Of course it does, in „Advantage in Multiplayer Games”. This is 100% what GW does via balance dataslates, temporary add-ons like Crusher Stampede and generally shuffling validity around. The randomness of purchase that you think is absent from 40k, because you buy a specific box of miniatures is succesfully introduced by unforseeable period of validity of such purchase, which not only gives incentive to but stuff, but also exploits the fear of missing out. Just ask around on Dakka, if people who freed themselves from churn and burn felt like quitting an addiction.
Which leads me directly to quitting any further discussions with you, in this or other threads. I don’t see any point in wasting my time on your delusions of grandeur.
Except people don't blind-buy balance dataslates or boxes of minis. It's not a Skinner box if the reward is guaranteed - if you were familiar with the works of B. F. Skinner at all, for whom the Skinner box is named, you'd know that intermittent and random reward is required for it to fit the definition. I'm not saying that GW's model is good, in fact I've been criticizing it up and down these forums quite frequently. I'm saying it's not the same thing as the optimized gambling addiction ccg or lootbox game model.
If you can't handle discussion and have to quit doing so, don't put that on me - that's all on you for not understanding what's going on.
When you buy a munitorum points update, you don't know all the points that are about to be updated- you may know a few via leaks, but certainly not all.
Campaign book content with AoR's and Supplements... Not all of those details are known either- you know what factions will be affected, and SOME of the effects, but not all.
I do get your point; if you define the "Blind Buy" is THE most important element of CCGs, then it is true that the connection with 40k isn't as strong.
But I think it's kinda two separate discussions: when most people cite similarities to Magic, they are talking about GAME PLAY similarities. You seem to deny that game play similarities exist because the companies don't have identical sales models...
Which has little to do with what most people here seem to be referencing when they talk about how CCGs have impacted 40k.
PenitentJake wrote: When you buy a munitorum points update, you don't know all the points that are about to be updated- you may know a few via leaks, but certainly not all.
Campaign book content with AoR's and Supplements... Not all of those details are known either- you know what factions will be affected, and SOME of the effects, but not all.
Wat? I knew all relevant content of every single book bought (or decided not to buy) since the start of 8th. Even if leaks are incomplete, pre-ordering isn't the only way to buy a book, you can just wait for the reviews and then make a decision based on perfect knowledge.
Poke all you want, it doesn't change the fact that in the back of my mind is that old MTG feeling anytime I play a strat.
I don't get that feeling when I play non-GW minis/wargames (well except for in X-Wing - Pokemons "gotta catch 'em all" concerning the upgrade cards is in effect in 1e. No idea about 2e) Nor have I ever gotten the D&D feeling while playing a GW minis game. Sure, a wizard using up a limited spell slot might resemble using a strat. But the difference lies in the "story". Even at our most Hack & Slashiest we've always been trying to tell some sort of "story" in D&D. That is not really ever been the case in 99.9999% of all the Warhammer (FB/40k/Sigmar/etc) I've played. Not even in our recent Crusades & Path to Glories.
Your feelings aren't necessarily rational, however, and definitely aren't in this case. You and you alone are responsible for your irrational feelings.
So it's irrational to think "This game mechanic directly reminds me of this other games mechanic."?
Anyways, I doubt you're qualified to determine what's rational or not.
But I think it's kinda two separate discussions: when most people cite similarities to Magic, they are talking about GAME PLAY similarities. You seem to deny that game play similarities exist because the companies don't have identical sales models...
you know, a Spell is something very different from a Spell because the one comes as card in booster pack, while the other is written in a codex
so they can never be similar, even with the exact wording and if the function the same in game, it is just impossible that those are similar
so the big thing why 40k and MtG are not the same and don't share any similarities, are cards and random boosters
we just ingnore that you can buy individual cards or even decks for Magic, as well as you have to buy boxes combined with useless models to get the one strong one in 40k (which is kind of similar of buying displays in Magic)
PenitentJake wrote: When you buy a munitorum points update, you don't know all the points that are about to be updated- you may know a few via leaks, but certainly not all.
Nah. Your friend who bought the book before you will tell it. It will be summarized on some review site. It's not like a pack of Magic cards where you don't know what random selection of cards will be inside it.
I do get your point; if you define the "Blind Buy" is THE most important element of CCGs, then it is true that the connection with 40k isn't as strong.
And it is. The "Skinner box" is defined that way; reward has to be random and intermittent. In terms of how people spend money on 40k, it's not the same.
PenitentJake wrote: But I think it's kinda two separate discussions: when most people cite similarities to Magic, they are talking about GAME PLAY similarities. You seem to deny that game play similarities exist because the companies don't have identical sales models...
No, people in this thread have been conflating them. I understand the difference. There are a number of significant differences between Magic and 40k, the most significant of which are that 40k is a perfect information game, and that there is no spatial element to Magic. The supposed similarities between Magic and 40k have nothing to do with "CCG elements," and I'd be happy to demonstrate that. It's just that most of the people in this thread are only surface level familiar with MtG and its history, and have jumped up ideas of their own assessment of it to 40k.
PenitentJake wrote: Which has little to do with what most people here seem to be referencing when they talk about how CCGs have impacted 40k.
Again, some people were actively confusing the two, if you look upthread.
So it's irrational to think "This game mechanic directly reminds me of this other games mechanic."?
Anyways, I doubt you're qualified to determine what's rational or not.
Only if it's incorrect and based on, as I said upthread, bug-eyed atavistic fear of CCGs rather than anything factual.
But I think it's kinda two separate discussions: when most people cite similarities to Magic, they are talking about GAME PLAY similarities. You seem to deny that game play similarities exist because the companies don't have identical sales models...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Nope, I did not, but I'm sure you'll misrepresent what I say regardless, just like you went on a tear about how Conquest was "Herohammer." It's just buzzwords that you're trying to force because you have a snap judgment not based on facts.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
kodos wrote: you know, a Spell is something very different from a Spell because the one comes as card in booster pack, while the other is written in a codex
so they can never be similar, even with the exact wording and if the function the same in game, it is just impossible that those are similar
Hey guess what, the psychic phase in 2e actually used a shuffled deck of cards to power them. So 40k has *less* card game elements than it did. Or were you aware of that fact lol?
kodos wrote: so the big thing why 40k and MtG are not the same and don't share any similarities, are cards and random boosters
we just ingnore that you can buy individual cards or even decks for Magic, as well as you have to buy boxes combined with useless models to get the one strong one in 40k (which is kind of similar of buying displays in Magic)
It's not the same because the boxes don't have random contents.
As I mentioned, very big differences between 40k and Magic are that 40k is a perfect information game (like chess) whereas Magic has hidden info. Also, 40k has spatial relationships/elements, whereas Magic has none.
of course, because in chess, when I build my list for black, there is the chance that the models I chose get different rules in 2 weeks and other models are moved to legends
without me even have a chance to know what the rules will be or what models will be valid by the time I purchase them
yeah, 40k is totally like chess and not even close to MtG
I really missed the thrill of chess that the models I buy, based on the information I have might be trash a week after because of random changes for the sake of changes
Have you even played 40k once?
are you just looking up information on wikipedia what the game is about and try to tell people who have played it for 20 years that they don#t know what the game is?
I think at this point its fair to say that Hecaton is one of those individuals that will double or triple down on pretty much anything in as aggressive a manner as possible.
From the topic at hand, the MtGCCG argument vs Power Levels probably don't mean anything to each other lol.
Most of us hear know what is meant when we say 40k seems similar to a CCG, and the people that sign my checks also know what is meant when they say it and put it in their design documentation, so ... at this point I think we just move on and get out of this lawyering hell that we seem to have descended into. Individuals saying that 40k is nothing like a CCG don't change my opinion on the matter, nor the language I use in game design documentation with other game designers. Same as flat earthers don't change my life in regards to how I view the planet and the universe it sits in.
I realize its the internet and par for the course but Power Levels vs Points in 10th level
kodos wrote: a perfect information game like chess?
of course, because in chess, when I build my list for black, there is the chance that the models I chose get different rules in 2 weeks and other models are moved to legends
without me even have a chance to know what the rules will be or what models will be valid by the time I purchase them
yeah, 40k is totally like chess and not even close to MtG
I really missed the thrill of chess that the models I buy, based on the information I have might be trash a week after because of random changes for the sake of changes
Have you even played 40k once?
are you just looking up information on wikipedia what the game is about and try to tell people who have played it for 20 years that they don#t know what the game is?
I think at this point it is perfectly clear for everyone in this thread, that if something isn’t 100% the same, then it’s 100% entirely different
Auticus, you're right about how we should probably just move on... But stoopid me wants to say just one more thing:
So Hec, this is not said to invalidate your point, because it doesn't actually do that, it just sorta muddies the water a bit... I say it for the sake of demonstrating a thing or two about nuance in a medium where people are encouraged to fall into strict binaries:
40k ISN'T exactly a perfect information game. It's close enough that your point is still relevant- it's certainly CLOSER to a perfect information game than most CCGs. But you do build your armies before you even know who your opponent is going be.
And there is a randomly shuffled deck of cards that changes missions and game state when you use the open war deck. Ditto on the tempest of war deck.
Again, it doesn't exactly invalidate your point- I do get what you're saying. But back when I actively played Magic, I could fairly reasonably predict the strategies that I'd see employed against me based on colour choice.
In much the same way you know you're coming up against void weavers if you play against harlies, you could predict some direct damage if you were up against red.
kodos wrote: you know, a Spell is something very different from a Spell because the one comes as card in booster pack, while the other is written in a codex
so they can never be similar, even with the exact wording and if the function the same in game, it is just impossible that those are similar
so the big thing why 40k and MtG are not the same and don't share any similarities, are cards and random boosters
we just ingnore that you can buy individual cards or even decks for Magic, as well as you have to buy boxes combined with useless models to get the one strong one in 40k (which is kind of similar of buying displays in Magic)
This maybe funny to some people, but most people around here glue the print outs of their spells, stratagems to MtG cards and not everyone has them in protectors so for some armies like ad mecha, it looks like a beefy side deck or part of a deck.
Hey guys, quick question. I was playing a game of 40k the other day and my opponent abused the stack to wipe out the unit I was playing a stratagem on? Something about Armor of Contempt reflecting bullets of peons back? Look, I'm not fussed about him using an older version of Armor of Contempt, but does my Splinter Twin still activate?
Like, I'm using Splinter Twin on a group of Necron Warriors, he plays Armor of Contempt reflecting damage I did during the main phase back to my Warriors. Would my Splinter Twin still create a copy of my Warriors?
Also, while I'm here. What other units are necron players currently using on the sideboard. I find having Cryptforge Mystic to pull out bonus relics in the harlequin matchup pretty important.
EDIT: When playing narrative which ruleset should we use? Standard, Legacy, Commander (wtf, I can run marine, adeptus AND guard loLL!) or Booster Draft
There could be a stratagem with the exact same wording as an MtG card and certain people here would argue no similarity at all because they seem to have developed an emotional attachment to their existing stance.
Toofast wrote: There could be a stratagem with the exact same wording as an MtG card and certain people here would argue no similarity at all because they seem to have developed an emotional attachment to their existing stance.
Erm...
Look, I won't say there's nothing to compare between MtG and 40k, but they're more than different enough that an MtG card would make NO SENSE as a stratagem.
And vice-versa too.
Toofast wrote: There could be a stratagem with the exact same wording as an MtG card and certain people here would argue no similarity at all because they seem to have developed an emotional attachment to their existing stance.
Erm...
Look, I won't say there's nothing to compare between MtG and 40k, but they're more than different enough that an MtG card would make NO SENSE as a stratagem.
And vice-versa too.
Toofast wrote: There could be a stratagem with the exact same wording as an MtG card and certain people here would argue no similarity at all because they seem to have developed an emotional attachment to their existing stance.
Erm...
Look, I won't say there's nothing to compare between MtG and 40k, but they're more than different enough that an MtG card would make NO SENSE as a stratagem.
And vice-versa too.
Underworlds is more akin to a ccg and it's still vastly different. The people who make the argument 40k is becoming similar to MtG need to enlarge their gaming experiences. There are numerous board games that the 40k strategem system draws parallel to that make more sense than MtG.
Also, while the ruleset of MtG is constantly expanded upon, WotC keeps a living rulebook that is turough and puts any other nerd game to shame. If GWs goal was to produce the best miniture game in the world, their rulebook would mirror the success of MtGs.
if GW would have just copied the "need to hve good rules to get the tournament scene going", instead of the "Edition churn makes money printer go burr"
JNAProductions wrote: How does player damage work-I thought we were dealing with models and units? How do I pay the costs on the top right?
you need to wait for the official FAQ to clear this up
would not be the first rule in 40k that is written out of context and makes no sense, while RAI is clear what it should do
kodos wrote: if GW would have just copied the "need to hve good rules to get the tournament scene going", instead of the "Edition churn makes money printer go burr"
JNAProductions wrote: How does player damage work-I thought we were dealing with models and units? How do I pay the costs on the top right?
you need to wait for the official FAQ to clear this up
would not be the first rule in 40k that is written out of context and makes no sense, while RAI is clear what it should do
Clearly the RAI is that damaging a player directly would instead *reduce* their victory points by that amount.
kodos wrote: if GW would have just copied the "need to hve good rules to get the tournament scene going", instead of the "Edition churn makes money printer go burr"
JNAProductions wrote: How does player damage work-I thought we were dealing with models and units? How do I pay the costs on the top right?
you need to wait for the official FAQ to clear this up
would not be the first rule in 40k that is written out of context and makes no sense, while RAI is clear what it should do
Clearly the RAI is that damaging a player directly would instead *reduce* their victory points by that amount.
PenitentJake wrote: Auticus, you're right about how we should probably just move on... But stoopid me wants to say just one more thing:
So Hec, this is not said to invalidate your point, because it doesn't actually do that, it just sorta muddies the water a bit... I say it for the sake of demonstrating a thing or two about nuance in a medium where people are encouraged to fall into strict binaries:
40k ISN'T exactly a perfect information game. It's close enough that your point is still relevant- it's certainly CLOSER to a perfect information game than most CCGs. But you do build your armies before you even know who your opponent is going be.
A "perfect information game" refers to a game where you know everything about the game state and know all your opponent's options. In any given game, there is never any hidden information. Perfect information does not mean that there isn't any chance involved, it just means that all players have the same information available to make decisions. Chess or Monopoly are games with perfect information available to all players.
MtG has hidden information which means that there are parts of the game which you don't know about, but are known to your opponent - your opponent's hand, face down cards, the order of your deck, etc. Hidden information allows you to bluff about what you can do and what you cannot do. Poker is the best example of a game without perfect information.
40k absolutely does not allow any hidden information to do that and goes into great lengths to maintain perfect information - you are not allowed to hide what is in your transports, you have to declare what reinforcements you have, even when GSC are placing ambush markers, the opponent has perfect information about what units could jump out of that blip.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Toofast wrote: There could be a stratagem with the exact same wording as an MtG card and certain people here would argue no similarity at all because they seem to have developed an emotional attachment to their existing stance.
So you are saying that a game of MtG using the Warhammer 40k set plays EXACTLY like a game of 40k would?
What 40k players typically don't understand is that there is vastly more to MtG than "pay resource: get effect" and that the "pay resource: get effect" mechanic is as common to gaming as rolling dice is.
Seems to be a lot of pedantry against people saying that the game since 8th has taken a lot of modern bored and card game ideas, especially given how previous 40k or even more so WHFB looked.
Its clearly a popular decision and though i personally prefer the old school wargame i understand gw must go with at least the type of game the customer wants. Even no nothing eejits like me can see how much more "gamey" (cue arguments about definitions) it has become.
But I stand by my post. When you build an army list, you don't know who you are facing or what the mission is- although with secondaries, agendas and modern mission design, this is kinda muddy too.
The genestealer blip information? Sure you know which units COULD come out of each blip, but you don't know which ones will. The controlling player doesn't even necessarily know which will go where when they deploy the blips.
And then there are the Open War and Tempest of War decks- another double blind.
And you can say Magic ISN'T a perfect information game, but you can memorize every card that's legal for the format you're playing.
Dai wrote: Seems to be a lot of pedantry against people saying that the game since 8th has taken a lot of modern bored and card game ideas, especially given how previous 40k or even more so WHFB looked.
Its clearly a popular decision and though i personally prefer the old school wargame i understand gw must go with at least the type of game the customer wants. Even no nothing eejits like me can see how much more "gamey" (cue arguments about definitions) it has become.
It wouldn't be the internet without microscopic micro level pedantry
I have a feeling most of the pedants know exactly what we are talking about, but for the sake of doubling down and arguing will continue to argue.
As a laughing aside... the steam game I alluded to a few pages back was basically 40k in card form. The studio had the license pulled because they didn't like how close to the actual game of 40k it was and wanted different mechanics put in. That was a couple of years ago before the COVID thing started, but having been a testing part of that project, I can confirm. It was 40k in card form. The only difference was no models, no measuring distances. While NDA prevents me from getting too into the weeds on details, you had a collection of resource cards, and you had three levels of deployment.
You tapped units to attack other units in the proper range, and other actions could generate resources points which you could use to tap your resource power cards to give your forces a boost or hurt your enemy. Some did the equivalent of mortal wounds. Some summoned free cards from your deck.
And the deepstrike cards were my favorite because it was literally tap this card, do damage to any card on the table. You had deepstrike counter cards that you could trigger tap to prevent the damage (representing your screens of chaffe).
When its license was pulled for being too close to 40k, we all had a long hard laugh because most of the people on that team were either current or past 40k players and we all joked about the current 40k being a lot like card games, and that experience pretty much solidified it for me.
40k has very few similarities to wargaming and more similarities to tabletop boardgaming or card gaming in model form. Can't really say it doesn't work though. Its massively successful.
But I stand by my post. When you build an army list, you don't know who you are facing or what the mission is- although with secondaries, agendas and modern mission design, this is kinda muddy too.
The genestealer blip information? Sure you know which units COULD come out of each blip, but you don't know which ones will. The controlling player doesn't even necessarily know which will go where when they deploy the blips.
And then there are the Open War and Tempest of War decks- another double blind.
And you can say Magic ISN'T a perfect information game, but you can memorize every card that's legal for the format you're playing.
Don't take that personally, but you clearly don't understand the term. You took the dictionary meaning of the words and have come up with an definition of your own.
Perfect/hidden information only refers to decision making during the game, list or deck building plays no role in this - in 40k, I know the exact content of your army the second we start to play. In MtG, unless you or me have a card that gives this information away, you will never know what the exact content of my deck is. There has been a tournament player who won a GT who forgot to put a way to win in his deck - players just assumed he had one and conceded games when he hit his combo-out. There have been players who did a mulligan to zero and then conceded after finding out what is opponent's deck was without giving away what his own deck - just so he could have the edge in game two. Neither will ever happen in 40k, because there is no hidden information between opponents.
In any game of 40k, at any point during the game, you know everything your opponent knows. There is nothing you can hide, there is nothing to bluff about. In any game of MtG, outside of rare occasions, both players never have access to the same information.
