With the recent additions of D weapons and such is it possible to have a truly competitive setting for 40k? We know that GW whats the game to be a beer and pretezel game, have they done it?
It isn't the end of competitive play, it's just the end of competitive play without explicit rules about what is legal. Very few, if any, competitive events will allow superheavies and D-weapons, so the only change is that every event will have a list of banned units/armies/etc instead of just the "comp" ones.
I like the recent additions, as GW are supplying a multitude of new ways to play the game. All because we have all these new rules does not mean that they all have to be used and this is something that should be communicated within your gaming group. The most important thing, is the potential for variety (hopefully not every event the same!) but people don't like change :(
Peregrine wrote: It isn't the end of competitive play, it's just the end of competitive play without explicit rules about what is legal. Very few, if any, competitive events will allow superheavies and D-weapons, so the only change is that every event will have a list of banned units/armies/etc instead of just the "comp" ones.
Remember when people said the same thing about Allies? Now they're accepted because they're part of 40k.
If you're not playing with D-strength weapons, you're not playing 40k anymore. Having tournaments with all these house-rule excluding the different supplements may get rather confusing.
Do you expect tournaments to be banning the Codex supplements too?
Everyone is moaning about strength D weapons and I don't know why. Are rules for including Titians in the escalation supplement? Since its a new book you have to buy which isn't core rules, that means its a supplement, right? That means you can choose not to play it. Say if I asked someone to a friendly game, could they pull a Titian on me without even telling me, would I be the douche bag for telling him to go feth himself?
Sorry, in topic. IF strength D weapons are introduced into competitive play, it proabably won't kill the game, but different armies will be better. Vect Max Lance any kind of melta drop will now be very powerful against Titians but I do agree, they shouldn't be allowed in tournies.
ALEXisAWESOME wrote: Say if I asked someone to a friendly game, could they pull a Titian on me without even telling me, would I be the douche bag for telling him to go feth himself?
Depends on your point of view. It is just the same as expecting someone to tell you what codex they are using and telling them you won't play them because they are using, say, GK or Necrons. How much of a douche or not that makes you depends on your local group and how you do it.
Although literately saying "go feth yourself." Always makes you a douche.
Absolutionis wrote: Remember when people said the same thing about Allies? Now they're accepted because they're part of 40k.
Allies are not even close to as bad as D-weapons. When allies were first revealed most people thought it was a bad idea (especially with the stupid and un-fluffy allies matrix), but very few people thought it was going to ruin the game. With D-weapons there's pretty much universal agreement that they are not appropriate for normal 40k games, and I expect that majority will only get more one-sided as people play against Revenant titans and realize how little fun they are.
ALEXisAWESOME wrote: Are rules for including Titians in the escalation supplement?
Yes, the Eldar Revenant titan is in the Escalation "book".
Since its a new book you have to buy which isn't core rules, that means its a supplement, right? That means you can choose not to play it. Say if I asked someone to a friendly game, could they pull a Titian on me without even telling me, would I be the douche bag for telling him to go feth himself?
It is part of the core rules just like any codex. You can choose not to play against it, but you can also choose not to play against orks. Escalation is nothing special.
Competitive 40k has 2 futures:
1) Escalation is banned from tournaments, proceed as normal.
2) Players roll off to see who goes first, Player A wins and places a Revenant Titan on the table, Player B places a Revenant Titan on the table. Player B rolls to seize initiative and gets a 5, player B says GG, packs up and leaves.
And nobody is mentioning Stronghold Assault which updated rules for fortifications and provided several new fortification options. That book has significant rule changes for normal 40K such as being able to shoot at your opponent's bastion even if unoccupied. But, there are also things like Void Shields and D weapons in it.
Well it's apparently balanced out because getting a Revenant Titan and the D cannon fortification leaves plenty of points for a cheap HQ and some troops.
I hate to say it, but until the stupid 2++ rerollable build, the daemons flying spam, and a few others things get nerfed, escalation is one of the few things that shut them down.
Also, just as planned. Make 6th MC edition. Make every other book except SM have good MC. Make tau great at killing MC but bad at long range anti-heavy tank. Release a few super heavies into normal 40k. Force all MC spammers to switch gears.
Meanwhile, people with real armies aren't affected much. Only dicks to WAAC players.
And they're completely screwing over Tyranids, but what else is new?
Plus is the best solution to current problems releasing things that are even more broken and abusable that they make them obsolete?
Peregrine wrote: It isn't the end of competitive play, it's just the end of competitive play without explicit rules about what is legal. Very few, if any, competitive events will allow superheavies and D-weapons, so the only change is that every event will have a list of banned units/armies/etc instead of just the "comp" ones.
Remember when people said the same thing about Allies? Now they're accepted because they're part of 40k.
If you're not playing with D-strength weapons, you're not playing 40k anymore. Having tournaments with all these house-rule excluding the different supplements may get rather confusing.
Do you expect tournaments to be banning the Codex supplements too?
Yes. I mean if MtG can ban or restrict cards, and we already have tournaments banning or restricting FW, then I fully expect them to ban and restrict anything else they see fit to do so.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
PrinceRaven wrote: And they're completely screwing over Tyranids, but what else is new?
Plus is the best solution to current problems releasing things that are even more broken and abusable that they make them obsolete?
At least Tyranids got something. Sisters didn't even get the Guard's hand-me-downs in this book.
I don't think Escalation will have much impact on tournaments for one simple reason: A single super-heavy is too big of a points investment into one model that can only attack 1-2 units a turn and cannot score or contest objectives. The Revenant for example consumes about 50% of a given army's point allowance at 1850 points. For its points, it is possible to get around 7 Wave Serpents which will probably have a similar effect against anything not AV13+ if they focus their firepower on it while also being far more durable to return firepower (21 AV 12 hull points + jink vs 9 AV 12 hull points), being transports for scoring units, and being able to shoot fliers.
If anything, the only thing that died with Escalation is expensive AV14 units like Monoliths and Land Raiders. It isn't really possible to bring a sufficient amount of saturation in regular games to make up for how easily those sort of units die to D weapons.
You would think Nerds and Geeks would be much smarter than this eh? We fall for it all the time.
Ah it was only what a year ago about allies and flyers going to ruin the game. Seem like most people adapted.
If you don't like it, don't play it. No one if forcing anyone to play a game that they will not have fun in.
You can refuse to play Taudar, you can refuse to play against D weapons. If a lot of people refuse to play
against D weapons, not many people will be bringing them since they will not be getting any gaming in.
If people are playing with D weapons, then that means most people want to play with them and then you
will have to adapt and learn (which it seems most people did with allies and flyers) and try new tactics.
Remember it's not all about killing, it's about claiming objectives.
As long as everyone has access, and with escalation they do (money constraints aside), 40k is still competitive. Now, what the scene looks like and whether it's just titans going around bashing each other is another issue.
troa wrote: As long as everyone has access, and with escalation they do (money constraints aside), 40k is still competitive. Now, what the scene looks like and whether it's just titans going around bashing each other is another issue.
This. IMO esculation is far less of a problem than the problem Death Stars. At least (almost) everyone has access to them. Not something you can say of 2++ Death Stars.
Peregrine wrote: It isn't the end of competitive play, it's just the end of competitive play without explicit rules about what is legal. Very few, if any, competitive events will allow superheavies and D-weapons, so the only change is that every event will have a list of banned units/armies/etc instead of just the "comp" ones.
Remember when people said the same thing about Allies? Now they're accepted because they're part of 40k.
If you're not playing with D-strength weapons, you're not playing 40k anymore. Having tournaments with all these house-rule excluding the different supplements may get rather confusing.
Do you expect tournaments to be banning the Codex supplements too?
The allies thing is because they are in the BRB, and are *supposedly* now an integral part of the main game.
Escalation is a supplement, and thus is more optional than allies, meaning that tournaments may be less inclined to allow it, especially as it's utterly gamebreaking to take Str D weaponry. Normal Baneblades, however, I can understand...
Maybe some of them will just house rule "No Str D"...
2) Players roll off to see who goes first, Player A wins and places a Revenant Titan on the table, Player B places a Revenant Titan on the table. Player B rolls to seize initiative and gets a 5, player B says GG, packs up and leaves.
Sounds like any 40k game I play where I'm not facing Orks...
Player A: My Opponent
Player B: My CSM (I both suck at tactics, and nerf-hammer is no great help)
Warhounds aren't in the book, so unless FW releases a list of additional Lords of War, or you work something you with your opponent CSM only have the Lord of Skulls.
ClockworkZion wrote: Warhounds aren't in the book, so unless FW releases a list of additional Lords of War, or you work something you with your opponent CSM only have the Lord of Skulls.
Selym wrote: I plan to save up for a Warhound Titan, and then smash some Imperials >
Though, I don't much like the prospect of facing a SH myself...
I didn't think a Warhound Titan was in the list you can use. At least not right now. I could be wrong though, so please correct me if I am.
You are correct; the only Titan in the book is the Revenant for Eldar & Dark Eldar.
Dang.
But why do the eldar get a Titan, and not the rest of us?
The Escalation book has basically 1 rule in it; "You can take super heavies in 40k now". That's it. The list of super heavies they threw in there was so people have a reason to buy the book and now be left out.
Spoiler:
Going forward, Forgeworld will be stamping "Lord of War" on their escalation approved super heavies. For example, the new Imperial armor 2: Second Edition has the rules for space marine Fellblades, Typhoons and Cereberus that I think have the Lord of War stamp. It's only a matter of time before FW and/or GWFaQ in a heap of super heavies.
Matt1785 wrote:Ironclads in Luscious Drop Pods!! Woo!! D-this baby! He can move 36", sure, but when I get out of a drop pod and assault I'd like to see him jump away.
Currently I am building an Eldar army and I think that the Super Heavies will be tough to put down, but like I said, I can see taking this addition for what it is, something new. It's going to be a tough game, but as long as I remember it's a game for fun, it'll be ok.
I don't own a Revenant Titan.. but I am saving up for a Warhound / Reaver. Those aren't allowed.. YET!!
You cannot assault out of Lucius drop pods anymore, and haven't been able to for the better part of a year. Nice try though.
ClockworkZion wrote: Warhounds aren't in the book, so unless FW releases a list of additional Lords of War, or you work something you with your opponent CSM only have the Lord of Skulls.
Selym wrote: I plan to save up for a Warhound Titan, and then smash some Imperials >
Though, I don't much like the prospect of facing a SH myself...
I didn't think a Warhound Titan was in the list you can use. At least not right now. I could be wrong though, so please correct me if I am.
You are correct; the only Titan in the book is the Revenant for Eldar & Dark Eldar.
Dang.
But why do the eldar get a Titan, and not the rest of us?
The Escalation book has basically 1 rule in it; "You can take super heavies in 40k now". That's it. The list of super heavies they threw in there was so people have a reason to buy the book and now be left out.
Spoiler:
Going forward, Forgeworld will be stamping "Lord of War" on their escalation approved super heavies. For example, the new Imperial armor 2: Second Edition has the rules for space marine Fellblades, Typhoons and Cereberus that I think have the Lord of War stamp. It's only a matter of time before FW and/or GWFaQ in a heap of super heavies.
Matt1785 wrote:Ironclads in Luscious Drop Pods!! Woo!! D-this baby! He can move 36", sure, but when I get out of a drop pod and assault I'd like to see him jump away.
Currently I am building an Eldar army and I think that the Super Heavies will be tough to put down, but like I said, I can see taking this addition for what it is, something new. It's going to be a tough game, but as long as I remember it's a game for fun, it'll be ok.
I don't own a Revenant Titan.. but I am saving up for a Warhound / Reaver. Those aren't allowed.. YET!!
You cannot assault out of Lucius drop pods anymore, and haven't been able to for the better part of a year. Nice try though.
It says in the book that the Lords of War you can take are the ones in the book from page XX to page YY (I don't have my book in my hands as I'm writing this, but you get the idea). Now the is nothing stopping FW adding more later, or GW releasing datasheets that add stuff, or you house r.ing stuff with your friends, but as it stands right now without any of those things, the list is fairly restricted.
ClockworkZion wrote: Warhounds aren't in the book, so unless FW releases a list of additional Lords of War, or you work something you with your opponent CSM only have the Lord of Skulls.
Selym wrote: I plan to save up for a Warhound Titan, and then smash some Imperials >
Though, I don't much like the prospect of facing a SH myself...
I didn't think a Warhound Titan was in the list you can use. At least not right now. I could be wrong though, so please correct me if I am.
You are correct; the only Titan in the book is the Revenant for Eldar & Dark Eldar.
Dang.
But why do the eldar get a Titan, and not the rest of us?
The Escalation book has basically 1 rule in it; "You can take super heavies in 40k now". That's it. The list of super heavies they threw in there was so people have a reason to buy the book and now be left out.
Spoiler:
Going forward, Forgeworld will be stamping "Lord of War" on their escalation approved super heavies. For example, the new Imperial armor 2: Second Edition has the rules for space marine Fellblades, Typhoons and Cereberus that I think have the Lord of War stamp. It's only a matter of time before FW and/or GWFaQ in a heap of super heavies.
Matt1785 wrote:Ironclads in Luscious Drop Pods!! Woo!! D-this baby! He can move 36", sure, but when I get out of a drop pod and assault I'd like to see him jump away.
Currently I am building an Eldar army and I think that the Super Heavies will be tough to put down, but like I said, I can see taking this addition for what it is, something new. It's going to be a tough game, but as long as I remember it's a game for fun, it'll be ok.
I don't own a Revenant Titan.. but I am saving up for a Warhound / Reaver. Those aren't allowed.. YET!!
You cannot assault out of Lucius drop pods anymore, and haven't been able to for the better part of a year. Nice try though.
It says in the book that the Lords of War you can take are the ones in the book from page XX to page YY (I don't have my book in my hands as I'm writing this, but you get the idea). Now the is nothing stopping FW adding more later, or GW releasing datasheets that add stuff, or you house r.ing stuff with your friends, but as it stands right now without any of those things, the list is fairly restricted.
Well that sucks. I really cba to take that bloody khorne thingy.
Eugh. Just sounds like incredibly lazy and poor rules writing/balancing.
At least the HH books are sensible in restricting them to 2000pts+ and no more than 25% of the force org.
Either way, just leaves a sour taste in my mouth. Lazy implementation, obvious money grabbing, and poor balance considerations even by GW's standards.
YYMV. I like the addition of Victory Points for stripping wounds or hull points off Super Heavies, the bonus to Siezing the Initiative is nice, and the Warlord Traits are designed to help you fight the Lords of War even better. And I love the mission "Defiant to the End" as it pits 1k of one person's army against a lone Lord of War and victory is determined by if or when the Lord of War falls.
I think it balances fine as long as both players get into the game expecting the same thing and know if they plan on using Escalation rles in their game or not. It balances fine casually, with the normal social contract stipulations, but less so when people try to sneak things onto the table without warning you just so they can get their jollies by grinding your army in a bloody paste.
YYMV. I like the addition of Victory Points for stripping wounds or hull points off Super Heavies, the bonus to Siezing the Initiative is nice, and the Warlord Traits are designed to help you fight the Lords of War even better. And I love the mission "Defiant to the End" as it pits 1k of one person's army against a lone Lord of War and victory is determined by if or when the Lord of War falls.
I think it balances fine as long as both players get into the game expecting the same thing and know if they plan on using Escalation rles in their game or not. It balances fine casually, with the normal social contract stipulations, but less so when people try to sneak things onto the table without warning you just so they can get their jollies by grinding your army in a bloody paste.
I guess those are valid points, but I just can't shake the feeling that it feels so terribly lazy. Putting the onus on the player to self balance games beforehand is pretty weak rules writing, even for an alleged 'beer and pretzels' game. Especially considering the cost of the game compared to other games that are far more finished and balanced.
I don't know, I guess I can still have fun and all that, but it'd be more because of the people I'd play with then the game itself.
YYMV. I like the addition of Victory Points for stripping wounds or hull points off Super Heavies, the bonus to Siezing the Initiative is nice, and the Warlord Traits are designed to help you fight the Lords of War even better. And I love the mission "Defiant to the End" as it pits 1k of one person's army against a lone Lord of War and victory is determined by if or when the Lord of War falls.
I think it balances fine as long as both players get into the game expecting the same thing and know if they plan on using Escalation rles in their game or not. It balances fine casually, with the normal social contract stipulations, but less so when people try to sneak things onto the table without warning you just so they can get their jollies by grinding your army in a bloody paste.
I guess those are valid points, but I just can't shake the feeling that it feels so terribly lazy. Putting the onus on the player to self balance games beforehand is pretty weak rules writing, even for an alleged 'beer and pretzels' game. Especially considering the cost of the game compared to other games that are far more finished and balanced.
I don't know, I guess I can still have fun and all that, but it'd be more because of the people I'd play with then the game itself.
Ah well, different strokes and all that.
I'm pretty sure the responsibility of balancing the game on a personal level has been on the players for a long time and this is just the most blatant case of it to date.
I'm pretty sure the responsibility of balancing the game on a personal level has been on the players for a long time and this is just the most blatant case of it to date.
Sure, but I feel like its only getting worse and more obvious GW isn't trying particularly hard. Again, laziness is what springs to mind. The game is still playable, but I just feel like they should be trying to make the game more balanced and less gimmicky than trying to push out as many expensive supplements as possible.
They are a business afterall, so I can't fault them too much.
To all the people saying "Forgeworld may add more lords or war" you can see from the previews of Imperial Armour two Volume two that the stuff in there is already labelled as lords of war. I expect an FAQ on what is an isn't a lord of war very soon from FW, which should at least address the obscene faction imbalance in Escalation.
In all honesty I think this is a complete shambles from GW. Not only is the book itself a crappy copy+paste job nowhere near worth it's price tag, the lords or war system is just so inferior to the better balanced and more comprehensive system FW have put in place. I was expecting some kind of major nerf to super-heavies, like restriction of access to main weapons ("lack of ammunition supplies" or something like that) or d3 S10 hits before the game or something equally risky so that armies using them wouldn't be consistent and I also figured GW would make this an expansion because surely the idea of allowing the crazy power of something like the revenant in standard 40k was too slowed even for their money-hungriness, but it appears greed won out on that one. With the increasing silliness in the game, I really do fear things will start to go sour as far as the separation between casual play and competitive stuff. Of course we can and will have pretty much any mainstream tournament ban the most ridiculous stuff, but where does that stop? I know a lot of tournaments are allotting different amounts of points for different armies now, could we have more similar restrictions introduce with 40k. I wonder if GW with think "all of these tournaments are deviating a long way from the rules we've laid out - perhaps there need to be changes" in 7th edition. More likely I fear they add something new and extremely expensive to bleed more money out of their fans.
Every now and again I'll have a flick through a WD, have a look at some of my mini collection or read a BL novel and it will make me want to give 40k a try again.
Then I see something like this, I remember why I stopped playing the game last time and the army goes back in the case. What an absolute joke, really the only thing anyone could do in that situation is laugh and would indeed be tremendously funny except for seeing what was once a beloved game of mine fallen so far.
Obviously the sole purpose was to get as many people to buy the Eldar titan as possible, or whatever other super-heavy, and any attempt at balance (beyond them being featured on both sides) be damned.
As a tournament organizer, I have noticed some mixed feelings in the local community regarding the two new expansions. My tentative proposition is to run my 40k singles event as normal prior to these two books but to also set aside 4 tables for a dedicated Escalation/Strongpoint Assault mini-tournament, where players have a clear understanding of what they are facing.
No one at my store really approves of the Escalation expansion including myself. We're also not strangers to larger casual games anyway (2000+ points) so if we do want to use super heavies we might as well be using the rules for Apocalypse. We have a tournament coming up this Saturday; Escalation is banned.
Watching this video made me lose all respect for Games Workshop.
The blatant, shameless cash grab has been rubbed in everyone's face. They didn't play test this crap.
This release was a copy past of the Apocalypse book, with an aggressive release schedule from the marketing & finance department to sell plastic toys.
It is not wargaming by any stretch of the imagination.
I am seriously considering getting out of 40K; I just can't support this company any longer.
Peregrine wrote: It isn't the end of competitive play, it's just the end of competitive play without explicit rules about what is legal. Very few, if any, competitive events will allow superheavies and D-weapons, so the only change is that every event will have a list of banned units/armies/etc instead of just the "comp" ones.
Remember when people said the same thing about Allies? Now they're accepted because they're part of 40k.
If you're not playing with D-strength weapons, you're not playing 40k anymore. Having tournaments with all these house-rule excluding the different supplements may get rather confusing.
Do you expect tournaments to be banning the Codex supplements too?
Well they already ban IA books so (not saying IA is broken. Then again it would be hard to say that considering my IG army depends on it )
Anyways.... competitive 40k won't end. There's too many individuals that enjoy the game. Either it will stay in as only a few superheavies are actually scary (yeah try and convince me Tau, Tyranids, and both flavors of Chaos even got something worth glancing at), only D weapons and maybe a few other things will be banned, or the entire thing will be ignored just like a certain air supplement that gave rules for flyers but was largely ignored hint hint
I hate these posts. All they do is mock other people's concerns. There's not even any counter argument that makes any points or shows why things like the Revenant Titan is not a problem (whilst many have given reasons why it is). It's just out and out mockery without support.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ashrog wrote: I'm confused. Am I the only person here who doesn't own a Revenant Titan? Because it sounds like they are suddenly springing up everywhere.
Not at all. But expect them to be showing up a lot mire from now on. Dakka is kind of the canary in the mine. When something is bad, you'll see the complaints here first. They take a while to trickle out into the everyday gaming world.
Watching this video made me lose all respect for Games Workshop.
The blatant, shameless cash grab has been rubbed in everyone's face. They didn't play test this crap.
This release was a copy past of the Apocalypse book, with an aggressive release schedule from the marketing & finance department to sell plastic toys.
It is not wargaming by any stretch of the imagination.
I am seriously considering getting out of 40K; I just can't support this company any longer.
To be fair, 40k has never been a spectacularly balanced game or even one well suited to Competitive play in the first place. We've always had "loser" armies (e.g. Sisters now, Necrons and Tau during 5th, IG in 2nd/3rd/4th/first year 5th, etc) and we've always had "Winner" armies (Eldar for 2nd/3rd/part of 4th/now 6th, IG/SW/GK's in 5th, etc). We've also always had different tournament standards as to points level and list legality depending on where you play.
Games Workshop had just stopped maintaining any pretense of competitive gameplay at this point. They just want to make it easier and/or more accessible for people to use all of the models they make so more people will buy them.
I hate these posts. All they do is mock other people's concerns. There's not even any counter argument that makes any points or shows why things like the Reaver Titan is not a problem (whilst many have given reasons why it is). It's just out and out mockery without support.
Agreed. People have valid concerns over an aspect of the game, if you're going to insinuate their concerns aren't valid at least have the decency to write a few sentences or possibly even debate the topic. I've heard your show mr. tuttle, you know how to string a few sentences together and you're perfectly capable of doing so.
Vaktathi wrote: To be fair, 40k has never been a spectacularly balanced game or even one well suited to Competitive play in the first place. We've always had "loser" armies (e.g. Sisters now, Necrons and Tau during 5th, IG in 2nd/3rd/4th/first year 5th, etc) and we've always had "Winner" armies (Eldar for 2nd/3rd/part of 4th/now 6th, IG/SW/GK's in 5th, etc). We've also always had different tournament standards as to points level and list legality depending on where you play.
Games Workshop had just stopped maintaining any pretense of competitive gameplay at this point.
But for the most part you had one army fighting another army, generally on a board setup by a third party. Yes, the game has never been well balanced, I just don't see how adding more and more variables helps organized play. All the individuals who were excited about the escalation release now actually have to face the fact that it's pretty scattershot and you're probably better off just playing full on apocalypse, unless you enjoy seeing everyone and their mom running wraithknights as revenant titans.
The hand of Ward moves in mysterious ways its atrocities to perform.
True. Because the atrocities always seem to have "Phil Kelly" printed on the author-page.
This. Kelly is utterly incompetent. Regarding Escalation, well, who needs balance in a set of rules? Sealclubbing is fun and stuff and all those boring balance nazis
just don't "get it".
Crablezworth wrote: [Yes, the game has never been well balanced, I just don't see how adding more and more variables helps organized play. All the individuals who were excited about the escalation release now actually have to face the fact that it's pretty scattershot and you're probably better off just playing full on apocalypse, unless you enjoy seeing everyone and their mom running wraithknights as revenant titans.
Adding more and more variables doesn't help organized play. Quite the reverse. The more variables there are, especially in a points-buy game, the more likely it is that a dominant strategy emerges.
