Warhammer 40K is a tabletop wargame. The basic concept behind the game is that 2 opponents use their respective codex/allied codex to construct a fighting force. The purpose of a codex is to give point values to the units used on the tabletop. A unit’s cost should be a reflection of that unit’s durability, speed, offense, and special rules/abilities that ultimately contribute to winning the game. The agreement is that each player is allowed to bring the same number of points in an attempt to set up a battle in which both sides have equal resources. It is my opinion that Formations break this very basic agreement between players for several reasons:
Formations offer additional benefits/ rules with no change in points cost. Formations add new rules, open up access to more force org. slots, and can be easily shoe horned into armies without going through the usual ally restrictions. These are all things that benefit the player choosing to use a formation. If you (the player using a formation) are getting more benefits, you should be paying additional points for the units. A good example is the much hated Tau Firebase formation. For the exact same points cost as an equivalent group of units from Codex Tau Empire, this formation grants Tank Hunter, Monster Hunter and Proffered Enemy (Space Marines). This is supposedly off set by the fact that Space Marine units gain Hatred against them but anyone who has played 40k will tell you that if not a fair trade. This “downside” either does not apply because you’re not playing SM’s or you want to get swept any way so other units can shoot the SM’s. Against all other armies, this formation is gaining special rules AT NO ADDITIONAL COST. This breaks the social contract between players as by buying the formation all of a sudden the player gains access to more powerful units for the same cost. It is the definition of paying to win because you are buying better units for the same in-game points cost.
Formations and Dataslates are not equally distributed among the codicies. In a manor similar to Forgeworld IA books, these digital products target certain armies while leaving others out in the cold. How many underpowered codicies have gotten Formations and Dataslates to help bring them up to speed, very few? Some would point to the Nid and CSM Formations and Dataslates. I will grant that these do help these codexes, but we see nothing for Sisters of Battle, Dark Angels, Space Wolves, Blood Angels, Grey Knights, Dark Eldar, Orks, or IG. Why not? If you’re going to arbitrarily start making units in a codex better, it needs to be done across the board, and aimed at helping the weaker books compete because they are out of date, not aimed at making the newly released codexes better. Why give Daemons and CSM another auto-include like Bel’akor when whole codexes have few if any strong/ viable units? This just increases the power gap in 40k and we the community don’t seem to care.
Formations and Dataslates should be in the Codex. Look at the Video Game community and their constant fight against DLC content. GW is adopting the same sales model and we as a community are buying/falling for it. Formations and Dataslates for a Nid book that has been out less than 6 months… There is no reason those rules should not be in the actual codex. GW is shorting out on rules in order to keep us coming back for more. The only way to stop this trend it to STOP BUYING THEM. As long as we continue to buy these Formations and Dataslates GW will keep making them.
They are more than likely not playtested. I am not convinced that GW playtests anything at all but at the rate these new rules are coming out there is little doubt in my mind that they have not had time to playtest them even if they wanted to.
Formations could be a very good thing for the game if done correctly. They could be restricted to use within a Primary of Allied detachment which would restore some faith in the Force Org. Chart instead of simply handing them out all over the place. They need to have additional points costs that reflect the new rules offered in the formation. And should be used to increase the playability of codecies that at languishing in the middle of the development cycle. These things would breathe life back into old codexes and keep everyone excited and hopeful because everyone may get something new and cool. Instead what we have is a cheaply done, unplay-tested set of bad rules that if used make the good armies better and the bad armies worse by comparison.
Don’t buy/play Formations and Dataslates until GW handles these correctly please, or any Digital Product for that matter. The Inquisition “Codex” was criminal in it’s’ lack of original content while still costing full $30ish dollars. They could have literally created codex inquisition in an FAQ by saying, “Use the following units from Codex Inquisition and here are some warlord traits and relics…,”
kronk wrote: I would like to purchase dataslates in a printed form without waiting 2 years or forever.
That's the only problem I have with them - personally love the Pik 'n' Mix style of play, don't do tournaments so don't really care about that aspect - beer and nachos all the way
Was pretty sure formations had some point cost to them.
Apocolypse is meant to be pretty over the top so getting all upset over it is rather pointless: field a ton of models and sit back and smile... it is all good.
kronk wrote: I would like to purchase dataslates in a printed form without waiting 2 years or forever.
That's the only problem I have with them - personally love the Pik 'n' Mix style of play, don't do tournaments so don't really care about that aspect - beer and nachos all the way
The way 40k is ment to play if i wanted to play tournament competive based games id rather go for warmachine.
Talizvar wrote: Was pretty sure formations had some point cost to them.
Apocolypse is meant to be pretty over the top so getting all upset over it is rather pointless: field a ton of models and sit back and smile... it is all good.
The old apoc formations had a point cost to them. A lot of the new formations don't have the point bumps, but do offer additional perks if your vehicles are aligned in a certain way, if I recall what I read in the new Apocalypse book 8 months ago, correctly.
Talizvar wrote: Was pretty sure formations had some point cost to them.
Apocolypse is meant to be pretty over the top so getting all upset over it is rather pointless: field a ton of models and sit back and smile... it is all good.
He's not talking about Apoc Formations; he's talking about the kind that you can field in a normal game. Which for some strange reason, do not cost extra.
@ OP on the topic of not every army having a formation -
Wait. They just started this whole Formation thing (going by GW's pace), so not everyone has one at the moment. The distribution bias isn't as great as FW, anyway. So far, from the top of my head, there's 1 dataslate for Marines, 1 for Chaos, 1 for Tau and 3 for nids. Hardly as Imperio-centric as FW.
I do agree that the Formations should be in the codices though, or as a free update. Pretty dick move to make you pay extra for something that could easily replace the 10-20 pages they dedicate to the "showcase" section. Especially if said formations are needed to make the codex decent (see - Tyranids)
Therefore it can't do anything different than what you approve of? Don't be so concieted, this game has the right to grow and change however it wants.
IK Viper wrote: It is my opinion that Formations break this very basic agreement between players for several reasons:
So two players can't agree to not play with Formations? What about the Most Important Rule that says the game isn't just the limits of it's core rules and the intention is for both players to have fun, but then one guy surprises his opponent with 4 Riptides, how does that fit into your "basic agreement"?
IK Viper wrote: Formations offer additional benefits/ rules with no change in points cost.
Based on the way they approached it in Apoc, it's a reward for having an expansive and diverse collection. That with the Helbrutes at least the formations pair rewards with new penalties. If all dataslates do this then I see no real issue.
IK Viper wrote: Formations and Dataslates are not equally distributed among the codicies.
Dataslates are primarilly worked on by two people from GW's Digital Editions team (one does fluff, the other does rules). They're also haven't been doing them that long (mostly the Holiday season last year), give it time before you complain that they haven't done stuff for every army yet.
IK Viper wrote: Formations and Dataslates should be in the Codex.
Also known as "I'm mad they didn't think of this X number of months ago and are now releasing rules for this thing". As I just mentioned, it's basically two blokes who are making these things as the come up with ideas. I'm sure they're sometimes asked to try and incorporate certain models (like finding new ways to use the Helbrute) but largely I'm sure that these things are based more on what would look cool together on the table over anything else.
As for playtesting, players already downplay GW's internal playtesting (which is done in two parts: first by the dev team and second by other GW employees) so even if they do play testing it, why would this count more than codex playtesting in the eyes of the community?
IK Viper wrote: Don’t buy/play Formations and Dataslates until GW handles these correctly please, or any Digital Product for that matter. The Inquisition “Codex” was criminal in it’s’ lack of original content while still costing full $30ish dollars. They could have literally created codex inquisition in an FAQ by saying, “Use the following units from Codex Inquisition and here are some warlord traits and relics…,”
"Don't support things you like because I don't like them."
Regardless I'll be buying them anyways because I review them. Said reviews that help keep people from spending money blind on products they may not like/want/need.
First DLC stands for DownLoadable Content...you don't need a second content.
Also the video game community is a fundamentally different beast than the miniature wargaming community. If a video game series doesn't get updated for 5-6 years that series will experience practically no new sales and is considered more or less dead. 40K has for the majority of it life left a codex for 5-6 years without updates. This new dataslates and formations add new content between codex releases which is nice. Additionally video games are much easier to change between than miniature games. I can and do change video games I am playing at a drop of the hat and it costs between 2-50 usd and ~30 min to get the new game. If I decide the switch armies in 40K it costs 200-2000 usd and hundreds of hours to assemble and paint. I would much rather see updates to my armies so they don't stagnate for 5 years than see only a change in opponents.
The dataslates and formations are very different things. You sort of glossed over them but randomly included them just so you could rage and preach some more. Datalates largely do take up FoC and you are wrong about dataslates not being available to BA, GK, IG, etc. Cypher is available to all imperial armies except DA and the stormwing formation is similarily available to all the allies of SM above come apoc.
These have only been coming out for 3 months. They have also been focusing on the dexs that are already updated as updates for the majority of the other dexs are impending within the year. If they released something for those you would be on here complaining how they will become useless in a month or two.
The biggest thing I think you are missing is these formations require you to bring a certain set of units. The best Taudar builds did not take that many broadsides and doing so to get tank hunter will reduce the points you can use in the rest of your list. Most of the formations are actually not optimal and taking them weakens the army. The only one so far that is hands down worthwhile is the skyblight formation. Which is the only thing making tournament nids a top table contender. The living artillery and firebase formations are the remaining two that are worthwhile but are so many points they dictate your army. The rest are heavily sub optimal and you would almost never see that combination of units unless they gave special rules for free...oh, they did and you still don't see them often.
This was probably a waste of time as this was a pure rant thread but I figured I would state my opinion somewhere and your misuse of DLC made me want to correct it.
The funniest thing about all of this is that the majority of the formations have been fairly balanced and the nids and chaos dataslates and formations are the only things saving them from optimized Tau, Eldar, and Necron lists.
Not that I necessarily agree, but one could argue that the cost of taking a formation is that it forces you to purchase a specific set of units. i.e. in order to take this formation I have to take two units I wouldn't have planned to take anyway. Just because they don't have a point cost associated with them does not mean that they are necessarily without a cost on your list.
This would be more effective, however, if they were part of the FOC, not sitting next to it.
We all know that Cypher is available to basically anyone that wants him bar DA. That is why I discounted him, anyone can take him so he has little effect on the relative power levels of codexes. Everyone has access.
Having to take units that are sub-optimal is not a penalty. A codex should be written in such a way that the units cost reflects their battlefield usefulness. It is up to the general to make sure they earn that usefulness. Having to take certain "tax units," is not the point. The issue is that rules/abilities should be tied to a point cost. You cannot (fairly) alter one without altering the other. If a Broadside out of the Codex Tau Empire costs X number of points without Tank Hunter/Monster Hunter, then in order to create or atleast attempt to create a balanced formation including Broadsides with TH/MH the cost must be X + what ever value the Design Team puts on TH/MH. But to allow the purchase of the exact same unit at cost X breaks the system. If the formation stipulates that each Tau Suit used costs 5 points more becasue it has TH/MH I would endorse the formation, dispite the fact that it still would be super powerful and does not take up FOC's (which also breaks the established rules used to construct armies equally, as not all armies have access to FOC ignoring formations)
My intent and hope with this was to point out how GW is trying to get us to pay for stuff that should be in the Codex. I alone cannot change anything, as one person not buying will have no effect. However, if a large portion of the community refused to be drug along by this collection of rushed and poorly constructed rules, they would stop putting them out in such a manor.
