34439
Post by: Formosa
 Peregrine wrote:
Hardly anyone played Apocalypse, and for good reasons.
The problem is, oh mighty bird, that said big and expensive toys are heinously broken and incredibly unbalanced in many cases. Some of them are okayish, but for the most part they are just another symbol of the power creep that is slowly taking over 40K and making basic troops less and less relevant.
Like I said, this is a problem with individual unit rules. The solution is to nerf Wraithknights, limit LoW to a 0-1 option (yes, including knights), etc, not to take those units out of the game entirely.
Well, the problem here is the power creep. A 50 man blob of guard costs more than a Wraithknight and will be unable to hurt it, whereas the Wraithknight will walk all over it. The same with an Imperial Knight.
So what? Why does the 50-man IG blob matter? An IG blob (without heavy/special weapons, since if it has those it can hurt LoW) is a tough scoring and meatshield unit with a primary role of taking up space on the table and a secondary role of killing infantry through volume of fire. Of course it's going to be disappointing when you treat it as an anti-tank unit and ask it to deal with tanks and MCs. If anything we'd have a significant balance problem if the 50-man blob could deal with those LoW effectively, as there would be little reason to take any other units.
These units are big and, with a few notable exceptions, really powerful. They can walk all over entire armies, and many have weapons that delete entire platoons in a single shot (looking at you Stormsword) without allowing any cover saves at all. They are extremely poweful and extremely tough and having even one can seriously shift the balance in your favour (taking said Stormsword against non DP/DS Marines for instance) whilst an ill-prepared opponent will struggle to deal with a Baneblade or Knight (hell, even a prepared one can struggle, I have seen Knights shrug off 'D' hits like they where nothing) and this can really ruin the balance of the game.
Sure, of course LoW are going to beat an unprepared opponent. But at this point you have to ask why people are not prepared for LoW. They're part of the game, so you should expect to be able to deal with a single Baneblade or knight.
And a Stormsword isn't going to be deleting a whole platoon with one shot unless you bunch your models up into perfect template formation. Proper use of 2" spacing can significantly reduce the number of hits you take. And yeah, marines are going to feel some pain, but that should be expected when you're talking about a 450+ point unit designed to kill elite infantry.
Furthermore, these large units are just another aspect of the stupid power bloat that has been toxifying 40K. Remember the days when a SH was limited to Apocalypse only, unless your opponent agreed to its use? Remember when even a single one was a massive threat, and seeing one caused the whole store to focus on the battle? When seeing two or more on the same side was the sole preserve of major Apoc games (IE, store organised day+ long ones)? Well, I do. What happened? When did bringing a SH unit become a commonplace thing? How did it happen?
Because it shouldnt have. It should never have happened and it should never have continued.
It happened because "Apocalypse only" sucked. Apocalypse sucks, it's barely a game and almost never fun. So you either put everything into the standard game, or you don't make those things at all. Now that GW has made superheavies/flyers/etc those things are part of the game and they're not going anywhere.
in all fairness peregrine, thats just your opinion, i liked and still like apocalypse, but since i play 30k excusivly now, i cant really comment on how 40k at large is doing, but here is why i stopped playing 40k.
formations: anyone that knows me, knows i hate mechanics where you auto pass a roll of some sort, and i also hate "free" rules handed out for no particular reason aaaaand another thing i dislike is being confined and being forced to take XYZ in order to actually play the game effectivly, Formations add all this to greater and lesser degrees, so im not a fan of the horendibad formations and there ballance.
Power creep: 40k is a bleeding mess, worse than its ever been in my 27 years of playing on and off, 3rd had its issues, so did 4th, 5th and .... 6th... ergh, but its never been as bad as it is now, the difference between say orks and Tau, Eldar... and everyone else really, is so big it makes playing pick up games a real headache, i used to be able to rock up with an all comers army and get a fairly (not perfect) even game, now you almost have to tailor to beat certain armies, this is exacerbated by formations.
SSSSSSOOOOO MMMAAAANNNNNNYYY BOOOOOKKKSSS!!: jesus, back when 3rd had chapter approved, it still wasnt as bad as this, my mate the other day raised a good point, buy Blood angels codex, then all the supplements, formations etc. its gets stupid, add to this the much needed, in some cases DESPERATELY needed books that actually need updating (chaos, Orks, Tau, Eldar, SISTERS and more) to either fix the stupid ballance or just bring them in line, all the wasted time on supplements like traitors hate, for gods sake GW, stop wasting time, fix chaos, release sisters, nerf eldar, fix orks, nerf tau (slightly), nerf necrons (slightly) buff guard (slightly) i could go on.
Lords of war: this is plain slowed, how can a warhound be in the same catagory as Azrael, why are some armies allowed to take nothing but lords of war (eldar, Knights), its horrible for ballance and the game in general, add to that the utter stupidity of the points costs of these things, 30k at least did it kind of right, allow lords of war, but at 25% allowance of total points, this needs to be put into 40k if lords of war are staying.
i could go on, but the point is this, 40k is such a total mess right now i just dont want to play it, i get my GW fix from 30k, which may not be perfect, but its a damn sight better than the nonsense that is current 40k.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
 Vaktathi wrote:Pretty much all of which apply now to the normal game, and we're seeing players dropping off as a result. At least I am.
They really don't apply to 7th edition. The problem with Apocalypse wasn't balance or huge models, it was the sheer model count. You have to spend a whole day to play an Apocalypse game and you're lucky if you manage to finish 2-3 turns, each of which involves one team slogging through half an hour or more (and very often a lot more) of doing nothing but rolling saves and removing models before they get to make any meaningful decisions. And because of the extreme model count and time constraints it's almost impossible to coordinate any kind of strategy between players, so the game devolves into "roll dice to see how many models you remove until no models are left or everyone gets bored". 7th edition 40k, for all its flaws, is at least a game that can be completed in a reasonable amount of time.
The issue is that it actually does nothing particularly well except board presence because of the power bloat.
Sure, but that's an issue that has very little to do with LoW. The 50-man blob suffers most from the combination of infantry death stars (which are virtually immune to lasgun fire) displacing "normal" infantry in the metagame, and insanely efficient volume of fire units like scatter laser jetbikes completely taking over the shooting role. If those things weren't a problem the fact that a unit that isn't intended for the anti-tank role isn't very good at killing tanks wouldn't be a problem.
More to the point, when we're talking about 50 man blobs and superheavies, and the fact that the superheavy and blob are only a fraction of either army generally, we're getting beyond what a 28mm game on a 6'x4' table with model centric rules is really capable of portraying with acceptable functionality, and things break down massively when we're not playing scenarios and tables designed specifically around such a thing (which GW doesn't do squat to provide).
And here's where I disagree. The game functions just fine at ~2000 points on a 6x4 table with a Baneblade or similar unit on each side. In fact, I think it functions better in that case because the LoW puts a lot of points into a very small footprint (both physically and in how long it takes to execute its actions), making a 2000 point game feel more like a 1500 point game and significantly helping 40k's problem with table space at high point levels.
The issue then is on GW to support and market these adequately, not just one and leave the rest to rot as they've done in the past.
I don't think it's possible to support both. 40k is already a really expensive game at normal point totals, if you separate all of the LoW/flyers/etc into a new "not Apocaypse" game you're going to be limited to the handful of players who have the time and money to build appropriate armies. And that almost guarantees that the game will fail.
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
Peregrine wrote:
They really don't apply to 7th edition. The problem with Apocalypse wasn't balance or huge models, it was the sheer model count. You have to spend a whole day to play an Apocalypse game and you're lucky if you manage to finish 2-3 turns, each of which involves one team slogging through half an hour or more (and very often a lot more) of doing nothing but rolling saves and removing models before they get to make any meaningful decisions. And because of the extreme model count and time constraints it's almost impossible to coordinate any kind of strategy between players, so the game devolves into "roll dice to see how many models you remove until no models are left or everyone gets bored". 7th edition 40k, for all its flaws, is at least a game that can be completed in a reasonable amount of time.
7E 40k takes more time than previous editions in my experience. Between model counts increasing as units are continually made cheaper (or are just given for free), and more rules with more details and more rolling get added, the game takes longer than ever.
Going back to 5E for example, I didn't have to worry about armies with a dozen extra free transports, or 600pts of free wargear and special rules, and I didn't have to roll for warlord traits, mysterious terrain, mysterious objectives, psychic powers, maelstrom objectives, values of maelstrom objectives, recording and recordkeeping maelstrom objectives, etc. I didn't have to worry about formations (another Apoc import which kinda worked in the shitshow of Apoc but were even less well handled when imported to the main rules) or multiple detachments or allies or any of that nonsense that complicates and lengthens games.
Sure, but that's an issue that has very little to do with LoW. The 50-man blob suffers most from the combination of infantry death stars (which are virtually immune to lasgun fire) displacing "normal" infantry in the metagame, and insanely efficient volume of fire units like scatter laser jetbikes completely taking over the shooting role. If those things weren't a problem the fact that a unit that isn't intended for the anti-tank role isn't very good at killing tanks wouldn't be a problem.
In some respects sure, but even when kitted for AT work with meltabombs, nearly a dozen anti-tank weapons like lascannons and meltaguns, they're still not very good.
And, as noted, SH/ GC units aren't the only sources of power bloat, but they are a big source of it.
And here's where I disagree. The game functions just fine at ~2000 points on a 6x4 table with a Baneblade or similar unit on each side. In fact, I think it functions better in that case because the LoW puts a lot of points into a very small footprint (both physically and in how long it takes to execute its actions), making a 2000 point game feel more like a 1500 point game and significantly helping 40k's problem with table space at high point levels.
Herein lies the problem. The Baneblade type units are an exception to the rule, most SH units do not fit the same power paradigm, and are built with an entirely different array of abilities. A Baneblade works because it's basically 3 Leman Russ tanks in one package. Leman Russ tanks are largely acknowledged as being undercapable units built to a previous edition paradigm, and thus, so is the Baneblade (especially with its inexplicable cost increase in the 2013 Apoc book). An army of Knights is an entirely different thing, they are highly mobile, able to potentially traverse up to 24" of tablespace a turn, sporting invul saves without needing auxiliary units for support the way a BB would to take advantage of such a thing, and are capable at both shooting and close combat, likewise with Wraithknights. Once we start getting into things like Warhounds, the firepower quotient spikes dramatically over equivalent points of something like a Baneblade or Malcador. Two Warhounds are going to utterly obliterate three Baneblades and might not even lose their shields in the process.
