PDA

View Full Version : "pay to win":confused:



Harwammer
09-12-2013, 17:39
Is the term 'Pay to Win' poppycock when applied to 40k, or should I start being more scared of the Sisters of Battle?

Kijamon
09-12-2013, 17:43
Haha. Kind of.

Pay to win is when people will happily buy lots of whatever unit is super powerful in the codex/rules.

Typically those aren't cheap.

IcedCrow
09-12-2013, 17:45
Pay to win has also been pretty much a thing since tournaments started up.

Buying 9 necron fliers, 3 helldrakes, 3 riptides, 3 wraith knights ... etc... that isn't cheap. Its being used now to describe the new Escalation stuff, which is not entirely off target but also not entirely fair either since pay to win has gone on well before that.

Spiney Norman
09-12-2013, 17:51
Is the term 'Pay to Win' poppycock when applied to 40k, or should I start being more scared of the Sisters of Battle?

Indeed, I think there is an element of 'pay to win' in the 40k universe, though it is by no means consistent and certainly not as obvious as in games like MtG. Certainly you cannot assume that just because a model is expensive it must be good, clearly SoB disprove that theory entirely.

Forgeworld is usually the greatest offender, they put out horrifically overpowered 'experimental' rules for their units on their site for free, then usually tone them down later when they publish the official rules in the book. The R'Varna battle suit is a classic example of this, totally ungodly experimental rules and the rest of us non-tau players are just waiting for the official rules to hit in an IA book to readdress the balance.

gwarsh41
09-12-2013, 18:01
It is poppycock. The unknown will always seem scary, if you do not know your opponent you are at a huge disadvantage, especially if they know about your army. Though I wouldn't put it past GW to give sisters a little oomph to try to unload all that pewter. 40k in a lesser sense will always be a form of pay to win though. Some models/units cost more $$ than others, the guy who can afford all the models he wants will do better than the guy who can only afford a few starter boxes (arguably).

Ozendorph
09-12-2013, 18:09
If I was going to justify the term "Pay to Win" being applied to 40k, I'd say it refers to GW's tendency to apply amazing rules to the new releases, while nerfing the heck out of the super-unit from the previous iteration of the same codex. This creates the need for players to re-buy significant parts of their army in order to remain competitive. Best example I can think of is the Carnifex's transformation from 'hero' to 'zero'.

I suppose P2W could also be a reference to the perception that the most recent codex to also tends be the most powerful, leading extravagantly wealthy (or exceedingly desperate) players to jump to the newest army every few months in order to stay atop the heap. Actually, that makes more sense than my previous theory, so let's go with that.

The Marshel
09-12-2013, 18:18
40k armies that fit under the term "pay to ein" don't look like much fun to me. I want to play with an army, not spamfest 40 000

Fear Ghoul
09-12-2013, 18:42
40k is "pay to win" in the sense that whoever has the most money can afford to buy the most models to remain as competitive as possible. However I do not see how this is a new phenomenon as it has been this way from the beginning, and more to the point 40k isn't any different from most other collectable/iterative games out there.

OuroborosTriumphant
09-12-2013, 18:58
The Escalation bete noire, the Revenant, cost 195 quid and will fill 900 points of your army. Let's contrast this with, say, Howling Banshees. 8 boxes of Howling Banshees will set you back about the same amount as the Revenant and fill up about the same number of points (48 Banshees, arranged into 5 squads with an Exarch in each and some upgrades on the Exarch).

In a 2.5k army, the Revenant will do far, far more for you than the Banshees. It's not pay to win. It's an expensive hobby with some balance issues. But they don't weaken the cheap units and buff the expensive ones. There are powerful units that cost a lot of money and weak units that cost a lot of money.

Camman1984
09-12-2013, 20:02
I think it is true for younger players and players with less cash. The ones who's entire army consists of the stuff that came from their half of the starter box set that they split with a friend. We've all been there. When that kid comes up against the kid (or more wealthy player) that can afford to put 50 down on a 150 point model, he is going to struggle as the richer person bought what they wanted rather than just what they could afford.

I am glad i am now if the wealthy player group but came from a poorer background so know all to well the power of 'pay to win'.

I think though escalation is a poor example of it. Other than certain forgeworld stuff, on a per point basis it isnt really that expensive. 600pts of marines eg. 30 tacticals and 3 rhinos is 130 ish.

Belakor
09-12-2013, 20:25
40k is "pay to win" in the sense that whoever has the most money can afford to buy the most models to remain as competitive as possible.

I do not play competitive, or netlist spam should be a better label, so that is not entirely correct.

WarzonePlayer
09-12-2013, 20:36
Says the person who has bragged about not playing in years.
Yes because you can only experience a game from playing can't you, but yet experience is regarded as useless in discussions on here I've noticed, quite a pickle that.
You need first hand experience to have an opinion
Your first hand experience is not a valid opinion

DoctorTom
09-12-2013, 21:00
Another thread has a good example of "pay to win."

http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?385861-Amusing-Thought-of-the-Day

druchii
09-12-2013, 21:06
Doesn't exist.

More nerds whining( me included!).

Move along.

d

Sir Didymus
09-12-2013, 21:22
Look at Dark Angels. A bunch of new kits, but none of those exploitable.

The same thing happened for the blood angels. You never saw neither Death Company nor Sanguinary Guard heralded as the be-all-end-all-heralds-of-the-plasticopalypse - or tyranids for that matter.

Heck even the GK baby carrier weren't labeled anymore than 'adequate', when it came out, and were frowned upon for the humbler psyfleman.