These digital rules could be so much more then what they are. They could help add new units and abilities to old armies that are stuck waiting on a new codex. Instead what we are getting are rules that do not conform to the FOC, offer more abilities at no additional point cost, and are releases mostly for armies that are relatively new when we just got done buying the actual codex for $50. These digital products should be targetted at armies that are 1 year + out in the development cycle who are still waiting on their 6th ed. update. Give those armies something new, cool, and well thought out, instead of just throwing new rules at the newest armies becasue people are buying them. That is how you take care of the entire game of 40k, rather than looking to make a cheap buck right now.
The long term benefit would be brand loyalty becasue GW is proving that they still care about all armies, and a renewed interest from diehard players of those older armies.
The only issues i have is the way it breaks the normal force org chart (or the mess it is now anyways)
The reason there was a chart was to cap certain units. This now skips around those and allows you a lot more choices that you wouldn't usually be able to take.
Also, printed versions would be nice too Dont see why GW has gone soo digital when alot of people like to have a hard copy of it.
Its still early days with this though so im happy to see how it goes. Not like things have been tilted in 40k before, just needs some time to settle.
Edit: I do see the point about formations with new rules for free though. If i want to buff a unit or add rule you usually have to pay a tax in the form of wargear or a character to make it possible.
IK Viper wrote: That is correct. Apoc is the wild west. Just go play. I am talking about Formations and Dataslates being used to in regular, competative 40k games.
My bad, I think I was pretending those formation dataslates did not exist since I was unwilling to spend the money.
Just another means to monetize.
With these added options it increasingly becoming apparent that "normal 40k" is just becoming a little brother version of Apoc.
I am unsure it is possible to have a "competitive game" anymore since the combinations just have got all that more strange.
Formations are bad I guess since the combinations are almost limitless so the "rock-paper-scissors" army net-lists are disrupted.
Talizvar wrote: Was pretty sure formations had some point cost to them.
Apocolypse is meant to be pretty over the top so getting all upset over it is rather pointless: field a ton of models and sit back and smile... it is all good.
The old apoc formations had a point cost to them. A lot of the new formations don't have the point bumps, but do offer additional perks if your vehicles are aligned in a certain way, if I recall what I read in the new Apocalypse book 8 months ago, correctly.
I just want rules in a book.
They also used to be a lot more fun. Like the necron null field created by drawing lines from the center of monoliths that made all psycic powers not work, reduced the strength of all non-gauss weapons by one that passed though it, and gave necrons units inside +1 to all their reanimation rolls.
IK Viper wrote: For the exact same points cost as an equivalent group of units from Codex Tau Empire, this formation grants Tank Hunter, Monster Hunter and Proffered Enemy (Space Marines). This is supposedly off set by the fact that Space Marine units gain Hatred against them but anyone who has played 40k will tell you that if not a fair trade.
I get it, you hate Tau. Please, if you're going to complain about something the Tau have, get it right. The formation only confers Tank Hunter and Preferred Enemy (Space Marines). It does not confer Monster Hunter. In addition, any army except Tyranids can take this formation.
Basically, formations of are a way of rewarding people who bought so many of X that they can't actually fit them in to a FOC. Don't worry about only having 3 Fast Attack slots, buy 3 Harpy models and a bunch of gargoyles and use the Skyblight formation instead!
I'm pretty sure the game itself never entered the minds of the designers, it's simply a way to ensure you have a reason to buy even more kits.
IK Viper wrote: Warhammer 40K is a tabletop wargame. The basic concept behind the game is that 2 opponents use their respective codex/allied codex to construct a fighting force. The purpose of a codex is to give point values to the units used on the tabletop. A unit’s cost should be a reflection of that unit’s durability, speed, offense, and special rules/abilities that ultimately contribute to winning the game. The agreement is that each player is allowed to bring the same number of points in an attempt to set up a battle in which both sides have equal resources.
This is where you lost me.
First of all, can you tell me, WITH A STRAIGHT FACE that the 40K codexes are balanced in the first place? So a Genestealer is equal to a SM for example?
Also this sound so much like lawyer talk. "The agreement is that each player..." WTF? I come to play a game, not sign any contracts.
Again you lost me when you said codecs are balanced.
Kilkrazy wrote: Just because two codexes aren't balanced, it does not excuse making them more unbalanced. Codexes are in theory supposed to be balanced.
A theory that only extends as far as Nottingham it seems.
I've been working off an assumption that seems to make more sense when it comes to GW's balance: namely that they assume we'll play like they do: by taking a little of everything into an impressive looking army rather than one based on any kind of math.
Personally I hit about a middle ground on that but there are definitely people all along the spectrum with the pure math crowd finding new and interesting combinations that throw any concept on the railroad tracks seconds before the train arrives.
Forcing you to take X models to get a special benefit without paying points is totally legit. Ever read the Tyranid Codex? Tervigon gain scoring troop if you have a squads of 30 termies. It's not with points, but you're definitively paying for it.
Complaining about formations but not allies is stupid. The allied chart is unbalanced and only decided by fluff. They don't take into account what X can bring to Y by combining abilities, or if a codex have more choice of allies then another. (Also, if you take less optimal allies, you get penalization rules, without getting a discount in points!) Allies already allows most Codex to get more then the FOC and to plug some weakness. Then there's Tyranids, who get shafted both ways.
From what i heard, a lot of tournament allows only allies or formations. That would be a good way to restrict the abusive combo of having formations from two different armies.
Also, a bunch of armies can already f**k with the FOC. They can take dedicated transports for different slots, resulting in 9+ vehicules of the same type.
The only thing true about your rant is that it's in big part a marketing plot. If they had waited a bit and playtested with costumers, they wouldn't have to release 3 dataslates for a few months old Codex (that was considered crap by almost everyone).
Addaran wrote: Complaining about formations but not allies is stupid.
FWIW, I dislike the allies system too.
There's too many things that suck in 40k to complain about them all simultaneously, don't assume a person who dislikes formations also doesn't dislike allies
The 40kFOC is stupid to begin with, the whole elites-troops-fast attack-heavy support limited choices thing is silly IMO. But then breaking the FOC once you've bothered to establish it is even sillier.
Formations are great. If the new helbrute and tyranid ones are any indication of the future, it's a good way for GW to attempt to balance and tweak codexes after they come out, or at least make underused units more interesting. Instead of waiting for 5 years for the next iteration of a codex, dataslates and formations are acting like patches to try and keep things fresh (wither they succeed or not is another matter).
Yeah, theyre charging money for them, but hell, they never did this sort of rules addition in FAQs and Erratas anyways.
The FOC is dissolving at a pretty rapid pace, which is something I'm totally ok with. More options means more ways to balance a list. We all know GW isnt going to do it themselves, but with access to a zillion options, now you're not locked into a single crappy codex or limited FOC slots forever. Theyre never going to get the balance right, but if they just throw enough gak at the fan, it's easier for players to pick what they want.
McGibs wrote: Formations are great. If the new helbrute and tyranid ones are any indication of the future, it's a good way for GW to attempt to balance and tweak codexes after they come out, or at least make underused units more interesting. Instead of waiting for 5 years for the next iteration of a codex, dataslates and formations are acting like patches to try and keep things fresh (wither they succeed or not is another matter).
Yeah, theyre charging money for them, but hell, they never did this sort of rules addition in FAQs and Erratas anyways.
How is that a good thing? You're getting charged a lot more for a codex now and it's not play tested so the rules leave some units useless. But then to fix the issue GW makes you pay extra on top of the codex just to get a working unit that should have been good in the first place since you pay $50 for the rulebook.
This would be like buying Modern Warfare i and finding out half the weapons in the game glitch up and are unusable. To fix it they decide to patch it for a small additional fee.
We are constantly getting charged more and more for less and less quality. Singing praises should be the last thing on anyone's mind.
I just concerned about the about having NO LIMIT to them, which would worry me with people paying minimal points on the primary and stuff as many formations as they can afford.
But that's the only thing. I don't mind these, as some one else put it its patching the game to improve balance (because vanilla Tyranids and CSM aren't the most balanced armies compared to the entire body of armies).
Just so you know OP, this game isn't competitive by nature, due to the numerous rule holes and'supposedly broken' unit selections. This game is a casual game best played by friends, while doubling as the marketing strategy of a miniatures company. Given the game is their property they have every right to morph this game into what they like. My ultimate goal is to 'forge the narrative' with the SMs I play and win some, lose some along the way.
Formations are thus far the only thing in 40k I've found that I won't bother playing a game with, generally just on principle.
Free abilities and special rules just because you took X combination of units (that don't take up FoC slots or even count in place of Allies) for free? Nope.
Access to formations has buffed a bland Tyranid codex and made Helbrutes useful. I think it's fair to complain about some things that should've been in a codex in the first place, and that it's an irritating business practice, but if you really don't want to pay for the dataslates you can torrent them for free online.
I can't think of any examples of how access to formations has influenced my gaming experience in a negative way, although I haven't yet run into the Firebase Cadre. 40k wasn't balanced beforehand anyway.
Vaktathi wrote: Formations are thus far the only thing in 40k I've found that I won't bother playing a game with, generally just on principle.
Free abilities and special rules just because you took X combination of units (that don't take up FoC slots or even count in place of Allies) for free? Nope.
Formations are also the only thing saving the Tyranids from occupying the same pit of shame that the SoBs and last few 5e/4e (and not built for 6e like the GKs and Necrons) books do.
But I've long given up hope that GW will do anything but screw over Tyranid players by nerfing all their current builds into the ground or outright invalidating them and then forcing them to buy a billion new expensive models and overpriced out of codex supplemental material. And even then, the Guard, Wolves, and GK of yesteryear and the Tau, Eldar, and Daemons of today still put this god damn army in an unphill battle.
Cover ignoring? Nope.
Anti-air? You get the Crone and the Tyrant, otherwise get bent.
Decent AP on shooting? Hah, you wish.
Deployment options? Unless you have formations or are using a Lictor/Ravener/Trygon/Mawloc army, you can get bent.
Psykers? For whatever reason, you can't get any BRB powers like most other psykers can, have this mediocre table with generally inferior powers than what the BRB can give you instead.
Good special gear? Lol, you're not getting anything as nice or cool as what Chaos, the Daemons, or Space Marines can have. Have stuff like a 40 point synapse extender, and to add insult to injury we'll call it Bio-artefacts because that's totally not a stupid name.
Want cool rules like warp storm, ATSKNF and chapter tactics, battle focus, markerlights, champions of chaos and marks, and what not? Screw you, have Synapse instead, you get fearless and if you ever not have synapse, you get to watch your army eat itself. Because this is how you balance armies.