Even taking model count out of the equation, when we start having games with these kinds of units, it makes the granularity of the ruleset appear absurd. Why on earth are we bothering with an individual melee challenge between an IG Sergeant and an Eldar Exarch and worrying about what type of blade that Sergeant's powerweapon has in a battle involving superheavy tanks, aircraft, and artillery, with over a hundred models on the table?
I don't think it's possible to support both. 40k is already a really expensive game at normal point totals, if you separate all of the LoW/flyers/etc into a new "not Apocaypse" game you're going to be limited to the handful of players who have the time and money to build appropriate armies. And that almost guarantees that the game will fail.
That might be true, but the game is already failing and one thing that consistently comes up as a cause of frustration for players is the super units.
3750
Post by: Wayniac
Problem is that having like ONE baneblade or equivalent is fine, it makes a nice "centerpiece" model to build the rest of your force around. It's when you see like 2 Imperial Knights, or big Forgeworld flyers, or whatnot that it gets imbalanced.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Wayniac wrote:It's when you see like 2 Imperial Knights, or big Forgeworld flyers, or whatnot that it gets imbalanced.
The "big Forgeworld flyers" are almost universally bad, maybe mediocre at best. Perhaps, given this lack of understanding and your own admission that you haven't played 40k since 3rd edition, you shouldn't comment on 40k balance issues?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vaktathi wrote:7E 40k takes more time than previous editions in my experience. Between model counts increasing as units are continually made cheaper (or are just given for free), and more rules with more details and more rolling get added, the game takes longer than ever.
I admit that it takes longer (and I'm certainly not going to defend all the "roll dice to see how many dice to roll and FORGE A NARRATIVE" garbage), but it's still roughly the same game. The problems with time and model count in 7th can be fixed without fundamental changes to the idea of what a standard 40k game is. But you can't do that with Apocalypse. Its problems are inherent to the concept of "play a really huge game", and it's never going to be appealing as a regular thing no matter what 8th edition does.
In some respects sure, but even when kitted for AT work with meltabombs, nearly a dozen anti-tank weapons like lascannons and meltaguns, they're still not very good.
Sure, but that's because you're trying to make an anti-tank unit out of a unit that isn't meant to be one. Yeah, it might be worth throwing in those weapon upgrades in case you get an opportunity to use them, but you're never going to consider an infantry blob a primary anti-tank unit. And when you compare things like melta vets/ CCS to LoW it gets a lot less one-sided.
The Baneblade type units are an exception to the rule, most SH units do not fit the same power paradigm, and are built with an entirely different array of abilities. A Baneblade works because it's basically 3 Leman Russ tanks in one package. Leman Russ tanks are largely acknowledged as being undercapable units built to a previous edition paradigm, and thus, so is the Baneblade (especially with its inexplicable cost increase in the 2013 Apoc book). An army of Knights is an entirely different thing, they are highly mobile, able to potentially traverse up to 24" of tablespace a turn, sporting invul saves without needing auxiliary units for support the way a BB would to take advantage of such a thing, and are capable at both shooting and close combat, likewise with Wraithknights. Once we start getting into things like Warhounds, the firepower quotient spikes dramatically over equivalent points of something like a Baneblade or Malcador. Two Warhounds are going to utterly obliterate three Baneblades and might not even lose their shields in the process.
I don't think this is really true. By the numbers most superheavies are around Baneblade level or less. And even with things like the Warhound the problem is less the Warhound itself and more the D-spam, two Warhounds without turbolasers vs. three Baneblade-class tanks is a much closer match. The issue is that in competitive games people only take the most powerful options, so the handful of Wraithknight-level stuff gets spammed everywhere and the majority of reasonable stuff is ignored.
Even taking model count out of the equation, when we start having games with these kinds of units, it makes the granularity of the ruleset appear absurd. Why on earth are we bothering with an individual melee challenge between an IG Sergeant and an Eldar Exarch and worrying about what type of blade that Sergeant's powerweapon has in a battle involving superheavy tanks, aircraft, and artillery, with over a hundred models on the table?
Sure, but that's a problem for 40k regardless of LoW. And, while it's not ideal that the scaling problem exists in the current game, the game can still function with LoW. It's a problem that exists because of specific poorly designed rules, not the general concept of "have big tanks in a 28mm game".
That might be true, but the game is already failing and one thing that consistently comes up as a cause of frustration for players is the super units.
And the primary reason for that is specific "super units" that are blatantly overpowered and not fun to play against. Nerf Wraithknights/D-spam titans/knight spam/etc and I suspect that most of those complaints will go away.
105798
Post by: Gen.Steiner
At least it's still fun to collect the armies.
My little Black Templars force is really nice. It's never seen play, and perhaps never will, but when it's got its transports done it'll be all self-contained and warm and fuzzy. For example.
I play 40K now to laugh at the complete stupidity of it all.
97198
Post by: Nazrak
Something that seems to come up a lot in these sorts of threads is people complaining that "points creep" or whatever means you need more models to play the same game. But, forgive me if I'm missing something, but why not just play a smaller-points game? (For example, the 1,000 points of Orks I just finished painting has roughly the same model count as the sample 2,000-point army from the 1st ed. army book.) I don't really understand what people's problem is with playin to smaller points limits, if they have an objection to the numbers of models required to meet a (entirely arbitrary, and in no way dictated by the rules) points limit.
99166
Post by: Ruin
 Nazrak wrote:Something that seems to come up a lot in these sorts of threads is people complaining that "points creep" or whatever means you need more models to play the same game. But, forgive me if I'm missing something, but why not just play a smaller-points game? (For example, the 1,000 points of Orks I just finished painting has roughly the same model count as the sample 2,000-point army from the 1st ed. army book.) I don't really understand what people's problem is with playin to smaller points limits, if they have an objection to the numbers of models required to meet a (entirely arbitrary, and in no way dictated by the rules) points limit.
Because those size games are not the community accepted standard. People will build armies for 1500/1750/1850/2000pt armies as those are what the majority of people play. You'll get the occasional person coming in wanting to play 500pts or something but this is not the norm. If you want to get regular games (especially PUGs) you'll need to build your army to those scales.
34439
Post by: Formosa
Nazrak wrote:Something that seems to come up a lot in these sorts of threads is people complaining that "points creep" or whatever means you need more models to play the same game. But, forgive me if I'm missing something, but why not just play a smaller-points game? (For example, the 1,000 points of Orks I just finished painting has roughly the same model count as the sample 2,000-point army from the 1st ed. army book.) I don't really understand what people's problem is with playin to smaller points limits, if they have an objection to the numbers of models required to meet a (entirely arbitrary, and in no way dictated by the rules) points limit.
your 10000000000000000000% correct, but these people seem to think they MUST play at 1850 +
I started playing 30k at 1250pts, where a rhino actually MATTERS, a pred is a solid choice, a bleeding tactical squad actually has a use, so yes, I agree, I like smaller point games now, as its harder to spam.
47367
Post by: Fenrir Kitsune
 Gen.Steiner wrote:At least it's still fun to collect the armies.
My little Black Templars force is really nice. It's never seen play, and perhaps never will, but when it's got its transports done it'll be all self-contained and warm and fuzzy. For example.
I play 40K now to laugh at the complete stupidity of it all.
The 40K hobby is buying citadel miniatures.
97198
Post by: Nazrak
Ruin wrote: Nazrak wrote:Something that seems to come up a lot in these sorts of threads is people complaining that "points creep" or whatever means you need more models to play the same game. But, forgive me if I'm missing something, but why not just play a smaller-points game? (For example, the 1,000 points of Orks I just finished painting has roughly the same model count as the sample 2,000-point army from the 1st ed. army book.) I don't really understand what people's problem is with playin to smaller points limits, if they have an objection to the numbers of models required to meet a (entirely arbitrary, and in no way dictated by the rules) points limit.
Because those size games are not the community accepted standard. People will build armies for 1500/1750/1850/2000pt armies as those are what the majority of people play. You'll get the occasional person coming in wanting to play 500pts or something but this is not the norm. If you want to get regular games (especially PUGs) you'll need to build your army to those scales.
Well sure, but the "accepted standard" is hardly set in stone. The only way it changes is if people say, for example, "hey, I'm finding 1500+ a bit of a chore these days; how about we bump it down to 1000 and bunk off to the pub like an hour earlier to mull over what we made of it?" Given what a common complaint it seems to be that the "standard" points values make for an unwieldy game these days, it shouldn't be that hard to find people who are going to agree to this.
105798
Post by: Gen.Steiner
It used to be that the standard game size was 1500 and that was what the official tournaments were, so people built armies to that size because it was the most common denominator.
And that was fine.
But then they allowed Super Heavy units and ridiculous death walkers and gigantic creatures and the like in standard normal 40K.
That's where it all went wrong, I think.
20671
Post by: Bartali
Nazrak wrote:Ruin wrote: Nazrak wrote:Something that seems to come up a lot in these sorts of threads is people complaining that "points creep" or whatever means you need more models to play the same game. But, forgive me if I'm missing something, but why not just play a smaller-points game? (For example, the 1,000 points of Orks I just finished painting has roughly the same model count as the sample 2,000-point army from the 1st ed. army book.) I don't really understand what people's problem is with playin to smaller points limits, if they have an objection to the numbers of models required to meet a (entirely arbitrary, and in no way dictated by the rules) points limit.
Because those size games are not the community accepted standard. People will build armies for 1500/1750/1850/2000pt armies as those are what the majority of people play. You'll get the occasional person coming in wanting to play 500pts or something but this is not the norm. If you want to get regular games (especially PUGs) you'll need to build your army to those scales.
Well sure, but the "accepted standard" is hardly set in stone. The only way it changes is if people say, for example, "hey, I'm finding 1500+ a bit of a chore these days; how about we bump it down to 1000 and bunk off to the pub like an hour earlier to mull over what we made of it?" Given what a common complaint it seems to be that the "standard" points values make for an unwieldy game these days, it shouldn't be that hard to find people who are going to agree to this.
