Warhammer 40K Tabletop Thread XLI: Secondary Opinions

[Mystic Muse]

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.

Oh, I'm not saying it wouldn't make semse fluffwise.

I'm saying somebody bringing their 12 Custodes on bikes, and like 15 guys footslogging it probably isn't going to want to play against 81,000+ Orks.

Or at least, the Ork player probably doesn't want to pick up thousands of Orks for each of thd Custode player's phases.

[Tvtyrant]

Oh, I'm not saying it wouldn't make semse fluffwise.

I'm saying somebody bringing their 12 Custodes on bikes, and like 15 guys footslogging it probably isn't going to want to play against 81,000+ Orks.

Or at least, the Ork player probably doesn't want to pick up thousands of Orks for each of thd Custode player's phases.

FluffyK would be a weird game. Orks would probably use swarm rules instead of individual models, as would Imp Guard. Custodes would be the equivalent of Imp Knights each, just a mess of a game.

[noob]

The commercial problem for them is that they would find no players willing to buy 81000 ork models in order to start playing against custodes armies.
The logistic problem is that it would take weeks to play a single match.
"I have a single custodes on bike army(because it is like sly marbo) I also bought 1500 orks so that we can pool up orks for the custodes vs orks fights." is not the kind of thing that would happen without reducing the price of ork models a whole lot which is something really bad for individual shops: it takes storage space to have thousands of small orc figurines.
So I am pretty sure it will never happen.

[Tvtyrant]

The commercial problem for them is that they would find no players willing to buy 81000 ork models in order to start playing against custodes armies.
The logistic problem is that it would take weeks to play a single match.
"I have a single custodes on bike army(because it is like sly marbo) I also bought 1500 orks so that we can pool up orks for the custodes vs orks fights." is not the kind of thing that would happen without reducing the price of ork models a whole lot which is something really bad for individual shops: it takes storage space to have thousands of small orc figurines.
So I am pretty sure it will never happen.

Absolutely it wouldn't. You would need to play on a basketball court or some such, it would be absurd even if you could get the models.

[Squark]

Absolutely it wouldn't. You would need to play on a basketball court or some such, it would be absurd even if you could get the models.

I think that's what epic 40k is for.

"Okay, so this base with a bunch of orks on it represents 50 orks."

"This base with one custodes on it represents... one Custodes."

(There would also be significantly more ork bases than custodes bases)

[LansXero]

I think people misunderstood my point. If you dont wanna tryhard, you do you. But why do so many people in RPG, Tabletop and wargames scoff at those who do? Why do they get a sense of superiority for not trying, or for actively being bad? Its some weird reverse-elitism where they worse you are the more you look down on those who do better than you. its this weird in-between where you care enough about winning to get salty (so really, how 'for fun' are you) but not enough to actually try and win yourself.

This is beyond money issues; bad players come from all income brackets, I've clowned on a guy running FW Custodes with my jank ass '40 VPs off 3 HQs' Craftworld / Harlies list because he is just not great at the game, and its a common trend that casual / bad players will also compound their bad list issues with poor objective selection, poor wargear choices, poor decision making, etc. If you cant afford any better, sure, but then not trying to do what best you can with what you've got? why? and then, if you cant or wont for whatever reason, how does it entitle to belittle and look down on those who do? :s.

As for the bit about having to care about your oponents... so? I mean, sure, people get salty and butthurt, thats human nature, but I dont think holding a grudge or soft-banning those who simply enjoy trying their best is fair either. Yes, seal-clubbing is probably not fun and might drive people off the game, but the other extreme, the 'casual club for casuals only, tryhards go kys' isnt any less toxic.

[Cheesegear]

Summary:

Crusade is fundamentally broken because it directly incentivises power gaming by offering tangible, in-game rewards. Which is what Crusade uses in order to 'gamify' the process of building and collecting your models so that you don't get bored and/or stop once you've hit 50 PR, because what GW wants is for you to be on the hook forever and stay inside the Skinner Box and continue to buy and build and paint your models.

However, this runs complete anathema to how Crusade was marketed - in a similar comparable way to Kill Team. The tangible, in-game rewards are not rewarded by power-gaming, but by forging a narrative. You should only buy the units you absolutely definitely want, and simply by nature of playing games, they will get better over time as they earn experience by being placed into your army list and used against your opponents. Which is strictly, marketably, true. If a unit of Reivers actually does manage to kill a unit, it gets experience. If a unit does nothing at all, all game, except hide behind an Obscuring Terrain piece - not even sitting on an Objective - you can still give that unit +3 XP, and it gets another +1 XP just for participating. If you play games, your units will Rank Up and become more personalised...However your 'personalisation' still has to be bound within the fixed choices that GW allows you to have.
(Protip; The actual personalisation of your army comes from conversions, kitbashing and paintjobs.)

This causes a problem in the spectrum between Type A players, and Type B players. The same fundamental problem that exists in every single activity, ever.

Who is wrong?
Type B. I enjoy ju-jitsu because the calisthenics, drills and activity keeps me fit and functionally strong. I guess if someone grabs me or threatens me on the street or at the front counter of my retail job, I'll hopefully remember one or two things in the heat of the moment.
Type A. I enjoy ju-jitsu because in [current year] is considered to be a 'complete' martial art, in that it includes striking, grappling and throws, as well as including defences against itself as part of its curriculum. I very much am using ju-jitsu as a pathway to MMA.

