Been reading way to many complaints and rants as of late. So this got me thinking. How do people want their 40K to be? A lot of the negativity I believe is because, 40K is not their vision.
So I am curious as to what people want 40K to be. How do you want it to be played? What kind of rules do you want?
For me, I would like a balanced game where point values actually mean something. A 20 point SM mini does not equal a 20 point Tyranid mini. Also I would like something different from I move/shoot/assault. To me that leaves the other person doing nothing, up to 1/2 sometimes. I would like a I move, you move, I shoot, you shoot then assault. Then have some unique rules where a character can move/shoot out of turn. Something like LotR, or something similar to it.
I like to play for fun nothing really serious, but as I said before, I would like some balance. There is no way a 5th edition Spore Mine costs what 10 points and is 4 points cheaper than a SM, while a SM can do sooooo much more, for only 4 points. That was just an example.
So how about you guys and girls? What do you or should I say envision what 40K is to you.
Same, I want to have fun with my friends, as long as were having fun im happy. The only thing I can complain of is cost, but obviously that can be worked around.
Make all units and options on a par for their role, declare war on units that are objectively "better" or "worse" in their Codex or in the game in general and Nerf/improve to try and achieve parity as much as possible.
Dispose of as much "cinematic" randomness as possible and, with the exception of rolls to hit, wound etc, try and make player decision making the ultimate arbiter of victory, rather than dice rolling.
I want 40k to have balanced rules that allow for both casual/friendly and competitive play, with OPTIONAL extras (e.g. Fortifications, Escalation) for friendly narrative play. Basically a game with rules that are tight enough so I know if I pick a fun and/or fluffy army I won't get stomped out of existence by a netlist and that has very few "What happens when X and Y occur?" situations, but flexible enough with additions to allow for a myriad of campaign and themed games.
For example, the randomness should be optional as a "If you and your opponent want more cinematic play, we've included these random charts to spice up your games.". Things like Stronghold Assault, Flyers doing what they do, Escalation, fortifications, etc. should be under an "Advanced Rules" section that says to the effect of "We encourage playing narrative games that tell a cinematic story. If you and your opponent agree, try adding some of these rules to really make your games stand out!"
That way competitive games, tournaments and pick-up games don't have to use those things but have a nice, solidly written set of rules, but campaigns and the like can add more flair and flavor to make games more interesting without impacting everybody else. I've long held the belief that ANY game should first strive to make their rules playable in a competitive environment and then add optional extras to make things more "interesting" where appropriate. That way you allow tournaments and the like to function with just the base rules (or even allow for certain special scenarios e.g. if you had a random events table, maybe the final tournament game has some additional rules thrown in to make it more exciting), but don't discourage people from tacking on extras for their own story-driven games. The issue is GW has done the opposite - made a story-driven game without a care about tournaments or anything other than story-driven games, so you can't really remove those things. Narrative and random elements should be designed afterwards to be plugged in, so you can choose not to play with them if you don't want to, not basically forced on you.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
azreal13 wrote: Make all units and options on a par for their role, declare war on units that are objectively "better" or "worse" in their Codex or in the game in general and Nerf/improve to try and achieve parity as much as possible.
Dispose of as much "cinematic" randomness as possible and, with the exception of rolls to hit, wound etc, try and make player decision making the ultimate arbiter of victory, rather than dice rolling.
Escalation and Stronghold Assault are optional - just discuss with your opponent beforehand. I'm sure no-one actually turns up to a game with a titan without first agreeing on it, even if RAW they could.
Flyers and fortifications are part of the core rules, and for me a really positive addition. I don't see why flyers receive so much criticism. How are they any more incongruous to a skirmish game than a tank? Also, they are lots of fun. Fortifications add a new and interesting element to the game as well imo.
GW doesn't cater for tournament players because they are such a small part of its market. The vast majority of 40k gamers will never see a tournament and many find the idea of plying competitively off-putting. GW is all about making cool models and then thinking about rules that let you field them. I am a big fan of this approach.
Back OT - I find the igougo model tedious at times, especially with larger games or 2v2s, so if something could be done to improve that I would be happy. Also, the amount of USRs really slow the game down. Apart from that I am really happy with the state of 40k and gaming more than I have ever done.
The current game is largely fun to me. A few of the typical 6th edition gripes such as assault being bad also hold true in my eyes. As well as high str cheap shooting being growing on trees for some armies, and snap shots being the same even on the greatest marksmen in the universe.
I also dislike random psychic powers and the internal balance of said powers.
But really 80% of the game is well done in my opinion. I consider those cases to all be somewhat minor, or moderate in one or two cases.
Oh, and apoc units need their point costs scrutinized heavily if they want to join in non-apoc size games. I don't really enjoy the "models flying off the table" games with str D flying everywhere. I like single models and their stats being large enough to be relevant, but small enough to have a big battle.
A game that ends with one sergeant killing the last enemy model and being the only guy left on the table? THAT is a good game.
GW doesn't cater for tournament players because they are such a small part of its market. The vast majority of 40k gamers will never see a tournament and many find the idea of plying competitively off-putting. GW is all about making cool models and then thinking about rules that let you field them. I am a big fan of this approach.
I am not interested in playing competitively, but when I play, I am interested in competing, not having my arse handed to me because I've chosen units and options that are patently less viable than those available to other factions. If I lose through my own poor decision making, then that's fine, if I lose because the balance of the game is skewed so far in favour of my opponent's army's I essentially had only a small percentage chance of winning, even if I played everything perfectly, that's less fine.
I'd like GW to make cool models, and then make balanced, fair, reasonable and thoroughly tested rules to let me field them. I'd be a big fan of that approach.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
UlrikDecado wrote: I want fun and I got fun. So keep it same as it is. Funny how in our FLGS are not people in constant rage or pain from evil GW.
Not really, if my Blood Angels get their arse kicked by someone running a brace of Wraithknights, I don't go postal at my club, I laugh and joke and congratulate my opponent on their win.
It doesn't mean I'm not a bit pissed off that the state of the game means that such a match is technically "fair."
I am not interested in playing competitively, but when I play, I am interested in competing, not having my arse handed to me because I've chosen units and options that are patently less viable than those available to other factions. If I lose through my own poor decision making, then that's fine, if I lose because the balance of the game is skewed so far in favour of my opponent's army's I essentially had only a small percentage chance of winning, even if I played everything perfectly, that's less fine.
I'd like GW to make cool models, and then make balanced, fair, reasonable and thoroughly tested rules to let me field them. I'd be a big fan of that approach.
Obviously a really different approach to the game. I played a game today and took a horribly expensive unit in a landraider because I love the model [and the Death Cult Assassins inside!] plus an Avenger Strike Fighter as I also think this model is brilliant and enjoy zooming flyers around. I took a big unit of footslogging sisters because I was bored of keeping them in tanks for most of the game and wanted to change things up. I was pretty much tabled by turn 4 against Eldar but had a great time [and my DCAs kicked ass!] I keep asking the Eldar player to take a seercouncil star so I can see what all the hype is about. I don't really care about being competitive as long as I'm using models that appeal to me.
Having balanced and fair rules would be very restrictive to the model designers. Also, I don't want 40k to turn into Warmahorde. If I want that kind of game, I'll quit 40k and play one of the competitors. I'm glad I've got the choice of playing a rule set which give more importance to making great models than making great rules and focusses on fluff and narrative. 40k isn't perfect and has never been perfect, and I'm fine with that.
tyrannosaurus wrote: Having balanced and fair rules would be very restrictive to the model designers. Also, I don't want 40k to turn into Warmahorde. If I want that kind of game, I'll quit 40k and play one of the competitors. I'm glad I've got the choice of playing a rule set which give more importance to making great models than making great rules and focusses on fluff and narrative. 40k isn't perfect and has never been perfect, and I'm fine with that.
(Emphasis mine)
What is this I don't even
How, exactly, does having balanced rules restrict model designers? Nobody is asking for every army to have the same unit types with different names here.
How, exactly, does having balanced rules restrict model designers? Nobody is asking for every army to have the same unit types with different names here.
Because, surely, lots of models would get vetoed due to game balance. Can't see Knight Titans [just one example] getting put into production if the focus is on a balanced game.
GW doesn't cater for tournament players because they are such a small part of its market. The vast majority of 40k gamers will never see a tournament and many find the idea of plying competitively off-putting.
Really that is a sweeping statement to make. How can you prove it. I don't ever remember been asked by a red shirt what I was going to use a model for. I certainly never filled any questionnaire in.
I'd like to know that I can play a themed army and still have a fairly good chance to compete. I don't mind a slight disadvantage (makes things more interesting) but if I hit a situation where I cannot win vs. my opponent bar a miracle, that seems to me to be poor game design.
I do not want to have to "tailor down" to meet my opponent because I am not in a situation where I have a regular group. Instead I'd like to be able to build around a theme I enjoy and be reasonably confident of a fun game with a stranger. Currently 40K does not provide that.
On a different level, I'd also prefer the game to go back a little bit to it's squad based roots. At the moment, there are too many ginormous monstrous creatures/walkers/fliers in the game and it looks wrong to me on such small battlefields. Probably cool for theme games if you like that sort of thing, but out of place on the average 6' x 4' battlefield. I do like those things existing for themed games though because they are pretty great centrepiece models.
I'd also like less "inserted complexity". A lot of the rules of 40K seem bolted on for the sake of it to encourage large amounts of dice rolling. I'd rather a system that was elegant but deep.
I am not interested in playing competitively, but when I play, I am interested in competing, not having my arse handed to me because I've chosen units and options that are patently less viable than those available to other factions. If I lose through my own poor decision making, then that's fine, if I lose because the balance of the game is skewed so far in favour of my opponent's army's I essentially had only a small percentage chance of winning, even if I played everything perfectly, that's less fine.
I'd like GW to make cool models, and then make balanced, fair, reasonable and thoroughly tested rules to let me field them. I'd be a big fan of that approach.
Obviously a really different approach to the game. I played a game today and took a horribly expensive unit in a landraider because I love the model [and the Death Cult Assassins inside!] plus an Avenger Strike Fighter as I also think this model is brilliant and enjoy zooming flyers around. I took a big unit of footslogging sisters because I was bored of keeping them in tanks for most of the game and wanted to change things up. I was pretty much tabled by turn 4 against Eldar but had a great time [and my DCAs kicked ass!] I keep asking the Eldar player to take a seercouncil star so I can see what all the hype is about. I don't really care about being competitive as long as I'm using models that appeal to me.
Having balanced and fair rules would be very restrictive to the model designers. Also, I don't want 40k to turn into Warmahorde. If I want that kind of game, I'll quit 40k and play one of the competitors. I'm glad I've got the choice of playing a rule set which give more importance to making great models than making great rules and focusses on fluff and narrative. 40k isn't perfect and has never been perfect, and I'm fine with that.
What a load of tosh!!
Good models and good rules are not mutually exclusive.
I can't believe you're happy that you were able to take a unit that was sub par in game because you like the models, when it is enitrely within the bounds of possibility to be able to take any models you want because you like them and still have the rules support them as valid choices.
How, exactly, does having balanced rules restrict model designers? Nobody is asking for every army to have the same unit types with different names here.
Because, surely, lots of models would get vetoed due to game balance. Can't see Knight Titans [just one example] getting put into production if the focus is on a balanced game.
Little in the game is too powerful, the two key issues that plague 40K are wooly rules writing with little support from the designers to clarify things after the fact, and units that are too strong for their points cost. Knights, from what I'm hearing, aren't too far off being balanced unless your opponent is hopelessly underprepared, whereas Riptides and Wraithknights are too cheap for their abilities, making it easy to take multiples in relatively low point games and compounding the issue further.
How, exactly, does having balanced rules restrict model designers? Nobody is asking for every army to have the same unit types with different names here.
Because, surely, lots of models would get vetoed due to game balance. Can't see Knight Titans [just one example] getting put into production if the focus is on a balanced game.
I'm amazed at the number of people here that seem to think this.
Balance doesn't mean restricting people to 1 riptide, it means lowering their usefulness to match their points level or raising their points to match their abilities.
In a truly balanced game having your opponent drop down 6 riptides would not be a big problem unless your list is lacking anti-MC, and it would only be lacking that if you decided not/forgot to bring it.
That is what I would like 40k to be. A game where I can take the units I think are cool and make an army out of them without putting myself at a huge disadvantage simply because of the models I like. I also want less of these models that look like bad toys and a lot less of these supplements and dataslates. The rules need to all be easy to get a hold of, ideally in one place online somewhere.
If I and my friends spot RaW trying to stop us from having fun, we kick RaW in the balls and move on.
If I and my friends spot RaI trying to stop us from having fun, we kick RaI in the balls and move on.
This has worked well for us so far.
Again, posting this personally for about the third time this week, 40K works fine for social groups/friends/families that play together regularly, they can do this, and they are clearly the set that GW seem to be tilting at, the problem is that many players play in a very different environment where they may not play the same people regularly, or not know them well, if at all. At this point, a clear, concise, well written ruleset backed up with a solid, well tested and reasonably balanced set of codexes becomes infinitely more important.
Ideally I'd like it if it wasn't being scaled up the way it is being, what with Escalation, Stronghold Assault .etc. This more than anything else is turning 40k into an arms race, and making whole armies defunct.
Additionally, a balance in the rules would be much appreciated, especially between codices. Each army ought to be equal to any other, but with different strengths and weaknesses, with SM as a sort of control. Balance between shooting and assault is also critical.
Also, less of the random for the sake of random. Random assault ranges for example. or the more recent random Knight ranks. Randomness doesn't encourage skillful play.
Finally, I wish they'd stick to their damn FOC. What is the point of a FOC if you're not going to follow it. Stuff like Inquisitors, if they don't have a FOC slot, give them one.
Also give the BT some love already. GW was willing to roll a whole SM chapter, but don't even give them a supplement, instead giving those TWO knight units a WHOLE dex to themselves AND an additional fluff/collecting book. Makes me mad.
If I and my friends spot RaW trying to stop us from having fun, we kick RaW in the balls and move on.
If I and my friends spot RaI trying to stop us from having fun, we kick RaI in the balls and move on.
This has worked well for us so far.
Again, posting this personally for about the third time this week, 40K works fine for social groups/friends/families that play together regularly, they can do this, and they are clearly the set that GW seem to be tilting at, the problem is that many players play in a very different environment where they may not play the same people regularly, or not know them well, if at all. At this point, a clear, concise, well written ruleset backed up with a solid, well tested and reasonably balanced set of codexes becomes infinitely more important.
Then clearly 40k isn't for you. There are lots of other options though. 40k lets me do what I want to do, which is play narrative games with the awesome models GW and FW make. If I wanted a tight, balanced game with very similar units on each side I would pick another option. You won't find me posting on Warmachine/Infinity threads about how the game should be more beer & pretzels though.
What I want from 40K is the phrase "40K is not the game for you" to be put into physical form, frozen with liquid nitrogen, and filmed in slow motion hi-def video as it's hit with a shovel.
I utterly detest that phrase with every fiber of my being. It just reeks of elitism. "Oh you want a fair balanced rule set that people can enjoy and not hear complaints about OP units and spam lists? You want to a rule set that doesn't require heavy house ruling and forced list neutering? Sorry this is my game and I will have none of that. Now take this 80 page guide on how we play easy and friendly here and start setting up your games weeks in advance with proper setting and atmosphere, and Emperor protect you if you don't act out some dialogue!"
Honestly what I want out of 40K probably isn't reasonable at this point. I came to the conclusion that a single melta gun in a small squad has a decent chance to one shot a vehicle provided it's in range. It has a good chance of getting into that range with something like a drop pod. To me it seems like right from the start there is something wrong. A standard cheap unit able to one shot kill an armored and mobile fortress just feels wrongs. I tried to think of a fix for that, but the entire system would have to be completely reworked. And that's just my issues with vehicles. It just feels like a stain on the carpet so someone put a rug on it, then that rug got stained in covered in another rug, and so on.
Savageconvoy wrote: A standard cheap unit able to one shot kill an armored and mobile fortress just feels wrongs.
Back in WWII, the soviets destroyed enemy tanks by strapping bombs to terriers and making them run under their tracks. A small torpedo bomber can sink a battleship. A guy with a relatively low-tech MANPAD can bring down the best helicopter gunships out there. That cheap unit that blasted your invincible mobile fortress had an anti-tank weapon and positioned itself in an advantageous position. Of course, your opponent could have pitted an equally powerful mobile fortress against yours too, but chose an alternative path. That's smart thinking. It's tactics. And that's EXACTLY what I'd want to see more in 40k.
I know that's how it works in the real world. But I don't want to have the first 4 turns of the game being artillery strikes, carpet bombing, and mine fields just for the sake of realism.
The key part about the small 5 man drop pod unit is how cheap and easy it is to get. It's a normal marine unit that now has the anti-tank capacity to render even the most heavily armored vehicle a smoldering husk. A 10 point upgrade. That's not tactics, that's common sense. Give up a bolter for that? Any day. And why not? You can take 5 more squads just like it. Why do we not see the same with MC? Not every squad can get the firepower necessary to take down a MC in one hit like we see available for anti-tank weaponry.
1 RPG can take out a Humvee full of men. The RPG is cheap and easy to get. The men inside are expensive to train, transport and then when they die or wounded they cost more money. Let alone the Humvee.
Seems like one measly RPG can cost a country a ton of money.
The little guns always do the most damage. Never rely on a fortress or power unit. In reality they will let you down.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Savageconvoy wrote: I know that's how it works in the real world. But I don't want to have the first 4 turns of the game being artillery strikes, carpet bombing, and mine fields just for the sake of realism.
The key part about the small 5 man drop pod unit is how cheap and easy it is to get. It's a normal marine unit that now has the anti-tank capacity to render even the most heavily armored vehicle a smoldering husk. A 10 point upgrade. That's not tactics, that's common sense. Give up a bolter for that? Any day. And why not? You can take 5 more squads just like it. Why do we not see the same with MC? Not every squad can get the firepower necessary to take down a MC in one hit like we see available for anti-tank weaponry.
Also screening your tanks will help. A melta needs to be pretty close to do that kind of damage.
I want suprheavies and Destroyer weapons to go in the opposite direction- instead of ignoring 5/6 of the damage chart, give superheavies their own damage chart again. Instead of Destroyer weapons ignoring every save and rolling on it's own special chart, make it a weapon type, and allow weapons to go above strength 10. And for superheavy vehicles to have AV15. Weapons on a superheavie should be differentiated by more than just blast size and number of shots.
Add the move stat in again, and make movement into range bands. Give vehicles range bands as well, and remove "fast". Let vehicles be better at shooting as well. Say can split fire if stationary, fire all weapons at a single target if moving combat speed (X"), one weapon and snapfire if moving cruising speed (2X"), and snapfire a single weapon if moving flat out (3X")
Adjust the close combat chart so that wonding on 2s and 6s is possible.
If you are the same +/- 1 weapons skill of the enemy, wound on 4s. If you are 2 or 3 points higher, wound on 3s. 2 or 3 points lower, wound on 5s. 4+ points higher, wound on 2s. 4+ points lower, wound on 6s.
Interceptor should be chosen not at the end of the enemies movement phase at any target you feel like, but called as soon as the unit you wish to target finishes moving.
I want a game that feels exciting (despite the fact that it's essentially just moving things and rolling dice), looks awesome (even if you don't shell out a jillion bucks), and has a lot of options that makes battles unique and memorable.
I can sit down with my Dungeons and Dragons buddies and talk for hours about stuff that has happened in our past games-- that's exactly what I want from 40k.
Savageconvoy wrote: I know that's how it works in the real world. But I don't want to have the first 4 turns of the game being artillery strikes, carpet bombing, and mine fields just for the sake of realism.