I think points are coming down now as games take longer to play due to additional rules and more models on the table. Tournaments seem to heading towards 1500 for example, and my small gaming group is dropping to 1000pts
3750
Post by: Wayniac
I do think lower points helps a great deal (also for AOS). Sure it's cool once in a while to bring out all the big stuff, but a lot of IMHO much more exciting games can be had at like 1000-1250 points, with 1500 being the "upper limit". The issue would be that a lot of the grossly OP things are even worse at lower levels, so you need to (shock! horror!) have a "soft ban" agreement not to use them because at those points, something like a Knight or even flyers can be extra deadly simply because you may not invest points into a "just in case" situation to handle them.
40344
Post by: master of ordinance
Look, the point is Peregrine, that this power creep has gotten out of hand. Right now we have armies that would once have gotten you laughed out of the store being used in standard games. Entire armies of SH units where once a dark joke, but have now become a reality and quite frankly it is horrific.
Now, please do not try and justify your points with the Baneblade and other IG Sh's, as they are all generally acknowledged as heavily under performing units. Look at things like the Knight, which can be taken en mass and has enough firepower and protection to do extremely well. Or the Eldar Wraith Knight which can shred whole armies. Or the Tau Stormsurge which is pretty much a walking bunker.
And then we have the titans - I mean, sweat feth, but there is nothing that can compete with these units. Warhounds alone are not too bad, but they can be deadly as as pointed out will shred a platoon of Baneblades with ease, whilst the Reavers are walking nightmares. And then there is the Warlord, something so horrifically powerful that it is almost impossible to defeat it without either having twice as many points as it of dedicated AT, or having ANOTHER Warlord, and at that point the battle really comes down to whose Warlord wins, as whomever loses their titan will lose the game.
And i the meantime, amid these huge super units slugging away at each other with there massive weapons, and wiping out whole regular units in the process, we have the absurdity of small, individual figures counting on a 1 for 1 scale, and what is more, we are expected to care about the loadout of each individual figure. As someone else said, does it really matter if my IG sergeant has a power weapon, let alone what type it is, or not when we have these super units running rampant around the board? No, it does not.
50 Guardsmen should count for something. All that they do these days is act as chaff and extra targets for my opponent to delete in a turn in order to make some Mary Sue special character or overpowered super unit look even better. This game has gotten out of control, and has now reached a level whereby the failings are tearing it apart.
97198
Post by: Nazrak
Still don't really get why people seem to think that just cos the option's there to use, say, a Warlord Titan, it's somehow compulsory.
Q. "Hey, mind if I use my Warlord for our next game?"
A1. "Sure, sounds bonkers."
A2. "Eh, don't really fancy it this time, I was thinking of using my infantry-heavy Guard today. Maybe something that'll make for a closer game?"
40344
Post by: master of ordinance
Nazrak wrote:Still don't really get why people seem to think that just cos the option's there to use, say, a Warlord Titan, it's somehow compulsory.
Q. "Hey, mind if I use my Warlord for our next game?"
A1. "Sure, sounds bonkers."
A2. "Eh, don't really fancy it this time, I was thinking of using my infantry-heavy Guard today. Maybe something that'll make for a closer game?"
Pick up games are a very common thing in many places.
105713
Post by: Insectum7
Nazrak wrote:Still don't really get why people seem to think that just cos the option's there to use, say, a Warlord Titan, it's somehow compulsory.
Q. "Hey, mind if I use my Warlord for our next game?"
A1. "Sure, sounds bonkers."
A2. "Eh, don't really fancy it this time, I was thinking of using my infantry-heavy Guard today. Maybe something that'll make for a closer game?"
Right? Literally just had a version of this conversation last night.
1: How about a game?
2: Sure
1: Point's level?
2: 2000
1: Friendly list or competetive?
2: Mine's pretty friendly, only two Riptides.
1: Sweet. I'm gonna grab a burrito and put something together. (assembled CAD list without Grav-Cannons)
And a tight, challenging game was had.
And it was a pick up game. Magic!
100300
Post by: niall78
 master of ordinance wrote:
Look, the point is Peregrine, that this power creep has gotten out of hand. Right now we have armies that would once have gotten you laughed out of the store being used in standard games. Entire armies of SH units where once a dark joke, but have now become a reality and quite frankly it is horrific.
Now, please do not try and justify your points with the Baneblade and other IG Sh's, as they are all generally acknowledged as heavily under performing units. Look at things like the Knight, which can be taken en mass and has enough firepower and protection to do extremely well. Or the Eldar Wraith Knight which can shred whole armies. Or the Tau Stormsurge which is pretty much a walking bunker.
And then we have the titans - I mean, sweat feth, but there is nothing that can compete with these units. Warhounds alone are not too bad, but they can be deadly as as pointed out will shred a platoon of Baneblades with ease, whilst the Reavers are walking nightmares. And then there is the Warlord, something so horrifically powerful that it is almost impossible to defeat it without either having twice as many points as it of dedicated AT, or having ANOTHER Warlord, and at that point the battle really comes down to whose Warlord wins, as whomever loses their titan will lose the game.
And i the meantime, amid these huge super units slugging away at each other with there massive weapons, and wiping out whole regular units in the process, we have the absurdity of small, individual figures counting on a 1 for 1 scale, and what is more, we are expected to care about the loadout of each individual figure. As someone else said, does it really matter if my IG sergeant has a power weapon, let alone what type it is, or not when we have these super units running rampant around the board? No, it does not.
50 Guardsmen should count for something. All that they do these days is act as chaff and extra targets for my opponent to delete in a turn in order to make some Mary Sue special character or overpowered super unit look even better. This game has gotten out of control, and has now reached a level whereby the failings are tearing it apart.
On a side note who in their right mind will start infantry heavy armies like Guard when after spending a couple of hundred Euro and painting for months they see their investment nuked off the table in minutes? The effort and expense that goes into such models is a near complete waste depending on the meta you play in.
How many new 40K players just give up after their money and work burns on the table to no effect after the first few games?
If things continue as they are all but the most powerful infantry will become a complete waste and 40K will become a 28mm system where people only use 6-10mm scale super units. Maybe in many metas we are there already. The effect this has on new player capture must be extreme. It's like an arms race that most simply can't afford to keep up with even if they like the idea - which many simply don't.
106383
Post by: JNAProductions
Yeah-talking to your opponent is pretty easy to do. Now, that doesn't always work, but if you have a friendly meta and not a toxic one, you should be able to have plenty of fun.
105713
Post by: Insectum7
niall78 wrote:
On a side note who in their right mind will start infantry heavy armies like Guard when after spending a couple of hundred Euro and painting for months they see their investment nuked off the table in minutes? The effort and expense that goes into such models is a near complete waste depending on the meta you play in.
How many new 40K players just give up after their money and work burns on the table to no effect after the first few games?
If things continue as they are all but the most powerful infantry will become a complete waste and 40K will become a 28mm system where people only use 6-10mm scale super units. Maybe in many metas we are there already. The effect this has on new player capture must be extreme. It's like an arms race that most simply can't afford to keep up with even if they like the idea - which many simply don't.
That experience sucks, it's true. But part of that is on the responsibility of the opponent as well. I would relish the opportunity to play against a Guard infantry army, and I certainly wouldn't then just pack my list with Whirlwinds.
If established players want a good gaming community, they should be putting in some extra effort to make sure people are going to have a decent time. It's just good manners for any social group.
100300
Post by: niall78
 Insectum7 wrote:niall78 wrote:
On a side note who in their right mind will start infantry heavy armies like Guard when after spending a couple of hundred Euro and painting for months they see their investment nuked off the table in minutes? The effort and expense that goes into such models is a near complete waste depending on the meta you play in.
How many new 40K players just give up after their money and work burns on the table to no effect after the first few games?
If things continue as they are all but the most powerful infantry will become a complete waste and 40K will become a 28mm system where people only use 6-10mm scale super units. Maybe in many metas we are there already. The effect this has on new player capture must be extreme. It's like an arms race that most simply can't afford to keep up with even if they like the idea - which many simply don't.
That experience sucks, it's true. But part of that is on the responsibility of the opponent as well. I would relish the opportunity to play against a Guard infantry army, and I certainly wouldn't then just pack my list with Whirlwinds.
If established players want a good gaming community, they should be putting in some extra effort to make sure people are going to have a decent time. It's just good manners for any social group.
I'd agree to a point but many players just don't care or - more importantly - only have a certain amount of models. Even collecting a standard points army is eye wateringly expensive - add in a few supers and the expense rockets again. Not everyone can afford 5K points in miniatures so they can chop and change depending on their opponent.
Frankly it's up to GW to balance their game. Every other company manages to do a much better job. Leaving it to the player-base is as lame and lazy as it gets.
105713
Post by: Insectum7
niall78 wrote:
I'd agree to a point but many players just don't care or - more importantly - only have a certain amount of models. Even collecting a standard points army is eye wateringly expensive - add in a few supers and the expense rockets again. Not everyone can afford 5K points in miniatures so they can chop and change depending on their opponent.
Frankly it's up to GW to balance their game. Every other company manages to do a much better job. Leaving it to the player-base is as lame and lazy as it gets.
I have played every edition from 2nd-7th and there has always been a real possibility that equal pointed armies can be mismatched.
Can the game be better balanced? Yes.
Can players be more responsible about how they play? Totally.
Every successful gaming community I have been a part in has had at least a couple individuals who put in an effort to make sure that nubs aren't just getting repeatedly butchered. There are so many accusations against GW for being lazy. But players themselves can be just as lazy. Netlists, lack of communication and poor terrain are sure-fire (and easy to solve) ways of providing a lousy experience.
11860
Post by: Martel732
Unfortunately, a lot of Eldar players in my group only own the scatbike army, because why own anything else?
105713
Post by: Insectum7
Martel732 wrote:Unfortunately, a lot of Eldar players in my group only own the scatbike army, because why own anything else?
The interesting thing about armies like that is that they tend not to last long. Remember the Wave Serpent spam? It's gone now.
Players who are in it for the long haul tend to have more well-rounded collections, at least in my experience. The other "fix" is if you have someone in the meta who can hard-counter the "fad" army. Then the player with the offending spam usually winds up adjusting.
11860
Post by: Martel732
Insectum7 wrote:Martel732 wrote:Unfortunately, a lot of Eldar players in my group only own the scatbike army, because why own anything else?
The interesting thing about armies like that is that they tend not to last long. Remember the Wave Serpent spam? It's gone now.
Players who are in it for the long haul tend to have more well-rounded collections, at least in my experience. The other "fix" is if you have someone in the meta who can hard-counter the "fad" army. Then the player with the offending spam usually winds up adjusting.