Same for GSC blips. When I deploy army, I know exactly what your army can do and which units can be deployed on a blip. I know how much infantry you have, whether you have anti-tank, what range your weapons have and what unit upgrades you bought. I might have to take chances, but for every single blip I exactly know the worst thing that can jump out of it. If you play against a MtG morph deck, you have no clue whatsoever what is hiding behind those face-down cards - you can't even tell what color or type those cards are, not even what type of deck you are facing. It could be anything from an aggressive red/green deck or a blue lock-down combo. And no, you can't play around every single one of the 199 morph cards there are - playing around a wrath or counterspell that isn't there is good way to lose.
In MtG, players will play spells that might have no effect, because they don't have perfect information. In 40k, you will never pay CP for a stratagem that will absolutely have no effect, because you know everything about the game at all times.
In MtG players will attack with a big creature and then have it killed because the one card in their opponent's hand was a combat trick. The might have even done this intentionally just to get the information whether they have a trick or not. In 40k you know exactly what stratagems the unit you are charging has available and can make your decision based on that.
40k having no hidden information is the prime reason why people feel like "Gotcha!" moments are a dick moves. In 40k a perfect player will never make a move that is not optimal to them, just like in chess. In MtG baiting your opponent into doing something that is not optimal for them is an important part of the game. In MtG, you have to hide what options you have, while trying to find out what your opponent can do, just like in poker.
And that's precisely why people are saying that MtG and 40k are in no way alike - they are completely different games, just like Chess and Poker are despite both having kings and queens.
And that's precisely why people are saying that MtG and 40k are in no way alike
Despite several bullet points that show how they are alike.
No one is saying they are identical to each other. Nor are they saying that 40k is a card game.
Its been entirely that it feels in many places to be like a card game and given bullet points showing where those points lay.
To whit no one has disagreed with, but plenty of arguing continues anyway among other ways to split hairs.
MtG and 40k ARE completely different games. And 40k borrowed some elements of MtG in their game design, to which many people can feel that influence in the games that they play.
To whit game designers themselves use the term in their design documents to illustrate those elements when discussing projects.
Despite tabletop games being different than card games, the philosophy and elements that bind them together are today in many places similar or the same.
Discussing the differences of the two does not disprove that they don't contain similarities. It is argument for the sake of argument to prove that the two are not the same, which I don't believe anyone here is trying to argue. I don't think anyone in here has said that the two games are the same.
It was said that 40k is like a CCG in many ways - to which was expounded that 40k feels like a CCG in many ways and then bulleted out what those similarities were.
To whit the counter argument was "no you're dumb, those are digital game elements not CCG elements that you are discussing" -> where we then went further down the rabbit hole to discuss where today's digital gaming was inspired by to be what it is today (the MtG of yore).
To say that MtG and 40k are in NO WAY alike... is very disingenuous. Especially after so many examples of how they are similar have been given.
kodos wrote: a perfect information game like chess?
of course, because in chess, when I build my list for black, there is the chance that the models I chose get different rules in 2 weeks and other models are moved to legends
without me even have a chance to know what the rules will be or what models will be valid by the time I purchase them
yeah, 40k is totally like chess and not even close to MtG
You don't know what a perfect information game is. The point is, in Chess, everything is on the board. There is no hidden hand of cards. In 40k, outside of a few very specific mechanics (GSC is it afaik), you always know the state of the game - there is no hidden hand of cards, no shuffled deck. Magic is very different.
kodos wrote: Have you even played 40k once?
are you just looking up information on wikipedia what the game is about and try to tell people who have played it for 20 years that they don#t know what the game is?
Are you aware of what "perfect information" means in the context of gameplay? If not, don't comment.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
auticus wrote: I think at this point its fair to say that Hecaton is one of those individuals that will double or triple down on pretty much anything in as aggressive a manner as possible.
Nah, I admit when I'm wrong. You've just utterly failed at giving good arguments.
auticus wrote: Most of us hear know what is meant when we say 40k seems similar to a CCG, and the people that sign my checks also know what is meant when they say it and put it in their design documentation, so ..
.
Have you ever got design documentation that was written by idiots?
auticus wrote: at this point I think we just move on and get out of this lawyering hell that we seem to have descended into. Individuals saying that 40k is nothing like a CCG don't change my opinion on the matter, nor the language I use in game design documentation with other game designers. Same as flat earthers don't change my life in regards to how I view the planet and the universe it sits in.
Doesn't change the fact that your opinion is wrong. You've notably failed to provide any concrete evidence - surely there's some design documentation you could share from some project you've worked on to provide proof positive of what you're saying? Instead you've just been going "trust me brah I'm a game designer" and it just makes you look like you have a very inflated opinion of yourself. Not uncommon for tabletop game designers, though.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Toofast wrote: There could be a stratagem with the exact same wording as an MtG card and certain people here would argue no similarity at all because they seem to have developed an emotional attachment to their existing stance.
I legit don't think you understand what makes a CCG a CCG.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dai wrote: Seems to be a lot of pedantry against people saying that the game since 8th has taken a lot of modern bored and card game ideas, especially given how previous 40k or even more so WHFB looked.
I would say that it's more board game ideas than CCG ideas. It's not pedantry - people are just wrong about 40k becoming more CCG-like.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
auticus wrote: When its license was pulled for being too close to 40k, we all had a long hard laugh because most of the people on that team were either current or past 40k players and we all joked about the current 40k being a lot like card games, and that experience pretty much solidified it for me.
This sounds like apophenia i.e. seeing a connection or pattern when there isn't one.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
auticus wrote: Despite several bullet points that show how they are alike.
The ways in which they are alike are ways in which they are alike to many non-CCG games as well, so it's meaningless to say that 40k is more "CCG-like."
auticus wrote: Its been entirely that it feels in many places to be like a card game and given bullet points showing where those points lay.
"Feels" aren't something I expect to be swayed by.
auticus wrote: And 40k borrowed some elements of MtG in their game design, to which many people can feel that influence in the games that they play.
Nope, you have consistently failed to show this, and when called on it evade the question and then repeat it later hoping nobody will notice you have no basis for what you're saying. How long did that NDA for that 40k card game last, btw?
auticus wrote: To whit game designers themselves use the term in their design documents to illustrate those elements when discussing projects.
Show me an example.
auticus wrote: Discussing the differences of the two does not disprove that they don't contain similarities. It is argument for the sake of argument to prove that the two are not the same, which I don't believe anyone here is trying to argue. I don't think anyone in here has said that the two games are the same.
It was said that 40k is like a CCG in many ways - to which was expounded that 40k feels like a CCG in many ways and then bulleted out what those similarities were.
You're repeating this, when those supposed similarities were picked apart and you failed to provide any counter argument to those criticisms.
auticus wrote: To whit the counter argument was "no you're dumb, those are digital game elements not CCG elements that you are discussing" -> where we then went further down the rabbit hole to discuss where today's digital gaming was inspired by to be what it is today (the MtG of yore).
You made a lot of claims and then avoided backing them up when called on specifics. That makes you *less* trustworthy, not more.
auticus wrote: To say that MtG and 40k are in NO WAY alike... is very disingenuous. Especially after so many examples of how they are similar have been given.
What *I* said was that they're different enough that you can in no way say 40k is "CCG-like" with a straight face.
Toofast wrote: There could be a stratagem with the exact same wording as an MtG card and certain people here would argue no similarity at all because they seem to have developed an emotional attachment to their existing stance.
So you are saying that a game of MtG using the Warhammer 40k set plays EXACTLY like a game of 40k would?
No, that's not what anyone is saying and I have no idea how you got that from what I said. Either your English reading comprehension needs work (understandable, I sure as hell can't read German), or you're intentionally misrepresenting my argument to make it sound ridiculous.
And that's precisely why people are saying that MtG and 40k are in no way alike - they are completely different games, just like Chess and Poker are despite both having kings and queens
yet Chess and Poker both share the point of trying to "out-thinking" your opponent, not only playing your game with what you got but thinking several steps ahead and try to guess what your opponent wants to do
and just because not knowing what cards your opponent has in your hands, you have a basic idea what the faction can do and what to expect from the deck he is playing
the argument that you cannot know all cards that are allowed and therefore cannot guess what he might have in his deck, the same way you hardly know all stratagems in 40k and cannot know if your opponent is going to use the obvious ones are comes up with something you did not had on your mind
we got many pages if people complaining about "gotcha" moments in 40k, yet if 40k is a game of perfect knowledge, those should not exist
so how is it possible that the opponent knows everything all the time, but at the same time gets caught by something he was not aware of
The GAME doesn’t hide info. But because of how many niggling little details there are, people can forget or not know.
In Magic, you don’t even know an opponent’s color identity (outside Commander) from over thirty possible combinations, until they start playing things.
IMO the mechanics take too long, and if you do not play against or with an army over and over again, keep track of all ad mecha rules, specially some wierd situational ones is going to end up with those Gotcha! moments.
The GAME doesn’t hide info. But because of how many niggling little details there are, people can forget or not know.
In Magic, you don’t even know an opponent’s color identity (outside Commander) from over thirty possible combinations, until they start playing things.
that is way you play more than 1 game against the same opponent to win the match, you only don't know anything the first game of a match
and the good player in Magic well know what you are playing, the same way a good player in 40k needs to know all the detail
but if we talk about people not being perfect, 40k being about perfect knowledge is a theoretic assumption that will never happen outside high level tournament games
so for the casual player in the store that had not the money and time to learn all the rules that are there for alle the factions, this is a very different game
40k changed over time, talking about how it was played during 3rd, were really everyone knew what the other one could do makes no sense when people say that this changed with 8th/9th
PS: of course except those tournaments prior 8th were you played with hidden army lists and there was a reason some people liked this as they could exploit it, the same way not very popular armies were chosen because the chance was lower that the opponent knew what they could they
from a technical point, one can know everything, be no one does and people like this (and those that don't mostly left or complain about bloat, while other praise this as "tactical")
The GAME doesn’t hide info. But because of how many niggling little details there are, people can forget or not know.
In Magic, you don’t even know an opponent’s color identity (outside Commander) from over thirty possible combinations, until they start playing things.
that is way you play more than 1 game against the same opponent to win the match, you only don't know anything the first game of a match
and the good player in Magic well know what you are playing, the same way a good player in 40k needs to know all the detail
but if we talk about people not being perfect, 40k being about perfect knowledge is a theoretic assumption that will never happen outside high level tournament games
so for the casual player in the store that had not the money and time to learn all the rules that are there for alle the factions, this is a very different game
40k changed over time, talking about how it was played during 3rd, were really everyone knew what the other one could do makes no sense when people say that this changed with 8th/9th
PS: of course except those tournaments prior 8th were you played with hidden army lists and there was a reason some people liked this as they could exploit it, the same way not very popular armies were chosen because the chance was lower that the opponent knew what they could they
from a technical point, one can know everything, be no one does and people like this (and those that don't mostly left or complain about bloat, while other praise this as "tactical")
You can say all this, but perfect and hidden information have specific definitions and you're way off.
And that's precisely why people are saying that MtG and 40k are in no way alike
Despite several bullet points that show how they are alike.
No one is saying they are identical to each other. Nor are they saying that 40k is a card game.
Its been entirely that it feels in many places to be like a card game and given bullet points showing where those points lay.
To whit no one has disagreed with, but plenty of arguing continues anyway among other ways to split hairs.
MtG and 40k ARE completely different games. And 40k borrowed some elements of MtG in their game design, to which many people can feel that influence in the games that they play.
To whit game designers themselves use the term in their design documents to illustrate those elements when discussing projects.
Despite tabletop games being different than card games, the philosophy and elements that bind them together are today in many places similar or the same.
Discussing the differences of the two does not disprove that they don't contain similarities. It is argument for the sake of argument to prove that the two are not the same, which I don't believe anyone here is trying to argue. I don't think anyone in here has said that the two games are the same.
It was said that 40k is like a CCG in many ways - to which was expounded that 40k feels like a CCG in many ways and then bulleted out what those similarities were.
To whit the counter argument was "no you're dumb, those are digital game elements not CCG elements that you are discussing" -> where we then went further down the rabbit hole to discuss where today's digital gaming was inspired by to be what it is today (the MtG of yore).
To say that MtG and 40k are in NO WAY alike... is very disingenuous. Especially after so many examples of how they are similar have been given.
I more take issue with the fact whenever someone brings this up, it's to disparage 40k as not being a 'true wargame'. To which I usually say 'probably for the best, every example of a 'true wargame' I've ever heard people use in these examples sound dreadfully boring.'
I think the closest a wargame came in my mind to MTG was WMH (circa Mk2 when I played etc). Competitive Lists tended to be identifiable as "armour skew", "defense skew", "assassination", "flood the board with little guys so you win by holding the objective" etc (tied to faction, warlock etc). The "fluff" of these lists was a very minor thought, if indeed it was a thought at all. Your list generally had a clear game plan - and it tended to have odds based on matchup. A bit like how MTG decks are aggro, control, midrange etc - and sort of interact on that basis.
Most 40k builds don't really work like that. There's sometimes an attempt to make the translation (i.e. we can talk about a "goff pressure/tempo list") but its not really the same. Probably because 40k balance doesn't tend to really have this side of the meta. Its almost always too imbalanced - so just grab your factions "good stuff" - which is usually broadly agreed upon - and see how it fairs across multiple games into other factions "good stuff". The "best stuff" tends to dominate tournament wins and placings.
There clearly are deviations (i.e. this list is designed to try and sit on objectives all game - this other list is designed not to care about obsec etc, it just hopes to kill you quick and win that way) - but its not as clear cut. You skew into [current top faction] not [current top playstyle].
Now its possible if 40k was much more finely balanced - so every faction had several different competitive builds (rather than its 1800 points the same but I take X rather than Y), with differing chances to win etc - it would feel like MTG. But I don't think it ever has been or is today.
In practice, a lot of people would say this isn't desirable either - because you don't want the odds of a game that will take 2-3 hours to play to be sort of set down. In MTG you can get smashed in 15 minutes or something... just go again, maybe with some other decks? Again, to go with WHM, you could potentially lose in 20-30 minutes (especially if new) and just play again. 40k is going to take a long time to play out unless both players just say "I end my turn" without doing anything.
kodos wrote: we got many pages if people complaining about "gotcha" moments in 40k, yet if 40k is a game of perfect knowledge, those should not exist
...Yeah. That's why it's contentious and people get annoyed.
Losing a round of poker because your opponent had a card in his hand you weren't aware of isn't a 'gotcha'.
Losing a game of 40K because you didn't know about a particular stratagem in your opponent's codex (when it was available to you all along, but you didn't want to hold up the game for an hour to memorize all your opponent's abilities) is a 'gotcha'.
One is losing because you had to act on imperfect information as an explicit part of the gameplay, and the other is losing because you couldn't remember one of a multitude of special rules.
40Kis a game of perfect information and gotchas should not exist. The fact that they do means something is wrong. The game assumes you know all of your rules and all of your opponent's rules and everything that is going on in the game state. The reality of the situation is that most players can't keep up, and so there's a disconnect.
And that's precisely why people are saying that MtG and 40k are in no way alike - they are completely different games, just like Chess and Poker are despite both having kings and queens
we got many pages if people complaining about "gotcha" moments in 40k, yet if 40k is a game of perfect knowledge, those should not exist
If you don't know what Transhuman Physiology does at this point after one game seeing it, that's the fault of the people comparing 40k to a CCG.
And that's precisely why people are saying that MtG and 40k are in no way alike - they are completely different games, just like Chess and Poker are despite both having kings and queens
we got many pages if people complaining about "gotcha" moments in 40k, yet if 40k is a game of perfect knowledge, those should not exist
If you don't know what Transhuman Physiology does at this point after one game seeing it, that's the fault of the people comparing 40k to a CCG.
Out of the 700 stratagems, I don't see anyone singling that out as a gotcha. Plenty of others are if your opponent doesn't know about them (which is basically a guarantee unless your opponent is a very frequent and competitive player).
I more take issue with the fact whenever someone brings this up, it's to disparage 40k as not being a 'true wargame'. To which I usually say 'probably for the best, every example of a 'true wargame' I've ever heard people use in these examples sound dreadfully boring.'
I can't think of a more boring game than 40k where you can stand around for 20-30 mins rolling a few saves and removing models without being able to really do anything. I've been playing Infinity because games aren't decided before any dice are rolled just based on faction choices and you aren't standing around doing nothing for long periods of time. In 40k, depending on opponent and army, I can go outside and take a smoke break while they play their turn and not miss anything. I can't think of another game where I can do that and it's not a good thing...
ERJAK wrote: I more take issue with the fact whenever someone brings this up, it's to disparage 40k as not being a 'true wargame'. To which I usually say 'probably for the best, every example of a 'true wargame' I've ever heard people use in these examples sound dreadfully boring.'
by now I cannot think of any wargame that was as boring as the current version of 40k
so it more or less depends on what you like and the "true" wargame is the the game Wargame (Kriegsspiel), were all others get the name from, and this has definitely nothing to do with whatever 40k tries to be
we got many pages if people complaining about "gotcha" moments in 40k, yet if 40k is a game of perfect knowledge, those should not exist
so how is it possible that the opponent knows everything all the time, but at the same time gets caught by something he was not aware of
Because 40k rules are distributed across a large number of sources that it is prohibitively expensive for a player to acquire all of them and gain a firm understanding of all of them. 40k's gotcha moments come from not knowing all the rules, not from not knowing what units your opponent has. It was bad enough when 40k had around 16 codices and a few FW books. Now I don't know if anyone has a handle on all the rules sources for 40k.
Arschbombe wrote: Because 40k rules are distributed across a large number of sources that it is prohibitively expensive for a player to acquire all of them and gain a firm understanding of all of them. 40k's gotcha moments come from not knowing all the rules, not from not knowing what units your opponent has. It was bad enough when 40k had around 16 codices and a few FW books. Now I don't know if anyone has a handle on all the rules sources for 40k.
and by the arguments brought up, this is your fault and your fault only
gotcha moments exist because you are too poor/lacy/stupid to know all the rules, not because the game is designed in a way to make it harder (or impossible) to know everything
all those options are there to add flavour and for fluff reason only, not a game design choice /s
and by the arguments brought up, this is your fault and your fault only
gotcha moments exist because you are too poor/lacy/stupid to know all the rules, not because the game is designed in a way to make it harder (or impossible) to know everything
all those options are there to add flavour and for fluff reason only, not a game design choice
Yeah... its fluffy that the showing off rule is only useable by one unit of flashgitz because the other units definetly wouldnt want to show off while their homies are showing off.
Or how fluffy it is that one unit of marines has trans-human abilities but no one else does.
And that's precisely why people are saying that MtG and 40k are in no way alike - they are completely different games, just like Chess and Poker are despite both having kings and queens
we got many pages if people complaining about "gotcha" moments in 40k, yet if 40k is a game of perfect knowledge, those should not exist
If you don't know what Transhuman Physiology does at this point after one game seeing it, that's the fault of the people comparing 40k to a CCG.
Out of the 700 stratagems, I don't see anyone singling that out as a gotcha. Plenty of others are if your opponent doesn't know about them (which is basically a guarantee unless your opponent is a very frequent and competitive player).
Well if you're completely off guard by someone using a Strat to lower your LD or some garbage like that, I dunno what to tell you.
Yeah... its fluffy that the showing off rule is only useable by one unit of flashgitz because the other units definetly wouldnt want to show off while their homies are showing off.
