whatwhat wrote:

MikeMcSomething wrote:You are making the point that a better tournament ruleset is worse for narrative play, without demonstrating how that would be the case.

I gave plenty of examples actually.

Maybe I was unclear, so what. Just because I cant be bothered to explain it again doesn't mean I agree with someone elses point.

You've got 2 arguments here now:

Argument 1 is "I made examples!" to which the response will be, and has been since you have made said "examples", that your examples failed to shore up your position because they were bad - saying "Well in a balanced game there will still be bad units so narrative gameplay will be damaged by a tight ruleset" is not a cogent argument or one that addresses the actual point made, and it ignores the definition of a "balanced" game in the first place.

Argument 2 is "Well I don't care if my arguments are unclear/I am too lazy and unconcerned to make them clear" which has already been addressed as well - If you don't care about your argument, making your argument clear, how people address your argument, or how they feel about it, then what your goal when posting in this thread in the first place?

jon23516 wrote:Admittedly I have not read through all 10 pages of posts so far, just the last two.

That said, what is our/your definition of balanced rules?

Chess always has balanced forces with no randomness from dice rolls or coin flips and the means of winning is completely within the moves, knowledge and experience of the players.

In 40k, for example, we want the variety of different armies (to support the sci-fi storyline) and therefore, each army has different units, different stats, and different costs which create unique forces with unique play styles (shooty, assault, horde, elite, etc.)

But this is an example of balanced armies. What are balanced rules? 5th edition? Are they unbalanced? Or do we mean inconsistent? Or do we mean not tight enough for tournament play?

Why would tournament players need a tighter ruleset than casual players? One could argue that tournament play has "more on the line" in terms of prize support, but if a casual player's goal is to have fun, the same "not-tight" ruleset is going to be just as glaring because the same rule interpretation questions will come up; but instead of have a judge make a ruling at a tournament, casual players have to waste time with the old "4+ and we'll go with my interpretation" thing.

It appears that JJ & Co. have chosen the casual player to be their focus and write their rules and army books with that audience in mind. By this statement GW seems prepared to "lose" tournament customers or know that though there will be griping, we'll all keep playing.

Yes, in a perfect world we should expect GW to sell us a perfect product. Since that won't be, then we the community needs to write our own FAQs and use them and present them as a standard that any tournament organizer in the world can use. My impression is that is what Yakface has done; and it would appear that GW has even "taken" (perhaps with permission) and posted it on their own site.

On one hand I've seen people complain that "GW isn't doing their own work" But does that really make the world a better place? At least something got posted. Something "official". Something you can download, print out and point to as a standard and say "this is the way we will play" whether you are a casual or tournament player.

Jon

People are asking GW for a ruleset that, mechanically, can solve problems in-game without going to the players and saying "Well hey, just make up your own rules! They're YOUR army men after all! You just bought them from us."

They are also asking GW for codices (Codices, not codexes, codeii, codeieieceis, or any of the other 15,000 permutations of that word that show up on this site, but I digress) where the majority of options are balanced against each other and, in turn, against other codices. A player should know that 1 point spent on a deathguard unit buys the same mission-capable power as 1 point spent on a nurgle marine, but that both units accomplish that goal differently. As it stands now, 1 point spent on a deathguard unit just buys a significantly more survivable model with largely the same firepower and better leadership, and this is just one example of the hundreds spread throughout the rulebooks.

MikeMcSomething wrote: If you don't care about your argument, making your argument clear, how people address your argument, or how they feel about it, then what your goal when posting in this thread in the first place?

you got me, I'm completely stumped. I have no idea.

Frazzled wrote:I think financial experts would also saying similar at this point. This company's been a stock dog for two years, in the high point of the business cycle. Now that we're hitting a trough they may be in for a world of hurt.

This is an important point that shouldn't get lost in the mess - when everyone else was doing well, GW was still floundering. GW has irritated their customers and they are consistently losing money. GW is doing it wrong.

jon23516 wrote:
That said, what is our/your definition of balanced rules?

There's a significant difference between 'balanced rules', and 'balanced game'. Rules, in my opinion, cannot be balanced. They can be tightly defined or loosely defined, but the rules are just the rules. And, regardless of what the rules say, they can be balanced simply by adjusting point costs.

A balanced game, on the other hand is a game where every unit has been priced appropriately, relative to other units in the game. Where you can pick a unit by any means you want (nice models, good fluff, nice paint scheme, whatever), and it's effectiveness in the game is relatively equal to what you would get spending those same points on any other unit.

Now, realistically, that's impossible to achieve in every circumstance. The very nature of the game, and the myriad of combinations naturally means that a unit will perform better when surrounded by other units that add synergy (the whole is greater than the sum of the parts). What do you compare, the performance of the unit when it's in a synergistic role in the army, or the performance of the unit in a vacuum.

But, while the end result is impossible to achieve, striving towards it is a realistic goal. And, removing the most egregious mistakes should be a priority for the development team and playtesters. There are some examples that are so glaringly bad that every player can see them.

Take the comparison between the Penitent Engine and the Killa Kan. Both AV11 walkers that can be taken in squadrons. The Kan, with a heavy flamer, costs 40 points. The penitent engine, also w/ heavy flamer costs 80. Now, granted the penitent engine has a few other differences. It comes with the equivalent of a 20 point upgrade, allowing it to ignore shaken/stunned. But, it's also open-topped, so significantly easier to kill. It is forced to move towards the closest enemy unit. It has slightly better initiative (but still swings after dreads, causing it problems). But, on top of the base price, the penitent engine also forces the WH player to bring along an expensive priest model somewhere in the army, a model that actually hurts most units that it would join with.

How can this be right? Killa Kans are probably priced correctly. You see some people play with them, but of the ork armies you run into at tournaments, they're certainly not a requirement, and more people don't run them than do. Penitent Engines, on the other hand, are vastly overpriced. At twice the cost of the kan, plus the cost of a priest, they don't make an appearance in any army that actually wants to win. Which is a shame, because they're great models. They're full of character, they look about as dark as the imperium gets. But they're so outclassed by everything else in the game... An AV11 CC machine simply cannot cost 80 points.

Worse yet are the examples where the exact same unit costs less points in one codex (Marines) than another (Dark Angels). There is no way that a game can be called balanced if one player gets the same models, paints them differently, and finds that as a result his force is only 1350 points compared to the other guy's 1500.

Why would tournament players need a tighter ruleset than casual players?

I'll answer this, and the other side of this (why tournament players need a balanced game more) as well.

Tournament players need a tighter ruleset because they're playing mostly against strangers, with something on the line (wins). If I'm playing in my basement, over a few beers, with my close friends, we really don't care if a rules issue come up. We'll happily dice it off, or make a decision on the spot. It doesn't matter for our enjoyment of the game. Winning or losing these games has less importance than who brought what brand of beer. But, we've known each other for years. And, over time, when the same people play against each other over and over, house rules develop. There are simply understandings between friends.

At a tournament, you're playing with strangers. And, short of going over every possible situation with an opponent before the game, if the ruleset is too loose, you're apt to fall into a situation where one player has made a decision based on his interpretation of the rules, and the other player has made a decision based on an alternate interpretation of that rule. If both players are on the same page prior to the game, this doesn't matter. Where it can ruin games, though, is when players have different expectations and make decisions that lead to a rules conflict two turns later. As an example, if I believe (erroneously in 5th edition), that my assault unit can consolidate into a new opponent, then I might declare a charge against a weak squad with the expectation of consolidating into another squad to prevent my unit from being shot at. My opponent points out that I cannot do this, and all of a sudden, I've lost my assault unit to shooting that I didn't expect. Now, fortunately, in 5th ed, the rules are pretty clear about that situation. But, that's the sort of issue that can arise when two players interpret a rule differently. Tight rules mean less room for these misinterpretations to happen, and that means that we're playing a strategy game, rather than a rules-interpretation game.


