Lets Chat: Competitive Versus Casual

[ERJAK]

 

 

 

Yeah I've seen similar things happen to groups.

It's basically a real world example of the experiment where monkeys get trained to not take the banana because they'd all get punished if one does so eventually they stop new monkeys in the group from taking the banana even though the punishing already stopped happening and so the new monkeys in the group adapt thar behaviour without even knowing why.

I had forgotten about that experiment, but yes pretty much. And I mean there's nothing inherently wrong with competitive play. Just I find, and again this is colored by being in the USA where it seems things are more competitive, most people don't know when to draw the line. There is no "I'll bring a toned down list to game night unless I arrange a tournament practice game" it's "I buy one list that's deemed competitive, only ever play that one list and expect others to git gud and also play good lists"

 

While I like the fact that GW is trying to balance 40k (still doing a terrible job at it IMHO) I think the influence that the ITC and tournament organizers have on it has been detrimental because it sort of reinforces the idea that matched play good, other play bad. I have never even seen anyone who would touch anything labeled open or narrative play with a 10 foot pole because even bringing it up gets immediate hesitation based on "well it could be unbalanced since it's not Matched".

I agree with pretty much everything you say, ITC in particular has way too much influence on the game overall.

 

However, I would say that it’s not a case that narrative or open play could be imbalanced. It’s that Narrative and Open play IS imbalanced. Power Levels, Stratagem Spam, Psychic Power Spam and unit Spam all make it imbalanced.

 

Now I’m not saying that those two modes can’t be fun, but if you’re not particularly competitive but still want a balanced game, those are not really viable alternatives.

I disagree about ITC having anything to do with that sense of 'narrative=unbalanced'.

 

GW and GW alone is the cause of those attitudes.

 

Their history of ungodly terrible game design and absolutely bonkers insane imbalances in the game means that you SHOULD be gunshy whenever someone says they want to restrict things less. Do you remember 7th? I remember 7th. 7th was the most asinine, stupid, lopsided edition of any game I've ever played. Age of Sigmar had better balance WHEN IT HAD ZERO ARMY CONSTRUCTION RULES. AND NO POINTS.

 

Some people are going to argue that it was because of 'formations' or 'deathstars' or 'summoning' or 'super-heavies' or 'busted psychic stuff', or 'D-weapons', that the game's imbalance was something the player's were doing TO the game by 'exploiting' the rules, not a fault of the game itself and that is absoltely bullstuff.

 

Get rid of summoning, psychic buffs, deathstars, superheavies, formations, decurions. Throw those all out, you know what you have left? SCATT BIKES. AND WARP SPIDERS. Eldar had TWO units that could stand toe to toe with the absolute most busted aspects of 7th edition just off of their baseline rules. Everything that came out after CWE was a desperate attempt to let other factions keep up with how bonkers Eldar were and it led to this crazy arms race where a blue horror could tank 1850pts worth of Tau shooting. That's the legacy GW created for themselves with more than a decade of apathy towards creating a playable game.

 

THAT'S why people are still afraid to play narrative. Not ITC. Throw 6th on to the pile to, it wasn't any better.

[MegaVolt87]

When I started 40k I was very grateful to the WACC players. With the $$$ required to even get into 40k not getting any cheaper, it's good to know you don't have to re-buy the whole army because you had guidance of people way more experienced with the game to help you. I argue its worse that no one really is truthful with a noob, they spend so much on a non viable army comp that can't compete to give them a chance of a engaging game. Its not competitive players driving away new people, its GW with their prices that is really punishing new people to enter the hobby because its not cheap to grow your collection. 

[chapter master 454]

When I started 40k I was very grateful to the WACC players. With the $$$ required to even get into 40k not getting any cheaper, it's good to know you don't have to re-buy the whole army because you had guidance of people way more experienced with the game to help you. I argue its worse that no one really is truthful with a noob, they spend so much on a non viable army comp that can't compete to give them a chance of a engaging game. Its not competitive players driving away new people, its GW with their prices that is really punishing new people to enter the hobby because its not cheap to grow your collection. 

 

You see, this is a polarising view and to some valid, to others a point of validation about their own views against it.

 

Kind of sitting here mixed on it myself. I personally want models I can like, I ain't going out to buy 90 odd plaguebearers just because it wins, I want models I can be proud of and like. In that instance you would see me with triptide lists and SOME iron hand lists.

However at the same time, WAAC players have their uses.

