Well you are allowed to do whatever you want, which I've said countless times already. However no one better knows what you'd love than you. So you'd need to do some of work to find another system that might float your boat. I mean I see you throw around the word bias a whole lot. You have much of your pro GW bias going on and spout it without shame as you have no well rounded view to speak from when GW is and has been your sole long standing game experience it seems like. Aside from a dabble in WMH. I don't know if I'd keep talking about bias so much.
My comment was more to the fact you say how valuable your time is, yet you spend so much of it here defending GW from seemingly everyone, how is that a good use of your limited and valuable time ? I mean it's not like going through the list is even anything with a time limit on it, you can take your time and glance on through it. Unless you don't want to spend any effort to really expand your horizons at which point just say that as well.
For my "pro-GW bias" I sure have a lot of opinions on how the game could be better or things I think it fails at.
Just because I don't toss around the word "broken" until it loses meaning doesn't mean I think GW is some untouchable paragon of design. I was just trying to be met half way in a legitimate attempt to hear people out and look at other game systems. I didn't realized that asking to bd shown good faith while ttting to show good faith would apparently be so controversial. I guess no one knows what to do when people are willing to actually try and see what the other side is talking about.
And I started this discussion because I felt there was potential for discussion, and have found most of it pretty decent. I mean the disconnect between player perspective and designer intent alone is pretty interesting and I wouldn't have bothered to even consider looking at other games if it wasn't brought up.
Besides, I read this mostly at work when I have down time for breaks or lunch, or when online working on other projects at the same time.
Well, except when arguing with Peregrine. I admit that was a poor use of my time.
I can get that, but all this topic was going to do is prove what most of us already knew. That the gulf between designers and consumers was pretty vast. Part of that reason is that GW themselves talk out of both sides of their mouth. They say how they love narrative and don't really look at balance the same as we do, yet keep trying to feed the tournament scene all the same because they want that money. They saw from the AoS first launch just how wrong they were on people just want to buy models and toss them around with no competitive element to it, had they stayed on that I have no doubt AoS would have died and stayed pretty dead.
A lot of what they say just is so silly, you'd think they may have accidentally figured out what their customers want by now. Instead they laugh off balance concerns and then prop up narrative as a kind of empty shield from being called out. It ultimately feels a bit like a well known lie and leaves a bad taste in some peoples mouth, mine included. I wasn't surprised at all to know the designers have no real clue what the players think, they prove pretty easily and often how oddly disconnected they are while at the same time having more feedback from the community than ever before.
It would be easier to have positive view on them if they were clear to their intent and intentions. clear beyond just that like maybe drop it in a community round up on their page for everyone to read. They made a fair share of mistakes in the past but at least in some regard I felt they were honest with the AoS release in saying they didn't give a crap what we wanted, it was about what they wanted. Also with 7th edition it was a train wreck but they they stayed true to forging the narrative as their push and not really caring at all what tournaments did.
Now it feels like they want to make it competitive but do so poorly and when they screw up laugh it off as it wasn't what they were driving for the whole time. It gives a confused story and makes them look either like they lie, or they are terrible at what they do. I feel like they never really tell us the truth and just keep feeding us lines. Which makes sense as they want to milk us as long as possible but hey, I'd even respect it if they said they do all this to get as much money from us as they can. I doubt they'll ever be that honest with us though but I can dream and on the day they do give us that brutal honesty, I'd respect them. As is, it feels like most of the time they are trying poorly to play us for fools but with a really nice smile.
This is 100%, absolutely spot on. That's exactly what they do. It's corporate doublespeak at its finest. They say in the same breath they care about narrative but are kowtowing to the tournament crowd (poorly) with haphazard balance adjustments because they don't actually understand. So instead they peddle this horsegak constantly where it just seems like lie after lie after lie while pretending that they're trying so cut them some slack.
However on the AOS end their designers are mostly all tournament players, so I don't think its they don't understand, I think its that they know what makes money, and they know its not narrative play today, its competitive play.
auticus wrote: However on the AOS end their designers are mostly all tournament players, so I don't think its they don't understand, I think its that they know what makes money, and they know its not narrative play today, its competitive play.
AOS yes, but the 40k designers aren't tournament players as far as we can tell, it's the same group from 7th edition that were all about "forge the narrative". And as we've both speculated the spotty balance in AOS is a feature, not a bug, to put the emphasis on listbuilding and combo-stacking.
auticus wrote: However on the AOS end their designers are mostly all tournament players, so I don't think its they don't understand, I think its that they know what makes money, and they know its not narrative play today, its competitive play.
This the same lot of designers who thought AoS needed those larping rules or did they confirm that they gave those geniuses the boot?
auticus wrote: However on the AOS end their designers are mostly all tournament players, so I don't think its they don't understand, I think its that they know what makes money, and they know its not narrative play today, its competitive play.
This the same lot of designers who thought AoS needed those larping rules or did they confirm that they gave those geniuses the boot?
That was, IIRC, before they split the teams. So those people are I believe the same guys on the 40k design team (who were pulling double duty; likely not entirely the same people though) since it was for the longest time the same group working on both games. The AOS team is now heavily UK tournament players (who, granted, also like non-competitive play and can do both)
After turning my group on to narrative play, I'm starting to think the ruleset and overall product lends itself much better to narrative than competitive.
Narrative games where both players are actively involved in tailoring each other's lists for a balanced match plays directly to the two biggest strengths of Warhammer: rich setting and fantastic miniatures.
slave.entity wrote: After turning my group on to narrative play, I'm starting to think the ruleset and overall product lends itself much better to narrative than competitive.
Narrative games where both players are actively involved in tailoring each other's lists for a balanced match plays directly to the two biggest strengths of Warhammer: rich setting and fantastic miniatures.
Exactly. But the poor rules makes that harder because one person's army might be FOTM and much better than someone else's through no fault of their own, or conversely be uncharacteristically weak. That's why people say that a well balanced, competitive ruleset benefits narrative as well; having care put towards balancing things at the competitive level has the effect of making those narrative choices much closer in balance as well.
slave.entity wrote: After turning my group on to narrative play, I'm starting to think the ruleset and overall product lends itself much better to narrative than competitive.
Narrative games where both players are actively involved in tailoring each other's lists for a balanced match plays directly to the two biggest strengths of Warhammer: rich setting and fantastic miniatures.
Exactly. But the poor rules makes that harder because one person's army might be FOTM and much better than someone else's through no fault of their own, or conversely be uncharacteristically weak. That's why people say that a well balanced, competitive ruleset benefits narrative as well; having care put towards balancing things at the competitive level has the effect of making those narrative choices much closer in balance as well.
That aligns with my experience. Part of the reason why switching from competitive to narrative has been relatively smooth for my group is because all of us have been following the competitive scene very, very closely, so we're generally pretty good at balancing the relative power levels of non-competitive units against each other. But that's after like 2 years of approaching the game exclusively from a competitive mindset. Newer players seeking to play narrative without that experience of valuating unit strength would certainly have a much harder time designing a balanced fight between two armies. But from a narrative play standpoint, maybe that's also part of the fun?
The interesting thing I've found with narrative play is that "trash" datasheets are now suddenly useful. My group almost has this unspoken tier list of units across our factions where everyone kinda knows how broken and boring a game will be if you pit eldar hemlocks against chaos space marines or if you throw tyranid bio-tanks against plaguebearers. And since the goal is to set up a fun game and have a good time, when my buddy wants to run B or C-tier units like CSM and maulerfiends, that's when I'll ditch the hemlocks and run my own lower tier units like aspect warriors and wraithlords. Suddenly those useless datasheets serve a purpose and now we can design matchups specifically to accommodate weaker unit profiles.
We're essentially taking the competitive aspect of the game out of the listbuilding phase. And that works because I think everyone can agree that winning a game before T1 even starts is a huge waste of time for both parties involved.
The thing is, I'm not sure that having this huge discrepancy in power level between a competitive unit and a non-competitive unit is necessarily a bad thing. Yes, it frequently causes problems by creating unwinnable situations where the outcome of a match is decided before the game even starts. That is a problem for sure. But it also adds a certain amount of flexibility in the way narrative players can design their matchups. It's possible to balance a broken, busted OP unit in an army by filling the rest of the list with C-tier garbage, trash datasheets. And from a narrative perspective where both players are actively involved in designing a fair matchup for each other, that's actually kinda cool.
I've found a lot of narrative folks don't post much on the forums. They absolutely exist, there's a reason they keep putting out stuff for narrative players, and not just in the studio. You just don't see them much here.
That's a very convenient thing to claim. That these people must exist somewhere, despite there being near-zero evidence of that fact. I maintain that the "narrative players" are all but extinct today. Perhaps they existed in editions before now, but the culture surrounding the game has chewed them up and spat them out ages ago.
Personally, I drew my own conclusions about how I was treated by the community at large, as well as the game designers, and how the game didn't accommodate the kind of armies I wanted to play, and stopped playing it. This has made me significantly happier and more positive as a person. Sure, it's sad that there isn't a game out there for me, but on the other hand, beating my fists at the unyielding fortress of arrogance and idiocy that is the GW rules department never got me anywhere.
40k is a terrible game for narrative gaming, and anyone attempting to use it for such should re-examine the meaningfulness of their actions, and Let. It. Go. You're never going to get what you want out of the half-formed chimera that GW has nurtured in its bosom for all these years, and regularly lining up to pay the latest releases is never going to change that.
I don't know if this is entirely fair. For one thing, there still are a lot of narrative players, though I haven't seen them much on the forums. I've seen a few on YouTube, but honestly most of the people I know who are in it for narrative show up to clubs and don't engage much online. I don't know that its helpless to try a narrative style army, you just have to play with like minded people. I will concede that the GW certainly doesn't do a lot to help with that though...
slave.entity wrote: After turning my group on to narrative play, I'm starting to think the ruleset and overall product lends itself much better to narrative than competitive.
Narrative games where both players are actively involved in tailoring each other's lists for a balanced match plays directly to the two biggest strengths of Warhammer: rich setting and fantastic miniatures.
Exactly. But the poor rules makes that harder because one person's army might be FOTM and much better than someone else's through no fault of their own, or conversely be uncharacteristically weak. That's why people say that a well balanced, competitive ruleset benefits narrative as well; having care put towards balancing things at the competitive level has the effect of making those narrative choices much closer in balance as well.
That aligns with my experience. Part of the reason why switching from competitive to narrative has been relatively smooth for my group is because all of us have been following the competitive scene very, very closely, so we're generally pretty good at balancing the relative power levels of non-competitive units against each other. But that's after like 2 years of approaching the game exclusively from a competitive mindset. Newer players seeking to play narrative without that experience of valuating unit strength would certainly have a much harder time designing a balanced fight between two armies. But from a narrative play standpoint, maybe that's also part of the fun?
The interesting thing I've found with narrative play is that "trash" datasheets are now suddenly useful. My group almost has this unspoken tier list of units across our factions where everyone kinda knows how broken and boring a game will be if you pit eldar hemlocks against chaos space marines or if you throw tyranid bio-tanks against plaguebearers. And since the goal is to set up a fun game and have a good time, when my buddy wants to run B or C-tier units like CSM and maulerfiends, that's when I'll ditch the hemlocks and run my own lower tier units like aspect warriors and wraithlords. Suddenly those useless datasheets serve a purpose and now we can design matchups specifically to accommodate weaker unit profiles.
We're essentially taking the competitive aspect of the game out of the listbuilding phase. And that works because I think everyone can agree that winning a game before T1 even starts is a huge waste of time for both parties involved.
The thing is, I'm not sure that having this huge discrepancy in power level between a competitive unit and a non-competitive unit is necessarily a bad thing. Yes, it frequently causes problems by creating unwinnable situations where the outcome of a match is decided before the game even starts. That is a problem for sure. But it also adds a certain amount of flexibility in the way narrative players can design their matchups. It's possible to balance a broken, busted OP unit in an army by filling the rest of the list with C-tier garbage, trash datasheets. And from a narrative perspective where both players are actively involved in designing a fair matchup for each other, that's actually kinda cool.
I see what you're saying, but that only works if you and your opponent can meet ahead of the game and arrive to the table knowing who you will be facing. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with it (probably is ultimately preferable) but the rules as written don't lend themselves to pick-up games, which are still pretty common at a lot of clubs (at least in my area). In my group, we try to have thematic armies/ campaigns, but we don't always know who will be matched up with who upon arriving to the club (mostly a logistical issue).
If the rules were more balanced, they would lend themselves better to games that don't require as much planning/ needing your opponent to go over your list with you. We would get more good games in if we could just show up with a list and play, trusting the ruleset to be balanced enough to be fun.
I think RE: Pickup games the most ironic thing is that there's no reason to have a blind pickup game. Most groups/game stores have Facebook pages and most people use Facebook. It's not that hard to hash out all of the "ahead of game" stuff before game day via posts on Facebook or whatever so you don't have to do it after.
Yet for some reason, people insist on essentially deciding at random to travel to the game store and hope that someone else had the same idea, rather than pre-arrange that.
Wayniac wrote: I think RE: Pickup games the most ironic thing is that there's no reason to have a blind pickup game. Most groups/game stores have Facebook pages and most people use Facebook. It's not that hard to hash out all of the "ahead of game" stuff before game day via posts on Facebook or whatever so you don't have to do it after.
Yet for some reason, people insist on essentially deciding at random to travel to the game store and hope that someone else had the same idea, rather than pre-arrange that.
Why yes, it's entirely inconceivable that an LGS might, say, schedule a set time every week where a particular game system is played. Who would ever do that?
Wayniac wrote: I think RE: Pickup games the most ironic thing is that there's no reason to have a blind pickup game. Most groups/game stores have Facebook pages and most people use Facebook. It's not that hard to hash out all of the "ahead of game" stuff before game day via posts on Facebook or whatever so you don't have to do it after.
Yet for some reason, people insist on essentially deciding at random to travel to the game store and hope that someone else had the same idea, rather than pre-arrange that.
Why yes, it's entirely inconceivable that an LGS might, say, schedule a set time every week where a particular game system is played. Who would ever do that?
I don't know about you, but even when there's Friday Night 40k, there's no reason to just show up out of the blue rather than arrange a game on the group's Facebook/Meetup/etc. page first. My point remains. There's no reason to just head on down and walk into a blind game against someone who also just came down rather than hash things out beforehand, so the excuse of "I don't want to discuss things before playing" is pretty much a load of gak since you can do it before you ever get to the store.
Or is it really that hard to say "Gonna be at the store at 6 on Friday for 40k. Anyone up for a game" and then discuss what sort of game you want.
Wayniac wrote: I don't know about you, but even when there's Friday Night 40k, there's no reason to just show up out of the blue rather than arrange a game on the group's Facebook/Meetup/etc. page first. My point remains. There's no reason to just head on down and walk into a blind game against someone who also just came down rather than hash things out beforehand, so the excuse of "I don't want to discuss things before playing" is pretty much a load of gak since you can do it before you ever get to the store.
Or is it really that hard to say "Gonna be at the store at 6 on Friday for 40k. Anyone up for a game" and then discuss what sort of game you want.
Translation: you're incapable of comprehending that other people might function socially different than you do.
Not hard, no. But it shouldn't be necessary. If the game was balanced correctly, you wouldn't NEED to hash things out, tweak lists, and adjust strategies. I could literally invite you over to my house for beer, watch some T.V., then say "Hey, I'm bored. Wanna play a few rounds of 40k?" And we could just set up models and go.
Wayniac wrote: Sure it does. There's no excuse for not wanting to arrange a fething game beforehand and instead just head on down. feth off with that idiocy.
Thats a big ole nope. Also, somebody's feeling a mite touchy about not being able to dictate how other people interact within their social circles.
Basically the intent of the rules team is for people to tell cool stories with their minis instead of focusing on just crushing each other into paste.
Adopting this approach to 40k has been an enriching experience for me personally. Especially after getting bored with exclusively following competitive for the past couple of years. Like many here I agree that competitive 40k can be pretty shallow and can sometimes feel like a lot of wasted effort and shelved minis with every balance patch. Lucky for us there are other ways to play, even with the current ruleset.
Basically the intent of the rules team is for people to tell cool stories with their minis instead of focusing on just crushing each other into paste.
Adopting this approach to 40k has been an enriching experience for me personally. Especially after getting bored with exclusively following competitive for the past couple of years. Like many here I agree that competitive 40k can be pretty shallow and can sometimes feel like a lot of wasted effort and shelved minis with every balance patch. Lucky for us there are other ways to play, even with the current ruleset.
Ah if only more people felt the way you do instead of immediately throwing away 2/3 of the game to focus on 1/3 (i.e. Matched Play) and then taking that to its most extreme level, without knowing when to dial it back (or, worse, thinking such a thing is a mortal sin)
I am a big proponent of unequal points/PL or buff/debuff games.
More and more of the "new" players(as in coming back to game after absence) are former heavy tourney players. they have said on more than one occasion that they really like the more laid back narrative focused games with tons of terrain and like minded players.
Now we have recently had an influx of comp players that actively participate in tourneys and there has been small uptick in people asking to play ITC(I dont play them but others do). I'll ask them what they've played before and 90% will say MTG. We've also had a fair amount of burnout(hobby and $$wise) from them. They'll buy the newesthotness, either paint it themselves or pay pro, go to some tourneys, not have any fun and say peace out. I understand that's how it's supposed to work but isn't it bad for the hobby in general?
I just hope that more people would just fall in love with the lore first then pick which army best represents them not by which rules are "best"(which will change).
That's a very convenient thing to claim. That these people must exist somewhere, despite there being near-zero evidence of that fact. I maintain that the "narrative players" are all but extinct today. Perhaps they existed in editions before now, but the culture surrounding the game has chewed them up and spat them out ages ago.
Personally, I drew my own conclusions about how I was treated by the community at large, as well as the game designers, and how the game didn't accommodate the kind of armies I wanted to play, and stopped playing it. This has made me significantly happier and more positive as a person. Sure, it's sad that there isn't a game out there for me, but on the other hand, beating my fists at the unyielding fortress of arrogance and idiocy that is the GW rules department never got me anywhere.
40k is a terrible game for narrative gaming, and anyone attempting to use it for such should re-examine the meaningfulness of their actions, and Let. It. Go. You're never going to get what you want out of the half-formed chimera that GW has nurtured in its bosom for all these years, and regularly lining up to pay the latest releases is never going to change that.
It's funny that duting 6th and 7th the cry was to let competetive 40k go because it was dead and now the cry is to let Narrative gaming go instead. How about we all stop telling people the right way to play with their toys and let them have fun how they want?
Basically the intent of the rules team is for people to tell cool stories with their minis instead of focusing on just crushing each other into paste.
Adopting this approach to 40k has been an enriching experience for me personally. Especially after getting bored with exclusively following competitive for the past couple of years. Like many here I agree that competitive 40k can be pretty shallow and can sometimes feel like a lot of wasted effort and shelved minis with every balance patch. Lucky for us there are other ways to play, even with the current ruleset.
Ah if only more people felt the way you do instead of immediately throwing away 2/3 of the game to focus on 1/3 (i.e. Matched Play) and then taking that to its most extreme level, without knowing when to dial it back (or, worse, thinking such a thing is a mortal sin)
I don't know about you, but I would much rather play 3/3 of the game, and play the units I like, without needing to tone my list down, or hope my opponent will adjust theirs to tell cool stories. Balance aside, the ruleset, on a mechanical level does not facilitate storytelling well- the chosen deign space is too narrow. Most special rules are minor variations of rerolls, + or - to a save, mortal wounds, etc.- that isn't decision making, or telling stories, it's modifying probability. 40k 8th is extremely limiting at its core.
If GW were to move to AA, that would open up myriad options that aren't feasible with IGOUGO. For example, in 40k a "hit and run" was passing an initiative test to withdraw from being locked in combat, now it's the "fly" keyword- falling back with no penalty. Functional, but not interesting or exciting. MEDGe has the best execution for guerrilla warfare that I've seen- the unit makes a double move, passes over/through the opposing unit, makes its attacks, and receives defensive fire. That is some cool storytelling, embedded within the rules, not reliant on playing pretend.
Which is why I use a houseruled aos (and 40k) ruleset that uses alternate activation. THe game opens up a whole lot more and is tons more fun (to me and the people that play with me).
flandarz wrote:Not hard, no. But it shouldn't be necessary. If the game was balanced correctly, you wouldn't NEED to hash things out, tweak lists, and adjust strategies. I could literally invite you over to my house for beer, watch some T.V., then say "Hey, I'm bored. Wanna play a few rounds of 40k?" And we could just set up models and go.
'What size board, what size game, what scenario'?
Not everyone wants the same thing.
Table top games are very limited systems that can only handle so much weight. With respect, no game will ever be 'balanced correctly enough' to avoid these things or allow for all things to simultaneously be equally capable/viable/workable across all scenarios and occasions without any external input or pre-game effort. This is a unicorn. And as I pointed out earlier, every balance mechanic has a cost associated. Not everyone wants it, or agrees with the 'solution'. At the end of the day, There are only so many things the writers can actually do. And aside from that, at the end of the day, and more importantly from my perspective at least (feel free to differ, by all means) we are still dealing with people (and let's face it, the person at the other end of he board isn't an npc), and I don't think it's unreasonable to expect different people to have different expectations and different likes and dislikes. This will translate to hashing things out in some form. This is not necessarily a good, or a bad thing, just a thing. Does that mean you have to cater to every whim, or surrender everything that's important to you? Or them to you? Or talk endlessly in circles for hours or days? Probably not. I would at least suggest to folks to be open to accommodation (as opposed to accommodation-at-all-costs) or listening at the very least, and if your tastes are actually too different/divergent, then fair enough, say no, shake hands and politely look elsewhere. No egos need be bruised.
I don't see any problems with hashing things out, making accommodations. tweaking or adjusting things when I'm doing stuff, or planning stuff with my wife, or friends/family, for me at least, it's not too much of a stretch to extend this to the folks at the other end of the table to me.
Sterling191 wrote:
Translation: you're incapable of comprehending that other people might function socially different than you do.
Your point doesnt remain.
He has a Point though. I don't think it has anything to do with people functioning socially different - With respect, the reality on the ground is that often the blind match up pick-up-games are hugely vulnerable to 'gotcha!' Match-ups and 'negative play experiences'. Maybe you don't see it this way, but wayniac obviously has a different frame of reference. And I have enough negative experiences of blind pick-up-games (and posiiive ones too, to be fair) to at least be wary of it. I don't think it's ever smart to walk into a situation 'blind'. I don't do it in work, I don't do it in my day-to-day plans, why would I do it do it for my actually-valuable hobby/game time? At the very least, I want to know the people and the type of 'game' they bring to the board. And I don't think it's unreasonable to actually want to enjoy one's actual game-time. I don't think it's unreasonable to want to talk about it with ones peers, if this results in getting that good game. I can't imagine many people want to walk into a seal clubbing [either end]. This is as true for 40k as many other games. As with anything, when it comes to the pre-game talk, it's doesn't have to be huge. it's not black and white - there is a spectrum.I don't think it's an unfair, or unreasonable suggestion to put up a flag and say 'guys, heading down to the game store at 8. I'm seriously tempted to bring my 2000pt tourney prep marines/semi-competitive orks [insert build]. Anyone up for a game?' It's also true some folks might genuinely enjoy the game building aspects of the minutiae of building a scenario before turning up. Neither is wrong.
I wouldn't expect to take a girl out and have a good time without talking to her, or putting some effort into it too (back in the day at least!). This is helpful for anything that has a social aspect. And that includes gaming.
The thing is, I'm not sure that having this huge discrepancy in power level between a competitive unit and a non-competitive unit is necessarily a bad thing. Yes, it frequently causes problems by creating unwinnable situations where the outcome of a match is decided before the game even starts. That is a problem for sure. But it also adds a certain amount of flexibility in the way narrative players can design their matchups. It's possible to balance a broken, busted OP unit in an army by filling the rest of the list with C-tier garbage, trash datasheets. And from a narrative perspective where both players are actively involved in designing a fair matchup for each other, that's actually kinda cool.
I’ve tried to explain this very thing in numerous threads over the years - from narrative standpoint, the more true variety in unit behaviour you have available, the richer your exploration of the game can be. And because balance is very dependant on scenario/terrain/win conditions and cannot be simplified to just appropriate point costs it often means that units very valuable to narrative players just end up outside of any utility or are borderline OP in competitive context. But if they were to be ballanced according to competitive tastes the overall landscape of the game available to narrative players would narrow. From narrative standpoint you want to have units that barely do anything and units that are one model army capable of trumping all others, because then you can focus different narratives around such varied cores and then tailor the rest of your scenario to match utilising all other cogs in the system. But such approach to the game fundamentally requires cooperative and quite meticulous preparation, far beyond what is already considered too much from a pick-up culture perspective.
And because this seems to be how GW envisions their game for the last 30 years, but now also want to cater to more competitively focused players we live in realities of an uneasy compromise that doesn’t look like changing anytime soon.
But such approach to the game fundamentally requires cooperative and quite meticulous preparation, far beyond what is already considered too much from a pick-up culture perspective.
Good point. These small shifts in cultural attitudes/expectations are probably a great source of angst.
nou wrote: From narrative standpoint you want to have units that barely do anything and units that are one model army capable of trumping all others, because then you can focus different narratives around such varied cores and then tailor the rest of your scenario to match utilising all other cogs in the system.
None of that is incompatible with competitive play because point costs exist. You can have cheap cannon fodder and you can have expensive god-level units, you just have to assign them accurate point costs. If you balance them for competitive play they will work just fine in narrative play, nothing is lost from the narrative point of view.
This is a pretty weak argument given the fact that the NOVA narrative event was a matched play event using the conventional point system and tournament rules (RO3, etc) and a pretty typical matched play scenario pack. The majority of the story stuff happened outside of the on-table events and you could easily ignore it and play it as a standard 40k tournament without noticing its absence.
(Now, why you would want to do so instead of just playing in the competitive event is a good question, but unrelated to the point that the existence of a "narrative" event at NOVA doesn't prove the existence of these supposed narrative-focused players that genuinely play the game differently.)
Wayniac wrote: Ah if only more people felt the way you do instead of immediately throwing away 2/3 of the game to focus on 1/3 (i.e. Matched Play) and then taking that to its most extreme level, without knowing when to dial it back (or, worse, thinking such a thing is a mortal sin)
It isn't throwing away 2/3 of the game just because GW's marketing department came up with a "three ways to play" slogan for 8th. Open play is, at best, 1% of the game content and has zero reason to exist. Throwing it away is losing nothing of value. Narrative play, as created by GW, is mostly just matched play with a different scenario pack and a much less balanced point system (which offers nothing in return for this lack of balance). So what you have is a game that is 90% matched play of various levels of competitiveness, 9% true narrative games run by people who go way beyond the published rules, and 1% random nonsense that nobody cares about. Focusing on matched play means focusing on the overwhelming majority of the game.
This is a pretty weak argument given the fact that the NOVA narrative event was a matched play event using the conventional point system and tournament rules (RO3, etc) and a pretty typical matched play scenario pack. The majority of the story stuff happened outside of the on-table events and you could easily ignore it and play it as a standard 40k tournament without noticing its absence.
(Now, why you would want to do so instead of just playing in the competitive event is a good question, but unrelated to the point that the existence of a "narrative" event at NOVA doesn't prove the existence of these supposed narrative-focused players that genuinely play the game differently.)
The point wasn't to speak to the quality of the event but rather to point out that there is enough draw to run a narrative event, even if it follows matched play rules for easier scenario crafting (because PL is fine for local pick up games, but points just make more sense). The claim that narrative players don't exist doesn't really hold up when there are enough of them around to fill an event like this consistently enough that these events are a staple at most large conventions.
That said, it feels like AoS has the better narrative event online community right now. Not sure why, but they seem to be more out there promoting their events and visiting podcasts, ect. Maybe it's because, very broadly speaking, the online community focuses more on competetive play so there are less places for them to get their voice out. Don't know, just something I've noticed.
EDIT: I would argue open play has one very good reason to exist as a game format: you can do very basic games of 40k with it only using the free core rules and the datasheets thst come in a box of minis. This makes it perfect to use to get games in for players who are still learning before they have a legal army, and let's you teach them how the core mechanics work before we branch into missions, scoring, points, CP, detachments, ect.
It's best use is basically training wheels to get people into the game at a comfortable pace.
This is a pretty weak argument given the fact that the NOVA narrative event was a matched play event using the conventional point system and tournament rules (RO3, etc) and a pretty typical matched play scenario pack. The majority of the story stuff happened outside of the on-table events and you could easily ignore it and play it as a standard 40k tournament without noticing its absence.
(Now, why you would want to do so instead of just playing in the competitive event is a good question, but unrelated to the point that the existence of a "narrative" event at NOVA doesn't prove the existence of these supposed narrative-focused players that genuinely play the game differently.)
The point wasn't to speak to the quality of the event but rather to point out that there is enough draw to run a narrative event, even if it follows matched play rules for easier scenario crafting (because PL is fine for local pick up games, but points just make more sense). The claim that narrative players don't exist doesn't really hold up when there are enough of them around to fill an event like this consistently enough that these events are a staple at most large conventions.
That said, it feels like AoS has the better narrative event online community right now. Not sure why, but they seem to be more out there promoting their events and visiting podcasts, ect. Maybe it's because, very broadly speaking, the online community focuses more on competetive play so there are less places for them to get their voice out. Don't know, just something I've noticed.
EDIT: I would argue open play has one very good reason to exist as a game format: you can do very basic games of 40k with it only using the free core rules and the datasheets thst come in a box of minis. This makes it perfect to use to get games in for players who are still learning before they have a legal army, and let's you teach them how the core mechanics work before we branch into missions, scoring, points, CP, detachments, ect.
It's best use is basically training wheels to get people into the game at a comfortable pace.
I like how quick some are to dismiss open play as useless, lame, etc...
If you've never played a game before, OPEN play allows an easy route to learning the game. which you can then use as a springboard to the "deeper" levels of the game. There are also players that dont care about codecies, supplements, and the like. They just want to plop models down and roll dice, OPEN play, allows for this. We all know certain players that find the entire OPEN play premise unconscionable and an affront to their "higher"(horse) sensibilities, but it exists nonetheless. Funny thing about OPEN play, it's really kinda OPEN.
I do think there will ultimately be more money for GW if they continue to focus on improving balance for competitive play. Narrative play is far more demanding in terms of prep time and game knowledge and seems to require more of a prior relationship between parties involved, especially if the goal is to have a fair fight between two armies.
On the other hand, the competitive play mindset is much easier to teach to new players and is better suited to pickup games between total strangers at your local store. People want and perhaps expect to be able to show up at an agreed points limit and have a fair, balanced game against someone they've never met. The demand is clearly there.
I think the 8E focus on matched play, while far from perfect, is still definitely one of the bigger factors in 40k's recent surge in popularity. Games that focus on narrative and role play will generally be more niche than games that are balanced, well-defined contests of skill. There is simply less friction in getting started with a skill contest game: just learn the rules, show up at a store, and you're good to go.
slave.entity wrote: I do think there will ultimately be more money for GW if they continue to focus on improving balance for competitive play. Narrative play is far more demanding in terms of prep time and game knowledge and seems to require more of a prior relationship between parties involved, especially if the goal is to have a fair fight between two armies.
On the other hand, the competitive play mindset is much easier to teach to new players and is better suited to pickup games between total strangers at your local store. People want and perhaps expect to be able to show up at an agreed points limit and have a fair, balanced game against someone they've never met. The demand is clearly there.
I think the 8E focus on matched play, while far from perfect, is still definitely one of the bigger factors in 40k's recent surge in popularity. Games that focus on narrative and role play will generally be more niche than games that are balanced, well-defined contests of skill. There is simply less friction in getting started with a skill contest game: just learn the rules, show up at a store, and you're good to go.
I would love if they put out rules for better narrative play, with there books they probably could put some effort in there and i think it would be great. But ultimately i think most of the rules we use for narrative, are just good rules that are designed to give the game a good feel anyway. Its why i think 40k falls flat for narrative so often, and why i think the matched play as actuly been more pushed in all the time GW have been throwing out there narrative focus.
I think the biggest issue GW has is its no real care to the size and what a normal game of 40k represents. What infantry are for, and what they do in there game. Its as much design as it is rules.
slave.entity wrote: I do think there will ultimately be more money for GW if they continue to focus on improving balance for competitive play. Narrative play is far more demanding in terms of prep time and game knowledge and seems to require more of a prior relationship between parties involved, especially if the goal is to have a fair fight between two armies.
On the other hand, the competitive play mindset is much easier to teach to new players and is better suited to pickup games between total strangers at your local store. People want and perhaps expect to be able to show up at an agreed points limit and have a fair, balanced game against someone they've never met. The demand is clearly there.
I think the 8E focus on matched play, while far from perfect, is still definitely one of the bigger factors in 40k's recent surge in popularity. Games that focus on narrative and role play will generally be more niche than games that are balanced, well-defined contests of skill. There is simply less friction in getting started with a skill contest game: just learn the rules, show up at a store, and you're good to go.
I would love if they put out rules for better narrative play, with there books they probably could put some effort in there and i think it would be great. But ultimately i think most of the rules we use for narrative, are just good rules that are designed to give the game a good feel anyway. Its why i think 40k falls flat for narrative so often, and why i think the matched play as actuly been more pushed in all the time GW have been throwing out there narrative focus.
I think the biggest issue GW has is its no real care to the size and what a normal game of 40k represents. What infantry are for, and what they do in there game. Its as much design as it is rules.
I disagree, I'd say every book that's not a codex focuses mainly on narrative play (Vigilus I+II, 2/3 of CA, Urban Conquest, 2/3 of the rulebook, the Konor campaign). So GW produces quite a lot of narrative content and I don't think they would if it didn't sell. FaQs mainly concentrate on matched and/ or organized play, that's true. In reality matched and narrative overlap anyway, battlescribe makes power level pretty useless, so it's easy to play narrative with points which I'd assume as the default way to play 40K.
slave.entity wrote: I do think there will ultimately be more money for GW if they continue to focus on improving balance for competitive play. Narrative play is far more demanding in terms of prep time and game knowledge and seems to require more of a prior relationship between parties involved, especially if the goal is to have a fair fight between two armies.
On the other hand, the competitive play mindset is much easier to teach to new players and is better suited to pickup games between total strangers at your local store. People want and perhaps expect to be able to show up at an agreed points limit and have a fair, balanced game against someone they've never met. The demand is clearly there.
I think the 8E focus on matched play, while far from perfect, is still definitely one of the bigger factors in 40k's recent surge in popularity. Games that focus on narrative and role play will generally be more niche than games that are balanced, well-defined contests of skill. There is simply less friction in getting started with a skill contest game: just learn the rules, show up at a store, and you're good to go.
I would love if they put out rules for better narrative play, with there books they probably could put some effort in there and i think it would be great. But ultimately i think most of the rules we use for narrative, are just good rules that are designed to give the game a good feel anyway. Its why i think 40k falls flat for narrative so often, and why i think the matched play as actuly been more pushed in all the time GW have been throwing out there narrative focus.
I think the biggest issue GW has is its no real care to the size and what a normal game of 40k represents. What infantry are for, and what they do in there game. Its as much design as it is rules.
I disagree, I'd say every book that's not a codex focuses mainly on narrative play (Vigilus I+II, 2/3 of CA, Urban Conquest, 2/3 of the rulebook, the Konor campaign). So GW produces quite a lot of narrative content and I don't think they would if it didn't sell. FaQs mainly concentrate on matched and/ or organized play, that's true. In reality matched and narrative overlap anyway, battlescribe makes power level pretty useless, so it's easy to play narrative with points which I'd assume as the default way to play 40K.
I forgot Vigilus books exist We used it once it think. Urban Conquest was fairly avg for its really high price D:
But yea, most of the rules we use for narrative games (Not just 40k) are just good rules that make the game play in a good way.
slave.entity wrote: Games that focus on narrative and role play will generally be more niche than games that are balanced, well-defined contests of skill. There is simply less friction in getting started with a skill contest game: just learn the rules, show up at a store, and you're good to go.
I'm pretty sure that's the design aim for Warhammer Underworlds, and possibly Kill Team - it doesn't describe 40k, however, no matter how much the tournament crowd want to claim it does.
So the argument is that narrative is the dominant way to play w40k? Because all the narrative/open play stuff GW tends to talk about, seems more like a smoke screen for them to explain why GW products differ from each other so much. To a point where it is unexplainable to me, how the same group of people, that work at the studio for decades, write some stuff back to back.
slave.entity wrote: I do think there will ultimately be more money for GW if they continue to focus on improving balance for competitive play. Narrative play is far more demanding in terms of prep time and game knowledge and seems to require more of a prior relationship between parties involved, especially if the goal is to have a fair fight between two armies.
This is accurate. IMO it's worth it. But yes, narrative play does require a bit of 'game-building'.
On the other hand, the competitive play mindset is much easier to teach to new players and is better suited to pickup games between total strangers at your local store. People want and perhaps expect to be able to show up at an agreed points limit and have a fair, balanced game against someone they've never met. The demand is clearly there.