As for why tournament players benefit from a more balanced game, the answer there is simply variety. Casual players are likely to pick their armies based on what models look good, or what story they're trying to tell. And that's fine. But, tournament gamers are more likely to pick models based on how they perform on the tabletop. If one type of model is vastly under-priced, it will show up all over the place. If a model is over-priced, you won't see it at all. I believe the game benefits from having as many viable choices as possible. I don't want to go to a tournament and play against the same army over and over, I'd rather play against a variety of opposition armies. That's more fun. The more skewed the costs, the greater the incentive to run the model. Lash of Submission is a great example of this. It's a 20 point upgrade that yields far greater than 20 points of return. I don't know of many tournament players who play chaos who don't take a Lash model, even in armies where it's out of place (like predominantly Khorne and Nurgle armies).

On one hand I've seen people complain that "GW isn't doing their own work" But does that really make the world a better place? At least something got posted. Something "official". Something you can download, print out and point to as a standard and say "this is the way we will play" whether you are a casual or tournament player.

If I thought it would be adopted, I'd be happy to re-price every option in every codex. Problem is, that's a lot of work, and because it isn't GW official, I don't think it would be used. How do you run a tournament that allows anyone to attend, and call it a WH40k tournament, but tell them to use this 3rd-party pricing system? That's unrealistic. But, in order to balance the game, it is the points-costs for every unit that need to be addressed. The FAQs are a minor issue. They address the problem of having strangers with differing interpretations of the rules, but they don't solve the unbalanced nature of the point values in each codex.

(but we'll just assume for the purpose of your argument that it is true, even though it is a highly specuous claim)

Actually if I remember correctly, at its peak LOTR outsold Warhammer Fantasy. I for one believe this simply because I know many people who have LOTR Miniatures who only bought them because they like the books. And the books are much more widely known than the Warhammer games.

As to the above poster, they synergy for a balanced game is actually dependant on the army as a whole and not just the units within it. To use a chess example, it doesn't matter how many White Bishops you have in your force, I'm invincable as long as I stay on black. This is also why unit to unit comparisons are also out of proportioned. Would those Firedragons pouring out of that unsinkable Falcon be as much of a threat if they had to hoof it to your lines? The answer is no. Cause you could shoot them, assault them, even avoid them as the are slower than vehicles. So yes, a Firedragon riding in a Falcon should be worth more points than a Firedragon who has to walk over.

Ratbarf wrote:

(but we'll just assume for the purpose of your argument that it is true, even though it is a highly specuous claim)

Actually if I remember correctly, at its peak LOTR outsold Warhammer Fantasy. I for one believe this simply because I know many people who have LOTR Miniatures who only bought them because they like the books. And the books are much more widely known than the Warhammer games.

As to the above poster, they synergy for a balanced game is actually dependant on the army as a whole and not just the units within it. To use a chess example, it doesn't matter how many White Bishops you have in your force, I'm invincable as long as I stay on black. This is also why unit to unit comparisons are also out of proportioned. Would those Firedragons pouring out of that unsinkable Falcon be as much of a threat if they had to hoof it to your lines? The answer is no. Cause you could shoot them, assault them, even avoid them as the are slower than vehicles. So yes, a Firedragon riding in a Falcon should be worth more points than a Firedragon who has to walk over.

Which is why you pay 100+ points for his transport - this is a pretty standard situation. Sure, the devs COULD make any heavy support choice in a list that has Lash of Submission cost 40% more as a special rule, but it would be far easier for them to just increase the cost of Lash or somehow bring it in line with what you pay for it. As game developers, we are counting on them to do more than tell us we can use whatever rules we want - we know we can do that anyway, we paid for the models.

H G Well's "Little Wars" is a great narrative wargame, and lets you shoot matchsticks out of toy cannons!

[img=http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/2783/toycannonsmallzg4.th.jpg][img=http://img134.imageshack.us/images/thpix.gif]

How do I make my images work?

Kilkrazy wrote:H G Well's "Little Wars" is a great narrative wargame, and lets you shoot matchsticks out of toy cannons!


How do I make my images work?

It's "["img"]" url-to-image "["/img"]"

Which is why you pay 100+ points for his transport - this is a pretty standard situation.

Now while this would be normally true, seeing as a Falcons primary role is that of a tank and not a transport that point is moot.

Redbeard wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:H G Well's "Little Wars" is a great narrative wargame, and lets you shoot matchsticks out of toy cannons!


How do I make my images work?

It's "["img"]" url-to-image "["/img"]"

Thanks!

Ratbarf wrote:

Which is why you pay 100+ points for his transport - this is a pretty standard situation.

Now while this would be normally true, seeing as a Falcons primary role is that of a tank and not a transport that point is moot.

I believe Wave Serpents are the standard transport and will usually run more than 100 points.

HI all.
All this talk about games with a provable level of balance.
Have any of you played a game written with competive play in mind, with composition and points value calculation in the back of the book?They work great for competative AND narrative games .

Just becuse GW choose not to adopt this approach , doenst mean it is impossible.

The point I was trying to make earlier was, if the method of PV allocation and force construction was finite for a game system,then this makes 'codexes-and army books ' redundant.
And as GW think that these publications are the primary marketing requirmnent for thier product.
Provable levels of balance in any of thier games is counter to thier buisness strategy.

(And possibly why the GW devs add so many special rules to the games, to make pv calculation far more difficult?)

TTFN
Lanrak.

WRG Ancients Rules.
Field of Glory Ancients Rules.
Warmaster Ancients Rules.

These are systems in which the point value calculation is made clear in the basic rules. The army books are basically a short cut through the necessary historical research.

I think the numerous special powers, items and abilities in 40K armies make balancing values more difficult, though not impossible.

One way to do it is to relate all special rules to core rule mechanisms, for example by the use of USRs.

GW's aim is presumably to prevent all army lists becoming merely different names and mixtures of the same core abilities. However, since the core rules are mathematically based, at some point it breaks down and becomes a matter of logic.

Well the Flames of War lists seem to be the most balanced over all that I have found. Though instead of changing the points cost they set different points limits depending on what army you are using.

For example in a 1500 pt match an US army would use 1500 pts while an SS army would use around 1200.

Hi .
Ratbarf, do you mean that th SS forces get less actual PV in terms of men and equipment because of thier superior moral and experiance?

Other game systems somtimes use a multiplier for moral grades, EG veteran units (like SS) pay 10% more than standard units .
As they are harder to supress-disperse-neutralise.

The real spanner in the works for PV calculation for the current 40k rule set is the non comparative effects.

Do you not find the over simplified core rules of 40k , coupled with the extensive list of exeptions and contradictions (special rules) make the rules set over compicated for the level of game play?

Wouldnt it be better to extend the basic rules slightly , and therfore not have all these special rules cluttering up the game?

I know some gamers are brain washed into thinking special rules are necissary.(But they are only there to help sell minis, how many new releases get uber special rules?)


One of my favorite historical rule sets. Firefly, (WWII 6mm scale).
Covers ALL armoured land engagments from 1939 -1945.
It has 45 army lists and over 700 units entries.(Early -mid and late war, like FOW)
And a PV allocation formula to cover any unit it might have missed!
All within 100 pages .(Quite small print and not many pictures though!)

And in the last 20 years of playing this game we only had ONE event the rules didnt cover.Low flying aircraft being cought in an artillery air burst barrage, but this was a freak occurance.

I suppose my view is biased by playing quite a few games that WERE written with competitive play in mind.And the unsuiitability of the current 40k rule set for this stlye of play is glaringly obvious to me.(And the GW game devs?)

