all, and this makes the Bs hate the As.





Well, no you can't. Eventually you hit your limit, which will inevitably be less than someone else's limit.



Sounds like a generalisation. Maybe it's true in some cases. But it wont be true in all cases. As I've said many times; I 'play down' with my large collection all the time. My collection is big enough that I can do that, and the larger GW carry cases are big enough that someone playing an army with less than 100 models, can probably fit another half an army in to sub out in PUGs and 'play down'.

Even if I bring terrible units...My brain is the same. I'm not going to make stupid mistakes (well, I will, that's why they're mistakes). But I'm not going to play worse and make bad decisions on purpose, just because my units on the table aren't as good as the ones I left in my case.

In 6th Ed., when Allies first came about;
Oh? Your Codex sucks, have you tried bringing in Allies. You can cherry pick some units that do what your main Codex, doesn't, which will help you out.
"No."
But the rules say you can do it. Look! You're allowed. Says right here in the rules.
"No."
Do you want to be bad? 'Cause it sounds like you're choosing to be bad, and then blaming me for it.



Do the rules change? I missed that.



Yes they do. Lots of people do. Maybe you don't. But I know that you've seen it. You must have.



"WAAC Players are scum."
Didn't see [corporate entity] in there being blamed.

Next point.



Like I said; Taking something seriously, that isn't serious (e.g; Toy soldiers), is worthy of contempt.

It's only sparring. You don't have to try. It's not a real fight. ...Said no-one ever.

It's only a fire drill. You don't have to try. ...Said, okay, surprisingly a lot of people.



But why does it matter?



Why why does that different power level exist? Why aren't the other players making characters that aren't terrible?

It goes back to the greatest argument on this forum I've ever seen - you know the one:
I chose to be bad, so I see it as good. Anyone who points out that I am, in fact, bad, is wrong, because intentional choices can't be bad choices. That's why they're intentional.

At my first job, I remember being asked by one of my co-workers to slow down, because I was making some of the others look bad. It's not their problem for being bad. It's my problem for being 'too good'.
I said 'No.' Doing more than everyone else, makes me look better. If I can work at my current speed without hurting myself or burning out, why shouldn't I go as fast as I can? Maybe I get a promotion or a pay raise or bonus for doing well?
...I got a pay raise.

Someone who is successful, should stop being so successful - it makes everyone else look and/or feel bad.

Here's the thing, and we've had this conversation before as well. PUGs are pretty much dead where I'm at. You book games with your opponent. Telling them how many points you want to play and yes, how competitive a game you want to play. That whole thing of 'invading' the casual players space is not a thing anymore, or at least it shouldn't be. You should be communicating your expectations before dice ever hit the table.

Because this whole problem is one of communication. Tell people what you want. And then come to an agreement about what you want to play. And if you or they can't compromise on your different styles than don't play each other. Better no game than a bad game. And you can't force me to play with you. And that sort of thing happens all the time, though usually with attitude. Have a bad attitude while you play? No one will play with you. Refuse to communicate and keep bringing lists contrary to what your opponent wants to deal with? No one will play with you.


If I hit a physical limit, then we change a different limit. With football, if there is one player with a massive physical advantage, than he gets a handicap like having less players. Or worse players. If it's an entire team, than that team can play among themselves, or be split among us crappy players.


I did specify smashing me because of a list mismatch. Playing down is exactly what you didn't do in a list mismatch.


Sure they are. I mean, in 8th it was really obvious. Tournament style meant ITC with a chess clock. The tournament meta never got a chance to exist here in 9th, but I imagine chess clocks would exist, and I predict that ITC or a new version of it will end of existing because 9th is poorly balanced right now.


Actually no, I haven't seen it. The closest we've seen to that, is some ribbing of a guy who refused to believe that his Scatbike Corsairs were OP back in 7th edition. But we were mostly making fun of his delusions, not for the fact he was playing Scatbike Eldar.

Usually that gets said because the WAAC player caught you by surprise. It didn't happen at a tournament. It happened because of poor communication.