Being so vehement about winning, they tend to make great test subjects for new lists and nothing is sweeter than giving them a whooping with something they thought trash (did in card games, sadly not had a chance in 40k). Again, its all about a healthy eco-system of a club, you need your mix of casuals, competitive and between players.

 

It is healthy for a competitive player to face casuals as it can soften their edge a bit and let them relax back and enjoy the game if they get too caught up in it (those that this doesn't happen with are lost causes and weren't really "players"), Casuals facing competitive players can experience aspects of the game they didn't know about and fully enjoy the game in another light.

[MegaVolt87]

 

When I started 40k I was very grateful to the WACC players. With the $$$ required to even get into 40k not getting any cheaper, it's good to know you don't have to re-buy the whole army because you had guidance of people way more experienced with the game to help you. I argue its worse that no one really is truthful with a noob, they spend so much on a non viable army comp that can't compete to give them a chance of a engaging game. Its not competitive players driving away new people, its GW with their prices that is really punishing new people to enter the hobby because its not cheap to grow your collection. 

 

You see, this is a polarising view and to some valid, to others a point of validation about their own views against it.

 

Kind of sitting here mixed on it myself. I personally want models I can like, I ain't going out to buy 90 odd plaguebearers just because it wins, I want models I can be proud of and like. In that instance you would see me with triptide lists and SOME iron hand lists.

However at the same time, WAAC players have their uses.

Being so vehement about winning, they tend to make great test subjects for new lists and nothing is sweeter than giving them a whooping with something they thought trash (did in card games, sadly not had a chance in 40k). Again, its all about a healthy eco-system of a club, you need your mix of casuals, competitive and between players.

 

It is healthy for a competitive player to face casuals as it can soften their edge a bit and let them relax back and enjoy the game if they get too caught up in it (those that this doesn't happen with are lost causes and weren't really "players"), Casuals facing competitive players can experience aspects of the game they didn't know about and fully enjoy the game in another light.

 

 

Agreed. Although the current shift to more competitive/ matched play is definitely a symptom of GW themselves gate keeping the hobby with the current prices. Vets telling it like it is is also in the hopes of keeping the new player around and not walking away because if what you spent so much on doesn't work you have a pretty big incentive to walk away at that point. Anything that's a luxury/ hobby where you don't enjoy the initial investment, you just stop. So many new players these days asking about best value + competitive lists also support this. GW hobby hasn't been new player friendly for years with the prices. If the game was actually balanced it wouldn't be an issue because everything you buy would work out. Other tabletop systems do this better, its possible to just buy things and have enjoyable success with it for those. GW system of poor balance + willful creep and high prices is far more damaging to the community as a whole than the WACC portion of the community. 

[MARK0SIAN]

 

 

 

 

Yeah I've seen similar things happen to groups.

It's basically a real world example of the experiment where monkeys get trained to not take the banana because they'd all get punished if one does so eventually they stop new monkeys in the group from taking the banana even though the punishing already stopped happening and so the new monkeys in the group adapt thar behaviour without even knowing why.

I had forgotten about that experiment, but yes pretty much. And I mean there's nothing inherently wrong with competitive play. Just I find, and again this is colored by being in the USA where it seems things are more competitive, most people don't know when to draw the line. There is no "I'll bring a toned down list to game night unless I arrange a tournament practice game" it's "I buy one list that's deemed competitive, only ever play that one list and expect others to git gud and also play good lists"

 

While I like the fact that GW is trying to balance 40k (still doing a terrible job at it IMHO) I think the influence that the ITC and tournament organizers have on it has been detrimental because it sort of reinforces the idea that matched play good, other play bad. I have never even seen anyone who would touch anything labeled open or narrative play with a 10 foot pole because even bringing it up gets immediate hesitation based on "well it could be unbalanced since it's not Matched".

I agree with pretty much everything you say, ITC in particular has way too much influence on the game overall.

 

However, I would say that it’s not a case that narrative or open play could be imbalanced. It’s that Narrative and Open play IS imbalanced. Power Levels, Stratagem Spam, Psychic Power Spam and unit Spam all make it imbalanced.

 

Now I’m not saying that those two modes can’t be fun, but if you’re not particularly competitive but still want a balanced game, those are not really viable alternatives.

I disagree about ITC having anything to do with that sense of 'narrative=unbalanced'.

 

GW and GW alone is the cause of those attitudes.