Or how fluffy it is that one unit of marines has trans-human abilities but no one else does.
this is the claim, if you don't agree than I guess you think 40k is a card game, simple as that
Well if you're completely off guard by someone using a Strat to lower your LD or some garbage like that, I dunno what to tell you.
Again you're cherry picking strats to pretend gotcha moments don't exist. If they don't exist for you, congrats on having the time to sit down and learn 700 stratagems and special rules. For the other 99.9% of the playerbase, they both exist and feel bad when they happen.
all those options are there to add flavour and for fluff reason only, not a game design choice
All those options are there to increase GWs profit because even if you have 3x of every unit for your faction, you still have to buy the rulebooks to be able to play with them. They can have a couple interns spend 2 weeks making rules, never bother playtesting those, and throw 4 pages of them in a book with 150 pages of stock photos of models with smoke photoshopped behind them, spend $10 per copy printing and shipping them and make $50 per sale.
Toofast wrote: All those options are there to increase GWs profit because even if you have 3x of every unit for your faction, you still have to buy the rulebooks to be able to play with them. They can have a couple interns spend 2 weeks making rules, never bother playtesting those, and throw 4 pages them in a book with 150 pages of stock photos of models with smoke photoshopped behind them, spend $10 per copy printing and shipping them and make $50 per sale.
this is not possible, because 40k does not use cards sold in random booster packs, this is for fluff only and nothing else
this is not possible, because 40k does not use cards sold in random booster packs, this is for fluff only and nothing else
/s
The way GW changes some of their army or unit rules, you may as well be buying random stuff sometimes. What happened to the armies of people that bought centurions, eliminators, multiple squads of intercessors, buckets of shield drones etc? Sometimes it takes less then half a year for models to be invalidated. Not even WotC has a 6 months rotation of cards.
Not rotation, but they have banned cards MUCH faster than 6 months. In August 2011, I spent $1,200 building a Modern deck with Emrakul when the format was announced. A month later in September, they banned Cloudpost and my deck wouldn't work any more so I sold it for $700 because the ban made those cards much less valuable. I then spent $1,200 on a modern zoo deck. I played a few events with it and in December, Wild Nacatl was banned which really hurt my tempo early in the game. In less than 4 months, 2 of my decks that I spent a total of $2,400 on were invalidated. I sold my modern zoo deck on ebay and haven't bought one MtG card since.
one is with random boosters packs and the other with miniature boxes were you see on the box whats inside?
No. I'm talking about during the game. In Magic, unless an effect says otherwise, you don't know what's in your opponent's hand. In 40k, you *do* know exactly what stratagems are available to your opponent at any given time.
Karol wrote: The way GW changes some of their army or unit rules, you may as well be buying random stuff sometimes. What happened to the armies of people that bought centurions, eliminators, multiple squads of intercessors, buckets of shield drones etc? Sometimes it takes less then half a year for models to be invalidated. Not even WotC has a 6 months rotation of cards.
I still field my Intercessors all the time. My Eliminators see the table, but clearly they have been shirking their time at the range (they just can't seem to roll 3+ to hit with me), so I use them less these days. If I remember correctly, the points difference between 15 Tacticals and 15 Intercessors is 30pts. I can live with that difference for 'cheap' Troop slot fillers, given what those 30pts get me. And sometimes, I don't want to break out my Infiltrators or Incursors.
The bigger point I'm making is that when you aren't playing at the bleeding edge of optimization, units going up and down in effectiveness just isn't that big of a concern. It also happens to be a hell of a lot cheaper, too. I don't see there being a different in potential competitiveness of a game played at 100% of optimization and one played at 75% of optimization. Relative to each other, the game is, in theory, going to require the same amount of effort for the players to win. The 75% of optimization just so happens to be both cheaper and have a wider net of non-invalidation units. If a group can manage it (some obviously can't) then everyone wins except maybe GW who loses some sales, and don't we all kinda want that?
However, I understand your plight. You play in an area that is a 100% (possibly more given the out of game aggression) optimization. And you have a single faction and limited options of that single faction. Plus, you want to win games, as I believe much of the fun (if not all of it) of 40k for you is in winning. You have my condolences.
My area allows for various levels of optimization, with even the best of the tournament players tuning down for more evenly matched games. Because they want challenges, not wins. I do have several factions and wide number of options for all of them. If a unit or two isn't working for me, I can easily change them out for something different. And finally, I gain no additional fun from winning. I just want to provide a challenge or be challenged during a game with a pleasant opponent. If I feel like my win wasn't deserved, such as having the obviously more powerful list, that isn't any fun at all for me.
Well if you're completely off guard by someone using a Strat to lower your LD or some garbage like that, I dunno what to tell you.
Again you're cherry picking strats to pretend gotcha moments don't exist. If they don't exist for you, congrats on having the time to sit down and learn 700 stratagems and special rules. For the other 99.9% of the playerbase, they both exist and feel bad when they happen.
Citation needed for the 99% of the playerbase that hadn't memorized Transhuman Physiology and Agents of Vect after they became rules.
Or the real Gotcha special rules like Salamanders rerolling a hit roll! Man that catches me off guard every time!
You don't know what a perfect information game is. The point is, in Chess, everything is on the board. There is no hidden hand of cards. In 40k, outside of a few very specific mechanics (GSC is it afaik), you always know the state of the game - there is no hidden hand of cards, no shuffled deck. Magic is very different.
I'm quoting you here Hec, because you specifically mention cards, but the comment applies equally to Jidmah, and it is a comment that I've made before to which neither of you have replied. Here is the Goonhammer article that explains how the Tempest of War Deck works. Read it and let me know if you think this version of 40K is a perfect information game or not: https://www.goonhammer.com/goonhammer-reviews-tempest-of-war/
The basics of it is that you choose deployment, a battlefield condition and a primary from (wait for it...) A SHUFFLED DECK (Awww YEAH!) Then each player randomly generates 3 (Count'em) secondaries, which they only reveal to their opponent only after completing them. They redraw back to three if they ever begin a turn with fewer than three. So from turn to turn neither I nor my opponent can predict my secondaries or theirs. To me, the quantity of information available seems less perfect than in Magic- at least in that game I know what I have to do to win.
As with all discussion on Dakka about 40k- it's a good idea to specific when you are talking about "the game" because 40k isn't A game. Depending upon how narrowly you define the parameters of what constitutes a unique play experience, it's possible to define 40k as anywhere from 3 to 24 or more games. Is Mission Pack based 40k a perfect information game? Maybe. I mean, theoretically, it can be- if you've got the time, the money and the memory, it can be.
My personal theory is that GW keep adding layers and layers of rules precisely to prevent the game from being a perfect information game. Which brings me to...
40k having no hidden information is the prime reason why people feel like "Gotcha!" moments are a dick moves. In 40k a perfect player will never make a move that is not optimal to them, just like in chess.
Except that in the type of game you are describing as a perfect information game, there can't actually be such a thing as a "gotcha moment" at all.
So are all of the people who talk about 9th's "Gotcha" moments in your opinion just bad players? Because if it is perfect information, how did they not know that I was gonna Transhuman this or Vect cancel that? And if they did know, how is it a Gotcha?
Or is the next step to tell me I don't know what "Gotcha" means either? (Did I accurately predict that? If so, is Dakka a perfect information forum? Or are you going to reply with a gotcha post?)
Interesting side note: The first time someone ever took one of my chess pieces with an en passant move, it felt like someone had dropped a mad strat on me. Ditto the first time I saw someone castle.
JNAProductions wrote: There's a difference between "Has access to the information, but doesn't know it," and "Doesn't have access to the information at all."
JNAProductions wrote: There's a difference between "Has access to the information, but doesn't know it," and "Doesn't have access to the information at all."
Agreed.
So what do YOU think about Tempest of War?
Haven't tried it, so no real comment.
From what I know, it changes 40k from 100% information available, to only most of it available. It's still an entirely different beast than Magic.
PenitentJake wrote: I'm quoting you here Hec, because you specifically mention cards, but the comment applies equally to Jidmah, and it is a comment that I've made before to which neither of you have replied. Here is the Goonhammer article that explains how the Tempest of War Deck works. Read it and let me know if you think this version of 40K is a perfect information game or not: https://www.goonhammer.com/goonhammer-reviews-tempest-of-war/
The basics of it is that you choose deployment, a battlefield condition and a primary from (wait for it...) A SHUFFLED DECK (Awww YEAH!) Then each player randomly generates 3 (Count'em) secondaries, which they only reveal to their opponent only after completing them. They redraw back to three if they ever begin a turn with fewer than three. So from turn to turn neither I nor my opponent can predict my secondaries or theirs. To me, the quantity of information available seems less perfect than in Magic- at least in that game I know what I have to do to win.
As with all discussion on Dakka about 40k- it's a good idea to specific when you are talking about "the game" because 40k isn't A game. Depending upon how narrowly you define the parameters of what constitutes a unique play experience, it's possible to define 40k as anywhere from 3 to 24 or more games. Is Mission Pack based 40k a perfect information game? Maybe. I mean, theoretically, it can be- if you've got the time, the money and the memory, it can be.
My personal theory is that GW keep adding layers and layers of rules precisely to prevent the game from being a perfect information game. Which brings me to...
It's an alternate game mode and isn't super relevant to the core experience of 40k. If they make it the standard in 10th then we might have another discussion.
Except that in the type of game you are describing as a perfect information game, there can't actually be such a thing as a "gotcha moment" at all.
So are all of the people who talk about 9th's "Gotcha" moments in your opinion just bad players? Because if it is perfect information, how did they not know that I was gonna Transhuman this or Vect cancel that? And if they did know, how is it a Gotcha?
Or is the next step to tell me I don't know what "Gotcha" means either? (Did I accurately predict that? If so, is Dakka a perfect information forum? Or are you going to reply with a gotcha post?)
Interesting side note: The first time someone ever took one of my chess pieces with an en passant move, it felt like someone had dropped a mad strat on me. Ditto the first time I saw someone castle.
You're not super clear on what a "perfect information" game is then.
The funniest thing in the last part of this discussion, is that „perfect information” and „complete information” are two, completely separate qualities, but some of you mix the two freely. That the term „gameplay” encompasses all structured decisions that follow the rules of the game and that includes the first, simultaneous move of deck/list composition in games with deck/list building element, and simultaneous moves are always hidden information, but some of you exclude this move from the „gameplay” just to „win the discussion on the interwebz”, because it disproves their point. (A hint: the most widely known simultaneous move game is rock/paper/scissors, a reference every 40k player understands perfectly). And last, but nowhere the least, that there is no academic consensus if games with chance element but otherwise known decision history are or aren’t perfect information games, so I sincerely doubt, that this thread will provide an answer to this question.
It's an alternate game mode and isn't super relevant to the core experience of 40k. If they make it the standard in 10th then we might have another discussion.
GW doesn't make any of their versions "standard" - that would mean a smaller player base. It's your meta that makes one version or another "standard".
Case and point: most people on Dakka, if asked which mode is "standard" would likely say Matched.
Yet there are more 9th ed publications that do contain Crusade rules than there are that do not.
Oh yeah, and that Tempest of War deck? It's a Matched play resource.
You're not super clear on what a "perfect information" game is then.
I'll be the first to admit that I am nowhere near as much of a game-theory shop-talker as many of the people on Dakka; I have never gone to school for game design, nor have I ever created or helped to create a published game. But quite frankly, I feel like there's a lot more subjectivity to what a "perfect information" game is than some of the die-hard shop talkers are acknowledging- which brings me too...
nou wrote: The funniest thing in the last part of this discussion, is that „perfect information” and „complete information” are two, completely separate qualities, but some of you mix the two freely. That the term „gameplay” encompasses all structured decisions that follow the rules of the game and that includes the first, simultaneous move of deck/list composition in games with deck/list building element, and simultaneous moves are always hidden information, but some of you exclude this move from the „gameplay” just to „win the discussion on the interwebz”, because it disproves their point. (A hint: the most widely known simultaneous move game is rock/paper/scissors, a reference every 40k player understands perfectly). And last, but nowhere the least, that there is no academic consensus if games with chance element but otherwise known decision history are or aren’t perfect information games, so I sincerely doubt, that this thread will provide an answer to this question.
nou wrote: The funniest thing in the last part of this discussion, is that „perfect information” and „complete information” are two, completely separate qualities, but some of you mix the two freely. That the term „gameplay” encompasses all structured decisions that follow the rules of the game and that includes the first, simultaneous move of deck/list composition in games with deck/list building element, and simultaneous moves are always hidden information, but some of you exclude this move from the „gameplay” just to „win the discussion on the interwebz”, because it disproves their point. (A hint: the most widely known simultaneous move game is rock/paper/scissors, a reference every 40k player understands perfectly).
Simultaneous moves aren't hidden information, the same way random dice aren't hidden information.
nou wrote: And last, but nowhere the least, that there is no academic consensus if games with chance element but otherwise known decision history are or aren’t perfect information games, so I sincerely doubt, that this thread will provide an answer to this question.
GW doesn't make any of their versions "standard" - that would mean a smaller player base. It's your meta that makes one version or another "standard".
Case and point: most people on Dakka, if asked which mode is "standard" would likely say Matched.
Yet there are more 9th ed publications that do contain Crusade rules than there are that do not.
Oh yeah, and that Tempest of War deck? It's a Matched play resource.
It's optional, however, and the vast majority of games are played without it. So it's not the standard, regardless of what kind of disingenuous chicanery you try to play.
PenitentJake wrote: I'll be the first to admit that I am nowhere near as much of a game-theory shop-talker as many of the people on Dakka; I have never gone to school for game design, nor have I ever created or helped to create a published game. But quite frankly, I feel like there's a lot more subjectivity to what a "perfect information" game is than some of the die-hard shop talkers are acknowledging- which brings me too...
Not really. People are just misusing the term a lot.
A: 40k game design uses similar elements as MtG game design, simpified as "chasing the meta" to drive sales
B: they are not similar because 40k does not use cards in random booster packs
A: in addition 40k has gotcha moments, which are indented by design to drive sales (with the information hidden behind a paywall you either pay for it in advance or only know after wards)
B: no it does not because you don't have a hidden hand of cards
A: there is a hidden hand of cards
B: but no one uses this, I cannot proof it but otherwise my point would be invalid, so most people don't use it
basically "you are wrong, I cannot proof it, but you are wong"
Having just endured the last 5 pages at once, I have a thought re the 40k single game per opponent per round vs MTG "best of 3" per opponent per round.
What if you ran 501 point "best of 3" per round for an event (501 to be technically Incursion, and thus not force folks into only 1 patrol, but still small and fast, extra CP would help too)? Would that be roughly the same as a 2000 point round?
I feel like the smaller boards would be a huge plus. Also 3 games on the same terrain could mean you choose a different deployment zone, let alone deployment style.
A: 40k game design uses similar elements as MtG game design, simpified as "chasing the meta" to drive sales
No, that's not what a lot of people are saying. You're confusing marketing/sales strategy with game design. They're not totally extricable from each other, but those are two different things.
kodos wrote: B: they are not similar because 40k does not use cards in random booster packs
This is, in fact, a very big difference between how 40k and MtG are sold.
kodos wrote: A: in addition 40k has gotcha moments, which are indented by design to drive sales (with the information hidden behind a paywall you either pay for it in advance or only know after wards)
You're misunderstanding the argument here. If someone's gotcha argument comes out of their hidden hand, it's not really a "gotcha" - you are supposed to be surprised by it by the way the game is structured. "Gotcha" moments happen because 40k *isn't* like magic - there are pieces of information which are technically open, but not knowing them by heart can put you in a very bad play position.
B: but no one uses this, I cannot proof it but otherwise my point would be invalid, so most people don't use it
No, I can prove that almost no one uses the Tempest of War deck.
kodos wrote: basically "you are wrong, I cannot proof it, but you are wong"
Nope. People have put forward a lot of good arguments that you've failed to acknowledge, and you would do well to show some fething respect and not lazily and two-facedly misrepresenting arguments in this way.
Hecaton wrote: People have put forward a lot of good arguments that you've failed to acknowledge, and you would do well to show some fething respect and not lazily and two-facedly misrepresenting arguments in this way.
40k having no hidden information is the prime reason why people feel like "Gotcha!" moments are a dick moves. In 40k a perfect player will never make a move that is not optimal to them, just like in chess.
Except that in the type of game you are describing as a perfect information game, there can't actually be such a thing as a "gotcha moment" at all.
That kind of is the point. Gotcha moments in 40k only happen because the excessive amount of information available in any given game exceeds what an average player can/wants to handle. I think you have heard of this "bloat" thing, right?
So are all of the people who talk about 9th's "Gotcha" moments in your opinion just bad players? Because if it is perfect information, how did they not know that I was gonna Transhuman this or Vect cancel that? And if they did know, how is it a Gotcha?
The opposite of a perfect player is not a bad player. A perfect chess player would never lose a game when playing white, yet even world champions do.
Having perfect information available doesn't automatically mean you make perfect decisions.
And for the sake of your example, if you don't know iconic and well-known stratagems like vect or transhuman, yes, that would make you a bad player. Not knowing "Line Unbreakable" or "Diseased Effluents" merely makes you a normal person (bonus points if you do know what these do).
If you are aware of all your opponent's datasheets and stratagems, either through memorizing them or looking them up during the game, there is no way to gotcha you in 40k.
Interesting side note: The first time someone ever took one of my chess pieces with an en passant move, it felt like someone had dropped a mad strat on me. Ditto the first time I saw someone castle.
See, even chess can have "gotcha!" moments It's even the same kind of "gotcha!" as 40k has, that these moves exist is public information that you could theoretically have known.
Another thing that is a huge difference between how 40k and MtG work, by the way - in 40k it's often not that easy to discern what the optimal decision would be. Which is kind of important in a game with perfect information, and also a reason why static gunlines were making the game unfun - what to shoot is pretty much the only "easy" thing to figure out.
In MtG a lot of turns or even entire games feel like they run on rails because most of the decisions you could take are obvious bad ones, leaving you with just one or two options of what to do with a turn.
If you can't see how kodos was misinterpreting what I and others were saying in this thread, go read it again and get back to me. The difference is, I actually have facts on my side. When the facts aren't on my side, I'll change my opinion, but it looks pretty good from here.
See, even chess can have "gotcha!" moments It's even the same kind of "gotcha!" as 40k has, that these moves exist is public information that you could theoretically have known.
You are aware that the poster you're responding to doesn't understand the difference between information actually being hidden and not knowing the rulebook?
JNAProductions wrote: There's a difference between "Has access to the information, but doesn't know it," and "Doesn't have access to the information at all."
Agreed.
So what do YOU think about Tempest of War?
Haven't tried it, so no real comment.
From what I know, it changes 40k from 100% information available, to only most of it available. It's still an entirely different beast than Magic.
As tempest of war has no hand cards like some maelstrom variants and no deck building component, there is no hidden information.
You know everything about your opponent's active objectives and deck, besides the order. The decks are functionally identically with those d66 tables, which are random, but not hidden.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Blndmage wrote: Having just endured the last 5 pages at once, I have a thought re the 40k single game per opponent per round vs MTG "best of 3" per opponent per round.