The problem with a dominant strategy is that a competitive game no longer supports multiple viable strategies. To win, you just use the dominant strategy.
We know GW has always been pretty bad at getting round to playtesting ("hey, the guys in the studio played a couple of games over some beers, using their fluffiest armies, and they didn't spot any probems... surely it's balanced by now?"). The latest round of money-grab expansions has been worse than ever, for that, though, and Escalation worst of the lot.
Be that as it may you do see multiple variant strategies emerging at tournaments; not every army is cookie cutter, there are several top-end builds and even some surprises.
Yes, absolutely. At the moment, there are still multiple viable builds. For me, 6th actually did reasonably well at promoting that (although vehicles are a little underpowered, and fliers/MCs a little overpowered, for their cost, for the most part). But it's hard to tell if that was good luck on GW's part, or actual playtesting. The most recent releases make me think it's the latter, because I do think it's likely we'll see a dominant strategy emerge (even if it's just "buy a specific unit from Escalation").
The blatant, shameless cash grab has been rubbed in everyone's face. They didn't play test this crap.
This release was a copy past of the Apocalypse book, with an aggressive release schedule from the marketing & finance department to sell plastic toys.
It is not wargaming by any stretch of the imagination.
I am seriously considering getting out of 40K; I just can't support this company any longer.
I don't get it.
Most frequent complaint about state of competive 40k is that "Games Workshop should be more like WotC: they have shown they know how to do it with Magic."
Well, this is exactly what MtG is: new expansions coming out at breakneck pace, all featuring crazy powerful new rules and abilities, generally more powerful than in the previous expansion, necessiting you to buy new stuff to stay competive. Meta is thrown up every few months.
So what's the problem? Isn't this what majority of the Internet messageboard gamers have wanted for years??
PrinceRaven wrote: I think the key difference is that Wizards of the Coast have some sense of what "competitive balance" means.
QFT. 40k isn't designed to be a competitive game, by any standard. You can play it competitively, but it's not going to be anything close to a competitive game.
Yeah, WotC do very heavy playtesting, and have no objection to releasing rules tweaks on a regular basis if something proves to be unbalanced despite the playtests.
Banlists are good, banlists mean the company recognises that sometimes they release things that are too powerful and do something about it to promote a fun and competitive environment. If 40k continues along this trend of making OP units and combinations obsolete only by making even more OP units and combinations it will be neither competitive or fun to play.
every single game then becomes " kill the lord of war, save the lord of war" it narrows the scope of every single game , it's not so much a balance issue ( bring a pod list with triple raven and you will kill the super heavy ) it makes the game even narrower than it already is .
YYMV. I like the addition of Victory Points for stripping wounds or hull points off Super Heavies, the bonus to Siezing the Initiative is nice, and the Warlord Traits are designed to help you fight the Lords of War even better. And I love the mission "Defiant to the End" as it pits 1k of one person's army against a lone Lord of War and victory is determined by if or when the Lord of War falls.
I think it balances fine as long as both players get into the game expecting the same thing and know if they plan on using Escalation rles in their game or not. It balances fine casually, with the normal social contract stipulations, but less so when people try to sneak things onto the table without warning you just so they can get their jollies by grinding your army in a bloody paste.
I guess those are valid points, but I just can't shake the feeling that it feels so terribly lazy. Putting the onus on the player to self balance games beforehand is pretty weak rules writing, even for an alleged 'beer and pretzels' game. Especially considering the cost of the game compared to other games that are far more finished and balanced.
I don't know, I guess I can still have fun and all that, but it'd be more because of the people I'd play with then the game itself.
Ah well, different strokes and all that.
But every single game then becomes " kill the lord of war, save the lord of war" it narrows the scope of every single game , it's not so much a balance issue ( bring a pod list with triple raven and you will kill the super heavy ) it makes the game even narrower than it already is .
Only if you choose to play with/against Lord of War.
Honestly I love how the assumption is that you have to play with Escalation. Turning down a game against a Stompa is no different than turning down a game against Triptide. No one is being forced to play with/against anything in this game.
Is Escalation a powerful addition to the game? Yes. But it's also optional. GW didn't make Lords of War a requirement in your army afterall.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
PrinceRaven wrote: I think the key difference is that Wizards of the Coast have some sense of what "competitive balance" means.
Only because they built their game around a tournament system. GW built theirs around a narrative one and doesn't need the same approach to be playable.
Could it always be better? Any game can always be "better", but it doesn't make 40k bad just because they dodn't do the same exact think MtG did.
YYMV. I like the addition of Victory Points for stripping wounds or hull points off Super Heavies, the bonus to Siezing the Initiative is nice, and the Warlord Traits are designed to help you fight the Lords of War even better. And I love the mission "Defiant to the End" as it pits 1k of one person's army against a lone Lord of War and victory is determined by if or when the Lord of War falls.
I think it balances fine as long as both players get into the game expecting the same thing and know if they plan on using Escalation rles in their game or not. It balances fine casually, with the normal social contract stipulations, but less so when people try to sneak things onto the table without warning you just so they can get their jollies by grinding your army in a bloody paste.
I guess those are valid points, but I just can't shake the feeling that it feels so terribly lazy. Putting the onus on the player to self balance games beforehand is pretty weak rules writing, even for an alleged 'beer and pretzels' game. Especially considering the cost of the game compared to other games that are far more finished and balanced.
I don't know, I guess I can still have fun and all that, but it'd be more because of the people I'd play with then the game itself.
Ah well, different strokes and all that.
But every single game then becomes " kill the lord of war, save the lord of war" it narrows the scope of every single game , it's not so much a balance issue ( bring a pod list with triple raven and you will kill the super heavy ) it makes the game even narrower than it already is .
Only if you choose to play with/against Lord of War.
Honestly I love how the assumption is that you have to play with Escalation. Turning down a game against a Stompa is no different than turning down a game against Triptide. No one is being forced to play with/against anything in this game.
Is Escalation a powerful addition to the game? Yes. But it's also optional. GW didn't make Lords of War a requirement in your army afterall.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
PrinceRaven wrote: I think the key difference is that Wizards of the Coast have some sense of what "competitive balance" means.
Only because they built their game around a tournament system. GW built theirs around a narrative one and doesn't need the same approach to be playable.
Could it always be better? Any game can always be "better", but it doesn't make 40k bad just because they dodn't do the same exact think MtG did.
In tournament play, you have two choices: play your opponent or forfeit the game. Part of the strong backlash comes from the fact that people don't want to see this in tournaments.
I disagree with you on the reasoning for Escalation. IMO it has nothing to do with narrative. It has to do with poor business decisions: GW makes models that nobody wants or needs (i.e., fortifications, Lord of Skulls, etc., at the expense of failing to create the models that people actually want, like new Berzerkers or IG infantry) and when they don't sell, they have to recoup their cost by designing game breaking rules to get people to buy the thing.
That's not "beer and pretzels" or "narrative." It's an artificially designed arms race created to compensate for poor business practice and foresight.
If you dont want to see this in tournaments: Tell the TOs that the reason you are not attending is because of it, and if enough people express disatisfaction - and actually do something, instead of just turning up anyway - then tournaments generally listen.
I know we've already talked about it, and essentially its the return of 40k comp, essentially. Hiatus of a few editions, but I dont see a way round it - the old "no spam" doesnt get rid of the more unfun armies anymore.
I would disagree nobody "wants" or "needs" fortifications, and most of the lords of war - there is as much a "need" for a stompa or warhound as there is for a variant broadside, or "relic" whirlwind. Meaning there is no need, but a preference, for all of these. Bezerkers could really do with a new set of models, however they also desperately need a new set of rules to make them vaguely useful.
Everyone keeps saying that 40k doesn't balance because it's a narrative/beer and pretzels/fun game, but think back to the last time you had a massive mismatch of a game, and it was just a complete one-sided stompfest that lasted all of 3 turns. Did you have fun? Did your opponent have fun? The ability for both sides to stand a chance and actually participate in a game is by far the most important thing when it comes to making a versus game fun. The key is that imbalance in the system has to be small and subtle, not absolutely massive and overpowering.
Can someone please explain this "Forging the Narrative" thing to me? Cause I think I've been doing this wrong. I've been using the little models as part of a table top game using dice. Am I supposed to be putting on a play or something? If so then how many, if any, musical numbers am I supposed to perform?
Savageconvoy wrote: Can someone please explain this "Forging the Narrative" thing to me? Cause I think I've been doing this wrong. I've been using the little models as part of a table top game using dice. Am I supposed to be putting on a play or something? If so then how many, if any, musical numbers am I supposed to perform?
You mean you don't re-enact The Lion King when playing 40k? Well, to each their own I guess.
Savageconvoy wrote: Can someone please explain this "Forging the Narrative" thing to me? Cause I think I've been doing this wrong. I've been using the little models as part of a table top game using dice. Am I supposed to be putting on a play or something? If so then how many, if any, musical numbers am I supposed to perform?
When you've worked up to Abaddon the Despoiler doing the moonwalk, then you've done enough musical numbers.
And you need to write the script in a furnace, using a hammer.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Actually, thinking about it, I'd quite like to see a WH40k musical (but only if it's a comedy)
...Abaddon doing the moonwalk partway in, and the grand finale could see a whole company of terminators doing backflips!
I hate these posts. All they do is mock other people's concerns. There's not even any counter argument that makes any points or shows why things like the Reaver Titan is not a problem (whilst many have given reasons why it is). It's just out and out mockery without support.
Agreed. People have valid concerns over an aspect of the game, if you're going to insinuate their concerns aren't valid at least have the decency to write a few sentences or possibly even debate the topic. I've heard your show mr. tuttle, you know how to string a few sentences together and you're perfectly capable of doing so.
Sometimes that's all that really needs to be said. These threads turn into gong-shows where people catastrophize about the death of 40k and other such nonsense. Pointing out how absurd it isn't necessarily mockery. Throwing up a debate like I am isn't necessary, it is just masochistic when so many people are hysterical like this.
Forging a narrative, or creating a scenario that you and your opponent play to have a fun time. Narrative story driven games where you use the missions as a base line for creating your own objectives and campaign.
I think that a Super Heavy is a great add to narrative.
Game Type - Modified (The Relic)
Deployment - Hammer and Anvil
Armies - Each force is comprised of a legal 1850 pts list. This list cannot include a Lord of War or Fortification.
Rules: Place a suitable counter in the center of the board to be the 'Relic'. (This relic represents the final piece to the puzzle of a respective Lord of War. It could be the final piece of STC, or the missing Soul Stone of a Revenant, or the final bit o' scrap to make a stompa get back to 'crumpin!)
Victory Conditions - Victory Points - Slay the Warlord, Line Breaker, First Blood - The Relic counts as 2 Victory Points, and whomever controls the Relic at the end of the game can bring a Lord of War to the next game.
Wasn't too tough to put a narrative to that. Remember, Narrative can be a short one-off game, or a series of games. The example above is a series.
Some people just like to make a devastating exploitative list and bring it to a tournament... some don't.
Savageconvoy wrote: Can someone please explain this "Forging the Narrative" thing to me? Cause I think I've been doing this wrong. I've been using the little models as part of a table top game using dice. Am I supposed to be putting on a play or something? If so then how many, if any, musical numbers am I supposed to perform?
Basically if you play 40k as nothing more than a dispassionate set of data, you're doing it wrong. Try reading some of the background fluff/material, especially in your codex.
Savageconvoy wrote: Can someone please explain this "Forging the Narrative" thing to me? Cause I think I've been doing this wrong. I've been using the little models as part of a table top game using dice. Am I supposed to be putting on a play or something? If so then how many, if any, musical numbers am I supposed to perform?
Basically if you play 40k as nothing more than a dispassionate set of data, you're doing it wrong. Try reading some of the background fluff/material, especially in your codex.
Pretty much on the money. That's why I laugh at the people who complain about 40k being, well 40k. It's more than just mechanics, it's a narrative game, meant to tell stories, inspire players to write their own missions, units or even full codexes and be more than just a means to make yourself feel better by pasting the other person's army.
What people are pointing out, though, is that a balanced game isn't just better for competitive play. It's *ALSO* better for casual play, for beer-and-pretzels games, for forging a narrative, etc. etc. etc.
Not only that, but a truly successful wargame needs both casual players and hardcore competitive players. The casual players are necessary for commercial success. The competitive players are necessary to drive deep thought about tactics and strategy, that the casual players can then use.
Ian Sturrock wrote: What people are pointing out, though, is that a balanced game isn't just better for competitive play. It's *ALSO* better for casual play, for beer-and-pretzels games, for forging a narrative, etc. etc. etc.
While it is better for everyone, the game isn't exactly in any real dire straits here being less balanced than a more competitive game may be.
Ian Sturrock wrote: Not only that, but a truly successful wargame needs both casual players and hardcore competitive players. The casual players are necessary for commercial success. The competitive players are necessary to drive deep thought about tactics and strategy, that the casual players can then use.
Ehhhh...That's debatable actually. Yes you do need people to spend money, and the arms race the competitive market does is pretty good at that, but I don't think anyone needs to be some kind of hardcore competitive player to be tactically sound. That's actually a backhanded insult to the less competitive side because it's accusing them of not being able to be tactical without help.
Savageconvoy wrote: Can someone please explain this "Forging the Narrative" thing to me? Cause I think I've been doing this wrong. I've been using the little models as part of a table top game using dice. Am I supposed to be putting on a play or something? If so then how many, if any, musical numbers am I supposed to perform?
Basically if you play 40k as nothing more than a dispassionate set of data, you're doing it wrong. Try reading some of the background fluff/material, especially in your codex.
Pretty much on the money. That's why I laugh at the people who complain about 40k being, well 40k. It's more than just mechanics, it's a narrative game, meant to tell stories, inspire players to write their own missions, units or even full codexes and be more than just a means to make yourself feel better by pasting the other person's army.
How lovely to be laughed at.
Why you think that good background makes game balance unnecessary I neither know nor care, but different people have different leanings and as there is zero reason why game design and fluff need to be mutually exclusive things, it's pretty tiresome when every complaint about one is followed by you saying we should only care about the other.
Ian Sturrock wrote: What people are pointing out, though, is that a balanced game isn't just better for competitive play. It's *ALSO* better for casual play, for beer-and-pretzels games, for forging a narrative, etc. etc. etc.
Not only that, but a truly successful wargame needs both casual players and hardcore competitive players. The casual players are necessary for commercial success. The competitive players are necessary to drive deep thought about tactics and strategy, that the casual players can then use.
Except, 40k *is* balanced for casual play. You just want it balanced for competative play. Just admit that and we can all move on.
Ian Sturrock wrote: What people are pointing out, though, is that a balanced game isn't just better for competitive play. It's *ALSO* better for casual play, for beer-and-pretzels games, for forging a narrative, etc. etc. etc.
Not only that, but a truly successful wargame needs both casual players and hardcore competitive players. The casual players are necessary for commercial success. The competitive players are necessary to drive deep thought about tactics and strategy, that the casual players can then use.
Except, 40k *is* balanced for casual play. You just want it balanced for competative play. Just admit that and we can all move on.
By 'balanced for casual play' but not 'balanced for competitive play', do you mean 'it's not balanced but if it's a casual game you should have lower standards' ?
troa wrote: As long as everyone has access, and with escalation they do (money constraints aside), 40k is still competitive. Now, what the scene looks like and whether it's just titans going around bashing each other is another issue.
By 'balanced for casual play' but not 'balanced for competitive play', do you mean 'it's not balanced but if it's a casual game you should have lower standards' ?
No, I mean it's balanced for casual play. By that I mean that units' powers and abilities are not grossly disproportionate to the extent that it would be obvious during a casual match (or more accurately, in a casual list). One vendetta is not over-powered, nor is one rip-tide, or a small unit of screamers without re-rollable 2++.
I wouldn't say 40k was *perfectly* balanced, as there are examples were some armies are simply more powerful than other armies, though that was a lot worse in 5th edition. But I certainly wouldn't want 40k to become the boring mess that many want it to become.
By 'balanced for casual play' but not 'balanced for competitive play', do you mean 'it's not balanced but if it's a casual game you should have lower standards' ?
No, I mean it's balanced for casual play. By that I mean that units' powers and abilities are not grossly disproportionate to the extent that it would be obvious during a casual match (or more accurately, in a casual list). One vendetta is not over-powered, nor is one rip-tide, or a small unit of screamers without re-rollable 2++.
I wouldn't say 40k was *perfectly* balanced, as there are examples were some armies are simply more powerful than other armies, though that was a lot worse in 5th edition. But I certainly wouldn't want 40k to become the boring mess that many want it to become.
That's pretty much what I was saying - that if it's not balanced for competitive play but it is for 'casual' play, then that's because of self-imposed limitations in casual play. And if a game is dependent on self-imposed limitations if we're required to - how it seems to me - tip toe around lots of easy wins in order to make the game work, that's the lower standards I'm talking about. If a game is filled with 'gentlemen's agreements' to not use things, then it brings in many, many problems when it comes to playing anyone other than long-term regular players.
I also strongly disagree that the choice is between balance and "the boring mess that many want it to become". That you interpret our posts as the latter is rather worrying, to be honest.
xruslanx wrote: Except, 40k *is* balanced for casual play. You just want it balanced for competative play. Just admit that and we can all move on.
Either it's balanced, or it isn't. It isn't.
Balancing a game for casual or competitive play is identical. See Sirlin, Juul, Adams, Salen & Zimmerman, Koster, Brathwaite, etc.
Casual players are less likely to notice that a game is unbalanced than are highly competitive players. but that doesn't make the imbalances any less egregious.
But then again, once the meta is ruled by Revenants/baneblades/whatever, you wont see any more deathstars.
You will see a surge of "super melta pinpoint target annihilation armies" like SoB (hello 18+ S8AP1 shots on turn 1.), Enclaves (18 double-fusion suits? yes we can!), necron warrior spam (ALL THE GAUSS) and other MSU armies that while each individual unit is not much of a loss, they can each contribute to whittle down a superheavy.
Now these armies take down your superheavies, but look! here comes to the rescue the horde armies, where the armies that brought plenty of anti-tank weapons took down superheavies easy, they can't deal with a horde of essentially worthless units.
And so on ans so on.
By the fact Escalation increases the number of silly overpowering units that can hit the field, it REDUCES their apperance, as it becomes less profitable to field singular units who cost alot and pull the army by themselves, you are better serves by having plenty of individualistic units where even wiping out whole units at a time gets you nowhere, because these units were of no importance to the army.
And the superheavies themselves have built-in killswitches.
They give the enemy higher sieze chance, something that CAN bite you hard.
They give a new, POWERFUL warlord trait list. one that can and will ruin the superheavie's own day.
And they give the important victory points. and as tau ethereal shown us, its a double egged sword to have something that is crazy strong, but grants VP on death.
And if someone points me back to that vid from before, remember they got the rules WRONG about formations, and actually fitting that much in is abysmally hard (they needed 4 more broadsides, that's a minimum of 260 points if they had no wargear)
Also, just glossing on the chaos army, his list was almost purposefully bad. heck it was designed by all the guildings of "what are super-heavies best against" it was a video made with a purpose, and that purpose was to try and make the Revenant as OP as possibly, and even then the chaos almost took him down.
I apologize, I should have been clearer: I'm not laughing at the person, but rather this idea that the game needs to be some kind of perfect bastion of balance to be enjoyable or fun. I see a lot of comparisons to MtG but why not reference the real thing that 40k has more in common with: D&D. Both are narrative games meant for the enjoyment of the players involved, are not balanced to the fine edge that I see demanded of 40k (but never seems to be demanded of any other wargame), and they're still fun games if you go into it with everyone wanting the same thing out of the game.
Can they be better? I will never not say something can't be "better" but it's a very subjective term that means something to everyone, even when you start adding in quantifiers like "balance" in there. But does the game have to be designed to please a competitive side of the hobby? Not a chance. I get that some people like to rank themselves against others and see who is the best, but the game doesn't have to do that to be good or fun. Skyrim is a buggy mess with no multi-player but it's still fun. Competition doesn't make a game better, it just gives people some kind of imaginary stand to put themselves or others on and judge "skill" and "tactics" in games that still largely involve luck.
Can 40k have a competetive scene anyways? Sure. But it's not the actual game. Try as you might to say otherwise, competitive play isn't what this game is made for. And I don't mean the balance either.
Pre-set terrain, time limits, brackets, prizes, rounds, and sometimes even comp, removing/limiting allies, and more, all play into tournaments but have entries in the main rulebook. I'm not saying that tournaments are wrong (I do, however, disagree with the mentality that some tournament players have that makes them no fun to play with), but I am saying that the game you play in a tournament is already a departure from the game as it's written. Rather hilarious in its own right when you consider that many of the tournament players play "rules as written" but fail to take into account that some of those rules they're playing under are not actually rules of the game.
knas ser wrote: Why you think that good background makes game balance unnecessary I neither know nor care, but different people have different leanings and as there is zero reason why game design and fluff need to be mutually exclusive things, it's pretty tiresome when every complaint about one is followed by you saying we should only care about the other.
Unnecessary? I wouldn't go that far. Better balance is always good. As for the game design/fluff being different I'd like to introduce you to Gameplay and Story Segregation. It's a common thing in games where the story says, or shows one thing, but the mechanics work differently. It happens all the time.
Now in a perfect world we'd have a system that's set up in such a way the mechanics and the fluff would skip merrily hand in hand into the sunset. The problem is that the game needs to be redone from the ground up. You're not going to get that in the system we have now and complaining that you don't have that in this current game is a bit silly because the mechanics are so abstracted they don't make for a good means of actually showing the fluff completely.
So with what we have, it's enough. It's as good as it can be with what we have and the fact that people can't see the fact that the game needs a rework to be any more than that is a bit distressing. I always hope for the game to be "better" just so these kinds of discussions can go the way of the dinosaur, but until then I recognize that with what the game is, an abstraction of a setting that acts as a toolset for the players to forge narratives with instead of a simulation that has been written for more competitive players at their focal point.
And if someone points me back to that vid from before, remember they got the rules WRONG about formations, and actually fitting that much in is abysmally hard (they needed 4 more broadsides, that's a minimum of 260 points if they had no wargear)
Also, just glossing on the chaos army, his list was almost purposefully bad. heck it was designed by all the guildings of "what are super-heavies best against" it was a video made with a purpose, and that purpose was to try and make the Revenant as OP as possibly, and even then the chaos almost took him down.
They mentioned afterwards the confusion about the formations. In reality what they got wrong with the formation is really minimal compared to what actually happened in the game. If you paid attention to how much damage the Titan did on it's own, the rest of the army was really more garnish than anything else.
Also the opponent's list wasn't bad. They mentioned before in one of the threads here and I think in the video that the list was a standard and decent tournament list and his opponent a good player. Your justification is that the guy brought a list that would hold it's own in the current meta and wasn't customized to a list that was in all fairness "Add Titan, fill the rest with whatever".
@SavageConvoy: In brief then, we're saying that a tournament list designed for a specific meta is less good against a list that doesn't conform to that meta? Not really a good comparison the.
Also where are all the claims that CSM are a crap army now when this happens? Suddenly the community goes from "CSM are the worst army in 6th and Eldar are soooo much better" to "OMG! That CSM army lost to the Eldar one with the titan! Titans are so OP!"
Sorry, but it doesn't work both ways. If CSM are being pitted against an army that the competitive scene claims is better all the time then we need to see a better comparison, like that Eldar list versus something like Triptide or a Grav bike army. Put the claims of cheese against armies that are always being called cheese, not the ones that are called crap.
No, he brought a list without ANY SH solutions, not even simple ones.
Not even deepstirking oblits, who are a GOOD unit, and can do a real number on superheavies.
I did the math on another thread, honestly a good old fasions 5ED list with multiple DS melta units SHOULD exterminate the revenant. it takes about 15 shots with melta alone to take it down when you assume BS4, hiting the front, and having no special rules that assist tank killing.
15 melta shots is within the realm of reason. and it can be further reduced by hitting rear (to 6 shots if all hit rear), hitting with extra stuff (still front 12 rear 10, any S7 gun is a possible threat) or increasing BS.
And yes, I am talking number of shots fired on average, not even hits required. and I did take the holo-field into account.
Its just...not that many. less then I would pack in my army BEFORE superheavy threat.
Its even within T1 kill possibility for many armies, and T2 kill range for many others.
So as long you dont have units worth enough points to make the D weapons pay off, you are actually usually better off being the one assuming enemy superheavies and spamming AT mobile answers, then taking a super yourself.
