The Venn Diagram of people who were against a more granular points system and those that appear to not play 40k by the rules and instead play a homebrew version of 40k seems to just be a single circle. Funny that...
And there's nothing wrong with homebrew versions of 40k that remove all the strictures of matched play and objectives and whatnot - I've done it plenty of times and its tons of fun - but I'm not about to pretend that it is in any way the normal way to play, or that I'm really even playing the game as its written or intended.
Dudeface wrote: So to clarify, you won't go to the flgs and play randoms in case they're not serious enough for you? Probably do you look at their lists, guffaw and walk away? Or do you just pound them into the dust as they were obviously serious and trying their best? You're painting yourself up as TFG of your flgs with these comments.
Lolwut? How is it TFG behavior to only want to play competitive games? Why are you assuming they are being rude and laughing at people instead of just playing with like-minded opponents? This all sounds like more of a problem with you than with the person you're criticizing.
Because they just said they won't play people who are at the flgs, because they refuse to waste time on anyone who might not be hyper serious competitive players. They won't come down to meet someone in the middle, brags about how much they play, about how competitive they are. If they playa random, it's with the most cutthroat list possible, no negotiation.
It all builds a mental image of being arrogant with a false sense of superiority walking around telling people they're not good enough for a game.
Dudeface wrote: Because they just said they won't play people who are at the flgs, because they refuse to waste time on anyone who might not be hyper serious competitive players. They won't come down to meet someone in the middle, brags about how much they play, about how competitive they are. If they playa random, it's with the most cutthroat list possible, no negotiation.
It all builds a mental image of being arrogant with a false sense of superiority walking around telling people they're not good enough for a game.
So let me get this straight: Toofast is TFG for saying "our goals for this game aren't compatible, we should play other people" instead of playing a game he won't enjoy? Is PenitentJake also a TFG for not giving up his lore-based army and adding a bunch of competitive stuff to meet a competitive player halfway and give them a game?
And how exactly do you negotiate on this? Are you TFG if you don't bring an extra thousand points of models every time you go to the local store so you can have the option to change your list and meet people halfway? What if it's a situation like 10th edition Eldar vs squats, where even a poorly optimized Eldar list is going to be overwhelmingly more powerful than anything the squats can bring? Does the Eldar player need to bring an entire separate non-Eldar army so he can give the squat player a more engaging game?
Dudeface wrote: Because they just said they won't play people who are at the flgs, because they refuse to waste time on anyone who might not be hyper serious competitive players. They won't come down to meet someone in the middle, brags about how much they play, about how competitive they are. If they playa random, it's with the most cutthroat list possible, no negotiation.
It all builds a mental image of being arrogant with a false sense of superiority walking around telling people they're not good enough for a game.
So let me get this straight: Toofast is TFG for saying "our goals for this game aren't compatible, we should play other people" instead of playing a game he won't enjoy? Is PenitentJake also a TFG for not giving up his lore-based army and adding a bunch of competitive stuff to meet a competitive player halfway and give them a game?
And how exactly do you negotiate on this? Are you TFG if you don't bring an extra thousand points of models every time you go to the local store so you can have the option to change your list and meet people halfway? What if it's a situation like 10th edition Eldar vs squats, where even a poorly optimized Eldar list is going to be overwhelmingly more powerful than anything the squats can bring? Does the Eldar player need to bring an entire separate non-Eldar army so he can give the squat player a more engaging game?
I mean you're blowing this off target completely and it might be that TooFast is being misread in the written format. I understand they opt to play people with similar goals, that's definitely fine. What I pointed out was from the way they wrote they'd quite happily walk around a FLGS lording over how many games they played so people weren't good enough to play them and refusing to play "noobs and casuals" in a dismissive fashion. I'm critiquing the social interactions outlined, which as I say, may simply not be translating well over text.
The TFG part comes in if they then opt to play someone new who has a normal-ish looking army or don't consider themselves CAAC or whatever, then proceeds to dump on them with a tournament winning list whilst saying it's a waste of time and they're not good enough for them etc. but that impression can be given without even playing if the communication isn't good. If they spoke to people how they wrote that post I'd immediately chalk them off as someone to avoid.
Edit: further thought on the negotiation if it was "I've only got my tournament list, you can give it a go if you like?" and the votann player agrees or walks away, ace. If it's "I've got my tournament list but I can use it to teach you some tricks and play it light and breezy", great. If it's "I'll try and swap some untis out to even the field but it'll still be lopsided maybe given the meta" fine. When we get to "This is my tournament list and you have Votann and don't rep events, you're not worth my time" it's a problem.
It's more the attitude behind it than the ability to change your list.
Dudeface wrote: I mean you're blowing this off target completely and it might be that TooFast is being misread in the written format. I understand they opt to play people with similar goals, that's definitely fine. What I pointed out was from the way they wrote they'd quite happily walk around a FLGS lording over how many games they played so people weren't good enough to play them and refusing to play "noobs and casuals" in a dismissive fashion. I'm critiquing the social interactions outlined, which as I say, may simply not be translating well over text.
That's assuming a lot that is not anywhere in their post. In fact, Toofast even says that the competitive and non-competitive players are two separate groups that don't really interact.
No offense intended to those people who get heated on non competitive players, but I think you simply don't understand because it is not your taste and no matter how hard we will try, you will not. Like trying to explain why you should like X food and you simply don't. There's no argument to be made on tastes. One way or the other: I will don't understand why you'd keep trying competitively playing 40k, but you are just as right if you do and what matters is that it is funny to you. I think that apart from a few loud voices this is the wider consensus.
However keep in mind we do play to win (=achieve our set objective), otherwise nothing would ever go forward, and also may experience the bad state of balance (friend's army struggling so bad you need to up it a bit to let him have fun, etc...). We simply look at the results otherwise and find enjoyment elsewhere.
Dudeface wrote: I mean you're blowing this off target completely and it might be that TooFast is being misread in the written format. I understand they opt to play people with similar goals, that's definitely fine. What I pointed out was from the way they wrote they'd quite happily walk around a FLGS lording over how many games they played so people weren't good enough to play them and refusing to play "noobs and casuals" in a dismissive fashion. I'm critiquing the social interactions outlined, which as I say, may simply not be translating well over text.
That's assuming a lot that is not anywhere in their post. In fact, Toofast even says that the competitive and non-competitive players are two separate groups that don't really interact.
They state there's plenty of people for them to play garage hammer to avoid needing to go to a FLGS and club seals.
They can play their way in their group and I can play my way in mine, and we don't really have to interact much. I don't set out to go seal clubbing at the FLGS because I don't get any better at the game that way.
Which is fair but it doesn't preclude going to a FLGS and interacting with others. At which point telling people these things:
So the onus is on me to get worse rather than you to get better?
I'm not spending money and time buying/building/painting subpar units just to play down to the level of someone who refuses to try to get better. I would rather just not play you.
I can only play tournament games and tournament prep games and play way more 40k than I even want to in a year. There's multiple 100+ person events in my state yearly.
Depending on the tone used with a stranger, might not be cordial.
If they exclusively play in pre-tournament circuits and that's how they get their kicks that's all fine, it's just about the interactions with the people who don't do that and the level of respect for them.
Automatically Appended Next Post: For what it's worth, if approached with my not competitive army who doesn't play as often as they'd like, by someone who is competitive and playing a higher level. I'll happily get my face kicked in on the condition they don't mind explaining some stuff so I can learn. But that openness and willing needs to be there.
Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote: No offense intended to those people who get heated on non competitive players, but I think you simply don't understand because it is not your taste and no matter how hard we will try, you will not. Like trying to explain why you should like X food and you simply don't. There's no argument to be made on tastes. One way or the other: I will don't understand why you'd keep trying competitively playing 40k, but you are just as right if you do and what matters is that it is funny to you. I think that apart from a few loud voices this is the wider consensus.
However keep in mind we do play to win (=achieve our set objective), otherwise nothing would ever go forward, and also may experience the bad state of balance (friend's army struggling so bad you need to up it a bit to let him have fun, etc...). We simply look at the results otherwise and find enjoyment elsewhere.
Yeah this is all becoming all very us and them again and it doesn’t need to. Both ways are fine ways of playing 40K and I’m sure there’s lots of overlap of groups like H.B.M.C. who play both ways. There needs to be a lot more respect for each other from each side and less sides.
I asked a question that seems to have been ignored about how competitive players go about list building, I hear a lot about this skill and people get very defensive about the idea it’s all net lists (and rightly so)m could someone explain to me what process they go through when building competitive lists because I actually would like to know and might learn some useful things.
This isn’t a trap or a piss take I am trying to get some healthy respectful conversation going where people from different camps in the community can share things.
Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote: No offense intended to those people who get heated on non competitive players, but I think you simply don't understand because it is not your taste and no matter how hard we will try, you will not. Like trying to explain why you should like X food and you simply don't. There's no argument to be made on tastes. One way or the other: I will don't understand why you'd keep trying competitively playing 40k, but you are just as right if you do and what matters is that it is funny to you. I think that apart from a few loud voices this is the wider consensus.
However keep in mind we do play to win (=achieve our set objective), otherwise nothing would ever go forward, and also may experience the bad state of balance (friend's army struggling so bad you need to up it a bit to let him have fun, etc...). We simply look at the results otherwise and find enjoyment elsewhere.
Yeah this is all becoming all very us and them again and it doesn’t need to. Both ways are fine ways of playing 40K and I’m sure there’s lots of overlap of groups like H.B.M.C. who play both ways. There needs to be a lot more respect for each other from each side and less sides.
I asked a question that seems to have been ignored about how competitive players go about list building, I hear a lot about this skill and people get very defensive about the idea it’s all net lists (and rightly so)m could someone explain to me what process they go through when building competitive lists because I actually would like to know and might learn some useful things.
This isn’t a trap or a piss take I am trying to get some healthy respectful conversation going where people from different camps in the community can share things.
You look at the tournament pack and look at what sorts of units and builds are encouraged. You look at mathhammer and see what units can either kill the most for the lowest amount of pts or score the most VP or prevent your opponent from scoring the most VP for the lowest amount of pts and then you look at opportunities for synergies between units. Try out different variations of lists that focus more on killing certain types of units or on scoring. Speculate and test what the weaknesses of the list are and see what the opportunity costs would be for adapting to those weaknesses, sometimes a list is weak to Imperial Knights but the opportunity cost of fixing that problem is making the list a lot worse against more prevalent foes and so the overall effect would be a lesser chance of getting a good tournament record, but generally, tournament players heavily value having a chance at winning and then using their skill to carry them and don't like having matchups that are almost impossible to beat.
Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote: No offense intended to those people who get heated on non competitive players, but I think you simply don't understand because it is not your taste and no matter how hard we will try, you will not. Like trying to explain why you should like X food and you simply don't. There's no argument to be made on tastes. One way or the other: I will don't understand why you'd keep trying competitively playing 40k, but you are just as right if you do and what matters is that it is funny to you. I think that apart from a few loud voices this is the wider consensus.
However keep in mind we do play to win (=achieve our set objective), otherwise nothing would ever go forward, and also may experience the bad state of balance (friend's army struggling so bad you need to up it a bit to let him have fun, etc...). We simply look at the results otherwise and find enjoyment elsewhere.
Yeah this is all becoming all very us and them again and it doesn’t need to. Both ways are fine ways of playing 40K and I’m sure there’s lots of overlap of groups like H.B.M.C. who play both ways. There needs to be a lot more respect for each other from each side and less sides.
I asked a question that seems to have been ignored about how competitive players go about list building, I hear a lot about this skill and people get very defensive about the idea it’s all net lists (and rightly so)m could someone explain to me what process they go through when building competitive lists because I actually would like to know and might learn some useful things.
This isn’t a trap or a piss take I am trying to get some healthy respectful conversation going where people from different camps in the community can share things.
You look at the tournament pack and look at what sorts of units and builds are encouraged. You look at mathhammer and see what units can either kill the most for the lowest amount of pts or score the most VP or prevent your opponent from scoring the most VP for the lowest amount of pts and then you look at opportunities for synergies between units. Try out different variations of lists that focus more on killing certain types of units or on scoring. Speculate and test what the weaknesses of the list are and see what the opportunity costs would be for adapting to those weaknesses, sometimes a list is weak to Imperial Knights but the opportunity cost of fixing that problem is making the list a lot worse against more prevalent foes and so the overall effect would be a lesser chance of getting a good tournament record, but generally, tournament players heavily value having a chance at winning and then using their skill to carry them and don't like having matchups that are almost impossible to beat.
Sounds quite in-depth and time consuming, on that site that showed lists that had won comps a lot were similar, is that people coming to similar conclusions, working on themes others have had success with and do people actually try exact copies of lists as a starting point and then tweak it to suit them?
I remember an article about a blood bowl champion recently who won with halflings, I’ve played a bit of bloodbowl and I remember being impressed by that! Do other tournament goers look down on people bringing eldar as the power army choice or is it just accepted as an obvious choice? Personally I’d root for someone turning up with leagues of votann and trying to win. Love me an under dog!
H.B.M.C. wrote: A few years later, after Apocalypse had launched, we organised a few massive games where we, again, had the lists all ready to go well in advance of the game. The idea was to stop a ritual from bringing a powerful Daemon Prince back into reality (he had been banished during the last big event in 2006). It would be more fun if he was revived, as it would give us greater narrative options later down the line for our evolving story, but our goal was to stop it. I never stopped trying to win. I never just decided to throw the game or agree to not use the forces I had brought with me. In the end we lost, and the Daemon Prince was resummoned. My lead Inquisitor even faced him 1-on-1 in melee, a silly prospect for an squishy Ordo-Hereticus Inquisitor in the days of 3rd-5th, and he died. Didn't care that he lost, but I still tried to do what I could. We played the game, as it and creating narratives are not mutually exclusive.
So I amend my statement:
No one plays to lose.
No one plays to draw.
Everyone plays to win. Anyone who isn't, isn't actually playing the game.
I think the issue is "what is winning"? I.E. in your example you say your Inquisitor faced the Daemon Prince 1v1 even though he'd almost certainly die (and did so). Which sounds great for narrative. But if you could have "won" the game just by walking your Inquisitor behind a wall, would you have done so? Even if narratively it seemed an anti-climax?
Because to my mind that's the difference between playing to win and playing for fun.
And this applies even in a non-narrative setting.
For example, why are DG "bad" in the current game? You can argue the mathhammer - they could be buffed to do more damage and be tougher - but I think the real issue is that they are slow. Especially if you take an infantry heavy force of plague marines and terminators. As a consequence of M4"/M5" they can't reinforce their positions. They can't take advantage/recover from unusual dice rolls. As a consequence you can be halfway through turn 2 and know the outcome of the game. You are going to beat them on primary, you are going to beat them on secondary - and the dice almost don't matter. You can just play keep-away across most of the board while the VP add up.
You could argue doing anything but this is "not playing to win" - but it can also be a bit boring. So instead you might go and fight them. Put your units in a position where they can be shot/charged, have narratively satisfying duels between characters etc. You can still "try to win" the game like this - but its different to the above.
Dudeface wrote: I mean you're blowing this off target completely and it might be that TooFast is being misread in the written format. I understand they opt to play people with similar goals, that's definitely fine. What I pointed out was from the way they wrote they'd quite happily walk around a FLGS lording over how many games they played so people weren't good enough to play them and refusing to play "noobs and casuals" in a dismissive fashion. I'm critiquing the social interactions outlined, which as I say, may simply not be translating well over text.
That's assuming a lot that is not anywhere in their post. In fact, Toofast even says that the competitive and non-competitive players are two separate groups that don't really interact.
They state there's plenty of people for them to play garage hammer to avoid needing to go to a FLGS and club seals.
They can play their way in their group and I can play my way in mine, and we don't really have to interact much. I don't set out to go seal clubbing at the FLGS because I don't get any better at the game that way.
Which is fair but it doesn't preclude going to a FLGS and interacting with others. At which point telling people these things:
So the onus is on me to get worse rather than you to get better?
I'm not spending money and time buying/building/painting subpar units just to play down to the level of someone who refuses to try to get better. I would rather just not play you.
I can only play tournament games and tournament prep games and play way more 40k than I even want to in a year. There's multiple 100+ person events in my state yearly.
Depending on the tone used with a stranger, might not be cordial.
If they exclusively play in pre-tournament circuits and that's how they get their kicks that's all fine, it's just about the interactions with the people who don't do that and the level of respect for them.
I think the problem is you've assumed a low level of respect or hostile tone when that wasn't present in the original post. I read the original post, and the subsequent clarifications, as simply stating that they prefer to play tournament-style games and there are plenty of people in their area to play against in that style. I don't see how someone deciding how they want to spend their hobby time is a problem. As long as any interactions with others are respectful, why does it matter? I'd actually much rather someone was up-front about not wanting to play me rather than wasting hours of our time on a game neither of us will enjoy.
Dudeface wrote: I mean you're blowing this off target completely and it might be that TooFast is being misread in the written format. I understand they opt to play people with similar goals, that's definitely fine. What I pointed out was from the way they wrote they'd quite happily walk around a FLGS lording over how many games they played so people weren't good enough to play them and refusing to play "noobs and casuals" in a dismissive fashion. I'm critiquing the social interactions outlined, which as I say, may simply not be translating well over text.
That's assuming a lot that is not anywhere in their post. In fact, Toofast even says that the competitive and non-competitive players are two separate groups that don't really interact.
They state there's plenty of people for them to play garage hammer to avoid needing to go to a FLGS and club seals.
They can play their way in their group and I can play my way in mine, and we don't really have to interact much. I don't set out to go seal clubbing at the FLGS because I don't get any better at the game that way.
Which is fair but it doesn't preclude going to a FLGS and interacting with others. At which point telling people these things:
So the onus is on me to get worse rather than you to get better?
I'm not spending money and time buying/building/painting subpar units just to play down to the level of someone who refuses to try to get better. I would rather just not play you.
I can only play tournament games and tournament prep games and play way more 40k than I even want to in a year. There's multiple 100+ person events in my state yearly.
Depending on the tone used with a stranger, might not be cordial.
If they exclusively play in pre-tournament circuits and that's how they get their kicks that's all fine, it's just about the interactions with the people who don't do that and the level of respect for them.
I think the problem is you've assumed a low level of respect or hostile tone when that wasn't present in the original post. I read the original post, and the subsequent clarifications, as simply stating that they prefer to play tournament-style games and there are plenty of people in their area to play against in that style. I don't see how someone deciding how they want to spend their hobby time is a problem. As long as any interactions with others are respectful, why does it matter? I'd actually much rather someone was up-front about not wanting to play me rather than wasting hours of our time on a game neither of us will enjoy.
I agree entirely and I did mention further up it might be that the written word isn't carrying a tone well or is easy to misinterpret. ultimately as long as people enjoy what they're doing and aren't being arses to each other, that'll do me. If you aren't going to enjoy it, don't do it, just be open and nice about saying no.
H.B.M.C. wrote: The Venn Diagram of people who were against a more granular points system and those that appear to not play 40k by the rules and instead play a homebrew version of 40k seems to just be a single circle. Funny that...
And there's nothing wrong with homebrew versions of 40k that remove all the strictures of matched play and objectives and whatnot - I've done it plenty of times and its tons of fun - but I'm not about to pretend that it is in any way the normal way to play, or that I'm really even playing the game as its written or intended.
I've noticed this too. I'm struggling to take people on good faith in the conversation. You can't talk about the game being broken because someone will swoop in and say it's fine, and then when you drill into why they think it's fine you find out they play the game only one step removed from setting their models on the carpet and making pew-pew noises. I mean, it's a thread about meta win rates completely derailed by people that don't follow the meta, and don't even think you should want to win games. It's exactly the same cycle as the points thread. They don't engage with the game in a way that points and meta and GT win rates are relevant, but they have big feelings about it. Or maybe big feelings about the people invested in those thing not being happy with them.
PenitentJake wrote: Campaign and progressive play really blur the simple win/loss dichotomy.
We're usually concerned with 4 sets of goals:
Mission Objectives, Agendas, Campaign Goals and Long-Term Narrative Goals.
Sometimes these align and sometimes they don't. Games tend to be more interesting when these various sets of goals are in tension, so that pursuing an Agenda might cost you the victory, but might accelerate a Long-Term Narrative goal.
I think that what H.B.M.C. is saying in regards to not playing 40k is that strictly, there is nothing in the 10th edition framework that inherently does any of those things aside from the win/loss dichotomy.
You can manipulate and add what ever you want to get what you want out of the game but once you do, strictly speaking you are no longer playing 40k. You are playing a variation of 40k using house rules to make the game more enjoyable for what your goals are.
Of course there is nothing at all wrong with that but it does reduce the impact that the core rules have in your particular gaming circle. If you are willing to add and modify rules to reach your goal then why do the core rules even matter to your group? You can modify/add/drop anything you want to make it work for what you want. I would love to play with a group with this mindset.
That is why it can be frustrating to talk to people who have this mindset, like Andykp, when talking about game balance and the competitive aspect. If you are already good with changing the rules to fit your needs, then why do you care at all what the rules say? You and your group do you, but for people who want a unified core rule set it is much more important that the core rules be balanced enough for competition to be achieved.
Someone earlier had mentioned managing power level in Magic EDH comparably to 40k. That's apt. EDH is a casual format where the rules committee is a very light touch on balance. Your player group is expected to Rule 0 things and self mange. This is great with established playgroups, but problematic for pickup games where people have different ideas about acceptable power level. This creates the same social dynamic 40k sometimes faces where people can take advantage and be TFGs. Though, competitive EDH exists, and it's a whole 'nother game. There you're expected to be running a $5000 dollar deck with all the OP fast mana cards to go infinite on turn 2. It would be rude to play CEDH and not come prepared to play at that level.
Though this brings up a pretty interesting difference between MTG and 40K. When something is broken in Magic, people blame WotC. When something is broken in 40K people are perfectly fine blaming players instead of GW. Now if you club a beginner with a tournament meta list, yeah that's the player being a jerk. But playing the codex, units, and rules as written by GW and incidentally stomping on your equally experienced opponent because GW printed a broken game? That's GWs fault for shipping a broken game.
PenitentJake wrote: Sometimes these align and sometimes they don't. Games tend to be more interesting when these various sets of goals are in tension, so that pursuing an Agenda might cost you the victory, but might accelerate a Long-Term Narrative goal.
Couple of questions:
Why is it better that the objectives are in tension?
Stories can involve multiple instances of conflict, which come in 3 varieties:
Self vs Other
Self vs Environment
Self vs Self
If a story has only the first type of conflict, it's a Black Library/ bolter-porn story. If it has the first and the second, it starts to have some depth, and it may receive some critical acclaim. If it has all three, you're looking at something with literary value. You can get the first and the second without goals that are in tension, but not the third.
Wouldn't it be better to use a purely narrative mission with objectives tailored to the specific scenario instead of a matched play mission that you have to reinterpret into something related to the story?
We do that too, but if that's ALL that's going on, we're bored. Mission objectives are Army-Based- they are achieved through the combined effort of the units that are present for the battle. Campaign goals are Roster-based; their effects extend to units on the roster that were not present for the battle. Agendas are unit based. Put another way, mission objectives, no matter how well they are narratively linked, all work at the same scale. Having Agendas, Campaign Goals and Narrative/ Faction based goals IN ADDITION to narrative mission trees enables a player to engage in stories that occur at both Micro and Macro scales.
The system that you are advocating for is a mission tree system. For my group, a good campaign will include mission trees that are akin to chapters or sub-plots in a novel, but it will also include Agendas (akin to character development), Campaign Goals (akin to the main plot of the novel), and Long-Term/ Faction Goals (akin to the series that the novel is one part).
If the in-universe goal of the army is to do X to advance their long-term plan to accomplish Y then how is it a benefit to have a separate mission condition where you win by standing on six arbitrary spots on the table and accumulating VP? Why play with the primary mission at all?
I just opened the Tyrannic War book to a random set of facing pages in the mission section. I got Secure Supplies and Insurrection. The first involves picking up objective markers which represent supply drops and carrying them back to your deployment zone; the second involves an attacker planting explosives in terrain features and a defender trying to diffuse those explosives. Neither of these are standing on six arbitrary spots on the table.
We can play these as is, but we can also tweak them; for example linking the two scenarios by having the supply drops represent explosives to be used in the Insurrection mission, are creating links to the campaign by adding the explosives planted throughout the mission added to persistent maps for use in later battles fought at that location. Notice that tweaking the mission is less work than inventing the mission from scratch.
But while I'm doing that, I'm also thinking about the unit who have been on a Penitent Oath since they failed to hold a different objective from three games ago- they still need to redeem themselves, whether the supplies get to the DZ or not. I'm also trying to hold territories elsewhere in the Theatre of War, which may have affected the units available to secure those supplies or diffuse those explosives; who I bring to achieve these mission objectives may also affect who is avalible to defend those territories. And at the same time, my Canoness may also complete one of the six trials necessary to achieve Sainthood.
