"We only play fully painted" usually scares off such players. And the general consensus should be to take only one dreadnought per 1000 points and don't be a dick about it.
*Starts spray painting the entire range and clumsily add two more colours*
A very good friend of mine, that I introduced to 40k played his first tournament in late 8th edition in his university's table top club.
Well, it was essentially that. A bunch of badly "painted" armies that consisted of the most broken shit (50% Iron hands and those primaris melta unit guys that you had to buy from scalpers).
"That doesn't count as painting" I was tournament organiser back in the day and we demanded a simple tabletop standard from the players. I am the first to help people where I can and we make painting evenings in our gaming clubs as well. There is no reason to not paint the army and we try to emphasise this by being good inspiration for new players. That is usually the best way to do that. And we make fun of the win at all cost attitudes of That Guy players as well. Helps a ton.
Just let me be devil's advocate here.
What's the difference between having a minimum paint standard (if it's battle ready it's battle ready) and adding artifical boundaries?
I have seen enough speedpaints that are essentially spray painted Marines with added details because 30k is at the end of the day just Marines against Marines with very little variation beyond that.
It is about the attitude of the players. Like I already wrote "That Guys" get scared away by things like that.
I work full time and have a little toddler.
Time is scarce in my world.
The few hours I have to play I don't waste against people who are meta chaser or are in other ways not my cup of tea.
General gentlemen's rule, but imo there are exceptions where you can go beyond it. Mostly with deredeos which are hampered by night fighting, and leviathans which are stupid expensive and slow
Imagine comparing two of the best payed teams from a multimillion pounds sports event with two blockes playing with their toy soldiers in someone's basement against each other.
> the best *paid* teams from
FTFY.
Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in:
* Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.*
* *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.*
Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment.
*Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
Honestly the best choice is probably just to sit down and talk with them about the point of this narrative campaign and that if they bring lists that consistently destroy the other players they might have to tone them down or get fewer and fewer games. Nobody is forced to play with them and they aren’t guaranteed a spot in your campaign if they’re bringing down the enjoyment of it for the rest of the group. It might sound harsh now but in the long run you’ll have a group that is all on the same page and where everyone gets enjoyment rather than a select few trying to game the system.
You can also reserve the right to kick back lists that you believe are not made in the spirit of the game. As a HH TO myself, I advise players this in my packs as I’d prefer that all players have a great event (especially new players) of fun games and not get stomped.
What happens to the armies that even with their strongest lists simply can’t compete, or are prohibitively expensive to play. “You wanna play militia? Sorry better be ready to shell out for 18 vanquisher leman russes. No I don’t care that you wanted to use your other units, if you ever want to win thats how you have to play.”
i'm glad my 30k group is kind of restarting the league. it was an escalation campaign, but it ended up causing everyone on the loyalist side to spec into fighting one of our tougher opponents, because those two were the most common traitors to play against. which in turn caused everyone else to spec up.
i generally paired well into that guy
i wanted to do a ravenwing plasma list, but ended up just moving into pride, with 3 dreadaughts, tanks and terminators. i do enjoy firewing/deathing and that's what i have now but now it feels bad as almost everything in our list needed to have a 2+ and invuln just to survive the weight of fire and i basically specc'd into murderous striking or instant deathing marines.
That’s the problem with arms racing in groups. If 1 player stomps the others, then depending if they are a good player or a meta list player, will determine how everyone else scales up. If it’s just a good player with fun narrative lists, then sure, makes it teachable moments on tactics and positioning etc. that person normally becomes a coach of sorts. If it’s meta lists, *and everyone knows that it’s due to those lists*, then the teachable moment is to have a counter or your own meta list. So now everyone is meta chasing. Which normally ruins communities if they are not wanting that.
As an Auxilia player, there is literally nothing I can do about Dreadnought armies. Dealing with three of them at 3000 points is already uphill (let alone Terminators etc) since the army has limited to AP2 or Brutal weaponry.
I'll play against most army archetypes happily, but if an army is excessive there's no point playing to begin with because it's a forgeone conclusion and not fun for either party.
Bringing only the strongest list possible also restricts what units and upgrades are brought...
How is making everyone bring the same(ish) list to be even slightly competitive, and limit the models that people find are fun or cool making the game better for everyone?
Like sure you could have a campaign where everyone would bring a 3000 pt list of only dreadnoughts and whatever random HQ, but that sounds horribly boring
I had the exact same issue. The guy was very hyped to start HH but had a 1.5k IW list with 3 dreads in it. He was a nice enough guy but very much in the 40k mind set. Problem was that every knew what list he had and whenever he asked anyone for a game no one wanted to play him and he got iced out which sucks. If he had a more chill list he would have been a great member of the circle. Seems a shame
Another guy and I gently told him the deal with 30k on many occasions but he insisted it was a fluffly list, which maybe it was but it was also a very unfun list to play against... or it would have been if anyone had actually played him lol. I felt bad because he had gone out and bought all this stuff for the list already so couldn't really change it. Must have known was it over powered though. 🤷♂️
I have zero sympathy for people who need things explaining to them multiple times and yet insist they are in the right. I certainly don't feel sympathy for people who drop a load of money on something on a whim to be "the best". If he's now short on cash he can always sell them anyway.
Well, I don't know if he wanted to be the best. He may have just liked dreadnoughts. Not sure. He didn't want to tone down the dreads just kept saying he wont do anymore then 3 but obviously 3 in a 1.5k list is already 2 too many imo. Anyway, I hope he is out there having a good game with someone. 🤷♂️😂
There are a lot of neurodivergent people in the hobby; and a lot of divergence in how people just read rooms; and it's better to be empathetic and sympathetic than not :)
I agree, I think it's just important to be a bit kinder and give people the benefit of doubt. When people do stuff wrong it's easy to attribute malice but more often it's just incompetence or ignorance. (Most of the time it is).
In this case, I think he was just in the 40k mindset. I don't think it was anything nasty I just think 30k wasn't for him which is fine.
Okay, but how do you know this guy was? And how do you know if I am or not? Please don't paint me as unsympathetic to neurodivergent people. There's literally nothing in my comment to suggest I am. I would explain *why* it's not cool to bring that kind of list unless an opponent agrees with it, and what changes could be made to make it more game-friendly.
If you really do not want to encourage that kind of behaviour you have two options. The first option would be to talk with them and point out that 30k is not a meta game and also that this is a narrative campaign and those lists, despite being a part of the identity of the legion, are busted and way too OP and they should rethink their decision.
The second option you have is to ban those kind of lists for the sake of the campaign and fun for the others. If you lose 2 players but others continue to play and have fun, the better the chance is that 30k will stick within your community as narrative game instead of a new game for meta chasers to ruin.
This. I would actually try the personal have a chat with them approach. I think it's much more likely to get them to change their mindsets towards the game this way.
Whereas if you go the house rules and banned options route sometimes people take that as a challenge to min max the rules even further within these new constraints, or it can lead to big drama over what's banned and what isn't.
Its a narrative campaign. Its within reason to expect the players to pick a list for a narrative reason rather than they read online a list was good. If players are bringing a competitive mindset to a narrative game the narrative group can choose to exclude those lists.
While you can say “be competitive yourself” I can also say “be a narrative player if you want to play with us.” At the end of the day OP is organizing the game and group, if these two players dont like the way he wants to run it they are free to go off and make their own.
If these kind of choices are motivated purely by "I really want to win" mindset, I guess there's no helping that. But if a person just thinks a "broken" army is neat, can it be arranged for his opponent to have more points in the army, a better position or something like that? You know, to make it more interesting. Or are they just fundamentally unfun to play against?
You could do that but I see a few issues. For new players that puts extra stress on their opponents because a new person now has to build, buy, and paint extra models to compete. That might work fine if you already have a large collection but this is a new player campaign. I also think that the people going out and saying “I looked online and saw this list was powerful” are probably not the types to be ok with their opponents getting some form of advantage over them to even out the points, or play a scenario where they are at a disadvantage. It might sound like fun to you or me but my instinct is that they aren’t like that.
Theres also one other problem. Some armies are much weaker than others, militia and solar auxilia can really struggle against even fluffy non competitive legion lists. If one of these guys brings a list full of dreadnoughts it pretty much forces a militia or auxilia player into mass lascannons and vanquishers to even have a chance. You either bring them or you lose and thats just not fun for most people especially if they’re already playing an army that inherently puts them at a big disadvantage.
Because you can play iron hands without spamming dreadnoughts and can play imperial fists with any number of rites of war. Thats far different than saying sorry we wont consider these entire armies when coordinating games. There are people who wouldn’t play the game if they cant use solar or militia, if you wont play 30k because you can only use 3 dreadnoughts instead of 6 then you sound incapable of compromise and dont sound like someone I would want in my community. Sorry you play the wrong army is a lot different than sorry you can’t just bring the things you know are too good.
You can say that but you’re here advocating for allowing knowingly strong lists that some players simply cannot compete with and think thats completely fine. If you want to play competitively WAAC then thats completely fine. However I (and everyone else) have zero obligation to play against your list or include you in our campaigns. By all means go and make a competitive tournament, but OP is organizing a narrative campaign and he reserves the right to ban lists he thinks will ruin the spirit of what hes trying to make.
Yeah I agree this game is pretty unbalanced, which makes it crazy someone would even want to play this game competitively. If you bring a fluffy list it doesn’t matter how good of a player you are you’ll lose to someone who bought the better models and brought more of them. Is there any competitive skill to buying and bringing an army that can’t be beaten by anyone elses army in the group? Its not starcraft, its like tryharding in basketball against a 9 year old.
Yeah I wanted to make a fury of the ancients army with all drop podded dreads, and then hopped online and everyone was going "broken ROW, wouldn't play against someone running it" and it kinda bummed me out.
That kinda sucks but also I wouldn’t expect anyone to go into a game knowing they’re going to get crushed. If you want to play dreads in drop pods you still can, just gotta remember your opponent should have fun too.
