So you dislike Unbound?

[Lucien Eilam]

But your restrictions do next to nothing to rein in the xenos armies. Meanwhile, a Grey Knights player potentially can't field his last-codex army at all, just because it's been split into 3 Detachments. Unless of course he brings 4 Assassins, because… I guess that's more balanced than 1?
 
That's what I mean by arbitrary. Limiting the number of Detachments doesn't make the game any more balanced. You have to consider what's in them.

We have a restriction too. It's "don't be a dick". I'm sure it's not perfectly balanced either, but I bet it leads to more varied games.
 
(We only have one player who routinely uses Unbound. Most of his armies would fit into a single Detachment and be better for it, it's just several pages of rules he doesn't have to care about.)
 

Who are you to decide what an opponent should or should not bring in their army?

 
I'm the guy he's expecting to give up a few precious hours of spare time. My opponent can bring whatever he likes but, if it results in a crap game, he can find someone else to play with.

[Reclusiarch Darius]

I certainly agree that balance in 40k is infeasible (and the computational complexity of that problem swells with each new release) but I don't agree that the necessary end result of Unbound is cheesy-silliness. Unbound can be a good way to introduce new players to the game (in that it lets them play with whatever they have) and an interesting tool to set up narrative games and campaigns. Without discretion (and with, frankly, a selfish disregard for one's opponent's experience) then I think you're right: you do end up with beardy lists featuring only Primarchs and Imperial Knights.

 

That's what I mean though dude. None of our players are bad people, but inevitably if there isn't an agreed upon format (and GW consistently refuse to lay down the law in that regard, and do things like the Necron Decurion to further ruin any semblance of a level playing field), people will bring combos that few can deal with. I know human nature, as I'm sure we all do. And my preference is people get introduced to the gloves-off version of the game at higher point levels, where they're in a position to A: build accordingly and B: bring equally strong lists. GW have ruined any chance of pick-up games being remotely balanced, so now we the players have to get creative and find ways to make a format that works for most. 

Nobody at my club has yet brought a single Imperial Knight to club night: to tournies they travel to, I understand, but not to game night. Games can get pretty cut throat and people test out some of their min-maxed-for-Temple-Con lists, but they do so with the open admission that it's their goal for the week, so nobody rolls in for a "friendly game" only to get trampled by a surprise net list. Such discretion (or, in the case of your club, Darius, pre-agreed-to restrictions) are the solution to our Unbound problem, in my mind. <3

 

Or just don't play Unbound. Battle-Forged has a lot of hidden consequences that Unbound players never have to deal with. The focus on Troops for example, and the need to field token 'unlock' forces to get powerful combo's online presents actual challenges. Should I squeeze in a third Riptide, or do I want some Crisis for anti-tank? The Force Org chart is in tatters for most armies, I agree, but it's still able to put a few roadblocks in the way of spam lists. GW has also made Troops gradually more relevant for every faction, to the point where they're no longer a tax but a core aspect for a list's power. I hate Maelstrom but it punishes armies that can't shoot or attrition like you wouldn't believe. I know exactly what GW were going for there, and it does have it's own meta (which is awful, but some people enjoy it, power to them). 

But your restrictions do next to nothing to rein in the xenos armies. Meanwhile, a Grey Knights player potentially can't field his last-codex army at all, just because it's been split into 3 Detachments. Unless of course he brings 4 Assassins, because… I guess that's more balanced than 1?

 

Nothing can dude, and it's pointless to try. Comp tries to stop cheese, but it always fails. I can't rein in the xenos stupidity, because GW BUILT them that way. I'd have to actually ban Riptides, or Serpents, or whatever power unit. And I'm not doing that. They can be beaten, with good tactics and a little luck. 

 

No, you can't field your army from last codex. Surprise, that's why it's an update. Also, I have no desire to return to our old 5th edition incarnation. We'd be even less relevant if we hadn't been updated for 7th. Purifier mech would be absolutely laughable in this edition. 

 

Assassins (with the exception of the Culexus, who is broken hilarity) are bad. Maximum style points, 0 for effectiveness. 

 

Also, none of this has to do with my club rules. GW broke up our 5th edition book into three less powerful flavours. Blame them for ruining your 5th edition builds. 

That's what I mean by arbitrary. Limiting the number of Detachments doesn't make the game any more balanced. You have to consider what's in them.

 

It makes it less insane. Balanced isn't what I'm aiming for. Also, this isn't just my idea alone. A bunch of the players all told me the same thing, they wanted 2 detachments max because A: it's easier to keep track of and B: it prevents spam. Yes, its arbitrary, so is everything in this game. It's no different to agreeing to terrain rules. GW refuse to define things clearly, they always leave it to the players. This is really just an extension of that 'gentleman's agreement' method. 

We have a restriction too. It's "don't be a dick". I'm sure it's not perfectly balanced either, but I bet it leads to more varied games.

 

Which is way too subjective, and allows people to be babies when they come up against lists they can't beat. It's far better to have an agreed format that everyone understands and heeds to, rather than every game being random as hell. Also, it's not like I'm cutting down on the variety of armies. 40k has a lot of factions, and they all play differently (some even have wildly different playstyles depending which which sub-faction you run). We're also allowing 1 Formation as well, to add even more variety, and a single Lord of War. That's plenty of scope for the creative player to get building with. 

'm the guy he's expecting to give up a few precious hours of spare time. My opponent can bring whatever he likes but, if it results in a crap game, he can find someone else to play with.

 

Which is what is driving people away from the hobby, and is the most consistently complained about issue with ex-players. That's why I'm doing the narrative campaign with my club. It gives people a lot of games to try new things and do small-scale skirmishes, before we move things into a higher gear and they start fighting tournament staples. My hope is that people can re-discover the fun aspects of 40k (the lore, the way no two games are ever the same, the way the game demands both a strategic and tactical approach from both players) and negate some of the annoying aspects (the broken combos, the power creep, the Dice Gods fickle blessings). In the higher point games, my plan is to really make the mission objectives front and centre, whilst still rewarding a player who is dominating the battlefield by dice-down. Warmahordes does a really good job of this, and I've seen some interesting scenarios crop up at many large tournaments recently. It's all still work in progress (Round 1 is happening now, I'm writing the mission for Round 2 soon), but so far people are enjoying it. 