Your first-year A-B generalist theory and doesn't apply in all cases, and armchair psychologists need to do more reading and maybe divide people into more than two binary exlusive groups like 'competitive or casual' I mean A or B; I enjoy ju-jitsu because it teaches me discipline, gives me self-confidence, and teaches me to defend myself - even against knives and other light weapons. That's why it's taught to security, police and defence personnel.

Nobody is wrong. That's the problem...

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

Probably. I also remember what I said about Guard players back in 5th Ed. I also remember what I said about Daemon players in 6th Ed. I also know that whatever you're referring to probably makes me a hypocrite now. But that's not how people work. Regardless of how badly Twitter wants to make it so. I'd rather be a hypocrite now, than having stayed the same person I was 4-5 years ago.
People change. Hopefully.

I've come to realise that it's entirely possible to break the game by accident. I've come to realise that most people don't want to be ****. I've come to realise, say, in 8th Ed., that Necrons and Grey Knights players had no choice but to run the literal best units in their Codex because the other units in their book happened to be some of the literal worst units in the game. And it's probably the same now:

You're an Ork player who wants to run Ghazgkull, a bunch of Mebanobz and a Kustom Force Field and a ****ton of Mek Gunz? ...What choice do they have?

And, maybe in defense of myself, I can still say that there definitely were Craftworlds players running around with dual or triple Wraithknights. That was definitely not neccessary to do, because Drasius proved that you can make a pretty decent Craftworlds army just by rolling a D6.

However, I don't even get to say that, because there are some people who legitimately like Wraithknights - the models. They huge and sleek and have phalluses for arms. Not for me. But I get it. Check this **** out guy-who-likes-Wraithknights, did you know that there's actually a way to get two or even three Wraithknights into your army? Why wouldn't you want to play this!? It lets you put more models you like on the table.

It's like me playing Imperial Fists:
I like Centurions. Back in 6th Ed. for an Apocalypse game I tried houseruling a Vorn Hagen - a Chapter Master in a Centurion Warsuit, because Vorn Hagen earned his stars as a Devastator Sergeant, and that's what he would do.

GW does buffs is in mid-8th Ed. (Remember when GW nerfed everything and replaced it with nothing? They're sorry about that) and suddenly they're the best unit in the Codex...Uhh...I didn't ask for that. But okay. GW brings out Vigilus, literally makes an Imperial Fists Specialist Detachment, that lets Centurions with Bolt weapons deal Mortal Wounds.
Umm...GW is aware that Centurion Devastators have a Hurricane Bolter and two Heavy Bolters, each? And they're already the best unit in the Codex. You sure you want to let them deal Mortal Wounds? You sure...Alright.
I didn't ask for this. But now my community is punishing me.

Also, Ghazgkull and Meganobz? That's Goffs! That's in the fluff! There are people who legitimately want to build that army.

[Forum Explorer]

I think people misunderstood my point. If you dont wanna tryhard, you do you. But why do so many people in RPG, Tabletop and wargames scoff at those who do? Why do they get a sense of superiority for not trying, or for actively being bad? Its some weird reverse-elitism where they worse you are the more you look down on those who do better than you. its this weird in-between where you care enough about winning to get salty (so really, how 'for fun' are you) but not enough to actually try and win yourself.

This is beyond money issues; bad players come from all income brackets, I've clowned on a guy running FW Custodes with my jank ass '40 VPs off 3 HQs' Craftworld / Harlies list because he is just not great at the game, and its a common trend that casual / bad players will also compound their bad list issues with poor objective selection, poor wargear choices, poor decision making, etc. If you cant afford any better, sure, but then not trying to do what best you can with what you've got? why? and then, if you cant or wont for whatever reason, how does it entitle to belittle and look down on those who do? :s.

As for the bit about having to care about your oponents... so? I mean, sure, people get salty and butthurt, thats human nature, but I dont think holding a grudge or soft-banning those who simply enjoy trying their best is fair either. Yes, seal-clubbing is probably not fun and might drive people off the game, but the other extreme, the 'casual club for casuals only, tryhards go kys' isnt any less toxic.

For tabletop wargames I can't say. Like I said, the only person we really mocked wasn't because they were competitive, but because they thought their competitive list was casual.

But for RPGs, I certainly can understand it. From the DMs perspective, their is basically nothing a competitive player brings to the table being being competitive. They unbalance the party (unless they are all competitive players), make quest design exponentially harder, and often are more prone to argue with the DM about RAW vs RAI and the like. They don't have to do those things of course, very few people are defined by being competitive. But none of the other traits they could have, like being good at RPing, is exclusive to being competitive.

And often that applies to other players as well. If they have a competitive player in their party, there is often now a strain of having to keep up with them. Or perhaps even the competitive player is actively breaking the game which is just a downright miserable experience. Being competitive in a cooperative RPG doesn't really bring any actual benefits to the table.

[Cheesegear]

I'm pretty sure this is everything:

Space Marine Abilities
Space Marine Core Units and Characters
Space Marine Core Units

After all of that I decided that the best way to split it on this forum was between Core and non-Core. That is, units that can be force multiplied, and units that can't.