I just wondered if anyone elses gameing experaince let them draw a similar conclusion.

TTFN
Lanrak.

This thread is full of lose-time fail!! Ten years....was that what it took to get us a new codex?? Go cry to your mom or somebody that cares. Winning games more than losing is a nice change of pace for the orks!! Besides Codex creep should neuter the greens before long.

Lanrak wrote:Hi .
Ratbarf, do you mean that th SS forces get less actual PV in terms of men and equipment because of thier superior moral and experiance?

Other game systems somtimes use a multiplier for moral grades, EG veteran units (like SS) pay 10% more than standard units .
As they are harder to supress-disperse-neutralise.

The real spanner in the works for PV calculation for the current 40k rule set is the non comparative effects.

Do you not find the over simplified core rules of 40k , coupled with the extensive list of exeptions and contradictions (special rules) make the rules set over compicated for the level of game play?

Wouldnt it be better to extend the basic rules slightly , and therfore not have all these special rules cluttering up the game?

I know some gamers are brain washed into thinking special rules are necissary.(But they are only there to help sell minis, how many new releases get uber special rules?)


One of my favorite historical rule sets. Firefly, (WWII 6mm scale).
Covers ALL armoured land engagments from 1939 -1945.
It has 45 army lists and over 700 units entries.(Early -mid and late war, like FOW)
And a PV allocation formula to cover any unit it might have missed!
All within 100 pages .(Quite small print and not many pictures though!)

And in the last 20 years of playing this game we only had ONE event the rules didnt cover.Low flying aircraft being cought in an artillery air burst barrage, but this was a freak occurance.

I suppose my view is biased by playing quite a few games that WERE written with competitive play in mind.And the unsuiitability of the current 40k rule set for this stlye of play is glaringly obvious to me.(And the GW game devs?)

I just wondered if anyone elses gameing experaince let them draw a similar conclusion.

TTFN
Lanrak.

Simple base rules are a good thing, and the Special rules are needed so we can have some difference in the different armys other then just name and look. With out them there would be no characteristic between armys and it would be very bland and boring.

1st off anybody that would field 45 Lootas is lame. 2nd if you can't figure out how to beat 45 lootas you are just as lame.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:1st off anybody that would field 45 Lootas is lame.

Congratulations, you're a scrub.

BYE

Green Blow Fly wrote:1st off anybody that would field 45 Lootas is a Deathskull fluff freak who loves playing thematic armies.

Fixed your typo GBF.

Chill HBMC, twas just a typo.

it is the truth.... not a typo.

G

Ratbarf, do you mean that th SS forces get less actual PV in terms of men and equipment because of thier superior moral and experiance?

No, they have the same points value, the limit is set on the total number of points the list is allowed to take in comparison to the list they are playing. For example, a russian conscript rifle team would cost the same as an SS rifle team. But the Soviets have twice the points limit that the SS do. So it evens out.

Why is taking maxed out lootas lame? Is taking maxed out terminators lame? Or maxed out Genestealers? What if I only take 5 dreadnoughts and not 6? Maxed out lootas will do great against footslogging armies and get owned to gak by anything that doesn't just have to run at you screaming.

45 lootas is min maxing - while a Deathwing is obviously very fluffy.

G

perhaps this threat should actually be called:

"the search for absolute game balance in all styles of play: possible? and if so, what would absolute balance look like, what degree of time and money is required, and will such a investment in time and money result in a profit?"

although it might be a bit long!

Firstly I do think it is possible, but

I think an absolutely balanced game would result in something very close to chess or perhaps papers cutters rock. If you think about how many different variations are possible under the current rules, would such a degree of variations be possible under an absolutely game balanced system? I think there is a lot of potential in many codex's to make widely different armies. Eldar is one amazing example, the new Marine codex is certainly another. I think we would lose this under an absolutely balanced system. Examine World of warcraft. The variation to your character is limited to strictly defined, comparatively limited, sets of "trees". The classes are much more limited in scope and number. Even with all that, they still have significant balance issues!

If we to compromise then and retain a very high degree of balance (not absolute) with more limited variation (and I would be opposed) then what are the resources required?

Assuming the resources are available, what sacrifices in terms of miniature range (and therefore sales) will have to be made?
Would this result in a profit? Ie, would a highly balanced game system result in selling more miniatures?

Perhaps this is very much an endorsement of the GW position but I think its important to examine the question from all perspectives.

More than anything it really does annoy me that some amazingly cool miniatures are simply unusable due to their rules. If I spend money on them and then invest a considerable degree of time in painting them (and I do) why should it not be just as viable as anything else? It just seems rather unfair.

One final point, I must question this 5% statistic that GW provides for Tournament gamers. I would like to know what their criteria for a gamer are. Time spent in hobby? Playing as opposed to just buying and painting? Money spent? etc. Most importantly what means they employ to gather such statistics.

Until then I have serious doubts about its accuracy.

I think they pulled that stat from the same part of their anatomy that they pulled the stat that says GW accounts for 94% of the entire wargame/boardgame/RPG market.

To address your main point, all warfare is to some degree a matter of paper/scissors/stone. The basic tactics of warfare have never changed, and they revolve around exploiting the enemy’s weakness with your strength. Since units tend to be optimised for one role, the way to use them in combat is fairly obvious.

When people talk about balance they mean that the points values of units should reflect their combat value. There are plenty of examples where that just isn’t so.

Combat value of an individual unit is a factor of its mobility, firepower, range, assault power, morale, and defensive armour. Within the game rules, these are all mathematical factors so it is logically possible to relate them to each other and to a basic points cost scale.

What’s more difficult is to develop a points cost to reflect the synergy of different types of units within an army. For instance, an army with good assault troops that also has access to good shooting troops has an advantage over an army with only one or the other. This is not impossible to balance, though -- it can be handled with the force chart and limitations on the number of units of each type that can be taken.

Given that all the game factors except synergy are mathematical, it is feasible to build a simulation that enables the factors to be tested rapidly and automatically. This would be a kind of computer game. GW already have the examples of DoW and the V40K v5.0 web based game, that could be adapted to do this kind of work. Much of the grinding through scenarios and tests would be automated, saving a lot of time and cost.

What actually happens is that the Design Studio guys have an idea like Vespids. They pick a point value that seems reasonable, and they play a few games with the unit. If it seems to go OK, the unit is put in the codex. However, this approach doesn’t always work.

Actually I agree with the mathematical formula point. However simply because you have an equation does not mean you achieve balance. Im really not a maths person, but even if you could find create one equation for all units, regardless of how complicated, are you not still giving subjective values to its basic elements? So say having Strength four costs X points, do you not still have to decide what X is? Ie how much you will pay for that specific stat?

Sorry Im almost working this out as I type it, feeling my way along perhaps. Maybe im wrong, but are not subjective choices still involved, and if they are involved then a certain degree of imbalance is built in.

Of course if you can get that imbalance down to such a negligibly low number I suppose it doesn't matter anymore.

But the real point was the synergy one. That was partly what I was getting at by mentioning a reduction in unit options, perhaps army options. Im not sure it would be so easy to handle it simply through the force organization chart and unit limits. Partly because such limitations are inherently unattractive because it limits a players options, especially regarding theme. But also partly because there are simply a multifarious number of options to balance out with all the others. Im not sure that would be an easy task. Not without some limitation on options in any case. I am open to arguments the other way, I havn't thought about it much.

As to GW the census operator, it might be a little unfair (although explanations GW staff have given me are quite unconvincing) but without more facts, I agree!

Yes, you are right.

For example, at first sight a gun with double the range of a different gun looks like it should be worth double the cost. However, all fighting isn't done at maximum range, so in truth the value of the extra range won't be double.

This is why testing is needed to get the factors accurate.