[Lucien Eilam]

Also, none of this has to do with my club rules. GW broke up our 5th edition book into three less powerful flavours. Blame them for ruining your 5th edition builds.

 

But they didn't. Using the actual rules, I can put exactly the same units in an army I could before, and more. 

 

You seem to be hung up on building the most powerful army. I'm concerned with putting the miniatures I paid for on the table. Their rules let me do that. Your restrictions wouldn't, even though that army wouldn't be half as scary as pretty much anything a Tau player can do with a single Detachment.

 

That's plenty of scope for the creative player to get building with.

 

It might be varied enough for your tastes, but that's a tiny fraction of the variety anyone playing by the rules has available to them.

 

so far people are enjoying it.

That's the most important thing, of course.

[thade]

Darius, honestly, my friend, I'm inferring two theses from your post(s) here that I don't see clear to, so I'd like to hit them directly:

 

It's not the case that "human nature" means "inevitable power-gaming."

 

It's not the case that "Don't be a tool" serves to empower whiners.

 

Human nature includes the simple desire to chill out after work, and for some of us that equates to lugging a huge sack of man-dolls to a club for laughs, company, and some deep-thinking gaming. This doesn't mandate or require

 

If the mantra "don't be a tool" is adhered to by both people at the table, neither will bring a power list, neither will whine about the other's stuff...because both of those things are being a tool.

 

Unbound being built into a dirty xenos codex doesn't mean we're inevitably going to play against power lists (or be required to play them ourselves) because we all already have defenses set up against that in our local scenes, which each of you has already shared with us. :) Social defenses. We talk it out. This isn't GW slacking when they state, in the rules, for us to take this control: it's their tacit admission that the game can't be balanced unless they remove tons of flexibility and unit choice, so instead they went the other direction and empowered us to be the filters.

[jeffersonian000]

Have you tried Highlander format, yet? "There can be only one," is a huge restrictive lens that lets you see armies in a whole new light. Since you can only take one of each unit max, with the exception of Troops after each Troop selection has been taken, each player is forced to make actual hard choices on how to fill out an FoC for competetive play. This would mean 1 DK, not 9, but it would also mean potentially taking a full GKIS to combat squad into "mini-DK" 5-mans, and possibly deep striking a squad or two of Strikes set up just like the Interceptors. It could mean taking Paladins and Purifiers, a GM and a Libby, Draigo and Stern.

 

What I'm saying is that the answer to no or low restriction play is more restrictive play. Comp is not the answer, but equal limits on everyone might just be.

 

SJ

[Gentlemanloser]

Comp tries to stop cheese, but it always fails.

Bad headcold, so limited responses.

If it always fails (as it always has in my experience. SM bring too many Lascannons, don't bring them. Eldar bring too many Dark Reapers, don't bring them. GK bring too many psycannons...), then why bother?

Why continue with something that doesn't work?

Jeff, How does that work with mini dexes like Inquisition, Imperial Knights and Legion?

If the mantra "don't be a tool" is adhered to by both people at the table, neither will bring a power list, neither will whine about the other's stuff...because both of those things are being a tool.

Not disagreeing, but an example back form my 4th/5th days.

Our SM player loved Tac squads. He did. And enjoyed nothing more than bringing 6 of them to games.

Our Eldar player loved his Dark Reapers. They melted Tac squads quicker than you could roll dice.

Was the Eldar player being a 'tool' using them?

Should the Eldar player have added units he didn't like (Scorpions maybe?) so the SM player could have had a better matchup?

Should the SM player have changed his army into something more 'competitive', to give him a chance versus the Dark Reapers?

Either player changing would have made their armies less enjoyable.

Who's the tool, and who wins in this situation?

[thade]

Were they both having fun when they gamed together?

That's the operative question here. "Fairness" in this game can't be measured by power balance in 40k, as I think we've each more or less said. If they both have fun gaming against one another with their beloved lists, then neither is being a tool.

If one of them consistently is having a crappy time when gaming the other, then the other might consider changing things up (or both of them might) in order to make the experience more fun.

The Xenos Player. If the dirty xenos player really likes their Dark Reapers, but always smokes the marine player, might be time to try different units; that's a good opportunity to take units that everybody says "You can't win with that unit! It sucks, is sub-optimal, and ugly!"

For instance, if I know for sure one of my canned and beloved lists will trample a player due to their beloved list, that's the game I bring "As many footslogging melee-centric dreadnoughts as I can fit" or "irresponsibly tooled up Vanguard." It's not a question of "can I beat this opponent with anything in my kit" but a question of "can I do what everybody says is impossible?" I.E. imposing challenges on myself, so I still have fun, and not insta-crushing my opponent, so they have fun.

The Marine Player. Maybe the marine player really enjoys those uphill battles; I know I do. I learn more losing than winning, but there's a limit. That is, if I lose in one to two turns, and/or get tabled, that's seldom fun for me, and seldom fun for the people I game against. The best games are those that don't have a clear victor until at least the last turn or two, where there's a lot of struggle and shifts in control. Those kinds of games are very fun and I enjoy them, win or lose. If this is the case, maybe no change needs to happen in that dynamic there, other than different tactical approaches for the marine player as he tries to figure out just how he might beat those Reapers. (They really do melt marines.)

If the xenos player enjoys tabling the marine player for the sake of it, or refuses to make any kind of a change after a long period of playing precisely the same units with the same result, I do think they're being inconsiderate. If they're rude/gloaty about it, they're being a tool.

If the marine player has a time, talks about the xenos player without talking to the xenos player, or whines about the games without seeking a solution, they're being a tool.

They can both be tools...and the crappiest part here is that if one or both of them aren't having fun, one or both of them might give up on the hobby which is not a good thing.

[jeffersonian000]

Jeff, How does that work with mini dexes like Inquisition, Imperial Knights and Legion?

