No. Auticus wasn't saying tournament players don't want a fair game. To make me seem like anything.
Auticus was saying many tournament players desire imbalance because imbalance is what drives listbuilding and many tournament players desire listbuilding to be a skill and to have listbuilding be a skill there has to be combos that are good, bad, and in between to be able to choose from them. I can't say all tournament players because I don't know all tournament players, but I spent over a decade AS a tournament player surrounded by tournament players and then another decade trying to play narratively amongst tournament players to have had hundreds of conversations with the ones around me and in my experience (which we all speak from... our experience) the vast majority of tournament players that I personally know and have interacted with have expressed desire for imbalance so that listbuilding can be meaningful.
Desiring imbalance has nothing to do with an unfair game. Desiring imbalance has everything to do with wanting a system where you have to also be smart enough to pick the right choices and ignore the bad choices.
Listbuilding as a skill is the primary driver of deck games. Are those games unfair? I guess it depends on who you talk to. Unfair was never a word that I have used nor a point I was trying to make.
The rest of the fantasy is all entirely 100% projection and assumption.
Discussions require data. Or else its all conjecture and make up and assumptions and jumping to conclusions.
Talking about my ruleset provides me with the context on why I make the decisions I have and why I feel the way I do. Its based on a few thousand pieces of correspondence from a variety of players and their wishes, both good and ill as opposed to just making things up and guessing which is what most conversations on here are.
Some of you take that discussion about said ruleset and then apply some ego maniacal bend to it to serve whatever purpose it is you are trying to serve simply because - you disagree. Same thing happens in political rage fire discussions and other gaming rage fire discussions. One disagrees with another, then it becomes super heated and personal.
None of you on here know me, my desires, or my background to be able to try and accurately describe anything that motivates me - its entirely "i don't agree with you ... so ... you are bad and ego maniacal and all of these other things I am going to project onto you".
I'm also a game designer... you know ... for realzies. I pay my bills from the game industry. I have sat in so many marketing meetings and had to digest reams of marketing data on game design and what players want, so I've seen with my own two eyes the things that people request and want, and I've seen the litany of trash fires that result when you do things that players don't like and they send you hate mail that would make even the most ardent keyboard warrior on here curl up. Does that make me a super ego maniac? I mean I guess it would be cool to have my own snake mountain island where I sit on my throne with my monocle and laugh as I set about my villainous plans to destroy gaming with some ill tempered sea bass with lasers on their heads swimming in my lagoon.
I have had literally hundreds of discussions with players that have explicitly stated they like that some choices are bad and some are good because it makes them feel good to build a powerful deck, or list, or game board, and test it out against someone else's to see who came up with the best list. That is the primary motivator for a lot of folks, for someone to sit on here and say "nah brah... tournament players don't want that brah... you're just ego maniacal brah you're just shilling your failed ruleset brah" is just... beyond words funny. I have NO DOUBT that some tournament players really don't want that. I also know first hand some tourmament players that want the game to be more balanced so that table skill means more than list building excel skill. There are all kinds of tournament players that want different things.
Just as I know nothing about you personally or what motivates you other than some of you are highly emotional and flip out and go off when someone disagrees with you and you begin to resort to personal insults and projections to try and paint the other person as morally bad to win an argument on the internet.
Sooo, I won't weigh in on "balance for the sake of balance" or "imbalance for the sake of imbalance", but A LOT of "imbalance" comes from contextualizing a given unit and its particular strengths and weaknesses within a greater army synergy. I see listbuilding as a skill not because there are choices that are better or worse than other choices without context, but it's a skill because the entire army, combined with the expected mission set provides the context for which every unit will be stronger or weaker.
For good listbuilding you're looking at:
Expected Missions
Expected Terrain
Expected opposition
and then finally within whatever grand strategy you're putting together in your army.
Certain units work better with certain other units, which can then make them better than the sum of their parts individually (ye olde Meltas in a Drop Pod example).
Furthermore, if you've got certain units or armies that appear imbalanced in a vacuum, but suddenly that table is way more crowded (or not) with terrain than you were expecting, some of those "worse" units can start to look a lot better.
In short, I expect "imbalance" because I expect the value of any unit to be highly contextual. And because people play 40K in a number of different scenarios/missions, terrain, etc, I have no expectation that any 2000 point army will be particularly equal to any other 2000 point army. Listbuilding is the skill where you squeeze as much value as you can out of your army in preparation for the particular game/s that you expect to play, which can have a huge amount of variation.
Hecaton wrote: Sorry Auticus, points are part of how balancing happens. You're wrong.
... aaaand with this short sentence you have just proven beyond any doubt, that you have no clue about game design.
Nope! Points can definitely balance things. You can't just repeat that points are a "shaping" method and expect it to be true because you heard it from someone.
Hecaton wrote: Sorry Auticus, points are part of how balancing happens. You're wrong.
... aaaand with this short sentence you have just proven beyond any doubt, that you have no clue about game design.
Nope! Points can definitely balance things. You can't just repeat that points are a "shaping" method and expect it to be true because you heard it from someone.
Perhaps a quote from Rick Priestley can make you rethink a bit or two...
"So where do points values come into all that? Well, army lists and points values are a great way of working out forces if you know how the scenario will affect the basic utility of the different elements. To put it another way, if the tabletop is six feet by four, if the deployment is 'line 'em up and go', if the terrain falls within certain narrow limits, and if you know what the victory conditions are - then it's possible to work out points values that have some broad credibilty. You will know how useful or how valuable certain kinds of troops will be within the context of the game. Points values make perfect sense if we are talking about a very limited type of confrontational scenario. However, points values make almost no sense if you take armies into radically different kinds of situations. To give a few obvious examples, if a battlefield is impassable to heavy armoured vehicles then the value of tanks is going to be reduced considerably, if the battlefield is very small or very large, then the value of long range weapons is lessened or enhanced respectively, if the objectives set for the armies require positions to be taken by infantry then this affects the effective utility - and hence the value - of infantry/non-infantry units. Simply put- in different situations the value of units will also be different.
It doesn't take a genius to see that the combination of fixed points values and scenarios designed for points balanced armies creates a kind of circular self-sustaining mind-set. For points to be 'balanced' the scenario must fall within very narrow limits. Once those narrow limits are accepted as a standard, the exact points value of a unit becomes a critical factor in picking an effective army. Thus the structured army lists encourage players to adopt the same narrow parameters for scenarios time after time, and focuses players' minds on the cost/competitiveness of units within those parameters. It is wargaming - it is perhaps one of the most popular and enduring kinds of wargaming - but it isn't the be all and end all of what a wargame can be. For one thing, it has absolutely no reference to history or actual warfare. In real war fairness and balance of outcome are things to positively avoided where possible! It is also an approach strongly focussed on the one-on-one game - a kind of toy soldier equivalent of chess - in which the wargame is seen as a kind of intellectual match between two individuals. That kind of game might suit some players - perhaps a pair of regular opponents of comparable aptitude - but it works less well for games between multiple players, teams or games between experienced players and novices." Rick Priestley, in the pages of Wargames, Soldiers and Strategy magazine issue 71 (2013). (courtesy of Archbombe in another thread)
Points as a "shaping method" is how many players use the points. I've heard countless players over the years talk about their objective in listbuilding is to take their 2000 point list and make it function many times above that. That is where and why I use that statement.
I know that points are a part of how balancing happens. I have dedicated a good chunk of my life to working with points in various systems and seeing them go. I never claimed that points were not a part of how balance happens. I have said countless times points SHOULD be the balance value of the force so that 2000 points vs 2000 points lets you know the two lists are in the same ballpark. Several times. In this very thread. I have been flamed many times. On this board. For putting that idea forth... because to a lot of players that brought forth the holy flame in aggressive posting were almost all competitive tournament players, that was seen as an abomination and boring and killed off listbuilding.
And that part of my main problem with 40k is that that is not reality. At all. That was my main problem with Sigmar, and a huge issue why I did not like what they did was because the purposely put imbalance into that game to get people to play monsters more.
Which is another example of gw points not being about balance but about a structure you build within to min/max. So whatever I am "wrong" about... doesn't even seem to be based in reality of what I have been saying. Which you might have gleaned had you said "hmm Auticus... it seems like to me you are saying this - could you clarify?"
The Rick Priestley quote I actually have on my wall above my work station. It is 1000% apt. The more scenarios you introduce, the harder it is to point things. But you can find a standard to point toward and then look at the outliers from there. Considering GW games are often the same type of scenarios over and over only in different flavors, thats what boggles the mind that they can't get the balance tighter (unless its intentional, which is what I firmly believe).
Hecaton wrote: Sorry Auticus, points are part of how balancing happens. You're wrong.
... aaaand with this short sentence you have just proven beyond any doubt, that you have no clue about game design.
Nope! Points can definitely balance things. You can't just repeat that points are a "shaping" method and expect it to be true because you heard it from someone.
Perhaps a quote from Rick Priestley can make you rethink a bit or two...
"So where do points values come into all that? Well, army lists and points values are a great way of working out forces if you know how the scenario will affect the basic utility of the different elements. To put it another way, if the tabletop is six feet by four, if the deployment is 'line 'em up and go', if the terrain falls within certain narrow limits, and if you know what the victory conditions are - then it's possible to work out points values that have some broad credibilty. You will know how useful or how valuable certain kinds of troops will be within the context of the game. Points values make perfect sense if we are talking about a very limited type of confrontational scenario. However, points values make almost no sense if you take armies into radically different kinds of situations. To give a few obvious examples, if a battlefield is impassable to heavy armoured vehicles then the value of tanks is going to be reduced considerably, if the battlefield is very small or very large, then the value of long range weapons is lessened or enhanced respectively, if the objectives set for the armies require positions to be taken by infantry then this affects the effective utility - and hence the value - of infantry/non-infantry units. Simply put- in different situations the value of units will also be different.
It doesn't take a genius to see that the combination of fixed points values and scenarios designed for points balanced armies creates a kind of circular self-sustaining mind-set. For points to be 'balanced' the scenario must fall within very narrow limits. Once those narrow limits are accepted as a standard, the exact points value of a unit becomes a critical factor in picking an effective army. Thus the structured army lists encourage players to adopt the same narrow parameters for scenarios time after time, and focuses players' minds on the cost/competitiveness of units within those parameters. It is wargaming - it is perhaps one of the most popular and enduring kinds of wargaming - but it isn't the be all and end all of what a wargame can be. For one thing, it has absolutely no reference to history or actual warfare. In real war fairness and balance of outcome are things to positively avoided where possible! It is also an approach strongly focussed on the one-on-one game - a kind of toy soldier equivalent of chess - in which the wargame is seen as a kind of intellectual match between two individuals. That kind of game might suit some players - perhaps a pair of regular opponents of comparable aptitude - but it works less well for games between multiple players, teams or games between experienced players and novices." Rick Priestley, in the pages of Wargames, Soldiers and Strategy magazine issue 71 (2013). (courtesy of Archbombe in another thread)
Is this in reference to him being criticized for AoS with no points? In which case lol
Until they release 'Competitive 40k' mission pack to replace 'Competitive Matched Play', then the Meta might matter. Until then, it's kept 40k players from having tournaments that are worth attending. 9th will remain the worst edition to ever be released by GW. If the next edition decides to keep the 'Matched Play' rules set as any sort of standard, then it might be worse off than 9th is.
My own interest in the hobby has me looking at other games and systems that have a truly competitive format. Unlike other players, I'm finding it difficult to find one that is worth the effort. None of them have the accessibility of finding a game or community no matter where I travel, not to mention the huge investment I've made when tournaments were relevant. My own motivation is diminished as I try to work on the miniatures, to make a great list that will never succeed, or even be allowed to participate in an event. The natural progression for players that used to lead up to attending tournaments gets cut off when players are required to build for 'Matched Play'.
Hecaton wrote: ...Is this in reference to him being criticized for AoS with no points? In which case lol
...I'm...pretty sure Rick Priestly wasn't anywhere near GW when the decision to launch Sigmar with no points was made. It might be in reference to the decision to release Black Powder with a set of rough guidelines instead of anything resembling specific army lists, which is in part because it's a very different style of game from Warhammer, and in part a mistake that they rectified later when they did the Clash of Eagles/Albion Triumphant campaign books with proper army lists for the Napoleonics.
Hecaton wrote: Sorry Auticus, points are part of how balancing happens. You're wrong.
... aaaand with this short sentence you have just proven beyond any doubt, that you have no clue about game design.
Nope! Points can definitely balance things. You can't just repeat that points are a "shaping" method and expect it to be true because you heard it from someone.
Perhaps a quote from Rick Priestley can make you rethink a bit or two...
"So where do points values come into all that? Well, army lists and points values are a great way of working out forces if you know how the scenario will affect the basic utility of the different elements. To put it another way, if the tabletop is six feet by four, if the deployment is 'line 'em up and go', if the terrain falls within certain narrow limits, and if you know what the victory conditions are - then it's possible to work out points values that have some broad credibilty. You will know how useful or how valuable certain kinds of troops will be within the context of the game. Points values make perfect sense if we are talking about a very limited type of confrontational scenario. However, points values make almost no sense if you take armies into radically different kinds of situations. To give a few obvious examples, if a battlefield is impassable to heavy armoured vehicles then the value of tanks is going to be reduced considerably, if the battlefield is very small or very large, then the value of long range weapons is lessened or enhanced respectively, if the objectives set for the armies require positions to be taken by infantry then this affects the effective utility - and hence the value - of infantry/non-infantry units. Simply put- in different situations the value of units will also be different.
It doesn't take a genius to see that the combination of fixed points values and scenarios designed for points balanced armies creates a kind of circular self-sustaining mind-set. For points to be 'balanced' the scenario must fall within very narrow limits. Once those narrow limits are accepted as a standard, the exact points value of a unit becomes a critical factor in picking an effective army. Thus the structured army lists encourage players to adopt the same narrow parameters for scenarios time after time, and focuses players' minds on the cost/competitiveness of units within those parameters. It is wargaming - it is perhaps one of the most popular and enduring kinds of wargaming - but it isn't the be all and end all of what a wargame can be. For one thing, it has absolutely no reference to history or actual warfare. In real war fairness and balance of outcome are things to positively avoided where possible! It is also an approach strongly focussed on the one-on-one game - a kind of toy soldier equivalent of chess - in which the wargame is seen as a kind of intellectual match between two individuals. That kind of game might suit some players - perhaps a pair of regular opponents of comparable aptitude - but it works less well for games between multiple players, teams or games between experienced players and novices." Rick Priestley, in the pages of Wargames, Soldiers and Strategy magazine issue 71 (2013). (courtesy of Archbombe in another thread)
Is this in reference to him being criticized for AoS with no points? In which case lol
You may lol all you want, it only speaks of you. While this here quote is from Priestley, this is a piece of game design knowledge that every game designer on the planet knows. Every. Single. One. Only players seem to be unable to grasp this trivial idea - while you can put a rough point bracket on things, say, this weapon here most should cost between 10 and 20 points - outside of very static games you will never be able to narrow it down, you will never be able to tell, if this weapon should cost 13, 15 or 17 points, because the context in which you try to establish this cost changes with changing of said cost. You do realise, that there are debates about exact point values of chess pieces? And that half of the skill in Bridge is based on a very elaborate, multidimensional point systems with conditional trees, because simple point systems do not work even in games so "simple" as those two?
Hecaton wrote:Sorry Auticus, points are part of how balancing happens. You're wrong.
In an ideal world, do you expect any two armies, regardless of composition, to have perfectly even chances of winning so long as they are both 2000pts? Like, an army of all anti-tank guns going up against an army of all infantry? Or an army of all static defenses playing a mission that requires it to take and hold objectives? If not, and you recognize that a unit's actual, practical value may not always align with its points cost, then you understand what is meant by the idea of points as a shaping mechanism rather than an objective measure of balance.
Or for another example, see if you can figure out the 'objective' value of a unit like a IG Company Commander, whose sole value lies in buffing infantry. How much utility you get out of him depends entirely on how many infantry units are in your army. His points cost isn't an objective, consistent measure of his actual value in all circumstances; it's a shaping mechanism that incentivizes you not to spam CCs without infantry, while still encouraging the use of CCs with your infantry rather than just taking more infantry.
