Army Size - What Happened to 40K?

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Rune Stonegrinder**

Stormonu wrote:
I remember one army fielding a Warhound Titan; another was fielding nothing but Tau Riptides (plus a couple Forgeworld variants I wasn't falimiar with); the funniest was the 5-man "Hello Kitty" Knight formation. Another person was running some sort of IG-Genestealer cult with a dozen or so Earthshaker batteries (?!?). A few others were either running drop pod marine lists (5 man squads per pod, about a dozen pods) or Eldar scatbikes (that somehow appeared to be arriving by Deep Strike) - backed up by a Wraithknight.

Id wager that these guys are professional wargamers, they go to every major tourney and are interested in wrecking face and getting a prize.

**Martel732**

Unit1126PLL wrote:
Peregrine wrote:
Unit1126PLL wrote:
You don't have to use Facebook to pre-arrange games. My group in State College used Meetup, you could use Google Hangouts, or you could use Dakkadakka! Just start a thread in the Find a Game forum. If you only have a couple of saturdays a month to plan, then you can use the other 26-29 days in the month to figure something out!

It would literally take less effort than typing the post you just typed. XD

"You don't have to use social media to arrange a game, you just have to use social media to do it" is hardly a convincing reply. You shouldn't have to do any of that to arrange a game. If I want to play a game of X-Wing I don't go on social media and negotiate what kind of game I want to play, I just show up on X-Wing night and say "hey, want to play" to whoever is sitting at an open table. If I can't show up on the appropriate night and play a game without negotiation it's a major flaw.

I mean, you have to arrange D&D games ahead. Is that an awful game?

Think of 40k more like D&D and less like Xwing. It isn't Xwing, as you astutely pointed out.

If I wanted to play D&D, I'd play D&D. D&D has a GM. 40K has no GM. They aren't comparable.

**Wayniac**

Martel732 wrote:
Unit1126PLL wrote:
Peregrine wrote:
Unit1126PLL wrote:
You don't have to use Facebook to pre-arrange games. My group in State College used Meetup, you could use Google Hangouts, or you could use Dakkadakka! Just start a thread in the Find a Game forum. If you only have a couple of saturdays a month to plan, then you can use the other 26-29 days in the month to figure something out!

It would literally take less effort than typing the post you just typed. XD

"You don't have to use social media to arrange a game, you just have to use social media to do it" is hardly a convincing reply. You shouldn't have to do any of that to arrange a game. If I want to play a game of X-Wing I don't go on social media and negotiate what kind of game I want to play, I just show up on X-Wing night and say "hey, want to play" to whoever is sitting at an open table. If I can't show up on the appropriate night and play a game without negotiation it's a major flaw.

I mean, you have to arrange D&D games ahead. Is that an awful game?

Think of 40k more like D&D and less like Xwing. It isn't Xwing, as you astutely pointed out.

If I wanted to play D&D, I'd play D&D. D&D has a GM. 40K has no GM. They aren't comparable.

40k had a GM, and arguably campaigns require (well "require" is too strong a word, more like "are enhanced by") a GM. Still, the point is that 40k lives much closer on the spectrum to D&D than other tabletop games like Warmachine or X-Wing or Infinity. It is a competition by virtue of having a "winner" and a "loser" but the Warhammer games are poised to be much more of a social thing beyond "just" a game. Like for example, I go to play Warmachine and while I know the fluff, I really am not interested in how the fluff encapsulates our battle. I don't care why Kommander Sorscha is leading an attack on High Exemplar Kreoss, or the narrative surrounding why my Khador army is in this particular area, or why the terrain is the way it is. if I played X-Wing I would not really care about where in the universe this battle is taking place, or why Luke Skywalker is is my force or why Boba Fett is in this battle. It's "just" a game, a tactical exercise. On the flipside, Warhammer I get more interested in the hows and whys; I want to know why we are fighting this battle, why my general brought this particular force, why the terrain is set up in the way it is. Warhammer exists in a different format than the other games, although they are certainly related.

The underlying issue here is approaching Warhammer as "just a game".

**Peregrine**

Unit1126PLL wrote:
I mean, you have to arrange D&D games ahead. Is that an awful game?