It works exactly as described, all units are 0-1 except for mandatory units such as Troops (but only after each of those units are selected).

 

An Inquistorial detachment would be limited to no more than 1 Inquisitor of each type of Inquisitor up to the limits of the detachment per detachment. As Henchmen squads are already 0-4, and the only unit available for that slot (Elites), they would be 0-4 in a Highlander format.

 

Sisters of Battle only have one Troop unit, and since a CAD requires 2 Troops min, Sisters would be able to have as many Battle Sister Squads as allowed within the FoC.

 

Imperial Knights are interesting because they only have two units to fill a 3 unit detachment to form an army, which means at least 1 Errant and 1 Paladin before any duplicate.

 

Etc.

 

The format is more restrictive, yet the restrictions are even across the board for all armies with multiple selections for each slot, yet flexible enough to compensate for armies with one or no selections.

 

One of the big issues is Dedicated Transports, which are limited to 0-1 just like every other unit. That means 1 Rhino, 1 Drop Pod, 1 Wave Serpent, etc., unless your group works out a compromise. Personally, I'd leave it at 0-1, and force footslogging on everyone, although I do understand that a 0-3 limit on each DT has merit and is a fair compromise.

 

SJ

[Gentlemanloser]

Were they both having fun when they gamed together?

First couple of games, when things were new, and it was a challenge to learn.

Then, no.

then the other might consider changing things up (or both of them might) in order to make the experience more fun.

This is the point.

Changing the armies would have led to just as un fun matches, as both players disliked building thier armies differently. I don't know if I'm explaining this well. The SM is an easier exmaple.

He loved the design and feel of running lots of Tac dudes. He felt that was the basis of a Space Marine army, and it was how he wanted to play.

Time and agian I'd offer suggestions and tweaks to his build to get more, competitive-ness, out of it, to give him a better chance facing the Eldar.

He refused, as he would not have enjoyed playing his army in a different way. MSU with Rhinos and 5 man squads was not the way he would enjoy playing his army.

So he didn't change, and continued to lose. And didn't enjoy the games.

Even if he had changed, and started to win, he wouldn't have enjoyed the games, as he wasn't playing the army he enjoyed.

I hope this makes sense. Still bunged up with headcold.

They really do melt marines

It was worse back in the day. Crackshot Exarch making those AP3 missile ignore cover saves as well. That dude was

The best games are those that don't have a clear victor until at least the last turn or two, where there's a lot of struggle and shifts in control. Those kinds of games are very fun and I enjoy them, win or lose.

Totally, 100% this.

Unadulterated, every time. :)

[BetterOffShred]

Agreed.  I love the Turn 5 cliff-hangers.   I had a game recently where it came down to one D6 roll for the victory, and yes it was one of the funnest games Ive played in recent times.  Its funny you think back on some of these games and almost forget who won because the moments of the game were so legendary you remember those rather than the victory point outcome.  (well not really, I won the last one haha)  but close enough.  I lost the one before that and it was equally memorable. 

 

I probably wouldn't enjoy losing every game, but at the same time I'm not anchored to a losing list build either.  It's like any other form of war, if what you're doing isn't working don't keep sending bodies in. 

 

-Brett

[Reclusiarch Darius]

But they didn't. Using the actual rules, I can put exactly the same units in an army I could before, and more.

You seem to be hung up on building the most powerful army. I'm concerned with putting the miniatures I paid for on the table. Their rules let me do that. Your restrictions wouldn't, even though that army wouldn't be half as scary as pretty much anything a Tau player can do with a single Detachment.

No, I'm hung up on creating a format that caters to the creative, whilst preventing stupid combos until larger games. Thus far seems to be working too.

Look, I'm not prescribing my way of doing things as the best or the only way. I'm quite happy to hear about others making Maelstrom or their own leagues work. More power to you. But we've already had a lot of bad experiences locally with power lists, mainly of the xenos variety. Our last league was a trainwreck in that regard, the missions didn't matter at all, people just got table wiped game after game. I'm putting a slight brake on all that, at least until other people have had some experience with 7th and built up their own list accordingly. That way, you avoid matchups where one persons list can't kill a Tide, or any Flyer, or AV14 etc.

It might be varied enough for your tastes, but that's a tiny fraction of the variety anyone playing by the rules has available to them.

How? 2 detachments, 1 formation, 1 Lord of War (and we're allowing any Lord of War, including Primarchs and other stuff from 30k). You cannot tell me with a straight face that's restrictive. People are advocating Highlander in this thread, and you're telling me I'm being restrictive? Get real.

Darius, honestly, my friend, I'm inferring two theses from your post(s) here that I don't see clear to, so I'd like to hit them directly:

It's not the case that "human nature" means "inevitable power-gaming."

It's not the case that "Don't be a tool" serves to empower whiners.

Thade, 40k is a competitive wargame. Its the inevitable consequence of everyone wanting to win, that the metagame produces a handful of lists every edition that stomp face more reliably than others. There has never been an edition without power lists. So yeah, it's the nature of 40k itself that it produces power lists.

'Don't be a tool' is subjective and political. Some players simply don't like certain armies or builds, or even the player themselves. Granted, my group is pretty good in that regard, and we're not wusses. But I've encountered people like that before, and they're a net drain on the enthusiasm for the game. I'd rather have clearly understood, objective format boundaries that everyone has to abide by. That way its fair, and people have no reasonable objections to what the other person chooses to take. That's why I spent a fair bit of time hashing out the exact structure of our League with the players. People know what to expect, and can build accordingly. The worst person in any player group is that guy who won't play unless we all abide by his special snowflake preferences. One person that is, not something worked out by a group.

Human nature includes the simple desire to chill out after work, and for some of us that equates to lugging a huge sack of man-dolls to a club for laughs, company, and some deep-thinking gaming. This doesn't mandate or require

If the mantra "don't be a tool" is adhered to by both people at the table, neither will bring a power list, neither will whine about the other's stuff...because both of those things are being a tool.