Auticus is right here and everything he is saying tracks with current game design theory. We desire balance as a goal, but that's not a direct function of points- where people go wrong is in interpreting that to mean that balance and shaping are unrelated to each other, when really it's more that points costs are one potential lever among many to shape the game towards a more balanced state.
catbarf wrote: Auticus is right here and everything he is saying tracks with current game design theory. We desire balance as a goal, but that's not a direct function of points- where people go wrong is in interpreting that to mean that balance and shaping are unrelated to each other, when really it's more that points costs are one potential lever among many to shape the game towards a more balanced state.
It's just something that's in-vogue to say, but it isn't really true. Nobody's saying that points are the be-all end-all of balance, but saying that points do *not* have to do with balance is just incorrect, but that's what Auticus asserted.
Hecaton wrote: ...Is this in reference to him being criticized for AoS with no points? In which case lol
...I'm...pretty sure Rick Priestly wasn't anywhere near GW when the decision to launch Sigmar with no points was made. It might be in reference to the decision to release Black Powder with a set of rough guidelines instead of anything resembling specific army lists, which is in part because it's a very different style of game from Warhammer, and in part a mistake that they rectified later when they did the Clash of Eagles/Albion Triumphant campaign books with proper army lists for the Napoleonics.
I guess I got the name wrong, but I remember that "no points" being the brainchild of someone at GW, which they then had to walk back on. Just like Priestley had to walk back on this here. It's probably possible to make a wargame that's balanced without a points system, but the kinds of people who don't like points systems are usually exactly the kind of person you shouldn't get to do that.
nou wrote: You may lol all you want, it only speaks of you. While this here quote is from Priestley, this is a piece of game design knowledge that every game designer on the planet knows. Every. Single. One.
I didn't say that points were the only way to balance wargames, or that points systems are perfect in all cases. So you're misrepresenting my point.
nou wrote: Only players seem to be unable to grasp this trivial idea
If you think players don't understand that the value of things changes based on the game conditions I've got a bridge to sell you.
Yes, seriously. I can make a game unbalanced by fething with the points values. Ergo, points are a component of balance.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Akar wrote: Until they release 'Competitive 40k' mission pack to replace 'Competitive Matched Play', then the Meta might matter. Until then, it's kept 40k players from having tournaments that are worth attending. 9th will remain the worst edition to ever be released by GW. If the next edition decides to keep the 'Matched Play' rules set as any sort of standard, then it might be worse off than 9th is.
My own interest in the hobby has me looking at other games and systems that have a truly competitive format. Unlike other players, I'm finding it difficult to find one that is worth the effort. None of them have the accessibility of finding a game or community no matter where I travel, not to mention the huge investment I've made when tournaments were relevant. My own motivation is diminished as I try to work on the miniatures, to make a great list that will never succeed, or even be allowed to participate in an event. The natural progression for players that used to lead up to attending tournaments gets cut off when players are required to build for 'Matched Play'.
"Open play" is just as screwed up as Matched Play.
it's more that points costs are one potential lever among many to shape the game towards a more balanced state.
<3
Absolutely. I also like a wide variety of missions that have different goals, not just all of them about cap objectives, or all of them kill.
When you have to build a list and then have six or so different scenarios, you have to keep all of them in mind.
I also like terrain rules that matter and terrain placement rules. My preference is 2d6 pieces of terrain on a 6x4. Some tables may have little, some may have a lot, most will have a moderate amount of terrain, but if you skew towards one type of troop and you roll up a battlefield that punishes you - thats on you.
Those are all ways that can work together. There are others, which is always neat seeing new ways designers come up with to challenge players.
I find games where you have one set of scenarios, and standard terrain placement that are predictable all the time to be killing themselves though they do tend to lend themselves to being able to make predictable lists, which I would challenge is something a lot of people enjoy - so your mileage may vary.
Hecaton wrote: ...I guess I got the name wrong, but I remember that "no points" being the brainchild of someone at GW, which they then had to walk back on. Just like Priestley had to walk back on this here. It's probably possible to make a wargame that's balanced without a points system, but the kinds of people who don't like points systems are usually exactly the kind of person you shouldn't get to do that.
In practice there are two ways to make a wargame. You can have a formalized pick-up game structure with symmetrical forces, symmetrical scenarios, and points, or you can have a scenario-based structure with rigid scenario definitions and a GM to adjudicate. Most wargames are the first type. Some historical wargames are the second. Rick Priestly's mistake was thinking he could make the second type a commercial product by itself, without then adding some of the structure of the first type back in. Whoever decided not to put point in Sigmar's mistake was thinking they could take a game that was very much of the first type and transition it to neither of these and have a game that still functioned at all.
I want listbuilding to be a skill but I think there's a happy medium there. If we could get to the point where the top army is 55% win rate and the bottom army is 45%, and most units within a faction at least fulfill some type of role that would let them be viable in a certain type of list, I would be happy. Having 1 faction with an 80% win rate and a bunch of others at 30% means listbuilding isn't a skill any more, you just choose the 80% win rate list. Listbuilding isn't really a skill when the meta is dominated by 1 faction spamming 1 unit like we currently have.
Toofast wrote: I want listbuilding to be a skill but I think there's a happy medium there. If we could get to the point where the top army is 55% win rate and the bottom army is 45%, and most units within a faction at least fulfill some type of role that would let them be viable in a certain type of list, I would be happy. Having 1 faction with an 80% win rate and a bunch of others at 30% means listbuilding isn't a skill any more, you just choose the 80% win rate list. Listbuilding isn't really a skill when the meta is dominated by 1 faction spamming 1 unit like we currently have.
"Just the right amount of imbalance", thank you.
And once again, this is not an insult.
The first part though, 45-55 brackets and viability all around is not "happy medium" - in practice this is hell of a tight balance to achieve by any means. Even Chess have a balance somewhere between 52-56% for whites.
Toofast wrote: I want listbuilding to be a skill but I think there's a happy medium there. If we could get to the point where the top army is 55% win rate and the bottom army is 45%, and most units within a faction at least fulfill some type of role that would let them be viable in a certain type of list, I would be happy. Having 1 faction with an 80% win rate and a bunch of others at 30% means listbuilding isn't a skill any more, you just choose the 80% win rate list. Listbuilding isn't really a skill when the meta is dominated by 1 faction spamming 1 unit like we currently have.
"Just the right amount of imbalance", thank you.
And once again, this is not an insult.
The first part though, 45-55 brackets and viability all around is not "happy medium" - in practice this is hell of a tight balance to achieve by any means. Even Chess have a balance somewhere between 52-56% for whites.
I don't get why folks seem resistant to the idea of all units being viable... I suspect there's some differences in how were defining "viable" (or maybe I'm misunderstanding and folks aren't resistant to it). I've been taking it to simply mean that the unit has a reasonable situation where there's a reason to include it in your list. At the risk of deleting one of my favorite units from existence (vanquisher LRBT), if a unit isn't viable in any situation you can reasonably expect to encounter, nothing will be lost by deleting it from the codex. I don't feel like it takes very much skill to look at the list of LRBT variants and say "don't take a vanquisher, there will never be a situation where it is a better tool than the other options". Including duds as some sort of noob trap also seems needlessly mean spirited towards new players.
Instead of deleting visually interesting and/or fluffy units, it'd be nice to give them a rules set that makes them a viable option, even if only under certain circumstances.
Just_Breathe wrote: All the new codices haven't been nerfed yet.
The competitive scene will be unbalanced until the new edition is complete.
No, no, the competitive scene will be unbalanced because all the new books haven't been nerfed yet until the competitive scene will be unbalanced because books are starting to be written for the new core rules, until the competitive scene will be unbalanced because nobody has books for 10th, and then the cycle will repeat.
I am usually confused by the idea of wanting listing building as a skill.
As mentioned, for that to be the case; the game has to be unbalanced to have good and bad units and/or gear/options a player has to use 'skill' (or the internet a day or two after the codex drops) to determine the good from the bad. Unless they mean good and bad units vary only slightly. But if this variation is so slight, is it actually be even noticed at the table with all the analog errors and tolerances that come with tabletop gaming? That just sounds like well within 'good enough' balance to me.
Unless someone is trying to say the skillful player would be the one picking the right amount of rock, paper and scissors for their meta (or the game itself wants). I assume this balanced ideal version of 40k would still have units that are more effective vs. some units and less effective vs. others. Which I see less about list building and more reading/guessing the meta. Which I suppose could be called a skill.
However, at a local meta level, that seems like it would just be experience of playing games in your opponent pool, knowing which players are the more talented (serious, more competitive or whatever) and learning what sort of mixture of rock, paper, scissors they tend to use to adjust accordingly. Any regular opponent of mine knows I lean extra hard on infantry (it's why I like 28-32mm scale games), and usually heavy infantry at that, and less on vehicles. I wouldn't call it a skill to list tailor to that. It's just playing me 2-3 times and remembering that. More complicated is in a larger or more foreign groups, it'd basically be luck, a player guessed the right combination to edge out their opponents. So, less a skill and more experience+remembering with a dash of luck.
Even then, it would be kinda strange. As in an ideal game system where things are fairly balanced, it should probably be assumed that the best armies would likely fit closely to a patrol, battalion or brigade detachment in composition of rock, paper and scissor. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think ideally that's what a FOC is for: to set guides for the player to build an optimum list. I know that isn't what GW has ever done with it, or else Troop tax wouldn't be a thing. An ideal 40k, Troops would be the most important element of games as they intended to the most integral, if not also the most numerous unit, part of one's army given the way most FOC detachments work and before specialty detachments were a thing.
Otherwise, why have a FOC? Well beyond historical accuracy, which I assume the most common assets are common for a reason and the game should take that into account and not regulate them as a tax but a core part of the experience.
Unless they mean the skill of list building is planning what you are going to do with your army. Which again, I wouldn't call it list building, I'd call it planning how you are going to use your army. Or just planning. And the sort of player I am is one to generate a plan before a game, but at the same time, I value war games that take this quote to heart. “No plan survives first contact with the enemy.” For me, if you can play a war game and execute the near entirety of your plan more often than a typical baseball pitcher's batting average, the game is not creating enough interesting decision points on the table, your opponent probably easy to beat or your plan exceeding simple and probably more of an outline than a plan.
Like I said, I am always a little confused what other players mean/want when they want list building to matter.
Like I said, I am always a little confused what other players mean/want when they want list building to matter.
That would be useful. I have only really seen one explanation given in some form or fashion. That is:
* - The player that puts more time into their list should have an advantage over someone that just picks stuff they like the look of. I don't really know what that means offhand as it is very general so that would need dove into some depth.
Does that mean, I like thousand sons so I put together a list that has a lot of thousand sons in them, but I get gibbed by someone that cranks an hour into their list to fine tune every weapon to give them the highest power ed coefficient overall and that is acceptable?
What about if I take a lot of thousand sons and mix some other roles in my army like anti-tank, psyker, etc... but still get gibbed because I didn't fine tune my list and thousand sons are overcosted for what they do, so by taking them and a lot of them I have created a "C" level list whereas my opponent knows that thousand sons should only consist of demons, magnus, and mortarion tag teaming and that synergy combo makes an "A" level list because of lethality and durability both being so much higher?
Is that acceptable?
Then there's also - I take a well rounded list that can handle a lot of situations and I should be able to beat the guy that takes nothing but anti-tank. Even though we both have 2000 points, an all anti-tank list can only really kill heavy armor and should in theory be weak at other things.
That particular scenario I do agree with because roles are part of the equation as well as points and I agree that you should have roles represented (but GW games being GW games often the best units do multiple roles so you only ever need that unit)
To me thats what I hear, but I haven't really seen it gotten too deep in explanation. Examples would be awesome since it would provide a lot of that missing context.
I've come to like Auticus more and more over the time I've been on these boards, generally making good points. I'm not sure how much my comment will add to the discussion, but I'd like to add a bit to the pool of listbuilding as a skill, and points as balance.
I've only played a few war games. I don't play very often. Infinity uses points for both balance, and as a way to shape list building. But it also has extra features for both, like availability, and its baked in mechanics, rather than relying on just points. In addition, I really enjoy list building in Infinity, as I have to decide how they'll play on the board, how they'll survive, how they'll move forward, how they'll ARO, how they'll use fireteams, how they'll get the objectives, and how they'll attack before I even start building.
I have an Infinity army for Combined Army that uses Smoke and Impetuous Orders in order to fire and advance as fast as possible, while my Avatar/Nourkias approaches from behind, and I set up Drones with flamethrowers or Total Reaction in order to fire at anyone trying to approach. This is a very basic setup, and I won't claim to be a genius for using it, but it always feels more intuitive and satisfying than what I used to do in 40k, and what I currently do in WHFB. Just grabbing more point efficient units, and putting them in range of auras was never satisfying.
Here's the issue with my list: I had a hard time fitting any specialists for missions, so I only have a few able to actually complete them.
On the other hand, I have a Military Orders knight list that is chock full of specialists, is almost all Heavy Infantry for the sweet 2 wounds and armor, and they all fit in Fireteams. They don't have smoke, so they need to be more careful about approaching, and their ARO stuff is less impressive than my Combined Army list. However, they are an elite list that can complete objectives with a fast and hard hitting hammer. They are definitely not the most balanced list, but surviving and hitting back, while completing missions is what they're all about, and they do it just fine, even if cutting out 100 points of knights would allow me to add 9 models and it would be a better list, because I'd have more people able to act more often. But I used listbuilding to the best of my ability to make a themed list end up good, and I think I made it work.
For points as balance, I really like Infinity, even if that is not the only lever they pulled, because it's not the only one they pulled, and they don't disregard it either. My Avatar for Combined Army is the best TAG in the game, if you ignore points. It is about half a full sized list on its own, so you need cheap units to fill the rest, so you have orders in order for the Avatar to even move and shoot. It can't fully utilize its points unless you use the rest of your points to support it, and once it's fully supported, I've walked it into my enemy deployment and killed them down until only 2 survived, in which the rest of my men could have finished them off, if not for a forfeit. However, it's not able to do that every time. Anti TAG or Anti Armor weapons do kill it fast, and those units with Multi-Spectral Visors to shoot through smoke I bring mean I need to handle those models first, or I'm working with an expensive paper weight. I've even had it die to a few rifles once, despite the chance being so low that I disregarded it as a possibility. But the Anti TAG and Anti Armor models pay through the nose for their quality weapons, and one shot is never enough to fully take it out, as it has insane armor, and 3 structure points. And being in smoke with Mimetism means that even models with Multi-Spectral Visors need to have it at a higher level, or they'll miss most of the time, so they need to be expensive models to handle the Avatar on an even playing field, and more expensive to fight the Avatar with support and destroy it before it causes them issues. Or, as has happened before, load into it with everything you've got, like Ariadna spam, or hackers, or something as simple as just having your guys get into melee, so its Mimetism stops working, which is my friend's plan when he fights it.
I won't claim that Infinity is perfectly balanced, or that its listbuilding is perfect, but it's pretty close to everything I want out of a listbuilding as a skill game. I also prefer skirmish, so that's nice.
Like I said, I am always a little confused what other players mean/want when they want list building to matter.
That would be useful. I have only really seen one explanation given in some form or fashion. That is:
* - The player that puts more time into their list should have an advantage over someone that just picks stuff they like the look of. I don't really know what that means offhand as it is very general so that would need dove into some depth.
Does that mean, I like thousand sons so I put together a list that has a lot of thousand sons in them, but I get gibbed by someone that cranks an hour into their list to fine tune every weapon to give them the highest power ed coefficient overall and that is acceptable?
What about if I take a lot of thousand sons and mix some other roles in my army like anti-tank, psyker, etc... but still get gibbed because I didn't fine tune my list and thousand sons are overcosted for what they do, so by taking them and a lot of them I have created a "C" level list whereas my opponent knows that thousand sons should only consist of demons, magnus, and mortarion tag teaming and that synergy combo makes an "A" level list because of lethality and durability both being so much higher?
Is that acceptable?
Then there's also - I take a well rounded list that can handle a lot of situations and I should be able to beat the guy that takes nothing but anti-tank. Even though we both have 2000 points, an all anti-tank list can only really kill heavy armor and should in theory be weak at other things.
That particular scenario I do agree with because roles are part of the equation as well as points and I agree that you should have roles represented (but GW games being GW games often the best units do multiple roles so you only ever need that unit)
To me thats what I hear, but I haven't really seen it gotten too deep in explanation. Examples would be awesome since it would provide a lot of that missing context.
Eyy, I just responded to this without realizing. I hope my reply works for you.