The synergy issue in my opinion can be handled through core army design and force chart limitations. Players' options need to be limited because it's part of the fun of choosing and army, making a list and doing the right tactics for your list.

Killy what is up with the hand bag?

It's my Magic The Gathering color symbol.

Hi again.
I would just like to say what is the point of having 25 unit options in a codex , when only about 8 are deemed to be 'competative'.
And if GW codexes give such a 'wide range of options' with thier choices why do most tournament armies follow 1 or 2 build types?

How many player WANT to use unit 'A' but know they are scuppering thier chances of winning by taking unit 'A' over unit 'B'.

40k armies are not cheap to collect and build , so who is going to spend £150+ on an army that handicapped due to non competative unit choices?(Obviusly not gamers that prefer to win... )

IF the game develpers define the game system , the range, scope and game play requirements FIRST.
Then utilise various methods of achiving the required end result, and pick the most suitable sets of methods -mechanics.
Then having developed the game structure from the basic game design brief.
They can then define the synergistic relationships within the game structure.

Now knowing exactly how everthing works and how it effects everthing else, they can confidently produce a finite system for allocating in game effectivness ratings (PV) working within the force design template.(FoC)

A little company called Thane Games produced a rule set called 'Armies Of Arcana ' this way. It has 14 sample army lists in the back of the rule book, and a method of creating and costing ANY army you want to that is ballanced within the system.
My freind 'built and costed' 48 ballanced army lists for all our groups Ancient and WH armies, over ONE week end!

How do GW do it?
In a interview, Andy Hoare spoke about the process of producing a codex.
Where did the playtesting take place?
At the start of development ?
Or right near the end after ALL the asthetics had been finalised, (Including the border patterns and colour balance....)

Nuff said.

PS.JokerGod

No game NEEDS 'special rules.'
AFAIK , GW is the only company that uses 'special rules'.
700+ units in Firefly , no special rules in sight.(And this covers horse drawn artillery to jet fighters.)
Most other companies manage to cover the entire game play with the basic rules , without missing any thing out.(And tend to have MUCH simpler intuititve rules too.)

TTFN
Lanrak.

O.K. stop saying Orks are unbeatable, notthing is bloody unbeatable! Flamers, whirlies, lots of shooting, it kills orks, you only have 3 loota units, give em hell, drop pods, anything with a template, orks will still die, and I agree with GW, a tourney is the place for hard lists, if you feel you need to takee a hard lisyt, then this is where you take it, now I admit that there is a limit to this dont go OTT but it is way more important for the game to be fun, more people play more friendly gaames than anyone at tourneys, you have to have a fun game or its...well... not a GAME

Lanrak wrote:

PS.JokerGod

No game NEEDS 'special rules.'
AFAIK , GW is the only company that uses 'special rules'.
700+ units in Firefly , no special rules in sight.(And this covers horse drawn artillery to jet fighters.)
Most other companies manage to cover the entire game play with the basic rules , without missing any thing out.(And tend to have MUCH simpler intuititve rules too.)

TTFN
Lanrak.

Yes and there is ONE TYPE OF ARMY, unlike 40K where you have many different options and play styles, if they where to try and cram everything in to one book it would cost over 100$ easy and still be mission more then half of it.

40K is a very large game with many many options, comparing it to small scale games is a joke.

Hi JokerGod.
How can 45 'official' army lists for competition and over 700 unit types be called a small game?

How many army types are there in 40k, realy?
How many levels of tech, how many levels of command, how many levels of moral, how many levels of resources ?

The high amount of special rules in 40k simply prove the basic rules are inadiquate to deal with basic game play requirements.
And are used blatently to market new releases.

Just because GW fail to write rules and army lists efficiently-accuratley,(how many typos in the Ork dex,) dosen't mean every other company suffers from this!

I can make comparisons to over 40 table top games we have played over the last 20 years or so.

You enjoy playing 40k, so do I.(For freindly co-operative play, emphasising the narrative .NO WAY COMPETATIVE GAMES. )

But I am not willing to ignore the deficiencies with the 40k rule set ,or the way it is 'developed.'

GW just hype the latest releases in the codex/army books and then try to get some sort of game play at the eleventh hour.

Most other companies develop the rule set first ,finalise everything , then make the minature ranges.

If your thesis is correct , how can all the other games companies sell thier rule books including army lists for a fraction of the cost of the 40k rule book?

Oh thats right they dont have to run 100s of B&M stores, to artificialy seperate themselves , so they can make ludicrously high mark up on goods stamped GW or Citadel.

(Please dont belive all the GW Bull$^it.)
No offence intended.

TTFN
Lanrak.

Lanrak wrote:No game NEEDS 'special rules.'

Do you want to, perhaps, explain what a 'special rule' is.

Take the rules for Sniper Rifles, or rules for weapons that have the 'Pinning' effect. They are weapons that have rules beyond a simple roll To Hit, To Wound and then Armour Save. Are they 'special rules' in your book?

If one weapon is:

S4 AP4 Heavy 3

... and another is:

S4 AP4 Heavy 3/Blast

Is the 'Blast' part a special rule? What if it was Pinning? Rending? Twin-Linked?

What about something like Furious Charge or Feel No Pain. They're special rules. One unit has nothing and another has Furious Charge. It has a special rule that makes it better. Is this a problem?

So please, define what you mean by special rule and, better yet, please explain how 40K would work without special rules.

BYE

Special rules are things that apply to only a single unit and have no general game equivalent. For example, some SM characters in the new codex grant special abilities to their armies, like making Terminators scoring.

The same result in game terms could be achieved through a general codex rule, allowing any SM army to count Terminators as scoring by a wargear upgrade costing X points per figure. Or by putting such an ability into the USR section and allowing some troop types to take it as an upgrade -- this could be applied in any codex.

Big surprise.

Quite honestly, I hate Orks. They are (you were just waiting for this) so overpowered it's not even funny. Seriously though, you'd have thought that they would have made Orks orange to complete their cheesiness.

Sure, they have a 6+ armor save. It doesn't matter, though, since they have T4, and will pretty much always get a 4+ cover save.

You say orks are an overpowered army?
1) ALMOST an auto lose to necros, which is a decent enough army
2) WH40k is 75% player skill, 25% army skill
3) A smart player plays what is good and fun, hence orks
4) If you don't think orks are fun, play something that is , and then attempt to beat that army

There are 4 reasons on why orks are not overpowered. yes, lootas are very good, 225 pts for 15 d6 str 7 ap 3 shots is a great choice for elites. but so are 14 kommandos, with snikrot. Play style is what determines your army, and how you build that army. The GT winner is obviously a very good player, or he wouldn't have won the GT. Yes the army is good, but having a good army doesn't mean you are gonna win every game. like #2 states, 75% player skill, 25% army skill. That there says it all.

Also, there are what, 12 different armies you can play, how many different codicies? And then, going off of that, how many different ways can you build your army? I believe that there are over 10,000 different ways you can play a game. With that in mind, how do you say that orks are overpowered with all those different combinations? Have you tried EVERY SINGLE army build, and trying EVERY SINGLE upgrade against orks? No? Then you have no basis for saying orks are overpowered.

Yes, they have won a few GT's. Yes, the army that wins is almost the same. But, untill EVERY SINGLE different combination has been play tested against this army, then they are yet to be called overpowered. Really good, well yeah, they are really good. To end this post I would like to say to call any army build in this game over powered is just rediculus. No army is overpowered, just REALLY DARN GOOD. Thanks, and HAVE A GREAT DAY!

Does 40k *need* Special Rules outside the Rulebook? No, not really. But it's nice to have the occasional rule to emphasize major differences. It's just irritating when everything has rules for every trivial little thing, just to have rules.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Lanrak wrote:No game NEEDS 'special rules.'

Do you want to, perhaps, explain what a 'special rule' is.