 

Their history of ungodly terrible game design and absolutely bonkers insane imbalances in the game means that you SHOULD be gunshy whenever someone says they want to restrict things less. Do you remember 7th? I remember 7th. 7th was the most asinine, stupid, lopsided edition of any game I've ever played. Age of Sigmar had better balance WHEN IT HAD ZERO ARMY CONSTRUCTION RULES. AND NO POINTS.

 

Some people are going to argue that it was because of 'formations' or 'deathstars' or 'summoning' or 'super-heavies' or 'busted psychic stuff', or 'D-weapons', that the game's imbalance was something the player's were doing TO the game by 'exploiting' the rules, not a fault of the game itself and that is absoltely bullstuff.

 

Get rid of summoning, psychic buffs, deathstars, superheavies, formations, decurions. Throw those all out, you know what you have left? SCATT BIKES. AND WARP SPIDERS. Eldar had TWO units that could stand toe to toe with the absolute most busted aspects of 7th edition just off of their baseline rules. Everything that came out after CWE was a desperate attempt to let other factions keep up with how bonkers Eldar were and it led to this crazy arms race where a blue horror could tank 1850pts worth of Tau shooting. That's the legacy GW created for themselves with more than a decade of apathy towards creating a playable game.

 

THAT'S why people are still afraid to play narrative. Not ITC. Throw 6th on to the pile to, it wasn't any better.

You’re not wrong but I think you might be misunderstanding what I was saying, or I didn’t make it clear. I don’t believe ITC has anything to do with the problems of narrative/open imbalance, that is definitely all on GW. I mean, who in their right mind thought open was a good idea? And what’s more they went with it even after it was so badly received in AoS when it launched. Just pure head scratching!

 

My mention of ITC was not in relation to that, I merely believe they have a disproportionate influence on the direction of the game overall, particularly the balances around matched play and points.

[DuskRaider]

ITC has a huge impact on rules. Chapter Approved is more or less published yearly to try and correct any issues found from tournament results, abuse of loopholes and the current meta. They can candy coat it with useless VDR rules or whatever, but the main purpose is to continually rebalance the game as a result of competitive play.

[Bung]

ITC has a huge impact on rules. Chapter Approved is more or less published yearly to try and correct any issues found from tournament results, abuse of loopholes and the current meta. They can candy coat it with useless VDR rules or whatever, but the main purpose is to continually rebalance the game as a result of competitive play.

 

Which shouldnt be needed that much, if you had a more or less balanced game.

[DuskRaider]

Yeah, good luck with that.

[Theradrussian]

Firmly casual as I have yet to see a GW game where "balance" is actually considered and the goal isn't to churn out and sell product. Except maybe Warhammer Underworlds since it assumes everyone has ALL the stuff for it and can follow the meta.

I like getting my sh*t painted before it hits the table, and like the same from an opponent. As such, a meta that shifts every 2-3 months is not compatible with this, because neither me nor my opponent could keep up, even if we had the pre-assembled minis dumped in our laps for free.

Also, I can't shake a feeling of queasy unease when I see every last army led by a named character.

[Rogue]

I'm not sure 40k can ever really be balanced. I'm not sure any game of such complexity and variability can be. There genuinely are too many options, combinations and potential rules interactions for some of them not to be better than others (whether objectively, subjectively or both).

 

But very few games achieve balance. Chess gets thrown around as an example every now and then (perfectly matched forces in a fixed, matched deployment on a fixed, symmetrical battlefield, and as you-go-I-go as you like), but even then, white's first turn advantage is so significant that at the highest levels the black player would consider a draw to be a good result.

 

The only way to really get any kind of balance is to take the Space Hulk approach - every game gets played twice, once as the terminators and once as the genestealers. Doesn't matter if the forces or scenario are skewed, as both players will have a turn with the advantage. And even then, it's not totally balanced, as in the reverse half of the game, each player will have had the chance to learn from their opponent's mistakes.

 

I think this is relevant to the topic here, because I think balance matters a lot more to the competitive play-style. If you're into determining the better player by means of a game, you want the game to be as even-handed as possible. You want to win because you made better list choices, better deployment, better use of your troops and of probability than the other guy. Winning because your faction wins that scenario nine times out of ten anyway isn't the same. I'm going to point at Goonhammer again, because I was just reading their article on the CA19 missions - Wings (in part) assesses the missions on their balance; do both players have an equal chance to win? Are they symmetrical, objective-wise? That sort of thing. In short, does the mission facilitate a game that can determine who the better player is?

