purifier spam

[Murcielago]

No offense, but having just read that...I have no clue what you're trying to say other than "not seeing a theme"

[Chengar Qordath]

No offense, but having just read that...I have no clue what you're trying to say other than "not seeing a theme"

I think jeske's point basically boils down to: "Spamming and Cookie-cutter army lists exist because of how GW makes its codices, not because evil net lists exert their mind control powers to stop people from coming up with creative army lists."

 

Kind of have to agree with him there; a lot of GW codices include one or two really good units that are basically no-brainer choices, and an equal number of really bad units that just aren't worth taking most of the time.

 

People make cookie-cutter lists because that's what wins games, and at the end of the day most people like winning. Only way that will ever change is if GW makes codices where every unit is a more-or-less equally viable choice.

[king tiger 101]

Except that's not the point, gw doesn't fill its rulebooks with nothing but competetive viable units because that's not the point in there game, the point is to play mini narrative stories on a table, not to smash your opponents army off the board in the least amount of turns.

 

Gw rules support this by being rubbish in a competetive enviroment, that's just fact, anyone can see that with a quarter of a brain, Hell why do you think it is gw can't run a half decent tournament to save there lives?, but unfortunately while certain types of players and there attitudes exist, nothing is going to fix this

 

These kinds of spam lists also do not help the game, in fact they cause allot of harm to the game, take jeskes gaming enviroment as an example, from what he has said around the board on how he and his community plays, I would never ever want to be around those types of people, so if I was starting in this game, I would not spend my money for long

 

You wanna win games use your own ability to win, not rely on a spam list that looks like it was created by a 2yr old with mental issues

[Murcielago]

Quick and short, I agree with King Tiger ;)

 

Quick and short, I agree with King Tiger ;)

[Chengar Qordath]

Except that's not the point, gw doesn't fill its rulebooks with nothing but competetive viable units because that's not the point in there game, the point is to play mini narrative stories on a table, not to smash your opponents army off the board in the least amount of turns.

It's not like a good narrative and balanced unit choices are mutually exclusive.

 

Gw rules support this by being rubbish in a competetive enviroment, that's just fact, anyone can see that with a quarter of a brain, Hell why do you think it is gw can't run a half decent tournament to save there lives?, but unfortunately while certain types of players and there attitudes exist, nothing is going to fix this

 

These kinds of spam lists also do not help the game, in fact they cause allot of harm to the game, take jeskes gaming enviroment as an example, from what he has said around the board on how he and his community plays, I would never ever want to be around those types of people, so if I was starting in this game, I would not spend my money for long

 

You wanna win games use your own ability to win, not rely on a spam list that looks like it was created by a 2yr old with mental issues

At the end of the day, most players would rather win than lose. That's just a basic fact. I'd much rather lose a good close match with a fun story than utterly stomp an opponent in a storyless match. However, I'd rather win a close fight with a good narrative behind it than lose a close fight with a good narrative behind it. It's not like winning is something dirty players should be ashamed of.

 

As long as units are badly balanced, playing to win means spamming the one or two good units, and avoiding the bad ones. It's not about everyone who disagrees with how you think the game ought to be played being a two year old with mental issues, it's about the fact that some units are objectively better than others. Spamming is the inevitable result of unbalanced codices.

[king tiger 101]

Spamming is the inevitable result of lazy players,you don't need to spam to win, that's cow poop, you need to use your brain to win, spamming one or two units then rolling dice is not thinking, anyone can do it, your list should not determine the winner if a game, your skill should, that is true wargaming, that's not an opinion, that's just fact based on hundreds if other systems requiring the same principle

[Chengar Qordath]

Spamming is the inevitable result of lazy players,you don't need to spam to win, that's cow poop, you need to use your brain to win, spamming one or two units then rolling dice is not thinking, anyone can do it, your list should not determine the winner if a game, your skill should, that is true wargaming, that's not an opinion, that's just fact based on hundreds if other systems requiring the same principle

Sure, skill is the most important factor in winning. But between two equally skilled players (or players where the skill gap is narrow), a list that spams the best units in the codex will beat one that takes a mix of good, okay, and bad units.

[king tiger 101]

Spamming is the inevitable result of lazy players,you don't need to spam to win, that's cow poop, you need to use your brain to win, spamming one or two units then rolling dice is not thinking, anyone can do it, your list should not determine the winner if a game, your skill should, that is true wargaming, that's not an opinion, that's just fact based on hundreds if other systems requiring the same principle

Sure, skill is the most important factor in winning. But between two equally skilled players (or players where the skill gap is narrow), a list that spams the best units in the codex will beat one that takes a mix of good, okay, and bad units.