Yeah its a well thought out detailed response thank you.
I also like Infinity and have enjoyed my games of Infinity greatly because I never feel that I got pummeled because the other guy just copy/pasted a list off of reddit... the other guy has to put thought into how his force is going to work.
Units should not be identical.
Contexts of engagement should vary significantly.
Different units are differently suited to different contexts.
Every unit should suit some context.
No unit should excel in every context..
No game with different units should be perfectly equal.
Balance comes with varied context.
It appears that so called competitive players do not want varying contexts to affect chosen unit performance.
Balancing mechanics come with the very thing that so called competitive players reject, therefore so called competitive player do in fact want imbalance in order to exploit such in order to win.
Toofast wrote: If we could get to the point where the top army is 55% win rate and the bottom army is 45%, and most units within a faction at least fulfill some type of role that would let them be viable in a certain type of list, I would be happy.
Just a point toofast, apologies if it seems I'm picking on you, it's not meant as a critique or an attack.
I often hear folks say 'perfect balance doesn't exist, we just want 'better' balance'. Or something 'good enough'. You've probably heard it too.
And then you say: 45 -55% win rate, most units having a viable role and you'll be happy.
This is what I mean when I say that there is often so little daylight between what people dismiss as impossible (perfect balance) and what people desire (ie better balance) that they might as well be the same thing.
You might not have asked for perfect balance a
here my friend, but what you've asked for is so damn close in the real world there is very very little difference. Not even chess has this, and chess is the most balanced game out there.
And if this is what happy in the hobby looks like, I'll have to joke and say I'm afraid you might be waiting a while. I have to ask if they're really enjoying it, as having expectations that can, imo, never realistically be met is asking for trouble and burn out in the long run.
Like i said, not a critique, or an attack - i know we come from different povs etc - this is just something to think about.
Chess does not have white win 68% or 78% of match ups. If a team has win rates like that it is considered a freak accident. If a sportsman has win rates like that, especially at the very top then you always find out that they are a litteral freak of nature with 1L extra lung capacity, or a super hightened metabolism that lets them deal with Lactic Acid better then anyone else. etc
And it is awesome to behold, when the thing is natural. but very often such wins were aquired with being drugged out of your ass.
Just because a 50/50 win rates of all armies can't be achived, and no one claims they wanted that, it doesn't mean that we should "wait and see" or accept that some armies stay at above 65% win rates for months. Because it looks as if GW was trying to make people buy in to an army, only to nerf it soon after, and make them buy another army if they want to have fun playing.
Deadnight wrote: This is what I mean when I say that there is often so little daylight between what people dismiss as impossible (perfect balance) and what people desire (ie better balance) that they might as well be the same thing.
You might not have asked for perfect balance a
here my friend, but what you've asked for is so damn close in the real world there is very very little difference. Not even chess has this, and chess is the most balanced game out there.
I don't play LOL myself, but isn't 45-55% win rates their target for each hero before buffs/nerfs are applied? I've seen those numbers talked about before on the forums for LOL, with it being held up as an example of "good enough" balance.
Karol wrote:Chess does not have white win 68% or 78% of match ups.
You missed my point karol.
Anyway ive read in more than one place that White has something like a 56 or a 58% win rate. a few percent shy of winning 3 games to every two for black. Or a win rate equal to 150% of black if my out of use math is right. (Different places give slightly different numbers)
Quick google and this is the first thing that comes up (though i suspect that digging down, the picture gets more nuanced, edi: quick dig down and it does get nuanced and it becomes an interesting read!):
'Statistics on Chess
In tournament games that have a winner in chess (decisive games), White on average beats Black in 55 percent of them (Elo ratings of 2100 or above), but for elite players (Elo ratings of 2700 or above), the winning percentage is 64 percent.'
And remrmber, chess is widely regarded as the epitome of balanced. Aspiring to this is one thing, but its basically so-close-as-makes-no-difference to the 'perfect balance' that everyone says doesn't exist and this is the 'compromise' that will accepted. No wonder people are perpetually unhappy in this hobby.
Fergie0044 wrote:
I don't play LOL myself, but isn't 45-55% win rates their target for each hero before buffs/nerfs are applied? I've seen those numbers talked about before on the forums for LOL, with it being held up as an example of "good enough" balance.
Heh. Never played, nor do I want to play lol. Not my thing im afraid! I'm happy with bumbling about on my xbox playing 'life is strange' and 'fallout'.
But if that's the mark that is regarded as being merely 'good enough', christ, no wonder so many gamers are bitter and angry. Like I said earlier, you can provide your best work to the gaming community and it will often be at best, very grudgingly and bitterly received.
My main issue with the current 9. Edition next to the mission is the fact that a lot of units serve redundant purposes. This always results in one choice being superior to the other.
The best example of this is the space marine primaris reiver.
To quickly recap its abilities, as I have never seen it (except when I played it in an Apocalypse game, were the units rules where different)
- Elites
- Basic Primaris Statline
- Special Pistol, Combat Knife
- Terror Troops Ability
- Option to replace Knife with a Bolt Carbine
- Option to take a grav-shute (deepstrike), grapnel launcher (outflank, ignore vertical distance in movement)
Because it is Elites and not Troops, it takes up a slot I would prefer to use for a support character or something more heavy hitting.
Compared to Assault Intercessors, the basic equipment is worse. The different pistol types are comparable, (extra Range vs extra AP), but the chainswords are better then the knives.
Additionally, the Reiver has the Terror Troops ability (which I think was buffed compared to 8. Edition), a -2 moral penalty.
How do you compare these two units, pointswise? I know that in the current iteration, the Reivers are a point cheaper then the Assault intercessors.
But if I wanted to fill a close combat need in my Army Design, and had the choice between the two, I would pick the Assault Intercessors, because they are Troops and better in close combat.
Morale is again such a strange thing this edition that the Terror Troops ability just doesn't really matter enough to even concider it. And in the Elites slot I can pick far better close combat specialists.
The same line of reasoning holds for the Bolt Carbine: I could just take Regular Intercessors with a better gun, that fill a required Troops slot instead.
Again, this is a case of optimal damage output (reivers are cheaper but weaker) and the army composition I want to fill, for IMO the Intercessor wins.
So the Reivers appear quite redundant in their basic load out. How can you correctly balance this unit in the context of the other army units?
Of course, the Reiver can take some equipment to add more versatility, maybe I can find a handy use for its upgrades in my armies needs:
Grav Shute: Gain the Deepstrike ability. Sounds a bit more usefull at first, as getting into combat could be difficult. But I can't move the reiver after deepstriking and a 9 inch charge isn't a guaranteed success.
And the small board sizes mean that it could well be easier to just set up at the edge of the deployment zone and charge from there.
And for a hole point more per model I can get Incursors. They have the, in my eyes, way better ability to just set up anywhere on the board before the game begins. And they are, again, Troops and not Elites.
The damage output comparison in shooting or close combat of both units depends a bit on the weapon selection of the reiver, but at a cursory glance I would say they are actually similar enough for the points cost.
Grapnel Launcher: This one is interesting, as its value highly depends on the board. The greater the height differences on the board, the more valuable the upgrade gets.
And this is another good point already made in this thread: How does the designer correctly balance this piece of equipment? It may be totally overcosted on a board with only 4 inch high ruins
(think of a board solely made up of the munitorum containers or the new fronteris stuff) and way too cheap on a board made up of several levels high skyscrapers.
Having a tournament context known to the designers and players would allow narrowing down the best point cost to make the upgrade useful, as the terrain height is more standardized.
But to a player playing at home who my have scratchbuild his terrain, this standard is totally irrelevant. An alternative would be a point cost function depending on the highest piece of terrain, which is of course totally impractical and again may not asign a correct point cost depending on terrain diversity. The Outflank ability is of course a bit easier to determine a cost, but again for a point more I can set up my Incursors where ever I want. How does a designer balance this difference? Write an AI to play the games, optimize it so a game simulation takes several seconds, use machine learning to balance out the point costs?
TLDR 1: Balancing Reivers with the myriad of Troops choices a Space Marine Army has is IMO impossible.
Another good point made is that 2000 points of random units I liked versus 2000 points of units picked to achieve a purpose in the greater game plan should not make a balance match with equal chances to win.
I have read before that people argue that 2000 points should be 2000 points. In my mind, that doesn't really make sense. A list is supposed to be able to handle different aspects of the game: Close Combat, Shooting, Standing on an objective, psychic powers, etc.
Two perfectly balanced lists would require the exact same amounts of points invested into these aspects, and additionally the units chosen in both armies must have the same output to cost ratio.
But some abilities aren't as useful as others depending on mission, opposing army, terrain setup.
I haven't played this edition aside from two test games because my regular opponent and I both really don't like the current missions. We play a different game, Dropzone Commander.
Yes, Dropzone Commander has some balancing issues as well, there are less efficient choices and some armies need a crutch unit to even compete. But the missions are more fun, and, most importantly,
the game itself requires different unit types to achieve different purposes. Without infantry, it is impossible to score objectives in buildings.
Without anti-air units, it is impossible to shoot down enemy aircrafts, most importantly enemy transports.
My rule of thumb for dropzone is to roughly invest a third of my points into infantry and anti infantry, a third into my command units and anti-vehicles (anti-tank),
and get at least two squads of anti-air (area denial and aircraft hunting)
The remaining points go into utility units that appear useful compared to the rest of the army.
My opponent roughly follows the same rule of thumb, so we end up with a pretty balanced match up. But it is easily apparent that a differently constructed army completely changes the dynamic.
Maybe my opponent decides to bring less anti-tank units and buy more infantry units, to really make sure to have the advantage getting objectives inside buildings. One mission is all about getting into all buildings on the table. Of course he has an advantage in this mission. Another mission has no objective in buildings and requires holding an objective in the open. Suddenly, his list is really bad (Infantry in the open is a really bad idea in dropzone). Again, is it unfair that his list with the same amount of points as my list is way worse or way better depending the scenario chosen? Luckily, Dropzone has a more rigid list buidling system compared to 40k 9. Edition, so a beginner is likely to chose units in way that his list is not completely unable to compete. But the player can get away with constucting a list containing a single infantry unit and nothing more, and he will have a very bad day regardless of the mission.
So in my mind, having a diverse set of mission with different list building requirements, and deciding the mission after list building, ensures a more balanced match, as the list is more or less optimized to work in the constraints of the different missions. A good mission selection ensures balance.
My issue with the current 40k missions is the fact that only two list components seem to matter: How much can I kill and how much can I survive while standing on a specific point. All other considerations are basically tailored to achieve these two imperatives, forcing and optimization into this. Correctly costing a unit of reivers is difficult under these conditions, as their special gear they can equip doesn't really matter in the context of killing more or surviving more.
Additionally, the game has a lot of different ways to achieve the same thing. Psychic powers either inflict mortal wounds (so, damage) or provide some kind of buff. But they don't really interact with the missions.
There is some secondary stuff for psychic powers but they are just ... meh. Either the psycher is efficient in damaging or the buff is better and cheaper then just buying another unit, or he is useless. Not great for balancing.
Shooting or close combat are difficult to correctly point, as one is always better depending on table setup. In the end I all seems to come down to a function of points vs damage output, which really highlights issues.
Now I am aware that I don't have a lot of experience in the current edition and espacially my last point may be totally wrong. And yes, I could just walk away from the game and return once the mission design and army balancing is preferable for me compared to now. And that is what I basically did. I have an eye on the new releases, my hobby his more than just playing the game, and some new units can be used for my 5 parsecs from home solo adventures or are just fun to paint/build. But I really like the universe of 40k and would like to play games set in this universe. I just haven't found a set of missions that create an engaging experience for me yet. An ideal scenario for me would be a set of diverse missions, requiring different unit types to win, and an army roster ensuring that roughly equal amounts of points are spend on both sides for the same mission requirements.
TLDR 2: I started rambling, but my point is that balancing an army selection is way more complex than just correctly pointing unit abilities and stats, because these are so depending on context of mission, opponent army selection (units and faction), and terrain set up. A diverse set of missions requiring different types of units would make balancing more complex but lead to more fun games.
To answer the main question of the OP: No, the meta does not affect me, but that is because I currently don't play 40k and only buy what I want to build and paint.
I think the issue is how you are measuring balance.
There's a difference between thinking any army should at worst have a 45% shot against any army (which is impossible). And thinking that - measured over a few weeks - Tau shouldn't be getting more than 55% win rate in tournaments - and say Guard shouldn't be getting worse than 45% (which isn't impossible).
There has to be some allowance for player favoritism (i.e. good players dont tend to play bad books.) and the results of individual tournaments will be all over the place. But if win percentages are coming through across thousands of games, played at dozens of tournaments, with different faction compositions, terrain, and players themselves, plus the general chaos that is dice, something is probably wrong. Harlequin players are not on 70%+ win rates because they all use loaded dice but because their book is much better than everyone else's.
In much the same way, if the top 4 spots are consistently being monopolised by lists drawn from a handful of books - while the rest get almost nothing, that's also likely because they are better than everyone else.
Points allow this. If Halequin players were told "sorry your book is busted, we aren't going to try and fix it though, you just only get 1750 points in our 2k tournament" - they'd do worse than now. How much worse I cannot say but its obvious any list without a unit or 3 on the table will do worse - across hundreds of games etc - than one that had them. At some level Harlequin win percentages would be brought to the level desired.
Its fair to say GW doesn't have any interest in this sort of balance - hence why their rules changes are no obviously designed to produce it. But this idea its impossible to achieve doesn't make much sense to me.
Put another way - at 90 points a voidweaver is probably the best unit in the game. At say 200 (to be a bit silly) it wouldn't be any good at all. There is therefore clearly some biting point in the middle where - in the context of all the other datasheets in 40k - its reasonable. And this is broadly what we mean by balance. If all the datasheets were balanced in this way, you'd expect faction win percentages to broadly line up.
Some armies may have natural advantages/disadvantages in certain matchups. But even that I suspect would not be so dramatic if the raw material was broadly speaking worth its points in the context of 40k as a whole.
Tyel wrote: I think the issue is how you are measuring balance.
There's a difference between thinking any army should at worst have a 45% shot against any army (which is impossible). And thinking that - measured over a few weeks - Tau shouldn't be getting more than 55% win rate in tournaments - and say Guard shouldn't be getting worse than 45% (which isn't impossible).
True. A faction with a huge roster getting an high WR, say 60%, just for one spammy build and dropping below 50% with everything elses in my opinion is in a very bad state. Orks being competitive with greentides at the end of 8th meant orks were very bad then from my perspective. In such cases the WR alone doesn't mean much in terms of measuring balance between the factions. No one but a handful of hardcore meta chasers was playing 9 squigbuggies and 5 flyers months ago, and yet orks got a very high WR (and a terrible reputation) thanks to a few players fielding that build.
But when a faction has very limited options (who said Harlequins?) and gets an high WR, that actually means something or even a lot.
IMHO a good measure of balance is when armies play reasonably highlander style TAC lists and then the gap between each other is something close to 45% - 55%. But that's not even remotely how competitive gaming is played so all WR collected must be analyzed, and with subjective eyes. They don't provide info without analysis and such analysis is never truly objective. Those data only provides some info about competitive gaming, and such lists not always are common to find in any other environment. Sometimes they are instead. That's why reading the WRs alone is never a good measure of balance and doesn't really describe the state of 40k.
Blackie wrote: True. A faction with a huge roster getting an high WR, say 60%, just for one spammy build and dropping below 50% with everything elses in my opinion is in a very bad state. Orks being competitive with greentides at the end of 8th meant orks were very bad then from my perspective. In such cases the WR alone doesn't mean much in terms of measuring balance between the factions. No one but a handful of hardcore meta chasers was playing 9 squigbuggies and 5 flyers months ago, and yet orks got a very high WR (and a terrible reputation) thanks to a few players fielding that build.
But when a faction has very limited options (who said Harlequins?) and gets an high WR, that actually means something or even a lot.
IMHO a good measure of balance is when armies play reasonably highlander style TAC lists and then the gap between each other is something close to 45% - 55%. But that's not even remotely how competitive gaming is played so all WR collected must be analyzed, and with subjective eyes. They don't provide info without analysis and such analysis is never truly objective. Those data only provides some info about competitive gaming, and such lists not always are common to find in any other environment. Sometimes they are instead. That's why reading the WRs alone is never a good measure of balance and doesn't really describe the state of 40k.