Want a cool HQ beatstick? Nope, you get a heavily nerfed and point bumped swarmlord who gets his face beaten in by a generic pimp my Iron Hands Chaptermaster, an Old One Eye who still isn't useful, Tyrants who should be flying, criminally overcosted Primes, and a Deathleaper who is going to get slaughtered in challenges with most high-value targets. You want assault, better go buy Warriors and Carnifexes, which I guess is one way of getting us to buy them again, but giving a short range army mediocre assault ability in it's HQ section? Really GW?
Tervigons? GW wants you to buy models for Skyblight and Endless Swarm, time for the nerf bat.
Balancing the Tyranids against their two worst match ups in the Grey Knights and Dark Eldar? Nope.jpg
Warlord traits? MEH!
Those Scything Talons you all have? Poof, they're now just window dressing. For no reason.
So what's your salvation besides resigning yourself to another edition of samey, boring builds?
Formations, most of which need models you likely don't already have. Forgeworld? Only the Dark Eldar get fewer goodies useful outside of apocalypse from Forgeworld than the Tyranids. Maybe you'll get some overpriced supplement down the line that you'll need to buy.
So yes, formations are a problem. But not because they're overpowered, but because GW thinks that hiding all the good options in stuff outside of the codex so you'll have to spend more than twice as much if you want flavor or competitive strength is okay.
This is what I was afraid of when they started doing supplements. Not that they'd break the game, but that GW would start releasing vanilla codexes that were boring and understrength so that you'd have to buy Supplements, Forgeworld, and Dataslates just to compete.
Formations are a two-fold problem:
1. Already overpowered Codices like Tau can "win-more" with them
2. GW can double their profit by giving you a bland bare-bones codex then making you buy all the good rules as the equivalent to DLC. Then your group bans all formations because of problem #1 and you're stuck with a mediocre book.
This is nice or 'cool'? It's one of the worst problems with the CSM codex as it is.
It at least, usually doesn't punish you. Sure a pimp my Lord/Sorc turning into a Spawn or naked Daemon prince sucks, but I've found it to generally be worth ten points on a champion. Synapse though, just gives you a fearless bubble and the moment you lose it you are at risk of massive penalties.
Dawn of war 2 gave cool ideas like damage synapse, speed synapse, defensive synapse, and such. Make it more than just a bland fearless bubble that occasionally dicks with Psykers. Make it an actual strength rather than a tax and a soft-wall for your movement and deployment.
But nope, not only does synapse remain just a SitW and Fearless bubble, but now punishes you harder if you don't constrict yourself to it's bubbles. And as a confusing insult to injury, two of the last three remaining Tyranid special characters don't offer synapse and have the audacity to take up an HQ slot in the process. While also still being bad and locking you into meh warlord traits (the Swarmlord's is pointless, and the Deathleaper is going splat against any IC worth a damn in a challenge, and while Old One Eye's trait is thematic and makes sense, it still involves taking Old One Eye who isn't a particularly good beatstick, tank, or leader).
And as I said before, Chaos has a few pretty nice unique wargear items like the Daemonheart and Axe of Blind Fury. There are some stinkers like the Dimension Key, but god damn is the Tyranid bio-artefact list mediocre. Everything is overpriced and underwhelming and I am deathly afraid that GW is going to release a supplement book (or two, or three) that has a vastly superior warlord trait table and bio-artefact list as a slap in the face to everyone who bought the codex.
The Chaos Space Marines have also been shafted by meh codexes, something that I blame on GW trying to fit what logically should be at least six books (Undivided legions, renegades, and the monogod armies) going by how they divide the loyalist marines into a single codex. I agree that it's almost criminal how GW wastes the potential flavor of Chaos by squeezing it into two books and pretending that Chaos Xenos and Guard don't exist and then doing a wonky job with the two books they do put out.
Don't get me wrong, I love 40k. I've sunk enough money into the game to have bought a sweet car or a decent home had I made different life choices. This is why I get so angry at GW when it mismanages this game. I've had Chaos and Tyranid armies (among others) for years now and it breaks my heart to see GW doing what they are to these armies by cutting out their heart and soul while having the audacity to squirrel away the really nice stuff in expensive supplements, dataslates, and forgeworld.
The formations do not offer special rules "for free", as the opportunity cost is being ignored.
If I want TH but dont want two units of broadsides? Tough. Haveto pay for them, even if they duplicate an ability I already have in my list. So it isnt in any way "free" - being forced to take X, Y, Z of something is in itself a cost.
I also disagree that these should have been in the codex. The new model allows them to recover from the CH issue - how to provide continuing interest while having a codex release cycle of 5 or so years. PReviously they tried leaving gaps int eh dex, to fill with models - resulting in other companies directing GW release schedules. Not good for them. This way, if they want to add something they can. It is also *far* lower cost to produce - they pay per download, as opposed to having to commit to X print run and the associated logistics, even with direct only, as every new SKU means another slot in the warehouse has to be found, and anyone with ANY background in logistics will say this isnt as trivial as it first appears! (dsiclosure - I work for a premium car manufacturing company, in audit, so I see all these issues. A simple change from large box parts to small box parts is a huge endeavour)
I also disagree that they should be printed - while I *love* books, for little addons like this I prefer a digital format - my solely-40k set of shelving is already creaking! It also feeds into the business case for producing them in the fierst place.
LAstly, it gives GW some freedom to experiment. A codexis a fixed commitment, with a long payoff. These - not so much.
The whining about GW not including rules / expansions like they used to has now mutated into GW providing rules and expansions for the game...gamers are never happy.
40k is, literally, a framework, as you are told on page 108. Trying to stop something you dont like is fine. Trying to stop others from enjoying it, when their enjoyment in no way impacts your game? Not cool
(note - I also dont blindly buy everything either - however they are almost impulse buys)
(Final disclosure - two good friends now work for the studio, and one had a hand in the latest Helbrute slate on the fluff side, so I do have smoe bias, however I have tried to be objective here, as much as possible)
My initial post was aimed at competative play and encouraging balance. Maybe I should have titled it "Formations are bad for Competative 40k,"
I do not think Codexes are balanced either, but that is a whole different discussion. What I was trying to focus on is the illogical way GW is constructing these Formations. The game needs a baseline/frame of reference. The codecies are that baseline.
I think that GW does a very poor job of comparing the points cost of units they are releasing to the points cost of similar units throughout the game system as well, for example:
A Blood Angel Tactical Marine costs 16 points. While a SMTac. Marine now costs 14 points. The 2 units are basically identical yet one unit is 2 points cheaper.
A SoB Battel Sister vs a Chaos Space Marine. Battle Sisters are 12 points each with S3, T3, I3. For 1 point more the Chaos Marine has S4, T4, I4.
If GW would take the time to compare the points cost of new units to similar units throughout the range, (the whole range, not just the last few codecies) the codecies themselves would be more balanced and codex creep would be reduced (They don't want this either)
However, that is some what subjective and not really an argument that will yield any useful conclusion.
I agree that the allies situation is also not ideal, but again that is not the subject of the post. I really think allies are ok so long as the Codecies are written correctly. Allies still use the points costs found in a codex and they do function within their own FOC. I think any of the huge abuses of allies could have been avoided with different wording in the codecies themselves, for example: if a Tau Buff Commander's support systems only worked on units from Codex Tau Empire... Or if Baron Sathonix grants hit and run to units from Codex DE. A simple FAQ could close these loop holes and reign in some of the more abusive Allies combos but GW has taken no action... Maybe it is time for the community to take steps on their own.
What I am focused on is the points disparity between the exact same unit and its formation enhanced equivilant. As for the cost of having to take certain units, if the codex was written correctly each unit should be useful for its points, and even if it is not, the ability to override the FOC should off set the precieved downside of taking certain units.
IK Viper wrote: My initial post was aimed at competative play and encouraging balance. Mybe I should have titled it "Formations are bad for Competative 40k,"
That would have been a good idea, yes. It would have set the tone for the rant better and given us a much more well defined scope of why it's bad instead of the shotgun blast that hit everything, competitive or not.
Well, I for one agree with the opening post. The whole Dataslate policy and those plug-in supplements that the IoM is being buried in (Knights, Tempestus, Inquisition, Legion of the Damned, - to be continued) can only be described as a huge scam by GW and I will not pay a single cent as long as they keep this up.
Being bad at general balance is one thing. You can't blame someone for sucking at something, no one's perfect. But this is a clearly designed policy to get more money for less work, adding additional problems to a system that wasn't running smoothly as it was.
Dawn of war 2 gave cool ideas like damage synapse, speed synapse, defensive synapse, and such. Make it more than just a bland fearless bubble that occasionally dicks with Psykers. Make it an actual strength rather than a tax and a soft-wall for your movement and deployment.
This. Gaunts in DoWII are slightly sub par on their own, but when the synapse is stacked up they become a deadly foe.
Kosake wrote: Well, I for one agree with the opening post. The whole Dataslate policy and those plug-in supplements that the IoM is being buried in (Knights, Tempestus, Inquisition, Legion of the Damned, - to be continued) can only be described as a huge scam by GW and I will not pay a single cent as long as they keep this up.
You should see all the allies they had in 2nd edition if you for a second think they're being buried now. Space Marines (and this is before they split into a bunch of separate codexes) allied with: Imperial Agents (which included: Adeptus Arbites, Adeptus Mechanicus, Adeptus Ministorum, Adeptus Astra Telepathica, Officio Assassinorum and the Inquisition), Imperial Guard, Squats and Eldar the same way regardless of any distrust you might expect between those factions.
Each of those Imperial Agents could basically be a mini-codex these days. Honestly it looks more like GW is pushing to go back to the more open ended feel of RT and 2nd Edition where the game is a tool box for playing whatever you want (something that's supported by the "Spirit of the Game" in the early part of the core rule book) rather than just having to play one specific way.
My only real issue with formations is the DLC aspect. Formation dataslates should be free downloads for two reasons:
1) They want to shift more models, and if players can see how effective or cool these formations are in advance they're more likely to buy the required models. Charging for content that would have been a free PDF download a few years ago (and most competitors still deliver freely) is nuts, especially when the underlying aim is to promote model sales.
2) An opponent should at least have a vague idea of what an opponent can field before a game, and hiding potentially game-changing rules in niche DLC is not conducive to friendly gaming. Imagine if you had no clue it was possible to field incontestable scoring units, only to end up facing 100+ Gargoyles from multiple Skyblights. Surprise!
It's easy enough to borrow or flick through a friends' codex before a game, expecting to use their tablet for download-only paid content is another matter.
Formations are basically fine in their current format, and are certainly no worse than Allies mechanics or cramming Super Heavy units into formerly regular games. The FOC system is a bloated mess, but this isn't solely down to formations.
Dataslates should just be free PDFs. Or at least publish the handful of rules pages for free, and make the fluff-heavy downloadable version a pocket-money friendly £1-3.
