I am a TO for 40K , so this is not an unabashed anti GW rant. Formations are awful , I`ve seen first hand how players without any knowledge of tactics , lists , target priority etc. can show up and win with a net list. GW doesn't even play test individual units, never mind how they work in concert with each other. I hope GW does AOS40K with war scrolls and no points. That way the gaming community can come up with their own point system , free rules , free war scrolls. I`m not complaining -- less money on rule books means more money for minis. Look at the good work Dakka members are doing here in regard to points and a few rules tweaks. I can`t wait to try out a streamlined rule system with the points system from guys here combined with the war scrolls.
40K has become less and less about tactics and more and more about running the most broken combinations to beak the game. A 10 year old could show up with a net list formation and do well. Mind you this is coming for a guy with thousands of dollars invested in it and truly loves the fluff and minis.
Horrible game mechanics:
1: Summoning
2: 2 up rerollable
3: Allies is an excuse for abuse never mind CTA --- whatever my army is missing let`s take Tau
4: Physic phase takes too long and is too OP
First thing you have to understand is 40k is not a good tournament game. Your trying to pound the square peg in the round hole. Never was meant to be played in tournaments and never will be. It is a good game with a group of friends who think alike.
Yeah, the net-decks... I mean net-lists are crazy for that. As a TO though, you have the option of just saying "no formations". It's your tournament - run it how you want! I agree with you that formations are not good for casual games, but for tournaments I think formations are just another layer of the OP-cake, and if you took them away, then something else becomes equally as broken.
My tournaments are waaaay toned down to encourage the average guy to come out and play. Our guys that come out are not WAAC in any way. We have a great mix. Our events are more of a gathering to get in 3 games with different people make new friends and have fun. Most of the WAAC guys won`t come to our events. Unfortunately with 40K as is the guys from my own club won`t even play anymore for a weekly gaming. I`m talking guys playing since 2nd with tons of money invested. I
Chute82 wrote: First thing you have to understand is 40k is not a good tournament game. Your trying to pound the square peg in the round hole. Never was meant to be played in tournaments and never will be. It is a good game with a group of friends who think alike.
4th and 5th edition 40k would disagree with you there...
Even 4th and 5th were only "tournament good" compared to editions that came before and after. It's never really been intended in that application, however.
I honestly have a lot more fun doing things like campaigns and coming up with some kind of back story than tournament play. people seem to get to serious about the game when there is a prize.
Sad? 40k is in an excellent place at the moment. The only sad thing I see is the vocal minority going full re-re over the recent additions to the game.
I still think the game would be a thousand times more tourney-friendly if formations were banned, and maybe have allies -have- to take an allied detachment. No CAD's or special detachments without being the primary army, unless like assassins etc they can't fill an allied detachment foc.
would it be perfect? No. There's a few more things that need to be fixed like having summoning require the caster to upkeep the unit with the same amount of warp dice used to summon them every round, getting rid of toe-in-cover benefits for mc/gc's, maybe reign in the scatbikes a bit etc. but I think it would be a real breath of fresh air to the tourney scene. I'm pretty tired of going through 2 day events seeing nothing but eldar CAD's, necron decurions, and a few of the new "all the free points you can handle" formations. Im even playing one of them and I think it's BS.
Just keep reminding yourself: Game Workshop exists to sell over-priced miniatures, nothing more.
Once you accept that the company does not exist to create Rules designed for Tournaments, or any coherent Rules for the game what-so-ever, it becomes a lot easier to accept their flaws. As it is your tournament, there is nothing preventing you from putting anything you believe is needed to 'balance' the game into play. Just post a complete list of Rule changes and other 'fixes' somewhere where your players will see them, so they can make an informed decision if they wish to take part in your tournament and abide by them.
Psienesis wrote: Even 4th and 5th were only "tournament good" compared to editions that came before and after. It's never really been intended in that application, however.
But GW itself organised tournaments at one point...
So many solid releases to date since 7th dropped. I remember my armies languishing in the 4th-5th-6th edition torpor of old models, old books, old everything.
As a game for balanced, competitive play, ok you got me there, but as mentioned there's a lot you have control over as a TO.
Psienesis wrote: Even 4th and 5th were only "tournament good" compared to editions that came before and after. It's never really been intended in that application, however.
But GW itself organised tournaments at one point...
And went on record saying it was a mistake, as were "equal points, straight-up non-scenario battle-reports" in the White Dwarf.
Jervis Johnson in the 90s or so wrote:So, something clearly needs to be done to teach players that tournament style play has its place, but it is a place well down in the pecking order of what constitutes a really good game.
Aren't you a TO? House rule that shizzle! Seriously, with the ITC, NOVA, and BAO formats openly available, there's no excuse not to either use one of them or make your own house rules.
While there are some good ideas in Age of Sigmar, the ruleset is not one of them. Just ask the people who used to play Fantasy in their board section.
You say you don't like formations, but argue in favor of throwing out points and army construction altogether. Formations are a fundamental part of the game now, and not all formations are created equal. Sure, there are some specific formations that could arguably be banned (Canoptek Harvest, War Conclave, Demi-Company) but for the most part formations have given people a reason to take units that were previously considered sub-optimal.