[9mm]

given all the complaining about players, a reminder:

[Tvtyrant]

I think people misunderstood my point. If you dont wanna tryhard, you do you. But why do so many people in RPG, Tabletop and wargames scoff at those who do? Why do they get a sense of superiority for not trying, or for actively being bad? Its some weird reverse-elitism where they worse you are the more you look down on those who do better than you. its this weird in-between where you care enough about winning to get salty (so really, how 'for fun' are you) but not enough to actually try and win yourself.

This is beyond money issues; bad players come from all income brackets, I've clowned on a guy running FW Custodes with my jank ass '40 VPs off 3 HQs' Craftworld / Harlies list because he is just not great at the game, and its a common trend that casual / bad players will also compound their bad list issues with poor objective selection, poor wargear choices, poor decision making, etc. If you cant afford any better, sure, but then not trying to do what best you can with what you've got? why? and then, if you cant or wont for whatever reason, how does it entitle to belittle and look down on those who do? :s.

As for the bit about having to care about your oponents... so? I mean, sure, people get salty and butthurt, thats human nature, but I dont think holding a grudge or soft-banning those who simply enjoy trying their best is fair either. Yes, seal-clubbing is probably not fun and might drive people off the game, but the other extreme, the 'casual club for casuals only, tryhards go kys' isnt any less toxic.

At least in my experience, it is because Spikes know people don't want to play them so they pretend not to be and trap you into playing with them.

"Hey I'm looking for someone to play my untuned Necron forces"
"Oh hey I just got started playing myself."
"Cool, what time shall we play."
Sets up game.
Taudar player "Yeah I've been playing for 8 years, just started a new army."
Said new army is a tournament winning list he is practicing for a tournament for, my army was 70 warriors, an Overlord and two C'tans (in 7th.)
So an hour of driving, half hour of setup and two hours of getting stomped of my life totally wasted.

MTG is the same way, Spikes will jump in to stomp new players while telling them that this is their "worst deck" so it's only 90% tuned. I had one Spike in college tell a friend that because his deck was a standard deck instead of a budget freeform that it was fair, since the freeform player could choose chaffe from every set.

D&D is worst of all, because it destroys the game for possibly years while making it everyone else's problem. The only solutions are boot the Spike or dissolve the game, no one is giving someone else a hundred hours of their life to put a stage for them to play on.

I'm a Spike myself in many ways, I love optimizing builds and debating the merits of different strategies. It's perfectly fine to play that way, just like the players who run around chasing bats or roleplaying picking up barmaids. Advertise it openly though, because it is exactly as disruptive to other people's fun as those examples.

[Cheesegear]

At least in my experience, it is because Spikes know people don't want to play them so they pretend not to be and trap you into playing with them.

As I said, this kind of thing feels unfair. As Lans has pointed out time and time again, just 'cause you're new or casual doesn't mean you need to be bad. Some people take to this game like a duck to water. Some people can read good. Some people do it by accident. With their current Codex, Space Marine players can reliably win games using Highlander lists. Just like Guard in 8th, Craftworlds in 7th and Daemons in 6th.

In this game, we're all Johnnys. I think that being a Johnny determines what Faction we pick and what Sub-Faction we pick. We like a Faction, and we like a particular paint scheme. Some people before or after picking their army, also like the fluff and want to play that army. There were people in pre-7th Ed. who liked Saim-Hann before they were good. They were people in 7th Ed. who were brand new players who liked Jetbikes before they even read the Codex. I liked Centurions before they were power-boosted through the roof and then subsequently nerfed. And there are people in 9th Ed. who like Custodes and Goff Orks.

This is what's so horrible in the current meta; If you accidentally like something that also happens to be good, you are bad for liking that thing, because apparently, the only reason you like that thing is because it's good. And even if that's true, let's not talk about toy soldiers for a bit:

You have a glass of water, you have a glass poop water. Drink one. "You only like the water because it isn't ****." ...Umm...Yes?
But also;
Let's say you have a glass of room temperature water. You have a block of ice, and you have near-boiling water. Drink one.

Well, the block of ice is undrinkable.
The near-boiling water is drinkable, but you'll burn yourself.
The glass of room temperature water is drinkable. So drink that.

That's what toy soldiers is for a lot of people. That's why product reviews exist; I don't want to spend a grand on an army that isn't good. I don't want to feel bad losing ten games in a row, but, not only that, I don't just lose, I never had a chance of winning in the first place. Maybe if I bought good units that I also like, could I still win games?

But if I spend my money on an army that is good, all my friends and potential friends will hate me? Cool. What a fun community where being successful with an army you like is punished.

What I like has to be good, even if it's bad.
What you like can't be good.

[Tvtyrant]

As I said, this kind of thing feels unfair. As Lans has pointed out time and time again, just 'cause you're new or casual doesn't mean you need to be bad. Some people take to this game like a duck to water. Some people can read good. Some people do it by accident. With their current Codex, Space Marine players can reliably win games using Highlander lists. Just like Guard in 8th, Craftworlds in 7th and Daemons in 6th.