What if you ran 501 point "best of 3" per round for an event (501 to be technically Incursion, and thus not force folks into only 1 patrol, but still small and fast, extra CP would help too)? Would that be roughly the same as a 2000 point round?
I feel like the smaller boards would be a huge plus. Also 3 games on the same terrain could mean you choose a different deployment zone, let alone deployment style.
In theory, yes.
In practice, 40k tends to have an overhead for each game which makes 500 point games not take half as long as 1000 point games or take a quarter of the time of a 2000 point game.
There also is the issue with 500 point games being extremely repetitive because most armies just don't have that many options to build a list out of 500 points and there is just so much you can do with four units.
I'd be genuinely interested in how you'd go about proving that.
Why would that be hard? Take a representative sample of 40k players, ask them questions. It's not the kind of survey question someone is likely to lie about.
Hecaton wrote: You are aware that the poster you're responding to doesn't understand the difference between information actually being hidden and not knowing the rulebook?
I wouldn't be responding to PentinentJake if I didn't care for his opinion
Automatically Appended Next Post:
nou wrote: The funniest thing in the last part of this discussion, is that „perfect information” and „complete information” are two, completely separate qualities, but some of you mix the two freely. That the term „gameplay” encompasses all structured decisions that follow the rules of the game and that includes the first, simultaneous move of deck/list composition in games with deck/list building element, and simultaneous moves are always hidden information, but some of you exclude this move from the „gameplay” just to „win the discussion on the interwebz”, because it disproves their point. (A hint: the most widely known simultaneous move game is rock/paper/scissors, a reference every 40k player understands perfectly). And last, but nowhere the least, that there is no academic consensus if games with chance element but otherwise known decision history are or aren’t perfect information games, so I sincerely doubt, that this thread will provide an answer to this question.
I actually read all that up and I think you are just plain wrong and trying to split hairs for the sake of it. List building is not a game of rock-paper-scissors outside of extreme scenarios.
The second article actually quite clearly states that MtG is a game with imperfect but complete information, while 40k is has perfect and complete information.
If tempest of war would hide objectives, you could argue that it would become a game of prefect but incomplete information.
No, that's not what a lot of people are saying. You're confusing marketing/sales strategy with game design. They're not totally extricable from each other, but those are two different things.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hecaton wrote: Why would that be hard? Take a representative sample of 40k players, ask them questions. It's not the kind of survey question someone is likely to lie about.
I'd be genuinely interested in how you'd go about proving that.
Why would that be hard? Take a representative sample of 40k players, ask them questions. It's not the kind of survey question someone is likely to lie about.
So what you're saying is, you can't currently prove that almost nobody (subjective) is using tempest of war?
No, that's not what a lot of people are saying. You're confusing marketing/sales strategy with game design. They're not totally extricable from each other, but those are two different things.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hecaton wrote: Why would that be hard? Take a representative sample of 40k players, ask them questions. It's not the kind of survey question someone is likely to lie about.
looking forward to the results of your survey
As well as the methodology etc. Is it the kind of thing someone might lie about? Dont know seems unlikely but is also the sort of thing any survey worth its salt would need to look into.
BertBert wrote: Would it be too crazy to call it an educated guess?
Probably not but the poster in question claimed he could prove it. He also claimed to admit when he was wrong. Im sure it is possible to prove or disprove such a claim but i seriously doubt the poster has the resources or frankly, desire to do so. He just doesnt like being called out and is scrambling.
BertBert wrote: Would it be too crazy to call it an educated guess?
Probably not but the poster in question claimed he could prove it. He also claimed to admit when he was wrong. Im sure it is possible to prove or disprove such a claim but i seriously doubt the poster has the resources or frankly, desire to do so. He just doesnt like being called out and is scrambling.
He also seems to like demanding citations for claims, which is why I thought it was odd that he claimed he could prove it in the first place.
The problem with guesswork is everyone's opinions are inevitably skewed by their local meta. Some people will have a wider pool of different local metas to draw on depending on location, but for the most part everyone is pretty isolated in their own little bubble. That's why I'd always be wary of claims that "nobody" or "everybody" plays a certain way. I've never seen Crusade get beyond 1-2 games where I play, for example, but I'm not going to claim that's the most common result of trying Crusade.
Technically, MtG at a high level is close to a perfect information game as well. While you don't know what's in a players' hand... you do know what their overall mission is (win condition) if you've done cursory research into the environment... and reading the game state is fairly trivial. These "gotcha" moments translates into "do you have the card to finish this game, or do you not?" moments. Honestly, if you're playing blind into the meta of any CCG, you're doomed. And besides, all of the cards and their texts and their interactions are freely available, why haven't you memorized them all? Decks are generally public knowledge, too?
Memorizing these variables is near impossible, you can only play the numbers. What are you most likely to see, what do you NOT want to see, and how do you play into a lot of the rest of the garbage that exists? Are you sacrificing your general play in order to beat a top threat?
Just like a CCG player can position themselves to give their opponent a different interpretation of the game-state, so can a 40K player. You know what stratagems are at my disposal, you can even force a few plays... but overall, you have no knowledge of when and how a person will deploy a strat. You also have no information on how the dice will play into the game. Will this be the roll with your Fire Dragons where you shout "Yhatzee!" as you roll 5 1's with no Autarch near? Is that the same point where your opponent will choose to turn off your re-rolls with his stratagem? Man, sure would be nice to know that before disembarking them and putting them into what would be an exposed position if they failed to eliminate their target. And a single action like that can domino throughout the turn as you adjust to that unplanned variable.
CCGs and 40K both have this in common: at their core they are a strategy game that has both construction and play elements. They both have unknowns that cannon be planned for (hands vs dice and strats). While a lot of the game is decided before a single die is rolled, those unknowns can present issues that require mental agility to compensate for in the throes of a game (else you dramatically increase your chances of losing).
Are they the exact same? Absolutely not, but at the macro you're creating a list against your "meta", hedging your bets against what you'll face or what you won't face... looking for a list/deck that gives you the best chances to win in that environment. Then you go and play and pretty much hope the RNG generators (shuffling or dice) don't screw you out of a strong finish... and of course build outs in your list/deck to allow you to recover when RNG rears its ugly head. Deck/list consistency (doing what you want to do even when things aren't optimum) and resilience (doing what you want even when facing active adversity) are core concepts used by champions in both systems.
Then we go to the pricing model.
New variables (cards/books) are injected into the system every 3ish months (40K now checks this box with setting books and army rule expansions).
A closed framework to prevent unintended issues from lingering in the environment too long (used to be what Standard was in MtG, and honestly an Edition in 40K plays very close to that feel as lists/rules seem to come and go with edition change).
A mix of new hotness while drawing on nostalgia? Yup, either an old card (or a similar card harkening on nostalgia) will be printed again, given a second lease on life; much in the same way 40K will revive an old unit with new rules or a new print or both. Then just new powerful cards/models that can really shake things up (Primaris?). This keeps the system addictive... how many of us would have fallen off the wagon if the ONLY thing awaiting us was a new book every 3-5 years? Shorten that to 3-5 months, and now people are chomping to get that new injection of hotness into their list. Nothing is static, everything is in motion... even if you're not really getting anywhere.
So at their very core the game spaces are VERY similar... but the systems and products that overlay that core are very different. They obscure things in a way to give them the illusion of being different (and that's important, right?). We have the choice to prefer one set of sheets over another, and that's what makes the system either popular or not. But at the core they are very similar: unpredictable games with a lot of player agency/control over many of the levers (but never ALL) with a rapidly rotating play that is always in flux thus... making people feel like they constantly need to be buying to keep up. Nothing wrong with it, just understand the beast you're attempting to wrangle... and understand the rules it is asking you to play by. Find your spot in that system... and just play however that makes you happy (garage-hammer, locals only, competitive PUGs, traveling to cons... whatever).
I play board games, card games, and war games. I play them all casually. I also play RPGs, but that is always casual, basically. I've experienced Gotchas in each one. Board games generally have less, and are almost fully decided by dice, and very little strategy, in my experience. Card game gotchas are just part of what they are. The strategy is preparing for them, or to deliver them. If someone told me to memorize every legal card in Magic, I'd be dumbfounded. In war games, Gotchas tend to be rare, at least from what I've experienced, with my very limited view. Infinity might have a few, as they're built into the system, but you have to invest into them with points and time. I've done my fair share of Hidden Deployment Infiltration Specialists waiting next to the enemy or objective. But the gotchas there are so limited, and part of the core rules, and you'll see entire chunks of their army missing, and they'll have to either write down the exact spot or ask you to turn around and take a picture of where it is,that you'll know that something is deployed somewhere you don't know.
In 40k, gotchas have none of these drawbacks. It's one of the reasons I stopped playing. The other being how dreadfully boring it is when it's not my turn. I'm sure there are counter arguments to everything I just said, but I started with 40k, and got tired of it pretty fast.
Well if you're completely off guard by someone using a Strat to lower your LD or some garbage like that, I dunno what to tell you.
Again you're cherry picking strats to pretend gotcha moments don't exist. If they don't exist for you, congrats on having the time to sit down and learn 700 stratagems and special rules. For the other 99.9% of the playerbase, they both exist and feel bad when they happen.
Citation needed for the 99% of the playerbase that hadn't memorized Transhuman Physiology and Agents of Vect after they became rules.
Or the real Gotcha special rules like Salamanders rerolling a hit roll! Man that catches me off guard every time!
You play space marines agaisnt my Chaos demons, you decide to cast a buff spell with your librarian and end up periling, you say "sure, i got 4 wounds left, perils can't kill me". I use Daemonic possession and you take 4 mortals from your perils and die.
thats a gotcha.
Will you know in the future? yes, but that doesn't change the fact that its a strat that no one would expect before running into
So what you're saying is, you can't currently prove that almost nobody (subjective) is using tempest of war?
Other people making the implied claim that Tempest of War is being used widely in the 40k community and the norm have no basis for what they're claiming, so I don't have to prove gak. They're the one making the claim.
Tempest of War isn't in the core rules, it's not part of the core experience of 40k. It's an optional add on. Not relevant to this discussion.
Well if you're completely off guard by someone using a Strat to lower your LD or some garbage like that, I dunno what to tell you.
Again you're cherry picking strats to pretend gotcha moments don't exist. If they don't exist for you, congrats on having the time to sit down and learn 700 stratagems and special rules. For the other 99.9% of the playerbase, they both exist and feel bad when they happen.
Citation needed for the 99% of the playerbase that hadn't memorized Transhuman Physiology and Agents of Vect after they became rules.
Or the real Gotcha special rules like Salamanders rerolling a hit roll! Man that catches me off guard every time!
You play space marines agaisnt my Chaos demons, you decide to cast a buff spell with your librarian and end up periling, you say "sure, i got 4 wounds left, perils can't kill me". I use Daemonic possession and you take 4 mortals from your perils and die.
thats a gotcha.
Will you know in the future? yes, but that doesn't change the fact that its a strat that no one would expect before running into
Not a gotcha since everyone knows about that Strat.
Slipspace wrote: He also seems to like demanding citations for claims, which is why I thought it was odd that he claimed he could prove it in the first place.
To clarify, I was saying that it's provable.
Slipspace wrote: The problem with guesswork is everyone's opinions are inevitably skewed by their local meta. Some people will have a wider pool of different local metas to draw on depending on location, but for the most part everyone is pretty isolated in their own little bubble. That's why I'd always be wary of claims that "nobody" or "everybody" plays a certain way. I've never seen Crusade get beyond 1-2 games where I play, for example, but I'm not going to claim that's the most common result of trying Crusade.
Sure, but nobody's meta has Tempest of War as the norm. People are just saying that because they want to argue in bad faith against me.
So what you're saying is, you can't currently prove that almost nobody (subjective) is using tempest of war?
Other people making the implied claim that Tempest of War is being used widely in the 40k community and the norm have no basis for what they're claiming, so I don't have to prove gak. They're the one making the claim.
no, other people said that it existed, you claimed that this does not matter because no one uses it and that you can easily proof that claim
and we are waiting
TheBestBucketHead wrote: In 40k, gotchas have none of these drawbacks. It's one of the reasons I stopped playing. The other being how dreadfully boring it is when it's not my turn. I'm sure there are counter arguments to everything I just said, but I started with 40k, and got tired of it pretty fast.
the only counter argument is that 40k was different in the past, so might change back in the future (as 9th is received not that well) and you should just ignore the current state of the game
similar with IGoUGo, 40k has always been that way so just ignore that it is different now because it made things worse, and wait until it goes back to the default state
no, other people said that it existed, you claimed that this does not matter because no one uses it and that you can easily proof that claim
and we are waiting
Where in the rules for 40k does it say to use the Tempest of War deck? What tournament or other event do you know that has used it? I'm not going to waste my time with your disingenuous assertions.
Was 9th recived bad by the community or was 9th recived bad and the sells went down. Because if the second thing happened, GW may change some stuff, maybe not for the better, but they will change it. If is just the first option of players being unhappy, the reaction may come delayed and probably will not be what the players want, with a good chance of fixs not really fiting the 10th ed rule set.
I mean how many people are happy today that GW fixed eliminators and centurions?
Hecaton wrote: Where in the rules for 40k does it say to use the Tempest of War deck? What tournament or other event do you know that has used it? I'm not going to waste my time with your disingenuous assertions.
were in the rules does it say to always play 2000 points?
is this now your admit to be wrong with the claim that no one uses it?
kodos wrote: were in the rules does it say to always play 2000 points?
is this now your admit to be wrong with the claim that no one uses it?
It doesn't, but it does allow for it. Many people play 2000 points, other people prefer different amounts. The last game I played last weekend was 1k points. Nowhere in the rules I said did it say anything about Tempest of War. It did say things about playing games at different points values though.
kodos wrote: were in the rules does it say to always play 2000 points?
is this now your admit to be wrong with the claim that no one uses it?
It doesn't, but it does allow for it. Many people play 2000 points, other people prefer different amounts. The last game I played last weekend was 1k points. Nowhere in the rules I said did it say anything about Tempest of War. It did say things about playing games at different points values though.
Oddly nowhere in the rules does it say anything about using a grand tournament mission pack either, did you use one of those?
You play space marines agaisnt my Chaos demons, you decide to cast a buff spell with your librarian and end up periling, you say "sure, i got 4 wounds left, perils can't kill me". I use Daemonic possession and you take 4 mortals from your perils and die.
thats a gotcha.
Will you know in the future? yes, but that doesn't change the fact that its a strat that no one would expect before running into
Do you think knowing that strat would have change anything in your example? Who's gonna skip a psychic phase for a psyker just because if the opponets invests CPs and you roll to peril then it dies? I've never sit my wounded psykers just because a peril result might kill them, unless maybe it's sitting alone on an objective and I desperately need the model to be alive at the end of the turn to score.
A gotcha might be something like: player A casts a psychic power than damage an enemy unit then player B uses a stratagem that reverses that psychic power into a player's A unit, killing it. In that case, knowing the strat, player A would have played it differently. Maybe, even that is not guaranteed. But not in your example.
no, other people said that it existed, you claimed that this does not matter because no one uses it and that you can easily proof that claim
and we are waiting
Where in the rules for 40k does it say to use the Tempest of War deck? What tournament or other event do you know that has used it? I'm not going to waste my time with your disingenuous assertions.
That's not the point that was made in the post you replied to. All that was being stated was that Tempest of War existed. There was nothing about it being a standard way to play, just that it existed.
As for where it says to use the deck - in the Tempest of War deck itself. That's just as much a part of 40k rules as the GT Mission Pack or a Warzone supplement. Looks to me like you're the one making the disingenuous assertions here.
You play space marines agaisnt my Chaos demons, you decide to cast a buff spell with your librarian and end up periling, you say "sure, i got 4 wounds left, perils can't kill me". I use Daemonic possession and you take 4 mortals from your perils and die.
thats a gotcha.
Will you know in the future? yes, but that doesn't change the fact that its a strat that no one would expect before running into
Do you think knowing that strat would have change anything in your example? Who's gonna skip a psychic phase for a psyker just because if the opponets invests CPs and you roll to peril then it dies? I've never sit my wounded psykers just because a peril result might kill them, unless maybe it's sitting alone on an objective and I desperately need the model to be alive at the end of the turn to score.
A gotcha might be something like: player A casts a psychic power than damage an enemy unit then player B uses a stratagem that reverses that psychic power into a player's A unit, killing it. In that case, knowing the strat, player A would have played it differently. Maybe, even that is not guaranteed. But not in your example.
Knowing the strat would make it much more likely the player would use a CP reroll on the Psychic test. That's missing the point, though. The gotcha comes from the fact the information is theoretically available but not always known by both players. The classic example is Auspex Scan, where the difference between losing a unit and not is whether you know of the strat's existence and therefore deploy at 12.1" or whether you don't know and drop at 12" away, only to get hosed. Yes, the opponent can, and likely should, remind the other player about Auspex Scan, but a well-designed game with supposedly open information shouldn't require such frequent reminders.
Knowing the strat would make it much more likely the player would use a CP reroll on the Psychic test. That's missing the point, though. The gotcha comes from the fact the information is theoretically available but not always known by both players. The classic example is Auspex Scan, where the difference between losing a unit and not is whether you know of the strat's existence and therefore deploy at 12.1" or whether you don't know and drop at 12" away, only to get hosed. Yes, the opponent can, and likely should, remind the other player about Auspex Scan, but a well-designed game with supposedly open information shouldn't require such frequent reminders.
I'm not convinced.
From my perspective there are two types of rules: the most common ones and the rarest ones. If you don't know the most common rules, such as Auspex Scan, that's on you. Last year the football team of Roma made 6 changes during a national cup game, since they assumed that a 6th change was allowed when games come to extra time, but it wasn't and they lost 0-3 regardless of what happened on the field. That's on them for not knowing the basic rules. And that's on 40k players if they don't know the basic mechanics of the opponents' armies. Just like in the past, when stratagems didn't exist.
If you don't know some rare rule and get gotchad, most of the times that gotcha doesn't really change anything, in terms of strategy or decision making. That's my point. I firmly believe that there are very few real gotcha mechanics in 40k.
From my perspective there are two types of rules: the most common ones and the rarest ones. If you don't know the most common rules, such as Auspex Scan, that's on you. Last year the football team of Roma made 6 changes during a national cup game, since they assumed that a 6th change was allowed when games come to extra time, but it wasn't and they lost 0-3 regardless of what happened on the field. That's on them for not knowing the basic rules. And that's on 40k players if they don't know the basic mechanics of the opponents' armies. Just like in the past, when stratagems didn't exist.
If you don't know some rare rule and get gotchad, most of the times that gotcha doesn't really change anything, in terms of strategy or decision making. That's my point. I firmly believe that there are very few real gotcha mechanics in 40k.
Broadly speaking agree. I think the issue is more just people hate realising they've made a mistake that they shouldn't have made. So Auspex Scan is an obvious one - because if being inside 12" made no difference to being outside 12", you've taken the hit for nothing. But taken to the logical extreme, discovering anything about the game becomes a gotcha. "Oh I didn't know your incubi would blend that stuff as quickly as they did, if I had I'd have played differently". Okay... but just use that knowledge for next time.
I think the terror of gotchas gets talked up far more online than is the case at the table. Even amongst casual players who have scarcely glanced at all the things their book may allow them to do.