Here's some fixes for those broken mechanics:
1. Put a limit on how many units can be summoned each turn. Also, specify FMC's start on the ground.
2. Change 2+ re-rollable to 2+/4+.
3. Ban CtA allies, put limits on how many allies one can take.
4. Put a cap on the number of warp charges that can be generated per turn. My vote is 10-12.
You said you were a TO; in tournament play, the rules are at your disposal. If you want a more tournament-friendly ruleset, just make one. GW certainly won't.
Chute82 wrote: First thing you have to understand is 40k is not a good tournament game. Your trying to pound the square peg in the round hole. Never was meant to be played in tournaments and never will be. It is a good game with a group of friends who think alike.
4th and 5th edition 40k would disagree with you there...
And considering that the tournament scene is absolutely exploding right now...
We're actually boycotting a local TO for that exact reason. He insists on requiring the old FOC, and to harlequin players he says 'screw you'. So, with so many alternative events popping up left and right thanks to the ITC, we'll just go elsewhere.
Jervis Johnson in the 90s or so wrote:So, something clearly needs to be done to teach players that tournament style play has its place, but it is a place well down in the pecking order of what constitutes a really good game.
I rather suspect that people who enjoy tournament-style play would disagree...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
DarkLink wrote: We're actually boycotting a local TO for that exact reason. He insists on requiring the old FOC, and to harlequin players he says 'screw you'. So, with so many alternative events popping up left and right thanks to the ITC, we'll just go elsewhere.
This is the danger faced by TOs who take it on themselves to alter the rules. However much people may decry the current state of the rules, there is a chunk of the player base who will steadfastly resist any change imposed on it by anything other than the game's own publisher. Any attempt to tweak the game to make it better is met with the insistence that this modified game 'isn't really Warhammer 40K anymore...'
This, despite the fact that the idea that the rules are ultimately all negotiable is one of the central tenets of the game.
It helps, of course, if a TO has a fairly constant crowd who attend their events, as this then means that discussion is possible to establish what most of those players want, and what changes they'll find acceptable.
jeffersonian000 wrote: Sad? 40k is in an excellent place at the moment. The only sad thing I see is the vocal minority going full re-re over the recent additions to the game.
SJ
Hrm, it's apparent the dissatisfaction is at an all time high. There's always rumblings, but never quite at the pace we've been seeing. In my own experience, there's fewer people playing now than in 6th and far less than at the height of 5th (our last tournament at my local got 10 people, when we used to routinely pull in 20+ in 2010), and that's having played in multiple different metro areas for years. GW's inflation-adjusted revenue trending downward for the last 11 years (down almost 50% from its peak), at least the last time I saw financials, is a rather clear indication that there's fewer people playing GW stuff in general, particularly when coupled with vastly increased prices.
Simply hand-waving it away as all small minorities of angry internet nerds would seem to have little evidence, particularly when GW has also just been forced to totally reboot another system to keep it alive.
I haven't played in a single 40k event but what is so bad about "tournament mentality"? Having a clear ruleset that allows games being completed within a reasonable time frame seems good for everyone. If anything the whole "you can just house rule it" makes everything worse. GW has no incentive to fix anything cause' "the golden rule". I'm no professional game designer and I'm not being payed to fix a broken product. It's like gw wants me to be a flashgit.
The thing is, to a certain extent Jervis isn't wrong. 40K was designed to be a fun little game played with friends over a beer. And that's the sort of game that he wanted to write, and that he wanted to promote.
And that's fine... right up until it isn't.
Because at the end of the day, 40K is a commercial product, and needs to adapt to what the customers actually want if it is going to remain successful. GW acknowledged this by introducing tournament support, although they tried keeping things lighter and fluffier by introducing 'soft' scores into the mix. 'Ard Boys was an acknowledgement that this light and fluffy approach wasn't for everybody... and for a time, GW were offering a product that, while not perfect, at least seemed to be trying to cater to everybody.
And then sometime during 5th edition, they appear to have decided that this was all a mistake, and that they needed to wind the clock back to when 40K was just a fun game for playing with your friends.
Which is a perfectly reasonable thing to do if you have market research showing that this is what the majority of customers want... and a much riskier thing to do if you do no market research and are just guessing about what those customers want.
And I think we're seeing what happens when that risk doesn't pay off...
Says 40k is an unbalanced mess. Proceeds to say it should be more like AOS.
I dont think you understand what makes a game goid for tournaments.
GW sucks at balancing points. People are eager to blame points instead of poor game design.
I'm not gonna be the first person to point this out, but some armies are obviously designed to be used as allies. In fact every Imperial army that isn't IG or SM was basically designed from the ground up to be used as supplemental allies or components of an "army of the imperium" force. The Sisters are the only other Imperial force that has ever really been fleshed out. Skitarii and Cult are designed to go hand in hand as allies, inquisitors are made to supplement grey knights and sisters, grey knights work on their own but are still pretty half-baked, Stormtroopers/tempestus have always been guys who fill in the ranks of other armies rather than fight alone. As for Imperial Knights and Assassins, need I say anything? Eldar Harlequins have basically always been available as a stand-alone army but have never, ever been marketed as such. If you don't allow allies with the full range of detachments and formations then you're really just banning a large percentage of players and punishing them for buying Citadel's latest and coolest models.