So "No!", new doesn't mean de facto overpowering, when it comes to GW. However GW games are a rather expensive hobby, and if you want to 'collect 'em all', and exploit your opponents brief unfamiliarity with an armys updates, you can 'pay to win' ��

The bearded one
09-12-2013, 21:30
It doesn't apply, at least not in any consistent fashion. Some of the newest strongest kits can set you back quite a lot for a strong army, but there is no real pattern in the fashion of "whoever has the most money wins". Rather there are some correlations between strong units and price, but some of the worst units can be equally expensive. And even with the most expensive strong toys you are in no way guaranteed a victory simply because you could buy the strongest list. There's lots of margin for error and pisspoor player performance, and pointcosts for models at least even it out a little bit.

Sisters of battle can be an outrageously expensive army if you want them to, including requiring a pricey platform on which you can buy the digital codex, but they're blatantly weak.

DoctorTom
09-12-2013, 22:26
Sisters of battle can be an outrageously expensive army if you want them to, including requiring a pricey platform on which you can buy the digital codex, but they're blatantly weak.

Citing a "pay to lose" army doesn't negate the possibility of being able to "pay to win" with other builds, just with trying to do it with that build. Buying the not-as-pricey formation dataslates might make things a lot better for someone, especially if combined with something like a Vortex Missile Strongpoint.

Dryaktylus
09-12-2013, 23:07
It's a Wargame where you usually buy rather expensive (some more, some less) miniatures (and rules). So it's "pay to play" to begin with. Everything else varies.

AngryAngel
10-12-2013, 01:41
I've heard the term pay to win or how its an arms race. Its a wargame, yeah its an arms race and it is pay to win in a sense. However in a sense, that can be said for many games in which new units always come out. More money = more units = more options = more tools for a good or average player. I don't think money is the end all be all of how you'll do in warhammer, but as with anything, it definatly helps you fill gaps in lists, get all the models you need and wish and stay following the new book train.

Spiney Norman
10-12-2013, 06:59
So the fact that SM armies, by far the most common and prolific in the game only have a single Lord of war choice in the escalation book, and it costs 400 definitely says 'pay to win' to me. Basically it means that if you want to bring a SM army to escalation you have to be very, very rich. Thinking again, that not pay to win, its pay just to play...

Scammel
10-12-2013, 07:51
So the fact that SM armies, by far the most common and prolific in the game only have a single Lord of war choice in the escalation book, and it costs 400 definitely says 'pay to win' to me. Basically it means that if you want to bring a SM army to escalation you have to be very, very rich. Thinking again, that not pay to win, its pay just to play...

At the risk of this devolving into a pricing discussion, if the new fortification rules are considered a compulsory replacement for the core rules it's 100 for the privilege of knowing how to use Space Marines in a given game.

Mandragola
10-12-2013, 08:29
The suggestion that GW deliberately overpowers new releases is demonstrably false. They don't do it on purpose, they just mess up.

Riptides and helldrakes are both too good, yes. But look at some of the other new releases even from those books. Dinobots. Warp talons. The tau flyers. Look at the dark angel land speeder vengeance.

Then, look at existing models they've messed up. Wave serpents are dominant right now but aren't a new release.

Overall the theory just doesn't match the evidence. GW just makes mistakes.

Escalation isn't necessarily pay to win either. Compare the cost of buying a stompa to the cost of ~800 points of other ork stuff. Most of the others are a pretty reasonable pounds:points ratio. Not the thunderhawk though...

bad dice
10-12-2013, 12:04
Another thread has a good example of "pay to win."

http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?385861-Amusing-Thought-of-the-Day
More like pay to lose. That armie has no way of ever getting a scoring unit since formations dont take up a slot and thus are not Heavy support.

Tebrey
10-12-2013, 12:14
Having played many a game against superheavies without one myself, I can say that they are not needed to win. SH can be destroyed with conventional weapon, you know.

Baring that, learn to scratchbuilt.

Killgore
10-12-2013, 12:42
So the fact that SM armies, by far the most common and prolific in the game only have a single Lord of war choice in the escalation book, and it costs 400 definitely says 'pay to win' to me. Basically it means that if you want to bring a SM army to escalation you have to be very, very rich. Thinking again, that not pay to win, its pay just to play...


and yet marines can destroy a Lord of War easily with basic codex choices, a drop pod of melta veterans.

Who needs a super heavy?

DoctorTom
10-12-2013, 18:29
More like pay to lose. That armie has no way of ever getting a scoring unit since formations dont take up a slot and thus are not Heavy support.

Tabling the opponent lets you win.

Also, as someone pointed out in the thread, taking an allied Eldar spirit seer and unit of 3 jetbikes would actually give you 4 scoring units.

Torga_DW
10-12-2013, 18:53
It depends on whether you choose a 'cowboy' army, or an 'indian' army, but yeah i think 'pay to win' exists at various levels. The 'new' grey knight codex in 5th edition was a perfect example.

Mandragola
10-12-2013, 23:46
No it wasn't. Draigowing was about the cheapest army to make GW has ever produced.

Pay to win is at it's worst when you need loads of something that costs lots of money but not many points. Chimera spam, say.

Pancakey
10-12-2013, 23:51
Warhammer is pay to PLAY.

Fear Ghoul
11-12-2013, 00:32
No it wasn't. Draigowing was about the cheapest army to make GW has ever produced.

Pay to win is at it's worst when you need loads of something that costs lots of money but not many points. Chimera spam, say.

I think the point being made was that some people could afford to spend money on a new army specifically to win tournaments, hence "pay to win".