Jidmah wrote: The tempest of war deck doesn't change anything about hidden information though, so I wonder why it keeps being discussed?
because it was brought up as an example to counter the claim that a hidden deck of cards does not exist in 40k
than the goalpost was moved to, it exists but no one uses it
and now we are waiting for him to proof that because he said this is easy
It's not hidden though? The cards are just a representation of the d66 table it used to be. At all times during a game of tempest of war you know exactly what your opponent wants to do and what cards are left in his deck.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tyel wrote: I think the terror of gotchas gets talked up far more online than is the case at the table. Even amongst casual players who have scarcely glanced at all the things their book may allow them to do.
I recently had a necron player be quite sour about me gotcha'ing his C'Tan by ramming it (spiked rams, warlord trait) in the movement phase while he felt safe because he though he couldn't lose more than 6 wounds to orks without a psyker.
It's essentially a moment where you make a bad play that you wouldn't have made if you knew about a rule. Especially for casual players, this can ruin their one game per week/month, making those gotcha's much more frustrating. It comes up less often because in casual games you usually make people aware of gotcha's, but they still happen. In the situation above, I was not aware that my opponent didn't know about these rules, especially since I was joking about running over his C'Tan from the beginning of the turn.
I wonder if 'gotcha' is also being used to describe the multitude of scenarios covered by 'I got caught out by something I didn't see coming' or 'I got hard-countered by this thing and there was nothing I could do'.
Jidmah wrote: The tempest of war deck doesn't change anything about hidden information though, so I wonder why it keeps being discussed?
because it was brought up as an example to counter the claim that a hidden deck of cards does not exist in 40k
than the goalpost was moved to, it exists but no one uses it
and now we are waiting for him to proof that because he said this is easy
It's not hidden though? The cards are just a representation of the d66 table it used to be. At all times during a game of tempest of war you know exactly what your opponent wants to do and what cards are left in his deck.
From what was being said earlier, the "hidden" aspect refers to the fact that you don't know which objectives they currently have available to complete (someone said three available, but the cards are facedown until completed?) - as opposed to a GT Matched Play scenario, where you know their primary and secondary objectives from the off.
Where in the rules for 40k does it say to use the Tempest of War deck? What tournament or other event do you know that has used it? I'm not going to waste my time with your disingenuous assertions.
You play space marines agaisnt my Chaos demons, you decide to cast a buff spell with your librarian and end up periling, you say "sure, i got 4 wounds left, perils can't kill me". I use Daemonic possession and you take 4 mortals from your perils and die.
thats a gotcha.
Will you know in the future? yes, but that doesn't change the fact that its a strat that no one would expect before running into
Do you think knowing that strat would have change anything in your example? Who's gonna skip a psychic phase for a psyker just because if the opponets invests CPs and you roll to peril then it dies? I've never sit my wounded psykers just because a peril result might kill them, unless maybe it's sitting alone on an objective and I desperately need the model to be alive at the end of the turn to score.
A gotcha might be something like: player A casts a psychic power than damage an enemy unit then player B uses a stratagem that reverses that psychic power into a player's A unit, killing it. In that case, knowing the strat, player A would have played it differently. Maybe, even that is not guaranteed. But not in your example.
i've skipped casting non necessary spells to not risk a perils.
I think the terror of gotchas gets talked up far more online than is the case at the table. Even amongst casual players who have scarcely glanced at all the things their book may allow them to do.
it definitely is, at my LGS at least every time someone would make a move that would be "gotcha'd" we warn each other (one of the reason why auspex scan is never used as anything but a deterrent)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Deadnight wrote: I wonder if 'gotcha' is also being used to describe the multitude of scenarios covered by 'I got caught out by something I didn't see coming' or 'I got hard-countered by this thing and there was nothing I could do'.
Not in my mind personally but i could totally see other players mix all of those together
Dysartes wrote: From what was being said earlier, the "hidden" aspect refers to the fact that you don't know which objectives they currently have available to complete (someone said three available, but the cards are facedown until completed?) - as opposed to a GT Matched Play scenario, where you know their primary and secondary objectives from the off.
I have the thing in my hands (so much for no one playing it ). The three active objectives are not supposed hidden but face up in front of you, just like they were in most maelstrom missions. There is no reference to revealing them, nor would it make sense for some of the cards (anything requiring an action, for example).
Deadnight wrote: I wonder if 'gotcha' is also being used to describe the multitude of scenarios covered by 'I got caught out by something I didn't see coming' or 'I got hard-countered by this thing and there was nothing I could do'.
Hence why, if Daemonic Possession was a core rule of Daemon armies, would some of these people be happier?
Deadnight wrote: I wonder if 'gotcha' is also being used to describe the multitude of scenarios covered by 'I got caught out by something I didn't see coming' or 'I got hard-countered by this thing and there was nothing I could do'.
'I got caught out by something I didn't see coming' is often also 'I didn't know you had a strat that could X if I got inside of Y' (in spite of the perfect information state, it being available and knowing it are not the same)
That's not the point that was made in the post you replied to. All that was being stated was that Tempest of War existed. There was nothing about it being a standard way to play, just that it existed.
As for where it says to use the deck - in the Tempest of War deck itself. That's just as much a part of 40k rules as the GT Mission Pack or a Warzone supplement. Looks to me like you're the one making the disingenuous assertions here.
Keep digging that hole though.
Tempest of War existing doesn't change games where it's not used (i.e. the vast majority of 40k games) into imperfect information games.
Dysartes wrote: From what was being said earlier, the "hidden" aspect refers to the fact that you don't know which objectives they currently have available to complete (someone said three available, but the cards are facedown until completed?) - as opposed to a GT Matched Play scenario, where you know their primary and secondary objectives from the off.
I have the thing in my hands (so much for no one playing it ). The three active objectives are not supposed hidden but face up in front of you, just like they were in most maelstrom missions. There is no reference to revealing them, nor would it make sense for some of the cards (anything requiring an action, for example).
That's interesting to know, Jid - I was working purely off what had been said earlier in the thread, as I haven't picked the deck up myself yet.
Dysartes wrote: From what was being said earlier, the "hidden" aspect refers to the fact that you don't know which objectives they currently have available to complete (someone said three available, but the cards are facedown until completed?) - as opposed to a GT Matched Play scenario, where you know their primary and secondary objectives from the off.
I have the thing in my hands (so much for no one playing it ). The three active objectives are not supposed hidden but face up in front of you, just like they were in most maelstrom missions. There is no reference to revealing them, nor would it make sense for some of the cards (anything requiring an action, for example).
That's interesting to know, Jid - I was working purely off what had been said earlier in the thread, as I haven't picked the deck up myself yet.
Wow, okay, I misinterpreted the Goonhammer article- they reference drawing secondaries into your hand. Here's the piece I misunderstood:
"At the start of each player’s Command phase, the player whose turn it is draws cards from their Secondary mission card until they have three cards in hand. These are the active objectives for that player. Each time a player achieves a secondary mission, they discard it and score VP (usually 5 per card, though some give other values). At the end of each player’s turn, they can discard any of their active secondary mission cards they want. Once a player runs out of cards, they can’t generate any more secondary missions."
Now that I know it doesn't work the way I thought it did, it seems it is "perfect information."
Please disregard any previous comments- I stand corrected. Thanks for the heads up Jid.
Yeah, GW uses the words "draw and discard" and I know quite a few reviewers assumed that you would hold a hand of cards, so I was surprised myself.
It doesn't really explicitly say that you have to reveal them, but something like teleporter homer (requires you to perform an action till your next command phase) is just awkward with hidden cards. "I peform an action" "Which one, what for?" "I'm not telling!" "Can I see the rules?" "No!".
Same goes for cards that require you to keep a tally.
Well if you're completely off guard by someone using a Strat to lower your LD or some garbage like that, I dunno what to tell you.
Again you're cherry picking strats to pretend gotcha moments don't exist. If they don't exist for you, congrats on having the time to sit down and learn 700 stratagems and special rules. For the other 99.9% of the playerbase, they both exist and feel bad when they happen.
Citation needed for the 99% of the playerbase that hadn't memorized Transhuman Physiology and Agents of Vect after they became rules.
Or the real Gotcha special rules like Salamanders rerolling a hit roll! Man that catches me off guard every time!
You're one hell of a player if your opponent has never used a stratagem you didn't know about.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Blndmage wrote: Having just endured the last 5 pages at once, I have a thought re the 40k single game per opponent per round vs MTG "best of 3" per opponent per round.
What if you ran 501 point "best of 3" per round for an event (501 to be technically Incursion, and thus not force folks into only 1 patrol, but still small and fast, extra CP would help too)? Would that be roughly the same as a 2000 point round?
I feel like the smaller boards would be a huge plus. Also 3 games on the same terrain could mean you choose a different deployment zone, let alone deployment style.
500 point games suck and I have zero interest in playing them. When I buy a new army, I usually don't even bother playing games until I have at least 1k because the games are just not fun. They're way too swingy based on dice or listbuilding. You brought a tank and your opponent couldn't fit a dedicated AT unit into 500 pts? You auto win. You bring a redemptor and roll 1 for shots, then it gets blown off the table in your opponents turn and you auto lose. Positioning and shot selection don't really matter because it's just "shoot his 1 big model with my strong guns, my troops shoot/melee his troops, my hq shoots at/tries to fight his hq depending on which one I'm better at". It would absolutely kill the competitive scene to go to a format like that because I don't know a single person that actually enjoys 500pt games more than 2k games.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Karol wrote: Was 9th recived bad by the community or was 9th recived bad and the sells went down. Because if the second thing happened, GW may change some stuff, maybe not for the better, but they will change it. If is just the first option of players being unhappy, the reaction may come delayed and probably will not be what the players want, with a good chance of fixs not really fiting the 10th ed rule set.
I mean how many people are happy today that GW fixed eliminators and centurions?
Anecdotally, my FLGS tournament has always had a 32 player cap. This month it's down to 16 because that's all that were showing up the last couple months anyway. I'm seeing similar things that I saw in 7th, less 40k games and more games of literally anything else. This is even true at the Warhammer store where people are mostly playing Necromunda and AoS.
Well early 8th we had , at my old store, over 40 people playing. the new army/new player tournament had 36 players. When 8th was ending, out of all the new players, there were 4 left, including me.
Well if you're completely off guard by someone using a Strat to lower your LD or some garbage like that, I dunno what to tell you.
Again you're cherry picking strats to pretend gotcha moments don't exist. If they don't exist for you, congrats on having the time to sit down and learn 700 stratagems and special rules. For the other 99.9% of the playerbase, they both exist and feel bad when they happen.
Citation needed for the 99% of the playerbase that hadn't memorized Transhuman Physiology and Agents of Vect after they became rules.
Or the real Gotcha special rules like Salamanders rerolling a hit roll! Man that catches me off guard every time!
You're one hell of a player if your opponent has never used a stratagem you didn't know about.
This is the age of the internet. None of this information is hidden. It might be one thing to struggle against an army you haven't faced before, but you shouldn't be surprised by anything.
500 point games suck and I have zero interest in playing them.
Okay man, in another thread (or maybe this one... They blend), you really articulated your preferences, and it was pretty civil- I saw things through your eyes, and I was like "Hmm, okay, I can let that go."
I've backed off on the perfect information dumpster fire too.
But seriously dude, why not just rewrite the quoted sentence above as:
"I have zero interest in playing 500 point games"
I'd just helps minimize some of the polarity, and increases the likelihood that other people will be able to see your point of view like I did in your other post. Not trying to censor you or be PC- just suggesting that a tonal shift might improve the responses you get from people, which might ultimately make your experience on the forums more pleasant as well.
Well if you're completely off guard by someone using a Strat to lower your LD or some garbage like that, I dunno what to tell you.
Again you're cherry picking strats to pretend gotcha moments don't exist. If they don't exist for you, congrats on having the time to sit down and learn 700 stratagems and special rules. For the other 99.9% of the playerbase, they both exist and feel bad when they happen.
Citation needed for the 99% of the playerbase that hadn't memorized Transhuman Physiology and Agents of Vect after they became rules.
Or the real Gotcha special rules like Salamanders rerolling a hit roll! Man that catches me off guard every time!
You're one hell of a player if your opponent has never used a stratagem you didn't know about.
This is the age of the internet. None of this information is hidden. It might be one thing to struggle against an army you haven't faced before, but you shouldn't be surprised by anything.
Obvious question: so anyone who plays 9th ed 40k needs to memorize EVERY strategem for EVERY faction?
500 point games suck and I have zero interest in playing them.
Okay man, in another thread (or maybe this one... They blend), you really articulated your preferences, and it was pretty civil- I saw things through your eyes, and I was like "Hmm, okay, I can let that go."
I've backed off on the perfect information dumpster fire too.
But seriously dude, why not just rewrite the quoted sentence above as:
"I have zero interest in playing 500 point games"
I'd just helps minimize some of the polarity, and increases the likelihood that other people will be able to see your point of view like I did in your other post. Not trying to censor you or be PC- just suggesting that a tonal shift might improve the responses you get from people, which might ultimately make your experience on the forums more pleasant as well.
Peace.
500 points games don't help for already struggling armies though, which is bizarre since it's always suggested to keep down lethality.
Obvious question: so anyone who plays 9th ed 40k needs to memorize EVERY strategem for EVERY faction?
Absolutely not. There's really a little amount of information that a player NEEDS to remember from every faction in order to avoid signficant gotchas. The real difference between 8th/9th and older editions is that several armies have countless units now, and remembering the units' profiles and abilities is much harder than remembering the few important stratagems.
The number of units actualy used is rather small though. What creates the problems are over laping army rules. Stratagems on top of army rules, on top of per turn activation rules on top how wierd movment in assault is, if your dudes happen to have heroic intervention on units and not just heroes.
Well if you're completely off guard by someone using a Strat to lower your LD or some garbage like that, I dunno what to tell you.
Again you're cherry picking strats to pretend gotcha moments don't exist. If they don't exist for you, congrats on having the time to sit down and learn 700 stratagems and special rules. For the other 99.9% of the playerbase, they both exist and feel bad when they happen.
Citation needed for the 99% of the playerbase that hadn't memorized Transhuman Physiology and Agents of Vect after they became rules.
Or the real Gotcha special rules like Salamanders rerolling a hit roll! Man that catches me off guard every time!
You're one hell of a player if your opponent has never used a stratagem you didn't know about.
This is the age of the internet. None of this information is hidden. It might be one thing to struggle against an army you haven't faced before, but you shouldn't be surprised by anything.
Obvious question: so anyone who plays 9th ed 40k needs to memorize EVERY strategem for EVERY faction?
There's not a lot and there's tons of overlap in between factions. For example, Night Lords and Eldar both have a -1 to hit Strat. If you get rid of the funky naming, it's not hard to keep track.
Quite frankly I've heard stories here of people forgetting to use entire units on their turn. I'm not surprised y'all don't memorize Strats.
Obvious question: so anyone who plays 9th ed 40k needs to memorize EVERY strategem for EVERY faction?
Absolutely not. There's really a little amount of information that a player NEEDS to remember from every faction in order to avoid signficant gotchas. The real difference between 8th/9th and older editions is that several armies have countless units now, and remembering the units' profiles and abilities is much harder than remembering the few important stratagems.
500 point games suck and I have zero interest in playing them. When I buy a new army, I usually don't even bother playing games until I have at least 1k because the games are just not fun. They're way too swingy based on dice or listbuilding. You brought a tank and your opponent couldn't fit a dedicated AT unit into 500 pts? You auto win. You bring a redemptor and roll 1 for shots, then it gets blown off the table in your opponents turn and you auto lose. Positioning and shot selection don't really matter because it's just "shoot his 1 big model with my strong guns, my troops shoot/melee his troops, my hq shoots at/tries to fight his hq depending on which one I'm better at". It would absolutely kill the competitive scene to go to a format like that because I don't know a single person that actually enjoys 500pt games more than 2k games.
Want to know what's really fun?
Playing 500pt games with Necrons back in 3rd/4th edition.
Well let's see, my cheapest HQ costs 100pts so that's 400pts left. Then I only have one troop choice, so I guess I'm taking Necron Warriors. They cost 18pts per model and have to be taken in units at least 10 strong. So that's 360pts for my two mandatory troop choices.
That leaves me with . . . 40pts for wargear and units beyond the basic HQ + 2 Troops.
There's not a lot and there's tons of overlap in between factions. For example, Night Lords and Eldar both have a -1 to hit Strat. If you get rid of the funky naming, it's not hard to keep track.
Lightning fast reactions works on Non-Monsters in any phase
In midnight clad works on infantry in the shooting phase only
500 point games suck and I have zero interest in playing them. When I buy a new army, I usually don't even bother playing games until I have at least 1k because the games are just not fun. They're way too swingy based on dice or listbuilding. You brought a tank and your opponent couldn't fit a dedicated AT unit into 500 pts? You auto win. You bring a redemptor and roll 1 for shots, then it gets blown off the table in your opponents turn and you auto lose. Positioning and shot selection don't really matter because it's just "shoot his 1 big model with my strong guns, my troops shoot/melee his troops, my hq shoots at/tries to fight his hq depending on which one I'm better at". It would absolutely kill the competitive scene to go to a format like that because I don't know a single person that actually enjoys 500pt games more than 2k games.
Want to know what's really fun?
Playing 500pt games with Necrons back in 3rd/4th edition.
Well let's see, my cheapest HQ costs 100pts so that's 400pts left. Then I only have one troop choice, so I guess I'm taking Necron Warriors. They cost 18pts per model and have to be taken in units at least 10 strong. So that's 360pts for my two mandatory troop choices.
That leaves me with . . . 40pts for wargear and units beyond the basic HQ + 2 Troops.
Have been a Necron player since 3rd. Our favourite points to play is 500-1,000. The current 2,000 point standard is mindblowing. I only recently broke 3k total for my Necrons, and that happed when I came back for 8th.
500 points is a really crucial starting point. It teaches you to focus on units and learn how they work, how to run them. Then you build up, add units that you like.
With the restrictions on Combat Patrol games being an issue, we've decided to go with 501 point to technically be Incursion scale, which opens up different detachments, and allows 2. This really helps to even out the "but my army is too static at low points" issue as you now have more cp, and change the detachments available.
Personally I've had a blast running a Destroyer Lord and max Scarabs, is been my dream to run a classic sleeping tomb, Scarabs, Spyders, maybe the awesome FW ones, oldcron tomb. Do I win? Hahahahaha no. Do I have fun? YES!
There's not a lot and there's tons of overlap in between factions. For example, Night Lords and Eldar both have a -1 to hit Strat. If you get rid of the funky naming, it's not hard to keep track.
Lightning fast reactions works on Non-Monsters in any phase
In midnight clad works on infantry in the shooting phase only
so no, theyre not the same strat.
And idk why you're flexing you giga gamer brain.
They REALLY are the same thing though. If you're not expecting your opponent to pop a -1 to hit on an important unit, that's you being a bad player.