I mean its probably good for the game as a whole if more casual, highlander style TAC lists broadly matchup - because I suspect that's what the vast majority of the playerbase actually play.
But its harder to get the data on that because its not reported in the same way tournament results are. (And at that level, really, list balance is probably secondary to skill/knowledge gaps between players.)
WR doesn't tell you everything - but a game where say Orks (and Necrons, and Thousand Sons, and Sisters etc etc) have a "competitive list" which (with minor variations) is regularly placing at tournaments - is almost certainly better and more balanced than one where they have none.
Its not good perhaps because you can get a codex where 75% is unplayable, but the rest is deemed fine. But it beats having 100% being unplayable. Really this is where GW just need to understand their game a bit better. And not think DG Terminators need a nerf because... DE and Ad Mech are winning all the events.
Hecaton wrote: "Open play" is just as screwed up as Matched Play.
Not disagreeing entirely with you here, but "Open War" doesn't really contribute to the Meta, which is what the thread was asking.
The Meta, and any articles based on it, do affect players who prefer 'Open Play' to 'Matched Play'. Competitive 40k used to represent the best all round hobbyists the game had. Competitive 'Matched Play' is still being treated that way despite excluding Competitive 40k players.
Unit/model cost is definitely a concern and I've stayed out of it because that horse is going through its death throes. 'Matched Play' hasn't made any effort to contribute to balancing anything, and hasn't done anything positive for the game since those responsible for it becoming a part of the game started it a few editions ago.
VPs are just one example. GW already knows that scoring/ranking purely off of VPs doesn't work. They learned this back in 3rd where VPs were tied to how many points were destroyed/remaining. Even then they knew that VPs weren't useful for determining a winner, and the difference in points was used to determine major/minor victories, etc. Going back to THAT would have more of an impact that 'Matched Play' because the VPs would tied directly to points to provide better feedback on a units tabletop strength to get their points adjusted accordingly.
Getting rid of 'Matched Play' isn't going to fix all of the issues with the game, let alone the Meta. It's removal would have an impact on getting players back into Competitive 40k, so that balance can be addressed, hopefully before the next edition.
I chimed in since the topic is 'How much does the Meta affect me?'. I'm simply tired of it having an effect on my motivation to even hobby, when it is based on 'Matched Play'. A system that hasn't included myself for a while now. A system that with each 'innovation' removes more Competitive players from having a home, or an impact on the Meta.
DeadliestIdiot wrote: I don't get why folks seem resistant to the idea of all units being viable...
No one is.
Nou said: "The first part though, 45-55 brackets and viability all around is not "happy medium""
Farther back, aticus had said "Every unit. Every single unit. Every LAST unit in a codex should be viable." to which you responded "Nobody's saying that, so have fun arguing against scarecrows."
Now, obviously, I misinterpreted this to mean you didn't think every unit should be viable...not sure exactly what you were referring to that no one was saying, but I'm going to guess you meant that no one was arguing that all units shouldn't be viable, which tracks with another statement buried in a previous post you made in the thread and with your response to me. Either way, reading the text as written, it sounded to me like there was some sort of resistance to the concept and I wanted to understand why (which I suppose you answered, albeit you were rather curt about it).
Toofast wrote: If we could get to the point where the top army is 55% win rate and the bottom army is 45%, and most units within a faction at least fulfill some type of role that would let them be viable in a certain type of list, I would be happy.
Just a point toofast, apologies if it seems I'm picking on you, it's not meant as a critique or an attack.
I often hear folks say 'perfect balance doesn't exist, we just want 'better' balance'. Or something 'good enough'. You've probably heard it too.
And then you say: 45 -55% win rate, most units having a viable role and you'll be happy.
This is what I mean when I say that there is often so little daylight between what people dismiss as impossible (perfect balance) and what people desire (ie better balance) that they might as well be the same thing.
You might not have asked for perfect balance a
here my friend, but what you've asked for is so damn close in the real world there is very very little difference. Not even chess has this, and chess is the most balanced game out there.
And if this is what happy in the hobby looks like, I'll have to joke and say I'm afraid you might be waiting a while. I have to ask if they're really enjoying it, as having expectations that can, imo, never realistically be met is asking for trouble and burn out in the long run.
Like i said, not a critique, or an attack - i know we come from different povs etc - this is just something to think about.
And this entire problem in chess stems from just a single "faction specific special rule" of "fights first"...
Deadnight wrote: And then you say: 45 -55% win rate, most units having a viable role and you'll be happy.
This is what I mean when I say that there is often so little daylight between what people dismiss as impossible (perfect balance) and what people desire (ie better balance) that they might as well be the same thing.
Considering there was a time early in 9th when winrates were in the 40-60% range, and considering that many of the 9th Ed codices have (unfortunately, while screwing external balance in the process) featured good internal balance where nearly all units have a role, I really can't agree that that's some pie-in-the-sky expectation tantamount to perfect balance.
Perfect balance would be every faction hovering around 50% and every unit being just as viable as every other unit. Somewhat better external balance, and good enough internal balance that most things have a niche (even if they aren't all equally useful), doesn't seem like an unreasonable goal to me.
Am I the only one who read this in absolute shock at how clearly it points out the fundamental flaws of the gakky GT mission design with fixed terrain layouts?
Spoiler:
"[...] To put it another way, if the tabletop is six feet by four, if the deployment is 'line 'em up and go', if the terrain falls within certain narrow limits, and if you know what the victory conditions are - then it's possible to work out points values that have some broad credibilty. You will know how useful or how valuable certain kinds of troops will be within the context of the game. Points values make perfect sense if we are talking about a very limited type of confrontational scenario. However, points values make almost no sense if you take armies into radically different kinds of situations. To give a few obvious examples, if a battlefield is impassable to heavy armoured vehicles then the value of tanks is going to be reduced considerably, if the battlefield is very small or very large, then the value of long range weapons is lessened or enhanced respectively, if the objectives set for the armies require positions to be taken by infantry then this affects the effective utility - and hence the value - of infantry/non-infantry units. Simply put- in different situations the value of units will also be different.
Summary...
If the tabletop is a constant and the win conditions are a constant then it's easy to determine which units are optimal as well as which units will over perform.
IMO, competitive players want predictability. They refer to predictability as 'balance' because it sounds better and can rally players to their false cause.
oni wrote: Am I the only one who read this in absolute shock at how clearly it points out the fundamental flaws of the gakky GT mission design with fixed terrain layouts?
Spoiler:
"[...] To put it another way, if the tabletop is six feet by four, if the deployment is 'line 'em up and go', if the terrain falls within certain narrow limits, and if you know what the victory conditions are - then it's possible to work out points values that have some broad credibilty. You will know how useful or how valuable certain kinds of troops will be within the context of the game. Points values make perfect sense if we are talking about a very limited type of confrontational scenario. However, points values make almost no sense if you take armies into radically different kinds of situations. To give a few obvious examples, if a battlefield is impassable to heavy armoured vehicles then the value of tanks is going to be reduced considerably, if the battlefield is very small or very large, then the value of long range weapons is lessened or enhanced respectively, if the objectives set for the armies require positions to be taken by infantry then this affects the effective utility - and hence the value - of infantry/non-infantry units. Simply put- in different situations the value of units will also be different.
Summary...
If the tabletop is a constant and the win conditions are a constant then it's easy to determine which units are optimal as well as which units will over perform.
IMO, competitive players want predictability. They refer to predictability as 'balance' because it sounds better and can rally players to their false cause.
Mike Brandt = The new Matt Ward
I would put it in a bit different phrasing - predictability shifts the weight of the game with the army construction element towards pre-match-time part of the "competition" and reduces the impact of the match-time in the overall result of the game. ITC style secondaries make it even more pronounced, as you basically already score some VPs before the game even happens. Unpredictable game however skews the result of the singular match to a degree which require a lot of individual matches to be played so that the distribution of skew in those matchups is close to even. So there aren't really too many choices in designing your tournament mission pack for practical implementation. But in the process of gearing the game for tournaments you inevitably make it work worse for contexts that deviate far enough from the tournament/tournament prep setting. The extreme example - "rigid tournament format" makes no sense at all for a minimal sized group of two garagehammer players who know their collections inside out and under the "list building as a skill" premise will end with the same, perfectly optimal lists. The game becomes an exercise in futility for them, as too many parameters are set before the match has started. The unpredictable format however, provides them with the problem to solve only during match time, not before. Those garagehammer players will strive not when the mission context is as rigid as possible, but if it is as broad as possible. This is why so many players call 9th sterile, cookie cutter, boring, etc...
This is of course a completely different problem than the imbalance mess or through the roof lethality.
I would strongly agree that a lot of competitive players want predictability.
That is why random missions (that are truly different) and random terrain are oft rallied against in the most aggressive manner.
Because you can't min/max against a variety of random scenarios or tables. At best you can try to be good all around, but you will then need to rely on your ability to respond to something you aren't built for, which I'm not going to say goes against "competitive play", because competitive players I find relish those opportunities because thats when skill starts to really come through in a game - but I'd say it goes against many of the current modern crop of players that consider themselves competitive players that often have a deckbuilding game in their background that they were competitive with.
auticus wrote: I would strongly agree that a lot of competitive players want predictability.
That is why random missions (that are truly different) and random terrain are oft rallied against in the most aggressive manner.
Because you can't min/max against a variety of random scenarios or tables. At best you can try to be good all around, but you will then need to rely on your ability to respond to something you aren't built for, which I'm not going to say goes against "competitive play", because competitive players I find relish those opportunities because thats when skill starts to really come through in a game - but I'd say it goes against many of the current modern crop of players that consider themselves competitive players that often have a deckbuilding game in their background that they were competitive with.
you can minmax if you know the possible missions tho. Current competitive mission design is the most boring gak ever
auticus wrote: I would strongly agree that a lot of competitive players want predictability.
That is why random missions (that are truly different) and random terrain are oft rallied against in the most aggressive manner.
Because you can't min/max against a variety of random scenarios or tables. At best you can try to be good all around, but you will then need to rely on your ability to respond to something you aren't built for, which I'm not going to say goes against "competitive play", because competitive players I find relish those opportunities because thats when skill starts to really come through in a game - but I'd say it goes against many of the current modern crop of players that consider themselves competitive players that often have a deckbuilding game in their background that they were competitive with.
you can minmax if you know the possible missions tho. Current competitive mission design is the most boring gak ever
So imagine a scenario where you had six different missions. Each with their own win criteria. One was a kill point scenario. One was a take and hold scenario. One was an assassination mission. One was an objective mission. Etc.
And now imagine that before the game began you were on a random table layout... and rolled the random scenario.
It is a very difficult task to truly min/max for six different types of objectives because some missions require one type of army and other missions require something different. And now you have to take all of those into account instead of just always building for one thing, which is where I see a lot of competitive scenarios in 40k and warhammer over the past 15 - 20 years.
I'm not going to use the word impossible to min/max for those, but I'm going to say it would make armies much more rounded and have to take a lot more into consideration. Predictability gets thrown right out the door and you have to rely on your own tabletop skills to see a victory instead of letting your list auto pilot it.
I'm not going to use the word impossible to min/max for those, but I'm going to say it would make armies much more rounded and have to take a lot more into consideration. Predictability gets thrown right out the door and you have to rely on your own tabletop skills to see a victory instead of letting your list auto pilot it.
My experience has been that a fair number of competitive players will still optimize towards kill points and then, if they roll a different mission, complain that they got screwed by RNG.
I think there's some merit to the complaint that the roll for mission can have a massive effect on how two armies stack up against one another, but there are also ways you can give the players some influence so it's not a totally random roll.
auticus wrote: I would strongly agree that a lot of competitive players want predictability.
That is why random missions (that are truly different) and random terrain are oft rallied against in the most aggressive manner.
Because you can't min/max against a variety of random scenarios or tables. At best you can try to be good all around, but you will then need to rely on your ability to respond to something you aren't built for, which I'm not going to say goes against "competitive play", because competitive players I find relish those opportunities because thats when skill starts to really come through in a game - but I'd say it goes against many of the current modern crop of players that consider themselves competitive players that often have a deckbuilding game in their background that they were competitive with.
you can minmax if you know the possible missions tho. Current competitive mission design is the most boring gak ever
So imagine a scenario where you had six different missions. Each with their own win criteria. One was a kill point scenario. One was a take and hold scenario. One was an assassination mission. One was an objective mission. Etc.
And now imagine that before the game began you were on a random table layout... and rolled the random scenario.
It is a very difficult task to truly min/max for six different types of objectives because some missions require one type of army and other missions require something different. And now you have to take all of those into account instead of just always building for one thing, which is where I see a lot of competitive scenarios in 40k and warhammer over the past 15 - 20 years.
I'm not going to use the word impossible to min/max for those, but I'm going to say it would make armies much more rounded and have to take a lot more into consideration. Predictability gets thrown right out the door and you have to rely on your own tabletop skills to see a victory instead of letting your list auto pilot it.
So if you make each mission have a wildly different win condition that is only achievable if you build towards that win condition to prevent skewing to a specific win condition, that just makes players play whatever points level it takes to comfortably be able to build towards all win conditions. This is why we saw the tournament game of 40k lift from 1500 to 1750/1850 to now 2000, because that's how many points it took to build lists with enough things to manage mission sets/various opponents.
Which in turn makes getting into the game more onerous for new players as in many groups they'll be playing "the competitive way", at 2500 or 3000 points, and won't have a lot of room for players wanting to start smaller. Sort of like the problem WHFB had where many people thought you couldn't really play the game lower than 2000 (or 1999+1, or whatever) and many even prefered 2400/2500.
* player builds list to min max for kill points.
* player rolls take and hold mission
* player's army was not designed for take and hold mission
* player has a hard game because of this.
* player complains he was "screwed by RNG"
Conclusion:
* player stacked his army for one thing and by choice did not build for the other possibility. Player's list building in this case was at fault, not RNG... though pawning it off on RNG deflects blame on the player's choice for not preparing properly.
This same scenario plays out across tables across the world when a player shows up to a game with a tournament tuned list and smashes another player and then tells the player that the game is fine, they just chose not to tune their list and that it was their fault for not building appropriately (an ism I see several times a week on discords from my old competitive community).
Giving player influence in the mission would depend on how its implemented. However if they could just say "kill points" and then min max for kill points, we have just brought ourselves back to where we stand today.
So if you make each mission have a wildly different win condition that is only achievable if you build towards that win condition to prevent skewing to a specific win condition, that just makes players play whatever points level it takes to comfortably be able to build towards all win conditions. This is why we saw the tournament game of 40k lift from 1500 to 1750/1850 to now 2000, because that's how many points it took to build lists with enough things to manage mission sets/various opponents.
Or the controlling entity sets the points value to 2000 or whatever and thats it.
The whole crux / nugget of what I see repeated is players want to choose what to min max for and don't want to have to respond to battlefield conditions not in their control - which are all essential parts of wargames. Command & Control - its been almost if not entirely removed from these games.
There is one more consequence of the current tournament mission pack - the predictability of the mission and secondaries you can tailor for/agains, actively amplify any imbalance. In the diverse mission format, an imbalance of a unit that only excels in one out of six cases is less impactful than the imbalance of a unit that excels in all cases.
Basically, the problem of 9th is that 40k is currently so shallow, it became solvable.
So if you make each mission have a wildly different win condition that is only achievable if you build towards that win condition to prevent skewing to a specific win condition, that just makes players play whatever points level it takes to comfortably be able to build towards all win conditions. This is why we saw the tournament game of 40k lift from 1500 to 1750/1850 to now 2000, because that's how many points it took to build lists with enough things to manage mission sets/various opponents.
Which in turn makes getting into the game more onerous for new players as in many groups they'll be playing "the competitive way", at 2500 or 3000 points, and won't have a lot of room for players wanting to start smaller. Sort of like the problem WHFB had where many people thought you couldn't really play the game lower than 2000 (or 1999+1, or whatever) and many even prefered 2400/2500.
uhhh, no? The standard game size has been pushed by GW more than by the players.
So if you make each mission have a wildly different win condition that is only achievable if you build towards that win condition to prevent skewing to a specific win condition, that just makes players play whatever points level it takes to comfortably be able to build towards all win conditions. This is why we saw the tournament game of 40k lift from 1500 to 1750/1850 to now 2000, because that's how many points it took to build lists with enough things to manage mission sets/various opponents.