People say that all the time with sparring. It's just a friendly tussle, don't worry about it. I've honestly heard people say that about races of all things. It's just a friendly race, don't worry about it. And then they'll give the other guy a head start, or just not run as hard as they could. And that's about as straightforward of a competition as it gets.


It matters because a lack of good communication is causing you both to not have a good time. It is creating bad feelings and damaging your gaming community. There is no reason for you and your opponent to be in a black box before you play. Even in a PUG, you can talk to each other before you actually start and adjust your lists if need be.


In D&D? Often because one person wanted to play a fighter and someone else wanted to play a wizard. In 3.5 in particular the disparity could be so large that the fighter might as well not show up for all the impact he was having on the game. And if you wanted to be good as a fighter in 3.5 you had put in a lot of effort. Like I mean a lot. I remember spending hours building a single character because it just took me that long to figure out what combos I would need to make the character function.

The real question is, why did they design the game so badly that we can break it by accident? Which honestly came a long way to building an attitude that is hostile to the WAAC in 5th edition. If you had ever played in a game where a player deliberately set out to break the game, it becomes awful, fast. Effectively, there are now two people playing. The person breaking the game, and the DM. Everyone else gets to watch as the DM pulls out more and more stuff until he finally either snuffs out the OP character (at which point the game either collapses or houserules get added) or the DM just gives up and the game collapses.

If it happened by accident, than either the player or the DM gets the frustration of 'fixing' things so the game doesn't collapse. I shouldn't have to play game designer just so we can play the game we paid for.

So someone with a WAAC attitude in a cooperative game? They are telling me that they are perfectly fine at having fun at my expense, and I don't have time for that. Very few people do. Which again, is a problem solved by communication. We talk to each other before the game to establish what is and what isn't acceptable at the table. If what you want isn't acceptable at this table, than move along.

[Drasius]

Why is this attitude different between nerds tabletop wargamers and everyone else?

Partially 'cause a large amount of stuff Cheese said is on the money (IMHO), but also partly 'cause the people in your local scene are the same people you hang out with and are friends with. In a team sport, you compete with, not against your team-mates, so giving your all against some other group is fine. In something like Tae Kwon Do, you're training towards a goal like attaining another mastery, physical fitness, faster reflexes, being able to do a particularly difficult move, whatever, you're (mostly) training against yourself and your opponent is a means to an end or a challenge to overcome, generally speaking, you don't sit around week after week and socialise with them. In a MOBA or Shooter, you definately don't give a flying fig what happens to your opponents regardless of if you're the one doing the dunking or recieving a booty bothering.

The fact that tabletop gaming, be it GW or another flavour means that you're often finishing up one game and then hanging around with the same group of people as your social circle. If you're getting smashed week after week, it's not fun, and given what we've seen recently (Marines >>>> everyone else) and previously (Eldar >>> Marines >>>>>>>>>>> everyone else), if you're a have not playing against a have, you're going to continue getting smashed every match with no counter play, and there's only so long that this goes on before the have not just doesn't bother anymore. If you've got the means, you can buy another army and either fight on equal footing or make the other player the have-not, but that's just changing who is getting smashed, not the lip-sided nature of the situation where only 1 person (and maybe nobody) is having fun.

In most other sports/competitions, there's various classes/grades so people with similar skill level/capabilities get matched up, if your team sucks, well, drop down to C grade where you don't face guys who're on the verge of breaking into the state side. Enter the 250cc race instead of the 1000cc cup, fight other Yellow belts instead of the Red belts, compete against smurf accounts other silver players instead of getting matched against platinum. Sadly, there's not really anything like that for 40k, either you conform to the meta, or you get your face smashed in when playing against WAAC competative players with a casual list. People have tried (see: the abortion that was CompetativeComp), but it just results in people gaming the system to seal club casuals anyway.

The face to face aspect, as well as the social circle aspect, of tabletop groups mean that you can't go in with an "I don't care about my opponent" attitude, or you will shortly have no opponents, nor any friends from said group.