Perhaps, but I'd suffer more if 40k was turned to an abstract boardgame or some sort of tabletop DOTA for the sake of balance. Speaking of which, I think enforcing the clear cut paper-scissors-stone kind of balance will simply kill the game - A limited degree of realism is needed, and that means introducing asymmetry and, to an extent, imbalance.
The key part about the small 5 man drop pod unit is how cheap and easy it is to get. It's a normal marine unit that now has the anti-tank capacity to render even the most heavily armored vehicle a smoldering husk. A 10 point upgrade. That's not tactics, that's common sense. Give up a bolter for that? Any day. And why not? You can take 5 more squads just like it. Why do we not see the same with MC? Not every squad can get the firepower necessary to take down a MC in one hit like we see available for anti-tank weaponry.
And for the cost of one of those 5-man squads, their special weapons and their drop pods you can take an IG platoon, 30 cultists or a big mob of ork boyz against which they're completely powerless. Really, I don't see how these are game breaking at all.
So, that brings us to my main gripes with the game:
1- Units, weapons and skills without a counter: I'm not just talking fliers or D weapons here. It's all more subtle. I may be alone in this, but I think the stackable powers that grant Screamers a 2++ re-rollable save, the Wave Serpent's endless range, ignores cover, high-strenght, high-ROF shield gun, Necron flying transports without all the disadvantages attached to flying transports or the "army killer" Eldar Titan are far worse cases of poor rules design than, say, Imperial Knights, Baneblades or Stormtalons.
2- Arbitrary points costs: Again, it's not a matter of 10 points being able to kill thirty times their cost. That's normal. I was talking about certain units whose costs don't reflect their roles and abilities in a logical way. Some are wildly expensive (posessed, genestealers, tankbustas, nephilim fighters, thousand sons...) others are laughably cheap. Often this is due to pricing conventions being carried over through the editions.
3- Useless units: Contrary to common sentiment I don't think powerful units (except in certian cases, most of them listed above) should be declawed. Instead, I'd rather see the host of useless units that plague our codices buffed in some way or another. Some could be fixed by a simple points adjustment, or just letting the player field them in larger numbers, others by giving them rules that enhance their survivability and/or power, while a few could only be saved by an extensive rules rewrite.
I think the problem with 40k boils down to a single issue, actually: GW considers each army as an isolated book, not as part of a coherent game system. The BRB is mostly fine, it's the codices that bring the true game-breaking aberrations to the tabletops. I don't have a problem with superheavies, fliers, MCs or fortifications - Revenants, Nightscythes, Riptides and Void Shields? Perhaps.
Savageconvoy wrote: I know that's how it works in the real world. But I don't want to have the first 4 turns of the game being artillery strikes, carpet bombing, and mine fields just for the sake of realism.
The key part about the small 5 man drop pod unit is how cheap and easy it is to get. It's a normal marine unit that now has the anti-tank capacity to render even the most heavily armored vehicle a smoldering husk. A 10 point upgrade. That's not tactics, that's common sense. Give up a bolter for that? Any day. And why not? You can take 5 more squads just like it. Why do we not see the same with MC? Not every squad can get the firepower necessary to take down a MC in one hit like we see available for anti-tank weaponry.
In fairness I think this is more a matter of the drop pod (in this case) being far too reliable. So a pod launched from orbit that reenters the atmosphere (and can't really fly) is somehow able to deploy and react with utmost precision in the same time it takes for another squad to cross the street? Uhhh...ok. If drop pods were more likely to mishap or drift further they wouldn't seem quite as jarring as a tactical option.
Savageconvoy wrote: What I want from 40K is the phrase "40K is not the game for you" to be put into physical form, frozen with liquid nitrogen, and filmed in slow motion hi-def video as it's hit with a shovel.
I utterly detest that phrase with every fiber of my being. It just reeks of elitism. "Oh you want a fair balanced rule set that people can enjoy and not hear complaints about OP units and spam lists? You want to a rule set that doesn't require heavy house ruling and forced list neutering? Sorry this is my game and I will have none of that. Now take this 80 page guide on how we play easy and friendly here and start setting up your games weeks in advance with proper setting and atmosphere, and Emperor protect you if you don't act out some dialogue!"
Didn't say it was my game, I just said that I was happy with it and it ticked all of the boxes for me. I fail to see how that is elitist. If the game isn't working for you, then I'm saying that there are lots of other options available. It just strikes me as silly people spending time posting on 40k forums about how they want the game to move to a tighter ruleset that supports competitive play and PUGs when the designers have clearly stated that is not the direction they want to take the game in. As I stated previously, that is the equivalent of me going onto Warmachine forums and telling them they need to relax a bit.
40k has never been balanced and has always had clumsy ruleset as from the outset it was based around making rules up for models, not the other way around. Despite its many flaws, I love it. Not that it's perfect - my group has about 5 house rules [that fit on one Facebook post, not 80 pages] that tweak it nicely to our mutual satisfaction [no neutering going on either]. It isn't balanced, has never been balanced, and never will be balanced, so you need to either accept that or move on.
I don't accept that. Nor will I plan on just dropping the time and money invested in the hobby just because GW thinks that they can sell rules and supplements for $50 a pop while still claiming to be only a model company.
I don't understand the apologetic approach. If it's fine the way it is, then you're supporting screamer stars. If it's fine the way it is, you're fine with triptides. If it's fine, you're happy with wave serpent spam. But generally I don't see the "beer and pretzel" crowd ever cheering on such fun and fluffy lists that are fully within the confines of the "good as is" rule set. Usually they have to house rule so much that they prevent players from running several units. That's not what GW intended. That's not the game they promote. They would have kept the 0-1 restrictions if they did. But they took that away and just established the FOC.
Honestly, I've never seen one person that is perfectly fine with all the death star and top tier lists and thinks the rules are fine where they at. Every single time I see either the competitive players asking for balance or the casual player saying it's fine as long as you severely house rule the game beyond what GW ever intended (but it's fine as is).
Savageconvoy wrote: I don't accept that. Nor will I plan on just dropping the time and money invested in the hobby just because GW thinks that they can sell rules and supplements for $50 a pop while still claiming to be only a model company.
I don't understand the apologetic approach. If it's fine the way it is, then you're supporting screamer stars. If it's fine the way it is, you're fine with triptides. If it's fine, you're happy with wave serpent spam. But generally I don't see the "beer and pretzel" crowd ever cheering on such fun and fluffy lists that are fully within the confines of the "good as is" rule set. Usually they have to house rule so much that they prevent players from running several units. That's not what GW intended. That's not the game they promote. They would have kept the 0-1 restrictions if they did. But they took that away and just established the FOC.
Honestly, I've never seen one person that is perfectly fine with all the death star and top tier lists and thinks the rules are fine where they at. Every single time I see either the competitive players asking for balance or the casual player saying it's fine as long as you severely house rule the game beyond what GW ever intended (but it's fine as is).
What are you doing about it?
We are doing something about it and enjoy it. You are doing nothing and hating it.
Rippy wrote: My only complaint that a box of space marines doesn't actually come with a packet of pretzels and a six pack.
I think Games Workshop has a split personality, They say it's beer and pretzels game. It's aimed at 12 yr olds.
How many 12 yr olds are allowed to drink beer.
We are doing something about it and enjoy it. You are doing nothing and hating it.
You and your assumptions. You're making it sound like I can't have fun or don't have fun playing the game with my friends and even pick up games in the area. We DID do something about it. We have house ruled the game way beyond what is intended. We threw Escalation and Stronghold assault to the side, did away with data slates, and tried to establish some semblance of balance.
But that's not my complaint. WE SHOULD NOT DO THAT. That is the companies job.
Btw, Poker is a perfectly fine game. As long as you throw out all wild cards and aces, Jacks no longer can be used when forming straights, and it's more about trying to get a prime number when you add up all the number cards than it is getting a good hand. But it's still poker right?
The biggest problem with 40k today is GW's refusal to patch old Codexes to handle changes in the rules and the meta. If there's a turnover time of five years for the rules as a whole then a bad decision the writers made is going to stick around and colour the game for five years, if you patch every Codex every time you release something new the power tiers are closer together, you keep a broader group of people playing the game since you don't end up with two-editions-old unplayable army books, and you don't get stuck with product you can't move because it sucks under the current rules.
We are doing something about it and enjoy it. You are doing nothing and hating it.
You and your assumptions. You're making it sound like I can't have fun or don't have fun playing the game with my friends and even pick up games in the area. We DID do something about it. We have house ruled the game way beyond what is intended. We threw Escalation and Stronghold assault to the side, did away with data slates, and tried to establish some semblance of balance.
But that's not my complaint. WE SHOULD NOT DO THAT. That is the companies job.
Btw, Poker is a perfectly fine game. As long as you throw out all wild cards and aces, Jacks no longer can be used when forming straights, and it's more about trying to get a prime number when you add up all the number cards than it is getting a good hand. But it's still poker right?
GW isn't going to change the way they do business because we're being self-righteous on the Internet. Your options are quit playing, keep playing with their rules, or keep playing with your own rules. Deal with it.
Savageconvoy wrote: I don't accept that. Nor will I plan on just dropping the time and money invested in the hobby just because GW thinks that they can sell rules and supplements for $50 a pop while still claiming to be only a model company.
I don't understand the apologetic approach. If it's fine the way it is, then you're supporting screamer stars. If it's fine the way it is, you're fine with triptides. If it's fine, you're happy with wave serpent spam. But generally I don't see the "beer and pretzel" crowd ever cheering on such fun and fluffy lists that are fully within the confines of the "good as is" rule set. Usually they have to house rule so much that they prevent players from running several units. That's not what GW intended. That's not the game they promote. They would have kept the 0-1 restrictions if they did. But they took that away and just established the FOC.
Honestly, I've never seen one person that is perfectly fine with all the death star and top tier lists and thinks the rules are fine where they at. Every single time I see either the competitive players asking for balance or the casual player saying it's fine as long as you severely house rule the game beyond what GW ever intended (but it's fine as is).
I've never come across screamer stars, triptides or seercouncils because the people I play against have absolutely no interest in running lists like that. I have asked our Eldar player to bring a seercouncil just so I can see what all the hype is about but so far he's refusing. Having 5 house rules [mostly based around challenges, look out sir and warlord traits to keep the game flowing and remove pointless dice rolls] is hardly severely house ruling.
We all just play with whatever units we feel like taking on that particular day, whether they're competitive or not. No-body really cares who wins [apart from gaining bragging rights] because for us it's just an excuse to get together with mates, have a few beers, trash talk each other and play with our toys. I got tabled last game but managed to take down the Greater Daemon of Slaanesh that spawned out of a random Eldar psyker and it was one of the best games of 40k that I've played.
So, for me, a 'casual' player who gives fluff, narrative and using cool models a much higher importance than winning or losing, this game is great. IGOUGO system is a bit annoying, as are all of the USRs, but there's always next edition
We are doing something about it and enjoy it. You are doing nothing and hating it.
You and your assumptions. You're making it sound like I can't have fun or don't have fun playing the game with my friends and even pick up games in the area. We DID do something about it. We have house ruled the game way beyond what is intended. We threw Escalation and Stronghold assault to the side, did away with data slates, and tried to establish some semblance of balance.
But that's not my complaint. WE SHOULD NOT DO THAT. That is the companies job.
Btw, Poker is a perfectly fine game. As long as you throw out all wild cards and aces, Jacks no longer can be used when forming straights, and it's more about trying to get a prime number when you add up all the number cards than it is getting a good hand. But it's still poker right?
So why so bitter if you are having fun? You may not like what GW has done, but many do. So why not take the bits you like (which you have done) and then stop complaining. Its what the game is for. They give you everything as a rough guideline then you slim or expand it to your needs. Sounds like you are playing the game as intended. So in other words you want a new game?
tyrannosaurus wrote: I've never come across screamer stars, triptides or seercouncils because the people I play against have absolutely no interest in running lists like that.
Then you really can't say everything is fine if you haven't seen what's wrong with the system.
@Swastakowey: Why would I not complain? Do you think it takes away anything from me to complain? Do you value your opinion to talk about the positives of the game outweigh my opinion on the negatives? If everything is fine, why post about it online. It's fine, it'll be fine without your comments.
It takes nothing from me to express my opinion on the matter. The joy I get from the game still happens, more so from my friends efforts than GW's rules.
However we still have pick up games with new players in the area. It should not be part of any game where I have to go over an hour discussing how we set up terrain, handle list making, and so on. The "rough guideline" is a terrible standard. Seriously, why not play G.I. Joes if that's your opinion on the matter?
40K has rules. If someone comes up to me and says "Want to play X points of 40K" I should be able to say "Sure!" and start setting up. That's how real games work. If you have to start comparing pages of house rules before you even decide if you're playing the same game, then is it really a "good" game?
tyrannosaurus wrote: I've never come across screamer stars, triptides or seercouncils because the people I play against have absolutely no interest in running lists like that.
Then you really can't say everything is fine if you haven't seen what's wrong with the system.
@Swastakowey: Why would I not complain? Do you think it takes away anything from me to complain? Do you value your opinion to talk about the positives of the game outweigh my opinion on the negatives? If everything is fine, why post about it online. It's fine, it'll be fine without your comments.
It takes nothing from me to express my opinion on the matter. The joy I get from the game still happens, more so from my friends efforts than GW's rules.
However we still have pick up games with new players in the area. It should not be part of any game where I have to go over an hour discussing how we set up terrain, handle list making, and so on. The "rough guideline" is a terrible standard. Seriously, why not play G.I. Joes if that's your opinion on the matter?
40K has rules. If someone comes up to me and says "Want to play X points of 40K" I should be able to say "Sure!" and start setting up. That's how real games work. If you have to start comparing pages of house rules before you even decide if you're playing the same game, then is it really a "good" game?
House rules are not done in pages. you are exaggerating. It takes a few minutes to discuss some rough guidelines before a game. You shouldnt complain because nobody is making you play a game you speak so negatively about. Its fine to not like things about the game I just feel people like you are taking it too far. I dont like things about the game. But I dont expect to like it all. But there is no reason for all the hatred and anger directed at something you cant control and have complete freedom to partake in or not.
Taking it too far?! I'm talking about it on an opinions section in a forum about the topic! That's your definition of too far?! Are you serious?
There's no reason for the hate and anger? There totally is. I played Tau through a lot of 5th and had an uphill battle every game. Now with the 6th ed codex my primary army is considered to be OP almost by default. The units I like are considered to be the OP units that are no fun to play against. If I use Riptides, I'm TFG. If I use crisis suits, I get called TFG because suits are too good because they hide too well. If I use gunline I'm TFG because it's too hard to assault. The rules imbalance makes this a very hard army to justify.
But here's a scenario for you. If I asked to play you about a 1750 list with three riptides, buff commander, and allied Enclave or eldar would you accept the game? It's a fully legal and fluffy list.
Savageconvoy wrote: Taking it too far?! I'm talking about it on an opinions section in a forum about the topic! That's your definition of too far?! Are you serious?
There's no reason for the hate and anger? There totally is. I played Tau through a lot of 5th and had an uphill battle every game. Now with the 6th ed codex my primary army is considered to be OP almost by default. The units I like are considered to be the OP units that are no fun to play against. If I use Riptides, I'm TFG. If I use crisis suits, I get called TFG because suits are too good because they hide too well. If I use gunline I'm TFG because it's too hard to assault. The rules imbalance makes this a very hard army to justify.
But here's a scenario for you. If I asked to play you about a 1750 list with three riptides, buff commander, and allied Enclave or eldar would you accept the game? It's a fully legal and fluffy list.
Whos fault is that? Does GW label you those or does the attitude of the gamers make you one of those? GW didnt do it. Also playing with lots of Line Of Site blocking terrain will help you get more enjoyment out of your Tau.
And yea sure. I wont enjoy it because I know why you are using an abusive list. But i wont say no as im all for people playing what they enjoy. And id hardly call that fluffy... at all.
Just remember that the attitude of you and your gamers has more effect on the game than any rule or list. Good attitude, good game.
And yea sure. I wont enjoy it because I know why you are using an abusive list.
Because it's fluffy for my home made fluff which is just as valid as house rules?
id hardly call that fluffy... at all.
Oh. I guess not.
So as far as I'm to understand, 40K is perfectly fine so long as you're not playing 40k anymore. Afterall if you're not using the terrain options, mysterious objectives/terrain, allies, escalation and so forth then it's not 40k. If I decided to remove rows and columns from Battleship then it stops being the original game.
Also, why is my list abusive? I'm within the points and FOC limits. All my war gear options are legal. Perhaps you're not forging the narrative enough?
You think it's an abusive list because you have a house rule stuck in your head that tells you that what I'm bringing isn't going to be enjoyable and somehow abuses the rules. You know that there is something wrong with it, despite it not being wrong. This is a good start.
Ummm for someone so against assumptions you are pretty stained yourself...
Its not fluffy really. I never related house rules to fluff. As far as im concerned fluff takes 2nd place to making a fun game with fun rules.
I use allies... I have a titan so i must use escalation... so where is the bit where I am removing everything? I use anything and everything as me and my opponents sees fit. So what about it isnt original? The original rules is like vanilla. If you love vanilla thats awesome, but a lot of people like to use vanilla in sundaes, smoothies, or add flavours or candy to it. Why? To make it interesting, because it suits their taste. 40k is the same.
If you hate vanilla and all the flavours that are ripe for you to create. Maybe you are lactose intolerant and need to find something else to eat.
Much like 40k.
I never said the rules are wrong, I said the attitude is wrong. Taking a list like that is showing you got the wrong attitude dude. The main rule is to have fun. You are breaking the main rule by taking a list you know is not going to be fun. So yes it does abuse the rules.
How is it not fluffy? Do Riptides not occupy the elite slot and are used to provide a strong fire base to soften the enemy? Explain to me why it's not fluffy, since I don't have much to go off of other than the FOC positions and the FOC itself.
In the other thread you stated that you play low point games, which didn't allow for allies or titans. I did make an assumption about you, but the assumption still applies to most "casual" players who do tend to cut out the "abusive" units such as the Eldar titan.
Taking a list like that is showing you got the wrong attitude dude.
You keep saying that, but can't show me where. What page number states that my use of 3 elite slots is abusive? Is it using three elite slots or is it bringing multiples of the same unit. I can't find that page reference.
How is my list breaking the fun rule? You are so close to the answer, but you just can't get there. How do I know it's not going to be fun? What rules am I abusing? Is there a page number?
Savageconvoy wrote: How is it not fluffy? Do Riptides not occupy the elite slot and are used to provide a strong fire base to soften the enemy? Explain to me why it's not fluffy, since I don't have much to go off of other than the FOC positions and the FOC itself.
In the other thread you stated that you play low point games, which didn't allow for allies or titans. I did make an assumption about you, but the assumption still applies to most "casual" players who do tend to cut out the "abusive" units such as the Eldar titan.
Taking a list like that is showing you got the wrong attitude dude.
You keep saying that, but can't show me where. What page number states that my use of 3 elite slots is abusive? Is it using three elite slots or is it bringing multiples of the same unit. I can't find that page reference.
How is my list breaking the fun rule? You are so close to the answer, but you just can't get there. How do I know it's not going to be fun? What rules am I abusing? Is there a page number?
Common sense is needed.
I play bigger games too. As stated to you earlier. But those are for fun special times. Not always as it gets old.
Yet again common sense.
Yet again common sense. Oh and attitude. I wouldnt play you if you spoke like this to people in person. Just because they see no need to rant and rave about revolution and change among a model company. Im sure not many people would. If you are viewing the game as a "I want to do this because I can" game despite the opponent then I think you are 40k intolerant and need an alternative treat.