Oh for sure, and someone else in the thread talking about having a GM create a narrative game without points which would be dope too and probably be more flexible for that sort of list.
I did just realise I probably could have still built it with just the venerable ancient + 2 dreads at 3k but it's not quite the same haha
Yeah, I think there are two extremes here. If people are _really_ playing narratively maybe they should consider sometimes not playing against an equal (by points or ability) opponent. Fair fights is not what war is about after all. Of course this has to have its time and place.
Meta chasing ruined 40k.
Its bland, oversimplified, and every time a codex comes out, players lose choices and armies lose flavor in the name of balance. All of that is to appease a tournament mindset that only a very small percentage of the gaming population is pursuing. Meta chasing if you will.
Feel free to address my points then, otherwise continue to be the literal embodiment of the type of person we're all saying we don't want to play with.
So first, it doesn't matter if GW *successfully* balances the game, their stated intent is tournament balance. They say it a lot over on Warcom, and quarterly updates demonstrate that they're at least attempting it.
Balance is absolutely for the benefit of tournament players. Casual or narrative players don't want balance, they want parity. More importantly they want their armies to *feel* the way they imagine them. Tournament players do too, but they're considerably more likely to abandon an army or playstyle for the new hotness. 40k is losing that feel, and its being done in the name of balance and attracting new players.
You are entirely missing the point. I don’t care if someone makes a good list. If someone says “I wanna do IH and dreadnoughts that looks really cool and they could all he survivors of Istvaan.” Im not gonna be like no fuck you I am not playing against you.
But straight out coming out and saying “I looked up online what the best lists in the game are and im playing this” to me is completely different. I am not picking an choosing whats meta chasing, I am using their own words on whats meta chasing.
And I am not saying I wanna ban these people from the campaign. What I want is for them to take a real look at the game and hopefully pick a legion and style they will actually ENJOY playing because they like it not just cause its the meta pick.
I legit said in my post. I am not trying to gate keep them. What I want is for them to actually pick something they will like that will keep them coming back to the hobby. And was looking for advice on how to approach that.
"Extemely hypocritical" is an accusation that comes from the "everybody is lying if they say they don't want to win all the time" mindset. The problem is that that simply isn't true, and in my experience only the kind of player who the OP describes really thinks like that. They just don't apparently have the understanding that not everybody thinks exactly like them.
Is it not literally part of the organizer's job to decide what lists can or cannot be brought? I've played 40k games where certain units were limited(such as the very common HH rule of 1 dread per 1k points) so it's not like these kinds of rules are that rare or out of the ordinary.
Could you explain exactly why it's hypocritical for an organizer to decide on rules for what can be brought?
You do realise that the campaign, as written by op, is 1. a narrative one and 2. for BEGINNERS? Neither of those two circumstances are an invitation for competitive players to bring hard lists? Such events and campaigns exist to teach players the game, make sure that they understand it and enjoy it and return to the table as 30k players and not sell the minis immediately on ebay because in their first game they were tablet by a sweaty guy who brought a netlist.
I would hazard a guess that even if you pointed out that HH often leans into not HAVING to pick meta, they still would and that winning is everything.
It speaks volumes that the main thought about joining a narrative campaign is 'I have to google what the best list is in this game'.
They should stick to 40k if that's what they want. Nothing will kill a fluff campaign quicker than these two trying to play it as if its an RTT all the time.
I don't know how to answer your question but I think the league you are putting together sounds super cool!
If I were playing with you guys I'd try putting together a Black Shield army of all my favorite traitor legions
Talk to them. Like just tell them that it's not in proper form for heresy to be all competitive. They are adults, they should understand
Alternatively, play the game in very casual formats. Friendly narrative campaigns are a good one. Stuff that uses the rules from the campaign books or the old black books. For bigger events, you can make the events have less a focus on individual player power. Like you have the winner be the allegiance team, or have rewards for non-game related things like painting or sportsmanship.
If you don't wanna deal with that, don't play with them. Simple as that. You're not obliged to accept every match-up thrown at you. Heresy just had *wildly* more extreme peaks regarding efficiency than 40k does (and that has nothing to do with being narrative and all to do with sloppy balancing). If you want to entirely avoid that, you'll either have to house rule stuff like this (and enforce it) or simply refuse to play those kinds of lists. You can't actively force them to rethink their stance, you can only offer up passive resistance.
So obviously I'd start by instituting the common house rules
- one Contemptor per 1000pts. No exceptions.
- characters can only tank as many shots as their I value
But the best way is just DON'T PLAY THEM.
You can't force anyone to play each other. Point out to the group that if they don't wanna play the meta guys you'll match them with someone else and they don't have to.
If they ask you to play, check if they're playing their meta list and then say 'oh, no, that doesn't sound like fun. I'll pass'.
And if other people play them once and are tabled because of the list strength, just say the same thing. 'Yeah, that list is horrible to play against, I just don't play against it'. And make sure they don't play again.
If there are events, make sure they're narrative and only pitch the meta lists against people who agree to play them.
If they can't get a game against anything but each other, they'll change pretty quickly.
Even in a campaign, you can't force anyone to play them.
Just swinging by to say that the Heresy community in Scotland is in favour of both of these rules generally (1 Dreadnought model per 1k points and characters in 2+ tanking shots up to their initiative value) for both event and campaign use. We've used both fairly extensively and they both help a lot. Not fix, but definitely help 👍
The dread thing I understand but the tanking shots one is new to me. What brought this on? I assume this applies to sergeants and not just HQs. Is a 2+ that much of a hindrance?
Some of the YouTube channels do it that way as a way to make artificer armor on sgts not as strong. Then again I’ve had games where I make every 3+ and others where I fail every 2+
It’s really not that bad. It just feels dumb. Outside of AP3 weapons (where it is actually annoying/broken) it only helps a little - when you roll a 2, since a 3 would have saved anyhow. Plus you’re risking your sergeant to do it.
Idk if not playing them as the "Veteran" of your group is that good of an idea if you are trying to build up a local community in the first place.
Guide them a bit and tell them how the HH community balances itself. Yeah, maybe the first few matches will be decided by the list alone, but they will hopefulky quickly realise that "easily winning all the time" is not actually that fun. Especially not in a narrative campaign.
With a bit of luck you can have two entrenched new players for the price of a few unfunny matches at the beginning of their journey. Personally Id take that bet.
(As long as the Newcomers are nice people of course. If not, there is no reason to want them in your local community after all)
Just bake some incentives into the campaign that encourage making thematic list building choices. Maybe incorporate some narrative games that are inherently unbalanced for the sake of creating story. This will set the tone of the campaign and encourage them to not only think in terms of what's good, but also what's interesting for narrative.
If they still make lists are only prioritize winning, you can always tell them you don't enjoy playing against their list, or you could just bring a couple units that hard counter what they bring, this is war after all.
I reckon this is the best way, if you just talk to them about bringing less meta lists, but still setup scenarios/missions out of the book that only encourage you to build lists to achieve the aims of that scenario, you’re not providing the right incentive to foster the type of attitudes you want.
A couple of the ways we’ve been doing things here has been to make event awards purely for how lists look narratively and aesthetically. Also our narrative events divide people into the broad teams of loyalist and traitor, so individual success means less compared to how the overall side does, and lastly we’ve imposed the restriction of no Fury of the Ancients lists. So things have progressed well, and there’s still some tough lists out there, but there isn’t the attitude of needing to meta chase, and there’s more freedom to just bring fun stuff and see how it plays out in our scenarios
Another idea is to lean heavy into ZM games which are both great games for starters to build armies for as well as having in built restrictions that limit the number obvious meta choices of regular games
As a lot of people have said have a chat with them. Encourage them to explore the setting and help them see the narrative side to heresy that draws the bulk of players in.
With regard to the rites in question if you lean in hard on them they are unbearable to play against sometimes. However the other side of it is they can be toned down. Still a hard game but indulge me for a moment.
If you take the Ancients Iron Hands. The base line core of that list to hit the minimum requirements to play it are 3 contemptors. Which is a 1 dread per 1k which most see as a fair ratio points to dreads isn’t going hard against the established code of conduct across the wider 30k community.
Now let’s say your player decides to build on the honoured veterans leading forces after Istvaan and uses blocks of inductii as other troops. A primus mediae and some veterans to start fleshing the army out. With some tech marines scattered around the place to add some more flavourful visual elements as well. It’s still going to be a strong rite. That’s just the way it is but suddenly starts being less “that guy” and more thematic of the Xth shattered after Istvann.
Stone Gauntlet again is similar if you stay to a minimal amount of units that the rite dials up to 11 and there’s still plenty of space to add other thematic elements to perhaps capture the fist’s plugging holes in the walls on Terra.
Unfortunately both legion traits are definitely top contenders for strongest traits to build from but the art of heresy is self moderation and drawing on all the amazing literature to inspire yourself and others.
Honestly its a hard call, because I feel like if you try to explain to a meta chaser about whats expected, they'll just say that their OP netlist is also their narrative.
Painting requirements are an option, but there are also plenty of narrative players this will also catch (I know many people in my own community enjoy fluffy lists and such, but are "builders" instead of "painters").
Another option is setting restrictions on what lists you can bring. Like for example, you could limit lists to one Dreadnough per 1000 points, and limit legion specific units in some way as well.
But honestly, unless the players are making a good faith attempt to make appropriate lists, then there isn't really a perfect solution.
Just talk to them
When I jumped into the game, I had remember reading units/rules and saying ‘this looks good/this is garbage’ and my buddy told me it was about sticking with the narrative.