So in that situation, again why spam?, surely a game between 2 equally skilled players with a mixture of units giving each side no obvious advantage or disadvantage is the perfect game for a true taker....surely you want to be tested by having to really push the boat out to outsmart your opponent, to outmanouver him, outgun him where you can, for the game to constantly be on the edge of a knife.

 

Why then ruin the perfect idea of a game, by spamming units to give yourself the best chance of winning with as little effort as you can?, that's not wargaming, that's practically cheating...how exactly would players like thus survive in other wargaming systems?

[Chengar Qordath]

So in that situation, again why spam?, surely a game between 2 equally skilled players with a mixture of units giving each side no obvious advantage or disadvantage is the perfect game for a true taker....surely you want to be tested by having to really push the boat out to outsmart your opponent, to outmanouver him, outgun him where you can, for the game to constantly be on the edge of a knife.

 

Why then ruin the perfect idea of a game, by spamming units to give yourself the best chance of winning with as little effort as you can?, that's not wargaming, that's practically cheating...how exactly would players like thus survive in other wargaming systems?

Sure, that mixed armies of equally balanced units would be nice, and if everyone played like that the game would be more fun, but see my previous point. People like to win. As long as spamming wins, that's what a lot of people are going to do.

 

As for other wargames, in a system where spamming doesn't produce overpowered lists, most people won't spam. The reason people spam in 40k is that it works.

[king tiger 101]

I still say its stupid, it ruins the game in both the friendly and comoetetive enviroment, ruins it from an asthetic view, makes players lazy and cocky and arrogant, and is just a big pile of negative

 

This sort of list building, this sort of playing should not be encouraged, the online community sho

uld push for this style to die, it is harmful, and if people truly loved the game they wouldn't do it, and would not want others to do it, obviously peoples love if the game is overshadowed by there lust to feel better than there opponents, to inflate there ego

 

I would have to argue that if you enjoy winning, surely a challenging win is faaaaaaaar more satisfying than a cheap easy win from being a spamming bumhat

[Chengar Qordath]

I'd definitely prefer a spam-less metagame as well. but the unfortunate reality is that as long as spamming makes stronger lists that win more often, people will spam.

[Murcielago]

while yes, a challenging win feels a helluva lot better, most people are forced to spam units because it IS effective against other spammers (aka tournament play).

 

But honestly, my close friends and I go to tournaments with lists that aren't as spammy and people are surprised at what we bring and actually have to question their moves :P

 

ALSO, we are WAYYYYYYYYY off topic...

[king tiger 101]

I wouldn't say its off topic, why would you only want to hear people saying "yes its awesome, you should do it, you will win and feel like a bigger man", surely people want to hear how utterly retarded it is to do as well

 

2 sides 1 coin

[The Holy Heretic]

...my close friends and I go to tournaments with lists that aren't as spammy and people are surprised at what we bring and actually have to question their moves ;)

 

Funny, I do too, as I just can't stand building/painting the same models over and over again, so I'm 'forced' to do a little variation.

 

This usually ensures a sigh of relief from my opponents, as they realize they won't have to play just another cloned i-net list. And some pretty good games, as all their usual counters just won't work. It also provides a little longevity for my armies, as every game aren't just a repetition of earlier games - losing your one unit of purifiers early on, forces you to think on your toes, instead of just relying on redundancy.

 

Balancewise, I have no issues. I've gotten my beatings out of Tau, and wiped the nastiest IG cheese lists off the board to the last man - the outcome usually has more to do with the size of my hangover than choice of models (unless its tyranids of course, the poor buggers ;) ).

 

Back on topic, I'd say that the purifier spam is undoubtedly the strongest build in the GK arsenal, and is only rivalled by Draigowing for sheer boredom ;)

[Gentlemanloser]

the point is to play mini narrative stories on a table, not to smash your opponents army off the board in the least amount of turns.

 

Sorry, but that's not 40k.

 

It might be how you like to play 40k, and more power to you!

 

But there's no (or rather none to little) support for 'narative' play in 40k in the BRB. Rather the scenario's are heavily weighted to just 'smashing your opponent off the board'. And the quicker you can do it, the better.

 

Kill points. Not having an enemy to control/contest objectives. Total Annihlation.

 

All designed around smashing up your opponent.