So what you're saying is that it's okay for a single army to have access to a single model that effectively makes all current lists obsolete? Is that it? Not just meta changing, but it completely neutered that list in short order. The only thing the Chaos guy had that could do anything was a flyer that couldn't get hit and using the Titan itself.
Secondly, I still see a lot of Chaos/CSM armies in use and doing well in the tournament lists. Regardless, the Titan by itself cleared TWO armies worth of models in just a few turns.
What he COULD do, is bring anti-tank.
He brought ZERO anti-tank units, and a whole lot of expensive MC who are the prefect target for a revenant.
Yes, superheavies require some preperations. yes they invalidate armies.
What armies they invalidate?
Armies with zero anti-tank
Armies that relies on a one trick pony superunit. (a bit like the superheavy itself)
The first is nothing more then idiotic.
The second, I'm glad to see gone.
But alas, you will ignore my simple "fix" to his army-less points sank into expensive MCs, more cheapish AT units, preferably deep-striking ones.
Savageconvoy wrote: So what you're saying is that it's okay for a single army to have access to a single model that effectively makes all current lists obsolete? Is that it? Not just meta changing, but it completely neutered that list in short order. The only thing the Chaos guy had that could do anything was a flyer that couldn't get hit and using the Titan itself.
I doubt that was "the only thing the Chaos guy could do". That's all he could do building for a meta that already stomps on his army pretty hard perhaps, but that wasn't the only thing he could do.
"One model that completely makes all lists obsolete"? Heldrake, Wave Serpent, Riptide in that order. It happens all the time in the tournament scene. One titan doesn't really make that particularly different.
Also we have more options coming from FW so we may be seeing CSM Titans as an option to fighting back.
Savageconvoy wrote: Secondly, I still see a lot of Chaos/CSM armies in use and doing well in the tournament lists. Regardless, the Titan by itself cleared TWO armies worth of models in just a few turns.
Not doing nearly as well as Eldar or Tau in the tournament scene. Even without the Titan the Chaos Player had the short end of the stick. If someone wants to prove that a tournament army would have issues with it, then they need to put it against a top table army, which is mostly Tau and Eldar, not one that averages out to be in the middle at best.
Gosh it's almost like jy2 only had the (competitive to the meta before Dec. 1st) army he was already making with him when they decided to try out Escalation for the first time like they explained in the Baneblade/Stompa video. Silly jy2, why didn't you use your omniscience to know about that spontaneous decision ahead of time and tailor against Adam's list!?
The way I see it is that for the price GW expects us to pay for their rules, I in return expect a rule set balanced significantly more than the current iteration.
Saying a game is balanced for casual play but not for competitive play means the game isn't balanced. It means *your* idea of balanced is different from many other people's. And then we have to further define what casual is, as it differs greatly between person and gaming groups.
Competitive balancing on the other hand is universal; give a player base enough time and they'll find the broken, overpowered, and underpowered elements of the game. This would apply equally to anyone trying to win at any tournament.
Sure, 40k is fine for beer and pretzels, but so is every other wargame out there. They can all 'forge narratives', and provide 'cinematic' experiences or whatever other keyword you wish to toss around. The difference between 40k and nearly every other game available is that those games also work well at a competitive level. In these other games, every unit is balanced and worth taking in any list against any other list.
And here's the clincher. A game that is balanced is *more* casual than a game that is not. It means you can build the fluffiest list you want, or any list in between, and it will still work without having to discuss with your opponent before hand about how strong their list is.
I think part of the argument is that 40k's fluff is so large and seeps into the game quite a bit. Just imagine the same fluff and models, but everything would be balanced. It would be more cinematic, more beer and pretzel-y, more fun, and completely eliminate this absurd gap between competitive and non-competitive gamers/games. Arguing otherwise just feels like needlessly defending mediocrity for the sake of the status quo.
I just can't get behind the idea that 40k is somehow 'balanced' and 'great at being a casual game' when you consider the obscene cost of the game and how a simpler, better written rule set with balanced factions and units would make it better for everyone for everything.
So, in summary, there is no reason that a more balanced and better written ruleset wouldn't:
1) Increase cinematic or narrative experiences
2) Make it any less of a casual, 'beer and pretzels' game
3) Make it stagnate without crazy power creep (40k is nowhere near being the ideal 'perfect imbalance' some video games have, not even close)
Don't just accept mediocrity. This game could be universally better for all if GW took after some other companies on the market. There is certainly an element of subjectivity, but I'm sure everyone could get behind the idea that Vendettas would no longer be an auto-include, and ratlings might even see the light of day. This is better for everyone in every way imaginable. There's no downside. The rulebook should be clearer in their wordings; their rules should be play-tested to find the weird situations; their codices should work with the rules, not against them; the codices should be internally and externally balanced; and then everything would be better for everyone.
By 'balanced for casual play' but not 'balanced for competitive play', do you mean 'it's not balanced but if it's a casual game you should have lower standards' ?
No, I mean it's balanced for casual play. By that I mean that units' powers and abilities are not grossly disproportionate to the extent that it would be obvious during a casual match (or more accurately, in a casual list). One vendetta is not over-powered, nor is one rip-tide, or a small unit of screamers without re-rollable 2++.
I wouldn't say 40k was *perfectly* balanced, as there are examples were some armies are simply more powerful than other armies, though that was a lot worse in 5th edition. But I certainly wouldn't want 40k to become the boring mess that many want it to become.
That's pretty much what I was saying - that if it's not balanced for competitive play but it is for 'casual' play, then that's because of self-imposed limitations in casual play. And if a game is dependent on self-imposed limitations if we're required to - how it seems to me - tip toe around lots of easy wins in order to make the game work, that's the lower standards I'm talking about. If a game is filled with 'gentlemen's agreements' to not use things, then it brings in many, many problems when it comes to playing anyone other than long-term regular players.
I also strongly disagree that the choice is between balance and "the boring mess that many want it to become". That you interpret our posts as the latter is rather worrying, to be honest.
it's no more difficult than any other social etiquette. I think that making the most powerful list possible is probably very difficult for the average gamer, even with internet access. The very idea of trying to be as powerful as possible is alien to most 40k players, since that isn't what 40k is about, any more than it should be about infantry spam or terrainhammer.
So with that in mind i don't see why a game that people enjoy should be changed and made into something else, simply because they said so. 40k is a mainstream game with a high street presence - it isn't a serious wargame, and it doesn't try to be. There is as much justification in saying '40k should be balanced for competative play' as there is in saying '40k should only have tanks'.
Talore wrote: Gosh it's almost like jy2 only had the (competitive to the meta before Dec. 1st) army he was already making with him when they decided to try out Escalation for the first time like they explained in the Baneblade/Stompa video. Silly jy2, why didn't you use your omniscience to know about that spontaneous decision ahead of time and tailor against Adam's list!?
Well then that just makes it even worse to use as any real yardstick to judge how "good" this titan really is, now isn't it? He didn't plan for this game, and shot himself in the foot from his lack of anti-armor in the list.
If you get surprised by this, you did something wrong setting your game up by failing to communicate with your opponent, or failing to notice that you signed up for an event that permitted Lords of War and you didn't bring anything to handle them. Unless your opponent intentionally faked you out to sneak a Lord of War on the table (then you have more issues than that Lord of War, like a shifty opponent) it's not anyone's fault but your own for not preparing, or making it clear you didn't want to play against it.
A 40K ruleset that allowed you to set up and play in reliably 45-60 min for a standard-sized game (say 1500 pts or so), moving up to the 90-min mark for a really big game, would be better for both tournament and casual play.
And, absolutely, a 40K in which deciding to do an army of Thousand Sons backed up by Defilers and allied to Gretchin-heavy Orks, wasn't a huge disadvantage going up against your mate's shooty Tau/Eldar force, would be much, much better for casual and tournament play alike.
I'm not sure what to call all of you xD. Stop with the tv tropes. Think of the children!
Anyways, yeah they really need to test out the revanant against lists better made to fight them (and then one that is built to be a TAC against both vehicles, MC spam, and the other popular list types). Until then, we have no clue how it will influence it.
@Blacksails: I don't disagree with what you're saying, just that it ommits one key fact: those other games were made to be used in competitive play. The 40k we play now is based on a different yardstick and that's where a lot of the problems of putting it in that box of "competitive" come from.
I agree, this game can, and should be better. But as it is right now with the way the stats work, to how the weapons are defined needs to be redone from scratch to make that happen. 6th edition will never be that because of that. 7th might, but only if they stop using old systems because that's what they've been using, and start using new ones instead.
40kas it iscan't be competitive because of those archaic systems that are in place, and that's why I don't see any reason to push it to be so. We need a game that is built to handle competitive play, not just shoehorned into it to make it work.
Right now, 40k isn't suited to meet any kind of level of "competitive", it's suited to tell stories, to build on with your own rules and generally have an experience that is best done with friends for fun, not against strangers for prizes.
ClockworkZion wrote: @Blacksails: I don't disagree with what you're saying, just that it ommits one key fact: those other games were made to be used in competitive play. The 40k we play now is based on a different yardstick and that's where a lot of the problems of putting it in that box of "competitive" come from.
I agree, this game can, and should be better. But as it is right now with the way the stats work, to how the weapons are defined needs to be redone from scratch to make that happen. 6th edition will never be that because of that. 7th might, but only if they stop using old systems because that's what they've been using, and start using new ones instead.
40kas it iscan't be competitive because of those archaic systems that are in place, and that's why I don't see any reason to push it to be so. We need a game that is built to handle competitive play, not just shoehorned into it to make it work.
Right now, 40k isn't suited to meet any kind of level of "competitive", it's suited to tell stories, to build on with your own rules and generally have an experience that is best done with friends for fun, not against strangers for prizes.
Exalted.
I like competitive games. A lot. But w40k it is not a competitive game, at all. It could be, if GW started working in this regard. It would take many years, many simplifications, many hard decisions. I don´t think they are interested.
The sky isn't falling, and 40K competition will live on.
The narrative players make tweaks and house rules for the game, we know things that don't work and we make fixes based upon observations. We know the game is meant for fun, so we keep in mind things that need fixing to make it fun, we talk about things that are broken, things that are cheese and we make adjustments to be sure that we're not
The funny part is that TOs have this idea that they don't have to comp things in tournaments. They also seem to have this idea that comp will make it so that people don't want to come to their events. I don't know where this idea comes from. How do you take a game that's not meant to be competitive, and then just throw it into a tournament setting all willy-nilly? I suppose tournaments are more fun when the army changes based upon the newest release. You want balance for tournaments, then balance... stop crying wolf and expecting GW to change their mind about how they want their game played.
I understand some things aren't balanced, and the things that aren't are blatantly obvious.. so why not just fix them for your competitive play?? Why moan about it on and on like GW making something that can break the game is new?
ClockworkZion wrote: @Blacksails: I don't disagree with what you're saying, just that it ommits one key fact: those other games were made to be used in competitive play. The 40k we play now is based on a different yardstick and that's where a lot of the problems of putting it in that box of "competitive" come from.
I agree, this game can, and should be better. But as it is right now with the way the stats work, to how the weapons are defined needs to be redone from scratch to make that happen. 6th edition will never be that because of that. 7th might, but only if they stop using old systems because that's what they've been using, and start using new ones instead.
40kas it iscan't be competitive because of those archaic systems that are in place, and that's why I don't see any reason to push it to be so. We need a game that is built to handle competitive play, not just shoehorned into it to make it work.
Right now, 40k isn't suited to meet any kind of level of "competitive", it's suited to tell stories, to build on with your own rules and generally have an experience that is best done with friends for fun, not against strangers for prizes.
Okay, well lets throw aside the word 'competitive' then. I expect 40k to be a game that is balanced and well written, using two broad statements for brevity. Currently, 40k is neither of these things. Using any sort of different yardstick (casual is a poor one to use as well as its so incredibly subjective) 40k still comes up a lesser game when the price and competitors are thrown in. This makes it a poor game by nearly any sort of yardstick. I honestly have a hard time thinking of some sort of scale, or factor, or general comparison scale that 40k excels in.
Right, so we agree it could and should be a better game. As it is, its a mess, and I agree. Its a confused game with many issues down to the very core. But why not even imagine a future edition that is heavily revamped to be that game 40k could be. Furthermore, why not even demand that 40k be more balanced than it currently is in its framework. Its not some herculean task, just takes time and effort that GW has no desire to invest in. So we're left with shoddy FAQs that miss over the important things, issues that aren't covered by the rules, and blatant imbalances that need to be worked out amongst the players.
Again, you're right, 40k isn't suited to be competitive, which I think most people will agree with. But a better 40k would not only be better to tell stories or add your own rules, it would also work better for the players looking for some tournament style gaming.
So here's my point; a better wargame is not only better suited for any sort of casual type play, but also works better for any sort of competitive type play. Most games nowadays probably aren't designed to be competitive tourney games, but a properly balanced and clearly written rule set works incredibly for everyone. I'm sure you could agree to that.
I understand 40kcurrently isn't any of these things, but it won't stop a lot of us from expecting even better balance or clearer rules. Not even with competition in mind, just making it so that I can field my old horde Guard, and my friend can field his Thousand Sons against armies like mechanized Eldar without gimping one side or having a lop sided battle. That's all really, and I hope you can see how that would be better for everyone with no drawbacks.
Savageconvoy wrote: Can someone please explain this "Forging the Narrative" thing to me? Cause I think I've been doing this wrong. I've been using the little models as part of a table top game using dice. Am I supposed to be putting on a play or something? If so then how many, if any, musical numbers am I supposed to perform?
Best post ever on dakka dakka , bravo sir.... bravo .....( clap,clap,clap,clap...)
@Blacksails, you're right, 40k should be better, and we should be pushing for a new edition that does just that, but we should also not be taking it out on the current edition either. It was made the way it was made and won't be better than it is. It can't help that, it just has really bad genes (or memes, to steal one from MGS2) that limit it's potential.
Can and should the game be better? Yes. A billion time yes. But can 6th Edition be what people keep demanding of it? I really don't think it can. It's not because it isn't trying to be more, to be better, to give up more of what we want in the game, but it can't meet expectations.
Expectations that honestly it will meet.
All we can hope is that 7th suceeds its parent in all the ways we want it too. But until then, trying to make 6th something it can't truly be doesn't help the game. So while we hope for the future we need to work around the restrictions of the present.
Well, it looks we generally agree on all counts really.
The realistic expectations part is where I have a hard time believing, well, anything. I expected Escalation to have some sort of limitation, like the HH Lord of War slot has. Even that, that one single rule, would have made Escalation so much more readily accepted.
Of course 6th can't be truly fixed or changed now, sorry, should have made that clearer. I'm just commenting on the general apologetic tones people have of GW at large and 40k specifically. Well, for GW's sake of my business, I certainly hope they make some serious fixes across the board to power levels and clarity of rules. I don't have my hopes up, as Escalation has most recently showed me, so now I'm just invested in the fluff, models, and the HH legion stuff currently.
Shame really. Oh well, Firestorm Armada recently dropped version 2.0, so I have that to look forward to.
Blacksails wrote: Well, it looks we generally agree on all counts really.
See? Despite claims to the contrary, I'm not unreasonable!
Blacksails wrote: The realistic expectations part is where I have a hard time believing, well, anything. I expected Escalation to have some sort of limitation, like the HH Lord of War slot has. Even that, that one single rule, would have made Escalation so much more readily accepted.
I agree. Honestly I think if enough people wrote in about it that they might change it.
Then again, I'm just as willing to bet the reason we'd get back is that it'd be unfair for some armies to get their Lords of War at lower points levels than others. "Balance" as it stands, is all a matter of perspective. They try to balance based on choices, we try to balance based on power.
Blacksails wrote: Of course 6th can't be truly fixed or changed now, sorry, should have made that clearer. I'm just commenting on the general apologetic tones people have of GW at large and 40k specifically. Well, for GW's sake of my business, I certainly hope they make some serious fixes across the board to power levels and clarity of rules. I don't have my hopes up, as Escalation has most recently showed me, so now I'm just invested in the fluff, models, and the HH legion stuff currently.
Shame really. Oh well, Firestorm Armada recently dropped version 2.0, so I have that to look forward to.
40k is all I play. It's all I want to play, and honesty I don't have the money to play anything else right now if I was interested in anything else. I've looked, I really have, but they've all lacked something that really just sucked me in and made me want to play the game like 40k did. It's a bit of a bummer, but I'm only sad that nothing else has grabbed my attention like this has more than anything.
That said, my time in the Army definitely taught me to dig a hole, bury my expectations in it and because they're set so low, everything will so much better by comparison to what I was expecting.
Then again I worked with some down right daft people who taught me that there is always someone dumber than you expect.
Blacksails wrote: I expect 40k to be a game that is balanced and well written, (...)
I understand 40kcurrently isn't any of these things, but it won't stop a lot of us from expecting even better balance or clearer rules. Not even with competition in mind, just making it so that I can field my old horde Guard, and my friend can field his Thousand Sons against armies like mechanized Eldar without gimping one side or having a lop sided battle. That's all really, and I hope you can see how that would be better for everyone with no drawbacks.
I think there is no hope in this regard. It has gone too far and it is going farther by the moment. And accelerating with every release.
I can only think of two possible ways for you to get what you expect:
1) GW goes bankrupt and, after a while, another company gets the copyrights for the game and fixes it.
2) The players fix the problem and create a far better game, accepted by the community.
We cannot make the first thing happen, I think. Some people have proposed different ways to "push" GW one way or another. It hasn´t worked at all. However, 3D printers are coming. The company will evolve or die.
The second is up to us, and it happens all the time locally: everyone fix this or that rule, as soon as they gain confidence with the other player. Globally, we would be able to achieve it only if we unite and set aside our countless differences, working together for the greater good. I would like to see it, but I am doubtful. Actually, I expect your hope of everyone seeing that "a more balanced and better written game will be good for everyone" crushed by some competitive player within two pages. I wish I am wrong.
So we fix the game ourselves game by game using house rules created on the spot or we assume that it is awfully balanced and only fit for "crazy" games, where stuff just blows up and the players just push units around.
See? Despite claims to the contrary, I'm not unreasonable!
I think we already had this discussion. You thought we had come to some sort of disagreement in the past where I thought you were unreasonable and hated everything you said, but I cleared it up. Never thought you were unreasonable.
I agree. Honestly I think if enough people wrote in about it that they might change it.
Then again, I'm just as willing to bet the reason we'd get back is that it'd be unfair for some armies to get their Lords of War at lower points levels than others. "Balance" as it stands, is all a matter of perspective. They try to balance based on choices, we try to balance based on power.
Well, yeah, the big problem being that Imperial forces are among the few who access to numerous 'cheap' LoW vehicles, like Malcadors and Crassus chassis vehicles. Then again, those vehicles are actually pretty underwhelming and I see them as a handicap in an Escalation list.
40k is all I play. It's all I want to play, and honesty I don't have the money to play anything else right now if I was interested in anything else. I've looked, I really have, but they've all lacked something that really just sucked me in and made me want to play the game like 40k did. It's a bit of a bummer, but I'm only sad that nothing else has grabbed my attention like this has more than anything.
That is a shame, but understandable. At least you looked. Have you played any of them? Like demo and games and such? Sometimes playing something a few times with an eager opponent might suck you in more than you'd expect, but I can't fault you for at least trying.
That said, my time in the Army definitely taught me to dig a hole, bury my expectations in it and because they're set so low, everything will so much better by comparison to what I was expecting.
Then again I worked with some down right daft people who taught me that there is always someone dumber than you expect.
See, and this is why you should have joined the Air Force!
See? Despite claims to the contrary, I'm not unreasonable!
I think we already had this discussion. You thought we had come to some sort of disagreement in the past where I thought you were unreasonable and hated everything you said, but I cleared it up. Never thought you were unreasonable.
I agree. Honestly I think if enough people wrote in about it that they might change it.
Then again, I'm just as willing to bet the reason we'd get back is that it'd be unfair for some armies to get their Lords of War at lower points levels than others. "Balance" as it stands, is all a matter of perspective. They try to balance based on choices, we try to balance based on power.
Well, yeah, the big problem being that Imperial forces are among the few who access to numerous 'cheap' LoW vehicles, like Malcadors and Crassus chassis vehicles. Then again, those vehicles are actually pretty underwhelming and I see them as a handicap in an Escalation list.
They're cheap D-Weapon platforms is the issue though if only they get them and cheap models at points levels lower than everyone else.
40k is all I play. It's all I want to play, and honesty I don't have the money to play anything else right now if I was interested in anything else. I've looked, I really have, but they've all lacked something that really just sucked me in and made me want to play the game like 40k did. It's a bit of a bummer, but I'm only sad that nothing else has grabbed my attention like this has more than anything.
That is a shame, but understandable. At least you looked. Have you played any of them? Like demo and games and such? Sometimes playing something a few times with an eager opponent might suck you in more than you'd expect, but I can't fault you for at least trying.
Warmachine is the only other one played here. In New York I played a historical wargame once. Some serious imbalances there in how it played, and how easilly one side could get the upperhand then just basically win the game through one good roll.
That said, my time in the Army definitely taught me to dig a hole, bury my expectations in it and because they're set so low, everything will so much better by comparison to what I was expecting.
Then again I worked with some down right daft people who taught me that there is always someone dumber than you expect.
See, and this is why you should have joined the Air Force!
But then I wouldn't have had the benefit of setting more realistic expectations of things!
Okay, first, let me preface my reply by saying I appreciate a more nuanced reply than the "laugh at people" one, which did annoy me. So in the same spirit, let me try and address your points in a calm way.
I apologize, I should have been clearer: I'm not laughing at the person, but rather this idea that the game needs to be some kind of perfect bastion of balance to be enjoyable or fun. I see a lot of comparisons to MtG but why not reference the real thing that 40k has more in common with: D&D. Both are narrative games meant for the enjoyment of the players involved, are not balanced to the fine edge that I see demanded of 40k (but never seems to be demanded of any other wargame), and they're still fun games if you go into it with everyone wanting the same thing out of the game.
Really, MtG (though I've never played it and don't know much about it), is likely a much better comparison than D&D because the former is a game played by people against each other, and D&D is a co-operative team-based game against an adventure that a (traditionally) neutral arbitrator creates and attempts to pitch at the right level. Of course you can play WH40K as a co-operative story-telling tool, but even you must admit that the set up two players fighting a battle against each other to determine a winner lends a need for "balance" in a way that D&D does not. Also, if we're talking about 4th, D&D actually does a very, very good job of achieving its design goals. I'm not sure about later supplements but the early stuff - very well thought out and structured. Never liked it on account of the lack of non-combat rules and the very game-y feel to it, but I respect the thought and play-testing that went into it. Anyway, I respectfully say that your "better comparison" is seriously misplaced for the reasons given.
Furthermore, you exaggerate what others are saying for the sake of making it easier to denounce. You say "the idea that the games needs to be some kind of perfect bastion of balance". I don't think anyone has used the term "perfect bastion of balance" other than you. Nor is anyone expecting it to be better. What we expect, is for a company like this to produce something without huge and very obvious flaws. There's a marked difference between what we are saying: "D-weapons marginalize other aspects of the game" (what I wrote) and your "perfect bastion of balance" that you make out our arguments to be so that you can highlight them as absurd pipe-dreams. One could even reasonably call that a strawman in that you are saying our demands are far more than they actually are.
ClockworkZion wrote: Can they be better? I will never not say something can't be "better" but it's a very subjective term that means something to everyone, even when you start adding in quantifiers like "balance" in there. But does the game have to be designed to please a competitive side of the hobby? Not a chance. I get that some people like to rank themselves against others and see who is the best, but the game doesn't have to do that to be good or fun. Skyrim is a buggy mess with no multi-player but it's still fun. Competition doesn't make a game better, it just gives people some kind of imaginary stand to put themselves or others on and judge "skill" and "tactics" in games that still largely involve luck.
And that is just insulting, quite frankly. You may not mean it to be (conceivably), you may even believe it. But what you are saying is that anyone playing a competitive game is doing so to make themselves look better than other people. I don't know if you play any sports at all, but I do and I can assure you when I'm on the field or a court, I'm enjoying trying my hardest and competing with someone. And when I lose, which happens plenty, I don't suddenly find I've wasted my time. I shake hands with members of the other team or my opponent and congratulate them on a good game and you know what? I mean it. I have had fun. We have tried hard to beat each other and enjoyed the attempt. That simple fact that it's still fun to have tried my hardest and lost disproves your idea that we're all about feeling superior to other people. No, don't start replying that we're actually enjoying other aspects of the game because that doesn't fit the facts - if we were just doing exactly the same things but it wasn't competitive, we were just passing the ball to each other in a friendly fashion, it would not be anywhere near as much fun. We enjoy the act of competition in itself. It engages us. Do not call me a liar. This is how I feel. This is how most sportspeople feel most of the time.