OnE wOrK iN mELeE I'm well fething aware dude LOL
500 point games suck and I have zero interest in playing them. When I buy a new army, I usually don't even bother playing games until I have at least 1k because the games are just not fun. They're way too swingy based on dice or listbuilding. You brought a tank and your opponent couldn't fit a dedicated AT unit into 500 pts? You auto win. You bring a redemptor and roll 1 for shots, then it gets blown off the table in your opponents turn and you auto lose. Positioning and shot selection don't really matter because it's just "shoot his 1 big model with my strong guns, my troops shoot/melee his troops, my hq shoots at/tries to fight his hq depending on which one I'm better at". It would absolutely kill the competitive scene to go to a format like that because I don't know a single person that actually enjoys 500pt games more than 2k games.
Want to know what's really fun?
Playing 500pt games with Necrons back in 3rd/4th edition.
Well let's see, my cheapest HQ costs 100pts so that's 400pts left. Then I only have one troop choice, so I guess I'm taking Necron Warriors. They cost 18pts per model and have to be taken in units at least 10 strong. So that's 360pts for my two mandatory troop choices.
That leaves me with . . . 40pts for wargear and units beyond the basic HQ + 2 Troops.
And the nearly-must-take Ressurection Orb was 40 points! The army made itself!
500 point games suck and I have zero interest in playing them. When I buy a new army, I usually don't even bother playing games until I have at least 1k because the games are just not fun. They're way too swingy based on dice or listbuilding. You brought a tank and your opponent couldn't fit a dedicated AT unit into 500 pts? You auto win. You bring a redemptor and roll 1 for shots, then it gets blown off the table in your opponents turn and you auto lose. Positioning and shot selection don't really matter because it's just "shoot his 1 big model with my strong guns, my troops shoot/melee his troops, my hq shoots at/tries to fight his hq depending on which one I'm better at". It would absolutely kill the competitive scene to go to a format like that because I don't know a single person that actually enjoys 500pt games more than 2k games.
Want to know what's really fun?
Playing 500pt games with Necrons back in 3rd/4th edition.
Well let's see, my cheapest HQ costs 100pts so that's 400pts left. Then I only have one troop choice, so I guess I'm taking Necron Warriors. They cost 18pts per model and have to be taken in units at least 10 strong. So that's 360pts for my two mandatory troop choices.
That leaves me with . . . 40pts for wargear and units beyond the basic HQ + 2 Troops.
And the nearly-must-take Ressurection Orb was 40 points! The army made itself!
Eh for that low points I didn't take it. It was all about the Destroyer body upgrade
500 points games don't help for already struggling armies though, which is bizarre since it's always suggested to keep down lethality.
Well, it usually prevent opponents from being able to spam their best units against you. When you don't have enough points to bring the maximum number of your best, it's harder to bully a disadvantaged army. Since you must field a single patrol detachment, you're required to bring one HQ and one troop; armies with really strong troops are at an advantage because:
1. Troops are the easiest unit to spam in a patrol
2. Having good troops means not sacrificing Obsec for hotness
Issue with 500 points games is that it harshly penalizes armies that don't have functioning cheap units. 1000-1500 are much more balanced formats.
At 1500, I can take two of any type of detachment I need to max out my best, most efficient unit and you can do the same, so if my best unit is much better than your best, you're sunk. I also get twice as many starting CP, so I can burn more strats to maximize first turn advantage or spend more of them on extra relics/ WL traits to maximize my combo potential.
Karol wrote: The number of units actualy used is rather small though. What creates the problems are over laping army rules. Stratagems on top of army rules, on top of per turn activation rules on top how wierd movment in assault is, if your dudes happen to have heroic intervention on units and not just heroes.
As mentioned above, the higher the PL the more starting CP, the more of that layering stuff you have access to- whether you buy it up front with requisition strats or just save it so you can burn 4 strats on your first turn.
Obviously the potential exists for bad matchups at 25 PL just as it does at 100 PL. And in fact, that's why I'm saying "PL" instead of "points" because at 25PL, filling all of your units with standard weapons and bringing side board models to max heavies and specials in those squads allows you to make adjustments to level the playing field without having to rebuild your list from the ground up.
I can't testify to the "truth" of anything I've said here in a matched play game, because I don't play matched, but these observations are consistent with my experience in Crusade games played at home amongst friends.
4-Poxbringer, no options
5-Spoilpox Scrivener, no options
3-Nurglings, no options except more bases
5-Plaguebearers, technically have options! They're straight upgrades that would never not be taken. Also more models.
2-Beasts Of Nurgle, see Nurglings
5-Plague Drones, see Plaguebearers
I don't have the PA with extra content for Daemons so I can't check it- I doubt there's anything in there that would help in the way the same way that equipment upgrades can help other armies.
You're absolutely correct from what I can see with a glance through the dex- Daemons of any stripe don't have the same kinds of equipment options as other armies, and that is unlikely to change with a new dex, because it would require changes to the kit.
Regarding the few options that you do have (instrument and icon), I'd say the instrument is useful on the Plague Bearers because they are slow and have only melee weapons, so +1 advance and +1 charge, while not super powerful, probably can come in handy. Not such a big deal on the faster moving Drones.
The Icon's effect is cool enough, but what makes it terrible is the infrequency of the effect being triggered, and I'd absolutely agree that in a situation where you're paying for it, it would never be worth it...
But that's why I recommended playing PL- because you AREN'T paying for it. Which means there is no downside to taking it. It isn't going to be a real game changer for you... Except for the one in twenty or so games where it is- and that's a thing that wouldn't have happened in a game with points- because in THAT game, you're absolutely right- it's a trap option that should never be taken.
But don't forget the other side of the equation- your opponent brought units that were prepared to either play with weapon upgrades or not. So in the case of Daemons, the way that this PL flexibility pays off is that your opponent can choose to run without upgrades if they think that's going to lead to a more fun game.
It's fair to say that this kind of adjustment is the type that COULD be made in a points based game- the opponent could just choose to replace the specials and heavies they brought with the basic load out, though doing so would effectively lead to a points handicap.
And again, it's also fair to point out that whether you're playing points or power, when you're playing a pick-up game with a stranger, you may meet someone who would find it more fun to steamroll you than dial it down.
As mentioned above, the higher the PL the more starting CP, the more of that layering stuff you have access to- whether you buy it up front with requisition strats or just save it so you can burn 4 strats on your first turn.
Obviously the potential exists for bad matchups at 25 PL just as it does at 100 PL. And in fact, that's why I'm saying "PL" instead of "points" because at 25PL, filling all of your units with standard weapons and bringing side board models to max heavies and specials in those squads allows you to make adjustments to level the playing field without having to rebuild your list from the ground up.
I can't testify to the "truth" of anything I've said here in a matched play game, because I don't play matched, but these observations are consistent with my experience in Crusade games played at home amongst friends.
What about factions that can't side board or don't have heavy weapon worth taking? And I am asking how such a problem is delt in crusade, as I have exactly 0 personal expiriance with it.
It's fair to say that this kind of adjustment is the type that COULD be made in a points based game- the opponent could just choose to replace the specials and heavies they brought with the basic load out, though doing so would effectively lead to a points handicap.
The problem arrises when the army doesn't have options to switch out, and I will ignore the fact that someone may just not physically have the weapon to play it in a given momen. And NDK, Void weaver or most of the stuff in the custodes codex doesn't really have options. And if it does then they are either free or they aren't free and you don't want to take them ever. It also creates the problem of pushing the army in to the even more expensive zone. Because now it is not just around 1000$ for a 2000pts army, but it is that plus what ever sideboard units and upgrades you need.I guess not a problem for people playing 20+years with thousands of points in an army, but a deal breaker for anyone who is just starting or just has 2000pts.
In terms of the 'scale' of what 500pts could be - a minor hero, 1-2 squads of doods, maybe a dreadnought or a bigger bugger of some kind - I think it's perfect. Reminds me a lot id what i used to love about my early wmh games. The only problem is gws rules, at best, don't help so you need to either collaborate on 'matching' your lists or use a better rules set/homebrew.
And to be honest at those smaller scales, I'd rather be playing kill team or necromunda anyway.
What about factions that can't side board or don't have heavy weapon worth taking? And I am asking how such a problem is delt in crusade, as I have exactly 0 personal expiriance with it.
In this post, I'm mostly talking about game size. Obviously, my thoughts on Crusade are pretty well known by now- but this little series of posts is more about game size.
Since you ask about Crusade here though, it can be somewhat helpful. If a Crusade starts small, then you can rely in the small size of the game to shield you from some of the spamming that can happen in larger games, but you're also gaining battle honours with that small force; those battle honours can make weaker units stronger. Once your rosters grow to the point where your opponent can start to spam, your core starting force may have some extra tools in the tool box.
Now, your opponent is gaining battle honours too, so this isn't a magic bullet. But it does have potential.
As for the question about units without good squad weapon upgrades, it's the same answer I gave about Daemons above. Since you can't effectively scale up, you take the best options you do have since you're playing PL and they don't cost extra. See, when matched players say an upgrade isn't good, what they mean is that it isn't worth the extra points you have to pay to use it. But in a PL game where you aren't paying a cost to include an upgrade, every upgrade is worth taking.
But the real trick is that in order to solve balance issue, your opponent doesn't scale up even though they could do so without paying for it just like you did. And like I said, if you're playing a pickup games you might come up against someone who would rather crush you than have a game that is fun. Because you've told us so much about what is like where you play, I know that your opponents would always choose to bring and play their most powerful build against you, even if it wasn't as fun as having a closer game.
But again, in a 25 PL game, they can't spam as many of their best units and they have fewer CP to achieve combos.
The problem arrises when the army doesn't have options to switch out, and I will ignore the fact that someone may just not physically have the weapon to play it in a given momen.
True.
But you're still going to be in a better position than in a 2k points game, because you can decide to swap in the best options you do have and your opponent can choose not to, and neither of those choices affect the cost of the army when you use PL. And again the, small size prevents them from spamming and using as many combos as they can in a larger game. This gives the weak army the edge. Tink of it this way: if you assign each unit a number between 1 and 10 representing how good it is, and your best unit rates 7 while your opponent's best unit rates a 10.
In a 25PL game, you might only be able to take one of those units, so the difference in effectiveness is 3. It sucks, and you're at a disadvantage, sure.
But now scale the game up to 100 PL. Now you spam your best and you rate 21. He spams his best and rates 30. Now the difference is 9!
And NDK, Void weaver or most of the stuff in the custodes codex doesn't really have options.
At 25 pl, you get one dreadknight with the best load out you can give it. He gets probably 2 void weavers with NO upgrades at all- just the standard load out. You are at a disadvantage.
At 100 PL, you get 3 NDK with your best loadout, and he gets as many as 9 void weavers with his best loadout. Bigger disadvantage than the small game, right?
they aren't free and you don't want to take them ever.
This is never an issue with PL. Bringing the best loadout cost the same as bringing the squad naked when you play PL- that's also why side boarding is easy with PL and hard with points.
It also creates the problem of pushing the army in to the even more expensive zone. Because now it is not just around 1000$ for a 2000pts army, but it is that plus what ever sideboard units and upgrades you need.
But remember, what I've been talking about in this thread is not Crusade; I've been talking about small, 25 PL games.
And when I say "take the best load out you can," that's what I mean- not "the best load out that can be built"
And again Karol, I know that where you play, people are always going to bring the best army they can, because winning is so important and fun for them that they would rather crush you without challenging themselves than play a game where there is a chance they might lose.
But it is still true that any disadvantage you have only multiplies as the game gets bigger.
This is never an issue with PL. Bringing the best loadout cost the same as bringing the squad naked when you play PL- that's also why side boarding is easy with PL and hard with points.
The problem with PL is that GK point costs are created as if you were taking all the options, but you never want to take the special weapons, because they are that bad, that they are just a downgrade. So in a setting where the PL cost is avarged out of a unit cost with no upgrades and max upgrades it creates a situation when you are handicaped by the army rules, and you can't not pay the extra PL for the stuff, because the rules assume you always take it.
And again Karol, I know that where you play, people are always going to bring the best army they can, because winning is so important and fun for them that they would rather crush you without challenging themselves than play a game where there is a chance they might lose.
It is less about crushing, and more about a lot of people not having the money to buy 4000pts of models and then travel around with it to the store. People have their 2000pts, maybe a bit more and what ever is the most optimal out of the stuff they have they bring to the store. Even dudes that have cars don't bring gigantic collections to play with. And building armies at the store just means, other people with already ready armies, will take the tables and now you can wait an hour for them to finish, hoping your opponent doesn't get bored and goes home or finds an opponent he would rather play.
If crushing happens in store games, it is mostly of two kinds. Some plays a post new codex eldar faction book or they got a new codex and overnight their collection went from avarge or even below avarge list to the GTWAAC list of doom.
But thanks for the explanation, I have little to no expiriance with small games and how stuff scales down. I can imagine though that some armies which come with pre build formations you have to take to make them work, do not scale well in to under 2000pts. no idea how something like knights or custodes works at 500pts. Crusade or not.
The problem with PL is that GK point costs are created as if you were taking all the options, but you never want to take the special weapons, because they are that bad, that they are just a downgrade. So in a setting where the PL cost is avarged out of a unit cost with no upgrades and max upgrades it creates a situation when you are handicaped by the army rules, and you can't not pay the extra PL for the stuff, because the rules assume you always take it.
That's fair, but because of the lack of granularity with PL- you're basically looking at the built in value of min max average accounts for maybe 2PL for every 25PL you bring. And of course, because of the way list building works with PL (ie. > x models = x PL vs points per model), the extra 1 or 2 PL wouldn't actually make a difference if you had it.
And remember, what we're talking about is two people who agree they want an even match being able to make adjustments in the moment at a pick-up game without changing the value of their army list- a thing that is much, much harder to do in a game with points because any modification you make requires you to adjust the list to maintain the point value.
It is less about crushing, and more about a lot of people not having the money to buy 4000pts of models and then travel around with it to the store. People have their 2000pts, maybe a bit more and what ever is the most optimal out of the stuff they have they bring to the store.
This is why I'm talking about games that are less than 2k (100PL). Specifically, I am saying that the smaller the force, the less impact imbalance has because there is less capacity in a small force to spam the broken thing. Remember the "would you rather face and army with 2 voidweavers in it with an army that included 1 NDK, or face an army with 9 void weavers using an army that includes 3 NDK part of my post?"
Now I have been talking about 25PL forces, but you don't have to go so low if you like bigger games. If you bought 100PL of models, you don't buy 10 more PL to make a sideboard- you play a 90PL game, and the 10PL of models you didn't use are the models that become your sideboard.
But thanks for the explanation, I have little to no expiriance with small games and how stuff scales down. I can imagine though that some armies which come with pre build formations you have to take to make them work, do not scale well in to under 2000pts. no idea how something like knights or custodes works at 500pts.
No problem man. And you are right, it's a better solution for some armies than others. Small Knights are either 7 or 8 PL each; big Knights rang from 22-31 PL.
Anyway man, like I said I know none of this will work for you anyway. If I lived in Poland, I'd set up a 25PL - 50PL mini campaign for you against an Ascendent Chaos Cult that was working toward a huge summoning scenario- I'd bring a my collection of Ordo Malleus models so that they could be added to your force as the story required. The Chaos force would have missions revolving around rituals; the Malleus/ GK would investigate, and the degree of success would affect their capacity to interfere with rituals.
Then we'd peel people away from the toxic meta one or two at a time until the scene was healthy.
Or just make ONE like minded friend and do it yourself. If the GW school program runs in Poland, you could probably get support for it if you ran it at your school instead of a store. Could lead to free stuff. I don't know a lot of the details of their school program, but I know that one exists.
Lots of interesting stuff to think about. Thank you for explaining. I am in a sports school and for only just a year now, so not going to do anything. No idea if there is a GW program like that. I assume there is not.
Purifying Tempest wrote: I made the cruchiest list I could for Adepta Sororitas... like explicitly trying to get as many points per power level spent. 98 PL, 2550 points, somewhere between 26-27 points per PL, which is radically higher than the traditional 20:1 ratio.
The list... uh...
My go-to example for a list built to optimize the points/PL ratio rather than being good in 8th involved lots of Deathwatch Veterans, who were 2PL/model but you could take frag cannons and thunderhammers on all of them to produce a list that was technically over 30pts/PL but also trivially easy to wipe in a turn or two.
5 squads of 6 Crisis Bodyguards with triple CIB, Shield Generators, 2 with Iridium Armour
97 PL, 3070 points, ~31.6 points per PL. It has 80 T5 3+/4++ wounds, 46 T5 2+/4++ wounds, puts out 270 S7/8 AP2 D1/2 shots, 3 S8 AP4 Dd6 shots.
It could go higher if you swapped the Crisis Commander for a lower PLHQ (Ethereal), allowing a unit of 2 Crisis Bodyguards (triple CIB and Shield Gen) to be added and taking it to 31.8 points per PL.
EviscerationPlague wrote: They REALLY are the same thing though. If you're not expecting your opponent to pop a -1 to hit on an important unit, that's you being a bad player.
If you have to use heuristics like 'assume your opponent can do something when you shoot' in lieu of actually knowing the rules your opponent could use, then there's a problem.
Especially when that heuristic could trip you up against any faction that can't pop -1s at will.
EviscerationPlague wrote: They REALLY are the same thing though. If you're not expecting your opponent to pop a -1 to hit on an important unit, that's you being a bad player.
If you have to use heuristics like 'assume your opponent can do something when you shoot' in lieu of actually knowing the rules your opponent could use, then there's a problem.
Especially when that heuristic could trip you up against any faction that can't pop -1s at will.
If I'm a new player, and let's say I'm playing Necrons, if someone pulls a -1 to hit, then it's a gotcha. If they pull a transhuman when I shoot them with a melta, it's a gotcha. Here's the funny thing, it can be a gotcha, even if I know they have it, because it's not something intrinsic to the unit, and they can pull out of their ass whenever they want. It's annoying as hell.
TheBestBucketHead wrote: If I'm a new player, and let's say I'm playing Necrons, if someone pulls a -1 to hit, then it's a gotcha. If they pull a transhuman when I shoot them with a melta, it's a gotcha. Here's the funny thing, it can be a gotcha, even if I know they have it, because it's not something intrinsic to the unit, and they can pull out of their ass whenever they want. It's annoying as hell.
So you're saying the units should just have a -1 to hit against, built into the profile, so that you can't be gotcha'd again?
TheBestBucketHead wrote: If I'm a new player, and let's say I'm playing Necrons, if someone pulls a -1 to hit, then it's a gotcha. If they pull a transhuman when I shoot them with a melta, it's a gotcha. Here's the funny thing, it can be a gotcha, even if I know they have it, because it's not something intrinsic to the unit, and they can pull out of their ass whenever they want. It's annoying as hell.
So you're saying the units should just have a -1 to hit against, built into the profile, so that you can't be gotcha'd again?
Infinity has units that give a -6 for all ranged attacks, which is harsher than the -1 for 40k, despite Infinity using a d20 system, because a d20 has less than 6 times the sides than a d6. A native -1 for certain units, or certain armies at a range, did used to be a thing. Why can't it be on things that should have it, and not on things that shouldn't?
TheBestBucketHead wrote: If I'm a new player, and let's say I'm playing Necrons, if someone pulls a -1 to hit, then it's a gotcha. If they pull a transhuman when I shoot them with a melta, it's a gotcha. Here's the funny thing, it can be a gotcha, even if I know they have it, because it's not something intrinsic to the unit, and they can pull out of their ass whenever they want. It's annoying as hell.