In this game, we're all Johnnys. I think that being a Johnny determines what Faction we pick and what Sub-Faction we pick. We like a Faction, and we like a particular paint scheme. Some people before or after picking their army, also like the fluff and want to play that army. There were people in pre-7th Ed. who liked Saim-Hann before they were good. They were people in 7th Ed. who were brand new players who liked Jetbikes before they even read the Codex. I liked Centurions before they were power-boosted through the roof and then subsequently nerfed. And there are people in 9th Ed. who like Custodes and Goff Orks.

This is what's so horrible in the current meta; If you accidentally like something that also happens to be good, you are bad for liking that thing, because apparently, the only reason you like that thing is because it's good. And even if that's true, let's not talk about toy soldiers for a bit:

You have a glass of water, you have a glass poop water. Drink one. "You only like the water because it isn't ****." ...Umm...Yes?
But also;
Let's say you have a glass of room temperature water. You have a block of ice, and you have near-boiling water. Drink one.

Well, the block of ice is undrinkable.
The near-boiling water is drinkable, but you'll burn yourself.
The glass of room temperature water is drinkable. So drink that.

That's what toy soldiers is for a lot of people. That's why product reviews exist; I don't want to spend a grand on an army that isn't good. I don't want to feel bad losing ten games in a row, but, not only that, I don't just lose, I never had a chance of winning in the first place. Maybe if I bought good units that I also like, could I still win games?

But if I spend my money on an army that is good, all my friends and potential friends will hate me? Cool. What a fun community where being successful with an army you like is punished.

What I like has to be good, even if it's bad.
What you like can't be good.

Right, because now it isn't fun for them. The argument you are making is an odd one, in that you are essentially pushing for everyone else to not have fun so the person with the good models can. And Spikes at least anecdotally do go out of their way to hide how Spikey they are so they can get more games.

Everyone in any gaming circle has lot an afternoon to a Spike, which is why the backlash is so vocal.

Yeah it is unfair to people whose stuff gets better or worse via the rules, and its neither sides fault, it is Game Workshops'. My pile of C'tans went from pathetic to cheesy in two editions, while Tau players went from third best to dead last. That doesn't mean I can reasonably expect someone else to give up an afternoon to get wrecked by me.

[Cheesegear]

in that you are essentially pushing for everyone else to not have fun so the person with the good models can.

No, I'm pushing for...

Yeah it is unfair to people whose stuff gets better or worse via the rules, and its neither sides fault, it is Game Workshops'.

See, there are people who say that it's GW's fault for allowing something to happen.
But, just 'cause it's there, doesn't mean you should use it, Hell, some people go for arbitrarily banning something outright.

It's not a case of "Yeah, we know GW made the rule.", but
"Yeah, we know GW made the rule., but if you use the rule, you're a piece of ****."

Who draws the line on what is and isn't allowed in a game?
Is it different per person? ...YES! IT IS!

So to even have a stable meta where everyone plays games, each person is now required to have two and half armies worth of a single Faction, just so they can play against everyone each with their arbitrary rules?

I need you to go through the Space Marine Codex and write me up a banlist. I don't want to run a bad army so your feelings are maintained. Just the same as you don't want to run a good army so I feel challenged. But I can write 10 different lists and all of them will be 'good'. So you may as well just write up a banlist of units you refuse to play against. That way instead of having to guess, I'll just play what you want me to play. Because that's fun for me.
...We kicked the guy who wrote a banlist out of our chat.

"I play White Scars, which means if you have Concealed Positions units to roadblock me, I can't Turn 1 Charge. Please remove your units with Concealed Positions for your lists and then I will play you."
That's what those people sound like.

[Tvtyrant]

No, I'm pushing for...



See, there are people who say that it's GW's fault for allowing something to happen.
But, just 'cause it's there, doesn't mean you should use it, Hell, some people go for arbitrarily banning something outright.

It's not a case of "Yeah, we know GW made the rule.", but
"Yeah, we know GW made the rule., but if you use the rule, you're a piece of ****."

Who draws the line on what is and isn't allowed in a game?
Is it different per person? ...YES! IT IS!

So to even have a stable meta where everyone plays games, each person is now required to have two and half armies worth of a single Faction, just so they can play against everyone each with their arbitrary rules?

I need you to go through the Space Marine Codex and write me up a banlist. I don't want to run a bad army so your feelings are maintained. Just the same as you don't want to run a good army so I feel challenged. But I can write 10 different lists and all of them will be 'good'. So you may as well just write up a banlist of units you refuse to play against. That way instead of having to guess, I'll just play what you want me to play. Because that's fun for me.
...We kicked the guy who wrote a banlist out of our chat.

"I play White Scars, which means if you have Concealed Positions units to roadblock me, I can't Turn 1 Charge. Please remove your units with Concealed Positions for your lists and then I will play you."
That's what those people sound like.

Here is the thing, if you weren't in the minority here you wouldn't be worried about it. Sure Timbob won't play with you, but who cares because Ryangeorge will, and Tedbob, etc. But clearly that isn't the case. As we have established, it is not fun to get totally wrecked by someone else.

Freedom of Association says you are free to opt out of any social group, no one can make you play. On the opposite end you are trying to find a way to force people to associate with you, and claiming those people are wrong for not wanting to be forced to not have fun. I don't think there are a lot of philosophies you can bring to bear that say "people should be forced to sacrifice their hobby time to entertain me."