Or the controlling entity sets the points value to 2000 or whatever and thats it.
The whole crux / nugget of what I see repeated is players want to choose what to min max for and don't want to have to respond to battlefield conditions not in their control - which are all essential parts of wargames. Command & Control - its been almost if not entirely removed from these games.
I just don't see how you could make such a mission set work, without conceding that 2/6 or 3/6 potential missions you're just instantly going to lose unless you're playing an opponent who also did not gear their list towards those specific missions.
If you set the points limits low enough where you have to trade off which missions you're capable of doing, then there's a number of games that really aren't worth playing. is that better than the current state of things? No, I think it's the same. You've just now built into the core rules that there are matchups and missions not worth rolling the game out, instead of the imbalance of army lists causing that.
And to be clear, I'm not talking about skewing. I'm talking about trying to bring a TAC list, but if going against another TAC list means each player needs about 500 points of their army to reasonably take any given possible objective, then you can only build a list capable of taking 4 out of 6+ of those possible objectives. If I have picked 500 points into doing assassinate and you didn't, I win that. If neither of us have 500 points into Take and Hold, then I guess there's a game. If one of us skewed 1500 points into Kill Points and the other did TAC of 500, that's also a fun game. What this sort of system effectively does is INCREASE the number of bad matchups UNLESS! You also make the game size 3000 points, so each player can bring 500 points towards each of the 6 objectives. But then you still have bad matchups where one player decided to skew 1000 points into one and drop the points from another entirely. Now they have 1 great matchup, 1 terrible matchup, and 4 decent matchups...
Yea, I don't see this sort of mission set working at all better than what we currently have...
uhhh, no? The standard game size has been pushed by GW more than by the players.
This is weird to me because many of their White Dwarf/battle report videos are still doing 1500 to this day, besides ones which they specifically call out as like, Matched Play Tournament style.
nou wrote: There is one more consequence of the current tournament mission pack - the predictability of the mission and secondaries you can tailor for/agains, actively amplify any imbalance. In the diverse mission format, an imbalance of a unit that only excels in one out of six cases is less impactful than the imbalance of a unit that excels in all cases.
Basically, the problem of 9th is that 40k is currently so shallow, it became solvable.
I mean, if someone skews hard towards one situation and runs into said situation, their army should perform amazingly well at that situation. Outside of that situation, they're probably going to (and should) do pretty poorly. In a sense, I think this is how things should be.
Of course, if you can only play 40k every now and then, it would really suck to play against that player who got the lucky match between skew and situation. Not sure what the answer to that situation is though (thankfully, there was a social pressure to always bring a TAC list in the small group I played with and that has carried through to present day where I've only been playing against one person from that group)
I just don't see how you could make such a mission set work, without conceding that 2/6 or 3/6 potential missions you're just instantly going to lose unless you're playing an opponent who also did not gear their list towards those specific missions.
I've been doing it for 25 odd years. If you build a general list, you don't auto lose. The only time you auto lose is when you min max your list to one set of scenarios.
And even then its not auto lose, its just very difficult.
I make it very very clear there is a difference between difficult, very difficult, and auto lose.
This missions set has provided me about 20 campaign seasons worth of great games that were not decided by list skewing. I don't think its fair at all to hand waive that type of design as you'll just lose most of the missions if you bring a well rounded list, because in my experience... thats simply not true.
I think its a hard concept to grasp because today we just avoid those type of missions.
Even in warhammer days back in early 2000s they tried doing this and the player base removed missions like the watch tower because it wasn't about kill points and they wanted to skew toward kill points.
I must be completely misinterpreting what you're talking about because how can the win conditions be so diverse as to combat skew but also still allow for TAC where as long as you do not skew you have decent odds (based on game skill) of winning?
That would imply to me that the win conditions are not so diverse, and the real way to play is to skew units which can perform multiple of them? Or that the conditions are easy enough that you don't even need to build towards them in which case I don't see how that punishes skew at all.
This whole discussion reminds me of the NOVA 2019 Question and Answer session for the Middle Earth Strategy Battle Game:
40k player looking to enter MESBG: "When are you going to remove missions X, Y, and Z from the tournament pack? They can make it difficult for armies A, B, and C to compete."
MESBG designer: "we aren't removing those missions. The fact that armies A, B, and C do not have a trivial answer to those missions is a design choice to make A, B, and C look outside the box for solutions - either a more diverse set of units or a complex and clever interaction..."
40k player: [shocked Pikachu]
Obviously it went down slightly differently, because I didn't record it verbatim. But it was a kind of funny interaction.
Rihgu wrote: I must be completely misinterpreting what you're talking about because how can the win conditions be so diverse as to combat skew but also still allow for TAC where as long as you do not skew you have decent odds (based on game skill) of winning?
That would imply to me that the win conditions are not so diverse, and the real way to play is to skew units which can perform multiple of them? Or that the conditions are easy enough that you don't even need to build towards them in which case I don't see how that punishes skew at all.
You make a good point. Presumably there's a sweet spot where the missions and unit versatility enable TAC lists to be made. I'd assume that sweet spot will be different for different size games. Making the missions scale with game size might be able to address that (I think GW might have done that some with tempest of war, but I haven't had the chance to play it yet).
Rihgu wrote: I must be completely misinterpreting what you're talking about because how can the win conditions be so diverse as to combat skew but also still allow for TAC where as long as you do not skew you have decent odds (based on game skill) of winning?
That would imply to me that the win conditions are not so diverse, and the real way to play is to skew units which can perform multiple of them? Or that the conditions are easy enough that you don't even need to build towards them in which case I don't see how that punishes skew at all.
The idea is don't have skew units that can perform multiple functions in the game.
Of course, that means actually having multiple functions that are valuable in the game, unlike modern 40k. But that can be designed in (see my chain of command example).
Rihgu wrote: I must be completely misinterpreting what you're talking about because how can the win conditions be so diverse as to combat skew but also still allow for TAC where as long as you do not skew you have decent odds (based on game skill) of winning?
That would imply to me that the win conditions are not so diverse, and the real way to play is to skew units which can perform multiple of them? Or that the conditions are easy enough that you don't even need to build towards them in which case I don't see how that punishes skew at all.
The idea is don't have skew units that can perform multiple functions in the game.
Of course, that means actually having multiple functions that are valuable in the game, unlike modern 40k. But that can be designed in (see my chain of command example).
Right, that's sort of what I gathered. But if you have Objectives 1-6, and each unit performs 1 of 6 of those Objectives and/or does something else generally useful but not specifically towards specific objectives (like, be cheap chaff or something), and you need to dedicate equal amounts of points to each of those objectives...
So I guess if the minimum limit of a list's ability to accomplish an objective is 1/6th of the lists total points it just seems like you'd have to make tough decisions about which objectives you'd want to be able to accomplish and which objectives you want to give up on. Which I don't see as being too far off from "Well, Astra Militarum has no chance into Custodes".
edit/note/clarification: if the minimum limit of a lists ability to accomplish an objective *is* 1/6th of the lists total points, then you're effectively writing lists for the players. Here's 3 units that perform Objective 1. Pick 1 of them. here's 4 units that perform Objective 2. Pick 1 of them. These 3 units are geared towards Objective 3 but are cheap, so you can pick 2 of them. etc.
Bringing back the equivalent of 2nd ed's mission cards for the Priamry element of a game could be interesting - both players have a "sekrit" draw (or roll, if you'd prefer a table) before deployment which determines their Primary objective for the game.
You could then keep Secondary (and the painting Tertiary) objectives roughly as they are (bar a couple of tweaks, like moving Abhor into the "Kill" section), but have instantly made games more interesting, as you both have to adapt to what your Primary is, as well as try to figure out your opponent's Primary and how to deny it.
That would certainly seem to be a way to increase the skill shown at the table...
nou wrote: There is one more consequence of the current tournament mission pack - the predictability of the mission and secondaries you can tailor for/agains, actively amplify any imbalance. In the diverse mission format, an imbalance of a unit that only excels in one out of six cases is less impactful than the imbalance of a unit that excels in all cases.
Basically, the problem of 9th is that 40k is currently so shallow, it became solvable.
This basically
I agree 100%. I would reword just one thing... "the problem of 9th is that mission design is currently so shallow, it became solvable.
I have seen a lot of comments about list building as a completive skill and find it entirely laughable. I believe that army construction (i.e. list building) is a skill that is only developed when a player has to consider unpredictable variables. I also believe this skill is honed when a player has to make hard choices of what units to include in their army within the confines of smaller points limitations (i.e. 1500 or less).
Identifying over performing unit(s) in a framework of predictability and then spamming them is NOT skill. Not even close.
Dysartes wrote: Bringing back the equivalent of 2nd ed's mission cards for the Priamry element of a game could be interesting - both players have a "sekrit" draw (or roll, if you'd prefer a table) before deployment which determines their Primary objective for the game.
You could then keep Secondary (and the painting Tertiary) objectives roughly as they are (bar a couple of tweaks, like moving Abhor into the "Kill" section), but have instantly made games more interesting, as you both have to adapt to what your Primary is, as well as try to figure out your opponent's Primary and how to deny it.
That would certainly seem to be a way to increase the skill shown at the table...
Wait, so people could for example fake trying to do a different primary or even multiple primaries, so the opponent wouldn't know what they are really going after? That really does sound very interesting.
Dysartes wrote: Bringing back the equivalent of 2nd ed's mission cards for the Priamry element of a game could be interesting - both players have a "sekrit" draw (or roll, if you'd prefer a table) before deployment which determines their Primary objective for the game.
You could then keep Secondary (and the painting Tertiary) objectives roughly as they are (bar a couple of tweaks, like moving Abhor into the "Kill" section), but have instantly made games more interesting, as you both have to adapt to what your Primary is, as well as try to figure out your opponent's Primary and how to deny it.
That would certainly seem to be a way to increase the skill shown at the table...
Rihgu wrote: Right, that's sort of what I gathered. But if you have Objectives 1-6, and each unit performs 1 of 6 of those Objectives and/or does something else generally useful but not specifically towards specific objectives (like, be cheap chaff or something), and you need to dedicate equal amounts of points to each of those objectives...
So I guess if the minimum limit of a list's ability to accomplish an objective is 1/6th of the lists total points it just seems like you'd have to make tough decisions about which objectives you'd want to be able to accomplish and which objectives you want to give up on. Which I don't see as being too far off from "Well, Astra Militarum has no chance into Custodes".
I think your analysis is getting too abstract. It's not like if you take Eldar jetbikes they can only participate in a mission that involves rapid take and hold, or if you take an Eversor it can only participate in assassination, or if you take a Basilisk it can only participate in defense. Some units will be better suited to some missions than others, but even if you're doing a static defense mission there's still utility in having, say, a fast-moving melee unit (specifically, interdiction).
What you can't do in this system (at least, not without giving up on one or more missions) is take that SM2.0 Imperial Fists list that was all static Stalker BR spam and artillery, because then you have no capacity to play an objective that requires movement. Or a Drukhari army that is 100% turn-one assault, because you may struggle in a mission that requires you to play defensively. You need some capability for each mission to have a decent chance at success; not a one-trick-pony army that skews hard into a single playstyle.
Edit: And I mean, to this point:
Rihgu wrote: edit/note/clarification: if the minimum limit of a lists ability to accomplish an objective *is* 1/6th of the lists total points, then you're effectively writing lists for the players. Here's 3 units that perform Objective 1. Pick 1 of them. here's 4 units that perform Objective 2. Pick 1 of them. These 3 units are geared towards Objective 3 but are cheap, so you can pick 2 of them. etc.
Let's say I, as a Guard player, need to be prepared for a retrieval mission archetype. That means having to grab a 'football' in the middle of the board ASAP, then run it back to my lines. Just a random hypothetical example because it's a very abnormal mission type by 9th Ed standards.
I could plan to address this mission with:
-Deep striking Scions that can come down near the objective and grab it
-Infantry in Chimeras, or Scions in Tauroxen, or Veterans in Valkyries, that can roll up to the objective and re-embark once they grab it
-Hellhounds or Sentinels for fast-moving firepower to get on the objective
-Leman Russes, preferably with Demolishers and Heavy Flamers, to push towards the objective at max speed and hopefully kill whatever grabs it first
None of those options are only useful for this particular mission type. Even Guard, a relatively static gunline army, have a variety of options here. The requirement is just that I need
1. Something faster than squishy infantry, and
2. A game plan for playing aggressively rather than turtling up.
It's a combination of taking units with the necessary (and very broad) capabilities, and having a game plan for addressing that particular mission type- being able to play a single army differently depending on what mission is actually rolled. That variation is what people like Auticus are looking for; getting away from the idea of min-maxing an army around a single known objective and then executing a pre-planned sequence in-game to table the enemy in two turns.
I find that most units can sit in multiple roles and do well enough in multiple missions.
If my mission is kill points - then obviously the units that kill really good are going to shine. That doesn't mean that those units are not good in defense, take and hold, or objective games.
If my mission is take and hold and the scenario dictates infantry gains a bonus to taking the objective, then my infantry will shine. My killy units still kill, and my bike and artillery units still do their thing, its just if you skewed all bikes and artillery you are going to have a bad day. They are still doing their thing.
If my mission is multiple take objectives, then my fast units are going to excel, but my killy stuff is still killing, my artillery is still artillerying, and my infantry is still performing its duties. Its just that my fast units are excelleing.
If my mission is an assassination mission then my character killers are going to shine, but my other units again are still working and performing their roles.
If my mission is defend the point then my tanky units are going to shine. My other units are still performing their roles.
If my mission is score points for getting off the other table edge, again ... all of my units are performing their roles, but if I've skewed too far into one thing then I may be at a disadvantage.
If I've built a list that excels at character killing and haven't taken a lot of fast units or units that can hold objectives then I'm hurting myself.
Etc.
So I have to build a list that can accomplish taking a primary objective and holding it, or killing, or assassinating, or holding multiple objectives, or maybe getting off the table.
Instead of the current scene which tends to be either kill points, or take objectives. Or in warmachine's case, ignore the scenarios and just kill the caster so min max toward that.
I do love the primary objectives being asymmetrical idea.
Karol wrote: Wait, so people could for example fake trying to do a different primary or even multiple primaries, so the opponent wouldn't know what they are really going after? That really does sound very interesting.
In theory, yes, that would be possible - I'm not saying I could tell you how different Primaries would work in such a case, though I might see if I can remember where the box with my 2nd ed cards in is, and see if I can find the old versions as an example. But, yes, it could be possible to try to fake out your opponent in such a set-up.
I wonder if maybe w40k would be a better, not saying good, game if the objectives were more like those in large scale games , like historicals for example. We are playing a game with large numbers of models, on a skirmish table with objectives for skirmish games. We have mechanics, regarding LoS and units engaging each other, which are okey for skirmish systems with 20-30 models, but horrible when light vehicles and monsters get spamed andsides run with 40+ models, even if theya re elite. I don't know how the objective should be for w40k. This is for smarter people with moree xpiriance to decide and know. But, assuming GW will never want players use fewer models in their games, maybe stuff like objectives or scenarios should no longer be those from ancient times when w40k was much smaller.
To respond to a few posts which touch upon the same point... in this hypothetical mission set where there are extremely diverse missions and also units that are good at accomplishing more than mission objective... how does one then stop the skew towards those units?
Okay, there's a take and hold mission. I have a unit option that is particularly good for that, with good defenses.
I also have a unit that has good defense and good killing power.
Hey, Unit 2 is good for 2 mission types, where Unit 1 is only good for 1... If Unit 2 costs appropriately for handling 2 mission types, why would I take Unit 1? If Unit 2 is expensive because it gets to do 2 mission types even though it can only be playing 1 mission type at a time, why would I take Unit 2?
Unit1126PL made sense when they suggested that multi-tasker units shouldn't/wouldn't exist in this system. It's not quite coming together in the hypothetical case where you have units that perform well for multiple objectives because then you'd just skew those units.
The other weird part, to me, and this may just be the random examples being used but at least in Auticus' case it seems like these are the literal examples he has used for 20+ campaign seasons...
Those mission parameters do not seem diverse enough to do what you propose they do? Almost all of them seem like they're "take a unit that moves fast, and killy units to support them". Bonus points if you bring a fast and killy unit!
I can't really get into any more detail than I already have on the subject. You can't really skew in those mission sets at all.
The moment you skew, you are likely at a disadvantage.