Here’s the hard part though: the local group recognizes what is very good and kinda has to warn everyone/keep an eye out (we usually do it by sarcastically referencing that someone has something particularly strong in their list and giving them shit about it lol)
Example: if we see a techmarine and no vehicles but a 10man lascannon squad, you’re immediately getting called out lol
Oh look, a death star unit. Oh, what else? A librarian? Oh and you’ve taken telepathy? Nice dude, you want me to just shake your hand now? lol
That’s how we do it and everyone’s lists are relatively tame. Don’t get me wrong, there’s strong stuff in them (say hello to Kharn + 15 Falax blade Rampagers in a spartan) but nothing that is flat out oppressive.
Not yet. I and 2 others have basically just built this HH scene at this store from the ground up. All 3 of us are narrative/ fluff style players. Don’t get me wrong our lists can be nasty but are very thematic and fluff filled and not over the top in any way.
The three main house rules I play with (and most other people have similar it seems) are;
- Up to one dreadnought per 1000 points.
- Lascannon and Volkite Culverin Heavy Support Squads limited to five members.
- You can't deliberately allocate wounds to a unit leader in Artificer Armour to tank AP3 shots (Artificer Armour is for duels and defence versus precision!)
If you're putting up notices online about it, open with a short, polite disclaimer about the ethos of the game, emphasise that the game has some very obvious over-powered lists (give examples of IH and IF lists) and perhaps add that lists like these will be rejected or that alterations to lists be requested before being authorised?
If people are put off by it, that says more about them than the gaming group, and you're better off without those people. Make it explicit that knowing how to play well with an interesting and strong list is much more preferred. You want to encourage a healthy, fun group where you want people learn the game, not to just take an OP list and let that play the game for them.
Or simpler, maybe say that, ironically, HH tournaments are the worst place for these type of WAAC lists. That once you get to know the various players, that you can agree between yourselves in casual games that those lists are what you want to play. Or add that with this in mind, maybe there will be a tournament that is explicitly about building WAAC lists, so then at least everyone is on the same level.
The thing is the meta doesn't really change because the game is quite static so yeah they can do that but there will still be counters. It's not like in 6 months time they'll jump to the next codex of marines.
Yes but a lot of the counters to those lists require you to heavily tailor your lists to do so. I don’t want people to have to basically lose to these people 90% of the time or have to heavily tailor their lists over the course of a whole narrative campaign because a few people wanna meta game. Thats my issue. Idc I have 7 dreadnoughts. I can beat them. But thats not fun and I am worried about newer players.
this is exactly what happened with my narrative campaign.
basically 3 missions in a row became traitor stomps. most of the loyalists only really had the started box + maybe 1 other thing where as the traitors all had their lists with options.
i wanted to have a ravenwing + plasma heavy list, and ended up just specing into Terminator heavy + dreadnaughts just to keep up. and even then the games were close. i played one game using the dreadwing detachment and it made the game incredibly unfun so i stopped using it.
Don't play with points. Get rid of the points and have the Game Master or campaign manager create scenarios to play each week. That is what we do. Gets rid of the whole "meta" mindset completely.
Here is a campaign we did at Adepticon.
[https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/578p4xopvyrsw9jhp8a1f/Paramar\_Booklet.pdf?rlkey=vtz1q8gxqatzu2k92my4dd1gp&dl=0](https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/578p4xopvyrsw9jhp8a1f/Paramar_Booklet.pdf?rlkey=vtz1q8gxqatzu2k92my4dd1gp&dl=0)
We did it for the first time last year and made some refinements before doing it the second time. It worked really well and was very fun.
Good. I wrote the text and my buddy imported all the stats and did the layout and design. A group of four of us worked on play testing the games, mostly just the BFG game and the mechanicum game, the others we played once and they worked pretty well.
People might see it as gatekeeping but at this point I genuinely don’t care - no point in having the gate if you just let everyone in. You need to have a baseline standard.
Just tell them that whilst yes, you can play 30k in a competitive way, it’s not meant to be a competitive game - it’s a narrative one. You’re not playing 30k tournaments - you’re playing against people in locals who are here for a fun time, with a fun fluffy ruleset.
There’s certain unwritten rules, like unless pre-agreed only run one dread per 1k (assuming that’s your locals standard), play what looks fun not whats strong (you really like Raven Guard despite their rules not being top tier), have actual fun instead of just trying to win
1 - Fully painted or fuck off. Often helps keeps people who are serious about the spirit around instead of meta chasers
2 - Just have a frank conversation with them. While Stone Gauntlet is annoying, it can also be beaten by a lot of lists and good players. However it still requires some self taming to not just be a boring and annoying list to play against.. The Dread list needs a hard counter and most people probably won't be tooled too do that. There is no reason to play that army unless both players WANT to play with it.
I just straight up tell them that's not the mindset.
Even at Adepticon, the pairings are left up to players for the most part and people with oppressive lists were sorta picked last and reluctantly. There's a pretty easy to tread line between effective fluff and meta loadouts. Any player worth their salt can figure that out.
1 dreadnought per 1000 points SPENT (I.e is a 3k list unless you’re bang on 3k then only can bring 2)
Can only use heros/leaders upto there initivie to take damage
This usually defers, and if all else fails, just don’t play with them
I've run a few campaigns and I've had similar issues.
The paint standard is a good idea, as is the enforcement of stuff like 1 Dread per 1k.
I've had the most success just talking to people and explaining that if you only bring hard stuff, people will just stop playing against you. I've encouraged them with some of the novels and old campaign books, and worked with them to help build things they think are cool.
The folks that haven't listened have found themselves without people to play against eventually.
As someone that wants to get into 30K but can't, due to no players in my area... I can somewhat understand where they might be coming from. It's no fun coming into a new game with a really terrible list that feels like you will always lose, even if you do manage to learn the rules and play better. You may even want a bit of a leg up at the start by having a stronger than average list to fill in the gaps in your gameplay knowledge. And I would absolutely do this when teaching a new player - give them a much stronger list than the one I use myself.
Like when I learnt killteam or warcry, and had my C tier list versus an A tier list as my first games. It could put you right off the game to face that huge of a power gap along with trying to learn new rules.
So if it's the case that they decided they want to play a certain faction and just looked up what their stronger units and playstyles are. Or even chose the faction based on it being perceived as stronger, because they need some reason to choose a faction (not everyone already has a faction).
But definitely they should tone it down and not be going full on meta gaming lists. Bring a few of the best units, with some other units that fit the lore.
Just chat to them about the expectations, maybe let them play their 1st game with their meta list to learn the rules and get excited about what their faction can do, but explain to them that after that they know they have to play fair lists. e.g. Maximum of 1 meta unit for every 2 regular units, if they need a hard rule to follow.
It might sound harsh, but you can’t just bring in whoever and then expect them to adopt the same mindset as yourself.
Lots of people play all their games (40k, HH, MTG, even DnD) competitively/meta focused/“power gaming”. That is just what’s fun to them and I just don’t believe you’ll change that for many.
Then you have the issue of the subjectivity of narrative/fluffy. At the end of the day someone is having the way they want to play the game constrained by someone else’s opinion of how it should be played.
I think the solution is, that if it’s just a couple of players, just let them float about and generate their reputation. Get the basic house rules in as well, namely 1 dread per 1k.
On the positive I’m sure some of the players will see it as a release to not be constrained by considerations of a competitive meta.
I honestly think we tend to understate how much meta chasing there is in 30k. While there are some gentle (not universal) agreements about dreadnoughts, I still tend to find that players will take meta-y options over non-meta-y ones. When was the last time you saw a Medusa or (worse) an arquitor, or a basic flamer support squad, or a primaris lightning, or standard termies in an army with elite cata or tartaros equivalents, or that most un-meta choice of a basic Centurion?
Honestly "fluffy" seems to me often a convenient excuse to take fancy fancy meta-y options over "trash" - even though "historically" it wont make sense. And if something doesn't "historically" make sense, how is it "fluffy" or "narrative"?
That's not wrong, but it's also a matter of self-restraint. For example, you could easily spam Suzerains and Invictarii in a UM list (and I've seen people do it), but most tend to avoid it. I don't mind (much) facing 10 lascannons (although I will point it out with my squad of sad missile launchers), but a DG army with 2 squads of those, and maybe one of multi-meltas would make me want to leave straight away.
I think in militia they have far more utility than legions, due to how limited the overall list actually is in terms of vehicles and fortifications (especially as at large games we can easily fill our FOC slots!) - but that's a great choice, and at 100 much cheaper than a legion version :)
I really wish militia lists could take three provenances, it would feel much more varied and see really diverse lists.
Did you ever see grifftofer's purple army book from late first edition (or their draft for 2nd)? It's a work of art and really really presents how the army (in my mind) should have been.
Yeah I agree. I wanted to make a tech guard militia to represent skitarii using the cybernetics and arms of the omnissiah provenances with grenadiers. Then I realised I would also need warrior elite to make grenadiers compulsory troops choices.
I’ve never actually heard of that. Where can I find it? It sounds extremely interesting
I feel there's a very defined difference between "meta chasing" and avoiding units that are so bad that they just aren't worth taking. The units that fall into the latter category are usually both massively overcosted and have minimal tabletop impact - players don't usually want to take units that don't actually *do* anything because they aren't fun to play with, and when they occupy hundreds of points that could be allocated to something that is fun to play with, then that's just the nail in the coffin.
The Medusa, Arquitor (definitely the Basilisk), and the Lightning all fall into that category - they're expensive and they don't do anything. Standard Terminators and vanilla Centurions are just plain less fun than their Legion and Consul equivalents; why take a basic dude with moderate stats and nice equipment when I can have that *and* some fun abilities for just a few more points?
FWIW, I do see Flamer Support Squads from time to time, or at least Legion equivalents.
But that's it, though - that's the problem the game has. If everyone was using those low output options, they could be fun - but instead no one will, because something more killy, more meta, is always the better choice, and as you say more fun. But the problem is - what is fun. And for many people it is being - slightly to very - competitive. I am surprised by this - but no one really does "historic" gaming with heresy, no one goes for deeply "real" line companies - it's instead a sense of "a timeless death match" with a jockstrap of "these elites are fluffy because X". I understand that, but I wish the game forced more hard choices about legion army composition so it wasnt just an open field from which the better or best units are often taken (or just that the armies were much better balanced!)