Hmm I'm not sure I agree fully. There is a link between the two - for sure - building a pragmatic 'minimum set-up-to-get-going' game mode is absolutely fine. It serves a valuable niche. That serves both mass-participation events like tournaments where you can have loads of people playing, and you need a quick and efficient way of making things move, and also the 'pick-up-game'. As you said earlier, narrative play is far more demanding in terms of prep time and game knowledge, and it's nice to just be able to 'get on with it', and 'have a game'. That said, a lot of things get sacrificed on the altar in the name of this pragmatism. I'm sceptical that it is always worth it.
That said, while the demand for a game where you can, as you say, 'expect to be able to show up at an agreed points limit and have a fair, balanced game against someone they've never met', is that the actual physical reality on the ground and is that truly reflective of the limitations of ttg's and an accurate representation of our hobby? Maybe we are doing ourselves a disservice by pushing a mode of play and an ambition of a type of game that isn't really pragmatically possible, or workable to the levels that some people seemingly insist it should be.
I think the 8E focus on matched play, while far from perfect, is still definitely one of the bigger factors in 40k's recent surge in popularity. Games that focus on narrative and role play will generally be more niche than games that are balanced, well-defined contests of skill. There is simply less friction in getting started with a skill contest game: just learn the rules, show up at a store, and you're good to go.
I think it's fairer to say that gw codifying the various ways of play, including match play, along with an attitude shift, social media presence, better communication etc and pushing out in different direction with the various boxed games and specialists games has a lot more to do with it. Gw have always supported 'playing games' after all. In my experience,what you call 'Matched play' was never not supported in earlier editions.
About 'everyone benefits from balance'. At first glance this seems to be true. However, it really depends on how that balance is achieved. If we're talking about adjusting point cost or nerfing an occasional rule that was a tad too powerful, then sure, I fully support that. However, In discussions here it quickly becomes apparent that this is not the only thing the people demanding better balance want. They want restrictions. Limits on how many detachments you can take, how many of which unit you can take, to ban index units, allies, Forgeworld etc. Now this is the sort of 'balancing' that does have negative side effects, and it is something I do not support.
Crimson wrote: About 'everyone benefits from balance'. At first glance this seems to be true. However, it really depends on how that balance is achieved. If we're talking about adjusting point cost or nerfing an occasional rule that was a tad too powerful, then sure, I fully support that. However, In discussions here it quickly becomes apparent that this is not the only thing the people demanding better balance want. They want restrictions. Limits on how many detachments you can take, how many of which unit you can take, to ban index units, allies, Forgeworld etc. Now this is the sort of 'balancing' that does have negative side effects, and it is something I do not support.
Those restrictions (which are an important component of balance) are easily ignored for narrative games. Anyone, for whom balance is not a priority, can freely ignore or create rules the best suit them and their group. But creating balance and tactical depth is best done by the designers in the core rules. If winning truly does not matter, only working together to tell cool stories, why does it matter what the rules allow you to do at all?
ClockworkZion wrote: The point wasn't to speak to the quality of the event but rather to point out that there is enough draw to run a narrative event, even if it follows matched play rules for easier scenario crafting (because PL is fine for local pick up games, but points just make more sense). The claim that narrative players don't exist doesn't really hold up when there are enough of them around to fill an event like this consistently enough that these events are a staple at most large conventions.
It's not about the quality of the event, and I wasn't criticizing the quality of it (I was at NOVA to play in it!). The point is about this supposed "three ways to play" concept where narrative play is significantly different from matched play, enough that it deserves to be considered a separate way to play the game instead of a subset of matched play. And NOVA's narrative event clearly falls into the second category, not the first. It was a standard matched play event with some background fiction happening outside of the on-table events. Any differences between the narrative event and any other matched play event were small enough that it would be ridiculous to consider it a separate way of playing the game.
If you want to set aside narrative play as a separate way of playing the game then you need to look at the people who create elaborate story-based scenarios/campaigns, create armies and terrain specifically for the game, etc. Do these people exist in any meaningful numbers? Maybe. It's possible, but I doubt it and NOVA's narrative event sure as hell isn't an example of that kind of thing.
EDIT: I would argue open play has one very good reason to exist as a game format: you can do very basic games of 40k with it only using the free core rules and the datasheets thst come in a box of minis. This makes it perfect to use to get games in for players who are still learning before they have a legal army, and let's you teach them how the core mechanics work before we branch into missions, scoring, points, CP, detachments, ect.
It's best use is basically training wheels to get people into the game at a comfortable pace.
"Newbie's first teaching game" isn't a complete "way to play the game", it's a rare and temporary exception to the normal way of playing the game. It is absurd to suggest that this kind of teaching game has equal status with matched play.
On the video they talked about some GW people who tend to play narrative/matched hybrid. I.e. play in narrative style using narrative missions but with points and matched play rules. I expect this to be be pretty common approach.
Crimson wrote: On the video they talked about some GW people who tend to play narrative/matched hybrid. I.e. play in narrative style using narrative missions but with points and matched play rules. I expect this to be be pretty common approach.
Crimson wrote: On the video they talked about some GW people who tend to play narrative/matched hybrid. I.e. play in narrative style using narrative missions but with points and matched play rules. I expect this to be be pretty common approach.
How would a more balanced game inhibit a narrative style? Why use points when in GW games they have never been an accurate measurement of a unit's in-game value? To frame it as player attitude suggests that this isn't really about rules at all.
I want more narrative in 40k. Balancing the game helps this. Balance is not necessarily symmettrical, either. There can be diversity and balance, but only with a bit more complexity.
Crimson wrote: On the video they talked about some GW people who tend to play narrative/matched hybrid. I.e. play in narrative style using narrative missions but with points and matched play rules. I expect this to be be pretty common approach.
But how is this not just a matched play game?
It is not using matched missions, which, at least in theory, should be designed for optimal fair competition. Narrative missions really do not need to do that. They can have asymmetric setups etc. Not that it really matter what it is called.
Crimson wrote: On the video they talked about some GW people who tend to play narrative/matched hybrid. I.e. play in narrative style using narrative missions but with points and matched play rules. I expect this to be be pretty common approach.
But how is this not just a matched play game?
It is not using matched missions, which, at least in theory, should be designed for optimal fair competition. Narrative missions really do not need to do that. They can have asymmetric setups etc. Not that it really matter what it is called.
But the GW narrative missions are mostly just a matched play scenario pack and wouldn't feel out of place in a matched play game. They're generic templates of "convoy ambush" or "fortress assault" or whatever, with no army-specific or story-specific content that would tie the rules into the narrative element. No specific forces to use, no character development over a series of games, no adjustments to the rules based on previous events in the story, etc. You just show up with a matched play list at X points and play a game against whoever happens to be on the other side of the table.
And it does matter what it's called when the question is whether the whole "three ways to play" concept is valid. GW's marketing department can invent whatever slogans they want, but in reality most 40k is matched play with a handful of games being genuinely different narrative gaming or an occasional low-structure newbie teaching game. That isn't "three ways to play", it's "one way to play but with some rare exceptions that aren't worth talking about".
How the three ways is handed is not great. But I still think that having separate matched, competitive or tournament missions is valid. I really don't think asymmetrical mission are good for a tournament for example.
How I would handle it is that there would be two ways, 'open' and 'competitive'. The former would be basically everything, whilst the latter would have a set list of missions and possibly some other restrictions.
Crimson wrote: On the video they talked about some GW people who tend to play narrative/matched hybrid. I.e. play in narrative style using narrative missions but with points and matched play rules. I expect this to be be pretty common approach.
But how is this not just a matched play game?
Narrative missions or homebrew units, rules or wargear means straying outside of the matched play rule framework. Matched Play has a defined set of missions, units and even wargear.
And before someone goes "doesn't that mean tournaments are narrative?" the difference comes from the reason why the rules exist. Narrative games exist to try to tell stories, tournament rulesets exist to try and even the playing field to (in theory) to find the better player.
Narrative army builds can lean into taking subpar choices on the table to stick to a specific feel or apsect of lore, while competetive armies lean into finding the most powerful combos.
And regarding balance: most players don't want a balance solution that takes away options. I mean rolling Blood Angels, Dark Angels and Space Wolves into C:SM and then giving them supplements would make everything about the Marine mess better, but how many would actually be happy with that? Not as many as we'd like to believe I'd guess.
Narrative army builds can lean into taking subpar choices on the table to stick to a specific feel or apsect of lore, while competetive armies lean into finding the most powerful combos.
Then again, why are there subpar choices? Why not make those option better? One thing that bugged me on the video was when Gallagher was talking about taking stuff that was not so great but fitted thematically to the army. You are the rules writer, FFS! Making the things that are thematically appropriate for a given faction to also be worthwhile competitively for that faction is your fething job! If subfaction rules have to exist then that is what they should be doing.
Crimson wrote: On the video they talked about some GW people who tend to play narrative/matched hybrid. I.e. play in narrative style using narrative missions but with points and matched play rules. I expect this to be be pretty common approach.
But how is this not just a matched play game?
Narrative missions or homebrew units, rules or wargear means straying outside of the matched play rule framework. Matched Play has a defined set of missions, units and even wargear.
And before someone goes "doesn't that mean tournaments are narrative?" the difference comes from the reason why the rules exist. Narrative games exist to try to tell stories, tournament rulesets exist to try and even the playing field to (in theory) to find the better player.
Narrative army builds can lean into taking subpar choices on the table to stick to a specific feel or apsect of lore, while competetive armies lean into finding the most powerful combos.
And regarding balance: most players don't want a balance solution that takes away options. I mean rolling Blood Angels, Dark Angels and Space Wolves into C:SM and then giving them supplements would make everything about the Marine mess better, but how many would actually be happy with that? Not as many as we'd like to believe I'd guess.
I doubt anyone has solid data on players' views on changing or removing options to balance the game. As a Dark Angel player, I would be fine with marines being rolled together, so long as the unique units are kept. Maybe give variant chapters a bespoke rule or two, but not chapter tactics-style probability buffs. Which would require moving to alternating activation.
How many options in the game right now actually add variety to gameplay? One of my biggest issues with 40k is that the various armies often suck, sometimes badly, with army composition that reflects their fighting style, or when attempted to be played that way. Balance and complexity would make fluffy armies viable for winning games.
In 7th, my usual list was a librarian, two tac squads w/ flamer/missile launcher, sniper scouts, termies, las/plasdevs, 6 bikes, a land speeder w/ assault cannon, and a dark talon. Fluffy, but man did I lose a lot of games with them to IKs, Necron decurions, etc. Poor balance punishes narrative play.
I don't have a problem with codex chapters being in the main SM codex with their own supplements, and non-codex chapters having their own individual codexes. GW seem to have sorted out the SM mess that was the first 2 years of 8th edition now. The Primaris line has been expanded, non-Primaris marines are here to stay, and the main SM codex isn't polluted with random characters from a few chapters. I just wish that's how they'd done it in the first place so I didn't have to buy all my rules twice...
ClockworkZion wrote: Narrative missions or homebrew units, rules or wargear means straying outside of the matched play rule framework. Matched Play has a defined set of missions, units and even wargear.
But homebrew stuff isn't part of GW's version of narrative play, and it isn't part of the "matched play with narrative missions" concept. For example, NOVA's narrative event that you mentioned required strict RAW matched play armies with no custom units/wargear/whatever permitted. How many people are actually making up their own rules, vs. playing with GW's rules and telling a story about it later?
And regarding balance: most players don't want a balance solution that takes away options.
Most players are wrong. 40k is a bloated mess of options that shouldn't exist, primarily because way too many people have bought into the GW myth that anything that doesn't have explicit rules on the datasheet doesn't exist in the fluff. Consolidating the bloat into a smaller set of genuinely different and interesting options would be good for everyone, narrative or competitive.
I mean rolling Blood Angels, Dark Angels and Space Wolves into C:SM and then giving them supplements would make everything about the Marine mess better, but how many would actually be happy with that? Not as many as we'd like to believe I'd guess.
Everyone that doesn't play marines would be happy, for a start. And the issue here isn't narrative vs. competitive rules, it's people being ignorant of good game design principles and demanding special snowflake rules for every single sub-faction of space marines (but no other army!) even when it's bad for the overall health of the game.
Or, we give all the sub-factions their own Codex. Codex: Goffs. Codex: Hive Fleet Behemoth. Codex: Cadians. See? Makes perfect sense. They're all so different.
flandarz wrote: Or, we give all the sub-factions their own Codex. Codex: Goffs. Codex: Hive Fleet Behemoth. Codex: Cadians. See? Makes perfect sense. They're all so different.
RULES FOR THE RULES GOD! BLOAT FOR THE BLOAT THRONE!
flandarz wrote: Or, we give all the sub-factions their own Codex. Codex: Goffs. Codex: Hive Fleet Behemoth. Codex: Cadians. See? Makes perfect sense. They're all so different.
They aren't different enough to warrant their own codex. Variant army lists/force organization charts within one book would be much more elegant, I think.
O all hail the mighty Bird, who's understanding of Everything must clearly be superior to anyone else's opinions and preferences.
You hear that? If you disagree with Peregrine here, you are wrong.
Dude, you can give your opinion, but this is blatantly ridiculous. You have no right to call the way people enjoy things "wrong".
That's a mighty big Clydesdale your riding partner.
Maybe, instead of making broad generalizations about what others want/think, you come up with something better and we can bask in your greatness.
The game works for everyone in my local area and I've never had a problem that cant be figured out in 5 seconds(with rational thought) with a discussion. But you have a very adversarial tendency to the game, so discussing something with the person you're playing with is completely foreign to you.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: You have no right to call the way people enjoy things "wrong".
Watch me: those people are wrong. They're wrong, much like if someone says a $1 fast food burger is the best hamburger ever, or that a child smearing their all over the walls has created a masterpiece worthy of putting in a museum. We can speculate about why they are wrong, but in the end they're still wrong.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Racerguy180 wrote: Maybe, instead of making broad generalizations about what others want/think, you come up with something better and we can bask in your greatness.
I've already come up with better things and said them over and over again. In this case the answer is to consolidate all marine factions into a single codex, with a single chapter tactics rule for each sub-faction. All of the various special snowflake units can use the same rules as the standard unit and their specialness can be represented entirely by aesthetic choices. Repeat with all of the other redundant options for other factions. You don't need a million different options that are different only in slight variations in dice optimization in a game where a titan can wipe out the entire squad with a single shot.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: You have no right to call the way people enjoy things "wrong".
Watch me: those people are wrong. They're wrong, much like if someone says a $1 fast food burger is the best hamburger ever, or that a child smearing their all over the walls has created a masterpiece worthy of putting in a museum. We can speculate about why they are wrong, but in the end they're still wrong.
Maybe not, but expressing yourself in this fashion doesn't make people inclined to listen to you.
None of us know what "most players" want. The only data is GW's yearly-we'll-give-you-the-results-but-never-follow-through-survey and sales info. Making claims about the player base merely because we believe (or want) them to be true is unproductive.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: You have no right to call the way people enjoy things "wrong".
Watch me: those people are wrong. They're wrong, much like if someone says a $1 fast food burger is the best hamburger ever
Who says it's not? What, you control everyone's taste buds now? You're such a perfect world class culinary visionary that you OBJECTIVELY know what everyone likes and have an even greater insight into their perception than even they do?
The sheer arrogance is astounding.
or that a child smearing their all over the walls has created a masterpiece worthy of putting in a museum. We can speculate about why they are wrong, but in the end they're still wrong.
No, they're not.
You think they're wrong, but you have no authority or right to categorically call someone's opinion "wrong". You can call the facts they're based on wrong. You can call something "wrong" in the eyes of morality and legality. You cannot call someone's enjoyment of a little toy soldiers game "wrong" and not expect people to laugh at your utter lunacy.
It'd be great if 40k was a more balanced, tightly written ruleset that could be played with any seriousness at tournament level, and there's nothing inherently wrong with wanting it to be. The trouble is, GW have shown time after time after time that they can not or will not design it that way. Hoping that they will ever increase the competence of their design staff or the quality of their rules is ultimately futile because it just isn't going to happen.
Realistically, you have a choice. Either you can enjoy 40k for the complete mess of balance it is, putting self-imposed limitations on unit selection/allies/what have you in the interests of making it more enjoyable for both players...or you can move to better designed games, if a competitive ruleset is what you are after.
Again, it'd be fantastic if 40k was a better tactical wargame than it is...but it isn't, and there's no indication that it ever will be, so there's no point complaining about it. GW do enough right from a business standpoint these days that their financial status is no longer endangered, so there's no reason for them to alter their design methods - and thus they won't.
Life is too short to pick out 40k's many faults or to hang on to a forlorn belief that it'll ever be anything other than a shambles. Such a broken mess can be enjoyed, but it requires you to make a conscious effort not to break it. Does that mean the rules are criminally overpriced? Abso-bloody-exactly it does - and that, like everything else, is just something one has to accept if they want to play 40k.
MalusCalibur wrote: It'd be great if 40k was a more balanced, tightly written ruleset that could be played with any seriousness at tournament level, and there's nothing inherently wrong with wanting it to be. The trouble is, GW have shown time after time after time that they can not or will not design it that way. Hoping that they will ever increase the competence of their design staff or the quality of their rules is ultimately futile because it just isn't going to happen.
Realistically, you have a choice. Either you can enjoy 40k for the complete mess of balance it is, putting self-imposed limitations on unit selection/allies/what have you in the interests of making it more enjoyable for both players...or you can move to better designed games, if a competitive ruleset is what you are after.
Again, it'd be fantastic if 40k was a better tactical wargame than it is...but it isn't, and there's no indication that it ever will be, so there's no point complaining about it. GW do enough right from a business standpoint these days that their financial status is no longer endangered, so there's no reason for them to alter their design methods - and thus they won't.
Life is too short to pick out 40k's many faults or to hang on to a forlorn belief that it'll ever be anything other than a shambles. Such a broken mess can be enjoyed, but it requires you to make a conscious effort not to break it. Does that mean the rules are criminally overpriced? Abso-bloody-exactly it does - and that, like everything else, is just something one has to accept if they want to play 40k.
Right. That's why I don't play or buy GW stuff anymore. It isn't worth it.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: You cannot call someone's enjoyment of a little toy soldiers game "wrong" and not expect people to laugh at your utter lunacy.
Sorry, but like it or not game design is not a purely subjective matter of taste. There is such a thing as good and bad game design, and GW's rules fall clearly on the bad side. If all you have to fall back on is "ALL OPINIONS ARE JUST OPINIONS" instead of a defense of how the rules in question are good then it's an implicit concession that I'm right.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MalusCalibur wrote: but it isn't, and there's no indication that it ever will be
Disagree on this. GW has already made better games that fix 40k's problems, they just need to apply those lessons to 40k. It would require a major change in company culture and probably firing the incompetent people that are obstructing change, but it is absolutely a possible thing that we should demand.
ClockworkZion wrote: Narrative missions or homebrew units, rules or wargear means straying outside of the matched play rule framework. Matched Play has a defined set of missions, units and even wargear.
But homebrew stuff isn't part of GW's version of narrative play, and it isn't part of the "matched play with narrative missions" concept. For example, NOVA's narrative event that you mentioned required strict RAW matched play armies with no custom units/wargear/whatever permitted. How many people are actually making up their own rules, vs. playing with GW's rules and telling a story about it later?
And regarding balance: most players don't want a balance solution that takes away options.
Most players are wrong. 40k is a bloated mess of options that shouldn't exist, primarily because way too many people have bought into the GW myth that anything that doesn't have explicit rules on the datasheet doesn't exist in the fluff. Consolidating the bloat into a smaller set of genuinely different and interesting options would be good for everyone, narrative or competitive.
I mean rolling Blood Angels, Dark Angels and Space Wolves into C:SM and then giving them supplements would make everything about the Marine mess better, but how many would actually be happy with that? Not as many as we'd like to believe I'd guess.
Everyone that doesn't play marines would be happy, for a start. And the issue here isn't narrative vs. competitive rules, it's people being ignorant of good game design principles and demanding special snowflake rules for every single sub-faction of space marines (but no other army!) even when it's bad for the overall health of the game.
So I'm posting phone so I'll just skip breaking the tags up here and hit your points in order:
1. Your assumption of how GW sees Narrative is something that James would disagree with in the podcast as he talks about narrative gaming and making your own units and rules for the game.
2. "Most people are wrong." Seems a bit "holier-than-thou" where you decide that your opinion is more important than everyone else's.
3. I mentioned the dislike of a roll up option namely based on how much anger those players show when the topic comes up (as well the salt Black Templar players still show). It would likely be better for the game to streamline the factions this way, but with how many people are about being told they're going lose something, even if it's something like having their own book, they don't like losing something they see makes their army "special".
I agree with Pergrine on one thing: most players do not understand the game design. I just count Peregrine amount that number. Far too often do they confuse their personal preferences to objective facts.
There are many different sorts of games, and that you do not like certain type of a game doesn't necessarily mean it is a bad game. It is possible that the designers had design goals which do not match your personal preferences. Now, you can point out number of pretty much objectively bad design choices in 40K; the detachment CP change for example. There the designers flatly stated their reasoning for the change, said what they wanted to achieve with it. Yet, the rule they wrote didn't achieve their objective, it did the opposite. Now that is bad game design, they failed to achieve their stated design goal.
However, I think that in general the writers have never intended 40K to be the sort of game Peregrine wants it to be, so half of the complaints come across as 'this strawberry cake is objectively bad because it is not a chocolate cake.' The new Apocalypse seems to have design goals that more closely align with Peregrine's though.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: You cannot call someone's enjoyment of a little toy soldiers game "wrong" and not expect people to laugh at your utter lunacy.
Sorry, but like it or not game design is not a purely subjective matter of taste.
Sorry, but it really is a matter of taste.
I can agree that a game might have excellent mechanics and design, but I don't have to like it, because it might not fill something I want. In a similar vein, just because you think the game is flawed doesn't mean that it's objectively terrible as a game and source of enjoyment.
Get over it, and accept your judgement isn't the Only True Way.
If all you have to fall back on is "ALL OPINIONS ARE JUST OPINIONS" instead of a defense of how the rules in question are good then it's an implicit concession that I'm right.
Nah. I'm right, you're objectively wrong and your use of a mocking all-caps is implicit concession that I'm right.
ClockworkZion wrote: Narrative missions or homebrew units, rules or wargear means straying outside of the matched play rule framework. Matched Play has a defined set of missions, units and even wargear.
But homebrew stuff isn't part of GW's version of narrative play, and it isn't part of the "matched play with narrative missions" concept. For example, NOVA's narrative event that you mentioned required strict RAW matched play armies with no custom units/wargear/whatever permitted. How many people are actually making up their own rules, vs. playing with GW's rules and telling a story about it later?
And regarding balance: most players don't want a balance solution that takes away options.
Most players are wrong. 40k is a bloated mess of options that shouldn't exist, primarily because way too many people have bought into the GW myth that anything that doesn't have explicit rules on the datasheet doesn't exist in the fluff. Consolidating the bloat into a smaller set of genuinely different and interesting options would be good for everyone, narrative or competitive.
I mean rolling Blood Angels, Dark Angels and Space Wolves into C:SM and then giving them supplements would make everything about the Marine mess better, but how many would actually be happy with that? Not as many as we'd like to believe I'd guess.
Everyone that doesn't play marines would be happy, for a start. And the issue here isn't narrative vs. competitive rules, it's people being ignorant of good game design principles and demanding special snowflake rules for every single sub-faction of space marines (but no other army!) even when it's bad for the overall health of the game.
So I'm posting phone so I'll just skip breaking the tags up here and hit your points in order:
1. Your assumption of how GW sees Narrative is something that James would disagree with in the podcast as he talks about narrative gaming and making your own units and rules for the game.
2. "Most people are wrong." Seems a bit "holier-than-thou" where you decide that your opinion is more important than everyone else's.
3. I mentioned the dislike of a roll up option namely based on how much anger those players show when the topic comes up (as well the salt Black Templar players still show). It would likely be better for the game to streamline the factions this way, but with how many people are about being told they're going lose something, even if it's something like having their own book, they don't like losing something they see makes their army "special".
How does better balance make it more difficult to create your own units and rules? At that point you aren't playing the base game anyway, but a version that suits your preference.
ClockworkZion wrote: 1. Your assumption of how GW sees Narrative is something that James would disagree with in the podcast as he talks about narrative gaming and making your own units and rules for the game.
But how many people do this in reality? Compared to how many people play either straight matched play or matched play with narrative missions?
2. "Most people are wrong." Seems a bit "holier-than-thou" where you decide that your opinion is more important than everyone else's.
An appeal to popularity is a fallacy, not a valid argument.
3. I mentioned the dislike of a roll up option namely based on how much anger those players show when the topic comes up (as well the salt Black Templar players still show). It would likely be better for the game to streamline the factions this way, but with how many people are about being told they're going lose something, even if it's something like having their own book, they don't like losing something they see makes their army "special".
Then let them complain. The greater good of the game requires it, and I suspect that most of them will fall in line and keep buying just like with previous changes.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sgt_Smudge wrote: In a similar vein, just because you think the game is flawed doesn't mean that it's objectively terrible as a game and source of enjoyment.
You're confusing "this particular rule is terrible" with "this game is not valid as a source of enjoyment". The fact that you enjoy the background fiction and how cool your models look on the table doesn't change the fact that IGOUGO and 40k's rules bloat are poor game design.
ClockworkZion wrote: 1. Your assumption of how GW sees Narrative is something that James would disagree with in the podcast as he talks about narrative gaming and making your own units and rules for the game.
But how many people do this in reality? Compared to how many people play either straight matched play or matched play with narrative missions?
2. "Most people are wrong." Seems a bit "holier-than-thou" where you decide that your opinion is more important than everyone else's.
An appeal to popularity is a fallacy, not a valid argument.
3. I mentioned the dislike of a roll up option namely based on how much anger those players show when the topic comes up (as well the salt Black Templar players still show). It would likely be better for the game to streamline the factions this way, but with how many people are about being told they're going lose something, even if it's something like having their own book, they don't like losing something they see makes their army "special".
Then let them complain. The greater good of the game requires it, and I suspect that most of them will fall in line and keep buying just like with previous changes.
1. Apparently not enough of them.
2. Claiming authority is also a fallacy.
3. Like you're complaining? I mean if the solution id to "let them complain" then it seems equally valid to apply that here as well.
ClockworkZion wrote: 2. "Most people are wrong." Seems a bit "holier-than-thou" where you decide that your opinion is more important than everyone else's.
An appeal to popularity is a fallacy, not a valid argument.
And your appeal to your own judgement's superiority is delusional, not a valid argument.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: In a similar vein, just because you think the game is flawed doesn't mean that it's objectively terrible as a game and source of enjoyment.
You're confusing "this particular rule is terrible" with "this game is not valid as a source of enjoyment". The fact that you enjoy the background fiction and how cool your models look on the table doesn't change the fact that IGOUGO and 40k's rules bloat are poor game design.
But it *does* change that I can enjoy IGOUGO and 40k's rules. And unfortunately, you have no authority to claim that I'm "wrong" for enjoying that.
Scream all you like that I'm wrong, but that's simply not true.
Peregrine wrote: The fact that you enjoy the background fiction and how cool your models look on the table doesn't change the fact that IGOUGO and 40k's rules bloat are poor game design.
Yep. This shows how you don't understand game design. There indeed are problems in 40K relating to both of the concept you mention IGOUGO and the amount of rules. But neither of those things in themselves make a game automatically bad. IGOUGO causes problems in conjunction with weak cover rules, front loaded stratagem usage and general increase in killyness. Alternate activation would have it's own share of issues it could potentially cause with other aspects of the game. Similarly the amount of granularity in rules is very much a matter of preference, and applies to many games. In some RPGs there is just stats for a generic assault rifle, in some others there are pages filled with rules for slightly different models. Neither of these approaches is objectively better. Now, in a wargame a lot of options that are poorly balanced is a problem, but there the problem is the balance, not the options themselves.
Crimson wrote: However, I think that in general the writers have never intended 40K to be the sort of game Peregrine wants it to be, so half of the complaints come across as 'this strawberry cake is objectively bad because it is not a chocolate cake.' The new Apocalypse seems to have design goals that more closely align with Peregrine's though.
You were so close to being right with the idea of "GW's rules don't achieve their objectives", but now you miss it again. The things I criticize are largely conflicts between GW's vision for the game and the execution of the rules. GW tells us they want a large-scale game where titans, tank squadrons, etc, exist and can wipe out entire units at a time. And much of the rules bloat goes directly against this concept for the game. It doesn't matter whether a unit has a power axe or power sword in a game of that scale. It just adds to the word count of the rules, makes the learning curve more difficult for new players, and encourages players to obsess over small percentages in dice optimization instead of playing the game.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Crimson wrote: But neither of those things in themselves make a game automatically bad.
Wrong. IGOUGO is objectively bad design. It vastly reduces the amount of gameplay depth that is possible, promotes a non-interactive experience where one player can go get lunch for half an hour and not miss anything, and badly damages suspension of disbelief and the narrative element at the heart of the game. Even in a perfectly balanced game it's still a terrible mechanic that still has all of those problems. And there is zero advantage to using it, outside of GW's stubborn insistence on keeping 30 year old mechanics just because they're "how 40k has always been".
Alternate activation would have it's own share of issues it could potentially cause with other aspects of the game.
{citation needed}
Obviously alternating activation would require changes to other rules, but an alternating activation game in the 40k universe would not have anywhere near the level of inherent design flaws as IGOUGO.
Similarly the amount of granularity in rules is very much a matter of preference, and applies to many games. In some RPGs there is just stats for a generic assault rifle, in some others there are pages filled with rules for slightly different models. Neither of these approaches is objectively better. Now, in a wargame a lot of options that are poorly balanced is a problem, but there the problem is the balance, not the options themselves.
Nope. Level of detail is a choice, but it's a choice that depends on the scale of the game. If you want your game to be playable you have to scale down the level of detail as the model/unit count increases, otherwise you get bogged down in obsessing over irrelevant details instead of playing the game. Does it matter if one rifle has 1% more damage against some targets in a game where a titan kills a whole squad of riflemen in one shot? No, and that makes that level of detail rules bloat in a game where the titan exists.
Crimson wrote: However, I think that in general the writers have never intended 40K to be the sort of game Peregrine wants it to be, so half of the complaints come across as 'this strawberry cake is objectively bad because it is not a chocolate cake.' The new Apocalypse seems to have design goals that more closely align with Peregrine's though.
You were so close to being right with the idea of "GW's rules don't achieve their objectives", but now you miss it again. The things I criticize are largely conflicts between GW's vision for the game and the execution of the rules. GW tells us they want a large-scale game where titans, tank squadrons, etc, exist and can wipe out entire units at a time. And much of the rules bloat goes directly against this concept for the game. It doesn't matter whether a unit has a power axe or power sword in a game of that scale. It just adds to the word count of the rules, makes the learning curve more difficult for new players, and encourages players to obsess over small percentages in dice optimization instead of playing the game.
Like it or not, 40K as their main game is the kitchen sink game. It has everything. Now you might not like that. You might think that games that focuses to one thing suit your tastes better. Killteam is about small scale squad level skirmishes and Apocalypse is about large scale battle with titans. You basically want 40K to be Apocalypse. But it isn't. However, Apocalypse exist, so if that's the approach you prefer, you now have the option to play that.
Crimson wrote: However, I think that in general the writers have never intended 40K to be the sort of game Peregrine wants it to be, so half of the complaints come across as 'this strawberry cake is objectively bad because it is not a chocolate cake.' The new Apocalypse seems to have design goals that more closely align with Peregrine's though.
You were so close to being right with the idea of "GW's rules don't achieve their objectives", but now you miss it again. The things I criticize are largely conflicts between GW's vision for the game and the execution of the rules. GW tells us they want a large-scale game where titans, tank squadrons, etc, exist and can wipe out entire units at a time. And much of the rules bloat goes directly against this concept for the game. It doesn't matter whether a unit has a power axe or power sword in a game of that scale. It just adds to the word count of the rules, makes the learning curve more difficult for new players, and encourages players to obsess over small percentages in dice optimization instead of playing the game.
They want all that stuff in the game, sure, but that doesn't make it their objective.
Remember, James said his job was to try to capture the feel of the models and the lore in the rules. It's probably safe to call that his objective, if not his job description.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: But it *does* change that I can enjoy IGOUGO and 40k's rules. And unfortunately, you have no authority to claim that I'm "wrong" for enjoying that.
If you enjoy a non-interactive game where I can go get lunch for half an hour while you take your turn and not miss anything over a fluid and interactive game of action and reaction where both players are actively engaged at all times, well, I think you're self-evidently wrong about this and I have all the authority I need to say it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ClockworkZion wrote: Remember, James said his job was to try to capture the feel of the models and the lore in the rules. It's probably safe to call that his objective, if not his job description.
Their job is to produce a functioning game. And it is entirely possible to capture the feel of the models and background fiction without getting into the current state of absurd rules bloat. Did everyone play 5th edition with no feel for the background fiction and no enjoyment of their cool models just because there were no stratagems or different rules for different paint schemes and all power weapons had the same rules? Of course not. If James thinks that generating this kind of nonsense is required to capture the feeling of 40k then he is incompetent and should be fired.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Crimson wrote: Like it or not, 40K as their main game is the kitchen sink game. It has everything. Now you might not like that. You might think that games that focuses to one thing suit your tastes better. Killteam is about small scale squad level skirmishes and Apocalypse is about large scale battle with titans. You basically want 40K to be Apocalypse. But it isn't. However, Apocalypse exist, so if that's the approach you prefer, you now have the option to play that.
40k is already about Apocalypse. Your argument has zero credibility when a Warlord titan is a perfectly legal 40k unit with 40k rules and even in a standard 2000 point game you can take an army of nothing but superheavy walkers. And if 40k is going to be Apocalypse in all but name then it needs to have the appropriate level of detail for that scale.
Now, would I prefer a situation where 40k was scaled down to roughly a current 1000 point game and all of the Apocalypse-scale stuff was removed? Absolutely, and in that case it would make sense to have a higher level of detail in 40k, somewhere between the precise simulationist approach of of Kill Team and the heavy abstraction of Apocalypse. But that is not the reality we are dealing with here.
If you enjoy a non-interactive game where I can go get lunch for half an hour while you take your turn and not miss anything over a fluid and interactive game of action and reaction where both players are actively engaged at all times, well, I think you're self-evidently wrong about this and I have all the authority I need to say it.
See, if you would have made a real argument, in polite form, you would've had a higher chance of actually achieveing support.
IGOUGO is so old and stale now as a concept that it practically needs an archaeologist to fully understand it.
It's an artefact of the game's roots in the 1970s and it shows.
Literally every other game I've played since 7th knocked the stuffing out of any enthusiasm I had for 40K has employed methods of keeping both players engaged.
Azreal13 wrote: IGOUGO is so old and stale now as a concept that it practically needs an archaeologist to fully understand it.
It's an artefact of the game's roots in the 1970s and it shows.
Literally every other game I've played since 7th knocked the stuffing out of any enthusiasm I had for 40K has employed methods of keeping both players engaged.
Peregrine wrote: It doesn't matter whether a unit has a power axe or power sword in a game of that scale.
It does if the background is important enough for you to want to have delineation between the different weapon types.
GW tried going down the they're all just 'weapons' road once before, with the initial release of Epic 40K, and it was almost universally reviled, resulting in them adding weapon options back in. They did it again when they consolidated non-powered melee weapons into a single 'Close Combat Weapons' category for 3rd edition 40K, and once again the players hated it.
You may personally be a fan of having things consolidated, and that's fine. It doesn't make your preference objectively better for the game.
Wrong. IGOUGO is objectively bad design. It vastly reduces the amount of gameplay depth that is possible, promotes a non-interactive experience where one player can go get lunch for half an hour and not miss anything, and badly damages suspension of disbelief and the narrative element at the heart of the game. Even in a perfectly balanced game it's still a terrible mechanic that still has all of those problems. And there is zero advantage to using it, outside of GW's stubborn insistence on keeping 30 year old mechanics just because they're "how 40k has always been".
Conversely, it's simple to understand, generally doesn't require players to track which units have activated yet, and doesn't result in weird imbalances from one army having a significantly different unit count to the other.
And you can't just discount the resistance to change. The fact that the game has 'always' been like that is a very good reason to not change it, because then it becomes, you know, not the same game. Which is obviously a problem for people who like the game as it is.
You seriously need to dial down the rhetoric. There is certainly a case to be made for the advantages of alternating activation over IGOUGO, but you're not going to convince anyone of its merits so long as you persist in beating people over the head with your opinion as if it's inscribed by a mystical superbeing on stone tablets. People aren't automatically wrong for disagreeing with you, regardless of how valid you personally think your opinion may be.
If you enjoy a non-interactive game where I can go get lunch for half an hour while you take your turn ...
Your attitude in this thread would suggest that this would be preferable to having you standing there on the other side of the table the whole time.
The time during your opponent's turn, even if we're ignoring things like saving throws and overwatch, is only 'non-interactive' if you choose to make it so. Gaming is a social pastime.
Their job is to produce a functioning game..
No, it isn't. Their job is to produce a game that sells.
All the evidence we have access to would seem to suggest that they are achieving this objective.