I would take on that role, but I can't hard counter it lol.
100300
Post by: niall78
Martel732 wrote:Unfortunately, a lot of Eldar players in my group only own the scatbike army, because why own anything else?
When you think about it a new player that's clued in will only be buying the 'best' units for their chosen faction. Why buy a 50 unit blob of waste when you can pick up a super for cheaper and have it on the table for a tenth of the effort.
Like I said above eventually 40K will be a game of 28mm super units instead of a recognisable table-top battle system with standard troops.
105713
Post by: Insectum7
The SM hard counter option seems to always be "Drop Pod with unit X". Amusingly, in this case I think just standard bolters (in Drop Pods) are a reasonable place to start. Naturally it all depends on what else is going on, but threatening units into reserve is at least a foothold.
11860
Post by: Martel732
Insectum7 wrote:
The SM hard counter option seems to always be "Drop Pod with unit X". Amusingly, in this case I think just standard bolters (in Drop Pods) are a reasonable place to start. Naturally it all depends on what else is going on, but threatening units into reserve is at least a foothold.
Until the bikes go into reserve and you get to alpha strike two WK with bolters.
105713
Post by: Insectum7
Martel732 wrote: Insectum7 wrote:
The SM hard counter option seems to always be "Drop Pod with unit X". Amusingly, in this case I think just standard bolters (in Drop Pods) are a reasonable place to start. Naturally it all depends on what else is going on, but threatening units into reserve is at least a foothold.
Until the bikes go into reserve and you get to alpha strike two WK with bolters.
Uh huh, that's why I said it depends on what else is going on. In that case you get more Drop Pods and give em some Grav. 
97198
Post by: Nazrak
Martel732 wrote:Unfortunately, a lot of Eldar players in my group only own the scatbike army, because why own anything else?
Because you want to treat the game as a mutually enjoyable experience, maybe?
63000
Post by: Peregrine
master of ordinance wrote:Look, the point is Peregrine, that this power creep has gotten out of hand. Right now we have armies that would once have gotten you laughed out of the store being used in standard games. Entire armies of SH units where once a dark joke, but have now become a reality and quite frankly it is horrific.
Now, please do not try and justify your points with the Baneblade and other IG Sh's, as they are all generally acknowledged as heavily under performing units. Look at things like the Knight, which can be taken en mass and has enough firepower and protection to do extremely well. Or the Eldar Wraith Knight which can shred whole armies. Or the Tau Stormsurge which is pretty much a walking bunker.
And my point is that these balance issues are problems with specific unit rules, not the general concept of LoW in standard games. The Baneblade-level units clearly demonstrate that "huge tank" type units can work just fine in normal games, if their individual unit rules are balanced. The issue with Wraithknights/Stormsurges/etc is that their individual unit rules are way too good, not that units of that type are not appropriate for normal games. If Wraithknights cost 500 points and were limited to 0-1 per army how many people would still complain about them?
Also, who cares about Warlord titans. It's a 3000 point unit that can't be taken in a normal game. It's worth more than 3000 points, but it's a balance issue that will literally never apply to a normal 1-2000 point game.
88903
Post by: Kaiyanwang
Nazrak wrote:Martel732 wrote:Unfortunately, a lot of Eldar players in my group only own the scatbike army, because why own anything else?
Because you want to treat the game as a mutually enjoyable experience, maybe?
You silly.
On the other hand, match my 0-1 each aspect warrior army with my friends 3-4 riptides and see what happens, most of the times 
11860
Post by: Martel732
Nazrak wrote:Martel732 wrote:Unfortunately, a lot of Eldar players in my group only own the scatbike army, because why own anything else?
Because you want to treat the game as a mutually enjoyable experience, maybe?
I've actually started making this pitch. Most counter propose with "get a new army". I guess it's one way of playing into GW's hands.
3750
Post by: Wayniac
Nazrak wrote:Still don't really get why people seem to think that just cos the option's there to use, say, a Warlord Titan, it's somehow compulsory.
Q. "Hey, mind if I use my Warlord for our next game?"
A1. "Sure, sounds bonkers."
A2. "Eh, don't really fancy it this time, I was thinking of using my infantry-heavy Guard today. Maybe something that'll make for a closer game?"
See, the thing is before, those were optional. Your opponent was the prick for wanting to bring some super-powered thing to the table. The problem is that now the default is that it's legit, so YOU are the prick for refusing to let him use an otherwise legal unit.
This is my biggest problem with the change in rules; the guy who wants to bring all this OP crap is no longer in the wrong (when before he was), it's (arguably) the person who doesn't want to let him use it who is the jerk. And that's bullgak. Automatically Appended Next Post: Nazrak wrote:Martel732 wrote:Unfortunately, a lot of Eldar players in my group only own the scatbike army, because why own anything else?
Because you want to treat the game as a mutually enjoyable experience, maybe?
But... but... I only enjoy winning games. Stop making me dumb down my army because you want to make bad choices and expect to do well! The rules let me use it, so why be a donkey-cave and tell me I can't?
The above is sarcasm, but that's how a lot of these people think.
106383
Post by: JNAProductions
Wayniac wrote:See, the thing is before, those were optional. Your opponent was the prick for wanting to bring some super-powered thing to the table. The problem is that now the default is that it's legit, so YOU are the prick for refusing to let him use an otherwise legal unit.
This is my biggest problem with the change in rules; the guy who wants to bring all this OP crap is no longer in the wrong (when before he was), it's (arguably) the person who doesn't want to let him use it who is the jerk. And that's bullgak.
Or, crazy thought here-neither person is a jerk. They just want different things out of the game.
3750
Post by: Wayniac
 JNAProductions wrote:Wayniac wrote:See, the thing is before, those were optional. Your opponent was the prick for wanting to bring some super-powered thing to the table. The problem is that now the default is that it's legit, so YOU are the prick for refusing to let him use an otherwise legal unit. This is my biggest problem with the change in rules; the guy who wants to bring all this OP crap is no longer in the wrong (when before he was), it's (arguably) the person who doesn't want to let him use it who is the jerk. And that's bullgak.
Or, crazy thought here-neither person is a jerk. They just want different things out of the game.
Correct. Neither person is a jerk. The clash only happens because, IMHO, of "pick-up game culture" where two people who want different things out of the game may find that the other is the only opponent they have available that day, and either you come to some sort of agreement (which is rare) or neither person gets a game. In reality I find a lot of the WAAC attitudes are grossly exaggerated. Only a supreme jerk would flat out refuse to remove something if asked nicely, especially if it was because the person obviously didn't have anything to deal with it and it would obviously make for an unfair game. However, part of the underlying issue is that you typically have to ask someone to, for lack of a better term, "dumb down" their list which a lot of people find to be an anathema.
105798
Post by: Gen.Steiner
Or just continue to take an army that is horrendously sub-par and laugh hysterically as it is ritually slaughtered.
I do.
My latest favourite was a 500 point game in my local GW's escalation league.
I took:
Farseer.
5 Dire Avengers.
Falcon.
All upgraded to the limit. 465 points or something silly.
My opponent had 10 Grey Hunters, three Wolf Cavalry Wolf Rider Space Wolves, and a Wolf Lord.
He turn one charged my Falcon with his Wolf Riders and exploded it, after killing two of my Dire Avengers with boltgun fire (I was in cover, too).
My Farseer got off an apocalyptic blast (!!) psychic power that did... 1 wound. Which was saved.
I conceded. He was very apologetic, but quite honestly it was very funny.
20671
Post by: Bartali
Insectum7 wrote: Nazrak wrote:Still don't really get why people seem to think that just cos the option's there to use, say, a Warlord Titan, it's somehow compulsory.
Q. "Hey, mind if I use my Warlord for our next game?"
A1. "Sure, sounds bonkers."
A2. "Eh, don't really fancy it this time, I was thinking of using my infantry-heavy Guard today. Maybe something that'll make for a closer game?"
Right? Literally just had a version of this conversation last night.
1: How about a game?
2: Sure
1: Point's level?
2: 2000
1: Friendly list or competetive?
2: Mine's pretty friendly, only two Riptides.
1: Sweet. I'm gonna grab a burrito and put something together. (assembled CAD list without Grav-Cannons)
And a tight, challenging game was had.
And it was a pick up game. Magic!
Didn't go so well for me around the time of Escalation in 6th ed. The majority of my club wanted to use Super Heavies, I didn't and was told 'You don't have to play'. So I didn't. Stopped playing pick up games and going to tournaments, GW spend dropped of significantly. Play once ever 3-4 months with a couple of friends now who similarly don't want to use Super Heavies or multiple formations/detachments.
As a side note, 40K play has dropped off significantly at the club now, most seem to be playing Bolt Action.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Wayniac wrote:This is my biggest problem with the change in rules; the guy who wants to bring all this OP crap is no longer in the wrong (when before he was), it's (arguably) the person who doesn't want to let him use it who is the jerk. And that's bullgak.
Why? Why do we blame the person who brings the "overpowered" unit and not the person who insists on bringing weak armies and refuses to ever improve them? Why is only one player expected to modify their army to bring their relative power levels closer together?
102111
Post by: Ankhalagon
 Formosa wrote:Like I said, this is a problem with individual unit rules. The solution is to nerf Wraithknights, limit LoW to a 0-1 option (yes, including knights), etc, not to take those units out of the game entirely.
Well, the problem here is the power creep. A 50 man blob of guard costs more than a Wraithknight and will be unable to hurt it, whereas the Wraithknight will walk all over it. The same with an Imperial Knight.
So what? Why does the 50-man IG blob matter? An IG blob (without heavy/special weapons, since if it has those it can hurt LoW) is a tough scoring and meatshield unit with a primary role of taking up space on the table and a secondary role of killing infantry through volume of fire. Of course it's going to be disappointing when you treat it as an anti-tank unit and ask it to deal with tanks and MCs. If anything we'd have a significant balance problem if the 50-man blob could deal with those LoW effectively, as there would be little reason to take any other units.
These units are big and, with a few notable exceptions, really powerful. They can walk all over entire armies, and many have weapons that delete entire platoons in a single shot (looking at you Stormsword) without allowing any cover saves at all. They are extremely poweful and extremely tough and having even one can seriously shift the balance in your favour (taking said Stormsword against non DP/DS Marines for instance) whilst an ill-prepared opponent will struggle to deal with a Baneblade or Knight (hell, even a prepared one can struggle, I have seen Knights shrug off 'D' hits like they where nothing) and this can really ruin the balance of the game.