There's nothing wrong with simple mission-tree campaigns like City Fight, Planetstrike or Urban Conquest... But you can see how much more nuanced these stories can become when you have Agendas, Long-Term Goals, and Campaign Goals in addition to Mission Objectives.
The other effect of these layers is to break the win/loss dichotomy. If I'm using Agendas and Long-Term Faction goals in addition to Mission goals and Campaign goals, player satisfaction isn't exclusively dependent on victory. I might win the most games and still lose the campaign. I might win the campaign but have a less than 50% win rate for individual games. I might win a few battles, lose the campaign, but come away from that Theatre of War with a Living Saint or a relic, which will help me in the next Campaign in a different Theatre of war.
And how do agendas really help with this? Most of them are just stock matched play style secondary objectives, only with a slightly different reward for accomplishing them. I might see if it agendas were something interesting, like "your warlord must kill this specific enemy character to avenge his defeat in the previous battle", but is "gain XP for killing vehicles" really adding much narrative to the game? Or making it play differently from a tournament mission where you get VP for killing vehicles?
So far in 10th, I'd say you're on to something. I was disappointed in 10th ed Agendas for two reasons: first, as you say, many are boring. But also, they are all campaign specific- none are truly generic.
It remains to be seen whether or not there will be faction specific Agendas in the dexes. In 9th, these Agendas were always the most interesting. A few examples include the redemption Agenda for units that take the Penitent Oath, or Ascendant Lords taking credit for the achievements and sacrifices of the units under their command, etc. Keep in mind that Agendas often interact with other game elements as well- most often, a dex includes at least one Agenda that helps to accelerate achievement of the long-term goal. And Agendas can be linked to the Battle Honour that comes as a reward for achieving the Agenda in much the same way that mission objectives can be linked to the mission that came before or comes after.
H.B.M.C. wrote: The Venn Diagram of people who were against a more granular points system and those that appear to not play 40k by the rules and instead play a homebrew version of 40k seems to just be a single circle. Funny that...
And there's nothing wrong with homebrew versions of 40k that remove all the strictures of matched play and objectives and whatnot - I've done it plenty of times and its tons of fun - but I'm not about to pretend that it is in any way the normal way to play, or that I'm really even playing the game as its written or intended.
Not true, because few if any of the people you're writing about were actually "Against Granular Points" - almost ALL of us were advocates for the two system solution. Both Andy and I are on record saying again and again that we prefer a game were both Points and PLs exist.
People are against PL. Many point advocates won't tolerate the continued existence of PL as a parallel system.
No one is against points. In a system where both PL and points exist, we may choose to play PL, but that does not make us anti-points. Even those who believe PL is better for the game as a whole will typically support a two-system solution as a compromise. And in my case, I don't even believe that PL are better for the game as a whole, despite PL being my personal preference in a two-system environment.
No one plays to lose.
No one plays to draw.
Everyone plays to win. Anyone who isn't, isn't actually playing the game.
Sure, but winning doesn't have to be the main reason to play either. For me, the outcome of the game has zero impact on my enjoyment of it. What i look for is a fun opponent, a clean game, and finding cool interactions between units.
Yup. 40k is a competitive game. Not giving your opponent a good game is bad sportsmanship.
Oh boy, yeah, i cannot agree with that. A competitive game wouldn't have such janky rules and the game developper wouldn't wait months to answer simple yes/no questions that the community has (can you overwatch more than once if you do it via abilities for example). 40k being touted as a competitive game by GW doesn't mean it is.
As someone not competitive and yet participating in the discussion, there are three reasons I do so:
-I like to follow a little on where the game looks headed
-At our level, we too are impacted by balance and rule design in a way.
-It's a discussion. I'm here to have a good chat, to share my thoughts, and to hear the thoughts of others. That I don't play tournaments doesn't mean I, as a hobbyist, am not interested in what these tournaments players think or have to say.
Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote: Yeah, it's not an insult to turn someone down because you don't feel like it'd be a fun time. Quite the contrary.
This, however, what do you do when confronted by a skew army?
Like knights.
Do you just flat out deny knights? Because knights are THE skew army by design and badly designed form a balance perspective due to that?
It harks back to balance one again.
I'd have a hard time answering other than by saying that you are totally correct and ending up with such an army in a game would be due to faulty design.
Although I will not express an opinion as to IK status right now, I don't know.
Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote: As someone not competitive and yet participating in the discussion, there are three reasons I do so:
-I like to follow a little on where the game looks headed
-At our level, we too are impacted by balance and rule design in a way.
-It's a discussion. I'm here to have a good chat, to share my thoughts, and to hear the thoughts of others. That I don't play tournaments doesn't mean I, as a hobbyist, am not interested in what these tournaments players think or have to say.
Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote: Yeah, it's not an insult to turn someone down because you don't feel like it'd be a fun time. Quite the contrary.
This, however, what do you do when confronted by a skew army?
Like knights.
Do you just flat out deny knights? Because knights are THE skew army by design and badly designed form a balance perspective due to that?
It harks back to balance one again.
I'd have a hard time answering other than by saying that you are totally correct and ending up with such an army in a game would be due to faulty design.
Although I will not express an opinion as to IK status right now, I don't know.
If I was playing a knights army I would like to know before hand so I could bring a force that would be able to at least try and damage them, and I f I was a knight player playing pick up games I would guess that most people, would be the same and try and arrange stuff in advance or be open to proxying and the like.
Now if you are playing a competitive game, even as a casual pick up but both parties know it will be a competitive game then you should be able to deal with knights to some extent.
Like jake said, I was never against points and 100% see how the new points system isn’t great for competitive players. And I’m not hugely invested in this discussion as has been implied. I’m here to learn a bit of what goes on in a section of the hobby I have not part in. It’s interesting. I’m learning. Victs answer about list building was very insightful and I E been looking math hammer sites and it’s fascinating the depth available if you know where to look.
If anyone has any good links they would care to share I’d appreciate it. I found “unit crunch” and like it, it’s a bit to get my head around but i enjoy a graph and some data as much as the next paramedic who runs an audit team! (That’s quite a lot).
Automatically Appended Next Post: And as for refusing to play people or certain armies, it’s tricky but my hobby time is limited by work and family and therefore precious. So I wouldn’t want to waste it but equally trying something outside your comfort zone often brings good results.
tneva82 wrote: Luckily these days not many armies that can't damage knights. Death guard maybe.
DG Sisters
Tau
Demons (that isnt monster mash)
and thats not taking into account a "blind" list that doesn't have sufficient anti-tank, for example, if one brought only 1-2 anti-tank units, the knights can kill those first and then be safe for the rest of the game
Everything can damage everything. That's the way the stupid To Wound chart works, and has done for several editions.
VladimirHerzog wrote: Sure, but winning doesn't have to be the main reason to play either.
And I never said it did, only that comments like "I don't play to win!" are inherently dishonest, because no one plays to lose and no one plays to draw.
Personally I hate what competitive play has done to 40k over the past edition, and I routinely refer to "metawatch" articles as the best comedic articles GW ever posts. 9th Edition - Tournament Edition 40k - saw too much a shift towards making everything tournament based, and the "balance" dataslates were just GW lurching to put out one fire after another in the most hamfisted knee-jerking ways imaginable (their attempt at "fixing" aircraft still boils my blood).
But I don't hate tournaments or competitive play, only that GW has learnt all the wrong lessons from it. Caulyn put it perfectly above, so I'll just quote him:
"When something is broken in Magic, people blame WotC. When something is broken in 40K people are perfectly fine blaming players instead of GW."
If 40k isn't working, blaming the players is stupid. They didn't write the game. They're not the ones who fail and fail again to iterate and learn from mistakes. They're not the ones still attempting to balance (read: punish) units for being powerful 2 editions ago. They're not the ones who don't see how raising the prices on all Indirect units across the board can impact those same units with also have non-indirect abilities. They're not the ones for what must be the third edition in a row wrote "Reduce the damage taken by 1" and somehow still forgot to put "to a minimum of 1" in there, so had to FAQ/designer notes it once again. And many more examples beyond that...
Why would anyone blame the players for playing the game GW wrote the way GW wrote it?
H.B.M.C. wrote: Everything can damage everything. That's the way the stupid To Wound chart works, and has done for several editions.
sure, i can plink a wound off here and there, but my Pink horrors and flamers arent doing meaningful damage to an all-knights army.
as for the rest of your comment :
I don't think its blaming the players when people suggest alternate ways to play or even houserules?
I know people get sensitive about the concept of houseruling on here, but does it matter if Joe and his gang decide to add a rule that makes the game more enjoyable to them?
I wonder: could some of the misplaced grudges or outright attacks toward competitive players be caused by, precisely, the feeling of a few people that said competitve players "endorse" GW managing of the game?
Accusing some sort of influencer or whatever (if any exist) that may be debated: are there GW sponsored people advertising the game, if yes, how much do they participate in GW's obstination in handling as it does?
In any case, whether such a thing is or is not, blaming the average player is missing the target as perfectly expressed. If anything, these claims would serve GW good with not caring for their game design since the playerbase itself would argue that it's not their fault as a company that they deliver a broken product.
VladimirHerzog wrote: I don't think its blaming the players when people suggest alternate ways to play or even houserules?
I don't have any problems with house rules.
I do have a problem when people go "This thing you think is a problem is fine because our group just house rules it!". That doesn't make the problem not a problem, and it's not a real way of dealing with a problem. It's just sticking your head in the sand.
This was all across the points thread, and it's all across here.
VladimirHerzog wrote: Sure, but winning doesn't have to be the main reason to play either.
And I never said it did, only that comments like "I don't play to win!" are inherently dishonest, because no one plays to lose and no one plays to draw.
This isn't quite correct. In a team play environment you can certainly be playing to draw, and in situations where you know you have no chance to win you can play to draw.
You can also be playing to lose - not trying to lose or actively sabotaging yourself - but when your friend who is really into the game and plays Custodes asks for a game, and you play your DG army, you are playing the game knowing you are going to lose. You go into that game for social reasons, or to keep your friend happy, but you know you will lose. So you are no longer playing to win.
I've come back into the game after about 10 years and I play BA against some friends who play GSC and Custodes (and have been playing for the last few editions). This win rate table does help explain the frustration I'm running into.
I think house rules in 40K kinda suck since they almost always are made to fix issues that the game shouldn’t have.
When we play Mordheim, our house rules are almost entirely fun addition to the game.
Things like weather, new characters and boats.
Warmachine is effectively just table set up, it handles terrain super well. And narrative games super fun there as well.
MCP I been having a blast, all narrative, all fun! No house rules needed.
Battletech, is similar to Mordheim. Anything we added on is to expand the game, as the rules itself are fairly clean.
40k honestly I rarely see house rules that expand the game, often it’s to rework issues the base game has. And narrative mostly very basic without going into rewrites.
It’s basically rewarded for the bare minimum of rules to push its own narrative.
Which actually makes sense if you follow GW forge the narrative from years ago, they make the game up to support whatever they trying to sell.
Often to its own narrative detriment.
Apple fox wrote: I think house rules in 40K kinda suck since they almost always are made to fix issues that the game shouldn’t have.
When we play Mordheim, our house rules are almost entirely fun addition to the game.
Things like weather, new characters and boats.
Warmachine is effectively just table set up, it handles terrain super well. And narrative games super fun there as well.
MCP I been having a blast, all narrative, all fun! No house rules needed.
Battletech, is similar to Mordheim. Anything we added on is to expand the game, as the rules itself are fairly clean.
40k honestly I rarely see house rules that expand the game, often it’s to rework issues the base game has. And narrative mostly very basic without going into rewrites.
It’s basically rewarded for the bare minimum of rules to push its own narrative.
Which actually makes sense if you follow GW forge the narrative from years ago, they make the game up to support whatever they trying to sell.
Often to its own narrative detriment.
House rules we make tend to enhance the game not fix issues. We tend to house rule mission rules and objectives, home brew units and characters. Not actual game rules. If something spoils the game we tend to ignore it, this was more of an issue in the last two editions where there were so many layers of rules we took a lot of them as optional and agreed before had if we were using x or y. We don’t really change rules to work better.
VladimirHerzog wrote: I don't think its blaming the players when people suggest alternate ways to play or even houserules?
I don't have any problems with house rules.
I do have a problem when people go "This thing you think is a problem is fine because our group just house rules it!". That doesn't make the problem not a problem, and it's not a real way of dealing with a problem. It's just sticking your head in the sand.
This was all across the points thread, and it's all across here.
I agree that GW adopting the competitive meta angle is likely a bad thing overall, they're not in a position organisationally to follow up on their words and the product doesn't endorse it. The comparisons to magic always intrigue me because the time investment in 40k is notably greater for a lot of people tog et up and running than it is for magic, Magic can feasibly rectify their situation and reprint cards then job done. 40k it's harder to fix someone's expensive collection of personally painted minis, which is why the community aspect of managing the situation tends to arise more I think.
Ultimately if GW would stop convincing themselves and marketing as a balanced competitive experience then it'd take some of the pressure off their FUBAR's and they could bumble through a little easier as a causal game.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Everything can damage everything. That's the way the stupid To Wound chart works, and has done for several editions.
VladimirHerzog wrote: Sure, but winning doesn't have to be the main reason to play either.
And I never said it did, only that comments like "I don't play to win!" are inherently dishonest, because no one plays to lose and no one plays to draw.
Personally I hate what competitive play has done to 40k over the past edition, and I routinely refer to "metawatch" articles as the best comedic articles GW ever posts. 9th Edition - Tournament Edition 40k - saw too much a shift towards making everything tournament based, and the "balance" dataslates were just GW lurching to put out one fire after another in the most hamfisted knee-jerking ways imaginable (their attempt at "fixing" aircraft still boils my blood).
But I don't hate tournaments or competitive play, only that GW has learnt all the wrong lessons from it. Caulyn put it perfectly above, so I'll just quote him:
"When something is broken in Magic, people blame WotC. When something is broken in 40K people are perfectly fine blaming players instead of GW."
If 40k isn't working, blaming the players is stupid. They didn't write the game. They're not the ones who fail and fail again to iterate and learn from mistakes. They're not the ones still attempting to balance (read: punish) units for being powerful 2 editions ago. They're not the ones who don't see how raising the prices on all Indirect units across the board can impact those same units with also have non-indirect abilities. They're not the ones for what must be the third edition in a row wrote "Reduce the damage taken by 1" and somehow still forgot to put "to a minimum of 1" in there, so had to FAQ/designer notes it once again. And many more examples beyond that...
Why would anyone blame the players for playing the game GW wrote the way GW wrote it?
About playing to win, happy to agree to disagree (again)but you are now calling a bunch of people in this thread dishonest, there’s no need.
As for what competitive play did for 40K in 9th I agree in principle that it wasn’t good for the game as a whole but it’s impact on the “casual” garage hammer groups was minimal really but I have said for a long time all this reactionary responses to powerful units aren’t helpful.
VladimirHerzog wrote: I don't think its blaming the players when people suggest alternate ways to play or even houserules?
I don't have any problems with house rules.
I do have a problem when people go "This thing you think is a problem is fine because our group just house rules it!". That doesn't make the problem not a problem, and it's not a real way of dealing with a problem. It's just sticking your head in the sand.
This was all across the points thread, and it's all across here.
I agree that GW adopting the competitive meta angle is likely a bad thing overall, they're not in a position organisationally to follow up on their words and the product doesn't endorse it. The comparisons to magic always intrigue me because the time investment in 40k is notably greater for a lot of people tog et up and running than it is for magic, Magic can feasibly rectify their situation and reprint cards then job done. 40k it's harder to fix someone's expensive collection of personally painted minis, which is why the community aspect of managing the situation tends to arise more I think.
Ultimately if GW would stop convincing themselves and marketing as a balanced competitive experience then it'd take some of the pressure off their FUBAR's and they could bumble through a little easier as a causal game.
It really does feel like a lovely passable casual game that can be open ended enough to be a sandbox for your dudes but dressed up as an ultra competitive game.
I said a few editions ago when people were arguing for making the game structured as a competitive game that they should have two rule sets, one tight streamlined set for match play and one for narrative play. The problem at the minute is the game is designed for the wide end of the “hobby trumpet” but they keep pushing the high end competitive side which is a way further down. They get the balance so right with their paint line, easy and accessible to the masses and easy to understand but they don’t try and cater for the hardcore painter side of things who want wet palettes and paints with pigment names and opacity details on the bottles etc.
Apple fox wrote: I think house rules in 40K kinda suck since they almost always are made to fix issues that the game shouldn’t have.
When we play Mordheim, our house rules are almost entirely fun addition to the game.
Things like weather, new characters and boats.
Warmachine is effectively just table set up, it handles terrain super well. And narrative games super fun there as well.
MCP I been having a blast, all narrative, all fun! No house rules needed.
Battletech, is similar to Mordheim. Anything we added on is to expand the game, as the rules itself are fairly clean.
40k honestly I rarely see house rules that expand the game, often it’s to rework issues the base game has. And narrative mostly very basic without going into rewrites.
It’s basically rewarded for the bare minimum of rules to push its own narrative.
Which actually makes sense if you follow GW forge the narrative from years ago, they make the game up to support whatever they trying to sell.
Often to its own narrative detriment.
House rules we make tend to enhance the game not fix issues. We tend to house rule mission rules and objectives, home brew units and characters. Not actual game rules. If something spoils the game we tend to ignore it, this was more of an issue in the last two editions where there were so many layers of rules we took a lot of them as optional and agreed before had if we were using x or y. We don’t really change rules to work better.
Just as a point, I don’t mean to say you cannot house rule as you do. Or anything like you cannot, but that so many people fall back onto 40K being a good narrative game when most of what plagues the game as issues are bad for casual and narrative experience.
There is a post right now on competitive reddit about terrain, since the game itself encourages the embarrassment that is 40K terrain setups. Competitive players are not against narrative and I think when the game encourages it, most players get a lot more out of being able to play though a narrative even at the most competitive.
The games I mention I think all provide that, when 40K often trips over itself to get there.
The last 4 editions of the game I think have all had issues with this, and this one they try but bare minimum effort to get there.
It’s still got issues all over.
As mention is things like anything can hurt anything, often I think it’s more given GW an excuse to not put in balance effort too support a table top narrative, and as a way to give a out for bad design in the gameplay.
For example, units in the 40k roster that are KT capable have gestalt experience profiles, meaning that every time they earn XP, it applies to both a 40k Crusade profile and a KT Spec Ops profile. They only ever use one at a time based on the game that they are playing, but they're always ready to be dropped into either game as needed.
We've figured out how to give each planet the details it needs to be wooed by the Tau, insurrected by the GSC or devoured by the nids.
The 9th ed game didn't need houserules to meet our needs, but 10th is looking kinda flat. We haven't decided yet whether we're buying in or not. I did buy the Tyrannic War book, but that wasn't enough to make a decision- I'll have to see a dex first.
Apple fox wrote: I think house rules in 40K kinda suck since they almost always are made to fix issues that the game shouldn’t have.
When we play Mordheim, our house rules are almost entirely fun addition to the game.
Things like weather, new characters and boats.
Warmachine is effectively just table set up, it handles terrain super well. And narrative games super fun there as well.
MCP I been having a blast, all narrative, all fun! No house rules needed.
Battletech, is similar to Mordheim. Anything we added on is to expand the game, as the rules itself are fairly clean.
40k honestly I rarely see house rules that expand the game, often it’s to rework issues the base game has. And narrative mostly very basic without going into rewrites.
It’s basically rewarded for the bare minimum of rules to push its own narrative.
Which actually makes sense if you follow GW forge the narrative from years ago, they make the game up to support whatever they trying to sell.
Often to its own narrative detriment.
House rules we make tend to enhance the game not fix issues. We tend to house rule mission rules and objectives, home brew units and characters. Not actual game rules. If something spoils the game we tend to ignore it, this was more of an issue in the last two editions where there were so many layers of rules we took a lot of them as optional and agreed before had if we were using x or y. We don’t really change rules to work better.
Just as a point, I don’t mean to say you cannot house rule as you do. Or anything like you cannot, but that so many people fall back onto 40K being a good narrative game when most of what plagues the game as issues are bad for casual and narrative experience.
There is a post right now on competitive reddit about terrain, since the game itself encourages the embarrassment that is 40K terrain setups. Competitive players are not against narrative and I think when the game encourages it, most players get a lot more out of being able to play though a narrative even at the most competitive.
The games I mention I think all provide that, when 40K often trips over itself to get there.
The last 4 editions of the game I think have all had issues with this, and this one they try but bare minimum effort to get there.
It’s still got issues all over.
As mention is things like anything can hurt anything, often I think it’s more given GW an excuse to not put in balance effort too support a table top narrative, and as a way to give a out for bad design in the gameplay.
I didn’t say it was a “good” narrative game. The game of 40K is one part of the whole hobby to me, the game with its faults is made better and playable by the back ground, models and my history with it. I’m really enjoying 10th so far and the index’s are great for us as it feels like a framework we can build our narrative on. It feels very bloat free right now, not sure what we will do when codexs come out and each bring more rules.
The big problem with the push for balance is the way GW does it, all restrictions and points increases.
Competitive 40k is gw's marketing department idea to exploit guillible ones to get their money as easily as possible.
40k is as competitive as emperor's clotres were stellar in the famous story.
You can make the argument it's a *bad* competitive game. But it's a competitive game. Dungeons and Dragons is a narrative game - there's no winners or losers, it's not competitive, etc.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
PenitentJake wrote: Campaign and progressive play really blur the simple win/loss dichotomy.
No, because if you play, say, 9e release Tyranids, the only narrative you're going to be able to tell is how Tyranids ate everybody. The end.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote: No offense intended to those people who get heated on non competitive players, but I think you simply don't understand because it is not your taste and no matter how hard we will try, you will not. Like trying to explain why you should like X food and you simply don't. There's no argument to be made on tastes. One way or the other: I will don't understand why you'd keep trying competitively playing 40k, but you are just as right if you do and what matters is that it is funny to you. I think that apart from a few loud voices this is the wider consensus.
However keep in mind we do play to win (=achieve our set objective), otherwise nothing would ever go forward, and also may experience the bad state of balance (friend's army struggling so bad you need to up it a bit to let him have fun, etc...). We simply look at the results otherwise and find enjoyment elsewhere.
It's mostly the idea that is pushed around that the reason that competitive players are not having fun isn't bad balance, it's because they're evil competitive players. I've seen it again and again on this forum. And it's flat-out wrong - even rats play-wrestle, and stop doing it if the outcome isn't fair enough. Balance is important.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CaulynDarr wrote: Someone earlier had mentioned managing power level in Magic EDH comparably to 40k. That's apt. EDH is a casual format where the rules committee is a very light touch on balance. Your player group is expected to Rule 0 things and self mange. This is great with established playgroups, but problematic for pickup games where people have different ideas about acceptable power level. This creates the same social dynamic 40k sometimes faces where people can take advantage and be TFGs. Though, competitive EDH exists, and it's a whole 'nother game. There you're expected to be running a $5000 dollar deck with all the OP fast mana cards to go infinite on turn 2. It would be rude to play CEDH and not come prepared to play at that level.
Though this brings up a pretty interesting difference between MTG and 40K. When something is broken in Magic, people blame WotC. When something is broken in 40K people are perfectly fine blaming players instead of GW. Now if you club a beginner with a tournament meta list, yeah that's the player being a jerk. But playing the codex, units, and rules as written by GW and incidentally stomping on your equally experienced opponent because GW printed a broken game? That's GWs fault for shipping a broken game.
It's also worth noting that historically EDH has had people calling the shots who straight up didn't understand balance (banning Monkey Cage etc).
And you've cottoned on to something very crucial here - that there's a segment of the 40k playerbase that blames other players for GW's mistakes. It's very dishonest and should be stamped out, it's a toxic part of the culture.
VladimirHerzog wrote: Sure, but winning doesn't have to be the main reason to play either.
And I never said it did, only that comments like "I don't play to win!" are inherently dishonest, because no one plays to lose and no one plays to draw.
This isn't quite correct. In a team play environment you can certainly be playing to draw, and in situations where you know you have no chance to win you can play to draw.
You can also be playing to lose - not trying to lose or actively sabotaging yourself - but when your friend who is really into the game and plays Custodes asks for a game, and you play your DG army, you are playing the game knowing you are going to lose. You go into that game for social reasons, or to keep your friend happy, but you know you will lose. So you are no longer playing to win.
Nope.
While wether I win/lose isn't actually important to me, I'm never playing to lose. I will always try my best to win with whatever I've brought to the table. And there isn't a force out there that I'm not confident that I've got a shot at beating (especially if I know what I'll face).
Yeah there's a difference between playing a match where you are on the losing side and playing to lose.
In one case you're accepting that you're not going to win, but you are still playing properly. In the other you are engineering a loss by playing poorly.