But that's a judgement call, and not everyone is going to agree with you. What if the person you're playing doesn't want to abide by your arbitrary restrictions? What if they don't have the models or inclination to run a B list to accommodate your inferior army? Unless you only play the same people all the time, and no one changes their lists or improves, would that work. Otherwise, someone bring a single Heldrake or Riptide or whatever, and throws all that out the window. It's not workable in the long term.

40k is about bringing the best list you wanna play. No one takes bad lists intentionally. This is a game with a clear winner and loser, and no one wants to lose. Maybe you want a challenge, or like you running certain units because of coolness over rules. But no one takes Servitor lists. I wrote those lists back in 5th and 6th as a challenge to people who bring up the 'beer and pretzels' argument. If you really don't care about victory, run a Servitor list.

Unbound being built into a dirty xenos codex doesn't mean we're inevitably going to play against power lists (or be required to play them ourselves) because we all already have defenses set up against that in our local scenes, which each of you has already shared with us. Social defenses. We talk it out. This isn't GW slacking when they state, in the rules, for us to take this control: it's their tacit admission that the game can't be balanced unless they remove tons of flexibility and unit choice, so instead they went the other direction and empowered us to be the filters.

Well its nothing new. People have been making up for GW's mistakes since forever. Look at all the tourney FAQ's that come out every year. Often, they get incorporated into official errata, because they're that good. I don't like how fragmented 40k has gotten, because I think it's impossible to explain the true depth of the meta to an new player. Even if you only play Battleforged, there is a huge variety of variant detachments, formations, Super-Heavies, Allies, data-slates...even I get caught out by armies running weird stuff I've never encountered before. I'd be more happy with this scatter-shot approach if GW themselves said 'okay we'll put out clear format guides'. PP has a much better approach to this, as does MTG. They have casual and constructed formats for friendly play, and then tightly-written scenario and objective-based play for the competitive scene. Not perfect either (the rest fiasco with Colossals/Gargantuans has proven problematic to balance), but at least they're trying and mostly succeeding.

That's what I wish for, more than anything else. Unbound for all your variant crazyness, for people to test out new stuff or combos. Then Maelstrom fixed to be actually good, and encourage narrative-focused play (not just 'camp objectives all day, win via RNG'). Then Battle-Forged as a tightly written format for the competitive scene. To be fair, the tournament community have been doing this for some time, but I think it's bad to leave this up to players. It leads to a lot of variation, which means we're constantly talking 'oh but you know at Adepticon they allowed it, but at Feast it was banned.' Other game systems don't have this issue. In MTG, Standard is the same wherever you go, so is Modern, so is Legacy etc. They release new things to liven up the formats, then selectively ban out stupid stuff to encourage variety. Again, not perfect (Standard is a mess right now), but they're making some effort to put clear boxes around which format is which. 40k lacks this, and its why there is serious problems with pick up games. You just have no idea what they could bring.

Have you tried Highlander format, yet? "There can be only one," is a huge restrictive lens that lets you see armies in a whole new light. Since you can only take one of each unit max, with the exception of Troops after each Troop selection has been taken, each player is forced to make actual hard choices on how to fill out an FoC for competetive play. This would mean 1 DK, not 9, but it would also mean potentially taking a full GKIS to combat squad into "mini-DK" 5-mans, and possibly deep striking a squad or two of Strikes set up just like the Interceptors. It could mean taking Paladins and Purifiers, a GM and a Libby, Draigo and Stern.

Highlander can die in a fire. It doesn't balance anything, people can break any format and they do (the Australian scene is notorious for that).

What I'm saying is that the answer to no or low restriction play is more restrictive play. Comp is not the answer, but equal limits on everyone might just be.

Comp is awful and often backfires hilariously for those attempting it. Equal limits is exactly what I'm trying to do dude. Sure, I can't ever mitigate the xenos advantage, or FMC's being more prevalent in certain armies etc. I'd be crazy to try. That's why I'm focusing on what I can manage, which is list creation and combo potential. Even then, I'm wary of putting too many brakes on other people's freedom to create. No one in my group is going to bust out Titans of all a sudden or something like that, so it should be fine.

Bad headcold, so limited responses.

If it always fails (as it always has in my experience. SM bring too many Lascannons, don't bring them. Eldar bring too many Dark Reapers, don't bring them. GK bring too many psycannons...), then why bother?

Why continue with something that doesn't work?

Because people want to play amateur game designer. It's tempting, and I've fallen prey to it before (I used to write amended 40k main rules as a hobby, before 6th and 7th kind of exploded the game too widely for that to work lol). This is the problem with putting the ball in the court of tournament organisers. They're only human, and we've seen before grudges against certain armies causing them to be banned or severely restricted according to personal preferences. Then, whilst they're so busy dismantling ScreamerStar or whatever, another power lists creeps in, slides between all the roadblocks they put in the way, and still crushes ruthlessly. Its futile, but it sure makes some people feel good. It's why I hate Highlander, it doesn't fix anything, and it makes some armies unsuseably bad (like ours) while doing nothing to powerful armies (Tau don't care, Necrons don't care, Eldar don't care etc).

Not disagreeing, but an example back form my 4th/5th days.

Our SM player loved Tac squads. He did. And enjoyed nothing more than bringing 6 of them to games.

Our Eldar player loved his Dark Reapers. They melted Tac squads quicker than you could roll dice.

Was the Eldar player being a 'tool' using them?

Should the Eldar player have added units he didn't like (Scorpions maybe?) so the SM player could have had a better matchup?

Should the SM player have changed his army into something more 'competitive', to give him a chance versus the Dark Reapers?

Either player changing would have made their armies less enjoyable.

Who's the tool, and who wins in this situation?

Exactly. People tailor their lists all the time to suit their regular opponents. Why would you punish people for being smart?

Were they both having fun when they gamed together?

That's the operative question here. "Fairness" in this game can't be measured by power balance in 40k, as I think we've each more or less said. If they both have fun gaming against one another with their beloved lists, then neither is being a tool.

If one of them consistently is having a crappy time when gaming the other, then the other might consider changing things up (or both of them might) in order to make the experience more fun.