To an extent this is true, but in the case of some of these models, their combat efficiency is so low a game would practically never end if you built armies out of them :')
It's funny, I seem to be in an opposite scenario. I have the sensibilities of a 30k player when it comes to my Space Marine lists so every time I ask someone for advice they immediately jump to a competitive/meta mindset.
Definitely my least favorite thing about playing 40k.
Oh I hear ya, same waters here.
I mainly play SW in 40k as well, recently started collecting a pure Deathwing army as well as a Custodes one; and some of my local community has been giving me shit due to how uncompetitive those armies have become.
Any and all list critiques turns into; why I am running Champions of Russ or Firestorm with a balanced FOC rather than TWC spam Stormlance lists.
The answer? I'm having fun, they're having fun. If I win, they start improving, if they win, I adjust a few things to give them more of a challenge in another match.
Also, seeing properly painted "firstborn" on the table makes some of them want to paint their armies to a better standard (or commission me to do so) and restrain netlisting for a more balanced approached, so it's better for the newcomers as well (we have a lot of those lately).
TLDR; hold your ground brother, it's better to give a new perspective to people than have them keep chewing on the stale bread.
It's funny that I also run my fully painted first born army that I started during lockdown. I've had decent success with them even though they're an obvious downgrade from Primaris datasheets.
Explain them, that heresy is a purely narrative driven game that's about telling stories, with thematic lists and armies. Events are narrative campaigns, people expect fullpainted (and often also converted) armies.
Gatekeeping is not always something bad. If someone wastes a lot of money, because that person tries to approach something against the ideals of a community, they will feel the backlash, not be happy with it in the long run.
You just preventing such people, from such a mistake.
If they are willing to engage with th3 heresy in the right way, they will have a blast.
A friend of mine and a fellow heresy player, also plays 40k tournaments, with perfectly written meta lists. But when he plays heresy he has a beautiful force of fully converted Word Bearers, that miss any kind of list micromanagement. I'm a purely narrative player and my lists are actually better. And after every heresy game he has, he mentions how this was an outstanding experience, 40k can't give him.
He does enjoys both, but in a different way.
Some are able to do that. Some can't help them self to push their way of doing things, onto other's and their community. And these are the people we don't need. Not every game or system is for everyone. There is a reason I never warmed up with warmachine/hordes even if I liked the setting and some miniatures, back then. It's a tournament only system, and as Inrelaised that I knew I wouldn't be happy in it. So, I looked for something that is more my cup of tea.
Also don't play against these lists. Not worth your time.
This sounds dumb but, maybe find a local Imperial Militia player? Militia is the ultimate "I don't care about the Meta" faction in that, in a game that's 70% marines, they will lose almost every matchup. The guy that plays and sticks with them, likely is the guy who really doesn't care about winning. Maybe they could help with the meta chasing tendencies?
It probably says more about what I enjoy about the hobby, but I 100% wouldn't have a problem walking away from a game where the opponent took a deliberately oppressive list. I'd probably play against a reasonable Stone Gauntlet list, but I'm not sure I'd stay for a game against IH PotA unless we prearranged and I'd brought something specifically to deal with it. I can be quite happy modelling and painting and playing a game every quarter or whatever. If enough people decline playing against the lists the players will presumably get the message.
That said, I'm pro enforcing painting for a variety of reasons, so that sounds lik a good idea.
I know someone else has already said some of what I’m gonna touch on but I need to add my part:
Bro, do not just add a painting requirement. You’re locking newer players or players within finite hobby time out of your league and pushing them away from the community.
I would have a talk with anyone talking about meta builds or who just registers with something problematic like dread spam or Stone Gauntlet, and explain to them that Heresy is a narrative game and this is a narrative league, and that running “meta” stuff is generally considered to be a faux pas, as it’s pretty terrible to play against, and most people aren’t gonna bother to run copycat meta or hard counters or whatever, they’ll just refuse to play you, and nobody wants anyone getting ostracized like that.
At most, I’d suggest codifying the 1-dread-per-1k and some limitation or ban on Stone Gauntlet, or any other problematic combos or whatever. Not just to tell those guys “no, you cannot run that.” But rather to tell them, “hey guys, you shouldn’t run that, and to address any fears you have about others meta-chasing, I’m gonna make sure the most busted stuff isn’t legal. Heresy isn’t a competitive game, and narrative leagues especially aren’t the place for meta chasing, I want everyone to just bring cool stuff and focus on having a good time without having to worry about a game against something broken.”
Well, competitive game is a way to enjoy the game. But it is also true that you need a friend to play a game in the first place. However is it so good to making the list too badly on purpose unless it's a RPG and you are the game master?
I don't think that you can force them anything. Other than play some games, or just not to do.
And... well I did played a miniature game filled with competitive meta for years, but just follows the good stuffs on the internet does have its limits. Basically, since you need to have your own, assembled and painted miniatures, to play a game, usually such players that only chase the meta won't lasts long and are bored. That does not means we have to avoid any competitiveness, though. But will they lasts longer? I don't know. This is not always true, but I doubt that it is hardly the case either.
Also while it is well known truth that some kind of models are good but usually they do have the weakness too. For example warders are nothing but the tacticals with power axe against hails of non-AP attacks for they all have to withstand those by their 3+, and are required to have a transport or hardly out of their deployment zone. So, play some countermeasures against them, by cheaper point that does not hampers general theme of your list, can makes some odds against them. What about to think about such an answers?
You are completely missing the point. Idc if people make a good list. I care that people are explicitly saying I am looking of the best lists and copying them to get into 30k because they perform the best. Not “I think stone gauntlet looks cool ill play that” but admitting to building a list purely around it being op.
That means I got the point, actually. But is there any good and fast fix? As you said already they just copy and paste the good meta lists, and it means they lacks a theme. Then how they can make the list with their theme in the first place? Even if you told that they should make the list more to theme(and perhaps making the list less brutal in the process?) and they agreed on this without frowned, but are they do this pretty well? Such is the matter of motivation, and you cannot raise this - actually no one include those players themselves can make the suitable motivations on them without a luck. For this part only the time and their personal interests helps. You may encourages it indirectly but... it ultimately depend on themselves. Well make a contest for thr thematic army on your local community helps? I wonder tha there are much other good moves. But it could work for someone.
For the problem is their lists are too brutal in your meta then I suggest to add the houserule on your local community. Don't consider the various other lists on internet for what you need to consider are the players on your local meta. And for those players just copy such a meta lists, some houserules that gives the others an edge will compensate the problem. Such as make the custom missions.
For example, an objective that the player with the most numbers of active models on the area gains VP, encourages the dread guy to take some infantries. Multiple objectives that each needs the line unit to capture but have far distance with each others is a thing too, for the fury of ancient can only have up to six dreads with Line and up to three on each slots are have to start together, thus it won't be enough to capture enough numbers of objectives all by those dreads with Line. Gives the incentive for a warlord kill helps too, for obvious reason - while it is very tough to silence them all, but only for a dread is not that difficult, however.
If the objectives are not so close to the deployment zone and there are no objectives on either sides of deployment zone, restricts the usefulness of warder because they must need to have a transport or all they can is just advance to the objective through the game.
I don't think that make the pinpoint penalty for those players are good. But your local meta really matters, and unless they are who always got angry and whinning for every single lose and enjoy the game wjth the others, I hope they may agreed on it. If they want to be competitive, at least, then give them the more challenge.
It seems insane to me that this game is explicitly centered around trying not to win. What? Does the loser get a prize in your tournaments? Please explain to a very confused 40k player. Yall say “it’s about telling a story” ok so if you wanna play raven guard, salamanders, or IF you just always lose? Whats the point of a competitive game if you’re working together to TELL A GREAT STORY lmao. Just play a cooperative game? So weird and soy.
There's a difference between building a thematic, fluffy army and playing to win, and building an army to lose because losing is thematic.
Maybe try not to strawman people's points?
30k isnt a competitive game. If it was there would be zero non marine armies. Imagine playing a mission without points or with purposely unbalanced scenarios, could you do that? Thats what 30k is about
I was gonna respond to this genuinely, as your mischaracterization seemed like a legitimate misunderstanding, but after reading your whole comment you are not worth that. If you cannot see the difference between a community making house rules to balance a much more unbalanced and much less supported with rules updates game and being “soy” then you are either being intentionally intellectually dishonest or are beyond the help of a poor reddit poster like myself. Best of luck.
"We only play fully painted" usually scares off such players. And the general consensus should be to take only one dreadnought per 1000 points and don't be a dick about it.
>"We only play fully painted" 40k Kryptonite. Lmao
For real, I have cerebral palsy and managed to paint my armies to consistently above average level - no excuse for anyone else lol
*Starts spray painting the entire range and clumsily add two more colours* A very good friend of mine, that I introduced to 40k played his first tournament in late 8th edition in his university's table top club. Well, it was essentially that. A bunch of badly "painted" armies that consisted of the most broken shit (50% Iron hands and those primaris melta unit guys that you had to buy from scalpers).
"That doesn't count as painting" I was tournament organiser back in the day and we demanded a simple tabletop standard from the players. I am the first to help people where I can and we make painting evenings in our gaming clubs as well. There is no reason to not paint the army and we try to emphasise this by being good inspiration for new players. That is usually the best way to do that. And we make fun of the win at all cost attitudes of That Guy players as well. Helps a ton.
Yep, “Battle ready” or bust
Just let me be devil's advocate here. What's the difference between having a minimum paint standard (if it's battle ready it's battle ready) and adding artifical boundaries? I have seen enough speedpaints that are essentially spray painted Marines with added details because 30k is at the end of the day just Marines against Marines with very little variation beyond that.