Furthermore your argument contradicts itself. If you're denigrating people being happy about winning "in games that still largely involve luck" then you should be applauding those of us that want to make it more tactical rather than running us down and insulting us. Instead of taking multiple opportunities in this thread to tell us how what we enjoy is less important because of some preconceived idea you have that we're just trying to make ourselves on "some kind of imaginary stand". If you're starting from such a prejudiced place, no wonder you are being so offensive in this thread. You are presuming we are inherently wrong to enjoy this aspect because you see it stemming from some sort of character flaw. From this point on in the thread, try and put that idea aside because whilst it might be true of some (typically the youngest players, but not exclusively), it isn't true for all and, I like to think, not true for most. Certainly not in my experience.
ClockworkZion wrote: Can 40k have a competetive scene anyways? Sure. But it's not the actual game. Try as you might to say otherwise, competitive play isn't what this game is made for. And I don't mean the balance either.
Again, there is nothing incompatible about fluff and game balance. Us asking for GW to actually balance things does not in anyway detract from the fluff. Most of us love both. So again, it's profitless for you to keep leaping in here and say we're missing the point and we should pay attention to the fluff. We're not missing the point and we pay plenty of attention to the fluff - it's probably the main reason many of us haven't moved on to more balanced game systems. You are missing the point that whilst you are happy with X, we want X and Y. We KNOW that you are just happy with X, and we're happy for you that you are. What we don't get is why you keep insisting that it is and should only be about X. If X and Y were in conflict, by all means complain. But they're not. They complement each other because people who love X and people who love Y will both get drawn in. You do a disservice when you argue against those of us trying to build up Y because all you're going to be left with when we leave (which we do as we get fed up), is those who only care about X. Such as yourself. And X is a smaller group than X+Y. So if you care about your hobby, care about what other people like too, not just yourself.
knas ser wrote: Why you think that good background makes game balance unnecessary I neither know nor care, but different people have different leanings and as there is zero reason why game design and fluff need to be mutually exclusive things, it's pretty tiresome when every complaint about one is followed by you saying we should only care about the other.
Unnecessary? I wouldn't go that far. Better balance is always good. As for the game design/fluff being different I'd like to introduce you to Gameplay and Story Segregation. It's a common thing in games where the story says, or shows one thing, but the mechanics work differently. It happens all the time.
Yes it does happen. And it's one of the most common criticisms of any wargame or role-playing game that "this doesn't make sense". Whenever the rules do not reflect what people believe they are supposed to represent, people complain. Universally. It was one of my objections with D&D 4th edition (seeing as you brought that up as your example). I could have a six stone Halfling with a Strength score very much higher than an eighteen stone minotaur. And I was very far from alone in that objection. Your link really doesn't prove anything. It just shows that something exists. We know that. But it's really irrelevant to our argument. What does it matter to the question of balance? That's not an issue of fluff.
ClockworkZion wrote: Now in a perfect world we'd have a system that's set up in such a way the mechanics and the fluff would skip merrily hand in hand into the sunset. The problem is that the game needs to be redone from the ground up. You're not going to get that in the system we have now and complaining that you don't have that in this current game is a bit silly because the mechanics are so abstracted they don't make for a good means of actually showing the fluff completely.
There is such a thing as a matter of degree. Again, you are taking the position of 'it's not perfect, so accept its faults'. Nothing is ever perfect, but you can still make it better or avoid obvious flaws. Again, if you don't care about the flaws, that's fine and we're happy for you. Just stop pronouncing on people when they try to head such flaws off by highlighting them.
ClockworkZion wrote: So with what we have, it's enough. It's as good as it can be with what we have and the fact that people can't see the fact that the game needs a rework to be any more than that is a bit distressing.
Then you're going to have to be distressed because I think only a madman could think that WH40K can't be improved somewhat in terms of balance in many ways, even without "a complete re-work from the ground up". Sure, the latter would help, but it's absurd to say that you can't improve things in dozens of small ways. You could easily amend how 2+ re-rollables and D-weapons worked without such a "ground-up" revision, obviously. I surely hope you don't need anyone to point out how that could be done. But if you don't, then you must admit you're wrong to say "it's as good as it can be".
knas ser wrote: Okay, first, let me preface my reply by saying I appreciate a more nuanced reply than the "laugh at people" one, which did annoy me. So in the same spirit, let me try and address your points in a calm way.
I apologize, I should have been clearer: I'm not laughing at the person, but rather this idea that the game needs to be some kind of perfect bastion of balance to be enjoyable or fun. I see a lot of comparisons to MtG but why not reference the real thing that 40k has more in common with: D&D. Both are narrative games meant for the enjoyment of the players involved, are not balanced to the fine edge that I see demanded of 40k (but never seems to be demanded of any other wargame), and they're still fun games if you go into it with everyone wanting the same thing out of the game.
Really, MtG (though I've never played it and don't know much about it), is likely a much better comparison than D&D because the former is a game played by people against each other, and D&D is a co-operative team-based game against an adventure that a (traditionally) neutral arbitrator creates and attempts to pitch at the right level. Of course you can play WH40K as a co-operative story-telling tool, but even you must admit that the set up two players fighting a battle against each other to determine a winner lends a need for "balance" in a way that D&D does not. Also, if we're talking about 4th, D&D actually does a very, very good job of achieving its design goals. I'm not sure about later supplements but the early stuff - very well thought out and structured. Never liked it on account of the lack of non-combat rules and the very game-y feel to it, but I respect the thought and play-testing that went into it. Anyway, I respectfully say that your "better comparison" is seriously misplaced for the reasons given.
MtG was made to be a competetive game while 40k started as a game that required a GM (go Rogue Trader) to keep things "fair". 40k started much closer to being a RPG than a wargame, and that lineage carries through today which is a large part of the problems we have. It's not designed in the same kind of mindset as MtG or Warmachine and that's the large issue with the game: it's archaic junk that no dev seems to want to replace with a better system.
knas ser wrote: Furthermore, you exaggerate what others are saying for the sake of making it easier to denounce. You say "the idea that the games needs to be some kind of perfect bastion of balance". I don't think anyone has used the term "perfect bastion of balance" other than you. Nor is anyone expecting it to be better. What we expect, is for a company like this to produce something without huge and very obvious flaws. There's a marked difference between what we are saying: "D-weapons marginalize other aspects of the game" (what I wrote) and your "perfect bastion of balance" that you make out our arguments to be so that you can highlight them as absurd pipe-dreams. One could even reasonably call that a strawman in that you are saying our demands are far more than they actually are.
Term? No. Attitude that if 40k isn't perfectly balanced (and the claims that because it's not perfectly balanced) it sucks, yes. Can some of that be hyperbole? Perhaps. This is the internet after all and it's hard to remove the hyperbole to make a point from the people who firmly believe such things easilly when it comes to the internet.
I'm not exaggerating claims, I'm just going to the furthest extremes ones I've heard, much like how some people who cry for balance point to the arguments that "balance = boring" from the other side of the fence. Is it the far end of the spectrum and farther than most want to go? Sure, but it's also a milemarker that let's everyone else see each end of the spectrum and judge where they stand in relation to it.
Am I trying to whitewash everyone's claims and arguments? No, not really. I just can't argue against 12 different sides of the same thing who all have 12 different viewpoints about things and claim 12 different things about the game, so I go for the most extreme and let everyone else measure their stance from their.
ClockworkZion wrote: Can they be better? I will never not say something can't be "better" but it's a very subjective term that means something to everyone, even when you start adding in quantifiers like "balance" in there. But does the game have to be designed to please a competitive side of the hobby? Not a chance. I get that some people like to rank themselves against others and see who is the best, but the game doesn't have to do that to be good or fun. Skyrim is a buggy mess with no multi-player but it's still fun. Competition doesn't make a game better, it just gives people some kind of imaginary stand to put themselves or others on and judge "skill" and "tactics" in games that still largely involve luck.
And that is just insulting, quite frankly. You may not mean it to be (conceivably), you may even believe it. But what you are saying is that anyone playing a competitive game is doing so to make themselves look better than other people. I don't know if you play any sports at all, but I do and I can assure you when I'm on the field or a court, I'm enjoying trying my hardest and competing with someone. And when I lose, which happens plenty, I don't suddenly find I've wasted my time. I shake hands with members of the other team or my opponent and congratulate them on a good game and you know what? I mean it. I have had fun. We have tried hard to beat each other and enjoyed the attempt. That simple fact that it's still fun to have tried my hardest and lost disproves your idea that we're all about feeling superior to other people. No, don't start replying that we're actually enjoying other aspects of the game because that doesn't fit the facts - if we were just doing exactly the same things but it wasn't competitive, we were just passing the ball to each other in a friendly fashion, it would not be anywhere near as much fun. We enjoy the act of competition in itself. It engages us. Do not call me a liar. This is how I feel. This is how most sportspeople feel most of the time.
Wargames are not sports for one. And two, competition doesn't always make things "better". Competition ruins cooperative play for instance (ever play a table top RPG where the whole team is competing against each other for something? It tears the party apart), and as I've said, 40k has more roots in a RPG system than it does a traditional competitive one.
It doesn't mean you can't compete, but it's like running track in tap shoes: it's nowhere near as effective as you'd like.
And yes, I've seen plenty of people who behave the way I've described. It's why I washed my hands of tournaments: I have no desire to end up getting so wrapped up in my ability to win that it consumes my ability to enjoy the game's other offerings.
Does it do that to everyone? No. But we have to remember that there are always Lance Armstrongs in every group, people who care more about winning than anything else. I'm not saying that they're all cheats, but they do let the idea consume them to the point it's detrimental to everything else.
knas ser wrote: Furthermore your argument contradicts itself. If you're denigrating people being happy about winning "in games that still largely involve luck" then you should be applauding those of us that want to make it more tactical rather than running us down and insulting us. Instead of taking multiple opportunities in this thread to tell us how what we enjoy is less important because of some preconceived idea you have that we're just trying to make ourselves on "some kind of imaginary stand". If you're starting from such a prejudiced place, no wonder you are being so offensive in this thread. You are presuming we are inherently wrong to enjoy this aspect because you see it stemming from some sort of character flaw. From this point on in the thread, try and put that idea aside because whilst it might be true of some (typically the youngest players, but not exclusively), it isn't true for all and, I like to think, not true for most. Certainly not in my experience.
No it doesn't. If you read my posts you'll see I do agree that 40k, can and should be better, but not this40k. 6th edition is not the system you can make into what you're trying to make it into. It's got too much legacy crammed into it's veins, too much bloat, too much necrotic flesh wrapped around it's frame, to be the game you want it to be. It can't be competitive because it needs to be taken out back, shot and replaced completely to really do what you're asking.
No one is wrong for wanting a better game in general, they're wrong for trying to do it with one that's so blatantly unsalvagable instead of either pushing to a new game built for it, or pushing GW to make it better with a new edition. The only character flaw I've seen is an inability to recognize when they're kicking a maggot-ridden dead horse when they rally on and on about making 6th edition "more competitive" and "better balanced" instead of pushing GW to recognize what the customer base wants and demands from them. People want a better balanced game where the fluff, mechanics, options and competitive game all mesh smoothly? Push them to make 7th edition that game, otherwise get off the soapbox because it's getting old.
Everyone bitches that GW doesn't listen, but all I ever hear about is a bunch of complaints on the internet. I never see any massive letter writing campaigns, or petitions, or even people trying to visit GW and talk to the people there. No, instead I see people kicking that same dead horse. Why? Because it's easier than actually being proactive and trying to get what you want instead of just complain about what you want.
Mean of me to say? Perhaps. But I've been reading post after post after post after post since I got back into this game in 2008 on multiple forums about how GW is always doing everything wrong, but then no one ever does anything, so maybe I'm just tired of the pity parties about how everyone cries the game is ruined, when no one wants to actually do anything about it.
ClockworkZion wrote: Can 40k have a competetive scene anyways? Sure. But it's not the actual game. Try as you might to say otherwise, competitive play isn't what this game is made for. And I don't mean the balance either.
Again, there is nothing incompatible about fluff and game balance. Us asking for GW to actually balance things does not in anyway detract from the fluff. Most of us love both. So again, it's profitless for you to keep leaping in here and say we're missing the point and we should pay attention to the fluff. We're not missing the point and we pay plenty of attention to the fluff - it's probably the main reason many of us haven't moved on to more balanced game systems. You are missing the point that whilst you are happy with X, we want X and Y. We KNOW that you are just happy with X, and we're happy for you that you are. What we don't get is why you keep insisting that it is and should only be about X. If X and Y were in conflict, by all means complain. But they're not. They complement each other because people who love X and people who love Y will both get drawn in. You do a disservice when you argue against those of us trying to build up Y because all you're going to be left with when we leave (which we do as we get fed up), is those who only care about X. Such as yourself. And X is a smaller group than X+Y. So if you care about your hobby, care about what other people like too, not just yourself.
Go read Rogue Trader, then read 2nd and 3rd Edition and get back to me. This game is carrying 6 editions of luggage with it. Some good, but a lot bad. Until it gets rid of that it can't get better.
And honestly, it really doesn't matter what people say they want, because all they do is tell the internet what they want then just play whatever GW gives you anyways. I've spent 5 years now reading posts about how "I want X" and "I want Y" and "I want GW to tuck me in with warm milk and a story" but no one ever does anything with it. You want it so bad, stop telling me you want it and tell GW you want it.
Don't take no for an answer. Use "no" as a springboard to refine your points, make them better and work towards a "yes". You want X & Y then work for X & Y instead of telling the internet about how the game will only get better if GW would somehow read your mind and do X & Y.
It won't change that this edition is all about X, and ignores Y, sure. But it would make the future editions a lot better.
ClockworkZion wrote: Now in a perfect world we'd have a system that's set up in such a way the mechanics and the fluff would skip merrily hand in hand into the sunset. The problem is that the game needs to be redone from the ground up. You're not going to get that in the system we have now and complaining that you don't have that in this current game is a bit silly because the mechanics are so abstracted they don't make for a good means of actually showing the fluff completely.
There is such a thing as a matter of degree. Again, you are taking the position of 'it's not perfect, so accept its faults'. Nothing is ever perfect, but you can still make it better or avoid obvious flaws. Again, if you don't care about the flaws, that's fine and we're happy for you. Just stop pronouncing on people when they try to head such flaws off by highlighting them.
No, my position is "it's not perfect, the way it is can't be perfect so stop beating a dead horse and do something about it if you want it so bad". This game is where it is because of the failures of the past and it needs to exorcise those so it can get better. Even if it's only in matters of degrees.
5th edition was likely the best competetive ruleset you can get out of the game as it exists now. And how great was that with Razorback spam, and the nonsense of the time? The issues are deeper than you're admitting here and need more than just a little touch up work to get right.
A few issues that keep this game from being able to be better: the stat mechanic is currently a mess (Marines, who are super soldiers are only a single degree away from a human on a number of stats), points costing makes no sense, there isn't a system in place to make sensible points costing occur on any scale, there isn't a set standard that the game is built towards, and if it does exist it's too lower when compared to what people are playing at, there are no alternate rulesets to make tournament play streamlined and possible, and you roll for Mysterious Terrain after you run into it, not when you deploy. Need I keep going on, or can we agree that there is more than a few changes that need to be made already?
ClockworkZion wrote: So with what we have, it's enough. It's as good as it can be with what we have and the fact that people can't see the fact that the game needs a rework to be any more than that is a bit distressing.
Then you're going to have to be distressed because I think only a madman could think that WH40K can't be improved somewhat in terms of balance in many ways, even without "a complete re-work from the ground up". Sure, the latter would help, but it's absurd to say that you can't improve things in dozens of small ways. You could easily amend how 2+ re-rollables and D-weapons worked without such a "ground-up" revision, obviously. I surely hope you don't need anyone to point out how that could be done. But if you don't, then you must admit you're wrong to say "it's as good as it can be".
Saves need to be chucked out in favor of a system that Warmachine has where they are counted into a sort of toughness value, or moved to before wounding rolls are made for one.
I can have fun with the game as it is because I'm not trying to contort it into something it can't do (fat kid who can't play dodgeball again). I play to it's strengths and minimize the weaknesses.
Does it mean I fail to recognize weaknesses, or don't understand how this game could be improved? Not at all. I think about it a lot because it poses a lot of interesting design questions. But I realized a long while ago that because this game clings to the past so hard and spends so much time trying to continue these legacy rules into the game as it is now that most of it's problems can't really be fixed without working that delete key and starting completely anew.
Automatically Appended Next Post: To steal a quote: "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." Which is what people keep doing everytime they expect GW to hear their cries and change the game when they post their grievances on a message board again, and again, and again.
So who really is the madman? The person who believes change will come because they keep complaining about something on Dakka, or the person who accepts the faults of the game, plays to it's strengths?
ClockworkZion wrote: But does the game have to be designed to please a competitive side of the hobby?
'Have to be'...? No.
But when your company is steadily losing market share, pointing the game in a direction that excludes a chunk of your potential customer base, when writing a more competitive-friendly ruleset would instead benefit the entire customer base, just seems a little bit crazy.
I get that some people like to rank themselves against others and see who is the best, but the game doesn't have to do that to be good or fun.
I suspect that you also don't fully get why people play in tournaments.
Yes, there are some who enter events to measure themselves against others. There are also some of us who enter with no expectation of winning, who do so simply because it's a handy way of getting in a full weekend of gaming in an area where casual opponents are a little hard to find, or where time constraints don't allow for regular gaming otherwise.
Remove the ability of the game to function in a competitive setting, and at least in some cases you remove the opportunity for those players to play at all.
Yes, there are some who enter events to measure themselves against others. There are also some of us who enter with no expectation of winning, who do so simply because it's a handy way of getting in a full weekend of gaming in an area where casual opponents are a little hard to find, or where time constraints don't allow for regular gaming otherwise.
.
That's the only way I'd want to play in a tournament. Just to get in some freaking games. I have no delusions about my generalship.
The problem is GW writes rules to sell models. According to the Chapterhouse lawsuit GW is a hobby company not a publisher.
Therefore the answer is simple. The community takes over writing the rules. Creating a living rule book similar to how Blood Bowl is now organized and managed.
I don't think anyone is asking for 40k to be perfectly balanced. I'm not even asking for it to have the same level of balance as other wargames. I'd be happy if it became as balanced as Super Smash Bros. It's the least balanced versus video game I've ever played, but even achieving that level of balance would be a huge leap forward for 40k. Very imbalanced is better than "balance? I don't know that word".
You know what would make me happy about Warhammer 40k? If it wasn't so damned predictable. For all the talk of "Oh, 40k is now random chaos" it's very easy to determine who will win a game before they even deploy the armies. In some cases you can tell who won just by the title alone. Ex: "QuadRiptide v. DoA 1850 pts". I'll give you three guesses as to the victor. Hint, it's not the power armored boy scouts.
I honestly wouldn't care if we had broken units. I love a good challenge every now and again but at this point it's getting ridiculous. FOTM armies are probably the most obvious symptom of just how plain broken this game is. While I'll agree that list writing is an important skill it shouldn't be the overall determinant of who will win the game and in some cases tournaments. And I'll also agree that every list needs a hard counter but it shouldn't be that you'll lose just by buying that codex in the first place.
Tournaments should be a test of skill and a good time shared by dedicated gamers not a "Who can bring the most broken lists and who rolls the dice the best"-fest. As for casual play I think it is even worse for them as a system that inherently favors one style of play isn't very conducive to a game between close friends. I don't think a player who really likes the idea of jump pack equipped marines fighting for their lives isn't going to have much fun when half is army is gunned down before he can roll his first die against someone who enjoyed the idea of Riptides and Commander Farsight.
As for forging a narrative... who writes a story by rolling the dice to see what happens? Say I want to forge a depressing narrative about my IG army being destroyed slowly in an insane war (Like the movie Stalingrad) but, thanks to the imbalance of the system, I end up stomping everyone. Do I just write a story about my IG army stomping everyone? Do I just lie about it all? Then what was the point of the system at all? Plus, who wants to a read a story where the people who you expected to win win? It's boring.
Then there is Escalation. I don't think it's the doom of competitive 40k. I think it's just a continuation of the long, dubiously proud tradition of "Buy this list to win!" style balance that Games Workshop seems to love or is too incompetent to get rid of. In other words, the answer to the thread is "That ship sailed a loooong time ago".
Like TheCustomLime said, 40k is pretty damn predictable. What I enjoy most is looking at new armies from different players and their conversions/paintjobs; destroying them is a secondary objective.
Remember when you'd ask someone you just met what army they played and they answered with one to two words and without using with or and? Those were the days.
Crablezworth wrote: Remember when you'd ask someone you just met what army they played and they answered with one to two words and without using with or and? Those were the days.
Nah, that's how it is now. You can answer "Revenant", "anti-Revenant", or "I like losing".
That's the only way I'd want to play in a tournament. Just to get in some freaking games. I have no delusions about my generalship.
Yep. I'd love to win tournaments, but I'm much more interested in getting in a bunch of games. I've never actually met one of those hardcore competitive players who live only to ROFLstomp noob armies by questionable rules interpretations. Lots of very friendly, pleasant opponents, though. In fact, on balance, the tournaments I've been to have mostly been quite beer-and-pretzelly, in that there is beer available and I have consumed it, while having a fun, social game with some new friends.
knas ser wrote: Okay, first, let me preface my reply by saying I appreciate a more nuanced reply than the "laugh at people" one, which did annoy me. So in the same spirit, let me try and address your points in a calm way.
I apologize, I should have been clearer: I'm not laughing at the person, but rather this idea that the game needs to be some kind of perfect bastion of balance to be enjoyable or fun. I see a lot of comparisons to MtG but why not reference the real thing that 40k has more in common with: D&D. Both are narrative games meant for the enjoyment of the players involved, are not balanced to the fine edge that I see demanded of 40k (but never seems to be demanded of any other wargame), and they're still fun games if you go into it with everyone wanting the same thing out of the game.
Really, MtG (though I've never played it and don't know much about it), is likely a much better comparison than D&D because the former is a game played by people against each other, and D&D is a co-operative team-based game against an adventure that a (traditionally) neutral arbitrator creates and attempts to pitch at the right level. Of course you can play WH40K as a co-operative story-telling tool, but even you must admit that the set up two players fighting a battle against each other to determine a winner lends a need for "balance" in a way that D&D does not. Also, if we're talking about 4th, D&D actually does a very, very good job of achieving its design goals. I'm not sure about later supplements but the early stuff - very well thought out and structured. Never liked it on account of the lack of non-combat rules and the very game-y feel to it, but I respect the thought and play-testing that went into it. Anyway, I respectfully say that your "better comparison" is seriously misplaced for the reasons given.
MtG was made to be a competetive game while 40k started as a game that required a GM (go Rogue Trader) to keep things "fair". 40k started much closer to being a RPG than a wargame, and that lineage carries through today which is a large part of the problems we have. It's not designed in the same kind of mindset as MtG or Warmachine and that's the large issue with the game: it's archaic junk that no dev seems to want to replace with a better system.
knas ser wrote: Furthermore, you exaggerate what others are saying for the sake of making it easier to denounce. You say "the idea that the games needs to be some kind of perfect bastion of balance". I don't think anyone has used the term "perfect bastion of balance" other than you. Nor is anyone expecting it to be better. What we expect, is for a company like this to produce something without huge and very obvious flaws. There's a marked difference between what we are saying: "D-weapons marginalize other aspects of the game" (what I wrote) and your "perfect bastion of balance" that you make out our arguments to be so that you can highlight them as absurd pipe-dreams. One could even reasonably call that a strawman in that you are saying our demands are far more than they actually are.
Term? No. Attitude that if 40k isn't perfectly balanced (and the claims that because it's not perfectly balanced) it sucks, yes. Can some of that be hyperbole? Perhaps. This is the internet after all and it's hard to remove the hyperbole to make a point from the people who firmly believe such things easilly when it comes to the internet.
I'm not exaggerating claims, I'm just going to the furthest extremes ones I've heard, much like how some people who cry for balance point to the arguments that "balance = boring" from the other side of the fence. Is it the far end of the spectrum and farther than most want to go? Sure, but it's also a milemarker that let's everyone else see each end of the spectrum and judge where they stand in relation to it.