The Xenos Player. If the dirty xenos player really likes their Dark Reapers, but always smokes the marine player, might be time to try different units; that's a good opportunity to take units that everybody says "You can't win with that unit! It sucks, is sub-optimal, and ugly!"

For instance, if I know for sure one of my canned and beloved lists will trample a player due to their beloved list, that's the game I bring "As many footslogging melee-centric dreadnoughts as I can fit" or "irresponsibly tooled up Vanguard." It's not a question of "can I beat this opponent with anything in my kit" but a question of "can I do what everybody says is impossible?" I.E. imposing challenges on myself, so I still have fun, and not insta-crushing my opponent, so they have fun.

The Marine Player. Maybe the marine player really enjoys those uphill battles; I know I do. I learn more losing than winning, but there's a limit. That is, if I lose in one to two turns, and/or get tabled, that's seldom fun for me, and seldom fun for the people I game against. The best games are those that don't have a clear victor until at least the last turn or two, where there's a lot of struggle and shifts in control. Those kinds of games are very fun and I enjoy them, win or lose. If this is the case, maybe no change needs to happen in that dynamic there, other than different tactical approaches for the marine player as he tries to figure out just how he might beat those Reapers. (They really do melt marines.)

If the xenos player enjoys tabling the marine player for the sake of it, or refuses to make any kind of a change after a long period of playing precisely the same units with the same result, I do think they're being inconsiderate. If they're rude/gloaty about it, they're being a tool.

If the marine player has a time, talks about the xenos player without talking to the xenos player, or whines about the games without seeking a solution, they're being a tool.

They can both be tools...and the crappiest part here is that if one or both of them aren't having fun, one or both of them might give up on the hobby which is not a good thing.

Yeah well you can't legislate against stupidity, or being mean. You can peer pressure, sure, but good luck telling people how to play their army. That never goes down well, no matter how well-intentioned your advice might be. It's easier to just let people figure out their list is terrible and they need to change, rather than forcing their opponents to 'go easy' on them. 40k requires a good grasp of both tactical and strategic oppertunities. People will never learn that if you wrap them in cotton wool and say 'no take sixty Tac Marines, that's not a bad list at all'. Because you're faking it, and eventually they'll work it out and feel patronised.

The format is more restrictive, yet the restrictions are even across the board for all armies with multiple selections for each slot, yet flexible enough to compensate for armies with one or no selections.

One of the big issues is Dedicated Transports, which are limited to 0-1 just like every other unit. That means 1 Rhino, 1 Drop Pod, 1 Wave Serpent, etc., unless your group works out a compromise. Personally, I'd leave it at 0-1, and force footslogging on everyone, although I do understand that a 0-3 limit on each DT has merit and is a fair compromise.

Hooray. Make vehicles even less relevant than they are now. What about people who want to run mechanised armies? See, you've now ruined the game for them, and you haven't put a brake on power armies at all. That's why I hate Highlander. It does nothing it is intended to do, and it breaks a lot of otherwise decent armies in half. 6th and 7th have already done a fantastic job making vehicles largely irrelevant due to Hull Points.

This is the point.

Changing the armies would have led to just as un fun matches, as both players disliked building thier armies differently. I don't know if I'm explaining this well. The SM is an easier exmaple.

He loved the design and feel of running lots of Tac dudes. He felt that was the basis of a Space Marine army, and it was how he wanted to play.

Time and agian I'd offer suggestions and tweaks to his build to get more, competitive-ness, out of it, to give him a better chance facing the Eldar.

He refused, as he would not have enjoyed playing his army in a different way. MSU with Rhinos and 5 man squads was not the way he would enjoy playing his army.

So he didn't change, and continued to lose. And didn't enjoy the games.

Even if he had changed, and started to win, he wouldn't have enjoyed the games, as he wasn't playing the army he enjoyed.

I hope this makes sense. Still bunged up with headcold.

I think we get the picture. Horse. Water. Drink. I've met people like that before. You can't do anything for them, they're happy driving their car off a cliff every game.

It was worse back in the day. Crackshot Exarch making those AP3 missile ignore cover saves as well. That dude was

Aha, those were the days when anyone cared about Aspect Warriors besides Dragons. Nowadays...does anyone even run Dark Reapers?

The best games are those that don't have a clear victor until at least the last turn or two, where there's a lot of struggle and shifts in control. Those kinds of games are very fun and I enjoy them, win or lose.

You know how you get those kinda games? When people take roughly equal power lists, and there are win-cons to the mission besides 'table wipe them'. That's the version of 40k we all struggle to find I think. Nothing is more satisfying than a close-run win. One-sided stomps are boring, and disheartening to the loser in ways you can't imagine. That's why I created the League, to have close-run battles that people would enjoy, win or lose. Winner because they came out on top with some successful plays, exploited some mistakes by their opponent, and a little luck from the dice. Loser because they came back and were in a position to claim victory had only a few more things gone their way.

[thade]

Sure, being a tool is subjective...but only strictly speaking. If a person is consistently unpleasant to play against as an artifact of their behavior and attitude, they're a tool; what behaviors or attitudes make the cut is the subjective part, but it's not that large of a space for differences. A crappy attitude or rude demeanor are just what they are, whether the group is full of just artists, or just powergamers, or just roleplayers.

 

40k's not reducible to 'bringing the most powerful lists with the intention of winning.' It's a lot more than that, including but not limited to collecting, painting, imagining, writing, storytelling, joke-telling, and hanging out. Purely winning is fun but it's such a tiny part of the experience. It's easy to see the distinction here: consider the difference between winning a neck-and-neck battle vs. tabling an opponent on the third turn. Which one consistently offers more fun than the other? Just because it's a competition by design doesn't mean it's purely about winning or only fun when winning.

 

It's fair to say that's subjective (what's fun for someone isn't fun for someone else necessarily) but - honestly - anybody that says "I enjoy tabling opponents who don't stand a chance more than close games" isn't somebody I'd personally enjoy gaming against. In answer to your question, anybody that refuses to play abiding by my requests (no fliers, no lords, etc.) probably won't get a game from me...because I simply won't buy the models I need to give them a good kind of game. If it's clear they'll table me in three turns, why play? What's the point? I forfeit. They win! Good for them. I'm afraid my four missile launcher toting marines and all the bolters supporting them won't be sufficient. (I did take one of those flying albatross marine boats out of the air once with a thunderhammer. Once. It's not what I'd call a sound combat plan though.)