Their job is to produce a functioning game. And it is entirely possible to capture the feel of the models and background fiction without getting into the current state of absurd rules bloat. Did everyone play 5th edition with no feel for the background fiction and no enjoyment of their cool models just because there were no stratagems or different rules for different paint schemes and all power weapons had the same rules? Of course not. If James thinks that generating this kind of nonsense is required to capture the feeling of 40k then he is incompetent and should be fired.
I feel like you don't seem to understand that jobs can have multiple objectives or goals.
And 5th had some of the least balanced rulesets, random tables and while it had a decent core considering the years of built up bloat leading to it (and even then I remember the rampant complaining about the rules at the time). So this sounds like nostalgia and not much else.
40k is already about Apocalypse. Your argument has zero credibility when a Warlord titan is a perfectly legal 40k unit with 40k rules and even in a standard 2000 point game you can take an army of nothing but superheavy walkers. And if 40k is going to be Apocalypse in all but name then it needs to have the appropriate level of detail for that scale.
Yeah. One can do that. Most people don't. Have you ever seen a Warlord titan to be used in a 40K game? Because I haven't.
Now, would I prefer a situation where 40k was scaled down to roughly a current 1000 point game and all of the Apocalypse-scale stuff was removed? Absolutely, and in that case it would make sense to have a higher level of detail in 40k, somewhere between the precise simulationist approach of of Kill Team and the heavy abstraction of Apocalypse. But that is not the reality we are dealing with here.
The reality is that as their main game it needs to be many things to many different people. This may lead it to be 'worse' in dealing with specialised things certain ways than several more specialised games would be. But several more specialised games would have never achieved the mass appeal 40K has. If you have one game for Knights, one game for flyers one game for individually equipable Deathwatch killteams and one game for platoon level infantry but not a game you can use all of these things, then the playerbase fractures. Now GW has recently started to make more specialised games, but they understand the importance of most things being usable in 40K. Whatever models you like, you can usually use them in 40K, and find an opponent.
insaniak wrote: It does if the background is important enough for you to want to have delineation between the different weapon types.
What delineation is there? From a thematic point of view they all work the same, the only difference is the small percentage differences between STR +1 AP -2 and STR +2 AP -1. That isn't about background fiction, it's obsessive dice optimization. And the game worked just fine in 5th edition when you bought your sergeant a generic power weapon that represented them having something better than the basic sword.
Conversely, it's simple to understand, generally doesn't require players to track which units have activated yet, and doesn't result in weird imbalances from one army having a significantly different unit count to the other.
You're talking about a level of simplicity that only matters when dealing with small children. Anyone capable of playing a game like 40k at all can understand how alternating activation works.
As for differences in unit counts, this is a myth that keeps coming up and it keeps being wrong. There is no inherent balance issue here because both large units and MSU have their own advantages. MSU gives you higher activation count at the expense of each individual activation being relatively weak, expensive powerful units have less flexibility in timing their activations but much greater ability to take advantage of a fleeting opportunity (such as an enemy unit being caught out of cover) before the other player can react. The inherent pressure ends up being towards a relatively balanced list that has units of both types to maximize strategic flexibility. And the idea that this is an impossible problem to cope with seems to be repeated almost exclusively by people who have never played an alternating activation game.
And you can't just discount the resistance to change. The fact that the game has 'always' been like that is a very good reason to not change it, because then it becomes, you know, not the same game. Which is obviously a problem for people who like the game as it is.
I absolutely can discount resistance to change. Clinging to bad mechanics because you're afraid of change is never good design. GW is just very fortunate that their advantages in background fiction and retail sales are enough to keep them ahead of the competition, because "we have to keep doing this bad thing because it's not the same game if we don't" is a great recipe for having a dead game that was replaced by competitors who weren't stuck in 1980.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Crimson wrote: Yeah. One can do that. Most people don't. Have you ever seen a Warlord titan to be used in a 40K game? Because I haven't.
Yep, along with various other "smaller" units. I'm pretty sure both of us have seen IK armies, IG taking multiple Baneblades, etc. Like it or not 40k is what used to be Apocalypse, the days of it being a company-scale infantry game are far in the past.
The reality is that as their main game it needs to be many things to many different people. This may lead it to be 'worse' in dealing with specialised things certain ways than several more specialised games would be. But several more specialised games would have never achieved the mass appeal 40K has. If you have one game for Knights, one game for flyers one game for individually equipable Deathwatch killteams and one game for platoon level infantry but not a game you can use all of these things, then the playerbase fractures. Now GW has recently started to make more specialised games, but they understand the importance of most things being usable in 40K. Whatever models you like, you can usually use them in 40K, and find an opponent.
Having everyone be able to use all of their models in 40k is a fine goal, but it's one that requires a heavily abstracted Apocalypse-style ruleset to work well. You can use your Deathwatch kill team models, but rules-wise they're going to have a standard set of unit rules and much of their customization is going to be aesthetic. And what is wrong with having aesthetic customization? Why does every single choice in modeling or painting need to be represented with special snowflake rules? What happened to building and painting a model because it looks cool, not because it is required by the rules?
(The answer is that GW's legal department happened, and for some incomprehensible reason the players have bought into the myth that there needs to be a 1:1 match between rules and model kits.)
What delineation is there? From a thematic point of view they all work the same, the only difference is the small percentage differences between STR +1 AP -2 and STR +2 AP -1.
Yes, the only difference is that they are different.
You're talking about a level of simplicity that only matters when dealing with small children. Anyone capable of playing a game like 40k at all can understand how alternating activation works.
Sure, they can. Anyone capable of playing a game like 40K can understand all sorts of wonderful, complicated concepts. That doesn't meant that all of those concepts need to be in the same game, or that doing so doesn't add complexity and therefore an extra barrier to learning to play.
'I do all my stuff, and then you do all your stuff' is easier to learn. It's less of a learning curve than having to figure out the intricacies of how units interact with staggered activation and all of the various tactical implications that has on gameplay.
If your objective is a more tactical game where the order of operations is intended to have a substantial impact, then sure, alternating activation is probably preferable. If your objective a is an easy game that doesn't need to have a lot of depth and exists largely to enable people to push cool models around a board for a couple of hours, (which, ultimately, is what 40K has always been about, whether we all wanted to accept that or not) then IGOUGO is just fine.
As for differences in unit counts, this is a myth that keeps coming up and it keeps being wrong.
It really isn't. If I have 5 units, and you have 30, then unless you have a system that limits players to activating the same number of units each turn (which is horrible, and just stops people from using horde armies entirely) you effectively wind up back playing IGOUGO.
Peregrine wrote: Having everyone be able to use all of their models in 40k is a fine goal, but it's one that requires a heavily abstracted Apocalypse-style ruleset to work well. You can use your Deathwatch kill team models, but rules-wise they're going to have a standard set of unit rules and much of their customization is going to be aesthetic. And what is wrong with having aesthetic customization? Why does every single choice in modeling or painting need to be represented with special snowflake rules? What happened to building and painting a model because it looks cool, not because it is required by the rules?
Because a lot of people like choosing things and them to have an impact in the game, even if that impact is minuscule. I even agree with you that some options could be easily be consolidated. Personally I'd be fine with just having 'power weapons', some other people would disagree. It is really a matter of taste what level of granularity one likes. For example, to me the whole point of Deathwatch teams is that they're individuals with varied equipment, and abstracting that to mere aesthetic choice would feel highly unsatisfactory.
And again. If you like how the things are done in Apoc, why not play that? There literally is a GW game which seems to match your tastes. If a store sells both strawberry and chocolate cakes it is silly to complain that the strawberry cake doesn't taste like chocolate.
insaniak wrote: Yes, the only difference is that they are different.
They aren't meaningfully different. Which weapon your unit is armed with matters if, say, a model with a power sword is able to parry an opponent's blow in a duel while a model with a power spear always attacks first. Which weapon your unit is armed with doesn't matter if a power sword has 1% more damage against MEQs while a power maul has 1% more damage against GEQs. Far too many of 40k's choices are only different in obsessive dice optimization and not on any kind of conceptual or fluff level.
'I do all my stuff, and then you do all your stuff' is easier to learn. It's less of a learning curve than having to figure out the intricacies of how units interact with staggered activation and all of the various tactical implications that has on gameplay.
It's easier to learn in the same way that "all units hit and wound on a 4+" would be easier to learn. But I don't see anyone arguing that we should remove all BS/WS/STR stats in favor of all dice rolls needing a 4+.
If your objective is a more tactical game where the order of operations is intended to have a substantial impact, then sure, alternating activation is probably preferable. If your objective a is an easy game that doesn't need to have a lot of depth and exists largely to enable people to push cool models around a board for a couple of hours, (which, ultimately, is what 40K has always been about, whether we all wanted to accept that or not) then IGOUGO is just fine.
IOW, "if you want a good game then alternating activation is preferable, if you have low standards and just want to pretend that you are playing a game with all that money you spent on Citadel™ Miniatures™ IGOUGO is great". I think that's a pretty clear concession that you have no argument in favor of IGOUGO as a good mechanic.
It really isn't. If I have 5 units, and you have 30, then unless you have a system that limits players to activating the same number of units each turn (which is horrible) you effectively wind up back playing IGOUGO.
You really aren't, for several reasons:
1) This sort of disparity in unit count is not a given. Perhaps in an alternating activation game you don't have that level of extreme MSU. Perhaps it's more like 10 units vs 15 units instead of a 6:1 ratio.
2) Not all activations are equal. Your theory is nice, but the reality of alternating activation games is that you often end up with the first few activations of the turn being the most important ones and the extra units at the end being much less important. For example, maybe the player with five units uses their activations to annihilate some enemy stuff and then duck behind cover, allowing only a small percentage of the 30 enemy units to engage effectively at all. That forces the MSU player to put their most important activations up front and keeps things interesting. And maybe, depending on the system, it even prevents the MSU player from going to that extreme of MSU even if the rules technically allow it.
3) There's always the opportunity to interrupt with something more important. Yes, a turn can approximate IGOUGO depending on the order of activations, but it doesn't have to work that way. Unlike in an actual IGOUGO game the MSU player can always see an opportunity and do something with an important unit immediately instead of stalling with cannon fodder until they activate their important stuff army all at once. And there is a huge difference between a conscious decision to use a strategy that resembles IGOUGO and a game that forces IGOUGO as the only option.
4) Alternating activation does not require free choice of units. For example, a system where you randomly draw a token for which unit activates won't allow you to stall with irrelevant cannon fodder and likely keeps those irrelevant cannon fodder units off the table entirely.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Crimson wrote: Because a lot of people like choosing things and them to have an impact in the game, even if that impact is minuscule.
And those are the people who are just plain wrong. Obsessing over irrelevant choices because you lack the understanding of dice math to realize how irrelevant they are is not something to be proud of, nor should a company design games to pander to people like that.
And again. If you like how the things are done in Apoc, why not play that?
Because that's irrelevant to the question of whether or not 40k is a good game, just like the existence of a better restaurant doesn't prevent me from leaving a 1-star review on a bad one.
Peregrine wrote:Wrong. IGOUGO is objectively bad design.
Wrong. IGOUGO is not objectively bad design.
You think it is bad design. You are not the arbitrator of what is or is not good or bad. You do not get to make judgements for other people, and claim yourself as being "correct".
Peregrine wrote:If you enjoy a non-interactive game where I can go get lunch for half an hour while you take your turn and not miss anything over a fluid and interactive game of action and reaction where both players are actively engaged at all times, well, I think you're self-evidently wrong about this and I have all the authority I need to say it.
Good luck proving that to anyone with more than half a brain cell.
If you don't like that kind of approach, you're welcome to it. But claiming you are the sole arbiter on if someone else is wrong or right about how they enjoy playing a little itty bitty toy soldier game to the point of arguing it online? That's a special kind of ignorance.
I think you're self-evidently wrong about that, and I have all the authority I need to say it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Peregrine wrote:And those are the people who are just plain wrong.
If they have different rules, and the objective is to have them be represented as different things so that people can differentiate between a sword and an axe, then they're meaningfully different. The fact that you personally don't think that level of differentiation is warranted doesn't mean the rest of us don't want it, or that having it is intrinsically bad.
Which weapon your unit is armed with matters if, say, a model with a power sword is able to parry an opponent's blow in a duel while a model with a power spear always attacks first. Which weapon your unit is armed with doesn't matter if a power sword has 1% more damage against MEQs while a power maul has 1% more damage against GEQs. Far too many of 40k's choices are only different in obsessive dice optimization and not on any kind of conceptual or fluff level.
Yeah, you have that all twisted around. If the rules aren't 'meaningfully different' then what weapon your unit is armed with only matters on a conceptual or fluff level. The slightly different rules are only there to provide differentiation between the options.
It's easier to learn in the same way that "all units hit and wound on a 4+" would be easier to learn. But I don't see anyone arguing that we should remove all BS/WS/STR stats in favor of all dice rolls needing a 4+.
While we're making irrelevant points, I feel I should point out that ANZAC biscuits are inherently superior to all other types of biscuits. Although we should probably avoid going down the rabbit hole of 'crispy vs soft'...
IOW, "if you want a good game then alternating activation is preferable, if you have low standards and just want to pretend that you are playing a game with all that money you spent on Citadel™ Miniatures™ IGOUGO is great". I think that's a pretty clear concession that you have no argument in favor of IGOUGO as a good mechanic.
Yes, misrepresenting the argument and declaring yourself the winner is certainly the best way to make your point. Well done.
1) This sort of disparity in unit count is not a given. Perhaps in an alternating activation game you don't have that level of extreme MSU. Perhaps it's more like 10 units vs 15 units instead of a 6:1 ratio.
Or perhaps they're all My Little Ponies? Maybe one player could have one unit, and the other player could fling spitballs at them?
I'm done here. If you're really so set on the idea that 40K needs to be a different game in order to be playable, then go play a different game. 40K is never going to be the game that you appear to want it to be. Sitting here insisting that the people who like something you don't are inherently wrong is beyond pointless. Just move on, dude.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Wrong. IGOUGO is not objectively bad design.
You think it is bad design. You are not the arbitrator of what is or is not good or bad. You do not get to make judgements for other people, and claim yourself as being "correct".
So I see that, rather than address my criticism of IGOUGO as a mechanic and make any defense of it, you have nothing but "that's just your opinion, man". At least Insaniak, as wrong as he is, is attempting to try to make an argument.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Wrong. IGOUGO is not objectively bad design.
You think it is bad design. You are not the arbitrator of what is or is not good or bad. You do not get to make judgements for other people, and claim yourself as being "correct".
So I see that, rather than address my criticism of IGOUGO as a mechanic and make any defense of it, you have nothing but "that's just your opinion, man". At least Insaniak, as wrong as he is, is attempting to try to make an argument.
You realise that smudge is mostly just agitating you because you once again lacked basic manners?
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Wrong. IGOUGO is not objectively bad design.
You think it is bad design. You are not the arbitrator of what is or is not good or bad. You do not get to make judgements for other people, and claim yourself as being "correct".
So I see that, rather than address my criticism of IGOUGO as a mechanic and make any defense of it, you have nothing but "that's just your opinion, man". At least Insaniak, as wrong as he is, is attempting to try to make an argument.
They are different approaches to game design that have wildly different variants under their umbrella.
That said, which version of alternating activation are we using here for the discussion? Is it one or two actions per unit per activation? Is it one activation per phase? Is it one activation per turn? Even AA has a lot of different varients and to argue against it we need to know what flavor of AA we're talking about first.
insaniak wrote: If they have different rules, and the objective is to have them be represented as different things so that people can differentiate between a sword and an axe, then they're meaningfully different. The fact that you personally don't think that level of differentiation is warranted doesn't mean the rest of us don't want it, or that having it is intrinsically bad.
In what way are they meaningful? What on-table decisions are determined by the choice? Is there any level of difference between choices that is sufficiently small that you would consider it irrelevant, or is even something as absurd as "if you are playing this game at 5:40pm on 9/14/19 and roll three consecutive 6s followed by a 1 with this weapon you may re-roll the 1" still a "meaningful difference" that is a legitimate rule to put on a datasheet?
Yeah, you have that all twisted around. If the rules aren't 'meaningfully different' then what weapon your unit is armed with only matters on a conceptual or fluff level. The slightly different rules are only there to provide differentiation between the options.
No, you're just missing the point. What the plastic miniature on the table is equipped with matters on a conceptual or fluff level. The rules, in this case, do not. An example of why I draw that line is missile launchers. From a balance point of view there is no reason to ever take them and the option might as well not exist, but on a conceptual level the missile launcher is at least trying to do something different from a lascannon even if GW sucks at dice math and made frag missiles too weak to matter. In theory GW could fix the D6 shots issue and make the choice a relevant one again. Contrast that with power weapons, where the only difference between them is minor dice optimization that has zero impact on how you play the unit on the table.
While we're making irrelevant points, I feel I should point out that ANZAC biscuits are inherently superior to all other types of biscuits. Although we should probably avoid going down the rabbit hole of 'crispy vs soft'...
How exactly is it irrelevant? The argument that IGOUGO is good because it is simple and easy to learn applies just as well to making all die rolls succeed on a 4+. In fact, an alternating activation game with all die rolls succeeding on a 4+ would probably be a better game than one that uses IGOUGO. So you can't simultaneously argue that all of the rules bloat and complexity of 8th edition is a legitimate thing and that IGOUGO is good because it is simple.
Yes, misrepresenting the argument and declaring yourself the winner is certainly the best way to make your point. Well done.
I'm not misrepresenting anything. "I just want some rules to push models around the table" is a textbook example of having low standards for a game.
I'm done here. If you're really so set on the idea that 40K needs to be a different game in order to be playable, then go play a different game. 40K is never going to be the game that you appear to want it to be. Sitting here insisting that the people who like something you don't are inherently wrong is beyond pointless. Just move on, dude.
Ah yes, the last resort of someone who has no better argument in defense of their position: "if you don't like it then leave".
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Wrong. IGOUGO is not objectively bad design.
You think it is bad design. You are not the arbitrator of what is or is not good or bad. You do not get to make judgements for other people, and claim yourself as being "correct".
So I see that, rather than address my criticism of IGOUGO as a mechanic and make any defense of it, you have nothing but "that's just your opinion, man". At least Insaniak, as wrong as he is, is attempting to try to make an argument.
You're not criticising IGOUGO though. You're criticising the people who haven't got a problem with it, and saying they're "objectively wrong". That's the difference here.
If you only have a problem with IGOUGO, you wouldn't need to say that the people who like it are "objectively wrong" (read: inferior), or need to go on some kind of tangent about "you have nothing to say except defending your opinion".
Instead, you make it blatantly clear that this isn't just about your personal dislike of a game mechanic, but an inability to respect the opinions of people you disagree with. If you only cared about the game mechanics, you wouldn't care if I had a different opinion. Unfortunately, how other people like to have fun is somehow offensive to you.
And you mock people for their ridiculous opinions on things - the irony is staggering.
ClockworkZion wrote: They are different approaches to game design that have wildly different variants under their umbrella.
Sure, and in all reasonable approaches to game design IGOUGO is a terrible mechanic. The only approach that leads to IGOUGO is "this is how our company did it in 1980 and that's how it always has to be".
That said, which version of alternating activation are we using here for the discussion? Is it one or two actions per unit per activation? Is it one activation per phase? Is it one activation per turn? Even AA has a lot of different varients and to argue against it we need to know what flavor of AA we're talking about first.
Any of them would be an improvement over IGOUGO. Once you acknowledge that IGOUGO is a terrible mechanic you can start considering the best option to replace it, but that's far past where we are now in this discussion.
Not Online!!! wrote: You realise that smudge is mostly just agitating you because you once again lacked basic manners?
Probably not.
Apparently not. If the Big Bird doesn't agree with it, it's clearly fake news. /s
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Peregrine wrote: Once you acknowledge that IGOUGO is a terrible mechanic you can start considering the best option to replace it, but that's far past where we are now in this discussion.
We were past that the moment you started claiming that "everyone who likes IGOUGO is WRONG" like some toddler who can't handle other people's opinions about his toys.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: If you only have a problem with IGOUGO, you wouldn't need to say that the people who like it are "objectively wrong" (read: inferior), or need to go on some kind of tangent about "you have nothing to say except defending your opinion".
Sure I would, because one directly follows from the other. If the earth is not flat then anyone defending flat earth theories is wrong. If IGOUGO is an inexcusably terrible mechanic then anyone defending it is wrong. If you want to extend that to meaning that anyone who has a wrong opinion about game design is inferior then that's on you, because it's certainly not a position that I'm advocating.
And it's hardly a tangent to point out that your argument consists entirely of "that's just your opinion, man" and is utterly lacking in any defense of why IGOUGO is actually good compared to the alternatives.
Instead, you make it blatantly clear that this isn't just about your personal dislike of a game mechanic, but an inability to respect the opinions of people you disagree with.
What about those opinions is worthy of respect? The mere fact that you possess them?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Not Online!!! wrote: You realise that smudge is mostly just agitating you because you once again lacked basic manners?
Probably not.
I prefer to assume that opinions expressed here are genuine, given that trolling (which "just agitating you" certainly qualifies as) is against forum rules. If you would like to accuse them of violating forum rules then feel free to hit that yellow triangle.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: If you only have a problem with IGOUGO, you wouldn't need to say that the people who like it are "objectively wrong" (read: inferior), or need to go on some kind of tangent about "you have nothing to say except defending your opinion".
Sure I would, because one directly follows from the other. If the earth is not flat then anyone defending flat earth theories is wrong. If IGOUGO is an inexcusably terrible mechanic then anyone defending it is wrong. If you want to extend that to meaning that anyone who has a wrong opinion about game design is inferior then that's on you, because it's certainly not a position that I'm advocating.
You're seriously comparing someone's personal enjoyment of a toy soldier game mechanic to disagreeing and actively resisting science? And you still claim you're the "rational" one here?
And it's hardly a tangent to point out that your argument consists entirely of "that's just your opinion, man" and is utterly lacking in any defense of why IGOUGO is actually good compared to the alternatives.
That's not what I'm even arguing about. I don't care if you think IGOUGO is better or worse, because I'm not here to justify my enjoyment of it to you.
What I am doing is pointing out how utterly idiotic it is to claim "hurr anyone who likes this is WRONG" as if you have some kind of authority on the matter.
What about those opinions is worthy of respect? The mere fact that you possess them?
Nah. Rule 1 of this forum claims that though.
Peregrine wrote:I prefer to assume that opinions expressed here are genuine, given that trolling (which "just agitating you" certainly qualifies as) is against forum rules. If you would like to accuse them of violating forum rules then feel free to hit that yellow triangle.
Big words from someone who claims to have so little disregard for other people's opinions that they style themselves as some kind of omniscient arbiter of All That Is Good And Right.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: You're seriously comparing someone's personal enjoyment of a toy soldier game mechanic to disagreeing and actively resisting science? And you still claim you're the "rational" one here?
It's perhaps a bit exaggerated for effect, but IGOUGO really is such a bad mechanic that there shouldn't be any controversy over it. It's not like, say, the argument over 28mm vs. 6mm scale where both sides have a point and it's a matter of which one you prefer.
What I am doing is pointing out how utterly idiotic it is to claim "hurr anyone who likes this is WRONG" as if you have some kind of authority on the matter.
IOW, "that's just your opinion, man". If the best you can say in defense of the other side is some weird general appeal to the idea that all opinions are valid then yes, I absolutely am justified in saying that they are wrong. If they weren't wrong then you'd be able to have more than "that's just your opinion, man" as an argument.
Nah. Rule 1 of this forum does though.
Rule #1 says that I have to respect the person holding the opinion, not the opinion itself. The two are not the same.
Ah yes, the last resort of someone who has no better argument in defense of their position: "if you don't like it then leave".
That wasn't an argument, it was a suggestion. You've moved way beyond being critical and into self-parody, by this point. If you're really so unhappy with the fundamentals of a game that is never going to be what you want it to be, then at some point you have to stop and ask yourself why you are bothering. Instead of wasting everyone's time insisting that all of those who like something you dislike are wrong, find something better suited to your preferences.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: You're seriously comparing someone's personal enjoyment of a toy soldier game mechanic to disagreeing and actively resisting science? And you still claim you're the "rational" one here?
It's perhaps a bit exaggerated for effect, but IGOUGO really is such a bad mechanic that there shouldn't be any controversy over it. It's not like, say, the argument over 28mm vs. 6mm scale where both sides have a point and it's a matter of which one you prefer.
I disagree. All the negatives you have given I personally don't have a problem with.
That's not to claim that they aren't there, and that isn't supposed to devalue your own opinion on the matter. However, it does mean to highlight that not all negatives are universally important or relevant, and so to claim that something is "objectively" better or worse only works if you ignore other people's perception.
What I am doing is pointing out how utterly idiotic it is to claim "hurr anyone who likes this is WRONG" as if you have some kind of authority on the matter.
IOW, "that's just your opinion, man". If the best you can say in defense of the other side is some weird general appeal to the idea that all opinions are valid then yes, I absolutely am justified in saying that they are wrong. If they weren't wrong then you'd be able to have more than "that's just your opinion, man" as an argument.
Imagine having such an inflated sense of self-importance that actively ignoring the opinions of other people is a good thing.
Nah. Rule 1 of this forum does though.
Rule #1 says that I have to respect the person holding the opinion, not the opinion itself. The two are not the same.
Please, O Big Bird of Wisdom, how does claiming that "Those people are wrong" and other similar disregards of people's opinions and personal beliefs not violate Rule 1?
Sgt_Smudge wrote: All the negatives you have given I personally don't have a problem with.
You honestly have no problem with a non-interactive game where you can literally walk away from the table for half an hour to get lunch while your opponent plays solitaire until they tell you how many casualties to remove? You don't think it would be better to have an interactive game that keeps both players engaged at all times? I think that W word you hate so much really applies...
Imagine having such an inflated sense of self-importance that actively ignoring the opinions of other people is a good thing.
I'm not ignoring anything. I've read your opinion and dismissed it as wrong. Don't confuse lack of agreement with lack of understanding.
Please, O Big Bird of Wisdom, how does claiming that "Those people are wrong" and other similar disregards of people's opinions and personal beliefs not violate Rule 1?
Because being wrong is not an insult. Lots of people are wrong about lots of subjects, it just means they are wrong. Should we start banning people in YMDC for posting rulebook quotes and saying "you are wrong"?
You honestly have no problem with a non-interactive game where you can literally walk away from the table for half an hour to get lunch while your opponent plays solitaire until they tell you how many casualties to remove? You don't think it would be better to have an interactive game that keeps both players engaged at all times? I think that W word you hate so much really applies...
IGOUGO doesn't need to be like that. A good IGOUGO game has things you can do as reactions to your opponents actions. Go to ground when shot, various charge reactions, choose to use defensive stratagems and items etc. Now the current edition has way too little of such things, but that's another matter.
Crimson wrote: IGOUGO doesn't need to be like that. A good IGOUGO game has things you can do as reactions to your opponents actions. Go to ground when shot, various charge reactions, choose to use defensive stratagems and items etc. Now the current edition has way too little of such things, but that's another matter.
The entire point of IGOUGO is that you don't have significant actions during the other player's turn. And in the past with 40k few of these decisions have ever been very interesting ones. Do I fire overwatch? Of course I do. Do I use the powerful defensive stratagem? Yes. Etc. And the more you add in these things the more you end up with all of the complexity of an alternating activation system but without the full benefits of one.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Please, O Big Bird of Wisdom, how does claiming that "Those people are wrong" and other similar disregards of people's opinions and personal beliefs not violate Rule 1?
Someone's opinion can be wrong when it relates to something factual. For example, having the opinion that the world is flat would be wrong, because the world being flat is objectively, demonstrably incorrect.
The problem here is that because Peregrine has convinced himself that IGOUGO is objectively bad, that make its badness a fact, in which case any statement that iGOUGO is good can be instantly dismissed as incorrect. That's not inherently rude, unless its being done deliberately in order to troll people, just misguided.
Although I feel that at some point, sheer refusal to even consider that other points of view might be valid does seem likely to result in continued argument being construed as trolling.
insaniak wrote: Although I feel that at some point, sheer refusal to even consider that other points of view might be valid does seem likely to result in continued argument being construed as trolling.
I have considered that they might be valid, and come to the conclusion that they are not. I am open to changing this conclusion but it is going to require a strong argument in favor of IGOUGO, far stronger than anything that has been presented so far. And "that's just your opinion, man" is not even close.
Crimson wrote: IGOUGO doesn't need to be like that. A good IGOUGO game has things you can do as reactions to your opponents actions. Go to ground when shot, various charge reactions, choose to use defensive stratagems and items etc. Now the current edition has way too little of such things, but that's another matter.
The entire point of IGOUGO is that you don't have significant actions during the other player's turn. And in the past with 40k few of these decisions have ever been very interesting ones. Do I fire overwatch? Of course I do. Do I use the powerful defensive stratagem? Yes. Etc. And the more you add in these things the more you end up with all of the complexity of an alternating activation system but without the full benefits of one.
Nonsense. Previous editions had such things, Fantasy Battle had such things and now there are stratagems you can use on your opponents turn. If you have limited resources such as CP or stratagem uses or magic points or number of denials then you have meaningful choices. If you can choose to do something defensive that weakens your offensive later you have meaningful choices. Now overwatch rarely is a meaningful choice anymore, as basically is the only charge reaction you can choose. But that doesn't need to be so. MTG is one of the most successful games ever and most people would consider it to be well designed. It is IGOUGO but there are reactions and interrupts you can do on your opponent's turn.
insaniak wrote: Although I feel that at some point, sheer refusal to even consider that other points of view might be valid does seem likely to result in continued argument being construed as trolling.
I have considered that they might be valid, and come to the conclusion that they are not. I am open to changing this conclusion but it is going to require a strong argument in favor of IGOUGO, far stronger than anything that has been presented so far. And "that's just your opinion, man" is not even close.
Except you haven't, because you've approached it with the mindset that your position is the 'correct' one due to an 'objective' fact that you're entirely made up. People's reasons for liking IGOUGO aren't 'invalid'... they're just not things that convince you to like it.
'That's just your opinion, man' is a perfectly valid argument for a subjective value judgement.
insaniak wrote: Except you haven't, because you've approached it with the mindset that your position is the 'correct' one due to an 'objective' fact that you're entirely made up.
I'm glad to know you can read my mind and know where I approached the discussion from. Is there any point in having any conversation with you when you're going to build whatever straw man narrative fits your opinion and present it as fact?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Crimson wrote: Nonsense. Previous editions had such things, Fantasy Battle had such things and now there are stratagems you can use on your opponents turn. If you have limited resources such as CP or stratagem uses or magic points or number of denials then you have meaningful choices. If you can choose to do something defensive that weakens your offensive later you have meaningful choices. Now overwatch rarely is a meaningful choice anymore, as basically is the only charge reaction you can choose. But that doesn't need to be so. MTG is one of the most successful games ever and most people would consider it to be well designed. It is IGOUGO but there are reactions and interrupts you can do on your opponent's turn.
In theory you can. In practice those reactions tend to be superficial non-decisions where the choice is obvious. And, again, the more of that kind of stuff you include the closer you get to the complexity of a true alternating activation system with an awkward pseudo-IGOUOGO compromise. So why not just use alternating activation at that point? It says a lot that the best defense of IGOUGO you can come up with is that a system is improved the more it moves away from pure IGOUGO.
As for MTG, it's not a very good comparison. Aside from being designed from the ground up with a significant non-IGOUGO element of using spells and abilities during your opponent's turn MTG is also a game where turn can happen in a minute or less. It doesn't share the same crippling flaw of IGOUGO in a game like 40k, the extended non-interactive periods caused by the sheer amount of stuff you have to do to resolve your entire army's actions.
Crimson wrote: IGOUGO doesn't need to be like that. A good IGOUGO game has things you can do as reactions to your opponents actions. Go to ground when shot, various charge reactions, choose to use defensive stratagems and items etc. Now the current edition has way too little of such things, but that's another matter.
The entire point of IGOUGO is that you don't have significant actions during the other player's turn. And in the past with 40k few of these decisions have ever been very interesting ones. Do I fire overwatch? Of course I do. Do I use the powerful defensive stratagem? Yes. Etc. And the more you add in these things the more you end up with all of the complexity of an alternating activation system but without the full benefits of one.
This is not true. 'Igougo' as a system has evolved since the seventies. These things are not static. There is no reason To describe Igougo as either 'flawed' or that you can bugger off for half an hour while the other guy does his stuff.
The idea that in Igougo systems you don't or can't have significant actions during the other players turn is bunk. There are various ways of implementing Igougo, which is essentially, 'I do all the stuff with my army, then you do it with yours'.
One example is broken phase Igougo. Look at gw's own lotr sbg or various historicals. Technically, I go you go in that I do all my stuff with my army, and then you with yours, but it's broken into a movement (I move my stuff, you move yours), shooting (I shoot, then you shoot), then the fight phase where both sides simultaneously crack skulls. you often see this, or variations of this in historicals too.
Another example is interrupted phase Igougo. Look at Corvus beli's infinity, probably the most technically brilliant wargame on the market. The game is Igougo (I get my turn where I activate all of my stuff, then you get your turn where you activate all of your stuff) but inherent to the game is the idea of the 'active turn' and 'reactive turn'. When it's your turn, and you are doing all of your stuff and spending orders activating all of your units, I can react with mine, by shooting back, attempting to dodge, moving etc - essentially, it's an Igougo game where 'it's always your turn'. It's a brilliant game and very engaging.
You could argue that maybe gw should build in more 'out of your turn' elements into their game, but this isn't necessarily a good thing either. I remember in mk1 warmachine, the game often groaned to a halt because of out-of-control-out-of-activation antics that were possible. You could build an entire army back then that operated outside of its own turn, and it was a huge negative play experience overall. There was a reason a lot of that stuff got cut out in the edition change to mk2.
Andy chambers old starship troopers game (from the early/mid noughties) was ahead of its time, and it also had a reaction system built into it.
I have no huge preference either way. Alternative activation has its strengths. So does Igougo. For me, another point in favour of Igougo that I don't get in alternative activation systems is the feel of implementing a plan across a whole army. Games like warmachine/hordes require the Igougo game for the synergy building and combo stacking nature of the game. Alternative activations to me often feels disjointed in comparison.
The funniest thing about this whole „IGOUGO is objectively terribad design” is that this mechanics gave birth to one of the most iconic and most community dissected series of strategic/tactical computer games - I’m talking about X-COM series, both original and modern remakes use simple IGOUGO with overwatch, only Apocalypse tried to introduce a form of simultaneous/real time resolution.
But apparently all those folks are just wrong and want to push their little groups of pixels and just have a laugh
JNAProductions wrote: So, in other words, IGOUGO isn't inherently bad, it's just a design choice.
Now, I certainly agree it's done pretty badly in 40k, but if it works for MtG, it's clearly not inherently bad.
I think the "in a game like 40k" part of the statement that IGOUGO is bad should be obviously implicit even when not stated explicitly. You can't really compare mechanics between such different games, even if the turn structure is superficially similar how it works out on the table is very different between a CCG and a wargame. The "IGOUGO" that exists in MTG has essentially nothing to do with the concept as it exists in wargames.
insaniak wrote: If they have different rules, and the objective is to have them be represented as different things so that people can differentiate between a sword and an axe, then they're meaningfully different. The fact that you personally don't think that level of differentiation is warranted doesn't mean the rest of us don't want it, or that having it is intrinsically bad.
In what way are they meaningful? What on-table decisions are determined by the choice? Is there any level of difference between choices that is sufficiently small that you would consider it irrelevant, or is even something as absurd as "if you are playing this game at 5:40pm on 9/14/19 and roll three consecutive 6s followed by a 1 with this weapon you may re-roll the 1" still a "meaningful difference" that is a legitimate rule to put on a datasheet?
Yeah, you have that all twisted around. If the rules aren't 'meaningfully different' then what weapon your unit is armed with only matters on a conceptual or fluff level. The slightly different rules are only there to provide differentiation between the options.
No, you're just missing the point. What the plastic miniature on the table is equipped with matters on a conceptual or fluff level. The rules, in this case, do not. An example of why I draw that line is missile launchers. From a balance point of view there is no reason to ever take them and the option might as well not exist, but on a conceptual level the missile launcher is at least trying to do something different from a lascannon even if GW sucks at dice math and made frag missiles too weak to matter. In theory GW could fix the D6 shots issue and make the choice a relevant one again. Contrast that with power weapons, where the only difference between them is minor dice optimization that has zero impact on how you play the unit on the table.
While we're making irrelevant points, I feel I should point out that ANZAC biscuits are inherently superior to all other types of biscuits. Although we should probably avoid going down the rabbit hole of 'crispy vs soft'...
How exactly is it irrelevant? The argument that IGOUGO is good because it is simple and easy to learn applies just as well to making all die rolls succeed on a 4+. In fact, an alternating activation game with all die rolls succeeding on a 4+ would probably be a better game than one that uses IGOUGO. So you can't simultaneously argue that all of the rules bloat and complexity of 8th edition is a legitimate thing and that IGOUGO is good because it is simple.
Yes, misrepresenting the argument and declaring yourself the winner is certainly the best way to make your point. Well done.
I'm not misrepresenting anything. "I just want some rules to push models around the table" is a textbook example of having low standards for a game.