 

And there's no benefit to waiting until turn 5/6/7 to do so. Smash them by turn 1, and you win! WooT!

[king tiger 101]

In that case remove all the terrain from your tables, remove all the fluff from your rulebooks, delete the entire 41st millennium, don't roll dice, and play, see how bored you get winning then, Cus if your not playing a narrative battle, why has gw created a fictional universe for you to play in?, why have they given every army page after page of fluff?, why do they encourage you to use your imagination and make your own scenarios?...I highly doubt it is for your reasons they have gone through all this effort

 

Yes the basic scenarios are simple, because it is up to you bone idle players to add more to them, to create your own, and to expand the universe in your own way via your actions

[Gentlemanloser]

Grey Kngiht versus Grey Knight.

 

Narative much? ;)

 

sometimes you have to suspend the fluff, for a good fun game of killing your opponent.

[king tiger 101]

Why not grey knight versus grey knight?, its not hard to imagine they have clashed over a difference of opinions

[Gentlemanloser]

I actually find that *very* hard to imagine.

 

You can hand wave it away with the Deus Ex of "Chaos Courupption" for any other Marine Chapter (see Blood Ravens), but the GK have never been tempted by Chaos.,

 

There is no reason they'd actually fight another GK battle brother.

 

Ever.

[king tiger 101]

You don't need chaos to make everyone fight each other, there can be numerous reasons why a force of knights fights another, from as simple as two masters insulting each other, to one group thinking another has something they shouldn't but neither can prove they do or don't and refuse to be investigated due to pride.

 

Use your imagination for goodness sake people, this is another problem with your gamers, if gw doesn't hand you ideas your too bone idol to think it yourselves or scared that gw will come and punish you.

 

Plus the fluff is written from a pro imperium point of view, of course its not going to admit if knights get corrupted, if a primarch can, ANYONE can duuuuuuh

[Gentlemanloser]

May I ask you some questions?

 

Do you use points values and FoC when you play 40k? Why do you think 40k is based around these ideas?

 

Do you tihnk that 40k would be a better game if (for exmaple only) a game was say 15 Marines versus 300 Orks (with no point costs or FoC limits)?

[king tiger 101]

May I ask you some questions?

 

Do you use points values and FoC when you play 40k? Why do you think 40k is based around these ideas?

 

Do you tihnk that 40k would be a better game if (for exmaple only) a game was say 15 Marines versus 300 Orks (with no point costs or FoC limits)?

We sometimes use points values and the foc yes, most of the time actually, but sometimes we just ignore it if it fits your fluff and army idea, and if ltd are ignored we just wing it and guess if it looks good on the table that's good enough, its only a game afterall, we also sometimes allow codex mixing or one guy by us once made his own traitor codex, before the fw one was free to download, then we just make up a scenario with critical objectives that might even affect the current game or certain units and play

 

And no 15 marines vs 300 it is is stupid, nobody would do that because you would need to be a new breed of moron, unless you make up cool rules for the marines, give them awesome wargear, maybe make them individual heroes, like movie marines

[*Furyou Miko]

Raphael, up and vertical with Queen's Guard. Stunlock-win vs any opponent in Soul Calibur II.

 

Every time someone spams a list, the Emperor sheds a tear.

 

My favourite way to play is narrative ladder campaigns with each player starting with 500 points, and earning 250 points for a win or 100 points for a loss, with each mission having specific objectives that grant bonuses in subsequent games for holding that territory. I like using Veteran Skills and XP rules.

 

I very rarely get to play my favourite kind of 40k.

[king tiger 101]

Raphael, up and vertical with Queen's Guard. Stunlock-win vs any opponent in Soul Calibur II.

 

Every time someone spams a list, the Emperor sheds a tear.

 

My favourite way to play is narrative ladder campaigns with each player starting with 500 points, and earning 250 points for a win or 100 points for a loss, with each mission having specific objectives that grant bonuses in subsequent games for holding that territory. I like using Veteran Skills and XP rules.

 

I very rarely get to play my favourite kind of 40k.

Always fun those can be, I think the guys here are doing similar for apocalypse, to make it less Oki, though we scare staff from other shops Cus we regularly break the 7 digit figure in points

[Gentlemanloser]

And no 15 marines vs 300 it is is stupid

 

Why?

 

Heroic, narative last stand. Sounds awesome.

 

Why would it be stupid?

 

Well, it utterly throws balance out of the window. As does ignoring the FoC and points, for the rule of cool. But it would be one hell of a narative story, right? Winning's not everything, is it?