[Renegade Paladin]

You both have the same avatar and it's driving me nuts.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread.

[Cheesegear]

Here is the thing, if you weren't in the minority here you wouldn't be worried about it.

Kind of. I've been collecting for over 20 years, and I've been collecting Space Marines for about 15 of that. I can put anything I want on the board, except for some of the newer Primaris stuff. I have no issue altering what I put on the board. I've got four or five lists ready to go, right now. And yes, I do consider one of them 'the least powerful', but at no point would I consider any of them 'bad'. My problem, is that it's entirely possible that I can forward all five lists, and someone can - and has - refused to play against every single one of them.

Can I run a Captain with a Jump Pack? No?
Can I run a Captain on a Bike? No?
Can I run a Captain in a Drop Pod? No?
What am I allowed to do?

At some point it's just quicker if you just tell me what you want to play against. That's the logical conclusion of arbitrary banning. That's where homebrew metas come in. Don't even bother letting me run my own army. How 'bout you just pick for me. That'll make things go faster. But once we've reached the point where we're tailoring our opponent's army to match ours, instead of tailoring our own army to match our opponents...That's not a meta I have an interest in being a part of. But that's what people want to do. They don't say it out loud. But that's what they want. Once you go down the road of choosing your opponents, you may as well choose their army list, too.

The problem with GW's 'Buy New Models' approach to game design, means that poorer people can only buy what they can afford. Sometimes it's good. Sometimes it's bad. Sometimes you get a Custodes' player making like it's Grey Knights in 5th Ed. and running an army with <30 models in it. Not because it's good - even though Custodes absolutely are good. But because Custodes are extremely cheap, in the long run, and someone who plans their purchases before they buy, can make better choices.

However, this is retail. So a lot of sales are actually made off the back of a hype train, and imagery. So if you make a bad purchase, and you find out that this unit you like, sucks...It actually costs even more money to fix the mistake, and the money you've already spent (say, on Reivers) has just gone down the drain. This is a prominent attitude in Australia where the hobby is expensive and we're all power-gamers because we aren't spending ludicrous amounts of money on bad stuff. But, in the very, very near future, I expect this attitude to become a lot more prevalent. If people want to stay in the hobby, they're going to have to make better choices, or get sad.

I get it.
To a lot of people, "Buy new models." reads a lot like "Spend more money." A lot of people can't or are unwilling to do that.

In order to play on my level, you have to spend ~$500 more to buy the units that you should've bought in the first place.
In order to play at a lower level, you either need to be a longtime collector like me, or, you have to spend money to buy more units that you didn't buy in the first place because they were bad.

That's what that is. On both sides.

No matter how you spin it, you're telling someone that they can't use the models that they've bought. If you want to play them, one or both of you is having to buy new models.

Spoiler: Remember this?

Show

GW sold that in 7th Ed. "Do you like Jetbikes? Here are some Jetbikes!" A Craftworlds player buys two of those and they're set.

"Yeah, I'm not playing against that."
...But I just started Craftworlds. I don't have any other models to sub-in. You're effectively telling the guy that he can't play the game. Even though he spent money, same as you did. That's when I knew what I'd said in 7th Ed. was wrong. When a group of four friends came into the store, all of them brand new. One of them wanted to play Craftworlds, and he liked the look of the Windrider Battlehost, and bought two. Within a month he couldn't get games with his three mates, and would only be able play against the rest of us because his friends refused him games. Because he had Jetbikes.

At the time, I remember saying "At least you don't have Jetbikes and Wraithknights." ...But, what if he had? Would I have ostracised him just like his friends did? Being honest, I probably would have. But, I didn't. So at least I don't feel guilty about that particular case. And I still play games against that guy four years later, so luckily, I didn't refuse him games for no reason at all other than I was butthurt that he was using rules that GW gave him.

On the opposite end you are trying to find a way to force people to associate with you, and claiming those people are wrong for not wanting to be forced to not have fun.

What is fun?

I don't think there are a lot of philosophies you can bring to bear that say "people should be forced to sacrifice their hobby time to entertain me."

There are no philosophies you can bring to bear that say
"People are allowed to verbally abuse and ostracise each other based on the way that different people have fun." or better,

"People are allowed to verbally abuse and ostracise each other because some of them follow the rules and/or play exactly to the rules." - Let's apply that to a whole bunch of things outside of toy soldiers. Oh look, the world's on fire. What do I know?

[Drasius]

I'm pretty sure this is everything:

Space Marine Abilities
Space Marine Core Units and Characters
Space Marine Core Units

After all of that I decided that the best way to split it on this forum was between Core and non-Core. That is, units that can be force multiplied, and units that can't.

Last link should be non-core units ya dingus.

Edit for italics to make it stand out better

[Forum Explorer]

Kind of. I've been collecting for over 20 years, and I've been collecting Space Marines for about 15 of that. I can put anything I want on the board, except for some of the newer Primaris stuff. I have no issue altering what I put on the board. I've got four or five lists ready to go, right now. And yes, I do consider one of them 'the least powerful', but at no point would I consider any of them 'bad'. My problem, is that it's entirely possible that I can forward all five lists, and someone can - and has - refused to play against every single one of them.