I'm done here. If you're really so set on the idea that 40K needs to be a different game in order to be playable, then go play a different game. 40K is never going to be the game that you appear to want it to be. Sitting here insisting that the people who like something you don't are inherently wrong is beyond pointless. Just move on, dude.
Ah yes, the last resort of someone who has no better argument in defense of their position: "if you don't like it then leave".
I'm weighing in late so I probably missed some details, but let me give this a shot:
In asking about IGOUGO and wanting somebody who likes it make a defense of it, here goes:
a) Because both Kill Team and I think Apocalypse use AA, having 40k be different allows people to experience variety when they happen to be fans of cross platform gaming. This feature may not matter to you if you either don't like cross platform gaming or prefer your cross platform gaming experience to be more steamlined, in which case, you could argue that this objectively true argument in favour IGOUGO is not valid from your point of view. But since I do like cross platform game with a degree of variance between each of the systems, from my point of view, it is a valid reason that IGOUGO better is the best fit for 40k.
b) you dismiss "this is the way we did it in 1990" without considering the deep validity of it. See, when you drop a huge game altering bomb like a new edition, you kinda need to carry a few things over in order to ensure that you keep some of the fan base. There are many players who would have left if you combined AA with all the other changes that were almost but not quite enough to break the camel's back. Beyond keeping the customers though, for some people tradition REALLY matters. And all of the arguments I'm giving in defense of IGOUGO have a bit more weight because they are a part of a tradition which is 8 editions and 3 decades long. And of course you're free to disagree, but that doesn't make the statement objectively wrong. Truth is not mutually exclusive- many things are true at the same time, and some even appear to contract each other in certain contexts.
c) I don't know if you've ever played a 15k vs 15k six player game that took a total of twelve hours to play, but I have. In IGOUGO, when it's not your turn, your the guy who makes the food, goes for the beer run, does the DJ duties. In AA, it feels like IT"S ALWAYS YOUR TURN! You like that feeling when the game is 3-4 hours. Try it when the game is 10 hours on day one and another 8 hours on day two.
d) There is a certain satisfaction, best described as a drop from peak intensity; it entails a feeling of satisfaction or relief. In an IGOUGO game, you experience it when you execute a complete turn; the feeling is one of working, working, working seeing gradual improvements in your army's overall tactical advantage when things work out, or a gradual gloom as failures necessitate spontaineous revisions to well rehearsed "plays." Either way, when your turn ends, the rest while the other player moves comes as a bit of a relief. It provides a rhythm to the game. People who enjoy this feeling probably prefer watching American football or Baseball to watching Basketball or Soccer. The differences in rhythm are similar; they are also "objectively real" and "true." Many will prefer one or the other; some, like those mentioned in part a, will prefer a mix of both, just like some people like Hockey AND American football. No mater which category they fall into, all of their points of view are objectively valid and true, all at the same time.
e) Building on the American football reference above, every coach has a personal playbook, cobbled together over years of experience that defines his or her personal style. Each "play" describes the action that every team member will take as a default and attempt to execute; in such plays, all members of their team are executing their assigned default action simultaneously, without any knowledge of what the default actions of their opponents will be. Now I will concede that since both teams in a football game are executing their plans at the same time, AA can work to simulate this experience, but from my perspective, IGOUGO better captures the "playbook" feel.
I could go on all night, because I'm an inherently empathetic person, and I genuinely enjoy putting myself in other people's shoes. Seeing things from other people's point of view has taught me so much over the years. It's also why I can say that you are right too; there are certain advantages that AA would bring to 40K, and I'm sure an AA version of it would be really fun in different ways. I'm just happy with what I've got, especially since if I want the AA rush of IT"S ALWAYS MY TURN, I can just play Kill Team, Apocalypse or Blackstone Fortress with the exact same models I use in 40k.
insaniak wrote: Except you haven't, because you've approached it with the mindset that your position is the 'correct' one due to an 'objective' fact that you're entirely made up.
I'm glad to know you can read my mind and know where I approached the discussion from. Is there any point in having any conversation with you when you're going to build whatever straw man narrative fits your opinion and present it as fact?
Dude, you've just spent multiple pages banging on about how the system is objectively bad. That's not mind reading.
But no, there is no point continuing this conversation so long as you continue in this vein. Either accept that your viewpoint is not written in the bedrock of the universe, or move on.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: All the negatives you have given I personally don't have a problem with.
You honestly have no problem with a non-interactive game where you can literally walk away from the table for half an hour to get lunch while your opponent plays solitaire until they tell you how many casualties to remove? You don't think it would be better to have an interactive game that keeps both players engaged at all times?
I haven't got a problem with that. And guess what - that's just as valid as your opinion to disagree.
You're welcome.
I think that W word you hate so much really applies...
And I think that's wrong.
Imagine having such an inflated sense of self-importance that actively ignoring the opinions of other people is a good thing.
I'm not ignoring anything. I've read your opinion and dismissed it as wrong. Don't confuse lack of agreement with lack of understanding.
No, that's very much ignoring. Either through stupidity or malice, that's still very much a lack of understanding.
I'm not asking you to agree. I'm asking you to understand that my opinion is as valuable as yours, and as much as mine is "wrong", yours is too, and as much as yours is "right", mine is too.
Please, O Big Bird of Wisdom, how does claiming that "Those people are wrong" and other similar disregards of people's opinions and personal beliefs not violate Rule 1?
Because being wrong is not an insult. Lots of people are wrong about lots of subjects, it just means they are wrong. Should we start banning people in YMDC for posting rulebook quotes and saying "you are wrong"?
If you can't tell the difference between someone being wrong when answering a question with an objective answer (what do the rules say) and someone having an opinion (I like this!), then you very much ARE wrong.
As I've said - I haven't got a problem with you pointing out the fact that IGOUGO causes lots of downtime. What *is* a problem is your claiming that it's an objective problem. The problem is that you're citing facts, but ignoring that those facts may or may not mean anything to people; just because you think that they're a problem doesn't make it so.
Or, if you're so sure that "being wrong is not an insult" - tell that to anyone who may have been told their sexual preferences were "wrong". See how utterly ridiculous that is?
insaniak wrote:Someone's opinion can be wrong when it relates to something factual. For example, having the opinion that the world is flat would be wrong, because the world being flat is objectively, demonstrably incorrect.
Yes, but we're not talking about flat earth, we're talking about opinions here, as you said.
But obviously, yes, I agree with that, because the earth being round is a proven fact. Flat Earthers are arguing that a fact is wrong. That is not what's happening here though. What's happening here would be like "I don't like that the Earth is round, because it means that there's no edge of the world". That's an opinion, and that's not wrong or right. It's just an opinion. That person isn't denying that the Earth is round, they're not arguing against data, they're simply saying that they don't like that fact. They're not *wrong* though, as much as you might not hold that same opinion.
Unfortunately, as you say below, Peregrine has not grasped this.
The problem here is that because Peregrine has convinced himself that IGOUGO is objectively bad, that make its badness a fact, in which case any statement that iGOUGO is good can be instantly dismissed as incorrect. That's not inherently rude, unless its being done deliberately in order to troll people, just misguided.
Although I feel that at some point, sheer refusal to even consider that other points of view might be valid does seem likely to result in continued argument being construed as trolling.
Trolling, impoliteness - almost certainly.
Peregrine wrote:
insaniak wrote: Except you haven't, because you've approached it with the mindset that your position is the 'correct' one due to an 'objective' fact that you're entirely made up.
I'm glad to know you can read my mind and know where I approached the discussion from.
Hypocrisy, thy name is Peregrine.
Please, express more outrage about people assuming to know your mind and opinions and viewpoints on something! Continue to be upset when someone tells you how you "actually" feel about something and how you're supposed to be behaving and thinking, by all means.
Maybe you might have a little self-reflection.
Is there any point in having any conversation with you when you're going to build whatever straw man narrative fits your opinion and present it as fact?
I don't know - is there any point in having a conversation with you, Peregrine?
And yeah, whilst I would prefer if there was a bit more ways I could react during my opponent's turn, I do not find the basic concept of there being portions of the game when I have less to do to be a problem. As noted, it gives the game a pleasant rhythm and gives me time to plot my next move.
insaniak wrote: Although I feel that at some point, sheer refusal to even consider that other points of view might be valid does seem likely to result in continued argument being construed as trolling.
I have considered that they might be valid, and come to the conclusion that they are not. I am open to changing this conclusion but it is going to require a strong argument in favor of IGOUGO, far stronger than anything that has been presented so far. And "that's just your opinion, man" is not even close.
Except you haven't, because you've approached it with the mindset that your position is the 'correct' one due to an 'objective' fact that you're entirely made up. People's reasons for liking IGOUGO aren't 'invalid'... they're just not things that convince you to like it.
'That's just your opinion, man' is a perfectly valid argument for a subjective value judgement.
I think at this point Pere is pretty much incapable of making the base distinction between sub vs objective.
Their conclusion is based on not quite understanding that someone can have a differing opinion. this is just S.O.P. for them.
The Peregrine Guide to Posting on dakkadakka checklist:
#1 come to a conclusion.
#2 deduce that it is the only logical/rational one (all while misunderstanding objectivity vs. subjectivity.)
#3 post broad generalizations about others, but do it in the most assholery way possible
#4 then proceed to state that everyone's position is wrong, irrespective of any external evidence(both anecdotal and not)
#5 Lather....Rinse....Repeat
ClockworkZion wrote: They are different approaches to game design that have wildly different variants under their umbrella.
Sure, and in all reasonable approaches to game design IGOUGO is a terrible mechanic. The only approach that leads to IGOUGO is "this is how our company did it in 1980 and that's how it always has to be".
That said, which version of alternating activation are we using here for the discussion? Is it one or two actions per unit per activation? Is it one activation per phase? Is it one activation per turn? Even AA has a lot of different varients and to argue against it we need to know what flavor of AA we're talking about first.
Any of them would be an improvement over IGOUGO. Once you acknowledge that IGOUGO is a terrible mechanic you can start considering the best option to replace it, but that's far past where we are now in this discussion.
I disagree. If we gave units 1 action a turn each it'd be turns of people shuffling around of just shooting their entrenched gunlines at each other.
Not every varient of AA suits 40k.
I'd be most in favor in it working in a phase by phase basis, but even then we could just end up with melee armies suffering further as they chase armies like Tau around the table who just move in reaction to the melee units moving closer.
Narrative army builds can lean into taking subpar choices on the table to stick to a specific feel or apsect of lore, while competetive armies lean into finding the most powerful combos.
Then again, why are there subpar choices? Why not make those option better? One thing that bugged me on the video was when Gallagher was talking about taking stuff that was not so great but fitted thematically to the army. You are the rules writer, FFS! Making the things that are thematically appropriate for a given faction to also be worthwhile competitively for that faction is your fething job! If subfaction rules have to exist then that is what they should be doing.
I find it pretty telling no one commented on this. Here, I'll handle this, they let units be sub par, knowing they are subpar because what kind of fun would it be if you felt all your units were good ? You miss out on all the joy of wasting lots of money on units that get smashed in even relaxed casual match ups. The fact that they knew some units are stinkers, yet seemingly never actually make them better is pretty lame of them. Like Ogryns, they've been meh for a long long time. Now, Bullgryns do everything Ogryns would do just better and Ogryns still meh, probably for a long time yet. I call it the GW surprise mechanic, Surprise! You modeled that expensive kit wrong, maybe one day we'll make them good, or just play narrative. Would you like to know more ?
Narrative army builds can lean into taking subpar choices on the table to stick to a specific feel or apsect of lore, while competetive armies lean into finding the most powerful combos.
Then again, why are there subpar choices? Why not make those option better? One thing that bugged me on the video was when Gallagher was talking about taking stuff that was not so great but fitted thematically to the army. You are the rules writer, FFS! Making the things that are thematically appropriate for a given faction to also be worthwhile competitively for that faction is your fething job! If subfaction rules have to exist then that is what they should be doing.
I find it pretty telling no one commented on this. Here, I'll handle this, they let units be sub par, knowing they are subpar because what kind of fun would it be if you felt all your units were good ? You miss out on all the joy of wasting lots of money on units that get smashed in even relaxed casual match ups. The fact that they knew some units are stinkers, yet seemingly never actually make them better is pretty lame of them. Like Ogryns, they've been meh for a long long time. Now, Bullgryns do everything Ogryns would do just better and Ogryns still meh, probably for a long time yet. I call it the GW surprise mechanic, Surprise! You modeled that expensive kit wrong, maybe one day we'll make them good, or just play narrative. Would you like to know more ?
Oh, I had loads of fun discovering my minis are garbage. They were pretty cheap, and it didn't take tens of hours assembling and painting them or anything, so they're easy to replace.
ClockworkZion wrote: They are different approaches to game design that have wildly different variants under their umbrella.
Sure, and in all reasonable approaches to game design IGOUGO is a terrible mechanic. The only approach that leads to IGOUGO is "this is how our company did it in 1980 and that's how it always has to be".
That said, which version of alternating activation are we using here for the discussion? Is it one or two actions per unit per activation? Is it one activation per phase? Is it one activation per turn? Even AA has a lot of different varients and to argue against it we need to know what flavor of AA we're talking about first.
Any of them would be an improvement over IGOUGO. Once you acknowledge that IGOUGO is a terrible mechanic you can start considering the best option to replace it, but that's far past where we are now in this discussion.
I disagree. If we gave units 1 action a turn each it'd be turns of people shuffling around of just shooting their entrenched gunlines at each other.
Not every varient of AA suits 40k.
I'd be most in favor in it working in a phase by phase basis, but even then we could just end up with melee armies suffering further as they chase armies like Tau around the table who just move in reaction to the melee units moving closer.
I think the phases are part of the problem with balance, depth and player engagement in 40k. Simply allowing each unit to take an action, like move and shoot, move and cast a psychic power, charge, etc. is so much more fluid and dynamic.
Switching to AA without other changes would solve nothing. But if you add in things like a morale system that allows players to pin or otherwise negatively affect their opponent's units in ways other than killing them, it'll work. Perhaps allow some elite units to take multiple actions a turn, etc.
At this point I know enough to kind of pick out the stinker units. If I have bad units its because I'm not afraid of a unit being bad or picked them out a long time back. I love them surprise mechanics though. It would suck if all my models felt viable, how would I ever make an army list then ? I'd panic.
Crimson wrote: And yeah, whilst I would prefer if there was a bit more ways I could react during my opponent's turn, I do not find the basic concept of there being portions of the game when I have less to do to be a problem. As noted, it gives the game a pleasant rhythm and gives me time to plot my next move.
Yeah, I'll watch my opponent and formulate a strategy while waiting. It's on you if you dont want to interact with them, but dont be disingenuous in saying that you have nothing to do so you can just walk away while they do stuff.
Crimson wrote: And yeah, whilst I would prefer if there was a bit more ways I could react during my opponent's turn, I do not find the basic concept of there being portions of the game when I have less to do to be a problem. As noted, it gives the game a pleasant rhythm and gives me time to plot my next move.
Yeah, I'll watch my opponent and formulate a strategy while waiting. It's on you if you dont want to interact with them, but dont be disingenuous in saying that you have nothing to do so you can just walk away while they do stuff.
I'll do that, too, but I don't particularly enjoy not getting to participate for the next 20 minutes. I want to able to react to my opponent's moves, and disrupt their plan.
Just do what you'd do if you were in an actual battle, take a nap. The times in between when a soldier can rest and must be awake for long periods is often lopsided so it's narrative driven you get all the sleep you can to be energized for combat.
ccs wrote: So I have question concerning IGOUGO for the people railing against it.
If the IGOUGO format is (at least) as bad a system as you claim, why are you still playing these games?
I mean, when I find games who's essential core mechanic(s) ruin my enjoyment I just stop playing them....
I don't. I just pop in now and again to see what's going on with 40k, and make a nice visit to the MEDGe and non-40k subforums, or look through painting and modeling.
I never said I had issue with IGOUGO. To say the system is perfect, that wouldn't be true but the system may even be viable once more if some things were in place.
Cover being more meaningful, certain mechanics that could make it not so lopsided, a dial back in raw damage that leads to offensive leading armies so that system hurts just a bit less all the time.
Though you do tend to have a large amount of time between turns. Though you can always fill it with something, ponder your plans, watch some videos on the phone, do an uplifting spirit dance with killer jazz hands.
The narrative is yours, you can even name each individual nurgling you fielded ! The power is yours.
I find it pretty telling no one commented on this. Here, I'll handle this, they let units be sub par, knowing they are subpar because what kind of fun would it be if you felt all your units were good ? You miss out on all the joy of wasting lots of money on units that get smashed in even relaxed casual match ups. The fact that they knew some units are stinkers, yet seemingly never actually make them better is pretty lame of them. Like Ogryns, they've been meh for a long long time. Now, Bullgryns do everything Ogryns would do just better and Ogryns still meh, probably for a long time yet. I call it the GW surprise mechanic, Surprise! You modeled that expensive kit wrong, maybe one day we'll make them good, or just play narrative. Would you like to know more ?
It's more that I missed it in the walls of text we had bricking up my phone screen, and while your hyperbole is on par with the writing of Starship Troopers, I'd have to argue that there are some other things at play.
The first thing is that meta always plays a role. If you want to play tanks in a meta that is geared up to fight super heavies then you're going to have a bad time. Likewise, if you play counter-meta (like running tanks in a setting that is geared for hordes) then it can cause the meta to shift to address the issue.
Basically how good or bad things are can be relative, even in a perfectly balanced enviroment. During 7th our local meta was very anti-flyer and an RT was won by a player who brought an all infantry Marine army which became nigh unkillable due to no one bringing blasts at the time to deal with that many bodies. Was the army normally that powerful? Not really. But in that environment it became a powerful list.
The second issue that can make something subpar is points cost. For example I found an interesting combo involving Wraiths with Transdimensional Beamers, a Cantopek Cryptek with a Solar Staff, and a Scarab Swarm screen. 6d3 shots that can cause mortal wounds paired with a staff that fires 6 shots that prevent Infantry from Overwatch, suicidal smite catching Scarabs and a way to buff the RP ability for the Wraiths while everything can auto-run 6". Sounds good and flexible, with some decent firepower to help thin supporting units off of charge targets but when you see the whole thing costs 636 points that it becomes a subpar combo. Good individual parts, but bad cost.
Missions can play a factor too. Objectives scored every turn make movement more important than something loke Meatgrinder which requires on plater to not die by game end which promotes combat ability and durability.
This is why "balance" is such an elusive thing: what do we call balanced? How does that impact how we design the game? What does it break by giving that factor priority?
I find it pretty telling no one commented on this. Here, I'll handle this, they let units be sub par, knowing they are subpar because what kind of fun would it be if you felt all your units were good ? You miss out on all the joy of wasting lots of money on units that get smashed in even relaxed casual match ups. The fact that they knew some units are stinkers, yet seemingly never actually make them better is pretty lame of them. Like Ogryns, they've been meh for a long long time. Now, Bullgryns do everything Ogryns would do just better and Ogryns still meh, probably for a long time yet. I call it the GW surprise mechanic, Surprise! You modeled that expensive kit wrong, maybe one day we'll make them good, or just play narrative. Would you like to know more ?
It's more that I missed it in the walls of text we had bricking up my phone screen, and while your hyperbole is on par with the writing of Starship Troopers, I'd have to argue that there are some other things at play.
The first thing is that meta always plays a role. If you want to play tanks in a meta that is geared up to fight super heavies then you're going to have a bad time. Likewise, if you play counter-meta (like running tanks in a setting that is geared for hordes) then it can cause the meta to shift to address the issue.
Basically how good or bad things are can be relative, even in a perfectly balanced enviroment. During 7th our local meta was very anti-flyer and an RT was won by a player who brought an all infantry Marine army which became nigh unkillable due to no one bringing blasts at the time to deal with that many bodies. Was the army normally that powerful? Not really. But in that environment it became a powerful list.
The second issue that can make something subpar is points cost. For example I found an interesting combo involving Wraiths with Transdimensional Beamers, a Cantopek Cryptek with a Solar Staff, and a Scarab Swarm screen. 6d3 shots that can cause mortal wounds paired with a staff that fires 6 shots that prevent Infantry from Overwatch, suicidal smite catching Scarabs and a way to buff the RP ability for the Wraiths while everything can auto-run 6". Sounds good and flexible, with some decent firepower to help thin supporting units off of charge targets but when you see the whole thing costs 636 points that it becomes a subpar combo. Good individual parts, but bad cost.
Missions can play a factor too. Objectives scored every turn make movement more important than something loke Meatgrinder which requires on plater to not die by game end which promotes combat ability and durability.
This is why "balance" is such an elusive thing: what do we call balanced? How does that impact how we design the game? What does it break by giving that factor priority?
It really isn't elusive, though. Balance= players of roughly equal skill have a roughly equal chance of winning. No unit is op or useless. That's really all it is.
1. Is there a reason to use (unit X)/(army X)? -Why would I play Grey Knights? Why would I take a Blackstar? What's the point of tactical Terminators? Why would I take any Mark other than Slaanesh on my Havocs? If your answer is "there is no mechanical reason to do this thing, do it if you like the flavour" that is a failure of balance. There should be a relevant/valid reason to use every model in any context, whether it's narrative or competitive. More broadly I shouldn't be dooming myself to losing every game I ever play by picking the wrong army book before I start the game.
2. Why does (unit X) exist when (unit Y) does the same thing only better? -Why would I take a Rhino when I could take an Impulsor? To transport normal Marines rather than Primaris? Why would I do that? Aren't the Primaris just better? If two units are going to be "different" they should be meaningfully different, both should have a role, niche, or circumstance under which they're the better option. I shouldn't be presented with a choice between a good option and a bad option that do the same job.
It really isn't elusive, though. Balance= players of roughly equal skill have a roughly equal chance of winning. No unit is op or useless. That's really all it is.
You missed a few points in there. I mean if I take a mobile lidt that lacks ability to tank hits and play a mission that requires me to do so the game can be balanced down to the point but I'm still going to get my teeth kicked in.
Heck, even with your definition we unpack new issues: how do we ensure only people of equal skill play each other? How can we truly be sure that some of the complaonts abouy balance don't come from that mismatch of skill level and how do we eliminate it to ensure the balance is actually achieved?
It really isn't elusive, though. Balance= players of roughly equal skill have a roughly equal chance of winning. No unit is op or useless. That's really all it is.
The reason it's elusive is that 40K is such an open system. For balance to be a practical aim, the game needs to be focused to a specific type of play. The more diversity you add in, whether in unit types, weapon types, customisability, mission types and so on, the harder it becomes to achieve any sort of balance across the board.
GW want 40K to include all of the bells and whistles, to give players a lot of freedom in how they create their armies. And that's good, because it gives players a huge range of stuff to choose from. But it makes achieving any sort of across-the-board balance a pipe-dream.
I used to find that frustrating. These days, I view it as GW providing a sandbox, and leaving it to the players to create whatever sort of playing field within it that suits them. Obviously, that doesn't work if you want a fine-tuned, balanced system, but for a lot of players it's more than sufficient, and a worthwhile tradeoff for having all of those cool models.
It really isn't elusive, though. Balance= players of roughly equal skill have a roughly equal chance of winning. No unit is op or useless. That's really all it is.
The reason it's elusive is that 40K is such an open system. For balance to be a practical aim, the game needs to be focused to a specific type of play. The more diversity you add in, whether in unit types, weapon types, customisability, mission types and so on, the harder it becomes to achieve any sort of balance across the board.
GW want 40K to include all of the bells and whistles, to give players a lot of freedom in how they create their armies. And that's good, because it gives players a huge range of stuff to choose from. But it makes achieving any sort of across-the-board balance a pipe-dream.
I used to find that frustrating. These days, I view it as GW providing a sandbox, and leaving it to the players to create whatever sort of playing field within it that suits them. Obviously, that doesn't work if you want a fine-tuned, balanced system, but for a lot of players it's more than sufficient, and a worthwhile tradeoff for having all of those cool models.
Which is why Dark Eldar HQs are so customizable, with options for mobility, damage, support, and everything else! /sarcasm
ClockworkZion wrote: This is why "balance" is such an elusive thing: what do we call balanced?
Three part test:
1) There are no auto-take or never-take options. All options have a viable role if you make including it in your list the top priority, but no options are so obviously good that you will always take them unless you have a self-imposed fluff/newbie teaching game/etc limit.
2) All major list archetypes have a roughly 50/50 win rate against a generic metagame composed of all major list archetypes in equal proportion. IOW, if you pick an archetype for your faction (mech IG, primaris space marines, etc) and do a reasonable job of designing a list you can expect to play 1000 games against someone of equal skill and win roughly 500 of them. Maybe you win 60% of the time against one archetype but it's balanced out by only winning 40% of the time against something else. Maybe it's not exactly a 50% win rate against the generic metagame, but it's not off by much.
3) No individual matchups between archetypes are worse than about 66/33. Some games will be easier or harder than others, but it's always close enough that it's worth putting models on the table and playing out the game.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
insaniak wrote: and a worthwhile tradeoff for having all of those cool models.
Ah yes, another person who has bought into the myth created by the GW legal department that there must be a 1:1 connection between rules and model kits.
1. Is there a reason to use (unit X)/(army X)? -Why would I play Grey Knights? Why would I take a Blackstar? What's the point of tactical Terminators? Why would I take any Mark other than Slaanesh on my Havocs? If your answer is "there is no mechanical reason to do this thing, do it if you like the flavour" that is a failure of balance. There should be a relevant/valid reason to use every model in any context, whether it's narrative or competitive. More broadly I shouldn't be dooming myself to losing every game I ever play by picking the wrong army book before I start the game.
2. Why does (unit X) exist when (unit Y) does the same thing only better? -Why would I take a Rhino when I could take an Impulsor? To transport normal Marines rather than Primaris? Why would I do that? Aren't the Primaris just better? If two units are going to be "different" they should be meaningfully different, both should have a role, niche, or circumstance under which they're the better option. I shouldn't be presented with a choice between a good option and a bad option that do the same job.
I won't deny those are valid questions but they should be caviated with "...for this meta", "...this points level", "these missions".
We need to drill down past the surface to see why you should take X or Y in a given case.
Ah yes, another person who has bought into the myth created by the GW legal department that there must be a 1:1 connection between rules and model kits.
I have no idea how you got that from what I said above, but for what it's worth, yes, absolutely there should be a 1:1 connection between rules and model kits. The model kits represent the rules on the table, so anything that they have access to in the rules should, as much as possible, be represented on the models.
That's nothing to do with GW's current legal stance on it... I had that opinion long before the Chapterhouse case, because as much as I personally enjoy converting and scratch-building, there have been an awful lot of players out there over the years frustrated at not being able to buy what they wanted to use in their codexes.
So on that level, I'm in favour of their current 'No model, no rules' stance. My only issue with it is the fact that they've used it as a reason to reduce options in the rules instead of expanding options in the model range.
insaniak wrote: I have no idea how you got that from what I said above, but for what it's worth, yes, absolutely there should be a 1:1 connection between rules and model kits. The model kits represent the rules on the table, so anything that they have access to in the rules should, as much as possible, be represented on the models.
That's nothing to do with GW's current legal stance on it... I had that opinion long before the Chapterhouse case, because as much as I personally enjoy converting and scratch-building, there have been an awful lot of players out there over the years frustrated at not being able to buy what they wanted to use in their codexes.
So on that level, I'm in favour of their current 'No model, no rules' stance. My only issue with it is the fact that they've used it as a reason to reduce options in the rules instead of expanding options in the model range.
The issue is not "no model, no rules", it's the opposite half of that: "no rules, no model". 40k only needs rules bloat to deal with all of the cool models if you insist that every single element or choice on a model must be represented in the rules. What happened to the good old days of converting your model to have an axe or sword based on what looks cool, not because the rules for them are different? Why is the aesthetic value of the model not sufficient?
The issue is not "no model, no rules", it's the opposite half of that: "no rules, no model". 40k only needs rules bloat to deal with all of the cool models if you insist that every single element or choice on a model must be represented in the rules. What happened to the good old days of converting your model to have an axe or sword based on what looks cool, not because the rules for them are different? Why is the aesthetic value of the model not sufficient?
It can be sometimes. But what one feels should have bespoke rules is super subjective. I for one would be fine with combining power mauls, axes and swords into a generic power weapon, but then again I would give chainswords bespoke rules to make them distinct from lesser generic close combat weapons.
1. Is there a reason to use (unit X)/(army X)? -Why would I play Grey Knights? Why would I take a Blackstar? What's the point of tactical Terminators? Why would I take any Mark other than Slaanesh on my Havocs? If your answer is "there is no mechanical reason to do this thing, do it if you like the flavour" that is a failure of balance. There should be a relevant/valid reason to use every model in any context, whether it's narrative or competitive. More broadly I shouldn't be dooming myself to losing every game I ever play by picking the wrong army book before I start the game.
2. Why does (unit X) exist when (unit Y) does the same thing only better? -Why would I take a Rhino when I could take an Impulsor? To transport normal Marines rather than Primaris? Why would I do that? Aren't the Primaris just better? If two units are going to be "different" they should be meaningfully different, both should have a role, niche, or circumstance under which they're the better option. I shouldn't be presented with a choice between a good option and a bad option that do the same job.
I won't deny those are valid questions but they should be caviated with "...for this meta", "...this points level", "these missions".
We need to drill down past the surface to see why you should take X or Y in a given case.
Yes and no. The game needs to be designed for any arbitrary meta, not for a specific meta; the designers in their central position shouldn't look at their game and say "This unit has grotesque hard-counters that render it irrelevant, but it's okay because those weapons won't be prevalent in some metas". If the global power relationships across the game as a whole are skewed the fact that someone's local meta is skewed the other way doesn't excuse flaws in the basic structure of the game.
As to missions the relevance of a given unit cannot change dramatically from mission to mission unless you're prepared to take the Infinity route and explicitly call out list-building as happening after missions are determined. I need to be able to build a list, take it to a game store, and say "I've got my army, what mission are we doing?", I shouldn't have to say "Oh, no, I can't interact with that mission, pick something else." (Narrow the Search from CA2018 is really bad about that; taking away Invulnerable saves and scoring by model count disproportionately screw some Codexes as a whole. If I bring Custodes I can't play that mission because I then lose because I brought an army that can't play it.)
And as to points level I find that doesn't really have much impact on what's powerful/what's not; as soon as you implement the 30k single-model cap (no single model can be more than 25% of your points total) the problem of "how do I deal with Guilliman at 750pts?" stops being an issue.
Ah yes, another person who has bought into the myth created by the GW legal department that there must be a 1:1 connection between rules and model kits.
I have no idea how you got that from what I said above, but for what it's worth, yes, absolutely there should be a 1:1 connection between rules and model kits. The model kits represent the rules on the table, so anything that they have access to in the rules should, as much as possible, be represented on the models.
That's nothing to do with GW's current legal stance on it... I had that opinion long before the Chapterhouse case, because as much as I personally enjoy converting and scratch-building, there have been an awful lot of players out there over the years frustrated at not being able to buy what they wanted to use in their codexes.
So on that level, I'm in favour of their current 'No model, no rules' stance. My only issue with it is the fact that they've used it as a reason to reduce options in the rules instead of expanding options in the model range.
Yes and no. It's possible to take the 1:1 correspondence between model bits and rules too far; not every little decorative fiddly bit needs to mean something in the rules. I also find that requiring different sub-variants of what is fundamentally the same unit (ex. do Tartaros, Cataphractii, and Indomitus-pattern Terminator squads really need different datasheets just because they give you different bits in the different boxes?) limits the design space and adds redundant and unnecessary bloat.
ClockworkZion wrote: This is why "balance" is such an elusive thing: what do we call balanced?
Three part test:
1) There are no auto-take or never-take options. All options have a viable role if you make including it in your list the top priority, but no options are so obviously good that you will always take them unless you have a self-imposed fluff/newbie teaching game/etc limit.
2) All major list archetypes have a roughly 50/50 win rate against a generic metagame composed of all major list archetypes in equal proportion. IOW, if you pick an archetype for your faction (mech IG, primaris space marines, etc) and do a reasonable job of designing a list you can expect to play 1000 games against someone of equal skill and win roughly 500 of them. Maybe you win 60% of the time against one archetype but it's balanced out by only winning 40% of the time against something else. Maybe it's not exactly a 50% win rate against the generic metagame, but it's not off by much.
3) No individual matchups between archetypes are worse than about 66/33. Some games will be easier or harder than others, but it's always close enough that it's worth putting models on the table and playing out the game.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
insaniak wrote: and a worthwhile tradeoff for having all of those cool models.
Ah yes, another person who has bought into the myth created by the GW legal department that there must be a 1:1 connection between rules and model kits.
As I outlined, there are factors that can push things into autotakes or never takes. It's easy to make up criteria but even then that criteria can go a bit sideways. It can vary from tournament circuit to tournament circuit in competetive due to the mission types, and from store to store based on the store metas.
A pure 50/50 coinflip is not likely to happen. If faction can be around roughly 45% then we're probably closer to where we need to be. And even then how do we break factions down into these archetypes? How do we deal with lists that blend them? Now we're adding even more levers to the way we track balance. And how do we track armies that can't participate in certain archetypes? I mean Death Guard isn't going tonexactly play the speedy objective game like Harlequinns do, but Harlequinns aren't going to play a mission that requires tanking wounds like Death Guard. How do we balance those problems?
Peregrine wrote: What happened to the good old days of converting your model to have an axe or sword based on what looks cool, not because the rules for them are different?
Those weren't the good old days, that was just before breakfast. In the good old days, swords and axes had different rules.
Yes and no. It's possible to take the 1:1 correspondence between model bits and rules too far; not every little decorative fiddly bit needs to mean something in the rules. I also find that requiring different sub-variants of what is fundamentally the same unit (ex. do Tartaros, Cataphractii, and Indomitus-pattern Terminator squads really need different datasheets just because they give you different bits in the different boxes?) limits the design space and adds redundant and unnecessary bloat.
Yeah, no disagreement there. Division needs to be sensible. I'm not a fan, for example, of the 147 different types of bolter available to Primaris marines... Different folks, and all, though.
Yes and no. The game needs to be designed for any arbitrary meta, not for a specific meta; the designers in their central position shouldn't look at their game and say "This unit has grotesque hard-counters that render it irrelevant, but it's okay because those weapons won't be prevalent in some metas". If the global power relationships across the game as a whole are skewed the fact that someone's local meta is skewed the other way doesn't excuse flaws in the basic structure of the game.
While I don't think GW says it in those words, I feel like a lot about the game comes from this approach. I mean you can't balance the middle based on extremes and vice versa but at the same time I feel like we only look at thise extremes as those extremes are what often fun around tournament circuits.
As to missions the relevance of a given unit cannot change dramatically from mission to mission unless you're prepared to take the Infinity route and explicitly call out list-building as happening after missions are determined. I need to be able to build a list, take it to a game store, and say "I've got my army, what mission are we doing?", I shouldn't have to say "Oh, no, I can't interact with that mission, pick something else." (Narrow the Search from CA2018 is really bad about that; taking away Invulnerable saves and scoring by model count disproportionately screw some Codexes as a whole. If I bring Custodes I can't play that mission because I then lose because I brought an army that can't play it.)
You say it shouldn't but that's exactly what tournament packs do. A game type that involves capturing objectives every turn is going to promote different builds than on that involves scoring at game end, and both of those can lean differently on unit selection when it comes to games where scoring comes from killing models/units.
The fact that missions can influence what is "good" so drastically is a large part of why I say balance isn't as cut and dry as people insist it is. In a vacuum we can have everything roughly on par with each other, but stray out of that points level, or into missions and that balance can fall apart very fast.
Custodes would have less issues if they had gotten Sisters of Silence as part of their army, but I'm not going to beat that dead horse here.
ClockworkZion wrote: As I outlined, there are factors that can push things into autotakes or never takes. It's easy to make up criteria but even then that criteria can go a bit sideways. It can vary from tournament circuit to tournament circuit in competetive due to the mission types, and from store to store based on the store metas.
That's why you balance based on win rate against the meta over a long series of games using the standard mission set. If some random third-party event creates different missions that unbalance the game then that's their fault for creating and using unbalanced material instead of playing the standard game.
A pure 50/50 coinflip is not likely to happen. If faction can be around roughly 45% then we're probably closer to where we need to be.
Sure, that's why I said "roughly 50/50" not "exactly 50/50". 55/45 qualifies, and is far better than the current game.
And how do we track armies that can't participate in certain archetypes? I mean Death Guard isn't going tonexactly play the speedy objective game like Harlequinns do, but Harlequinns aren't going to play a mission that requires tanking wounds like Death Guard. How do we balance those problems?
Archetypes are per faction, by definition a faction can participate in all of its archetypes. The point with them is not that every faction has an instance of some universal set of archetypes, it's that most factions have multiple ways to build an army and you can't just look at whether a codex is represented at the top of the standings. So IG might have mech IG and horde gunline as their primary archetypes that are evaluated in balance concerns. Harlequins would be based on speed for all of their archetypes. Etc. And if someone wants to run a Harlequin gunline or melee IG, well, something that unconventional can't really be accounted for in balancing the game.
Again, you balance against the meta. Your army will have different win rates against specific opponents or in specific missions, but if you play 1000 games with a random mission against a random opposing army you should expect to win about 500 of them.