Am I trying to whitewash everyone's claims and arguments? No, not really. I just can't argue against 12 different sides of the same thing who all have 12 different viewpoints about things and claim 12 different things about the game, so I go for the most extreme and let everyone else measure their stance from their.
ClockworkZion wrote: Can they be better? I will never not say something can't be "better" but it's a very subjective term that means something to everyone, even when you start adding in quantifiers like "balance" in there. But does the game have to be designed to please a competitive side of the hobby? Not a chance. I get that some people like to rank themselves against others and see who is the best, but the game doesn't have to do that to be good or fun. Skyrim is a buggy mess with no multi-player but it's still fun. Competition doesn't make a game better, it just gives people some kind of imaginary stand to put themselves or others on and judge "skill" and "tactics" in games that still largely involve luck.
And that is just insulting, quite frankly. You may not mean it to be (conceivably), you may even believe it. But what you are saying is that anyone playing a competitive game is doing so to make themselves look better than other people. I don't know if you play any sports at all, but I do and I can assure you when I'm on the field or a court, I'm enjoying trying my hardest and competing with someone. And when I lose, which happens plenty, I don't suddenly find I've wasted my time. I shake hands with members of the other team or my opponent and congratulate them on a good game and you know what? I mean it. I have had fun. We have tried hard to beat each other and enjoyed the attempt. That simple fact that it's still fun to have tried my hardest and lost disproves your idea that we're all about feeling superior to other people. No, don't start replying that we're actually enjoying other aspects of the game because that doesn't fit the facts - if we were just doing exactly the same things but it wasn't competitive, we were just passing the ball to each other in a friendly fashion, it would not be anywhere near as much fun. We enjoy the act of competition in itself. It engages us. Do not call me a liar. This is how I feel. This is how most sportspeople feel most of the time.
Wargames are not sports for one. And two, competition doesn't always make things "better". Competition ruins cooperative play for instance (ever play a table top RPG where the whole team is competing against each other for something? It tears the party apart), and as I've said, 40k has more roots in a RPG system than it does a traditional competitive one.
It doesn't mean you can't compete, but it's like running track in tap shoes: it's nowhere near as effective as you'd like.
And yes, I've seen plenty of people who behave the way I've described. It's why I washed my hands of tournaments: I have no desire to end up getting so wrapped up in my ability to win that it consumes my ability to enjoy the game's other offerings.
Does it do that to everyone? No. But we have to remember that there are always Lance Armstrongs in every group, people who care more about winning than anything else. I'm not saying that they're all cheats, but they do let the idea consume them to the point it's detrimental to everything else.
knas ser wrote: Furthermore your argument contradicts itself. If you're denigrating people being happy about winning "in games that still largely involve luck" then you should be applauding those of us that want to make it more tactical rather than running us down and insulting us. Instead of taking multiple opportunities in this thread to tell us how what we enjoy is less important because of some preconceived idea you have that we're just trying to make ourselves on "some kind of imaginary stand". If you're starting from such a prejudiced place, no wonder you are being so offensive in this thread. You are presuming we are inherently wrong to enjoy this aspect because you see it stemming from some sort of character flaw. From this point on in the thread, try and put that idea aside because whilst it might be true of some (typically the youngest players, but not exclusively), it isn't true for all and, I like to think, not true for most. Certainly not in my experience.
No it doesn't. If you read my posts you'll see I do agree that 40k, can and should be better, but not this40k. 6th edition is not the system you can make into what you're trying to make it into. It's got too much legacy crammed into it's veins, too much bloat, too much necrotic flesh wrapped around it's frame, to be the game you want it to be. It can't be competitive because it needs to be taken out back, shot and replaced completely to really do what you're asking.
No one is wrong for wanting a better game in general, they're wrong for trying to do it with one that's so blatantly unsalvagable instead of either pushing to a new game built for it, or pushing GW to make it better with a new edition. The only character flaw I've seen is an inability to recognize when they're kicking a maggot-ridden dead horse when they rally on and on about making 6th edition "more competitive" and "better balanced" instead of pushing GW to recognize what the customer base wants and demands from them. People want a better balanced game where the fluff, mechanics, options and competitive game all mesh smoothly? Push them to make 7th edition that game, otherwise get off the soapbox because it's getting old.
Everyone bitches that GW doesn't listen, but all I ever hear about is a bunch of complaints on the internet. I never see any massive letter writing campaigns, or petitions, or even people trying to visit GW and talk to the people there. No, instead I see people kicking that same dead horse. Why? Because it's easier than actually being proactive and trying to get what you want instead of just complain about what you want.
Mean of me to say? Perhaps. But I've been reading post after post after post after post since I got back into this game in 2008 on multiple forums about how GW is always doing everything wrong, but then no one ever does anything, so maybe I'm just tired of the pity parties about how everyone cries the game is ruined, when no one wants to actually do anything about it.
ClockworkZion wrote: Can 40k have a competetive scene anyways? Sure. But it's not the actual game. Try as you might to say otherwise, competitive play isn't what this game is made for. And I don't mean the balance either.
Again, there is nothing incompatible about fluff and game balance. Us asking for GW to actually balance things does not in anyway detract from the fluff. Most of us love both. So again, it's profitless for you to keep leaping in here and say we're missing the point and we should pay attention to the fluff. We're not missing the point and we pay plenty of attention to the fluff - it's probably the main reason many of us haven't moved on to more balanced game systems. You are missing the point that whilst you are happy with X, we want X and Y. We KNOW that you are just happy with X, and we're happy for you that you are. What we don't get is why you keep insisting that it is and should only be about X. If X and Y were in conflict, by all means complain. But they're not. They complement each other because people who love X and people who love Y will both get drawn in. You do a disservice when you argue against those of us trying to build up Y because all you're going to be left with when we leave (which we do as we get fed up), is those who only care about X. Such as yourself. And X is a smaller group than X+Y. So if you care about your hobby, care about what other people like too, not just yourself.
Go read Rogue Trader, then read 2nd and 3rd Edition and get back to me. This game is carrying 6 editions of luggage with it. Some good, but a lot bad. Until it gets rid of that it can't get better.
And honestly, it really doesn't matter what people say they want, because all they do is tell the internet what they want then just play whatever GW gives you anyways. I've spent 5 years now reading posts about how "I want X" and "I want Y" and "I want GW to tuck me in with warm milk and a story" but no one ever does anything with it. You want it so bad, stop telling me you want it and tell GW you want it.
Don't take no for an answer. Use "no" as a springboard to refine your points, make them better and work towards a "yes". You want X & Y then work for X & Y instead of telling the internet about how the game will only get better if GW would somehow read your mind and do X & Y.
It won't change that this edition is all about X, and ignores Y, sure. But it would make the future editions a lot better.
ClockworkZion wrote: Now in a perfect world we'd have a system that's set up in such a way the mechanics and the fluff would skip merrily hand in hand into the sunset. The problem is that the game needs to be redone from the ground up. You're not going to get that in the system we have now and complaining that you don't have that in this current game is a bit silly because the mechanics are so abstracted they don't make for a good means of actually showing the fluff completely.
There is such a thing as a matter of degree. Again, you are taking the position of 'it's not perfect, so accept its faults'. Nothing is ever perfect, but you can still make it better or avoid obvious flaws. Again, if you don't care about the flaws, that's fine and we're happy for you. Just stop pronouncing on people when they try to head such flaws off by highlighting them.
No, my position is "it's not perfect, the way it is can't be perfect so stop beating a dead horse and do something about it if you want it so bad". This game is where it is because of the failures of the past and it needs to exorcise those so it can get better. Even if it's only in matters of degrees.
5th edition was likely the best competetive ruleset you can get out of the game as it exists now. And how great was that with Razorback spam, and the nonsense of the time? The issues are deeper than you're admitting here and need more than just a little touch up work to get right.
A few issues that keep this game from being able to be better: the stat mechanic is currently a mess (Marines, who are super soldiers are only a single degree away from a human on a number of stats), points costing makes no sense, there isn't a system in place to make sensible points costing occur on any scale, there isn't a set standard that the game is built towards, and if it does exist it's too lower when compared to what people are playing at, there are no alternate rulesets to make tournament play streamlined and possible, and you roll for Mysterious Terrain after you run into it, not when you deploy. Need I keep going on, or can we agree that there is more than a few changes that need to be made already?
ClockworkZion wrote: So with what we have, it's enough. It's as good as it can be with what we have and the fact that people can't see the fact that the game needs a rework to be any more than that is a bit distressing.
Then you're going to have to be distressed because I think only a madman could think that WH40K can't be improved somewhat in terms of balance in many ways, even without "a complete re-work from the ground up". Sure, the latter would help, but it's absurd to say that you can't improve things in dozens of small ways. You could easily amend how 2+ re-rollables and D-weapons worked without such a "ground-up" revision, obviously. I surely hope you don't need anyone to point out how that could be done. But if you don't, then you must admit you're wrong to say "it's as good as it can be".
Saves need to be chucked out in favor of a system that Warmachine has where they are counted into a sort of toughness value, or moved to before wounding rolls are made for one.
I can have fun with the game as it is because I'm not trying to contort it into something it can't do (fat kid who can't play dodgeball again). I play to it's strengths and minimize the weaknesses.
Does it mean I fail to recognize weaknesses, or don't understand how this game could be improved? Not at all. I think about it a lot because it poses a lot of interesting design questions. But I realized a long while ago that because this game clings to the past so hard and spends so much time trying to continue these legacy rules into the game as it is now that most of it's problems can't really be fixed without working that delete key and starting completely anew.
Automatically Appended Next Post: To steal a quote: "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." Which is what people keep doing everytime they expect GW to hear their cries and change the game when they post their grievances on a message board again, and again, and again.
So who really is the madman? The person who believes change will come because they keep complaining about something on Dakka, or the person who accepts the faults of the game, plays to it's strengths?
Okay, you know what? feth it. I laid everything out reasonably but it's plain to see that 'my kind' aren't welcome here. I started playing back with 1st edition and then dropped out somewhere around third. I came across my old models when moving and thought it would be really fun to get back into it. But apparently because I actually want to play it as a game, I'm not welcome here. My opinions should be shot down and I should be patronized because that's not WH40k is about and Heaven forbid that I actually express my wants for the system because then I'll just get told (twice) that I'm just trying to lord it over other people in wanting the game to be balanced. Oh and apparently compared to a madman for wanting GW to playtest something like the revenant before releasing it because, yes, of course that's such a fething unreasonable expectation that you have to fething chastise me for such crazy pipedreams.
Fine. Maybe I wont get back into 40K. I'll stick to sports seeing as that's where you think competitive people who "just want to place themselves on an imaginary pedestal" belong. Apparently what I should be doing if I want to play is being "proactive" in changing the rules rather than actually discussing the matter with like-minded people here on Dakka. Well feth it. You make it more than clear that people like me are not who 40K is for so feth it, I'll find a different hobby. If it's such a fething ask that something as simple as the more outrageously broken things to be play-tested then plainly the fault is mine for having such crazy stupid expectations. So I'll just let myself out and stick the old models back in the attic. Well done. You just killed the enthusiasm of a returning player with your relentless attacks on a simple opinion that D-weapons are. broken. Squash is healthier for me and clearly suits my character flaws as someone who wants to feel superior to others. Plus the cost of a single titan will pay for courts from now till 2015. So thanks. You did me a favour in bringing me to my senses before I started buying models again. I'm sure the hobby will be better off with me.
Honestly, this is probably the best outcome. If you aren't already committed to the game because you love the fluff/models then play a better game (or don't play a game at all). 40k played purely as a game is an activity for masochists that get bored with the usual whips and chains. The rules suck, balance and playtesting are nonexistent, and with every new release GW somehow manages to display new levels of spectacular incompetence at game design.
Fortunately though other miniatures games have good competitive communities and don't seem to have the same kind of white knights and self-declared "casual" players who obsess over how much they don't care about winning and how anyone who does is a WAACTFG.
Okay, you know what? feth it. I...
Fine. Maybe I wont get back into 40K. I'll stick to sports seeing as that's where you think competitive people who "just want to place themselves on an imaginary pedestal" belong. ...
Well feth it. Y... so feth it, I'll find a different hobby....So thanks. You did me a favour in bringing me to my senses before I started buying models again. I'm sure the hobby will be better off with me.
Gentle suggestion: Don't base your enjoyment or return to a game on a couple of internet comments.
The game is the thing you do at the table, with the figures and rulebooks. All of this is something else.
Fortunately though other miniatures games have good competitive communities and don't seem to have the same kind of white knights and self-declared "casual" players who obsess over how much they don't care about winning and how anyone who does is a WAACTFG.
If only Warhammer 40K has these "white knights" and other games do not, maybe it is because Warhammer 40K serves this particular type of gamer far better than anyone else.
And if Warhammer 40K is the only one doing it, while everyone else is doing it differently, why on earth would you want to change the only (!) game not doing it like everyone else to become like everyone else?
Zweischneid wrote: If only Warhammer 40K has these "white knights" and other games do not, maybe it is because Warhammer 40K serves this particular type of gamer far better than anyone else.
What, you mean the kind of masochist gamer that likes to play awful games and make themselves love it?
And if Warhammer 40K is the only one doing it, while everyone else is doing it differently, why on earth would you want to change the only (!) game not doing it like everyone else to become like everyone else?
Because the way GW is doing it sucks. It sucks if you're a competitive player, it sucks if you're a casual player, it sucks if you love the fluff, it sucks if you love the models. There is absolutely nothing about the way GW is doing it differently that is good for the game, no matter what you want to get out of it.
What, you mean the kind of masochist gamer that likes to play awful games and make themselves love it?
It doesn't take near as much "masochism" as trying to get to any appreciable level in a highly-balanced game such as Chess or Go, precisely, because these games take years and years to get anywhere. Go enter the next national Chess Championship and tell me how much fun you had.
Warhammer 40K involves no masochism, unless you try to make it into something it isn't and doesn't want to be.
Because the way GW is doing it sucks. It sucks if you're a competitive player, it sucks if you're a casual player, it sucks if you love the fluff, it sucks if you love the models. There is absolutely nothing about the way GW is doing it differently that is good for the game, no matter what you want to get out of it.
I love it.
Don't assume that your opinion is shared by everyone else.
Besides, what does it matter. You already said that there are lots of other games out there that do it more like you'd want 40K to be. If 40K became like other games, the gaming-world would only become that much smaller, as 40K would simply be "like the others".
As long as 40K remains different, and the others are around as well, everyone can play what they enjoy.
I don't ask fans of .. dunno .. Malifaux or Warmachine to lobby their game "more like 40K" because I think their games suck. They probably think they are quite good. Good for them. More variety for everyone.
Zweischneid wrote: It doesn't take near as much "masochism" as trying to get to any appreciable level in a highly-balanced game such as Chess or Go, precisely, because these games take years and years to get anywhere. Go enter the next national Chess Championship and tell me how much fun you had.
So what? Those games are also good when played casually. 40k isn't a good casual game OR a good competitive game. It just has nice enough fluff and models that sometimes it's worth putting up with the bad rules to play a game.
Warhammer 40K involves no masochism, unless you try to make it into something it isn't and doesn't want to be.
Wait, are we talking about the same 40k where rule arguments are constant (and often impossible to answer), fluff and story are trampled over and over again by random tables that GW calls "forging the narrative", the rules are a bloated mess that somehow manages to be both absurdly complex and incredibly unrealistic/unfluffy at the same time, and the idiotic IGOUGO turn structure means that if you let your opponent roll your saves you can go take your lunch break during your opponent's turn and not miss anything? Even ignoring 40k's laughably bad balance problems the rest of the game is still awful.
If 40K became like other games, the gaming-world would only become that much smaller, as 40K would simply be "like the others".
The gaming world would be smaller, but better. We don't need bad games, just like the restaurant world doesn't need restaurants that serve rotting meat mixed with shards of broken glass. Nothing 40k does "differently" is worth keeping in the gaming world, unless you're a masochist.
As long as 40K remains different, and the others are around as well, everyone can play what they enjoy.
Unless you like the fluff and models in 40k and want to enjoy playing the game as well.
I don't ask fans of .. dunno .. Malifaux or Warmachine to lobby their game "more like 40K" because I think their games suck. They probably think they are quite good. Good for them. More variety for everyone.
The difference is that 40k is a bad game, not just a game that does something that some of us don't like. Its flaws aren't personal preference things, they're just terrible game design by a company that doesn't give a about the quality of its products because 90% of the kids who buy a box of space marines never play the game.
Nothing 40k does "differently" is worth keeping in the gaming world, unless you're a masochist.
Millions of people disagree. The only thing I see as masochistic is sticking with (and/or ranting about) a game you don't enjoy. Seriously. You don't like it? Move on? Stick to it despite the discomfort it causes you? Who's the masochist.
The difference is that 40k is a bad game, not just a game that does something that some of us don't like. Its flaws aren't personal preference things, they're just terrible game design by a company that doesn't give a about the quality of its products because 90% of the kids who buy a box of space marines never play the game.
Sure it is. Personally, I enjoy playing 40K more than I enjoy playing Warmachine, to name one example. So they've got to be making something right, at least as far as my personal preference goes.
That whole
a) 40K is "objectively" bad and
b) everyone who disagrees is a "masochist"
seems an oddly self-centered position (even neglecting the odd masochistic tendency to keep playing and ranting about something you don't enjoy).
Just take a deep breath and step back from this misguided Hubris of assuming you speak for everyone, when you clearly don't.
I won't comment on b) but I think it is a fair call to say 40k is, objectively, bad as a game. As an excuse to push some lovely painted models around a board and drink with mates I'm sure it's wonderful but as a GAME, ie in terms of game mechanics and the like, it is horribly imbalanced, there are countless rules queries that are never going to be addressed and 'if you don't know roll off' is only ever acceptable as a safety net to catch problems and FAQ them in the first few months after a release. No professional ruleset should ever need that rule to operate.
jonolikespie wrote: No professional ruleset should ever need that rule to operate.
Every RPG, LARP, etc.. has a similar rule to settle disputes. It's industry standard. Why should it be omitted, simply because GW adds miniatures to the mix?
jonolikespie wrote: No professional ruleset should ever need that rule to operate.
Every RPG, LARP, etc.. has a similar rule to settle disputes. It's industry standard. Why should it be omitted, simply because GW adds miniatures to the mix?
I haven't encountered a RPG with anything near the level of rules disputes as 40k and even so there is a HUGE difference between a wargame played between two competing players and a group of players acting together with a GM to dictate anything like that that comes up.
You're comparing apples to oranges.
Instead of comparing 40k to an RPG compare it to other wargames. There are tons of them. Infinity, Warmachine/Hordes, Warpath/Kings of war, Dystopian Wars/Firestorm Armada, Dropszone Commander.. you get my point. Show me one of those that's riddled with the same kind of imbalance or rules queries as 40k.
None the less people want to play it competitively. GW used to run grand tournaments, and still do run tourneys on a local level. GW themselves saying the game is about storytelling and whatever but it doesn't change the fact that it's a piss poor excuse for bad rules writing.
There is no reason a clear ruleset would take away any of the storytelling elements.
jonolikespie wrote: None the less people want to play it competitively. GW used to run grand tournaments, and still do run tourneys on a local level. GW themselves saying the game is about storytelling and whatever but it doesn't change the fact that it's a piss poor excuse for bad rules writing.
There is no reason a clear ruleset would take away any of the storytelling elements.
Emphasis on "used to".
And I am not claiming the ruleset is perfect or beyond improvements. But their quality (and the ways to possibly improve them) first need to be measured against the appropriate benchmark to set them against. And that benchmark are narrative RPGs or LARPs (with Miniatures instead of people) at least as much (and arguably more so) as they are board/wargames (wether or not they use similar props to play).
The constant ranting about how X should be a better car, more like other cars, doesn't help when X is a boat.
The fundamental difference between 40k and RPGs, is that (usually) players aren't in direct competition with each other in an RPG, Even in massively imbalanced D&D 3.5, it's entirely possible to have am unoptimised fighter in the same game as an optimised wizard and have the player still participate in the game, feel like a valued member of the party and enjoy the game. Compare that to a game of 40k between an optimised Taudar list vs an unoptimised Ork list. The game will be brutal and one-sided, the Ork player will not enjoy the game or really feel like they're participating in it at all beyond removing their models from the board.
And even if we are comparing 40k to RPGs, it's more imbalanced than most RPGs I've encountered. If Dark Heresy had the same level of imbalance 40k has the FFG forums would be full of rage (well, more than they currently are).
PrinceRaven wrote: The fundamental difference between 40k and RPGs, is that (usually) players aren't in direct competition with each other in an RPG, Even in massively imbalanced D&D 3.5, it's entirely possible to have am unoptimised fighter in the same game as an optimised wizard and have the player still participate in the game, feel like a valued member of the party and enjoy the game. Compare that to a game of 40k between an optimised Taudar list vs an unoptimised Ork list. The game will be brutal and one-sided, the Ork player will not enjoy the game or really feel like they're participating in it at all beyond removing their models from the board.
Which is why you should talk before the game, discuss expectations and perhaps adapt the scenario to fit the game of these TauDar vs. the Ork Hordes (and the specific Models they include) to match. A Farseer with Riptides will have different motivations, priorities and "victory" conditions than a howling green-tide of Orks on a Waagh. Build these into the game, specific points based on the Farseers backstory perhaps that could give the Orks an edge, etc.. .
The "relative contribution" each player adds to the game comes with the story.
40K is a competition of the armies on the table. It is still a cooperative effort of the players as much as most RPGs (with D&D being a bad example, seeing how it is rather to the wargaming-side of things), which is why it doesn't work as a "competitive" game.
40k at it's core is a game where two players play against each other. There is a win condition. It sets two players against each other with only a rulebook (or in the case of tourney's a TO) to arbitrate the results and determine a victor.
It can not be compared to an RPG because no matter how involved you get in creating a story around 40k it is not a cooperative game with a third party such as a GM dictating the results.
jonolikespie wrote: 40k at it's core is a game where two players play against each other. There is a win condition. It sets two players against each other with only a rulebook (or in the case of tourney's a TO) to arbitrate the results and determine a victor.
It can not be compared to an RPG because no matter how involved you get in creating a story around 40k it is not a cooperative game with a third party such as a GM dictating the results.
As long as you cling to this mistake, so long will you continue to be disappointed.
PrinceRaven wrote: So there's nothing wrong with the rules as long as you don't actually play by them?
There is nothing with rules for a cooperative game as long as you don't play it competitively (and, usually, vice versa)
Hell, some books (Crusade of Fire comes to mind) even suggest a Game Master if you feel unsure handling between yourself (though a Game Master in and by itself doesn't make a cooperative game).
The express written intent of the rules given is that they are a framework for you to d owith as you wish.
Stating "but it has to do..." ignores this intent.
You might not like it, and it might not be the brightest, most business savvy way to run it, however that is the studios call, and not yours.
I would love a ruleset that was less internally contradictory, including better but not perfect balance (as the complexity is such that it is likely impossible to achieve perfect balance, and perfect balance can be incredibly dull), etc
I disagree with the idea that rule disputes are constant - attending, and running, a fair few tournaments (from 12 players to over 100) over the years has shown that to be NOT the case. In friendlies at our gaming club, with probably 10 - 15 games ona club night, actual ruels arguments are incredibly rare, and disputes are usually worked out between players fairly quickly.
Alright, Zwei, I think I may be having some trouble understanding your argument here so can you please clarify something for me.
People who play the game in a competitive fashion*, are they playing the game wrong and should stop because it's not that kind of game or are they not going to have fun playing like that because the game doesn't work that way?
Are you suggesting anyone who sees the game as something to win and are uninterested in turning it into a pseudo-RPG are playing it wrong, or are you suggesting the game doesn't work any other way?
*Not powergamers, WAAC players or tourney player, just people who don't discuss how to forge a narrative beforehand and play with the assumption that they will be trying to win
jonolikespie wrote: Alright, Zwei, I think I may be having some trouble understanding your argument here so can you please clarify something for me.
People who play the game in a competitive fashion*, are they playing the game wrong and should stop because it's not that kind of game or are they not going to have fun playing like that because the game doesn't work that way?
Are you suggesting anyone who sees the game as something to win and are uninterested in turning it into a pseudo-RPG are playing it wrong, or are you suggesting the game doesn't work any other way?
*Not powergamers, WAAC players or tourney player, just people who don't discuss how to forge a narrative beforehand and play with the assumption that they will be trying to win
What I am suggesting is that you stop asking for Warhammer 40K to become "like other wargames", because those other wargames already exist.
Those who would like to a play a game that is "like other wargames" can already play those other wargames.
Those of us who like Warhammer 40K just fine the way it is, only have Warhammer 40K. No alternative.