Oh, and if you think we're never going to see dataslates for other codexes you're mad. We've already seen things like CSM Helbrutes, or Ghost Warriors for Eldar, and I have zero doubt the IG and Ork releases will be followed up by more digital shovelware. Rest assured, GW will have these things published as fast as their infinite-army-of-monkeys-at-keyboards can plop them out.
It's not like they're busy updating FAQs or anything...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vaktathi wrote: Free abilities and special rules just because you took X combination of units (that don't take up FoC slots or even count in place of Allies) for free? Nope.
See, I like them for the exact opposite reason. You get bonuses because you're playing with a fluffy group of models, rather than a hyper-optimised mish-mash. I'd never dream of taking vanilla Lictors or Genestealers as they are in the codex, but the Vanguard stuff is interesting enough to use from time to time. The codex does nothing to encourage hormagaunts alongside termagants, but the Endless Swarm formation is a nice little boost to taking a horde theme.
Of course the underlying issue is poor internal unit balance in certain codexes, but seeing these issues resolved isn't too likely anytime soon. Formations are an acceptable substitute for the time being.
Those dataslates and formations you speak of should be in the codex. Specially if they can put them out within months of the codex release. If we keep buying them they will keep making them and treating us like addicted children.
They would better serve the entire range of 40k armies if they stopped putting out stuff for new armies and focused on old, out of date armies that need the help. By releasing updated points costs for basic units to bring them in line with the 6th ed. armies for example: There is no reason when Dark Angels came out that all Tac. Marine equivilants should not have been adjusted to the new 14 point standard for a marine. This does something useful for all armies and helps keep old armies competative but they did not do that, simply becasue they want the new stuff to be better. Also, there is no reason all missile launchers (Loyalist, Traitor, IG, etc.) should not have the flak missile option (not that people use it) in order to promote equal access to anti-air options.
They would hate for people with old armies to still be on par with the new stuff becasue ... that would create a balanced game and people would not flock to the new releases so they can have the most powerful stuff.
Dataslates could be a great way to introduce new models to existing ranges outside of the development cycle and then backing it up with rules.
It is really easy to make a new army appealing by simply dropping the points cost on existing stuff, there by making it relativly more powerful. That is not game design. Game design is taking the same basic units and adding in new ones/ new synergies that further define the way that army plays, while not making them more overtly powerful than the other factions.
What we are getting are minimal effort products aimed at feeding off of the impulse buyer out there, and the sad part is... we are collectivly falling for this ploy head over heals. We are teaching GW that we will infact jump at what ever shiny they dangle infront of us, without considering if they are doing enough to deserve our money. If PP did this to their customers they would drop off the map, GW has such a following that they think they can get away with it.
A Blood Angel Tactical Marine costs 16 points. While a SMTac. Marine now costs 14 points. The 2 units are basically identical yet one unit is 2 points cheaper.
Except you have no idea what you're taking about. A 10 man tac squad from either army with a plasmagun and missile launcher with veteran sgt is 180 pts. Please compare apples to apples if you're going to whine about random things. The only thing the current marines have other the Blood angels is more options. These options will surely follow into the Blood Angel codex when it is released again.
My biggest problems with formations (other than that they are/will turn into a moneygrab) is that they don't affect the FOC.
I mean... if they intend to continue make stuff better by using them in dataslates, which is very likely, why even have a FOC at all? It does not have to be excessive but at least make them noticeable. Cypher or Belakor could take up a HQ slot and still be pretty awesome (or 1 elite slot if you go with Cyphers formation maybe).
Now the real power in these formations/dataslates is to make crappy units at least viable. Helbrute formations is a great example of this. Not only are they playable but they are also fluffy and fun. Sadly more than a few of the dataslates (that i've read) is not aimed at units that needs buffs.
A Blood Angel Tactical Marine costs 16 points. While a SMTac. Marine now costs 14 points. The 2 units are basically identical yet one unit is 2 points cheaper.
Except you have no idea what you're taking about. A 10 man tac squad from either army with a plasmagun and missile launcher with veteran sgt is 180 pts. Please compare apples to apples if you're going to whine about random things. The only thing the current marines have other the Blood angels is more options. These options will surely follow into the Blood Angel codex when it is released again.
BA HAVE to take the vet sarge. They HAVE to be a full ten man to get ANY weapon upgrades. They also, as you say, have less weapon options, and lack any form of chapter tactics (unless you roll a 6 for the squad at the start of the game to grant them FC). All of these combined make them FAR less flexible than a vanilla tac squad.
A Blood Angel Tactical Marine costs 16 points. While a SMTac. Marine now costs 14 points. The 2 units are basically identical yet one unit is 2 points cheaper.
Except you have no idea what you're taking about. A 10 man tac squad from either army with a plasmagun and missile launcher with veteran sgt is 180 pts. Please compare apples to apples if you're going to whine about random things. The only thing the current marines have other the Blood angels is more options. These options will surely follow into the Blood Angel codex when it is released again.
I really don't get the point of this thread. To the OP: how many times have you actually played at a competitive venue? Dakkadakka is full of whining in theory with little real experience behind the imagined offense.
Almost every GT has already limited or banned formations
Most RTTs have done the same
Any club can do the same
What's the problem? It's like whining about the ingredients in a dish that other people like. If it really is good, that's why they like it. If it isn't, don't eat it. If your local meta likes formations then the majority are having fun with them and it's all good. If most don't like them, they won't use them. Again, where are you actually experiencing this problem?
Kosake wrote: Well, I for one agree with the opening post. The whole Dataslate policy and those plug-in supplements that the IoM is being buried in (Knights, Tempestus, Inquisition, Legion of the Damned, - to be continued) can only be described as a huge scam by GW and I will not pay a single cent as long as they keep this up.
You should see all the allies they had in 2nd edition if you for a second think they're being buried now. Space Marines (and this is before they split into a bunch of separate codexes) allied with: Imperial Agents (which included: Adeptus Arbites, Adeptus Mechanicus, Adeptus Ministorum, Adeptus Astra Telepathica, Officio Assassinorum and the Inquisition), Imperial Guard, Squats and Eldar the same way regardless of any distrust you might expect between those factions.
Each of those Imperial Agents could basically be a mini-codex these days. Honestly it looks more like GW is pushing to go back to the more open ended feel of RT and 2nd Edition where the game is a tool box for playing whatever you want (something that's supported by the "Spirit of the Game" in the early part of the core rule book) rather than just having to play one specific way.
Can't claim to be a veteran of those days gone by, so enlighten me: Did GW charge you 30 bucks for every single one of them or was there some sort of imperial codex for all of this...? I don't have a problem with these supporting troops. I have a problem with paying for a full codex every time i want to use a single unit that belonged into the dex in the first place.
If GW released something along the lines of "Codex: Auxilliaries" where all the things I named were bundled and had their rules as additions to IoM factions, this would be OK i think. Inquisition could have been combined with SoB, LotD could have been part of SM, Stromies should be part of IG, but whatever. It makes sense that these subfactions are lend-leased to other imperial forces. Making them a single expansion-dex would be fair enough.
Releasing formations as dataslates and tons of supplements that can be boiled down to two pages of rules is just a rip-off, nothing else.
I'm not a competetive player. Mostly, I just play orks vs a buddy of mine for fun, so even without the ballance issues and the implications for tournament play, this is not ok with me.
I played in 2nd and the only army I recall having built in allies was IG (up to 25% could have been Eldar/Squat and maybe SM allies). Anything else was as far as I remember a mutual agreement with your opponent and not something you could just show up with. Possibly assassins after they were revamped but not like there is now.
Can't claim to be a veteran of those days gone by, so enlighten me: Did GW charge you 30 bucks for every single one of them or was there some sort of imperial codex for all of this...? I don't have a problem with these supporting troops. I have a problem with paying for a full codex every time i want to use a single unit that belonged into the dex in the first place.
It varied a lot. Some were from articles in White Dwarf or Citadel Journal (and some of those were later summarised in annual supplements for about £10). There were basic army lists included in the 2E boxed game, including odd ones like Genestealer Cults or Adeptus Arbites. Imperial Guard and Sisters had their own full codexes, and imperial assassins got a mini-codex at half the usual price (for 4 units).
There was little in the way of 'free' rules, at the very least you had to buy WD or something. But everything back then was in print so it's hard to compare with today. On the other hand they also threw out tons of ideas that weren't tied to product releases. Converting and scratch-building models was actively encouraged back then, so if someone in the studio had a crazy new idea he'd just type up some rules in an afternoon, get them thrown in WD or Citadel Journal and that would be that.
Between current technology and their pricing model, I personally think GW are missing out on a huge opportunity. Rules should be used to push the game and model sales, and therefore should be free whenever possible. GW have the capability these days to throw out free PDFs with formation rules on their website to encourage people into buying new models. They can offer premium versions on iPads and such with interactive features, but should keep in mind that these still exist to push model sales, and offer then at pocket money / app store style prices.
These days I'd say that even codexes should be offered for free to some extent, as a PDF download with reduced content and lots of product photos. That way bored players can casually browse through other codexes and get excited over things they like, giving them cause to start a new army. If they're feeling really flush they can then buy the paid version of the codex, as either a hard-backed book or interactive app with army builder.
It's a shame GW's business model leans more towards the idea of "charge as much as you possibly can", regardless of what they're selling. It's sad and very short-sighted.
xttz wrote: It's a shame GW's business model leans more towards the idea of "charge as much as you possibly can", regardless of what they're selling. It's sad and very short-sighted.
Unfortunately they are unable to see that this method is not working for them.
We are not in a position to know either.
All I can do is look at my own behavior: try to find a way to get a peek at the Dataslate and see if it is anything I would want.
Typically the answer is no.
Using Black Templar and Imperial Guard I have not used any Dataslates so-far.
I feel no need to buy these as a collector for "completeness" since they seem to be "spamming" product and the quality does not equal the money.
They also clearly state in their business plan that their customer base is not concerned with cost and only concerned with "collecting high quality GW models".
Codex's and all the other material is not even acknowledged as another major revenue stream even though looking at cost, it clearly is (cost to make vs. sales price).
The formations are bad because they seem to be made as one-offs unto themselves and seem to have no consideration to the overall impact to the game = cash grab is the perception.
I'll take them either way as long as I can get them. Anything to keep pushing the game to being more broad and unrestricted instead of funneled into a tightly defined meta as given to us by tournament players.
I'm more for the "6th is a toolbox" edition instead of "this is how you need play to win".
ClockworkZion wrote: I'll take them either way as long as I can get them. Anything to keep pushing the game to being more broad and unrestricted instead of funneled into a tightly defined meta as given to us by tournament players.
I'm more for the "6th is a toolbox" edition instead of "this is how you need play to win".
Exalted
The extreme narrowing of what is seen at tournaments, which became utterly undeniable in 5th with GK psyback / rifleman spam bored-shitless armies, is helped out by these slates. There isnt time for a meta to really establish before something else challenges it - while I dont think the helbrute slate is overpowered, you may see chaos dreads taken, and having them land in your opponents lines mean they havea chance to doing something, unlike now, and cant be ignored so easily.