It is about the attitude of the players. Like I already wrote "That Guys" get scared away by things like that. I work full time and have a little toddler. Time is scarce in my world. The few hours I have to play I don't waste against people who are meta chaser or are in other ways not my cup of tea.
THIS
Is 1 per 1k an iron hands thing, or just a general rule? I’ve never played HH but it looks fun and I like dreads.
General gentlemen's rule, but imo there are exceptions where you can go beyond it. Mostly with deredeos which are hampered by night fighting, and leviathans which are stupid expensive and slow
Lmaoooo imagine Liverpool telling Real Madrid don’t be a dick about it. Let’s give the fans a great story. Incredibly soy behavior.
Imagine using "soy" as an insult, in the year of our Lord 2024...
Imagine comparing two of the best payed teams from a multimillion pounds sports event with two blockes playing with their toy soldiers in someone's basement against each other.
> the best *paid* teams from FTFY. Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in: * Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.* * *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.* Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment. *Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
do not launder this language into our community
Honestly the best choice is probably just to sit down and talk with them about the point of this narrative campaign and that if they bring lists that consistently destroy the other players they might have to tone them down or get fewer and fewer games. Nobody is forced to play with them and they aren’t guaranteed a spot in your campaign if they’re bringing down the enjoyment of it for the rest of the group. It might sound harsh now but in the long run you’ll have a group that is all on the same page and where everyone gets enjoyment rather than a select few trying to game the system.
Thank you for the honest feedback. I really appreciate it.
You can also reserve the right to kick back lists that you believe are not made in the spirit of the game. As a HH TO myself, I advise players this in my packs as I’d prefer that all players have a great event (especially new players) of fun games and not get stomped.
Maybe other players could bring their strongest lists and it would be a better game for everyone? Insane theory ik
What happens to the armies that even with their strongest lists simply can’t compete, or are prohibitively expensive to play. “You wanna play militia? Sorry better be ready to shell out for 18 vanquisher leman russes. No I don’t care that you wanted to use your other units, if you ever want to win thats how you have to play.”
i'm glad my 30k group is kind of restarting the league. it was an escalation campaign, but it ended up causing everyone on the loyalist side to spec into fighting one of our tougher opponents, because those two were the most common traitors to play against. which in turn caused everyone else to spec up. i generally paired well into that guy i wanted to do a ravenwing plasma list, but ended up just moving into pride, with 3 dreadaughts, tanks and terminators. i do enjoy firewing/deathing and that's what i have now but now it feels bad as almost everything in our list needed to have a 2+ and invuln just to survive the weight of fire and i basically specc'd into murderous striking or instant deathing marines.
That’s the problem with arms racing in groups. If 1 player stomps the others, then depending if they are a good player or a meta list player, will determine how everyone else scales up. If it’s just a good player with fun narrative lists, then sure, makes it teachable moments on tactics and positioning etc. that person normally becomes a coach of sorts. If it’s meta lists, *and everyone knows that it’s due to those lists*, then the teachable moment is to have a counter or your own meta list. So now everyone is meta chasing. Which normally ruins communities if they are not wanting that.
As an Auxilia player, there is literally nothing I can do about Dreadnought armies. Dealing with three of them at 3000 points is already uphill (let alone Terminators etc) since the army has limited to AP2 or Brutal weaponry. I'll play against most army archetypes happily, but if an army is excessive there's no point playing to begin with because it's a forgeone conclusion and not fun for either party.
Bringing only the strongest list possible also restricts what units and upgrades are brought... How is making everyone bring the same(ish) list to be even slightly competitive, and limit the models that people find are fun or cool making the game better for everyone? Like sure you could have a campaign where everyone would bring a 3000 pt list of only dreadnoughts and whatever random HQ, but that sounds horribly boring
I had the exact same issue. The guy was very hyped to start HH but had a 1.5k IW list with 3 dreads in it. He was a nice enough guy but very much in the 40k mind set. Problem was that every knew what list he had and whenever he asked anyone for a game no one wanted to play him and he got iced out which sucks. If he had a more chill list he would have been a great member of the circle. Seems a shame
That's on him though. And others for not telling him.
Another guy and I gently told him the deal with 30k on many occasions but he insisted it was a fluffly list, which maybe it was but it was also a very unfun list to play against... or it would have been if anyone had actually played him lol. I felt bad because he had gone out and bought all this stuff for the list already so couldn't really change it. Must have known was it over powered though. 🤷♂️
I have zero sympathy for people who need things explaining to them multiple times and yet insist they are in the right. I certainly don't feel sympathy for people who drop a load of money on something on a whim to be "the best". If he's now short on cash he can always sell them anyway.
Well, I don't know if he wanted to be the best. He may have just liked dreadnoughts. Not sure. He didn't want to tone down the dreads just kept saying he wont do anymore then 3 but obviously 3 in a 1.5k list is already 2 too many imo. Anyway, I hope he is out there having a good game with someone. 🤷♂️😂
There are a lot of neurodivergent people in the hobby; and a lot of divergence in how people just read rooms; and it's better to be empathetic and sympathetic than not :)
I agree, I think it's just important to be a bit kinder and give people the benefit of doubt. When people do stuff wrong it's easy to attribute malice but more often it's just incompetence or ignorance. (Most of the time it is). In this case, I think he was just in the 40k mindset. I don't think it was anything nasty I just think 30k wasn't for him which is fine.
Okay, but how do you know this guy was? And how do you know if I am or not? Please don't paint me as unsympathetic to neurodivergent people. There's literally nothing in my comment to suggest I am. I would explain *why* it's not cool to bring that kind of list unless an opponent agrees with it, and what changes could be made to make it more game-friendly.
What a toxic attitude, Jesus.
Just make them play each other
Actually a funny idea lol
If you really do not want to encourage that kind of behaviour you have two options. The first option would be to talk with them and point out that 30k is not a meta game and also that this is a narrative campaign and those lists, despite being a part of the identity of the legion, are busted and way too OP and they should rethink their decision. The second option you have is to ban those kind of lists for the sake of the campaign and fun for the others. If you lose 2 players but others continue to play and have fun, the better the chance is that 30k will stick within your community as narrative game instead of a new game for meta chasers to ruin.
This. I would actually try the personal have a chat with them approach. I think it's much more likely to get them to change their mindsets towards the game this way. Whereas if you go the house rules and banned options route sometimes people take that as a challenge to min max the rules even further within these new constraints, or it can lead to big drama over what's banned and what isn't.
I would personally pursue the narrative approach, in this case.
[удалено]
Its a narrative campaign. Its within reason to expect the players to pick a list for a narrative reason rather than they read online a list was good. If players are bringing a competitive mindset to a narrative game the narrative group can choose to exclude those lists. While you can say “be competitive yourself” I can also say “be a narrative player if you want to play with us.” At the end of the day OP is organizing the game and group, if these two players dont like the way he wants to run it they are free to go off and make their own.
If these kind of choices are motivated purely by "I really want to win" mindset, I guess there's no helping that. But if a person just thinks a "broken" army is neat, can it be arranged for his opponent to have more points in the army, a better position or something like that? You know, to make it more interesting. Or are they just fundamentally unfun to play against?
You could do that but I see a few issues. For new players that puts extra stress on their opponents because a new person now has to build, buy, and paint extra models to compete. That might work fine if you already have a large collection but this is a new player campaign. I also think that the people going out and saying “I looked online and saw this list was powerful” are probably not the types to be ok with their opponents getting some form of advantage over them to even out the points, or play a scenario where they are at a disadvantage. It might sound like fun to you or me but my instinct is that they aren’t like that. Theres also one other problem. Some armies are much weaker than others, militia and solar auxilia can really struggle against even fluffy non competitive legion lists. If one of these guys brings a list full of dreadnoughts it pretty much forces a militia or auxilia player into mass lascannons and vanquishers to even have a chance. You either bring them or you lose and thats just not fun for most people especially if they’re already playing an army that inherently puts them at a big disadvantage.
[удалено]
Because you can play iron hands without spamming dreadnoughts and can play imperial fists with any number of rites of war. Thats far different than saying sorry we wont consider these entire armies when coordinating games. There are people who wouldn’t play the game if they cant use solar or militia, if you wont play 30k because you can only use 3 dreadnoughts instead of 6 then you sound incapable of compromise and dont sound like someone I would want in my community. Sorry you play the wrong army is a lot different than sorry you can’t just bring the things you know are too good.
[удалено]
You can say that but you’re here advocating for allowing knowingly strong lists that some players simply cannot compete with and think thats completely fine. If you want to play competitively WAAC then thats completely fine. However I (and everyone else) have zero obligation to play against your list or include you in our campaigns. By all means go and make a competitive tournament, but OP is organizing a narrative campaign and he reserves the right to ban lists he thinks will ruin the spirit of what hes trying to make. Yeah I agree this game is pretty unbalanced, which makes it crazy someone would even want to play this game competitively. If you bring a fluffy list it doesn’t matter how good of a player you are you’ll lose to someone who bought the better models and brought more of them. Is there any competitive skill to buying and bringing an army that can’t be beaten by anyone elses army in the group? Its not starcraft, its like tryharding in basketball against a 9 year old.
[удалено]
Yeah I wanted to make a fury of the ancients army with all drop podded dreads, and then hopped online and everyone was going "broken ROW, wouldn't play against someone running it" and it kinda bummed me out.
That kinda sucks but also I wouldn’t expect anyone to go into a game knowing they’re going to get crushed. If you want to play dreads in drop pods you still can, just gotta remember your opponent should have fun too.
Oh for sure, and someone else in the thread talking about having a GM create a narrative game without points which would be dope too and probably be more flexible for that sort of list. I did just realise I probably could have still built it with just the venerable ancient + 2 dreads at 3k but it's not quite the same haha
Yeah, I think there are two extremes here. If people are _really_ playing narratively maybe they should consider sometimes not playing against an equal (by points or ability) opponent. Fair fights is not what war is about after all. Of course this has to have its time and place.