Can I run a Captain with a Jump Pack? No?
Can I run a Captain on a Bike? No?
Can I run a Captain in a Drop Pod? No?
What am I allowed to do?

At some point it's just quicker if you just tell me what you want to play against. That's the logical conclusion of arbitrary banning. That's where homebrew metas come in. Don't even bother letting me run my own army. How 'bout you just pick for me. That'll make things go faster. But once we've reached the point where we're tailoring our opponent's army to match ours, instead of tailoring our own army to match our opponents...That's not a meta I have an interest in being a part of. But that's what people want to do. They don't say it out loud. But that's what they want. Once you go down the road of choosing your opponents, you may as well choose their army list, too.

The problem with GW's 'Buy New Models' approach to game design, means that poorer people can only buy what they can afford. Sometimes it's good. Sometimes it's bad. Sometimes you get a Custodes' player making like it's Grey Knights in 5th Ed. and running an army with <30 models in it. Not because it's good - even though Custodes absolutely are good. But because Custodes are extremely cheap, in the long run, and someone who plans their purchases before they buy, can make better choices.

However, this is retail. So a lot of sales are actually made off the back of a hype train, and imagery. So if you make a bad purchase, and you find out that this unit you like, sucks...It actually costs even more money to fix the mistake, and the money you've already spent (say, on Reivers) has just gone down the drain. This is a prominent attitude in Australia where the hobby is expensive and we're all power-gamers because we aren't spending ludicrous amounts of money on bad stuff. But, in the very, very near future, I expect this attitude to become a lot more prevalent. If people want to stay in the hobby, they're going to have to make better choices, or get sad.

I get it.
To a lot of people, "Buy new models." reads a lot like "Spend more money." A lot of people can't or are unwilling to do that.

In order to play on my level, you have to spend ~$500 more to buy the units that you should've bought in the first place.
In order to play at a lower level, you either need to be a longtime collector like me, or, you have to spend money to buy more units that you didn't buy in the first place because they were bad.

That's what that is. On both sides.

No matter how you spin it, you're telling someone that they can't use the models that they've bought. If you want to play them, one or both of you is having to buy new models.

Spoiler: Remember this?

Show

GW sold that in 7th Ed. "Do you like Jetbikes? Here are some Jetbikes!" A Craftworlds player buys two of those and they're set.

"Yeah, I'm not playing against that."
...But I just started Craftworlds. I don't have any other models to sub-in. You're effectively telling the guy that he can't play the game. Even though he spent money, same as you did. That's when I knew what I'd said in 7th Ed. was wrong. When a group of four friends came into the store, all of them brand new. One of them wanted to play Craftworlds, and he liked the look of the Windrider Battlehost, and bought two. Within a month he couldn't get games with his three mates, and would only be able play against the rest of us because his friends refused him games. Because he had Jetbikes.

At the time, I remember saying "At least you don't have Jetbikes and Wraithknights." ...But, what if he had? Would I have ostracised him just like his friends did? Being honest, I probably would have. But, I didn't. So at least I don't feel guilty about that particular case. And I still play games against that guy four years later, so luckily, I didn't refuse him games for no reason at all other than I was butthurt that he was using rules that GW gave him.



What is fun?



There are no philosophies you can bring to bear that say
"People are allowed to verbally abuse and ostracise each other based on the way that different people have fun." or better,

"People are allowed to verbally abuse and ostracise each other because some of them follow the rules and/or play exactly to the rules." - Let's apply that to a whole bunch of things outside of toy soldiers. Oh look, the world's on fire. What do I know?

I don't know what to tell you. When an opponent asks me to bring a casual list, there is a trust that I am bringing a casual list. And vice versa. Occasionally there is a mismatch in expectations, but we extend the trust that our opponents aren't deliberately trying to create a mismatch in order to get an easy win.

The only thing I could thing of to do in that situation is to ask your opponent to bring a more competitive list, or to be openly seeing a competitive game.

Though out of curiosity, what does the 'most competitive' to 'least competitive' of your lists looks like?

[Saambell]

Though out of curiosity, what does the 'most competitive' to 'least competitive' of your lists looks like?

The least competitive of anyone's lists NEEDS to have at least one unpainted model. Though you need permission for doing that, so someone can yell at you for using ugly grey plastic.

And we all know real tryhards paint all their models. If you don't have at least one model unpainted, you are being scum for victory points.

Man, the amount of elitism out of people who painted all their models was gross when they announced that rule. Except that now they were the tryhards who were gaming the system for easy wins.

[Wraith]

You both have the same avatar and it's driving me nuts.:

I know, right? One of them needs a custom avatar so that the dinosaur has a little goatee beard, so that we know which one is the evil one.

Not entirely sure at this point which one it would be, but it's start....

I don't know what to tell you. When an opponent asks me to bring a casual list, there is a trust that I am bringing a casual list.

The question remains, "What does 'casual' mean?". Like the MtG example above from TvTyrant(?), my casual deck might be one that I have *only* spent $499 on putting together, as opposed to the $501 nightmares that get net-listed from tournaments.