You seem to think that because the rules mean you can do something that you have to do it. But thats not at all what they are their for. They are there for you to choose how you play it. If its too much for you to handle (it seems to be) then reduce it to something you can swallow. After all you dont want to choke.
I think you need to step back and think about the things that are ruining the game in a mature manner. Eliminate the bits that dont work and go from there. If you cant do that for whatever reason then you have failed in your investment. In which case try make as much of your money back as possible. Otherwise you are loosing precious time you wont get back.
So try common sense and have a pleasing attitude. If everyone did that then everyone will be happy.
I fun game I can play to spend time with my friends when we all happen to be home at the same time and gives me some fun time assembling and painting models...so pretty much exactly what it is.
You have a problem with the way I'm talking to you, when I'm asking why my list is abusive and not fluffy.
Common sense? Can't be that, since I'm looking at it and think it's fine. Out of two people only one thinks it's bad so it must not be that common.
But the whole point I'm making is that my list is bad because IT'S NOT THE GAME YOU WANT TO PLAY! It's a list made from the 40K rules and you're saying it's bad. It's a game system where you have to willfully set up a mental barrier declaring valid units and rules abusive with no actual basis what so ever. The problem with the game is that the rule of "For Fun" is only important to you as long as it's YOUR DEFINITION OF FUN.
But if everything is fine as you state, why are you posting in a thread about what people want out of the game. You already have it. How is this not a waste of your time defending something you already have? You harped on me about being negative, so I'm assuming you have a wonderful and thoughtful answer.
Savageconvoy wrote: You have a problem with the way I'm talking to you, when I'm asking why my list is abusive and not fluffy.
Common sense? Can't be that, since I'm looking at it and think it's fine. Out of two people only one thinks it's bad so it must not be that common.
But the whole point I'm making is that my list is bad because IT'S NOT THE GAME YOU WANT TO PLAY! It's a list made from the 40K rules and you're saying it's bad. It's a game system where you have to willfully set up a mental barrier declaring valid units and rules abusive with no actual basis what so ever. The problem with the game is that the rule of "For Fun" is only important to you as long as it's YOUR DEFINITION OF FUN.
But if everything is fine as you state, why are you posting in a thread about what people want out of the game. You already have it. How is this not a waste of your time defending something you already have? You harped on me about being negative, so I'm assuming you have a wonderful and thoughtful answer.
I so do enjoy apologetics.
If you think that list is fun then all id ask is a compromise so we can both have fun. Compromise comes from common sense and a good attitude. Nothing to do with what i think. Im fairly sure I made it clear last thread that im mopen to do anything my opponents want but if there is a clash in wants then meeting down them middle fine by me. So no its not my view of fun. My view of fun is its fun if everyone has fun. Unlike yours which is it can only be fun if the rules let me have fun.
I am doing this because I like wargaming. I want people to not just see angry players all the time. Its not inviting. I may be fueling the fire but maybe, just maybe some others will silently read this and agree. Why? Because they are sick of hearing your words repeated and uttered by angry gamers at every opportunity. I want gamers to realize that the hobby is about more than just blindly following the crowd despite it not working that way. I want them to be more open to the idea of working the game to fit their groups need to have fun, through compromise and quick discussion. Because unlike you at least i have some kind of solution. Are the rules perfect? No, but can they work, yes! And I want people to know that. Not squander in a dirty spa with people who only agree. Its easy when everyone just agrees. But it doesnt solve anything. You all agree the rules are a problem. But nothing good is coming from it. But good is coming from trying to make the game enjoyable. Or at least more enjoyable. So lighten up and ask yourself what the point of wargaming is. Ill give you a hint, its about making friends with like minded people who enjoy what you enjoy. You cant really enjoy it with your friends if only half are having fun. So compromise, improve and adapt. Do things that benefit the community.
What I am saying is not "Play my way", im saying compromise and work towards the goal of making it fun. You dont like one sided lists? then talk to your friend and find out what can be done. Dont just say "the rules say i can, so shut up and let me do it". Go "these rules dont work for what we want, so lets tweak this".
Its easy to shift the blame. Harder to solve a problem. But which one gets results? Definitely not the blame game. Blame games go in circles.
First, is the removal of the AV system. Models can have the "Vehicle" sub-type that makes them immune to poison, but "melta" weapons can re-roll wounds, and they can have their own movement and shooting rules, that sort of thing, but put everything on the same "destruction" table.
Next would be to have rules options that change with point values. For example, No MC / Vehicles below 500 pts, Fortifications start at 1000 points, Allies and Flyers at 1500 pts, Super Heavies only available at 2000 pts plus. This would keep skirmishes, engagements, battles, invasions and "WARS" as distinct elements, with reasonable expectations of what you'll face.
A GW sponsored "house rule" site, that could help with game balance issues. FAQ's that adjust point values on a 3 to 6 month cycle, and allow the internet to have some say in things. You can still have powerful units, but those units can be brought down a bit, or boosted up if needed.
As a "pickup game player" that has come from a tight group of guys that used to play together when we were younger, I can appreciate a willingness to house rule, but I'd prefer a system that adapts instead of denying problems.
You keep throwing out the "good attitude" like I'm some how a bad person for taking the list I want. Compromise? I'm assuming you're going to take a list you want, why can't I?
You don't get it though. "Abusive" and "not fun" lists are listed no where in the rules. There is no guidance on that. It's something you are literally making up with no actual basis for it. If I can take a fully legal army which there is no fluff to say it's not a valid army composition, and you still know that it's a bad list and shouldn't be used, then how is everything "just fine as it is?"
Savageconvoy wrote: You keep throwing out the "good attitude" like I'm some how a bad person for taking the list I want. Compromise? I'm assuming you're going to take a list you want, why can't I?
You don't get it though. "Abusive" and "not fun" lists are listed no where in the rules. There is no guidance on that. It's something you are literally making up with no actual basis for it. If I can take a fully legal army which there is no fluff to say it's not a valid army composition, and you still know that it's a bad list and shouldn't be used, then how is everything "just fine as it is?"
Ummm no as stated to you before I try my best to take lists so that you have as much fun fighting me as I do using my list. I take a list that i think my opponent will enjoy as much as me. Hence why I talk with my opponents beforehand.
And no not a bad person just a sour attitude. You dont get it. Nowhere in the rules does it say these rules must be followed with strict adherence. It says change the rules as you see fit. SO cite plenty of reason why the rules let you, but if one or more players doesnt see it fit to follow then a compromise needs to be arranged. Just like any game. As I said, you dont need absolute guidance. We are creatures of free will and have the common sense to do things properly if we need to. Remember the first rule (and only important rule) is have fun. Take lists that equates to fun games. There is all the guidance you need.
I'm honestly getting sick of being told I have a sour attitude. Do you think I advocate a system of rules that excludes a large section of the playerbase? NO! Not once. I want a fair and balanced rule system that both casual and competitive players can enjoy. You are happy with the rules because you're a casual player and don't seem to care at all about competitive players. You've told me many times already to just give up the hobby and sell off my things because I'm not a casual player like you.
Which of us honestly has the "sour attitude?"
What about the simple fact that this is a thread about our opinion on the game, in a subforum dedicated to the game in general. You've repeatedly told me time and time again that I shouldn't voice my opinion just because it's not your opinion.
Yet I'm the negative one? Use your own logic. If this forum of opinions isn't what you want out of it, then why stay?
Savageconvoy wrote: I'm honestly getting sick of being told I have a sour attitude. Do you think I advocate a system of rules that excludes a large section of the playerbase? NO! Not once. I want a fair and balanced rule system that both casual and competitive players can enjoy. You are happy with the rules because you're a casual player and don't seem to care at all about competitive players. You've told me many times already to just give up the hobby and sell off my things because I'm not a casual player like you.
Which of us honestly has the "sour attitude?"
What about the simple fact that this is a thread about our opinion on the game, in a subforum dedicated to the game in general. You've repeatedly told me time and time again that I shouldn't voice my opinion just because it's not your opinion.
Yet I'm the negative one? Use your own logic. If this forum of opinions isn't what you want out of it, then why stay?
No im saying instead of voicing an opinion voice a solution. Nothing to do with casual or competitive. Competitive players just want a close game where they can challenge each others wits. Same system, they know a battle will be one sided so why cant they compromise and work out the best way to squeeze as much challenge into the game as possible.
You want a balanced rule set, but refuse to play one. You seem to want to turn 40k into something it wasnt made for (without putting in effort). I have said its ok to voice your opinion, but when all people can say is negative things then why bother. All you do is say. I tried offering ways to help people out and all of a sudden people who seem to not like the game shoot it down. My solution is as simple as find the problem, eliminate it and compromise.
And I will walk away. Like I did on the last thread. Because it was going nowhere. Like this one has started to. Yes I do think you have a sour attitude. Why? Because all your reasons involve "I want." All of them. Nothing to do with the other players. Its literally I want to do this without consequence.
Also twisting words does not make a good argument. I never said quite because you arent casual. I said quit because the game doesnt offer what you want.
So, as I have said, carry on your ways. They are clearly working for you.
The only thing I agree with what you have said is to take my own advice. So yes I will leave this thread. Just remember a rule book can only offer what its made for. Accept it and make it work as intended, or move on. No need to linger.
If I and my friends spot RaW trying to stop us from having fun, we kick RaW in the balls and move on.
If I and my friends spot RaI trying to stop us from having fun, we kick RaI in the balls and move on.
This has worked well for us so far.
Again, posting this personally for about the third time this week, 40K works fine for social groups/friends/families that play together regularly, they can do this, and they are clearly the set that GW seem to be tilting at, the problem is that many players play in a very different environment where they may not play the same people regularly, or not know them well, if at all. At this point, a clear, concise, well written ruleset backed up with a solid, well tested and reasonably balanced set of codexes becomes infinitely more important.
Then clearly 40k isn't for you. There are lots of other options though. 40k lets me do what I want to do, which is play narrative games with the awesome models GW and FW make. If I wanted a tight, balanced game with very similar units on each side I would pick another option. You won't find me posting on Warmachine/Infinity threads about how the game should be more beer & pretzels though.
Well, what a desk face of a reply!
Seriously? I like 40K, I have a great deal of affection for, and long running history with, the game and the background, I care enough that I'm wasting time on the Internet talking about how I wish the people that make it would concentrate on improving it so even more people could enjoy it, and people who have become disillusioned could fall in love with it again.
But it clearly isn't for me? Or is it not for me basically because we want different things, and as it works for you, I'm the one who must be wrong, because you're alright?
I'm going to require a piece of your reply again, because I want to really emphasise something (again) so I'm going to syphon it off here...
If I wanted a tight, balanced game with very similar units on each side I would pick another option
I'm now going to use formatting for emphasis
Balance does not mean having everything the same
How many times? I mean? Really? Is it so hard?
You can still have every unit in the game, all broadly similar in function to how they are now, but if the points costs are adjusted, making some units cheaper, others more expensive, and employ tweaks to abilities where necessary to flatten the disparities in power more, bingo, your game is more closely balanced.
Some of the core rules could handle some adjustment too, but the primary source of imbalance are the codexes, and they need the most attention.
But no, my desire to see a game I have a near quarter century history with become more playable and involving clearly means it isn't for me!
I want more games where 2 people bring 150+ models per side. and im not talking 150 conscripts at 2000 points either. I'm talking 150+ units of functional eldar army vs an equivilent point cost of any other army. I would love to see what 7000+ points of Tyranids looks like
1- Well-distributed releases. Plenty of other games release updates for rules and models that cover all or nearly all factions. 40K is infamous for leaving some armies in the cold for years while showering new stuff on others. Maybe they will work toward that once all new codices are out, but I'm not holding my breath.
2- Better punch/counterpunch thinking. Introducing stuff like flyers/knights/superheavies without a good long moment to ask "So what about the guys who CANNOT counter this?" is not a viable method in the long run. Combined with the issue above, it really makes players of certain armies feel sidetracked and used as mooks for the poster armies.
3- Varied merchandise. You know how imperial players love their tape measures and model cases festooned with aquilas? Well,hold on to something, but you'll be shocked to learn that chaos and eldar players would also love to get merch themed after THEIR armies.
4-Better communication. I'm not even asking for the return of GW forums (I can imagine what a beast that was to manage), but thinking you can be as inescrutable as the Lost Ark in the age of twitter is insane. When Corvus Beli decided to do a new ALEPH faction in Infinity, hey pretty much just posted a topic on the forum asking the players what they'd like or felt would fit the theme. Sure, they discarded the crap, but that's a given, and used a lot of the opinions as inspiration. Hell, if you post a rules question there, odds are decent you might get a Dev to answer on a good day and make things final.
5-Continual updating. Flames of war, Infinity and other games are very quick to spot what is overpowered/underpowered and fixing it in real time. It shouldn't take a whole edition to make some combos stop being auto-win and some units to rise above garbage.
I want there to be less spamming. I don't know how to stop this, but it's annoying to have someone come up to me and say, "Hey man, I just came up with this tournament winning list. It's 2 destroyer lords, 3 wraith units, 3 annihilation barges, and four troops in flyers. It's brilliant!" I just think it would be nice to see some variety in lists rather than some bozo thinking he's being innovative by finding the best unit in each category an maxing it out.
ironhammer2194 wrote: I want there to be less spamming. I don't know how to stop this, but it's annoying to have someone come up to me and say, "Hey man, I just came up with this tournament winning list. It's 2 destroyer lords, 3 wraith units, 3 annihilation barges, and four troops in flyers. It's brilliant!" I just think it would be nice to see some variety in lists rather than some bozo thinking he's being innovative by finding the best unit in each category an maxing it out.
Personally id wish the game would give you a choice whether to spam or not "and still be relatively viable". at least to stop the labeling.
I mean i love seeing a well painted air Elysian army. its fluffy and spam at the same time. id hate to be labeled a waac or a bozo just for taking something like that or a green tide list. its flufspamtastic.
ironhammer2194 wrote: I want there to be less spamming. I don't know how to stop this, but it's annoying to have someone come up to me and say, "Hey man, I just came up with this tournament winning list. It's 2 destroyer lords, 3 wraith units, 3 annihilation barges, and four troops in flyers. It's brilliant!" I just think it would be nice to see some variety in lists rather than some bozo thinking he's being innovative by finding the best unit in each category an maxing it out.
Firstly, balance would solve this.
Secondly, 'spamming' in and of itself isn't a problem, its the use of each codex's three viable units. Personally, I like lists that are symmetrical, redundant, and fluffy. Some people call it spam, but if I played Eldar, you bet I'd be taking small Guardian squads in Wave Serpents backed up by other grav tanks.
However, for people who don't like lists like that, balance would allow for more varied lists to not be left completely behind.
ironhammer2194 wrote: I want there to be less spamming. I don't know how to stop this, but it's annoying to have someone come up to me and say, "Hey man, I just came up with this tournament winning list. It's 2 destroyer lords, 3 wraith units, 3 annihilation barges, and four troops in flyers. It's brilliant!" I just think it would be nice to see some variety in lists rather than some bozo thinking he's being innovative by finding the best unit in each category an maxing it out.
Personally id wish the game would give you a choice whether to spam or not "and still be relatively viable". at least to stop the labeling.
I mean i love seeing a well painted air Elysian army. its fluffy and spam at the same time. id hate to be labeled a waac or a bozo just for taking something like that or a green tide list. its flufspamtastic.
You're right, I was too harsh and made a blanket statement. I'm all for fluffy lists. Pick completely agree with your statement. However it's frustrating looking at the tournament scene and seeing really boring lists that copy/paste the best units. I just think 40k should encourage more variety rather that filling your force org slots with the same unit.
ironhammer2194 wrote: I want there to be less spamming. I don't know how to stop this, but it's annoying to have someone come up to me and say, "Hey man, I just came up with this tournament winning list. It's 2 destroyer lords, 3 wraith units, 3 annihilation barges, and four troops in flyers. It's brilliant!" I just think it would be nice to see some variety in lists rather than some bozo thinking he's being innovative by finding the best unit in each category an maxing it out.
Firstly, balance would solve this.
Secondly, 'spamming' in and of itself isn't a problem, its the use of each codex's three viable units. Personally, I like lists that are symmetrical, redundant, and fluffy. Some people call it spam, but if I played Eldar, you bet I'd be taking small Guardian squads in Wave Serpents backed up by other grav tanks.
However, for people who don't like lists like that, balance would allow for more varied lists to not be left completely behind.
That last line in a nutshell. The problem right now is that every army has basically one "go to" list if you actually want to win. Everything else is inferior to that; not always to the point where you can't win at all, but where it's decidedly inferior to the "spam" list, and you are purposely hurting yourself by choosing not to take the spam list. An important part of game design has always been the concept of options, but more than just options is the notion that you should never be put in a situation where you WILLINGLY hinder your own effectiveness - a balanced game makes it so there is never the question of "I'm weaker by taking X, is that worth it?", there are different ways to be effective that are all roughly equivalent. 40k has missed the mark in that aspect for many years now.
Thing is that without absolute perfect balance there will always be a "best" list, the difference between them may be smaller but that best list will still exist.
As such you can assume if 6-7 races are gonna show up there are 6-7 lists you need to be able to take on and the best list becomes obvious. Limited game time and travel to "competitive" play stunts the field far more than the ruleset as even the best horde in the game is gonna be a no show due to deliberate slow play tactics. It's poor sportsmanship but it's a hell of a thing to prove and it does go on, especially if that other player thinks he may lose.
6th has been my favourite edition of recent years (2nd ed was my favourite with all the extra rules but they are simply not suited to the larger scale 40k has moved to) it's fun, has lots of options for fun armies with allies, dataslates, supplements.
The game isn't perfect, there are some rules I'd tweak and there are some rules that could be easily abused in the name of power but with my own gaming group this is not even an issue. If one of us somehow became enamoured with the Riptide and wanted to run 4 because of their love of the model *and* unlike us wanted to run the same list week in week out we would likely just bump the points cost up a little essentially imposing a multi-riptide tax based on the relative players skill until the games involving them evened out. They can still earn a win but don't get it for free because of their army choice.
Now you can argue that GW should do it themselves but each units power is relative to the number of them fielded, the skill of the player, the supporting army elements and dozens of other factors, it's a minefield. As a result the best option is to make little tweaks at your own end based on your own group. The more diverse your available armies the harder it is to balance at a central point.
In conclusion I think 6th is about where I want it to be, it caters to my playstyle and is mutable enough for each game to be different. If someone could get GW to bring the prices down a smidge though that would be nice, we are still in an economic downturn after all.
A clearly defined instruction set to tell you how to play the game.Using clear concise language and diagrams to give well defined instructions.
To get rid of the 'cheat on a 4+ ' excuse for poor rules writing, and editing.
Similarly, I would like Codex books to deliver well defined and accurate as possible army unit costs and composition options.
That deliver an ACTUAL wide range of choice , not just the illusion of it!
Why are we paying GW plc for books that have a clear functional requirement that is not being met?
if I just want to put cool models on the table and make up rules for a fun game.I can use lots of FREE to download rules.Why pay PREMIUM PRICES for GW plc half arsed efforts?
But as GW put it they develop the rules for the majority of their customer base.
Collectors that do not care about rules, and children that never get around to play a full game.
Dunklezahn wrote: Thing is that without absolute perfect balance there will always be a "best" list, the difference between them may be smaller but that best list will still exist.
As such you can assume if 6-7 races are gonna show up there are 6-7 lists you need to be able to take on and the best list becomes obvious.
No.
Just... no.
That is not at all how it would go. You, like far too many on this particular sub forum, seem to entirely misunderstand the concept of balance.