 

GML, if they're both refusing to change things up, either to better challenge the other player or better challenge themselves, that's a shame. They're both to blame for those games being a bummer. :(

[thade]

As an addendum, I've found recently it's pretty easy to find yourself playing evenly matched games in 7th Ed.

 

Run lists with this restriction: if I couldn't put it on the table in 5th Ed., I can't put it on the table tonight. <3 (Obviously if your codex didn't exist in 5th, you have some leeway...but when in doubt, Unbound will set you free.)

 

Jeffersonian's restriction set is interesting too.

 

++ EDIT. Clarification. -t ++

[Reclusiarch Darius]

Sure, being a tool is subjective...but only strictly speaking. If a person is consistently unpleasant to play against as an artifact of their behavior and attitude, they're a tool; what behaviors or attitudes make the cut is the subjective part, but it's not that large of a space for differences. A crappy attitude or rude demeanor are just what they are, whether the group is full of just artists, or just powergamers, or just roleplayers.

 

I agree entirely. My point is though, it's still a judgement call on your part. It's not an objective rule set of 'oh we don't do that because it doesn't conform to the format'. Its 'I find you unpleasant'. 

40k's not reducible to 'bringing the most powerful lists with the intention of winning.' It's a lot more than that, including but not limited to collecting, painting, imagining, writing, storytelling, joke-telling, and hanging out. Purely winning is fun but it's such a tiny part of the experience. It's easy to see the distinction here: consider the difference between winning a neck-and-neck battle vs. tabling an opponent on the third turn. Which one consistently offers more fun than the other? Just because it's a competition by design doesn't mean it's purely about winning or only fun when winning.

 

All of those other things you describe are peripheral to this discussion. We're talking format restrictions. I don't care what people paint, or like collecting, or their army background (unless its good). All those things are up to them, and have no impact on the actual gameplay of 40k. 

 

I'm happy if people have close run battles. I find it boring to play or fight lists that win or lose Turn 3 (or earlier). So, I'm not in disagreement with that. My point is though, without some kind of format restrictions, 40k descends into 'who has more money'. 

It's fair to say that's subjective (what's fun for someone isn't fun for someone else necessarily) but - honestly - anybody that says "I enjoy tabling opponents who don't stand a chance more than close games" isn't somebody I'd personally enjoy gaming against. In answer to your question, anybody that refuses to play abiding by my requests (no fliers, no lords, etc.) probably won't get a game from me...because I simply won't buy the models I need to give them a good kind of game. If it's clear they'll table me in three turns, why play? What's the point? I forfeit. They win! Good for them. I'm afraid my four missile launcher toting marines and all the bolters supporting them won't be sufficient. (I did take one of those flying albatross marine boats out of the air once with a thunderhammer. Once. It's not what I'd call a sound combat plan though.)

 

If you start refusing to play people based on their lists, you'll end up playing nobody. Eventually, you quit the hobby altogether. I've seen that pattern so many times. 

 

Like I said, if you have agreements with friends about what you can and can't do with your 40k, that's fine. But once you start involving strangers or newcomers, you need objective rules that clearly state what is permissible. That's all I'm saying really. Put sensible restrictions in place, but still let people be creative. Banning units (or in one case, I knew someone who wouldn't play you if you had Flyers or FMC's...for real) isn't the solution. Highlander is likewise a dead end. 

Run lists with this restriction: if I couldn't put it on the table in 5th Ed., I can't put it on the table tonight. <3 (Obviously if your codex didn't exist in 5th, you have some leeway...but when in doubt, Unbound will set you free.)

 

So by that logic, no Riptides? See what I mean, it's far too subjective. 

[thade]

All of those other things you describe are peripheral to this discussion. We're talking format restrictions.

On the contrary, those peripheral things are precisely what demand restrictions of the kind we're discussing. Eschewing the other values to 40k - collecting, art, thematic, and social aspects - would beg the question why play? The balance is atrocious and there's only two fixes to that: either start hacking out huge portions of flexibility and unit choice, or find a way to be cool with one another. Really, the only edges 40k has over competing war games are those peripheral things.

I don't care what people paint, or like collecting, or their army background (unless its good). All those things are up to them, and have no impact on the actual gameplay of 40k.

This I flatly disagree with, as you might have predicted. Game play in 40k isn't robotic...because the players aren't robots. There are moments where I will through caution (and tactical consideration) to the wind to charge a lone Space Marine captain into what statistically is clearly a losing battle...because that's what that Marine would do in that circumstance...and I other players who feel the same way. When that lone marine takes out the unit against the odds, and that massive risk pays off, that's a great moment.

I can't overstate how important the social aspect is to 40k's game play. Obviously the GW rules writers agree with me, given the direction their ruleset has taken.

I'm happy if people have close run battles. I find it boring to play or fight lists that win or lose Turn 3 (or earlier). So, I'm not in disagreement with that. My point is though, without some kind of format restrictions, 40k descends into 'who has more money'.

100% true, in my mind.

If you start refusing to play people based on their lists, you'll end up playing nobody. Eventually, you quit the hobby altogether. I've seen that pattern so many times.

This slippery slope doesn't add up to me, my friend. This approach rests on the assumption that an overwhelming majority of players both 1. buy all the super powerful things and 2. insist on playing them in every single game they play. In my experience this hasn't been the case.

Like I said, if you have agreements with friends about what you can and can't do with your 40k, that's fine. But once you start involving strangers or newcomers, you need objective rules that clearly state what is permissible.

For sure, but the newcomer is just as invested in finding a fun place to consistently game as we are to expanding our club size(s), right? When a new player comes in, they're either going to try to adapt to the culture or adapt the culture to them, usually touches of both. Ultimately, the ideal outcome here is you make a new friend, right?

I don't mean to be cheeky, but I do mean to emphasize that the social aspect is a large part of our discussion here.