If you dont like it, dont play with it That means not attending tournaments that allow them, and *importantly* statnig *why* you are not attending.
I also dont think printed makes sense for this format - theyre changing too quickly for that. I think we should all get used to more rapid changes
Cool new groups of models that get a benefit for acting together, it helps that I love the Tyranid Warrior models and they were a core part of the 2nd Nid slate. Looking forward to the 3rd one too. Plus they also mean that an army has something to look forward to other than their codex release every X years. I haven't even bothered to look at the IG rumours because 2 of my armies Nids/Chaos are still getting fancy updates on a regular basis so I read up about them instead.
Skyblight is maybe a little too good but generally they aren't OTT power wise and just make a nice fluffy addition to a list that lets you do something neat with your army. Now you could argue about how the Tau one lets you add some of the most powerful of toys in the game be added to virtually every army and they can be used purely for power advantage. If that's how your meta plays, go for it, it's what they are there for. Options are good in my eyes and dataslates are just another word for options
Skyblight really isnt amazing - youre still banking on keeping gargoyles alive, the 4+ to bring them back will fail frustratingly often, and the tax to take them - the other models - is hugely expensive.
The ability to take 3 flying Hive Tyrants and double your amount of Harpies/Hive Crones isn't exactly what I'd call a tax. Unless you're talking about a tax on the wallet, of course
I see no difference between the Data-Slates from back when White Dwarf used to put out Units and Mini-Codex’s in White Dwarf back in the late 80’ and 90’s other than the price. There were very few cries of “That is broken or Over Powered. Most of us just went “Cool” and either got the new Unit/Models and kept on playing or we did not.
The only issue I am seeing personally now is Availability and Cost, but the internet seems to make that a moot point if you have the tools and the Will to search.
As for using them in your local META, you either will or will not use them. If you choose not to use them or play anybody that does not, then eventually everyone will figure it out and start to play your way or you will adapt to their way of playing.
Our group has handled it this way
Billy Bob: “So I am planning on taking some Flyers Today.?” Rebecca: “Cool, I was thinking of try out one of my Knights, you have a problem with that?” Billy Bob: “Not today, but how about next time, I can pull out my Baneblade then?” Rebecca: “Ok, then I will just take new Flyer Data-Slate I got.” Billy Bob: “Sounds Good.” And then both make or pull out their list and armies and play.
So I don’t see them as good or bad, but then again we are not that competitive. The most we do is Play to who does not have to pitch in for Pizza.
ClockworkZion wrote: I'll take them either way as long as I can get them. Anything to keep pushing the game to being more broad and unrestricted instead of funneled into a tightly defined meta as given to us by tournament players.
I'm more for the "6th is a toolbox" edition instead of "this is how you need play to win".
Funny, having a balanced ruleset that was conditioned for actual balanced tournament play would do this. You could have a "core" set of rules that was meant for tournaments, and then have optional extras to loosen up the restrictions.
Instead, GW pisses on tournament players and pretends they don't exist to throw out options that break the game because balance is secondary. I guarantee with a balanced ruleset you'd see a lot less of a "meta" in the tournament; there would still be stronger/weaker combos but nowhere near the level that you see now.
ClockworkZion wrote: I'll take them either way as long as I can get them. Anything to keep pushing the game to being more broad and unrestricted instead of funneled into a tightly defined meta as given to us by tournament players.
I'm more for the "6th is a toolbox" edition instead of "this is how you need play to win".
Funny, having a balanced ruleset that was conditioned for actual balanced tournament play would do this. You could have a "core" set of rules that was meant for tournaments, and then have optional extras to loosen up the restrictions.
Yes you could, but with how heavy the tournament player pressure is on the game I have a strong feeling that the expanded extras wouldn't get used.
I mean how many people honestly use mysterious terrain or objectives? Those are expanded extras that are largely ignored, and I have a feeling the rest would be too.
While I'll never deny that tight and balanced rules would be good, I don't think the core of the rules needs to be designed for tournament play, or should be designed for tournament play. But that's just me.
WayneTheGame wrote: Instead, GW pisses on tournament players and pretends they don't exist to throw out options that break the game because balance is secondary. I guarantee with a balanced ruleset you'd see a lot less of a "meta" in the tournament; there would still be stronger/weaker combos but nowhere near the level that you see now.
I very much doubt you'd see less "meta". Every game has a meta, it's just that some games have a meta that moves faster or slower than others.
ClockworkZion wrote: Yes you could, but with how heavy the tournament player pressure is on the game I have a strong feeling that the expanded extras wouldn't get used.
I mean how many people honestly use mysterious terrain or objectives? Those are expanded extras that are largely ignored, and I have a feeling the rest would be too.
The optional extras wouldn't be for tournaments at all, they'd be for the "forge the narrative" type of games, which IMO is where they belong. And if nobody uses them, then they were silly ideas to begin with but at least you have the option if you decide you want a change. The current rules style tries to encourage/force all this stuff on everybody, whether they want it or not, by not restricting them. If you don't want to play superheavies that's fine until you face somebody fielding an Imperial Knight just because the rules let them field it, and then you're faced with the choice of allowing it and likely not having fun, or denying it and either end up with nobody to play (if nobody else is there) or coming off as a jerk for not letting somebody use a model they paid a lot of money for.
While I'll never deny that tight and balanced rules would be good, I don't think the core of the rules needs to be designed for tournament play, or should be designed for tournament play. But that's just me.
I disagree, only because the tournament players want a balanced and relatively equal standing by the nature of being competitive (very few truly competitive players want to win by utterly beating their opponent without a chance to lose), so by designing rules for tournament play FIRST, you ensure that they're balanced and allow for superior tactics to rule the day versus list-building.
The reason why you focus on tournaments (even unofficially) at first is to make sure it's balanced at the most cutthroat level because those are the most likely to find the broken combos and abuse them, thereby making sure you minimize the number of broken combos and unclear rules that exist in the game in the first place. Instead of pretending those people don't exist, you tap them for feedback to close the loopholes and clarify the unclear rules, and everybody benefits as a whole even if you don't play the game in tournaments or even competitive atmospheres. I remember that Wizards of the Coast at one point decided to tap the powergaming community there to find loopholes because their rules had gotten so large and convoluted that there were many game-breaking combos that were done as theoretical experiments simply to illustrate how bad rules created in a vacuum without a thought to balance could be (and some of them were pretty ridiculous and kept in check only by virtue of the fact D&D has a human in control of what is and isn't allowed to occur at a given time).
I very much doubt you'd see less "meta". Every game has a meta, it's just that some games have a meta that moves faster or slower than others.
With more balanced rules, you'd see less disparity in the meta. In Warmachine, for example, there's certainly a "meta" but the gap between a netlist and another more laid-back/casual list is much less than the disparity between a 40k netlist and a casual list; that's what I'm talking about. I don't play WM/H but I have read a good bit about the meta and watched several streams from tournaments and even something that looks like it's unbalanced (e.g. Cygnar's Stormwall and one of the Haleys) just provides a new way to approach tactics without being near unbeatable - ironically that's what Jervis Johnson stated in White Dwarf Weekly that the Imperial Knight was meant to be in 40k games, but fell short of the mark because the rules themselves aren't balanced to allow for new things to be added and only change tactics versus pushing the entire meta. If you compare a top tier Warmachine list with a more casual list, I think you'd find that the "casual" list still has a chance at winning (especially!) in the hands of a superior player; on the contrary with 40k a Screamerstar or O'vesastar list will utterly demolish a casual list, even if the netlist is in the hands of a complete newbie, because the power disparity is that great. If an experienced player with a balanced army can get destroyed by a newbie with a powerlist, that's a major problem.
On another site I've read an anecdote from somebody who had a friend, an experienced player, that sold their army and got out of 40k when their balanced army was tabled by a kid who didn't know many of the rules simply because said kid was running a netlist that was "point and click". Something like that should never, ever happen.
Balanced rules would go a long way towards fixing that.
WayneTheGame wrote: The optional extras wouldn't be for tournaments at all, they'd be for the "forge the narrative" type of games, which IMO is where they belong. And if nobody uses them, then they were silly ideas to begin with but at least you have the option if you decide you want a change. The current rules style tries to encourage/force all this stuff on everybody, whether they want it or not, by not restricting them. If you don't want to play superheavies that's fine until you face somebody fielding an Imperial Knight just because the rules let them field it, and then you're faced with the choice of allowing it and likely not having fun, or denying it and either end up with nobody to play (if nobody else is there) or coming off as a jerk for not letting somebody use a model they paid a lot of money for.
Tournament players have a habit of pushing their preferred game type into all their games. That leads to my concern that we'll just see those "optional extras" ignored.
WayneTheGame wrote: I disagree, only because the tournament players want a balanced and relatively equal standing, so by designing rules for tournament play FIRST, you ensure that they're balanced and allow for superior tactics to rule the day versus list-building. The reason why you focus on tournaments (even unofficially) at first is to make sure it's balanced at the most cutthroat level because those are the most likely to find the broken combos and abuse them, thereby making sure you minimize the number of broken combos and unclear rules that exist in the game in the first place. Instead of pretending those people don't exist, you tap them for feedback to close the loopholes and clarify the unclear rules, and everybody benefits as a whole even if you don't play the game in tournaments or even competitive atmospheres.
Balanced game or not, I don't think the core focus of the game should be based on tournament play. Make it possible to play fair and balanced games in tournaments? Yes. Cater to them first and everyone else second? No.
The difference honestly is the tone. I'm a fairly casual player (doesn't mean I don't like a good challenging game, I just don't play tournaments) and that tone of pushing the competitive too hard has honestly kept me from really getting into Warmachine. It creates a wall that's hard to get over, even if you're honestly interested in what you're looking at. I fear creating that wall for casual and new players who don't seek to just play the most cutthroat games possible.
You don't have to officially "cater" to the tournament scene, but IMO it's smart to let them playtest so they can say "This unit is way too good for its points" or "I can take three of these guys in an army and people have no chance" or even "This rule is vague and can be interpreted as working with Rule Y and thus Z happens which is broken"
Oh I understand that you don't have to officially support the tournament scene, but I think that avoiding that kind of tone that paints the game as being only about the most balls-to-the-wall competitive play is important too.
Storm Talon gets released with rules in WD. Nobody buys the WD, nobody picks up the rules. Everyone screams at GW to put them on-line. GW comes out with Dataslates for units rather than putting them in WD that nobody buys. Everyone screams at GW to give them for free.
GW is a business, they're supposed to attempt to make money. As gamers we all have a hobby. My personal definition of a hobby is "the thing you do with your disposable income". Some people snort it up their nose, some blow it on women, boats, cars, clothes what have you. If you don't understand why GW dares to make money off of us, you don't understand how exactly the world works.
I would love for them all to be compiled into a book on occasion, fill up 128 pages of data-slates and then put one out. I agree with Kronk, I like things I read to be on paper. I can get around it though. The data-slates I've purchased I've printed out and keep them in a folder just like my SoB codex.