Take the rules for Sniper Rifles, or rules for weapons that have the 'Pinning' effect. They are weapons that have rules beyond a simple roll To Hit, To Wound and then Armour Save. Are they 'special rules' in your book?

If one weapon is:

S4 AP4 Heavy 3

... and another is:

S4 AP4 Heavy 3/Blast

Is the 'Blast' part a special rule? What if it was Pinning? Rending? Twin-Linked?

What about something like Furious Charge or Feel No Pain. They're special rules. One unit has nothing and another has Furious Charge. It has a special rule that makes it better. Is this a problem?

So please, define what you mean by special rule and, better yet, please explain how 40K would work without special rules.

BYE

I think thats called Chess.

therandom007 wrote:2) WH40k is 75% player skill, 25% army skill

It's 90% people rolling dice. No skill in that unless you're cheating.

BYE

I still say 45 lootas is really cheesy!

G

I think cheesy is whatever is beating me at the time, so that I don't have to address my own failure to compensate for it somehow.

Every codex has something in it that other people call cheesy. I find that the players who are the most likely to call cheese are those that expect to lose and want an excuse so they don't feel bad about it after the fact. As in, "I only lost because my opponent had a cheesy army."

45 lootas is tough. But they lose to three monoliths...

Redbeard wrote:The emphasis in their testing was, in Jervis's words, about whether they had fun, and was focused on the sorts of armies that you see in W.D. battle reports. He said that he doesn't believe anyone who says one army always wins or can't win, and said that he believes that the 'unbeatable' build actually only wins about 55-60% of its games, and that the army that can't win actually only loses about 40-45% of its games.

Oh Jervis. That is why you fail...

Redbeard wrote:I think cheesy is whatever is beating me at the time, so that I don't have to address my own failure to compensate for it somehow.

Every codex has something in it that other people call cheesy. I find that the players who are the most likely to call cheese are those that expect to lose and want an excuse so they don't feel bad about it after the fact. As in, "I only lost because my opponent had a cheesy army."

Quoted for Truth.

There's a reason why you don't hear top table players complaining about cheese.

cheesy means in bad taste

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:cheesy means in bad taste

G

So your posts are cheesy?

JohnHwangDD wrote:Does 40k *need* Special Rules outside the Rulebook? No, not really. But it's nice to have the occasional rule to emphasize major differences. It's just irritating when everything has rules for every trivial little thing, just to have rules.

If I wanted a simple game with no special rules I'd play checkers. Each army should be different, it shouldn't be that each one has just a few things to make it unique. If that's what you want you might as well play different-colored-spess-mareen-hammer and ignore all other armies.

Big surprise.

Quite honestly, I hate Orks. They are (you were just waiting for this) so overpowered it's not even funny. Seriously though, you'd have thought that they would have made Orks orange to complete their cheesiness.

Sure, they have a 6+ armor save. It doesn't matter, though, since they have T4, and will pretty much always get a 4+ cover save.

Oh please they are not cheesy. Have you tried the thirty DA Vets with Storm bolters against them yet? Yah its 750 points, but that 750 points can stay out of range of your armies boyz, will easily get cover saves from your own boyz that protect your lootas. And should eat said boyz in combat if they get to close. Throw in two two whirlies and you have an Ork killing army.

Even better? Try the the three thunderfire list. Have fun with 12 cover ignoring str 5 blast templates a turn for only 300 points.

Oh whats that? is that cheassing I hear? Oh noes...

open_sketchbook wrote:I consider myself pretty hardcore as a warhammer player. I've been playing since around my tenth birthday, I've played all the major Warhammer games and all the specialist games, I've got two armies over three thousand points right now. I don't really consider tournaments a part of my hobby, nor do the vast majority of my friends. I've played all of three or four, and the experience left a sour taste in my mouth. Competive, rude and arrogent players obsessing over minute details and caring only about the hot builds is frankly a bit pathetic. It's a game. It's supposed to be enjoyed. I know I'm not one of that sort of gaming in the first place, as despite the obvious tactical drawbacks, I rank my troops up on the field because it looks awesome, and I play mechanized space marines because it's really really fun, but, damn.

I still win a lot of games. I lose a lot too. And you know what? I really, really enjoy myself. So do the people I play with, so do the people watching the game.

Then, I watch tourney guys freak out over each new list, whine every single time a new army or edition comes out, constantly threaten to 'leave the hobby' if things don't go their way, then have the nerve, the fracking nerve, to tell me I play the game wrong, and that I'm not a "true fan".

We play a game decided by random number cubes. Tactics and strategy and uber-lists and whatever take you as far as the table edge and turn one, and after that it's in the hands of fate and nobody else. Trying to pack your mathematically optimized lists and 'winning is everything' mentality into the game is maybe the reason you don't enjoy it, far beyond and above any broken lists and cheap builds. Munchkin play is condemned in role-playing games, but power gaming is seen as some sort of ultimate goal in GW games for some reason. Really, it's just sad. Win, lose, whatever, enjoying yourself is the most important part. If Orks are always going to win, FINE. Play Orks if you NEED to win, and know you're going to have to switch when the new hot crap is out. Get frustrated? Maybe you're just in the wrong damn hobby.

I don't know if anyone has quoted this, or responded to this yet so sorry if there is any redundancy.

Ah-mother en- men.

Though this site is really cool and everything, I've seen a few too many people obsessed about what is best over what is fun.

My friend and I finished a game recently that had the entire flgs going crazy, with people throwing down more suppressed advice than god. It was fun, neither army was even at par level, neither of us had a fully painted army, I had to borrow a rhino and 2 marines from a guy who I'd never seen before.

But aside from all that, no, probably because of all that, we had a great time. I fully intend to attend my first tournaments soon, and hope that I am not as abysmally disappointed by people who have managed to foolishly convince themselves that warhammer is a game of competition.

Warhammer is a game... have fun.

Shrike78 wrote:Warhammer is a game... have fun.

And if the way you have fun is by playing in tournaments? What then?


The prevailing attitude around Dakka recently seems to be turning into a very ugly 'With us or against us' style of thinking and, ironically, sadly and also amusingly, this attitude is actually championed by the 'side' wanting everyone to 'just have fun'. However, in this case, it's not "Let's just have fun!" it's "Just have fun or else!".

The tournament gamer 'side' of this forum has been saying for a long time, essentially:

"GW please write a consistent and balanced ruleset for tournament play. Casual players will not care what rules they get - and that's fine - but we do. If a balanced ruleset is written, everybody wins."

Then the 'casual just-for-fun' side says:

"It's not all about Tournaments! Who cares about big meany tournament players who are just arrogant! We don't need to have tournament rules! Everyone just have fun!"

And herein lies the problem. The most vocal of the 'causal players' have it in their heads that the way to play 40K is to not treat it at all seriously, to just do whatever takes your fancy, and just have 'fun'. And that's fine, I have no problem with that. The hang-up is that the most vocal of these people think that that's the only way to have fun. Moreover, anyone seen to not be having official 'casual gamer' branded fun is a 'mean' tournament player who obviously has some ulterior motive/is a power gamer/wants to win at all costs/etc.



It's ing stupid.



It worries me greatly when the most vocal group telling people how 40K should be played is the group advocating a free 'fun for everyone' attitude. It's worrisome because there is no one and only way to play 40K. Everyone takes different things out of the hobby - some people just like to paint, some people love the models, the background, playing games, challenging opponents at tournaments, setting up all their models in an Apoc game and seeing what happens - none of these aspects are more valid, more 'proper' or 'greater' than any other.

The answer is that the tournament gamers should be catered to. Not more than the people who like to paint. Not less than the people who just like the background. But they should be catered to. The only people I've seen saying that the tournament players should be ignored are those advocating that we should 'just have fun', and who are those people to say what 'fun' is? Seriously?