I know there are justifications and arguments for option B in certain situations, but often as not it comes down a lot to personal attitude and situation.
In option A it can often be a case of adjusting your view to wins. Eg last game I played I realised around the mid game that I'd made some poor choices and wasn't going to win the match overall. However I adjusted my focus to taking out a key enemy unit that had caused me great harm. So I adapted my tactics to go for that unit above other choices. I still lost the match, but I killed that unit!
And that's just an example of how sometimes its not a black and white "win lose overall" but a case of adjusting your approach through the game.
Do you go for that pure win even up to the last second where its hopeless; do you go for secondary objectives or give yourself game themed objectives to aim for that you can potentially achieve even if all else is lost.
Hecaton wrote: You can make the argument it's a *bad* competitive game. But it's a competitive game. Dungeons and Dragons is a narrative game - there's no winners or losers, it's not competitive, etc.
You're correct in principle but instead of the ambiguous term "competitive" I'd go with adversarial. D&D is a cooperative game with non-zero-sum outcomes, 40k is an adversarial game with zero-sum outcomes. Even if 40k isn't played in a competitive context it is still a zero-sum game where the goal is to defeat your opponent.
Ashitaka wrote: This isn't quite correct. In a team play environment you can certainly be playing to draw, and in situations where you know you have no chance to win you can play to draw.
That's forcing a draw based on the situation, to ensure that you do not lose. You don't ever start a game going "Man! I sure hope I draw today!".
Ashitaka wrote: You can also be playing to lose - not trying to lose or actively sabotaging yourself - but when your friend who is really into the game and plays Custodes asks for a game, and you play your DG army, you are playing the game knowing you are going to lose. You go into that game for social reasons, or to keep your friend happy, but you know you will lose. So you are no longer playing to win.
That sounds a lot like throwing a game to keep someone happy, which isn't really playing the game as intended either.
My points stand.
Andykp wrote: About playing to win, happy to agree to disagree (again)but you are now calling a bunch of people in this thread dishonest, there’s no need.
Dishonest or bad faith. Take your pick.
The method of play you described seems like cooperative storytelling with random elements. It didn't strike me as playing 40k the way 40k is intended. So, sure, if I understood what you wrote, you aren't playing to win, but you also really aren't "playing" either. You're just kind of doing your own thing - which is totally fine, as previously established - but it's not the game, so making judgement calls for the game at large based upon the version that you play is, at worst, dishonest.
Andykp wrote: As for what competitive play did for 40K in 9th I agree in principle that it wasn’t good for the game as a whole but it’s impact on the “casual” garage hammer groups was minimal really but I have said for a long time all this reactionary responses to powerful units aren’t helpful.
And I don't think that's true at all, as most people play by the rules that GW put out. If they put out new points, you play with them. Put out a new Codex, you play with it. It might not have impacted you and the version of 40k you and your friends are playing, but if impacted most players.
PenitentJake wrote: Campaign and progressive play really blur the simple win/loss dichotomy.
No, because if you play, say, 9e release Tyranids, the only narrative you're going to be able to tell is how Tyranids ate everybody. The end.
It's certainly true to say that Tyranid bespoke content is more single minded in focus than the bespoke content for other factions- I think 3/5 agendas accelerate the accumulation of Biomass and Crushed Resistance. But once again, that in itself provides another way to achieve the Long-Term Faction goal rather than winning or losing games, which is exactly what I meant by breaking the win/loss dichotomy.
It's worth mentioning that the Consumption of a planet is only the last of three stages. Tyranids must first Invade and then subject a world to Predation before its consumption can begin. Those phases affect the composition of the army, as well as providing advantages and disadvantages unique advantages and disadvantages, which does affect the story. Finally, Crusade interacts with Adaptive Physiology and can also mutate organisms by swapping their Synaptic Imperatives via Neuro-Hybridization, so there is an evolutionary theme at work as well, though I'll admit it's a bit weak compared to what's available to other factions.
And remember that there's more than one planet to be devoured per system, and there's always another system. Varieties in planet types change the portion of the story devoted to Invasion/ Predation/ Consumption. Again, smaller variation than you're getting with a lot of other factions, but it does add to the story. And of course, as with all factions, the story of a campaign is also in part the story of what enemies do.
It's also worth mentioning that 9th provided the capacity for GSC/ Tyranid cross-overs. We never got far enough in the campaign, but our plan had been to allow patriarch, purestrain, accolyte, metamorph, abominant and aberrant units can continue to operate in concert with Tyranid forces while all other GSC units either a) flee for another in-system planet or submit to the Hive Fleet to be recycled for more suitable units.
You're correct in principle but instead of the ambiguous term "competitive" I'd go with adversarial. D&D is a cooperative game with non-zero-sum outcomes, 40k is an adversarial game with zero-sum outcomes.
"Competitive" is not an an ambiguous term. The baseline definition of a competitive game is one where two players compete, with one losing and one winning. That's literally 40k. There's no argument to be made here; that's what 40k is at its book definition level. Trying to re-brand competitive as "Adversarial" is splitting hairs to the Nth degree.
Can 40k be more than that? Absolutely. But that's once more veering into the weeds about those who don't really play 40k.
morganfreeman wrote: "Competitive" is not an an ambiguous term. The baseline definition of a competitive game is one where two players compete, with one losing and one winning. That's literally 40k. There's no argument to be made here; that's what 40k is at its core. Trying to re-brand competitive as "Adversarial" is splitting hairs to the Nth degree.
It's absolutely ambiguous. "Competitive" can mean a zero-sum game as you describe, or it can refer to organized tournament play (and its associated practice games, etc). Cite dictionary definitions all you like, there are clearly two different uses of the word in normal conversation about 40k and everyone benefits if we use clearer terms.
morganfreeman wrote: "Competitive" is not an an ambiguous term. The baseline definition of a competitive game is one where two players compete, with one losing and one winning. That's literally 40k. There's no argument to be made here; that's what 40k is at its core. Trying to re-brand competitive as "Adversarial" is splitting hairs to the Nth degree.
It's absolutely ambiguous. "Competitive" can mean a zero-sum game as you describe, or it can refer to organized tournament play (and its associated practice games, etc). Cite dictionary definitions all you like, there are clearly two different uses of the word in normal conversation about 40k and everyone benefits if we use clearer terms.
You're not applying the word to the same thing. 40k is a competitive game, someone loses and someone wins or they (rarely) draw. Tournaments are not 40k; you can hold them for 40k, but tournaments are not what 40k is. Ergo 40k is a competitive game (a winner and a loser) where as 40k tournaments have a wider range (best winner, second best, ect).
Sure, the word Competitive has varied meanings but so does the word Running, and what you are attaching them to solves the definitional issue for the same reason I've never had to foot-race my refrigerator for dinner.
morganfreeman wrote: You're not applying the word to the same thing. 40k is a competitive game, someone loses and someone wins or they (rarely) draw. Tournaments are not 40k; you can hold them for 40k, but tournaments are not what 40k is. Ergo 40k is a competitive game (a winner and a loser) where as 40k tournaments have a wider range (best winner, second best, ect).
Sure, the word Competitive has varied meanings but so does the word Running, and what you are attaching them to solves the definitional issue for the same reason I've never had to foot-race my refrigerator for dinner.
Like I said, you can cite dictionary definitions all you like but that doesn't change the fact that in conversation about 40k there is ambiguity between "zero-sum scoring" and "tournaments" and there are frequently arguments where someone responds to a post thinking it was using one meaning but it really intended the other one. Using "adversarial" to describe head to head games with zero-sum scoring eliminates the confusion and is still an accurate description of the game concept.
It's certainly true to say that Tyranid bespoke content is more single minded in focus than the bespoke content for other factions- I think 3/5 agendas accelerate the accumulation of Biomass and Crushed Resistance. But once again, that in itself provides another way to achieve the Long-Term Faction goal rather than winning or losing games, which is exactly what I meant by breaking the win/loss dichotomy.
It's worth mentioning that the Consumption of a planet is only the last of three stages. Tyranids must first Invade and then subject a world to Predation before its consumption can begin. Those phases affect the composition of the army, as well as providing advantages and disadvantages unique advantages and disadvantages, which does affect the story. Finally, Crusade interacts with Adaptive Physiology and can also mutate organisms by swapping their Synaptic Imperatives via Neuro-Hybridization, so there is an evolutionary theme at work as well, though I'll admit it's a bit weak compared to what's available to other factions.
And remember that there's more than one planet to be devoured per system, and there's always another system. Varieties in planet types change the portion of the story devoted to Invasion/ Predation/ Consumption. Again, smaller variation than you're getting with a lot of other factions, but it does add to the story. And of course, as with all factions, the story of a campaign is also in part the story of what enemies do.
It's also worth mentioning that 9th provided the capacity for GSC/ Tyranid cross-overs. We never got far enough in the campaign, but our plan had been to allow patriarch, purestrain, accolyte, metamorph, abominant and aberrant units can continue to operate in concert with Tyranid forces while all other GSC units either a) flee for another in-system planet or submit to the Hive Fleet to be recycled for more suitable units.
You're misunderstanding me. I'm pointing out that release 9e Tyranids were ridiculously overpowered, to the point that the only story you could tell with them in 40k was them beating everyone else.
Ashitaka wrote: This isn't quite correct. In a team play environment you can certainly be playing to draw, and in situations where you know you have no chance to win you can play to draw.
That's forcing a draw based on the situation, to ensure that you do not lose. You don't ever start a game going "Man! I sure hope I draw today!".
Ashitaka wrote: You can also be playing to lose - not trying to lose or actively sabotaging yourself - but when your friend who is really into the game and plays Custodes asks for a game, and you play your DG army, you are playing the game knowing you are going to lose. You go into that game for social reasons, or to keep your friend happy, but you know you will lose. So you are no longer playing to win.
That sounds a lot like throwing a game to keep someone happy, which isn't really playing the game as intended either.
My points stand.
Andykp wrote: About playing to win, happy to agree to disagree (again)but you are now calling a bunch of people in this thread dishonest, there’s no need.
Dishonest or bad faith. Take your pick.
The method of play you described seems like cooperative storytelling with random elements. It didn't strike me as playing 40k the way 40k is intended. So, sure, if I understood what you wrote, you aren't playing to win, but you also really aren't "playing" either. You're just kind of doing your own thing - which is totally fine, as previously established - but it's not the game, so making judgement calls for the game at large based upon the version that you play is, at worst, dishonest.
Andykp wrote: As for what competitive play did for 40K in 9th I agree in principle that it wasn’t good for the game as a whole but it’s impact on the “casual” garage hammer groups was minimal really but I have said for a long time all this reactionary responses to powerful units aren’t helpful.
And I don't think that's true at all, as most people play by the rules that GW put out. If they put out new points, you play with them. Put out a new Codex, you play with it. It might not have impacted you and the version of 40k you and your friends are playing, but if impacted most players.
Fine mate think what you like, call me a liar or what ever you want.
It’s really hard having a civil discussion on here, very disappointing.
VladimirHerzog wrote: I don't think its blaming the players when people suggest alternate ways to play or even houserules?
I don't have any problems with house rules.
I do have a problem when people go "This thing you think is a problem is fine because our group just house rules it!". That doesn't make the problem not a problem, and it's not a real way of dealing with a problem. It's just sticking your head in the sand.
This was all across the points thread, and it's all across here.
I agree that GW adopting the competitive meta angle is likely a bad thing overall, they're not in a position organisationally to follow up on their words and the product doesn't endorse it. The comparisons to magic always intrigue me because the time investment in 40k is notably greater for a lot of people tog et up and running than it is for magic, Magic can feasibly rectify their situation and reprint cards then job done. 40k it's harder to fix someone's expensive collection of personally painted minis, which is why the community aspect of managing the situation tends to arise more I think.
Ultimately if GW would stop convincing themselves and marketing as a balanced competitive experience then it'd take some of the pressure off their FUBAR's and they could bumble through a little easier as a causal game.
Magic doesn't do a lot of card bans these days; mostly because they have set rotation. WotC understands their game and how it's played much better than GW understands 40K.
You can't apply many of the things that WotC does to miniature game(set rotation being a big one), but there are things they do that GW could. Like train official judges and help develop better etiquette for high level play. Get to top tables in a Magic tournament, even a small pre-release, and you will see people play the game in clear and deliberate ways. There are established ways to play Magic that leaves less room for drama and TFG behavior. Like imagine if official GW judges had official tournament guidelines for handling bumped models or calling out shady dice rolling. And it's not a stigmatized thing if a few dice bounce behind some terrain cause there's a standard way GW Judges would rule on it, so there's a standard way the players would deal with it without calling a judge.
This is where GW and the competitive 40K community runs before they can walk. Top players are selling coaching and private discord server access, and pushing GW to fix their broken game with bland terrain set-ups and overcomplicated scenario design--which doesn't really fix the core problems, just moves the goal post around and maybe makes it a bit harder to see the optimal strategy at first.
All the while a player goes 5-0 with Tau by cheating through a whole major GT. All because the game is short on qualified judges and good tournament etiquette.
Of course that's even getting ahead of ourselves. I'd settle for a game where the top army doesn't just dumpster the bottom army 9 times out of 10.
Andykp wrote: Fine mate think what you like, call me a liar or what ever you want.
It’s really hard having a civil discussion on here, very disappointing.
Ignore any opportunity to explain your position or show why I might be wrong. Just throw a tantrum instead and play the victim rather than answering anything I said. And then claim you're the one being civil as you grasp some nonexistent moral high ground. Awesome stuff!
catbarf wrote: The objective of the game is to beat your opponent, and the listbuilding stage is where you devise the strategy that will accomplish that goal. It's hardly WAAC to pick units and synergies that will contribute towards winning the game.
"But I don't play to win!"
The amount of people I've heard repeat that line over the past decade makes me really wonder.
And it never made any sense to me in the first place. I mean, no one plays to lose, and no one plays to draw (forcing a draw on the other hand), so of course everyone plays to win.
That’s really not true, now to make something clear before I start to avoid any confusion here, I am not a ”casual” player I have invest thousands of pounds and untold hours into this hobby over 30+ years, t takes up huge amounts of my time and effort. But I am what I like to call a narrative player. It is ALL about the story.
So when I was playing my game yesterday my mate and I were both playing to achieve the objectives the narrative had set out but were both playing them in ways appropriate to our armies and in a fun way for each other “Winning” was not the object of the game but telling the story was.
In the end he “won” the game on VPs but the narrative outcome was much more interesting, he had achieved his goals but my army had had a very crucial narrative shift with an old stalwart warboss having been shown up by a newcomer and their being a shift in power in my ORKS.
During and after the battle we have discussions about what is happening narratively, what the story is. This takes as long as the battle most the time. We also discuss how things went tactically, how we played and what mistakes we made etc (mostly about learning the new edition at the minute).
Now this is very nuanced and different from how you would play in a pick up game for sure and it isn’t how everyone plays but we have known each other for a long time and been playing for a long time so we can play this RP style of game. Neither of us know the rules inside out and there’s an awful lot of going back to do things we forgot or suddenly remembering a rule the army or unit has that would have helped but two turns after the event. We would get battered by anyone who knows the rules well and is setting out purely to win the game so wouldn’t let us go back or re roll a shooting with the lethal hits we just remembered we had. But that is not how we do it.
So we don’t play to win. Our aims when we play are in this order of priority; BOTH have a fun experience, use our collections (as in we will pick units we won’t to use for lots of reasons, such as they are a new model, just painted or they are just cool), add to our narrative in universe. We don’t pull gotcha moments on each other, we discuss army composition while making our lists together so we can make our lists fit each others, if either of us are bringing something potentially powerful we let the other know so we can be prepared and not have it dominate the game in a boring way and we discuss any tricks or special abilities our units have.
There are others like me out there too, we don’t all play to win. It’s a big big hobby with lots of different motivations for playing a game.
Fully explained here already. But you gave stated twice since that I am lying, not sure why. And twice I have said we should just agree to disagree. So not going to explain myself again just to be called a liar again.
Not playing a victim card just very hard to have a conversation if one half the conversation is “no, you’re lying”. And pointless. Moving on….
VladimirHerzog wrote: I don't think its blaming the players when people suggest alternate ways to play or even houserules?
I don't have any problems with house rules.
I do have a problem when people go "This thing you think is a problem is fine because our group just house rules it!". That doesn't make the problem not a problem, and it's not a real way of dealing with a problem. It's just sticking your head in the sand.
This was all across the points thread, and it's all across here.
I agree that GW adopting the competitive meta angle is likely a bad thing overall, they're not in a position organisationally to follow up on their words and the product doesn't endorse it. The comparisons to magic always intrigue me because the time investment in 40k is notably greater for a lot of people tog et up and running than it is for magic, Magic can feasibly rectify their situation and reprint cards then job done. 40k it's harder to fix someone's expensive collection of personally painted minis, which is why the community aspect of managing the situation tends to arise more I think.
Ultimately if GW would stop convincing themselves and marketing as a balanced competitive experience then it'd take some of the pressure off their FUBAR's and they could bumble through a little easier as a causal game.
Magic doesn't do a lot of card bans these days; mostly because they have set rotation. WotC understands their game and how it's played much better than GW understands 40K.
You can't apply many of the things that WotC does to miniature game(set rotation being a big one), but there are things they do that GW could. Like train official judges and help develop better etiquette for high level play. Get to top tables in a Magic tournament, even a small pre-release, and you will see people play the game in clear and deliberate ways. There are established ways to play Magic that leaves less room for drama and TFG behavior. Like imagine if official GW judges had official tournament guidelines for handling bumped models or calling out shady dice rolling. And it's not a stigmatized thing if a few dice bounce behind some terrain cause there's a standard way GW Judges would rule on it, so there's a standard way the players would deal with it without calling a judge.
This is where GW and the competitive 40K community runs before they can walk. Top players are selling coaching and private discord server access, and pushing GW to fix their broken game with bland terrain set-ups and overcomplicated scenario design--which doesn't really fix the core problems, just moves the goal post around and maybe makes it a bit harder to see the optimal strategy at first.
All the while a player goes 5-0 with Tau by cheating through a whole major GT. All because the game is short on qualified judges and good tournament etiquette.
Of course that's even getting ahead of ourselves. I'd settle for a game where the top army doesn't just dumpster the bottom army 9 times out of 10.
Given all this is true, and I’m sure it is, this leads to my biggest question about competitive 40K. Why is it so popular as a competitive game? Everyone agrees the game is either badly imbalanced or all the broken and anywhere in between. Competitive army lists have little to do with the fluff or lore. Given that it’s that broken what draws people to play 40K this way? Is it just popular because it’s so popular already and easy to get games and fill tournaments just because it’s 40K, THE game??
Or is it the same that draws me to the game, the fluff, the models the history? Just drawing you to a different aspect of the hobby? Genuine question and one that never gets really answered as most these discussions are big arguments by this point but we’ve had some decent communication in this one for the most part.
So to clarify, you won't go to the flgs and play randoms in case they're not serious enough for you?
Very rarely. I typically get on the Facebook group for my FLGS and say "hey guys, looking to practice some games for the US Open. If anyone has a 2k list and wants a tournament practice game this weekend, lmk"
I'm not going to pack up all my stuff, drive over there, and hope to get a game. I usually don't play much unless I'm playing against my wife on the kitchen table or pre arranged tournament practice games with a specific mission pack and terrain layout in mind.
Andykp wrote: Why is it so popular as a competitive game?
Because for many people a bad competitive game is better than no competitive game at all and no other miniatures game comes close to what 40k offers for competitive play.
Competitive 40k is gw's marketing department idea to exploit guillible ones to get their money as easily as possible.
40k is as competitive as emperor's clotres were stellar in the famous story.
Who ties your shoes in the morning, or are they velcro? 99% of games fall into 2 categories, competitive or cooperative. Competitive = the game has a winner and loser. Cooperative = the players are playing together to defeat an enemy, controlled by another player or the game itself. I'll let you decide which category 40k falls into. Just because it isn't perfectly balanced like chess doesn't magically make it a cooperative game rather than a competitive one. How competitive you want to be is up to you, but the game, by definition, is. Oh also the tournaments around the world, that are reported on by the company making the game, with lengthy videos titled "Metawatch" (all about the COMPETITIVE meta) would also lead you to the conclusion that the game was intended to be a competitive game. You can stick your fingers in your ears and scream "LA LA LA LA", and call everyone else names, but again that doesn't magically turn 40k into a cooperative game rather than a competitive one.
That's assuming a lot that is not anywhere in their post. In fact, Toofast even says that the competitive and non-competitive players are two separate groups that don't really interact.
Yup, lots of assumptions from people who have never met me and projection from people who are apparently very insecure. I said nobody is having fun wrong, but a new player w a casual votann list probably won't have fun against an Eldar player with a GT winning list and GT experience. Rather than the Eldar player bringing 2,000 extra points of an entirely separate army everywhere he goes, or the votann player abandoning his new army just to compete, those players should play with like-minded groups. How is this a controversial opinion?
Andykp wrote: Why is it so popular as a competitive game?
Because for many people a bad competitive game is better than no competitive game at all and no other miniatures game comes close to what 40k offers for competitive play.
You mean size of events and availability of games/events etc?
Andykp wrote: You mean size of events and availability of games/events etc?
Exactly. 40k has a critical mass effect where it dominates the market because it dominates the market. Other competitive miniatures games get their turn in second place occasionally (WM/H, X-Wing, etc) but few of them have any lasting success and competitive play rapidly fades away once the peak passes. So if you want to play a competitive miniatures game you can either play the flawed game that is available or sit at home thinking about how cool it would be to play a game.
Andykp wrote: Why is it so popular as a competitive game?
Because for many people a bad competitive game is better than no competitive game at all and no other miniatures game comes close to what 40k offers for competitive play.
You mean size of events and availability of games/events etc?
You can go to almost any wargaming club and even if they don't currently play a GW game you can bet that if you offer to play one chances are you will find one or more people who do have armies and who can be convinced to play.
You basically can't do that with any other game. Even One Page Rules, which can use GW models, isn't as widely known about.
That's a huge boon for anyone because it means you can collect a 40K army and know that you can get games. Considering armies are big financial and time investments, that's a massive boon. Many other games you run the risk of being the only person at the club with a force. That means you might have to buy two modest armies; paint them up; get a board together and spend weeks/months running demo games (to which you might only get one or two try it out now and then) and keep promoting it a LOT locally to get anyone interested enough to invest into it and get beyond demo/trial games.
Not everyone has the dedication and energy to do that. Plus it means regularly turning up all the time; you can't just go on a once off every so often.
CaulynDarr wrote: All the while a player goes 5-0 with Tau by cheating through a whole major GT. All because the game is short on qualified judges and good tournament etiquette.
It's also because a lot of judges just lack the will to punish cheaters, and would rather everyone just be chill, even when it's called out. And FLG in particular is *very* slimy about not punishing cheaters.
You mean size of events and availability of games/events etc?
Yup. I've lived in 3 states and always been able to find a game of 40k. Old school Warhammer, Age of Sigmar, all the specialist games, Warmachine, XWing, Infinity, etc you are very lucky to find a regular play group. I even found a store in Bogota that carried 40k models and had a gaming table with terrain setup. You can go to almost any major city in the world and find someone to play 40k with. There are multiple events in my state with 100+ people within a month of each other. You won't find that with any other game, they're lucky to get 100 people at any event.
Big events outside of specific places , like spain tournaments for infinity, are not going to see 200-400 tournaments, and 100 is considered a huge event. At least in eastern europe that is how it is. And warmachine and infinity were popular here.
CaulynDarr wrote: All the while a player goes 5-0 with Tau by cheating through a whole major GT. All because the game is short on qualified judges and good tournament etiquette.
It's also because a lot of judges just lack the will to punish cheaters, and would rather everyone just be chill, even when it's called out. And FLG in particular is *very* slimy about not punishing cheaters.
I find elements of western tournament sceen odd at times. Big event blow up that some dude is cheating big time, and then you see people writing stuff like , yeah he did the same at X, Y and Z event , or localy he does that too. And when you ask when the dudes face and name isn't public, so he never ever ever gets to play any table top game event, it is suddenly, oh we don't do things like that and that is not a good thing to do. But cheating and letting someone cheat for years somehow is, I guess. I don't play in tournaments, I don't go in depth who from the US or Canada came to visit for a few weeks on a tour of local events and I am not much interested how the tournaments go, besides the potential blow back to how the game is going to be played localy. But even when I am ignorant about most of the stuff, I know the names of dudes who cheated big time. Even in games I do not play. If Xaos and his gf suddenly slid in trying to make it big in kill team, I know who they are and while the orgs don't always have to know it, I will tell them who they are dealing with. And at best they are going to have a judge watching them 5 out of 5 rounds.
I get the judges letting it slide for their friends better, then the knowladge about repeated cheaters being public. And I am talking realy cheaters, dudes that will bring and extra squad for a gsc army, because no one outside of GSC players knows how big the army can be. Dudes that have units/models from the dead pile suddenly turn in to actual units that score quarters etc.