[Avaris]

So someone with a WAAC attitude in a cooperative game? They are telling me that they are perfectly fine at having fun at my expense, and I don't have time for that. Very few people do. Which again, is a problem solved by communication. We talk to each other before the game to establish what is and what isn't acceptable at the table. If what you want isn't acceptable at this table, than move along.

I’ve been deliberately staying out of this conversation around Crusade etc, but I felt this is worth highlighting. 40k is not a traditional cooperative game, but I would argue it often is seen and played as such. The players are cooperating to tell a story with their armies, of which victory is definitely a part but not the only part. That’s what tabletop wargaming has that is different to physical sports or online vs games: what cooperative story are you potentially telling in a game of football? You have the story of your own experience and team history, but the relationship with the other team is strictly adversarial.

Tabletop wargames originated in historical wargaming (edit: and also roleplaying, which this applies to even more), which is intensely cooperative rather than competitive. Players are attempting to recreate the circumstances of a battle as accurately as possible, and while they are trying to win they often do so with an eye to accuracy or one side having a significant disadvantage. That doesn’t matter, because they are playing a cooperative game.

This is the tension in 40k: where does the game you are playing fall on an axis between cooperative and competitive? There is nothing wrong with either approach; most games will be a mix of both, and most players will gladly vary their expectations for a game: I wouldn’t go to a tournament expecting a cooperative game. But I would definitely expect that members of my playgroup would sometimes want to play that way, rather than fully competitively.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Why is this attitude different between nerds tabletop wargamers and everyone else?

Partially 'cause a large amount of stuff Cheese said is on the money (IMHO), but also partly 'cause the people in your local scene are the same people you hang out with and are friends with. In a team sport, you compete with, not against your team-mates, so giving your all against some other group is fine. In something like Tae Kwon Do, you're training towards a goal like attaining another mastery, physical fitness, faster reflexes, being able to do a particularly difficult move, whatever, you're (mostly) training against yourself and your opponent is a means to an end or a challenge to overcome, generally speaking, you don't sit around week after week and socialise with them. In a MOBA or Shooter, you definately don't give a flying fig what happens to your opponents regardless of if you're the one doing the dunking or recieving a booty bothering.

The fact that tabletop gaming, be it GW or another flavour means that you're often finishing up one game and then hanging around with the same group of people as your social circle. If you're getting smashed week after week, it's not fun, and given what we've seen recently (Marines >>>> everyone else) and previously (Eldar >>> Marines >>>>>>>>>>> everyone else), if you're a have not playing against a have, you're going to continue getting smashed every match with no counter play, and there's only so long that this goes on before the have not just doesn't bother anymore. If you've got the means, you can buy another army and either fight on equal footing or make the other player the have-not, but that's just changing who is getting smashed, not the lip-sided nature of the situation where only 1 person (and maybe nobody) is having fun.

In most other sports/competitions, there's various classes/grades so people with similar skill level/capabilities get matched up, if your team sucks, well, drop down to C grade where you don't face guys who're on the verge of breaking into the state side. Enter the 250cc race instead of the 1000cc cup, fight other Yellow belts instead of the Red belts, compete against smurf accounts other silver players instead of getting matched against platinum. Sadly, there's not really anything like that for 40k, either you conform to the meta, or you get your face smashed in when playing against WAAC competative players with a casual list. People have tried (see: the abortion that was CompetativeComp), but it just results in people gaming the system to seal club casuals anyway.

The face to face aspect, as well as the social circle aspect, of tabletop groups mean that you can't go in with an "I don't care about my opponent" attitude, or you will shortly have no opponents, nor any friends from said group.

To me, that level of imbalance sounds like current 40k is basically Pay-to-Win. The game is functionally decided based on what you can afford--simply buying the right things gets you at least competitive (or at least gives you the option to compete). Buying the wrong things means you have no chance of competing.