BYE

Wow, HBMC took a break from being the crankiest, bitterest old coot on Dakka to really come through. Bravo!

I have a lot of fun playing 40k. I play apocolypse, I play with wacky armies, I'll throw down in any situation from a four way battle at a GW store to an 'Ard Boys semi final. I play them all for fun.

There are certain people, and I'm one of them, that cannot simply ignore trends, or not think things through. I can design an intentionally underpowered lists, but I cannot simply throw together a list without thinking through how it will work, how some units have failed me in the past, what kind of mission I'll be playing, etc. I know that no matter how badly I want to have fun, if I take 10 man stormtrooper squads in chimeras they're a suboptimal unit.

So, while I can write a list to any power level, my instinct is to take the units that are good. I think most tournament players are like me: we like to use units that accomplish things, and we avoid units that don't. Part of it is theory, part experience, but through reason and experience even a casual build will generally be built around solid units. So, I'm sorry if it bothers you that I wish units were more property balanced. I would like to be able to take Ogryn and Chimeras and Tech priests and Commissars without the knowledge that I'm taking a unit that sucks. I can't avoid thinking that.

So, when I ask GW to balance the game, to avoid broken lists and units, I'm asking not so I can win more games, or so I can kvetch, it's so I can have more fun! It would have taken a little bit longer to realize that maybe Lootas are a touch undercosted, or that Pentitent Engines are awful, but it would increase the over all diversity of armies in the game.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Shrike78 wrote:Warhammer is a game... have fun.

And if the way you have fun is by playing in tournaments? What then?


The prevailing attitude around Dakka recently seems to be turning into a very ugly 'With us or against us' style of thinking and, ironically, sadly and also amusingly, this attitude is actually championed by the 'side' wanting everyone to 'just have fun'. However, in this case, it's not "Let's just have fun!" it's "Just have fun or else!".

The tournament gamer 'side' of this forum has been saying for a long time, essentially:

"GW please write a consistent and balanced ruleset for tournament play. Casual players will not care what rules they get - and that's fine - but we do. If a balanced ruleset is written, everybody wins."

Then the 'casual just-for-fun' side says:

"It's not all about Tournaments! Who cares about big meany tournament players who are just arrogant! We don't need to have tournament rules! Everyone just have fun!"

And herein lies the problem. The most vocal of the 'causal players' have it in their heads that the way to play 40K is to not treat it at all seriously, to just do whatever takes your fancy, and just have 'fun'. And that's fine, I have no problem with that. The hang-up is that the most vocal of these people think that that's the only way to have fun. Moreover, anyone seen to not be having official 'casual gamer' branded fun is a 'mean' tournament player who obviously has some ulterior motive/is a power gamer/wants to win at all costs/etc.



It's ing stupid.



It worries me greatly when the most vocal group telling people how 40K should be played is the group advocating a free 'fun for everyone' attitude. It's worrisome because there is no one and only way to play 40K. Everyone takes different things out of the hobby - some people just like to paint, some people love the models, the background, playing games, challenging opponents at tournaments, setting up all their models in an Apoc game and seeing what happens - none of these aspects are more valid, more 'proper' or 'greater' than any other.

The answer is that the tournament gamers should be catered to. Not more than the people who like to paint. Not less than the people who just like the background. But they should be catered to. The only people I've seen saying that the tournament players should be ignored are those advocating that we should 'just have fun', and who are those people to say what 'fun' is? Seriously?

BYE

Seconded.

There are no Tournament players saying "For God's sake, don't have any fun while playing!"

Kilkrazy wrote:

Seconded.

There are no Tournament players saying "For God's sake, don't have any fun while playing!"

Hush! We all know that Tournament Gamers are Very Bad People that never smile and don't, technically, have souls.

Polonius wrote:I know that no matter how badly I want to have fun, if I take 10 man stormtrooper squads in chimeras they're a suboptimal unit.

I have that exact same feeling go through my head every time I play my Inquisitorial Stormtrooper army. I have 6 such units. One of squads has Grenade Launchers. I know they're terrible, but I field them because it's fun to me. But what is fun to me might not be fun for someone else, and I'm damn well not about to tell them to not play competativley because I want to use 60 Kasrkin models just because they look cool.

Polonius wrote:So, while I can write a list to any power level, my instinct is to take the units that are good. I think most tournament players are like me: we like to use units that accomplish things, and we avoid units that don't. Part of it is theory, part experience, but through reason and experience even a casual build will generally be built around solid units. So, I'm sorry if it bothers you that I wish units were more property balanced. I would like to be able to take Ogryn and Chimeras and Tech priests and Commissars without the knowledge that I'm taking a unit that sucks. I can't avoid thinking that.

This is exactly the way I play.

I can't ignore the fact that, as the great Mauleed once said, not all units are created equal - some just suck. To add to what he said, I'm not going to take units that suck in the 'spirit of fun'. That's nonsense. I'm going to take units that work so I have a chance of winning.

The 'let's have fun/casual gamer' crowd here would label me a power gamer/win at all costs gamer for saying that, because they equate 'playing to win' with 'power gamer'.

I know that when I play my Daemonhunters or Witch Hunters that my chances aren't good. I don't play GKs or SoBs. I play Inquisition, pure and simple, with their hopeless Rogue's Gallery of units that are all terrible (I've got Archos, Assassins, loads of Henchman, Priests, Daemonhosts, Inquisi Storm Troopers - no Penitent Engines yet though! ). I back it up with some good allies (Marines usually), but I know the army is on the back foot right from the start. I still play to win though, because we all play to win. No one wants to lose. No one plays for the draw. 'Stalemate' is never a mission objective.

And I have fun doing it, but because I have fun this way doesn't mean that it's the only way to have fun.

Polonius wrote:or that Pentitent Engines are awful

Honestly the only reasons I haven't bought a Squadron of those is due to cost ($$$) and because they're all metal and spindly and I can't be bothered putting them together. Don't care how terrible they are (I know how terrible they are), they do look cool...

BYE

I mean, the most interesting part of this is that GW is writing better codexes all the time. Compare the late third edition books (Chaos excepted) with the early third, or fourth with third, or the late fourth/fifth ed codices with any of them. It's hard to find a truly bad unit in, say, Codex Eldar or the new SM book. In addition, it's getting harder to put together lousy units as well: SM tactical now come free with special/heavy, and Chaos Cult units come bundled with all the rules and wargear you can take.

If nothing else, the fact that loots are what qualify as the most broken unit in the codex is a mild compliment to GW: lootas are good but in no way stupidly good. It's only in spamming 45 that they become overpowering, and even that is situational depending on the army. I'm not even sure they're that undercosted. I'd balance them with a lower squad size or switch the d3 shots to 1=1, 2-5=2, and 6= 3. Additionally, dropping the range to 36" would have helped.

The point is, they'd still be a fun unit, but a mech eldar player would feel less violated when the 45 lootas lit his skimmers up.

Polonius wrote:I know that no matter how badly I want to have fun, if I take 10 man stormtrooper squads in chimeras they're a suboptimal unit.

Pfft. I generally won't even take Chimeras anymore. They just don't do what I think they're supposed to do, so I take something else that at least does what I want it to. Thankfully, I've got the minis to allow me the luxury of ignoring those parts of the list that don't make sense.

Polonius wrote:I mean, the most interesting part of this is that GW is writing better codexes all the time. Compare the late third edition books (Chaos excepted) with the early third, or fourth with third, or the late fourth/fifth ed codices with any of them. It's hard to find a truly bad unit in, say, Codex Eldar or the new SM book.

I know some posters who'd take you to task for not including C: CSM in that example, but I generally agree that the newer Codices are much better-balanced within and among themselves.