Tactical Tortoise released a video last week covering the Tau cheating incident. He interviewed the FLG head judge and other judges at the event in question. It may help shed light on this topic.
You mean size of events and availability of games/events etc?
Yup. I've lived in 3 states and always been able to find a game of 40k. Old school Warhammer, Age of Sigmar, all the specialist games, Warmachine, XWing, Infinity, etc you are very lucky to find a regular play group. I even found a store in Bogota that carried 40k models and had a gaming table with terrain setup. You can go to almost any major city in the world and find someone to play 40k with. There are multiple events in my state with 100+ people within a month of each other. You won't find that with any other game, they're lucky to get 100 people at any event.
which is the main reason GW can do whatever they want with the game, people will play it
and the conclusion for GW is that because so many people play, it must be a really fun and almost perfect game
After watching the mr Tortise material I came to a conclusion, which I think is funny. Or at least it is funny to me. The good stuff in 10th is so good and so above the regular or bad stuff, that when a guy starts changing the profiles of weapons, and going from 3 shots to 2d6 blast is IMO a big change, people don't feel as if this was somehow out of the ordinary. The crazy stuff the good armies can do and the fun you can have them, make it possible to cheat with less popular armies much easier. If a GK players plops an extra terminator squad, maybe arriving from deep strike turn 2-3, how many people will notice that this is an extra few hundred points on the table. Votan gun on a vehicle or squad going from ap-1 to ap-2, in the face of crazy stuff the good armies can do, who will notice it unless they play Votan themselfs? Ploping down a 5 man SoB squad at 50% the cost, unless someone is deep in to the rules analitics, they probably won't notice that it is not a legal thing to do.
And I know that something like that can go for a long time. For half 8th ed, I played storm bolters as assault weapons. No one noticed, no one minded. Had zero impact on my win rates too.
Karol wrote: Votan gun on a vehicle or squad going from ap-1 to ap-2,
Doesn't help that Votann have some guns that *were* ap-2, but are ap-1 in 10th. So opponents might be relying on their memory of how the weapon works, and don't think to double-check when they face it on the table.
Could start a new thread, but trying to get this one back on topic seemed reasonable.
I'm sort of mystified how little talk there is about the game as a game - as opposed to arguments about stuff which is tangential to the game. Maybe that's a dakka thing - but still.
We've just had another weekend of Eldar domination - winning 8 tournaments, 72% no mirror win rate. According to the Meta Monday guy this brings their total for the edition to 38. If they were to repeat that next weekend, they'll have won more tournaments than Dark Eldar (despite their 2021 dominance) did in the whole of 9th.
Why isn't this producing more outrage? I feel in the past we've seen countless threads, blogs etc screaming that GW must fix the game, its unplayable etc etc. But instead there just seems to be a slightly gnawing indifference.
Are we just accepting its terrible, and you might as well stay away until GW fixes it rather than stressing about it? This would seem a reasonably mature outlook - but not one which would have applied for however many years. Has 10th killed the "follow the competitive scene even if you don't play it" hobby?
I mean we had the month of 90 point Voidweavers, (Ork Buggyspam arguably was a similar mayfly) were seemingly every day was one too many before they were inevitably fixed. But here we are going to be about 3 months in? Where's the salt?
It's probably because most people don't play in tournaments so their personal experiences are not colored by the eldar dominance in the competitive scene.
Tyel wrote: Could start a new thread, but trying to get this one back on topic seemed reasonable.
I'm sort of mystified how little talk there is about the game as a game - as opposed to arguments about stuff which is tangential to the game. Maybe that's a dakka thing - but still.
We've just had another weekend of Eldar domination - winning 8 tournaments, 72% no mirror win rate. According to the Meta Monday guy this brings their total for the edition to 38. If they were to repeat that next weekend, they'll have won more tournaments than Dark Eldar (despite their 2021 dominance) did in the whole of 9th.
Why isn't this producing more outrage? I feel in the past we've seen countless threads, blogs etc screaming that GW must fix the game, its unplayable etc etc. But instead there just seems to be a slightly gnawing indifference.
Are we just accepting its terrible, and you might as well stay away until GW fixes it rather than stressing about it? This would seem a reasonably mature outlook - but not one which would have applied for however many years. Has 10th killed the "follow the competitive scene even if you don't play it" hobby?
I mean we had the month of 90 point Voidweavers, (Ork Buggyspam arguably was a similar mayfly) were seemingly every day was one too many before they were inevitably fixed. But here we are going to be about 3 months in? Where's the salt?
I think there's a little bit of apathy in the sense that it's "oh, there's goes eldar ignoring the rules" again. It's also that we know they're doing a balance sweep in a couple weeks, that they've acknowledged there is a problem and it's been a wave of team events recently which lessens the visuals of them.
But I agree there is a change, it seems people are more concerned and tetchy about game design in general than meta balance. It also feels like a lot of the hyper competitive shine has gone in 10th from my observations of various online content/podcasts.
I think it's because anyone that feels outrage is banned from talking on most platforms, and here at Dakka the outrage tends to be directed at the source (bad rules design) rather than the symptom (Eldar dominance), which results in esoteric conversations that are for-or-against the existing game design rather than outrage at the facts-as-they-are.
a lot of people build a job around warhammer and don't want their income to decline by saying something bad about the game
a TO still talking that the game is ok and people should not be negative and just have fun simply because he wants his events to be full, or a YT channel avoiding negativity or criticism so that views stay up
sunken cost fallacy even more than before because people did not just buy into the game but bought into the promises GW made which were all false and just marketing talk
and hardly anyone wants to admit that they just spend several hundreds for an empty promise
a majority (based on social media surveys) of the people on social medias don't play the game at all, so for them any negativity about the rules does not matter and is more of a "haters want to destroy the universe/IP I love" rather than having a valid point about the game itself, also often acting like tournament players are the source of the bad game (hate the players not the game)
a lot of people build a job around warhammer and don't want their income to decline by saying something bad about the game
a TO still talking that the game is ok and people should not be negative and just have fun simply because he wants his events to be full, or a YT channel avoiding negativity or criticism so that views stay up
sunken cost fallacy even more than before because people did not just buy into the game but bought into the promises GW made which were all false and just marketing talk
and hardly anyone wants to admit that they just spend several hundreds for an empty promise
a majority (based on social media surveys) of the people on social medias don't play the game at all, so for them any negativity about the rules does not matter and is more of a "haters want to destroy the universe/IP I love" rather than having a valid point about the game itself, also often acting like tournament players are the source of the bad game (hate the players not the game)
Actually that answers a question I asked some time ago in this thread, as to how much social media and GW sponsored people might be related to the state of the game and in what manner.
Anyone can add on this? Curious about what people think about that, if that matters at all.
Auspex tactics has a video that may be worth watching on just this discussion.
Last few days so easy to find, but I do think it follows a bit of a tone for where the community is.
But I do feel that GW is in a position where there mistakes don’t really cause immediate issues. Or issues at all.
They will often sell out on any product, even if the game is burning it won’t really affect them at this point.
I don’t think any company other than GW could release 10th and not watch it all burn down, it’s a mess, that we more or less put up with for a standard to work with.
was browsing thru reddit ~2 weeks ago and there was a topic about videos who criticize 10th and if people get bored by the "constant" negativity
there Goobertown was mentioned as being "toxic" who just hates 40k and I am not sure what to make of this
like people don't even watch those videos but just see a titel that might be negative about their favourite and therefore it must be a hater
and a lot of others have NDAs with GW were getting content out early is important to keep views, no one of those can make non-GW videos nor talk negative
In general it is a slow hobby. Most people have one or two games per month, so while annoying the current mess means around 3-6 games until the next balance "patch" for most players, and most of them aren't going to be against Eldar or GSC.
Tournament play is an entirely different issue altogether, but most players aren't tournament players.
Tyran wrote: In general it is a slow hobby. Most people have one or two games per month, so while annoying the current mess means around 3-6 games until the next balance "patch" for most players, and most of them aren't going to be against Eldar or GSC.
Tournament play is an entirely different issue altogether, but most players aren't tournament players.
We've just had another weekend of Eldar domination - winning 8 tournaments, 72% no mirror win rate. According to the Meta Monday guy this brings their total for the edition to 38. If they were to repeat that next weekend, they'll have won more tournaments than Dark Eldar (despite their 2021 dominance) did in the whole of 9th.
Why isn't this producing more outrage? I feel in the past we've seen countless threads, blogs etc screaming that GW must fix the game, its unplayable etc etc. But instead there just seems to be a slightly gnawing indifference.
Plenty of outrage online from what I can see. People are asking for Eldar to be banned or nerfed into oblivion everywhere.
There are also some things the meta mondays thread missed (or purposefully ignored to stoke more Eldar hatred?):
Tyranids were far more oppressive than Drukhari ever were. So were the clowns
Drukhari dominance had a lot of overlap with another oppresive army: admech. Our natural predator (GSC) has such a very player base, limiting their effect on the meta
Drukhari season was during covid, so they had far fewer tournaments to win. Their numbers would have been a lot higher if covid had never happened
Most people are fully aware that Eldar are wildly out of line and the emergency errata wasn't sufficient. There's not much anyone can actually do about it right now so there's not much value in being mad when we know GW is aware.
I'd say GW trained people enough to react with a: "What did you expect, this is the Index phase, it's always a mess! Remember Big bird, malefic lords and razorwing flock? We'll just have to wait and see for Codizes!"
Tyel wrote: I'm sort of mystified how little talk there is about the game as a game - as opposed to arguments about stuff which is tangential to the game.
People are over-thinking this one when there's a very simple answer: there's nothing left to talk about. The facts are all obvious and indisputable, GW has acknowledged awareness of the problem, and the players have thoroughly analyzed every piece of it. And at some point endless exchanges of " GW", "yeah those idiots", etc, with nobody defending GW stop being interesting.
Tyran wrote: In general it is a slow hobby. Most people have one or two games per month, so while annoying the current mess means around 3-6 games until the next balance "patch" for most players, and most of them aren't going to be against Eldar or GSC.
Tournament play is an entirely different issue altogether, but most players aren't tournament players.
Yeah that is if you play at home, with small group of people as a 40+ year old, that is doing sofisticated things. At stores, you soon find out that the bad armies are doing bad against ALL armies, it is hard to avoid easy to pick up and popular armies, and that the difference between tournament and non tournament lists is often skin deep. And then having 4 games per months, and being blown off the table in every one makes for a very bad game. It becomes even worse, when you realise that most of the top armies aren't getting and update in the next 6 months, neither does your own army. Then it really becomes an enjoyable thing. And from a student perspective, summer is the time where you can put in 1-2 games per day, it is The Time to play w40k, and for some people GW f'ed it up. Being told that maybe GW will fix the problems, when past editions show you that GW does not have a good record doing that, does not help. It helps even less when people playing the good and fun armies are telling you to chill and "wait and see".
I mean, the discussion should ramp up, not down, the longer the state of affairs lasts. People should be discussing other ways to play the game, or developing a community ruleset, or even just discussing letting 10th be in the rear view mirror.
But I think there is a general "don't be negative" attitude on a lot of platforms, and some of the others have awkward censorship applied...
....and then there is the nerd tendency to "double down". I have a hunch that when the game is actually bad, certain personalities become extremely *positive*, and when the game is going well, they're more able to be balanced/negative.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I mean, the discussion should ramp up, not down, the longer the state of affairs lasts. People should be discussing other ways to play the game, or developing a community ruleset, or even just discussing letting 10th be in the rear view mirror.
But I think there is a general "don't be negative" attitude on a lot of platforms, and some of the others have awkward censorship applied...
....and then there is the nerd tendency to "double down". I have a hunch that when the game is actually bad, certain personalities become extremely *positive*, and when the game is going well, they're more able to be balanced/negative.
A lot of people see the game through the filter of their own game experiences. People can very readily defend a games balance state when they are winning with their army(ies). Similarly many will blame the game balance if they are losing. It should be important to note that some people also fixate on things, so if they win 10 matches and lose 2 they fixate on the losses; same also for wins; some people can fixate on the 2 wins they got and overlook the 10 losses they had.
Another aspect is that wargaming has no real skill measuring capacity outside of winning major tournaments which is basically a very limited market for people it applies too. The vast majority of players have no real capacity to measure their performance as a player. As such its very easy for people to both get an inflated and deflated perception of their game talent.
This can then mess with balance a lot because a person might lose a lot of games with their army and blame balance, when in reality they are simply less skilled than their opponent(s). And the reverse is also true, someone can win loads of matches and assume that the game balance is good or too good for their army; but in reality its that they are simply much better players than their opponents.
This is oft why its hard to get hard data for game balance because people pick up false information and interpretations of their own experiences all the time. Heck even in video games you get the same thing; I've seen people cry wolf that an AI is cheating and getting free armies and units in strategy games; only for the conversation to reveal that its actually that they player doesn't know some fundamental game mechanics (this can be as simple as not knowing how fog-of-war works; or hidden armies or even how to work their game economy)
Ontop of all that there are those who DO understand the game state and their own skill, but will still defend a "broken" element of game balance because they see it as part of the game. Identifying how to win by using the cheesy army is a "game skill" for them and they play into it; build that army and want that "I win" button. They want to know "the best army to build to win". They don't want a challenge in finding it; nor the scary potential that every army (well build) will have an equal footing. This kind of mindset tends to completely overlook that, at the competitive end (where those pepole often are), if there is a very broken force, then everyone will end up competing with it so they end up right back at the "every army is equal" situation anyway.
But what is there to discuss? Aeldari are warping the Meta. They are too good at all the things you need to do to win missions. They need a good strong beating with the nerfbat while the below 45% factions all need a good boost.
Aeldari: Nerf the Detachment ability to 1 re-reoll to Hit or Wound per unit. 20% across the board points increase. Think that will be enough?
20% across the board points increase? What a sledgehammer unthinking and typically GW approach that would be.
This is why I hate what tournament gaming has done to 40k. Because a group of chuckleheads abused a specific combination of rules, units that I have (like a Wraithknight that's a HTH fighter) will suffer as a result, when that unit wasn't the problem in the first place.
They never fix the problem. They massively over-react with kneejerk and outright stupid changes (like the suggested across-the-board points rise).
Things like the Wraithknight and Yncarne will get nerfed in September. Other stuff will likely get hit as well such as the Nightspinner and Fire Prism.
A lot of folks know this is coming.
What is dirty, in my mind, is GW advertising to buy a Wraithknight when they know they are going to nerf it.
alextroy wrote: But what is there to discuss? Aeldari are warping the Meta. They are too good at all the things you need to do to win missions. They need a good strong beating with the nerfbat while the below 45% factions all need a good boost.
Aeldari: Nerf the Detachment ability to 1 re-reoll to Hit or Wound per unit. 20% across the board points increase. Think that will be enough?
H.B.M.C. wrote: 20% across the board points increase? What a sledgehammer unthinking and typically GW approach that would be.
This is why I hate what tournament gaming has done to 40k. Because a group of chuckleheads abused a specific combination of rules, units that I have (like a Wraithknight that's a HTH fighter) will suffer as a result, when that unit wasn't the problem in the first place.
They never fix the problem. They massively over-react with kneejerk and outright stupid changes (like the suggested across-the-board points rise).
To be fair, given the number of tournament result articles that contain some form of "Bob got bored of Wraithknights, decided to show everyone he could win with all the second-tier stuff, and went 5-0" it looks like the entire codex is just plain broken. A 20% point increase across the board might not be exactly correct but it doesn't look like it would be all that far off.
ThePaintingOwl wrote: To be fair, given the number of tournament result articles that contain some form of "Bob got bored of Wraithknights, decided to show everyone he could win with all the second-tier stuff, and went 5-0" it looks like the entire codex is just plain broken. A 20% point increase across the board might not be exactly correct but it doesn't look like it would be all that far off.
And if that proves to be true, fine, but I'd rather fix the units that need fixing rather than a blanket approach that only feths over the lesser units.
ThePaintingOwl wrote: To be fair, given the number of tournament result articles that contain some form of "Bob got bored of Wraithknights, decided to show everyone he could win with all the second-tier stuff, and went 5-0" it looks like the entire codex is just plain broken. A 20% point increase across the board might not be exactly correct but it doesn't look like it would be all that far off.
And if that proves to be true, fine, but I'd rather fix the units that need fixing rather than a blanket approach that only feths over the lesser units.
I'd rather have a blanket approach that over-nerfs the 5% of the codex that isn't overpowered than several cycles of GW nerfing the top-performing units only to have the next thing in line immediately replace it without any drop in win rate. Targeted nerfs are appropriate when it's isolated units causing problems, it's an inadequate approach when the entire codex appears to have been designed by someone who had no clue what the power level of the rest of the game was and any units that aren't overpowered are purely an accident. If a couple of units are underpowered post-nerf they can be fixed in the next update.
I provide a mostly sarcastic solution and this is what you get. A conversation of sorts, but does it really advance anything? Nobody is really talking because GW needs to get in there and solve the issues with the problematic codices, weak and strong, in at least a somewhat targeted way.
Aeldari certainly need to have all their good units nerfed, but the question becomes what isn't good? I hope GW has a clue on that front.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I mean, the discussion should ramp up, not down, the longer the state of affairs lasts. People should be discussing other ways to play the game, or developing a community ruleset, or even just discussing letting 10th be in the rear view mirror.
But I think there is a general "don't be negative" attitude on a lot of platforms, and some of the others have awkward censorship applied...
....and then there is the nerd tendency to "double down". I have a hunch that when the game is actually bad, certain personalities become extremely *positive*, and when the game is going well, they're more able to be balanced/negative.
Then again when you aren't silly enough to pretend playing competitively like emperor pretended to have amazing clothes while being stark naked game is fun.
tneva82 wrote: Then again when you aren't silly enough to pretend playing competitively like emperor pretended to have amazing clothes while being stark naked game is fun.
Honest question: do you ever post anything other than "I hate competitive play and you're all idiots if you like it" and "GW is greedy and will always greed"?
ThePaintingOwl wrote: I'd rather have a blanket approach that over-nerfs the 5% of the codex that isn't overpowered than several cycles of GW nerfing the top-performing units only to have the next thing in line immediately replace it without any drop in win rate. Targeted nerfs are appropriate when it's isolated units causing problems, it's an inadequate approach when the entire codex appears to have been designed by someone who had no clue what the power level of the rest of the game was and any units that aren't overpowered are purely an accident. If a couple of units are underpowered post-nerf they can be fixed in the next update.
The problem with a blanket approach is that it indicates GW have not thought about the problem for more than 5 minutes.
But in practice I tend to agree. You aren't going to bring a 70%~ win rate faction down to 45-50% with a few minor knocks. (And saying "but you can't nerf storm guardians" doesn't change that something very much needs to be done.)
There probably needs to be a combination of pruning. A reroll to hit and wound for each unit is too powerful as a detachment ability and should be changed. This would nerf the good units and the bad, but would give a more reasonable basis to then look at targeted nerfs. As you say, we have seen Eldar lists without Wraithknights, the Yncarne, Fire Prisms and Night Spinners do well - so targeted nerfs to those units would not automatically stop the Eldar dominance. Especially if (as would presumably be the case) these nerfs would be happening at the same time as targeted hits to GSC and other top performers.
The other option is that the Tyranid and Marine codexes instantly elevate these factions so they have a 60% win rate into today's Eldar, and 90%+ into the "have nots" - causing the meta to move on and the Eldar win% to fall. But I'm not sure that's any better for the game.
One reason we're not seeing as much hate towards Eldar as we did towards other broken armies in 8th and 9th may be down to how early we are in the cycle of the edition. I think the early parts of any edition tend to be pretty tumultuous as far as the meta goes, with broken combos being discovered and subsequently nerfed relatively quickly.
I think in this case GW have been far too slow. I'd actually much rather they try some fairly radical approaches now to see what works before moving to more moderate and considered changes as the edition evolves. It would have been much more preferable for them to have done that before the new edition came out, of course, but we're past that point now. I wouldn't mind GW coming out and saying there are going to be some fairly big nerfs to the top armies and buffs to the bottom armies, with the understanding they'll then likely pare those back in September. It feels like waiting until September is pointless. Eldar are broken. Everyone knows it. There are multiple possible fixes that could easily be implemented. Instead we'll get a bunch of half-hearted changes that will probably shuffle things a little bit but I don't think they'll bring the game closer to balance. This edition seems sop poorly thought out from the start that I think once Eldar get nerfed there will likely be another army with similar win rates at the top.
alextroy wrote: But what is there to discuss? Aeldari are warping the Meta. They are too good at all the things you need to do to win missions. They need a good strong beating with the nerfbat while the below 45% factions all need a good boost.
Aeldari: Nerf the Detachment ability to 1 re-reoll to Hit or Wound per unit. 20% across the board points increase. Think that will be enough?
What do you have against my poor Rangers??
better nerf guardians/troupes/wave serpent/shadowseer/fire dragons/reapers, clearly those are broken
EightFoldPath wrote: I assume we are all bottling up our rage ready for September after the first major points adjustment.
GW get a "new edition" pass but they won't get a "1,000s of games worth of data and you still can't balance it" pass.
Oh yes, I forgot that I am also saving my rage for the first codex if it breaks the "rules" they claimed to be following to avoid power creep.
so just waiting for GW to break all marketing promises made instead of start raging with the first one
I am waiting for the first re-print of datacards with rules changes, would be really funny if Marines and Tyranids get a new set of cards with their Codices making the old one obsolete
EightFoldPath wrote: Oh yes, I forgot that I am also saving my rage for the first codex if it breaks the "rules" they claimed to be following to avoid power creep.
EightFoldPath wrote: Oh yes, I forgot that I am also saving my rage for the first codex if it breaks the "rules" they claimed to be following to avoid power creep.
What rule are you writing about?
GW said they were not going to add bloat. Part of the “everything on one page” deal. So when they add stuff, it will not be extra layers of added rules, but more options to take. But you give up other options, so your power level remains mostly the same.
As GW has a poor record with power creep, I’m also looking forward to the first 10th codex to see how they are going to deliver.
Basically the current rule layer design is an army wide rule, a detachment wide rule, ~6 stratagems, 4-5 enhancements and all has to fit in 5 pages.
Codexes will add new detachments to increase the options of detachment rules, stratagems and enhancements but you aren't supposed to be able to mix and match those (well you kinda can in crusade but whatever).
EightFoldPath wrote: Oh yes, I forgot that I am also saving my rage for the first codex if it breaks the "rules" they claimed to be following to avoid power creep.
What rule are you writing about?
GW said they were not going to add bloat. Part of the “everything on one page” deal. So when they add stuff, it will not be extra layers of added rules, but more options to take. But you give up other options, so your power level remains mostly the same.
As GW has a poor record with power creep, I’m also looking forward to the first 10th codex to see how they are going to deliver.
I'd expect a codex to be a bit better than an index purely through range of options in list building. Likewise the early 9th books, crons in particular, were pretty well restrained and looked OK at the time.
- faction rules will fit on 2 pages
- no rules changes, only points changes
- better balance
- quicker and easier to play
- easier to get into
- Universal Special Rules replace the factions rules which are the same but with a different name
kodos wrote: was browsing thru reddit ~2 weeks ago and there was a topic about videos who criticize 10th and if people get bored by the "constant" negativity
there Goobertown was mentioned as being "toxic" who just hates 40k and I am not sure what to make of this
like people don't even watch those videos but just see a titel that might be negative about their favourite and therefore it must be a hater
and a lot of others have NDAs with GW were getting content out early is important to keep views, no one of those can make non-GW videos nor talk negative
The reddit ork discord was banning negative discussion of 10th edition. Really toxic behavior (a gakky discord anyway). I wonder how much the GW social media team has their fingers in this kind of stuff, tbh. I wouldn't be surprised if GW is modding or paying for content on the bigger reddits (not the ork one, it's not big enough).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sgt. Cortez wrote: I'd say GW trained people enough to react with a: "What did you expect, this is the Index phase, it's always a mess! Remember Big bird, malefic lords and razorwing flock? We'll just have to wait and see for Codizes!"
Yeah, people treat GW like they can be forgiven for anything while treating the playerbase like it's their fault the balance is bad. It's really screwed up.
H.B.M.C. wrote: 20% across the board points increase? What a sledgehammer unthinking and typically GW approach that would be.
This is why I hate what tournament gaming has done to 40k. Because a group of chuckleheads abused a specific combination of rules, units that I have (like a Wraithknight that's a HTH fighter) will suffer as a result, when that unit wasn't the problem in the first place.
They never fix the problem. They massively over-react with kneejerk and outright stupid changes (like the suggested across-the-board points rise).
To be fair, given the number of tournament result articles that contain some form of "Bob got bored of Wraithknights, decided to show everyone he could win with all the second-tier stuff, and went 5-0" it looks like the entire codex is just plain broken. A 20% point increase across the board might not be exactly correct but it doesn't look like it would be all that far off.