Sure, of course LoW are going to beat an unprepared opponent. But at this point you have to ask why people are not prepared for LoW. They're part of the game, so you should expect to be able to deal with a single Baneblade or knight.
And a Stormsword isn't going to be deleting a whole platoon with one shot unless you bunch your models up into perfect template formation. Proper use of 2" spacing can significantly reduce the number of hits you take. And yeah, marines are going to feel some pain, but that should be expected when you're talking about a 450+ point unit designed to kill elite infantry.
Furthermore, these large units are just another aspect of the stupid power bloat that has been toxifying 40K. Remember the days when a SH was limited to Apocalypse only, unless your opponent agreed to its use? Remember when even a single one was a massive threat, and seeing one caused the whole store to focus on the battle? When seeing two or more on the same side was the sole preserve of major Apoc games (IE, store organised day+ long ones)? Well, I do. What happened? When did bringing a SH unit become a commonplace thing? How did it happen?
Because it shouldnt have. It should never have happened and it should never have continued.
It happened because "Apocalypse only" sucked. Apocalypse sucks, it's barely a game and almost never fun. So you either put everything into the standard game, or you don't make those things at all. Now that GW has made superheavies/flyers/etc those things are part of the game and they're not going anywhere.
in all fairness peregrine, thats just your opinion, i liked and still like apocalypse, but since i play 30k excusivly now, i cant really comment on how 40k at large is doing, but here is why i stopped playing 40k.
formations: anyone that knows me, knows i hate mechanics where you auto pass a roll of some sort, and i also hate "free" rules handed out for no particular reason aaaaand another thing i dislike is being confined and being forced to take XYZ in order to actually play the game effectivly, Formations add all this to greater and lesser degrees, so im not a fan of the horendibad formations and there ballance.
Power creep: 40k is a bleeding mess, worse than its ever been in my 27 years of playing on and off, 3rd had its issues, so did 4th, 5th and .... 6th... ergh, but its never been as bad as it is now, the difference between say orks and Tau, Eldar... and everyone else really, is so big it makes playing pick up games a real headache, i used to be able to rock up with an all comers army and get a fairly (not perfect) even game, now you almost have to tailor to beat certain armies, this is exacerbated by formations.
SSSSSSOOOOO MMMAAAANNNNNNYYY BOOOOOKKKSSS!!: jesus, back when 3rd had chapter approved, it still wasnt as bad as this, my mate the other day raised a good point, buy Blood angels codex, then all the supplements, formations etc. its gets stupid, add to this the much needed, in some cases DESPERATELY needed books that actually need updating (chaos, Orks, Tau, Eldar, SISTERS and more) to either fix the stupid ballance or just bring them in line, all the wasted time on supplements like traitors hate, for gods sake GW, stop wasting time, fix chaos, release sisters, nerf eldar, fix orks, nerf tau (slightly), nerf necrons (slightly) buff guard (slightly) i could go on.
Lords of war: this is plain slowed, how can a warhound be in the same catagory as Azrael, why are some armies allowed to take nothing but lords of war (eldar, Knights), its horrible for ballance and the game in general, add to that the utter stupidity of the points costs of these things, 30k at least did it kind of right, allow lords of war, but at 25% allowance of total points, this needs to be put into 40k if lords of war are staying.
i could go on, but the point is this, 40k is such a total mess right now i just dont want to play it, i get my GW fix from 30k, which may not be perfect, but its a damn sight better than the nonsense that is current 40k.
Same reasons here. 
92798
Post by: Traditio
 Selym wrote: Nazrak wrote:fine as long as you're not trying to play it with someone who's a total melt.
Sadly, 40k seems to just attract (or possibly make) asshats. Personally, I have seen rather few players who weren't on the side of waac. And even fewer players who didn't just use marines all the time.
I feel like at least some of it is just ignorance. In most competitive games (clear loser, clear winner), the assumption is that there is sufficient balance to take all of the steps necessary to give yourself the best possible chances of victory.
This does not exist in Warhammer 40k.
Some people simply aren't aware of it.
Some only become aware of it after they've made extensive, expensive purchases.
And some are asshats.
But I honestly think that the asshats are likely in the minority.
3750
Post by: Wayniac
Peregrine wrote:Wayniac wrote:This is my biggest problem with the change in rules; the guy who wants to bring all this OP crap is no longer in the wrong (when before he was), it's (arguably) the person who doesn't want to let him use it who is the jerk. And that's bullgak.
Why? Why do we blame the person who brings the "overpowered" unit and not the person who insists on bringing weak armies and refuses to ever improve them? Why is only one player expected to modify their army to bring their relative power levels closer together?
I wrote out what I feel are my reasons for this in the AOS points thread, I'm combining them here and re-posting. For reference purposes "Type A" is a competitive player, "Type B" is a casual player. Also, if the paragraphs seem to run on, that's because this is three posts combined into one. ----- Because usually the competitive player is the one who can ruin the other person's fun, so IMHO more of the responsibility needs to be put on them. The competitive player is typically the outlier, who is more likely to bring a cutthroat list against casual players, than vice versa. You normally don't find casual players going to tournaments, but far too often you find a competitive player showing up to a regular game night with a list designed for a tournament, with the intent to steamroll opponents. I think it's mainly because the Type A player has an outlet for their desire, i.e. tournament events. The Type B player usually doesn't have "narrative events" or sometimes even campaigns, and those things are generally advertised as "all comers" so you can still attract the Type A player who shows up with a power list to a casual game. Let me see if I can explain better. If the game shop advertises a tournament, it can reasonably be expected that it's going to be very competitive (that's basically the definition of a tournament). The competitive players have a reason to go to the event, the casual ones don't (they can, but would reasonably not expect to do well because they're casual players). So a tournament excludes Type B (they won't sign up because it's a tournament and not for them) and includes/encourages Type A (it's a tournament, they want to play competitively). If the game shop advertises a campaign, or a league, or even just regular old "Warhammer Night", both kinds of players show up, and you run into the personality clash. There is no dedicated event, typically, for Type Bs (since many Type As will join campaigns or leagues with the express intention to "crush" the opposition [ADDENDUM: Especially if there is any sort of prize reward for the winner]), while Type As get their own dedicated type of exhibition (i.e. tournaments). Therefore I feel more of the onus is on Type A to play accordingly, because they get the freedom to do so. A Type A who ONLY wants to play competitive games can more often than not find other Type As to group with on game nights, and have tournaments where it's very unlikely they'll run into a Type B. A Type B who NEVER want to play competitive games is much more restricted in what they can do, because they always have the chance to run into Type A, since there's nothing stopping a Type A from showing up to a regular game with a powerlist or joining a league and running a powerlist, while a Type B will look at an upcoming tournament and likely choose not to attend because it doesn't suit them, thereby removing themselves entirely from the equation; you could reasonably expect to see a majority of Type A players at a tournament, but a league or campaign you could see Type A or Type B in equal measures. Therefore, I feel that Type A needs to be the one to adjust, because Type A can more readily change than Type B. Speaking as a Type A player in Warmachine (can't speak for Warhammer) I had no problem playing competitive when needed or casual when I wanted a change or played someone casual; on the contrary it was next to impossible to expect a Type B player to "man up" and bring a power list, so I felt more responsible for ensuring a fun game since I was the one who was more comfortable with changing my way of playing. I could have (and did for a bit) gone around crushing "scrubs" and then telling them to suck it up when they asked me to not keep using the power combos (and this was still the time of "play like you've got a pair" Warmachine), but then nobody would have fun. Here's the other thing. How often does a Type A player get completely steamrolled and tabled? How often do they feel like they had absolutely little or no chance to win? Usually since Type A players are expecting the "filth" lists, they are usually prepared for it already (e.g. think to themselves before the event "How do I deal with X" where X is specific filth list) so I think it's pretty rare for a Type A player to just get completely crushed in a onesided game, and when it happens it's usually because they happened to get very unlucky and come up against the "perfect counter" to their own brand of cheese. How how common is it for a Type B player to get absolutely steamrolled with little or no chance at resistance? Pretty common, I'd wager, doubly so against a Type A player. A Type B player goes into the game expecting a balanced, fun, enjoyable game. A Type A player goes in expecting a cutthroat game, which to them is often enjoyable and fun, but has completely different expectations out of it. Also very few Type A players want to just obliterate an opponent that has no chance against them (and the ones that do are often also the Donkey-caves), they want a cutthroat game but a hard fought one. Besides, is it not the epitome of skill to win with "subpar" choices, to prove that it's the player not the army? This is why I feel more of the responsibility has to be on the Type A player, because they often have less to lose. A crushing defeat for a highly competitive player is often not taken as badly (barring the occasional Type A Donkey-cave who is a sore loser and throws a tantrum), and typically just approached as something to watch out for (e.g. totally did not expect X Y and Z in that combination, but wow it was brutal, better keep it in mind for next time) but for a Type B player it's often completely demoralizing and soul-crushing because they aren't even in the same league; it's akin to a soapbox derby racer going against a NASCAR driver. ---- To give an anecdote from Warmachine, in a tournament a top of 2 assassination, while often uncommon, isn't seen as not having fun, it's seen as "Oh crap I wasn't aware of X/Should have done Y to counter it" type of learning experience. A top of 2 assassination in a casual game, while it is just as informative, is often less satisfying if it comes out of nowhere and can really hurt the other player's enjoyment of the game if they weren't expecting that sort of list. Thus a lot of even high-end Warmachine players if they're playing a more laid back game (as opposed to a tournament prep game) will not use those "killer combos" just because they know that their opponent isn't expecting it and wouldn't reliably be able to handle it; instead they try other tricks or just experiment with a "for fun" list (a common thing in Warmachine is to have your "tournament list" and your "for fun list"). I think we should expect the same sort of behavior from Warhammer players. TL;DR The competitive player has a specific type of venue for them to play competitively where they typically don't run into the casual players whilst the casual player doesn't and always has the chance to run into the competitive player. Also, the competitive player is less likely to "not have fun" if they get steamrolled by another competitive player, because both players are expecting the other to bring their A-game without hesitation, while a casual player's fun is basically crushed if they get steamrolled by a competitive player when they weren't expecting it. Therefore, IMHO the competitive player has more "responsibility" (note I am talking about regular games only, and possibly leagues/campaigns) because they can just go to a tournament if they want to play like-minded people, but a casual player has no "casuals only" event to do the same.