No, it's not an awful game for that reason (it's an awful game in general though), but having to arrange everything in advance and keep a group together for a long period of time is one of the main reasons I don't play D&D. They also aren't really comparable things. You have to arrange a D&D game in advance primarily because you need more than two players, and if you're playing an extended campaign instead of a one-shot adventure you need those same players to be there on a regular schedule. 40k, as a two-player "line up your armies and fight" wargame, doesn't have this requirement. So there's no excuse for having to arrange games in advance.

Think of 40k more like D&D and less like Xwing. It isn't Xwing, as you astutely pointed out.

40k is not like D&D at all. D&D is a cooperative game with a single DM running everything for the PCs, where the goal is to work together to create a story. 40k can be played this way, but the standard game is a zero-sum wargame with opposing armies fighting single missions from a standard set of scenarios. The only difference between X-Wing and 40k is that X-Wing is made by relatively competent game designers and functions "out of the box", while 40k is garbage published by incompetent authors who would be fired from any other company.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

WayneTheGame wrote:
Like for example, I go to play Warmachine and while I know the fluff, I really am not interested in how the fluff encapsulates our battle. I don't care why Kommander Sorscha is leading an attack on High Exemplar Kreoss, or the narrative surrounding why my Khador army is in this particular area, or why the terrain is the way it is. if I played X-Wing I would not really care about where in the universe this battle is taking place, or why Luke Skywalker is is my force or why Boba Fett is in this battle. It's "just" a game, a tactical exercise. On the flipside, Warhammer I get more interested in the hows and whys; I want to know why we are fighting this battle, why my general brought this particular force, why the terrain is set up in the way it is. Warhammer exists in a different format than the other games, although they are certainly related.

This is about your preferences in fluff, not the rules of any of those games. The fact that you find the fluff of WM/H or X-Wing to be boring and not worthy of your time doesn't mean that the fluff doesn't exist. Both of those games can have just as much of a story behind them as 40k if you want.

**Blacksails**

How does 40k live closer to D&D than other wargames? What about it is particularly RPG like or narrative focused? Why do you not care about the fluff/background of your force for other games but magically care about 40k?

As far as I can tell, there is nothing about 40k that is narrative driven or lends itself to that style of gaming. Quite simply, it doesn't do anything well, and its equally flawed an argument to say people approach the game wrong towards competitive players as it is to say narrative players are approaching wrong.

An unbalanced, poorly written mess with no built in campaign rules or similar does not a narrative game make.

**Peregrine**

Blacksails wrote:
How does 40k live closer to D&D than other wargames? What about it is particularly RPG like or narrative focused? Why do you not care about the fluff/background of your force for other games but magically care about 40k?

As far as I can tell, there is nothing about 40k that is narrative driven or lends itself to that style of gaming. Quite simply, it doesn't do anything well, and its equally flawed an argument to say people approach the game wrong towards competitive players as it is to say narrative players are approaching wrong.

An unbalanced, poorly written mess with no built in campaign rules or similar does not a narrative game make.

But it must be good at something, because I really love GW! It isn't a good competitive game so that means it must be a great narrative game!

**Wayniac**

Now I do agree 100% GW does not do nearly enough to actually encourage narrative gaming. Where is my GW-ified version of Featherstone's Wargaming Campaigns or Tony Bath's Ancient Wargaming?

**Martel732**

I don't really care about the fluff at all, because it clearly can't be reproduced on the table top. So what does it matter to me at all?

**Ashiraya**

Martel732 wrote:
I don't really care about the fluff at all, because it clearly can't be reproduced on the table top. So what does it matter to me at all?

This is actually true and a large reason why I prefer the 40k RPGs.

**master of ordinance**

Martel732 wrote:
I don't really care about the fluff at all, because it clearly can't be reproduced on the table top. So what does it matter to me at all?