Personally, I'm not a fan of the SM Codex. I've been poring over it, looking for inspiration to redo my SM, and I'm just not feeling the love for 10-man Tactical squads surrounded by a smattering of expensive chromey, shooty whatnots. I think I'm pretty certain to be going forward as a Blood Angels player.

Polonius wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

Seconded.

There are no Tournament players saying "For God's sake, don't have any fun while playing!"

Hush! We all know that Tournament Gamers are Very Bad People that never smile and don't, technically, have souls.

Does that make Dakka Dakka the wargaming equivalent of the vampire freaks forum?

Ratbarf wrote:

Big surprise.

Quite honestly, I hate Orks. They are (you were just waiting for this) so overpowered it's not even funny. Seriously though, you'd have thought that they would have made Orks orange to complete their cheesiness.

Sure, they have a 6+ armor save. It doesn't matter, though, since they have T4, and will pretty much always get a 4+ cover save.

Oh please they are not cheesy. Have you tried the thirty DA Vets with Storm bolters against them yet? Yah its 750 points, but that 750 points can stay out of range of your armies boyz, will easily get cover saves from your own boyz that protect your lootas. And should eat said boyz in combat if they get to close. Throw in two two whirlies and you have an Ork killing army.

Even better? Try the the three thunderfire list. Have fun with 12 cover ignoring str 5 blast templates a turn for only 300 points.

Oh whats that? is that cheassing I hear? Oh noes...

Oh wait! I get it! Thank you, sir, for helping me figure out what is wrong with my army.

I don't play Space Mureenz! Well, this clears everything up. If I had played Space Mureenz, I wouldn't have problems!

Gosh, I guess that I should go plunk down some serious $ into them, eh?

Anyway, is saying that Orks are cheesy a bad thing? Perhaps, I guess that it may lie in my attitude towards them.

It's not because I'm an incompetent general, oh, and before any of your say anything, I've compensated and added more anti-horde to my army.

My friend who plays Orks says that I did EVERYTHING right in my games against his Orks. There has to be something wrong with that, I'm sorry, but there has to be.

It is one thing to say that a unit is overpriced or suboptimal. Those are statements of, more or less, fact.

It is another to call a unit cheesy.

The difference is in the inference. Language is a neat tool. By stating that a unit is underpriced, you make a simple statement that doesn't try and force values on the unit.

By saying that it is cheesy, you imply that it is somehow unethical, or not-valid. Declaring something as cheesy is a way of writing it off, without considering alternatives or solutions. The player who says, "I can't beat lootas, they're cheesy" is setting themselves up to fail everytime they encounter lootas.

If you want to have a rational discussion, use words that don't attach values to the subject of conversation. Lootas are possibly underpriced. Now, how do we deal with them?

If you want to rant and protect your ego from losses against people running lootas, by all means, keep calling them cheesy (or lame, or beardy or whatever other slur you come up with).

What do you play then? You had earlier said that orks are way overpowered. Well guess what, I gave a list that should be able to wipe lootas before they do too much damage to the rest of your army. I don't think I ever read what you played in your posts. But serioulsy tell me what you play. I bet there is something in there that can beat orks.

Hi again.
I suppose the reason most people use emotive language in reference to thier games of 40k is they get emotionaly attached to thier armies. (Even if its just frustration from spending X amount of time and money , and it NOT being able to live up to expetations on the games table! .)

The gamers that like competative play, bemoan the lack of provable ballance and the undercosting -overcosting of units in 40k.
A valid and reasonable argument, IMO.

The reason 'casual gamers' dont want GW to move 40k towards a more suitable for competative rule sets is simply this.
They belive GW can only achive ballance by reducing the amount of player options.
(With very valid reasons.GW have systematicaly removed the narrative rules/options from 40k game play , and STILL fail to sufficiently improve ballance... )

Currently the 40k rule set is a marketing strategy, with some concessions made to game play at the eleveth hour.The fact that the game play is a good as it is, is testiment to the talent of the GW studio staff.IMO.

IF GW actualy wrote a rule set specificaly for 40k ,I am sure they could get much better results.

As a lot of forum members have only played GW games and some only 40k.
Its a bit difficult for me to point out the basic development -design flaws with the current 40k rule set.I am NOT attacking the art -background or anyone in particular.

Perhaps an analagy might help?
40k has a wide and varied units that needs to be covered effectively by rules and stats.
If we compare this diversity to the diversity found in fruit.

How to define fruit,
Size.
Shape.
Colour.
Mass.
Skin texture.
Firmness of pulp.
Sweetness.
Pip frequency
Pip location.
Etc.
All fruits can be ACCURATLEY defined by using the apropriate statistics.And we can easily directly compare fruit to each other.

GWs 40k method applied to fruit.
'Most fruit is either an Apple or an Orange!Grapes are like small apples and Satsumas Clemantines are like small oranges...yeah that works great!'

So we get, Apple Variants and Orange Variants.
And have to describe everything in reference to this very limited frame work.
Bannana, is an 'Orange' with the 'elongated pale variety ','no pips' special rules.Strawberry is an 'Apple' with the 'small red variety', 'pips on the out side', special rules. Etc

So we end up with lots of additional data(special rules) that STILL fails the define the element-unit with any sort of accuracy.(Especialy in direct comparison.)

The current 40k rule set allows for a co-operative narrative dice rolling game.

A 40k rule set developed for a ballanced competative game play (tournaments) would have to be very different to the current rule set.(Especialy if it was to be a tactical rich wargame.)
Defining 'in game abilities' directly and accuratley.(Mobility, Defencive capability, Offencive capability, Command and Control.)

I hope this helps to explain my thoughts a bit better.

TTFN
Lanrak.

It seems to me that non-tournament players wanting a wide range of clearly defined unbalanced options with freewheeling possibilities is (a) a contradiction in terms and (b) useless given that if you want to play narrative games you can just invent what you want.

On what Polonius said about codices getting better all the time, I'd just like to chime in.
I was on the train recently with my 2nd edition and 4th edition ork codices. Let me tell you, things have come a long way!
For one, army variety and fun is better catered for. The rules fit the fluff better. There is actually miles more fluff in the new book, and it's better written and makes more sense. There's better artwork, and the miniatures are leagues ahead.
They actually provide stats for all the units in the book, shock horror!
2nd edition was far more wildy unbalanced and unfun. You think Lootas are bad, check out Vortex Grenades.
So while I'm so unhappy with GWs current design philosophy as expressed by Jervis via Redbeard that I've cancelled my planned Daemon army and won't be touching WFB for the next few releases at best, I still think they are improving. I just don't see the point of feeding their stupid notion that players like me are doing it "wrong". I'd also like to support H.B.M.C. in his post about what is and isn't fun for people.

Lanrak wrote:Hi again.
I suppose the reason most people use emotive language in reference to thier games of 40k is they get emotionaly attached to thier armies.

Most of the 'emotive language' is just plain bullying.

Whats the fuss about Lootas?

Yeah, they effectively stot about with Autocannons, but they are still BS2, lightly armoured and fairly easy to kill if you put your mind to it.

And how do they slaughter Marines every time? The Guns are AP4, which means, statiscally, 1 in 3 wounds will actually nobble something. Even if they roll the magic 30 shots....

Ratbarf wrote:What do you play then? You had earlier said that orks are way overpowered. Well guess what, I gave a list that should be able to wipe lootas before they do too much damage to the rest of your army. I don't think I ever read what you played in your posts. But serioulsy tell me what you play. I bet there is something in there that can beat orks.

Perhaps cheesy is the wrong word. Underpriced would be a better one. Or perhaps, more like frustrating because they are way better than they should be. On the charge, they're like a normal Space Marine, except that they're less than half the cost of a Space Marine.