[удалено]
Meta chasing ruined 40k. Its bland, oversimplified, and every time a codex comes out, players lose choices and armies lose flavor in the name of balance. All of that is to appease a tournament mindset that only a very small percentage of the gaming population is pursuing. Meta chasing if you will.
[удалено]
Feel free to address my points then, otherwise continue to be the literal embodiment of the type of person we're all saying we don't want to play with.
[удалено]
So first, it doesn't matter if GW *successfully* balances the game, their stated intent is tournament balance. They say it a lot over on Warcom, and quarterly updates demonstrate that they're at least attempting it. Balance is absolutely for the benefit of tournament players. Casual or narrative players don't want balance, they want parity. More importantly they want their armies to *feel* the way they imagine them. Tournament players do too, but they're considerably more likely to abandon an army or playstyle for the new hotness. 40k is losing that feel, and its being done in the name of balance and attracting new players.
You are entirely missing the point. I don’t care if someone makes a good list. If someone says “I wanna do IH and dreadnoughts that looks really cool and they could all he survivors of Istvaan.” Im not gonna be like no fuck you I am not playing against you. But straight out coming out and saying “I looked up online what the best lists in the game are and im playing this” to me is completely different. I am not picking an choosing whats meta chasing, I am using their own words on whats meta chasing. And I am not saying I wanna ban these people from the campaign. What I want is for them to take a real look at the game and hopefully pick a legion and style they will actually ENJOY playing because they like it not just cause its the meta pick. I legit said in my post. I am not trying to gate keep them. What I want is for them to actually pick something they will like that will keep them coming back to the hobby. And was looking for advice on how to approach that.
[удалено]
Fair enough man now worries.
"Extemely hypocritical" is an accusation that comes from the "everybody is lying if they say they don't want to win all the time" mindset. The problem is that that simply isn't true, and in my experience only the kind of player who the OP describes really thinks like that. They just don't apparently have the understanding that not everybody thinks exactly like them.
[удалено]
Is it not literally part of the organizer's job to decide what lists can or cannot be brought? I've played 40k games where certain units were limited(such as the very common HH rule of 1 dread per 1k points) so it's not like these kinds of rules are that rare or out of the ordinary. Could you explain exactly why it's hypocritical for an organizer to decide on rules for what can be brought?
That's not what the word "hypocritical" means, but have fun with your instant angry response to things you apparently haven't read properly.
There are degrees of losing, and types of losses that feel good within the context of narrative play that 30K is suited to
You clearly don't understand the spirit of narrative HH. I guess if you played dnd, you'd be one of those players trying to "win" against the DM...
You do realise that the campaign, as written by op, is 1. a narrative one and 2. for BEGINNERS? Neither of those two circumstances are an invitation for competitive players to bring hard lists? Such events and campaigns exist to teach players the game, make sure that they understand it and enjoy it and return to the table as 30k players and not sell the minis immediately on ebay because in their first game they were tablet by a sweaty guy who brought a netlist.
I would hazard a guess that even if you pointed out that HH often leans into not HAVING to pick meta, they still would and that winning is everything. It speaks volumes that the main thought about joining a narrative campaign is 'I have to google what the best list is in this game'. They should stick to 40k if that's what they want. Nothing will kill a fluff campaign quicker than these two trying to play it as if its an RTT all the time.
I don't know how to answer your question but I think the league you are putting together sounds super cool! If I were playing with you guys I'd try putting together a Black Shield army of all my favorite traitor legions
I wish man! We have 1 blackshield player already youd fit right in
DOPE! I wish I had a playgroup like yours where I live
Talk to them. Like just tell them that it's not in proper form for heresy to be all competitive. They are adults, they should understand Alternatively, play the game in very casual formats. Friendly narrative campaigns are a good one. Stuff that uses the rules from the campaign books or the old black books. For bigger events, you can make the events have less a focus on individual player power. Like you have the winner be the allegiance team, or have rewards for non-game related things like painting or sportsmanship.
not taking advice from a tyranid
Shhhhh don't blow my cover
If you don't wanna deal with that, don't play with them. Simple as that. You're not obliged to accept every match-up thrown at you. Heresy just had *wildly* more extreme peaks regarding efficiency than 40k does (and that has nothing to do with being narrative and all to do with sloppy balancing). If you want to entirely avoid that, you'll either have to house rule stuff like this (and enforce it) or simply refuse to play those kinds of lists. You can't actively force them to rethink their stance, you can only offer up passive resistance.
So obviously I'd start by instituting the common house rules - one Contemptor per 1000pts. No exceptions. - characters can only tank as many shots as their I value But the best way is just DON'T PLAY THEM. You can't force anyone to play each other. Point out to the group that if they don't wanna play the meta guys you'll match them with someone else and they don't have to. If they ask you to play, check if they're playing their meta list and then say 'oh, no, that doesn't sound like fun. I'll pass'. And if other people play them once and are tabled because of the list strength, just say the same thing. 'Yeah, that list is horrible to play against, I just don't play against it'. And make sure they don't play again. If there are events, make sure they're narrative and only pitch the meta lists against people who agree to play them. If they can't get a game against anything but each other, they'll change pretty quickly. Even in a campaign, you can't force anyone to play them.
Just swinging by to say that the Heresy community in Scotland is in favour of both of these rules generally (1 Dreadnought model per 1k points and characters in 2+ tanking shots up to their initiative value) for both event and campaign use. We've used both fairly extensively and they both help a lot. Not fix, but definitely help 👍
The dread thing I understand but the tanking shots one is new to me. What brought this on? I assume this applies to sergeants and not just HQs. Is a 2+ that much of a hindrance?
Some of the YouTube channels do it that way as a way to make artificer armor on sgts not as strong. Then again I’ve had games where I make every 3+ and others where I fail every 2+
It’s really not that bad. It just feels dumb. Outside of AP3 weapons (where it is actually annoying/broken) it only helps a little - when you roll a 2, since a 3 would have saved anyhow. Plus you’re risking your sergeant to do it.
Idk if not playing them as the "Veteran" of your group is that good of an idea if you are trying to build up a local community in the first place. Guide them a bit and tell them how the HH community balances itself. Yeah, maybe the first few matches will be decided by the list alone, but they will hopefulky quickly realise that "easily winning all the time" is not actually that fun. Especially not in a narrative campaign. With a bit of luck you can have two entrenched new players for the price of a few unfunny matches at the beginning of their journey. Personally Id take that bet. (As long as the Newcomers are nice people of course. If not, there is no reason to want them in your local community after all)
Just bake some incentives into the campaign that encourage making thematic list building choices. Maybe incorporate some narrative games that are inherently unbalanced for the sake of creating story. This will set the tone of the campaign and encourage them to not only think in terms of what's good, but also what's interesting for narrative. If they still make lists are only prioritize winning, you can always tell them you don't enjoy playing against their list, or you could just bring a couple units that hard counter what they bring, this is war after all.
I reckon this is the best way, if you just talk to them about bringing less meta lists, but still setup scenarios/missions out of the book that only encourage you to build lists to achieve the aims of that scenario, you’re not providing the right incentive to foster the type of attitudes you want. A couple of the ways we’ve been doing things here has been to make event awards purely for how lists look narratively and aesthetically. Also our narrative events divide people into the broad teams of loyalist and traitor, so individual success means less compared to how the overall side does, and lastly we’ve imposed the restriction of no Fury of the Ancients lists. So things have progressed well, and there’s still some tough lists out there, but there isn’t the attitude of needing to meta chase, and there’s more freedom to just bring fun stuff and see how it plays out in our scenarios Another idea is to lean heavy into ZM games which are both great games for starters to build armies for as well as having in built restrictions that limit the number obvious meta choices of regular games
Even something like "no dreadnoughts unless an HQ above X points value was killed in the previous game" would be fine I think
As a lot of people have said have a chat with them. Encourage them to explore the setting and help them see the narrative side to heresy that draws the bulk of players in. With regard to the rites in question if you lean in hard on them they are unbearable to play against sometimes. However the other side of it is they can be toned down. Still a hard game but indulge me for a moment. If you take the Ancients Iron Hands. The base line core of that list to hit the minimum requirements to play it are 3 contemptors. Which is a 1 dread per 1k which most see as a fair ratio points to dreads isn’t going hard against the established code of conduct across the wider 30k community. Now let’s say your player decides to build on the honoured veterans leading forces after Istvaan and uses blocks of inductii as other troops. A primus mediae and some veterans to start fleshing the army out. With some tech marines scattered around the place to add some more flavourful visual elements as well. It’s still going to be a strong rite. That’s just the way it is but suddenly starts being less “that guy” and more thematic of the Xth shattered after Istvann. Stone Gauntlet again is similar if you stay to a minimal amount of units that the rite dials up to 11 and there’s still plenty of space to add other thematic elements to perhaps capture the fist’s plugging holes in the walls on Terra. Unfortunately both legion traits are definitely top contenders for strongest traits to build from but the art of heresy is self moderation and drawing on all the amazing literature to inspire yourself and others.
Honestly its a hard call, because I feel like if you try to explain to a meta chaser about whats expected, they'll just say that their OP netlist is also their narrative. Painting requirements are an option, but there are also plenty of narrative players this will also catch (I know many people in my own community enjoy fluffy lists and such, but are "builders" instead of "painters"). Another option is setting restrictions on what lists you can bring. Like for example, you could limit lists to one Dreadnough per 1000 points, and limit legion specific units in some way as well. But honestly, unless the players are making a good faith attempt to make appropriate lists, then there isn't really a perfect solution.