110% agree with Martel here, there is so little point to the fluff these days as almost noone cares about it. "Riptides are rare and experimental? Okay, ill take three and put me down for two of those almost unheard of Stormsurges too". this issue is further compounded by the fluff constantly changing to suit GW's needs (continuing with the aforementioned example, what happened to the Tau not building titan scale suits because they where inefficient and prone to mishaps?) to sell new and shiny kits.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Blacksails wrote:
How does 40k live closer to D&D than other wargames? What about it is particularly RPG like or narrative focused? Why do you not care about the fluff/background of your force for other games but magically care about 40k?

It dosnt. Please do not compare the mess that is 40K to DND.

As far as I can tell, there is nothing about 40k that is narrative driven or lends itself to that style of gaming. Quite simply, it doesn't do anything well, and its equally flawed an argument to say people approach the game wrong towards competitive players as it is to say narrative players are approaching wrong.

Exactly. 40K is basically about bringing the biggest, nastiest units that you can and then clubbing your hapless opponents to death with them.

An unbalanced, poorly written mess with no built in campaign rules or similar does not a narrative game make.

Fully agree. Half the rules make no sense or interact poorly with others and the other half are open to discussion.

**Martel732**

If Riptides were 0-1 per 1500 pts and Stormsurges 0-1 per 3000 pts, I'd be totally fine with them. But nope, that skirmish over there has five super rare suits with no support units! Totally.

On the flip side, none of the BA stories of glory work out on the table top at all. It's just one curb stomping after another.

**Talizvar**

Ashiraya wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
I don't really care about the fluff at all, because it clearly can't be reproduced on the table top. So what does it matter to me at all?
This is actually true and a large reason why I prefer the 40k RPGs.

This is precisely the reason I see people turn to 40k and want it to be more "fluffy".
They want to recreate the epic moments in the stories.
I always felt it is a failure of the author or the rules makers if the character's capabilities are not somewhat similar in the story and tabletop.
If a primarch can lift a tank and throw it, then he should be able to do the same as an IK with the power-glove (whatever that rule is, cannot remember).
I guess it is just too much to ask to apply reasonable point values or to limit special rules or psycher abilities applied to units they have no business influencing.

**master of ordinance**

Martel732 wrote:
If Riptides were 0-1 per 1500 pts and Stormsurges 0-1 per 3000 pts, I'd be totally fine with them. But nope, that skirmish over there has five super rare suits with no support units! Totally.

"Butbutbut its mah supa secret army made up of supa units for supa special missions, its totally fluffy!"[/smarmygit]
And then some people at my club wonder, after seeing both of the Tau players deploying triptide and dual stormsurge lists in games as low as 1500, why I consider many players there to be slightly powergamerish.

On the flip side, none of the BA stories of glory work out on the table top at all. It's just one curb stomping after another.

Eh, its the same for the Guard, remember those stories where Leman Russ are capable tanks, like that one where an entire company got dropped on the wrong side of the enemy lines and fought their way back to safety (Gunheads)? Well, try telling a Leman Russ in the game that!

**Martel732**

Interestingly, if they only added an additional point of rear armor to all Russ hulls, they'd be exponentially better. Standard AV 11 and the current AV 11s get AV 12. With the grenade nerf, those vehicles require a real melee investment to destroy. I'd add old school 2nd ed targeters back too to make standards Russes BS 4.

Without Str D, it's actually pretty challenging to shoot a Russ to death at range.

**wuestenfux**

master of ordinance wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
If Riptides were 0-1 per 1500 pts and Stormsurges 0-1 per 3000 pts, I'd be totally fine with them. But nope, that skirmish over there has five super rare suits with no support units! Totally.

"Butbutbut its mah supa secret army made up of supa units for supa special missions, its totally fluffy!"[/smarmygit]
And then some people at my club wonder, after seeing both of the Tau players deploying triptide and dual stormsurge lists in games as low as 1500, why I consider many players there to be slightly powergamerish.

You'll play just one game with such an army. Then both, neither you nor your opponents want to play with resp. against this army. I had this several times.

**master of ordinance**

wuestenfux wrote:
master of ordinance wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
If Riptides were 0-1 per 1500 pts and Stormsurges 0-1 per 3000 pts, I'd be totally fine with them. But nope, that skirmish over there has five super rare suits with no support units! Totally.