My armies are in my signature. Imperial Guard/LatD, and Eldar. I haven't tried the Eldar against them yet, but I'll probably end up winning as the Eldar list I've made is purely for killing hordes. (I.e. Lots of Wraithlords, Striking Scorpions, the Avatar, and flamers)

I don't mind losing, quite honestly. It's not that big of a deal. I've lost against my friend's Ravenwing/Deathwing, but why didn't I call them overpowered/underpriced? Because it was fair.

It's just frustrating when I'm playing IG, as Orks have better guns, just as good shooting, and annihilate me in melee. And there is quite literally no feasible way to deal with it. Of course, it didn't help that I had to fight against them AND against a Chaos army, and that I didn't get any help from my ally.

I'm just rambling now, by this point I can't even really say that I care much anymore, except that I still stand by my comments. I'll just wait for everyone to call me a bigot or a sore loser.

But what I never understood is the argument that if something is cheesy or overpowered, then it's my fault. It's not my fault.
For some reason, to me that just doesn't seem right, it just doesn't seem right at all. Some things are overpowered, no matter how good you are.

I agree that in general the newer books are better written. However, I just can't get over what GW is doing to the chaos background. That was really what got me into warhammer in the first place. And in my opinion, GW is ruining the background for the sake of sales. Can I get pill that makes me forget all about how cool chaos is?

Vladsimpaler:

Have you tried a guard army maxing HBs and battle cannons? If there is one thing that orks have tough times getting rid of heavy tanks. Take 3 russes, position them so you can only see their frount armour or stick them in cover. (Better if you can do both but only advisable if it gives you good firing lanes. Though am not sure if the BC is barrage or not.) So in all your squads the heavy weapon should be HB and possibly a grenade launcher for the special. (Or a plasma but grenade is cheaper and frag is better against horde in my opinion.) If you can get enough HB shots downwind and use the BCs to devastate the Lootas you should be able to kill the orks.

As for Eldar, Take two fire prisms and a Tooled up falcon to deliver some Striking Scorpian goodness. Or take a Storm Guardian horde. Avater, 120 Storm Guardians, and three Fire prisms should be able to do away with thos epesky orks, seeing as your faster foot wise than they are and your entire army strikes before they do and is fearless. (But watch the Avater as he will get really hurt by 45 lootas. Would advise blocking him with a Prism or waiting until the pirsms have killed his lootas to take him out of cover and into the advance. The Fleet rule of Eldar should let you move fast enough to cover the board in thre turns or so.

So what you're saying is that a list designed to beat Orks is capable of beating Orks?

What a shocking revelation.

BYE

Yep, he asked for one, kinda.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Whats the fuss about Lootas?

Yeah, they effectively stot about with Autocannons, but they are still BS2, lightly armoured and fairly easy to kill if you put your mind to it.

And how do they slaughter Marines every time? The Guns are AP4, which means, statiscally, 1 in 3 wounds will actually nobble something. Even if they roll the magic 30 shots....

Pick up a calculator and do some basic math, and/or play with or against Lootaz a few times. Lootaz don't deserve all of the fuss they get, but they certainly do lay down efficient, and versatile firepower from great distances, even against T4 SV3+ units. Furthermore, most boards have little or no terrain that significantly interferes with line of sight.

volair wrote: Furthermore, most boards have little or no terrain that significantly interferes with line of sight.

This, of course, is a bigger problem than any perceived unit imbalance, and more easily solved by individual players. Don't play this way. The book says use a mix of LOS blocking terrain. Make some.

This is the problem here and what will diminish the game by every period of time untill they adress it. I know this is just a forum rant buy ill tag along on it.

For start I was a competative player for years, both 40k and fantasy. Owned 6-7 armies and spent ALOT of money on gw stuff, not because of the minis but because of the game. Now im a casual gamer in my friends basements and spend less then 1/10 probably closer to 1/100 of what I used to spend, so thats a huge netloss for them. And the main reson of this is that they cant do their damned job and write decent rules(im not expekting perfect). Thats not sound buisness in my opinion at least.

And ofcourse having the spokesman of a company go out and tell pepole that they know they are doing a very poor job and they dont care, doesnt really fill you with credibility for that said company(regardless of buisness).

To top if off, since Orcs are totally dominating everything ever since that book came out, it really does diminish the victories people get from them. The strategy part is severly flawed and is pretty much like people said, like playing with multiple queens in a chess game. Kudos to everyone winning with them but it really doesnt show anything about your skill, except for brining the optimal army at the current ruleset.

Why exactly are Lootas considered death to everything on the board?

Against MEQs they get:
30 shots
10 hits
8.33 wounds
2.77 failed saves

So you have 225 points of pure, imobile shooting killing 45 points a turn. On average, they won't make their cost back until turn 5, and they're not exactly the game's most resilient unit.

Guard have a harder time against horde orks than many other armies because they can't beat them with combat resolution and they don't have the ammount of anti-infantry that tau have.

Heavy bolters aren't the greatest anti-ork weapon around actually. I would recomend sacrificial squads backed up by squads with flamers; I know some guard players haven't fully used 5th edition's inability to consolidate into close combat.

Russes and demolishers can also be hard for orks to kill, especially if they have infantry guarding them. Hellhounds can take lootas out of the picture quickly, if they don't get shot down first (hide them behind you battle tanks).

Dear Orkesaurus,

The issue is that there are THREE units of Lootas. So, that's 8 dead marines a turn (8 used to be a large squad). They don't have to be mobile because they have the range to reach across the board. Properly positioned you should only be taking 1 hit from a plasma cannon and 3 hits from a Demolisher cannon per turn. Oh, and you can penetrate light armor....

But, I digress. I suggest in this thread that the Codex Orks is broken for tournament play. Evidence, EVERY GT THIS YEAR WAS WON BY ORKS. At the Baltimore GT, guess what, ORKS WIN TOP TWO BATTLE SCORES!!!!!

Orks are underpriced by at least a point per figure. The newest SM codex does not appear to have affected Ork dominance. Have fun playing against Orks, game after stinking game. I've lost interest.

Yes...three units of 10 Lootas, with T4 and a 6+Sv costing....225x3...anyone? Anyone at all? Bueller? Bueller? Anyone? No? Dust?

675 points of exceedingly easily killed Orkses. And frankly, if it takes the combined firepower of 3 units to threaten a single unit of my own, I think I'm doing something right, especially when such a massive chunk of my opponents army is tied up in 3 fairly easily killed units.

8 Marines cost 120 points. Over 6 turns, this equates to 720 points killed, assuming no upgrades etc are killed. Assuming of course that none of the Orks ever get killed, and ingoring the average number of shots would be 2 each (or 60 shots, 20 hits, 18ish wounds and 6 dead Marines) things like even less Rosey.

But I'm sure you number crunched this accurately of course.

Now now, it's not that bad. You only have to play against orks on the top tables. Just avoid the top tables and everything is sunshine, rainbows, and new marine codex.

The real issue here is thread necromancy.

...but I'll leave it open for now.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Yes...three units of 10 Lootas, with T4 and a 6+Sv costing....225x3...anyone? Anyone at all? Bueller? Bueller? Anyone? No? Dust?

8 Marines cost 120 points. Over 6 turns, this equates to 720 points killed, assuming no upgrades etc are killed. Assuming of course that none of the Orks ever get killed, and ingoring the average number of shots would be 2 each (or 60 shots, 20 hits, 18ish wounds and 6 dead Marines) things like even less Rosey.

But I'm sure you number crunched this accurately of course.

I actually did the number crunching for a squad of 15.

Thats even cacker then!

Good lord!

And a Demolisher only hitting 3 of them...thats a big old template...which means the Boyz are neatly spread out, which of course means, when I assult them, I can kill loads, and they can't. Even betterer!