• The forum software have been upgraded to the latest version.

    If you notice anything that looks off, or does not work, please let us know.

    For more information, click here.

Warhammer Meme thread

f26e0bd39586b3ce15732a98fbe423bd.jpg
 
Aginor said:
Well... I don't know...
It is a bit like telling a Seraphon player that Shadowstrike and Thunderquake are OP and cheesy, and that they must not use it.
(And yes that has happened to me. "Seraphon=OP cheese army" they said. And then played the KO "Clown Car" list...

If a tactic exists and it is legal, then why should I hate anyone for using it (or even hate someone who doesn't use it, only because others do)? It is GW's job to change it if it is bad.
I know nothing about the tactic except the very basics, but given that it is a GW game I wouldn't be surprised if it was the only viable tactic of that army, and (over-)used because of that?
Click to expand...

Hate might be a bit strong, but dislike is fair enough.

Issue is GW does obviously have to give decently balanced rules, but players themselves also have a certain responsibility to show sportsmanship and not abuse whatever advantage they can find. Brushing that responsibility of with "it's legal so I can do it" tends to result in a less than healthy community for your game. Also it can then result in overcorrecting of the rules (see rule of one, or the range limitations) where genuine use-cases get nerfed into oblivion just to keep the abusers in check. And, especially in a living game like this, the designers will keep track of popular playstyles. If a large amount players starts using a certain playstyle cuz it's overpowered nonsense, or to counter said nonsense, the designers might mistakingly come to the conclusion people find this playstyle"fun" instead of noticing that they are forced into the playstyle since the overpowered nonsense dictates the meta. This in turn can have massive consequences on the long-term state of the game as they start introducing similar mechanics.

also as far as I understood it this tau strategy was particulairly nasty and even it's weaknesses were terribly difficult to take advantage off. Unlike say a shadowstrike host where it's fairly easy to take advantage of it's weaknesses (it has 0 staying power consisting of fodder and class cannons)
 
Canas said:
Issue is GW does obviously have to give decently balanced rules, but players themselves also have a certain responsibility to show sportsmanship and not abuse whatever advantage they can find.
Click to expand...

+1
with the actual meta, if you cross the galaxy you will meet more Guilliman(s) than Imperial guards.

and AoS is the same.... because when a player brings at a friendly afternoon in your gaming shop, a Tzeentch list that deals 59 MWs in turn one, well, GW gave him the tools, but i blame him for using them in such a way, and in such a contest.
 
I understand where you are coming from, but as a socially rather inept person I'd love to be able to play any legal list without being frowned upon.
Half of the time I build lists I fear someone will call me out as a lamer and/or think about with which words I will apologize because I play a lamer army/list.

Not that I play particularly cheesy lists that often, and I think I am a pretty good sportsman, but IMO rules should be good enough that you can play anything and not be a lamer.
 
Sadly, that's probably impossible. The designers are only mere humans, and quite a lot of these issues won't become noticeable until after playing for a while. Fortunatly it doesn't require much social aptitude to avoid abusive lists there's a couple of easy rules of thumb that allow you to tell quite easily if you're playing one of them:

1) Would you enjoy playing against this playstyle yourself?
2) Are there more than a handfull of genuinly different playstyles that counter yours?
3) Does your opponent actually get to interact with key-parts of your playstyle and activly do things to counter it? (e.g. Does he get to shoot at our slann to stop our summoning or is the slann untouchable?)
4) Are your games (against an equal opponent) reasonably close games that stay interesting till the end with at least a little bit of back and forth?
5) Does your advice for "counterplay" consist of something more helpfull than "just kill it", "avoid it at all costs" or "play nigh perfectly"?

If the anwser to any of those questions is no you're probably using something that is at least questionable. Also, do bear in mind that the anwsers to these questions might change depending on the level you're playing at as well as the game-mode. For example, a thunderquake is completly fine in large games, but questionable to say the least in smaller games.

The only issue with these question is that certain players will bend over backwards to justify their own playstyle. Or otherwise have blindspots regarding these questions, which can lead to some quite stupid claims regarding how easy it is to "counter" their prefered playstyle or how they'd totally enjoy being crushed within moments.
 
Oh man that reminds me of the time I had made a double Basti list, and then saw that my opponent enemy had a Daemon army.

It wouldn't even have been funny anymore, basically like ripping through paper. Everything I had in there had extra damage against Daemons.

I changed the list to something less brutal. The other player was a nice guy.
 
Canas said:
Isn't it also hell to be a dreadnought? Seems nice to have a (semi)dreadnought that doesn't require you essentially torture the marine inside
Click to expand...
That's been one explanation for why they put dreadnoughts to sleep when not in use. The space marine inside is generally little more than a damaged head and torso, kept alive by being hooked up with all manner of cables and hoses, suspended in an amniotic fluid-like substance within their armoured sarchophagus, and their only real contact with the outside world is through a mind impulse unit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top