There is no point in making Warhammer 40K "like other wargames" (because there already are other wargames) and there is no alternative to the current Warhammer-40K-take on gaming, because nobody else does it like Warhammer 40K
40K doesn't try to be or want to be a wargame like DZC, Infinity etc..
It emphasises narrative, storytelling and campaigns.
Don't try to make it into something it isn't and doesn't want to be.
It's a bit hard to have a narrative when, unless you take specific units, your army will get roflstomped 9 games out of 10...
What he is saying and I agree is that rightly or wrongly GW are assuming both players don't take take the "I win" units - if they - problems ensue............
Alright, Zwei, I think I may be having some trouble understanding your argument here so can you please clarify something for me.
People who play the game in a competitive fashion*, are they playing the game wrong and should stop because it's not that kind of game or are they not going to have fun playing like that because the game doesn't work that way?
Are you suggesting anyone who sees the game as something to win and are uninterested in turning it into a pseudo-RPG are playing it wrong, or are you suggesting the game doesn't work any other way?
No thats not what he said - he said the rules are not written with those players in mind and therefore will need to be adapted by them in their groups to give them the game play style they want. I thnk he is right - its the same as if they were written with a competative mindset, people who just want a narrative game need to adapt them..
This sort of disucssion is happening at our club at the moment .........................what and how to play 40k with radically different expectatiuons.
knas ser wrote: Okay, you know what? feth it. I laid everything out reasonably but it's plain to see that 'my kind' aren't welcome here.
Get off your cross already. I've said several times that you can play the game competitively if you want, I was just making a point that the game is just really bad at being that competitive. The problem with that started with 3rd when GW tried to get into the whole tournament scene and it went downhill from there.
knas ser wrote: I started playing back with 1st edition and then dropped out somewhere around third. I came across my old models when moving and thought it would be really fun to get back into it. But apparently because I actually want to play it as a game, I'm not welcome here.
You're plenty welcome, but you obviously don't understand the state that this game is in right now. You've been out for 2-3 Editions and are coming back in and trying to argue that the game is somehow more suited for competition than it actually is. You can play it in tournaments but honestly you're playing a game of "who has this month's best army" over "who is the most skilled general here". It's not an issue with you or "your kind" it's a problem with the game that you're not seeing and it's probably because you've been gone.
knas ser wrote: My opinions should be shot down and I should be patronized because that's not WH40k is about and Heaven forbid that I actually express my wants for the system because then I'll just get told (twice) that I'm just trying to lord it over other people in wanting the game to be balanced. Oh and apparently compared to a madman for wanting GW to playtest something like the revenant before releasing it because, yes, of course that's such a fething unreasonable expectation that you have to fething chastise me for such crazy pipedreams.
First off, opinions get shot down all the time. This is the internet and people aren't required to agree on everything here. Also, someone was "treating you with an apparent kindness that betrays a feeling of superiority"? When did that happen?
You really didn't read all of what I wrote I guess because honestly there are problems you're failing to see:
1. GW doesn't playtests in large enough groups to solve those sorts of issues because they play a very soft version of the game internally compared to what's done competitively
2. I didn't say the game shouldn't be balanced, I said that 6th can't be that balanced game because of all the junk it's carrying, some of which dates back to Rogue Trader (design mentalities, a lack of a points costing system, ect). This edition can't be salvaged into a proper, competitive game. If there is enough pressure from the fanbase 7th might. The problem is that a majority of the fanbase are more content to sit on their thumbs than actually deal with GW about their problems (writing letters, or signing a petition is just "too hard" for some people and they give up before they try because of it) and honestly that's part of the reason the game continues to be as badly balanced as it is.
3. You missed what was the closest thing GW had to a competitive ruleset with 5th edition so you really didn't see the mess that was the tournament scene then. It's still a mess now, just a worse one because the rules aren't designed for tournaments.
knas ser wrote: Fine. Maybe I wont get back into 40K. I'll stick to sports seeing as that's where you think competitive people who "just want to place themselves on an imaginary pedestal" belong.
That's your prerogative. Also I never said all competitive people where like that, just that there is a considerable number of them who bring it into every game, no matter what you're doing and just make it unfun. Unless you think Quadtide is a fun playstyle to be facing when you're not running one of it's few counters.
knas ser wrote: Apparently what I should be doing if I want to play is being "proactive" in changing the rules rather than actually discussing the matter with like-minded people here on Dakka. Well feth it. You make it more than clear that people like me are not who 40K is for so feth it, I'll find a different hobby. If it's such a fething ask that something as simple as the more outrageously broken things to be play-tested then plainly the fault is mine for having such crazy stupid expectations. So I'll just let myself out and stick the old models back in the attic. Well done. You just killed the enthusiasm of a returning player with your relentless attacks on a simple opinion that D-weapons are. broken. Squash is healthier for me and clearly suits my character flaws as someone who wants to feel superior to others. Plus the cost of a single titan will pay for courts from now till 2015. So thanks. You did me a favour in bringing me to my senses before I started buying models again. I'm sure the hobby will be better off with me.
Honestly now, have you even played 6th edition yet, or looked at it's rules? It's not the kind of game you're looking for if all you want is a game where you can test tactics and skill in. Not to mention your arguing with someone who knows the current edition, has been playing it, studying it, reading it, examining it and trying to think of ways it could be better since it came out but have said you're only just getting back into the game. If you think I'm actively being mean because I say this edition doesn't work competitively then you really don't understand this game.
There are far bigger issues than D-Weapons in this game, and the fact you don't know that, but want to argue that it can be more with the ruleset it currently has (not to mention the codex balance that's all over the place), shows that you honestly have no idea how bad the competitive game is.
If you really quit because of this, then you're welcome because you were about to waste money trying to play a competitive game that doesn't, and currently can't, exist. I'm sorry 40k isn't that game, but trying to blame me because I'm aware of this and am trying to explain that to you and you're not listening despite not being involved in 40k for a few editions isn't my fault. You're taking the state of the game as a slight against you when I say it's not made for competitive play, can't be just fixed easily for competitive play, and doesn't support competition like you obviously want it too. It doesn't stop people from trying, but it does lead to pages and pages of constant complaints that it's not what they want it too be that never go anywhere beyond "I'll complain about it on the internet and my problems will magically be answered."
jonolikespie wrote: Alright, Zwei, I think I may be having some trouble understanding your argument here so can you please clarify something for me.
People who play the game in a competitive fashion*, are they playing the game wrong and should stop because it's not that kind of game or are they not going to have fun playing like that because the game doesn't work that way?
Are you suggesting anyone who sees the game as something to win and are uninterested in turning it into a pseudo-RPG are playing it wrong, or are you suggesting the game doesn't work any other way?
*Not powergamers, WAAC players or tourney player, just people who don't discuss how to forge a narrative beforehand and play with the assumption that they will be trying to win
What I am suggesting is that you stop asking for Warhammer 40K to become "like other wargames", because those other wargames already exist.
Those who would like to a play a game that is "like other wargames" can already play those other wargames.
Those of us who like Warhammer 40K just fine the way it is, only have Warhammer 40K. No alternative.
There is no point in making Warhammer 40K "like other wargames" (because there already are other wargames) and there is no alternative to the current Warhammer-40K-take on gaming, because nobody else does it like Warhammer 40K
It's a bit hard to have a narrative when, unless you take specific units, your army will get roflstomped 9 games out of 10...
you don't get roflstomped if you cooperate with your fellow player across the table to make the confrontation on the table an exciting one.
While I agree that I've never seen another game have the same sort of combat I believe it is to a fault. Why are so many aircraft focusing on a small firefight? Why is a Revenant titan wasting it's time with this small group? 40k is a game that is designed with skirmishes in mind but tries to fit in mass unit combat into it. That just doesn't work and makes for a clunky and overly long game.
Like I said earlier, 40k is terrible for writing stories. Sure, you can have fun telling the story of how the Cadian 1337th regiment fought tooth and nail beating the Chaos Space Marines back in a lovingly detailed environment but you'd have to bend over backwards to do so. You can't take too many artillery pieces or else the marines will be destroyed, you can't take certain fortifications, you can't take too many blobs, you have to take some weak units, you can't have too many heldrakes and you can't have too many oblits.
Beyond scenarios so contrived you'd might as well just write the story and include the pictures for fun 40k as a narrative tool is still poor. The fact that it inherently favors some codices over others makes for bad stories. Who wants to read the story about how a bunch of Necron aircraft destroyed a foot army of Ork slugga boys? Or the gripping tale of Commander Farsight and his many Riptides ripping apart an IG armored convoy with little effort? Or what of the tale of Lord Commander Stern ordering his artillery pieces to blow a distant Blood Angel army up?
My point is that the only stories worth reading come out of carefully planned instances. Most players either don't have the time for these sort of things or the patience. Remember, some of us just want to have fun pushing models around and don't want to make a fanfic with accompanying images. So the excuse that 40k is good as a narrative system is rather poor IMO.
Warhammer 40K can be played competitively and in a reasonably balanced manner, but not with the current 6th Ed. Rules and its following releases. In fact I’d say GW is openly discouraging such play in an effort to squeeze as much out of its players as possible by creating a continuing cycle of having the next rock beat the current scissors that just trounced paper. Meanwhile the rules randomize conventions to the point skill has less effect on a battle’s final result. GW has effectively “moved the goalposts” by turning the game into something less competitive and more akin to story telling like an RPG. It’s an attempt to broaden its base because they feel they have saturated their market of “serious” gamers so it’s better now to appeal to the “non-serious” gamers. This way little Timmy can win plenty too, especially if he has cash! But it’s not an RPG…it’s a war game gone sour, putrefied by its own bloat. A good game creates a narrative (rewards good play and occasional luck); it doesn’t force it with dumb mechanics used as an excuse to justify poor rules.
I find the arguments about how it’s only a “beer and pretzels” game for “casual” play or for “fun” either naïve, disingenuous or simply ignorant. A beer and pretzels game doesn’t require a genuine investment of money, time and effort. It doesn’t cost $500++, take a 100+ hours of work to build and have over 150 pages of basic rules to play.
Period.
And how have “fun” and “competitive” become mutually exclusive? Only in the minds of those who support the current GW model, I guess. I have no problem with those who enjoy the game for what it’s worth or play “friendly only” games. Why is it however such a crime for those who want to play a game where their generalship actually means something? Why shout down legitimate criticism? Even if the game were PERFECT GW would change it…it’s their model for generating sales.
For those who just say love or leave it, I say change it or lose it. But change in and of itself is of no value unless it’s positive. My little cadre of players has improved and streamlined the rules and we are having the best games ever. They are competitive, balanced, intuitive and interactive. Remarkably our rules aren’t that different from GW’s; it CAN be done. Unfortunately, really great rules aren’t GW’s goal. The goal is to CHANGE the rules…and for people to continuing buying into that, figuratively and literally.
By the way, as this is a forum people have a right to express their views on the game however complimentary or critical as they may be…and it might even do some good. Saying GW doesn’t care or won’t change really isn’t the point. A forum is where thoughts and ideas are shared, reviewed, criticized and discarded if need be. I admit I feel a kinship with many on these forums who have a bad taste in their mouths as to what has happened to their favorite game. Maybe GW WILL get a clue that what they’ve done is less than satisfactory for so many die hard fans and players. Waiting for the chance that somehow 7th Ed. will magically make it all better is sadly misunderstanding GW policy. If it happens, everybody wins…but I won’t nor will I need to hold my breath.
amanita wrote: Warhammer 40K can be played competitively and in a reasonably balanced manner, but not with the current 6th Ed. Rules and its following releases. In fact I’d say GW is openly discouraging such play in an effort to squeeze as much out of its players as possible by creating a continuing cycle of having the next rock beat the current scissors that just trounced paper. Meanwhile the rules randomize conventions to the point skill has less effect on a battle’s final result. GW has effectively “moved the goalposts” by turning the game into something less competitive and more akin to story telling like an RPG. It’s an attempt to broaden its base because they feel they have saturated their market of “serious” gamers so it’s better now to appeal to the “non-serious” gamers. This way little Timmy can win plenty too, especially if he has cash! But it’s not an RPG…it’s a war game gone sour, putrefied by its own bloat. A good game creates a narrative (rewards good play and occasional luck); it doesn’t force it with dumb mechanics used as an excuse to justify poor rules.
I find the arguments about how it’s only a “beer and pretzels” game for “casual” play or for “fun” either naïve, disingenuous or simply ignorant. A beer and pretzels game doesn’t require a genuine investment of money, time and effort. It doesn’t cost $500++, take a 100+ hours of work to build and have over 150 pages of basic rules to play.
Period.
And how have “fun” and “competitive” become mutually exclusive? Only in the minds of those who support the current GW model, I guess. I have no problem with those who enjoy the game for what it’s worth or play “friendly only” games. Why is it however such a crime for those who want to play a game where their generalship actually means something? Why shout down legitimate criticism? Even if the game were PERFECT GW would change it…it’s their model for generating sales.
For those who just say love or leave it, I say change it or lose it. But change in and of itself is of no value unless it’s positive. My little cadre of players has improved and streamlined the rules and we are having the best games ever. They are competitive, balanced, intuitive and interactive. Remarkably our rules aren’t that different from GW’s; it CAN be done. Unfortunately, really great rules aren’t GW’s goal. The goal is to CHANGE the rules…and for people to continuing buying into that, figuratively and literally.
By the way, as this is a forum people have a right to express their views on the game however complimentary or critical as they may be…and it might even do some good. Saying GW doesn’t care or won’t change really isn’t the point. A forum is where thoughts and ideas are shared, reviewed, criticized and discarded if need be. I admit I feel a kinship with many on these forums who have a bad taste in their mouths as to what has happened to their favorite game. Maybe GW WILL get a clue that what they’ve done is less than satisfactory for so many die hard fans and players. Waiting for the chance that somehow 7th Ed. will magically make it all better is sadly misunderstanding GW policy. If it happens, everybody wins…but I won’t nor will I need to hold my breath.
Way too much contradiciton here - apparently you feel shouted down but those who disagree are naive, disagreeable and Ignorant? Or do they not have the right to express their views as you do?
If you read the actual post, I and other s were not saying you are doing something wrong - more that the present ediiton may not be not designed for competative play - what you want to do with that is kinda your decision - so you can modify or shout at GW or even just discuss it and see what you want it to be.................
@ Mr Morden - maybe you should read my response again. Looking for straw, man? I agree completely this edition sucks for competitive play; I merely said WHY it does and probably will continue to. I never addressed anything you wrote specifically, but I apparently hit a nerve. I never said people can't debate the merits of the game, I just have seen too many examples of people whitewashing its warts and saying stupid things like 'grow a pair or quit' which isn't useful in the least.
And yes I'm sick to death of people saying they play "for fun" like it's some higher morale ground when it's just code for not taking the game very seriously and mocking those who wish for something that requires more tactical involvement.
Where I see rules disputes arising in RPGs is more along the lines of someone expects something to work one way "OMG!! I just stabbed that dude for 40 damage with a great sword! He should fall over and be counted prone!" and the rules don't work that way, "If this were real, Bob, you might have a point, but that's not how combat in this game works."
I get this smetimes in my DH games. "But the book doesn't list any weight for a ration pack!" "Yes, but the book doesn't intend for you to carry 5000 of them on your back."
Rarely, in an RPG, do I see a rules-dispute that needs a YMDC-like forum, where you hash out the "logic" behind the rule and come to a consensus. Usually, in an RPG, it's a situation that isn't covered by a rule, and so you make up a house-rule for it... or someone wants a house-rule to over-rule something presented by the game-books.
I've played Warmachine and 40K quite a bit. Warmachine has tighter rules and is just a dramatic, if not more so, than 40K because things make sense in the game.
MtG was made to be a competetive game while 40k started as a game that required a GM (go Rogue Trader) to keep things "fair".
MtG was not originally made a competive game: quite the contrary. It was originally utterly unsuited for competive play since power of the cards was often controlled by their rarity, which is just unworkable in open environment. It was perfectly possible to make decks which almost certainly killed your opponent before he had chance to play a single card. Also, there were lots of wacky card mechanics which didn't suit for competive play since they were complicated and/or too easy to abuse.
WotC noticed that many people wanted to play competive Magic, so they diligently changed the game by filtering out rules and mechanics which were too strange for tournaments, streamlining the rules, and most importantly, enforcing an extremely heavy-handed restriction policy in tournaments: if something was found to be broken, it was simply banned or restricted to 1 per deck. Problem solved. This last part is the biggest difference between MtG and 40k competive settings: by the rulebook, neither game is well suited for competive play, but for MtG, parent company has highly refined tournament restriction ruleset, whilst for 40k, anything goes. Both games' playerbases have got so used to the situation that they can't imagine it any other way, and probably would be aghast if someone tried to force them other way around (ie. GW would began to release restricted/banned lists for tournaments, etc).
The catch here is that WotC drove off lots of MtG veterans with their focus to lucrative competive play and making their release schedule to support it: the game is now better suited for competive play, but it is also much less fun than it was in the wackiness of the early editions. There are no free lunches.
@Backfire thanks for the clarification. That gives a pretty good example why GW isn't moving that way: they saw the change in MtG's community and didn't want to go down the same road.
They experimented a bit with it, saw the changes to the community from it and chose to mulligan on it, much to the outrage of some.
ClockworkZion wrote: The catch here is that WotC drove off lots of MtG veterans with their focus to lucrative competive play and making their release schedule to support it: the game is now better suited for competive play, but it is also much less fun than it was in the wackiness of the early editions. There are no free lunches.
While this may be true, I think it's more fair to say WotC drove off veterans by creating defined formats which have distinct barriers to entry. Limited is the most level playing field because everyone buys in for the same amount, veterans get no benefit from having decades of cards and can't outspend other players. Standard is the most sponsored format because it has a lower barrier to entry, which veterans don't like it again because they can't use the entire collection and it constantly turns over. Modern and Legacy are specifically for the rich and veteran players as they can use cards across multiple sets and spend as much money as they want. I think WotC decided to do this more to lower the barrier of entry and to create a sustainable business model.
GW hasn't determined how to get the business model side right other than adding new units and/or rewriting the army books to make good units bad and bad units good. One simple change they could do that would sell more models is introduce a sideboard for armies. Players need to buy more models to field a full list and it allows the armies to counter each other a little better to make up for interactions that would otherwise be OP.
Psienesis wrote: Where I see rules disputes arising in RPGs is more along the lines of someone expects something to work one way "OMG!! I just stabbed that dude for 40 damage with a great sword! He should fall over and be counted prone!" and the rules don't work that way, "If this were real, Bob, you might have a point, but that's not how combat in this game works."
What I usually see in RPG's are rules oversights where some mechanic is presented but just doesn't make sense: something like tackle attacks in RuneQuest being much more deadly than swords, ditto for throws being more deadly than guns in Twilight 2nd edition: or from other end of the spectrum, things like Telepathic psychic attack in RT whichs damage is reduced by Toughness and Armour worn by target, making it totally useless. Another cardinal sin for many RPG's are weapons tables where one or two weapons are simply much better than the rest and there is absolutely no point using anything else. Extreme example perhaps being Bolt weapons in Deathwatch.
Then there are just plain badly designed systems which don't have single point of failure but just suck, overall.
Of course, difference is that Roleplaying Games have GM's whose word is usually a law and they simply overrule or house rule crazy stuff and that's the end of it. "No I don't care how high your Courtier's Manipulation Skill is, you can't talk Yoritomo to Seppuku himself."
I see that, too, from time to time... and yes, definitely agree with you on the bolt-weapons in DW... though I will save my FFG rant for another thread. But such things as that are fairly easily overcome by a competent GM who notices the error, and the effect that it has on gameplay, and says "Yeah, let's fix that" and does with a houserule.
I don't, in a given RPG, see anywhere near the number of disputes and arguments that come up on the same rules, the same points, and with the same head-scratching resolutions that are presented in YMDC, for example.
Barfolomew wrote: While this may be true, I think it's more fair to say WotC drove off veterans by creating defined formats which have distinct barriers to entry. Limited is the most level playing field because everyone buys in for the same amount, veterans get no benefit from having decades of cards and can't outspend other players. Standard is the most sponsored format because it has a lower barrier to entry, which veterans don't like it again because they can't use the entire collection and it constantly turns over. Modern and Legacy are specifically for the rich and veteran players as they can use cards across multiple sets and spend as much money as they want. I think WotC decided to do this more to lower the barrier of entry and to create a sustainable business model.
Just to demonstrate how different MtG community was back in the early days - I have no idea what you are talking about As I said, MtG was not originally a tournament game. It was a deliberate choice from WotC to make it one. A very successful one, but certain aspects of the game were lost.
Psienesis: Ooh, I too have big FFG rant stored up...must...resist...
I havent bought a gw product since the marine codex. I have this image of what a competitve setting should be and the company continues to take the game in a different direction. I am not complaining, I simply have come to the conclusion that as a competitve player the amount of restrictions that I want is just to much for a tournament organizer. I dont want IA I dont want escalation I want line of sight blocking terrain its just to much, and I dont want to look like a whiner. I rather play a game where I dont have to know 20+ books of rules. Combine that with the price increase I am seriously considering selling my armies.
Backfire wrote: A very successful one, but certain aspects of the game were lost.
Not really. Those aspects only worked back in the days before the internet. You could kind of get away with overpowered "fun" cards because WOTC thought people would buy a few packs and that's it, and most people would never even know what all the cards in the game were. So you'd play your MTG games with your friends, and then you'd play a game on vacation one day and encounter this amazing powerful rare card you've never even seen before. Once the internet arrived and brought complete card lists, netdecking, and the ability to buy unlimited copies of every card you want with minimal effort, those old days were doomed. The choice was between tightening up the rules of the game and making it suitable for tournament play (and balanced casual play), or letting the game die.
And this isn't just speculation, it's a story that WOTC has told. They knew perfectly well that things like black lotuses were overpowered, but they were supposed to be balanced by rarity. The intent was that nobody would ever have more than one of them (if they were lucky enough to get even one), so the potential game-breaking decks couldn't exist outside of theory and speculation. And then once the game got popular beyond their expectations and the internet arrived they had to make a deliberate choice to give up on that balancing method and assume that people have unlimited copies of every card available and decklists of every powerful deck.
amanita wrote: @ Mr Morden - maybe you should read my response again. Looking for straw, man? I agree completely this edition sucks for competitive play; I merely said WHY it does and probably will continue to. I never addressed anything you wrote specifically, but I apparently hit a nerve. I never said people can't debate the merits of the game, I just have seen too many examples of people whitewashing its warts and saying stupid things like 'grow a pair or quit' which isn't useful in the least.
And yes I'm sick to death of people saying they play "for fun" like it's some higher morale ground when it's just code for not taking the game very seriously and mocking those who wish for something that requires more tactical involvement.
We agree: current WH40K isn't it.
No nerve hit - read your own post and see how.it and this one are very judgemental - I didn't mock you or even try to defne what was fun - which apparently is a "bad thing?" Why should anyone take it seriously if they don;t want - same as why shouldnt you if you want to - its a game its not worth the anger..............
*sigh* I hear this more than I should. It isn't the end of competitive play guys. But I will concede it is VERY annoying even for a non competitive player like me.
I agree that the competitive side of 40K sucks. But that's a historical fact, as it has sucked for that since 2nd Edition. (Not counting Rogue Trader as it was meant to be more of an RPG).
But if two buddies are playing 40K, who are both fans of the setting and are playing just for the social enjoyment of playing a game in that setting, then it is perfectly fine, and always has been. Mostly because that type of setting always removes the flaws that make the game so lacking in the "fun" category. There is no spamming, no stretching badly written rules, and the meta goes out the window.
For instance, my next game with my buddy might be something like "Necrons versus Black Templars", without barely a glimmer of what everyone here keeps as the "winning meta". Or when my buddy fields Tau without even owning a model bought after 3rd edition.
40K is fun when you aren't trying to be exploitative of everything you can get away with. Too bad that's a ton of the players out there.
AegisGrimm wrote: 40K is fun when you aren't trying to be exploitative of everything you can get away with. Too bad that's a ton of the players out there.
The thing I find even more bizarre than the fact that GW lack the professional pride to make their game better than it is, is the fact that so many players are so quick to blame other players for the game's dificiencies, rather than putting the blame where it belongs, squarely on GW's shoulders.
A player isn't having fun the wrong way if he chooses to write a list that you deem to be 'exploitative'. If he has a legal list, and that list happens to be ridiculously overpowered, that's not something he has done wrong for choosing to build the best list he can in a game that is about two armies fighting it out with the objective of one of them winning...