In a well balanced game* there is no 'best' list. That is literally the entire concept of balance right there. Make list A as viable as list B or C. There may still, technically speaking, be a list with a tiny advantage over the rest, but we are talking small enough that it is entirely theory, players will not take this supposedly better list over one that suits their tactics better, and that is assuming such a list can even be found. Even in current 40k I doubt anyone could actually tell you what the 'best' list is objectively.
Before I start ranting off topic let me just try to make this perfectly clear.
In a well balanced game a marine biker army might still be, technically speaking, better than any other marine list.
That being said someone who likes tactical marines can take a list full of them and not be handicapped in any way by them.
Nor would someone taking a biker list have a big enough advantage over the tac list to ever call it unfair, a small bit of luck or a slightly better player will beat the biker list.
And while a biker list might be the most cost effective someone who is good with drop pod tactics will find a drop pod list will win him MANY more games than a biker list, because he is better at playing a drop pod list and player skill would be FAR more important than the list.
*Well balanced, not perfect. Perfect is probably impossible but perfect imbalance is the the aim here, create something sooooo close that it doesn't matter if there are tiny imbalances.
Make list A as viable as list B or C. There may still, technically speaking, be a list with a tiny advantage over the rest, but we are talking small enough that it is entirely theory, players will not take this supposedly better list over one that suits their tactics better, and that is assuming such a list can even be found. Even in current 40k I doubt anyone could actually tell you what the 'best' list is objectively.
Yes, just yes. You even admit there would still be a best list but the advantage is small, that's exactly what I said in my previous post. Therefore B and C are not as viable as A, they are weaker. It may only be 1-2% but it is weaker and when people want to win they will play that 1-2%, any advantage no matter how small would be used. The difference in our opinion comes from whether you think people will use that 1% advantage.
*Well balanced, not perfect. Perfect is probably impossible but perfect imbalance is the the aim here, create something sooooo close that it doesn't matter if there are tiny imbalances.
Try it, example, a marine terminator is worth X points, your army has 50 of them lets say.
Your opponent shows up with an army that has 5 weapons that ignore their armour, the terminator is very powerful relatively.
Next game you play a race who specialise in killing elite troops, it's their flavour, they have 40 guns that ignore their armour. The terminator is relatively very weak. Is he weak or strong? 10pts or 50pts?
Now what if in your area 7/10 people play elite killers, strong or weak?
So you try to balance the points around the average number of armour ignorers and things seem fine for a while, pockets of discontent exist but you ignore them.
Then the Elite Killer race gets a new codex that changes their guns/units so now their army contains far less armour ignorers, you then need to repoint the entire high armour range spectrum because they are now too good. Ah, but now by making them cheaper other troops are too pricey, on and on in an endless cycle every time a rule changes.
Perfect balance in a game as diverse as 40k is a numerical impossibility without the entire range changing in points every 2 release. Some people want the balance to be tighter, could it? probably, could it be as tight as you want? Never.
For me 40k's little oddities can be smoothed out as part of a group of gamers willing to make little tweaks for the good of making the game decided by game skill not list building and thats where i want it to be.
Except that you can, because say you give the non-low AP race more shots, or models so that they can try to swamp those termies, with fire power. And maybe the elite killing race if it loads up on elite killing is not so good at killing say tanks, or hordes or whatever.
In addition if one list is 1% better such that it wins say 51% of the time, I don't think anyone will have an issue, vs whole armies essentially being 30% better like they are right now.
Also the codex changing the elite killers to be worse shoudl never happen because that is a mistake in game design.
The tweaks you need right now to make 40k not decided (at least in a fairly large part) by army choice and list building are not very small.
Ah but elite killing it a leaning, not an army build, it's a race flavour (in case it was too veiled I'm talking about Eldar) a design philosophy. This comes from wanting some races to have bad matchups against others, a perfectly valid way of designing a game.
Ah but will they not have an issue, how close does it have to be before it reaches critical mass of problem 5% better? 10%? What if a race is 20% better against race a but 20% worse against race B?
The theoretical change doesn't make their army worse, it makes them worse against heavy armour, what if they gained horde killing power? More rebalances.
The tweaks you need right now to make 40k not decided (at least in a fairly large part) by army choice and list building are not very small.
Says you, "Think about your opponents army/skill/experience level when designing your army" done. Once the desire to eke out every drop of power from your list is gone most of the problems go with it in my experience.
Indeed, I feel that perfect balance (or perfect imbalance) is not possible in 40k.
For example, many people that claim that Eldar units are overpriced. I find them laughably underpriced, because I play Armored Battlegroup.
Their strength 6 and 7 shooting that is so prevalent is literally helpless against my company of Leman Russ tanks, and so the fact that they pay any points for it at all means that they've put themselves at a disadvantage by that many points.
Say, a scatter laser goes for the ridiculously low price of 5 points, and a twin-linked one is 10. That means that, if they have 3 scatter laser war walkers and 6 scatter laser wave serpents, that they are already out 90 points on scatter lasers. Now take into account the, say, 10 points they spend on serpent shields, and they're out 60 more points - that's 150 points down. That means they could've made me drop a whole Leman Russ from my list if they just dropped all their Str 6 and 7 shooting that is helpless anyways.
However, against any army that ISN'T armored battlegroup, 5pt scatter lasers are STUPID CHEAP and serpent shields are worth their weight in gold.
So how would you price scatter lasers? Would you just ignore Armored Battlegroup and then have the Eldar have a retardedly unbalanced matchup in that instance? Or would you price it in and then have the Eldar stomp on everyone else's face?
The solution is to make it so various armies are able to win under an equally skilled player, and NOT the rubbish now where all else equal Army X will always beat Army Y because Army X is better.
That's the difference between a game like 40k where the designers don't give a feth about balance and a game that's actually balanced for play without falling to the old saw of coming up with tweaks.
The fact you need to "tweak" 40k is proof that it's not balanced and really shouldn't be lauded as some kind of great design; on the contrary it should be condemned as lazy and poor design, basically foisting the burden of fixing the game onto the players.
WayneTheGame wrote: The solution is to make it so various armies are able to win under an equally skilled player, and NOT the rubbish now where all else equal Army X will always beat Army Y because Army X is better.
That's the difference between a game like 40k where the designers don't give a feth about balance and a game that's actually balanced for play without falling to the old saw of coming up with tweaks.
The fact you need to "tweak" 40k is proof that it's not balanced and really shouldn't be lauded as some kind of great design; on the contrary it should be condemned as lazy and poor design, basically foisting the burden of fixing the game onto the players.
The only way to do that, though, is to cut options.
Unless you seriously think that an army made up exclusively of riflemen should be able to beat an army exclusively made of tanks. I would love to see a justification for that in any ruleset.
WayneTheGame wrote: The solution is to make it so various armies are able to win under an equally skilled player, and NOT the rubbish now where all else equal Army X will always beat Army Y because Army X is better.
That's the difference between a game like 40k where the designers don't give a feth about balance and a game that's actually balanced for play without falling to the old saw of coming up with tweaks.
The fact you need to "tweak" 40k is proof that it's not balanced and really shouldn't be lauded as some kind of great design; on the contrary it should be condemned as lazy and poor design, basically foisting the burden of fixing the game onto the players.
The only way to do that, though, is to cut options.
Unless you seriously think that an army made up exclusively of riflemen should be able to beat an army exclusively made of tanks. I would love to see a justification for that in any ruleset.
Of course not, but nobody arguing balance has said that. What I and others want is the option to build armies and have things work in synergy/tandem, rather than have some units be too good, some be average and some just be terrible. An army of infantry should not be able to beat an army made of tanks, of course, but you should be able to build an army using the units you like (within reason) and not just be defeated before you even play because your opponent is using a WAAC netlist.
It's not about cutting choice, it's about making all choices viable either on their own or in tandem with other choices, that provide other tactical applications.
WayneTheGame wrote: The solution is to make it so various armies are able to win under an equally skilled player, and NOT the rubbish now where all else equal Army X will always beat Army Y because Army X is better.
That's the difference between a game like 40k where the designers don't give a feth about balance and a game that's actually balanced for play without falling to the old saw of coming up with tweaks.
The fact you need to "tweak" 40k is proof that it's not balanced and really shouldn't be lauded as some kind of great design; on the contrary it should be condemned as lazy and poor design, basically foisting the burden of fixing the game onto the players.
The only way to do that, though, is to cut options.
Unless you seriously think that an army made up exclusively of riflemen should be able to beat an army exclusively made of tanks. I would love to see a justification for that in any ruleset.
Of course not, but nobody arguing balance has said that. What I and others want is the option to build armies and have things work in synergy/tandem, rather than have some units be too good, some be average and some just be terrible. An army of infantry should not be able to beat an army made of tanks, of course, but you should be able to build an army using the units you like (within reason) and not just be defeated before you even play because your opponent is using a WAAC netlist.
It's not about cutting choice, it's about making all choices viable either on their own or in tandem with other choices, that provide other tactical applications.
Right, but what if "a person" wants an all-rifleman army and constantly gets stomped by tanks? He'd probably go onto a forum and moan and complain that his army is helpless and he would just wish that all unit choices were viable.
But the forum would probably tell him to "man up and play a better army" (i.e. eliminating the option to field an all-rifleman army) or to "enjoy losing" (that is, forgoing balance). I personally would rather have people lose with the armies they love, than have a chance to win with armies that they made because the game prevented them from being able to make the army they wanted.
WayneTheGame wrote: The solution is to make it so various armies are able to win under an equally skilled player, and NOT the rubbish now where all else equal Army X will always beat Army Y because Army X is better.
That's the difference between a game like 40k where the designers don't give a feth about balance and a game that's actually balanced for play without falling to the old saw of coming up with tweaks.
The fact you need to "tweak" 40k is proof that it's not balanced and really shouldn't be lauded as some kind of great design; on the contrary it should be condemned as lazy and poor design, basically foisting the burden of fixing the game onto the players.
And we are saying that unless you want to homogenise 40k that kind of balance is a pipedream. As Unit said balancing a unit in an environment where people play lists like him looks terribly balanced in an environment where everyone played T3-4 infantry. Balancing terminators in an environ with a Plasma fetish means if someone in a balanced army or even say flamer heavy area uses them they seem way too good.
The more diverse your game the harder it is to balance, 40k units are very diverse, as diverse as the people who play it and the tables it is played on. I'd rather have a game where we tweak to balance for our meta than lose the diversity that makes the game great.
Now as I said, it could probably be tightened up in place but I challenge you to balance a single codex against itself (not even all the other books) that the majority of people think is balanced in their meta (heavy terrain/bowling ball, objective heavy/killpoint heavy etc). You will fail. boil the number of units down far enough and eventually you'll get close, but try and emulate factors as diverse as a codex and you will fail. Just look at all the fan dexes and redesigns, most of them have some really good ideas, in some cases mostly good, but there isn't a single one I'd call balanced.
Dunklezahn wrote: Ah but elite killing it a leaning, not an army build, it's a race flavour (in case it was too veiled I'm talking about Eldar) a design philosophy. This comes from wanting some races to have bad matchups against others, a perfectly valid way of designing a game.
Ah but will they not have an issue, how close does it have to be before it reaches critical mass of problem 5% better? 10%? What if a race is 20% better against race a but 20% worse against race B?
The theoretical change doesn't make their army worse, it makes them worse against heavy armour, what if they gained horde killing power? More rebalances.
The tweaks you need right now to make 40k not decided (at least in a fairly large part) by army choice and list building are not very small.
Says you, "Think about your opponents army/skill/experience level when designing your army" done. Once the desire to eke out every drop of power from your list is gone most of the problems go with it in my experience.
Are we really trying to say that eldar are somehow only good at elite killing....because that is far from true.
essentially what it comes down to is sure extreme lists will always be possible, but should always have strengths and weaknesses. Sure it will always be possible for your opponent to be woefully un-prepared to deal with something.
That said what happens now is codices are woefully unprepared to deal with things...which should not happen. X army is really good at killing y army is bad game design. It should work more that x -unit is good at killing unit type y, but not as much unit type z. Take the Hydra flakk tank right now, good against flyers...not so good against other things. More units should be similar to that, where they have a role to play, and can excel in that role for their points.
Dunklezahn wrote: Ah but elite killing it a leaning, not an army build, it's a race flavour (in case it was too veiled I'm talking about Eldar) a design philosophy. This comes from wanting some races to have bad matchups against others, a perfectly valid way of designing a game.
Ah but will they not have an issue, how close does it have to be before it reaches critical mass of problem 5% better? 10%? What if a race is 20% better against race a but 20% worse against race B?
The theoretical change doesn't make their army worse, it makes them worse against heavy armour, what if they gained horde killing power? More rebalances.
The tweaks you need right now to make 40k not decided (at least in a fairly large part) by army choice and list building are not very small.
Says you, "Think about your opponents army/skill/experience level when designing your army" done. Once the desire to eke out every drop of power from your list is gone most of the problems go with it in my experience.
Are we really trying to say that eldar are somehow only good at elite killing....because that is far from true.
essentially what it comes down to is sure extreme lists will always be possible, but should always have strengths and weaknesses. Sure it will always be possible for your opponent to be woefully un-prepared to deal with something.
That said what happens now is codices are woefully unprepared to deal with things...which should not happen. X army is really good at killing y army is bad game design. It should work more that x -unit is good at killing unit type y, but not as much unit type z. Take the Hydra flakk tank right now, good against flyers...not so good against other things. More units should be similar to that, where they have a role to play, and can excel in that role for their points.
But that's making themed lists basically not an option. It is fluff for the Imperial Guard to have regiments that specialize in one unit. For example, my armored regiment has thirty tanks in three companies, six superheavy tanks in two companies, two Commissariat tanks - and for support options, it has three Hydras, a Manticore Sky Eagle, and a platoon of mechanized infantry.
An Air Defense regiment, on the other hand, might have thirty Hydras in three companies, six Praetor superheavy SAM launchers in two companies, two Commissariat Chimeras, and for support options three Leman Russ tanks, a sentinel squadron, and an enlarged platoon of foot soldiers.
An infantry regiment, on the third hand, would have 450 men in three companies, 180 veterans in two companies, two Commissariat squads, and for support options, three Hellhound flame tanks, a Demolisher, and maybe some more tanks or mechanized infantry.
You would be forcing people to mix regiment types to be competitive, which should be unnecessary and is certainly unfluffy with some rare exceptions.
What they need to do is just allow for themed armies but still make sure the overall rules are balanced. I miss things like being able to take all bikes or assault squads for Space Marines without being required to take a single special character to "unlock" it.
Themed armies shouldn't always mean you are weaker or stronger, just because you are using a themed army, and that's what I am talking about. Units should have synergy so that Unit A and Unit B work well together, while Unit C might work well by itself and Unit D works with A but not that great with B; if you took Unit D and B, you wouldn't auto-lose but you wouldn't be optimal either, so maybe Unit D fits in a certain scenario (e.g. your army is a garrison and Unit D is a particular vehicle), but taking it doesn't automatically hamper your chances of winning.
That's the kind of balance 40k needs. Themed armies should mostly be viable with some exceptions (e.g. if you take an all-Grot army it's not going to be viable in most, if any, cases). All units should have a solid place in a force, whether on their own (a particularly nasty tank or walker) or as part of an overall theme (e.g. an assault unit might be better suited to a fast-moving force versus a gunline, but taking it in a gunline shouldn't be a huge detriment especially if you have use strategy).
40k has none of that. Unit A might be great, Unit B might be terrible and has no place outside of a particular theme, in which case taking it actively harms your chance of winning. If you pick "wrong", you reduce your chances of winning the game simply because you might like Unit B or Unit B fits your theme better, so you have the conundrum of picking a unit which doesn't fit your theme but plays better (Unit A) or a unit which fits your theme but is bad and will likely be a detriment to the gameplay (Unit B).
That conundrum should never exist in a game. Look at Warmahordes for example - there are very few units which outright "suck". Many work in tandem with other units or warcasters, and if you use a specific combo you can win with the right strategy, even against a "superior" combo. The stronger combo might have an easier chance of winning, but a good commander who uses his/her units to their best and can take advantage of the synergy can emerge ahead.
WayneTheGame wrote: What they need to do is just allow for themed armies but still make sure the overall rules are balanced. I miss things like being able to take all bikes or assault squads for Space Marines without being required to take a single special character to "unlock" it.
Themed armies shouldn't always mean you are weaker or stronger, just because you are using a themed army, and that's what I am talking about. Units should have synergy so that Unit A and Unit B work well together, while Unit C might work well by itself and Unit D works with A but not that great with B; if you took Unit D and B, you wouldn't auto-lose but you wouldn't be optimal either, so maybe Unit D fits in a certain scenario (e.g. your army is a garrison and Unit D is a particular vehicle), but taking it doesn't automatically hamper your chances of winning.
That's the kind of balance 40k needs. Themed armies should mostly be viable with some exceptions (e.g. if you take an all-Grot army it's not going to be viable in most, if any, cases). All units should have a solid place in a force, whether on their own (a particularly nasty tank or walker) or as part of an overall theme (e.g. an assault unit might be better suited to a fast-moving force versus a gunline, but taking it in a gunline shouldn't be a huge detriment especially if you have use strategy).
40k has none of that. Unit A might be great, Unit B might be terrible and has no place outside of a particular theme, in which case taking it actively harms your chance of winning. If you pick "wrong", you reduce your chances of winning the game simply because you might like Unit B or Unit B fits your theme better, so you have the conundrum of picking a unit which doesn't fit your theme but plays better (Unit A) or a unit which fits your theme but is bad and will likely be a detriment to the gameplay (Unit B).
That conundrum should never exist in a game. Look at Warmahordes for example - there are very few units which outright "suck". Many work in tandem with other units or warcasters, and if you use a specific combo you can win with the right strategy, even against a "superior" combo. The stronger combo might have an easier chance of winning, but a good commander who uses his/her units to their best and can take advantage of the synergy can emerge ahead.
But what happens if you only want a bunch of Unit A? I think you guys are willing to sacrifice too many options on the altar of balance. In my opinion, some themed armies require all units in the army to do well on their own, other themed armies require great synergy, and still more require bits of both. And the great part about 40k is that these armies can contain the same units! Yes, it is unbalanced, but I'm ok with that, rather than removing a bunch of options to force it to be balanced.
And the choice shouldn't be between "winning" and "theme". If it is, then you're in the wrong game - 40k, at this point, is basically exclusively for people who just play themed armies. There's too much unbalance, hell, I've heard complaints that there are just too many options, for it to be played competitively.
And I've played Warmahordes off and on since Prime Mk II, and I've always been dissatisfied with the balance. I wanted to play Karchev + 5-6 jacks, only to be told that not only was that a terrible build, but that i was not welcome to even play because I wasn't following the rules on page 5. So much for theme.
But you really don't have more or less options than you do now. That is like saying well what if I want to play an army of all pyrovores...I lose with that now and still would in the proposed system. Difference being taking a few pyrovores would be good.
Sorry to me sacrificing the ability to field an army of a single unit for more viable units is adding choices not taking them away.
No one is saying you cannot field and all tank army just that as an extreme case it will be strong against the things it is strong against and weak against those that it is weak against.
I completely disagree with 40k is Theme = winning it is not at all unless your theme is deathstar.
What I'm saying essentially is 15 Leman Russ battle tanks should not be a good army. But mix matching weaponry to specialize roles should be decent, and that it will be weak against anti-tank weaponry, and strong against anti-infantry, and that more often than not a balanced list will have a reasonable chance to fight it.
Breng77 wrote: But you really don't have more or less options than you do now. That is like saying well what if I want to play an army of all pyrovores...I lose with that now and still would in the proposed system. Difference being taking a few pyrovores would be good.