That's all I'm saying really. Put sensible restrictions in place, but still let people be creative. Banning units (or in one case, I knew someone who wouldn't play you if you had Flyers or FMC's...for real) isn't the solution. Highlander is likewise a dead end.

As a club-wide format, surely; but that's also unnecessary. Some people in the club will gleefully buy up the next new hotness, an Imperial Knight army, or enough Riptides to make the table lean when they set them all up. Some people in the club really enjoy min-maxing lists in new and surprising ways, coming up with lethal gimmicks, and seeing those things work.

Even if they're in the majority, they're not the only kids on the block.

I don't see us reaching a universal set of restrictions here that we can all take to our clubs and see balanced and fair games with most of the unit selections...because such a thing would be the solution to the NP-Hard problem of balancing 40k. But local meta is constrained by what people can (or want to) afford, what people enjoy playing with (and against) and a host of other social elements.

[Quozzo]

I play to win (thought everybody did) but that doesn't mean I can't have fun doing so. To me, the game doesn't begin on the table, it begins before that. Trying to find a list I'm happy with that conforms to the predetermined restrictions (including points) is half the fun. If I don't know what they are in advance then I can't play, as I don't have a list. Sometimes I like to play fluffy lists, using nothing but Death Company or Terminators or Something that can fit in a 'Raven (due to teleportation not being feasible). No matter what the reason for my self imposed restrictions, I always always play to win. If I lose then I make refinements for the list, otherwise it was a success and I I'm happy with how it performed then I move on to another list, or another opponent or I make subtle changes that I think would have been beneficial.

 

In any case, I like to know beforehand what is permitted so I know I played to the best of my ability. In some cases I've known I was going to win, so I like to try something different and unexpected, just so I can guage the results and see if it would assure me a victory some time in the future if I'm presented with the same choices. They almost always results in a loss (as I'm not playing the game in front of me) and even my opponents on occasion says wth happened, I thought you were going to win, because I was, so I try out new tactics, and push my list even further, adding new parameters to the game. I still try to win, but it usually dooms me from the beginning.

[jeffersonian000]

For me, I map out legal lists that are bound, no more than two sources, as close to Highlander as is reasonable (i.e., I still take two DKs, but not 3-8), and then I prebuild a set a lists at 200, 500, 750, 1000, 1250, 1500, 1850, and 2000. From that I buy the models that fill the core of the lists, and add newer models as needed to flesh out more options. And I magnetize, a lot.

 

This lets me feel confident that I can play a casual game or a tournament without worrying about whether or not my list is legal, or might offend someone with an acute allergy to Bree.

 

SJ

[Reclusiarch Darius]

On the contrary, those peripheral things are precisely what demand restrictions of the kind we're discussing. Eschewing the other values to 40k - collecting, art, thematic, and social aspects - would beg the question why play? The balance is atrocious and there's only two fixes to that: either start hacking out huge portions of flexibility and unit choice, or find a way to be cool with one another. Really, the only edges 40k has over competing war games are those peripheral things.

No they don't. The game rules don't care if your force is in keeping with the lore, of if its just a bunch of powerful stuff thrown together. Power lists rarely if ever make sense with the lore, by definition they're exploiting loopholes in the rules. I don't think the solution is to just ban or break combo's, because people just find new ones that fit your restrictions. A better approach is to say 'you can have these sources, and it scales according to point level'.

Look, I'm not saying lore, or aesthetics, or the social aspects don't matter at all. They do, and like you say, they're why we all play 40k. But I'm talking about game rules here. As far as the rules are concerned, it's about how efficiently you kill and not die yourself. Some armies are by design better at that metric. Some might only be good at one or the other.

This I flatly disagree with, as you might have predicted. Game play in 40k isn't robotic...because the players aren't robots. There are moments where I will through caution (and tactical consideration) to the wind to charge a lone Space Marine captain into what statistically is clearly a losing battle...because that's what that Marine would do in that circumstance...and I other players who feel the same way. When that lone marine takes out the unit against the odds, and that massive risk pays off, that's a great moment.

I can't overstate how important the social aspect is to 40k's game play. Obviously the GW rules writers agree with me, given the direction their ruleset has taken.

Thade, we all make mistakes, or do odd things in the game. I'm not talking about anecdotal evidence, or your specific playstyle. I'm talking in general. 40k encourages smart play and efficient list building. When you do stupid things and throw away units with poor decisions, you lose far more often than you win. 7th in particular is extremely bloody.

GW refuse to take their own game seriously. Also, they don't actually care about their own lore. Every edition, they push the rules of whatever box sets they wanna sell. It's completely understandable from a marketing standpoint, but it makes for a very lopsided meta. It's not good for the game long-term, but it helps their sales figures in the short. (shrug) I used to get mad about it, now I'm just resigned to watch 'flavour of the month' be the trend.

This slippery slope doesn't add up to me, my friend. This approach rests on the assumption that an overwhelming majority of players both 1. buy all the super powerful things and 2. insist on playing them in every single game they play. In my experience this hasn't been the case.

YYMV, of course. As I said, if you're fortunate to play with people who don't bring good lists, that's cool. But the moment anyone does, you'll be in a bad place, because you're not tuned in to what is good. I'd prefer to have a solid army that can at least stand a chance against a top-tier xenos list, rather than just live in a bubble of casual. It also kinda makes any advice you give suspect, as people probably don't have the same local meta as you. Just because no one runs TripTide locally, doesn't mean it's not a thing.

or sure, but the newcomer is just as invested in finding a fun place to consistently game as we are to expanding our club size(s), right? When a new player comes in, they're either going to try to adapt to the culture or adapt the culture to them, usually touches of both. Ultimately, the ideal outcome here is you make a new friend, right?

I don't mean to be cheeky, but I do mean to emphasize that the social aspect is a large part of our discussion here.

Which is why a consistent format is important. They aren't caught out by various lists, because from the outset there were clear expectation about what people can bring at a given point level. That's very much related to the social aspect. People like to try out new things and experiment within the confines of a format's boundaries.