If you want to restrict ally-cheese and multiple detachment/formation cheese, just put a limit on the overall number of detachments/formations allowed. Limit it to two or three depending on game size.
As for the overall topic of this thread, don't be silly. GW games are not meant for tournaments. You want a tournament, go play Pokemon or Chess. You want to stick cool plastic robots on a table and make pew pew noises with your mouth, play 40k.
40k is a sandbox to play in.
The only way I get it to work is treat it like an RPG... ehrm, "play a scenario" with a back story and added details and environmental effects.
Everything is going towards a "we all win" style of play, the days of "rogue-like" play is not readily catered to for that nostalgic 30+yrs crowd.
Bring anything at all "efficient" on points and you will be shunned and labeled a heartless fluff killer.
There are others who cannot be negotiated with because they can take "whatever I want within the rules".
You want balance and tactics, you need to look more toward chess, at least you do not have to worry about a turn one tabling.
This is one thing I like about AoS - same balance issues, without the pretext of being a 'competitive game'.
I remember all those people back in 6th claiming that 1850pts no forgeworld one detachment was somehow remotely a healthy tournament game. Noticed they've all gone a bit quiet since then
The only way I get it to work is treat it like an RPG... ehrm, "play a scenario" with a back story and added details and environmental effects.
Everything is going towards a "we all win" style of play, the days of "rogue-like" play is not readily catered to for that nostalgic 30+yrs crowd.
The problem here is that other rulesets can do the same thing a lot faster and more efficiently, with tactics and balance to boot. 40k not only fails at game balance but the game it produces is incredibly slow and clunky, taking 4 hours to pull off what another ruleset could do in two, and generally being little more than resolving how two lists match up with little actual player input.
Best thing to do with this game is put a bullet in its head and outsource the rules design to another, more competent company.
In a decade plus of playing 40k my two cent is that I've never thought of it as competitively balanced. 4th and 5th might have been better but I say they're "meh" compared to other systems now available.
Honestly, people will complain regardless of GW "fixing" the current system or trashing it for a AoS reboot. I do have a problem with 2+ rerolls but only en masse " which I don't think I've had the pleasure of facing yet" on ICs I dont see too much of a problem but that's about it. I like where 40k is at right now, sure I havw some complaints but overall their minor and I still enjoy myself either as hobbyist or general.
Haldir wrote: ....Horrible game mechanics: 1: Summoning 2: 2 up rerollable 3: Allies is an excuse for abuse never mind CTA --- whatever my army is missing let`s take Tau 4: Physic phase takes too long and is too OP
So many others...... Come on GW -- AOS40K!!
I find it funny that you want AoS40K yet none of the horrible game mechanics you listed would get fixed by AoS.
OP, you need to re-evaluate how to run a tournament man. If you REALLY hate the way 7th-ed detachments work (every army can do it, and they all have their own dirty tricks), it's your event so do as you please. You don't have to run RAW to run a tournament.
-edit-
5th was balanced? Draigowing and razorspam comes to mind lol
jeffersonian000 wrote:Sad? 40k is in an excellent place at the moment. The only sad thing I see is the vocal minority going full re-re over the recent additions to the game.
SJ
JinxDragon wrote:Just keep reminding yourself:
Game Workshop exists to sell over-priced miniatures, nothing more.
Chute82 wrote:First thing you have to understand is 40k is not a good tournament game. Your trying to pound the square peg in the round hole. Never was meant to be played in tournaments and never will be. It is a good game with a group of friends who think alike.
Wow, I want to congratulate you guys on getting a full hat trick on one page. I do believe that is a first in a 40k rant thread. Really good job.
Robisagg wrote: OP, you need to re-evaluate how to run a tournament man. If you REALLY hate the way 7th-ed detachments work (every army can do it, and they all have their own dirty tricks), it's your event so do as you please. You don't have to run RAW to run a tournament.
-edit-
5th was balanced? Draigowing and razorspam comes to mind lol
5th edition wasn't perfectly balanced, it had very real issues.
In hindsight however, and I continually find myself surprised to say this, 5th was probably the best core ruleset the game has ever had. Far from perfect, but wayyyyyyyyyyy closer to the mark than what the game has become at this point.
The second paragraph says it all for me.
"I have to say that this attitude is not one I like at all.
Tournament style games have their place of course, and I have nothing against them, per se.
They are easy to set up and organise, don't require much pre-preparation,
and have the advantage of being playable against a total stranger at a club or event."
The very game attribute that allowed GW to grow into the company it is today, is the thing he wants to get rid of. This type of game paid for his lifestyle.
His vision of 40k, would never have grown into the ubiquitous game it is today.
jeffersonian000 wrote: Sad? 40k is in an excellent place at the moment. The only sad thing I see is the vocal minority going full re-re over the recent additions to the game.
SJ
Have you played with IG in the last 2 years?
I will never understand why good game rules are bad, why making all armies playable is bad. Which people are having the most fun in w40k? Those that have books with more actualy usable units. But somehow that is also bad. In GW minds w40k games should look like this. Two 12-16year old males arrive in the same place with their 10k+ model collection and start a MTG draft style army build up. What follows is supposed beer in take , you know for those 12-16year old that are the focus of w40k sales beer is important, and pretzels, more then 2 presidents almost choked on those, and pew pew sounds and marveling how master level painted those collections are.