"Butbutbut its mah supa secret army made up of supa units for supa special missions, its totally fluffy!"[/smarmygit]
And then some people at my club wonder, after seeing both of the Tau players deploying triptide and dual stormsurge lists in games as low as 1500, why I consider many players there to be slightly powergamerish.

You'll play just one game with such an army. Then both, neither you nor your opponents want to play with resp. against this army. I had this several times.

they get multiple games - that said, they are not the worst offenders for power armies. One can only shudder at the thought of one of our Eldar players armies.

**Wayniac**

I will say part of the biggest issue with GW's lack of balance is that it punishes people who have a cool idea that happens to be the overpowered army at a particular time, and at the same token punishes someone with an idea that happens to use an underpowered army at a given time. E.g. the person who loves Terminators gets screwed, and the person who likes jetbikes or big stompy robots gets rewarded for no apparent reason.

However, I do notice that most gaming communities have that one person who always seems to be a jerk to everyone, like everything they say or do comes off in a bad way, but they are like well known to everyone at the game store so are a permanent fixture that can't be gotten rid of. That can be devastating to a community when the person is also the competitive WAAC TFG type of guy because they will always get preferential treatment.

**Battlesong**

Unit1126PLL wrote:
Peregrine wrote:
Unit1126PLL wrote:
You don't have to use Facebook to pre-arrange games. My group in State College used Meetup, you could use Google Hangouts, or you could use Dakkadakka! Just start a thread in the Find a Game forum. If you only have a couple of saturdays a month to plan, then you can use the other 26-29 days in the month to figure something out!

It would literally take less effort than typing the post you just typed. XD

"You don't have to use social media to arrange a game, you just have to use social media to do it" is hardly a convincing reply. You shouldn't have to do any of that to arrange a game. If I want to play a game of X-Wing I don't go on social media and negotiate what kind of game I want to play, I just show up on X-Wing night and say "hey, want to play" to whoever is sitting at an open table. If I can't show up on the appropriate night and play a game without negotiation it's a major flaw.

I mean, you have to arrange D&D games ahead. Is that an awful game?

Think of 40k more like D&D and less like Xwing. It isn't Xwing, as you astutely pointed out.

Really? 40k is a whole lot closer to x-wing then it is to D&D. I know about D&D, I've been playing D&D since the mid 80s. While I would certainly go to the local shop to find players for a D&D game, or to find a campaign to become a part of, I would never show up there with a character (or a bunch of characters) looking to just jump into a game for 1 session....I'm not a fan of one-offs to start and that's not the way an RPG works. Here's the thing, 40K is NOT an RPG, 40K is a wargame, as x-wing is a wargame. If you're going to your LGS for a game of 40K, unless you're meeting people from your gaming club there (which I don't have as my RPG group has literally no desire to play wargames of any type), the idea is to play a game against another person, your force against theirs, using the rules of the game to have a fair competition. This is the difference: in the vast majority of cases, D&D sessions - and even campaigns - do not end with a winner and a loser, they are designed to continue so your character can learn and grow. 40K, for the most part, is run in individual games in which one side comes out on top of the other in the competition; the rules SHOULD be designed to allow as fair a game as possible. They are not; I understand they are not, I accept that they are not - but I am not forced to like it, I am not forced to not want something better, even while working with the mess that we have

**Wayniac**

However, GW seems to want 40k games to be more than go to the shop, play a game, and leave with barely any social interaction with your opponent, the equivalent to your "show up with a character for 1 session".

**Battlesong**

WayneTheGame wrote:
Unit1126PLL wrote:
Peregrine wrote:
Unit1126PLL wrote:
You don't have to use Facebook to pre-arrange games. My group in State College used Meetup, you could use Google Hangouts, or you could use Dakkadakka! Just start a thread in the Find a Game forum. If you only have a couple of saturdays a month to plan, then you can use the other 26-29 days in the month to figure something out!

It would literally take less effort than typing the post you just typed. XD

"You don't have to use social media to arrange a game, you just have to use social media to do it" is hardly a convincing reply. You shouldn't have to do any of that to arrange a game. If I want to play a game of X-Wing I don't go on social media and negotiate what kind of game I want to play, I just show up on X-Wing night and say "hey, want to play" to whoever is sitting at an open table. If I can't show up on the appropriate night and play a game without negotiation it's a major flaw.