Deliberately handicapping yourself is fine it that's what you have chosen to do. But it's just rude to expect your opponent to do so.
No. The is gaming with the full intention of winning, and there's exploiting loopholes. The loopholes are GW's fault, but the rest is up to the players.
40K is at it's best when two players decide "the way that "x" is playable is stupidly written, and isn't fun. Y'know, let's agree to avoid "x" when we play so the game is more than just removing casualties."
Case in point, Escalation, and the decision by many players to ignore that it exists because they think it detracts from the game.
Deliberately handicapping yourself is fine it that's what you have chosen to do. But it's just rude to expect your opponent to do so.
And that's the crux between Competitive versus Friendly play. Friendly play is not the "the win". Things like spamming Riptides is all about the win, nothing more.
Backfire wrote: A very successful one, but certain aspects of the game were lost.
Not really. Those aspects only worked back in the days before the internet. You could kind of get away with overpowered "fun" cards because WOTC thought people would buy a few packs and that's it, and most people would never even know what all the cards in the game were.
This is not the full extent of it. When MtG was made into a competive game, they stopped designing cards with mechanics which broke the game. Take something like Chaos Orb. It had awesome rules for friendly play, but for cutthroat play of the competive Magic, it could not be accepted. It would cause far too many disputes and would be far too easy to abuse. So, despite Garfield stating that cards which "break the rules" being his favourite cards in the game, they no longer designed such cards, because they weren't suited for tournament format. The game become quicker to play with less room for disputes, but also more plain & boring.
And as I said earlier: MtG, despite all supposed "rigid playtesting" is just as unbalanced as 40k, if not more so. Every edition features dozens of cards which are nearly useless, and handful of cards which are totally awesome and everyone includes them. What happens is that some of the latter group get banned and/or restricted, so that people would play more of the former. But 40k playerbase is not used to something like that: most of them would be shocked if similar restrictions came around: "What do you mean I can only field one Riptide in my army list? The Codex and basic rulebook says I can have three! This is bs!"
AegisGrimm wrote: Things like spamming Riptides is all about the win, nothing more.
Really? So what if you like Riptides because of the fluff or model? I mean, it is the big centerpiece of the Tau army and it's supposed to inspire a "wow, I want that" reaction. I guess we're supposed to just pretend that nobody actually likes the stuff in powerful lists because it's more convenient to label them WAAC abusers?
Zweischneid wrote: Every RPG, LARP, etc.. has a similar rule to settle disputes. It's industry standard. Why should it be omitted, simply because GW adds miniatures to the mix?
The key difference here is that in most games that dispute resolution method is an absolute last resort. The rules are supposed to be clear enough that they don't need it, and usually it works that way. GW, on the other hand, uses "4+ it" as an excuse to skip the playtesting required to make rules that people actually understand.
Zweischneid wrote: There is no point in making Warhammer 40K "like other wargames" (because there already are other wargames) and there is no alternative to the current Warhammer-40K-take on gaming, because nobody else does it like Warhammer 40K
The point you keep missing is that the things that make 40k different from other wargames are, as a general rule, bad game design. It isn't a case of making a game that appeals to a certain group of players and is a good game for those players, it's a case of GW being unbelievably lazy and incompetent at writing rules and yelling about "beer and pretzels" as an excuse for why they shouldn't have to work harder. Fixing 40k's problems with competitive play would also make it a better game for everyone else at the same time. The only people who lose anything are the masochists who need to have bad rules so they can take their ridiculous moral high ground about how they must care more about "fun" than everyone else because they certainly don't play the game for its rules.
No, it emphasizes model sales, random tables as a substitute for good game design, and ignoring playtesting because most customers never actually play the game. Over and over again 40k's rules destroy the idea of narrative. Perfect example: random warlord traits. The warlord in an army is supposed to be the player avatar, and certainly the most important character in the story. But none of that story matters, you get a random roll on the table and who cares if it has anything to do with the narrative you've created. And then you have the absurd rules like barrage sniping. Is it really good storytelling that an artillery tank is the ultimate sniper rifle, while actual snipers struggle to hit the right target in a squad? Of course not, it's just bad game design and a refusal to spend the time required to get it right.
The only way that 40k emphasizes storytelling is if you make the absolutely insane assumption that "bad for competitive play" and "good for narrative play" are the exact same thing.
AegisGrimm wrote: 40K is at it's best when two players decide "the way that "x" is playable is stupidly written, and isn't fun.
And my point was that this is an absurd state of affairs.
And that's the crux between Competitive versus Friendly play. Friendly play is not the "the win". .
For you, perhaps.
I've had gaming groups where we had a lot of fun just throwing whatever we had on the table. I've also had gaming groups where we had a lot of fun deliberately devising the most evil lists that we could. Sometimes they were the same groups.
Just because you don't find it fun to play to win doesn't mean that playing to win can't be fun. For a hell of a lot of players, playing to win is the entire point of a game with two sides.
Backfire wrote: Take something like Chaos Orb. It had awesome rules for friendly play, but for cutthroat play of the competive Magic, it could not be accepted. It would cause far too many disputes and would be far too easy to abuse.
No, Chaos Orb was stupid game design right from day 1. Even in casual groups people pretty much immediately figured out how to break the game with it, and you had absurd situations like people taping their cards to the ceiling so the Chaos Orb couldn't land on them. It was pretty much guaranteed to cause endless arguments, and a game full of design like that probably wouldn't exist 20 years later like the real MTG does. Tournaments had very little impact here, the biggest factor was the realization that MTG had the potential to be way more than a casual time-waster between D&D sessions*. And for it to reach that potential some of the sillier elements would have to go.
*Fun fact: MTG was originally designed as a low-budget game that would get the funds to make WOTC's real project, a board game most people have never even heard of.
And as I said earlier: MtG, despite all supposed "rigid playtesting" is just as unbalanced as 40k, if not more so. Every edition features dozens of cards which are nearly useless, and handful of cards which are totally awesome and everyone includes them. What happens is that some of the latter group get banned and/or restricted, so that people would play more of the former. But 40k playerbase is not used to something like that: most of them would be shocked if similar restrictions came around: "What do you mean I can only field one Riptide in my army list? The Codex and basic rulebook says I can have three! This is bs!"
This is completely wrong.
Most of those "useless" cards aren't actually useless. Most cards in a set are designed for limited (sealed/draft) games, where you need a lot of basic commons that will never see play in constructed. And then there are a lot of cards that are aimed at "cool monster" players or the tinkerers who love finding ways to make weird and obscure stuff work. Those cards will tend to be low on power level, but they aren't aimed at the same purpose as the cards that are designed for competitive play so it doesn't matter. The problem here is your failure to understand the target audience, not balance.
And card bans are almost nonexistent. Very, very few cards ever get banned. They are the result of the occasional mistake or the game going in an unanticipated direction, not careless balancing that requires frequent bans to fix after release day.
Really? So what if you like Riptides because of the fluff or model? I mean, it is the big centerpiece of the Tau army and it's supposed to inspire a "wow, I want that" reaction. I guess we're supposed to just pretend that nobody actually likes the stuff in powerful lists because it's more convenient to label them WAAC abusers?
Including and spamming are two very different things.
Well what's really wrong with spamming units? I personally love the Riptide model and rules. Why shouldn't I be allowed to take three of them, with an allied third, the Commander Riptide, and a Riptide from the Formation? It's well within the rules to do so.
I would love to see a pole to determine how many dakka members prefer competitive play to beer and pretzels to campaigns. He is not trying to create a competitive game. They are trying to create a casual game where players buy models that look cool that have a game to go with them.
Actually yeah what is wrong with spamming? Having a lot of platoons seems rather fluffy for guardsman, tons of tanks is fluffy (more fluffy than half your regiment being guard and half tanks and air cav). What about DE? DE themed around speed of ships careening across the field. A drop pod oriented army based around scouts looking out, getting co-ordinates, sniping and then drop pods hammer down from the skies before releasing a flurry of shots. Battlesuit farsight army based around mobile forces? Not onl are these fluffy, but they aren't all super competitive so what is really wrong with spammy? (also by the nature if you try and build a TS or other faction it will seem rather spammy)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
rothrich wrote: I would love to see a pole to determine how many dakka members prefer competitive play to beer and pretzels to campaigns. He is not trying to create a competitive game. They are trying to create a casual game where players buy models that look cool that have a game to go with them.
Honestly, the problem with this is that balanced rules are favorable to beer and pretzel gameplay. If I can take TS and know I'm not chopping an arm off for deploying them against another guy that is playing with pyrovores because he likes the fluff and models, if they are balanced we will have more fun because they will both have an equal chance of doing something.
Well, remember that if you bring anything that isn't a random hodge-podge of units, you're playing the game wrong and taking it way too serious.
I mean, its not like people have different ideas of what casual is, or what fluffy means, or what competitive is, or what constitutes spamming. There is only one undeniable definition all gamers must abide by in discussions like this.
What about talking about what kind of game both players are looking for and building lists in to make both armies for the predetermined game competitive with one another. In other words balanced.
rothrich wrote: What about talking about what kind of game both players are looking for and building lists in to make both armies for the predetermined game competitive with one another. In other words balanced.
Well, yeah, no ones denying this.
The issue is that the game itself is flawed and the onus is on the players to self balance and police eachothers' lists, which is lazy writing at best.
rothrich wrote: They are trying to create a casual game where players buy models that look cool that have a game to go with them.
This doesn't make any sense. The bad rules that encourage spamming and make those lists too powerful don't make 40k a better casual game, they just make it a bad game. The problem is 100% GW's complete laziness and incompetence at writing rules.
I think the rules make it fairly clear that that is the way the game is supposed to be with a way to play pickup games if there is no time to forge a narrative.
rothrich wrote: I think the rules make it fairly clear that that is the way the game is supposed to be with a way to play pickup games if there is no time to forge a narrative.
That's just lazy design. GW says "play it casually and don't question us" as an excuse for publishing half-finished rules. The rules don't actually support "forging a narrative" very well, it just helps if you have something else to enjoy that can let you overlook all the game's many flaws.
I think he means its to play as a pick up game if you cant set up a special scenario or campaign.
Am I the only one who thinks that "Forging a narrative" is an empty buzzphrase that basically means "You cant enjoy the actual game but you can pretend that something cool is going on!"?
Am I the only one who thinks that "Forging a narrative" is an empty buzzphrase that basically means "You cant enjoy the actual game but you can pretend that something cool is going on!"?
There are people who think it isn't an empty buzz phrase?
Yeah. Apparently you were closer to the 40K spirit when you were just using action figures to stop Cobra Commander and the Decepticons when you were a kid.
I hear the term "Forging the Narrative" and always get a bit disgusted by it. It's silly to me. It reminds me of all the times I've played team games in 5th and someone walks up confused asking why Tau are teamed up with Chaos Space marines and they were confused when I answered "uh... Because?".
Apparently if you're playing a game you're doing it wrong. You're supposed to be putting on a play. You're supposed to pick up the sarge in each squad and give the order to move out before actually moving your models. You're supposed to give heroic speeches when rolling morale. You're not supposed to use dice with actual numbers on them, the rolling sound is for the audience and the result is determined by what Act of the play you're currently in. Also, like allies and supplements, musical numbers are not required but are highly encouraged.
I think it is perfectly fine to do all of that and, in fact, narratives were forged before we had cinematic things like random warlord tables and allied formations. It's a stupid excuse for a broken game though since I bought a wargame not a RPG.
I think the problem with this edition of 40k is that it has all of these rules designed to make it a non-competitive game, but by the very nature of being something where two players playing against each other with a win condition, it is always going to have some element of competition. Instead of trying to figure out how to take the elements they want in the game and make them work with the style of game they're making, they just throw everything together and expect people to make sense of it.
Trying to compare 40k with an RPG doesn't make any sense, because while 40k is clearly not "competitive" in the tourney sense of the word, it is by definition competitive because there will be a winner and a loser. Now, in a good game, both the winner and the loser come away having had fun, which happens in most of the games I play. But this form of competition means it can't be compared to an RPG where all the players are, in theory, cooperating, and a win for one means a win for all.
Expecting 40k to only be played like an RPG, where everything is set up and decided upon beforehand, also severely limits the biggest thing 40k has going for it: that it is the most played wargame and you can generally go to a store and find someone else to play with. It's nonsensical that GW doesn't pick a path to go down, because they can't have it both ways. The game either needs to be able to stand alone on its rules, or it needs to throw away the idea that it can be played by two strangers in a pickup game and actually design towards the whole pre-planning thing. Thankfully, there's always X-Wing .
Savageconvoy wrote: Yeah. Apparently you were closer to the 40K spirit when you were just using action figures to stop Cobra Commander and the Decepticons when you were a kid.
I hear the term "Forging the Narrative" and always get a bit disgusted by it. It's silly to me. It reminds me of all the times I've played team games in 5th and someone walks up confused asking why Tau are teamed up with Chaos Space marines and they were confused when I answered "uh... Because?".
Apparently if you're playing a game you're doing it wrong. You're supposed to be putting on a play. You're supposed to pick up the sarge in each squad and give the order to move out before actually moving your models. You're supposed to give heroic speeches when rolling morale. You're not supposed to use dice with actual numbers on them, the rolling sound is for the audience and the result is determined by what Act of the play you're currently in. Also, like allies and supplements, musical numbers are not required but are highly encouraged.
Around here when we see the foolishness we call it "playing GI Joe". I wish I could take credit but my buddy coined the term. I think it comes from the whole fortress of redemption thing, it reminds people of the old gi joe bases. But ya, 5th had unfluffy games in so much that you can only avoid imperial vs imperial for so long, but it was nice more often than not to see one army fighting another.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MandalorynOranj wrote: I think the problem with this edition of 40k is that it has all of these rules designed to make it a non-competitive game, but by the very nature of being something where two players playing against each other with a win condition, it is always going to have some element of competition. Instead of trying to figure out how to take the elements they want in the game and make them work with the style of game they're making, they just throw everything together and expect people to make sense of it.
Trying to compare 40k with an RPG doesn't make any sense, because while 40k is clearly not "competitive" in the tourney sense of the word, it is by definition competitive because there will be a winner and a loser. Now, in a good game, both the winner and the loser come away having had fun, which happens in most of the games I play. But this form of competition means it can't be compared to an RPG where all the players are, in theory, cooperating, and a win for one means a win for all.
Expecting 40k to only be played like an RPG, where everything is set up and decided upon beforehand, also severely limits the biggest thing 40k has going for it: that it is the most played wargame and you can generally go to a store and find someone else to play with. It's nonsensical that GW doesn't pick a path to go down, because they can't have it both ways. The game either needs to be able to stand alone on its rules, or it needs to throw away the idea that it can be played by two strangers in a pickup game and actually design towards the whole pre-planning thing. Thankfully, there's always X-Wing .
I couldn't agree more with you. The more I saw the term "forging a narrative" come up in the rulebook, the more I thought "what a copout".
The closest thing I can really see to "Forging a narrative" is to play some sort of scenario other than basic ones people usually play, and that mindset has always existed before such a catch phrase.
One of the best examples is one from...Daemonhunters codex, I think?....where one army is trying to summon a Daemon before the other army stops them, with some other conditions. I always thought it would have been cool when playing the previous edition of Necrons to have the unit entry for the Daemon be a count-as for a generic C'Tan they are trying to free from a Tomb
Even that is much more interesting than just beating the crap out of the other player's army.
MandalorynOranj wrote: I think the problem with this edition of 40k is that it has all of these rules designed to make it a non-competitive game
That's not really the problem. 40k doesn't have rules designed to make it a non-competitive game, it has laughably bad rules where the designers didn't care about making a good game of any kind. They don't make it a better casual game at all, they're just so bad that the only way to put up with them is to play "casually" and value the narrative/cool models/etc more than the gameplay so that you don't notice all the problems.
it is by definition competitive because there will be a winner and a loser
I think the better definition here is "zero sum". 40k is a zero-sum game because one person wins when the other person loses. No matter how much fluff you put into the game you're still standing on opposite sides of the table and trying to beat the other player. A typical RPG, on the other hand, is a non-zero-sum game because everyone, including the GM, "wins" at the same time through cooperation.
Well, a partial solution. It doesn't fix a lot of the balance problems and awful rules, and the "take anything you want" format isn't likely to be popular enough that anyone actually plays it. You might as well just take the simpler approach and say "single FOC, no other detachments".
Blacksails wrote:Well, remember that if you bring anything that isn't a random hodge-podge of units, you're playing the game wrong and taking it way too serious.
I mean, its not like people have different ideas of what casual is, or what fluffy means, or what competitive is, or what constitutes spamming. There is only one undeniable definition all gamers must abide by in discussions like this.
"Why are people having fun in a way I don't like to have fun! They shouldn't be doing that!"
See, I can make straw men too!
Am I the only one who thinks that "Forging a narrative" is an empty buzzphrase that basically means "You cant enjoy the actual game but you can pretend that something cool is going on!"?
There are people who think it isn't an empty buzz phrase?
Some of us like the story behind the game? I mean yeah people treat it like a joke and I think it is funny too, but there IS some content behind it.
Peregrine wrote:I think the better definition here is "zero sum". 40k is a zero-sum game because one person wins when the other person loses. No matter how much fluff you put into the game you're still standing on opposite sides of the table and trying to beat the other player. A typical RPG, on the other hand, is a non-zero-sum game because everyone, including the GM, "wins" at the same time through cooperation.
Look at pg. 354 of the BRB. The third example mission, called "The Blood of Martyrs." It is not a zero-sum scenario. There are 5 different degrees of victory. The BRB mentions multiple times how the games you set up don't have to be balanced, and how they could sometimes be more interesting when they're lopsided like The Blood of Martyrs. inb4 badwrongfun
Talore wrote: Some of us like the story behind the game? I mean yeah people treat it like a joke and I think it is funny too, but there IS some content behind it.
I don't think you understand the difference between enjoying the story and "forging a narrative". One of them is a valid way of enjoying the game, the other is a meaningless phrase used by GW to pretend that bad rules and lazy design are somehow "narrative" even when those rules are bad for story-based gaming. GW uses the phrase to essentially mean "shut up and stop questioning our rules".
Look at pg. 354 of the BRB. The third example mission, called "The Blood of Martyrs." It is not a zero-sum scenario. There are 5 different degrees of victory. The BRB mentions multiple times how the games you set up don't have to be balanced, and how they could sometimes be more interesting when they're lopsided like The Blood of Martyrs. inb4 badwrongfun
I don't think you understand what a zero-sum game is. That mission is a zero-sum game because for every degree of loss or victory there's an opposite degree of loss or victory for the other player. The only way to win a major victory is to give the opponent a major defeat. Likewise, if you fail to achieve your objectives and lose your opponent wins as a result. You can't have a situation where both players win the game through cooperation.
I love the fluff behind 40k besides a lot of the Necron stuff. Its just that the idea behind "Forging a Narrative" is a concept commonly used to justify the horrid rules writing behind the game. The idea is that 40k is a system to tell a story about the battles of the 41st millennium and that the bad rules add to it. This is a ridiculous excuse since it both assumes everyone wants the same thing out of the game and acts like the rules are a good tool for story writing. What if someone likes the background fluff but just wants to play a good game with cool models from their favorite IP? Are they doing it wrong? Secondly, how are things like screamer star and random tables good for story telling? Stories need purpose and the sheer random mess of 6th doesnt provide one on its own merit.
Talore wrote: Some of us like the story behind the game? I mean yeah people treat it like a joke and I think it is funny too, but there IS some content behind it.
I don't think you understand the difference between enjoying the story and "forging a narrative". One of them is a valid way of enjoying the game, the other is a meaningless phrase used by GW to pretend that bad rules and lazy design are somehow "narrative" even when those rules are bad for story-based gaming. GW uses the phrase to essentially mean "shut up and stop questioning our rules".
No, that's what you want the phrase to mean. All they're saying is that you should turn what happens to minis on a tabletop into a story. If a guy miraculously passes 20 saves in a row, maybe the Emperor's light was shining on that marine in that moment. They're suggesting that you try to have fun in spite of your inability to relax and enjoy a game.
Look at pg. 354 of the BRB. The third example mission, called "The Blood of Martyrs." It is not a zero-sum scenario. There are 5 different degrees of victory. The BRB mentions multiple times how the games you set up don't have to be balanced, and how they could sometimes be more interesting when they're lopsided like The Blood of Martyrs. inb4 badwrongfun
I don't think you understand what a zero-sum game is. That mission is a zero-sum game because for every degree of loss or victory there's an opposite degree of loss or victory for the other player. The only way to win a major victory is to give the opponent a major defeat. Likewise, if you fail to achieve your objectives and lose your opponent wins as a result. You can't have a situation where both players win the game through cooperation.
You're setting up a false dichotomy. The goal of the attacker is to crush the opponent. The goal of the defender is to hold out as long as possible. Can both people not achieve those goals? There is no 'winner' or 'loser' there, except for maybe if the attacker fails completely as per the fifth condition.
Talore wrote: Can both people not achieve those goals?
Again, you don't understand what a zero-sum game is. Having the possibility of a draw does not make a game a non-zero-sum game because succeeding well enough to earn a draw comes as a direct result of your opponent not succeeding well enough to earn better than a draw. There is no possibility where the players cooperate and both of them win. Maybe you should read the wikipedia article on zero-sum games before continuing this discussion?
There is no 'winner' or 'loser' there, except for maybe if the attacker fails completely as per the fifth condition.
Of course there is. There's a list of levels of winning for the attacker, and an implied opposite list of levels of failure for the defender. That's a textbook example of a zero-sum game.
Blacksails wrote:Well, remember that if you bring anything that isn't a random hodge-podge of units, you're playing the game wrong and taking it way too serious.
I mean, its not like people have different ideas of what casual is, or what fluffy means, or what competitive is, or what constitutes spamming. There is only one undeniable definition all gamers must abide by in discussions like this.
"Why are people having fun in a way I don't like to have fun! They shouldn't be doing that!"
See, I can make straw men too!
Ah, but if you were following the thread and the person I was responding to, you would notice this individual was claiming that the people 'spamming' or not playing 'for fun' were doing it wrong. So no, not a strawman. In fact, you probably missed that my post was satirical. Your response is exactly what I was getting at. People have different notions of fun. Claiming 40k is fine if you start 'forging the narrative' and other buzz phrases ignores the objectionably awful elements of the rules and balance.
Am I the only one who thinks that "Forging a narrative" is an empty buzzphrase that basically means "You cant enjoy the actual game but you can pretend that something cool is going on!"?
There are people who think it isn't an empty buzz phrase?
Some of us like the story behind the game? I mean yeah people treat it like a joke and I think it is funny too, but there IS some content behind it.
Some content, but no more than there was in 5th ed, or any other wargame. Which is why most people find it silly to mention; nearly every other wargame I've played naturally forges a narrative without the rulebook telling me to do so or how to do it.
All they're saying is that you should turn what happens to minis on a tabletop into a story.
And the rules GW applies their ridiculous "forge the narrative" idea to don't actually help with story-based gaming. It's an empty advertising phrase whose sole purpose is to make you think the game is about story-based gaming and not just a half-finished mess.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Blacksails wrote: Some content, but no more than there was in 5th ed, or any other wargame. Which is why most people find it silly to mention; nearly every other wargame I've played naturally forges a narrative without the rulebook telling me to do so or how to do it.
Blacksails wrote:Well, remember that if you bring anything that isn't a random hodge-podge of units, you're playing the game wrong and taking it way too serious.
I mean, its not like people have different ideas of what casual is, or what fluffy means, or what competitive is, or what constitutes spamming. There is only one undeniable definition all gamers must abide by in discussions like this.
"Why are people having fun in a way I don't like to have fun! They shouldn't be doing that!"
See, I can make straw men too!
Ah, but if you were following the thread and the person I was responding to, you would notice this individual was claiming that the people 'spamming' or not playing 'for fun' were doing it wrong. So no, not a strawman. In fact, you probably missed that my post was satirical. Your response is exactly what I was getting at. People have different notions of fun. Claiming 40k is fine if you start 'forging the narrative' and other buzz phrases ignores the objectionably awful elements of the rules and balance.
I have been following the thread. Maybe I just worded it poorly, but I was playing along
Peregrine wrote:
Talore wrote: Can both people not achieve those goals?
Again, you don't understand what a zero-sum game is. Having the possibility of a draw does not make a game a non-zero-sum game because succeeding well enough to earn a draw comes as a direct result of your opponent not succeeding well enough to earn better than a draw. There is no possibility where the players cooperate and both of them win. Maybe you should read the wikipedia article on zero-sum games before continuing this discussion?