They are easy to set up and organise, don't require much pre-preparation,
and have the advantage of being playable against a total stranger at a club or event.
Easy to ogranise and no preparations. Well maybe if you have something like warhammer world. And somehow this dude things that playing against a stranger is not the ideal thing to do. I am sure that playing the same people over and over again, is the thing people want. Probably why those smaller WFB communities generate so many sales for them, as their happy collectors were swarming to buy new stuff to show it to their old opponents.
insaniak wrote: The thing is, to a certain extent Jervis isn't wrong. 40K was designed to be a fun little game played with friends over a beer. And that's the sort of game that he wanted to write, and that he wanted to promote.
And that's fine... right up until it isn't.
Because at the end of the day, 40K is a commercial product, and needs to adapt to what the customers actually want if it is going to remain successful. GW acknowledged this by introducing tournament support, although they tried keeping things lighter and fluffier by introducing 'soft' scores into the mix. 'Ard Boys was an acknowledgement that this light and fluffy approach wasn't for everybody... and for a time, GW were offering a product that, while not perfect, at least seemed to be trying to cater to everybody.
And then sometime during 5th edition, they appear to have decided that this was all a mistake, and that they needed to wind the clock back to when 40K was just a fun game for playing with your friends.
Which is a perfectly reasonable thing to do if you have market research showing that this is what the majority of customers want... and a much riskier thing to do if you do no market research and are just guessing about what those customers want.
And I think we're seeing what happens when that risk doesn't pay off...
Summarises it pretty neatly. However, I kinda think it's a cop out from Johnson (I think he reversed his views later), as you do need some way of measuring armies against each other so you can have even match up, then adjust them if you want them to be different.
Play tyranids against fcrce weapons and tell me what you think of as OP .Yes GW should AOS40K ,mthat is provide a loose framework of rules that we the community can tweak to a much better game than JERVIS and the minions ever could. Just look at the great work being done here by people devising points for the war scrolls.
When guys playing since 2nd , with 1000's in mini's have no interest in a weekly game you know something is wrong. For the event I've run the feedback has been overwhelmingly positive . The one event I had to shut down at 20 for a sellout and could have got almost 30. Key I think is that the missions I deseigned resonated well with the players. Again by toning down the game I got guys to come out that would normally never come to an event. Does anyone not agree that for a 5-7 turn game 40K is not overtly convoluted???
Another thing is from studying the AOS Waar Scrolls , magic seems to add flavor to the game not provide an avenue for abuse and domination as 40K does. Invisibility , force , summoning 2 up re-roll , really???? Again I love playing 40K but to have a mutually enjoyable experience you have to put some serious work into tweaking the rules
I.E. -- 40K 70.00 rule book that needs tons of tweaking -- 48.00 codices with broken rules and formations that need tons of tweaking .
AOS -- loose framework of rules that needs Tons of tweaking -- FREE
GW need to take a leaf out of WotC's book and hire some intelligent people who actually understand balanced rulesets, a decent professional development team, and some playtesters.
jeffersonian000 wrote: Sad? 40k is in an excellent place at the moment. The only sad thing I see is the vocal minority going full re-re over the recent additions to the game.
Haldir wrote: Formations are awful , I`ve seen first hand how players without any knowledge of tactics , lists , target priority etc. can show up and win with a net list. A 10 year old could show up with a net list formation and do well.
Well... only if he is playing against other ten year olds, I think you are stretching this point.
Big agreement here. The one caveat is that if you have the money...
... but, if you have the money, 40k is in something of a golden age at the moment. Regular releases, attention to the minor armies (such as with Codex spin-offs), the Mechanicus are out, the formations are giving lots of flavour above and beyond the 'standard' Codex rules, and if that is not enough for you, well, Forge World are expanding armies in all sorts of directions.
jeffersonian000 wrote: Sad? 40k is in an excellent place at the moment. The only sad thing I see is the vocal minority going full re-re over the recent additions to the game.
SJ
Maybe if you are an Eldar player.
Uh, Jeffersonian seems to be a Grey Knights player. That means that in recent years he has watched his army degenerate from broken to worthless. But you wouldn't understand since you're obviously the sort of person who only has fun at a game when he's winning.
Not sure about the Overpowered part, but I agree 100% that the new Psychic Phase takes too long. Its also a subgame that breaks up the flow of the game, seems very out of place like playing a game of Yahtzee in the middle of a game of 40k....its just not very fun, IMO. I preferred the 6th edition Psychic mechanics, and tbh, I wouldn't be upset if Pyschic powers were just removed from the game altogether.
Formations and superformations are awesome. It's become our favorite part of the game, and *as long as both sides have them* they can be very balanced. The special formations and Decurion-style formation-within-a-formation give you the ability to be fluffy and effective at the same time, and play iconic (or envisioned) armies without wacky combinations or repetitive units. I do wish formations were more balanced with each other; that is, some formations suck, while others are really awesome.
The Post-2015 factions (taking Harlequins as an add-on to Eldar/DE rather than a complete faction, since they're incomplete) are great, and relatively well-balanced to each other.
I'm aware some people don't like allies, but it's universally the people who don't have good allies. That's a problem with weak factions, not a problem with the system.