Sorry to me sacrificing the ability to field an army of a single unit for more viable units is adding choices not taking them away.
No one is saying you cannot field and all tank army just that as an extreme case it will be strong against the things it is strong against and weak against those that it is weak against.
I completely disagree with 40k is Theme = winning it is not at all unless your theme is deathstar.
What I'm saying essentially is 15 Leman Russ battle tanks should not be a good army. But mix matching weaponry to specialize roles should be decent, and that it will be weak against anti-tank weaponry, and strong against anti-infantry, and that more often than not a balanced list will have a reasonable chance to fight it.
But that isn't how it should be, I don't think. I think 15 Leman Russ battletanks should be good against an army that isn't specialized to fight against them, and get absolutely wrecked against armies that are specialized to fight them. It's like why modern armies don't send helicopter crewmen to fix bridges, combat engineers on special ops, and specialized anti-tank units to do air defense.
Specialized units should be great against what they're specialized against, and terrible against everything else. This means that an army that mixes and matches will never have the tools to deal with anything other than an army that also mixes and matches. It won't have enough antitank to fight all tanks, it won't have enough air defense to fight all air, and it won't have enough anti-infantry to beat a rifleman horde.
To expect an army that isn't specialized at killing tanks to kill an army that is only tanks is absurd. vis-a-vis To expect an army that isn't specialized at killing heavy infantry to kill an army that is all heavy infantry is similarly absurd.
That idea works well in the real world, but not in a game. There are two extremes: You can demolish your opponent if you know what army he has (aka "list tailoring") and that's just as bad as the "TAC" play where you have one list that is good against everything.
Personally I'd rather have the TAC list than tailor, since in my experience it's very rare to prearrange games so you can't know what your opponent has, since you generally won't know who your opponent is.
Unit1126PLL wrote: And I've played Warmahordes off and on since Prime Mk II, and I've always been dissatisfied with the balance. I wanted to play Karchev + 5-6 jacks, only to be told that not only was that a terrible build, but that i was not welcome to even play because I wasn't following the rules on page 5. So much for theme.
This. While I'm all for Wayne's demand for a better balance between fluff and rules, I don't think Warmahordes is a good example. In my limited experience with the game, I've found it quite lacking in the background department and too abstract in its rules. The exact opposite of an atmospheric, themed game.
I've written before that I'd hate to see 40k turned into some sort of abstract "tabletop DOTA". That's what Warmahordes feels to me. A good "strategy" boardgame, but not what I expect from a WARgame.
WayneTheGame wrote: That idea works well in the real world, but not in a game. There are two extremes: You can demolish your opponent if you know what army he has (aka "list tailoring") and that's just as bad as the "TAC" play where you have one list that is good against everything.
Personally I'd rather have the TAC list than tailor, since in my experience it's very rare to prearrange games so you can't know what your opponent has, since you generally won't know who your opponent is.
How about neither player know what the other is playing, and so you you just play it out? You don't need to tailor; I've seen an Air Defense Regiment against a Rifleman Horde, if you really want awkward. I've also taken my Russes up against their hard counter and lost horribly, but with a smile, because that's how it should be. I've also mercilessly crushed an infantry horde undertread because they brought Plasma Cannons and plasma guns, and I've seen that selfsame army turn around and Demolish a deathwing player.
We don't tailor here, we just pick a theme (such as Armored Company, deathwing, or whathaveyou) and roll with it.
Except that does not make a fun game. Lol...I brought a hard counter guess you lose...is not fun. A game where one army is largely impotent against another is not a fun game. I lost horribly and thats how it should be is a bad game, because it leads to scenarios where games are trivial and we might as well compare lists and go home.
Sure an all tank army should be tough for some builds but it should be weak against a lot of things, such that one can reliably expect to have a tough time if they don't prepare to fight different types of lists.
Breng77 wrote: Except that does not make a fun game. Lol...I brought a hard counter guess you lose...is not fun. A game where one army is largely impotent against another is not a fun game. I lost horribly and thats how it should be is a bad game, because it leads to scenarios where games are trivial and we might as well compare lists and go home.
Sure an all tank army should be tough for some builds but it should be weak against a lot of things, such that one can reliably expect to have a tough time if they don't prepare to fight different types of lists.
I disagree. I think there's enough of a variety of lists that you don't always meet your hard counter. Like, for example, my armored regiment, which faces a rifleman horde and wins alot, or a melta-pod and loses alot, or a knight list and wins sometimes, or an air defense list and wins sometimes, or a heavy infantry list and wins sometimes.
Also, I'm not sure your and my definitions of fun agree.
I think fun is building and painting a beautiful army that you love to a theme you enjoy, and playing the heart out of it for better or worse. I think fun is seeing how well, when faced with a melta-pod list, my tanks can do, imagining the crew's startled reactions to the appearances of the pods, and the lumbering tanks' attempt to fight back and maneuver at close range. I think fun is an armored charge over an open plain at an ill-prepared set of infantry trenches, or a running gun duel with a renegade Knight House as knights and tanks scamper and trundle from ruin-to-ruin as cover. I think fun is an air defense regiment's scrambled attempts to depress its guns at the arrival of an equally surprised and disoriented armored column. I think fun is watching an enemy Warhound stroll across the battlefield as repeated thrusts from otherwise hapless tanks dent and scratch its hull, sacrificing friends and comrades to score a little bit more damage and maybe bring the beast down.
I certainly do not associate fun with winning or losing.
Davor wrote: Been reading way to many complaints and rants as of late. So this got me thinking. How do people want their 40K to be? A lot of the negativity I believe is because, 40K is not their vision.
So I am curious as to what people want 40K to be. How do you want it to be played? What kind of rules do you want?
My big wishes:
1: Balanced, first of all. By which I mean that my skill at the game should matter more than what army I plonked down, and there should never be a case where I could take X, but Y does everything they can do, only better. Skew lists (all armour, all infantry) will of course, represent a risk of over-specialising, but if you take a variety of stuff, then the chances of a "why did I show up?" game should be minimal. Yes, there's always going to be a best list, but selection should never matter more than skill and nobody should ever be censured or judged to be a bad person for their list being "too good". 40K is actually really unusual in that regard!
2: Clear rules, as distinct from balanced ones. People say 40K is friendlier than games with more precise rules, but does any of this strike you as friendly?
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/582966.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/582695.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/573543.page Seriously, GW has been operating with the same basic ruleset for over fifteen years now, and when you look at how other game systems have improved in fewer editions over less time, there isn't much defence of how shoddy and hole-ridden it still is. "Cheat on a 4+" is not a patch, and it's not, in my experience, the least bit unfriendly to expect the rules to actually answer rules questions. Rules-lawyering is only a problem when the rules are unclear.
3: The edition / codex cycle being fixed. The situation right now is a hot mess, and aggravates the last two problems. You can't have a good ruleset when the changes in editions shake up the needs of an army without addressing point cost for stuff that's more or less useful, nor does it help matters when an army can languish for multiple editions with no updates.
Elemental wrote: 1: Balanced, first of all. By which I mean that my skill at the game should matter more than what army I plonked down, and there should never be a case where I could take X, but Y does everything they can do, only better. Skew lists (all armour, all infantry) will of course, represent a risk of over-specialising, but if you take a variety of stuff, then the chances of a "why did I show up?" game should be minimal. Yes, there's always going to be a best list, but selection should never matter more than skill and nobody should ever be censured or judged to be a bad person for their list being "too good". 40K is actually really unusual in that regard!
I'd rather not be forced to take an unfluffy list with a variety of units in it, nor would I like to be forced to play a faction where it is fluffy to do so. And 40k may be unusual in that people socially scorn people who bring hard lists, but my experience with other games is that you get socially scorned for not bringing a hard list (both Warmahordes and Star Trek: Attack Wing come to mind).
2: Clear rules, as distinct from balanced ones. People say 40K is friendlier than games with more precise rules, but does any of this strike you as friendly?
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/582966.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/582695.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/573543.page Seriously, GW has been operating with the same basic ruleset for over fifteen years now, and when you look at how other game systems have improved in fewer editions over less time, there isn't much defence of how shoddy and hole-ridden it still is. "Cheat on a 4+" is not a patch, and it's not, in my experience, the least bit unfriendly to expect the rules to actually answer rules questions. Rules-lawyering is only a problem when the rules are unclear.
While certainly valid, I cringe at the use of internet forum threads as evidence for friendliness or unfriendliness. I have never encountered any vehemence to the level displayed in those threads in real life. And I think this could be also part of the community's problems - in part. Again, I do wish to emphasize that the rules could certainly be clearer.
3: The edition / codex cycle being fixed. The situation right now is a hot mess, and aggravates the last two problems. You can't have a good ruleset when the changes in editions shake up the needs of an army without addressing point cost for stuff that's more or less useful, nor does it help matters when an army can languish for multiple editions with no updates.
I agree, although there is a practical limit to the rate at which new material can be released.
Breng77 wrote: Except that does not make a fun game. Lol...I brought a hard counter guess you lose...is not fun. A game where one army is largely impotent against another is not a fun game. I lost horribly and thats how it should be is a bad game, because it leads to scenarios where games are trivial and we might as well compare lists and go home.
Sure an all tank army should be tough for some builds but it should be weak against a lot of things, such that one can reliably expect to have a tough time if they don't prepare to fight different types of lists.
I disagree. I think there's enough of a variety of lists that you don't always meet your hard counter. Like, for example, my armored regiment, which faces a rifleman horde and wins alot, or a melta-pod and loses alot, or a knight list and wins sometimes, or an air defense list and wins sometimes, or a heavy infantry list and wins sometimes.
Also, I'm not sure your and my definitions of fun agree.
I think fun is building and painting a beautiful army that you love to a theme you enjoy, and playing the heart out of it for better or worse. I think fun is seeing how well, when faced with a melta-pod list, my tanks can do, imagining the crew's startled reactions to the appearances of the pods, and the lumbering tanks' attempt to fight back and maneuver at close range. I think fun is an armored charge over an open plain at an ill-prepared set of infantry trenches, or a running gun duel with a renegade Knight House as knights and tanks scamper and trundle from ruin-to-ruin as cover. I think fun is an air defense regiment's scrambled attempts to depress its guns at the arrival of an equally surprised and disoriented armored column. I think fun is watching an enemy Warhound stroll across the battlefield as repeated thrusts from otherwise hapless tanks dent and scratch its hull, sacrificing friends and comrades to score a little bit more damage and maybe bring the beast down.
I certainly do not associate fun with winning or losing.
I don't associate fun with winning or losing either...I associate fun with games where I have a chance to win or lose. A game where I get smashed or smash my opponent typically are not fun. I'm glad that you have a narative in your head that makes anything fun for you. But I don't see how the rules will impact that at all. If your tank army is answerable by most other reasonable built list I don't see how that impacts your narative....which makes it sound like you want match-ups where your opponent is fairly helpless against your army, rather than needing to work to win the game because you both have a chance.
That is what I enjoy (in fact most of my favorite games have been losses), close, tight games, where both players have some ability to impact the outcome of the game. What I don't enjoy is LOL...I brought 3 landraiders and you only have auto-cannons....I guess you lose, because you cannot hurt me.
Not things like this will still exist....what I want to go away is I play Tau, and you play Orks I guess you lose.
Breng77 wrote: Except that does not make a fun game. Lol...I brought a hard counter guess you lose...is not fun. A game where one army is largely impotent against another is not a fun game. I lost horribly and thats how it should be is a bad game, because it leads to scenarios where games are trivial and we might as well compare lists and go home.
Sure an all tank army should be tough for some builds but it should be weak against a lot of things, such that one can reliably expect to have a tough time if they don't prepare to fight different types of lists.
I disagree. I think there's enough of a variety of lists that you don't always meet your hard counter. Like, for example, my armored regiment, which faces a rifleman horde and wins alot, or a melta-pod and loses alot, or a knight list and wins sometimes, or an air defense list and wins sometimes, or a heavy infantry list and wins sometimes.
Also, I'm not sure your and my definitions of fun agree.
I think fun is building and painting a beautiful army that you love to a theme you enjoy, and playing the heart out of it for better or worse. I think fun is seeing how well, when faced with a melta-pod list, my tanks can do, imagining the crew's startled reactions to the appearances of the pods, and the lumbering tanks' attempt to fight back and maneuver at close range. I think fun is an armored charge over an open plain at an ill-prepared set of infantry trenches, or a running gun duel with a renegade Knight House as knights and tanks scamper and trundle from ruin-to-ruin as cover. I think fun is an air defense regiment's scrambled attempts to depress its guns at the arrival of an equally surprised and disoriented armored column. I think fun is watching an enemy Warhound stroll across the battlefield as repeated thrusts from otherwise hapless tanks dent and scratch its hull, sacrificing friends and comrades to score a little bit more damage and maybe bring the beast down.
I certainly do not associate fun with winning or losing.
I don't associate fun with winning or losing either...I associate fun with games where I have a chance to win or lose. A game where I get smashed or smash my opponent typically are not fun. I'm glad that you have a narative in your head that makes anything fun for you. But I don't see how the rules will impact that at all. If your tank army is answerable by most other reasonable built list I don't see how that impacts your narative....which makes it sound like you want match-ups where your opponent is fairly helpless against your army, rather than needing to work to win the game because you both have a chance.
That is what I enjoy (in fact most of my favorite games have been losses), close, tight games, where both players have some ability to impact the outcome of the game. What I don't enjoy is LOL...I brought 3 landraiders and you only have auto-cannons....I guess you lose, because you cannot hurt me.
Not things like this will still exist....what I want to go away is I play Tau, and you play Orks I guess you lose.
Yes, but options will necessarily have to be removed.
For example, either you remove Land Raiders or you remove Autocannons (or turn them into copies of some other weapon, which is basically removing them), or there will always be a fight where 3 Land Raiders will crush someone who only brought autocannons.
There will never be a TAC list who can take on my Armored Battlegroup, so your options are to remove my armored battlegroup (with which I think you will understand if I disagree) or accept that there will be an imbalance (either for the ABG in some games, or against it in others).
As for the Tau - Ork dichotomy, I blame that partly on an edition disparity and partly on a ruleset which (rightly) emphasizes shooting over close combat.
Remember though, the idea of a TAC isn't something that you always use. In your case, if somebody knows that you play an armored battlegroup, they can adapt accordingly. What we are saying is that you should be able to bring a TAC list in most circumstance and not be outclassed to the point of basically auto-losing just because of what you picked.
Do you ALWAYS take an Armored Battlegroup, or do you tailor your list? For example, if you show up a tournament (and if you don't play tournaments, let's pretend you do), do you bring a balanced army that can face all possibilities, or do you show up with whatever you want? What most of us are arguing is that bringing a balanced list should work the majority of the time - sure you might run into fringe cases (your Armored Battlegroup being a good example) where a balanced army is at a disadvantage, but if you always play an armored battlegroup then an opponent shouldn't bring a TAC army in the first place - that doesn't mean that armies can't have all their choices balanced, just that against your army a lot of heavy weaponry is better than small arms fire, and that's perfectly fine.
In short, balanced rules would help the common scenario of not having a regular opponent/group of opponents and having all units be viable; there might always be fringe cases but those should be the exception.
WayneTheGame wrote: Remember though, the idea of a TAC isn't something that you always use. In your case, if somebody knows that you play an armored battlegroup, they can adapt accordingly. What we are saying is that you should be able to bring a TAC list in most circumstance and not be outclassed to the point of basically auto-losing just because of what you picked.
Do you ALWAYS take an Armored Battlegroup, or do you tailor your list? For example, if you show up a tournament (and if you don't play tournaments, let's pretend you do), do you bring a balanced army that can face all possibilities, or do you show up with whatever you want? What most of us are arguing is that bringing a balanced list should work the majority of the time - sure you might run into fringe cases (your Armored Battlegroup being a good example) where a balanced army is at a disadvantage, but if you always play an armored battlegroup then an opponent shouldn't bring a TAC army in the first place - that doesn't mean that armies can't have all their choices balanced, just that against your army a lot of heavy weaponry is better than small arms fire, and that's perfectly fine.
In short, balanced rules would help the common scenario of not having a regular opponent/group of opponents and having all units be viable; there might always be fringe cases but those should be the exception.
Yes, I do always bring an armored battlegroup - the same 1700 points. The last 300 sometimes changes, but the first 10 tanks in the company I consider mandatory.
So what you're saying, then, is that some imbalance is unacceptable, and but some is ok. Where do you draw the line? Because I also agree - I think that if there is one army that unequivocally crushes every single army it could ever fight ever, then that is bad. But I have not heard of an army that can do that. So if we just draw the line in different places, then it is subjective. And if it is subjective, then neither one of us is correct.
Breng77 wrote: Except that does not make a fun game. Lol...I brought a hard counter guess you lose...is not fun. A game where one army is largely impotent against another is not a fun game. I lost horribly and thats how it should be is a bad game, because it leads to scenarios where games are trivial and we might as well compare lists and go home.
Sure an all tank army should be tough for some builds but it should be weak against a lot of things, such that one can reliably expect to have a tough time if they don't prepare to fight different types of lists.
I disagree. I think there's enough of a variety of lists that you don't always meet your hard counter. Like, for example, my armored regiment, which faces a rifleman horde and wins alot, or a melta-pod and loses alot, or a knight list and wins sometimes, or an air defense list and wins sometimes, or a heavy infantry list and wins sometimes.
Also, I'm not sure your and my definitions of fun agree.
I think fun is building and painting a beautiful army that you love to a theme you enjoy, and playing the heart out of it for better or worse. I think fun is seeing how well, when faced with a melta-pod list, my tanks can do, imagining the crew's startled reactions to the appearances of the pods, and the lumbering tanks' attempt to fight back and maneuver at close range. I think fun is an armored charge over an open plain at an ill-prepared set of infantry trenches, or a running gun duel with a renegade Knight House as knights and tanks scamper and trundle from ruin-to-ruin as cover. I think fun is an air defense regiment's scrambled attempts to depress its guns at the arrival of an equally surprised and disoriented armored column. I think fun is watching an enemy Warhound stroll across the battlefield as repeated thrusts from otherwise hapless tanks dent and scratch its hull, sacrificing friends and comrades to score a little bit more damage and maybe bring the beast down.
I certainly do not associate fun with winning or losing.
I don't associate fun with winning or losing either...I associate fun with games where I have a chance to win or lose. A game where I get smashed or smash my opponent typically are not fun. I'm glad that you have a narative in your head that makes anything fun for you. But I don't see how the rules will impact that at all. If your tank army is answerable by most other reasonable built list I don't see how that impacts your narative....which makes it sound like you want match-ups where your opponent is fairly helpless against your army, rather than needing to work to win the game because you both have a chance.
That is what I enjoy (in fact most of my favorite games have been losses), close, tight games, where both players have some ability to impact the outcome of the game. What I don't enjoy is LOL...I brought 3 landraiders and you only have auto-cannons....I guess you lose, because you cannot hurt me.
Not things like this will still exist....what I want to go away is I play Tau, and you play Orks I guess you lose.
Yes, but options will necessarily have to be removed.
For example, either you remove Land Raiders or you remove Autocannons (or turn them into copies of some other weapon, which is basically removing them), or there will always be a fight where 3 Land Raiders will crush someone who only brought autocannons.
There will never be a TAC list who can take on my Armored Battlegroup, so your options are to remove my armored battlegroup (with which I think you will understand if I disagree) or accept that there will be an imbalance (either for the ABG in some games, or against it in others).
As for the Tau - Ork dichotomy, I blame that partly on an edition disparity and partly on a ruleset which (rightly) emphasizes shooting over close combat.