 

Whereas a more casual approach can be less concerned about these things. An unbalance mission might not reveal the best player, but it might allow the chance of a glorious last stand, or an unfolding story, or simply tilt things in favour of a weaker player. I wanted to contrast the 'better player' idea with 'casual produces a better game', but I don't think that's true. The better-ness of a game is entirely subjective, and depends on your reason for playing. Perhaps it's more accurate to say that the casual approach produces a more relaxed game, in which both players either 'win' or 'lose' together - the eventual victor is less important than a good shared game.

 

But I think the whole thing is blurry anyway - you can play casually and still want to win the battle. You can play competitively and still enjoy a losing game (probably not as much, but still...). And ultimately, the guy who only enjoys things when he's winning, and plays only for victory for that reason - well, that's beyond competitive and into something else altogether.       

Edited January 8, 2020 by Rogue

[Bung]

I'm not sure 40k can ever really be balanced. I'm not sure any game of such complexity and variability can be. There genuinely are too many options, combinations and potential rules interactions for some of them not to be better than others (whether objectively, subjectively or both).

    

 

Personly i think it could be done.

You would need a basic formula and a standard profile.

Everything you slap on that standard profile has to be added in points and the same formula applied to all models in all factions.

Yes it would be complicated but doable given time, money and competent game designers.

That wouldnt eb perfect and would need adjustments but it would be way better as what we have now.

 

The only thing why it cant be done is, it would hurt their important customers aká their shareholders.

Cause the result would be that someone with a third edition army bought  from the 5th owner would be on the same level as someone buying the newest stuff.

That would result in less sales, shares not growing that much and important customers losing money.

And more important GW would be forced to sell their miniatures through design and not flavor of the month rules or arms race.

[Rik Lightstar]

 

 

I'm not sure 40k can ever really be balanced. I'm not sure any game of such complexity and variability can be. There genuinely are too many options, combinations and potential rules interactions for some of them not to be better than others (whether objectively, subjectively or both).

 

Personly i think it could be done.

You would need a basic formula and a standard profile.

Everything you slap on that standard profile has to be added in points and the same formula applied to all models in all factions.

Yes it would be complicated but doable given time, money and competent game designers.

That wouldnt eb perfect and would need adjustments but it would be way better as what we have now.

 

The only thing why it cant be done is, it would hurt their important customers aká their shareholders.

Cause the result would be that someone with a third edition army bought from the 5th owner would be on the same level as someone buying the newest stuff.

That would result in less sales, shares not growing that much and important customers losing money.

And more important GW would be forced to sell their miniatures through design and not flavor of the month rules or arms race.

That's how 1st and 2nd Ed 40k and 1st to 5th(?) Ed WFB were done, and it wasn't great. There's too many factors for a simple X=Y type formula.

 

Internal balance is totally a thing, take the Thunder Hammer for example, on a guardsman would it be worth 10 points? Probably not, even on their Characters, yet on a Marine Captain they're still the best choice at 40 points, that doesn't mean that a Marine Captain should be 30+ more points WITHOUT the Thunder Hammer.

 

Similarly look at the "Melee Stats" WS, S & A. Neither one is worth much on its own. WS4+ S3 A5 isn't particularly strong, nor is WS4+ S6 A2, hopefully you start to see the point there.

 

Rik

[Bung]

 

 

I'm not sure 40k can ever really be balanced. I'm not sure any game of such complexity and variability can be. There genuinely are too many options, combinations and potential rules interactions for some of them not to be better than others (whether objectively, subjectively or both).

Personly i think it could be done.

You would need a basic formula and a standard profile.

Everything you slap on that standard profile has to be added in points and the same formula applied to all models in all factions.

Yes it would be complicated but doable given time, money and competent game designers.

That wouldnt eb perfect and would need adjustments but it would be way better as what we have now.

 

The only thing why it cant be done is, it would hurt their important customers aká their shareholders.

Cause the result would be that someone with a third edition army bought from the 5th owner would be on the same level as someone buying the newest stuff.

That would result in less sales, shares not growing that much and important customers losing money.

And more important GW would be forced to sell their miniatures through design and not flavor of the month rules or arms race.

That's how 1st and 2nd Ed 40k and 1st to 5th(?) Ed WFB were done, and it wasn't great. There's too many factors for a simple X=Y type formula.