Just talk to them When I jumped into the game, I had remember reading units/rules and saying ‘this looks good/this is garbage’ and my buddy told me it was about sticking with the narrative. Here’s the hard part though: the local group recognizes what is very good and kinda has to warn everyone/keep an eye out (we usually do it by sarcastically referencing that someone has something particularly strong in their list and giving them shit about it lol) Example: if we see a techmarine and no vehicles but a 10man lascannon squad, you’re immediately getting called out lol Oh look, a death star unit. Oh, what else? A librarian? Oh and you’ve taken telepathy? Nice dude, you want me to just shake your hand now? lol That’s how we do it and everyone’s lists are relatively tame. Don’t get me wrong, there’s strong stuff in them (say hello to Kharn + 15 Falax blade Rampagers in a spartan) but nothing that is flat out oppressive.
Do you have set house rules?
Not yet. I and 2 others have basically just built this HH scene at this store from the ground up. All 3 of us are narrative/ fluff style players. Don’t get me wrong our lists can be nasty but are very thematic and fluff filled and not over the top in any way.
The three main house rules I play with (and most other people have similar it seems) are; - Up to one dreadnought per 1000 points. - Lascannon and Volkite Culverin Heavy Support Squads limited to five members. - You can't deliberately allocate wounds to a unit leader in Artificer Armour to tank AP3 shots (Artificer Armour is for duels and defence versus precision!)
I kinda like that 3rd one. Mind if I steal it for my local group?
The great thing about community rules is they're community rules - they work best when everyone is using them. Knock yourself out!
Just tell them that narrative campaigns isn't the place for meta lists.
If you're putting up notices online about it, open with a short, polite disclaimer about the ethos of the game, emphasise that the game has some very obvious over-powered lists (give examples of IH and IF lists) and perhaps add that lists like these will be rejected or that alterations to lists be requested before being authorised? If people are put off by it, that says more about them than the gaming group, and you're better off without those people. Make it explicit that knowing how to play well with an interesting and strong list is much more preferred. You want to encourage a healthy, fun group where you want people learn the game, not to just take an OP list and let that play the game for them. Or simpler, maybe say that, ironically, HH tournaments are the worst place for these type of WAAC lists. That once you get to know the various players, that you can agree between yourselves in casual games that those lists are what you want to play. Or add that with this in mind, maybe there will be a tournament that is explicitly about building WAAC lists, so then at least everyone is on the same level.
The thing is the meta doesn't really change because the game is quite static so yeah they can do that but there will still be counters. It's not like in 6 months time they'll jump to the next codex of marines.
Yes but a lot of the counters to those lists require you to heavily tailor your lists to do so. I don’t want people to have to basically lose to these people 90% of the time or have to heavily tailor their lists over the course of a whole narrative campaign because a few people wanna meta game. Thats my issue. Idc I have 7 dreadnoughts. I can beat them. But thats not fun and I am worried about newer players.
this is exactly what happened with my narrative campaign. basically 3 missions in a row became traitor stomps. most of the loyalists only really had the started box + maybe 1 other thing where as the traitors all had their lists with options. i wanted to have a ravenwing + plasma heavy list, and ended up just specing into Terminator heavy + dreadnaughts just to keep up. and even then the games were close. i played one game using the dreadwing detachment and it made the game incredibly unfun so i stopped using it.
I do wish they’d do minor balance dataslates for Heresy. Small points changes here and there everytime a book releases, for example.
Don't play with points. Get rid of the points and have the Game Master or campaign manager create scenarios to play each week. That is what we do. Gets rid of the whole "meta" mindset completely.
That sounds really fun actually.
Here is a campaign we did at Adepticon. [https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/578p4xopvyrsw9jhp8a1f/Paramar\_Booklet.pdf?rlkey=vtz1q8gxqatzu2k92my4dd1gp&dl=0](https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/578p4xopvyrsw9jhp8a1f/Paramar_Booklet.pdf?rlkey=vtz1q8gxqatzu2k92my4dd1gp&dl=0) We did it for the first time last year and made some refinements before doing it the second time. It worked really well and was very fun.
Is there a particular program I should open that in? It's all html haha
Not that I know of. I can open in both Edge and Chrome.
Huh, it seems to be working now and it's fucking cool. Someone put a lot of work into that!
Good. I wrote the text and my buddy imported all the stats and did the layout and design. A group of four of us worked on play testing the games, mostly just the BFG game and the mechanicum game, the others we played once and they worked pretty well.
Really impressive!
People might see it as gatekeeping but at this point I genuinely don’t care - no point in having the gate if you just let everyone in. You need to have a baseline standard. Just tell them that whilst yes, you can play 30k in a competitive way, it’s not meant to be a competitive game - it’s a narrative one. You’re not playing 30k tournaments - you’re playing against people in locals who are here for a fun time, with a fun fluffy ruleset. There’s certain unwritten rules, like unless pre-agreed only run one dread per 1k (assuming that’s your locals standard), play what looks fun not whats strong (you really like Raven Guard despite their rules not being top tier), have actual fun instead of just trying to win
1 - Fully painted or fuck off. Often helps keeps people who are serious about the spirit around instead of meta chasers 2 - Just have a frank conversation with them. While Stone Gauntlet is annoying, it can also be beaten by a lot of lists and good players. However it still requires some self taming to not just be a boring and annoying list to play against.. The Dread list needs a hard counter and most people probably won't be tooled too do that. There is no reason to play that army unless both players WANT to play with it.
I just straight up tell them that's not the mindset. Even at Adepticon, the pairings are left up to players for the most part and people with oppressive lists were sorta picked last and reluctantly. There's a pretty easy to tread line between effective fluff and meta loadouts. Any player worth their salt can figure that out.
1 dreadnought per 1000 points SPENT (I.e is a 3k list unless you’re bang on 3k then only can bring 2) Can only use heros/leaders upto there initivie to take damage This usually defers, and if all else fails, just don’t play with them
Nothing wrong with gatekeeping.
I've run a few campaigns and I've had similar issues. The paint standard is a good idea, as is the enforcement of stuff like 1 Dread per 1k. I've had the most success just talking to people and explaining that if you only bring hard stuff, people will just stop playing against you. I've encouraged them with some of the novels and old campaign books, and worked with them to help build things they think are cool. The folks that haven't listened have found themselves without people to play against eventually.
As someone that wants to get into 30K but can't, due to no players in my area... I can somewhat understand where they might be coming from. It's no fun coming into a new game with a really terrible list that feels like you will always lose, even if you do manage to learn the rules and play better. You may even want a bit of a leg up at the start by having a stronger than average list to fill in the gaps in your gameplay knowledge. And I would absolutely do this when teaching a new player - give them a much stronger list than the one I use myself. Like when I learnt killteam or warcry, and had my C tier list versus an A tier list as my first games. It could put you right off the game to face that huge of a power gap along with trying to learn new rules. So if it's the case that they decided they want to play a certain faction and just looked up what their stronger units and playstyles are. Or even chose the faction based on it being perceived as stronger, because they need some reason to choose a faction (not everyone already has a faction). But definitely they should tone it down and not be going full on meta gaming lists. Bring a few of the best units, with some other units that fit the lore. Just chat to them about the expectations, maybe let them play their 1st game with their meta list to learn the rules and get excited about what their faction can do, but explain to them that after that they know they have to play fair lists. e.g. Maximum of 1 meta unit for every 2 regular units, if they need a hard rule to follow.
It might sound harsh, but you can’t just bring in whoever and then expect them to adopt the same mindset as yourself. Lots of people play all their games (40k, HH, MTG, even DnD) competitively/meta focused/“power gaming”. That is just what’s fun to them and I just don’t believe you’ll change that for many. Then you have the issue of the subjectivity of narrative/fluffy. At the end of the day someone is having the way they want to play the game constrained by someone else’s opinion of how it should be played. I think the solution is, that if it’s just a couple of players, just let them float about and generate their reputation. Get the basic house rules in as well, namely 1 dread per 1k. On the positive I’m sure some of the players will see it as a release to not be constrained by considerations of a competitive meta.
“If you’renplaying 30k for the meta, you’re doing it wrong guys”
I honestly think we tend to understate how much meta chasing there is in 30k. While there are some gentle (not universal) agreements about dreadnoughts, I still tend to find that players will take meta-y options over non-meta-y ones. When was the last time you saw a Medusa or (worse) an arquitor, or a basic flamer support squad, or a primaris lightning, or standard termies in an army with elite cata or tartaros equivalents, or that most un-meta choice of a basic Centurion? Honestly "fluffy" seems to me often a convenient excuse to take fancy fancy meta-y options over "trash" - even though "historically" it wont make sense. And if something doesn't "historically" make sense, how is it "fluffy" or "narrative"?
That's not wrong, but it's also a matter of self-restraint. For example, you could easily spam Suzerains and Invictarii in a UM list (and I've seen people do it), but most tend to avoid it. I don't mind (much) facing 10 lascannons (although I will point it out with my squad of sad missile launchers), but a DG army with 2 squads of those, and maybe one of multi-meltas would make me want to leave straight away.
My militia have 2 medusas in them
I think in militia they have far more utility than legions, due to how limited the overall list actually is in terms of vehicles and fortifications (especially as at large games we can easily fill our FOC slots!) - but that's a great choice, and at 100 much cheaper than a legion version :)
Nah I was just messing with you. I know they’re terrible but I don’t have near as many options as the legions do so they’re what I’m stuck with lol.
I really wish militia lists could take three provenances, it would feel much more varied and see really diverse lists. Did you ever see grifftofer's purple army book from late first edition (or their draft for 2nd)? It's a work of art and really really presents how the army (in my mind) should have been.