Not true at all actually I can think of several TAC lists that would do ok against Armored battle Group (mine for example). I also don't agree in the right of emphasizing shooting in a Science Fantasy Game where entire armies are based around close combat. Beyond that though, I don't need to remove your Armored battle Group or land raiders, just tweak them slightly so that a reasonable list can deal with them (not an all autocannon list, people can always make bad lists.), but a 3 Landraider lists against a TAC list that has say 5-10 anti-av 14 weapons is not such a one sided beating same with your Armored battle group. Perhaps drop Leman russ armor (if you allow entire armies to be composed of them, which the standard IG codex does not and as such presents no such issue but that is a separate issue), to 13-12-10 and give them 4 Hull points. Still good, still generally require specialized weaponry, still durable, but now most units can hurt them in the rear, or in Close combat. Most anti-tank weaponry has a chance in the front armor, and S6+ can glance side armor.
So you can still run your list...I have not taken it away, removed it or anything, just made it something reasonable armies can contend with.
Will it be tough for some armies to face a ton of AV 13 sure...but doable or almost all, with reasonably balanced lists.
Breng77 wrote: Not true at all actually I can think of several TAC lists that would do ok against Armored battle Group (mine for example). I also don't agree in the right of emphasizing shooting in a Science Fantasy Game where entire armies are based around close combat. Beyond that though, I don't need to remove your Armored battle Group or land raiders, just tweak them slightly so that a reasonable list can deal with them (not an all autocannon list, people can always make bad lists.), but a 3 Landraider lists against a TAC list that has say 5-10 anti-av 14 weapons is not such a one sided beating same with your Armored battle group. Perhaps drop Leman russ armor (if you allow entire armies to be composed of them, which the standard IG codex does not and as such presents no such issue but that is a separate issue), to 13-12-10 and give them 4 Hull points. Still good, still generally require specialized weaponry, still durable, but now most units can hurt them in the rear, or in Close combat. Most anti-tank weaponry has a chance in the front armor, and S6+ can glance side armor.
So you can still run your list...I have not taken it away, removed it or anything, just made it something reasonable armies can contend with.
Will it be tough for some armies to face a ton of AV 13 sure...but doable or almost all, with reasonably balanced lists.
I haven't run into a TAC list yet that doesn't have trouble against my ABG. 5-10 AT weapons aren't nearly enough, not with the firepower I can output - I usually can silence 5 AT guns in 1 turn and 10 in 2. And we can disagree about the background all we want, but I am more readily able to forge a narrative in which guns are better than swords than one in which they even approach parity.
And now you're removing options. 13-12-10 with an identical weapon loadout is basically a Malcador heavy tank. Why would you force me to run an army of Malcadors if I want to run an army of Leman Russ tanks? So yes, you have removed an option - my ability to use anything other than Malcadors as my armored company.
As an aside, Armored Battlegroup is an army legal in standard 40k, so I think your remark about the IG codex is rather irrelevant.
EDIT: Also, you've turned the Leman Russ into what amounts to a Hammerhead. There are already tanks with statlines lower than the Leman Russ, so lowering its stats just basically makes it into a different-model-copy of said unit. Why are you taking the option to run heavily armored main battle tanks in a company away from me? Especially if you're just turning them into clones of Xenos tanks that don't hover.
In effect I'm saying that each Codex, and the game as a whole, should have some sort of balance to where all of the units can be used in some capacity, either by themselves, with one or more additional units, or in a particular themed army.
That means that there are some fringe cases where someone picks units that don't work well together, or don't work well against a certain type of army (e.g. your ABG - someone with no heavy weapons is going to have a bad time, and nothing can be done about that, but such a scenario should also be fairly uncommon) but in most cases there should never be a unit that screams "There's no reason to take me" like we currently have.
I don't specifically remember what's in an ABG (it was "Armored Company" back in my day) but what I'm arguing against is let's imagine a hypothetical Leman Russ variant that fits no real purpose - the Vanquisher is better at anti-tank, the Exterminator is better at anti-infantry, and the regular version is better for general purpose use. This hypothetical Leman Russ variant should not exist in a balanced game, since it doesn't serve a purpose beyond aesthetics; there is literally no reason to field it other than looks. My argument is there are a lot of units in codexes that are like this hypothetical tank, and that's the problem. Whether or not you would field it, this tank doesn't belong because it has no purpose - other tanks are better at a particular role, so there's no real reason to take it over another option, and since it's weaker than the other options at it's given role, you actually hinder yourself by choosing to take it.
Now let's look at the other Leman Russ variants, that each serve a purpose. based on either other units (e.g. if you have a lot of heavy weapons, you might not need a Vanquisher, but an Exterminatior or one of the other variants might fill a gap), or by itself (the standard Russ is always a good choice if you are well-rounded), or for a themed force (e.g. a particular regiment that might field a certain variant that's produced on their homeworld).
That's basically what I'm saying. There has to always be fringe cases, so of course an army of small arms isn't going to deal with an armored company, but there also shouldn't be any "Why would I ever take this?" choices, of which there are a lot right now in various codexes.
And if your statement that no TAC list can handle yours then it is broken and should be fixed...period.
My point was more to the fact that the Leman Russ as designed was not intended to be used to make up your whole army. FW decided that it would be ok, but the orignial rules were not written for that to be the case.
My question to you is why do you need to run AV 14-13-10/11 tanks across the boad. What is your reason.
If it is because LOL you cannot hurt me LOL I win LOL...Then sorry bad attitude.
If it is because you like the models, and the general rules (Heavy tank, lumbering behemoth etc.) it should make no difference if the AV drop 1 point per facing to balance them and make more armies capable of competing with them. I also gave you 4 HP do the other tanks you mentioned have 4 HP? No ok then not cloning right...do they have heavy bolter/plasma sponsons, lascannons/multi-melta/Heavy Bolters, and Various turrets?
Oh the xenos tanks don't? oh ok then so not the same right....oh and can xenos take whole armies of their tanks...No? well ok so you are still different.
Also background has nothing to do with shooting/CC balance, when armies are designed as CC armies, they should not be relegated to be summarily weaker than shooting armies...its bad game design realism or not. If you want shooting to rule...all armies need to shoot about equally well....or the game is a bad game.
Breng77 wrote: Also background has nothing to do with shooting/CC balance, when armies are designed as CC armies, they should not be relegated to be summarily weaker than shooting armies...its bad game design realism or not. If you want shooting to rule...all armies need to shoot about equally well....or the game is a bad game.
Not even so much that, but in a game that has an emphasis on shooting, then all armies should shoot equally well or the armies that don't need to have a way to mitigate the shooting so they can get into melee (in that regard they still end up balanced, because they are better at melee than the shooty army and this is balanced by them being less shooty). What is NOT balance though is an shooty meta that has an army that can't shoot much and has no easy way of getting into melee, as this is one-sided (and the flip side is equally one-sided if the CC army gets into melee and wipes out the shooty army, see 3rd edition Tau).
In effect there should be no such thing as a "shooty meta", or the "CC meta" of prior editions. Both should be viable tactics. A balanced game would let you choose if you want to do a shooty army, or a "Rhino Rush" army, or anything in between and within reason be successful against any other army, instead of make the rules lend itself towards shooting and therefore all but invalidate close combat armies as a consequence. That's the epitome of poor design, since these things shouldn't be mutually exclusive. Tau vs. Khorne Berzerkers should come down to tactical acumen (and a bit of luck), not favor the shooter (current) or favor the assaulter (3rd) and make it a game of rock paper scissors.
WayneTheGame wrote:In effect I'm saying that each Codex, and the game as a whole, should have some sort of balance to where all of the units can be used in some capacity, either by themselves, with one or more additional units, or in a particular themed army.
And you think this can be achieved without removing any options at all? Not a single one?
WayneTheGame wrote: That means that there are some fringe cases where someone picks units that don't work well together, or don't work well against a certain type of army (e.g. your ABG - someone with no heavy weapons is going to have a bad time, and nothing can be done about that, but such a scenario should also be fairly uncommon) but in most cases there should never be a unit that screams "There's no reason to take me" like we currently have.
Why shouldn't there be? If people want to take that unit, they should, regardless of whether or not it wins them the game or loses them the game. If they like the unit, they'll have fun playing it.
WayneTheGame wrote: I don't specifically remember what's in an ABG (it was "Armored Company" back in my day) but what I'm arguing against is let's imagine a hypothetical Leman Russ variant that fits no real purpose - the Vanquisher is better at anti-tank, the Exterminator is better at anti-infantry, and the regular version is better for general purpose use. This hypothetical Leman Russ variant should not exist in a balanced game, since it doesn't serve a purpose beyond aesthetics; there is literally no reason to field it other than looks. My argument is there are a lot of units in codexes that are like this hypothetical tank, and that's the problem. Whether or not you would field it, this tank doesn't belong because it has no purpose - other tanks are better at a particular role, so there's no real reason to take it over another option, and since it's weaker than the other options at it's given role, you actually hinder yourself by choosing to take it.
There is a reason to take it over other options. Maybe you like the look of it? Or maybe you think something is conceptually really cool about it (like it has some fluff behind how it's weapon works or something and that appeals to you). Why would you remove this from those two types of people?
WayneTheGame wrote: Now let's look at the other Leman Russ variants, that each serve a purpose. based on either other units (e.g. if you have a lot of heavy weapons, you might not need a Vanquisher, but an Exterminatior or one of the other variants might fill a gap), or by itself (the standard Russ is always a good choice if you are well-rounded), or for a themed force (e.g. a particular regiment that might field a certain variant that's produced on their homeworld).
Well, the Eradicator doesn't really serve a purpose. A regular Russ can accomplish the same task for 10 points cheaper (this is literally true). However, I have a friend who runs several Eradicators because he likes the models (the stubby muzzle-brake) and likes that their fluff is that they have subatomic charges as their shells.
WayneTheGame wrote: That's basically what I'm saying. There has to always be fringe cases, so of course an army of small arms isn't going to deal with an armored company, but there also shouldn't be any "Why would I ever take this?" choices, of which there are a lot right now in various codexes.
Except that there is no bad thing about having those options. You shouldn't take them away, and they're fine where they are - people will take them if they want to, and they won't if they don't.
Breng77 wrote:Ummm....since when is AV 13 not heavily armored?
Since Armor 14 and 15 is a thing. Between 10 and 15, 13 is moderately well armored.
Breng77 wrote:And if your statement that no TAC list can handle yours then it is broken and should be fixed...period.
Why?
Breng77 wrote:My point was more to the fact that the Leman Russ as designed was not intended to be used to make up your whole army. FW decided that it would be ok, but the orignial rules were not written for that to be the case.
Perhaps. But it is that way now, and saying that the game 'wasn't intended' to operate a certain way implies that you know the intents of the authors. I doubt it.
Breng77 wrote:My question to you is why do you need to run AV 14-13-10/11 tanks across the boad. What is your reason.
If it is because LOL you cannot hurt me LOL I win LOL...Then sorry bad attitude.
If it is because you like the models, and the general rules (Heavy tank, lumbering behemoth etc.) it should make no difference if the AV drop 1 point per facing to balance them and make more armies capable of competing with them. I also gave you 4 HP do the other tanks you mentioned have 4 HP? No ok then not cloning right...do they have heavy bolter/plasma sponsons, lascannons/multi-melta/Heavy Bolters, and Various turrets?
The reason I want to play an IG tank company in 40k is I would like to run a tank company of the best tanks I can field. The Leman Russ is the best tank I can field, and also is the only one that can be fielded in my list. Additionally, the Malcador does all of that, and has 6 hull points. It also has a twin-lascannon turret, a five-heavy-bolter turret, with the option of mounting a hull demolisher in addition to the other options.
Turning a Leman Russ into a Predator with a Battlecannon is exactly the kind of samey-ness I am talking about though. Why don't we just have three profiles: Infantry Carrier: 12/11/10, 12 transport capacity. Cannot carry terminators. Heavy Carrier: 13/13/13, 10 transport capacity. Plane: 11/11/11. Main Battle Tank: 13/12/10. Then just add weapons to taste. That sounds like the kind of game you would enjoy. Myself? I like having some MBTs that are 12/12/10 and others that are 14/14/14 and everything in between.
Breng77 wrote:Oh the xenos tanks don't? oh ok then so not the same right....oh and can xenos take whole armies of their tanks...No? well ok so you are still different.
But the tanks aren't different. You might as well just make a unit called "Heavy Tank" and give it to every army in the game in varying amounts. That's bland, imo, and uninteresting. But very similar to what you propose.
Breng77 wrote:Also background has nothing to do with shooting/CC balance, when armies are designed as CC armies, they should not be relegated to be summarily weaker than shooting armies...its bad game design realism or not. If you want shooting to rule...all armies need to shoot about equally well....or the game is a bad game.
I consider 40k's greatest strength to be its background, and so I think the game should yield to the fluff in cases of conflict. I can't find any armies that cannot take shooting units though, or that are even really that bad at shooting. And again, we disagree on what makes good game design. If I want to play a game that is well balanced, I pull out my Flames of War Russians. But I also like a game that is very narrative, and so I pull out my 40k when I am in that mood.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Except that there is no bad thing about having those options. You shouldn't take them away, and they're fine where they are - people will take them if they want to, and they won't if they don't.
But there is a bad thing - you're sacrificing effectiveness for looks. That's what needs to be fixed. There shouldn't be a situation where you ever think "I really like how Unit B looks, but it's not as good as Unit C and costs more - if I take Unit B I'll be at a disadvantage, but I don't like Unit C even though it'll help me win". It's not even about "winning" as it is about deliberately putting yourself at a disadvantage by picking a unit that is inferior; the fact one unit is inferior at all is a glaring flaw, and "but I like how it looks" is not a justification for that. The unit should fill a role, or not exist at all.
What I'm saying is that Unit B should have a role under certain circumstances whether that's a particular theme for your army or in tandem with other units in the codex, and the fault with the system is when you have Unit B that has no business being there other than looks. "This unit might suck but I like it" should never be words uttered in a game.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Except that there is no bad thing about having those options. You shouldn't take them away, and they're fine where they are - people will take them if they want to, and they won't if they don't.
But there is a bad thing - you're sacrificing effectiveness for looks. That's what needs to be fixed. There shouldn't be a situation where you ever think "I really like how Unit B looks, but it's not as good as Unit C and costs more - if I take Unit B I'll be at a disadvantage, but I don't like Unit C even though it'll help me win". It's not even about "winning" as it is about deliberately putting yourself at a disadvantage by picking a unit that is inferior; the fact one unit is inferior at all is a glaring flaw, and "but I like how it looks" is not a justification for that. The unit should fill a role, or not exist at all.
What I'm saying is that Unit B should have a role under certain circumstances whether that's a particular theme for your army or in tandem with other units in the codex, and the fault with the system is when you have Unit B that has no business being there other than looks. "This unit might suck but I like it" should never be words uttered in a game.
Sadly, I personally believe that will always be the case. I believe there will always be units like the Leman Russ Conqueror, Leman Russ Annihilator, or Leman Russ Eradicator whose roles are already covered, and whose function is basically a gimmick.
The Conqueror loses the Large Blast on its cannon, so its main gun is Str 8 AP3, small blast. But it also loses lumbering behemoth, so it can move 12" and go flat out. Almost no one takes this option except for looks. How would you fix it?
The Annihilator replaces the battle-cannon with a twin-linked lascannon. However, a Vanquisher with a co-axial stubber is the superior tank destroyer in every case. Almost no one takes this option except for looks, or perhaps a world that doesn't use projectile weapons. How would you fix it?
The Eradicator fires a sub-atomically charged shell that is Str 6 AP4, heavy 1, Large Blast that ignores cover rather than the standard battlecannon profile. However, the regular Leman Russ (at least in the Armored Battlegroup list) can buy infernus shells, which don't replace its battlecannon but do give it the option to fire a Str 6, AP4, ordnance 1, Large Blast that ignores cover. This option is also 10 points cheaper than the Eradicator. How would you fix it?
SO AV 15 is really not a thing, one Fortification in a supplement has it.. SO out of 10-14 13 is high.
As for why if your army always wins against all TAC lists, it is clearly unbalanced, and in need of fixing.
The Malcador is a regular tank or a super heavy? what's its points cost? I don't typically play with FW so I have no idea, but you also presumably cannot take it as a troop in your Armored company.
Really the tanks are not different? They move differently, have different weapons and different Hull point values, and only 2 Xenos tanks (both skimmers) have the same AV....again...how is this horrible sameness. It is not the AV 14 I have issue with it is the I can tanke AV 14 as troops and field an army that there is a realistic possibility armies cannot hurt without list tailoring...bad design. To me you need to balance units to the slot they can be fielded in having 3 or so AV 14 units is fine, having 15 is not so fine.
So you want to field the best tanks you can (and the only ones) changing the stats don't really change that if the whole game is rebalanced....
I don't propose everything be the same...I propose it all be balanced. Which is not what you want you want...oh I brought my tanks, do you have tons of anti-tank...no well lets wrap things up.
As for armies that cannot take shooting units sure there are none that can take no shooting units, but there are some where that is not the strength or focus of their army.
What Daemon list is super shooty....thats right none of them.
They have 1 shooting elite unit, 0 shooting fast attack units.1 shooting troop, 3 shooting heavy support units (2 function, and 1 is actually decent). Most of their shooting is psychic, which means it is highly unrealiable. It is also very poor for the points you pay for it.
So again....CC focused army...so if shooting should always be stronger Daemons might as well not exist.
Automatically Appended Next Post: As for the above fixes...change points cost to the Battle tank upgrade to make the other tank cheaper. Make the first tank ahve heavy 2 or 3 small blast. Give the middle one 2 twin linked lascannons, or something. Simply put you test...see what works and tweak.
Breng77 wrote: SO AV 15 is really not a thing, one Fortification in a supplement has it.. SO out of 10-14 13 is high.
More than one, and if it is only one, it still exists. Dismissing it out of hand seems like a cop-out.
Breng77 wrote: As for why if your army always wins against all TAC lists, it is clearly unbalanced, and in need of fixing.
Why is something unbalanced in need of fixing?
Breng77 wrote: The Malcador is a regular tank or a super heavy? what's its points cost? I don't typically play with FW so I have no idea, but you also presumably cannot take it as a troop in your Armored company.
It's a superheavy, and it's 235. And no, you can't.
Breng77 wrote: Really the tanks are not different? They move differently, have different weapons and different Hull point values, and only 2 Xenos tanks (both skimmers) have the same AV....again...how is this horrible sameness. It is not the AV 14 I have issue with it is the I can tanke AV 14 as troops and field an army that there is a realistic possibility armies cannot hurt without list tailoring...bad design. To me you need to balance units to the slot they can be fielded in having 3 or so AV 14 units is fine, having 15 is not so fine.
They really aren't that different. There is literally no difference between a Predator and the Russ you propose except one armor point and weapons. And skimmers aren't that different from tanks in 6th except for the jink save. And I disagree that it is bad design. I like the option. Stop taking the option away.
Breng77 wrote: So you want to field the best tanks you can (and the only ones) changing the stats don't really change that if the whole game is rebalanced....
It's not that I don't mind the stats changing as much as I mind sacrificing what makes the Leman Russ a unique tank on the altar of balance, as I do not enshrine balance as some godlike state to be achieved.
Breng77 wrote: I don't propose everything be the same...I propose it all be balanced. Which is not what you want you want...oh I brought my tanks, do you have tons of anti-tank...no well lets wrap things up.