 

Internal balance is totally a thing, take the Thunder Hammer for example, on a guardsman would it be worth 10 points? Probably not, even on their Characters, yet on a Marine Captain they're still the best choice at 40 points, that doesn't mean that a Marine Captain should be 30+ more points WITHOUT the Thunder Hammer.

 

Similarly look at the "Melee Stats" WS, S & A. Neither one is worth much on its own. WS4+ S3 A5 isn't particularly strong, nor is WS4+ S6 A2, hopefully you start to see the point there.

 

Rik

 

 

You could simply argue the other way round. Why is the Thunderhammer the best choice for a SM Captain? Personly i find it a faulty game design if nothing else as Thunderhammers is an option.

And the Editions you mention had a lot of lets call it unprecision rules work overall and not a rigid system for unit design.

 

Sorry, that system works ok to good for other game systems like Corvus Bellis Infinity. But on the other hand you need a rules system to work with that point system for that balance you want to have. You cant have one without the other. But it would need a complete redesign and alot of efford in game design that would make much sales.

Its not impossible its just alot of work to do something like that which isnt in the interest of GW as a company and their shareholders.

[Overwhelming Odds]

If you want to create narrative games that really give you an experience, try what I do.

 

Set up the battlefield and terrain in advance.

 

Pick out a narrative type mission like Stronghold Assault or similar style mission in advance.

 

Let each other know in advance what armies you will be taking.

 

Determine who will be what roles (I.e. Attacker and Defender) in advance.

 

THEN build your lists.  See who takes a tournament list then.  I pity them if they do...

 

Problem solved.  Just how I avoid that hot mess.  Information provides context.  Context provides clarity.  Clarity provides incentive to exploit opportunites provided by that clarity.

 

V/r

 

Dan

[Overwhelming Odds]

I also wanted to point out one VERY significant distinction between tournament lists and casual lists.  Almost all tournaments have packages that let you tailor missions to your list.  This one aspect takes tournament lists to an extreme level.  

 

Think about it this way.  Imagine I assemble a group of the best assets in all the branches of the military.  The best of the best of the best.  Then after I have looked at how amazing they are individually and how they synergize, then I go to find a battle that is perfectly suited to leveraging those strengths.  That is utter fantasy.  Yet, it is a grim reality in a tournament.  You pick your primary, secondary and tertiary objectives based solely upon how easily you can accomplish those objectives. Mission tailoring is the polar opposite, yet the same as list tailoring.  Two sides of the same coin. 

 

Now, I am in no way saying this is a bad thing.  Quite the opposite.  It was an elegant and thoughtful way to make ANY army list VIABLE.  That is awesome and incredible.  But that also means it enables any list to be viable.  That is THE boon and bane of tournament lists as viewed from the outside without context.  They excel in the environment that was CREATED for them to thrive.  That was the whole point!

 

V/r,

Dan

[Bung]

If you want to create narrative games that really give you an experience, try what I do.

 

Set up the battlefield and terrain in advance.

 

Pick out a narrative type mission like Stronghold Assault or similar style mission in advance.

 

Let each other know in advance what armies you will be taking.

 

 

Well, thats how its done in Infinity from Corvus Belli. Works like a charm.

[Vermintide]

 

ITC has a huge impact on rules. Chapter Approved is more or less published yearly to try and correct any issues found from tournament results, abuse of loopholes and the current meta. They can candy coat it with useless VDR rules or whatever, but the main purpose is to continually rebalance the game as a result of competitive play.

 

Which shouldnt be needed that much, if you had a more or less balanced game.

 

Let's be real though. That isn't how it works,, never will be, and furthermore: It's in neither the players nor the creator's interests to strive towards it.

 

You ever play an online RPG? Something like World of Warcraft? You know how players would always whine about the state of balance, and yet the more balanced it got the more people would complain about the "stale meta" and how there needs to be something new and fresh? So instead what that game (and every other MMORPG) does, is just continually change the balance, change the meta, for no real reason other than to keep people running on the treadmill. Adjusting to changes. Otherwise it just dries up- It gets stale.

 

That, is how it be.

 

That's one of the reasons I can never stick with an online game, for the record. It's the same reason I wouldn't ever take competitive Warhammer seriously.

[Panzer]

 

 

ITC has a huge impact on rules. Chapter Approved is more or less published yearly to try and correct any issues found from tournament results, abuse of loopholes and the current meta. They can candy coat it with useless VDR rules or whatever, but the main purpose is to continually rebalance the game as a result of competitive play.