I also like that H.M.B.C is getting mad at a random idea thrown out by a forum nobody like it was sent from the High Council of Tournament Waacs directly to GW and is now LAW in Europe and North America.
H.B.M.C. wrote: 20% across the board points increase? What a sledgehammer unthinking and typically GW approach that would be.
This is why I hate what tournament gaming has done to 40k. Because a group of chuckleheads abused a specific combination of rules, units that I have (like a Wraithknight that's a HTH fighter) will suffer as a result, when that unit wasn't the problem in the first place.
They never fix the problem. They massively over-react with kneejerk and outright stupid changes (like the suggested across-the-board points rise).
To be fair, given the number of tournament result articles that contain some form of "Bob got bored of Wraithknights, decided to show everyone he could win with all the second-tier stuff, and went 5-0" it looks like the entire codex is just plain broken. A 20% point increase across the board might not be exactly correct but it doesn't look like it would be all that far off.
I also like that H.M.B.C is getting mad at a random idea thrown out by a forum nobody like it was sent from the High Council of Tournament Waacs directly to GW and is now LAW in Europe and North America.
Which ironically wouldn't impact them, might want to update your dig there.
kodos wrote: was browsing thru reddit ~2 weeks ago and there was a topic about videos who criticize 10th and if people get bored by the "constant" negativity
there Goobertown was mentioned as being "toxic" who just hates 40k and I am not sure what to make of this
like people don't even watch those videos but just see a titel that might be negative about their favourite and therefore it must be a hater
and a lot of others have NDAs with GW were getting content out early is important to keep views, no one of those can make non-GW videos nor talk negative
The reddit ork discord was banning negative discussion of 10th edition. Really toxic behavior (a gakky discord anyway). I wonder how much the GW social media team has their fingers in this kind of stuff, tbh. I wouldn't be surprised if GW is modding or paying for content on the bigger reddits (not the ork one, it's not big enough).
I very very much doubt GW pays anyone for this.
What you do get though are community managers and communities that accept there are faults (heck many of us have seen them for the best part of 20-30 years) and want to move beyond endless griping about the faults. Considering that many of them are often repeats of faults/issues that have been around for decades with GW; at some point people want to move past them.
The internet can be great, but you can get insane echo-chamber results with negative results. Heck search engines even highlight them all the more which has led to a good many content creators who peddle in negativity. Every video will have a negative slant/lean/focus.
Reddit also suffers from its structural design in being one big long single channel of threads so a negative thread can easily dominate discussion and drown out a lot of other chatter. So yeah I can see why mods on some groups will want to police the negativity.
and even if you don't want to go that far, there's also just ensuring that it remains constructive criticism. Some people go nuts and before you know it the language and insults are flying everywhere. It stops being critique of mechanics and starts being character assassination and hate for creators; other members (who perhaps don't agree with the impression). This can spiral out of control into not just creating toxic talk for an evening but actually creating a toxic community. One where complaints, grumbling and insults become so normalised that it becomes the normal way of communication and topic focus. Again this can drown out a lot of other stuff and pushes other people away from the community.
Being critical of things is important ,but there are also times when its just overdone; or is leading no where productive or even worse is driving other elements of the community and discussion away.
H.B.M.C. wrote: 20% across the board points increase? What a sledgehammer unthinking and typically GW approach that would be.
This is why I hate what tournament gaming has done to 40k. Because a group of chuckleheads abused a specific combination of rules, units that I have (like a Wraithknight that's a HTH fighter) will suffer as a result, when that unit wasn't the problem in the first place.
They never fix the problem. They massively over-react with kneejerk and outright stupid changes (like the suggested across-the-board points rise).
To be fair, given the number of tournament result articles that contain some form of "Bob got bored of Wraithknights, decided to show everyone he could win with all the second-tier stuff, and went 5-0" it looks like the entire codex is just plain broken. A 20% point increase across the board might not be exactly correct but it doesn't look like it would be all that far off.
I also like that H.M.B.C is getting mad at a random idea thrown out by a forum nobody like it was sent from the High Council of Tournament Waacs directly to GW and is now LAW in Europe and North America.
Which ironically wouldn't impact them, might want to update your dig there.
Australia uses dollars, therefore it's part of North America. Might wanna do some research before you get snippy, next time.
Overread wrote: The internet can be great, but you can get insane echo-chamber results with negative results.
And when you use the moderation approach you're talking about you get insane echo chamber positivity that is just as toxic.
I do agree that it's not GW doing this. Why would they need to when GW has plenty of eager fans who will rage over any attack on their beloved hobby and insist that their desire to be happy about everything GW does is the only thing that matters?
H.B.M.C. wrote: 20% across the board points increase? What a sledgehammer unthinking and typically GW approach that would be.
This is why I hate what tournament gaming has done to 40k. Because a group of chuckleheads abused a specific combination of rules, units that I have (like a Wraithknight that's a HTH fighter) will suffer as a result, when that unit wasn't the problem in the first place.
They never fix the problem. They massively over-react with kneejerk and outright stupid changes (like the suggested across-the-board points rise).
To be fair, given the number of tournament result articles that contain some form of "Bob got bored of Wraithknights, decided to show everyone he could win with all the second-tier stuff, and went 5-0" it looks like the entire codex is just plain broken. A 20% point increase across the board might not be exactly correct but it doesn't look like it would be all that far off.
I also like that H.M.B.C is getting mad at a random idea thrown out by a forum nobody like it was sent from the High Council of Tournament Waacs directly to GW and is now LAW in Europe and North America.
Which ironically wouldn't impact them, might want to update your dig there.
Australia uses dollars, therefore it's part of North America. Might wanna do some research before you get snippy, next time.
Who knew that ones currency determined continents....
Overread wrote: The internet can be great, but you can get insane echo-chamber results with negative results.
And when you use the moderation approach you're talking about you get insane echo chamber positivity that is just as toxic.
I do agree that it's not GW doing this. Why would they need to when GW has plenty of eager fans who will rage over any attack on their beloved hobby and insist that their desire to be happy about everything GW does is the only thing that matters?
Positivity is only seen as toxic by those who generally think that only constant overt negativity will force GW to improve balance. Which is interesting because its not worked for 30 years In general what's forced GW's hand more htan anything is sales data.
But that aside you can be very positive and still critical of something. It's just about finding a balance so that its not hyper negative and aggressive. For many a hobby is a FUN passtime so having communities that are heavily focused on the negative takes away from that.
In theory moderation aims for a happy result that balances constructive critique and positive influences and shuts down hyper negativity etc....
Overread wrote: Positivity is only seen as toxic by those who generally think that only constant overt negativity will force GW to improve balance.
Positivity =/= toxic positivity. You can enjoy a thing without raging at everyone who says anything even mildly critical of it, banning all negative comments, etc.
Overread wrote: Positivity is only seen as toxic by those who generally think that only constant overt negativity will force GW to improve balance.
Positivity =/= toxic positivity. You can enjoy a thing without raging at everyone who says anything even mildly critical of it, banning all negative comments, etc.
I don't see that as toxic positivity; I see that as moderation to discourage negativity that has set in in a big way within a community and gained a dominance; resulting in a backlash against it from some segments of the community including those who moderate it.
In general the moderation weeds out the most toxic; things settle down and thing people eventually return to a calm medium where positive is dominant and people provide critical viewpoints
Positivity is only seen as toxic by those who generally think that only constant overt negativity will force GW to improve balance. Which is interesting because its not worked for 30 years In general what's forced GW's hand more htan anything is sales data.
The only way we affect sales data is by expressing our negative take on things to the community.
Overread wrote: I don't see that as toxic positivity; I see that as moderation to discourage negativity that has set in in a big way within a community and gained a dominance; resulting in a backlash against it from some segments of the community including those who moderate it.
In general the moderation weeds out the most toxic; things settle down and thing people eventually return to a calm medium where positive is dominant and people provide critical viewpoints
You honestly don't think banning people for saying things like "I like the kit overall but I wish it had a helmet option instead of just a bare head" is toxic positivity?
Overread wrote: I don't see that as toxic positivity; I see that as moderation to discourage negativity that has set in in a big way within a community and gained a dominance; resulting in a backlash against it from some segments of the community including those who moderate it.
In general the moderation weeds out the most toxic; things settle down and thing people eventually return to a calm medium where positive is dominant and people provide critical viewpoints
You honestly don't think banning people for saying things like "I like the kit overall but I wish it had a helmet option instead of just a bare head" is toxic positivity?
Again I never said critical viewpoints weren't valid.
Nor did I outline any specific arguments or such.
I simply stated an overall stance and position. Specific examples and situations are going to vary in how one might judge things. Yes taken in isolation that post is totally innocent and pretty much a neutral comment. It's neither positive nor negative in total.
But we aren't talking about that one example, but general community trends and moderation policies
And yes some communities do have bad/poorly skilled mods. It's an unpaid volunteer position or a community they chose to setup themselves (often for free or low cost) So yeah some are run by people or organised by people who do not have the right skillsets.
I do think sales data changes GW and enough negativity changes sales data.
We wouldn't have had an 8th edition without 7th edition taking a dump, and the Internet and social media and whatnot had a lot to do with 7th edition taking a dump (netlisting, fighting about Eldar/competitive play/playing the game wrong/"everything is fine, honest!")
Unit1126PLL wrote: I do think sales data changes GW and enough negativity changes sales data.
We wouldn't have had an 8th edition without 7th edition taking a dump, and the Internet and social media and whatnot had a lot to do with 7th edition taking a dump (netlisting, fighting about Eldar/competitive play/playing the game wrong/"everything is fine, honest!")
I didn't post much back then but I read and God help us there was true outrage back then
Overread wrote: But we aren't talking about that one example, but general community trends and moderation policies
Moderation policies where comments like my example comment would get you banned for "negativity". That is where toxic positivity creates echo chambers and ruins communities.
I can't help but feel that the 7th angst is what is causing so many people to not even give a darn about 10th. Everyone complained endlessly about 7th because it was awful. Almost universally dislike as a whole and it actually started to effect GW's bottom line.
They gave us 8th in response which was better, but still had a lot of problems. We hit a very similar place with 9th in regards to 7th so now they blow the game up again and give us 10th. I am beginning to feel that GW really is incapable of actually learning a damn thing and will continue this trend of trying to shake things up every other edition because they just can't stick to one vision.
GW as a game creator really seems to have no focus, no one seems to be in charge and the company just kind of shrugs when it comes to the game. Which of course some people will trot out the old line of, "They are a model company, not a game company" despite being called GAMES Workshop and costing at least $100 for the minimum rules to play one army.
Arbiter_Shade wrote: I can't help but feel that the 7th angst is what is causing so many people to not even give a darn about 10th. Everyone complained endlessly about 7th because it was awful. Almost universally dislike as a whole and it actually started to effect GW's bottom line.
They gave us 8th in response which was better, but still had a lot of problems. We hit a very similar place with 9th in regards to 7th so now they blow the game up again and give us 10th. I am beginning to feel that GW really is incapable of actually learning a damn thing and will continue this trend of trying to shake things up every other edition because they just can't stick to one vision.
GW as a game creator really seems to have no focus, no one seems to be in charge and the company just kind of shrugs when it comes to the game. Which of course some people will trot out the old line of, "They are a model company, not a game company" despite being called GAMES Workshop and costing at least $100 for the minimum rules to play one army.
Can we consider that anyone making this claim is a stuck a few decades ago when it was actually pretty much citadel making stuff for DnD and stuff along those lines?
(wasn't even born so if any old grognard wants to correct this have a go)
People learn things, corporations are only able to learn as long as the same people are still part of the corporation, but people inevitably move around and search for new jobs.
So yeah, GW will keep trying to shake things up as people come and go, which is pretty much the same thing that happens in every long running corporate owned franchise.
Tyran wrote: People learn things, corporations are only able to learn as long as the same people are still part of the corporation, but people inevitably move around and search for new jobs.
So yeah, GW will keep trying to shake things up as people come and go, which is pretty much the same thing that happens in every long running corporate owned franchise.
You're right to point this out, we all go screaming GWGW but sometimes I think we also lose from sight this simple but important fact!
- faction rules will fit on 2 pages
- no rules changes, only points changes
- better balance
- quicker and easier to play
- easier to get into
- Universal Special Rules replace the factions rules which are the same but with a different name
missed anything?
Yeah roughly that, I think the datasheet changes are supposed to be limited and they suggested 10% or 20% in an interview.
I can already see how they will technically stay within their "rules" while not keeping to the spirit of them. Something like the step change they made for Chapter Tactics going from one special rule to two special rules to three special rules. Or the way mortal wound strategems in 9th roughly went from 1 CP = 2 MWs with hoops to jump through > reliable 3 MWs > reliable 6 MWs.
Overread wrote: But we aren't talking about that one example, but general community trends and moderation policies
Moderation policies where comments like my example comment would get you banned for "negativity". That is where toxic positivity creates echo chambers and ruins communities.
is that an actual thing that happened (the helmet comment) or is it a theoretical?
VladimirHerzog wrote: is that an actual thing that happened (the helmet comment) or is it a theoretical?
Literally those exact words? No, I'm not going back to find an exact quote from deleted posts. Very similar content expressing a mildly negative opinion? Absolutely yes. Bans, deleted posts, downvote spam on reddit, etc.
The problem has always been that the people whinging on forums tend to represent a tiny % of GW sales.
The Peachy Video from a few weeks ago ("contrast paints saved GW") was great for bringing up the "big end of the trumpet" quote - but hidden in there was also the statement (somewhat skipped over) - that the average "GW customer" only plays for a year or two. Which, looking back on my own play experience, is probably about right.
There's a core of people in the hobby for the long term - but there's lots of people who join and shortly afterwards quit.
Which I think is partly why edition churn exists. Its a great time to start 40k. Get hold of the "not a starter" (or the actual starters) for cheap models, and go from there. If you burn out in 18~ months that's fine, you'll be replaced by the next wave. Odds are in that 18 months you'll barely assemble a "proper army". You'll hardly be effected by the trials and tribulations of the tournament scene.
The issue for 7th (which I'd argue has its roots earlier - in 6th and I'm afraid, contrary to some internet lore, even later 5th) was this mantra of "do not start 40k". I feel from around 2012 the message was "Its too late for us - but go start X-Wing. Go start Warmahordes."
Today, while there are undoubtedly people who hate 40k (and to a degree GW), there doesn't seem to be a unifying "other" to go play instead. I'm not sure there has been for years.
Basically the whole tournament scene is just marketing. If its very negative I think its bad - because interest falls, and you have more negativity. But in terms of hard sales its not a 1:1 relationship.
- faction rules will fit on 2 pages
- no rules changes, only points changes
- better balance
- quicker and easier to play
- easier to get into
- Universal Special Rules replace the factions rules which are the same but with a different name
missed anything?
Yeah roughly that, I think the datasheet changes are supposed to be limited and they suggested 10% or 20% in an interview.
I can already see how they will technically stay within their "rules" while not keeping to the spirit of them. Something like the step change they made for Chapter Tactics going from one special rule to two special rules to three special rules. Or the way mortal wound strategems in 9th roughly went from 1 CP = 2 MWs with hoops to jump through > reliable 3 MWs > reliable 6 MWs.
I'm pretty sure that they said new detachments would give you different ways to play an army, not more powerful ways to play them. Giving new detachments better rules would be a violation of what they said they would do with 10th Edition.
The Space Marine and Tyranid codices should give us a good idea of how well they start off executing their vision of the edition. There will be new units which means new packs of data cards to sell. There will be some limited errata, hopefully catching at least the obvious bugs in the original cards. The question is how many data card changes are not just error fixes?
Arbiter_Shade wrote: Everyone complained endlessly about 7th because it was awful. Almost universally dislike as a whole and it actually started to effect GW's bottom line.
They gave us 8th in response which was better, but still had a lot of problems. We hit a very similar place with 9th in regards to 7th so now they blow the game up again and give us 10th.
This stupid idea that GW "sees an issue in a running edition and reacts to it with a new edition" really needs to die. This is not how GW works, and people should know by now.
For both 40K and AoS (and WHF before) work on the following edition starts pretty much the moment the current one is released. There might be slight adjustments to whatever "the next editions thing" is planned to be due to things coming up during an editions first or maybe even second year. Overall though the framework is pretty much set at the start, then tweaked over time - anything "the people demand" and make their voice heard about during an edition is reacted to two editions later at the earliest. If at all.
8th has been in the works long before 7th was showing signs of crash'n'burn, same for 9th to 10th.
Arbiter_Shade wrote: GW as a game creator really seems to have no focus, no one seems to be in charge and the company just kind of shrugs when it comes to the game. Which of course some people will trot out the old line of,"They are a model company, not a game company" despite being called GAMES Workshop and costing at least $100 for the minimum rules to play one army.
Again, another stupid conception to die sooner rather than later. Any ruleset GW does is a marketing vehicle first, and getting a good game out of it is a lucky coincidence. As long as the rules are good enough to provide some halfway decent gaming experience, everything is fine from GWs point of view.
As for that bolded part: this is pants-on-head lunacy. The company is called Games Workshop because they started as a games publisher in the 70s. They developed over time, evolving into what they have basically been since the 90s: a model maker first, second and third with some attached games studio as more of an afterthought. GW is all about the models, their games are meant to facilitate sales of said models, nothing more.
By your logic I should expect fruit sales in an Apple store...
Arbiter_Shade wrote: Everyone complained endlessly about 7th because it was awful. Almost universally dislike as a whole and it actually started to effect GW's bottom line.
They gave us 8th in response which was better, but still had a lot of problems. We hit a very similar place with 9th in regards to 7th so now they blow the game up again and give us 10th.
This stupid idea that GW "sees an issue in a running edition and reacts to it with a new edition" really needs to die. This is not how GW works, and people should know by now.
For both 40K and AoS (and WHF before) work on the following edition starts pretty much the moment the current one is released. There might be slight adjustments to whatever "the next editions thing" is planned to be due to things coming up during an editions first or maybe even second year. Overall though the framework is pretty much set at the start, then tweaked over time - anything "the people demand" and make their voice heard about during an edition is reacted to two editions later at the earliest. If at all.
8th has been in the works long before 7th was showing signs of crash'n'burn, same for 9th to 10th.
Arbiter_Shade wrote: GW as a game creator really seems to have no focus, no one seems to be in charge and the company just kind of shrugs when it comes to the game. Which of course some people will trot out the old line of,"They are a model company, not a game company" despite being called GAMES Workshop and costing at least $100 for the minimum rules to play one army.
Again, another stupid conception to die sooner rather than later. Any ruleset GW does is a marketing vehicle first, and getting a good game out of it is a lucky coincidence. As long as the rules are good enough to provide some halfway decent gaming experience, everything is fine from GWs point of view.
As for that bolded part: this is pants-on-head lunacy. The company is called Games Workshop because they started as a games publisher in the 70s. They developed over time, evolving into what they have basically been since the 90s: a model maker first, second and third with some attached games studio as more of an afterthought. GW is all about the models, their games are meant to facilitate sales of said models, nothing more.
By your logic I should expect fruit sales in an Apple store...
I don't think you could have done a better job of exemplifying my point while completely missing it at the same time.
You are going out of you way to insult me and attribute your own annoyances to me.
A model company that sells 65$ core rule books, ~$50 faction books and endless supplements. An entire model line that exist to facilitate their very own games. Not like they are making models that don't have any game rules, do they? They have numerous specialty games with more coming, but somehow they are a model company?
Some of us remember when editions would last 5+ years. The more recent churn and burn of 8th/9th/10th might be the way you describe but I also doubt that GW starts writing the quality of rules they produce years in advance. Especially when mid edition design paradigms swing about randomly in response to more recent codex releases.
Also, your ridiculous Apple non-argument would be more apt if you claimed that they were a software company while ignoring all of the hardware they make.
DnD 5th edition and 40K 7th edition both came out in 2014.
DnD is still in 5th edition, doing open playtesting of systems for their next update of the system as an iteration on the framework of 5th, meanwhile 40K is now on 10th and has undergone 2 major revisions of the fundamental framework of the game (8th, then 10th).
Sarigar wrote: Things like the Wraithknight and Yncarne will get nerfed in September. Other stuff will likely get hit as well such as the Nightspinner and Fire Prism.
All that stuff already got nerfed, and it brought Eldar all the way down to a...checks notes...68% win rate over the weekend. What a fantastic job the balancing team is doing!
Arbiter_Shade wrote: Everyone complained endlessly about 7th because it was awful. Almost universally dislike as a whole and it actually started to effect GW's bottom line.
They gave us 8th in response which was better, but still had a lot of problems. We hit a very similar place with 9th in regards to 7th so now they blow the game up again and give us 10th.
This stupid idea that GW "sees an issue in a running edition and reacts to it with a new edition" really needs to die. This is not how GW works, and people should know by now.
For both 40K and AoS (and WHF before) work on the following edition starts pretty much the moment the current one is released. There might be slight adjustments to whatever "the next editions thing" is planned to be due to things coming up during an editions first or maybe even second year. Overall though the framework is pretty much set at the start, then tweaked over time - anything "the people demand" and make their voice heard about during an edition is reacted to two editions later at the earliest. If at all.
8th has been in the works long before 7th was showing signs of crash'n'burn, same for 9th to 10th.
Arbiter_Shade wrote: GW as a game creator really seems to have no focus, no one seems to be in charge and the company just kind of shrugs when it comes to the game. Which of course some people will trot out the old line of,"They are a model company, not a game company" despite being called GAMES Workshop and costing at least $100 for the minimum rules to play one army.
Again, another stupid conception to die sooner rather than later. Any ruleset GW does is a marketing vehicle first, and getting a good game out of it is a lucky coincidence. As long as the rules are good enough to provide some halfway decent gaming experience, everything is fine from GWs point of view.
As for that bolded part: this is pants-on-head lunacy. The company is called Games Workshop because they started as a games publisher in the 70s.
The reddit ork discord was banning negative discussion of 10th edition. Really toxic behavior (a gakky discord anyway). I wonder how much the GW social media team has their fingers in this kind of stuff, tbh. I wouldn't be surprised if GW is modding or paying for content on the bigger reddits (not the ork one, it's not big enough).
Several Facebook pages have rules like "1. No negativity, we have GW employees here and need to respect them. Saying anything negative about GW, rules, or prices will result in immediately being tarred, feathered, branded, and kicked out of the group", usually followed by a rule that disallows anything 3D printed being in view anywhere in the photos you post.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Arbiter_Shade wrote: GW really is incapable of actually learning a damn thing and will continue this trend of trying to shake things up every other edition because they just can't stick to one vision. GW as a game creator really seems to have no focus
Their vision is "people like rolling dice, right? So...more dice rolling = more fun! Let's make EVERYTHING POSSIBLE into a random dice roll!"
EightFoldPath wrote: I assume we are all bottling up our rage ready for September after the first major points adjustment.
GW get a "new edition" pass but they won't get a "1,000s of games worth of data and you still can't balance it" pass.
People giving them a pass on the 10th edition of a game they've been making for 40 years will excuse absolutely anything.
And yet, despite all the on-line hate some of you have for GW &/or the current edition.....
1) Most players don't seem all that bothered by 10e. It's "Good Enough". Many fun games have been had here in July & August. Many more will follow.
2) For all the bitching? You complainers are still here & playing. Indeed, YOU specifically were complaining just a few days ago how you're now playing more 40k than you care to. If it was really so bad, why would you be playing that much?
ERJAK wrote: I also like that H.M.B.C is getting mad at a random idea thrown out by a forum nobody like it was sent from the High Council of Tournament Waacs directly to GW and is now LAW in Europe and North America.
What's the alternate reality you live in like? It can't be anything like ours, where everything in the quote above didn't happen.
1) Most players don't seem all that bothered by 10e. It's "Good Enough". Many fun games have been had here in July & August. Many more will follow.
because it is a new game, were everything start from zero
it is similar to 8th Index Phase, were we already saw problems and GW tried actively to get them under control and people were positive about the game
it was not until several Codices were released that people saw it as not that good (and than it was only those without one)
similar here now, that the Indices are badly written without a plan is seen as a problem of the tournament community not a problem of the game itself
until the Codices draw a different direction for the game than the Indices suggest (like with 8th) this won't change as a local group does not care of Eldar, GSC or Votan have problems as long as no one there plays them
Toofast wrote: All that stuff already got nerfed, and it brought Eldar all the way down to a...checks notes...68% win rate over the weekend. What a fantastic job the balancing team is doing!
do we know if the 1 person they hired for balancing already started working or are they still in the interview phase?
because by the deadline for application and how the interview process works, my guess is that there balancing team does not exist at the moment
1) Most players don't seem all that bothered by 10e. It's "Good Enough". Many fun games have been had here in July & August. Many more will follow.
because it is a new game, were everything start from zero
it is similar to 8th Index Phase, were we already saw problems and GW tried actively to get them under control and people were positive about the game
it was not until several Codices were released that people saw it as not that good (and than it was only those without one)
similar here now, that the Indices are badly written without a plan is seen as a problem of the tournament community not a problem of the game itself
until the Codices draw a different direction for the game than the Indices suggest (like with 8th) this won't change as a local group does not care of Eldar, GSC or Votan have problems as long as no one there plays them
Toofast wrote: All that stuff already got nerfed, and it brought Eldar all the way down to a...checks notes...68% win rate over the weekend. What a fantastic job the balancing team is doing!
do we know if the 1 person they hired for balancing already started working or are they still in the interview phase?
because by the deadline for application and how the interview process works, my guess is that there balancing team does not exist at the moment
Can you evidence that there is a "balancing team"? It certainly feels like any balance passes are done in between other jobs by the codex writing teams.