If you take killy and fast units and end up in a take and hold mission without the required infantry to hold the objective, which are not super fast, you are going to have a bad time.
Also requires that the rules not let you take basically whatever you want, which is what 40k and sigmar allow.
There were some forgeworld campaign books that did this. And while I got to play in a lot of them, there was a lot of drama generated by the competitive crowd because some of the mission parameters were not what the competitive missions were, so their collections weren't as suited for those missions and that made them angry.
Historicals also make use of this technique and I've found it to work to great effect. BattleTech, which is a quasi historical, also has missions like this where if you are playing a campaign with a set list you will get hammered if you skew to one thing at the expense of another.
This is just a discussion to discuss a type of way to get diverse builds. For details you need to follow up with the rules and missions in depth - which is not being positioned forth in this thread as it requires changes to the 40k system overall.
Also requires that the rules not let you take basically whatever you want, which is what 40k and sigmar allow.
But... why? If the mission set punishes skews and rewards TAC, it shouldn't matter if you can bring whatever you want or not because the mission would punish you for bringing the wrong stuff.
edit: If we want to talk about diverse builds, a mission set with a single, or relatively few known win conditions can easily provide that. Just make it so there are multiple viable builds to accomplish that/those win conditions. Make it so shelling the enemy and then walking up with chaff is viable. Make it so you can charge onto an objective and expect to win the fight and end up holding it. Summon hordes of weak minions at key locations during the game to overwhelm via attrition. Use tanky units to block enemy movement and when they're in a rough position because of your tactical genius, you spring a super killy unit, buff it up, and kill 1 vital priority target of theirs leaving them in a worse position.
All of this could be done, theoretically, in the Chaos Marine, Space Marine, or Astra Militarum codexes as example. Leave it up to player personality/playstyle for how they execute a win with the tools they are granted.
1) Annihilation : kill more than your opponent kills
2) Recover the relics : units can pickup 3 relics in the midfield, winner is the one that holds most at the end of the game
3) Excavate STC : Vehicles can do an action on objectives to dig out STC's winner is the one with the most STC at the end of game
4) Destroy the rogue AI : Infantry performs an action on scanners in the midfield to identify which objective contains a rogue AI, Elite Infantry can do an action on these objectives to purge the AI
5) Warp Storm : each turn a growing warp storm makes the board smaller (if youre caught in the warp storm, you take X mortal wounds) winner is the one that controls most objectives
1) Annihilation : kill more than your opponent kills
Okay my list is built to kill
2) Recover the relics : units can pickup 3 relics in the midfield, winner is the one that holds most at the end of the game
Okay, my list that kills stops them from getting any relics, because they're dead. 0-0 draw.
3) Excavate STC : Vehicles can do an action on objectives to dig out STC's winner is the one with the most STC at the end of game
Hm, tough, vehicles weren't killy enough for my list. Ah, as long as I can kill all their vehicles before they dig out STCs, I still tie. 0-0 baby.
4) Destroy the rogue AI : Infantry performs an action on scanners in the midfield to identify which objective contains a rogue AI, Elite Infantry can do an action on these objectives to purge the AI
Okay, so if I kill their Elite infantry or their non-elite infantry, I stop them from scoring? Another draw for me.
5) Warp Storm : each turn a growing warp storm makes the board smaller (if youre caught in the warp storm, you take X mortal wounds) winner is the one that controls most objectives
Hey, in this one the mission itself helps me kill my enemy! Hooray!
edit: "but Rihgu, in this theoretical world, units wouldn't be that efficient at killing!"
So if I can't kill an enemy unit to stop them from accomplishing objectives, every unit is a tanky unit. Is there any point to bringing specifically extra tanky units? At that point it also probably wouldn't make much sense to take specifically killy units as they aren't killy enough to matter for the majority of scenarios.
Tbf IMHO the big thing we are missing is board interaction. We are talking about matching list to mission, but the motivation should be list-to-opponent. This also fits my "units shouldn't do more than one thing" comment.
Chain of Command is a perfect example - mission objectives and whatnot don't really care what specific troops are doing it or whatever. Rather, units have different roles when interacting with the opponent, rather than the mission.
Let's take a look at a roughly genericised options list for a COC force, shall we?
The options vary widely, from anti-aircraft guns to barbed wire to tanks to field guns to regular cars and trucks and both on and off table mortars. Medics, anti-tank guns, anti-tank teams, smoke grenades, platoon adjutants, weapon options (smgs, different types of rifle), flamethrowers, bunkers...
When choosing how to spend your support, it is very rare there is a "best option" because even among similar unit types they have different roles and functions. This is because there is far, far more to the game than "what kills fastest without being killed for cheapest is the best".
For example, an HMG is a lot killer than an MMG, since it ignores one level of cover and provides slightly more anti-material capability. It's usually more expensive than an MMG accordingly.
In 40k, either the HMG's killiness over the MMG is worth the points you pay, or it isn't.
In chain of command, though, the MMG suppresses just as well as the HMG, and suppressing enemy infantry has real value in the game, allowing other tools to work and other units to maneuver.
Your choice of MG support comes down to your game plan, then. By all means, spring for the HMG vice the MMG if you need to outright kill enemy infantry in soft cover at long range. But if you are comfortable suppressing them to facilitate other actions, maybe the MMG is sufficient.
This type of dichotomy goes to the extreme, where units that don't do any damage at all (light mortars with smoke) are typically MORE valuable than cheaper units that kill fairly well (mortars with HE).
If you bring an HMG, your support points are so cut down that you can probably only afford an anti-tank rifle for AT. Now, between the improved antitank of the HMG and the ATR, your opponent will be very sad if they bring a couple armored cars. But if instead they bring a medium tank... You're going to wish you had an MMG and a heavier anti-tank asset.
I *do* think the "everything can hurt everything" nature of 40k is really bad and encourages skew.
If the HMG in CoC did a passable job against medium tanks, it would be best in class for example. Or if most AT weapons were also good against infantry for their points - they would outclass field howitzers.
It is good for games where you play with 10 models or maybe 20. The everything hurts everything becomes a problem when you overlay rules and interactions, and suddenly a basic gun, which is good, suddenly becomes the death ray vide stuff ad mecha could do.
oni wrote: Am I the only one who read this in absolute shock at how clearly it points out the fundamental flaws of the gakky GT mission design with fixed terrain layouts?
...
Summary...
If the tabletop is a constant and the win conditions are a constant then it's easy to determine which units are optimal as well as which units will over perform.
IMO, competitive players want predictability. They refer to predictability as 'balance' because it sounds better and can rally players to their false cause.
No, you're not the only one. Some of us have been saying this about the format for a few editions now.
Until the GT 22 pack, the mission was a joke. Players were effectively playing the same mission every game. The Primaries are pretty much the same. Players choosing 3 more Primaries meant that the only way to play a different game was if they chose different ones between games but if they built their army around the 3 then there was no motivation to. With the GT22 pack they almost caught up to 4th edition. We finally got some variation with a 5th primary being added to the pack to mix it up, but largely irrelevant since they just crammed it into the existing format, making it more of an afterthought to provide a few more points, rather than a solid objective that players have to factor into their list. The 'Tempest of War' mission pack does little to improve the game with the missions still being relatively stagnant.
While I feel similar, I don't think this is a fair assessment. One of the positive things to come from 9th is the redemption of Matt Ward. He couldn't hope to achieve the level of damage that Brandt has done to the game. Hiring him was huge slap in the face to the 40k community that he's ignored. Which is a shame because he's genuinely a nice guy from the conversations I've had with him. He's done amazing things for his community which he has been recognized for. There hasn't been a single improvement to the game though, and it feels like GW has to double down on committing to him or admit to having found someone to fill Wards shoes which should've remained empty.
1) Annihilation : kill more than your opponent kills
Okay my list is built to kill
2) Recover the relics : units can pickup 3 relics in the midfield, winner is the one that holds most at the end of the game
Okay, my list that kills stops them from getting any relics, because they're dead. 0-0 draw.
3) Excavate STC : Vehicles can do an action on objectives to dig out STC's winner is the one with the most STC at the end of game
Hm, tough, vehicles weren't killy enough for my list. Ah, as long as I can kill all their vehicles before they dig out STCs, I still tie. 0-0 baby.
4) Destroy the rogue AI : Infantry performs an action on scanners in the midfield to identify which objective contains a rogue AI, Elite Infantry can do an action on these objectives to purge the AI
Okay, so if I kill their Elite infantry or their non-elite infantry, I stop them from scoring? Another draw for me.
5) Warp Storm : each turn a growing warp storm makes the board smaller (if youre caught in the warp storm, you take X mortal wounds) winner is the one that controls most objectives
Hey, in this one the mission itself helps me kill my enemy! Hooray!
edit: "but Rihgu, in this theoretical world, units wouldn't be that efficient at killing!"
So if I can't kill an enemy unit to stop them from accomplishing objectives, every unit is a tanky unit. Is there any point to bringing specifically extra tanky units? At that point it also probably wouldn't make much sense to take specifically killy units as they aren't killy enough to matter for the majority of scenarios.
Do you remember the start of 9th? I remember people using their 8th Ed kill-as-fast-as-possible assault armies and gunlines, complaining that progressive scoring was making them lose. The assault armies had no staying power to hold objectives (or units that could hang back), and the gunlines had no mobile elements to move forward and take objectives.
Killing the enemy to prevent them from taking objectives is not a universally successful strategy, nor is the sole alternative a game state where everything is tanky and there is no reason to take units with more staying power. Most wargames really do not boil down to these two extremes you describe.
My ideal, again, is Infinity when it comes to most things. I don't think most of the missions in that would work for 40k, but this is just an example.
Infinity is very deadly. I can move out Heavy Infantry with 2 wounds in a group of 5 forward across the board, and if I'm not playing smart, they can end up dead at the end of turn 1, just by walking forwards, because they'll be shot at by the entire enemy team.
Also, in Infinity, I've gone against kill lists and won by completing one objective of a total 3. I passed 3 rolls the entire game, but they were so focused on killing me, that they ended up not completing the objective, while my ninja just ran away. Why did my ninja, who is best at cc, and isn't very killy in comparison to other things at range, win the battle for me? Well, it got Hidden Deployment, so my enemy didn't even know I had it, it had Infiltration, so it could start anywhere on my side of the board, it had Stealth, so I could avoid AROs if I got too close to enemies, and it was a Hacker, which let me complete the mission objectives.
For another comparison where Killy and Objectives were somewhat equal, I played my friend in a game of Infinity when we were still learning. The rules we were using for a map had all the walls destructible with Anti-Material weapons. I was going around, opening doors with a hacker, using a Repeater to distract his TAG, and coming from behind. He was destroying walls and doors in order to shoot me, but avoiding walls and doors which would allow my army to respond to his next attack, or attack on my turn.
That was a kill points mission, by the way.
Reading all this does make me want to try some new war games. Anyone have any recommendations for a fantasy skirmish game that's not GW?
Regarding mission design: my group uses a custom mission format (inside of an entirely custom game, that is not 40k anymore at this point, but that is another story, but this format can be adapted for 40k). It has 8 primaries and 8 secondaries. Primaries are worth max 6 points, secondaries 1 each. You draw a random primary (they are reasonably on par with each other regarding the difficulty), all are progressive, all require interaction with some objectives or board sections. Exactly none of them is kill points. None. The need for killing stuff comes solely from the need to prevent VPs to the opponent. And yes, this is an asymmetric design.
Now come secondaries - those can be generated during the game, by acting on a controlled objective. They are again, varied, and only a single one of them rewards you directly for killing stuff, but it is your opponent, that selects what you have to kill to achieve it. And what is important here - you only generate such side mission, you do not score it by doing this first action. Only then you have to/can perform some relatively simple stuff to score a point. And there is a twist to secondaries - if you fail to achieve them before end of the game, instead of gaining a VP, it costs you a VP.
In this format, if you over invest in defence in favour of mobility, you lose. If you over invest in offence, you lose. If you over invest in mobility, you lose. You have to be diverse. And the "side mission" mechanic let you decide if you can delegate some of your resources to a side task or not. Or if you are loosing on the primary, you can try to make up for it with enough secondaries.
And if you are only killing stuff, you can at most get a draw.
This creates way, way deeper game than current ITC style disaster.
Rihgu wrote: To respond to a few posts which touch upon the same point... in this hypothetical mission set where there are extremely diverse missions and also units that are good at accomplishing more than mission objective... how does one then stop the skew towards those units?
Okay, there's a take and hold mission. I have a unit option that is particularly good for that, with good defenses.
I also have a unit that has good defense and good killing power.
Hey, Unit 2 is good for 2 mission types, where Unit 1 is only good for 1... If Unit 2 costs appropriately for handling 2 mission types, why would I take Unit 1? If Unit 2 is expensive because it gets to do 2 mission types even though it can only be playing 1 mission type at a time, why would I take Unit 2?
In my mind, unit 2 would be more expensive than unit 1 to reflect the greater flexibility. Let's expand the example a bit. We have two missions in the example (for simplicity).
Unit 1 is good at mission 1.
Unit 2 is good at mission 1 & 2, but costs twice as much as unit 1.
Unit 3 is good at mission 2 and costs the same as unit 1 (thus unit 1 + unit 3 = unit 2 for cost and overall mission capabilities)
Unit 4 is able to do mission 1 and 2 half as well as the other units, but has half the cost of unit 1.
I think this set up would provide several options to the player for list building:
Option 1 - skew list: list made entirely from unit 1. The player would do very well on mission 1 but fail at mission 2 (I'll skip the unit 3 skew list)
Option 2 - Elite unit TAC list made entirely of unit 2. This list would have the fewest models, but would be good at both mission 1 and 2.
Option 3 - TAC horde list #1 is made up of 50% unit 1 and 50% unit 3. It will be just as capable of completing the missions as option 2, but have twice as many units. Half the units will do nothing during each mission (because I've simplified it to the point where there's nothing to do except "do the mission"; see atticus' earlier comment regarding this)
Option 4 - TAC horde list #2 is made up entirely of unit 4. There are the same number of units as option 3, but there's never a situation where units are not able to contribute to completing the mission.
Option 5 - variety TAC list. This list is made up of a mix of units 1, 2, 3, and 4. It might be able to do both missions equally as well or it might be a little better at one mission than the other. Generally speaking though, it is capable of accomplishing both missions. The player might choose the units based on list building opinions, fluff reasons, what they think is cool, what hasn't been mauled by the family pet... you get the idea.
I should note that in this simplified example, I'm only considering a skew list one that aims to be the best at a single mission and nothing else. In this example, I don't label taking all one unit as a skew list because I've simplified the list options to the extreme, although I suppose it could still be called a skew list regardless. It's probably what the a player that is only interested in winning would take (no judgement) as it's the easiest to maximize your success (as opposed to option 5). Over a large number of games, I think that the success rate would balance out between all these lists, but option 1 will be auto losing half the games and auto winning the other half. Options 2-4 would probably be tournament lists, but a 100% optimized option 5 list would be just as successful in a tournament as options 2-4.
So long as the difference in success rates between a 100% optimized option 5 list and a 90% optimized option 5 list (to arbitrarily pick a number) isn't too large, the balance should feel fairly comfortable, I would think.
This has been an interesting thought experiment. As always #notanexpert #preparedtobewrong
Unit selection per the above is on the right track imo…
For missions, what seems missing from Righu’s summary are missions that depend on getting in and out with minimal casualties, or causing least damage to the other side such as when stealth or reinforcements called in with heavy losses become possible, or when deployments are staggered, or random, and objectives are not killing, might be minimising casualties, minimising unit exposure E.g. opponent gains x points every turn your unit is visible, 2x when engaged, 4x in cc, because they are studying your strengths and weaknesses, so engaging gives them informational advantage, yada. Such missions are more challenging when moving, and advancing or running, disallow shooting or force penalties, when time is valuable and cc is done in a way where, again, it is committal in that to charge means not to shoot, yada… echoing Auticus, this speaks back to game design, meaning the core game must change, but these sorts of dynamics are possible.
Dysartes wrote: . . . I might see if I can remember where the box with my 2nd ed cards in is, and see if I can find the old versions as an example. . .
I got ya, mate
2nd Ed Mission Cards for reference, or for those who are curious:
Thanks Insectum - and I do want to stress that I'm not suggesting these are ported directly into 9th edition as is.
However, you can see how a game where one side has "Guerrilla War" and the other "Dawn Raid", for example, is going to play out differently to one side having "Take and Hold" while the other has "The Assassins".