Sure, psychic phase can take too long if you have a lot of Psykers. But I wouldn't take them out -- they're an intrinsic part of the game, and with the new librarian and warlock conclave formations, there's interesting meat to those bones.
I can't speak for tournaments, because I'm totally disinterested in them, but from a competitive-with-friends standpoint, the game has never been better for us.
Have to disagree, psychic phase is usually the quickest phase in the entire game. It's a rare occurrence if it takes more than 10 minutes in the games I play, while I've seen people take more than half an hour just for the movement phase.
The things that bothers me most is random psychic powers, random warlord traits. I want to be able to build an army on some assurances.
Formations I don't mind, just limit them for the tournament. I think that's best for all your annoyances, limit them. All tournaments I've played at (ie nothing big and major) have had some limitations.
Not sure about the Overpowered part, but I agree 100% that the new Psychic Phase takes too long. Its also a subgame that breaks up the flow of the game, seems very out of place like playing a game of Yahtzee in the middle of a game of 40k....its just not very fun, IMO. I preferred the 6th edition Psychic mechanics, and tbh, I wouldn't be upset if Pyschic powers were just removed from the game altogether.
Well invisibility is a pain in the ass.
The psychic phase i feel is fine. i just dont like the system of pooling dice. especially against pink bubble gum hoards. seriously what are you going to do with 40 power dice...
The psychic phase i feel is fine. i just dont like the system of pooling dice. especially against pink bubble gum hoards. seriously what are you going to do with 40 power dice...
Another problem I have with the new Psychic Phase is it used to feel like individual models on the board were casting Psychic Powers. With this warp charge pool, it seems like the dude with the Led Zeppelin t-shirt eating Doritos across the table from you is casting Psychic Powers.
Anyway, just not a fan. I don't think it ruins the game or anything.
jeffersonian000 wrote: Sad? 40k is in an excellent place at the moment. The only sad thing I see is the vocal minority going full re-re over the recent additions to the game.
SJ
Maybe if you are an Eldar player.
Uh, Jeffersonian seems to be a Grey Knights player. That means that in recent years he has watched his army degenerate from broken to worthless. But you wouldn't understand since you're obviously the sort of person who only has fun at a game when he's winning.
jeffersonian000 wrote: Sad? 40k is in an excellent place at the moment. The only sad thing I see is the vocal minority going full re-re over the recent additions to the game.
SJ
Maybe if you are an Eldar player.
Uh, Jeffersonian seems to be a Grey Knights player. That means that in recent years he has watched his army degenerate from broken to worthless. But you wouldn't understand since you're obviously the sort of person who only has fun at a game when he's winning.
Uh, Martel seems to be a Blood Angel player and they're in a far worse position than Grey Knights (Dreadknights are still broken). You wouldn't understand as you're obviously a poppy pants.
I think this is the most fun edition of 40k since 2nd edition. My only real gripe is the extreme cost of the models when compared to other games. Note I do not play tournaments anymore, my last was in 5th but the game itself is great fun. I think the fun factor dropped like a rock for 3rd-5th, and picked up in 6th and got even better in 7th. A shift to an AoS type game will push me to the other systems out there. That shift was worse than the flat out dishonest boning they gave us when they went from 2nd to 3rd. Still pissed I didn't learn my lesson and sell off my huge OnG and DE armies. They would probably screw us over again if they did that with 40k and not tell anyone except a random rumor now and then.
I don't know or care which army you prefer to play. But I started a thread asking for GK advice and you came in and crapped all over it, going full-on brotard about how easy GK are to defeat. And now you're here whining about how they're too tough to beat! Obviously you don't play the game at all. You're just a 4chan troll who wandered on in here to bug the rest of us. Now piss off, son.
As for that Jefferson fellow, he at least offered constructive criticism in my thread instead of being all "LOL I CAN PWN UR STUPID ARMY NOOB"
But obviously you know him better than me, because he's obviously been crushing you in argument after argument on this forum for years. Obviously he's a better player and more fun to play against too, but since you don't seem to be a gamer at all that much is obvious.
When did I say how hard they are to beat? GK additions to the game are NOT what I'm talking about. And I couldn't give a crap less about the DK. They basically volunteer to die. The opposite of Riptides, windriders, and WK.
" because he's obviously been crushing you in argument after argument on this forum for years"
Uh, Martel seems to be a Blood Angel player and they're in a far worse position than Grey Knights (Dreadknights are still broken).
You're going to keep trying to weasel your way out of this because you're a sad little troll with no life and no gaming skills, but I'm ending this argument pre-emptively by putting you on ignore. Goodbye, troll.
Uh, Martel seems to be a Blood Angel player and they're in a far worse position than Grey Knights (Dreadknights are still broken).
You're going to keep trying to weasel your way out of this because you're a sad little troll with no life and no gaming skills, but I'm ending this argument pre-emptively by putting you on ignore. Goodbye, troll.
I don't know or care which army you prefer to play. But I started a thread asking for GK advice and you came in and crapped all over it, going full-on brotard about how easy GK are to defeat. And now you're here whining about how they're too tough to beat! Obviously you don't play the game at all. You're just a 4chan troll who wandered on in here to bug the rest of us. Now piss off, son.