7463
Post by: Crablezworth
Wayniac wrote: Peregrine wrote:Wayniac wrote:This is my biggest problem with the change in rules; the guy who wants to bring all this OP crap is no longer in the wrong (when before he was), it's (arguably) the person who doesn't want to let him use it who is the jerk. And that's bullgak.
Why? Why do we blame the person who brings the "overpowered" unit and not the person who insists on bringing weak armies and refuses to ever improve them? Why is only one player expected to modify their army to bring their relative power levels closer together?
I wrote out what I feel are my reasons for this in the AOS points thread, I'm combining them here and re-posting. For reference purposes "Type A" is a competitive player, "Type B" is a casual player. Also, if the paragraphs seem to run on, that's because this is three posts combined into one.
-----
Because usually the competitive player is the one who can ruin the other person's fun, so IMHO more of the responsibility needs to be put on them. The competitive player is typically the outlier, who is more likely to bring a cutthroat list against casual players, than vice versa. You normally don't find casual players going to tournaments, but far too often you find a competitive player showing up to a regular game night with a list designed for a tournament, with the intent to steamroll opponents.
I think it's mainly because the Type A player has an outlet for their desire, i.e. tournament events. The Type B player usually doesn't have "narrative events" or sometimes even campaigns, and those things are generally advertised as "all comers" so you can still attract the Type A player who shows up with a power list to a casual game.
Let me see if I can explain better. If the game shop advertises a tournament, it can reasonably be expected that it's going to be very competitive (that's basically the definition of a tournament). The competitive players have a reason to go to the event, the casual ones don't (they can, but would reasonably not expect to do well because they're casual players). So a tournament excludes Type B (they won't sign up because it's a tournament and not for them) and includes/encourages Type A (it's a tournament, they want to play competitively).
If the game shop advertises a campaign, or a league, or even just regular old "Warhammer Night", both kinds of players show up, and you run into the personality clash. There is no dedicated event, typically, for Type Bs (since many Type As will join campaigns or leagues with the express intention to "crush" the opposition [ADDENDUM: Especially if there is any sort of prize reward for the winner]), while Type As get their own dedicated type of exhibition (i.e. tournaments). Therefore I feel more of the onus is on Type A to play accordingly, because they get the freedom to do so. A Type A who ONLY wants to play competitive games can more often than not find other Type As to group with on game nights, and have tournaments where it's very unlikely they'll run into a Type B. A Type B who NEVER want to play competitive games is much more restricted in what they can do, because they always have the chance to run into Type A, since there's nothing stopping a Type A from showing up to a regular game with a powerlist or joining a league and running a powerlist, while a Type B will look at an upcoming tournament and likely choose not to attend because it doesn't suit them, thereby removing themselves entirely from the equation; you could reasonably expect to see a majority of Type A players at a tournament, but a league or campaign you could see Type A or Type B in equal measures.
Therefore, I feel that Type A needs to be the one to adjust, because Type A can more readily change than Type B. Speaking as a Type A player in Warmachine (can't speak for Warhammer) I had no problem playing competitive when needed or casual when I wanted a change or played someone casual; on the contrary it was next to impossible to expect a Type B player to "man up" and bring a power list, so I felt more responsible for ensuring a fun game since I was the one who was more comfortable with changing my way of playing. I could have (and did for a bit) gone around crushing "scrubs" and then telling them to suck it up when they asked me to not keep using the power combos (and this was still the time of "play like you've got a pair" Warmachine), but then nobody would have fun.
Here's the other thing. How often does a Type A player get completely steamrolled and tabled? How often do they feel like they had absolutely little or no chance to win? Usually since Type A players are expecting the "filth" lists, they are usually prepared for it already (e.g. think to themselves before the event "How do I deal with X" where X is specific filth list) so I think it's pretty rare for a Type A player to just get completely crushed in a onesided game, and when it happens it's usually because they happened to get very unlucky and come up against the "perfect counter" to their own brand of cheese.
How how common is it for a Type B player to get absolutely steamrolled with little or no chance at resistance? Pretty common, I'd wager, doubly so against a Type A player. A Type B player goes into the game expecting a balanced, fun, enjoyable game. A Type A player goes in expecting a cutthroat game, which to them is often enjoyable and fun, but has completely different expectations out of it. Also very few Type A players want to just obliterate an opponent that has no chance against them (and the ones that do are often also the Donkey-caves), they want a cutthroat game but a hard fought one. Besides, is it not the epitome of skill to win with "subpar" choices, to prove that it's the player not the army?
This is why I feel more of the responsibility has to be on the Type A player, because they often have less to lose. A crushing defeat for a highly competitive player is often not taken as badly (barring the occasional Type A Donkey-cave who is a sore loser and throws a tantrum), and typically just approached as something to watch out for (e.g. totally did not expect X Y and Z in that combination, but wow it was brutal, better keep it in mind for next time) but for a Type B player it's often completely demoralizing and soul-crushing because they aren't even in the same league; it's akin to a soapbox derby racer going against a NASCAR driver.
----
To give an anecdote from Warmachine, in a tournament a top of 2 assassination, while often uncommon, isn't seen as not having fun, it's seen as "Oh crap I wasn't aware of X/Should have done Y to counter it" type of learning experience. A top of 2 assassination in a casual game, while it is just as informative, is often less satisfying if it comes out of nowhere and can really hurt the other player's enjoyment of the game if they weren't expecting that sort of list. Thus a lot of even high-end Warmachine players if they're playing a more laid back game (as opposed to a tournament prep game) will not use those "killer combos" just because they know that their opponent isn't expecting it and wouldn't reliably be able to handle it; instead they try other tricks or just experiment with a "for fun" list (a common thing in Warmachine is to have your "tournament list" and your "for fun list"). I think we should expect the same sort of behavior from Warhammer players.
TL;DR
The competitive player has a specific type of venue for them to play competitively where they typically don't run into the casual players whilst the casual player doesn't and always has the chance to run into the competitive player. Also, the competitive player is less likely to "not have fun" if they get steamrolled by another competitive player, because both players are expecting the other to bring their A-game without hesitation, while a casual player's fun is basically crushed if they get steamrolled by a competitive player when they weren't expecting it. Therefore, IMHO the competitive player has more "responsibility" (note I am talking about regular games only, and possibly leagues/campaigns) because they can just go to a tournament if they want to play like-minded people, but a casual player has no "casuals only" event to do the same.
Most people I've played are type a, won't admit it to themselves and drape themselves accordingly as type b social camouflage or "casual" social camouflage.
71632
Post by: Warzoner
The state of 40k ? It's sad, but it's bad. Plus, many armies are only playable in fun-non-competitive environments. CSM and Dark Eldars used to be cool. Not anymore.
You want an advice ? Play 30k.
11860
Post by: Martel732
 Warzoner wrote:The state of 40k ? It's sad, but it's bad. Plus, many armies are only playable in fun-non-competitive environments. CSM and Dark Eldars used to be cool. Not anymore.
You want an advice ? Play 30k.
You can play them against BA.
105713
Post by: Insectum7
Warzoner wrote:The state of 40k ? It's sad, but it's bad. Plus, many armies are only playable in fun-non-competitive environments. CSM and Dark Eldars used to be cool. Not anymore.
You want an advice ? Play 30k.
Oh sure, and I thought 40K was too obsessed with marines and had expensive books. . .
14070
Post by: SagesStone
Martel732 wrote: Warzoner wrote:The state of 40k ? It's sad, but it's bad. Plus, many armies are only playable in fun-non-competitive environments. CSM and Dark Eldars used to be cool. Not anymore.
You want an advice ? Play 30k.
You can play them against BA.
I actually watched BA dominate some CSM yesterday, which was a nice change. Kind of sad after the days in 5th where the sanguinor seemed like this kind of scary thing along with the fast predators and such.
96881
Post by: Grimgold
Honestly as others have suggested, limiting composition by points value seems to give us the best of both worlds. you just base what can be taken and what rules are used on the point total, kind of like AoS. If formations are still around they have a minimum point requirement, and perhaps certain armies get optional rules at certain point values.
105798
Post by: Gen.Steiner
Or just return to the good old days of Force Org Charts and 0-1 unit restrictions.
3750
Post by: Wayniac
Gen.Steiner wrote:Or just return to the good old days of Force Org Charts and 0-1 unit restrictions.
Never happen. Could you imagine the whining from the cheeseweasels pissed they can't use their 3 knights or 3 wraithknights or whatever OP crap they blew money on because it's "l33"?
105798
Post by: Gen.Steiner
Wayniac wrote: Gen.Steiner wrote:Or just return to the good old days of Force Org Charts and 0-1 unit restrictions.
Never happen. Could you imagine the whining from the cheeseweasels pissed they can't use their 3 knights or 3 wraithknights or whatever OP crap they blew money on because it's "l33"?
Two words:
Tough. gak.
3750
Post by: Wayniac
Gen.Steiner wrote:Wayniac wrote: Gen.Steiner wrote:Or just return to the good old days of Force Org Charts and 0-1 unit restrictions.
Never happen. Could you imagine the whining from the cheeseweasels pissed they can't use their 3 knights or 3 wraithknights or whatever OP crap they blew money on because it's "l33"?
Two words:
Tough. gak.
I agree, but still you'd see tons of whining. Some people put their own enjoyment over the overall health of the game.
47367
Post by: Fenrir Kitsune
Wayniac wrote: Gen.Steiner wrote:Wayniac wrote: Gen.Steiner wrote:Or just return to the good old days of Force Org Charts and 0-1 unit restrictions.
Never happen. Could you imagine the whining from the cheeseweasels pissed they can't use their 3 knights or 3 wraithknights or whatever OP crap they blew money on because it's "l33"?
Two words:
Tough. gak.
I agree, but still you'd see tons of whining. Some people put their own enjoyment over the overall health of the game.
Isn't the health of the game dependent on the happiness of the players?
98515
Post by: Lord Kragan
 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:Wayniac wrote: Gen.Steiner wrote:Wayniac wrote: Gen.Steiner wrote:Or just return to the good old days of Force Org Charts and 0-1 unit restrictions.
Never happen. Could you imagine the whining from the cheeseweasels pissed they can't use their 3 knights or 3 wraithknights or whatever OP crap they blew money on because it's "l33"?
Two words:
Tough. gak.