Tiberias wrote: I think we all can agree that competitive 40k is a mess right now. Harlequins are just bonkers and Tau/Custodes have to be brought down in line also, I don't think there is going to be any argument about that. But I am genuinely curious as to how many people are actually affected by the current tournament metagame.
Now, if you are a frequent tournament player you are obviously affected quite directly by this state of unbalance in competitive 40k, because everyone is there to win and is therefore trying to play the best, most abusive combinations possible to get an edge. I would only argue that most people who engage in this hobby and are actually playing, are not in the hyper competitive crowd who visit tournaments every weekend.
So my question is for these more casual players: do you actually face 9 voidweavers on a regular basis? Do people you play with mostly bring tooled up meta lists?
I am not trying to sugarcoat the current state of 40k by posing these questions btw, a balance patch is necessary. But I am still of the opinion that in a casual game, where both parties are trying to have a fun game with fun lists....there is still a lot of fun to be had in current 9th edition. The main thing I feel is that you have to engage and talk to people to make the game fun for both players, which I hope is a more positive message than the constant doom and gloom of competitive 40k these last months.
This being the original question. I doesn't effect me much. None of my opponents play T'au, Custodes or Harlequins. Also no one jumps on any band wagons like 9 voidweavers. Opponents play T-sons, Necrons, Sisters, Guard, Orks, Marines, Tyranids, I play Eldar (Craftworlds, no silly clowns), Guard and Orks, looking into GSC. Next game will be 2 vs 2 with Tempest of War deck. Always a nice statement that 'everybody plays to win', yes and no. We make decisions on what's fun for everyone, not what can I do to increase my chances of winning.
And to be clear, I do play tournaments now and then, so not bashing any tournament players, everybody should play the way they like and hopefully have some like minded to play against .
Honestly haven't played much. 9th reminds me 7th. 7th came out shortly after 6th, making codex purchases worthless. Then there was formations, pay to win, rule bloat, etc.
8th was refreshing. 9th came out too soon and now is a mess. Rules updates coming out quarterly, have to purchase multiple books again...
I'm just taking a break until 10th. Hopefully they go back to 6th/8th edition style that was simpler.
Bloat, lack of balance, and frequent changes ruin the enjoyment of the game for me.
Frequent changes are good to prevent spammy OP lists to show up in casual metas; it makes much harder to chase to flavour of the month and that alone is a massive improvement compared to older editions.
Blackie wrote: Frequent changes are good to prevent spammy OP lists to show up in casual metas; it makes much harder to chase to flavour of the month and that alone is a massive improvement compared to older editions.
You know what else is good for that? Good balance in the first place.
The mission set we've made for our 40k games is laid out below - and based on older 4th edition mission types. There are six overall "archetypes" for missions, and each one has a number of variable parameters to it. Here's the synopsis:
[1] BREAKTHROUGH Missions
Two sub-types:
"Ambush" missions are where one side sets up surrounded and other side has a partial force on the board as the ambushing force and can bring reserves. The ambushed force is trying to press of the board and break out. Needs durable mobility.
"Bypass" missions are similar, but less asymmetrical. One side is trying to break through their opponent's line and get off their table edge.
There are six different deployment arrangements and a few variations on scoring.
[2] RECONNAISSANCE Missions
Table is divided into quarters or sixths to form recon zones. Two sub-types exist that give each player points for taking a recon action in each zone (each player can only do it once), OR the other mission goal is actually have majority contorl of each zone at the end of the game. One is progressive scoring, one is end-game scoring essentially. Randomly has one of six different deployment layouts.
[3] INTERCEPT Missions
Includes three sub-types:
(a) Relic extraction (need to search through six objective markers to find the "relic" and then control it at the end of the game.
(b) Terminal Hack - gain points for performing a mission action, with more points awarded for doing more simultaneous hacks in a turn.
(c) Power siphon - gain points for the number of points exclusively held when at least one unit completes a mission action at a power station. Uses a "threshold" score where the first player to X-points wins.
These all have six different possible deployment layouts, and also variable arrangements for the number of terminals/stations that can be placed (and it's variable where they can go on the board)
[4] POINT CONTROL Missions
These all use familiar control points with a lot of variables governing the pacing the game. Three principal sub-types include "Hold The Line (only need to control points at the end of the game), "Press the Attack" (uses progressive scoring), and "Delay Action" (uses threshold for victory). Parameters/variation govern the number of points, placements in neutral versus deployment zones, value of differnent points, etc.
Essentially all of the basic missions types in 9th ed / ITC style missions are encompassed by this archetype.
[5] DESTROY / DEFEND
Siege and attacker/defender types missions. Two sub-types for "Bunker Assaults" and "Pipeline Raids" with one side being an attacker and the other the defender. Need to breach bunkers in order to secure/capture them at the end of the game. Pipelines need to be defended, etc. 12 different deployment zone arrangements, either symmetrical or asymmetric.
[6] CRITICAL TARGET
Two-main sub-types:
(a) Nexus - controlling a key point in the center of the battlefield at the end of the game.
(b) Supply Drop - center point/ scoring zone randomly scatters around the board, and the player controlling it at the end wins.
We've found this set of missions really requires a diverse (e.g. non-skew) list to do well across the board. You need to have a bunch of "tools in the toolbox" and the skill comes in knowing when and how to use a given tool to try and secure the win.
Some of the subtler parameters like end game vs. progressive scoring makes a huge difference the pacing and tempo of a game and how different armies need to work to win. If you have a heavy, slower, kill everything list but your opponent can run around and hide and dash onto the objective at the end, you can't really sit back and just shoot away and optimize killing - it forces your army into unexpected places.
The deployment zone maps make a huge difference too, and having a wide vs. a narrow front needs to be considered as you balance our long-range and mobility considerations in your list. We're developing some additional "twists" to be used as well, for things that represent "escalating engagements" (i.e. majority of both players forces start in reserve) and other twists that shake things up.
It says a lot about people's attitude when playing "competitively" with a diverse set of missions like this. The WAAC player that wants to optimize their way to winning at the list building stage is going take issue with diverse missions that force them out of their comfort zone.
When we sit down to play, based on my army list, I only have a general "plan of attack" on the assumption that I'm playing a straight up kill mission. Once we roll the mission details out and see the terrain layout, I really have to evaluate and think through each unique situation and how to use each unit to support victory. I have to come up with a new plan each time For us, this is great and is where the skill in the game comes through. AKA, having to devise a genuine strategy and contingency plans for when it all falls apart
Blackie wrote: Frequent changes are good to prevent spammy OP lists to show up in casual metas; it makes much harder to chase to flavour of the month and that alone is a massive improvement compared to older editions.
It is also super effective at making people not start the game at all. For example AoS , not for all armies, have fewer models, so unless you play stormcasts the chance of being totaly nerf nuked is low, after you buy an army. The army will still be just as expensive as a w40k one, but it will be much safter to start playing the faction. Smaller skimirsh games are even better. For the around 1000$ for a new w40k army, you can often play with 3-4 factions, or more. The way GW fixes w40k, is okeyish for veteran players with multiple armies or people who have everything for a faction, meaning nerfs mean little and if they play 20+ years, then a year of bad time is nothing. But if you are a new player, specially a kid or a teen, the idea of spending money and getting your army nerfed, before you aquire it , is not a good thing for the future. Of course what does a 40+ or 50+ designer care, what may happen in 10 or 20 years time? Probably as much as a samsung developer, when asked why a phone from 4 years ago stops working on its own.
Blackie wrote: Frequent changes are good to prevent spammy OP lists to show up in casual metas; it makes much harder to chase to flavour of the month and that alone is a massive improvement compared to older editions.
It is also super effective at making people not start the game at all. For example AoS , not for all armies, have fewer models, so unless you play stormcasts the chance of being totaly nerf nuked is low, after you buy an army. The army will still be just as expensive as a w40k one, but it will be much safter to start playing the faction. Smaller skimirsh games are even better. For the around 1000$ for a new w40k army, you can often play with 3-4 factions, or more. The way GW fixes w40k, is okeyish for veteran players with multiple armies or people who have everything for a faction, meaning nerfs mean little and if they play 20+ years, then a year of bad time is nothing. But if you are a new player, specially a kid or a teen, the idea of spending money and getting your army nerfed, before you aquire it , is not a good thing for the future. Of course what does a 40+ or 50+ designer care, what may happen in 10 or 20 years time? Probably as much as a samsung developer, when asked why a phone from 4 years ago stops working on its own.
This, change for changes sake is never a good thing, ever.
If the "Frequent chages" where oh this unit was way to OP lets bring it in line, then sure, but its not that. Codex creep has become horribly obvious in 9th, worse then i have ever seen in my some decade + of playing warhammer. The only other time i saw it this bad was with Tsons at the end of 7th.
GW is not charging it for balance, they are changing it to push models.
Karol wrote: Smaller skimirsh games are even better. For the around 1000$ for a new w40k army, you can often play with 3-4 factions, or more. wn.
Agree entirely- I am just loving KT.
But I wanted to point out that all of the games I have played in 9th so far have been 25PL Crusade games- so even 40k CAN BE that small skirmish game where you have four playable factions for $1000. I know that most people are going to insist that their local metas will not allow them to play anything other than 2k matched, and that's a valid point- but it doesn't change the fact that 40k was written to facilitate the potential to play the game in this way.
The mission set we've made for our 40k games is laid out below - and based on older 4th edition mission types. There are six overall "archetypes" for missions, and each one has a number of variable parameters to it. Here's the synopsis:
It says a lot about people's attitude when playing "competitively" with a diverse set of missions like this. The WAAC player that wants to optimize their way to winning at the list building stage is going take issue with diverse missions that force them out of their comfort zone.
When we sit down to play, based on my army list, I only have a general "plan of attack" on the assumption that I'm playing a straight up kill mission. Once we roll the mission details out and see the terrain layout, I really have to evaluate and think through each unique situation and how to use each unit to support victory. I have to come up with a new plan each time For us, this is great and is where the skill in the game comes through. AKA, having to devise a genuine strategy and contingency plans for when it all falls apart
Thank you for sharing those, I exalted as it is a good contribution and sharing of ideas. I do agree that someone wanting to win in the listbuilding phase will usually not enjoy games where there are too many variables for them to plan for.
I personally love those because in war no plan goes unchallenged and no commander has absolute control over the battlefield or their forces and part of being good as a commander is being able to react to situations you weren't 100% prepared for.
Well some armies lose the game at the listbuilding phase, if you don't build them in one very specific way they can play well. And if that way of playing doesn't work in even 1/5th of the games, people are not going to like it. Lets say if we had a scenario where you needed to get a transport/non walker vehicle on to an objective and then zipp it to your deployment zone, some players may just as well not play the game if this scenario pops up, while others will swarm the objective turn one with 6+ skimmers and good luck killing them all.
Karol wrote: Well some armies lose the game at the listbuilding phase, if you don't build them in one very specific way they can play well. And if that way of playing doesn't work in even 1/5th of the games, people are not going to like it. Lets say if we had a scenario where you needed to get a transport/non walker vehicle on to an objective and then zipp it to your deployment zone, some players may just as well not play the game if this scenario pops up, while others will swarm the objective turn one with 6+ skimmers and good luck killing them all.
While correct for the current iteration of 40k, I think for the purposes of this exercise we have to imagine an entirely different 40k where lethality is toned down, and a few other big changes.
The "diverse mission set" paradigm falls to the level of lethality we have right now.
I personally love those because in war no plan goes unchallenged and no commander has absolute control over the battlefield or their forces and part of being good as a commander is being able to react to situations you weren't 100% prepared for.
There's a wonderful wee game from warlord called 'test of honour'. Samurai and ashigaru. Miniatures are kind of awful but we loved the rules. Very narrative and immersive.
It taught me a lot about myself and how I played games. Basically, it's an aa game and each turn you pull a token out of a bag (samurai or ashigaru) and that's what you get to activate. Samurai can activate multiple times, mooks only once.
And I was horrible at this game. And I'll always think fondly of toh for showing thos to me.
I really struggled with it, mechanically. Coming from a background of mainly wmh where I'm used to having ^total^ control of my army - what activates, when, where it goes - and where the game system is almost entirely ^ordered^ and ^predictable^, and being able to visualise a gane state 3-turns later and in our group I am probably the best at this 'kind of thing', but I really struggled with the inherent chaos of toh and ironically my buddies adapted swimmingly - it was how they'd been playing since the 80s more or less - they just instinctively understood it where i couldnt even get my plans off the ground and theyd be a mile ahead, effortlessly.
I learned very quickly my own limitations as a player where I was really good where I could pick my perfect army and have it work in a system where everything was known and predictable and within my control, but the second it was a scenario where I could not control my own army or how it acted and I was at sea. I learned very quickly anyone can be apparently 'good' in a system that xan be manipulated and where everything is ordered and it kind of holds your hand, to be 'great' you have to be able to deal with things out of your control and be able to improvise and adapt. It's one of the reasons now why I find these types of games where you're not fully in control, with well designed random elements or in-built chaos/lack of control far more interesting and intriguing now than the games I used to play. I'm genuinely glad I learned this lesson.
Karol wrote: Well some armies lose the game at the listbuilding phase, if you don't build them in one very specific way they can play well. And if that way of playing doesn't work in even 1/5th of the games, people are not going to like it. Lets say if we had a scenario where you needed to get a transport/non walker vehicle on to an objective and then zipp it to your deployment zone, some players may just as well not play the game if this scenario pops up, while others will swarm the objective turn one with 6+ skimmers and good luck killing them all.
This is probably the best proof there is, that GW is in model making business first, game business second (bordering at "game is just an afterthought"). "Some factions simply cannot perform anyhow within some mission parameters, let alone on a viable level" comes from factions being developed/introduced around the "rule of cool (models)", without any consideration how they work within the system and then ham-fisted into the game. And mind you, this reaches far beyond the mere "badly balanced" aspect of factions interaction. See SfD when Ynnari were first introduced.
If any given scenario works fine for all but few factions, then it does not mean it's a bad scenario, it means that those factions have no place in the game. And to be crystal clear - I'm talking about broad aspect of game design, I do not intend to squat (pun intended) any faction from 40k, we have to live with the consequences of GW choosing to go against fundamentals of game design for the rest of our individual 40k lives. But the result of "models first, game second" is that the only aspect of mission design that factions have in common is killing stuff. Everything else will punish factions heavily skewed towards one of the fundamental areas of the game - mobility, offence or defence.
In a properly designed wargame, you design core system, including mission parameters in it. Then you design factions around the system and you only differentiate them enough for them to have flavour, but still function well within parameters of your core system. This is basically why early stages of Oldmunda campaigns and HH work well, while main 40k worked well last in 5th. But because the milk is spilled already, no "ground up restart" of 40K will solve the problem of faction bloat.
Deadnight wrote: It's one of the reasons now why I find these types of games where you're not fully in control, with well designed random elements or in-built chaos/lack of control far more interesting and intriguing now than the games I used to play. I'm genuinely glad I learned this lesson.
<Cough... oldhammer... cough.... ahem> You were saying?
I personally love those because in war no plan goes unchallenged and no commander has absolute control over the battlefield or their forces and part of being good as a commander is being able to react to situations you weren't 100% prepared for.
There's a wonderful wee game from warlord called 'test of honour'. Samurai and ashigaru. Miniatures are kind of awful but we loved the rules. Very narrative and immersive.
It taught me a lot about myself and how I played games. Basically, it's an aa game and each turn you pull a token out of a bag (samurai or ashigaru) and that's what you get to activate. Samurai can activate multiple times, mooks only once.
And I was horrible at this game. And I'll always think fondly of toh for showing thos to me.
I really struggled with it, mechanically. Coming from a background of mainly wmh where I'm used to having ^total^ control of my army - what activates, when, where it goes - and where the game system is almost entirely ^ordered^ and ^predictable^, and being able to visualise a gane state 3-turns later and in our group I am probably the best at this 'kind of thing', but I really struggled with the inherent chaos of toh and ironically my buddies adapted swimmingly - it was how they'd been playing since the 80s more or less - they just instinctively understood it where i couldnt even get my plans off the ground and theyd be a mile ahead, effortlessly.