As for that Jefferson fellow, he at least offered constructive criticism in my thread instead of being all "LOL I CAN PWN UR STUPID ARMY NOOB"
But obviously you know him better than me, because he's obviously been crushing you in argument after argument on this forum for years. Obviously he's a better player and more fun to play against too, but since you don't seem to be a gamer at all that much is obvious.
So having read that thread, he was giving advice on how he counters GK, then he got challenged on how often he beats them, to which he replied, I think you're drastically going overboard on what was said, if you think that was "LOL I CAN PWN UR STUPID ARMY NOOB". You may also want to check rule 1.
Anyhoo, 6th and 7th killed 40k in my area, so I wouldn't know how it's affected tourney play. Was gearing up to investing in a 30k army aswell
Throwing this out there Haldir, but maybe your game attendance is down because you're trying to reinforce old way of playing? I'm hearing the same thing from people now who try to play AoS like it was still Fantasy. It's not the same game that it used to be. If you try to force it to be that, you're not going to have fun.
40k as it is now allows for tons of unique and awesome interactions with allies and formations and unique detachments. Give it a go, start with "small" 1500 point games, and let each other bring some of the new "broken, no fun, won't play!" stuff - you might be surprised!
So having read that thread, he was giving advice on how he counters GK, then he got challenged on how often he beats them, to which he replied, I think you're drastically going overboard on what was said, if you think that was "LOL I CAN PWN UR STUPID ARMY NOOB".
He completely failed to address the actual topic of the thread and offered no specific advice at all. Then he started arguing with another user about how frequently he won games. No facts, statistics or figures, just "I can beat this army very easily." How useful!
Not that it matters, I'm never going to see a post from that user again.
So having read that thread, he was giving advice on how he counters GK, then he got challenged on how often he beats them, to which he replied, I think you're drastically going overboard on what was said, if you think that was "LOL I CAN PWN UR STUPID ARMY NOOB".
He completely failed to address the actual topic of the thread and offered no specific advice at all. Then he started arguing with another user about how frequently he won games. No facts, statistics or figures, just "I can beat this army very easily." How useful!
Not that it matters, I'm never going to see a post from that user again.
Why are you still replying, Martel? I'm not going to read your posts. You are far and away the most annoying person here. You seem to hate 40k a lot, why don't you find a better hobby?
Well that was a mature and insightful exchange from all parties involved.
On topic...
The biggest issue with 40k is that it has a lot of good ideas, and then really gakky implementation.
Fact is, the game can seriously use some help with balancing points and abilities, clearing up vague rules or rules that don't even function, cutting down on useless redundancy, and doing away with most of the random bs that plagues this game.
It also needs to decide what kind of game it is and just be that game. All this pussyfooting about with company level, squad based combat inter mixed with individual model, platoon and skirmish level rules and increasingly shrinking point values and larger and larger models makes the game unwieldly and wonky. If it wants to be a narrative game, then let the player choose what tactical genius their commander is afflicted with that day, or what book the Psyker read that morning. Write a proper campaign system with dozens and dozens of scenarios, some based on in-game fluff, others on general campaign ideas.
Oh, and the prices make me sad. A codex of ~90% recycled fluff, art, model pictures, and rules is not worth $60.
destrucifier wrote: Why are you still replying, Martel? I'm not going to read your posts. You are far and away the most annoying person here. You seem to hate 40k a lot, why don't you find a better hobby?
Because it amuses me. I don't care if you read my posts. I'm having a lot of fun watching you hyperventilate.
Re: Jervis Johnson's article, his rise to prominence, and the obvious long-term impacts it has had on GW's development strategy:
Sure, fine, he and his friends play games in a casual, narrative setting, and they decided to intentionally unbalance and overburden their game systems to throw any semblance of "competitive" play out the window. Yes it's annoying that he/they decided that their style of play was better than the one that actually made them popular. But what really pisses me off about all this is how, in actuality, GW hasn't paid more than the barest lip service to "narrative play" in decades.
If we were really supposed to be "forging narratives" all these years, why not give us any sort of tools to do that? Look at 3rd edition 40k. This was arguably the start of a tiny trend towards streamlined competitive play, but at the same time you'll find the following:
a wide variety of highly thematic symmetric and asymmetric missions, grouped by theme, with clear attackers and defenders
a chart for rolling to determine missions
pretty good instructions for using those missions in a ladder, narrative, or map campaign
a system for handing out experience points to units who survived battles during a campaign, reducing the experience level of units who needed major reinforcements, and spending that experience on neat perks
This built on older games with excellent campaign systems like Necromunda. It provided excellent support for actually running a narrative campaign, especially for those of us who weren't 40 year old professional game designers with decades of experience in historicals to guide us. 3rd edition as a whole could have been tweaked and errata'd into better balance if they liked, and they could have continued to develop an awesome narrative campaign system to go along with it. And the system clearly wasn't intended to be competitive or balanced - but it was ok, because it still provided enough structure to actually forge a f'n narrative.