I mean, you have to arrange D&D games ahead. Is that an awful game?

Think of 40k more like D&D and less like Xwing. It isn't Xwing, as you astutely pointed out.

This. There are a lot of games where you can just show up on the dedicated game night at local game shop and say hey want to play to whoever else is there. Warhammer is not conducive to that style of play, and trying to shoehorn it in is the root of most of these things. I am perfectly content with doing the above for Warmachine which is or was the other game I played. If I played X-Wing or Infinity or any of the other game that are better suited to that approach I would have no problem doing it with them either. But I do not believe that Warhammer is intended or built around or even adequately set up for that sort of thing where you just turn up and ask whoever else is there for a game with little or no other discussion.

The default assumption for Warhammer seems to be that you are part of a gaming Club and while you may have a set day that you meet it's more of a social Gathering that involves playing a game then going specifically for the purpose of the game like you or hypothetical x wing night at the game shop. It's much more like getting together to play D&D where it's an all day Affair and you're going to socialize and talk with your buddies just as much if not more than actually play the game. When I used to play D&D we would spend maybe half the day chatting and eating before we even started to play and we would talk about things we did or things we might want to do it the game or some cool book that's coming out things like that it wasn't it's D&D night let's dive in and start playing.

That's where I feel the disconnect is. GW is wanting/thinking that you're in a social group where Warhammer is your equivalent to bridge or whatever (in fact, I always think of like the Reform Club in Around the World in 80 Days, but with Warhammer instead of whist.), where it's mainly a social venue with a medium that everyone enjoys, rather than a "game" that you simply play for the sake of it being a game. Which makes sense really since it's rooted in the old British "wargaming club" from the days of Bath and Featherstone. The whole "go down to the game shop and see who else turns up" is largely an American thing because we have woefully few actual wargames clubs.

You're missing the whole part of what a lot of people are saying on here; we understand how 40k is designed......we just feel it's a pretty poor way to design a game and that's what we are voicing. We're not debating what 40K is, we're stating the way the rules are designed do not fit the type of game that it presents itself to be and, quite frankly, the way a lot of players (at least where I am) consider the game to be.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
And yes, I could quit the game and start another game. I choose not to because I do enjoy the background of 40K and I love my models and, quite frankly, I have a lot of money invested in it. I have actually started playing X-Wing simply because the player pool on 40K is so slim (and I've always loved Star Wars). I am not going to quit 40K, and I do try to make it work, but I don't feel that any game should require the kind of effort 40K does.

**Fenrir Kitsune**

As I said, people obstacles in the way becuase they don't see past them. "No it's too difficult for a myriad of reasons I'm putting down"

**Peregrine**

Fenrir Kitsune wrote:
As I said, people obstacles in the way becuase they don't see past them. "No it's too difficult for a myriad of reasons I'm putting down"

Exactly. I can play other games without all of this ridiculous pre-game negotiation and amateur game design, so I've mostly moved on from 40k. You can criticize people all you like for not being stubbornly dedicated to 40k and overcoming the major problems with the game, but that doesn't change the fact that these obstacles shouldn't exist and don't exist in good games. 40k is still a terrible game even if you house rule your own version of it.

**Unit1126PLL**

Peregrine wrote:
Fenrir Kitsune wrote:
As I said, people obstacles in the way becuase they don't see past them. "No it's too difficult for a myriad of reasons I'm putting down"

Exactly. I can play other games without all of this ridiculous pre-game negotiation and amateur game design, so I've mostly moved on from 40k. You can criticize people all you like for not being stubbornly dedicated to 40k and overcoming the major problems with the game, but that doesn't change the fact that these obstacles shouldn't exist and don't exist in good games. 40k is still a terrible game even if you house rule your own version of it.

I think this is a mature response. If you don't like the 'style' of 40k, which requires much pre-game negotiation like D&D, then 'mostly moving on' is a good idea. 40k's not for you, I fear.