H.B.M.C. wrote: 20% across the board points increase? What a sledgehammer unthinking and typically GW approach that would be.
This is why I hate what tournament gaming has done to 40k. Because a group of chuckleheads abused a specific combination of rules, units that I have (like a Wraithknight that's a HTH fighter) will suffer as a result, when that unit wasn't the problem in the first place.
They never fix the problem. They massively over-react with kneejerk and outright stupid changes (like the suggested across-the-board points rise).
To be fair, given the number of tournament result articles that contain some form of "Bob got bored of Wraithknights, decided to show everyone he could win with all the second-tier stuff, and went 5-0" it looks like the entire codex is just plain broken. A 20% point increase across the board might not be exactly correct but it doesn't look like it would be all that far off.
I also like that H.M.B.C is getting mad at a random idea thrown out by a forum nobody like it was sent from the High Council of Tournament Waacs directly to GW and is now LAW in Europe and North America.
H.M.B.C is mad about how GW often does things, like with the ignores LOS weapons that weren't undercosted but got unnecessary price increases because GW didn't bother weeding through all the ignores LOS weapons to discover which 3-6 problematic weapons that ignore LOS needed nerfs. The random internet nobody might be a major tournament organizer or a judge and have the ear of GW, it's a small world and pushing forward good ideas is good even if it's just ground roots four steps removed from GW instead of one-step removed. The good idea is for GW to analyze which units are problematic and get their playtesters to see what other units and factions might be problematic after heavy nerfs to the top 5% of the game from 70% to 50% win rate. Given that Eldar have very strong faction and detachment abilities it is more likely than in pretty much every other case that across the board nerfs are needed.
I believe H.M.B.C is arguing for is balancing for casual play first and foremost, you can do that even if you are using competitive data to get there, you just have to be more careful which might leave the game less competitively balanced for a longer duration with one faction staying on top, but you get far fewer bad units getting nerfed. Competitive players are unconcerned with nerfing of bad units, they were far from being viable anyways, bad units getting even worse is funny, but does not concern competitive players. Casual players having their bad units they use because they like them get nerfed affects them. Eldar staying 70% win rate because 2 of their 8 undercosted datasheets were missed in the first round of nerfs affects competitive players a lot because more and more people play Eldar and suddenly everyone is playing the exact same list with 3 of each of those 2 remaining undercosted datasheets, two undercosted datasheets are not a big deal for casual play because the casual players can make lists without them if they know about it and if they don't know about it they are unlikely to end up spamming them. 8 datasheets being undercosted is a big concern for both casual and competitive players both, competitive players desire a wide enough nerf that all 8 get hit, casual players desire a narrow enough nerf that no bad units get nerfed.
H.B.M.C. wrote: 20% across the board points increase? What a sledgehammer unthinking and typically GW approach that would be.
This is why I hate what tournament gaming has done to 40k. Because a group of chuckleheads abused a specific combination of rules, units that I have (like a Wraithknight that's a HTH fighter) will suffer as a result, when that unit wasn't the problem in the first place.
They never fix the problem. They massively over-react with kneejerk and outright stupid changes (like the suggested across-the-board points rise).
To be fair, given the number of tournament result articles that contain some form of "Bob got bored of Wraithknights, decided to show everyone he could win with all the second-tier stuff, and went 5-0" it looks like the entire codex is just plain broken. A 20% point increase across the board might not be exactly correct but it doesn't look like it would be all that far off.
I also like that H.M.B.C is getting mad at a random idea thrown out by a forum nobody like it was sent from the High Council of Tournament Waacs directly to GW and is now LAW in Europe and North America.
H.M.B.C is mad about how GW often does things, like with the ignores LOS weapons that weren't undercosted but got unnecessary price increases because GW didn't bother weeding through all the ignores LOS weapons to discover which 3-6 problematic weapons that ignore LOS needed nerfs. The random internet nobody might be a major tournament organizer or a judge and have the ear of GW, it's a small world and pushing forward good ideas is good even if it's just ground roots four steps removed from GW instead of one-step removed. The good idea is for GW to analyze which units are problematic and get their playtesters to see what other units and factions might be problematic after heavy nerfs to the top 5% of the game from 70% to 50% win rate. Given that Eldar have very strong faction and detachment abilities it is more likely than in pretty much every other case that across the board nerfs are needed.
I believe H.M.B.C is arguing for is balancing for casual play first and foremost, you can do that even if you are using competitive data to get there, you just have to be more careful which might leave the game less competitively balanced for a longer duration with one faction staying on top, but you get far fewer bad units getting nerfed. Competitive players are unconcerned with nerfing of bad units, they were far from being viable anyways, bad units getting even worse is funny, but does not concern competitive players. Casual players having their bad units they use because they like them get nerfed affects them. Eldar staying 70% win rate because 2 of their 8 undercosted datasheets were missed in the first round of nerfs affects competitive players a lot because more and more people play Eldar and suddenly everyone is playing the exact same list with 3 of each of those 2 remaining undercosted datasheets, two undercosted datasheets are not a big deal for casual play because the casual players can make lists without them if they know about it and if they don't know about it they are unlikely to end up spamming them. 8 datasheets being undercosted is a big concern for both casual and competitive players both, competitive players desire a wide enough nerf that all 8 get hit, casual players desire a narrow enough nerf that no bad units get nerfed.
GW absolutely has developed editions with regards to feedback about the (at the time) current one. 9th edition was from top to bottom basically a laundry list of attempting to solve complaints people had about 8th edition specifically.
Yes, that is because for some factions they enter a lets fix problems from prior edition, which may not even exist in the current edition, while other armies are given the pet project of high designer person and drip with more powerful rules on a single model, then entire armies of other factions. The same goes with GW reaction time. Outside of facts that could really impact an armies sells, some armies get fixes and conviniance rules, while others get the GW noticing that X doesn't work after 3-6 years.
If all codex were writen with the same end goal in mind the game, would be, at worse, more fun.
1) Most players don't seem all that bothered by 10e. It's "Good Enough". Many fun games have been had here in July & August. Many more will follow.
because it is a new game, were everything start from zero
it is similar to 8th Index Phase, were we already saw problems and GW tried actively to get them under control and people were positive about the game
it was not until several Codices were released that people saw it as not that good (and than it was only those without one)
similar here now, that the Indices are badly written without a plan is seen as a problem of the tournament community not a problem of the game itself
until the Codices draw a different direction for the game than the Indices suggest (like with 8th) this won't change as a local group does not care of Eldar, GSC or Votan have problems as long as no one there plays them
Toofast wrote: All that stuff already got nerfed, and it brought Eldar all the way down to a...checks notes...68% win rate over the weekend. What a fantastic job the balancing team is doing!
do we know if the 1 person they hired for balancing already started working or are they still in the interview phase?
because by the deadline for application and how the interview process works, my guess is that there balancing team does not exist at the moment
Can you evidence that there is a "balancing team"? It certainly feels like any balance passes are done in between other jobs by the codex writing teams.
We only know that GW was hiring a single person for that job, we don't know if that person is already working, nobody wanted the job or of there is already a Team
and if there is a Team, are they allowed to talk to each other about their work, or is it like with the designers that everyone just gets a part of the project to prevent leak?
Bosskelot wrote: GW absolutely has developed editions with regards to feedback about the (at the time) current one. 9th edition was from top to bottom basically a laundry list of attempting to solve complaints people had about 8th edition specifically.
It turned out poorly because GW didn't respond to the complaints about bloat, because of stat creep and because GW didn't balance things. It still doesn't make sense to say GW doesn't respond to criticism or try to fix issues with their game and just change things for the sake of change, there might be one or two of those changes for the sake of change, but for the most part it's much requested changes. What that means is we have to make good criticism/complaints and good suggestions as a community to get a bigger game. Stat creep was a bit of an issue with new units in 6th/7th, I'm thinking of the Riptide possibly having overtuned guns and stuff, but I don't think it's ever been a major issue before. I do actually think parts of the community asked for stat creep, there's a prevalent theory that if it doesn't kill Tactical Marines or Intercessors it's trash (even when both of those units are trash), AP creep could be seen as an answer to that problem the community faultily brought up. There was a fair amount of hype every time more rules came out, so more rules, more faster being received isn't necessarily crazy either.
I look at my army, and I see no fixes, there was no bloat in my army, in fact the army needed more options to be playable, especialy as far as unit use goes. In 10th there are fewer options, core stuff that made the faction fantasy was removed, stuff to deal with basic mechanics of 10th wasn't added, the stats and rules have a copy past and writen without thinking feel. Sometimes they even bring forth a feeling of the person writing the rules not knowing other faction rules, core 10th mechanics or worse. And then the changes/fixes come, and a unit gets removed.
Meanwhile "fixed" at the same time eldar have more GT wins, then my entire faction has win rate. My army has mechanical problems on top of points problems, but GW tells me, and everyone else playing the army, that the september "fix" will be points. So another words I will have to wait for a fix till either winter/spring next year or when ever my codex comes out. With no garentee that the fixes will happen, as GW did release bad books for my faction in the past, or that they will just overpower other factions to such a degree that any changes done to my army from the stand point of problems in early 10th will just have zero impact. This is exactly the thing that happened in 8th ed.
DnD is still in 5th edition, doing open playtesting of systems for their next update of the system as an iteration on the framework of 5th, meanwhile 40K is now on 10th and has undergone 2 major revisions of the fundamental framework of the game (8th, then 10th).
And yet 5e DnD is still arse. Your comparison is far more accurate than you think. A marketing company first, legal company second and a gaming accessory product third.
DnD is still in 5th edition, doing open playtesting of systems for their next update of the system as an iteration on the framework of 5th, meanwhile 40K is now on 10th and has undergone 2 major revisions of the fundamental framework of the game (8th, then 10th).
And yet 5e DnD is still arse. Your comparison is far more accurate than you think. A marketing company first, legal company second and a gaming accessory product third.
By what metrics do you claim 5th Edition D&D is bad?
vict0988 wrote: It still doesn't make sense to say GW doesn't respond to criticism or try to fix issues with their game and just change things for the sake of change, there might be one or two of those changes for the sake of change, but for the most part it's much requested changes.
The point is that they continuously learn the wrong lessons, and their changes are often blanket and unthinking.
DnD is still in 5th edition, doing open playtesting of systems for their next update of the system as an iteration on the framework of 5th, meanwhile 40K is now on 10th and has undergone 2 major revisions of the fundamental framework of the game (8th, then 10th).
And yet 5e DnD is still arse. Your comparison is far more accurate than you think. A marketing company first, legal company second and a gaming accessory product third.
I don't think you know what kind of company either GW or Hasbro is.
DnD is still in 5th edition, doing open playtesting of systems for their next update of the system as an iteration on the framework of 5th, meanwhile 40K is now on 10th and has undergone 2 major revisions of the fundamental framework of the game (8th, then 10th).
And yet 5e DnD is still arse. Your comparison is far more accurate than you think. A marketing company first, legal company second and a gaming accessory product third.
I don't think you know what kind of company either GW or Hasbro is.
No, I do. If you disagree put some more effort into your post than just a thinly veiled insult, it helps the forums go round.
Hasbro created DnD one as part one of a large scale transition to a live service game model, while making minimal game innovation (and what there was, it was stolen from other developers ie, Piazo).
At the same time, they altered the OGL in an attempt to force players and companies onto their live service platform. Not to mention sending pinkertons at MTG fans.
Games Workshop also puts equal emphasis on branding and marketing, with rules designed to push stock sales, the beginnings of a live service platform with their "living ruleset" (this is a good thing, but could become equally perverted), and some fairly litigious actions against companies that sell similar vein products. At least there's no pinkertons, yet.
D&D was around long before Hasbro purchased the rights to it. 5e is still using most of the mechanics that came from 3.5 (a pre-hasbro era edition). So, I'm really not sure what the basis of your complaint is regarding the playability of 5e.
Hasbro has been a long time game making company and as far as I can tell neither a legal company (assuming you don't mean a fully incorporated entity) nor a gaming accessory manufacturer (again excepting accessory for the games that it owns). You may want to check U.S. history. I can't speak about Hasbro's Australian history.
Leo_the_Rat wrote: D&D was around long before Hasbro purchased the rights to it. 5e is still using most of the mechanics that came from 3.5 (a pre-hasbro era edition). So, I'm really not sure what the basis of your complaint is regarding the playability of 5e.
Hasbro has been a long time game making company and as far as I can tell neither a legal company (assuming you don't mean a fully incorporated entity) nor a gaming accessory manufacturer (again excepting accessory for the games that it owns). You may want to check U.S. history. I can't speak about Hasbro's Australian history.
Sorta kinda, it's an extremely watered down version of 3.5e with no flavour. New players and GMs would be far better served playing another system.
To clarify I'm not talking about the legal entity definition of Hasbro or GW, but the business plan and ethics of the companies in question. Specifically in the earlier comparison of 5e and 10th being similar.
vict0988 wrote: It still doesn't make sense to say GW doesn't respond to criticism or try to fix issues with their game and just change things for the sake of change, there might be one or two of those changes for the sake of change, but for the most part it's much requested changes.
The point is that they continuously learn the wrong lessons, and their changes are often blanket and unthinking.
I think the community feedback is often blanket and unthinking. How many people have said that Eldar, Titanic and Indirect Fire is OP in 10th? What message is the community sending to GW? Nerf Eldar, Titanic and units with Indirect Fire 10%, 20% if they fit two boxes. I'm not saying that GW doesn't miss completely despite good community feedback, people were saying that Bullgryn were OP, Ogryn UP, there were no mixed messages, GW didn't touch Bullgryn, nerfed Ogryn. But I think the community and especially content producers need to be careful with their wording of the problems in the game especially because GW do respond like an elephant seeing a mouse in a nuclear power plant. So ask for wargear pts for sponsons, complain about shadow weavers, D lobbas, that one problematic Wraithknight weapon and the one Astra Militarum datasheet that is undercosted instead of making blanket statements. It's GW's job to sort through the bad feedback we are giving them, but they're not doing that, so you can either be mad or do something about it. Just like you can be mad the game isn't balanced or you can play casual games and work around that imbalance by having pre-game discussions and trying to be a good sportsman.
Every edition GW has to learn the lessons that A Free points will unbalance the game. B armies being able to ignore the rolling dice part of the game will create unbalances. C if you design an edition around a set of core rules and then give some factions the ability to ignore them, it will end bad.
This happens every edition. Why did the eldar miracle dice had to be change? It is not like the 9th version was weak or bad.
Karol wrote: Every edition GW has to learn the lessons that A Free points will unbalance the game. B armies being able to ignore the rolling dice part of the game will create unbalances. C if you design an edition around a set of core rules and then give some factions the ability to ignore them, it will end bad.
This happens every edition. Why did the eldar miracle dice had to be change? It is not like the 9th version was weak or bad.
QFT
Special rules breaking core rules is one of the main gameplay problem with 40K.
at least this time what passes for a psychology mechanic isn't strong enough GW have felt the need to make half the game factions utterly immune to it in various ways
DnD is still in 5th edition, doing open playtesting of systems for their next update of the system as an iteration on the framework of 5th, meanwhile 40K is now on 10th and has undergone 2 major revisions of the fundamental framework of the game (8th, then 10th).
And yet 5e DnD is still arse. Your comparison is far more accurate than you think. A marketing company first, legal company second and a gaming accessory product third.
By what metrics do you claim 5th Edition D&D is bad?
I know a lot of people dislike 5th because it's not as "crunchy" as 3.5 and such. Ergo it's easier to play (which helps the game even exist and get support via new blood and new customers), but in doing so it also became less flexible. You don't have as much build variety as in older incarnations and some things basically cannot be done which could before.
morganfreeman wrote: I know a lot of people dislike 5th because it's not as "crunchy" as 3.5 and such. Ergo it's easier to play (which helps the game even exist and get support via new blood and new customers), but in doing so it also became less flexible. You don't have as much build variety as in older incarnations and some things basically cannot be done which could before.
IOW, "I can't stack up +40 modifiers to everything by calculating the exact perfect character progression steps using material from a dozen obscure sources".
You know, that does kind of resemble a certain 40k player type...
morganfreeman wrote: I know a lot of people dislike 5th because it's not as "crunchy" as 3.5 and such. Ergo it's easier to play (which helps the game even exist and get support via new blood and new customers), but in doing so it also became less flexible. You don't have as much build variety as in older incarnations and some things basically cannot be done which could before.
IOW, "I can't stack up +40 modifiers to everything by calculating the exact perfect character progression steps using material from a dozen obscure sources".
You know, that does kind of resemble a certain 40k player type...
yes right now you don't need multiple books. You just have one book, and it tells you what roll you get. Mods and re-rolls are just a bonus to the mechanic.
5th is bad because it makes even veteran DMs have a nightmare time trying to balance a game without outright lying, fudging rolls, or just basically bringing in miracles like a special NPC that helps the team out.
If the goal for DnD is for the party to have a good time, the goal of 5th is to make the DM quit and drink heavily. You have a great imbalance in min-maxers "Who totally rolled this sheet or all 17+ stats" and the RP nerds who are trying to make a Gith Cleric work. Then you have the guys trying desperately to be the main character. 5th caters to far too large an audiance, and I liked it better when you couldn't break the DM's spirit by level 2.
Also, as always, Hasbro still has a massive problem with Odd Numbers. Somehow, 17 is not better than 16. but 18 is better than 19. Get rid of the dumb mechanic where you only get a boost on evens, and just make it higher number = better.
Finally, 5th introduced the concept of glossing over lore to better suit the political times. Twenty years of lore about orcs being evil, is now not a thing. Negative Stats are no longer a thing. That Dwarf can be the ARCH WIZARD. ADnD used to have racial restrictions. You couldn't play certain classes without being certain races. Paladin for instance, was locked to humans.
Karol wrote: yes right now you don't need multiple books. You just have one book, and it tells you what roll you get. Mods and re-rolls are just a bonus to the mechanic.
Yes, exactly. The focus of the game is on roleplaying not character optimization.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: 5th is bad because it makes even veteran DMs have a nightmare time trying to balance a game without outright lying, fudging rolls, or just basically bringing in miracles like a special NPC that helps the team out.
I'm not sure why you think this is a problem with 5th? The imbalance between min-maxers and "story" players is far less than it was in previous editions. In 3.5e the "story based" fighter at level 1 is swinging a sword with +1 to hit and one attack per round, the min-maxer at level 1 has literally ascended to godhood and gained infinite stats on everything. And even if the DM bans infinite loops the min-maxer is rapidly going to have a +10 or more advantage on everything compared to the "normal" player. How do you set the DC for a strength check when the "story based" fighter has +3 and the min-maxer has +30? How do you create an engaging combat encounter when anything the "normal" player is capable of contributing against can be soloed by the min-maxer in one round?
Also, as always, Hasbro still has a massive problem with Odd Numbers. Somehow, 17 is not better than 16. but 18 is better than 19. Get rid of the dumb mechanic where you only get a boost on evens, and just make it higher number = better.
So 5th is bad because it keeps a mechanic that exists for the sole purpose of maintaining compatibility with the obsolete 3D6 attribute generation of old editions?
Finally, 5th introduced the concept of glossing over lore to better suit the political times. Twenty years of lore about orcs being evil, is now not a thing. Negative Stats are no longer a thing. That Dwarf can be the ARCH WIZARD. ADnD used to have racial restrictions. You couldn't play certain classes without being certain races. Paladin for instance, was locked to humans.
That's a pretty odd complaint given the fact that D&D does not depend on a single setting and most DMs are building worlds with their own lore, or at least customized variants of official material. Does anyone really care what the lore in the official worlds is? Would anyone even know what the official lore is without certain ideologically-motivated critics making a controversy out of it?
And TBH the changes you describe are good ones. Orcs always being evil makes them boring. There's never any moral conflict in slaughtering them by the thousands to farm loot and XP, they can never interact with the world in any meaningful way, they can never be player characters, etc. And racial restrictions and stat modifiers just reduce character diversity. Do you really think it's a more enjoyable game when your choice of race is de facto limited to the one that gives you a +2 primary stat bonus? Why even have choices for character creation if there's always a single correct answer and you're sabotaging yourself if you pick anything else?
Indeed, YOU specifically were complaining just a few days ago how you're now playing more 40k than you care to. If it was really so bad, why would you be playing that much?
For those who have trouble reading, I said I COULD get more games than I even care to play even if I turned down every casual list I come across. I'm actually not playing that much right now because I have a tank to finish and 3 units to paint before the US Open.
Actually 9th edition, but with the stratagems from 10th, would be infinitely better than what we have right now. The charge/pile in rules are made to punish CC armies even more, flight movement is dumb because now a flying model can't even get on top of a tall building so they aren't actually flying any more, cover rules are a head scratcher where a unit out in a wide open field gets cover from an enemy inside a house if 1 guy in the shooting unit has a window frame in his view, psychic models don't actually do anything different except it says "psychic" next to their guns, tweaking a list is impossible because you can't just drop 1 guy or 1 special weapon from a squad... I have no idea what they were thinking on most of the changes from 9th to 10th. Less stratagems/CP is the only change I actually like.
Toofast wrote: Actually 9th edition, but with the stratagems from 10th, would be infinitely better than what we have right now. The charge/pile in rules are made to punish CC armies even more, flight movement is dumb because now a flying model can't even get on top of a tall building so they aren't actually flying any more, cover rules are a head scratcher where a unit out in a wide open field gets cover from an enemy inside a house if 1 guy in the shooting unit has a window frame in his view, psychic models don't actually do anything different except it says "psychic" next to their guns, tweaking a list is impossible because you can't just drop 1 guy or 1 special weapon from a squad... I have no idea what they were thinking on most of the changes from 9th to 10th. Less stratagems/CP is the only change I actually like.
Wow. I read this and all I can see is a list of power gamer complaints:
I can't game charge and pile-in moves to gain extra movement, minimize contact, and control when I destroy a unit instead of actually fighting enemy units.
Flying units no longer have the ability to fly infinitely high and must actually interact with terrain.
The Cover rules are too liberal rather than too restrictive.
Psychic weapons are weapons rather than an easy source of Mortal Wounds.
I can't tweak my list down to the individual model level for maximum optimization.
Yeah. I'll have to disagree with you on almost every point.
Toofast wrote: Actually 9th edition, but with the stratagems from 10th, would be infinitely better than what we have right now. The charge/pile in rules are made to punish CC armies even more, flight movement is dumb because now a flying model can't even get on top of a tall building so they aren't actually flying any more, cover rules are a head scratcher where a unit out in a wide open field gets cover from an enemy inside a house if 1 guy in the shooting unit has a window frame in his view, psychic models don't actually do anything different except it says "psychic" next to their guns, tweaking a list is impossible because you can't just drop 1 guy or 1 special weapon from a squad... I have no idea what they were thinking on most of the changes from 9th to 10th. Less stratagems/CP is the only change I actually like.
Wow. I read this and all I can see is a list of power gamer complaints:
I can't game charge and pile-in moves to gain extra movement, minimize contact, and control when I destroy a unit instead of actually fighting enemy units.
Flying units no longer have the ability to fly infinitely high and must actually interact with terrain.
The Cover rules are too liberal rather than too restrictive.
Psychic weapons are weapons rather than an easy source of Mortal Wounds.
I can't tweak my list down to the individual model level for maximum optimization.
Yeah. I'll have to disagree with you on almost every point.
This is such a disgenuous list. Do you have an axe to grind?
I can't game charge and pile-in moves to gain extra movement, minimize contact, and control when I destroy a unit instead of actually fighting enemy units.
This change without consideration for melee armies more or less reduced their damage output by half. Note how Orks are dogwater
Flying units no longer have the ability to fly infinitely high and must actually interact with terrain.
I'm confused, I don't see anyone complaining about this. Toofast doesn't want his minis to fly "Infinitely high".
The Cover rules are too liberal rather than too restrictive.
wat
Psychic weapons are weapons rather than an easy source of Mortal Wounds.