Personally, no matter what GW does, it'll still be better than arguing over which of my little green army men shot my friends little brown army men while digging through the dirt in my mom's garden. It's your hobby, make of it what you want. GW is trying to make money off of providing you an outlet for your hobby. If you don't like it, please rage quit and sell us all your models for cheap.
Whatever happens, you won't be missed.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
WayneTheGame wrote: I disagree, only because the tournament players want a balanced and relatively equal standing by the nature of being competitive (very few truly competitive players want to win by utterly beating their opponent without a chance to lose), so by designing rules for tournament play FIRST, you ensure that they're balanced and allow for superior tactics to rule the day versus list-building.
I'll never understand this mindset. Competitive play has to have things start on an even playing field? Everything must be equal or it isn't fair? Tactics can only be superior when everything is equal? Things are fair when you've had the opportunity to disect every nuance of every unit, and if you haven't they shouldn't be allowed? Really?
As regards competitive play, it is a given that both sides should have an even playing field. I don't see how that it is remotely deniable.
How many sports are there that give one team more players, or more points for scoring a goal, and so on? The interest of football is not that one team has 12 men and the other only 10 (but maybe stronger men), it is that each side has to decide what to do with the 11 men they have.
Competitive wargaming is built on the same basis. Theoretically, though GW don't mention it any more, 40K is also built on that basis. That is the point of the points system and org chart. The idea is derived from earlier rulesets like WRG Ancients. The principle of balance created by the points system, used to be specifically stated in the 40K rules.
This whole thing of 40K being a "narrative game" is a very new thing, put about by GW to excuse their lack of ability to make a balanced game.
I'll never understand this mindset. Competitive play has to have things start on an even playing field? Everything must be equal or it isn't fair? Tactics can only be superior when everything is equal? Things are fair when you've had the opportunity to disect every nuance of every unit, and if you haven't they shouldn't be allowed? Really?
Yes, units must be ballanced, otherwise a game is not competitive, it turns into some crude sort of rock-paper-scissors. Thats the whole idea behind points for units and equipment. Not every unit must be equally powerfull as other units - they must only be generally able to have some use according to their points cost.
As for the opportunity to disect every nuance of every unit - this is a competetive players responsibility. If you want to play competetive, but don't know the units you will be facing you haven't done your homework. A handbook of sorts to look the rules up is handy, but ultimately, if you forget that demons have an invul save, it's your own fault. If there are lots of barriers between a player and this relevant knowledge, this is obviously a detriment to competitive play. Even a professional player can not dump all his money on a flood of dataslates, minidexes and plug-in supplements. So yes, this slate-madness is bad, however you look at it.
I welcome the new formations and options and the like, but not for the money GW wants for them and not without any thought on ballance.
dracpanzer wrote: Storm Talon gets released with rules in WD. Nobody buys the WD, nobody picks up the rules. Everyone screams at GW to put them on-line. GW comes out with Dataslates for units rather than putting them in WD that nobody buys. Everyone screams at GW to give them for free.
GW is a business, they're supposed to attempt to make money. As gamers we all have a hobby. My personal definition of a hobby is "the thing you do with your disposable income". Some people snort it up their nose, some blow it on women, boats, cars, clothes what have you. If you don't understand why GW dares to make money off of us, you don't understand how exactly the world works.
I would love for them all to be compiled into a book on occasion, fill up 128 pages of data-slates and then put one out. I agree with Kronk, I like things I read to be on paper. I can get around it though. The data-slates I've purchased I've printed out and keep them in a folder just like my SoB codex.
Personally, no matter what GW does, it'll still be better than arguing over which of my little green army men shot my friends little brown army men while digging through the dirt in my mom's garden. It's your hobby, make of it what you want. GW is trying to make money off of providing you an outlet for your hobby. If you don't like it, please rage quit and sell us all your models for cheap.
Whatever happens, you won't be missed.
The issue I have with this like of thinking is that largely they are not releasing "units" in data slates. Few People had an issue with Belakor or Cypher being released as units via data slate. The issue most people have is that they are using data slates just to re-package existing units with a couple extra special rules and sell models. I don't have an issue with them making money. I'd just prefer they put some effort into the product they put out. If they want to invent new special characters Awesome. If they want to invent new "chapters" for races like the supplements....cool. If they want to say hey if you buy models X, Y and Z and play them together here is an extra rule for you...not so much. The larger issue with formations is the destruction of the FOC, same with Knights, same with Inquisition etc. Heck I'd even have less issue with formations if they were akin to if you take models X, Y and Z you get this special thing, but they still must fit in the FOC. That way you are making a sacrifice of something else to get those rules.
I also never appreciate people taking the tone of. "If you feel that GW is doing a bad job, please quit the hobby you have invested tons of time and money in" It is an immature stance, as a customer you have a right to complain if you feel things are being done poorly.
I welcome the new formations and options and the like, but not for the money GW wants for them and not without any thought on ballance.
The rules for pretty much all the units are available on line. For instance, look at the new Nid dataslate thread, tells you all you need to know if you're facing them. (Clue: just kill the synapse) .
For most games, you can play the formations without paying out for them. If you're playing at GW and you do have to buy the dataslate, well, that's not much different from shelling out for an extra allies codex. Yes, if you buy all new formations from scratch it will cost you a ton; but most people will use them just to season an existing list, as we have.
As for the more recent dataslates, Leviathan II and the Hellbrutes formations are pretty cool. Overpriced, maybe, but a consumer outrage and game-busting... not really.
Kilkrazy wrote: As regards competitive play, it is a given that both sides should have an even playing field. I don't see how that it is remotely deniable.
Number of players is equitable to number of points in a game. So each player starting with the same number of points is fine, though in my book certainly not a requirement. Football teams may each have 11 players on the field, that doesn't mean that they're anywhere near the same skill level, physical ability, or will react correctly in each instance or even be coached the same. Some teams are better than others, some are coached better than others, some teams don't show up to play or look past their opponents. Some teams get lucky on a freak chance or have calls go against them. I'd say it's probably impossible to point out a professional sporting event (or historical battle) that was ever actually "balanced" in this way. Yet GW is supposed to balance the game for you so that it'll be competitive and you won't have your feelings hurt if things get off to a bad start?
So much of the "I'm competitive, so I have to have it balanced" side of the story seems so clueless to me. If you really are all that competitive why aren't you willing to be on the penalty kill once in a while?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Breng77 wrote: I also never appreciate people taking the tone of. "If you feel that GW is doing a bad job, please quit the hobby you have invested tons of time and money in" It is an immature stance, as a customer you have a right to complain if you feel things are being done poorly.
I'm not saying that someone should quit, I'm saying that players should take control of their hobby rather than waiting around for GW to do so. They're reacting as most large corporations run by those who don't view their work as a hobby do. They make moves they believe will make them money. That's why they go to work. Catering to any supposed "consensus" of customers is something that generally takes a great deal of time. I'm not apologizing for them, but if you have a problem with all of this costing you money you probably are in the wrong hobby. If that fits your situation, is it immature of me to push people in the direction of rage quitting and selling their stuff to the people who are willing to put up with the shenanigans for cheap? Take it as a lesson learned, and except that things are never going to change with GW. They'll do what they do. If it is making you unhappy, cut your losses while you can.
Comparing armies to players is a bad analogy. I understand it, but all those players are subject to the same rules, which is not the case for armies in 40k where each has its own set of rules. I would also argue that the "skill level" of players in any particular competitive setting is far closer than the difference between armies in 40k.
As of the Penalty kill, another bad analogy as it doesn't happen for an entire game, and is the result of someone breaking a rule. Now if in 40k we had Refs, and if someone broke a rule the unit in question went into reserves or something...ok...but we don't
In 40k we are the players and the armies are equipment. what you are arguing is akin to saying I should play Icehocky with no pads and Roller Blades against someone in full hockey gear., or that I should have a shorter stick or a larger goal.
Kosake wrote: Yes, units must be ballanced, otherwise a game is not competitive, it turns into some crude sort of rock-paper-scissors. Thats the whole idea behind points for units and equipment. Not every unit must be equally powerfull as other units - they must only be generally able to some use according to their points cost
So, there's no way that a Tier 2 army could ever, EVER, beat a Tier 1 army. Not being balanced, there is simply no way the Tier 2 army can compete?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Breng77 wrote: As of the Penalty kill, another bad analogy as it doesn't happen for an entire game, and is the result of someone breaking a rule. Now if in 40k we had Refs, and if someone broke a rule the unit in question went into reserves or something...ok...but we don't
In 40k we are the players and the armies are equipment. what you are arguing is akin to saying I should play Icehocky with no pads and Roller Blades against someone in full hockey gear., or that I should have a shorter stick or a larger goal.
No, what I'm saying is that some armies will never be equal to others. Akin to being on the penalty kill and having only four players to your opponents five. That doesn't mean that the underhanded team cannot compete. Saying that a game must always be balanced to be competitive is silly.
Breng77 wrote: I also never appreciate people taking the tone of. "If you feel that GW is doing a bad job, please quit the hobby you have invested tons of time and money in" It is an immature stance, as a customer you have a right to complain if you feel things are being done poorly.
I'm not saying that someone should quit, I'm saying that players should take control of their hobby rather than waiting around for GW to do so. They're reacting as most large corporations run by those who don't view their work as a hobby do. They make moves they believe will make them money. That's why they go to work. Catering to any supposed "consensus" of customers is something that generally takes a great deal of time. I'm not apologizing for them, but if you have a problem with all of this costing you money you probably are in the wrong hobby. If that fits your situation, is it immature of me to push people in the direction of rage quitting and selling their stuff to the people who are willing to put up with the shenanigans for cheap? Take it as a lesson learned, and except that things are never going to change with GW. They'll do what they do. If it is making you unhappy, cut your losses while you can.
Yup, totally immature. I never said I had a problem with the cost. I have a problem currently with the quality of their rules. Now maybe they won't change, and I take plenty of control of my hobby, but the idea that "Well if you don't like it Quit" is a unhealthy, unproductive line of thinking. I have no problem with GW trying to make money, I just think they would make more money creating good rules for all their models (how many more pyrovores could they sell if the model had good rules, or Tzeentch Chariots, etc), actually put effort into making their rules balanced (hint: People typically enjoy close games to blow outs), and put some thought (not tons) into competitve play (if could even be releasing a subset of rules for that purpose) because those players are customers too.
Kosake wrote: Yes, units must be ballanced, otherwise a game is not competitive, it turns into some crude sort of rock-paper-scissors. Thats the whole idea behind points for units and equipment. Not every unit must be equally powerfull as other units - they must only be generally able to some use according to their points cost
So, there's no way that a Tier 2 army could ever, EVER, beat a Tier 1 army. Not being balanced, there is simply no way the Tier 2 army can compete?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Breng77 wrote: As of the Penalty kill, another bad analogy as it doesn't happen for an entire game, and is the result of someone breaking a rule. Now if in 40k we had Refs, and if someone broke a rule the unit in question went into reserves or something...ok...but we don't
In 40k we are the players and the armies are equipment. what you are arguing is akin to saying I should play Icehocky with no pads and Roller Blades against someone in full hockey gear., or that I should have a shorter stick or a larger goal.