And saying that it isn't like D&D and is more like X-wing is patently false. It requires pre-game negotiation and is awful for pick-up games. This is fact. Trying to shoehorn 40k into a pick-up game is going to end in tears for someone or another; it's simply not possible.

And some of us like it that way; I don't play many other table-top games because they sacrifice so much on the altar of 'balance' and 'playability.' I like 40k as it is, and that's okay. It's also okay to not like it. What's not okay is to fundamentally misunderstand the nature of the game and then complain when it doesn't work the way you ask it to, then when the nature of the game is apparent, tell everyone (even the people who enjoy it as it is) that it should be different and if you like it you're dumb.

**Wayniac**

Unit1126PLL wrote:
Peregrine wrote:
Fenrir Kitsune wrote:
As I said, people obstacles in the way becuase they don't see past them. "No it's too difficult for a myriad of reasons I'm putting down"

Exactly. I can play other games without all of this ridiculous pre-game negotiation and amateur game design, so I've mostly moved on from 40k. You can criticize people all you like for not being stubbornly dedicated to 40k and overcoming the major problems with the game, but that doesn't change the fact that these obstacles shouldn't exist and don't exist in good games. 40k is still a terrible game even if you house rule your own version of it.

I think this is a mature response. If you don't like the 'style' of 40k, which requires much pre-game negotiation like D&D, then 'mostly moving on' is a good idea. 40k's not for you, I fear.

And saying that it isn't like D&D and is more like X-wing is patently false. It requires pre-game negotiation and is awful for pick-up games. This is fact. Trying to shoehorn 40k into a pick-up game is going to end in tears for someone or another; it's simply not possible.

And some of us like it that way; I don't play many other table-top games because they sacrifice so much on the altar of 'balance' and 'playability.' I like 40k as it is, and that's okay. It's also okay to not like it. What's not okay is to fundamentally misunderstand the nature of the game and then complain when it doesn't work the way you ask it to, then when the nature of the game is apparent, tell everyone (even the people who enjoy it as it is) that it should be different and if you like it you're dumb.

Agree with this. There are much better games suited to tournament style and "cutthroat" competitive play where you are trying to one-up your opponent with your list or on the battlefield. 40k is not that game, and even when it could reasonably have been used as that game it wasn't all that great (just back in those days there were less popular alternatives). Now, I do not think 40k requires as much pre-game negoation as D&D (nothing quite does, but then again I've spent entire "sessions" discussing what type of campaign we should play, and then having to actually put off the first real session until the following time we met

) but it does require more than just "[You] Hey Bob want a game? [Bob] Sure! [You] Awesome, 1500 points sound good? [Bob] 1500 works, let me quickly grab a list" upon entering the game shop and seeing someone else there with their 40k stuff. It absolutely requires more than that, at the very least just a quick "What seems fair but fun for us both?" type of discussion, and at best actual narrative talk to make the game something more than just a one-off game that means nothing.

I honestly do not get why this concept is so hard to understand. If I want a cutthroat or "serious" competitive game, I would not choose 40k (in fact that's why I picked up Warmachine and why I haven't sold my Warmachine stuff yet, that is my go-to game for when I want a "serious" game), but I like 40k because of the breadth and depth of the background material and for the fact that it does allow that sort of customization levels. I don't mind "negotiating" with my opponent, but then again I am one of those Warhammer players who, while I don't want to always lose, I also strongly want to adhere to the "spirit of the game" that GW so often brought up in days of yore and keep my armies as close to the background and theme for the army as possible.

**Korinov**

I don't think "cutthroat and competitive" games exist, the way I don't believe "casual" games to exist either.

You have well designed games, with tight, well balanced and tested rulesets, and poorly designed games like 40k.

The fact that you enjoy something doesn't mean it has to be a good thing. Guilty pleasure was invented for a reason. 40k is at its best a guilty pleasure. It's not a good game, nor for competitive nor for casual play.

I enjoy 40k when playing in a specific environment. I've had many hours of fun out of 40k. That doesn't make it a good game, not even close.

**Peregrine**

Unit1126PLL wrote:
And saying that it isn't like D&D and is more like X-wing is patently false. It requires pre-game negotiation and is awful for pick-up games. This is fact. Trying to shoehorn 40k into a pick-up game is going to end in tears for someone or another; it's simply not possible.