Nothing GW has done since then has ever come close to providing any sort of structure or tools for narrative play. Instead we get codexes containing useless but arguably flavorful units and options, an overwhelming glut of, random tables, random terrain, random abilities - things that might add color to the game, in some eyes, but didn't do anything for forming an actual narrative. We never got the shovels, the buckets, the water, the molds to build the sandcastle, we just got an ever-increasing pile of dry sand and got told to figure it out. Even things like the Planetary Empires hex set, which should be an ideal tool for narrative play, contained only the barest rules for running a hex campaign - a classic GW offering of incredibly thin rules banged out in 10 minutes over lunch, the kind of ruleset where the player was intended to fill in the gaps. Stuff like that is transparently intended to sell plastic and nothing more.
So in the process of intentionally breaking the game for competitive play, they provided exactly nothing to really support narrative play like they said they wanted to encourage (and AoS seems to be taking that to new extremes). I honestly think there has been major brain-drain and shift in priorities, what with most of the old hands leaving, cost cutting being rampant, and meddling from the sales department to make the rules fit the ever-increasing pace of plastic toy releases. The people who are left are (maybe) less capable than their predecessors, and certainly have less time and freedom to work on any one project. It's all regurgitated fluff, rehashed rules, and half-baked new concepts to hawk toys.
The sad state of 40k, and GW in general, is that at least back in the day, when they had fewer models to sell and lots of clever and passionate writers, they gave you a lot of rules to make a limited number of figures go a long way. These days it's exactly the opposite - they can't be bothered to give you any kind of real gaming system, but they'll sell you a new plastic toy every other week.
So in the process of intentionally breaking the game for competitive play, they provided exactly nothing to really support narrative play like they said they wanted to encourage (and AoS seems to be taking that to new extremes). I honestly think there has been major brain-drain and shift in priorities, what with most of the old hands leaving, cost cutting being rampant, and meddling from the sales department to make the rules fit the ever-increasing pace of plastic toy releases. The people who are left are (maybe) less capable than their predecessors, and certainly have less time and freedom to work on any one project. It's all regurgitated fluff, rehashed rules, and half-baked new concepts to hawk toys.
This is modern-day GW in a nutshell. As some have already observed, they make the toys and basic rules. It's up to you to make the meta-rules. As much as I enjoy the narrative aspect it's really not something that requires a slew of rules and RNG tables. In fact it's really not something that needs to be standardized at all. If GW lets players handle scenario-writing and meta/campaign goals and such on a group-by-group basis, they'll come up with stuff that's better than GW's writing anyhow.
Blacksails wrote: If it wants to be a narrative game, then let the player choose what tactical genius their commander is afflicted with that day, or what book the Psyker read that morning. Write a proper campaign system with dozens and dozens of scenarios, some based on in-game fluff, others on general campaign ideas.
What is stopping you from doing exactly this, other than constant posting of GW negativity at DakkaDakka?
Blacksails wrote: If it wants to be a narrative game, then let the player choose what tactical genius their commander is afflicted with that day, or what book the Psyker read that morning. Write a proper campaign system with dozens and dozens of scenarios, some based on in-game fluff, others on general campaign ideas.
What is stopping you from doing exactly this, other than constant posting of GW negativity at DakkaDakka?
Based off my experience, mutual consent from other players.
Blacksails wrote: If it wants to be a narrative game, then let the player choose what tactical genius their commander is afflicted with that day, or what book the Psyker read that morning. Write a proper campaign system with dozens and dozens of scenarios, some based on in-game fluff, others on general campaign ideas.
What is stopping you from doing exactly this, other than constant posting of GW negativity at DakkaDakka?
Nothing. But the claim that GW's rules are meant for "narrative" games falls flat when all the narrative has to come from the players, since they could do that with any set of rules.
Re: Jervis Johnson's article, his rise to prominence, and the obvious long-term impacts it has had on GW's development strategy:
Sure, fine, he and his friends play games in a casual, narrative setting, and they decided to intentionally unbalance and overburden their game systems to throw any semblance of "competitive" play out the window. Yes it's annoying that he/they decided that their style of play was better than the one that actually made them popular. But what really pisses me off about all this is how, in actuality, GW hasn't paid more than the barest lip service to "narrative play" in decades.
If we were really supposed to be "forging narratives" all these years, why not give us any sort of tools to do that? Look at 3rd edition 40k. This was arguably the start of a tiny trend towards streamlined competitive play, but at the same time you'll find the following:
a wide variety of highly thematic symmetric and asymmetric missions, grouped by theme, with clear attackers and defenders
a chart for rolling to determine missions
pretty good instructions for using those missions in a ladder, narrative, or map campaign
a system for handing out experience points to units who survived battles during a campaign, reducing the experience level of units who needed major reinforcements, and spending that experience on neat perks
This built on older games with excellent campaign systems like Necromunda. It provided excellent support for actually running a narrative campaign, especially for those of us who weren't 40 year old professional game designers with decades of experience in historicals to guide us. 3rd edition as a whole could have been tweaked and errata'd into better balance if they liked, and they could have continued to develop an awesome narrative campaign system to go along with it. And the system clearly wasn't intended to be competitive or balanced - but it was ok, because it still provided enough structure to actually forge a f'n narrative.