I agree, but still you'd see tons of whining. Some people put their own enjoyment over the overall health of the game.
Isn't the health of the game dependent on the happiness of the players?
Apparently AoS was hated by anyone during the change and its doing better than fantasy in the prior years.
3750
Post by: Wayniac
@Fenrir Kitsune Yes, but to a point. Sometimes you have to risk pissing off the players to actually fix the game longterm, not just short-term goals.
Again, I'll give a Warmachine example (sorry, it's what I mainly played the last year or so). They recently did a new edition, some people weren't happy with the changes, I totally get that, but the overall game needed improvements so the changes were for the best.
if GW were to put limits back on things, I have no doubt a lot of people would be unhappy and complain. But if that decision made the game more playable, had more people join, and overall provided better balance would it not be worth it? I say yes.
So to answer your question bluntly, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few (or the one). The game would benefit from more restrictions and balancing; if that means that people who bought 3 Imperial Knights or 3 Wraithknights or whatever can't use it all the time, then it sucks but it would make the game better overall.
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
It also not like edition or codex changes havent made certain models or collections redundant before....many times.
89756
Post by: Verviedi
Do something like I do with Riptides, and was done with fleet restrictions in BFG.
"You may take 1 of these units per X points. Points spent on these units do not count towards this total."
3750
Post by: Wayniac
 Verviedi wrote:Do something like I do with Riptides, and was done with fleet restrictions in BFG. "You may take 1 of these units per X points. Points spent on these units do not count towards this total."
You know I like that idea. I think that's how a lot of things should go, actually. Still limits them, but doesn't outright ban then because hey I mean Riptides look freaking amazing; I'd field one if I played Tau (likely ONLY one though).
7463
Post by: Crablezworth
If they could hand 40k over to the people responsible for 30k I think the game would improve a lot. The one thing I constantly notice in 30k is there is often a downside for every advantage and there are plenty of checks and balances to keep armies from completely falling off the deep end on the power scale.
105713
Post by: Insectum7
Wayniac wrote:@Fenrir Kitsune Yes, but to a point. Sometimes you have to risk pissing off the players to actually fix the game longterm, not just short-term goals.
Again, I'll give a Warmachine example (sorry, it's what I mainly played the last year or so). They recently did a new edition, some people weren't happy with the changes, I totally get that, but the overall game needed improvements so the changes were for the best.
if GW were to put limits back on things, I have no doubt a lot of people would be unhappy and complain. But if that decision made the game more playable, had more people join, and overall provided better balance would it not be worth it? I say yes.
So to answer your question bluntly, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few (or the one). The game would benefit from more restrictions and balancing; if that means that people who bought 3 Imperial Knights or 3 Wraithknights or whatever can't use it all the time, then it sucks but it would make the game better overall.
I'd much prefer a rebalanceing of Infantry vs. Superheavies just so that Superheavies only functioned well with support form other units. People could still use their three Knights or whatever, but it would be risky. MORE GRENADES for infantry, remove restriction of "walkers may only be hit on front" for Superheavies. Correct the FAQ Grenade limitations. Maybe even bonuses for infantry vs. superheavies (call it "The Harder they Fall").
There will always be complainers about balance, regardless if its valid or not.
11860
Post by: Martel732
IKs are actually very easy to kill compared to GMCs. Toughness and a save are much better than AV.
92121
Post by: Yoyoyo
Martel732 wrote:IKs are actually very easy to kill compared to GMCs. Toughness and a save are much better than AV.
Plus FNP!
Instant Death is pretty much the "Melta" of MCs and GMCs but it's not common enough yet throughout the factions.
11860
Post by: Martel732
Instant death might as well not exist in 7th ed. That's how accessbile it is.
105713
Post by: Insectum7
Martel732 wrote:IKs are actually very easy to kill compared to GMCs. Toughness and a save are much better than AV.
They're different animals and dependent on what you are bringing. As a vanilla SM player a WK is an easy kill because of Grav. Imperial Knights have the issue that it's not too uncommon that they are fielded as an entire army.
11860
Post by: Martel732
Vanilla marines are a weird exception to this.
93221
Post by: Lance845
I still feel like the best way to fix the state of the game is to give it the 30k treatment.
Sure, bring on an 8th edition with other sweeping changes. Reduce the number of USRs. Clean up the 4-6 different resolution methods the game has. Get rid of armor values so everything works on the same system instead of multiple systems within the same base game.
But more importantly, kill decurions and formations. Everyone gets 1 FOC and an optional 1 ally detachment.
LoW cannot cost more than 25% of your total army value (i.e. 500 points in a 2k army).
Most HQ are only 1 per every 1000 points but give the option to use Rites of War to adjust how armies are fielded. Giving new options for units to occupy different FoC slots and new deployment methods coupled with restrictions for what you can and cannot bring.
Decurions and formations encourage monobuilds. RoW encourage fluffy options while still leaving you a fully open FoC to build with. Powerful HQs being limited 1 per 1k points reduces deathstar shenanigans or Tyranid Flying Circuses and LoW being no more than 25% of army cost prevents people from bringing some monstrosity that the opponent cannot reasonably deal with at their point value.
Oh also (from 30k), make upgrade options that effect the whole unit a flat value for the unit instead of per model and adding extra models a slightly lower cost then the initial unit. That way if you want to go MSU you do so at a cost. The advantages of MSU stick around but the most efficient point expenditure comes from building up the units you have.
97198
Post by: Nazrak
 Lance845 wrote:
Oh also (from 30k), make upgrade options that effect the whole unit a flat value for the unit instead of per model and adding extra models a slightly lower cost then the initial unit. That way if you want to go MSU you do so at a cost. The advantages of MSU stick around but the most efficient point expenditure comes from building up the units you have.
As much as I don't personally care for it, I think the Formations genie is out of the bottle, unfortunately. I really like the above suggestion though.
102111
Post by: Ankhalagon
Lance845 wrote:I still feel like the best way to fix the state of the game is to give it the 30k treatment.
Sure, bring on an 8th edition with other sweeping changes. Reduce the number of USRs. Clean up the 4-6 different resolution methods the game has. Get rid of armor values so everything works on the same system instead of multiple systems within the same base game.
But more importantly, kill decurions and formations. Everyone gets 1 FOC and an optional 1 ally detachment.
LoW cannot cost more than 25% of your total army value (i.e. 500 points in a 2k army).
Most HQ are only 1 per every 1000 points but give the option to use Rites of War to adjust how armies are fielded. Giving new options for units to occupy different FoC slots and new deployment methods coupled with restrictions for what you can and cannot bring.
Decurions and formations encourage monobuilds. RoW encourage fluffy options while still leaving you a fully open FoC to build with. Powerful HQs being limited 1 per 1k points reduces deathstar shenanigans or Tyranid Flying Circuses and LoW being no more than 25% of army cost prevents people from bringing some monstrosity that the opponent cannot reasonably deal with at their point value.
Oh also (from 30k), make upgrade options that effect the whole unit a flat value for the unit instead of per model and adding extra models a slightly lower cost then the initial unit. That way if you want to go MSU you do so at a cost. The advantages of MSU stick around but the most efficient point expenditure comes from building up the units you have.
+1! So much +1!
81025
Post by: koooaei
So, eldar would always be able to get a cheezy WK while my orkses would never field a stompa. Ever. Cau'se it's apparently only good for 4k games while a WK that's arguably stronger is fine in 1500 pt games. And i wouldn't be able to get fearless manz to have a chance of dealing with it to boot. Nice.
Would it also require a codex rewrite for better balance? Than why do we need foc restrictions, once again? Also, 30k has the exact same problems of fluffy vs cutthroat lists. They're just seen way less often due to players themselves being mostly fluff-oriented. But than you could meet a world eater mass footslogging army vs an iron hand gunline with 0 chances of winning if you ever try to get out of ruins with world eaters.
40344
Post by: master of ordinance
 koooaei wrote:So, eldar would always be able to get a cheezy WK while my orkses would never field a stompa. Ever. Cau'se it's apparently only good for 4k games while a WK that's arguably stronger is fine in 1500 pt games. And i wouldn't be able to get fearless manz to have a chance of dealing with it to boot. Nice.
Would it also require a codex rewrite for better balance? Than why do we need foc restrictions, once again?
To force people to stop bringing stupid armies that are plain cheese. Of course, this would be after Eldar, Tau and Space Marines received the biggest nerf ever seen and where (for once) the weakest armies in the game.
81025
Post by: koooaei
So, never.
93221
Post by: Lance845
koooaei wrote:So, eldar would always be able to get a cheezy WK while my orkses would never field a stompa. Ever. Cau'se it's apparently only good for 4k games while a WK that's arguably stronger is fine in 1500 pt games. And i wouldn't be able to get fearless manz to have a chance of dealing with it to boot. Nice. Would it also require a codex rewrite for better balance? Than why do we need foc restrictions, once again? Also, 30k has the exact same problems of fluffy vs cutthroat lists. They're just seen way less often due to players themselves being mostly fluff-oriented. But than you could meet a world eater mass footslogging army vs an iron hand gunline with 0 chances of winning if you ever try to get out of ruins with world eaters.
Your talking to a Nid player. My LoW choices are all FW and one of the 3 is 1000 points base. Orcs and Nids are due for a new Codex. Also, LoW are not part of the base FoC in 30k. They are an optional separate detachment with a single slot that players are supposed to agree to use. Same with fortifications. The problem isn't fluffy vs cutthroat. That is a non problem. Different players approach the game from different angles and they should be allowed to. The problem with 40k now is decurions and formations promoting monobuilds. I don't want to fight Necrons and every time see a reclamation legion. I want players to have access to a full FoC to build the lists they enjoy playing. Automatically Appended Next Post:
Those armies are powerful now because of formations and decurions. Removing them will give those armies a kick in the pants and knock them down a few pegs.
14070
Post by: SagesStone
Some formations allow people to actually build an army the way they want to play though; an example for me would be the airborne formation in militarum tempestus. The issue is some formations giving a bit too much for free. I like how AoS actually makes you pay to use a formation instead of getting it just for taking the models.
93221
Post by: Lance845
 n0t_u wrote:Some formations allow people to actually build an army the way they want to play though; an example for me would be the airborne formation in militarum tempestus. The issue is some formations giving a bit too much for free. I like how AoS actually makes you pay to use a formation instead of getting it just for taking the models.