Balanced often yields sameness. Even the single change you proposed basically gave every heavy tank in the game the same armor value. And it's not all roses for me either. Oh, I brought my tanks, and you brought drop-melta. Well, yes, so let's wrap things up. Except let's not. I enjoy the ensuing narrative. I enjoy the spectacle of frightened tankers trying to engage such a difficult enemy. I enjoy the narrative value in the enemy dropping anti-tank troops on a tank company and seeing how it would fare if it were under my command, even if defeat is an eventual certainty.
Breng77 wrote: As for armies that cannot take shooting units sure there are none that can take no shooting units, but there are some where that is not the strength or focus of their army.
Regrettable, but for all your ranting about daemons, I think they're one of the top 3 most complained about codexes for OP-ness right now, so I guess shooting can't be so overpowering that it stops those CC armies dead.
To answer your question, and keep in mind I haven't played 6th edition to know all the rules:
* Conqueror I think still fills a role in a mobile army (versus the gunline) since it can move faster (I think?)
* Annihilator and Eradicator I would probably remove, because they don't serve a purpose. I'm not sure how they are listed but they certainly shouldn't be units of their own (possibly upgrades to the standard chassis to allow for flavor).
The real question is whether taking one of those over the other actively hurts your chances of winning. The Eradicator, if what you said is correct about the Infernus Shells, is just worse overall so it would fall under my criteria for removal since taking it hurts you over taking the regular Russ with Infernus (it's more expensive and less effective). The Annihilator, without knowing how it or the Vanquisher actually play, is trickier because it might be nearly as good as the Vanq, in which case it can remain as an alternative, even if it's a little bit worse.
All units should have a purpose, and where there are multiple options each should be relatively equal with minor differences, so it comes down to personal preference.
Even if we consider that all three of the above tanks fill that role (all approximately equal and it boils down to preference), a lot of armies don't have that and have units that aren't even equal at the role they fulfill.
Breng77 wrote:Automatically Appended Next Post: As for the above fixes...change points cost to the Battle tank upgrade to make the other tank cheaper. Make the first tank ahve heavy 2 or 3 small blast. Give the middle one 2 twin linked lascannons, or something. Simply put you test...see what works and tweak.
1) That still wouldn't work - the Conqueror would then become a gakky Executioner, which has a Heavy 3 plasma cannon. 2) The middle one already has two lascannons, although only one is twin-linked. It's also 50 points cheaper than my vanquisher loadout. The vanquisher is still a better tank hunter.
Tweaks are bad if they cause sameness.
WayneTheGame wrote:Unit1126PLL:
To answer your question, and keep in mind I haven't played 6th edition to know all the rules:
* Conqueror I think still fills a role in a mobile army (versus the gunline) since it can move faster (I think?)
* Annihilator and Eradicator I would probably remove, because they don't serve a purpose. I'm not sure how they are listed but they certainly shouldn't be units of their own (possibly upgrades to the standard chassis to allow for flavor).
The real question is whether taking one of those over the other actively hurts your chances of winning. The Eradicator, if what you said is correct about the Infernus Shells, is just worse overall so it would fall under my criteria for removal since taking it hurts you over taking the regular Russ with Infernus (it's more expensive and less effective). The Annihilator, without knowing how it or the Vanquisher actually play, is trickier because it might be nearly as good as the Vanq, in which case it can remain as an alternative, even if it's a little bit worse.
All units should have a purpose, and where there are multiple options each should be relatively equal with minor differences, so it comes down to personal preference.
Even if we consider that all three of the above tanks fill that role (all approximately equal and it boils down to preference), a lot of armies don't have that and have units that aren't even equal at the role they fulfill.
Boom, there - you're removing options. I told you not to do that. I have a friend who loves the Eradicator, because of its looks and he likes the way the weapon works. Stop hurting his army by removing the only Leman Russ variant he finds personally appealing.
I never said daemons were bad I said they were bad at shooting and so this notion that shooting should always be superior to cc is a bad notion. I never stated that was currently the case (though daemons are complained about due to one broken combo, the two armies more complained about are both shooty).
as for the rest not all heavy tanks would be the same av we would provide heavier tanks for ig in the appropriate slot heavy support, but the leman Russ as a troop would be lessened to be more appropriate as a troop choice. And still a very durable, shooty tank. (Which has rules other tanks don't). A predator cannot shoot as many weapons, has fewer hull points and lower armor. Skimmers get junk and can move over other units, and have different guns.
As for the changes so if the conquered was for instance heavy 2 s 8 ap 3 ordinance, and could move 12" and fire...it would obviously be the same as a plasmacutioner.
Second turret would be 2 to-las cannons..and still have the other las cannon for 3 las cannons...
So much the same....
You just keep crying sameness, when it is obviously not at all...it comes across as don't tweak my stuff to balance the game even if it will still all be distinct.
Sometimes you have to remove options, that's what design is. If something doesn't fit, or doesn't work out, you don't keep it around because somebody somewhere might like it.
Breng77 wrote: I never said daemons were bad I said they were bad at shooting and so this notion that shooting should always be superior to cc is a bad notion. I never stated that was currently the case (though daemons are complained about due to one broken combo, the two armies more complained about are both shooty).
as for the rest not all heavy tanks would be the same av we would provide heavier tanks for ig in the appropriate slot heavy support, but the leman Russ as a troop would be lessened to be more appropriate as a troop choice. And still a very durable, shooty tank. (Which has rules other tanks don't). A predator cannot shoot as many weapons, has fewer hull points and lower armor. Skimmers get junk and can move over other units, and have different guns.
As for the changes so if the conquered was for instance heavy 2 s 8 ap 3 ordinance, and could move 12" and fire...it would obviously be the same as a plasmacutioner.
Second turret would be 2 to-las cannons..and still have the other las cannon for 3 las cannons...
So much the same....
You just keep crying sameness, when it is obviously not at all...it comes across as don't tweak my stuff to balance the game even if it will still all be distinct.
So why does the Russ need to be a different tank when it is a troop? It's still an IG tank. And i'd go from taking 10 Armored Battlegroup to 9 regular ones, then, because the regular ones are inexplicably better. There goes the option to play a pure Russ list, instead of a list that has "looks-like-a-russ-but-has-the-armor-of-a-predator."
You can't fire blast weapons and move 12". So it would move six and fire 2 Str 8 Ap3 blasts ... except the executioner fires 3, and moves 6 as well, and gains an AP while losing a strength.
So you'd give it two twin-linked lascannons, one regular lascannon, and 13-12-10 armor?
You know a predator has one twin-linked lascannon, two regular lascannons, and 13-11-10 armor, right? And is more expensive?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
WayneTheGame wrote: Sometimes you have to remove options, that's what design is. If something doesn't fit, or doesn't work out, you don't keep it around because somebody somewhere might like it.
But see, that's why I play 40k, for the options. If I was willing to sacrifice options on the altar of balance, then I would play Warmachine or something.
Because the 9 heavy support russes can only shoot 3 targets, and take up heavy slots?
But no we change all rushes and then release a new heavy ig tank for heavy support...not very difficult .
As for the rest...we are changing the rules for units so we'll go with it can move 12" and fire...
You know a predator can't take sponsons on top of this las cannons right? And has fewer hull points...and had a different Los (you have 2 turret lascannons, pred has 2 on sponsons).
Like I said though it's all a process maybe the Russ just goes to 13-13-10, or we teak the weapons another way.your solution of changing nothing because imbalance does not matter creates one sided games.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Again to me it just sounds like you like having invulnerability against most things in the game and don't want it to change.
Breng77 wrote: Because the 9 heavy support russes can only shoot 3 targets, and take up heavy slots?
But no we change all rushes and then release a new heavy ig tank for heavy support...not very difficult .
As for the rest...we are changing the rules for units so we'll go with it can move 12" and fire...
You know a predator can't take sponsons on top of this las cannons right? And has fewer hull points...and had a different Los (you have 2 turret lascannons, pred has 2 on sponsons).
Like I said though it's all a process maybe the Russ just goes to 13-13-10, or we teak the weapons another way.your solution of changing nothing because imbalance does not matter creates one sided games.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Again to me it just sounds like you like having invulnerability against most things in the game and don't want it to change.
Boy, you're quick to judge. You know how many games I've won with my armored company, right? Around here it's considered one of the weakest lists you can run (because it can't score).
But sure, if you want to revamp all of 40k, be my guest. But look at the trouble you've had just balancing one list. I can't wait to see what you come up with, but I guarantee you will have been compelled to do either or both of the following:
1) Remove options.
2) Make many things so similar that you may as well have removed them and put a single thing to replace them.
That a on perspective...I doubt I would do either of those things, but I'm not going to waste my time...and I would not say I'm having trouble given the 5 min I've spent on it.
The endless saga of fluff vs mathematics continues...
I can't understand how anyone thinks it is okay for a game to be unfair. Why does 40K get a pass on being blatantly unfair? Because they have lots of options? Really?
Chess, no options, balanced (Though watch out for that OP white always getting first turn and all the debate that comes along with it, wow)
40k, options out the whazoo, needs personal balance touches for your own group.
I prefer my 40k like 40k, not chess, not that I don't love chess, it just needs more Lictors...
It's a game best played with a pre existing group that can arrange games ahead of time played where the list building is loose and light and letting what happens on the table decide the victor. As a result that's what our group built, together, and i wouldn't trade it for the world. Unless 6.5/7 does something really cool we may never leave 6th...
You're seriously overestimating the difficulty of making interesting options that are still balanced.
Unit1126PLL wrote: The Conqueror loses the Large Blast on its cannon, so its main gun is Str 8 AP3, small blast. But it also loses lumbering behemoth, so it can move 12" and go flat out. Almost no one takes this option except for looks. How would you fix it?
Give it the old "lumbering behemoth" rule back so it can actually move 6" and still fire the main gun + coax gun at full BS. Alternatively, just remove it from the game and use the model as an alternate LRBT with a storm bolter upgrade. The Conqueror is a relic of 3rd/4th-edition rules, it has no purpose in 6th.
The Annihilator replaces the battle-cannon with a twin-linked lascannon. However, a Vanquisher with a co-axial stubber is the superior tank destroyer in every case. Almost no one takes this option except for looks, or perhaps a world that doesn't use projectile weapons. How would you fix it?
I wouldn't do anything, except maybe lower the cost a bit. The LR Annihilator is already cheaper than the other variants, and that's all it needs to be. It can be balanced with the LR Vanquisher if there's a serious debate over whether you should be willing to pay +X points for the Vanquisher's superior firepower.
The Eradicator fires a sub-atomically charged shell that is Str 6 AP4, heavy 1, Large Blast that ignores cover rather than the standard battlecannon profile. However, the regular Leman Russ (at least in the Armored Battlegroup list) can buy infernus shells, which don't replace its battlecannon but do give it the option to fire a Str 6, AP4, ordnance 1, Large Blast that ignores cover. This option is also 10 points cheaper than the Eradicator. How would you fix it?
I wouldn't do anything, because infernus shells are only available on command and commissar tanks, not regular LRBTs. A powerful upgrade that makes LRBTs "redundant" isn't a big deal if it's on a tank that is only available in limited numbers and only at the cost of wasting your precious BS 4 tanks on a blast weapon. The only relevant change here would be to make ABG troops tanks scoring, so you have the choice of a "superior" infernus shell LRBT that doesn't score, or a LR Eradicator that can't kill marines as well but can claim objectives.
I'd like some price slashes; they're making WAAAAAY to much profit a our expense. Make it as cheap as Wayland Games and then you get more new players, sort out the rulebook and some of the vets come back... sooooo much potential if they just realised it!
Unit1126PLL wrote: Except that there is no bad thing about having those options. You shouldn't take them away, and they're fine where they are - people will take them if they want to, and they won't if they don't.
Except there IS something bad. Needing to support redundant "options" adds to the bloated mess of rules and gets in the way of cleaning up the mess, which is the first step in making a better game. And it means that certain models, which many people might enjoy, have weak rules and so those people are constantly frustrated with the fact that they have to choose between winning games (or even having fun in their games) and playing with the model they want. A better version of 40k would probably have fewer options, but all of them would be interesting options that would appeal to more than just the "casual at all costs" masochists.
i dont think they will change anything, in fact they will probably just keep throwing more crap on top of the crap pile.
thinking about it, my theory is they want it to be everything to everyone. they want it so that no matter who you, you will find something that interests you.
space viking, space mongols, space vampires, space undead/Egyptians, space terminators as seen in the popular movie terminator and terminator 2 judgement day, space rambos, aliens as seen in the movie aliens, space crusaders, space elves, space drow, space knights, female space knights etc etc etc. they try to appeal to as wide an audience as possible. lets throw in artillery, lets throw in giant tanks, add giant robots, add all kinds of fliers, big battles, small battles, apoc, kill team etc etc etc.
theyre just trying to find that one small thing that will hook you in. and they seem to take the same approach to rules writing. throw in as much crap as possible. maybe in all the junk you will find something that interests you.
for older people we just see the heap of crap for what it really is. jack of all trades, master of none comes to mind. we want 40k to decide what it wants to be, which is the exact opposite of what they want. we want a game that picks what it's about and does it well. they would much rather try to do everything even if it means doing it poorly. little timmy doesnt really care after all, he's just happy that he found space vampires in power armour and the sales guy told him about this awesome game he gets to play with them. OMG so cool!!!!11
Okay, to answer the general idea of the thread and withholding my oppinion on various Leman Russ Versions:
I see my ideal 40k as a game between small skirmish games of 5-15 heads on each side and large battle games like apocalypse where whole battalions face each other.
40k should be a game between several platoons, a half-company per side, give or take. I'd love distinct factions with very little in the way of alliances. Things like Inquisition and LotD as allies to other imperial factions is ok, but not taudar, necrons+marines, orks + dark eldar or anything of that sort.
Furthermore, I'd love to see units that actually fit this "half-company" description. I agree that the occasional superheavy keeps the game fresh, but not omnipresent hordes of them, especially when speaking about really rare things such as knights.
And I'd love to have some semblance to actual ballance. Sure, some units may still be a little bit better than others, but I'd love to see every unit a viable choice for at least some job.
Peregrine wrote: You're seriously overestimating the difficulty of making interesting options that are still balanced.
And you are seriously underestimating it, perfect balance to remove "best" lists is incredibly difficult in a document as complex as a codex, doing it across a dozen that interact through allies is a logistical nightmare.
Peregrine wrote: And it means that certain models, which many people might enjoy, have weak rules and so those people are constantly frustrated with the fact that they have to choose between winning games (or even having fun in their games) and playing with the model they want. A better version of 40k would probably have fewer options, but all of them would be interesting options that would appeal to more than just the "casual at all costs" masochists.
So there are people who keep playing despite taking issues with all the games perceived problems and getting angry about it yet you are calling the people who make small in game group personal tweaks to add to their own enjoyment masochists? You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means
You have to understand *you* think 40k would be better with fewer options and no need for a group to self regulate but others think it's better with more options and the need to do a little self regulating. Neither is *better* it's what you'd prefer.
The writers of 40k seem to prefer the latter so trying to sculpt them to your will just wont work. Best bet is either forge your own version with your gaming group or find a game that better suits your vision.
It sucks that the game has perhaps for you gone to a place where you have lost interest but you are arguing with the sea that you think it would look better in purple, you can and should express the opinion but the sea is as likely to listen to you as GW
Actually most of us that want balance want the same options just more balanced...and it is really not that hard (and no one is I don't think claiming total balance, just better). GW just needs living rules. If something slips through that is too powerful...errata to fix it...if something is horribly underpowered, errata to fix it.
Breng77 wrote: Actually most of us that want balance want the same options just more balanced...and it is really not that hard (and no one is I don't think claiming total balance, just better). GW just needs living rules. If something slips through that is too powerful...errata to fix it...if something is horribly underpowered, errata to fix it.
Living rules are good and they would certainly help but it really is that hard, seriously, try it some time. Play 10 different people across varying board types, army types and "competitive" scales and watch units bounce around vastly in utility and power then try and suggest a points/rules shift based on what you saw. Closer is good, perfect is better, I just think that the level some people want is out of reach.
A little in house tweaking lets you enjoy the crazy a lot more
I'd like to see a more balanced approach to the races. The multiple writers showing such heavy favoritism and plot armor make some of the fluff downright foolish. I understand suspense of belief, but sometimes it gets a little off the wall when Space Marines are involved.
Like other systems where players can choose a faction and play, stop setting up one side as the 'Awesome' and the others as the 'Suck' in the writing. If one army gets a dramatic feat that shouldn't be possible, write the same kind of fluff for the other armies too. Not that hard.
Breng77 wrote: Actually most of us that want balance want the same options just more balanced...and it is really not that hard (and no one is I don't think claiming total balance, just better). GW just needs living rules. If something slips through that is too powerful...errata to fix it...if something is horribly underpowered, errata to fix it.
Living rules are good and they would certainly help but it really is that hard, seriously, try it some time. Play 10 different people across varying board types, army types and "competitive" scales and watch units bounce around vastly in utility and power then try and suggest a points/rules shift based on what you saw. Closer is good, perfect is better, I just think that the level some people want is out of reach.
A little in house tweaking lets you enjoy the crazy a lot more
But you can't go on the road with that. I might as well play a system I like better with a lot smaller player base if each little home group is going to have their own game. Having to negotiate lists and a dozen rules before EACH GAME is unacceptable to me. Am I supposed to tell the Eldar guy who wont' back off Serpent Spam that I just won't play him? What's the point of a community of players then?
Breng77 wrote: Actually most of us that want balance want the same options just more balanced...and it is really not that hard (and no one is I don't think claiming total balance, just better). GW just needs living rules. If something slips through that is too powerful...errata to fix it...if something is horribly underpowered, errata to fix it.
Living rules are good and they would certainly help but it really is that hard, seriously, try it some time. Play 10 different people across varying board types, army types and "competitive" scales and watch units bounce around vastly in utility and power then try and suggest a points/rules shift based on what you saw. Closer is good, perfect is better, I just think that the level some people want is out of reach.
A little in house tweaking lets you enjoy the crazy a lot more
But you can't go on the road with that. I might as well play a system I like better with a lot smaller player base if each little home group is going to have their own game. Having to negotiate lists and a dozen rules before EACH GAME is unacceptable to me. Am I supposed to tell the Eldar guy who wont' back off Serpent Spam that I just won't play him? What's the point of a community of players then?
How about you stop basing your idea of fun on whether or not you win at the game, then there's no reason to ask the Eldar player to back down from serpent spam?
Breng77 wrote: Actually most of us that want balance want the same options just more balanced...and it is really not that hard (and no one is I don't think claiming total balance, just better). GW just needs living rules. If something slips through that is too powerful...errata to fix it...if something is horribly underpowered, errata to fix it.
Living rules are good and they would certainly help but it really is that hard, seriously, try it some time. Play 10 different people across varying board types, army types and "competitive" scales and watch units bounce around vastly in utility and power then try and suggest a points/rules shift based on what you saw. Closer is good, perfect is better, I just think that the level some people want is out of reach.
A little in house tweaking lets you enjoy the crazy a lot more
But you can't go on the road with that. I might as well play a system I like better with a lot smaller player base if each little home group is going to have their own game. Having to negotiate lists and a dozen rules before EACH GAME is unacceptable to me. Am I supposed to tell the Eldar guy who wont' back off Serpent Spam that I just won't play him? What's the point of a community of players then?
How about you stop basing your idea of fun on whether or not you win at the game, then there's no reason to ask the Eldar player to back down from serpent spam?
Sorry but losing every game due to picking the "wrong army" isn't fun in any way, shape or form.
Breng77 wrote: Actually most of us that want balance want the same options just more balanced...and it is really not that hard (and no one is I don't think claiming total balance, just better). GW just needs living rules. If something slips through that is too powerful...errata to fix it...if something is horribly underpowered, errata to fix it.