I find it pretty telling no one commented on this. Here, I'll handle this, they let units be sub par, knowing they are subpar because what kind of fun would it be if you felt all your units were good ? You miss out on all the joy of wasting lots of money on units that get smashed in even relaxed casual match ups. The fact that they knew some units are stinkers, yet seemingly never actually make them better is pretty lame of them. Like Ogryns, they've been meh for a long long time. Now, Bullgryns do everything Ogryns would do just better and Ogryns still meh, probably for a long time yet. I call it the GW surprise mechanic, Surprise! You modeled that expensive kit wrong, maybe one day we'll make them good, or just play narrative. Would you like to know more ?
It's more that I missed it in the walls of text we had bricking up my phone screen, and while your hyperbole is on par with the writing of Starship Troopers, I'd have to argue that there are some other things at play.
The first thing is that meta always plays a role. If you want to play tanks in a meta that is geared up to fight super heavies then you're going to have a bad time. Likewise, if you play counter-meta (like running tanks in a setting that is geared for hordes) then it can cause the meta to shift to address the issue.
Basically how good or bad things are can be relative, even in a perfectly balanced enviroment. During 7th our local meta was very anti-flyer and an RT was won by a player who brought an all infantry Marine army which became nigh unkillable due to no one bringing blasts at the time to deal with that many bodies. Was the army normally that powerful? Not really. But in that environment it became a powerful list.
The second issue that can make something subpar is points cost. For example I found an interesting combo involving Wraiths with Transdimensional Beamers, a Cantopek Cryptek with a Solar Staff, and a Scarab Swarm screen. 6d3 shots that can cause mortal wounds paired with a staff that fires 6 shots that prevent Infantry from Overwatch, suicidal smite catching Scarabs and a way to buff the RP ability for the Wraiths while everything can auto-run 6". Sounds good and flexible, with some decent firepower to help thin supporting units off of charge targets but when you see the whole thing costs 636 points that it becomes a subpar combo. Good individual parts, but bad cost.
Missions can play a factor too. Objectives scored every turn make movement more important than something loke Meatgrinder which requires on plater to not die by game end which promotes combat ability and durability.
This is why "balance" is such an elusive thing: what do we call balanced? How does that impact how we design the game? What does it break by giving that factor priority?
Seriously ? All this to basically give the designer a woobie excuse. There is no reasonable reason why Ogryns are so bad, so many editions, over so many years. They somehow managed to make Bullgryns good and still, Ogryns aren't a good choice. It isn't an elusive enigma dreamed only in the minds of the genius and seen only in parting in the dreams of the mad. They've gone through the majority of the lifespan of this game and still, bad. Somehow they had the genius vision to know how to make Bullgryns good, either they don't want Ogryns to be good, don't really care or like leaving a trap choice in a dual model build kit. You pick which you think is likely. None of the answers makes them look good and all of them explain why people are tired of hearing their empty excuses.
At least service promises citizenship, faith GW will do good by units you love is like tossing your dreams into the void. You can call my statements hyperbole all you want there is 0 reasons for why they can't balance some of these things much better than they are. If the job is too hard, they should quit and let better designers take over or they should be honest that they just make some units suck and for what reasons they do this, for real, have some real talk. They can make dual kits that aren't awful, the new Ad mech tank, both halves of that seem pretty nice, the kit is a tad over expensive for my tastes but game wise it seems to do the job, great.
I use Ogryns as my example but there are many many other units that have been meh or bad for awhile. They just stand out as I love them, and have quietly waited for them to be worth it for a long time and nothing. So much in the game could be better and this is just one symptom to show they do the very least, and just keep the ball rolling and saying how you should be happy with low effort and well if it sucks, just take it for narrative it'll make you feel better. They might as well say if you're down, look at a clown, we all know how well that worked out for Georgie.
ClockworkZion wrote: As I outlined, there are factors that can push things into autotakes or never takes. It's easy to make up criteria but even then that criteria can go a bit sideways. It can vary from tournament circuit to tournament circuit in competetive due to the mission types, and from store to store based on the store metas.
That's why you balance based on win rate against the meta over a long series of games using the standard mission set. If some random third-party event creates different missions that unbalance the game then that's their fault for creating and using unbalanced material instead of playing the standard game.
A pure 50/50 coinflip is not likely to happen. If faction can be around roughly 45% then we're probably closer to where we need to be.
Sure, that's why I said "roughly 50/50" not "exactly 50/50". 55/45 qualifies, and is far better than the current game.
And how do we track armies that can't participate in certain archetypes? I mean Death Guard isn't going tonexactly play the speedy objective game like Harlequinns do, but Harlequinns aren't going to play a mission that requires tanking wounds like Death Guard. How do we balance those problems?
Archetypes are per faction, by definition a faction can participate in all of its archetypes. The point with them is not that every faction has an instance of some universal set of archetypes, it's that most factions have multiple ways to build an army and you can't just look at whether a codex is represented at the top of the standings. So IG might have mech IG and horde gunline as their primary archetypes that are evaluated in balance concerns. Harlequins would be based on speed for all of their archetypes. Etc. And if someone wants to run a Harlequin gunline or melee IG, well, something that unconventional can't really be accounted for in balancing the game.
Again, you balance against the meta. Your army will have different win rates against specific opponents or in specific missions, but if you play 1000 games with a random mission against a random opposing army you should expect to win about 500 of them.
So over which meta? The GW studio meta? ITC? Nova? ETC? Australia? Warhammer world? Playtesters?
And don't say all of them because they all lean different directions. And by ypur own definition about tournament missions it means we should discount tournament metas since they all run propiatary mission packs.
And how do you define faction? Death Guard can be broken into Nurgle, Death Guard, Heretic Astartes or Chaos for example. I mean it's easy to say do it like X but if you don't define X you aren't really offering real solutions.
Seriously ? All this to basically give the designer a woobie excuse. There is no reasonable reason why Ogryns are so bad, so many editions, over so many years. They somehow managed to make Bullgryns good and still, Ogryns aren't a good choice. It isn't an elusive enigma dreamed only in the minds of the genius and seen only in parting in the dreams of the mad. They've gone through the majority of the lifespan of this game and still, bad. Somehow they had the genius vision to know how to make Bullgryns good, either they don't want Ogryns to be good, don't really care or like leaving a trap choice in a dual model build kit. You pick which you think is likely. None of the answers makes them look good and all of them explain why people are tired of hearing their empty excuses.
At least service promises citizenship, faith GW will do good by units you love is like tossing your dreams into the void. You can call my statements hyperbole all you want there is 0 reasons for why they can't balance some of these things much better than they are. If the job is too hard, they should quit and let better designers take over or they should be honest that they just make some units suck and for what reasons they do this, for real, have some real talk. They can make dual kits that aren't awful, the new Ad mech tank, both halves of that seem pretty nice, the kit is a tad over expensive for my tastes but game wise it seems to do the job, great.
I use Ogryns as my example but there are many many other units that have been meh or bad for awhile. They just stand out as I love them, and have quietly waited for them to be worth it for a long time and nothing. So much in the game could be better and this is just one symptom to show they do the very least, and just keep the ball rolling and saying how you should be happy with low effort and well if it sucks, just take it for narrative it'll make you feel better. They might as well say if you're down, look at a clown, we all know how well that worked out for Georgie.
I'm in the middle of work, but yes seriously. It's not to excuse GW but rather to try and expose the moving parts that are pften ignored when we toss around words like balance without addressing how they should approach balance.
Edit: Exceptions can be made for "Agents of the Imperium" type stuff, but they should EXPLICITLY be supplemental.
That's a good definition, and one I can agree with. Again, these are the sorts of things we need to dial in to properly address how the game should be balanced.
It really isn't elusive, though. Balance= players of roughly equal skill have a roughly equal chance of winning. No unit is op or useless. That's really all it is.
The reason it's elusive is that 40K is such an open system. For balance to be a practical aim, the game needs to be focused to a specific type of play. The more diversity you add in, whether in unit types, weapon types, customisability, mission types and so on, the harder it becomes to achieve any sort of balance across the board.
GW want 40K to include all of the bells and whistles, to give players a lot of freedom in how they create their armies. And that's good, because it gives players a huge range of stuff to choose from. But it makes achieving any sort of across-the-board balance a pipe-dream.
I used to find that frustrating. These days, I view it as GW providing a sandbox, and leaving it to the players to create whatever sort of playing field within it that suits them. Obviously, that doesn't work if you want a fine-tuned, balanced system, but for a lot of players it's more than sufficient, and a worthwhile tradeoff for having all of those cool models.
Yes, GW prefers a system with no defined scale, for people to push their overpriced action figures around and make pew pew noises. Let's face it, GW survives thanks to 21st century materialism. People love the models, and will continue to buy them so long as GW say nice things and make funny youtube videos- it's easier to rationalize that way. It isn't the game, and it probably never really was. I know I was drawn to the game in no small part due to the prospect of playing with cool toys. It's just too bad the rules (and prices) aren't anywhere near the same league as the lore and minis, and that people are willing to tolerate that to get their fix of new plastic. When I want a sandbox, I play Minecraft or an RPG. GW's prices are far too high, as is the investment to get minis from NOS to battle-ready, for so little in return.
1. Is there a reason to use (unit X)/(army X)? -Why would I play Grey Knights? Why would I take a Blackstar? What's the point of tactical Terminators? Why would I take any Mark other than Slaanesh on my Havocs? If your answer is "there is no mechanical reason to do this thing, do it if you like the flavour" that is a failure of balance. There should be a relevant/valid reason to use every model in any context, whether it's narrative or competitive. More broadly I shouldn't be dooming myself to losing every game I ever play by picking the wrong army book before I start the game.
2. Why does (unit X) exist when (unit Y) does the same thing only better? -Why would I take a Rhino when I could take an Impulsor? To transport normal Marines rather than Primaris? Why would I do that? Aren't the Primaris just better? If two units are going to be "different" they should be meaningfully different, both should have a role, niche, or circumstance under which they're the better option. I shouldn't be presented with a choice between a good option and a bad option that do the same job.
You said it much better than I.
@Clockwor Zion, in a well-balanced game, scenarios and objectives don't render some units better than others- they still have purpose. An exception to this would be Malifaux: if I remember correctly, the players choose their faction and the objectives are decided before you build your crew- my only real complaint. The game does have a neat system of asymmetrical mission objectives, though, that would make 40k much more interesting.
Yes, GW prefers a system with no defined scale, for people to push their overpriced action figures around and make pew pew noises. Let's face it, GW survives thanks to 21st century materialism. People love the models, and will continue to buy them so long as GW say nice things and make funny youtube videos- it's easier to rationalize that way. It isn't the game, and it probably never really was. I know I was drawn to the game in no small part due to the prospect of playing with cool toys. It's just too bad the rules (and prices) aren't anywhere near the same league as the lore and minis, and that people are willing to tolerate that to get their fix of new plastic. When I want a sandbox, I play Minecraft or an RPG. GW's prices are far too high, as is the investment to get minis from NOS to battle-ready, for so little in return.
Honestly, I don't think it's as black and white as that. I got into the game in 2nd edition when, frankly, a lot of the miniatures weren't very good. I stuck around because the game was a hell of a lot of fun to play, despite its gaping holes. 3rd edition, once we all got over the shock of all the things that had been ripped out, was still fun. 4th edition was a chore (IMO, apparently a lot of people liked it) and I stopped playing for a while, and then 5th edition came along and the game, while still a long way from perfect, was fun to play again. And then it got less fun... but again, that's just IMO. A awful lot of people seem to be very happy with 8th, and it's not just because the models are pretty.
The thing is, from my experience the vast majority of players simply don't care whether or not the rules are water-tight. They might bemoan those units that never seem to perform as well, (and as often as not, keep using them anyway) but otherwise those wonky parts of the rules just get papered over as necessary and people get on with the game. It's only on forums, or in the post-game conversation where the rules really get dissected and it all seems like a bigger deal.
Having better-written rules is good... but having a game that is fun to play is ultimately more important than having flawless rules. For me, that's where 6th edition and onwards have failed. The rules have arguably improved from previous editions... but it's no longer fun to play.
Yes, GW prefers a system with no defined scale, for people to push their overpriced action figures around and make pew pew noises. Let's face it, GW survives thanks to 21st century materialism. People love the models, and will continue to buy them so long as GW say nice things and make funny youtube videos- it's easier to rationalize that way. It isn't the game, and it probably never really was. I know I was drawn to the game in no small part due to the prospect of playing with cool toys. It's just too bad the rules (and prices) aren't anywhere near the same league as the lore and minis, and that people are willing to tolerate that to get their fix of new plastic. When I want a sandbox, I play Minecraft or an RPG. GW's prices are far too high, as is the investment to get minis from NOS to battle-ready, for so little in return.
Honestly, I don't think it's as black and white as that. I got into the game in 2nd edition when, frankly, a lot of the miniatures weren't very good. I stuck around because the game was a hell of a lot of fun to play, despite its gaping holes. 3rd edition, once we all got over the shock of all the things that had been ripped out, was still fun. 4th edition was a chore (IMO, apparently a lot of people liked it) and I stopped playing for a while, and then 5th edition came along and the game, while still a long way from perfect, was fun to play again. And then it got less fun... but again, that's just IMO. A awful lot of people seem to be very happy with 8th, and it's not just because the models are pretty.
The thing is, from my experience the vast majority of players simply don't care whether or not the rules are water-tight. They might bemoan those units that never seem to perform as well, (and as often as not, keep using them anyway) but otherwise those wonky parts of the rules just get papered over as necessary and people get on with the game. It's only on forums, or in the post-game conversation where the rules really get dissected and it all seems like a bigger deal.
Having better-written rules is good... but having a game that is fun to play is ultimately more important than having flawless rules. For me, that's where 6th edition and onwards have failed. The rules have arguably improved from previous editions... but it's no longer fun to play.
YMMV, obviously.
I started with 5th, but didn't get many games in 'til 6th.... I also played through most of 7th. The game was fun... for a while. It became increasingly frustrating, as the folks at the GW store I used to frequent became more and more focused on building the strongest lists they could, and I didn't (and don't) have the means to make purchases to keep up, and frankly shouldn't need to buy the half of my codex I don't own just to have fun, so I quit. I can't get into 8th either- chucking dice around the room and shuffling minis around just isn't enough for me. It isn't just the casual style with which GW writes the rules, it's their narrow scope and lack of imagination.They regurgitate the same few ideas ad nauseam, and rarely innovate. Worst of all, the rules just don't represent the fluff well.
I don't know anything about 40k pre-4th edition (got some books, didn't have a chance to play 'til 5th) so I can't really comment on that, but I think it's pretty clear that today, it's minis first. I think the player base at large really has adopted GW's "beer-and-pretzels" mindset- people aren't looking to 40k for a strategic or even immersive experience, it's a social activity. I have RPGs, Munchkin, Catan, etc. for that.
Ugh. I just wish I could get some people into MEDGe.
@Clockwor Zion, in a well-balanced game, scenarios and objectives don't render some units better than others- they still have purpose. An exception to this would be Malifaux: if I remember correctly, the players choose their faction and the objectives are decided before you build your crew- my only real complaint. The game does have a neat system of asymmetrical mission objectives, though, that would make 40k much more interesting.
I have to disagree using a mission type video game as an example: Metal Gear Peace Walker. The entire load out a player uses is largely dependent on the mission they're running through and how they want to complete said mission.
Missions can and do influence the way a player can approach army building and the only way it' d change is if the ways a player can score were identical on every mission with both players having a near identical tool box to pick from to accomplish said objectives.
40k doesn't approach mission design that way, and even tournaments don't do it. Instead they either let you pick your means of scoring (which can lead to some wonky games on their own right) or they run the standard GW missions.
It's not impossible for that to be changed, but let's not claim it isn't a factor in how people design their lists and evaluate units to complete tasks to fulfill win conditions.
@Clockwor Zion, in a well-balanced game, scenarios and objectives don't render some units better than others- they still have purpose. An exception to this would be Malifaux: if I remember correctly, the players choose their faction and the objectives are decided before you build your crew- my only real complaint. The game does have a neat system of asymmetrical mission objectives, though, that would make 40k much more interesting.
I have to disagree using a mission type video game as an example: Metal Gear Peace Walker. The entire load out a player uses is largely dependent on the mission they're running through and how they want to complete said mission.
Missions can and do influence the way a player can approach army building and the only way it' d change is if the ways a player can score were identical on every mission with both players having a near identical tool box to pick from to accomplish said objectives.
40k doesn't approach mission design that way, and even tournaments don't do it. Instead they either let you pick your means of scoring (which can lead to some wonky games on their own right) or they run the standard GW missions.
It's not impossible for that to be changed, but let's not claim it isn't a factor in how people design their lists and evaluate units to complete tasks to fulfill win conditions.
I don't think that's the best example- I presume that's a single-player game, yes? And you only control the one person, right? What you describe is great for a game like that, in that context. But 40k is played by two or more people, with essentially many "video game characters" at once, and often they discover that some of their cool spacemen can't do much. And before getting to that point, they probably spent a few hundred dollars, and however many hours it took to build and paint them. If 40k were cheap prepaints, I'd agree with you.
I really think asymmetrical, turn-by-turn scoring would help alleviate this. As would a focus on combined-arms warfare. I don't particularly want to leave my termies, or Brother Locutus (my libby) on the bench because of the mission.
As to missions the relevance of a given unit cannot change dramatically from mission to mission unless you're prepared to take the Infinity route and explicitly call out list-building as happening after missions are determined. I need to be able to build a list, take it to a game store, and say "I've got my army, what mission are we doing?", I shouldn't have to say "Oh, no, I can't interact with that mission, pick something else." (Narrow the Search from CA2018 is really bad about that; taking away Invulnerable saves and scoring by model count disproportionately screw some Codexes as a whole. If I bring Custodes I can't play that mission because I then lose because I brought an army that can't play it.)
You say it shouldn't but that's exactly what tournament packs do. A game type that involves capturing objectives every turn is going to promote different builds than on that involves scoring at game end, and both of those can lean differently on unit selection when it comes to games where scoring comes from killing models/units.
The fact that missions can influence what is "good" so drastically is a large part of why I say balance isn't as cut and dry as people insist it is. In a vacuum we can have everything roughly on par with each other, but stray out of that points level, or into missions and that balance can fall apart very fast.
Custodes would have less issues if they had gotten Sisters of Silence as part of their army, but I'm not going to beat that dead horse here.
There are two objectives in 40k. "Stand on the point" and "kill things". All missions are some permutation of those. The tournament mission packs I've seen only deviate from GW's design strategy by putting "stand on the point" and "kill things" in the same missions. And GW still insists on designing armies that can't stand on the point, can't kill things, or both.
Consider as an aside Infinity. The mission objectives are many and varied, but they fundamentally boil down to either "stand on the point", "kill things", or "press the button." All armies are designed with a variety of tools to enable them to stand on the point, kill things, or press the button, and when you are handed a mission you've never seen before because you know the design space of the objectives you don't have to have built a different army list just to handle this different mission.
I started with 5th, but didn't get many games in 'til 6th.... I also played through most of 7th. The game was fun... for a while. It became increasingly frustrating, as the folks at the GW store I used to frequent became more and more focused on building the strongest lists they could, and I didn't (and don't) have the means to make purchases to keep up, and frankly shouldn't need to buy the half of my codex I don't own just to have fun, so I quit. I can't get into 8th either- chucking dice around the room and shuffling minis around just isn't enough for me. It isn't just the casual style with which GW writes the rules, it's their narrow scope and lack of imagination.They regurgitate the same few ideas ad nauseam, and rarely innovate. Worst of all, the rules just don't represent the fluff well.
I don't know anything about 40k pre-4th edition (got some books, didn't have a chance to play 'til 5th) so I can't really comment on that, but I think it's pretty clear that today, it's minis first. I think the player base at large really has adopted GW's "beer-and-pretzels" mindset- people aren't looking to 40k for a strategic or even immersive experience, it's a social activity. I have RPGs, Munchkin, Catan, etc. for that.
Ugh. I just wish I could get some people into MEDGe.
So I've said it a million times, and I'll say it again- the complexity of 8th does not lie in one off games. It lies in designing and and playing narrative escalation campaigns.
If you don't like playing narrative escalation campaigns, that's valid. But don't call the rules set unimaginative, or say that there's not innovation until you've played a Blackstone character long enough to gather a Kill Team, Kill Team long enough that the Team grows into a detachment and steps into 40k and then the army grows into apocalypse size. You can do this now. It's imaginative; the scope and scale is enormous, and it's the most innovative GW has ever been.
The game is not simple. You are playing the simplest form of it and complaining instead of playing it the way that could blow your mind and change the way you think not just about this game but all games. That's on you, not GW.
I started with 5th, but didn't get many games in 'til 6th.... I also played through most of 7th. The game was fun... for a while. It became increasingly frustrating, as the folks at the GW store I used to frequent became more and more focused on building the strongest lists they could, and I didn't (and don't) have the means to make purchases to keep up, and frankly shouldn't need to buy the half of my codex I don't own just to have fun, so I quit. I can't get into 8th either- chucking dice around the room and shuffling minis around just isn't enough for me. It isn't just the casual style with which GW writes the rules, it's their narrow scope and lack of imagination.They regurgitate the same few ideas ad nauseam, and rarely innovate. Worst of all, the rules just don't represent the fluff well.
I don't know anything about 40k pre-4th edition (got some books, didn't have a chance to play 'til 5th) so I can't really comment on that, but I think it's pretty clear that today, it's minis first. I think the player base at large really has adopted GW's "beer-and-pretzels" mindset- people aren't looking to 40k for a strategic or even immersive experience, it's a social activity. I have RPGs, Munchkin, Catan, etc. for that.
Ugh. I just wish I could get some people into MEDGe.
So I've said it a million times, and I'll say it again- the complexity of 8th does not lie in one off games. It lies in designing and and playing narrative escalation campaigns.
If you don't like playing narrative escalation campaigns, that's valid. But don't call the rules set unimaginative, or say that there's not innovation until you've played a Blackstone character long enough to gather a Kill Team, Kill Team long enough that the Team grows into a detachment and steps into 40k and then the army grows into apocalypse size. You can do this now. It's imaginative; the scope and scale is enormous, and it's the most innovative GW has ever been.
The game is not simple. You are playing the simplest form of it and complaining instead of playing it the way that could blow your mind and change the way you think not just about this game but all games. That's on you, not GW.
Hey, escalation campaigns are cool, but I'm not going to buy Blackstone Fortress, and Kill Team, and 8th BRB, and codex and supplements, to finally have fun- that doesn't blow my mind, it blows my wallet up. I want good one-off games from 40k. I want good campaigns from 40k. I want skirmishes with converted minis with unique load outs with the depth and level of detail you can't get in larger scale games in Kill Team- but they don't offer those things, and if buying several different 40k rulesets was the path to finally having fun with the game, there's a problem.
You may have a great imagination, and a knack for designing cool scenarios- but that's your work, not GW's.
@Clockwor Zion, in a well-balanced game, scenarios and objectives don't render some units better than others- they still have purpose. An exception to this would be Malifaux: if I remember correctly, the players choose their faction and the objectives are decided before you build your crew- my only real complaint. The game does have a neat system of asymmetrical mission objectives, though, that would make 40k much more interesting.
I have to disagree using a mission type video game as an example: Metal Gear Peace Walker. The entire load out a player uses is largely dependent on the mission they're running through and how they want to complete said mission.
Missions can and do influence the way a player can approach army building and the only way it' d change is if the ways a player can score were identical on every mission with both players having a near identical tool box to pick from to accomplish said objectives.
40k doesn't approach mission design that way, and even tournaments don't do it. Instead they either let you pick your means of scoring (which can lead to some wonky games on their own right) or they run the standard GW missions.
It's not impossible for that to be changed, but let's not claim it isn't a factor in how people design their lists and evaluate units to complete tasks to fulfill win conditions.
I don't think that's the best example- I presume that's a single-player game, yes? And you only control the one person, right? What you describe is great for a game like that, in that context. But 40k is played by two or more people, with essentially many "video game characters" at once, and often they discover that some of their cool spacemen can't do much. And before getting to that point, they probably spent a few hundred dollars, and however many hours it took to build and paint them. If 40k were cheap prepaints, I'd agree with you.
I really think asymmetrical, turn-by-turn scoring would help alleviate this. As would a focus on combined-arms warfare. I don't particularly want to leave my termies, or Brother Locutus (my libby) on the bench because of the mission.
Multiplayer co-op or single player actually.
And I don't disagree a change to scoring (perhaps assihning attacker and defender roles with different ways to score) could help but missions need to be written with those in mind and then armies balanced for it (as well as players having two lists to run based on attacking or defending).
Water tight rules thought aren't as key to me as all units have some value. In some cases, models even designed in similar kits just have no real worth to them.
Yet again, Ogryn example because it's easier to see. Other than being cheaper, Ogryns do nothing better than Bullgryns, they have no real bonus over Bullgryns in any way. There is nothing they'd be chosen for over the other regardless of scenario.
The only thing they are better at is they are cheaper, that's it. Worse armor, no invuln, worse CC weapon, worse damage. They have a shotgun, but the Bullgryns can have grenade launchers and better armor, or just use grenades strat and have the better CCW but can actually still survive.
They are a stark example of something that shouldn't be hard to balance at least in so far as unit selection. In the same kit, one unit is good, the other is just straight trash, cheap trash but trash still.
It shouldn't be hard to look at two units, made from the same box and give them some worth, even if its situational worth though there the only thing they do, the one unit is superior at leaving the other choice without any real bite or merit.
It's tragic sad that after all this time they've been around they've been bad. Couldn't they just figure out some imagine role for ogryns ? Maybe they have another special rule ? Give their ripper gun more capability ? Increase their movement for the lighter armor ? A number of other things could be done. They give lip service to the dream of balance.
The only real balance I think most players lament is so many dead units in a codex. The game can be not as tight as we'd maybe want but they could at least make real choices need to be made in army selection at the more competitive levels or give every unit a task. As opposed to leaving some units to be just a dead choice, pretty much no matter what.
I can agree with that. We do have some issues involving specific options and the studio hadn't done a stellar job correcting those issues. The focus so far has been on fixing Marines but I sincerely hope they redress those units when it's time to give those books an 8.5 ed.
insaniak wrote: If they have different rules, and the objective is to have them be represented as different things so that people can differentiate between a sword and an axe, then they're meaningfully different. The fact that you personally don't think that level of differentiation is warranted doesn't mean the rest of us don't want it, or that having it is intrinsically bad.
In what way are they meaningful? What on-table decisions are determined by the choice? Is there any level of difference between choices that is sufficiently small that you would consider it irrelevant, or is even something as absurd as "if you are playing this game at 5:40pm on 9/14/19 and roll three consecutive 6s followed by a 1 with this weapon you may re-roll the 1" still a "meaningful difference" that is a legitimate rule to put on a datasheet?
Well, that would be an example of an objectively bad rule, to the extent that not even the GW Studio would publish it.
After all, they're fully aware there are only 12 months in the year, not 14.
ClockworkZion wrote: As I outlined, there are factors that can push things into autotakes or never takes. It's easy to make up criteria but even then that criteria can go a bit sideways. It can vary from tournament circuit to tournament circuit in competetive due to the mission types, and from store to store based on the store metas.
That's why you balance based on win rate against the meta over a long series of games using the standard mission set. If some random third-party event creates different missions that unbalance the game then that's their fault for creating and using unbalanced material instead of playing the standard game.
And yet people still seem to want GW to balance around performance measured using the ITC house rules, rather than the game they publish...
And yet people still seem to want GW to balance around performance measured using the ITC house rules, rather than the game they publish...
This is the stupidest part of their argument. Why on terra would anyone want the game balanced with rules that only a small portion of the players play?
Oh, I forgot....they're uniquely qualified and their opinion is the only warranted one. Naturally.
If that is what you want, fine, go play ITC and leave the rest of the game alone. Since the game designers intent is evident.
Maybe. I know in my city they make up the majority of 40k players. No I'm not one of them nor do I care about 40k anymore because I got tired of having to buy new armies every year to have good games.
insaniak wrote: If they have different rules, and the objective is to have them be represented as different things so that people can differentiate between a sword and an axe, then they're meaningfully different. The fact that you personally don't think that level of differentiation is warranted doesn't mean the rest of us don't want it, or that having it is intrinsically bad.
In what way are they meaningful? What on-table decisions are determined by the choice? Is there any level of difference between choices that is sufficiently small that you would consider it irrelevant, or is even something as absurd as "if you are playing this game at 5:40pm on 9/14/19 and roll three consecutive 6s followed by a 1 with this weapon you may re-roll the 1" still a "meaningful difference" that is a legitimate rule to put on a datasheet?
Well, that would be an example of an objectively bad rule, to the extent that not even the GW Studio would publish it.
After all, they're fully aware there are only 12 months in the year, not 14.
ClockworkZion wrote: As I outlined, there are factors that can push things into autotakes or never takes. It's easy to make up criteria but even then that criteria can go a bit sideways. It can vary from tournament circuit to tournament circuit in competetive due to the mission types, and from store to store based on the store metas.
That's why you balance based on win rate against the meta over a long series of games using the standard mission set. If some random third-party event creates different missions that unbalance the game then that's their fault for creating and using unbalanced material instead of playing the standard game.
And yet people still seem to want GW to balance around performance measured using the ITC house rules, rather than the game they publish...
No, people want the rules balanced so you don't look immediately at a unit entry and can tell the unit is useless. Not terribly a difficult concept to grasp.
Yet again, Ogryn example because it's easier to see. Other than being cheaper, Ogryns do nothing better than Bullgryns, they have no real bonus over Bullgryns in any way. ...
I can't speak to whether or not either of these units are worth their points cost as they currently stand, but it's worth pointing out that if Ogryns are cheaper, they should be worse than Bullgryns. If they were as good as Bullgryns, they should cost the same.
?? That is such an over simplification. Yes, they should cost less as they do everything a bullgryn does but worse but then why not give them rules so they actually serve a different purpose ? Or go about it a different way ?
Units can be cheaper but arguably more valuable. As we see every day in the debate of Imperial guard troop squads. How much better than a marine they are, yet cheaper.
Ogryns aren't cheap enough that they compare well to bullgryns even with the discount, they can't outshoot them, are worse in their CC role but have no other role in their rules. The design team which is so fired up narrative, could narrative them some bonus that makes them appealing in some scenario other than a little cheaper.
Cheaper units can be less likely to hang around, do less damage but maybe have a point, maybe they move faster ? Infiltrate ? Get bonus to charge as they are more mobile ? The ripper gun has some special ability tied to it ? Maybe it shoots fire rounds and now while they die quicker, they pack a bit more punch so its offense extras, over defense ?
You could really make up anything to give them a purpose, hey, say the ripper gun counts as a pistol in CC ! There, lovely, they now have at least some argument points as to why anyone would run them, over bullgryns and yet they'd still be cheaper.
Even kroot, the forgotten about mishandled kroot had times they felt like a viable choice, does anyone remember when you could upgrade their muskets to have sniper rounds ? That was pretty cool, made me take some because they felt like they had a point. Sure, they feel bad now, again but they even had a time where you could bring up a reason to take them other than. " Well, they are cheaper then a fire warrior "
Sure, then make them as good as bullgryns just in a different way ? Make them offensive and Bullgryns defensive, as we learned with GK " fixes " just making things cheaper doesn't always mean you made it any good.
well it is funny that an interceptor costs less then a strike. The differences can be rather striking though. A GK strikes or interceptor are far from ideal, but a termintor costs double the strike/interceptor cost, and have lower attack per points, lower shot per points, lower wounds per points etc And no special rules or buff, that would not just make them better, but just different.
Ogryns aren't cheap enough that they compare well to bullgryns even with the discount, they can't outshoot them, are worse in their CC role but have no other role in their rules.
Their role is that they are cheaper. When you have a finite pool of points to spend, that's a valid role. You can take the cheaper option, that isn't as good, or you can choose to sacrifice the extra points to take the better unit rather than having those points to spend elsewhere.
If you make them as good as Bullgryns, then they need to cost the same amount as Bullgryns. That's how a points system works.
The point is and still remains after exhaustive use with them. Even at the discount taking half as many bullgryns will do you better than double the ogryns. Even in a point thirsty case, now I point out the army itself is very point low with its troops so that cheapness that is their point is really no point at all.
Saying the point is they are cheap, means nothing if you'd still take bullgryns because Ogryns just aren't worth it for anything you'd take them for.
It's as completely dumb as the conscript fix that they cost the same as regular trooper for being much much worse. I can't even make myself want to field them as they are so bad now and I took them since 3rd edition.
Ogryns are so bad I take them as a handicap if I know i'm playing a worse player or I just want to mess around.
So why even bring up the point of " Their use is they are cheap ", when that cheapness means nothing because it isn't reasonable enough for that to be considered a trait or even a real consideration point. You're better off spending more on Bullgryns and saving points elsewhere as one does the job and the other doesn't.
As well, they are made from the same box so the fact they can't even dream up some way to make them both viable is pretty shocking. That itself shouldn't be hard when compared next to each other, one is the default choice for obvious reasons. So if they can't do that, simple thing, after decades, why would anyone have hope they'll do it ever with anything ?
Much like the new IH panic that is one us, they must have made all these books knowing what each one was doing and made one just a brainlessly dim point and click no brainer choice because the play style is so easy. It takes much skill, to fail so badly at balance and parity from the same codex using the same units even.
AngryAngel80 wrote: So why even bring up the point of " Their use is they are cheap ", when that cheapness means nothing because it isn't reasonable enough for that to be considered a trait or even a real consideration point. You're better off spending more on Bullgryns and saving points elsewhere as one does the job and the other doesn't.
I brought it up in response to your previous point, which was that Ogryns are cheaper but should still be as good as Bullgryns, because that just isn't how points work.
If your point is now that the difference isn't significant enough to make Ogryns an attractive option, then that's potentially valid (I don't mathHammer, so I have no idea whether it is or not) but is a different point entirely. And if so, then making Ogryns better is only one of the potential fixes to that situation - you could also make Ogryns still cheaper, or make Bullgryns more expensive, depending on how that works in with the rest of the army.
Regardless of whether or not GW get the formula exactly right in any specific scenario, being cheaper than a better unit is a valid reason for taking something. Every unit shouldn't be equally effective, and less effective units should be cheaper.
As well, they are made from the same box so the fact they can't even dream up some way to make them both viable is pretty shocking.
It's not that shocking if you have been paying attention to the way GW have been designing army lists for the last 30 years. There's far less mathHammer, and far more 'That feels about right' going on than there tends to be in the online community, and they're not remotely interested in the form of play that revolves around optimised army lists. So it's less that they can't think of a way to fix the imbalance you're seeing, and more that they don't perceive it to need fixing because they play (and so design) a much more casual game than you do.
AngryAngel80 wrote: So why even bring up the point of " Their use is they are cheap ", when that cheapness means nothing because it isn't reasonable enough for that to be considered a trait or even a real consideration point. You're better off spending more on Bullgryns and saving points elsewhere as one does the job and the other doesn't.
I brought it up in response to your previous point, which was that Ogryns are cheaper but should still be as good as Bullgryns, because that just isn't how points work.
If your point is now that the difference isn't significant enough to make Ogryns an attractive option, then that's potentially valid (I don't mathHammer, so I have no idea whether it is or not) but is a different point entirely. And if so, then making Ogryns better is only one of the potential fixes to that situation - you could also make Ogryns still cheaper, or make Bullgryns more expensive, depending on how that works in with the rest of the army.
Regardless of whether or not GW get the formula exactly right in any specific scenario, being cheaper than a better unit is a valid reason for taking something. Every unit shouldn't be equally effective, and less effective units should be cheaper.
As well, they are made from the same box so the fact they can't even dream up some way to make them both viable is pretty shocking.
It's not that shocking if you have been paying attention to the way GW have been designing army lists for the last 30 years. There's far less mathHammer, and far more 'That feels about right' going on than there tends to be in the online community, and they're not remotely interested in the form of play that revolves around optimised army lists. So it's less that they can't think of a way to fix the imbalance you're seeing, and more that they don't perceive it to need fixing because they play (and so design) a much more casual game than you do.
What the mod says is right. You also have to appreciate not every unit was designed with a specific role or gap to fill. Ogryns were brought in because space ogres would be cool. And this brings up old units that have had their role taken away by newer units. Thirty years of models and back ground their will be overlap.
Not every unit needs a unique role. Some units should be their so that people who like the, can have a choice. I housed rules Ogryn Mercs for ORKS and a criticism I got of the rules when I post them on here for feedback was that nobz with big choppas did the same job better. But that missed the point of why I wanted to have ogryns in my ORK army. It was because of nostalgia. And in a game I would be willing to pay more for a less effective unit because I really liked it and wanted it in my army. GW get this and make units like that for players like me.
AngryAngel80 wrote: So why even bring up the point of " Their use is they are cheap ", when that cheapness means nothing because it isn't reasonable enough for that to be considered a trait or even a real consideration point. You're better off spending more on Bullgryns and saving points elsewhere as one does the job and the other doesn't.
I brought it up in response to your previous point, which was that Ogryns are cheaper but should still be as good as Bullgryns, because that just isn't how points work.