No, what I'm saying is that some armies will never be equal to others. Akin to being on the penalty kill and having only four players to your opponents five. That doesn't mean that the underhanded team cannot compete. Saying that a game must always be balanced to be competitive is silly.
I knew what you meant and I said there are no games where teams are forced to be on the penalty kill for the entire game. It is a bad starting point.
Kilkrazy wrote: As regards competitive play, it is a given that both sides should have an even playing field. I don't see how that it is remotely deniable.
Number of players is equitable to number of points in a game. So each player starting with the same number of points is fine, though in my book certainly not a requirement. Football teams may each have 11 players on the field, that doesn't mean that they're anywhere near the same skill level, physical ability, or will react correctly in each instance or even be coached the same. Some teams are better than others, some are coached better than others, some teams don't show up to play or look past their opponents. Some teams get lucky on a freak chance or have calls go against them. I'd say it's probably impossible to point out a professional sporting event (or historical battle) that was ever actually "balanced" in this way. Yet GW is supposed to balance the game for you so that it'll be competitive and you won't have your feelings hurt if things get off to a bad start?
So much of the "I'm competitive, so I have to have it balanced" side of the story seems so clueless to me. If you really are all that competitive why aren't you willing to be on the penalty kill once in a while?
.
That's true, however all football teams at least in theory have the same chance to recruit and train players to an equal standard. That simply isn't true of 40K. If you want a balanced game both sides have to choose the same codex.
The reason why competitive players like a balanced game is because that means their skill and luck makes the difference, not who has a better codex.
Are there some competitive games or sports in which there is a deliberate built-in lack of balance?
Breng77 wrote: I knew what you meant and I said there are no games where teams are forced to be on the penalty kill for the entire game. It is a bad starting point.
Though teams that have all their first line starters on IR being forced to play against the league leading team happens quite often does it not? Do they always lose?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: That's true, however all football teams at least in theory have the same chance to recruit and train players to an equal standard. That simply isn't true of 40K. If you want a balanced game both sides have to choose the same codex.
Isn't that generally what the football teams are doing? As opposed to banning 3/4's of the players coming out of college because they don't fit into last years "accepted' mold?
ummmm....no I don't think teams with all their starters injured happens often. The also still have 5 professional players on the ice. Skill difference is based on players not equipment. So a better player will likely win. Armies should be balanced so that players decide the outcome.
Do you really feel the game is better when some armies are tons better than others? Because that is not really the case in most competitive sports. Where all players follow the same rules.
I don't know about american football , but at least in soccer there are more then one professional and semi professional leagues . Where for me professional is being ablt to live out of someone playing the game . Right now we have Real Madrid playing against some back water 4th league club right now . Technicly the 4th leaguers can win , if RM plays with their second or third squad and if they get lucky and it is RM for fun game and they don't want to get tired before a real league game .
That is true for many american sports. But those teams don't play against one another regularly, certainly not for anything that matters.
The Pro sports analogy also kind of falls apart as that is a job vs a hobby done for fun. I could stand imbalance a little more if someone paid me to do it instead of me paying for it.
Breng77 wrote: I knew what you meant and I said there are no games where teams are forced to be on the penalty kill for the entire game. It is a bad starting point.
Though teams that have all their first line starters on IR being forced to play against the league leading team happens quite often does it not? Do they always lose?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: That's true, however all football teams at least in theory have the same chance to recruit and train players to an equal standard. That simply isn't true of 40K. If you want a balanced game both sides have to choose the same codex.
Isn't that generally what the football teams are doing? As opposed to banning 3/4's of the players coming out of college because they don't fit into last years "accepted' mold?
I don't understand that point. Perhaps I lack the cultural context. I thought that in American Football, the top draft pick was given to the weakest team in the league each year, in order to try and maintain parity.
I think one thing that'd go a decent way to putting a little more balance into the game is a standardized points costing system for everything. It'd really set the game up better than it is now.
Also AP probably could change into an armor save modifier instead of a straight "ignores armor of X or worse" system. That'd make armor saves a little more meaningful again.
And while I'm stealing ideas from Fantasy: cover should modify BS. It's not that hard to implement and would go a long ways for every army.
Breng77 wrote: I knew what you meant and I said there are no games where teams are forced to be on the penalty kill for the entire game. It is a bad starting point.
Though teams that have all their first line starters on IR being forced to play against the league leading team happens quite often does it not? Do they always lose?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: That's true, however all football teams at least in theory have the same chance to recruit and train players to an equal standard. That simply isn't true of 40K. If you want a balanced game both sides have to choose the same codex.
Isn't that generally what the football teams are doing? As opposed to banning 3/4's of the players coming out of college because they don't fit into last years "accepted' mold?
I don't understand that point. Perhaps I lack the cultural context. I thought that in American Football, the top draft pick was given to the weakest team in the league each year, in order to try and maintain parity.
All they get is first choice, it doesn't mean they'll go after the best player as that may not be what their team needs. They may need a good Running Back or a good Linebacker over a star Quarterback.
dracpanzer wrote: I'll never understand this mindset. Competitive play has to have things start on an even playing field? Everything must be equal or it isn't fair? Tactics can only be superior when everything is equal? Things are fair when you've had the opportunity to disect every nuance of every unit, and if you haven't they shouldn't be allowed? Really?
Why WOULDN'T competitive play demand an even playing field? That's why it's a competition; the superior player should win, not the one who uses the best units. That's the crux of competitive play and balance - that all else equal the better "general" wins the game. It's the foundation of all games that involve one person versus another, as opposed to team games like D&D, but even there you need balance or you can end up with one "hero" and everyone else being henchmen because ultimately they aren't needed.
Tactics should be the deciding factor in any wargame, ultimately. 40k doesn't do that - if I bring a balanced Space Marine army and you bring a Screamerstar or Triptide or whatever the current powerhouse lists are, you are going to stomp me no matter what I do, because there isn't balance. In a balanced ruleset, that would not happen. You might have some powerful unit, but there is never such a disparity between lists or even units within the same list that you can basically lose before the first turn because you picked the wrong units/army.
Any other miniatures wargame (from companies that actually realize that's what they do, not pretend they don't like GW) understands that there needs to be thought towards balance without just handwaving it and putting the onus on the players to make things fair. That's why rules need to be balanced around tournament/competitive play to begin with: This would force balanced rules since it would be a cutthroat environment; rules would HAVE to be balanced and well-written to shore up loopholes and reel in broken combos, and then everyone benefits in the end.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: I don't think the data slates have to be balanced. Tournaments don't have to use them. I do think the core game and codexes should be balanced.
To a point I agree. I like the concept of dataslates as optional extras that aren't meant for competitive play (assuming anything else was) but precisely the kind of thing that helps "the narrative". They could be fun things to try out, and that's where the optional rules like random tables should be, in a $6 dataslate that you can choose to add in if you want more cinematic games.
Yes, but the point is that the rules of the game are designed to give the weakest team the best chance to improve their lineup by choosing the new player they want.
The team coach's skill is part of the process, as he may pick the wrong player.
ClockworkZion wrote: Also AP probably could change into an armor save modifier instead of a straight "ignores armor of X or worse" system. That'd make armor saves a little more meaningful again.
So 2nd edition They tried this and it was cumbersome, hence why they introduced AP in 3rd, to streamline the rules. The problem now is they haven't really changed the core rules since 3rd edition, but editions after 3rd have tried to add more of a random and haphazard feel to the game when the core rules are from the days when they were trying for balance.
It's like they went from wild and crazy (Rogue Trader) to less wild but still crazy (2nd) to streamlined (3rd) and have since then undone a lot of the streamlining. 3rd wasn't without its problems but it just needed some things tightened up (for example 3rd with Overwatch might have helped to stop assaults ruling the day, also I like AP on melee weapons), not the extent of changes they've done since then to go back to the opposite end of the spectrum.
Kilkrazy wrote: Yes, but the point is that the rules of the game are designed to give the weakest team the best chance to improve their lineup by choosing the new player they want.
The team coach's skill is part of the process, as he may pick the wrong player.
In that case tournaments should allow for people to change their armies between games to give everyone the best possible chance of winning (and thus keeping it balanced).
ClockworkZion wrote: Also AP probably could change into an armor save modifier instead of a straight "ignores armor of X or worse" system. That'd make armor saves a little more meaningful again.
So 2nd edition They tried this and it was cumbersome, hence why they introduced AP in 3rd, to streamline the rules. The problem now is they haven't really changed the core rules since 3rd edition, but editions after 3rd have tried to add more of a random and haphazard feel to the game when the core rules are from the days when they were trying for balance.
It's like they went from wild and crazy (Rogue Trader) to less wild but still crazy (2nd) to streamlined (3rd) and have since then undone a lot of the streamlining. 3rd wasn't without its problems but it just needed some things tightened up (for example 3rd with Overwatch might have helped to stop assaults ruling the day, also I like AP on melee weapons), not the extent of changes they've done since then to go back to the opposite end of the spectrum.
It's not really that cumbersome though to say "alright, this is AP6 so your Marines need a 4+ to live."
3rd was the rushed attempt to make 40k a tournament based game. Then they realized they didn't like it so much and tried to back off of it and go back to 2nd ed (which is likely the 40k many of them started during anyways, as outside of Jervis I'm pretty sure everyone else in the Rules Dev team is a later addition to the company).
Kilkrazy wrote: Yes, but the point is that the rules of the game are designed to give the weakest team the best chance to improve their lineup by choosing the new player they want.
The team coach's skill is part of the process, as he may pick the wrong player.
In that case tournaments should allow for people to change their armies between games to give everyone the best possible chance of winning (and thus keeping it balanced).
An interesting idea but that would really encourage listbuilding. I could maybe see something like how WM/H tournaments tend to let you bring two lists and pick which one you field after seeing who your opponent is, but that doesn't change the fact in 40k there tends to be only one "competitive" type of list anyways. That's the problem that needs to be fixed first.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ClockworkZion wrote: 3rd was the rushed attempt to make 40k a tournament based game. Then they realized they didn't like it so much and tried to back off of it and go back to 2nd ed (which is likely the 40k many of them started during anyways, as outside of Jervis I'm pretty sure everyone else in the Rules Dev team is a later addition to the company).
If they actually went back to a modified 2nd I wouldn't mind - I started in 2nd and it wasn't that bad other than silly wargear stuff (Virus Outbreak and Vortex Grenades, anyone?). 2nd at least had a lot more flexibility in army building, not the silly way they've done some things now. What they have now is some weird bastardization of 2nd and 3rd that doesn't have the good parts of either.
WayneTheGame wrote: An interesting idea but that would really encourage listbuilding. I could maybe see something like how WM/H tournaments tend to let you bring two lists and pick which one you field after seeing who your opponent is, but that doesn't change the fact in 40k there tends to be only one "competitive" type of list anyways. That's the problem that needs to be fixed first.
Oh lots of things need to be fixed. Half the game already focuses on list building anyways.