I'm not saying that to put you on the spot, it's a rhetorical question - everyone has their own definition, which usually resembles an answer like "whatever lets me play the army list that I feel like playing". I honestly don't think that the problem is with the game itself, it's that too man people have gotten into the habit of assuming that everyone uses the same definition that they do - 90% of the last two pages of conversation could have been avoided if the standard practice was a thorough conversation with an opponent beyond "Want a game? How many points? Casual though, right?".

And that's not an accusation against anyone who has done that, God knows I've done it enough times. The point is that we all know it's a problem, and in order to work towards fixing it the community as a whole needs to learn to normalise 'conversations' with 'other people'. I know, it's weird, but bare with me...

Though out of curiosity, what does the 'most competitive' to 'least competitive' of your lists looks like?

Least competitive? Probably the homage to my 5th Edition Black Templars. I stuff 30 guys into 3 Land Raiders and drive at the opponent like a maniac while my jump-pack'd Chaplain and his big squad of Assault Marines bounces around pouncing on stuff. One of us it dead by the end of turn 3, and if I'm playing this list, it's because I don't really care who.

Most competitive.... I tinkered with Black Templars again and ran them as MSU Missile/Plasma gunline backed up by some Dreadnoughts that my friends sometimes rolled their eyes at, but that list didn't take much effort to put together so I'd hardly call it optimised.
The one that I put the most effort into and really worked out how to make it go was probably my Grey Knights - tons of Interceptors and Dreadknights/DK-Grand Master teleporting in for the mother of all alpha-strikes. It was a bit wonky and had some bugs features that I needed to work on, but it had one of my best records for quite a long time.

[LansXero]

Let me tell you guys about my friends named Diego.

MTG Diego comes from a part of town people keep making jokes about comparing it to Mordor. His parents cut him off when he came out, and he got into a good private university due to an scholarship, but also that left him poor as mud.
MTG Diego is Peru's two time national champion, and part of our only team to ever make it to MTG Worlds Day 2.
He grinds. He practices. He trades. He snipes auctions. He wins promos to fill up decks. He is an absolute delight to play against, and always joins in community outreach events to bring in new players. And yet, he is one of the country's most succesful, most competitive players in an already pretty cutthroat game.

40kDiego is an investment banker from an old-money family (although the family name isnt as strong as it used to, some drama around our agrarian reform). He has like 4000 points of Death Korps somewhere in his house and like 12000 points of random Imperial stuff, with another 6000ish points of IF fully commision painted (he isnt bad at painting by any measure, but wanted his 'main' faction to have that extra oomph). He is loaded, and so far has like a 3/44 W/L rate. I usually get paired with him as a handicap, which we tell him straight to his face. People cheer when they get him as a partner in round 1, as they can chill, stomp him, then focus on next match by hovering over other tables.
40kDiego is at this moment insisting I launch another TTS tournament. He has this cool Custodes list he wants to try, which he will no doubt lose with. He doesnt mind one bit, he is happy because he gets to play and pull off cool combos like current IF shenanigans. He actually felt the nerf to their super doctrine was 'deserved considering the recent weapons buff'.

Im proud we fostered a community in our store where Diegos of either type are common ocurrences. Where people can own up their own lack of X (skill, money, whatever) and dont feel they need to wall up in smugness or herd mentality to get over the simple fact other people will always have more of something than you. I think its a healthy environment where we can have a pubstomp, shake hands and go for roasted chicken while discussing lore all together.

[Eldan]

HEh. That just reminds me of when I still used to play regularly. I had Eldar, back in... sixth or seventh edition when Eldar used to win everything. People would watch my games just to see someone with years of experience lose badly with Eldar. Some didn't think it was possible.

[AdmiralCheez]

I'm just really glad that my small group of friends all just want to have fun together. A couple of them have been playing for years and have huge amounts of models of every faction, but if they play you (especially if you're in the other half of the group that only started playing this year), they'll make a list that matches what you're bringing, and then give you advice on how to beat them. They know that if they just curb stomp the new players every game, they're not going to have many games to play.

[Blackhawk748]

I honestly don't think that the problem is with the game itself, it's that too man people have gotten into the habit of assuming that everyone uses the same definition that they do - 90% of the last two pages of conversation could have been avoided if the standard practice was a thorough conversation with an opponent beyond "Want a game? How many points? Casual though, right?".

While that may be part of it, it's definitely the fault of the game. 40k, depending on Faction, is incredibly easy to break on accident.

You like Imperial Fists right? So ou take things that seem right for Imperial Fists, so Centurions and HB Devastators. Maybe some Terminators or a Dreadnaught.

You like Goffs? So you take a bunch of Meganobs and some Mek Guns to back them up, probably a Battelwagon for them.

Neither of these are perfectly optimized, but they've got enough base good stuff in them that you could easily accidentally roflstomp someone else. And you're even playing to theme. Neither of these is off for their Sub Factions.

Now compare to something like Kings of War where the most OP unit last edition was the Stampede. The odds of someone accidentally bringing 4 Stampedes in their list was incredibly tiny, and the odds of accidentally breaking on of the factions is that game is minute.

Yes if you played Dwarves you were at a disadvantage, but you could make up most of that by playing decently once the game started. 40k doesn't have that ability because list building has an oversized effect on the game. We all know that you can build a list that another list has a near 0% chance of beating (Say, Guardsmen Infantry spam vs Custodes) and that sort of thing doesn't happen in most other tabletop games.