I learned very quickly my own limitations as a player where I was really good where I could pick my perfect army and have it work in a system where everything was known and predictable and within my control, but the second it was a scenario where I could not control my own army or how it acted and I was at sea. I learned very quickly anyone can be apparently 'good' in a system that xan be manipulated and where everything is ordered and it kind of holds your hand, to be 'great' you have to be able to deal with things out of your control and be able to improvise and adapt. It's one of the reasons now why I find these types of games where you're not fully in control, with well designed random elements or in-built chaos/lack of control far more interesting and intriguing now than the games I used to play. I'm genuinely glad I learned this lesson.
The word you are looking for is "solvable". When I've returned to 40K in 7th I've played just a few Eternal War games, exactly because how fundamentally predictable the flow of the game was. I was then amazed how the overall community was focussed entirely on this small pool of solvable scenarios. Sure, Maelstrom had some fundamental flaws (which however were trivially fixable) and was not suitable for any kind of tournament setting, but it's unpredictability made for vastly more interesting flow of games.
On an entirely unrelated note. I just read today's Balance Dataslate and while I have nothing to say about the balance updates themselves, I'm utterly dreaded by the language of this Dataslate. Warhammer 40k is currently written with the all bad practices we know from the polish law - "change the first paragraph of xxx to read yyy", "substitute A with B", "add the following sentence to". We had a major "gate" kind of political crisis some years back exactly because of such approach to rules writing. And I already saw questions if those are incremental changes or they replace the changes from the last Dataslate. Any ruleset that is not a consolidated text will eventually drive players out of the game, as it may attract rule lawyers but the cognitive overhead and source spread turns an activity that was meant to be a fun pass time into a headache inducing nightmare.
I really don't know why the update can't be
[rule X]
[full text of the new rule]
it is not like they are printing those things, it is a pdf.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
nou 804379 11345944 wrote:
This is probably the best proof there is, that GW is in model making business first, game business second (bordering at "game is just an afterthought"). "Some factions simply cannot perform anyhow within some mission parameters, let alone on a viable level" comes from factions being developed/introduced around the "rule of cool (models)", without any consideration how they work within the system and then ham-fisted into the game. And mind you, this reaches far beyond the mere "badly balanced" aspect of factions interaction. See SfD when Ynnari were first introduced.
I said this before, but I think the whole objective/scenarios we have right now or which people propose are great for games with 20-30 models. If w40k was like infnity a grab objective X on turn 1, then relocate to perform an action on turn 2, while trying to kill his designated survive target, it could make for fun games. But when the game is, I move my 9 gun boats of doom after blowing up 1000pts of your army, and now doing a "cool" objective which boil down to"if you can't destroy 9 gunboats in a single turn after losing 1000pts, I will score it" the "cool" is not so cool, and people would rather play the same stale type of games.
The best thing for w40k would be, if a group of real game designer founded a company and wrote a rule set that either works with mass model use and mass combat, and has scenarios and objectives for that kind of a games. Or make Warhammer 40000 2ed 2.0 classic edition, with update factions and points costs, maybe some smoothed out rules, but generaly a game system where 2000pts mean you have maybe 1 void weaver and 2 stars in an army, or when puting 2 NDKs in to a single army is huge point investment. I don't think GW can fix their rules systems, meaning people have to accept the way they are. Or ,and I trust mr Atticus on that, GW may not even want to fix or balance their games at all, because it isn't their goal, not even a secondary one.
The best thing for w40k would be, if a group of real game designer founded a company and wrote a rule set that either works with mass model use and mass combat, and has scenarios and objectives for that kind of a games.
I know a guy Actually my game studio is working on a fantasy game set in a heavy metal realms world based on heavy metal music and imagery which does incorporate fantasy and sci fi pieces... but its designed to be a narrative experience that caters to story telling as well as wargame tropes like command & control and things players can't control - like real battles. Its not being designed as a tournament game, its more in the same vein as like a battletech with story type narrative hooks from games like kingdom death, and old school mighty empires.
I doubt it will even stand up to 40k or even get a half of a half of a percentage of its players but I'm doing it more to enjoy the models again and selling the models we come up with as STL files you can print as many as you want.
The best thing for w40k would be, if a group of real game designer founded a company and wrote a rule set that either works with mass model use and mass combat, and has scenarios and objectives for that kind of a games.
I know a guy Actually my game studio is working on a fantasy game set in a heavy metal realms world based on heavy metal music and imagery which does incorporate fantasy and sci fi pieces... but its designed to be a narrative experience that caters to story telling as well as wargame tropes like command & control and things players can't control - like real battles. Its not being designed as a tournament game, its more in the same vein as like a battletech with story type narrative hooks from games like kingdom death, and old school mighty empires.
I doubt it will even stand up to 40k or even get a half of a half of a percentage of its players but I'm doing it more to enjoy the models again and selling the models we come up with as STL files you can print as many as you want.
Tbh it sounds pretty neat, is there any public info out about it or a name I can listen for on the vox echoes?
Blackie wrote: Frequent changes are good to prevent spammy OP lists to show up in casual metas; it makes much harder to chase to flavour of the month and that alone is a massive improvement compared to older editions.
It is also super effective at making people not start the game at all.
Nah, it simply discourages WAAC players to join the game, which is excellent news. Someone that starts shouldn't worry at all about listbuilding and competitive gaming. I certainly didn't do when I was a kid, started playing "competitive" after 4-5 years, and I'm now almost 25 years into this hobby.
Toxic environments are still toxic even if they are less gatekeeping. In fact they might be even more toxic if WAACs can chase the flavour of the month much easier.
Ah yeah, because when a new player starts and goes the "play what you want" way he is always suffering from the same conditions as I do and it makes him unable to quit, no matter how bad unfun the game is for him.
And I don't want to go in to again, how different avarge incomes affact the buying and army composition. So allow me to disagree
and the whole toxic vibe thing. If my place is toxic and everyone else is having fun playing their open narrative games and painting 99% of the hobby time, then why do so many people have problems with too good and too bad army books? I mean surely if the majority is not toxic and plays for fun, as if those playing to win didn't have fun, then such threads wouldn't be posted in forums all around the world.
The best thing for w40k would be, if a group of real game designer founded a company and wrote a rule set that either works with mass model use and mass combat, and has scenarios and objectives for that kind of a games.
I know a guy Actually my game studio is working on a fantasy game set in a heavy metal realms world based on heavy metal music and imagery which does incorporate fantasy and sci fi pieces... but its designed to be a narrative experience that caters to story telling as well as wargame tropes like command & control and things players can't control - like real battles. Its not being designed as a tournament game, its more in the same vein as like a battletech with story type narrative hooks from games like kingdom death, and old school mighty empires.
I doubt it will even stand up to 40k or even get a half of a half of a percentage of its players but I'm doing it more to enjoy the models again and selling the models we come up with as STL files you can print as many as you want.
Tbh it sounds pretty neat, is there any public info out about it or a name I can listen for on the vox echoes?
The first rulebook (the warband scale - so 40k scale basically) is about 75% done and art work is being produced through the summer. We are hoping to have a playtest run while that is happening using sigmar models or whatever (ultimately its models agnostic with our own that you can use if you feel like it). When that happens, we will be broadcasting on the studio facebook and discord and sites like this
Karol wrote: Ah yeah, because when a new player starts and goes the "play what you want" way he is always suffering from the same conditions as I do and it makes him unable to quit, no matter how bad unfun the game is for him.
And I don't want to go in to again, how different avarge incomes affact the buying and army composition. So allow me to disagree
and the whole toxic vibe thing. If my place is toxic and everyone else is having fun playing their open narrative games and painting 99% of the hobby time, then why do so many people have problems with too good and too bad army books? I mean surely if the majority is not toxic and plays for fun, as if those playing to win didn't have fun, then such threads wouldn't be posted in forums all around the world.
Many players here maybe, an irrelevant fraction of the playerbase. And most of the posters here don't even play.
Also, GW seems to be pretty healthy. Regardless of the "too frequent changes2. But maybe those too frequent changes are among the major reasons why GW is still so popular instead.
Good for company is not always good for the players. And yeah GW is practicaly a monopoly that can print its own money and the ways to set its worth. Of course it is going to do well.
And even if it is true, that most posters on dakka do not play, it ain't true for all the forums cross the world. And there is talk about stuff almost every codex that comes out. Specially since DE dropped. And saying that people don't quit, because of rules or because they army becomes bad or illegal, or that they are somehow the minority is just, how do you know that? The churn over of new players, and not speaking about my area here, is huge. People last less then an edition. And you want to tell me that they just quit from reasons unrelated to the game, or maybe because GW doesn't make models they want to paint? Why are all the pictures from clubs and stores full of older dudes, where are the teens and kids playing the game ?
The best thing for w40k would be, if a group of real game designer founded a company and wrote a rule set that either works with mass model use and mass combat, and has scenarios and objectives for that kind of a games.
I know a guy Actually my game studio is working on a fantasy game set in a heavy metal realms world based on heavy metal music and imagery which does incorporate fantasy and sci fi pieces... but its designed to be a narrative experience that caters to story telling as well as wargame tropes like command & control and things players can't control - like real battles. Its not being designed as a tournament game, its more in the same vein as like a battletech with story type narrative hooks from games like kingdom death, and old school mighty empires.
I doubt it will even stand up to 40k or even get a half of a half of a percentage of its players but I'm doing it more to enjoy the models again and selling the models we come up with as STL files you can print as many as you want.
Insectum7 wrote:Tbh I've never been more inclined to start my own company aimed at making an alternative ruleset than now.
After 8th hit the shelves, my group deviated from "the official" 40K. Since then, we have been playing what basically was an ever morphing ruleset, a constant WIP. But in the last year or so it finally took a current shape and we are no longer morphing it, only fine tuning it. It is a completely different game in all regards (d12+dX resolution I'm especially proud of, simultaneous damage resolution, AA of large chunks (3-6 per side) etc) and plays really well, so well there isn't really any point in comparing it to 40k disaster. I'm in the process of formatting the core rules to a decent publication standard ATM "for fun" (I'm graphic designer by trade). It won't probably be ever (?) published, because core rules is one thing - factions take A LOT of time even porting from 40k - translating stats, rewriting rules, tweaking performance etc. But we're having a blast and I think some of the more narrative oriented folks would appreciate how this game feels.
Why are all the pictures from clubs and stores full of older dudes, where are the teens and kids playing the game ?
When I was a teen I was always playing at my or my friends' homes with people my age. Definitely not in stores against guys that were practicing for tournaments.
There was an article I read that said the vast majority of card games aren't played at the stores but at homes, maybe it's true also for miniature wargames.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Karol wrote: People last less then an edition. And you want to tell me that they just quit from reasons unrelated to the game, or maybe because GW doesn't make models they want to paint?
I quit two times, during end of 3rd, returning at the beginning of 5th, and near end of 5th, returning in 7h, always because I had other priorities or other interests during that period. Never for something related to the game.
I have quit and taken long breaks twice specifically because of the state of the game. When 7th got really bad, all of a sudden you had WMH and Xwing tournaments getting 30+ players and nobody playing 40k. It's disingenuous to pretend that nobody quits because of the state of the game. There's a local group meeting up to play Infinity for the first time since the pandemic started, again specifically because of the state of 40k.
Toofast wrote: I have quit and taken long breaks twice specifically because of the state of the game. When 7th got really bad, all of a sudden you had WMH and Xwing tournaments getting 30+ players and nobody playing 40k. It's disingenuous to pretend that nobody quits because of the state of the game. There's a local group meeting up to play Infinity for the first time since the pandemic started, again specifically because of the state of 40k.
We may differ deeply otherwise, but I agree, that rage quits are not all that uncommon. I quit after 3rd ed Craftworld codex have not brought any flavour of the faction back, returned in 7th and then after 8th hit I just couldn't be bothered by official rules anymore. I know players that jumped on the hype train when 8th hit, only to switch to SW Legion relatively soon after, because of how modern 40k is not a wargame anymore. People I know who left "because of life reasons" did that not because those reasons "prevented them from playing the game they loved", but because 40k was not worth all that much for them anymore, exactly because they were already downed by the constant gakshow of rules and the toxicity of the community.
It plays much more like a card game with wombo combos and gotcha mechanics. Not a great direction for a wargame IMO. There's other wargames that operate like cardgames with much better/tighter rulesets and better balance already.
Insectum7 wrote: Tbh I've never been more inclined to start my own company aimed at making an alternative ruleset than now.
If you have the means I thnk you should. I don't do it expecting massive revenue, I do it to make a game I enjoy - but I think the more commercial products available the better.
Toofast wrote: I have quit and taken long breaks twice specifically because of the state of the game. When 7th got really bad, all of a sudden you had WMH and Xwing tournaments getting 30+ players and nobody playing 40k. It's disingenuous to pretend that nobody quits because of the state of the game. There's a local group meeting up to play Infinity for the first time since the pandemic started, again specifically because of the state of 40k.
Of course but it's also disingenuous to pretend that everybody quits because the state of the game. Or even the majority. There are several main factors that cause people to leave 40k: personal issues, change of interests, family, work, school, personal finances, etc...
Of course but it's also disingenuous to pretend that everybody quits because the state of the game. Or even the majority. There are several main factors that cause people to leave 40k: personal issues, change of interests, family, work, school, personal finances, etc...
I think the problem is also people leave for different game reasons.
At least in my experience WMH and X-wing took off because of the excesses of 5th (I know, Dakka heresy) and then 6th/7th.
People seemingly didn't want more verisimilitude, or a "war" game. They wanted a game with tight rules that could conclude in about an hour. Combos, gotchas, MTG in mini form describes these games reasonably well. If you got smashed quickly you could just play again with a few different peices. This compared with 40k's 3 hour slog to reach a highly probable conclusion based on faction (or who went first) imbalance. But hey, maybe you could deep strike and shoot a tank in the side to demonstrate you were a master of strategy.
The endless rules on rules on rules is a bigger problem imo than "noooo, your lasguns can't do a few wounds to my super mega tank". A clean up in 10th seems clearly desirable but not sure its going to happen.
H.B.M.C. wrote: So with the release of the "balance" dataslate, does anyone who said the meta doesn't impact them in anyway want to perhaps revise their comments?
Me personally? I won't touch my Space Wolves' lists and replace the lone Squigbuggy I was fielding with another, more performing, buggy in the orks lists I play.
Probably games againts Deathguard, Space Marines and Adepta Sororitas are going to be more challenging. That's it.
One of the problems GW will face if they attempt to simplifying codexes is that in general people don't react well to things being taken away. It's seen as a slide backwards.
They got away with a cleaner slate at 3rd and 8th edition since those were completely new rulesets. I can't imagine 10th pulling back on rule bloat unless they likewise take a clean slate approach. But given the 8th Ed rule base isn't all that old, I have a hard time imagining that.
A partial rules overhaul in 10th might go a ways towards separating it from 9th. Even though the issues with 9th seem to be with poor codex balancing, I feel like the bad rap is being heaped on "9th edition" rather than 9th edition codices, but I'm prepared to be wrong on that as I don't go play at a LGS
DeadliestIdiot wrote: A partial rules overhaul in 10th might go a ways towards separating it from 9th. Even though the issues with 9th seem to be with poor codex balancing, I feel like the bad rap is being heaped on "9th edition" rather than 9th edition codices, but I'm prepared to be wrong on that as I don't go play at a LGS
The bad rep of 9th may seem to be about codex balancing, but in reality it is about a core system that has too little capacity to fit all the factions of 40k in with meaningful differences. That is why all those "bespoke rules" are just bland variations of the same old re-rolls/modifiers/invulns/fnps, that is why GW has to put layers upon layers of core rules breaking special faction rules etc. This is all around poor system that can't handle what it is expected from it, with even worse implementation, and on top of that it has awful mission structure and disastrous balance issues.
It is quite baffling really, since GW has two good systems written down already - LOTRBG and Apocalypse. They just need to retrofit the lost flavour back into the Apocalypse and it has way more potential for being a good game than 8th ed core rules.
People would lose their minds if they made apocalypse the basis of the ruleset. Not about the perceived size of the game (just make it 2000 or whatever) but the mechanics themselves.
Actually my game studio is working on a fantasy game set in a heavy metal realms world based on heavy metal music and imagery which does incorporate fantasy and sci fi pieces... but its designed to be a narrative experience that caters to story telling as well as wargame tropes like command & control and things players can't control - like real battles. Its not being designed as a tournament game, its more in the same vein as like a battletech with story type narrative hooks from games like kingdom death, and old school mighty empires.