WayneTheGame wrote: If they actually went back to a modified 2nd I wouldn't mind - I started in 2nd and it wasn't that bad other than silly wargear stuff (Virus Outbreak and Vortex Grenades, anyone?). 2nd at least had a lot more flexibility in army building, not the silly way they've done some things now.
6th seems like an attempt to do just that, but while being saddled with not changing the game design from what they adopted in 3rd by too much.
Kilkrazy wrote: Yes, but the point is that the rules of the game are designed to give the weakest team the best chance to improve their lineup by choosing the new player they want.
The team coach's skill is part of the process, as he may pick the wrong player.
In that case tournaments should allow for people to change their armies between games to give everyone the best possible chance of winning (and thus keeping it balanced).
WayneTheGame wrote: An interesting idea but that would really encourage listbuilding. I could maybe see something like how WM/H tournaments tend to let you bring two lists and pick which one you field after seeing who your opponent is, but that doesn't change the fact in 40k there tends to be only one "competitive" type of list anyways. That's the problem that needs to be fixed first.
Oh lots of things need to be fixed. Half the game already focuses on list building anyways.
... .
That of course is because the unbalance of the various books is conducive to winning by having a good list, with a deathstar or whatever.
You only have to read the "tactics" forum to realise that most of what people call tactics in 40K is selecting the best units.
Right, but if you really want to argue for balance it should be every tournament. Or at the very least steal on from MTG and give players a Side Board to work with.
Kilkrazy wrote: That of course is because the unbalance of the various books is conducive to winning by having a good list, with a deathstar or whatever.
You only have to read the "tactics" forum to realise that most of what people call tactics in 40K is selecting the best units.
Oh I realized that a long time ago when I saw people outright saying "you should never take X, and you need Y or Z to win". It's very rare that people come along and explain things like deployment strategies or how to counter an opponent's gunline and so on. I feel that the game is only half the fault here though, and that the players are just trying to play the simplest game, regardless of what the game is made to play.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I should probably clarify a bit: based on the personal armies we've seen from GW staffers in the WD, to include how they select old units, not just new (plus that one game where they just decided to bring everything they owned of their respective armies) I feel the way GW has designed the game is you take a mix of everything in the book you think is cool and that's how you build an army.
So in essence I think that's how they intend the game to be played and the fact we don't do that is really our choice.
Of course it'd be nice if they'd recognize that our choices matter too in design, but I strongly feel that as long as they have Jervis that likely won't happen. He's the invisible hand that keeps the game from straying too far crunchwise it seems.
Right, but if you really want to argue for balance it should be every tournament. Or at the very least steal on from MTG and give players a Side Board to work with.
Tournaments aren't supposed to be part of 40K any more, apparently.
It's up to TOs if they want to add the element of changing your list. It can be fun, but it should not be necessary for balance.
I think tournaments should be balanced by the core rules and codexes being balanced.
Tournaments aren't supposed to be part of 40K any more, apparently.
It's up to TOs if they want to add the element of changing your list. It can be fun, but it should not be necessary for balance.
I think tournaments should be balanced by the core rules and codexes being balanced.
I just find it hilarious that we say we need a competitive balance and then we bring up the one big thing that would help prevent bad matches it gets balked. Even professional sports rotate and change rosters as the season goes on. And even MtG and Warmachine have a means to have different things to play as well.
I'm not saying it's fix everything, but if we want a more balanced competitive game then it's something that we should be looking at more closely and seriously.
ClockworkZion wrote: I should probably clarify a bit: based on the personal armies we've seen from GW staffers in the WD, to include how they select old units, not just new (plus that one game where they just decided to bring everything they owned of their respective armies) I feel the way GW has designed the game is you take a mix of everything in the book you think is cool and that's how you build an army.
So in essence I think that's how they intend the game to be played and the fact we don't do that is really our choice.
Of course it'd be nice if they'd recognize that our choices matter too in design, but I strongly feel that as long as they have Jervis that likely won't happen. He's the invisible hand that keeps the game from straying too far crunchwise it seems.
That's not an excuse though. They definitely pick what they think looks cool or fits the theme for their army - this has been the case since forever basically. But IMO that's not a valid reason to put out things that are blatantly overpowered, and shows even worse lack of caring because they can't be arsed to actually look and say "This is too good", even knowing that they'd never field it to actually test it.
I always love looking at the staff armies, because I like seeing the variety. But one thing they have in common is they are rarely, if ever, built around effectiveness. They'll include "bad" units because they look good or it fits the army, and that's fine and should be encouraged but it doesn't change the fact that there shouldn't be "bad" units to the extreme that 40k has.
For example I was reading through the Crusade of Fire 40k campaign book and Matt Hutson (who I remember from 3rd edition) brought his Red Corsairs, and he even says that he built it close to a loyalist army without daemon engines because the Corsairs were a recent renegade chapter. It looked awesome, but I was thinking to myself "Then why not play a loyalist army instead and call them Red Corsairs?" I mean his army looked good but things like that are just intentionally hurting yourself for flavor.
It'd be great if everyone did that, but I don't think it's an excuse to say that "You're playing wrong" instead of making so there's no wrong way to play. That the designers can't fathom combos speaks volumes to their lack of playtesting and/or playtesting only in a certain way so that they'd never ever ever think of fielding 3x Heldrakes, so the idea the Heldrake is overpowered will never even spring to mind.
Biased playtesting is IMO worse than no playtesting at all because at least if you don't bother, you can point to that as an excuse ("We didn't test this"). But when you claim to playtest and are just incapable of testing things outside the box, it shows that you shouldn't be testing at all. If they had sense they should have let some of the top tournament players (back when they had them) playtest the rules for a competitive environment, that way they'd immediately get feedback like "I can take 3x of this unit and it's way too good" or "This unit needs to be better or nobody is going to take it in serious games".
Tournaments aren't supposed to be part of 40K any more, apparently.
It's up to TOs if they want to add the element of changing your list. It can be fun, but it should not be necessary for balance.
I think tournaments should be balanced by the core rules and codexes being balanced.
I just find it hilarious that we say we need a competitive balance and then we bring up the one big thing that would help prevent bad matches it gets balked. Even professional sports rotate and change rosters as the season goes on. And even MtG and Warmachine have a means to have different things to play as well.
I'm not saying it's fix everything, but if we want a more balanced competitive game then it's something that we should be looking at more closely and seriously.
The reason we want/need official balance is so you have it straight from the horse's mouth. You can come up with your own house rules to fix issues, and that's fine but all it takes is one person to say "Nope, that's not official" and then you don't get to use it. Local metas are disparate like that, which is why you need specific rules for tournaments. Even if GW had a "Tournament Package" that was common FAQs or house rules or whatnot it'd go a long way because then every tournament could say they were using the GW Tournament Pack, which seems to be how other games work as well - Warmachine has specific rules for different types of tournaments, I believe MtG does as well. GW's games are the only games that have zero involvement anymore from the company and is on each individual tourney to set its own standards, which leads to fracturing the playerbase because no official support means it's that much harder to get people to give it thought. If I showed up to my local meta with some rules improvements from here or elsewhere on the internet I'd likely be laughed at because it's not official, so nobody cares.
Having the "endorsement" goes a very long way towards general acceptance. That's why Chapter Approved worked - it came straight from GW in an "official" capacity.
WayneTheGame wrote: That's not an excuse though. They definitely pick what they think looks cool or fits the theme for their army - this has been the case since forever basically. But IMO that's not a valid reason to put out things that are blatantly overpowered, and shows even worse lack of caring because they can't be arsed to actually look and say "This is too good", even knowing that they'd never field it to actually test it.
I never said it was an excuse, afterall, I pointed out that they should be respecting the player's desires more as well. There is an obvious disconnect from both sides though and honestly I think it's because neither side wants to admit the other has a valid view of how the game should be played.
WayneTheGame wrote: I always love looking at the staff armies, because I like seeing the variety. But one thing they have in common is they are rarely, if ever, built around effectiveness. They'll include "bad" units because they look good or it fits the army, and that's fine and should be encouraged but it doesn't change the fact that there shouldn't be "bad" units to the extreme that 40k has.
Which is largely how I think, internally at least, GW honestly feels the game should play. I'm not saying that we should have a more balanced game, I'm just saying that I think this is what GW thinks how we should play the game, but at the same time they're very passive aggressive about it since they never come out and just say "this is how you play the game" lest they squash someone's creativity.
WayneTheGame wrote: It'd be great if everyone did that, but I don't think it's an excuse to say that "You're playing wrong" instead of making so there's no wrong way to play. That the designers can't fathom combos speaks volumes to their lack of playtesting and/or playtesting only in a certain way so that they'd never ever ever think of fielding 3x Heldrakes, so the idea the Heldrake is overpowered will never even spring to mind.
I agree that this is a problem for the game as a whole. One that comes from having too many people who only look at the game one specific way and don't see it the same way that the players do. I'm not saying we need to go back to the big playtesting days, but perhaps new units get a release in WD (with the models like they are doing for Scions) they get some player feedback (say by email, or through a forum set up specifically for the new stuff) and then adjust it based on what the player community is saying as a whole. We'd still get new toys, they'd get a chance to refine things and reign in broken combos and then the polished version would be in the next codex. Everyone would be happy.
Tournaments aren't supposed to be part of 40K any more, apparently.
It's up to TOs if they want to add the element of changing your list. It can be fun, but it should not be necessary for balance.
I think tournaments should be balanced by the core rules and codexes being balanced.
I just find it hilarious that we say we need a competitive balance and then we bring up the one big thing that would help prevent bad matches it gets balked. Even professional sports rotate and change rosters as the season goes on. And even MtG and Warmachine have a means to have different things to play as well.
I'm not saying it's fix everything, but if we want a more balanced competitive game then it's something that we should be looking at more closely and seriously.
It isn't the one big thing. The lack of balanced rules and codexes is the one big thing.
Most professional sports actually have rules that limit the amount of roster change during a season and even during a single game.
The reason why competitive players like a balanced game is because that means their skill and luck makes the difference, not who has a better codex.
Are there some competitive games or sports in which there is a deliberate built-in lack of balance?
I believe LoL has a system built on buffing and nerfing units to keep the Meta moving around.
I belive you're refering to a system of perfect imbalance:
I think GW -wants- to do something like that (hence the regular buffing and nerfing things with every release) but it doesn't work so well because how slowly a game like this moves.
Perfect imbalance relies on subtle variance and incomparable mechanics. The imbalance in 40k is about as subtle as power-armoured superhuman riding a giant wolf while revving a chainsword and firing a bolter wildly into the air.
PrinceRaven wrote: Perfect imbalance relies on subtle variance and incomparable mechanics. The imbalance in 40k is about as subtle as power-armoured superhuman riding a giant wolf while revving a chainsword and firing a bolter wildly into the air.
I was saying LoL uses Perfect Imbalance. GW -tries- to use Perfect Imbalance by nerfing and buffing things but they're both out of touch with the meta that most of us see and operating in a medium that moves too slowly for it to work.