But it shouldn't require pre-game negotiation. D&D requires pre-game work because of the inherent structure of the game. You have to coordinate 5+ people for several hours of playing at a time, do all of the pre-game world building as the DM, etc. Even the best possible RPG rules will still require this. With 40k, on the other hand, the pre-game work exists only because the rules are terrible. There is nothing inherent about the structure of a two-player miniatures game that requires anything more than agreeing on a point level and starting the game. 40k could work just like X-Wing if GW wasn't lazy and/or incompetent.

And some of us like it that way; I don't play many other table-top games because they sacrifice so much on the altar of 'balance' and 'playability.'

40k's flaws in balance and playability do not add anything to the game. They are flaws, not design choices.

**Vaktathi**

Aye, there's a difference between everything being bland and the same for "balance", and 40k's brokenness. You can have wildly varying capabilities and unit functionality and still have relatively good balance, but 40k doesn't even try.

**Unit1126PLL**

Well, I enjoy playing superheavy tank companies. I don't see how my army could be inherently balanced against, say, a player who wants to model their guard army on the Human Wave without making things more bland. So the fact that both co-exist in the rules either means the game requires pre-negotiation or one of us is going to be unhappy.

**Peregrine**

Unit1126PLL wrote:
Well, I enjoy playing superheavy tank companies. I don't see how my army could be inherently balanced against, say, a player who wants to model their guard army on the Human Wave without making things more bland. So the fact that both co-exist in the rules either means the game requires pre-negotiation or one of us is going to be unhappy.

No, that's not true at all. It can't be balanced under the current rules because superheavies are invulnerable bricks of HP that fight at full effectiveness until they lose their last HP and can score objectives as well as any infantry unit. A more reasonable system where superheavies could be damaged and had point costs that reflect their actual power could work just fine. The superheavy company would have raw firepower, the human wave army would have mass bodies (with mass anti-tank weapons) and vastly better objective scoring ability. It's just like how in X-Wing, for example, a TIE swarm and a list with nothing but elite aces can be balanced just fine against each other and the game will be fun for both players.

And then there's also the fact that your example doesn't work with pre-negotiation either. You can't both play the army you want, so what exactly are you going to negotiate? That you both play "normal" armies with a diverse range of units instead of spamming a single unit? Great, now you're both playing the kind of armies that work fine in a balanced competitive game and there's no need for negotiation.

**Unit1126PLL**

Peregrine wrote:
Unit1126PLL wrote:
Well, I enjoy playing superheavy tank companies. I don't see how my army could be inherently balanced against, say, a player who wants to model their guard army on the Human Wave without making things more bland. So the fact that both co-exist in the rules either means the game requires pre-negotiation or one of us is going to be unhappy.

No, that's not true at all. It can't be balanced under the current rules because superheavies are invulnerable bricks of HP that fight at full effectiveness until they lose their last HP and can score objectives as well as any infantry unit. A more reasonable system where superheavies could be damaged and had point costs that reflect their actual power could work just fine. The superheavy company would have raw firepower, the human wave army would have mass bodies (with mass anti-tank weapons) and vastly better objective scoring ability. It's just like how in X-Wing, for example, a TIE swarm and a list with nothing but elite aces can be balanced just fine against each other and the game will be fun for both players.

And then there's also the fact that your example doesn't work with pre-negotiation either. You can't both play the army you want, so what exactly are you going to negotiate? That you both play "normal" armies with a diverse range of units instead of spamming a single unit? Great, now you're both playing the kind of armies that work fine in a balanced competitive game and there's no need for negotiation.

Superheavies have been damage-able in the past and they weren't anymore 'balanced' for regular games. I mean heck, how does the superheavy company compete with the all-aircraft army?

And yes, it does. Both sides go into the game knowing what to expect - the side with the human wave army expects to lose, and that's fine with them. Conversely, if I'm playing against drop melta spam, I can safely expect my baneblade company to lose. And that's fine with me, too.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, in your system, how are superheavies any different than regular tanks except 'bigguh'