You prefer their current concept of Psychic Weapons that are just extremely bland pistols? I rue the loss of interesting abilities on units that weren't just "shoot overwatch again" or "shoot overwatch again, but again too" or "ignore cover".
I can't tweak my list down to the individual model level for maximum optimization.
Karol wrote: yes right now you don't need multiple books. You just have one book, and it tells you what roll you get. Mods and re-rolls are just a bonus to the mechanic.
Yes, exactly. The focus of the game is on roleplaying not character optimization.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: 5th is bad because it makes even veteran DMs have a nightmare time trying to balance a game without outright lying, fudging rolls, or just basically bringing in miracles like a special NPC that helps the team out.
I'm not sure why you think this is a problem with 5th? The imbalance between min-maxers and "story" players is far less than it was in previous editions. In 3.5e the "story based" fighter at level 1 is swinging a sword with +1 to hit and one attack per round, the min-maxer at level 1 has literally ascended to godhood and gained infinite stats on everything. And even if the DM bans infinite loops the min-maxer is rapidly going to have a +10 or more advantage on everything compared to the "normal" player. How do you set the DC for a strength check when the "story based" fighter has +3 and the min-maxer has +30? How do you create an engaging combat encounter when anything the "normal" player is capable of contributing against can be soloed by the min-maxer in one round?
Also, as always, Hasbro still has a massive problem with Odd Numbers. Somehow, 17 is not better than 16. but 18 is better than 19. Get rid of the dumb mechanic where you only get a boost on evens, and just make it higher number = better.
So 5th is bad because it keeps a mechanic that exists for the sole purpose of maintaining compatibility with the obsolete 3D6 attribute generation of old editions?
Finally, 5th introduced the concept of glossing over lore to better suit the political times. Twenty years of lore about orcs being evil, is now not a thing. Negative Stats are no longer a thing. That Dwarf can be the ARCH WIZARD. ADnD used to have racial restrictions. You couldn't play certain classes without being certain races. Paladin for instance, was locked to humans.
That's a pretty odd complaint given the fact that D&D does not depend on a single setting and most DMs are building worlds with their own lore, or at least customized variants of official material. Does anyone really care what the lore in the official worlds is? Would anyone even know what the official lore is without certain ideologically-motivated critics making a controversy out of it?
And TBH the changes you describe are good ones. Orcs always being evil makes them boring. There's never any moral conflict in slaughtering them by the thousands to farm loot and XP, they can never interact with the world in any meaningful way, they can never be player characters, etc. And racial restrictions and stat modifiers just reduce character diversity. Do you really think it's a more enjoyable game when your choice of race is de facto limited to the one that gives you a +2 primary stat bonus? Why even have choices for character creation if there's always a single correct answer and you're sabotaging yourself if you pick anything else?
Sorta kinda, Fezzik was close but didn't quite hit the nail on the head.
So basically, 5e bad because the GM has to write all the rules, explain it to all the players. While the "classes" themselves have literally zero distinction between themselves.
A good example is the Barbarian, you could play as Conan the Barbarian, using your raw power of muscles. Or... Conan the Barbarian, using your raw power of muscles.
The level 3 archetypes are extremely bland too, and there are several levels of zero options for players to become invested with. Paladin's whole class feature for several levels is "+1 to AC".
Rule gak aside, 5e only really supports one overall genre of game - power fantasy.
Toofast wrote: Actually 9th edition, but with the stratagems from 10th, would be infinitely better than what we have right now. The charge/pile in rules are made to punish CC armies even more, flight movement is dumb because now a flying model can't even get on top of a tall building so they aren't actually flying any more, cover rules are a head scratcher where a unit out in a wide open field gets cover from an enemy inside a house if 1 guy in the shooting unit has a window frame in his view, psychic models don't actually do anything different except it says "psychic" next to their guns, tweaking a list is impossible because you can't just drop 1 guy or 1 special weapon from a squad... I have no idea what they were thinking on most of the changes from 9th to 10th. Less stratagems/CP is the only change I actually like.
Wow. I read this and all I can see is a list of power gamer complaints:
I can't game charge and pile-in moves to gain extra movement, minimize contact, and control when I destroy a unit instead of actually fighting enemy units.
Flying units no longer have the ability to fly infinitely high and must actually interact with terrain.
The Cover rules are too liberal rather than too restrictive.
Psychic weapons are weapons rather than an easy source of Mortal Wounds.
I can't tweak my list down to the individual model level for maximum optimization.
Yeah. I'll have to disagree with you on almost every point.
This is such a disgenuous list. Do you have an axe to grind?
I can't game charge and pile-in moves to gain extra movement, minimize contact, and control when I destroy a unit instead of actually fighting enemy units.
This change without consideration for melee armies more or less reduced their damage output by half. Note how Orks are dogwater
Flying units no longer have the ability to fly infinitely high and must actually interact with terrain.
I'm confused, I don't see anyone complaining about this. Toofast doesn't want his minis to fly "Infinitely high".
The Cover rules are too liberal rather than too restrictive.
wat
Psychic weapons are weapons rather than an easy source of Mortal Wounds.
You prefer their current concept of Psychic Weapons that are just extremely bland pistols? I rue the loss of interesting abilities on units that weren't just "shoot overwatch again" or "shoot overwatch again, but again too" or "ignore cover".
I can't tweak my list down to the individual model level for maximum optimization.
Oooh spooky WAAC zeitgeists that steal your minis
No axe to grind. Just an observation that his complaints seem to be concentrated on "I want more control in a way that increases power" not the game being actively bad.
I mean, if Orks are bad, it isn't the core rules that make them bad. It is the rules of the army that make them bad.
I mean, I've played every edition from the literal white box to this one in 5th. I have to say, I've never seen min maxing shenanigans or as many Warlock, Sorcerer/paladins as I have in this current edition. I blame Matt Mercer. He took my nerd hobby and made it cool to all the norms. Now I have to cater to the power fantasy of some idiot literally creating Johnny Silverhand as a Archer/Monk. And yes, he wants his arm to function as a magic weapon that can block and deflect any melee attack. Or the new person who wants to play the.....vomit....Echoknight, that gets Misty Step as a free action.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I mean, I've played every edition from the literal white box to this one in 5th. I have to say, I've never seen min maxing shenanigans or as many Warlock, Sorcerer/paladins as I have in this current edition. I blame Matt Mercer. He took my nerd hobby and made it cool to all the norms. Now I have to cater to the power fantasy of some idiot literally creating Johnny Silverhand as a Archer/Monk. And yes, he wants his arm to function as a magic weapon that can block and deflect any melee attack. Or the new person who wants to play the.....vomit....Echoknight, that gets Misty Step as a free action.
Sounds like you need to learn how to say "No".
You also need to remember that YOU, not a book, not WoTC, not Mat Mercer or whomever, are the DM.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I mean, I've played every edition from the literal white box to this one in 5th. I have to say, I've never seen min maxing shenanigans or as many Warlock, Sorcerer/paladins as I have in this current edition. I blame Matt Mercer. He took my nerd hobby and made it cool to all the norms. Now I have to cater to the power fantasy of some idiot literally creating Johnny Silverhand as a Archer/Monk. And yes, he wants his arm to function as a magic weapon that can block and deflect any melee attack. Or the new person who wants to play the.....vomit....Echoknight, that gets Misty Step as a free action.
I usually want to play a Paladin. Never been interested in Sorcerers or Warlocks. I'd also like to see a return to multiple worlds. Forgotten Realms has been the FOTM long enough, its time for Greyhawk and Dragonlance to get some time.
Leo_the_Rat wrote: D&D was around long before Hasbro purchased the rights to it. 5e is still using most of the mechanics that came from 3.5 (a pre-hasbro era edition). So, I'm really not sure what the basis of your complaint is regarding the playability of 5e.
Hasbro has been a long time game making company and as far as I can tell neither a legal company (assuming you don't mean a fully incorporated entity) nor a gaming accessory manufacturer (again excepting accessory for the games that it owns). You may want to check U.S. history. I can't speak about Hasbro's Australian history.
Sorta kinda, it's an extremely watered down version of 3.5e with no flavour. New players and GMs would be far better served playing another system.
To clarify I'm not talking about the legal entity definition of Hasbro or GW, but the business plan and ethics of the companies in question. Specifically in the earlier comparison of 5e and 10th being similar.
The business plan and ethics of the company? i cant speak on GW too well...but what exactly do you mean with regard to Hasbro?
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I have to say, I've never seen min maxing shenanigans or as many Warlock, Sorcerer/paladins as I have in this current edition.
Then you've had some exceptional luck with the people you've played older editions with and bad luck with your 5e players. 3.5 and Pathfinder had way more min-maxing possibilities than 5th, to the point where character optimization was less about "my character literally becomes God at level 1" and more about optimizing exactly how many minutes of time it takes in session 1 for your character to become God so you could get there before the rest of the party. 3.5 was only a game if everyone agreed not to exploit any of the worst min-maxing stuff, while 5e doesn't have anything even remotely like that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Eonfuzz wrote: A good example is the Barbarian, you could play as Conan the Barbarian, using your raw power of muscles. Or... Conan the Barbarian, using your raw power of muscles.
The level 3 archetypes are extremely bland too, and there are several levels of zero options for players to become invested with. Paladin's whole class feature for several levels is "+1 to AC".
Rule gak aside, 5e only really supports one overall genre of game - power fantasy.
Call it bland if you like but that makes it easier to balance, not harder as FezzikDaBullgryn was claiming. When all versions of a class are very similar and defined by roleplaying choices, not by mechanics, it makes things very predictable for the DM. You know what to expect from each class and you aren't going to have huge variations in power between different characters. That's far, far easier than 3.5/Pathfinder where you might have a level 10 wizard and a level 10 fighter but the fighter is effectively level 3 and the min-maxed wizard is effectively level 20. It's very difficult to design an encounter when anything that challenges the wizard instantly kills the fighter with splash damage and anything that the fighter can meaningfully engage with is instantly killed by the wizard before the fighter is even aware that combat is happening.
Leo_the_Rat wrote: D&D was around long before Hasbro purchased the rights to it. 5e is still using most of the mechanics that came from 3.5 (a pre-hasbro era edition). So, I'm really not sure what the basis of your complaint is regarding the playability of 5e.
Hasbro has been a long time game making company and as far as I can tell neither a legal company (assuming you don't mean a fully incorporated entity) nor a gaming accessory manufacturer (again excepting accessory for the games that it owns). You may want to check U.S. history. I can't speak about Hasbro's Australian history.
Sorta kinda, it's an extremely watered down version of 3.5e with no flavour. New players and GMs would be far better served playing another system.
To clarify I'm not talking about the legal entity definition of Hasbro or GW, but the business plan and ethics of the companies in question. Specifically in the earlier comparison of 5e and 10th being similar.
The business plan and ethics of the company? i cant speak on GW too well...but what exactly do you mean with regard to Hasbro?
I mentioned it earlier, but...
- Sent the Pinkertons after a customer for receiving product early
- Attempted to revise an open source license the majority of tabletop companies were using, to force them to use their online ONE DND platform
- Lied to the community
- Trying to migrate all content to a "Walled Garden" content delivery network
- Anti-competition practices such as only allowing DND product on their online store / virtual tabletop
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I have to say, I've never seen min maxing shenanigans or as many Warlock, Sorcerer/paladins as I have in this current edition.
Then you've had some exceptional luck with the people you've played older editions with and bad luck with your 5e players. 3.5 and Pathfinder had way more min-maxing possibilities than 5th, to the point where character optimization was less about "my character literally becomes God at level 1" and more about optimizing exactly how many minutes of time it takes in session 1 for your character to become God so you could get there before the rest of the party. 3.5 was only a game if everyone agreed not to exploit any of the worst min-maxing stuff, while 5e doesn't have anything even remotely like that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Eonfuzz wrote: A good example is the Barbarian, you could play as Conan the Barbarian, using your raw power of muscles. Or... Conan the Barbarian, using your raw power of muscles.
The level 3 archetypes are extremely bland too, and there are several levels of zero options for players to become invested with. Paladin's whole class feature for several levels is "+1 to AC".
Rule gak aside, 5e only really supports one overall genre of game - power fantasy.
Call it bland if you like but that makes it easier to balance, not harder as FezzikDaBullgryn was claiming. When all versions of a class are very similar and defined by roleplaying choices, not by mechanics, it makes things very predictable for the DM. You know what to expect from each class and you aren't going to have huge variations in power between different characters. That's far, far easier than 3.5/Pathfinder where you might have a level 10 wizard and a level 10 fighter but the fighter is effectively level 3 and the min-maxed wizard is effectively level 20. It's very difficult to design an encounter when anything that challenges the wizard instantly kills the fighter with splash damage and anything that the fighter can meaningfully engage with is instantly killed by the wizard before the fighter is even aware that combat is happening.
That still exists, there's obvious examples like Hypnotic Circle, Wish, Sleep, Teleport, Plane Shift, etc.
I'm not sure if you're a GM or not, but GMing 5e is awful. Every other system handles player engagement on the same level as 5e, but with more detail.
Your job as a GM in 5e is to write story, rules, magic items, item prices (lmao), ensure gold has a reason and use, etc.
Other systems simplify that further, by handing premade options for items, rules etc.
Also, side note. There's something endearing about Wizard-Gods in 3.5 and pf.
I have found 5e easy to manage as a GM, and most every issue stands rather true for 3.5 as well.
Once some of the optional books are used I think it gets quite good as well.
But I do go back to 3.5 and even earlier as I have a fondness for it!
That still exists, there's obvious examples like Hypnotic Circle, Wish, Sleep, Teleport, Plane Shift, etc.
I'm not sure if you're a GM or not, but GMing 5e is awful. Every other system handles player engagement on the same level as 5e, but with more detail.
Your job as a GM in 5e is to write story, rules, magic items, item prices (lmao), ensure gold has a reason and use, etc.
So.... My job in 5e is the same as it's always been? This isn't anything I haven't been doing since I was 11 years old. But you think 5e lacks options & depth? You should have a read through D&D Basic circa 1980.
And no, DMing in 5e is not awful.
Eonfuzz wrote: Other systems simplify that further, by handing premade options for items, rules etc.
Ah-ha! Here's the reason you think DMing 5es awful. You're not willing to invest any work into it.
Eonfuzz wrote: That still exists, there's obvious examples like Hypnotic Circle, Wish, Sleep, Teleport, Plane Shift, etc.
That isn't min-maxing, that's just using basic core rulebook spells as intended. Min-maxing in 3.5e is literally "at level 1 my character becomes God with infinite stats". Or "since you banned infinite loops here's my character whose attacks literally require more D6s than have ever been manufactured in all of human history to resolve". There is nothing in 5e that is even remotely on that level.
Your job as a GM in 5e is to write story, rules, magic items, item prices (lmao), ensure gold has a reason and use, etc.
And to balance encounters. Tell me, how do you create a stealth-focused encounter for a party where the normal character has +3 to stealth and the min-maxed rogue has +60 to stealth? If the enemies can even attempt to roll dice against the rogue they will see the normal character even on a natural 1 and the party is caught, if the enemies are capable of failing to spot the normal character then the rogue can solo the entire encounter with no chance of failure. Or how do you create strength-based obstacles when the normal character has +2 strength modifier and the min-maxed character has +20? How do you set the AC of enemies when the normal character has +5 to hit with a single attack and the min-maxed character (after adding up a tedious list of modifiers) has +15 to hit with multiple attacks?
Eonfuzz wrote: That still exists, there's obvious examples like Hypnotic Circle, Wish, Sleep, Teleport, Plane Shift, etc.
That isn't min-maxing, that's just using basic core rulebook spells as intended. Min-maxing in 3.5e is literally "at level 1 my character becomes God with infinite stats". Or "since you banned infinite loops here's my character whose attacks literally require more D6s than have ever been manufactured in all of human history to resolve". There is nothing in 5e that is even remotely on that level.
Your job as a GM in 5e is to write story, rules, magic items, item prices (lmao), ensure gold has a reason and use, etc.
And to balance encounters. Tell me, how do you create a stealth-focused encounter for a party where the normal character has +3 to stealth and the min-maxed rogue has +60 to stealth? If the enemies can even attempt to roll dice against the rogue they will see the normal character even on a natural 1 and the party is caught, if the enemies are capable of failing to spot the normal character then the rogue can solo the entire encounter with no chance of failure. Or how do you create strength-based obstacles when the normal character has +2 strength modifier and the min-maxed character has +20? How do you set the AC of enemies when the normal character has +5 to hit with a single attack and the min-maxed character (after adding up a tedious list of modifiers) has +15 to hit with multiple attacks?
Not minmaxing, but Wizard powers that just shut down encounters, or worlds.
Min maxing would be the boring sentinel build gak, or booming blade hexblade.
In any case, me saying 5e bad is because other systems exist that do what it does better. Pf2e has far tighter maths while also offering a plethora of options, that are bland in comparison to its pf1e options, while actually "balanced" in the grand scheme of things.
Honestly, my personal favourite games to play and run have been Shadowrun 5e, Call of Cthulhu and Traveller RPG. All of varying degrees of crunch.
CoC and Shadowrun have been the easiest to prep and design for (Build the world, the players do the rest) to the hardest 5e and Traveller RPG (You do everything).
Eonfuzz wrote: Not minmaxing, but Wizard powers that just shut down encounters, or worlds.
And they did far worse in previous editions. The original claim was that 5e is harder for the DM to balance, the fact that it isn't perfect doesn't mean it isn't better than previous editions.
Min maxing would be the boring sentinel build gak, or booming blade hexblade.
Which are far less game-breaking than the min-maxing you could do in 3.5/Pathfinder.
In any case, me saying 5e bad is because other systems exist that do what it does better. Pf2e has far tighter maths while also offering a plethora of options, that are bland in comparison to its pf1e options, while actually "balanced" in the grand scheme of things.
Which is great, I'm glad you love those other games. But the original conversation you jumped into was about 5e vs. previous D&D editions. How other entirely different games handle things is irrelevant.
Eonfuzz wrote: Not minmaxing, but Wizard powers that just shut down encounters, or worlds.
And they did far worse in previous editions. The original claim was that 5e is harder for the DM to balance, the fact that it isn't perfect doesn't mean it isn't better than previous editions.
Min maxing would be the boring sentinel build gak, or booming blade hexblade.
Which are far less game-breaking than the min-maxing you could do in 3.5/Pathfinder.
In any case, me saying 5e bad is because other systems exist that do what it does better. Pf2e has far tighter maths while also offering a plethora of options, that are bland in comparison to its pf1e options, while actually "balanced" in the grand scheme of things.
Which is great, I'm glad you love those other games. But the original conversation you jumped into was about 5e vs. previous D&D editions. How other entirely different games handle things is irrelevant.
Not really, the original claim was
"So basically, 5e bad because the GM has to write all the rules, explain it to all the players. While the "classes" themselves have literally zero distinction between themselves."
Eonfuzz wrote: That still exists, there's obvious examples like Hypnotic Circle, Wish, Sleep, Teleport, Plane Shift, etc.
That isn't min-maxing, that's just using basic core rulebook spells as intended. Min-maxing in 3.5e is literally "at level 1 my character becomes God with infinite stats". Or "since you banned infinite loops here's my character whose attacks literally require more D6s than have ever been manufactured in all of human history to resolve". There is nothing in 5e that is even remotely on that level.
Your job as a GM in 5e is to write story, rules, magic items, item prices (lmao), ensure gold has a reason and use, etc.
And to balance encounters. Tell me, how do you create a stealth-focused encounter for a party where the normal character has +3 to stealth and the min-maxed rogue has +60 to stealth? If the enemies can even attempt to roll dice against the rogue they will see the normal character even on a natural 1 and the party is caught, if the enemies are capable of failing to spot the normal character then the rogue can solo the entire encounter with no chance of failure.
Well 1st as the DM you make sure that you aren't providing enough loot to allow a character to achieve such a modifier.
Next? Let's assume Mr. Stealthy does have a very good chance to evade detection. You simply don't write an encounter/adventure where that characters abilities are all that's needed for success.
ThePaintingOwl wrote: Or how do you create strength-based obstacles when the normal character has +2 strength modifier and the min-maxed character has +20?
See above.
You also write in some means for lesser str characters to have a chance - provided they work together & are creative.
ThePaintingOwl wrote: How do you set the AC of enemies when the normal character has +5 to hit with a single attack and the min-maxed character (after adding up a tedious list of modifiers) has +15 to hit with multiple attacks?
Just a few ideas that've worked over the years....
You can provide enough enemies to keep the multi-attacker entertained.
You can (3x/PF) make sure the multi-attacker has to regularly move to attack, thus often not getting Full Attack.
You can give solo enemies enough HP to accommodate the extra damage you know this character will do.
Oh, and of course keep an eye on the loot your providing. while characters can get a decent bonus from stats/class/feats, that doesn't mean I have to be providing more +s....
Same ideas apply to those spell casters.
1) make sure you're requiring & tracking spell components.
2) Divine casters receive their spell from {the gods}. So if you don't want them casting something? You're playing the gods who're grant those spells, so just don't grant it to them when they do their prep. If they object/question it? Well, they say "{God} works in mysterious ways"....
3) Wizards - they tend to gain new spells via captured spell books, scrolls, purchases, etc. So if you don't want x spell around? Guess what they won't be finding as treasure or for sale?
As for spells they get just by leveling up? You can reign this in a bit by having them declare at the beginning of a Lv what they're working on for the next time they lv. That way they aren't just gaining whatevers convenient atm.
Karol wrote: yes right now you don't need multiple books. You just have one book, and it tells you what roll you get. Mods and re-rolls are just a bonus to the mechanic.
Yes, exactly. The focus of the game is on roleplaying not character optimization.
Must be nice to "roleplay" when your army was given stats and rules on regular characters better then other armies special characters. Now imagine doing role play with a space marine chapter master hiting on +4, with fewer attacks then a regular chapter master and an entire melee army having fewer weapon options then an eldar autarch. It just makes you want to leave those special characters (only source of above str 6 melee weapons in a melee army) at home. And then as a bonus your dudes, who supposably are copies of dudes from other kin books, somehow end up with once per game rules, when everyone else gets once per turn. It is as if an eldar farseer could turn a dice in to a 6, once per game. Although he would probably still be better, just by virtue of low cost.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Well 1st as the DM you make sure that you aren't providing enough loot to allow a character to achieve such a modifier.
Next? Let's assume Mr. Stealthy does have a very good chance to evade detection. You simply don't write an encounter/adventure where that characters abilities are all that's needed for success.
I actualy seen this done at my old store. People were playing some not japan/not china RPG with samurai etc. One dude made some sort of sneaky spy/courter/ninja character and then the GM, made it so they fought goblins and demons all the time. The dudes with fighting samurai had ton of fun, while the courtier dude couldn't even run away, because he bought a ton of courtier stuff, which then he had to leave at the base, instead of a horse. So for 2 weeks I heard him being down or running away, and the third week he didn't turn up, and the player was replaced by one of the players sister. I only remember this because she was huge, a gigant of a woman and remember I went to a sports school, so big women weren't something I never saw in my life. Later found out she was part of the local hooligan clan, just like her brother.
Well 1st as the DM you make sure that you aren't providing enough loot to allow a character to achieve such a modifier.
Next? Let's assume Mr. Stealthy does have a very good chance to evade detection. You simply don't write an encounter/adventure where that characters abilities are all that's needed for success.
I actualy seen this done at my old store. People were playing some not japan/not china RPG with samurai etc. One dude made some sort of sneaky spy/courter/ninja character and then the GM, made it so they fought goblins and demons all the time. The dudes with fighting samurai had ton of fun, while the courtier dude couldn't even run away, because he bought a ton of courtier stuff, which then he had to leave at the base, instead of a horse. So for 2 weeks I heard him being down or running away, and the third week he didn't turn up, and the player was replaced by one of the players sister. I only remember this because she was huge, a gigant of a woman and remember I went to a sports school, so big women weren't something I never saw in my life. Later found out she was part of the local hooligan clan, just like her brother.
I'm not into DnD, but, that sure sounds like the DM was a douche from afar
I tend to agree with ThePaintingOwl that keeping character power vaguely similar is a good thing - but the relevant thing is surely that in D&D the DM's word is law. If they can't control a game that's on them.
There have been people who argue the same should apply to 40k - and play with seemingly an ever expanding number of house rules to try and achieve that. But I feel its never really caught on. I think because there's a fundamental difference. If half-bird, half Drow Paladin-Sorcerers are overpowered/wreck the experience for everyone else you can just say no. Its harder to say no to a vaguely coherent Eldar/GSC/Custodes etc list. Not least because most people only have one army to play.
I don't think you should just go like a lamb to the slaughter then bemoan that fact - but equally, if you want games, you have to play what's there. You could try to have say Eldar players have to play with say 10% fewer points, but I'm not sure its a satisfying conclusion. Ultimately I feel people will just drift away. But the evidence of this seems admittedly thin at the moment, with plenty of 10th edition tournaments etc occuring.