So yeah. Imagine if there was a MOBA where if you bought (with real money, and not cheap) the right hero (or small group of heroes), you just won. No real counters except from heroes from that same group. And the meta was shifting enough that it wasn't a one-time purchase. Sounds like a game that wouldn't last very long, especially if each match took an hour+ and required being around the people you were playing (ie local co-op). Or, the game would split in two pieces. The competitive group would all self-select from those with means to chase the meta and would only consist of people playing those meta characters. The non-competitive people would ban those "meta" characters from use.

I think that's a fair comparison here--those who have means (and the will) to chase the meta will stomp those who don't. So play groups respond by, basically, asking those people to stay away. But they don't do it explicitly for whatever reason, but instead try to do it with tone. And that falls flat because, well, people suck at reading tone a lot of the time. Anything other than a flat, constantly-updated ban is easy to misread (intentionally or not) and if the meta is as unbalanced as it sounds, then even small amounts of on-meta play (vs off-meta play) produce huge swings in outcome chances.

Of course the right (IMO) thing to do is to not have these huge meta-gaps in the first place. Or formally split the game in half, with different rules. But each of those has huge knock-on consequences and risks of their own.

Personally, I strongly dislike the idea of being able to win at list creation. Gain advantages? Sure. But 100% guaranteed (unless you do something horrifically stupid) win, unless they're playing something from that same pool? Ugh. That creates all sorts of horrible incentives.

[Forum Explorer]

To me, that level of imbalance sounds like current 40k is basically Pay-to-Win. The game is functionally decided based on what you can afford--simply buying the right things gets you at least competitive (or at least gives you the option to compete). Buying the wrong things means you have no chance of competing.

So yeah. Imagine if there was a MOBA where if you bought (with real money, and not cheap) the right hero (or small group of heroes), you just won. No real counters except from heroes from that same group. And the meta was shifting enough that it wasn't a one-time purchase. Sounds like a game that wouldn't last very long, especially if each match took an hour+ and required being around the people you were playing (ie local co-op). Or, the game would split in two pieces. The competitive group would all self-select from those with means to chase the meta and would only consist of people playing those meta characters. The non-competitive people would ban those "meta" characters from use.

I think that's a fair comparison here--those who have means (and the will) to chase the meta will stomp those who don't. So play groups respond by, basically, asking those people to stay away. But they don't do it explicitly for whatever reason, but instead try to do it with tone. And that falls flat because, well, people suck at reading tone a lot of the time. Anything other than a flat, constantly-updated ban is easy to misread (intentionally or not) and if the meta is as unbalanced as it sounds, then even small amounts of on-meta play (vs off-meta play) produce huge swings in outcome chances.

Of course the right (IMO) thing to do is to not have these huge meta-gaps in the first place. Or formally split the game in half, with different rules. But each of those has huge knock-on consequences and risks of their own.

Personally, I strongly dislike the idea of being able to win at list creation. Gain advantages? Sure. But 100% guaranteed (unless you do something horrifically stupid) win, unless they're playing something from that same pool? Ugh. That creates all sorts of horrible incentives.

Like I said before, 8th was really good for eliminating the meta-gaps. At one point there were basically only two factions that couldn't compete, and even they would still spawn powerful lists that could do quite well. Than they unbalanced the game by updating and massively buffing Space Marines, and they kept doing that for like six months. They never really managed to fix that before we went into 9th, so Space Marines were already OP. So much so that I've heard several people say that they think the latest Codex actually resulted in a net weaker Space Marine army if only slightly.

[Tvtyrant]

I’ve been deliberately staying out of this conversation around Crusade etc, but I felt this is worth highlighting. 40k is not a traditional cooperative game, but I would argue it often is seen and played as such. The players are cooperating to tell a story with their armies, of which victory is definitely a part but not the only part. That’s what tabletop wargaming has that is different to physical sports or online vs games: what cooperative story are you potentially telling in a game of football? You have the story of your own experience and team history, but the relationship with the other team is strictly adversarial.

Tabletop wargames originated in historical wargaming (edit: and also roleplaying, which this applies to even more), which is intensely cooperative rather than competitive. Players are attempting to recreate the circumstances of a battle as accurately as possible, and while they are trying to win they often do so with an eye to accuracy or one side having a significant disadvantage. That doesn’t matter, because they are playing a cooperative game.