If your point is now that the difference isn't significant enough to make Ogryns an attractive option, then that's potentially valid (I don't mathHammer, so I have no idea whether it is or not) but is a different point entirely. And if so, then making Ogryns better is only one of the potential fixes to that situation - you could also make Ogryns still cheaper, or make Bullgryns more expensive, depending on how that works in with the rest of the army.
Regardless of whether or not GW get the formula exactly right in any specific scenario, being cheaper than a better unit is a valid reason for taking something. Every unit shouldn't be equally effective, and less effective units should be cheaper.
As well, they are made from the same box so the fact they can't even dream up some way to make them both viable is pretty shocking.
It's not that shocking if you have been paying attention to the way GW have been designing army lists for the last 30 years. There's far less mathHammer, and far more 'That feels about right' going on than there tends to be in the online community, and they're not remotely interested in the form of play that revolves around optimised army lists. So it's less that they can't think of a way to fix the imbalance you're seeing, and more that they don't perceive it to need fixing because they play (and so design) a much more casual game than you do.
What the mod says is right. You also have to appreciate not every unit was designed with a specific role or gap to fill. Ogryns were brought in because space ogres would be cool. And this brings up old units that have had their role taken away by newer units. Thirty years of models and back ground their will be overlap.
Not every unit needs a unique role. Some units should be their so that people who like the, can have a choice. I housed rules Ogryn Mercs for ORKS and a criticism I got of the rules when I post them on here for feedback was that nobz with big choppas did the same job better. But that missed the point of why I wanted to have ogryns in my ORK army. It was because of nostalgia. And in a game I would be willing to pay more for a less effective unit because I really liked it and wanted it in my army. GW get this and make units like that for players like me.
No the mod is NOT right. Being cheaper means nothing when the equivalent points of Ogryns is always worse than the equivalent points of Bullgryns.
In other words, if you can't afford Bullgryns, it is pointless to even consider Ogryns as a reasonable substitute.
I take mine because I’ve got six lovely old metal models that have seen me great for years and I have some real history with. They are characters and part of any army I take that is over 75 power level or so.
No the mod is NOT right. Being cheaper means nothing when the equivalent points of Ogryns is always worse than the equivalent points of Bullgryns.
I don't recall ever claiming that the points cost for Ogryns was correct. My point was solely that cheaper units should not be as effective as more expensive units.
No the mod is NOT right. Being cheaper means nothing when the equivalent points of Ogryns is always worse than the equivalent points of Bullgryns.
I don't recall ever claiming that the points cost for Ogryns was correct. My point was solely that cheaper units should not be as effective as more expensive units.
The issue that causes this is that standard 40k doesn't have enough granularity to properly represent unit offense vs defense.
The reasons (until recently with a ton of changes ) you always saw scouts over tacticals or just F it go get the loyal 32 is that there are to many units and weapons that don't care whether it's a terminator, an orgyn or a grot. They all die the same so I might as well just bring the most bodies and hope for screens and sixes to save the day.
AngryAngel80 wrote: So why even bring up the point of " Their use is they are cheap ", when that cheapness means nothing because it isn't reasonable enough for that to be considered a trait or even a real consideration point. You're better off spending more on Bullgryns and saving points elsewhere as one does the job and the other doesn't.
I brought it up in response to your previous point, which was that Ogryns are cheaper but should still be as good as Bullgryns, because that just isn't how points work.
If your point is now that the difference isn't significant enough to make Ogryns an attractive option, then that's potentially valid (I don't mathHammer, so I have no idea whether it is or not) but is a different point entirely. And if so, then making Ogryns better is only one of the potential fixes to that situation - you could also make Ogryns still cheaper, or make Bullgryns more expensive, depending on how that works in with the rest of the army.
Regardless of whether or not GW get the formula exactly right in any specific scenario, being cheaper than a better unit is a valid reason for taking something. Every unit shouldn't be equally effective, and less effective units should be cheaper.
As well, they are made from the same box so the fact they can't even dream up some way to make them both viable is pretty shocking.
It's not that shocking if you have been paying attention to the way GW have been designing army lists for the last 30 years. There's far less mathHammer, and far more 'That feels about right' going on than there tends to be in the online community, and they're not remotely interested in the form of play that revolves around optimised army lists. So it's less that they can't think of a way to fix the imbalance you're seeing, and more that they don't perceive it to need fixing because they play (and so design) a much more casual game than you do.
What the mod says is right. You also have to appreciate not every unit was designed with a specific role or gap to fill. Ogryns were brought in because space ogres would be cool. And this brings up old units that have had their role taken away by newer units. Thirty years of models and back ground their will be overlap.
Not every unit needs a unique role. Some units should be their so that people who like the, can have a choice. I housed rules Ogryn Mercs for ORKS and a criticism I got of the rules when I post them on here for feedback was that nobz with big choppas did the same job better. But that missed the point of why I wanted to have ogryns in my ORK army. It was because of nostalgia. And in a game I would be willing to pay more for a less effective unit because I really liked it and wanted it in my army. GW get this and make units like that for players like me.
Okay, your Ogryn argument has been so prevalent that I dug up my dex to look some things up. Here's how I see it:
Ogryns can shoot and fight at their base cost of 30pts each. There are no upgrades available to them.
Now the Bullgryns themselves, only cost 5 points more; they get either a +2 to their save (which is already +1 over an Ogryn) or a 4+ invulnerable for free. At this point, your argument about the cost difference not being enough to justify taking Ogryns instead is totally on point.
But unlike Ogryns, they MUST be equipped with either a decent HtH weapon at 7 points, or a shooty weapon at 10 points.
That shooty weapon, by the way? One less strength than the ripper gun and 1d6 shots as opposed to the ripper gun's guaranteed 3. An objectively worse weapon that you have to take at 10 extra points if you want the privilege of shooting at all.
So strictly in terms of offensive capacity:
For +12 points, a Bullgryn can be better in HTH, but have no shooting capacity.
For +15 points, a Bullgryn can be slightly worse at shooting, and equal in hand to hand.
Either way of course, Bullgryns are better defensively, which is why they cost either 40% (HtH build) or 50% (shooty build) more.
So for every 2 shooty bullgryns, you could buy 3 ogryns. I do think that discount is significant enough to be a selling factor.
For every 3 fighty bullgryns, you get 4 ogryns + an extra 6 points to spend elsewhere. This point differential is less selling factor, but remember that these bullgryns have no capacity for shooting- meaning the better differential comes with an additional penalty.
I'm assuming you usually kit your Bullryns out for HtH, because that's they only way to make their offensive output superior to their bargain bin brethren.
So, instead of 3 units of 6 bullgryns, you could have 3 units of 8 ogryns. That's an extra 18 shots, an extra 24 attacks on a charge or 18 in any other fight. It's also 18 more wounds.
Now it's true that because of the defensive disadvantages, fewer of the extra attacks will ever land, but you can't really say the same about the shots, because HtH bullgryns don't shoot at all!
What I would do is take 2 x 8 Ogryn and 1 x 6 Bullgryn. I'd advance them behind tanks, because most players will go for the tanks. I'd try to aim them at an isolated flank, but that's pretty situational.
Now, you might also say that nobody in their right mind would use that many Ogryns or Bullgryns. But I think the whole "value for points" debate usually a lot more nuanced than many Dakkanaughts think. For starters, the word "useless" is almost always hyperbole. One unit not being as good as another unit does not make the unit useless.
AngryAngel80 wrote: So why even bring up the point of " Their use is they are cheap ", when that cheapness means nothing because it isn't reasonable enough for that to be considered a trait or even a real consideration point. You're better off spending more on Bullgryns and saving points elsewhere as one does the job and the other doesn't.
I brought it up in response to your previous point, which was that Ogryns are cheaper but should still be as good as Bullgryns, because that just isn't how points work.
If your point is now that the difference isn't significant enough to make Ogryns an attractive option, then that's potentially valid (I don't mathHammer, so I have no idea whether it is or not) but is a different point entirely. And if so, then making Ogryns better is only one of the potential fixes to that situation - you could also make Ogryns still cheaper, or make Bullgryns more expensive, depending on how that works in with the rest of the army.
Regardless of whether or not GW get the formula exactly right in any specific scenario, being cheaper than a better unit is a valid reason for taking something. Every unit shouldn't be equally effective, and less effective units should be cheaper.
As well, they are made from the same box so the fact they can't even dream up some way to make them both viable is pretty shocking.
It's not that shocking if you have been paying attention to the way GW have been designing army lists for the last 30 years. There's far less mathHammer, and far more 'That feels about right' going on than there tends to be in the online community, and they're not remotely interested in the form of play that revolves around optimised army lists. So it's less that they can't think of a way to fix the imbalance you're seeing, and more that they don't perceive it to need fixing because they play (and so design) a much more casual game than you do.
What the mod says is right. You also have to appreciate not every unit was designed with a specific role or gap to fill. Ogryns were brought in because space ogres would be cool. And this brings up old units that have had their role taken away by newer units. Thirty years of models and back ground their will be overlap.
Not every unit needs a unique role. Some units should be their so that people who like the, can have a choice. I housed rules Ogryn Mercs for ORKS and a criticism I got of the rules when I post them on here for feedback was that nobz with big choppas did the same job better. But that missed the point of why I wanted to have ogryns in my ORK army. It was because of nostalgia. And in a game I would be willing to pay more for a less effective unit because I really liked it and wanted it in my army. GW get this and make units like that for players like me.
Why does narrative=subpar?
Not what I was saying at all. Just can mean units can do similar jobs, not as well or less well than others. Not everything needs a a unique niche.
AngryAngel80 wrote: So why even bring up the point of " Their use is they are cheap ", when that cheapness means nothing because it isn't reasonable enough for that to be considered a trait or even a real consideration point. You're better off spending more on Bullgryns and saving points elsewhere as one does the job and the other doesn't.
I brought it up in response to your previous point, which was that Ogryns are cheaper but should still be as good as Bullgryns, because that just isn't how points work.
If your point is now that the difference isn't significant enough to make Ogryns an attractive option, then that's potentially valid (I don't mathHammer, so I have no idea whether it is or not) but is a different point entirely. And if so, then making Ogryns better is only one of the potential fixes to that situation - you could also make Ogryns still cheaper, or make Bullgryns more expensive, depending on how that works in with the rest of the army.
Regardless of whether or not GW get the formula exactly right in any specific scenario, being cheaper than a better unit is a valid reason for taking something. Every unit shouldn't be equally effective, and less effective units should be cheaper.
As well, they are made from the same box so the fact they can't even dream up some way to make them both viable is pretty shocking.
It's not that shocking if you have been paying attention to the way GW have been designing army lists for the last 30 years. There's far less mathHammer, and far more 'That feels about right' going on than there tends to be in the online community, and they're not remotely interested in the form of play that revolves around optimised army lists. So it's less that they can't think of a way to fix the imbalance you're seeing, and more that they don't perceive it to need fixing because they play (and so design) a much more casual game than you do.
What the mod says is right. You also have to appreciate not every unit was designed with a specific role or gap to fill. Ogryns were brought in because space ogres would be cool. And this brings up old units that have had their role taken away by newer units. Thirty years of models and back ground their will be overlap.
Not every unit needs a unique role. Some units should be their so that people who like the, can have a choice. I housed rules Ogryn Mercs for ORKS and a criticism I got of the rules when I post them on here for feedback was that nobz with big choppas did the same job better. But that missed the point of why I wanted to have ogryns in my ORK army. It was because of nostalgia. And in a game I would be willing to pay more for a less effective unit because I really liked it and wanted it in my army. GW get this and make units like that for players like me.
No the mod is NOT right. Being cheaper means nothing when the equivalent points of Ogryns is always worse than the equivalent points of Bullgryns.
In other words, if you can't afford Bullgryns, it is pointless to even consider Ogryns as a reasonable substitute.
I never thought I'd ever agree with Slayer Fan, here I am agreeing with him. The underworld is very cold today. That is the real point. Cheapness is only a consideration if it actually means something. Ogryns have no use, when the designers have infinite space to dream up things they could do with them and don't. My point was never they should be as good as Bullgryns, my point was always just that they are cheaper but have the same role as Bullgryns but do it worse and the cheapness doesn't help them at all.
My further thoughts on it are that they could be given rules or ability to fill some sort of other role to make that cheapness mean something, or make them offensive and the Bullgryns more defensive by nature something to make them a viable choice, anything really. The advent of Bullgryns doesn't take away the fact that as long as I've played guard Ogryns have been a bad choice it just got shown quite clearly when they created Bullgryns who did what you wanted to do with Ogryns just better.
We even have someone saying they needed to dream up a way to use them out of army just to give them some kind of point. That is awful design, poor balance and not even good narrative drive if that is their intention. It's simple analysis to see which units does its job, which doesn't and if you have space to work, and they do, you can find the path to make it work. GW often times doesn't do it however. They settle and leave dead choices and that is a problem, intent or not.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
PenitentJake wrote: Okay, your Ogryn argument has been so prevalent that I dug up my dex to look some things up. Here's how I see it:
Ogryns can shoot and fight at their base cost of 30pts each. There are no upgrades available to them.
Now the Bullgryns themselves, only cost 5 points more; they get either a +2 to their save (which is already +1 over an Ogryn) or a 4+ invulnerable for free. At this point, your argument about the cost difference not being enough to justify taking Ogryns instead is totally on point.
But unlike Ogryns, they MUST be equipped with either a decent HtH weapon at 7 points, or a shooty weapon at 10 points.
That shooty weapon, by the way? One less strength than the ripper gun and 1d6 shots as opposed to the ripper gun's guaranteed 3. An objectively worse weapon that you have to take at 10 extra points if you want the privilege of shooting at all.
So strictly in terms of offensive capacity:
For +12 points, a Bullgryn can be better in HTH, but have no shooting capacity.
For +15 points, a Bullgryn can be slightly worse at shooting, and equal in hand to hand.
Either way of course, Bullgryns are better defensively, which is why they cost either 40% (HtH build) or 50% (shooty build) more.
So for every 2 shooty bullgryns, you could buy 3 ogryns. I do think that discount is significant enough to be a selling factor.
For every 3 fighty bullgryns, you get 4 ogryns + an extra 6 points to spend elsewhere. This point differential is less selling factor, but remember that these bullgryns have no capacity for shooting- meaning the better differential comes with an additional penalty.
I'm assuming you usually kit your Bullryns out for HtH, because that's they only way to make their offensive output superior to their bargain bin brethren.
So, instead of 3 units of 6 bullgryns, you could have 3 units of 8 ogryns. That's an extra 18 shots, an extra 24 attacks on a charge or 18 in any other fight. It's also 18 more wounds.
Now it's true that because of the defensive disadvantages, fewer of the extra attacks will ever land, but you can't really say the same about the shots, because HtH bullgryns don't shoot at all!
What I would do is take 2 x 8 Ogryn and 1 x 6 Bullgryn. I'd advance them behind tanks, because most players will go for the tanks. I'd try to aim them at an isolated flank, but that's pretty situational.
Now, you might also say that nobody in their right mind would use that many Ogryns or Bullgryns. But I think the whole "value for points" debate usually a lot more nuanced than many Dakkanaughts think. For starters, the word "useless" is almost always hyperbole. One unit not being as good as another unit does not make the unit useless.
Ogryns, are taken for the same reason you take Bullgryns, the difference is the defensive stand and better HTH which is much much better, is a big difference. Enough to make you not need to look at the Ogryns, value of their buy or not. As you already admit, the paper of their armor means you'd need more to ever make it into combat, making their cost difference pretty poor a selling point if you can consider it a selling point at all. No one is taking Ogryns for their ripper guns, they are meh at best and like I said, yes you could buff them ( the ripper guns ) up to make them a factor, but until then there is a reason in any list you could call competitive you'd only maybe see Bullgryns, and not Ogryns. Down playing the defensive boons out weighing in the limited shooting is not speaking in all honesty. Considering you can still use the grenade strat on the bullgryns who I believe keep the frag bombs so they'd all have a close range shooting attack for free with the cost of 1 command point of which a guard list has tons.
Also, who in their right mind would sacrifice an expensive tank, that might have a role, for protecting Ogryns who are supposed to be the value choice, shouldn't that be the other way around ? One unit does indeed make another useless if they serve the same job, just one works and one doesn't.
Ogryns are a CC support unit, with some very mild shooting. They want to charge into CC so do bullgryns, just without shooting or with more limited shooting. The real factor is Bullgryns can maybe live to see the line, Ogryns probably won't, Bullgryns can maybe live in the CC, Ogryns probably won't. They could buff Ogryns, but don't. and still have them cheaper so they feel like a choice and not a model mistake for new players.
Karol wrote: But the point difference isn't big enough for anyone to ever take ogryns, unless someone plays some weird point armies and not 2000.
1750 is pretty common in Europe.
1500 aswell
1000 doubles and single also.
1750 is only for tournaments, never seen or heard anyone playing 1500pts. And for doubles you need someone who would want to play on your side. And that is not always the case.
The reasons (until recently with a ton of changes ) you always saw scouts over tacticals or just F it go get the loyal 32 is that there are to many units and weapons that don't care whether it's a terminator, an orgyn or a grot. They all die the same so I might as well just bring the most bodies and hope for screens and sixes to save the day
That is true for GK termintors and strikes/interceptors. A terminator costs twice as much as a strike, technicaly has +1W and +1sv, but because of the weapon used in 8th, his save doesn't really matter and 2W on a single model, instead of 2W on two separate models, is actualy a bad side. To top it all of the strikes bring in double the attacks and double the shoting for same points, making the termintor a horrible option for twice the points.
Karol wrote: But the point difference isn't big enough for anyone to ever take ogryns, unless someone plays some weird point armies and not 2000.
1750 is pretty common in Europe.
1500 aswell
1000 doubles and single also.
1750 is only for tournaments, never seen or heard anyone playing 1500pts. And for doubles you need someone who would want to play on your side. And that is not always the case.
Thats unfortunate, around my area 2000pts is maybe the most common but still less than half, many tournaments are run anywhere between 750 and 1850. I think lower points is actually tonnes of fun.
pas
@Ogryn vs Bullgryn.
The response from Insaniak was: You can't say that bullgryn are ALWAYS BETTER ALL THE TIME than Ogyrns, because Ogryns are better in one aspect (points). Yes, they're not cheaper enough to be justified in most situations, but it is still a possibility of game space that can be explored.
The really abysmal options in the game are ones where they have literally no redeeming features. Like when you find that Disintegrators do better damage vs every target in the game than Dark Lances, while being cheaper.
Thankfully those are few and far between, and much more common are the Ogryn vs Bullgryn debates, where one is clearly better.
The problem I have with those kind of debates, where one unit is clearly outperforming for its points cost, is that they are very easy to tell. And this gets back to the Rules writers's job - if Joe Random on the internet can pick up a codex and identify the best options with ease, why can't the designers do that? Its literally their job.
I don't know friend. Maybe it is expected that a new player will not read the codex, forums etc (happened to me) just go off and buy models. Build two units of normal ogryns, two units of bullgryns, and then find out that ogryns are meh, and then go out and buy a third box of bullgryns.
Also on the ogryns being cheaper, but less effective. In some cases, when you can't buy the good thing you want, like lets say bullgryns for something melee in an IG list, you are just not going to build the list or buy something totaly different for the points. Why spend X% less points on an inefficient unit of ogryns, when you can take the same points and spend it on something good.
GK have this with GM NDK and normal NDK. GMs are cheaper for the buffed stats, and rules they have. But if for what ever reason you would not be able to run GM NDKs, lets say you play in an event that says no monster HQs, your not going to take the less efficient NDK instead, because it is just crap. Doesn't matter that is 10 or 15 pts cheaper, then the superior GM version.
GK have this with GM NDK and normal NDK. GMs are cheaper for the buffed stats, and rules they have. But if for what ever reason you would not be able to run GM NDKs, lets say you play in an event that says no monster HQs, your not going to take the less efficient NDK instead, because it is just crap. Doesn't matter that is 10 or 15 pts cheaper, then the superior GM version.
This. Tau suffer from this also. Limiting the number of commanders we can take has not meant that anyone takes normal crisis suits or crisis bodyguards in competitive lists as limiting the number of commanders has not fixed the root cause of why commanders were being spammed whilst other crisis suits were left at home.
AngryAngel80 wrote: It's tragic sad that after all this time they've been around they've been bad. Couldn't they just figure out some imagine role for ogryns ? Maybe they have another special rule ? Give their ripper gun more capability ? Increase their movement for the lighter armor ? A number of other things could be done. They give lip service to the dream of balance.
It is particularly tragic when you consider the fact that Ogryns have never been good. Not even by accident. They're always been overcosted, susceptible to Instant Death, unable to reliably reach their targets, crippled by Ld 6, etc, depending on edition and codex. The best they did was probably in 2nd edition, and that's highly conjectural given the scarcity of anecdotes, nevermind data. It was something of a pastime of mine in the 4th / 5th edition days to houserule different ways to make the unit worth taking, but they never were.
In the end, I began to wish for them to be removed from the codex instead, to have them put out of their misery (because short ranged shock assault troops seemed contrary to how the IG list of the time was built, it was questionable if they should have had a place within it). And I felt that way not out of malice, but despair. I own 15 Ogryns which I've never been able to field all at once, because they cost as much as a Baneblade, yet could not reliably handle a squad of Dire Avengers worth maybe 20% of their points (and fared even worse against anything harder-hitting than that). They were a joke back then. I was actually laughed at for fielding them, doubly so since I'd spent so much time customizing my own squad with what I naively thought were good sculpting and painting efforts (they weren't, my entire army still looks like dogshit).
I think they need some sort of specific ogryn only rules. Maybe make the guns 12" range, but also auto hit like flamers. Or let ogryns be attached to squads like heavy weapon teams are.
Ripper guns actually used to automatically hit in 2nd edition. It was only at very short range, up to 6 or 8 inches or whatever the innermost range bracket was, but it was unique to them. The rationale being that at that range, throwing all those shotgun pellets at the enemy was bound to hit SOMETHING. Rippers were also Sustained Fire 2D weapons, I recall, so a squad of 5 ogryns could expect a decent amount of wound rolls.
Karol wrote: But the point difference isn't big enough for anyone to ever take ogryns, unless someone plays some weird point armies and not 2000.
1750 is pretty common in Europe.
1500 aswell
1000 doubles and single also.
1750 is only for tournaments, never seen or heard anyone playing 1500pts. And for doubles you need someone who would want to play on your side. And that is not always the case.
1500 is actually pretty common for me. 1000 or 2000 below that. Hardly ever see or play 1750 personally.
Karol wrote: But the point difference isn't big enough for anyone to ever take ogryns, unless someone plays some weird point armies and not 2000.
1750 is pretty common in Europe.
1500 aswell
1000 doubles and single also.
1750 is only for tournaments, never seen or heard anyone playing 1500pts. And for doubles you need someone who would want to play on your side. And that is not always the case.
1500 is actually pretty common for me. 1000 or 2000 below that. Hardly ever see or play 1750 personally.
1500 was super common in 5th but big tournaments jumped to 2k in 6th and we've largely been there since.
I feel like if we dialed ot back to 1500 we might see less abuse in the system but you can't really expect people to put the genie back in the bottle.
I really like the VoxCast episodes with the rules designers and game developers. Also the Echoes from the Warp articles in White Dwarf.
In the round I think GW do a good job. 40K as a game is still as awesome as it's always been. There's too much errata (mistakes in GW's expensive printed rules), but once you've read it it's there online for reference - no need to print it and take it along to games. The FAQs are largely clarifications that I suspect most players don't need. As for needing over 100 rules publications to play, I get by with the BRB, latest CA and my codex (with supplement if I'm playing my SM army). So it seems does everyone else in my local gaming group. Many of us use BattleScribe too for convenience (to avoid writing anything down and having to add up ). It's also nice to share lists in advance of games via social media.
I've never played AA so I can't comment on how much better (or not) it might be, but I have no problem with IGOUGO. Similarly I like the detail of having different scale units in the game as well as individual statlines for all weapons. I'm sure there could be improvements to the rules, but I don't see it as the disaster that some people seem to. Why so many rules threads on here descend into strawman arguments and personal attacks is beyond me. You wouldn't think we all share a common hobby some of the time.
As for narrative vs matched play, I only play matched play, but might take a look at the narrative missions as there's a lot in the BRB and CA that I feel I might be missing out on. One thing I'm proposing to friends right now is a multiplayer game using the rules expansion in the BRB. I'm sure it won't be fair, but I suspect it'll be a good laugh.
Brother Castor wrote: I really like the VoxCast episodes with the rules designers and game developers. Also the Echoes from the Warp articles in White Dwarf.
In the round I think GW do a good job. 40K as a game is still as awesome as it's always been. There's too much errata (mistakes in GW's expensive printed rules), but once you've read it it's there online for reference - no need to print it and take it along to games. The FAQs are largely clarifications that I suspect most players don't need. As for needing over 100 rules publications to play, I get by with the BRB, latest CA and my codex (with supplement if I'm playing my SM army). So it seems does everyone else in my local gaming group. Many of us use BattleScribe too for convenience (to avoid writing anything down and having to add up ). It's also nice to share lists in advance of games via social media.
I've never played AA so I can't comment on how much better (or not) it might be, but I have no problem with IGOUGO. Similarly I like the detail of having different scale units in the game as well as individual statlines for all weapons. I'm sure there could be improvements to the rules, but I don't see it as the disaster that some people seem to. Why so many rules threads on here descend into strawman arguments and personal attacks is beyond me. You wouldn't think we all share a common hobby some of the time.
As for narrative vs matched play, I only play matched play, but might take a look at the narrative missions as there's a lot in the BRB and CA that I feel I might be missing out on. One thing I'm proposing to friends right now is a multiplayer game using the rules expansion in the BRB. I'm sure it won't be fair, but I suspect it'll be a good laugh.
They do no good job.
Infact even if we disregard IGOUGO issues and other core mechanics, if you are not imperium better pray that you get a propper update.
I think the summary of this whole debate is that we all like different aspects of the hobby. There are just some people who aren’t happy with that.
And I like igougo. Always have. I like turn based strategy games. Something about it appeals to me way of processing things. I’ve played alternate activation and I only like it for small skirmish games. Otherwise feels like you are going in one turn for ages. Gets stale quick. And you end up with units at around for ages doing nothing. Igougo feels like your army moves and fights as a whole.
And as said above. If you changed it or would not feel like the game I’ve played for 30 years. Because it would be a different game.
Andykp wrote: I think the summary of this whole debate is that we all like different aspects of the hobby. There are just some people who aren’t happy with that.
And I like igougo. Always have. I like turn based strategy games. Something about it appeals to me way of processing things. I’ve played alternate activation and I only like it for small skirmish games. Otherwise feels like you are going in one turn for ages. Gets stale quick.
I like TBS games too, but even in Heroes of Might and Magic, in combat the different units fight in order according to their initiative value- you don't move/fight with all of yours before the AI takes its first action. Going "in one turn for ages" is the entire point of alternating activation- both players stay engaged with the battle the entire time, instead of making all their moves, then taking a nap.
And you end up with units at around for ages doing nothing.Igougo feels like your army moves and fights as a whole.
And as said above. If you changed it or would not feel like the game I’ve played for 30 years. Because it would be a different game.
Huh? How does trading priority after 2-3 activations leave units "sitting around for ages doing nothing?" That is precisely why many of us dislike IGOUGO so much- one player moves, shoots, assaults, then they do nothing for the next 20 minutes while the other person acts. Your army may be "fighting as a whole," but they aren't fighting the enemy really, since they can't respond to anything you do.
Because the units chosen last to do things sit around while other units do loads of stuff on both sides.
I like civilisation. It’s like 40k. You go. The opponents go. Straight forward and no shenanigans. You get reactions to certain things like overwatch. And get to fight back in close combat.
I also like my whole army moving and shooting as one. Operating as one. I am also a fan of the eb flow of a game of 40k. 1 good turn and you can turn around a game in your armies favour. It feels like your units are weathering a storm waiting for a counter attack opportunity. And you get the nerves of weathering your opponents turn then the anticipation of your chance to fight back. And I’m not sat there doing nothing in their turn. When not fighting back and rolling dice I’m planning my next turn and things I hope to do as long he doesn’t shoot up my unit etc.
Alternating activation works for skirmish games like killteam for me. But for bigger games, 50 power level + its igougo all the way. Like 40k should be.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Honestly the fact we got people defending the IGOUGO system is bonkers, with the reasons for that being even stranger still.
Easy to learn? Seriously? If that's one of the best arguments someone can come up with, you really need to attempt to learn another game.
If that's what you took as the 'best' argument for IGOUGO, then you weren't actually paying attention. It was presented as an argument for IGOUGO, nothing more. You're free to disagree. The world would be a boring place if we all liked the same things.
I don't hate the current 40k rule set but AA leads to a lot more thinking and planning. It's among many reasons I think kill teams structure is much better than 40ks. I'm fine with certain actions happening all at once but shooting and psychic powers shouldn't be one of them. One good turn really means one good turn one alpha strike and for many games it's pretty much over turn one.
There are ways to mitigate that via terrain and mission types but going first is often way to decisive this edition.
Between Kill Team and Apoc it seems like GW is flirting with moving towards moving into an AA system in thd future, but it's hard to know if that plan will actually happen.
Andykp wrote: Because the units chosen last to do things sit around while other units do loads of stuff on both sides.
I like civilisation. It’s like 40k. You go. The opponents go. Straight forward and no shenanigans. You get reactions to certain things like overwatch. And get to fight back in close combat.
I also like my whole army moving and shooting as one. Operating as one. I am also a fan of the eb flow of a game of 40k. 1 good turn and you can turn around a game in your armies favour. It feels like your units are weathering a storm waiting for a counter attack opportunity. And you get the nerves of weathering your opponents turn then the anticipation of your chance to fight back. And I’m not sat there doing nothing in their turn. When not fighting back and rolling dice I’m planning my next turn and things I hope to do as long he doesn’t shoot up my unit etc.
Alternating activation works for skirmish games like killteam for me. But for bigger games, 50 power level + its igougo all the way. Like 40k should be.
Which units are last changes each turn. Someone will always be 'last." Even with IGOUGO, one of your units is always last to move, to shoot, to make melee attacks and so on. Things like Overwatch or reactive close combat attacks are things you will always, or nearly always do- not much of a choice. Rolling saves is even worse, because that's all dice. They are things that, in a videogame, would be done automatically. Sure, you "weather the storm," but that's just it- gameplay revolves around attrition, outlasting the other guy, not actively making decisions.
Andykp wrote: Because the units chosen last to do things sit around while other units do loads of stuff on both sides.
I like civilisation. It’s like 40k. You go. The opponents go. Straight forward and no shenanigans. You get reactions to certain things like overwatch. And get to fight back in close combat.
I also like my whole army moving and shooting as one. Operating as one. I am also a fan of the eb flow of a game of 40k. 1 good turn and you can turn around a game in your armies favour. It feels like your units are weathering a storm waiting for a counter attack opportunity. And you get the nerves of weathering your opponents turn then the anticipation of your chance to fight back. And I’m not sat there doing nothing in their turn. When not fighting back and rolling dice I’m planning my next turn and things I hope to do as long he doesn’t shoot up my unit etc.
Alternating activation works for skirmish games like killteam for me. But for bigger games, 50 power level + its igougo all the way. Like 40k should be.
And as said above. If you changed it or would not feel like the game I’ve played for 30 years. Because it would be a different game.
But there are people who have hated the game for thirty years, and who are somehow still incapable of letting go.
Makes you wonder why they invest so much time, effort and money into something they hate so much.
You know what makes more sense than the whole army moving at once?
Both armies actually doing that. Your complaint about AA makes NO sense because the opponent doesn't do anything.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ClockworkZion wrote: Between Kill Team and Apoc it seems like GW is flirting with moving towards moving into an AA system in thd future, but it's hard to know if that plan will actually happen.
It would solve a LOT of issues with the game, as much as the defenders of IGOUGO wouldn't like to admit because "lemme shoot you and charge you and THEN see what's left of your army to kill me!" is somehow more realistic for how armies work?
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Honestly the fact we got people defending the IGOUGO system is bonkers, with the reasons for that being even stranger still.
Easy to learn? Seriously? If that's one of the best arguments someone can come up with, you really need to attempt to learn another game.
If that's what you took as the 'best' argument for IGOUGO, then you weren't actually paying attention. It was presented as an argument for IGOUGO, nothing more. You're free to disagree. The world would be a boring place if we all liked the same things.
It literally IS the best argument for IGOUGO. The other defenses literally make no sense and are amazing mental gymnastics.
ClockworkZion wrote: If we get an AA system I sincerely want Apoc's where casualties tally at end of turn.
I really don't like that. It removes a lot of potential for targeting priority tactics.
It also pushes the game even more to offensive output. If I know that no matter what my opponent does, every unit will get at least one round of being able to do stuff then that further pushes either a unit that is stupid durable or as cheap as possible with enough bite vs point cost.
ClockworkZion wrote: If we get an AA system I sincerely want Apoc's where casualties tally at end of turn.
I really don't like that. It removes a lot of potential for targeting priority tactics.
It also pushes the game even more to offensive output. If I know that no matter what my opponent does, every unit will get at least one round of being able to do stuff then that further pushes either a unit that is stupid durable or as cheap as possible with enough bite vs point cost.
So the same things people build for already with cheap chaff or units that can out weather the opponent to deal with alpha strikes or other tactics that wipe units out wholesale?
Alright slayer, you didn't acknowledge it when I wrote it out in detail, so here's the TLDR.
IGOUGO feels like American football or baseball, with the same rhythm and ebb. You do an offensive drive, I defend; we switch.
AA is like soccer or basketball- it's pure adrenalin, go go go.
I bet you like soccer or hockey more than baseball or American football. I'm cool with that. You're not wrong- those are great games.
I prefer American football and baseball. Like you, I am not wrong or crazy, because both of these sports are also great games.
I am literally stunned at your refusal to see that some people can like things that you don't, and that their reasons for liking what they like are their own.
I'm not asking you to change you point of view, because it's valid to prefer AA for your own reasons, whatever they are. I'm asking you to extend others the same courtesy.
If you argued that we should make football or baseball more like soccer, or if I argued that we should make soccer or basketball more like football and baseball, both of us would be crazy, because we'd be depriving the world of variety.
Now I'm trying to be pretty peacemaker/ kumbaya about this, but I just can't help but point out that 40k has always been and IGOUGO game, and despite that, I can't think of a single game system that has the same combination of popularity and longevity. And that means that literally millions of people have loved IGOUGO enough to spend hundreds of millions of dollars over more than three decades. D&D changed ownership and design philosophy quite starkly over it's history, whereas 40k has stayed far more consistent. I'm not sure if any of the other rpgs around in 87 are still on the market with current releases. 40k is older than any collectible card game on the market.
We can't all be crazy, right? And we can't all have no good reasons to feel the way we so obviously do.
ClockworkZion wrote: If we get an AA system I sincerely want Apoc's where casualties tally at end of turn.
I really don't like that. It removes a lot of potential for targeting priority tactics.
On the other hand it flattens out first activation benefits a bit.
So does having decent rules for terrain, combined with having a proper amount of cover on the board.
Aye, but despite 30 years of gameplay we can't seem to nail that on our own so at this point I'd rather the rules address it.
I don't see why, it really doesn't take too much effort to make reasonable terrain. Better terrain rules would help too, but seriously, foamcore and styrofoam go a long way.
ClockworkZion wrote: If we get an AA system I sincerely want Apoc's where casualties tally at end of turn.
I really don't like that. It removes a lot of potential for targeting priority tactics.
On the other hand it flattens out first activation benefits a bit.
So does having decent rules for terrain, combined with having a proper amount of cover on the board.
Aye, but despite 30 years of gameplay we can't seem to nail that on our own so at this point I'd rather the rules address it.
I don't see why, it really doesn't take too much effort to make reasonable terrain. Better terrain rules would help too, but seriously, foamcore and styrofoam go a long way.
You should look at tournament photos. So many mostly empty cities, forests and planet bowling balls.
ClockworkZion wrote: ...Aye, but despite 30 years of gameplay we can't seem to nail that on our own so at this point I'd rather the rules address it.
The fact that every edition makes it easier to move and fire, gives weapons longer range, adds higher rate-of-fire to all weapons and more rerolls, etc. has nothing to do with it, I suppose.
You should look at tournament photos. So many mostly empty cities, forests and planet bowling balls.
Oh I've seen 'em. It's a horrorshow. That doesn't mean terrain making is hard, though. It's a readily surmountable issue.
I agree with this. Large tournaments, for understandable reasons can't put together that much terrain, especially if they want every table to look more or less identical. Players are traveling from far and wide and expecting them to drag a box of terrain as well isn't realistic.
This is one of many reasons I've never really enjoyed a tournament with more than maybe a dozen players. Terrain suffers and that effects way to much in game, since planet bowling ball leads to a far less interesting game than one that requires a lot of movement to either get a full units shot off or to set up a reliable charge.
You should look at tournament photos. So many mostly empty cities, forests and planet bowling balls.
Oh I've seen 'em. It's a horrorshow. That doesn't mean terrain making is hard, though. It's a readily surmountable issue.
And yet I have seen and heard of story after story of people playing on tables just like those or worse for years.