As a club-wide format, surely; but that's also unnecessary. Some people in the club will gleefully buy up the next new hotness, an Imperial Knight army, or enough Riptides to make the table lean when they set them all up. Some people in the club really enjoy min-maxing lists in new and surprising ways, coming up with lethal gimmicks, and seeing those things work.

Even if they're in the majority, they're not the only kids on the block.

I don't see us reaching a universal set of restrictions here that we can all take to our clubs and see balanced and fair games with most of the unit selections...because such a thing would be the solution to the NP-Hard problem of balancing 40k. But local meta is constrained by what people can (or want to) afford, what people enjoy playing with (and against) and a host of other socialelements.

The point is though, if the format puts a break on their need for broken lists until larger games, other people have time to adapt. If people have time to react and change up their lists to survive those matchups, everyone benefits. The guys with power lists get better games and can tweak their forces, the guys running themed or their own brews get to see just how effective it is, and what needs fine tuning. Win win really.

I agree that a universal format is probably too difficult for us to do. But GW have it in their power to do so. Their decision to not do it is why we have such a mess on our hands in 7th. The game is fragmented into too many variants and sub-formats. People are both ignoring 40k as a new system, or leaving the game after being a veteran, precisely for those reasons. That's what I'm trying to mitigate. I would suggest that you do the same, if you want people to stay. Warmahordes, MTG, Infinity etc...they all have consistent formats for casual and competitive play, and in general have far more structure to their list building. 40k has not had that for some time, probably since the detachment system came along in 6th.

[thade]

40k only "encourages smart list building" (where "smart" in this case means "optimized") if the goal is strictly to win. (If that sounds crazy to anybody reading it, that's where the difference between our views on the game lies.) Straight victory is too simplistic for me, especially since - more and more - it's less less about problem solving in 40k and more about "How many of these expensive models are you willing to pony up and buy?" Now, given some number of restrictions on list-building (e.g. any of the local solutions pitched above) optimized list building can be fun without purchasing more kits.

 

GW could aid us a bit here, sure. They could add some formats, e.g. "Casual Format A: No fliers, no MCs, no Lords, no data slates, no [etc.]," enumerating all of the things that tip the scales so grandly, or they could restrict them, as others suggest. They could say "Here's a game format that involves chopping tons of stuff out for a somewhat more kind-of-balanced-without-player-effort experience," but - as you suggest - I bet there's a lot of corporate-flavored pressure against that sort of thing. Power creep exists in MTG, LoL, and other games like them for a reason: to drive sales. Instead they empower us to do so. The Golden Rule and The Spirit of the Game rule (the latter still in my sig) are just that. Each of the various partial solutions we've each shared above are 100% within the rules, because 1. we made them up to make the game more fun for our local games and 2. our opponents are on-board with them.

 

So, there's certainly value in each of us sharing our various approaches here. I find Jeffersonian's format an interesting one, especially the forced foot-slog. I may bring it up around here and see whether there's interest in trying it out.

[thade]

The only point of yours I didn't speak to is your implication that GW's not addressing this issue directly leads to a fragmenting of and ultimate waning of 40k interest, with long-time vets walking away.

 

I don't have a ton of data on this. I have seen people leave the hobby because of mounting family or work obligations, but of those I've seen leave the hobby due to what the rules have become, I've seen many of them come back or never actually leave in the first place. "I'm gonna quit the hobby if this keeps up" is often just code language for "I'm really frustrated with the direction the rules seem to be headed in."

 

I can sympathize with that; that's why I weigh in on these discussions. :)

[Brom MKIV]

I'd like to be involved in this discussion but after a double read through I'm still not sure what the hell its about

[jeffersonian000]

I'd like to be involved in this discussion but after a double read through I'm still not sure what the hell its about

One of the main issues people are having with 7th is the lack of structure in army building, which makes it difficult to build an appropriate army when your opponent can literally playing anything. The old method of dealing with poorly balance armies was forcing people to exclude controversial units from their armies, or down scoring their armies if not built to an arbitrary formula, aka composition or comp.

The point of this thread is that even when a Unbound is excluded as an option, you can still build a Bound list that approaches near Unbound levels of structurelessness. This has been countered by suggestion on how to make comp work without alienating players that rely on very points-efficient units to crush their foes, drive the broken before them, and hear the laminations of their ... you get the point.

My addition the thread has been to introduce a format concept people are playing in Europe and at large events State-side that is very restrictive in principle, yet quite freeing in practice, known as the Highlander format, because there can be only one ... of each unit in your army. Even if played Unbound, a Highlander-styled army forces the player to make tough choices and to put a lot of thought into which units to bring when you can't just spam the best.

Hope that helps.

SJ

[Gentlemanloser]

One of the main failures I have with any type of 'comp' or restrictions is they just shift what the power builds are sideways.

 

Riptides/NDK OP power build?  So you restrict them.  Then the power build becomes Wraiths.  So you restrict them.  Then the power build becomes Grav Centurion, so you restrict them, then, then.

 

When the game is as inherently unbalanced (and as some support, impossible to balance), then it really doesn't mater what you try to restrict, or *how*.  Something else floats to the top.

 

So why bother putting anything in place to begin with?

[jeffersonian000]

GML, did you not see my post above yours?

 

SJ

[thade]

When the game is as inherently unbalanced (and as some support, impossible to balance), then it really doesn't mater what you try to restrict, or *how*.  Something else floats to the top.

 

Agreed. This is a problem restrictions can't solve, if the people playing want only to play the OP stuff and dominate. This is why I keep harping on the social aspect to the game; there are social aspects not just to the table or to agreed upon restrictions, but to list building as well.

 

If the part of the game a given player enjoys the most is finding broken combos, they're going to continue seeking those out. Restrictions that amount to bans on units, books, or rules can't mitigate this on their own, as those only serve to either present additional constraints to a problem they enjoy solving anyway, or even risk spoiling the fun for that given player.

 

There's got to be some additional consideration on the part of the players, one that's not simply "What is or isn't allowed in this format?" That additional consideration's got to be "Will I have fun playing with this? Will my opponent have fun playing against it?"