Yes, that Cavalry heavy list is gonna be a problem for my Zombie spam list, but I still have decent odds of winning, if I play smart.

I'm running mostly Guardsman because I wanted to play Tallarn so the heaviest thing I brought was a Sentinel. I will be destroyed by Custodes and there's very little I can do.

[bluntpencil]

I'm running mostly Guardsman because I wanted to play Tallarn so the heaviest thing I brought was a Sentinel. I will be destroyed by Custodes and there's very little I can do.

Funnily enough, I want to play Tallarn so usually take nothing but Russes.

[Renegade Paladin]

So I started Imperial Guard in 5th edition because I like tanks. Tanks were super good in 5th. I rolled in as a new player and stomped everything into the ground until people learned to start taking lascannons and meltaguns. But I've told that story a bunch of times.

Thing is, I still like tanks. I kept playing basically that same list as long as it was legal for me to do so (then Veterans became Elites and storm troopers became Troops and I was forced to switch it up), and for a brief, glorious period in late 8th I got to go back to it because the Emperor's Blade specialist detachment made it possible again. I kept playing that same style of list in 6th and 7th, and got destroyed basically all of the time (except for that one time against the scatter laser bike Eldar list with a Wraithknight, because the guy didn't realize Russes were side armor 13 and his scatter lasers couldn't hurt them, and hid the Wraithknight from the Shadowsword all game ). The meta came back around to it being good in 8th, but now that 9th means that list is giving away max secondaries all the time... I'm still going to take it. And if it comes around to being the metabuster again at some point, well, I can point to literally five editions' worth of lists that all operate around the same principle to anyone who thinks I'm just doing flavor of the month.

[LansXero]

So I started Imperial Guard in 5th edition because I like tanks.

But do you play the best tanks you can, given the edition? like, did you put sponsons on Russes in 8th even though they shoot at BS5? Did you try and pick the better variants / weapon loadouts?

Even on theme, even in fluff, there is room to do as well as you can. Some people do, some people dont, but competitive and play what you like arent at odds.

[Renegade Paladin]

But do you play the best tanks you can, given the edition? like, did you put sponsons on Russes in 8th even though they shoot at BS5? Did you try and pick the better variants / weapon loadouts?

Even on theme, even in fluff, there is room to do as well as you can. Some people do, some people dont, but competitive and play what you like arent at odds.

My Russes for the most part have the sponsons glued on (I magnetize ones I build new, but most of mine were bought secondhand), so no. Battle tanks with either 3x heavy bolters or lascannon and two bolters nearly all around. The couple that I do have magnetized get switched to what's good, though, and get used as tank commanders because that's the best way to take advantage of their modularity.

[Cheesegear]

I don't know what to tell you. When an opponent asks me to bring a casual list, there is a trust that I am bringing a casual list.

But I don't know what that is.
When someone says 'casual', I assume that we're going to take 3-4 hours to play a game, instead of a tight 2, and one or both of us have had beers for lunch less than half an hour ago...Or between Turns 2 and 3, so the end game is more bearable.

But when you say casual list, that doesn't mean anything to me. Well, it does:

It means bad list.

But what is bad against Slaanesh Daemons, isn't bad against Guard.

This is where I start struggling; Are you asking your opponent to have a different list for every opponent?

"What does 'casual' mean?".
my casual deck might be one that I have *only* spent $499 on putting together, as opposed to $501

"Want a game? How many points? Casual though, right?".

You've nailed it. Both times.
Someone wants me to run a bad I mean casual list. I don't have Reivers. I sold my Tactical Marines. I don't have any Assault Squads or Assault Intercessors. I don't know what you want from me. I don't have any bad units to run.

I can run a lot of stuff, in a lot of combinations. Many of it you wont even find in a tournament list, because 7/8/9 out of 10 isn't 10/10. I can run a lot of non-tournament stuff in my lists (e.g; Suppressors). And I guarantee you that my win rate is still going to be positive, if you run bad lists.

In my meta, to organise games, we say
"Do you want a game? I play Space Marines."
"Cool. I play Orks."

And then we both tailor based on what we think the other person will run. That, to me, is a casual game. By virtue of accepting the game in the first place, we've already understood that we have the tools we need to play against the other person. If we don't have the tools we need, someone will refuse and not play. But playing Space Marines I rarely refuse a game. However, recently the trend has become that players don't not have the tools they need; It's that players 'Don't want to play against Space Marines again' because we're currently stuck in the phase of an edition where GW releases nothing but Space Marines for nigh-on 12 months, so that's what people play.

If you want to refuse games, based on my list, not just my Faction, you may as well just tell me what you want to play against, and remove all of my agency. Because I have no idea what you want. Because every single one of my fun lists is going to be, in some shape or form, a good list, too. Because I wouldn't own a unit unless I both liked it and it was good.

If a unit is good, but I don't want to buy it...Simple, I wont buy it.
If a unit is bad, but I like it, I wont buy it because I don't want stuff that sits on my shelf collecting dust.

Therefore, your competitive vs. casual binaries are flawed; Because every unit I own, is good. Every unit I own, I like. Otherwise I wouldn't own it.