To make it worse some players actually prefer tables with little to no terrain.
So yeah, we need to flatten first activation advantage so we don't have to rely on terrain to balance the game.
@AnomanderRake that definitely has made the problem more pronounced and is why I feel one of the big rebalancing points in the game is a real fix to preventing whomecer goes fordt each turn from having an advantage.
To be fair, there IS such a thing as too much terrain, as well as too little. I think, for many players, finding the "perfect balance" is too difficult, so they just plop a few pieces down and call it a day.
To address the above, I don't disagree that the game shouldn't entirely be balanced around having a certain percentage of terrain on the board. That said terrain is the cheapest part of this hobby. All it has to do really is provide either a way to get a better angle for a shot or an assault, block LOS, or slow down movement.
You can spend 1000's to get various kits to do that and make a truly beautiful table. Alternatively, go grab some books to make a building or two. Same way to make a hill, and most hobby stores will sell Styrofoam that with a bit of elbow grease can be made into almost anything.
Not having enough terrain on the board is a personal choice and I don't get people who want to fight with guns and artillery (outside of a very specific narrative mission) ignoring the third player in the game.
My ideal board will have asymmetrical terrain that forces real choices on what side you want based on the army you brought and what the missions is.
ClockworkZion wrote: ...@AnomanderRake that definitely has made the problem more pronounced and is why I feel one of the big rebalancing points in the game is a real fix to preventing whomecer goes fordt each turn from having an advantage.
First turn advantage wasn't a serious issue in Warmachine because the game was heavily melee-focused and models didn't deploy in range to attack. First turn advantage is serious in 40k because everything is a giant cannon capable of blasting models three tables away. Blaming the issue on the turn order and trying to overcomplicate the game further isn't going to solve the issue if you keep letting people deploy armies capable of wiping each other off the table in a turn or two of shooting in range to shoot each other.
Adding extra stuff to the game without addressing the actual problems (because it'd be too hard and require undoing some of the things in the army books you've sold people) is exactly the mistake that GW makes that leads to excess bloat, wild imbalance, and constant edition changes.
Karol wrote: But the point difference isn't big enough for anyone to ever take ogryns, unless someone plays some weird point armies and not 2000.
1750 is pretty common in Europe.
1500 aswell
1000 doubles and single also.
1750 is only for tournaments, never seen or heard anyone playing 1500pts. And for doubles you need someone who would want to play on your side. And that is not always the case.
Thats unfortunate, around my area 2000pts is maybe the most common but still less than half, many tournaments are run anywhere between 750 and 1850. I think lower points is actually tonnes of fun.
pas
@Ogryn vs Bullgryn.
The response from Insaniak was: You can't say that bullgryn are ALWAYS BETTER ALL THE TIME than Ogyrns, because Ogryns are better in one aspect (points). Yes, they're not cheaper enough to be justified in most situations, but it is still a possibility of game space that can be explored.
The really abysmal options in the game are ones where they have literally no redeeming features. Like when you find that Disintegrators do better damage vs every target in the game than Dark Lances, while being cheaper.
Thankfully those are few and far between, and much more common are the Ogryn vs Bullgryn debates, where one is clearly better.
The problem I have with those kind of debates, where one unit is clearly outperforming for its points cost, is that they are very easy to tell. And this gets back to the Rules writers's job - if Joe Random on the internet can pick up a codex and identify the best options with ease, why can't the designers do that? Its literally their job.
I'm glad you see my point, but I still don't think Ogryns would see any time even if you couldn't afford Bullgryns, their cost difference is still such they are pointless aside from a very casual list or taking as a handicap unit against a less experienced player. You'd simply fill the points cost with more troop squads and guns, as they won't survive in CC or to get to CC with any numbers to make any reasonable difference.
You should look at tournament photos. So many mostly empty cities, forests and planet bowling balls.
Oh I've seen 'em. It's a horrorshow. That doesn't mean terrain making is hard, though. It's a readily surmountable issue.
And yet I have seen and heard of story after story of people playing on tables just like those or worse for years.
To make it worse some players actually prefer tables with little to no terrain.
So yeah, we need to flatten first activation advantage so we don't have to rely on terrain to balance the game.
@AnomanderRake that definitely has made the problem more pronounced and is why I feel one of the big rebalancing points in the game is a real fix to preventing whomecer goes fordt each turn from having an advantage.
40K leaves at least some responsibility to the players to ensure they get the sort of experience they want. I've seen players play 'slophammer' since 2nd edition, where they line up 4000 points on either side of a barren table and just start rolling dice. Yeah, I know it happens.
GW used to provide articles on how to make terrain, and rules for how to set up terrain, now they provide more terrain options to buy. TO's I guess don't want to cart around a bunch of high-volume pieces (or more than they feel they have to), and tables with less terrain make the game go faster, generally speaking. So there are reasons why they don't pack it up to densely.
But still, you should be able to make the game that you want, and part of that is taking responsibility for the tables you play on.
That said, GW should really (REALLY) bring back the old forest rules, where forests were effectively templates that flat out blocked LOS through them. Apparently that was too cognitively challenging, or something.
AngryAngel80 wrote: It's tragic sad that after all this time they've been around they've been bad. Couldn't they just figure out some imagine role for ogryns ? Maybe they have another special rule ? Give their ripper gun more capability ? Increase their movement for the lighter armor ? A number of other things could be done. They give lip service to the dream of balance.
It is particularly tragic when you consider the fact that Ogryns have never been good. Not even by accident. They're always been overcosted, susceptible to Instant Death, unable to reliably reach their targets, crippled by Ld 6, etc, depending on edition and codex. The best they did was probably in 2nd edition, and that's highly conjectural given the scarcity of anecdotes, nevermind data. It was something of a pastime of mine in the 4th / 5th edition days to houserule different ways to make the unit worth taking, but they never were.
In the end, I began to wish for them to be removed from the codex instead, to have them put out of their misery (because short ranged shock assault troops seemed contrary to how the IG list of the time was built, it was questionable if they should have had a place within it). And I felt that way not out of malice, but despair. I own 15 Ogryns which I've never been able to field all at once, because they cost as much as a Baneblade, yet could not reliably handle a squad of Dire Avengers worth maybe 20% of their points (and fared even worse against anything harder-hitting than that). They were a joke back then. I was actually laughed at for fielding them, doubly so since I'd spent so much time customizing my own squad with what I naively thought were good sculpting and painting efforts (they weren't, my entire army still looks like dogshit).
That is such a sad story and I relate. Yes, they've never managed to by accident be good. I have 16 Ogryns, love the idea, the models, hate how they are constantly left to do absolute crap. They feel so fun, but perform so poorly they struggle to hurt or let alone destroy anything and that is just shameful for what they are there to do.
Also, don't bash your modeling/painting skills, you tried and thats all any of us can do, I'm sure they are nicer than perhaps you think they are. I'm sure they are cool looking at least.
Edit: I actually miss some elements of old terrain depth in the rules as well I really liked it when fortifications entered the scene just as a way to make sure your army had terrain to hide behind or use. I don't know what most thoughts on it were but I see how it would be a points sink but cheaper bits of terrain just felt good to know you wouldn't be left out to dry no matter how the table was set up.
To make it worse some players actually prefer tables with little to no terrain..
...and will then complain about getting tabled by shooty armies in the first turn.
To be fair, it's not unreasonable to want game rules that allow for as broad a range of terrain types as possible, and that should include being able to play on a mostly bare table. But 40K has always worked better with large amounts of terrain on the table, and with a good amount of that being full LOS-blocking. A lot of people have just never got that memo.
flandarz wrote: To be fair, there IS such a thing as too much terrain, ...
You should look at tournament photos. So many mostly empty cities, forests and planet bowling balls.
Oh I've seen 'em. It's a horrorshow. That doesn't mean terrain making is hard, though. It's a readily surmountable issue.
I agree with this. Large tournaments, for understandable reasons can't put together that much terrain, especially if they want every table to look more or less identical. Players are traveling from far and wide and expecting them to drag a box of terrain as well isn't realistic.
This is one of many reasons I've never really enjoyed a tournament with more than maybe a dozen players. Terrain suffers and that effects way to much in game, since planet bowling ball leads to a far less interesting game than one that requires a lot of movement to either get a full units shot off or to set up a reliable charge.
If GW where to put in rules out for more interesting city buildings, i could see that working out better for tables. If the rules where set up well you could use cheap boxes. to represent the city buildings, that block line of sight and maybe even hide units and objectives in them. Would do a hell of a lot of for the meta.
one of 40k big issue with its turn structure is its weapon reach and damage, so anything to disrupt that with terrain would be great. And city fights look good for photos as well.
PenitentJake wrote: Alright slayer, you didn't acknowledge it when I wrote it out in detail, so here's the TLDR.
IGOUGO feels like American football or baseball, with the same rhythm and ebb. You do an offensive drive, I defend; we switch.
AA is like soccer or basketball- it's pure adrenalin, go go go.
I bet you like soccer or hockey more than baseball or American football. I'm cool with that. You're not wrong- those are great games.
I prefer American football and baseball. Like you, I am not wrong or crazy, because both of these sports are also great games.
I am literally stunned at your refusal to see that some people can like things that you don't, and that their reasons for liking what they like are their own.
I'm not asking you to change you point of view, because it's valid to prefer AA for your own reasons, whatever they are. I'm asking you to extend others the same courtesy.
If you argued that we should make football or baseball more like soccer, or if I argued that we should make soccer or basketball more like football and baseball, both of us would be crazy, because we'd be depriving the world of variety.
Now I'm trying to be pretty peacemaker/ kumbaya about this, but I just can't help but point out that 40k has always been and IGOUGO game, and despite that, I can't think of a single game system that has the same combination of popularity and longevity. And that means that literally millions of people have loved IGOUGO enough to spend hundreds of millions of dollars over more than three decades. D&D changed ownership and design philosophy quite starkly over it's history, whereas 40k has stayed far more consistent. I'm not sure if any of the other rpgs around in 87 are still on the market with current releases. 40k is older than any collectible card game on the market.
We can't all be crazy, right? And we can't all have no good reasons to feel the way we so obviously do.
You're not serious are you?
American Football and Baseball is NOTHING like IGOUGO because Defense is actively DOING something. They don't set their players up in formation and then stand around doing diddly, wait for the Quarterback to throw, and then act when the receiver caught the ball and is several yards ahead.
ClockworkZion wrote: ...@AnomanderRake that definitely has made the problem more pronounced and is why I feel one of the big rebalancing points in the game is a real fix to preventing whomecer goes fordt each turn from having an advantage.
First turn advantage wasn't a serious issue in Warmachine because the game was heavily melee-focused and models didn't deploy in range to attack. First turn advantage is serious in 40k because everything is a giant cannon capable of blasting models three tables away. Blaming the issue on the turn order and trying to overcomplicate the game further isn't going to solve the issue if you keep letting people deploy armies capable of wiping each other off the table in a turn or two of shooting in range to shoot each other.
Adding extra stuff to the game without addressing the actual problems (because it'd be too hard and require undoing some of the things in the army books you've sold people) is exactly the mistake that GW makes that leads to excess bloat, wild imbalance, and constant edition changes.
40k will never be WMH as it is too shooting heavy and thus has to address things differently.
And turn priority has always been a complaint, it's just no one can agree how to balance it.
ClockworkZion wrote: ...@AnomanderRake that definitely has made the problem more pronounced and is why I feel one of the big rebalancing points in the game is a real fix to preventing whomecer goes fordt each turn from having an advantage.
First turn advantage wasn't a serious issue in Warmachine because the game was heavily melee-focused and models didn't deploy in range to attack. First turn advantage is serious in 40k because everything is a giant cannon capable of blasting models three tables away. Blaming the issue on the turn order and trying to overcomplicate the game further isn't going to solve the issue if you keep letting people deploy armies capable of wiping each other off the table in a turn or two of shooting in range to shoot each other.
Adding extra stuff to the game without addressing the actual problems (because it'd be too hard and require undoing some of the things in the army books you've sold people) is exactly the mistake that GW makes that leads to excess bloat, wild imbalance, and constant edition changes.
And turn priority has always been a complaint, it's just no one can agree how to balance it.
It's already been pointed out EXACTLY how to fix this but yeah sure.
IGOYGO main issue with GW seems to be the reach and damage potential of most army. The first turn can be a bloodbath you cannot return from on just luck.
And even some army seem to be designed entirly around doing just that.
Its benefits are that it can shift momentum back from side to side, and you can respond and then get counter on a bigger scale.
I would like to see more response mechanics for a start from 40k.
Have overwatch as a choice during a turn, and let it fire at units after they have moved. Every unit can overwatch on 6+ can be left.
Orks allways overwatch on a 5+ could be a special ork rule.
You could do a lot here with psychic powers, or even special wargear, offering choice for players in both unit makeup and how the game plays.
So players are putting units into overwatch as a choice, giving up shooting. Things like that.
First turn advantage doesn't need to be a thing, it can be balanced in a lot of different ways. A lot of competitive tournament winning players will sometimes say taking first turn is a trap, especially against certain armies. A mission rule like first blood, for example, is completely stupid and should not be part of any missions. Mission rules that benefit the player going second are much better, control and to some degree kill more in ITC. Missions that require that you control objectives also helps the player going second assuming one player or the other hasn't been wiped. You can also create mission rules like night fight or hailstorm where in the first battle round you subtract 6-18" from range, subtract 1 from hit rolls or reduce BS by 1.
Creating more defensive Stratagems like Quantum Deflection, Lightning Fast Reflexes or Prepared Positions, nerfing offensive Stratagems like Showin Off and Endless Cacophony would also help the player going second have a more fun game as fewer players will lose more than 20% of their army, a number I think is about as high as damage should go for the player going first.
I think UGOIGO is a problem, but there are a million other solutions for every problem it creates other than AA. AA would be pretty awkward for aura characters and would benefit players that can make one activation count for a lot versus players that need more activations to get through their army. Some rules like auras just work, while other players would have to activate all their support characters first before they'd be able to get around to their units that are getting buffed. Oh you MWBD that unit? Yeah, I'm going to point my hellblasters at them before they get to shoot, now your MWBD is wasted.
Not to mention the time aspect, you'd probably be best off playing Apoc if you want AA since it has that vastly simplified unit and weapon system, so just play tiny Apoc games instead of 40k if you want AA. You can modify Stratagems, WL traits etc for Apoc if you don't like the native Apoc systems, that seems less involved than trying to fit 40k into the AA system and then either ignore any balance issues.
I'm not really buying that AA is the only way to make a turn-based game work, especially not when professional 40k teachers are saying that there are benefits to going second. I played in a wacky mission set a couple of months back and 2/3 missions vastly favoured the player going second between nerfing T1 shooting and end of battle round centric missions. The missions even favoured foot-slogging Necrons and melee if you'd believe it.
Have overwatch as a choice during a turn, and let it fire at units after they have moved. Every unit can overwatch on 6+ can be left.
Orks allways overwatch on a 5+ could be a special ork rule.
Once upon a time, Overwatch was something you did instead of shooting in your own shooting phase, allowing you to interrupt your opponent's movement (and later expanded to any time in the opponent's turn) to shoot at units as they moved into sight or range. A return to something like that would have been vastly better than the version that was introduced in 6th edition.
ClockworkZion wrote: ...@AnomanderRake that definitely has made the problem more pronounced and is why I feel one of the big rebalancing points in the game is a real fix to preventing whomecer goes fordt each turn from having an advantage.
First turn advantage wasn't a serious issue in Warmachine because the game was heavily melee-focused and models didn't deploy in range to attack. First turn advantage is serious in 40k because everything is a giant cannon capable of blasting models three tables away. Blaming the issue on the turn order and trying to overcomplicate the game further isn't going to solve the issue if you keep letting people deploy armies capable of wiping each other off the table in a turn or two of shooting in range to shoot each other.
Adding extra stuff to the game without addressing the actual problems (because it'd be too hard and require undoing some of the things in the army books you've sold people) is exactly the mistake that GW makes that leads to excess bloat, wild imbalance, and constant edition changes.
40k will never be WMH as it is too shooting heavy and thus has to address things differently.
And turn priority has always been a complaint, it's just no one can agree how to balance it.
Let me rephrase.
You cannot fix Warhammer by introducing alternating activations unless you're prepared to burn the whole thing and start over. I've tried. Basic assumptions about having a movement, shooting, charge, and fight phase are ingrained into how units are designed, the whole concept of being 'engaged in melee', all the sort of conceptual bases of the game.
You might fix Warhammer by correcting the power creep that creates trap options, alpha-strike advantage, and the target priority game where the movement phase is an irrelevant afterthought because your army can sweep all enemies off the table without moving.
And we know exactly how you'd build Warhammer with alternating activations, because Rick Priestley went off and built Antares. Which is Warhammer with alternating activations. As written by the people who invented Warhammer.
Have overwatch as a choice during a turn, and let it fire at units after they have moved. Every unit can overwatch on 6+ can be left.
Orks allways overwatch on a 5+ could be a special ork rule.
Once upon a time, Overwatch was something you did instead of shooting in your own shooting phase, allowing you to interrupt your opponent's movement (and later expanded to any time in the opponent's turn) to shoot at units as they moved into sight or range. A return to something like that would have been vastly better than the version that was introduced in 6th edition.
Which was only ever used when both opponents had maybe one unit left and everyone was on indefinite Overwatch.
First turn advantage doesn't need to be a thing, it can be balanced in a lot of different ways. A lot of competitive tournament winning players will sometimes say taking first turn is a trap, especially against certain armies. A mission rule like first blood, for example, is completely stupid and should not be part of any missions. Mission rules that benefit the player going second are much better, control and to some degree kill more in ITC. Missions that require that you control objectives also helps the player going second assuming one player or the other hasn't been wiped. You can also create mission rules like night fight or hailstorm where in the first battle round you subtract 6-18" from range, subtract 1 from hit rolls or reduce BS by 1.
Creating more defensive Stratagems like Quantum Deflection, Lightning Fast Reflexes or Prepared Positions, nerfing offensive Stratagems like Showin Off and Endless Cacophony would also help the player going second have a more fun game as fewer players will lose more than 20% of their army, a number I think is about as high as damage should go for the player going first.
I think UGOIGO is a problem, but there are a million other solutions for every problem it creates other than AA. AA would be pretty awkward for aura characters and would benefit players that can make one activation count for a lot versus players that need more activations to get through their army. Some rules like auras just work, while other players would have to activate all their support characters first before they'd be able to get around to their units that are getting buffed. Oh you MWBD that unit? Yeah, I'm going to point my hellblasters at them before they get to shoot, now your MWBD is wasted.
Not to mention the time aspect, you'd probably be best off playing Apoc if you want AA since it has that vastly simplified unit and weapon system, so just play tiny Apoc games instead of 40k if you want AA. You can modify Stratagems, WL traits etc for Apoc if you don't like the native Apoc systems, that seems less involved than trying to fit 40k into the AA system and then either ignore any balance issues.
I'm not really buying that AA is the only way to make a turn-based game work, especially not when professional 40k teachers are saying that there are benefits to going second. I played in a wacky mission set a couple of months back and 2/3 missions vastly favoured the player going second between nerfing T1 shooting and end of battle round centric missions. The missions even favoured foot-slogging Necrons and melee if you'd believe it.
We literally have a Strat that basically Grant's everyone +1 to their save.
You can pretend there are advantages to going second (there are VERY few), but first turn basically dictates how the game goes.
Also the fact you decided to drop Footcrons as viable in certain missions is one of the most hilarious things I've ever read. Go tell everyone in the Necron Tactica thread about your "finding". I'll get the popcorn.
Which was only ever used when both opponents had maybe one unit left and everyone was on indefinite Overwatch.
Your experience of 2nd edition was apparently vastly different to mine, and that of every other person I've discussed it with in the last 20 years...
Overwatch was extremely widely used, particularly by Guard and more shooty-styled Marine armies. If anything, the complaint was that it was used too much.
We literally have a Strat that basically Grant's everyone +1 to their save.
You can pretend there are advantages to going second (there are VERY few), but first turn basically dictates how the game goes.
Also the fact you decided to drop Footcrons as viable in certain missions is one of the most hilarious things I've ever read. Go tell everyone in the Necron Tactica thread about your "finding". I'll get the popcorn.
I did mention that Strat although I think it should've been 0 CP instead of 2, what I said was that we need more of those. What is the opposite of shooting twice? Taking half damage, SM got some of that with transhuman physiology, good design! Iron Hands ignoring move and shoot and re-roll hit rolls of 1 in dev doctrine? Bad!
What is your proof of that? The stats have shown the opposite according to reddit but I can't find a source, I'll just say it isn't always cut and dry. I have been beat by players that had good deployment with just the right terrain and they managed to take advantage of going second. Normally and especially at lower levels of play and with the original maelstrom missions I'd say there was a huge advantage to going second, I still believe there is an advantage to going first but in ITC with good terrain it's not huge for me.
Unsolicited advice for a mission set no one plays would not be appreciated in a tactics thread. These were homebrew missions that discouraged shooting and damaged units that sat in their deployment zone all game, nobody plays with anything like it. Of course, a Zerker rush or Custodian bike list would have done ten times better at those missions than my Warriors and Triarch Praetorians, but I packed my list before going and was pleasantly surprised when I didn't get stomped by a relatively soft old Ynnari list (he thought WD was optional since the FAQs/Erratas were unchanged) and I got to reanimate a bunch of my guys because the missions turned the game into a pillow fight. I think it is very much related to rules intent, however. The intent of the rules is to allow people to have fun and if gunlines are ruining your fun maybe you should consider night fight or storm rules before you try out AA which is very far removed from the game's design. UGOIGO is baked deeply into the system and all the attempts of AA had integration problems right on the surface of the system from my POV and would require huge changes to implement I don't think I've seen anyone say they tried AA and it worked flawlessly for three games.
Which was only ever used when both opponents had maybe one unit left and everyone was on indefinite Overwatch.
Your experience of 2nd edition was apparently vastly different to mine, and that of every other person I've discussed it with in the last 20 years...
Overwatch was extremely widely used, particularly by Guard and more shooty-styled Marine armies. If anything, the complaint was that it was used too much.
Can confirm. I won a ton of my 2nd Ed games by abusing the Overwatch mechanics using most of my units.
Have overwatch as a choice during a turn, and let it fire at units after they have moved. Every unit can overwatch on 6+ can be left.
Orks allways overwatch on a 5+ could be a special ork rule.
Once upon a time, Overwatch was something you did instead of shooting in your own shooting phase, allowing you to interrupt your opponent's movement (and later expanded to any time in the opponent's turn) to shoot at units as they moved into sight or range. A return to something like that would have been vastly better than the version that was introduced in 6th edition.
I come in too late to really see much of then, i was sorta more interested in the painting and building so it was a year before i really even started to learn the rules right before 3rd edition.
I would think it would open the game up a lot, Could even have things that enable it during the first player turn. Making the first player have to think about placement and movement as well.
There is a lot it could do for the game, with little changes in other place now i feel.
ClockworkZion wrote: ...@AnomanderRake that definitely has made the problem more pronounced and is why I feel one of the big rebalancing points in the game is a real fix to preventing whomecer goes fordt each turn from having an advantage.
First turn advantage wasn't a serious issue in Warmachine because the game was heavily melee-focused and models didn't deploy in range to attack. First turn advantage is serious in 40k because everything is a giant cannon capable of blasting models three tables away. Blaming the issue on the turn order and trying to overcomplicate the game further isn't going to solve the issue if you keep letting people deploy armies capable of wiping each other off the table in a turn or two of shooting in range to shoot each other.
Adding extra stuff to the game without addressing the actual problems (because it'd be too hard and require undoing some of the things in the army books you've sold people) is exactly the mistake that GW makes that leads to excess bloat, wild imbalance, and constant edition changes.
40k will never be WMH as it is too shooting heavy and thus has to address things differently.
And turn priority has always been a complaint, it's just no one can agree how to balance it.
Let me rephrase.
You cannot fix Warhammer by introducing alternating activations unless you're prepared to burn the whole thing and start over. I've tried. Basic assumptions about having a movement, shooting, charge, and fight phase are ingrained into how units are designed, the whole concept of being 'engaged in melee', all the sort of conceptual bases of the game.
You might fix Warhammer by correcting the power creep that creates trap options, alpha-strike advantage, and the target priority game where the movement phase is an irrelevant afterthought because your army can sweep all enemies off the table without moving.
And we know exactly how you'd build Warhammer with alternating activations, because Rick Priestley went off and built Antares. Which is Warhammer with alternating activations. As written by the people who invented Warhammer.
I disagree, because I feel that Apoc captures the 40k feel while being an AA system.
Now I'm not saying that AA is the only way to flatten put the advantage, I'm just saying that if 40k adopts an AA system that it should adopt the one used in Apoc.
There are a lot of ways to address the first move advantage: random turn order, casualties only die at the end of the game turn, ect, ect.
The point is the rules need to have this solution, whatever it is, baked into it because assuming that people are going to play with a set amount of terrain in any game doesn't work to fix bad play experiances. I mean I love a good building to building style city fight board, but there are people who toss down maybe 5 peices of terrain and call it good, and others still who enjoy something between those two layouts. Because of that the balancing factor terrain should provide doesn't exist with enough consitency to be worth using to prop up the game's balance.
Especially with how lackluster the defensive nature of it edition's terrain is.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dyndraig wrote: IGOUGO is not the problem by itself, One of my favorite rulesets (Kings of War) is IGOUGO and it works great.
I feel that it can be a good system, especially in fantasy or historical games with little to no shooting, but in a game like 40k I feel that it needs some more fleshing out. The ability to sacrifice something like movement in the next turn by going to ground for example was a good start, but rather than building on it (perhaps a unit can make a defensive shooting action, but fights last and loses the ability to shoot the next turn for example) they took it away and left us with less reaction or interrupt actions available, which is why there are many who feel like the game has too much downtime.
I don't think theres anything wrong with the idea of the game being balanced around some amount of terrain... If there was any indication of what that amount was.
The 40k rules however dont say anything, and its left to the players to experiment. Getting it wrong though is a hugely negative play experience that can invalidate hundreds of dollars worth of minis.
All it would take is one page in a rulebook to show some example terrain layouts.
We literally have a Strat that basically Grant's everyone +1 to their save.
You can pretend there are advantages to going second (there are VERY few), but first turn basically dictates how the game goes.
Also the fact you decided to drop Footcrons as viable in certain missions is one of the most hilarious things I've ever read. Go tell everyone in the Necron Tactica thread about your "finding". I'll get the popcorn.
I did mention that Strat although I think it should've been 0 CP instead of 2, what I said was that we need more of those. What is the opposite of shooting twice? Taking half damage, SM got some of that with transhuman physiology, good design! Iron Hands ignoring move and shoot and re-roll hit rolls of 1 in dev doctrine? Bad!
What is your proof of that? The stats have shown the opposite according to reddit but I can't find a source, I'll just say it isn't always cut and dry. I have been beat by players that had good deployment with just the right terrain and they managed to take advantage of going second. Normally and especially at lower levels of play and with the original maelstrom missions I'd say there was a huge advantage to going second, I still believe there is an advantage to going first but in ITC with good terrain it's not huge for me.
Unsolicited advice for a mission set no one plays would not be appreciated in a tactics thread. These were homebrew missions that discouraged shooting and damaged units that sat in their deployment zone all game, nobody plays with anything like it. Of course, a Zerker rush or Custodian bike list would have done ten times better at those missions than my Warriors and Triarch Praetorians, but I packed my list before going and was pleasantly surprised when I didn't get stomped by a relatively soft old Ynnari list (he thought WD was optional since the FAQs/Erratas were unchanged) and I got to reanimate a bunch of my guys because the missions turned the game into a pillow fight. I think it is very much related to rules intent, however. The intent of the rules is to allow people to have fun and if gunlines are ruining your fun maybe you should consider night fight or storm rules before you try out AA which is very far removed from the game's design. UGOIGO is baked deeply into the system and all the attempts of AA had integration problems right on the surface of the system from my POV and would require huge changes to implement I don't think I've seen anyone say they tried AA and it worked flawlessly for three games.
...you DO realize that the Strat is, for all intents and purposes, broken? If it were in any other game, we'd be laughing at the concept itself. For a flat 2CP (which is a pitiful amount), you increase your durability to EVERYTHING being shot at you.
It's bad design because IGOUGO is already bad design and the Stratagem proves that. The fact you're going these lengths to defend a non-realistic approach (which was somehow a complaint with AA but not IGOUGO......) to how the game should be played just shows adversity to change. Apparently even the Apocalypse rules say IGOUGO is bad!
...you DO realize that the Strat is, for all intents and purposes, broken? If it were in any other game, we'd be laughing at the concept itself. For a flat 2CP (which is a pitiful amount), you increase your durability to EVERYTHING being shot at you.
It's bad design because IGOUGO is already bad design and the Stratagem proves that. The fact you're going these lengths to defend a non-realistic approach (which was somehow a complaint with AA but not IGOUGO......) to how the game should be played just shows adversity to change. Apparently even the Apocalypse rules say IGOUGO is bad!
Yes, there is very rarely a situation where I don't use it, even if I get most of my army in cover I'll still use it to keep one or two units in cover to have a chance at denying First Strike/Kill One. I'd still improve it even further, I don't think it should be a Stratagem, it should just be a game mechanic IMO. It's the same thing in card games, one player has to go first and the other player has to go second and those can work fine with IGOUGO. The player going first gets some sort of punishment, they can't attack, they draw less cards, they get fewer other resources, they have a harder time scoring objectives and it all balances out and you can still have a great experience. You just have to take it into account when balancing the game by giving the player going second some advantages while the player going first gets others that's not bad design IMO. Ignoring the problem can be bad design and if it gets really bad it can be very fun to be put in the losing position from the start, same reason why we need tight balance, the game shouldn't be decided too early. It shouldn't be decided by factions entirely, lists entirely, deployment entirely, who gets first turn entirely, round 1 entirely... AA only fixes one of these issues, which no one can provide stats exist in the first place, that of games being decided by who gets first turn. The game might very well still be decided at the end of round 1 with AA.
I want realistic results within the lore of the game world more than I want moment-to-moment realism. AA is slightly less gamey but it's still far from simulationist by default. The nature of war in the far future looking anything like 40k seems very unrealistic. There are tonnes of popular UGOIGO games, much fewer simultaneous games outside of RTS because a computer is better at handling those things, it's pretty much only miniature games that do the AA thing AFAIK, you don't see any card games where people can only attack with one thing at a time and then go back and forth until every card has had a chance to attack. When 40k is viewed more like a card game, you aren't commanding models and units in a one to one scale, but instead representing some other much larger conflict by the rules, then I think things are more fun and make more sense. I'm still waiting to find someone to play Apoc with so I might change my mind back to thinking that 40k should change over, currently I am not convinced.
vict0988 wrote: AA only fixes one of these issues, which no one can provide stats exist in the first place, that of games being decided by who gets first turn. The game might very well still be decided at the end of round 1 with AA.
AA provides two mechanisms that help avoid one-turn games.
1. Players have the ability to react to each other, which mitigates alpha striking. If my deployment leaves my army exposed to shooting, I have the ability to activate units and get them out of the line of fire while they're being attacked. It's not a get out of jail free card and I'm still going to be shot, but I don't have to sit around and let my entire army get blasted off the table before they do anything.
2. Players have the ability to fight back simultaneously. If we both have glass hammer, shooting-oriented armies, you getting the first turn doesn't mean I'm going to be wiped off the table before I can respond. We're going to trade fire, and it might be a bloodbath, but I can eliminate units before they have a chance to shoot and that reduces the overall firepower coming my way.
Reaction systems (a la Infinity or Starship Troopers) allow games to have similar sorts of counterplay while retaining the basic IGOUGO structure.
It's also worth mentioning that AA dramatically increases the opportunity for meaningful decision-making. You have to make decisions like whether to get a threatened unit into cover, or activate another unit to try to preemptively take out the threat. You can make plans to coordinate your units, but you have to be ready for the possibility of the enemy interrupting. You get to choose whether to activate an important unit early and maximize its benefit, or save it for later to exploit how the battlefield changes in the interim. There's a lot more tactical challenge involved and at the scale of 40K I think it makes for a much better game.
It always seems the people who are advocating AA advocate tournament play and hyper competitive list building. It’s like they want to play a different game from 40k. Like they want to change every aspect of 40k and ignore the whole of the back ground.
No one from the other sides of these arguments are saying that you lot a wrong. Just that you lot have different opinions. Like different things. It’s like you have gone onto a cheese lovers forum just to go around telling everyone that cheese is gak and they shouldn’t like eat. Because they are wrong.
Again the mod is right. Overwatch was over used and a pain in the arse at times in 2nd. Constantly interrupting moves and dragging the game out in my experience. Which according to slayer fan didn’t happen because everything happens as he says or else.
Like the Ogryn thing. No one takes ogryns apparently when they can afford Bullgryns. Except I do. All the time. Don’t even own Bullgryns and don’t want to. I even take ogryns at the expense of other units. I like ogryns. So I take them.
Basically a lot of people on here need to grow up and stop stamping their feet. Let’s all be big boys and girls and accept that some people like different things from each other. Looking at you slayer-fan. (And I’m not a huge fan of slayer either).
I like alternate activation. I'm not a tournament player any longer (mainly because I don't want to keep up with burn and churn culture).
I like alternate activation because I enjoy the interaction of the game much better than standing there for 30-45 minutes doing nothing but watching models get pulled off the table without being able to respond.
Andykp wrote: It always seems the people who are advocating AA advocate tournament play and hyper competitive list building. It’s like they want to play a different game from 40k. Like they want to change every aspect of 40k and ignore the whole of the back ground.
No one from the other sides of these arguments are saying that you lot a wrong. Just that you lot have different opinions. Like different things. It’s like you have gone onto a cheese lovers forum just to go around telling everyone that cheese is gak and they shouldn’t like eat. Because they are wrong.
Again the mod is right. Overwatch was over used and a pain in the arse at times in 2nd. Constantly interrupting moves and dragging the game out in my experience. Which according to slayer fan didn’t happen because everything happens as he says or else.
Like the Ogryn thing. No one takes ogryns apparently when they can afford Bullgryns. Except I do. All the time. Don’t even own Bullgryns and don’t want to. I even take ogryns at the expense of other units. I like ogryns. So I take them.
Basically a lot of people on here need to grow up and stop stamping their feet. Let’s all be big boys and girls and accept that some people like different things from each other. Looking at you slayer-fan. (And I’m not a huge fan of slayer either).
Tournaments have nothing do with it, for me at least. I just want more tactical, immersive gameplay. A complete re-write would, if done by creative and competent people, lead to a much better gameplay experience. It would be a "different" game than "shuffle your models around and roll more 6s than the other person," and probably a better one that more closely matches the lore.
How does a more dynamic, balanced game conflict with the 40k fluff, anyway? I wasn't aware that most of the battles were completely lopsided, or revolved around both forces standing in one spot trading potshots until one side is wiped out.
...you DO realize that the Strat is, for all intents and purposes, broken? If it were in any other game, we'd be laughing at the concept itself. For a flat 2CP (which is a pitiful amount), you increase your durability to EVERYTHING being shot at you.
It's bad design because IGOUGO is already bad design and the Stratagem proves that. The fact you're going these lengths to defend a non-realistic approach (which was somehow a complaint with AA but not IGOUGO......) to how the game should be played just shows adversity to change. Apparently even the Apocalypse rules say IGOUGO is bad!
Yes, there is very rarely a situation where I don't use it, even if I get most of my army in cover I'll still use it to keep one or two units in cover to have a chance at denying First Strike/Kill One. I'd still improve it even further, I don't think it should be a Stratagem, it should just be a game mechanic IMO. It's the same thing in card games, one player has to go first and the other player has to go second and those can work fine with IGOUGO. The player going first gets some sort of punishment, they can't attack, they draw less cards, they get fewer other resources, they have a harder time scoring objectives and it all balances out and you can still have a great experience. You just have to take it into account when balancing the game by giving the player going second some advantages while the player going first gets others that's not bad design IMO. Ignoring the problem can be bad design and if it gets really bad it can be very fun to be put in the losing position from the start, same reason why we need tight balance, the game shouldn't be decided too early. It shouldn't be decided by factions entirely, lists entirely, deployment entirely, who gets first turn entirely, round 1 entirely... AA only fixes one of these issues, which no one can provide stats exist in the first place, that of games being decided by who gets first turn. The game might very well still be decided at the end of round 1 with AA.
I want realistic results within the lore of the game world more than I want moment-to-moment realism. AA is slightly less gamey but it's still far from simulationist by default. The nature of war in the far future looking anything like 40k seems very unrealistic. There are tonnes of popular UGOIGO games, much fewer simultaneous games outside of RTS because a computer is better at handling those things, it's pretty much only miniature games that do the AA thing AFAIK, you don't see any card games where people can only attack with one thing at a time and then go back and forth until every card has had a chance to attack. When 40k is viewed more like a card game, you aren't commanding models and units in a one to one scale, but instead representing some other much larger conflict by the rules, then I think things are more fun and make more sense. I'm still waiting to find someone to play Apoc with so I might change my mind back to thinking that 40k should change over, currently I am not convinced.