This is the tension in 40k: where does the game you are playing fall on an axis between cooperative and competitive? There is nothing wrong with either approach; most games will be a mix of both, and most players will gladly vary their expectations for a game: I wouldn’t go to a tournament expecting a cooperative game. But I would definitely expect that members of my playgroup would sometimes want to play that way, rather than fully competitively.

The community could also just hand free VPs to bad teams. SMs and Custodes shouldn't be winning by a little, they have to win by a lot to beat Orks/Tyrannids or it is really a loss.

[noob]

The community could also just hand free VPs to bad teams. SMs and Custodes shouldn't be winning by a little, they have to win by a lot to beat Orks/Tyrannids or it is really a loss.

Bad teams as in bad factions(alias faction that have their killy tanky units weaker) or bad unit picks(unit picks that are frail or not killy)?

[Tvtyrant]

Bad teams as in bad factions(alias faction that have their killy tanky units weaker) or bad unit picks(unit picks that are frail or not killy)?

Bad teams, it shouldn't be too hard as a regula errata to just take the conglomerated win percentage and adjust for it. Fluffy too; SMs should win nearly every fight, it is a question if it cost the Imperium more to win then the Orks to lose.

[noob]

Bad teams, it shouldn't be too hard as a regula errata to just take the conglomerated win percentage and adjust for it. Fluffy too; SMs should win nearly every fight, it is a question if it cost the Imperium more to win then the Orks to lose.

I agree that if you did send 50 elite space marines to kill 10 orks who have only ever fought other orks before that you probably did spend too many resources of the imperium even if you have lost no marines (and that would spontaneously make a rule reason to not send your 10 times bigger army at the opponent and instead only use a portion of it to make the match less lopsided)

[Tvtyrant]

I agree that if you did send 50 elite space marines to kill 10 orks who have only ever fought other orks before that you probably did spend too many resources of the imperium even if you have lost no marines (and that would spontaneously make a rule reason to not send your 10 times bigger army at the opponent and instead only use a portion of it)

There are 10K Custodes in existence, and 1 million space marines. Armageddon 2 had at least 30 million Orks, 3 had more, Tyranids have hundreds of millions in a battle, etc. 40K is essentially a single sally in a larger battle, if you lose a SM or Custodes you have in fact overspent on the sally unless you decisively crush the enemy. Each SM should be traded for a few thousand Orks or more over the course of a full scale war.

It also is a lot easier to change VP values as a handicap then it is to constantly reright codex rules to try to even them up.

[JNAProductions]

There are 10K Custodes in existence, and 1 million space marines. Armageddon 2 had at least 30 million Orks, 3 had more, Tyranids have hundreds of millions in a battle, etc. 40K is essentially a single sally in a larger battle, if you lose a SM or Custodes you have in fact overspent on the sally unless you decisively crush the enemy. Each SM should be traded for a few thousand Orks or more over the course of a full scale war.

It also is a lot easier to change VP values as a handicap then it is to constantly reright codex rules to try to even them up.

But is that more fun than balancing the Codecs?

[Tvtyrant]

But is that more fun than balancing the Codecs?

Well they won't, but no it would be better and more fun for the game to be balanced. It would also be close to impossible with the layers of modularity involved, and given it is clear they don't try its better to look at simpler solutions.

[JNAProductions]

Well they won't, but no it would be better and more fun for the game to be balanced. It would also be close to impossible with the layers of modularity involved, and given it is clear they don't try its better to look at simpler solutions.

They can do better than they are now.

[Mystic Muse]

I don't think there's many custodes players who want to fight over 3,000 Orks for every 1 model they have.

Granted, I'd enjoy seeing an army of that size.especiallg painted.

[noob]

I don't think there's many custodes players who want to fight over 3,000 Orks for every 1 model they have.

Granted, I'd enjoy seeing an army of that size.especiallg painted.

In warhammer custodes are supposed to be so much strong in the fluff it would not be incoherent.
If they beat that many orks it proves there is real balance issue.