So you're saying the units should just have a -1 to hit against, built into the profile, so that you can't be gotcha'd again?
Yes? Isn't that how it used to be? Isn't that how most games do it? Well, games that aren't Yu-Gi-Oh that is.
Well if you're completely off guard by someone using a Strat to lower your LD or some garbage like that, I dunno what to tell you.
Again you're cherry picking strats to pretend gotcha moments don't exist. If they don't exist for you, congrats on having the time to sit down and learn 700 stratagems and special rules. For the other 99.9% of the playerbase, they both exist and feel bad when they happen.
Citation needed for the 99% of the playerbase that hadn't memorized Transhuman Physiology and Agents of Vect after they became rules.
Or the real Gotcha special rules like Salamanders rerolling a hit roll! Man that catches me off guard every time!
You're one hell of a player if your opponent has never used a stratagem you didn't know about.
This is the age of the internet. None of this information is hidden. It might be one thing to struggle against an army you haven't faced before, but you shouldn't be surprised by anything.
This would be true if GW put their codices online instead of getting mad if you do try to get the rules online. Not many people are going to be willing to buy every codex just to know some stratagems in the game, which may be rendered obsolete in a couple of years anyway. Similarly, not many people are going to know or find forum posts about stratagems. Also, you know there are a lot of stratagems in the game, right? Do you know every stratagem for every army, right down to the CP cost and exact wording?
EviscerationPlague wrote: Not many people are going to not know how to use the internet to find out general info about Strats? Are the people playing 40k in their 60s?
Define "general info" Because stratagems are not "general", they are specific. They have specific CP costs, names and conditions. Searching "stratagems 40k" isn't going to tell you much. You really have to start digging if you start with vague search terms.
Well it's probably because I am an unwashed casual, but in the games I play, the expectation is that the opponent tries to make their opponent aware of strats that cause -1 to hit, transhuman, auspex scan or similar. And if an action was done and the player wants to use said strat after the fact, an invocation of 'take-backsies' can be done. This done largely out of sportsmanship, but also has the practical application of not have both players with figurative knives to each others' throat asking probing questions of what kind of things can their opponent do or skimming through each others' codex every 2 minutes. Because 40k is a perfect information game, and at my level of play it is thoroughly understood neither player want to waste kind sussing out these 'gotchas'.
I don't know, but I suppose at a 'competitive' level, players could be assumed to memorize important strats, if not all strats. I mean, a good portion of 40k's skill is quiz-show level memorization anyway. Current edition(s) just have more of it. I suppose if players want to make the game a competition, having the better players know more about the game is certainly a way to do it. Especial when 'competitive' players seem adamant at deciding as little as possible at the actual table. It's still perfect information, just not necessarily perfect knowledge.
My issue with stratagems is that they feel extremely gamey, and make no sense to me, as I'm not quite sure why "Transhuman Physiology" can only be used on one Transhuman Space Marine at a time, and why does it cost resources to do so?
How does that work in practice. Someone plants a unit on an objective to hold it. You move a chunk of your army to destroy it, then shooting or melee phase happens and transhuman gets poped and because this is a gatcha, you roll back the entire turn back to the movment phase so you can move two additional units in range, so on avarge you can destroy the unit with trans? Plus such a way of playing would mean that anyone who could make an error could just claim that it wasn't one, but rather a gatcha and that they now invoke the rule of taking back moves.
This is the age of the internet. None of this information is hidden. It might be one thing to struggle against an army you haven't faced before, but you shouldn't be surprised by anything.
The internet also allows you to learn every language known to man, but I shouldn't be expected to understand someone speaking Mayan. Just because every stratagem is available on Waha doesn't mean the average player should be expected to know them all. How many are there, 700 something now? If every faction had 1 per phase and then 8-10 in the core rulebook, then I would know them all. When the amount of information is equivalent to becoming conversational in a foreign language, that's bloat and very few players will know all the rules. Learning a wargame should not be like trying to learn a dead language from pieced together scrolls and cave paintings, which is what GW games have become. At this point, there isn't a GW game or army where you can find all the rules in 1 book. If you don't think bloat is a problem, I genuinely envy the amount of time you have to sit around reading 25 codexes and memorizing all the stratagems in them. I'm learning a new language, managing properties in 2 different countries, going to work every day, taking care of a small zoo worth of animals, keeping my cars maintained, I don't have time to devote to learn 700 stratagems and a game that has that kind of bloat just makes me not want to play it. It would be different if those made it a great tactical game but a lot of them are just bloat for the sake of bloat and don't add anything to the army or game. I don't mind complexity, I mind bloat and splitting rules up into 7 different sources, making it damn near impossible for anyone to actually know all of them. I overheard a GW manager telling a newer player yesterday "don't worry about knowing every single rule right away because I don't think a single human on Earth actually knows them all". Someone else chimed in with "yea, even the guys writing them" and we all had a good laugh. That tells you a lot about the amount of bloat in the game. There are people who know every idiom in 7 languages but nobody knows every 40k stratagem...
Are you really comparing learning a new language to memorizing some strats? Jesus, it's no wonder some of you forget to use entire units during your games.
Also if you want to learn a new language, there's new excuse either. There's tons of websites and apps if that's your desire.
EviscerationPlague wrote: Are you really comparing learning a new language to memorizing some strats? Jesus, it's no wonder some of you forget to use entire units during your games.
Also if you want to learn a new language, there's new excuse either. There's tons of websites and apps if that's your desire.
Yes I am, because in the last year I both learned conversational Spanish and got back into 40k with 9th after taking a break since 7th. I know a lot more Spanish words than 40k stratagems but whoever is in charge of rules for GW definitely took some cues from Spanish conjugations.
EviscerationPlague wrote: Are you really comparing learning a new language to memorizing some strats? Jesus, it's no wonder some of you forget to use entire units during your games.
Also if you want to learn a new language, there's new excuse either. There's tons of websites and apps if that's your desire.
i don't want to need to study to play casual games of 40k . Its a game, not school
EviscerationPlague wrote: Are you really comparing learning a new language to memorizing some strats? Jesus, it's no wonder some of you forget to use entire units during your games.
Also if you want to learn a new language, there's new excuse either. There's tons of websites and apps if that's your desire.
i don't want to need to study to play casual games of 40k . Its a game, not school
Then don't. Learn your own & just trust that your opponent isn't cheating you. You'll become familiar with the major strats of the armies you face quick enough. And assuming you know how to do a Google search you can look up anything else you wonder about.
Has anyone said that gotchas are cheating? They're just unfun for me, and I imagine the other people here who dislike them, in addition to feeling gamey. I don't care if I learn about the strats. I don't like stratagems, and I want a game with either severely reduced strats that make sense, or no stratagems at all.
EviscerationPlague wrote: Are you really comparing learning a new language to memorizing some strats? Jesus, it's no wonder some of you forget to use entire units during your games.
Also if you want to learn a new language, there's new excuse either. There's tons of websites and apps if that's your desire.
i don't want to need to study to play casual games of 40k . Its a game, not school
Pfft stop being a filthy casual, don't you own every codex and spend an hour a day on wahapedia revising all the rules and strars for the game?!
Can attest I've forgotten to use a unit in some phases, usually because I'm having a chat or a drink or whatever with my opponent the same time as playing, enjoying myself rather than being some strat knowledge hustler.
EviscerationPlague wrote: Not many people are going to not know how to use the internet to find out general info about Strats? Are the people playing 40k in their 60s?
Define "general info"
Because stratagems are not "general", they are specific. They have specific CP costs, names and conditions.
Searching "stratagems 40k" isn't going to tell you much. You really have to start digging if you start with vague search terms.
Open up the unit you are shooting at on wahapedia, scroll down to see all stratagems that can affect them.
Or you could just ask your opponent/ask to see their codex if finding stuff on the internet is rokkit science to you.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TheBestBucketHead wrote: My issue with stratagems is that they feel extremely gamey, and make no sense to me, as I'm not quite sure why "Transhuman Physiology" can only be used on one Transhuman Space Marine at a time, and why does it cost resources to do so?
It's a game mechanic that has been given a flavorful name, not a representation of the lore that has been given game rules.
40k has stopped being a WARgame a long time ago and (d)evolved into a warGAME.
EviscerationPlague wrote: Are you really comparing learning a new language to memorizing some strats? Jesus, it's no wonder some of you forget to use entire units during your games.
Also if you want to learn a new language, there's new excuse either. There's tons of websites and apps if that's your desire.
i don't want to need to study to play casual games of 40k . Its a game, not school
That's why most of us dirty casuals play the way Saturmorn Carvilli outlined above. Agree with your opponent to not ruin each other's games with gotchas and allow takebacks when someone runs into a gotcha anyways.
Jidmah wrote: Open up the unit you are shooting at on wahapedia, scroll down to see all stratagems that can affect them.
So the death of 40k will be when the current political situation will go that far that access to russian servers won't be possible any more
how ironic
people play 40k simply because the can get all rules for free and have access to cheap minis
would be interesting to see what happens if everyone has to pay the full retail price for everything
EviscerationPlague wrote: Not many people are going to not know how to use the internet to find out general info about Strats? Are the people playing 40k in their 60s?
Define "general info"
Because stratagems are not "general", they are specific. They have specific CP costs, names and conditions.
Searching "stratagems 40k" isn't going to tell you much. You really have to start digging if you start with vague search terms.
Open up the unit you are shooting at on wahapedia, scroll down to see all stratagems that can affect them.
Or you could just ask your opponent/ask to see their codex if finding stuff on the internet is rokkit science to you.
Cool. I'll just pause the game the first time I shoot at every single unit in my opponent's army while I consult an outside source for info on what they may or may not do. Then I'll do the same once I charge into combat. Or I can search through 40 stratagems without any clue what I'm looking for all while my opponent sits there waiting for me to finally roll dice. Or they could tell me what strats they have, but they may not even know, given how many there are and if they don't give me an exhaustive list they look like TFG when they do remember about a niche strat that swings the game in their favour.
If strats are to be kept in 40k (and I'm pretty convinced they shouldn't be) at the very least they need to be abilities on a unit's datasheet. If you did that, combined with maybe 6-8 army-wide strats, it would be easy for both players to keep track of. The current implementation is insane.
EviscerationPlague wrote: Not many people are going to not know how to use the internet to find out general info about Strats? Are the people playing 40k in their 60s?
Define "general info" Because stratagems are not "general", they are specific. They have specific CP costs, names and conditions. Searching "stratagems 40k" isn't going to tell you much. You really have to start digging if you start with vague search terms.
Open up the unit you are shooting at on wahapedia, scroll down to see all stratagems that can affect them.
That's assuming I have a smart phone or a computer on hand. Having to pause the game just to look information up on a website of dubious legality isn't what I would call proper game design either, especially when there's no pause button. You bet that GW's lawyers are trying to find a way to shut waha down just to sell more books.
Slipspace wrote: If strats are to be kept in 40k (and I'm pretty convinced they shouldn't be) at the very least they need to be abilities on a unit's datasheet.
Wait, so you are expecting me to pause the game the first time I shoot at every single unit in my opponent's army while I consult an outside source for info on what they may or may not do? Then I'll do the same once I charge into combat?
Or I can search through 40 stratagems without any clue what I'm looking for all while my opponent sits there waiting for me to finally roll dice.
If, after five years of playing with stratagems, you refuse to use technology, don't ask your opponent and still have no clue how to quickly identify which bolded words you need to look for, I don't know what to tell you.
Or they could tell me what strats they have, but they may not even know, given how many there are and if they don't give me an exhaustive list they look like TFG when they do remember about a niche strat that swings the game in their favour.
Sounds quite fabricated to me. In most situations only a hand full of stratagems apply and if your opponent doesn't tell you about a stratagem and then suddenly remembers and gotcha's you with it, chances are that you are not having the friendly game you agreed on.
You can now put those strawmen away. There are absolutely too many stratagems and most of them clearly add little to the game.
It doesn't change the fact that the information is readily available and easily obtainable for anyone who has basic information gathering skills.
If, after five years of playing with stratagems, you refuse to use technology, don't ask your opponent and still have no clue how to quickly identify which bolded words you need to look for, I don't know what to tell you.
Or you play at a store, and the store wants you to use printed material only, preferably bought at the store. An opponent juggling his codex, FAQs, his campagin book takes some time. But AoS seems to have the same problem, at some points there is too many units with special actions, and their rules overlap over multiple phases, similar units get treated different just because they are a character on a dragon instead of a "regular dude on a dragon". W40k has this too with character tanks and wierd interaction of core rules with codex specific rules about which someone clearly did not think while testing or writing down.
You can now put those strawmen away. There are absolutely too many stratagems and most of them clearly add little to the game.
It doesn't change the fact that the information is readily available and easily obtainable for anyone who has basic information gathering skills.
This is all true but I would add a dead/low battery on a phone radically changes this from personal experience, it takes the grease off the wheels so to speak.
Expecting people to buy a ~200 dollar smart phone to play a game where you have to buy 55 dollar books on a regularly basis with expensive models is a bit much, don't you think?
You can now put those strawmen away. There are absolutely too many stratagems and most of them clearly add little to the game.
It doesn't change the fact that the information is readily available and easily obtainable for anyone who has basic information gathering skills.
This is all true but I would add a dead/low battery on a phone radically changes this from personal experience, it takes the grease off the wheels so to speak.
That too. Or the phone just being broken, or there not being internet access or poor signal. Tech is not infallible.
There does need to be a cull of stratagems, and some of the stratagems are just silly. Why do Orks need a stratagem to put on heavier armour? Or for units to use melta bombs and smoke, which should really just be basic abilities?
Stratagems should really be treated more like Command and Conquer's support powers, powerful support abilities that affect the entire army, not just one specific unit in a specific point of time. So stuff like Orbital Bombardment or Airstrikes, not units suddenly remembering that they have special ammunition and then never using it again because they don't have strategic bucks.
Not everyone who can't play at home, is automatically homeless. try explaining to your mother at 17, why you are brining a 34y old dude home, because you need to play the next round of a store event, and his wife said no.
Karol wrote: Not everyone who can't play at home, is automatically homeless. try explaining to your mother at 17, why you are brining a 34y old dude home, because you need to play the next round of a store event, and his wife said no.
Fair enough. I suppose there are FLGS but then again, that's not always the case.
Expecting people to buy a ~200 dollar smart phone to play a game where you have to buy 55 dollar books on a regularly basis with expensive models is a bit much, don't you think?
Talk about price of entry.
You are expected to have a smartphone anyways, not to buy one for 40k. If you don't have one, you are part of a rapidly shrinking (literally dying) niche group that will be treated as second class customer, if not completely ignored by companies for most non-essential things anyways.
Purifying Tempest wrote: 3) If we see nasty imbalances, like 2500 points vs 1800 points at 100PL... yeah, laugh about it and adjust.
Pure Scions can get pretty ridiculous with PL. For 5 PL a Scion squad can have 10 models, a voxcaster, a powerfist, 4 plasma guns and 1 plasma pistol. Which works out to about 145 points. Take 18 squads of them across 3 battalions, that's 2610 points. Then there's the required characters as well. You're looking at around 300 points in characters for the remaining PL.
EviscerationPlague wrote: They REALLY are the same thing though. If you're not expecting your opponent to pop a -1 to hit on an important unit, that's you being a bad player.
If you have to use heuristics like 'assume your opponent can do something when you shoot' in lieu of actually knowing the rules your opponent could use, then there's a problem.
Especially when that heuristic could trip you up against any faction that can't pop -1s at will.
Did I get Gotcha'd though, yes or no?
If you're assuming that everyone can pop a -1 at will because you don't actually know the rules, then as soon as you make a tactically disadvantageous decision because you didn't know the enemy doesn't have such an ability, yeah, you got gotcha'd.
A 'gotcha' represents your opponent's capabilities differing from your expectation, because the game is too complicated for you to actually know their full capabilities ahead of time. It's getting caught out by rules you didn't know. Thinking an enemy has a capability and planning and acting around that assumption, only to find that they don't have that capability after all, is annoying for all the same reasons as getting surprised by a stratagem.
But I mean, at a fundamental level, the idea that you'll never feel surprised or caught out as long as you assume your opponent has an ability to cause problems for you is pretty nonsense to begin with. There are the Transhumans and -1-to-hits that you might see coming, but lots of bespoke abilities you might not.
Pfft stop being a filthy casual, don't you own every codex and spend an hour a day on wahapedia revising all the rules and strars for the game?!
Can attest I've forgotten to use a unit in some phases, usually because I'm having a chat or a drink or whatever with my opponent the same time as playing, enjoying myself rather than being some strat knowledge hustler.
The worst part is that i actually do know most of the gotchas and i do spend a ridiculous amount of time reading up on various faction or just perusing through wahapedia. I just don't think it should be a necessity when the whole game has no hidden information. 90% of strats are useless, its the 10% that get you but you still gotta look through 100% of them.
I've taken a habit of asking the typical stuff to my Opponent nowadays "Can your army intercept deepstrikes/redeploy/feth with charges/transhuman".
It's just insane to me that 40k is a bigger mental load than Infinity
That's why most of us dirty casuals play the way Saturmorn Carvilli outlined above. Agree with your opponent to not ruin each other's games with gotchas and allow takebacks when someone runs into a gotcha anyways.
Which is what my playgroup does too. I'm saying the concept is problematic. Of course you can (and should) adapt how you approach the game to make it more enjoyable
Automatically Appended Next Post: Honestly, when comparing Infinity's "datasheet" design to 40k's it's absolutely ridiculous how bad 40k's are.
Special skills are the same for every army and if you have the datasheet + know the core actions a unit can take, you know everything the unit can do at a glance.
Their skills also use variables to modify them Forward Deployment can be 4" or 8", mimetism -3 or -6, even Terrain (total) can become Terrain(desert/mountain/zero-g).
On top of all that, you can simply click on the skills to be redirected to the wiki which explains all the rules with examples if there is any ambiguity.
and guess what, ALL of that is 100% free. To play infinity you only need to buy your models, not a single rule.
At this point i can only assume the crazy amount of rules sources is deliberate and not just to sell more books, though that is certainly part of it. Its almost like the free to play games way of confusing people into spending more money...but this isnt a free to play game.
It will be a quit moment for many but this thread shows that some people boost their self esteem by staying on top of it unlike those filthy scrubs.
Now do the part where for Infinity, that unit actually has a limited lifespan because once the subfaction it's a part of gets shelved? There will not be any updating of it aside from a "See ya!" pass while the fans constantly clamor that "IT'LL BE BACK! YOU'LL SEE!" or "YOU CAN STILL PLAY WITH THEM!".
Using that mess of a game and its constant creeping bloat is disingenuous. And yeah, the rules might be free...but the lore sure as hell isn't.
Oh! And if you want to talk about expensive games? Infinity's your jam! It's a perfect example of what everyone here loves to cry about with the "things being locked in boxes". Whole profiles are basically considered an actual monetary tax for "the good stuff".
Its always been that way. There have been many threads on many forums over the past 20 odd years where people have boasted that rules mastery is a player skill. There are people that I know in the tournament scene (back in the day) that drilled with flash cards on rules daily.