30k uses Rites of War to accomplish a similar effect without free special rules and (generally) without requirements. An example would be orbital assault. (I probably don't have the exact details of this correct, but it gets the gist of it) Units that could take rhinos as dedicated transports can take drop pods as dedicated transports. Assault Marines (the jump infantry) can be taken as troops (important... they can still be taken as FA, it's just now they can ALSO be taken as troops). Every unit needs to either arrive in a drop pod or flying transport or be jump infantry. RoW open up options to let you field things in different ways in the same way that formations do but they remove exact unit restrictions that force monobuilds, gets rid of free bonus rules, and help encourage fluffy play.
7463
Post by: Crablezworth
n0t_u wrote:Some formations allow people to actually build an army the way they want to play though
Exactly, and why wouldn't they want free stuff? My regular opponent, a tau player, found out one of his 1500pt lists could in a puff of magic get free stuff for simply calling it by the name of a formation. Literally nothing would have to change to get free stuff. So once has his free stuff, where is the incentive to, you know, not take free stuff? Even going unbound actually costs points.
n0t_u wrote: an example for me would be the airborne formation in militarum tempestus.
The existence of less than amazing formations really does nothing to alter the god awful game breaking race to the bottom ones.
n0t_u wrote: The issue is some formations giving a bit too much for free. I like how AoS actually makes you pay to use a formation instead of getting it just for taking the models.
Free is a large part of the problem, but the other large part is pricing insane synergy, ie even if formations went back to actually costing points, how do you value something that is such a force multiplier it makes whole armies better? That's already a problem for 40k in general and GW have shrugged off doing their homework and costing things in context of whats fielding them, that's how we got random psychic powers instead of how much unit x pays for psychic power y.
102111
Post by: Ankhalagon
RoWs have drawbacks. Formations not realy, because they are not restrictive enough and some of them are just crazy.
Say, I wanna play AdMech in a fluffy way: I am forced to use either Unbound or that complete crazy War Convocation. With horrendous imbalanced buffs, and the stupid thing, that the Skitarii are in their vanilla-formation. So I don´t play that. 
The Ordo Reductor War Covenant on the other hand is way more fun! I have buffs, that are not complete crazy, I am restricted with the compulsory stuff like HQ, Troops and Automata. But I have unique stuff like fething artillery-tanks. And I can´t use any allys and fortifications. That suits my playstyle waaay better.
Yes, you can abuse that too, but the fun part is, that thing is way more flexible and interessting than most of the 40k formations and metadetachments this days.
3750
Post by: Wayniac
Whatever the solution may be, I do feel the game is not sustainable at this level. Sure, some people might be having fun and more power to them, but I feel there's way too much bloat and nothing is be done about it. One thing i tend to notice in these types of discussions though, the people who like the game seem to find nothing wrong with any of it, like they don't mind LOWs and the like, and think it's great GW is coming out with more new things like Genestealer Cults and not fixing the game, and not only that but get vehemently angry at the suggestions things are not, in fact, perfect and the game is "the best it's ever been".
93221
Post by: Lance845
Wayniac wrote:Whatever the solution may be, I do feel the game is not sustainable at this level. Sure, some people might be having fun and more power to them, but I feel there's way too much bloat and nothing is be done about it. One thing i tend to notice in these types of discussions though, the people who like the game seem to find nothing wrong with any of it, like they don't mind LOWs and the like, and think it's great GW is coming out with more new things like Genestealer Cults and not fixing the game, and not only that but get vehemently angry at the suggestions things are not, in fact, perfect and the game is "the best it's ever been".
I enjoy the game well enough, and I like that GSC showed up in particular because they actually managed to produce a new army that plays differently from the other armies.
That being said I studied Game Design (my BA is actually in Game Design) and 40k is a mess. These days I look at Proposed Rules and You Make Da Call more then P&M which used to be my forum of choice. Understanding the games faults and still managing to find some fun in it by playing with people who don't bring all the bull is a testament to what fun the core of the game can be (though even that has a lot of faults).
105798
Post by: Gen.Steiner
The core of the game is 40K 3rd Edition. Play that, or 4th, and you'll have a great game. It's not hard to retro-engineer AdMech or Genestealer Cults into 4th or 3rd, and it cuts 99% of the insanity.
40344
Post by: master of ordinance
Gen.Steiner wrote:The core of the game is 40K 3rd Edition. Play that, or 4th, and you'll have a great game. It's not hard to retro-engineer AdMech or Genestealer Cults into 4th or 3rd, and it cuts 99% of the insanity.
Either scaling down the stupid (Big armies, game scale and super heavies and the like) or writing a new rule set to accommodate the game as it is now would be a huge relief. Right now we have a Platoon scale game using Skirmish level system trying to represent Company level battles. And it really shows because it really does not work.
47367
Post by: Fenrir Kitsune
Fact is, 40K is just a bad game.
106996
Post by: confurioso
Gen.Steiner wrote:The core of the game is 40K 3rd Edition. Play that, or 4th, and you'll have a great game. It's not hard to retro-engineer AdMech or Genestealer Cults into 4th or 3rd, and it cuts 99% of the insanity.
I've been out of the game since the 4th Ed and just trying to get back into it now. It is a nightmare trying to get to grips with all these new rules.
Someone help.  
105798
Post by: Gen.Steiner
confurioso wrote: Gen.Steiner wrote:The core of the game is 40K 3rd Edition. Play that, or 4th, and you'll have a great game. It's not hard to retro-engineer AdMech or Genestealer Cults into 4th or 3rd, and it cuts 99% of the insanity.
I've been out of the game since the 4th Ed and just trying to get back into it now. It is a nightmare trying to get to grips with all these new rules.
Someone help.
Just play 4th Edition. It's a better game in almost every respect.
100998
Post by: Mr. CyberPunk
current 40k really need to implement the "I go, you go" mechanism. It would solve a lot of the current problems imo and would make the game far more dynamic and interesting. At the very least, the passive players should have more options than just "deny the witch", "jink", "go to the ground" and "overwatch". I really hope 8th edition introduce it, ideally with a command points mechanism where each HQ give a certain amount of points which can be used to do such actions.
I don't want to see 40K get oversimplified a la AoS. A vehicle and a living creature are 2 vastly different things, I feel it's appropriate they both have different rules to represent them on the battlefield. But it doesn't mean that some of the bloat can't be removed (for example, not including running in the movement phase is beyond slowed). Removing formations would be a huge step in the right direction as it really clog the game down with the abundance of special rules and the hassle of keeping track which units is part of which formation (not even talking about balancing issues it bring and boring monobuild lits). Different FOC as they seem to be doing at the start of 7th edition is a far better system, though it should only be 1 for your main army and 1 ally FOC max. They probably should add more restrictions to the FOC and scale them up to the battle size (i.e. add one mandatory troops choices and 1 optional choice for every slice of 500 points over 2000).
Finally, the biggest current issue that needs to be fix is of course the balance. Hire some statisticians to do it. As of now, they are far too many armies and units for simply having a couple of idiots pull unit costs out of their ass after playing a game or two with them. No matter how good the rules are (and let's be honest, they aren't 40K strong point), the game will still be a mess if taking a certain build equal auto win vs some armies.
93221
Post by: Lance845
I would really enjoy I go you go in the form of alternating activation's. I think it really adds a lot of strategy to the game.
8520
Post by: Leth
Formations are not the problem in general, it is about 5-6 units/formations are causing a majority of problems for the entire game. Curb those units and the game is playable and enjoyable even thought it is not balanced.
The problem is those units/formations are so powerful that they overwhelm any other type of list that you would want to play.
93221
Post by: Lance845
Formations promote mono-builds. They will never be balanced against each other. The stronger formations within a codex will become must takes and the rest of the army will get built around them.
Formations suck.
88903
Post by: Kaiyanwang
Lance845 wrote:Formations promote mono-builds. They will never be balanced against each other. The stronger formations within a codex will become must takes and the rest of the army will get built around them. Formations suck.
Is not only that: it promotes a mindset that allows a unit to be written sucky, because it can be "fixed" (possibly) with a formation later. This kills custom lists and low-points games. Formations are garbage, pure and simple. They can be game disrupting garbage or not, but they remain garbage. They exist to force us to buy multiple copies of the same model and to promote SpamHammer40k.
100998
Post by: Mr. CyberPunk
 Kaiyanwang wrote: Lance845 wrote:Formations promote mono-builds. They will never be balanced against each other. The stronger formations within a codex will become must takes and the rest of the army will get built around them. Formations suck.
Is not only that: it promotes a mindset that allows a unit to be written sucky, because it can be "fixed" (possibly) with a formation later. This kills custom lists and low-points games. Formations are garbage, pure and simple. They can be game disrupting garbage or not, but they remain garbage. They exist to force us to buy multiple copies of the same model and to promote SpamHammer40k.
No doubt. While I do think formations do have some benefits (namely, building thematic forces), it's nothing that couldn't be done by adding a greater variety of FOC with more restrictions.
106284
Post by: terry
Lance845 wrote:Formations promote mono-builds. They will never be balanced against each other. The stronger formations within a codex will become must takes and the rest of the army will get built around them.
Formations suck.
I like the idea behind formations, but the execution isn't right. There are a few formations that are to powerfull and that makes it bad.
93221
Post by: Lance845
terry wrote: Lance845 wrote:Formations promote mono-builds. They will never be balanced against each other. The stronger formations within a codex will become must takes and the rest of the army will get built around them.
Formations suck.
I like the idea behind formations, but the execution isn't right. There are a few formations that are to powerfull and that makes it bad.
It's not about power.
A FoC tells me I have x number of slots and Y number of options to fill them with.
A formation tells me I have these 3 units with these restrictions/benefits. A living artillery node is always a living artillery node and will always be a living artillery node. I will always have warriors acting as support for my long range and high strength artillery beasts because I get to reroll the scatter on those artillery guys for free when doing it. I will never have a reason to bring biovores or exocrines in any other configuration and they will be played in close proximity to those warriors because that is how the formation works.
It's not the most powerful formation. It doesn't make or break my army. But it DOES define it now. If all I had was a FoC I could bring an exocrine and biovores anyway. Their synapse support could be anything. They wouldn't be moving and functioning as a single entity every. single. time. The fact that formations exist promotes this type of game play for everyone. You could take the units you enjoy in a FoC or you could box them into little formations that slowly strip away every persons customization options and play styles as the only ways to effectively play are the ways the formations tell you to.
|
|