I guess the interesting question will be how powerful the Tyranid Codex is. Although I suspect thinking that will relate at all to GW's next balance pass is hope over experience.
Special rules breaking core rules is one of the main gameplay problem with 40K.
while i agree with Karol on that specific comment, isn't every special rule "breaking core rules"?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
alextroy wrote: Wow. I read this and all I can see is a list of power gamer complaints:
I can't game charge and pile-in moves to gain extra movement, minimize contact, and control when I destroy a unit instead of actually fighting enemy units.
Flying units no longer have the ability to fly infinitely high and must actually interact with terrain.
The Cover rules are too liberal rather than too restrictive.
Psychic weapons are weapons rather than an easy source of Mortal Wounds.
I can't tweak my list down to the individual model level for maximum optimization.
Yeah. I'll have to disagree with you on almost every point.
The fight phase is already the hardest to do stuff in since you need to reach the other unit, letting the player get free movement from it wasn't gamebreaking and certainly isnt now that most units hit like soft noodles.
The flying change gave everyone jump packs instead of jetpacks, which doesnt make sense with how some models actually move around (they are litterally flying over terrain, not jumping over it)
Cover is fethed IMO, GW just cannot do proper terrain rules since 8th (never played older editions so i cannot judge)
Psychic is only a downside tbh, it makes sense on characters that have "better than average" weapons, but why the feth do horrors have psychic weapons for example?
Not allowing players to choose between playing a unit barebones as a throwaway roadblock and forcing us to bring squads with maxed out loadouts (especially for stuff with mixed loadouts like skitarii/guardsmen/cultists) is completely stupid and goes against the core idea of 40kIMO. (Also, the image of a skitarii vanguard lugging around his arquebuse is so stupid in my mind)
Special rules breaking core rules is one of the main gameplay problem with 40K.
while i agree with Karol on that specific comment, isn't every special rule "breaking core rules"?
There's a difference between bolted-on and baked-in. Sometime the higher level rules are designed to be altered by down stream rules. Other times a rule can be altered without a sense of how it effects the rest of the system. If you ever read a rule and immediately thought, "but how does this work when...?" and there's no way to find out without a FAQ from the designer, you're probably looking at a bolted-on rule.
Anyway.
Eldar win rates continue to climb in competitive events. A decent 4-1 Eldar player becomes an unstoppable 5-0 monster with this index. I think the whole meta is collapsing as people tech against elder and stop playing the bad armies. So you are seeing weird anomalies like Ork win rate spiking.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I mean, I've played every edition from the literal white box to this one in 5th. I have to say, I've never seen min maxing shenanigans or as many Warlock, Sorcerer/paladins as I have in this current edition. I blame Matt Mercer. He took my nerd hobby and made it cool to all the norms. Now I have to cater to the power fantasy of some idiot literally creating Johnny Silverhand as a Archer/Monk. And yes, he wants his arm to function as a magic weapon that can block and deflect any melee attack. Or the new person who wants to play the.....vomit....Echoknight, that gets Misty Step as a free action.
Dude... warlocks are the coolest concept when it comes to the source of power for a magic user. I play them because theyre an edgy class, i have no fething idea if theyre supposed to be powergamey or whatever.
Must be nice to "roleplay" when your army was given stats and rules on regular characters better then other armies special characters. Now imagine doing role play with a space marine chapter master hiting on +4, with fewer attacks then a regular chapter master and an entire melee army having fewer weapon options then an eldar autarch.
youre replying to people talking about DnD, not 40k
I generally don't think that the miniature production side controls the game design as much as some other people do, however....
I think the reason there are no rules for hills and forest terrain is that GW currently sells no hill and forest terrain kits.
i shouldve expanded that to the whole "LoS + terrain interaction" really, 40k is sooo janky with its LoS rules and i think bad cover rules is just a result of that
Toofast wrote: Actually 9th edition, but with the stratagems from 10th, would be infinitely better than what we have right now. The charge/pile in rules are made to punish CC armies even more, flight movement is dumb because now a flying model can't even get on top of a tall building so they aren't actually flying any more, cover rules are a head scratcher where a unit out in a wide open field gets cover from an enemy inside a house if 1 guy in the shooting unit has a window frame in his view, psychic models don't actually do anything different except it says "psychic" next to their guns, tweaking a list is impossible because you can't just drop 1 guy or 1 special weapon from a squad... I have no idea what they were thinking on most of the changes from 9th to 10th. Less stratagems/CP is the only change I actually like.
Wow. I read this and all I can see is a list of power gamer complaints:
I can't game charge and pile-in moves to gain extra movement, minimize contact, and control when I destroy a unit instead of actually fighting enemy units.
Flying units no longer have the ability to fly infinitely high and must actually interact with terrain.
The Cover rules are too liberal rather than too restrictive.
Psychic weapons are weapons rather than an easy source of Mortal Wounds.
I can't tweak my list down to the individual model level for maximum optimization.
Yeah. I'll have to disagree with you on almost every point.
In the abstract, maybe your point makes some sense, but we have the context of 10th edition to use:
Melee sucks
Fly is irrelevant
Psychic sucks and is irrelevant
Writing lists sucks
Playing the older rules, I find that having psychic abilities likely to fail or even hurt the sorcerer is cool, maybe not gameplay wise, but that suit the idea of how dangerous it is to tap into littéral hell to spawn a power.
However at the core, psychic attacks are most of the times just a shooting attack of sorts, so gameplay wise it sounds silly that you risk killing yourself to shoot a heavy bolter.
Don't know where to stand on this in the end. Probably more for the first aspect, it's wanky at time but as a narrative player it's more fun.
But even then doesn't Get's Hot/Hazardus does the same thing without having to create an entire new phase?
EDIT: Mind you my problem with psychic is that it has no flexibility whatsoever and psykers should have a list(s) of powers they have access. No need for an entire phase for such powers, they can be passive powers, some auras and some shooting powers, but it would be nice to have some of the old flexibility back.
tneva82 wrote: So psychic sucks because gw made it completely reliable.,.
No, it sucks because it is completely uninteresting.
Every. Single. Librararian. Has EXACTLY the same power as every other Librarian. There is no way for this not to be the case.
Every. Single. Inquisitor. Has EXACTLY the same power as every other Inquisitor. There is no way for this not to be the case.
Ditto on every Farseer, Weirdboy etc.
Now, personally, I believe that Perils rules were fluffy AF, and cool. But I wouldn't be complaining about the travesty that is 10th ed Psychic powers if it was possible to psychically differentiate one unit from another that uses the same datacard. But it isn't, so I do.
GW could always do the 8th edition Harlequins thing with 3 psychic options per datasheet in an expansion, hurry up and write GW to suggest it if it is something you would like to see.
tneva82 wrote: So psychic sucks because gw made it completely reliable.,.
No, it sucks because it is completely uninteresting.
Every. Single. Librararian. Has EXACTLY the same power as every other Librarian. There is no way for this not to be the case.
Every. Single. Inquisitor. Has EXACTLY the same power as every other Inquisitor. There is no way for this not to be the case.
Ditto on every Farseer, Weirdboy etc.
Now, personally, I believe that Perils rules were fluffy AF, and cool. But I wouldn't be complaining about the travesty that is 10th ed Psychic powers if it was possible to psychically differentiate one unit from another that uses the same datacard. But it isn't, so I do.
+1. And even if you aren't considering the mechanics of the rules, the actual effects are underwhelming like 85% of the time. Like somebody else said, there's just not much of a market out there for weird pistols.
I can often see the logic that shows up with some of the rules changes that GW makes (even if I don't agree with them.) For the changes to the psychic phase, I just think they completely missed the mark. The only time it sort of feels like they got it right is either when the shooting rules are actually pretty strong (like the Nids psykers; Zoanthrope warp blasts are scary to tanks again and that's fun) or GW invents a completely new system that's an above-and-beyond psychic phase replacement (a la Thousand Sons).
Tyran wrote: But even then doesn't Get's Hot/Hazardus does the same thing without having to create an entire new phase?
EDIT: Mind you my problem with psychic is that it has no flexibility whatsoever and psykers should have a list(s) of powers they have access. No need for an entire phase for such powers, they can be passive powers, some auras and some shooting powers, but it would be nice to have some of the old flexibility back.
I think psychic powers deserve a full phase if they re really diverse because remembering what power is to be used in what phase is sometimes tedious. Easier sorted with a phase of its own. However, on the contrary, if powers are just glorified boomsticks, then I will agree that it may be superfluous.
VladimirHerzog wrote: The fight phase is already the hardest to do stuff in since you need to reach the other unit, letting the player get free movement from it wasn't gamebreaking and certainly isnt now that most units hit like soft noodles.
The problem with the fight phase movement was design, not balance. Even if it wasn't overpowered it still involved a bunch of tedious micromanaging of exact positions so you could turn "your models can push forward to fill in space as casualties are removed" into a bunch of extra movement distance. It was bad design and needed to go.
VladimirHerzog wrote: The fight phase is already the hardest to do stuff in since you need to reach the other unit, letting the player get free movement from it wasn't gamebreaking and certainly isnt now that most units hit like soft noodles.
The problem with the fight phase movement was design, not balance. Even if it wasn't overpowered it still involved a bunch of tedious micromanaging of exact positions so you could turn "your models can push forward to fill in space as casualties are removed" into a bunch of extra movement distance. It was bad design and needed to go.
i'm not saying it wasnt, honestly at the scale of battle that 40k takes place, i could see a more "rank and file" approach to coherency fit pretty well. Yes, i know it wouldn't pass and people would complain because micromanaging the position of one your dudes one by one is something that is core to the game.
But i feel like GW is trying super hard with overly complex rules for coherency (in and out of combat) and creating this lawyer-speech way to define it, when it would be much simpler to just force units to be in ranks.
Having played only two games of 10th I found the terrain rules pretty straightforward and okay. What do people dislike about them? 9th were too complicated and I found it often pretty tough to actually get a cover bonus. 8th terrain rules were a joke outside of cities of death.
What 10th lacks is "difficult terrain" outside of woods. But other than that?
Walking through walls feels strange, but considering the size 40K has become it's an abstraction I can accept.
Sgt. Cortez wrote: Having played only two games of 10th I found the terrain rules pretty straightforward and okay. What do people dislike about them? 9th were too complicated and I found it often pretty tough to actually get a cover bonus. 8th terrain rules were a joke outside of cities of death.
What 10th lacks is "difficult terrain" outside of woods. But other than that?
Walking through walls feels strange, but considering the size 40K has become it's an abstraction I can accept.
Mostly that there's no more terrain diversity. All terrain is +1 save if any part of the model is blocked by it, no LOS if models are on opposite sides of its footprint. And if you aren't using a whole table full of L-shaped ruins with the bottom floor house ruled to block LOS entirely even to models within the footprint of the ruin you're going to have a bad game.
Sgt. Cortez wrote: Having played only two games of 10th I found the terrain rules pretty straightforward and okay. What do people dislike about them? 9th were too complicated and I found it often pretty tough to actually get a cover bonus. 8th terrain rules were a joke outside of cities of death.
What 10th lacks is "difficult terrain" outside of woods. But other than that?
Walking through walls feels strange, but considering the size 40K has become it's an abstraction I can accept.
Right now, you have to TRY to not benefit from cover, and terrain is only ever gonna give you +1 to your saves. No difficult terrain, no terrain thats hard to shoot through (-1 to hit). If you're not playing with basic ruins spammed in a symmetrical way, the game kinda falls apart. Heck, now terrain even comes with bases that are much bigger than the pieces themselves because the game NEEEDS you to benefit from obscuring to function.
I feel the Psychic Phase is a bit like a lot of stuff.
On paper, yes, you could take a load of different abilities. Which is good for making "your dudes". In practice however I feel 80-90% of people (approaching 100% in serious tournament lists) took the best powers and that was that.
It was the same for subfactions, stratagems, relics etc. I still think this was more fun than just having a small pool of optimal choices or nothing - but still.
Sgt. Cortez wrote: Having played only two games of 10th I found the terrain rules pretty straightforward and okay. What do people dislike about them? 9th were too complicated and I found it often pretty tough to actually get a cover bonus. 8th terrain rules were a joke outside of cities of death.
What 10th lacks is "difficult terrain" outside of woods. But other than that?
Walking through walls feels strange, but considering the size 40K has become it's an abstraction I can accept.
Mostly that there's no more terrain diversity. All terrain is +1 save if any part of the model is blocked by it, no LOS if models are on opposite sides of its footprint. And if you aren't using a whole table full of L-shaped ruins with the bottom floor house ruled to block LOS entirely even to models within the footprint of the ruin you're going to have a bad game.
This is not really accurate. There are essential 3 types of terrain (technically 6): LOS blocking (Ruins), Cover when within/behind (Craters, Barricades), and Cover when Obscuring (Battlefield Debris, Hills, Woods). Each of the 6 have their own unique spin on when and/or additional rules but they are simple.
As for the loss of Dense Terrains -1 Hit, that is because it was an unbalanced rule that severely affected some armies while have a marginal effect on others. +1 AP is universally applicable with an expected result.
alextroy wrote: As for the loss of Dense Terrains -1 Hit, that is because it was an unbalanced rule that severely affected some armies while have a marginal effect on others. +1 AP is universally applicable with an expected result.
The effect of Custodian Guard ignoring the AP on my 20 Necron Warrior brick is reducing damage 50%, saving 2,8 wounds. The effect of an Infantry Squad having cover against the same thing is reducing damage 20%, saving 3,3 wounds. A unit of tesla Immortals ignore cover because they have no AP to lose. The range of impacts is just as huge as -1 to hit.
Tyel wrote: I feel the Psychic Phase is a bit like a lot of stuff.
On paper, yes, you could take a load of different abilities. Which is good for making "your dudes". In practice however I feel 80-90% of people (approaching 100% in serious tournament lists) took the best powers and that was that.
It was the same for subfactions, stratagems, relics etc. I still think this was more fun than just having a small pool of optimal choices or nothing - but still.
That is a problem with GW not being able to balance the different options worth a gak.
There is no reason that 90% of powers should be obviously sub-par.
look at what you want a psi power to do in game and its generally one of the following
- hurt an enemy
- help something else hurt an enemy
- heal a friend
- move yourself
- move something else
- scare something
you can have a bit of variation, e.g. for hurting and healing do you have a focus on one target or a lesser effect across a larger number but thats basically it
the issue seems to be at present its virtually all "hurt something" presented as just another weapon profile
leopard wrote: look at what you want a psi power to do in game and its generally one of the following
- hurt an enemy
- help something else hurt an enemy
- heal a friend
- move yourself
- move something else
- scare something
you can have a bit of variation, e.g. for hurting and healing do you have a focus on one target or a lesser effect across a larger number but thats basically it
the issue seems to be at present its virtually all "hurt something" presented as just another weapon profile
There's some psykers that provide plenty of the others but because they're often the "leader bonus" for the model it doesn't feel like an extra as such. Like the librarian providing a 4+ invuln and 4+ fnp against psychics. As a leader model you can attach you'd expect them to have some sort of rule to pass on irrespective if they were a psyker or not, so the "psychic power" being the 4++ doesn't feel like one as it's filled an existing role on the datacard.
The reason you don't likely notice them as well is because the shooty ones are a weapon profile you're interacting with and check USR's, whereas the rest there's no need to discuss beyond what they do really.
leopard wrote: look at what you want a psi power to do in game and its generally one of the following
- hurt an enemy
- help something else hurt an enemy
- heal a friend
- move yourself
- move something else
- scare something
you can have a bit of variation, e.g. for hurting and healing do you have a focus on one target or a lesser effect across a larger number but thats basically it
the issue seems to be at present its virtually all "hurt something" presented as just another weapon profile
There's some psykers that provide plenty of the others but because they're often the "leader bonus" for the model it doesn't feel like an extra as such. Like the librarian providing a 4+ invuln and 4+ fnp against psychics. As a leader model you can attach you'd expect them to have some sort of rule to pass on irrespective if they were a psyker or not, so the "psychic power" being the 4++ doesn't feel like one as it's filled an existing role on the datacard.
The reason you don't likely notice them as well is because the shooty ones are a weapon profile you're interacting with and check USR's, whereas the rest there's no need to discuss beyond what they do really.
In a game of such lore as 40k, it is actually a big deal in my opinion that things feel in a distinctive way.
Because in the end, psychic powers, equipment and weapon can absolutely play one another's role as at the end of the day they are simply rules to interpret your dice rolls. But when said rules have your psyker risk being possessed or die in the attempt, when you can deny the witch) hated mechanic but I like it as your guardsmen somehow pulling enough willpower to overcome it great to me), etc, then it doesn't feel like just another dice roll. It feels "alive" in a way, it feels different, and these vibes are important in enjoying a miniature game.
You models don't actually shoot or run or fight. You have got no blue lasers shooting out from their eyes or pinkish warp tears at the center of you table. You live the combat through the rules and the dice rolls. So they need to help you imagine stuff, to feel alive.
leopard wrote: look at what you want a psi power to do in game and its generally one of the following
- hurt an enemy
- help something else hurt an enemy
- heal a friend
- move yourself
- move something else
- scare something
you can have a bit of variation, e.g. for hurting and healing do you have a focus on one target or a lesser effect across a larger number but thats basically it
the issue seems to be at present its virtually all "hurt something" presented as just another weapon profile
There's some psykers that provide plenty of the others but because they're often the "leader bonus" for the model it doesn't feel like an extra as such. Like the librarian providing a 4+ invuln and 4+ fnp against psychics. As a leader model you can attach you'd expect them to have some sort of rule to pass on irrespective if they were a psyker or not, so the "psychic power" being the 4++ doesn't feel like one as it's filled an existing role on the datacard.
The reason you don't likely notice them as well is because the shooty ones are a weapon profile you're interacting with and check USR's, whereas the rest there's no need to discuss beyond what they do really.
In a game of such lore as 40k, it is actually a big deal in my opinion that things feel in a distinctive way.
Because in the end, psychic powers, equipment and weapon can absolutely play one another's role as at the end of the day they are simply rules to interpret your dice rolls. But when said rules have your psyker risk being possessed or die in the attempt, when you can deny the witch) hated mechanic but I like it as your guardsmen somehow pulling enough willpower to overcome it great to me), etc, then it doesn't feel like just another dice roll. It feels "alive" in a way, it feels different, and these vibes are important in enjoying a miniature game.
You models don't actually shoot or run or fight. You have got no blue lasers shooting out from their eyes or pinkish warp tears at the center of you table. You live the combat through the rules and the dice rolls. So they need to help you imagine stuff, to feel alive.
Narrative vs Mechanics, the narrative for so many things are being lost in the churn.
I actually think one of the worst examples of this was the challenge rules, ok on a surface level but leading to the opposite effect almost entirely as so many leaders where not built with any thought to the duals. So you were often just presented with a choice of die or take negatives.
Or sacrifice a Sargent that couldn’t win.
Psychic powers are a huge narrative and important part of the setting, and yet they have been in constant flux of no real direction of what to do with them.
Other games do manage interesting magic systems, even rather simple ones.
I think the strat system is someone’s baby and takes up a lot of the design space there myself, but who knows.
my point is you don't need a lot of psi powers to cover these, and could easily do what HH does with each and have a "safe" low level and a more risky, but more powerful level of each (or as with SAGA three levels)
no need as such to dress them up as weapons but equally no need for a lot of different names or just very slightly tweaked versions, can be simple and get the same effects
Duals should have been introduced in an appendix, as in Bolt Action second edition which has a batch of option Al rules for fun separated from the main rules.
Duals are fun in some instances, but it should be an offering made that the opposite player can turn down at no cost just to have fun.
The worst is how certain characters, or all characters in case of poor CSM at the time, where forced to dual.
This exemplifies the need for a balance between giving player lore friendly, fun possibilities, but stick to a game where it is reasonable enough for the rules to be efficient.
VladimirHerzog wrote: If you're not playing with basic ruins spammed in a symmetrical way, the game kinda falls apart. Heck, now terrain even comes with bases that are much bigger than the pieces themselves because the game NEEEDS you to benefit from obscuring to function.
It's an "all or nothing" kinda deal
Well if you are bad it falls apart.
Symetrical used by bad players and those who love to pretend playing competitively when they aren't.
VladimirHerzog wrote: If you're not playing with basic ruins spammed in a symmetrical way, the game kinda falls apart. Heck, now terrain even comes with bases that are much bigger than the pieces themselves because the game NEEEDS you to benefit from obscuring to function.
It's an "all or nothing" kinda deal
Well if you are bad it falls apart.
Symetrical used by bad players and those who love to pretend playing competitively when they aren't.
ok, go win big events then? Yeah i'm a bad player, i don't even play in real tournaments, i fully admit it. But when players that consistently win tournaments agree with the sentiment, how can you argue against it in good faith?
VladimirHerzog wrote: If you're not playing with basic ruins spammed in a symmetrical way, the game kinda falls apart. Heck, now terrain even comes with bases that are much bigger than the pieces themselves because the game NEEEDS you to benefit from obscuring to function.
It's an "all or nothing" kinda deal
Well if you are bad it falls apart.
Symetrical used by bad players and those who love to pretend playing competitively when they aren't.
ok, go win big events then? Yeah i'm a bad player, i don't even play in real tournaments, i fully admit it. But when players that consistently win tournaments agree with the sentiment, how can you argue against it in good faith?
Don't bother, tneva82 has a completely nonsense opinion. Those players that consistently win tournaments? They're also bad, and also just pretending the game is competitive. And then that will be it, that's all they give.
the duel stuff needed what LotR has, character "levels" and allowing characters to ignore challenges from "lesser" mortals
avoids Sergeant McSergeantface being able to tie up Lord ReallyQuiteImportantHero for the entire game as the clones go in one at a time
LotR also having a way when a hero is tagged by a common pleb for said hero to actually benefit (Heroic combat, kill the pleb then get to move, and potentially fight, again)
result: you tag heros a bit more carefully if they can fight
leopard wrote: the duel stuff needed what LotR has, character "levels" and allowing characters to ignore challenges from "lesser" mortals
avoids Sergeant McSergeantface being able to tie up Lord ReallyQuiteImportantHero for the entire game as the clones go in one at a time
LotR also having a way when a hero is tagged by a common pleb for said hero to actually benefit (Heroic combat, kill the pleb then get to move, and potentially fight, again)
result: you tag heros a bit more carefully if they can fight
I don't see how you're tieing up characters in combat? Just fall back?
When duels were a thing in 6th/7th, you could only force falling back from combat if you couldn't hurt the ennemy model as per the damage charts. In any other case, you had to commit to the fight as long as you don't fail a moral test (and probably get wiped out) or win. Which could actually lead to characters too poorly equipped too have an unending duel for the rest of the game or most commonly end with silly situation where a single character stackwiped people by killing their random sergeants.
Anyway, the thread's not about duels, but really, it is a typical rule that sounds great on paper and fluffy but wasn't thought out that well.
I bring back the appendix idea, where I don't see why GW couldn't make very simple competitive rules and then stuff the back of the BRB with optionnal ones designed for narrative play to spice things up at your leisure without overcommitting to designing rules.
It would also mean that by letting aside dodgy rules or elements of the game, streamlining/balancing it could get easier.
This needs developping but I guess it's a starting point.
66% of non impactful changes, 33% chance for GW to miss armie that are at 50-55% only becaue eldar and gsc exist. And suddenly we are back in mid end of 9th with necrons playing armies that play soliter, because no army can effciently kill a brick of warriors or lych guard. Making games where necron get turn 1, a GG, at the level of who starts first.
Also obligatory DG side grades and nerfs. As in 10th they seem to be the faction GW wants to bully. I imagine a heavy nerf to their artilery, so they really have nothing to play with.
I suspect 20% of it will be that they make small changes to Aeldari/GSC points and which alters their win rate by -3%. 50% of the changes will be head scratchers. The other 30% will be nerfs to Ad Mech and Votann
I hope something to nerf the Fate Dice and Devastating Wounds interaction is in the works. Make Fate Dice count as Modified. Simple(ish). And hit some of the other Aeldari stuff with points hikes.
This edition is off to a rough start balance wise, so some strong medicine is required.
Or maybe it will instead by something like:
Players: “The launch of 10th has been the worst balance of 40K”
GW Metawatch: “Worst balance of 40K, so far”
But I have some faith for what tomorrow will bring.
If the only "fixes" to armies are going to small rules changes to the top 4, and points changes to the bottom 4. Then we are going to end up with a meta where Eldar hover aorund 60% win rate, GSC are in their mid 50s GSC suddenly shoot up to be one of the best faction. Custodes join marines and knights join their chaos brother in win rates. Meanwhile the bad faction players will find out that, after spending X extra money to buy extra squads or squad, their armies still don't function, because their probelms weren't just points, but bad written rule on top of bad points.
I have huge doubts that people at GW sat down, and spent the last 2 months rewriting rules for the index armies.