Living rules are good and they would certainly help but it really is that hard, seriously, try it some time. Play 10 different people across varying board types, army types and "competitive" scales and watch units bounce around vastly in utility and power then try and suggest a points/rules shift based on what you saw. Closer is good, perfect is better, I just think that the level some people want is out of reach.
A little in house tweaking lets you enjoy the crazy a lot more
But, this is fine.
A unit or wargear choice that varies in effectiveness depending on opponent, scenario or table layout is not a problem. A choice that is always effective, regardless of scenario, opponent or table layout is what we are talking about. Even then, it isn't necessarily a problem if that unit or choice is costed appropriately, the problem arises when we have units that offer a high degree of utility and are also an efficient use of points. That happens a bit too often in 40K.
Slot is important as well. Take the Wave Serpent for example, swaps its rules with the falcon (i.e. make it a heavy support choice, probably keep the dedicated falcon with capacity 10 though, and swap WS to 5), and it is much less of a big deal. now you are capped at 3, and taking 3 means no wraithknights, or other Heavy Support units.
Same is true for say the Night Scythe if it is not dedicated, it is not a huge deal.
The other thing with living rules is that you are not looking at feed back from 10 people, you are looking at hundreds, and if 80% say x is OP or underpowered, then you tweak it.
Breng77 wrote: Actually most of us that want balance want the same options just more balanced...and it is really not that hard (and no one is I don't think claiming total balance, just better). GW just needs living rules. If something slips through that is too powerful...errata to fix it...if something is horribly underpowered, errata to fix it.
Living rules are good and they would certainly help but it really is that hard, seriously, try it some time. Play 10 different people across varying board types, army types and "competitive" scales and watch units bounce around vastly in utility and power then try and suggest a points/rules shift based on what you saw. Closer is good, perfect is better, I just think that the level some people want is out of reach.
A little in house tweaking lets you enjoy the crazy a lot more
But you can't go on the road with that. I might as well play a system I like better with a lot smaller player base if each little home group is going to have their own game. Having to negotiate lists and a dozen rules before EACH GAME is unacceptable to me. Am I supposed to tell the Eldar guy who wont' back off Serpent Spam that I just won't play him? What's the point of a community of players then?
How about you stop basing your idea of fun on whether or not you win at the game, then there's no reason to ask the Eldar player to back down from serpent spam?
Because playing a game with a predetermined outcome is not fun. Whether I win or lose.
kb305 wrote: i dont think they will change anything, in fact they will probably just keep throwing more crap on top of the crap pile.
thinking about it, my theory is they want it to be everything to everyone. they want it so that no matter who you, you will find something that interests you.
space viking, space mongols, space vampires, space undead/Egyptians, space terminators as seen in the popular movie terminator and terminator 2 judgement day, space rambos, aliens as seen in the movie aliens, space crusaders, space elves, space drow, space knights, female space knights etc etc etc. they try to appeal to as wide an audience as possible. lets throw in artillery, lets throw in giant tanks, add giant robots, add all kinds of fliers, big battles, small battles, apoc, kill team etc etc etc.
theyre just trying to find that one small thing that will hook you in. and they seem to take the same approach to rules writing. throw in as much crap as possible. maybe in all the junk you will find something that interests you.
for older people we just see the heap of crap for what it really is. jack of all trades, master of none comes to mind. we want 40k to decide what it wants to be, which is the exact opposite of what they want. we want a game that picks what it's about and does it well. they would much rather try to do everything even if it means doing it poorly. little timmy doesnt really care after all, he's just happy that he found space vampires in power armour and the sales guy told him about this awesome game he gets to play with them. OMG so cool!!!!11
for older people we just see the heap of crap for what it really is. jack of all trades, master of none comes to mind. we want 40k to decide what it wants to be, which is the exact opposite of what they want. we want a game that picks what it's about and does it well. they would much rather try to do everything even if it means doing it poorly. little timmy doesnt really care after all, he's just happy that he found space vampires in power armour and the sales guy told him about this awesome game he gets to play with them. OMG so cool!!!!11
Please don't assume that you speak for a section of the 40k community. Replace 'we' with 'I' and you've got it right.
I suppose I'm older at 34 and I think 40k is in the best state it's ever been in. I'm a big fan of allies, flyers, Escalation, Stronghold Assault, dataslates etc. etc. I've never had so much choice when it comes to list building. As I've stated before there are lots of options now for different types of games, and 40k is very clear about the type of game it wants to be.
I don't really care about balance, I play for fluff and because I like the models, so 40k is perfect for me. If I cared more about balance I would choose another option. If you think it's a heap of crap, maybe time to try one of those other options?
for older people we just see the heap of crap for what it really is. jack of all trades, master of none comes to mind. we want 40k to decide what it wants to be, which is the exact opposite of what they want. we want a game that picks what it's about and does it well. they would much rather try to do everything even if it means doing it poorly. little timmy doesnt really care after all, he's just happy that he found space vampires in power armour and the sales guy told him about this awesome game he gets to play with them. OMG so cool!!!!11
Please don't assume that you speak for a section of the 40k community. Replace 'we' with 'I' and you've got it right.
I suppose I'm older at 34 and I think 40k is in the best state it's ever been in. I'm a big fan of allies, flyers, Escalation, Stronghold Assault, dataslates etc. etc. I've never had so much choice when it comes to list building. As I've stated before there are lots of options now for different types of games, and 40k is very clear about the type of game it wants to be.
I don't really care about balance, I play for fluff and because I like the models, so 40k is perfect for me. If I cared more about balance I would choose another option. If you think it's a heap of crap, maybe time to try one of those other options?
Wow, way to come over self entitled. "I'm happy, so screw the rest of you, feth off and play something else!"
Suffice to say, my experiences here and in the real world suggest you're in a minority.
Oh, and if 40K was clear about the sort of game it wanted to be in the slightest, then it would play a lot better than it does currently.
IF GW plc was JUST writing the rules for you , and DID NOT include PV or F.O.C. then every one would be happy!
Because those that would like a war game suitable for pick up games without hours of negotiation would not play it!
But while GW plc give the illusion that 40k is suitable for random pick up and play games , then expect players to want the game to have enough clarity and balance to work in this way.
Like previous posters have said, 40k should pick what GAME it wants to be , then focus on being the best version of that it can be.
Currently the 40k rules and codex books are short term sales strategy that is failing..
When 6th ed came out it was beautiful. So much promise and the daemons, csm, and dark angel dexs were well written and well balanced. I would have liked tau, eldar, and their supplements to have followed suit. I would have liked fortifications for all armies.
What I really want is a new TO. GW doesnt sell those and mine burnt out.
Please don't assume that you speak for a section of the 40k community. Replace 'we' with 'I' and you've got it right.
I suppose I'm older at 34 and I think 40k is in the best state it's ever been in.
I don't really care about balance, I play for fluff and because I like the models, so 40k is perfect for me. If I cared more about balance I would choose another option. If you think it's a heap of crap, maybe time to try one of those other options?
And thus speaks the man who knows more about GW's market demographics than GW does. quote"GW doesn't cater for tournament players because they are such a small part of its market."
The vast majority of 40k gamers will never see a tournament and many find the idea of plying competitively off-putting.
.Please don't assume that you speak for a section of the 40k community.
for older people we just see the heap of crap for what it really is. jack of all trades, master of none comes to mind. we want 40k to decide what it wants to be, which is the exact opposite of what they want. we want a game that picks what it's about and does it well. they would much rather try to do everything even if it means doing it poorly. little timmy doesnt really care after all, he's just happy that he found space vampires in power armour and the sales guy told him about this awesome game he gets to play with them. OMG so cool!!!!11
Please don't assume that you speak for a section of the 40k community. Replace 'we' with 'I' and you've got it right.
I suppose I'm older at 34 and I think 40k is in the best state it's ever been in. I'm a big fan of allies, flyers, Escalation, Stronghold Assault, dataslates etc. etc. I've never had so much choice when it comes to list building. As I've stated before there are lots of options now for different types of games, and 40k is very clear about the type of game it wants to be.
I don't really care about balance, I play for fluff and because I like the models, so 40k is perfect for me. If I cared more about balance I would choose another option. If you think it's a heap of crap, maybe time to try one of those other options?
Wow, way to come over self entitled. "I'm happy, so screw the rest of you, feth off and play something else!"
Suffice to say, my experiences here and in the real world suggest you're in a minority.
Oh, and if 40K was clear about the sort of game it wanted to be in the slightest, then it would play a lot better than it does currently.
My experiences in the real world suggest you're in a minority. I game with a group of friends who have been into 40k since 1st or 2nd edition and they all agree that, while not perfect, this is the best rules set yet. However this is all anecdotal.
You've introduced so much hyperbole into my original post that it's almost not worth responding; however, I was not telling people to 'feth off' and play someting else', I was saying that there are lots of other options [which I'm sure we can all agree is a good thing]. If people are so clearly unhappy with one, perhaps it's time to try one of those other options. Or, just moan about how it doesn't fit their expectations on discussion forums dedicated to the game they are so unhappy with - whatever they find most constructive.
No hyperbole here, merely paraphrasing, if I've taken a different message from your post than the one you intended, then perhaps you haven't expressed it in quite the manner you desired?
Your experiences within an insular social group are, as are mine, subjective, but as I play regularly in a large club against people that range from long standing friends to almost total strangers, I'd argue my experiences are closer to an objective view of the game than yours.
azreal13 wrote: No hyperbole here, merely paraphrasing, if I've taken a different message from your post than the one you intended, then perhaps you haven't expressed it in quite the manner you desired?
Your experiences within an insular social group are, as are mine, subjective, but as I play regularly in a large club against people that range from long standing friends to almost total strangers, I'd argue my experiences are closer to an objective view of the game than yours.
Actually, I would contest this too. At my last club [in East London] it was virtually impossible to get a game of 40k. 'Games Workshop' was seen as a bad word, and club forums were full of vitriol against the evil of Kirby. The club chairman was a long time GW fanboy who finally snapped when a large part of his fully painted and magnetized Orcs and Goblins army was invalidated by the latest army book. Taking his lead, the vast majority of the club began to play Warmahorde, which effectively killed the 40k scene. Whenever someone tried to start up a 40 campaign there was a flurry of anti-GW posts from disaffected gamers. As I couldn't get a game, I left, and then ended up leaving London altogether.
Two doors up from me where I now live in Herts there is a wargaming group who play in the British Legion. The vast majority of games are 40k, or X-Wing, which is really big at the club. Unfortunately their chosen gaming time [Sundays] is really bad for me. However I never see anti-GW posts on their FB page or forum, and there is a thriving 40k community who seem very happy with the 6th edition ruleset.
My point is that there are lots of local and regional variances with the popularity of different games, so please don't assume your club is representative of the country as a whole.
Then clearly 40k isn't for you. There are lots of other options though. 40k lets me do what I want to do, which is play narrative games with the awesome models GW and FW make. If I wanted a tight, balanced game with very similar units on each side I would pick another option. You won't find me posting on Warmachine/Infinity threads about how the game should be more beer & pretzels though.
tyrannosaurus wrote: A few real stinkers? Have your read the codex? Problem with CSMs is that there are only a limited amount of competitive options, which is why you see so much Heldrake spam. There was a lot of criticism in 5th of cookie cutter lists [twin lash Daemon Princes springs to mind] but that was because there were very few viable options. And the 6th edition codex did nothing to improve this. My Emperor's Children have been sitting on the shelf collecting dust since the new dex dropped and I can't see that changing for a good few years. Plus the new models are horrible [aside from the cultists].
Emphasis mine.
Just curious how you reconcile these two statements, or are you, just, as it appears on first look, a massive Internet contrarian and hypocrite?
I want my 40k to be written and tested with as much love and attention to detail as we put into painting our armies, so we don't have so many bitterly disappointed players. If this weren't possible, games like Infinity wouldn't exist.
Then clearly 40k isn't for you. There are lots of other options though. 40k lets me do what I want to do, which is play narrative games with the awesome models GW and FW make. If I wanted a tight, balanced game with very similar units on each side I would pick another option. You won't find me posting on Warmachine/Infinity threads about how the game should be more beer & pretzels though.
tyrannosaurus wrote: A few real stinkers? Have your read the codex? Problem with CSMs is that there are only a limited amount of competitive options, which is why you see so much Heldrake spam. There was a lot of criticism in 5th of cookie cutter lists [twin lash Daemon Princes springs to mind] but that was because there were very few viable options. And the 6th edition codex did nothing to improve this. My Emperor's Children have been sitting on the shelf collecting dust since the new dex dropped and I can't see that changing for a good few years. Plus the new models are horrible [aside from the cultists].
Emphasis mine.
Just curious how you reconcile these two statements, or are you, just, as it appears on first look, a massive Internet contrarian and hypocrite?
Good to see you find my posts so interesting that you track them over multiple threads. I was very disappointed by the CSM dex and model releases so rather than bemoaning the fact, I instead began to collect Sisters of Battle. I love the models [Repentia are probably my favourite all time GW sculpts, despite being terrible in game] and the Inquisition dex allowed me to take really interesting and varied alternatives. CSMs didn't work out for me, so I chose an alternative.
My criticism of CSMs is based upon fluff/narrative reasons. I always hated taking obliterators but there were no other viable options. I still ran my NM in units of 6, despite this being a big self gimp. I was really hoping for more options in the latest dex but this did not happen. You may also note while trawling through my posts that I'm not a fan of the Crimson Slaughter dex as I feel that many more factions were more deserving of support. Not being happy with the current state of CSMs is not the same as an attack on 40k in general.
Rather than posting on forums about how much I disliked the new codex I instead changed my army. I was drawn into this discussion on the merits of the latest CSM dex as I felt I had something to contribute to the discussion, but in future I will ensure that all of my numerous posts do not contradict each other in the slightest.
Juicifer wrote: I want my 40k to be written and tested with as much love and attention to detail as we put into painting our armies, so we don't have so many bitterly disappointed players. If this weren't possible, games like Infinity wouldn't exist.
Maybe.
Tried Infinity and hated it.
I want my 40K to be different to Infinity, cause Infinity sucks donkey-balls (in my personal, biased opinion... if you like it... have fun with it).
Then clearly 40k isn't for you. There are lots of other options though. 40k lets me do what I want to do, which is play narrative games with the awesome models GW and FW make. If I wanted a tight, balanced game with very similar units on each side I would pick another option. You won't find me posting on Warmachine/Infinity threads about how the game should be more beer & pretzels though.
tyrannosaurus wrote: A few real stinkers? Have your read the codex? Problem with CSMs is that there are only a limited amount of competitive options, which is why you see so much Heldrake spam. There was a lot of criticism in 5th of cookie cutter lists [twin lash Daemon Princes springs to mind] but that was because there were very few viable options. And the 6th edition codex did nothing to improve this. My Emperor's Children have been sitting on the shelf collecting dust since the new dex dropped and I can't see that changing for a good few years. Plus the new models are horrible [aside from the cultists].
Emphasis mine.
Just curious how you reconcile these two statements, or are you, just, as it appears on first look, a massive Internet contrarian and hypocrite?
Good to see you find my posts so interesting that you track them over multiple threads. I was very disappointed by the CSM dex and model releases so rather than bemoaning the fact, I instead began to collect Sisters of Battle. I love the models [Repentia are probably my favourite all time GW sculpts, despite being terrible in game] and the Inquisition dex allowed me to take really interesting and varied alternatives. CSMs didn't work out for me, so I chose an alternative.
Yeah, weird isn't it? It's almost like I read more than one thread concurrently, and retain some memory as to who has said what in recent history.
My criticism of CSMs is based upon fluff/narrative reasons. I always hated taking obliterators but there were no other viable options. I still ran my NM in units of 6, despite this being a big self gimp. I was really hoping for more options in the latest dex but this did not happen. You may also note while trawling through my posts that I'm not a fan of the Crimson Slaughter dex as I feel that many more factions were more deserving of support. Not being happy with the current state of CSMs is not the same as an attack on 40k in general.
Why are you concerned about viable options? Apparently you play fluffy, narrative driven games with your friends, surely you're not concerned with how "viable" a unit is, that's one of those words that us filthy pro-balance people use?
Rather than posting on forums about how much I disliked the new codex I instead changed my army. I was drawn into this discussion on the merits of the latest CSM dex as I felt I had something to contribute to the discussion, but in future I will ensure that all of my numerous posts do not contradict each other in the slightest.
So you rewarded GW for turning out a poor book with options that didn't allow you to fully express how you wanted your army to work with a bunch of cash for possibly the most expensive, direct only, army they make? Bravo, that'll learn them.
Why not use all this vaunted freedom you allegedly have within your inner circle of gaming friends and just house rule the CSM book to work more how you wanted? Or is that just a bunch of Internet nonsense too?
Going through this may just be a repeat for what has already been said but honestly as a casual player, I want a balanced set of rules that allow me to have a core army that I can use that are dependable with extras to take on a case by case basis. I hate having to constantly change up my list to stay in the running if I want to have a chance of winning. I don't need to win to have fun but when I build a fluffy but tactical army, I don't want those fluffy decisions to be such a big subtraction from my army. I like the thought of having cinematic fluffy battles like GW says that they keep pushing towards but sometimes I also just want to have a pick up game to enjoy a strategy game as well. I think that is the majority of players as well, they like fluff, they like strategy and I don't think it wouldn't be too hard to satisfy both, not this whole overly imbalanced game for the sake of "narrative" that we have now.
I want a balanced set of rules, not perfection, but an honest and continuous move from GW to provide decent internal and external balance with dexes, and between shooting and CC within the core rules.
That means GW caring about making a good game/product so that should imbalances occur (OP or underpowered units or rules that don't work properly/are poorly written) GW will actively move to make corrections in a timely manner. That means using errata to fix problems/poor rules writing/point costs, etc.
I want 40K to be a good game since it has such potential rather than the mess it is and has been.
But you can't go on the road with that. I might as well play a system I like better with a lot smaller player base if each little home group is going to have their own game. Having to negotiate lists and a dozen rules before EACH GAME is unacceptable to me. Am I supposed to tell the Eldar guy who wont' back off Serpent Spam that I just won't play him? What's the point of a community of players then?
No you can't, I agree and I just don't think 40k is that kind of game. Concessions would have to be made to bring that kind of balance and I don't think the design guys see it as worth it. There are as people have pointed in in various threads across the board some really good competitive rule systems out there that I think you might enjoy more.
As I have said previously and here echoed by Tyranno (even if it's meaning has been misconstrued) maybe that's the the way forward for you, A new system maybe funded by the sale of the old 40k army because however you enjoy playing 40k if you aren't enjoying it then why bother?
Alternatively *you* must adapt, start setting up games in advance where you can balance your lists, play games against lists similar in power to your own. You cannot move the mountain that is GW with anything but money (or the withholding of it) until then those are your options.
As we have agreed in previous threads the WS is too good and is the perfect storm of too good and too widely available.
Out of curiosity (They never would because money) if for example GW came out and said with the full backing of the company:
"Fielding 6 wave serpents and finding it OP? You are doing it wrong, you found a winning list now move on. 40k is meant to be played with more casual lists anything else is doing it wrong!"
What would be your response? With a confirmation would you abandon 40k or would it galvanize you to mod the rules yourself? I'm just curious not trying to irritate or provoke just to be clear.
As previously stated if GW plc do not want you to play pick up games, because 40k is NOT meant to be played other than in a mutually agree narrative game.
Then simply remove the PV and FoC from the codex books.
And that way GW plc would commit to a particular play style that the GW developers say they are designing for.
Other wise the codex books are purely a shirt term sales vehicle for new products with little consideration for the actual game play.