 

Which shouldnt be needed that much, if you had a more or less balanced game.

 

Let's be real though. That isn't how it works,, never will be, and furthermore: It's in neither the players nor the creator's interests to strive towards it.

 

You ever play an online RPG? Something like World of Warcraft? You know how players would always whine about the state of balance, and yet the more balanced it got the more people would complain about the "stale meta" and how there needs to be something new and fresh? So instead what that game (and every other MMORPG) does, is just continually change the balance, change the meta, for no real reason other than to keep people running on the treadmill. Adjusting to changes. Otherwise it just dries up- It gets stale.

 

That, is how it be.

 

That's one of the reasons I can never stick with an online game, for the record. It's the same reason I wouldn't ever take competitive Warhammer seriously.

 

 

So true. I've been playing league of legends quite a lot about 5 years ago and recently came back to it because of some friends. They change a lot with every balance patch but ultimately, looking at it from some distance, nothing ever really changes. Sometimes something gets nerfed to the ground and something else buffed a bit too much but eventually it always all comes at leat roughly back to how it was before.

Sure there happens to be something that needs to be actually fixed every once in a while and that's where balance patches actually matter, however most things are just noise to keep things fresh and interesting for the players. ^^

[mughi3]

Get rid deathstars, formations, decurions. Throw those all out, you know what you have left? SCATT BIKES. AND WARP SPIDERS. Eldar had TWO units that could stand toe to toe with the absolute most busted aspects of 7th edition just off of their baseline rules.

 

THAT'S why people are still afraid to play narrative. Not ITC. Throw 6th on to the pile to, it wasn't any better.

what you have is 30k (with better unit options all around), good news no elder (unless you really wanna insert them in yourself) problem solved

 

6th was actually worse, that's why it only lasted a year.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

30k is SM 247.

[Claws and Effect]

30k is SM 247.

And thus a more balanced game, mostly because there's not a lot of difference between most units. The only time a unit is an autotake is when it's abilities coincide with how your Legion likes to operate.

[Panzer]

 

30k is SM 247.

And thus a more balanced game, mostly because there's not a lot of difference between most units. The only time a unit is an autotake is when it's abilities coincide with how your Legion likes to operate.

 

 

Well actually from what I've heard about 30k lately is that anti-Marine weaponry has become so common and destructive that the meta is slowly changing more towards non-Marine armies. Not that it would matter for this thread though since it has nothing to do with 40k. ;)

[Vykes]

 

 

30k is SM 247.

And thus a more balanced game, mostly because there's not a lot of difference between most units. The only time a unit is an autotake is when it's abilities coincide with how your Legion likes to operate.

 

 

Well actually from what I've heard about 30k lately is that anti-Marine weaponry has become so common and destructive that the meta is slowly changing more towards non-Marine armies. Not that it would matter for this thread though since it has nothing to do with 40k.

 

 

That's certainly been the preliminary results that I've been seeing around here.  But it's been like that ever since Custodes came into the picture, marine legions have taken a bit of a nose-dive and while most people have one, they bring Daemons, Custodes, Mechanicum, Knights, and tank heavy Imperial militia.  And the legions that are left typically are Thousand Sons (which skirt being an actual legion given how psychic heavy they can be that no one else, bar maybe really focused Word Bearer, can match) and Iron Warriors. 

 

So much AP 2/3 that scooping off 40+ power armor bodies between turns 1-2 isn't abnormal in the least.  

 

It's not even a quick change, it was almost immediate given how much more powerful they were that a lot of players just kinda followed the trend to avoid getting crushed.  

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Is still mostly Legions that you see. The meta has been anti Marine since the beginning. I’d say Admech is the best counter since they basically have access to many resilient multi wound units while vehicles can still be one shot off the table since they still use the antiquated damage table. Is really fun if you like Marines. 30k has more of a historical aspect with deep background if you like that aspect.

[Vykes]

Maybe where you are Blowfly, ain't the case here.  

 

Though I'm sticking with marines, I like 'em.  Even if more than half the games I play are against non-astartes armies.  

 

Post Scriptum more or less for the record, the last 30K limited league we had contained the following in order of VP gained:

Dark Mechanicum, Talons,  Raven Guard, Knights, Talons, Emperors Children (subbed for 3 of 6 games for a Mechanicus player), Knights, Daemons, Iron Warriors, Iron Warriors, Daemons, Iron Warriors, Thousand Sons, Sons of Horus.

Edited January 15, 2020 by Vykes