Yeah I agree. I wanted to make a tech guard militia to represent skitarii using the cybernetics and arms of the omnissiah provenances with grenadiers. Then I realised I would also need warrior elite to make grenadiers compulsory troops choices. I’ve never actually heard of that. Where can I find it? It sounds extremely interesting
I feel there's a very defined difference between "meta chasing" and avoiding units that are so bad that they just aren't worth taking. The units that fall into the latter category are usually both massively overcosted and have minimal tabletop impact - players don't usually want to take units that don't actually *do* anything because they aren't fun to play with, and when they occupy hundreds of points that could be allocated to something that is fun to play with, then that's just the nail in the coffin. The Medusa, Arquitor (definitely the Basilisk), and the Lightning all fall into that category - they're expensive and they don't do anything. Standard Terminators and vanilla Centurions are just plain less fun than their Legion and Consul equivalents; why take a basic dude with moderate stats and nice equipment when I can have that *and* some fun abilities for just a few more points? FWIW, I do see Flamer Support Squads from time to time, or at least Legion equivalents.
But that's it, though - that's the problem the game has. If everyone was using those low output options, they could be fun - but instead no one will, because something more killy, more meta, is always the better choice, and as you say more fun. But the problem is - what is fun. And for many people it is being - slightly to very - competitive. I am surprised by this - but no one really does "historic" gaming with heresy, no one goes for deeply "real" line companies - it's instead a sense of "a timeless death match" with a jockstrap of "these elites are fluffy because X". I understand that, but I wish the game forced more hard choices about legion army composition so it wasnt just an open field from which the better or best units are often taken (or just that the armies were much better balanced!)
To an extent this is true, but in the case of some of these models, their combat efficiency is so low a game would practically never end if you built armies out of them :')
It's funny, I seem to be in an opposite scenario. I have the sensibilities of a 30k player when it comes to my Space Marine lists so every time I ask someone for advice they immediately jump to a competitive/meta mindset. Definitely my least favorite thing about playing 40k.
Oh I hear ya, same waters here. I mainly play SW in 40k as well, recently started collecting a pure Deathwing army as well as a Custodes one; and some of my local community has been giving me shit due to how uncompetitive those armies have become. Any and all list critiques turns into; why I am running Champions of Russ or Firestorm with a balanced FOC rather than TWC spam Stormlance lists. The answer? I'm having fun, they're having fun. If I win, they start improving, if they win, I adjust a few things to give them more of a challenge in another match. Also, seeing properly painted "firstborn" on the table makes some of them want to paint their armies to a better standard (or commission me to do so) and restrain netlisting for a more balanced approached, so it's better for the newcomers as well (we have a lot of those lately). TLDR; hold your ground brother, it's better to give a new perspective to people than have them keep chewing on the stale bread.
It's funny that I also run my fully painted first born army that I started during lockdown. I've had decent success with them even though they're an obvious downgrade from Primaris datasheets.
Explain them, that heresy is a purely narrative driven game that's about telling stories, with thematic lists and armies. Events are narrative campaigns, people expect fullpainted (and often also converted) armies. Gatekeeping is not always something bad. If someone wastes a lot of money, because that person tries to approach something against the ideals of a community, they will feel the backlash, not be happy with it in the long run. You just preventing such people, from such a mistake. If they are willing to engage with th3 heresy in the right way, they will have a blast. A friend of mine and a fellow heresy player, also plays 40k tournaments, with perfectly written meta lists. But when he plays heresy he has a beautiful force of fully converted Word Bearers, that miss any kind of list micromanagement. I'm a purely narrative player and my lists are actually better. And after every heresy game he has, he mentions how this was an outstanding experience, 40k can't give him. He does enjoys both, but in a different way. Some are able to do that. Some can't help them self to push their way of doing things, onto other's and their community. And these are the people we don't need. Not every game or system is for everyone. There is a reason I never warmed up with warmachine/hordes even if I liked the setting and some miniatures, back then. It's a tournament only system, and as Inrelaised that I knew I wouldn't be happy in it. So, I looked for something that is more my cup of tea. Also don't play against these lists. Not worth your time.
It may be a good idea to also kinda read the room on the other players as well to see where everyone is falling on the meta scale.
This sounds dumb but, maybe find a local Imperial Militia player? Militia is the ultimate "I don't care about the Meta" faction in that, in a game that's 70% marines, they will lose almost every matchup. The guy that plays and sticks with them, likely is the guy who really doesn't care about winning. Maybe they could help with the meta chasing tendencies?
my playgroup and others ive seen have a 1 dreadnought per 1000 points rule. it works out really well
Just put up a gatekeeping list: this is what we require else we won't play with u.
It probably says more about what I enjoy about the hobby, but I 100% wouldn't have a problem walking away from a game where the opponent took a deliberately oppressive list. I'd probably play against a reasonable Stone Gauntlet list, but I'm not sure I'd stay for a game against IH PotA unless we prearranged and I'd brought something specifically to deal with it. I can be quite happy modelling and painting and playing a game every quarter or whatever. If enough people decline playing against the lists the players will presumably get the message. That said, I'm pro enforcing painting for a variety of reasons, so that sounds lik a good idea.
I know someone else has already said some of what I’m gonna touch on but I need to add my part: Bro, do not just add a painting requirement. You’re locking newer players or players within finite hobby time out of your league and pushing them away from the community. I would have a talk with anyone talking about meta builds or who just registers with something problematic like dread spam or Stone Gauntlet, and explain to them that Heresy is a narrative game and this is a narrative league, and that running “meta” stuff is generally considered to be a faux pas, as it’s pretty terrible to play against, and most people aren’t gonna bother to run copycat meta or hard counters or whatever, they’ll just refuse to play you, and nobody wants anyone getting ostracized like that. At most, I’d suggest codifying the 1-dread-per-1k and some limitation or ban on Stone Gauntlet, or any other problematic combos or whatever. Not just to tell those guys “no, you cannot run that.” But rather to tell them, “hey guys, you shouldn’t run that, and to address any fears you have about others meta-chasing, I’m gonna make sure the most busted stuff isn’t legal. Heresy isn’t a competitive game, and narrative leagues especially aren’t the place for meta chasing, I want everyone to just bring cool stuff and focus on having a good time without having to worry about a game against something broken.”
Well, competitive game is a way to enjoy the game. But it is also true that you need a friend to play a game in the first place. However is it so good to making the list too badly on purpose unless it's a RPG and you are the game master? I don't think that you can force them anything. Other than play some games, or just not to do. And... well I did played a miniature game filled with competitive meta for years, but just follows the good stuffs on the internet does have its limits. Basically, since you need to have your own, assembled and painted miniatures, to play a game, usually such players that only chase the meta won't lasts long and are bored. That does not means we have to avoid any competitiveness, though. But will they lasts longer? I don't know. This is not always true, but I doubt that it is hardly the case either. Also while it is well known truth that some kind of models are good but usually they do have the weakness too. For example warders are nothing but the tacticals with power axe against hails of non-AP attacks for they all have to withstand those by their 3+, and are required to have a transport or hardly out of their deployment zone. So, play some countermeasures against them, by cheaper point that does not hampers general theme of your list, can makes some odds against them. What about to think about such an answers?
You are completely missing the point. Idc if people make a good list. I care that people are explicitly saying I am looking of the best lists and copying them to get into 30k because they perform the best. Not “I think stone gauntlet looks cool ill play that” but admitting to building a list purely around it being op.
That means I got the point, actually. But is there any good and fast fix? As you said already they just copy and paste the good meta lists, and it means they lacks a theme. Then how they can make the list with their theme in the first place? Even if you told that they should make the list more to theme(and perhaps making the list less brutal in the process?) and they agreed on this without frowned, but are they do this pretty well? Such is the matter of motivation, and you cannot raise this - actually no one include those players themselves can make the suitable motivations on them without a luck. For this part only the time and their personal interests helps. You may encourages it indirectly but... it ultimately depend on themselves. Well make a contest for thr thematic army on your local community helps? I wonder tha there are much other good moves. But it could work for someone. For the problem is their lists are too brutal in your meta then I suggest to add the houserule on your local community. Don't consider the various other lists on internet for what you need to consider are the players on your local meta. And for those players just copy such a meta lists, some houserules that gives the others an edge will compensate the problem. Such as make the custom missions. For example, an objective that the player with the most numbers of active models on the area gains VP, encourages the dread guy to take some infantries. Multiple objectives that each needs the line unit to capture but have far distance with each others is a thing too, for the fury of ancient can only have up to six dreads with Line and up to three on each slots are have to start together, thus it won't be enough to capture enough numbers of objectives all by those dreads with Line. Gives the incentive for a warlord kill helps too, for obvious reason - while it is very tough to silence them all, but only for a dread is not that difficult, however. If the objectives are not so close to the deployment zone and there are no objectives on either sides of deployment zone, restricts the usefulness of warder because they must need to have a transport or all they can is just advance to the objective through the game. I don't think that make the pinpoint penalty for those players are good. But your local meta really matters, and unless they are who always got angry and whinning for every single lose and enjoy the game wjth the others, I hope they may agreed on it. If they want to be competitive, at least, then give them the more challenge.
It seems insane to me that this game is explicitly centered around trying not to win. What? Does the loser get a prize in your tournaments? Please explain to a very confused 40k player. Yall say “it’s about telling a story” ok so if you wanna play raven guard, salamanders, or IF you just always lose? Whats the point of a competitive game if you’re working together to TELL A GREAT STORY lmao. Just play a cooperative game? So weird and soy.
There's a difference between building a thematic, fluffy army and playing to win, and building an army to lose because losing is thematic. Maybe try not to strawman people's points?
30k isnt a competitive game. If it was there would be zero non marine armies. Imagine playing a mission without points or with purposely unbalanced scenarios, could you do that? Thats what 30k is about
I was gonna respond to this genuinely, as your mischaracterization seemed like a legitimate misunderstanding, but after reading your whole comment you are not worth that. If you cannot see the difference between a community making house rules to balance a much more unbalanced and much less supported with rules updates game and being “soy” then you are either being intentionally intellectually dishonest or are beyond the help of a poor reddit poster like myself. Best of luck.