Kanluwen wrote: Now do the part where for Infinity, that unit actually has a limited lifespan because once the subfaction it's a part of gets shelved? There will not be any updating of it aside from a "See ya!" pass while the fans constantly clamor that "IT'LL BE BACK! YOU'LL SEE!" or "YOU CAN STILL PLAY WITH THEM!".
Thats not true tho? ALL factions just got a pretty big update with the new fireteam rules. And a faction being out of production doesn't mean its gonna be bad/unplayable at all (Just look at tohaa)
Using that mess of a game and its constant creeping bloat is disingenuous. And yeah, the rules might be free...but the lore sure as hell isn't.
Oh! And if you want to talk about expensive games? Infinity's your jam! It's a perfect example of what everyone here loves to cry about with the "things being locked in boxes". Whole profiles are basically considered an actual monetary tax for "the good stuff".
Uhh what? Creeping bloat?
Expensive? I can get an army for 200-300$ and its gonna be the strong build with extra models too.
What "things being locked in boxes" are you referring to? Specific loadouts?
as for the Lore not being free.. Ok? i don't mind paying for stuff that doesn't affect the tabletop
Dai wrote: At this point i can only assume the crazy amount of rules sources is deliberate and not just to sell more books, though that is certainly part of it. Its almost like the free to play games way of confusing people into spending more money...but this isnt a free to play game.
It will be a quit moment for many but this thread shows that some people boost their self esteem by staying on top of it unlike those filthy scrubs.
I'm convinced GW is pumping out books and will continue to do so for two key reasons...
1. They're highly profitable and a guaranteed sale to the now teeming masses of highly competitive tourney-gakkers who must have to have all the rules and seasonal mission packs to stay relevant and competitive.
2. To make up for decreasing model sales due to 3D printing. I do not believe that 3D printing has significantly hurt GW, but I think it's done enough for them to notice and react.
Kanluwen wrote: Now do the part where for Infinity, that unit actually has a limited lifespan because once the subfaction it's a part of gets shelved? There will not be any updating of it aside from a "See ya!" pass while the fans constantly clamor that "IT'LL BE BACK! YOU'LL SEE!" or "YOU CAN STILL PLAY WITH THEM!".
Thats not true tho? ALL factions just got a pretty big update with the new fireteam rules.
Yes, and the factions with the newest toys take best advantage of that. So what?
And a faction being out of production doesn't mean its gonna be bad/unplayable at all (Just look at tohaa)
It also doesn't mean that those supposed "USRs" are actually going to show up when they (maybe) get rotated back in nor are you really refuting what I said.
Infinity is the biggest example of a game built off bloat and invalidation imaginable, propped up by people who just comment about "proxying" or "split-boxing".
Uhh what? Creeping bloat?
Compare the Auxilia to similarly designed units and tell me there's a reason why.
Expensive? I can get an army for 200-300$ and its gonna be the strong build with extra models too.
Yeah, and then next ITS season you're having to chase the dragon again.
What "things being locked in boxes" are you referring to? Specific loadouts?
Specific loadouts and specific models. Oh, and specific items in general. Because CB claims to have SKU bloat but also won't ever put a single bloody extra arm set for each model into their boxed sets.
as for the Lore not being free.. Ok? i don't mind paying for stuff that doesn't affect the tabletop
Yeah, because you're not interested in the setting.
Just like I'm not interested in paying for rules changes to cover tourney scrubs.
Yes, and the factions with the newest toys take best advantage of that. So what?
If at the end the balance is 45-55, is that really an issue? No faction is left in the dark balance wise, and were comparing it to fething 40k lmao. NCA players are clearly in a better spot than stuff with no 9th codex (guard, csm) and even stuff WITH codexes ( Sisters, Orks)
It also doesn't mean that those supposed "USRs" are actually going to show up when they (maybe) get rotated back in nor are you really refuting what I said.
What the feth are you talking about? That Tohaa will lose rules? Gain new ones?
Infinity is the biggest example of a game built off bloat and invalidation imaginable, propped up by people who just comment about "proxying" or "split-boxing".
It's not the community that recommends proxying, its the devs themselves.
Gonna stop splitting posts because its a pain (just saw you added stuff in an edit)
Auxilias are one of the best models in all of Pano, and theyre OLD and OOP. I fething wish other factions had access to them
Chasing the dragon? Lists didnt really change much between its 12 and its 13, just get a few bikes and thats it (getting 2 boxes of bikers was cheaper than getting a single troop box from GW)
Specific loadouts being locked in boxes i can agree. But again : CB ENCOURAGES PROXYING. And also, these boxes are still cheaper than troop boxes from 40k.
Codexes in 40k should be Lore Only, why am i paying for a book with half of its contents about lore?
Paying for which rules changes that cover tourney scrubs exactly?
Yes, and the factions with the newest toys take best advantage of that. So what?
If at the end the balance is 45-55, is that really an issue? No faction is left in the dark balance wise, and were comparing it to fething 40k lmao. NCA players are clearly in a better spot than stuff with no 9th codex (guard, csm) and even stuff WITH codexes ( Sisters, Orks)
Are they really though?
Are you really in a better spot if there's one viable build vs no viable build?
It also doesn't mean that those supposed "USRs" are actually going to show up when they (maybe) get rotated back in nor are you really refuting what I said.
What the feth are you talking about? That Tohaa will lose rules? Gain new ones?
If you don't know "what the feth I'm talking about", then you haven't actually been paying attention at all to Infinity. When new rules come out, they tend to be stuck on the newest stuff and nothing gets backdated even if it would y'know make sense.
But I mean, you should know that right?
Hexas, the literal counterintelligence branch of PanO, don't have the counterintelligence rule...seems totally legit, amirite?
Infinity is the biggest example of a game built off bloat and invalidation imaginable, propped up by people who just comment about "proxying" or "split-boxing".
It's not the community that recommends proxying, its the devs themselves.
Nah. It started with the community. Devs always said to convert.
Expecting people to buy a ~200 dollar smart phone to play a game where you have to buy 55 dollar books on a regularly basis with expensive models is a bit much, don't you think?
Talk about price of entry.
You can also use that computer at home and just write down the strats too.
Also at this point you should have a smart phone. My grandparents even have them and they're older than 65 for reference. Seriously, the demographic of people that don't own a laptop or smart phone aren't one to be concerned about.
Kanluwen wrote: Now do the part where for Infinity, that unit actually has a limited lifespan because once the subfaction it's a part of gets shelved? There will not be any updating of it aside from a "See ya!" pass while the fans constantly clamor that "IT'LL BE BACK! YOU'LL SEE!" or "YOU CAN STILL PLAY WITH THEM!".
Thank goodness 40k would never do something like that.
How's Legends going, btw?
Also, anyone know where I can find the 9th edition rules for Vect, Lady Malys, Baron Sathonix, Duke Sliscus and Kheradruakh the Decapitator? They must exist because no GW unit has ever had a limited lifespan. I just can't seem to find them in the DE codex.
Thank goodness 40k would never do something like that.
How's Legends going, btw?
Also, anyone know where I can find the 9th edition rules for Vect, Lady Malys, Baron Sathonix, Duke Sliscus and Kheradruakh the Decapitator? They must exist because no GW unit has ever had a limited lifespan. I just can't seem to find them in the DE codex.
just to be clear : the units he's referring to are still 100% in the game, none of that "you can technically play with legends but because tournaments wont, nobody will" BS
Karol wrote: I am an owner of two twin auto canon dreadnoughts and a GK psycanaon one. Ain't very happy about the fact that both options are gone from the codex.
Which wouldnt happen in Infinity (which is what we're discussing).
Legends was a mistake.
No model, no rule was a mistake.
TTS does nothing for anyone actually liking the models though.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
vipoid wrote:
Kanluwen wrote: Now do the part where for Infinity, that unit actually has a limited lifespan because once the subfaction it's a part of gets shelved? There will not be any updating of it aside from a "See ya!" pass while the fans constantly clamor that "IT'LL BE BACK! YOU'LL SEE!" or "YOU CAN STILL PLAY WITH THEM!".
Thank goodness 40k would never do something like that.
Never said they don't. Just that it's garbage to pretend that Infinity won't.
How's Legends going, btw?
Great, provided you're actually playing with people who like fun and not the tourney tryhards.
Also, anyone know where I can find the 9th edition rules for Vect, Lady Malys, Baron Sathonix, Duke Sliscus and Kheradruakh the Decapitator? They must exist because no GW unit has ever had a limited lifespan. I just can't seem to find them in the DE codex.
Probably the same place you can find the 7E rules for them, I'm sure.
VladimirHerzog wrote:
just to be clear : the units he's referring to are still 100% in the game, none of that "you can technically play with legends but because tournaments wont, nobody will" BS
Well, other than the profiles that have been ditched certainly.
VladimirHerzog wrote:
Which wouldnt happen in Infinity (which is what we're discussing).
It absolutely has and likely will again.
Legends was a mistake.
No, matched play was the mistake.
No model, no rule was a mistake.
Ehhh...I'm torn on this one. I'm inclined to agree it was a mistake but at the same time, not everything that lost rules was really something that should have persisted.
That would leave narrative and open as the only two formats left. There isn't enough people that like and want to play either or both of those to support the game. Without matched play the game would be dead.
Expecting people to buy a ~200 dollar smart phone to play a game where you have to buy 55 dollar books on a regularly basis with expensive models is a bit much, don't you think?
Talk about price of entry.
You are expected to have a smartphone anyways, not to buy one for 40k. If you don't have one, you are part of a rapidly shrinking (literally dying) niche group that will be treated as second class customer, if not completely ignored by companies for most non-essential things anyways.
I would guess that the percent of GW models purchased by people who don't own smartphones is near 0.
That would leave narrative and open as the only two formats left. There isn't enough people that like and want to play either or both of those to support the game. Without matched play the game would be dead.
Yet oddly the game, and tournies, had persisted for about 30 years prior to GW labeling things Matched/Narrative/Open.....
Something tells me that there's plenty of people who'd still be playing 40k.
As for your Dreadnought problem? What you want exists in Legends.
The name is unimportant, the way the game is played and what rules it has is. Any system that requires the other person to okey stuff on the go, is going to be extremly dependent on opponents played. A more riggied and clear rules system is less prone to such problems. Plus GW with its low number of staff and time to test stuff, invests time in to narrative and open play, when people that play those seem to be either unhappy about them or modified those existing anyway. It would be much better for either side playing the game, if GW focused on matched play and leave other way of play to modifications done by the players, as they do those anyway on their own.
yes and people say no to legends.
TBH, all this talk of smartphones is reminding me of the (well-deserved) gak Blizzard got for their "out-of-season April Fool's joke" of that mobile Diablo game. The reason "Don't you all have smartphones?" got clowned on wasn't that smartphones are ubiquitous, it was that people didn't want to play Diablo on their phones. In this case, it's even worse - Waha is used not because GW is putting it out as a patch for the proliferation of rule sources, Waha got big becauseGWdidn't do something similar.
waefre_1 wrote: TBH, all this talk of smartphones is reminding me of the (well-deserved) gak Blizzard got for their "out-of-season April Fool's joke" of that mobile Diablo game. The reason "Don't you all have smartphones?" got clowned on wasn't that smartphones are ubiquitous, it was that people didn't want to play Diablo on their phones. In this case, it's even worse - Waha is used not because GW is putting it out as a patch for the proliferation of rule sources, Waha got big becauseGWdidn't do something similar.
I mean, GW did try and make an app.. that doesnt work... and you gotta pay for... and then buy codexes to have your rules in it...
Nothing has really changed since I started playing. Try hards will try hard, tournaments are bad, people who don't play the meta rarely pull wins, and the internet is filled with people complaining about everything all the time.
The only upside now seems to be that the meta chasers are getting burned a lot quicker than in the past which is good.
The 3 ways system IMO isn't to be used as a form of "Look how many ways you can play 40k" but rather should be seen as a statement of intentions for the players. For example:
I rock up to my local gaming place and ask for a game. I say that I'd like to play Narrative and drop a 1k point list of Alpha Legion containing mostly Cultists and the odd HQ to represent a Cult uprising. If the other player dropped a meta list designed to win tournaments I'd call the game off because that's not what I'm looking for. Likewise, if someone asked me they'd like to practice for a Matched play tournament and I brought a list that didn't challenge my opponent, I wouldn't be doing my best to help them have the game they want.
That being said, GW doesn't do this properly for their own damn events so why should anyone else.
The complaints about Infinity's balance and handling of models that are out of production are weird to me on a GW thread. I mean, wasn't an entire system destroyed, with entire armies not properly updated to the current standard? At least if you have a problem with infinity's rules, they're free. The army builder, the core rules, the updated rules, the wiki, the ITS rules. They're all free. And it has a cheaper buy in and hobby time cost than most 40k armies. Infinity has its own problems, like Guided Missile Launchers, like entire Subfactions being out of production, like some Subfactions not getting the love they need. But it is not comparable to 40k, and the armies are still plenty playable. The issue tends to be that the faction identity is being lost more than that they can't function.
TheBestBucketHead wrote: The complaints about Infinity's balance and handling of models that are out of production are weird to me on a GW thread. I mean, wasn't an entire system destroyed, with entire armies not properly updated to the current standard?
Sure, but so have several Sectorials and one entire faction(Tohaa) been in Infinity.
At least if you have a problem with infinity's rules, they're free.
Are the models free? No?
The army builder, the core rules, the updated rules, the wiki, the ITS rules. They're all free.
They're also basically run by a third party.
And it has a cheaper buy in and hobby time cost than most 40k armies.
lol, sure it does.
Infinity has its own problems, like Guided Missile Launchers, like entire Subfactions being out of production, like some Subfactions not getting the love they need. But it is not comparable to 40k, and the armies are still plenty playable.
Tell that to anyone trying to get into the game via Merovingia or Shock Army or Tohaa.
The issue tends to be that the faction identity is being lost more than that they can't function.
Right, which is a result of the fact that the game is a bloated mess because of the USRs they keep tacking into the game.
For heck's sake, the Tartary Army Korps was literally just a copy/paste of USARF for several of its units but with additional skills thrown in.
Karol wrote: How does that work in practice. Someone plants a unit on an objective to hold it. You move a chunk of your army to destroy it, then shooting or melee phase happens and transhuman gets poped and because this is a gatcha, you roll back the entire turn back to the movment phase so you can move two additional units in range, so on avarge you can destroy the unit with trans? Plus such a way of playing would mean that anyone who could make an error could just claim that it wasn't one, but rather a gatcha and that they now invoke the rule of taking back moves.
Not a 100% sure this was directed at me, but I'll give it a go since seems to be directed at me.
I would imagine, that if my space marine opponent moves Primaris on to an objective. I don't know (for sake of this example) Transhuman or similar strat exists. I move one or more units to attempt to take that objective. I shoot or charge/attack that unit on the objective. My opponent pops Transhuman. I didn't know about it, but I still have to take that objective whether I need 3+ to wound or I need 6+ to wound. So I continue my attack anyway because I do need to take that objective. I mean, Transhuman doesn't make Primaris invincible. I've already played a few games where it was just wasted CP.
You could argue I may have tried for a different objective, but the unit controlling it could be Primaris and also had Transhuman placed on them. So the fact I didn't know of existence it mostly academic anyway. There's also a very good chance my opponent (because they aren't a jerk) would inform me of their defensive strat options as I initiated my move toward that objective. There by nullifying your example before it gets too far as well as preventing a gotcha in the future as I am educated/reminded to that strat now. Which is what I do with Transhuman, Auspex Scan Unyielding in the Face of the Foe, etc. when I am playing my Primaris space marines.
Certain actions have to been done to win games. Regardless if they are efficient or not. And part of the game is my opponent doing what they can to prevent my force from having their way all game long. Occasionally, things a player was unaware of are going to pop-up long after the game can be backtracked to repair it. Neither myself nor the players I am willing to spend 4+ hours playing are so invested in winning that when these things happen, we can't let it go. Warhammer 40k being an analog tabletop game is always going to have stuff like this since it is up to the players to referee the game.
Things get missed, forgotten or otherwise done wrong. There are literally no stakes involved with winning or losing in the games I play. The stakes ARE fairly substantial for being a poor winner/loser or otherwise poor sport about how you play 40k. No one I game with thinks less of a person that couldn't win a game with the easiest to pilot 2000pt netlist versus 500 points of the weakest units in the game. However, a player will very quickly find themselves at the fringe of the group if they constantly show poor sportsmanship. And it could take years to get back in the good graces of many of the other players.
I mean, GW did try and make an app.. that doesnt work... and you gotta pay for...
The app is free, you pay for contents.
So no it isn't free
It's freemium, assuming you buy a legitimate codex and enter the code, the rules for your faction are available with free points/errata updates. The subscription unlocks the army builder (trash), advanced core rules (useful) and remaining 8th ed content (rapidly becoming useless)
I only care about responding to the model and un-updated factions.
The models are cheap, because you can just use silhouettes. It's a game designed around silhouettes. Unlike 40k where every bit of the model is important for true line of sight, Infinity doesn't need actual models. Even then, there are 150 point boxes for like $50, and that is enough for as many starter games as you'd like.
Un-updated factions are a problem in any system, and I'd like any non updated sectorials or factions to be updated, but it's nowhere near as bad as Warhammer Fantasy to Age of Sigmar. And they're still playable, they just aren't updated to the same standard. Infinity is great. It has problems, but it's in a far better situation than 40k, and I can't believe that GW is less reliable, as the powerhouse of the market, than Corvus Belli.
Also, I don't care if the books and army builder are third party. I care that they work well.
The books are first party. Nowhere was it said they were third party. The app is now first party. The wiki is third party, basically run by a UK retailer that is all over their junk. I guarantee you that the second there's a falling out there, that wiki becomes trash.
They're also usually hot messes of mistranslated gobbleydegook and wildly inconsistent standards of art.
Something "still being playable, just not updated to the same standard" is just as relevant to GW's products...unless there's not really any kind of Oldhammer communities like get crowed about all the time here?
Kanluwen wrote: Now do the part where for Infinity, that unit actually has a limited lifespan because once the subfaction it's a part of gets shelved? There will not be any updating of it aside from a "See ya!" pass while the fans constantly clamor that "IT'LL BE BACK! YOU'LL SEE!" or "YOU CAN STILL PLAY WITH THEM!".
Morat updates are coming out as we speak. Infinity cycles through given sectorials. So fans saying "IT'LL BE BACK!" are right, lol.
Kanluwen wrote: Using that mess of a game and its constant creeping bloat is disingenuous. And yeah, the rules might be free...but the lore sure as hell isn't.
Oh! And if you want to talk about expensive games? Infinity's your jam! It's a perfect example of what everyone here loves to cry about with the "things being locked in boxes". Whole profiles are basically considered an actual monetary tax for "the good stuff".
Considering the game is incredibly free with proxies and conversions this is disingenuous. Again, you're spreading lies and bs about CB. I'll talk gak about CB when they deserve it, but what you're saying here is just untrue.
I have found that sitting in front of a PC to simulate playing a tabletop game to be a waste of my time. The time is much better invested playing actual video games or actual board games.
I have found that sitting in front of a PC to simulate playing a tabletop game to be a waste of my time. The time is much better invested playing actual video games or actual board games.
You're not entirely wrong that there's a magic to the act of moving around figures but once I find a good simulator for Mansions of Madness for my friends and I that's all over.