There is no 'winner' or 'loser' there, except for maybe if the attacker fails completely as per the fifth condition.
Of course there is. There's a list of levels of winning for the attacker, and an implied opposite list of levels of failure for the defender. That's a textbook example of a zero-sum game.
Dear god, this has got to be bait. You're willfully ignorant of what a false dichotomy is. I'm going to stop feeding you now.
rothrich wrote: Did we have all this crying and moaning when planet strike and cities of death came out?
Planetstrike and Cities of Death are expansions and aren't part of "Regular 40k". Escalation and Stronghold Assault are supplements and can be used in any game like Farsight Enclaves or Sentinels of Terra. The fact that titans can be used in regular games RAW is what the problem is.
rothrich wrote: Did we have all this crying and moaning when planet strike and cities of death came out?
Not really, because those were complete books that were clearly for separate special games, not half-finished garbage for normal games.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Talore wrote: Dear god, this has got to be bait. You're willfully ignorant of what a false dichotomy is. I'm going to stop feeding you now.
No, you just don't understand what a zero-sum game is. You joined the discussion with a completely absurd comment, and now you're trying to justify it by accusing me of trolling.
Um... the definitions of expansion and supplement are pretty similar.
sup·ple·ment
addition: an addition to something to increase its size or make up for a deficiency
publication: a publication that amplifies or corrects one already published
periodical part: an additional section included in or sold with a magazine or newspaper, especially an additional section that appears regularly
Synonyms: addition, extra, complement, enhancement, increase, increment, add-on, appendage, addendum, adjunct, extension, insertion, annex
ex·pan·sion [ ik spánsh'n ]
process of enlargement: the process of increasing, or increasing something, in size, extent, scope, or number
increase: an increase, or the amount by which something increases, in size, extent, or scope
growth by land acquisition: the increase of a country's size by the acquisition of new territory
Synonyms: growth, development, increase, extension, spreading out, opening out, enlargement
Seems like splitting hairs to me.
Automatically Appended Next Post:gw changed what they call their optional add-ons! PANIC!
The expansions modify the game to a point where both parties must be known in advance to prepare a force suitable for the expansions.
The supplements are fully legal (whatever the definition of it is anyways) rules to use against any opponent. It doesn't fundamentally alter the game, just your force.
That's the difference, and its pretty significant.
So that's why there wasn't moaning. You couldn't surprise your opponent with a Planetstrike game.
And I saw your edit. We're all indeed panicking. Running around and screaming, claiming the sky is falling. Oh, the dramatics.
Why not actually participate in the discussion intelligently? No one here is panicking. Most of us have a vested interest in the game, and would very much so like it to improve.
rothrich wrote: Um... the definitions of expansion and supplement are pretty similar.
sup·ple·ment
addition: an addition to something to increase its size or make up for a deficiency
publication: a publication that amplifies or corrects one already published
periodical part: an additional section included in or sold with a magazine or newspaper, especially an additional section that appears regularly
Synonyms: addition, extra, complement, enhancement, increase, increment, add-on, appendage, addendum, adjunct, extension, insertion, annex
ex·pan·sion [ ik spánsh'n ]
process of enlargement: the process of increasing, or increasing something, in size, extent, scope, or number
increase: an increase, or the amount by which something increases, in size, extent, or scope
growth by land acquisition: the increase of a country's size by the acquisition of new territory
Synonyms: growth, development, increase, extension, spreading out, opening out, enlargement
Seems like splitting hairs to me.
Automatically Appended Next Post:gw changed what they call their optional add-ons! PANIC!
Dictionary definition =/= Contextual Definition. To Games Workshop, an Expansion book adds a different game mode and a Supplement is an addition to the "Core Game".
rothrich wrote: Um... the definitions of expansion and supplement are pretty similar.
sup·ple·ment
addition: an addition to something to increase its size or make up for a deficiency
publication: a publication that amplifies or corrects one already published
periodical part: an additional section included in or sold with a magazine or newspaper, especially an additional section that appears regularly
Synonyms: addition, extra, complement, enhancement, increase, increment, add-on, appendage, addendum, adjunct, extension, insertion, annex
ex·pan·sion [ ik spánsh'n ]
process of enlargement: the process of increasing, or increasing something, in size, extent, scope, or number
increase: an increase, or the amount by which something increases, in size, extent, or scope
growth by land acquisition: the increase of a country's size by the acquisition of new territory
Synonyms: growth, development, increase, extension, spreading out, opening out, enlargement
Seems like splitting hairs to me.
Automatically Appended Next Post:gw changed what they call their optional add-ons! PANIC!
It's not splitting hairs. These are objective definitions. Expansions were entirely optional, such as Apocalypse, while supplements are intended for use in any regular game without requiring your opponents direct permission. (Unless he just refuses the game when you show up with your legal army)
What does compendium then mean? Like death from the skies? Is everyone required to accept the fighter dules rules? Can one take fighter ace upgrades and all the other things in that book without the other players knowledge or consent? I hope that these awesome new rules do end competitive 40k and power gamers move on to a different system because I for one am tired of people who think anything gw produces is meant for power gaming.
Automatically Appended Next Post: What page number do the new supplements say that they can be used without the permission of your opponent?
On the subject of Imperial vs. Imperial it's one of the more annoying aspects of 40k. I try thinking of "stories" behind battles I have with my Imperial Fists but it's pretty hard to come up with a lore friendly explanation for Ultrasmurfs vs. Imperial Fists. Warp-storms? Chaos influence? Matt Ward? I gave up on "forging a narrative" by the second game of SM vs. SM.
Planetstrike and Cities of Death didn't enable you to field Titans in regular 40k.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bronzefists42 wrote: On the subject of Imperial vs. Imperial it's one of the more annoying aspects of 40k. I try thinking of "stories" behind battles I have with my Imperial Fists but it's pretty hard to come up with a lore friendly explanation for Ultrasmurfs vs. Imperial Fists. Warp-storms? Chaos influence? Matt Ward? I gave up on "forging a narrative" by the second game of SM vs. SM.
What page number do the new supplements say that they can be used without the permission of your opponent?
What page numbers in the codex suppliments say you need permission?
Wrong way round actually - the entire game is permission based.
I can refuse to play against your blue painted orks because I think they should be painted green. Nothing you say will alter that, so we wont play a game.
Once you realise that fact, the whole supplements / FW / et al "legality" issue goes away.
What page number do the new supplements say that they can be used without the permission of your opponent?
What page numbers in the codex suppliments say you need permission?
Wrong way round actually - the entire game is permission based.
I can refuse to play against your blue painted orks because I think they should be painted green. Nothing you say will alter that, so we wont play a game.
Once you realise that fact, the whole supplements / FW / et al "legality" issue goes away.
That's blatantly ignoring the issue though. Yes you can not want to play someone for whatever reason but ignoring the option to simply pack up and go home your opponent can legally bring a titan and drop it on the table with no more than a 'oh yeah, you get +1 for the initiative and some extra VPs if you kill it'.+
Man.. over the last like 3-4 months I've found myself thinking 'hey, I should do a heavily WWII themed IG company/Infiltrating Raven Guard/Pre Heresy Iron Warriors siege force/Alpha Legion army/Pre Heresy Night Lords/Deathwatch allied detachment/Inquisitorial army' but every time I put more than a little bit of thought into it I wind up back here commenting on how broken the meta is and wondering why I am even trying :(
I find the "forge a narrative" argument to be completely stupid. Let's look at the following scenario; Sam, the newish SM player walks into his FLGS to play a game. Three other people are in the store, with two already playing. Ted, a nice guy who Sam likes a fair amount, and wants to play his new Tau/Eldar list. Sam agrees to play. The game then becomes a heavy one-sided blow out for Ted.
Here's the narrative:
A SM expeditionary force comes across a planet occupied by smaller Tau and Eldar forces. The SM descend on the planet to be annihilated because the Tau and Eldar decided to team up to take on the SM. Maybe the SM will just by-pass Tau and Eldar forces in the future unless they have far superior numbers.
Sam no has to either buy a new army or refuse to play Ted in the future if he takes certain units. Ted must now either de-power the list (buy more stuff), pull his punches or simply not care and destroy people.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
That's blatantly ignoring the issue though. Yes you can not want to play someone for whatever reason but ignoring the option to simply pack up and go home your opponent can legally bring a titan and drop it on the table with no more than a 'oh yeah, you get +1 for the initiative and some extra VPs if you kill it'.+
Packing up and going home means you are basically aren't playing the game, meaning your probably going to start getting bitter about the game, especially if it happens repeatedly.
Barfolomew wrote: I find the "forge a narrative" argument to be completely stupid. Let's look at the following scenario; Sam, the newish SM player walks into his FLGS to play a game. Three other people are in the store, with two already playing. Ted, a nice guy who Sam likes a fair amount, and wants to play his new Tau/Eldar list. Sam agrees to play. The game then becomes a heavy one-sided blow out for Ted.
Ted doesn't seem like such a nice guy unloading his Taudar list in a casual game against a newish player with limited model selection. Ted should have played a more newcomer friendly list, or given the new player double points, and taken the time to give him pointers while they were playing so he can learn how to create a competitive SM army. Nice guys want to get people interested in the hobby, not bend em over like its the first day of prison.
Barfolomew wrote: I find the "forge a narrative" argument to be completely stupid. Let's look at the following scenario; Sam, the newish SM player walks into his FLGS to play a game. Three other people are in the store, with two already playing. Ted, a nice guy who Sam likes a fair amount, and wants to play his new Tau/Eldar list. Sam agrees to play. The game then becomes a heavy one-sided blow out for Ted.
Ted doesn't seem like such a nice guy unloading his Taudar list in a casual game against a newish player with limited model selection. Ted should have played a more newcomer friendly list, or given the new player double points, and taken the time to give him pointers while they were playing so he can learn how to create a competitive SM army. Nice guys want to get people interested in the hobby, not bend em over like its the first day of prison.
Not if Ted only has the one army, or that was all he brought to the store.
Barfolomew wrote: I find the "forge a narrative" argument to be completely stupid. Let's look at the following scenario; Sam, the newish SM player walks into his FLGS to play a game. Three other people are in the store, with two already playing. Ted, a nice guy who Sam likes a fair amount, and wants to play his new Tau/Eldar list. Sam agrees to play. The game then becomes a heavy one-sided blow out for Ted.
Ted doesn't seem like such a nice guy unloading his Taudar list in a casual game against a newish player with limited model selection. Ted should have played a more newcomer friendly list, or given the new player double points, and taken the time to give him pointers while they were playing so he can learn how to create a competitive SM army. Nice guys want to get people interested in the hobby, not bend em over like its the first day of prison.
While you are correct there, there is a factor that is as yet unconsidered in this scenario:
Let's call (so that I can remember who I'm talking about) Sam "Newbie" and Ted "Veteran".
So, the story goes either as above or like this:
-Veteran uses his Taudar list, but pulls his punches, and coaches Newbie through the game (as he should).
-Newbie with his SM plays several games against Veterans who don't want to crush is army just yet, pulling punches, not using cheese.
-Newbie plays other Newbies, and gets a feel for the game.
-Newbie invests a large amount of cash into similar kinds of units to what he started with (it's what he's comfortable with)
-Feeling that he is now fairly capable as a player, he decides to join a tourney, away from his regular group.
-The tournament players with their cheese lists roflstomp Newbie's army in almost all cases, breaking his faith in the Emprah.
-Realising that is army is actually fairly ineffective against competitive lists, Newbie regrets all that time and money he spent on what are currently inferior units.
-A couple of years later, Newbie has rebuilt his army with better units (costing him quite a bit), and can now play well against the Veteran.
-7th ed comes around shortly thereafter, Newbie buys the £50 BRB, the £30 SM codex, and makes his list.
-Newbie realises that his expensive army reconfiguration was an utter waste of time, as now those units are inferior, and he must start again.
Selym, that's a totally plausible, perhaps common, scenario. But that seems to have more to do with the cost of models and the frequency of rules releases than any specific rulebook or codex edition, and this can happen to anyone (newbie or veteran) without the scratch to buy multiples of every model in a codex + new models when a new dex come out.
Remember people, competitive play does not always mean tournament play.
Your story implies 2 things
1. All tournament lists are cheese
2. Competitive lists are cheese
I disagree on both counts. I play competitively at my group as do all the players there. Competitive does not always equal cheese. Tournament list does not always equal cheese. Now I know that this isn't what you're trying to say, it's just how it reads (Stupid Internet!).
This is general discussion, not 'Tournament Forum'. The definition of 'competitive list' changes based on the environment in which one plays. His list was competitive in his group, it was not at a tournament.
From the OP, this thread really seems like a particular reaction to Escalation and/or Fortifications books. But if you take it for what it is, the possibilities are pretty friggin cool IMO. A bunch of flyers raiding a stronghold. A couple homemade Stompas bearing down against a Tesseract Vault. And not HAVING to throw away te FOC to play.
I imagine these games won't be fun or competitive "unless you have one too". But for me, I can't wait to throw an Infinite Phalanx against some crazy heavies or fortifications if for nothing else the spectacle of it.
I can understand these concerns by putting myself in the shoes of a tournament player, but surely TOs can create a "pure army tournament" or an "everyone gets one heavy tournament", etc, etc.
What page number do the new supplements say that they can be used without the permission of your opponent?
Page 108 of the rulebook says you can play an army list from a codex, an altered army list (covers supplements, FW and dataslates) or "your own system" (homebrew).
The book of life has a rule that if someone says "Wanna play a game of chess, only I'm using queens in place of rooks?", you have every right to say "No thanks."
jasper76 wrote: The book of life has a rule that if someone says "Wanna play a game of chess, only I'm using queens in place of rooks?", you have every right to say "No thanks."
Yes, but that honestly has nothing to do with what is legal to play in 40k.
AegisGrimm wrote: 40K is at it's best when two players decide "the way that "x" is playable is stupidly written, and isn't fun. Y'know, let's agree to avoid "x" when we play so the game is more than just removing casualties."
Wouldn't 40K have been at its best if GW had tested the rules, and found out that the way that 'x' was playable was stupidly written, and re-written it for better balance?
Every other game with massive imbalance inherent in the system has some sort of list of restrictions to rebalance the system, when does 40k get one? If Games Workshop is unwilling to make one I suggest we do what other game communities have done and band together to create one of our own.
GW themselves have done this, and stated numerous times, how their rules are JUST a framwork, to be altered and interpreted as we see fit, to play games with.
They also admit they are NOT desgined for super competitive tournament play in mind.
as always, for the past 6 editions, the tournament community has to tweak things a bit so that its considered "fair" by the people who play in the tournies and want the game to be a bit more like chess.
However, what is "fair" has always differed from group to group across the planet.
as for "legal" GW has come out and said plainly, "all the gw rules are as official as YOU make them"
with a few common sense tweaks to ban the "I auto win you auto lose" or coin flip scenarios, we are in the best edition ever.
Asmodai Asmodean wrote: Planetstrike and Cities of Death didn't enable you to field Titans in regular 40k.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bronzefists42 wrote: On the subject of Imperial vs. Imperial it's one of the more annoying aspects of 40k. I try thinking of "stories" behind battles I have with my Imperial Fists but it's pretty hard to come up with a lore friendly explanation for Ultrasmurfs vs. Imperial Fists. Warp-storms? Chaos influence? Matt Ward? I gave up on "forging a narrative" by the second game of SM vs. SM.
Training... exercise?
except most games end with 3/4 of both armies lying dead. But I didn't think of that one
Asmodai Asmodean wrote: Planetstrike and Cities of Death didn't enable you to field Titans in regular 40k.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bronzefists42 wrote: On the subject of Imperial vs. Imperial it's one of the more annoying aspects of 40k. I try thinking of "stories" behind battles I have with my Imperial Fists but it's pretty hard to come up with a lore friendly explanation for Ultrasmurfs vs. Imperial Fists. Warp-storms? Chaos influence? Matt Ward? I gave up on "forging a narrative" by the second game of SM vs. SM.
Training... exercise?
except most games end with 3/4 of both armies lying dead. But I didn't think of that one
Naw man, all of them just have some broken bones, had to retreat, some burns, bruises, cuts, and scars, and them knocked out. Ya gotta get with the times! Those bolter guns were shooting out less damaging ones just enough for the concussion to knock out a marine but not enough to do any long standing harm.
"Why are people having fun in a way I don't like to have fun! They shouldn't be doing that!"
See, I can make straw men too!
Ah, but if you were following the thread and the person I was responding to, you would notice this individual was claiming that the people 'spamming' or not playing 'for fun' were doing it wrong. So no, not a strawman. In fact, you probably missed that my post was satirical. Your response is exactly what I was getting at. People have different notions of fun. Claiming 40k is fine if you start 'forging the narrative' and other buzz phrases ignores the objectionably awful elements of the rules and balance.
Talore wrote: I have been following the thread. Maybe I just worded it poorly, but I was playing along
Well, as long as we understand each other.
Yes, yes, I'm stupid and you should make fun of me for my opinion. See? I can play along too, though evidently I have been playing 40K wrong all these decades.
Aegis, you were the one pointing out how the players were the issue, not the game. By doing so, you explained how 40k should be treated in a way you find enjoyable, and that people who enjoyed it differently were somehow wrong.
That's the issue with your argument. If you can somehow define under some universal umbrella what casual means, or what fun is, or what forging a narrative is, maybe you'd have a proper leg to stand on, but you don't.
Instead, you claim that 40k is fine if you do several things that many players may not enjoy doing. Claiming such things, like taking it too seriously, or spamming, dodges the actual issues with the game and tries to place the blame on the players rather than the game designer.
The players aren't the issue. A legal list is a legal list. If GW didn't want people to play these kind of lists, they wouldn't be possible. Its that simple.
But once more, no one is saying you can't have fun playing 40k. But blaming the players for the faults of 40k is wrong on multiple levels for many reasons.
After 15 years of gaming and seeing this awesome game called 40k on tables at conventions and gamestores for so long I thought "Man, this must be an awesome game!" So I buys an army, builds it, paints it, struggles to find an opponent who wants to play the 500pts I have, and while winning that first game says to my opponent-now-buddy "Holy [beep] these rules are [beep]!" He says to me "Yeah, the rules have always sucked." An enlightening conversation ensues. So I started planning games now realizing this isn't magic where you show up with your game pieces they show up with theirs and play. But the thing I don't get is why the [beep] anyone thought this was a competitive supported game!? Just goes to show people will make a competition out of anything. And in the end THATS OKAY! It's fine, they enjoy it, let 'em do their thing, I'll do mine, never the twain shall meet.
But humbly for their sake in some weird way I hope competitive 40k either becomes a balanced well defined rule set or dies entirely and leaves behind flavor play. So in response to the original post, I don't know, but I hope so
PrinceRaven wrote: Was it a Revenant? Because it's the D weapons people are worried about, not super heavies in general.
Nerp. If I ever play one of those, I'll give it a shot, and if its an auto-win situation, I just won't play it again unless there's some GMing to make it a non-auto-win situation. But I read the rules (finally), and I aint too scared to try, and think I can win in principal . You get so much Outflank and cool anti-heavy WL traits, and VPs on either every or every third HP.
I'll likely never see one. Eldar armies were already for all intents and purposes shunned in my local meta before Escalation...noone plays against them so noone brings them, and outside of my flgs, I'm just seeing CSM, CD, Tau, Necrons, Emprah arimes, and will start seeing Tyrannids whenever the new codex comes out.
Savageconvoy wrote: Yeah. Now everyone has access to Warhounds. Oh, but Tau get an Orca, so I guess it balances out.
Everyone but the Inquisition. And Dark Eldar didn't even get invited to the party.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh and looks like GW is adding it all in. From Warhammer World's Facebook:
Good afternoon folks. A lot of you have been asking about recent additions to our games and whether they will be in use at our events here at Warhammer World. We’re pleased to announce that Codex Adepta Sororitas, Codex Inquisition, Battlescrolls, Dataslates, Stronghold Assault and Escalation are all now in use at our events here at Warhammer World, including Throne of Skulls, Battle Brothers, Council of War and many more. This change is effective from now and will be included in January’s events. We’ve updated the Warrior’s Code to include these publications; you can see it on this page (at the link below) and on the Games Workshop website http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?catId&categoryId=3500001§ion&aId=2200016a. Cheers all! Warhammer World Events Team
EDIT: Quick thought - one of the few things that gets through the revenant is Vendetta spam.
That can be solved in two ways:
1) Bring flakka dakka spam to back up the titan.
2) Bring firepower enough to add to the Str D guns to remove the infantry on turn 1 (a 1750 or lower game featuring vendetta spam will not have that many troopers).
Where people not expecting FW to add every single superheavy to this? It isn´t like GW has held back with the ones in the escalation book, so I see no reason for FW to hold back either. Now more armies get access to superheavies at least
MandalorynOranj wrote: People didn't expect them to add every superheavy to it. I know I wasn't expecting Phantoms, Reavers, or Mantas.
Why not? It's not like you have the points to bring them outside of Apocalypse anyway, so they might as well say "sure, use it if you can".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ClockworkZion wrote: Oh and looks like GW is adding it all in. From Warhammer World's Facebook:
Good afternoon folks. A lot of you have been asking about recent additions to our games and whether they will be in use at our events here at Warhammer World. We’re pleased to announce that Codex Adepta Sororitas, Codex Inquisition, Battlescrolls, Dataslates, Stronghold Assault and Escalation are all now in use at our events here at Warhammer World, including Throne of Skulls, Battle Brothers, Council of War and many more. This change is effective from now and will be included in January’s events. We’ve updated the Warrior’s Code to include these publications; you can see it on this page (at the link below) and on the Games Workshop website http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?catId&categoryId=3500001§ion&aId=2200016a. Cheers all! Warhammer World Events Team
Lol. So, Revenant titans are legal in every tournament, but my LR Conqueror isn't. This is why you don't let GW run tournaments.
MandalorynOranj wrote: People didn't expect them to add every superheavy to it. I know I wasn't expecting Phantoms, Reavers, or Mantas.
Why not? It's not like you have the points to bring them outside of Apocalypse anyway, so they might as well say "sure, use it if you can".
"Defiant to the End" pits a Lord of War against a 1.5K army. Victory is based on if or when the Lord of War bites the dust. There is no points cap for the Lords of War player.
ClockworkZion wrote: Oh and looks like GW is adding it all in. From Warhammer World's Facebook:
Good afternoon folks. A lot of you have been asking about recent additions to our games and whether they will be in use at our events here at Warhammer World. We’re pleased to announce that Codex Adepta Sororitas, Codex Inquisition, Battlescrolls, Dataslates, Stronghold Assault and Escalation are all now in use at our events here at Warhammer World, including Throne of Skulls, Battle Brothers, Council of War and many more. This change is effective from now and will be included in January’s events. We’ve updated the Warrior’s Code to include these publications; you can see it on this page (at the link below) and on the Games Workshop website http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?catId&categoryId=3500001§ion&aId=2200016a. Cheers all! Warhammer World Events Team
Lol. So, Revenant titans are legal in every tournament, but my LR Conqueror isn't. This is why you don't let GW run tournaments.
Pretty true. Warhammer World needs to just give up on keeping FW out because Escalation let half of FW's catalog in.
ClockworkZion wrote: "Defiant to the End" pits a Lord of War against a 1.5K army. Victory is based on if or when the Lord of War bites the dust. There is no points cap for the Lords of War player.
And in the incredibly unlikely event that you decide to play this mission you can always just say "bring a different LoW, I'm not playing against a 2500 point titan".
ClockworkZion wrote: "Defiant to the End" pits a Lord of War against a 1.5K army. Victory is based on if or when the Lord of War bites the dust. There is no points cap for the Lords of War player.
And in the incredibly unlikely event that you decide to play this mission you can always just say "bring a different LoW, I'm not playing against a 2500 point titan".
True, or increasing the size of your army to match.
Trying to keep track of all these different conversations going on throughout 4 or 5 threads (slightly different take on the same arguement), is slowly driving me mad.
Medium of Death wrote: Trying to keep track of all these different conversations going on throughout 4 or 5 threads (slightly different take on the same arguement), is slowly driving me mad.
Spoiler:
Then we obviously need to accelerate the process to make it work much faster.
We fall for it all the time.
Lots of very friendly, pleasant opponents, though. In fact, on balance, the tournaments I've been to have mostly been quite beer-and-pretzelly, in that there is beer available and I have consumed it, while having a fun, social game with some new friends.
about the quality of its products because 90% of the kids who buy a box of space marines never play the game.