You're forgetting one key difference for those card games, and that's the availability of cards. You start with your whole army in 40k, but I don't start with my whole deck in MtG
Have overwatch as a choice during a turn, and let it fire at units after they have moved. Every unit can overwatch on 6+ can be left.
Orks allways overwatch on a 5+ could be a special ork rule.
Once upon a time, Overwatch was something you did instead of shooting in your own shooting phase, allowing you to interrupt your opponent's movement (and later expanded to any time in the opponent's turn) to shoot at units as they moved into sight or range. A return to something like that would have been vastly better than the version that was introduced in 6th edition.
Which was only ever used when both opponents had maybe one unit left and everyone was on indefinite Overwatch.
That might've been how you & yours were playing, but it definitely wasn't my 2e experience (or practice).....
Yeah, I’ve been witness to too many Overwatch games back from the day to see the old style return. Both sides sitting in Overwatch until one side flinched and was cut down (usually 5th turn, when someone *had* to make a move to capture an objective).
If Overwatch carried a -1 To Hit penalty and could be negated by some form of pinning (seriously, why is this mechanic NOT in the game?), I might change my stance.
Also, on AA, I’ve used it for most of my 8E games, and it has worked well enough. However, I also play in small enough games (1000-1250 points) that IGOUGO is feasible, as it’s really hard to wipe a squad out before it has had a chance to act.
Insectum7 wrote: Can confirm. I won a ton of my 2nd Ed games by abusing the Overwatch mechanics using most of my units.
Agreed - for gunlines put everything on overwatch, hide everything.
Worst case scenario you get to shoot with everything at the start of your opponents turn with no penalty. But in practice you could delay until after an opponent had declared their actions (overwatch, charge, etc) and then selectively pick off what you wanted before they actually could move or hide. The only exception was when your opponent had the overwatch initiative on you to overwatch your overwatchers...
...you DO realize that the Strat is, for all intents and purposes, broken? If it were in any other game, we'd be laughing at the concept itself. For a flat 2CP (which is a pitiful amount), you increase your durability to EVERYTHING being shot at you.
It's bad design because IGOUGO is already bad design and the Stratagem proves that. The fact you're going these lengths to defend a non-realistic approach (which was somehow a complaint with AA but not IGOUGO......) to how the game should be played just shows adversity to change. Apparently even the Apocalypse rules say IGOUGO is bad!
Yes, there is very rarely a situation where I don't use it, even if I get most of my army in cover I'll still use it to keep one or two units in cover to have a chance at denying First Strike/Kill One. I'd still improve it even further, I don't think it should be a Stratagem, it should just be a game mechanic IMO. It's the same thing in card games, one player has to go first and the other player has to go second and those can work fine with IGOUGO. The player going first gets some sort of punishment, they can't attack, they draw less cards, they get fewer other resources, they have a harder time scoring objectives and it all balances out and you can still have a great experience. You just have to take it into account when balancing the game by giving the player going second some advantages while the player going first gets others that's not bad design IMO. Ignoring the problem can be bad design and if it gets really bad it can be very fun to be put in the losing position from the start, same reason why we need tight balance, the game shouldn't be decided too early. It shouldn't be decided by factions entirely, lists entirely, deployment entirely, who gets first turn entirely, round 1 entirely... AA only fixes one of these issues, which no one can provide stats exist in the first place, that of games being decided by who gets first turn. The game might very well still be decided at the end of round 1 with AA.
I want realistic results within the lore of the game world more than I want moment-to-moment realism. AA is slightly less gamey but it's still far from simulationist by default. The nature of war in the far future looking anything like 40k seems very unrealistic. There are tonnes of popular UGOIGO games, much fewer simultaneous games outside of RTS because a computer is better at handling those things, it's pretty much only miniature games that do the AA thing AFAIK, you don't see any card games where people can only attack with one thing at a time and then go back and forth until every card has had a chance to attack. When 40k is viewed more like a card game, you aren't commanding models and units in a one to one scale, but instead representing some other much larger conflict by the rules, then I think things are more fun and make more sense. I'm still waiting to find someone to play Apoc with so I might change my mind back to thinking that 40k should change over, currently I am not convinced.
You're forgetting one key difference for those card games, and that's the availability of cards. You start with your whole army in 40k, but I don't start with my whole deck in MtG
Yes, there is a lot of hidden information in Magic. You don't start with your entire deck (army) available, you don't know what is in each other's hands unless an effect allows you to look, you can bluff, and you won't always draw what you need at that moment. There is also a far abetter resource system with lands and mana. The lands untap or "refill" at the beginning of your turn, and you can choose not to use all of it, which means your opponent now has to consider what you may do on their turn. Magic has instants, activated abilities, and spells with flash, that can all be used on your opponent's turn, and the cards are far more complex than units in 40k, with keyword abilities and unique abilities that create multitudes of different synergies and possibilities.
You're forgetting one key difference for those card games, and that's the availability of cards. You start with your whole army in 40k, but I don't start with my whole deck in MtG
Does your army start on the table? Do your units start in RF/melee range? Do you choose which dice rolls you'll get? You won't always have every possible option available every game. You and your opponent are dealt hands in the form of terrain and mission, you draw cards in the form of rolling dice, you set up combos and advance your board state by moving units in the right directions and try to mess with your opponents win condition and board state and combos.
I'm not sure what makes card games okay for UGOIGO and 40k not ok? Is it that your entire army can shoot all at once? Because as I said that's only a problem if the terrain does not mitigate it and if the mission doesn't make up for any difference between the advantage of shooting first that is left after you have the option of trying to hide your army in terrain. An unedintical experience between going first and going second might be a good thing to keep the game interesting if it's balanced. Adding a rule like cover for the player going second in the first battle round would remove the pressure on terrain and missions to balance the IGOUGO system which is why I think prepared positions should have been 0 CP.
Stormonu wrote: On AA, I’ve used it for most of my 8E games, and it has worked well enough. However, I also play in small enough games (1000-1250 points) that IGOUGO is feasible, as it’s really hard to wipe a squad out before it has had a chance to act.
That's interesting to hear, maybe I didn't read the threads I read about the subject thoroughly enough or failed to commit it to memory, perhaps it's easier than I thought it was and I was making big problems out of nothing. I doubt I'd be able to find anyone willing to play it, I wouldn't be mad if GW wanted to do it for 9th ed after fixing any issues the Apoc format might have. That'll be 0-4 years in the future if trends hold unless you want to count CA. I'd be happy with a streamlined 8th edition because SM are kind of going off the rails, even if the intention might have been to cut down on bloat by including the Vigilus stratagems in the main book. I just really wanted a perfected version of 8th and it looks further away than ever. I'd wish they just changed Chapter Tactics and Legion Heritage (the combat doctrine bonus) to narrative play only.
Andykp wrote: It always seems the people who are advocating AA advocate tournament play and hyper competitive list building. It’s like they want to play a different game from 40k. Like they want to change every aspect of 40k and ignore the whole of the back ground.
No one from the other sides of these arguments are saying that you lot a wrong. Just that you lot have different opinions. Like different things. It’s like you have gone onto a cheese lovers forum just to go around telling everyone that cheese is gak and they shouldn’t like eat. Because they are wrong.
Again the mod is right. Overwatch was over used and a pain in the arse at times in 2nd. Constantly interrupting moves and dragging the game out in my experience. Which according to slayer fan didn’t happen because everything happens as he says or else.
Like the Ogryn thing. No one takes ogryns apparently when they can afford Bullgryns. Except I do. All the time. Don’t even own Bullgryns and don’t want to. I even take ogryns at the expense of other units. I like ogryns. So I take them.
Basically a lot of people on here need to grow up and stop stamping their feet. Let’s all be big boys and girls and accept that some people like different things from each other. Looking at you slayer-fan. (And I’m not a huge fan of slayer either).
Tournaments have nothing do with it, for me at least. I just want more tactical, immersive gameplay. A complete re-write would, if done by creative and competent people, lead to a much better gameplay experience. It would be a "different" game than "shuffle your models around and roll more 6s than the other person," and probably a better one that more closely matches the lore.
How does a more dynamic, balanced game conflict with the 40k fluff, anyway? I wasn't aware that most of the battles were completely lopsided, or revolved around both forces standing in one spot trading potshots until one side is wiped out.
I just noticed it was mostly competitive players who also shouted loudest about AA. Also those players appear not to care much about the fluff. Their armies are entirely about winning as are their play styles. Even if it means taking only flying tyrants and some spores. So I concluded those people don’t care about the fluff and don’t like how the game plays or has always played. So maybe 40k isn’t for them.
I didn’t say you couldn’t want a 40k game with AA. But I’m not wrong for wanting it as is. We just like different things. Again it’s only the vocal AA advocates saying that everyone else is wrong. Same with competitive play.
I can't really say Prepared Positions is OP. It's, at best, a 16.7% increase in survivability, and at worst it does nothing for ya (already in Cover, enemy ignores Cover, excessive AP, etc). It's certainly useful, and makes surviving the alpha strike easier, but it ain't breaking no games.
I don't think 40K needs alternating activation. AA simply introduces other problems and tends to slow game play down which is anathema to an already somewhat bloated game system. The problem is that 40K allows too many phases or too much activity per side per turn.
We play 40K with a Reaction Phase whereas the defender has the possibility to either move slightly or shoot at half strength at nearby enemy units (no overwatch). It breaks up the block of phases each side has without compromising tactical execution.
I've played AA games, and they aren't inherently any more tactical or realistic than IGOUGO. But I do understand that 40K has long exacerbated the worst qualities of IGOUGO, prompting gamers to look for alternatives.
amanita wrote: I don't think 40K needs alternating activation. AA simply introduces other problems and tends to slow game play down which is anathema to an already somewhat bloated game system. The problem is that 40K allows too many phases or too much activity per side per turn.
We play 40K with a Reaction Phase whereas the defender has the possibility to either move slightly or shoot at half strength at nearby enemy units (no overwatch). It breaks up the block of phases each side has without compromising tactical execution.
I've played AA games, and they aren't inherently any more tactical or realistic than IGOUGO. But I do understand that 40K has long exacerbated the worst qualities of IGOUGO, prompting gamers to look for alternatives.
How in the hell is AA any slower than IGOUGO? I'm doing stuff around the same time my opponent is with AA. In IGOUGO I wait half an hour.
Andykp wrote: It always seems the people who are advocating AA advocate tournament play and hyper competitive list building. It’s like they want to play a different game from 40k. Like they want to change every aspect of 40k and ignore the whole of the back ground.
No one from the other sides of these arguments are saying that you lot a wrong. Just that you lot have different opinions. Like different things. It’s like you have gone onto a cheese lovers forum just to go around telling everyone that cheese is gak and they shouldn’t like eat. Because they are wrong.
Again the mod is right. Overwatch was over used and a pain in the arse at times in 2nd. Constantly interrupting moves and dragging the game out in my experience. Which according to slayer fan didn’t happen because everything happens as he says or else.
Like the Ogryn thing. No one takes ogryns apparently when they can afford Bullgryns. Except I do. All the time. Don’t even own Bullgryns and don’t want to. I even take ogryns at the expense of other units. I like ogryns. So I take them.
Basically a lot of people on here need to grow up and stop stamping their feet. Let’s all be big boys and girls and accept that some people like different things from each other. Looking at you slayer-fan. (And I’m not a huge fan of slayer either).
Tournaments have nothing do with it, for me at least. I just want more tactical, immersive gameplay. A complete re-write would, if done by creative and competent people, lead to a much better gameplay experience. It would be a "different" game than "shuffle your models around and roll more 6s than the other person," and probably a better one that more closely matches the lore.
How does a more dynamic, balanced game conflict with the 40k fluff, anyway? I wasn't aware that most of the battles were completely lopsided, or revolved around both forces standing in one spot trading potshots until one side is wiped out.
I just noticed it was mostly competitive players who also shouted loudest about AA. Also those players appear not to care much about the fluff. Their armies are entirely about winning as are their play styles. Even if it means taking only flying tyrants and some spores. So I concluded those people don’t care about the fluff and don’t like how the game plays or has always played. So maybe 40k isn’t for them.
I didn’t say you couldn’t want a 40k game with AA. But I’m not wrong for wanting it as is. We just like different things. Again it’s only the vocal AA advocates saying that everyone else is wrong. Same with competitive play.
Maybe because we understand half an hour to not react to the opponent is bad, compared to the CAAC people here apparently who say "Wow I killed half your army! Hope you make a comeback!"
You're forgetting one key difference for those card games, and that's the availability of cards. You start with your whole army in 40k, but I don't start with my whole deck in MtG
Does your army start on the table? Do your units start in RF/melee range? Do you choose which dice rolls you'll get? You won't always have every possible option available every game. You and your opponent are dealt hands in the form of terrain and mission, you draw cards in the form of rolling dice, you set up combos and advance your board state by moving units in the right directions and try to mess with your opponents win condition and board state and combos.
I'm not sure what makes card games okay for UGOIGO and 40k not ok? Is it that your entire army can shoot all at once? Because as I said that's only a problem if the terrain does not mitigate it and if the mission doesn't make up for any difference between the advantage of shooting first that is left after you have the option of trying to hide your army in terrain. An unedintical experience between going first and going second might be a good thing to keep the game interesting if it's balanced. Adding a rule like cover for the player going second in the first battle round would remove the pressure on terrain and missions to balance the IGOUGO system which is why I think prepared positions should have been 0 CP.
Stormonu wrote: On AA, I’ve used it for most of my 8E games, and it has worked well enough. However, I also play in small enough games (1000-1250 points) that IGOUGO is feasible, as it’s really hard to wipe a squad out before it has had a chance to act.
That's interesting to hear, maybe I didn't read the threads I read about the subject thoroughly enough or failed to commit it to memory, perhaps it's easier than I thought it was and I was making big problems out of nothing. I doubt I'd be able to find anyone willing to play it, I wouldn't be mad if GW wanted to do it for 9th ed after fixing any issues the Apoc format might have. That'll be 0-4 years in the future if trends hold unless you want to count CA. I'd be happy with a streamlined 8th edition because SM are kind of going off the rails, even if the intention might have been to cut down on bloat by including the Vigilus stratagems in the main book. I just really wanted a perfected version of 8th and it looks further away than ever. I'd wish they just changed Chapter Tactics and Legion Heritage (the combat doctrine bonus) to narrative play only.
...yes the army starts on the table. I don't start with my entire deck in my hand playing MTG or Yugioh.
And all the sudden you're making the "terrain" argument, which is utterly hilarious. Newsflash: most of the good units don't care about terrain, and in fact none of the top armies really do.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
flandarz wrote: I can't really say Prepared Positions is OP. It's, at best, a 16.7% increase in survivability, and at worst it does nothing for ya (already in Cover, enemy ignores Cover, excessive AP, etc). It's certainly useful, and makes surviving the alpha strike easier, but it ain't breaking no games.
/a little late to the party.
For the whole army outside of Super Heavy units for 2CP. It isn't just ONE unit like other survival Strats.
If that were in ANY other game we'd all be laughing at the bad design. Why is it okay for 40k to do it?
I don't like tournament play at all. I like alternating activation because it gives me the opportunity to respond to the enemy, and gives me more to think about and do. It makes my on-the-spot decisions more meaningful, and tends to make for closer results than the pendulum swings of 40K turns. At the very least, it gives units the opportunity to act before being focus-fired to a man and removed from the table, which as a casual player who likes to see his models do things before they drop dead I consider valuable.
Tournament gamers certainly appreciate how IGOUGO facilitates combos and provides absolute control to execute your intended strategy. I wouldn't generalize it as a tournament vs casual thing at all.
I'd challenge 40K players to try a game of Bolt Action and see how they like it.
catbarf wrote: I don't like tournament play at all. I like alternating activation because it gives me the opportunity to respond to the enemy, and gives me more to think about and do. It makes my on-the-spot decisions more meaningful, and tends to make for closer results than the pendulum swings of 40K turns. At the very least, it gives units the opportunity to act before being focus-fired to a man and removed from the table, which as a casual player who likes to see his models do things before they drop dead I consider valuable.
Tournament gamers certainly appreciate how IGOUGO facilitates combos and provides absolute control to execute your intended strategy. I wouldn't generalize it as a tournament vs casual thing at all.
I'd challenge 40K players to try a game of Bolt Action and see how they like it.
I agree on the BA part.
as for the combos, well stratagems are great for the one getting them off first.
Stormonu wrote: Yeah, I’ve been witness to too many Overwatch games back from the day to see the old style return. Both sides sitting in Overwatch until one side flinched and was cut down (usually 5th turn, when someone *had* to make a move to capture an objective).
If Overwatch carried a -1 To Hit penalty and could be negated by some form of pinning (seriously, why is this mechanic NOT in the game?), I might change my stance..
It generally did wind up with the to Hit penalty, as you had a -1 for a target moving into LOS. I agree though that it should have had something that made it less of a no-brainer - make it require a LD or Initiative test, or apply a bonus modifier to shooting at units in Overwatch to represent that they are 'locked' in place taking aim instead of evading incoming fire.
Again, like I said, even across a whole army, you're getting, at best, a 16.7% durability increase. At worst (which is gonna be pretty common considering all the AP and "ignore cover" around and how often you'll hide your good units out of LOS and/or in Cover anyway) it does nothing for ya. And, I guess importantly, it only applies to a single phase of the entire game. Your guys still sitting out in the open on T2? No longer helps them. You might be better off using a sub-faction ability that gives Cover when you're outside a certain distance from the enemy, cuz at least that lasts more than 1 Phase.
To reiterate: not saying it's a bad stratagem. It's solid. But don't play it off like it's broken either. Be objective about it.
Edit: also doesn't apply to units with the Flyer battlefield role either.
Completely off topic but Bolt Action is a lot of fun. I also like how they handle veteran levels making more experienced troops harder to knock out assuming they know how to avoid incoming fire, still having pinning mechanics which I miss. The only thing I ever really hated about pinning was that it felt almost pointless to most armies who were either immune, near immune, could take near immunity buffs or otherwise ignored moral in all its effects. Always a problem with 40k, they leave so many of the game play elements on the cutting room floor and boil it down to this bland gruel of blow each other away while keeping some troops with a foot on base ( base being objectives ).
40k these days feels like that one scene from the first dawn of war where it had Marine forces standing on one side shooting non stop at chaos marine forces on the other side and all it was was non stop bolter fire until you break stalemate. Neither side breaking, running, doing anything tactical just shooting each other in the face.
Edit: What I'm saying is, aside from units actually not being bad pulls in a codex, maybe bring back some meaningful mechanics to make things that happen during a turn have some weight.
Also, touching on card games being IGOUGO, that is true however I'd point out it isn't nearly that simple. Depending on how you set up your deck for MtG at least, you can do a lot on your opponents turn. I feel like 40k designers see this and its why we have more, still not many, but more mechanics in strats and the like that let you say shoot reserves as they come in for instance. It isn't much but on that it does give me hope they might actually make the turns feel more fluid with less dead time.
Even if I have 0 hope they will ever even fall into making Ogryns good one day or imagine any kind of meaningful changes to their unit entry. I still wish they would make less, ideally , no codex options that are DoA.
Sometimes w40k in MtG terms feels as if you were playing a 50 cards draft deck, and your opponent had 900$ tournament deck. You do nothing in some phases, when they can turn 3 zerg the board and you can't do nothing.
40k is roughly speaking, as a former magic player, like both players have very slow decks filled with big creatures. A stompy deck if you will, and they do very little on each others turns and only hit each other in the face every player turn.
Though some lists are weenie decks with tons of tokens they throw at each other, also only on their turn of course.
It lacks the instants, and ability to do much at the end of turn, etc that some MtG decks can be build around, also lacks activated abilities aside from ones used just on your turn as well.
flandarz wrote: Again, like I said, even across a whole army, you're getting, at best, a 16.7% durability increase. At worst (which is gonna be pretty common considering all the AP and "ignore cover" around and how often you'll hide your good units out of LOS and/or in Cover anyway) it does nothing for ya. And, I guess importantly, it only applies to a single phase of the entire game. Your guys still sitting out in the open on T2? No longer helps them. You might be better off using a sub-faction ability that gives Cover when you're outside a certain distance from the enemy, cuz at least that lasts more than 1 Phase.
To reiterate: not saying it's a bad stratagem. It's solid. But don't play it off like it's broken either. Be objective about it.
Edit: also doesn't apply to units with the Flyer battlefield role either.
Math is weird. Even though it only increases your save by one, for some units vs Ap0 weapons that translates to a 50% reduction in casualties.
Even so, it's not that big a deal imo. Plenty of other games have advantages for the second player.
Warmachine, player 2 gets a larger deployment zone.
Hearthstone, player w gets an extra card AND the coin.
My real issue with the strat is how *useless* it is a lot of the time. Yes the ideal for a Sv3+ vs Ap0 is amazing, but the reality vs ignores cover, high Ap, or armies that need the benefit the most (daemons) getting no benefit at all
auticus wrote: I just wish 40k didn't feel like MtG at all.
Agreed. Magic is a great game, and I play every week, but I want a battle with 40k., not stacking card synergies. 40k doesn't even have half the interaction a game of Magic does!
auticus wrote: I just wish 40k didn't feel like MtG at all.
Agreed. Magic is a great game, and I play every week, but I want a battle with 40k., not stacking card synergies. 40k doesn't even have half the interaction a game of Magic does!
Maybe because IGOUGO causes turns to be 30+ minutes.
flandarz wrote: Again, like I said, even across a whole army, you're getting, at best, a 16.7% durability increase.
Ap increases damage non-linearly, having AP- or AP-1 against a 2+ Sv and a 6+ Sv are very different things, against a 2+ SvAP- will need 6 wounds to penetrate the save once, while AP-1 will need 3 wounds to penetrate the save once (causing 100% more damage), while against a 6+ SvAP- will need 1,167 wounds to penetrate the save once, while AP-1 will need 1 wound to penetrate the save once (causing 16,7% more damage).
The same is true in the opposite direction. So at best you are getting a 100% durability increase.
amanita wrote: I don't think 40K needs alternating activation. AA simply introduces other problems and tends to slow game play down which is anathema to an already somewhat bloated game system. The problem is that 40K allows too many phases or too much activity per side per turn.
We play 40K with a Reaction Phase whereas the defender has the possibility to either move slightly or shoot at half strength at nearby enemy units (no overwatch). It breaks up the block of phases each side has without compromising tactical execution.
I've played AA games, and they aren't inherently any more tactical or realistic than IGOUGO. But I do understand that 40K has long exacerbated the worst qualities of IGOUGO, prompting gamers to look for alternatives.
How in the hell is AA any slower than IGOUGO? I'm doing stuff around the same time my opponent is with AA. In IGOUGO I wait half an hour.
You tell me which is ACTUALLY slower.
Given amanita didn't say that AAturns were slower - which is what you referenced with your "half hour" assertion - it is possible that it is game length under AA which is being referenced.
And I could understand decision paralysis being more of an issue in AA games than IGOUGO games, as you have to figure out what makes the most sense to activate next, as opposed to knowing you can activate anything on your side, in the order that you see fit. The only exception to that I'm aware of in 40k at the minute would be the CC phase, where you do have to decide the order in which units will fight.
Final point - you are AWARE that using RANDOM block capital WORDS doesn't really help your ATTEMPTS at DEBATE, right? Shouting into the void convinces no-one, especially not the void.
auticus wrote: I just wish 40k didn't feel like MtG at all.
Agreed. Magic is a great game, and I play every week, but I want a battle with 40k., not stacking card synergies. 40k doesn't even have half the interaction a game of Magic does!
Maybe because IGOUGO causes turns to be 30+ minutes.
Thats more of an issue with rules bloat then IGOUGO, Kings of War handles 40k amount of models and IGOUGO without slowing down to a crawl.
And I would say AA would slow down 40k even more in it's current state. In a AA game you have to re-evaluate your plan every activation, while in a IGOUGO game you can stick to a plan for your entire turn.
Mulling it over, I think blending the two methods might work. Something like Player A does their movement phase, then player B, then player A and B alternatively activate their psykers, then alternate activation for shooting, then A has their fight phase, then B has their fight phase.
ClockworkZion wrote: Mulling it over, I think blending the two methods might work. Something like Player A does their movement phase, then player B, then player A and B alternatively activate their psykers, then alternate activation for shooting, then A has their fight phase, then B has their fight phase.
That does not work.
It's called alternate phases, and leads to the dude going second to just hide.
You either go full AA or you get an even worse ruleset.
Why not just play one of the million alternative activation miniatures games out there?
Let 40K be the game for people that don't like alternative activation (which are far more of a rarity to begin with .. if anything, we need more non-AA games on the market, not less).
Sunny Side Up wrote: Why not just play one of the million alternative activation miniatures games out there?
Let 40K be the game for people that don't like alternative activation (which are far more of a rarity to begin with .. if anything, we need more non-AA games on the market, not less).
Because with Kill Team and Apoc it's already branching out into being an AA game?
ClockworkZion wrote: Mulling it over, I think blending the two methods might work. Something like Player A does their movement phase, then player B, then player A and B alternatively activate their psykers, then alternate activation for shooting, then A has their fight phase, then B has their fight phase.
That does not work.
It's called alternate phases, and leads to the dude going second to just hide.
You either go full AA or you get an even worse ruleset.
I feel like that could be addressed with a tutn by turn scoring system that requires you to hold points and kill models every turn in order to win. Say 5 objectives arranged into a cross or X on the board, and players need to hold 3 to get 1 point that turn, 4 to get 2 points or 5 to get three points. Kill points could be calculated as 1 for every 5 wounds a unit has (units with less than 5 count as 5 for the purpose of scoring).
Player with the highest score wins, even if they're tabled.
I feel like that could be addressed with a tutn by turn scoring system that requires you to hold points and kill models every turn in order to win. Say 5 objectives arranged into a cross or X on the board, and players need to hold 3 to get 1 point that turn, 4 to get 2 points or 5 to get three points. Kill points could be calculated as 1 for every 5 wounds a unit has (units with less than 5 count as 5 for the purpose of scoring).
which means any elite army that has problems with killing a lot of stuff per turn, is going to be ending games with zero VPs from time to time.
Why not just play one of the million alternative activation miniatures games out there?
Let 40K be the game for people that don't like alternative activation (which are far more of a rarity to begin with .. if anything, we need more non-AA games on the market, not less).
well first of all probably in most places in the world you can play w40k, but you can't play other games, or there is like 4-5 people playing them. And second of all, the game does require some tweeks or changes. Either to the rules sets or the the army rules, because there can't be armies that deal with it easily and others that can't, without getting anything in return. It is one thing to play against another army, or a better rules set, it is way a different thing to have armies that have to play against the corener stones of the game.
Why? A similar sort of system of hold and kill is used in ITC and other similar formats just find. If anything scoring each turn keeps players from turtling too much
auticus wrote: I just wish 40k didn't feel like MtG at all.
Agreed. Magic is a great game, and I play every week, but I want a battle with 40k., not stacking card synergies. 40k doesn't even have half the interaction a game of Magic does!
Maybe because IGOUGO causes turns to be 30+ minutes.
Thats more of an issue with rules bloat then IGOUGO, Kings of War handles 40k amount of models and IGOUGO without slowing down to a crawl.
And I would say AA would slow down 40k even more in it's current state. In a AA game you have to re-evaluate your plan every activation, while in a IGOUGO game you can stick to a plan for your entire turn.
You mean you have to think for a minute about evaluating if your original plan is a good idea? OH NO!
That's literally the worst complaint against AA so far. I'm almost impressed you decided to use it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sunny Side Up wrote: Why not just play one of the million alternative activation miniatures games out there?
Let 40K be the game for people that don't like alternative activation (which are far more of a rarity to begin with .. if anything, we need more non-AA games on the market, not less).
Maybe because more and more designers are realizing how bad IGOUGO is for wargames? Who would've thunk it?
amanita wrote: I don't think 40K needs alternating activation. AA simply introduces other problems and tends to slow game play down which is anathema to an already somewhat bloated game system. The problem is that 40K allows too many phases or too much activity per side per turn.
We play 40K with a Reaction Phase whereas the defender has the possibility to either move slightly or shoot at half strength at nearby enemy units (no overwatch). It breaks up the block of phases each side has without compromising tactical execution.
I've played AA games, and they aren't inherently any more tactical or realistic than IGOUGO. But I do understand that 40K has long exacerbated the worst qualities of IGOUGO, prompting gamers to look for alternatives.
How in the hell is AA any slower than IGOUGO? I'm doing stuff around the same time my opponent is with AA. In IGOUGO I wait half an hour.
You tell me which is ACTUALLY slower.
Given amanita didn't say that AAturns were slower - which is what you referenced with your "half hour" assertion - it is possible that it is game length under AA which is being referenced.
And I could understand decision paralysis being more of an issue in AA games than IGOUGO games, as you have to figure out what makes the most sense to activate next, as opposed to knowing you can activate anything on your side, in the order that you see fit. The only exception to that I'm aware of in 40k at the minute would be the CC phase, where you do have to decide the order in which units will fight.
Final point - you are AWARE that using RANDOM block capital WORDS doesn't really help your ATTEMPTS at DEBATE, right? Shouting into the void convinces no-one, especially not the void.
>Interactive Game where you take a minute to decide if your original plan is a good idea
>Wait half an hour and then see what's left of your original plan
Good one, dude. These arguments against AA are almost surrealistic
40k works great with alternating actions, I've had a blast with it by using a modified Bolt Action -style system. It really doesn't require too much fiddling with and just works. Auras, orders, psionics... had no problems. CoD terrain rules used to fullest also help, as does playing all sizes between 500-2000. And I'm not a tournament player either, my force is being lovingly crafted through the years while I mull over narrative scenarios
While everyone can like what they like, personally I find it somewhat odd why folks would want to stay in the IGOUGO paradigm for any non-nostalgic reason. Ones presented in this thread haven't been too convincing from game design or play experience, given that we probably want to leave most of the rules text otherwise intact. Games like Kings of War or even Warhammer Fantasy get away with it, because rank and flank games are more often about shimmying your lines about and setting puzzles for your opponent than they are about straight up damaging their forces. A core action of KoW might be "right, that's my bid to taunt you forwards into my trap, what's your answer?" whereas in 40k it's "right, so this unit moves to position and tries to remove 50% from that unit". A shooting game is more fast paced in its actions, if not playing time, and every unit of action more directly hurts your opponents ability to contribute to the game. IGOUGO compounds the issue and reduces the agency of the player, whereas with AA you can counter continuously and the game flows nicely with less gamey shenanigans or huge swings in the players' capabilities.
As for suggestions of just playing Apocalypse, it's a different game. It is a good game and I urge folks to play it (especially with 6 mm miniatures), but it is a step above into company levels from the nice platoon skirmish that AA40k can offer.
I have nothing against AA per se, and I would be fine if 40K moved to that providing it was done well. I just don't think it such an panacea that many people seem to think. It has its own share of problems and 40K's issues could be fixed under IGOUGO paradigm as well.
Crimson wrote: I have nothing against AA per se, and I would be fine if 40K moved to that providing it was done well. I just don't think it such an panacea that many people seem to think. It has its own share of problems and 40K's issues could be fixed under IGOUGO paradigm as well.
Crimson wrote: I have nothing against AA per se, and I would be fine if 40K moved to that providing it was done well. I just don't think it such an panacea that many people seem to think. It has its own share of problems and 40K's issues could be fixed under IGOUGO paradigm as well.
That is if GW wanted to actually fix issues.
Yeah sure. And thus I don't think they would fare any better with AA.
I can see them moving to an AA system. A very bare basic one. I think overall the design strategy is to keep the game as open to as many people as possible. The more complicated rules are, the less open it is to everyone.
I would consider playing 40k again if it flushed IGO UGO.
Crimson wrote: I have nothing against AA per se, and I would be fine if 40K moved to that providing it was done well. I just don't think it such an panacea that many people seem to think. It has its own share of problems and 40K's issues could be fixed under IGOUGO paradigm as well.
It would help issues without needing to change several codices and adding several more Strats. As already pointed out, the 1st turn Cover Strat is broken in concept to begin with.
I think UGOIGO is a problem, but there are a million other solutions for every problem it creates other than AA. AA would be pretty awkward for aura characters and would benefit players that can make one activation count for a lot versus players that need more activations to get through their army. Some rules like auras just work, while other players would have to activate all their support characters first before they'd be able to get around to their units that are getting buffed. Oh you MWBD that unit? Yeah, I'm going to point my hellblasters at them before they get to shoot, now your MWBD is wasted.
Firstly, I think auras were a horrible idea to begin with and should be replaced in 9th edition (IMO single-target abilities like MWBD would be vastly better for the game).
Second, other games that use AA often have characters that allow an extra unit activation. So with the example of a Necron Overlord using MWBD, the ability could be tweaked such that the unit buffed by MWBD then gets to activate as soon as the Overlord's activation ends.
Dysartes wrote: Given amanita didn't say that AAturns were slower - which is what you referenced with your "half hour" assertion - it is possible that it is game length under AA which is being referenced.
And I could understand decision paralysis being more of an issue in AA games than IGOUGO games, as you have to figure out what makes the most sense to activate next, as opposed to knowing you can activate anything on your side, in the order that you see fit. The only exception to that I'm aware of in 40k at the minute would be the CC phase, where you do have to decide the order in which units will fight.
Final point - you are AWARE that using RANDOM block capital WORDS doesn't really help your ATTEMPTS at DEBATE, right? Shouting into the void convinces no-one, especially not the void.
Yes, AA turns tend to take longer than IGOUGO turns. This is pretty much an indisputable fact.
That said, the increased amount of interplay between players means that you can achieve a satisfying outcome in fewer turns. One turn in IGOUGO is one player reacting to deployment, and then the other player reacting to that, and then you're done. One turn in AA is, depending on the armies, anywhere between 5 and 20 rounds of back and forth play and counterplay.
Really if 40K managed to strip out the constant rerolls, that alone would more than offset the time penalty incurred by AA.
Sunny Side Up wrote: Let 40K be the game for people that don't like alternative activation (which are far more of a rarity to begin with
There's a reason for that. Just saying. Traditional wargames (as in, hex and counter) started to escape the IGOUGO paradigm in the late 80s, with various AA systems producing a better play experience for many settings, and miniatures wargames have been catching up.
There's lots of ways to do AA, too. There's straight AA, as in Apoc or Kill Team. Then there's token-based with selective activation, like Bolt Action. Or totally token-based (where the unit you draw activates), like in Nations At War/World At War. You have phase-based AA (more of a hybrid with IGOUGO), like in GW's Lord of the Rings game. And then you have IGOUGO systems that incorporate AA elements, like the reaction systems in Infinity or Starship Troopers, or the active/reactive system in Dust Warfare.
There are a few settings where IGOUGO makes for a better play experience, primarily large-scale Ancients or medieval fantasy games. But those, in turn, pin their decision space on unreliable C&C mechanics, coupled with an emphasis on maneuver- 40K does not (actually, if you want a good example of this style, check out Epic). There are also games where MTG-esque comboing is intended by design, such as Warmachine, where the ability to perfectly synchronize your forces with no risk of the other player being able to respond is considered a feature rather than a bug.
40K's style of IGOUGO doesn't benefit the game. It's just a carryover from an earlier era.
I think that 40k and AOS both are designed like warmachine. I think it is a huge feature that its fanbase loves being able to synchronize their forces with zero risk of a response.
A turnstructure like Lotr would go a long way of making 40K more interactive. There's a reason the system is basically unchanged since 2003, it has GWs best rules.
I like 8th Edition and see few of the problems many people on dakka like to complain about, but its turn structure should really change, right now the CC phase is the most interesting one because you can react and need to be careful which unit to use first, while in the shooting phase one is usually just watching. Gets annoying when you play against Tau who can do a lot of overwatch shenanigans in your assault phase while you'll have to watch them mark and shoot for 40 minutes .
To make it worse some players actually prefer tables with little to no terrain..
...and will then complain about getting tabled by shooty armies in the first turn.
Was in my local GW today, saw a poor GK player playing on a 6x4 board with sparse terrain on it. Dude didn't even last 2 turns v new SMs. The terrain (or lack thereof) was a massive factor in this. All the SM player did was sit there and roll dice.
And I could understand decision paralysis being more of an issue in AA games than IGOUGO games, as you have to figure out what makes the most sense to activate next, as opposed to knowing you can activate anything on your side, in the order that you see fit. The only exception to that I'm aware of in 40k at the minute would be the CC phase, where you do have to decide the order in which units will fight.
Although it is an IGOUGO game, the decision paralysis in WMH is quite prevalent. I've seen people near shut down (even with Deathclock) trying to work out what order to activate things in late in the game.
ClockworkZion wrote: Mulling it over, I think blending the two methods might work. Something like Player A does their movement phase, then player B, then player A and B alternatively activate their psykers, then alternate activation for shooting, then A has their fight phase, then B has their fight phase.
That does not work.
It's called alternate phases, and leads to the dude going second to just hide.
You either go full AA or you get an even worse ruleset.
Then why does it work in LOTR? Genuine question- not played that game in a long while.
We used it once it think. Urban Conquest was fairly avg for its really high price D:
Oh, the joys of sarcasm without tone of voice to convey it.......
all over the walls has created a masterpiece worthy of putting in a museum. We can speculate about why they are wrong, but in the end they're still wrong.
.