Nothing GW has done since then has ever come close to providing any sort of structure or tools for narrative play. Instead we get codexes containing useless but arguably flavorful units and options, an overwhelming glut of, random tables, random terrain, random abilities - things that might add color to the game, in some eyes, but didn't do anything for forming an actual narrative. We never got the shovels, the buckets, the water, the molds to build the sandcastle, we just got an ever-increasing pile of dry sand and got told to figure it out. Even things like the Planetary Empires hex set, which should be an ideal tool for narrative play, contained only the barest rules for running a hex campaign - a classic GW offering of incredibly thin rules banged out in 10 minutes over lunch, the kind of ruleset where the player was intended to fill in the gaps. Stuff like that is transparently intended to sell plastic and nothing more.
So in the process of intentionally breaking the game for competitive play, they provided exactly nothing to really support narrative play like they said they wanted to encourage (and AoS seems to be taking that to new extremes). I honestly think there has been major brain-drain and shift in priorities, what with most of the old hands leaving, cost cutting being rampant, and meddling from the sales department to make the rules fit the ever-increasing pace of plastic toy releases. The people who are left are (maybe) less capable than their predecessors, and certainly have less time and freedom to work on any one project. It's all regurgitated fluff, rehashed rules, and half-baked new concepts to hawk toys.
The sad state of 40k, and GW in general, is that at least back in the day, when they had fewer models to sell and lots of clever and passionate writers, they gave you a lot of rules to make a limited number of figures go a long way. These days it's exactly the opposite - they can't be bothered to give you any kind of real gaming system, but they'll sell you a new plastic toy every other week.
Awesome, awesome post. I still shake my head when certain podcasts hosts use the phrase "forge the narrative" seriously.
CalgarsPimpHand, A perfect summery of the current state of affairs.
In general on the narrative point of view, Rules for Narrative play would be a beautiful addition to this game, if Game Workshop was actually interested in the concept instead of using it as an excuse for poor Rule Writing!
Having ran a few games where I have focused on nothing but a narrative story I will tell you what... they are more fun then anything Game Workshop has put forth to date! This is because you eliminate the whole 'crush your enemy underneath your treads' and replace it with a story that you want your players to see the end of. It allows for much larger maps, creating more then one 'front line' which further encourages the player to look for weak spots and use tactics to break through those lines. Once they do, they are securing objectives that actually make sense and further the narrative being put forth. In particular, these objectives and attacks on the 'front lines' act as good 'triggers' for when reinforcements arrive, when the enemy get orders to change their own positions to counter and/or much more. That is the largest advantage if you ask me, removing the 'omnipresence' that is very heavy in competitive play... if the player moves troops outside of Line-of-Sight to any of your own forces they simply don't respond as if they magically knew the attack was coming!
It is beautiful, and allows for games where small numbers of elite troops are victorious over a much larger enemy... all because they are not piling onto the small elite force simultaneously!
Blacksails wrote: If it wants to be a narrative game, then let the player choose what tactical genius their commander is afflicted with that day, or what book the Psyker read that morning. Write a proper campaign system with dozens and dozens of scenarios, some based on in-game fluff, others on general campaign ideas.
What is stopping you from doing exactly this, other than constant posting of GW negativity at DakkaDakka?
For the same reason a life-long Chevy driver who starts posting on the internet about the deteriorating quality of Chevy cars is under no obligation to physically design and build a better Chevy - it isn't our job, and that doesn't stop us from criticizing it, even if we don't buy their products anymore. I admittedly do tinker with rules now and then, but my actual hobby is playing games, so that's what I do, I play games - including old GW games. There are people out there who can and probably will balance GW's games for them for free, and write really nice campaign supplements, but I'm not one of them, and I don't have to be in order to express an opinion.
CalgarsPimpHand wrote: (a perfect description of why GW doesn't actually "forge the narrative")
Well said! GW says one thing, then does another. That is one thing I really respect about GW's take on AoS - they are putting their money where their mouth is. You want perfect balance? Find it yourself, because this is a game about superhumans vs monsters! We're selling it based on the quality of the models - not on the rules.
But yes, in 40k everything is built to have "pitched battles" where everything should be even. I love that part of the game. I love having two equally strong forces go at each other and having the better general win. I hugely enjoy the competitive aspect of 40k. But I also love the dynamic, the stories, and the fluff behind it. I can come up with great stuff myself, but I've played this and other games long enough that I have a good idea of how to make campaigns and how to string battles together. Not everyone else will, and if GW wants its players to "forge the narrative", then they totally should re-explore some of these old concepts for 3rd edition!
Blacksails wrote: If it wants to be a narrative game, then let the player choose what tactical genius their commander is afflicted with that day, or what book the Psyker read that morning. Write a proper campaign system with dozens and dozens of scenarios, some based on in-game fluff, others on general campaign ideas.
What is stopping you from doing exactly this, other than constant posting of GW negativity at DakkaDakka?
Absolutely nothing, regardless of your preceived constant negative posting on Dakka.
However, any claims that 40k is a narrative game are, well, untrue. If it wanted to be a narrative game out of the box, it would need the right narrative elements.
Also, a game having at least a baseline or guideline for things like narrative gaming or balance is far better for people to tweak with than having to make up something from scratch.
I really enjoy the pot shots at saying anything not nice about GW/40k. Really helps move the discussion along you know. And you know, the irony of being negative yourself to people you think are negative.
If you can play old GW games, then you must have some trusted friends to play with as opposed to strangers doing pick-up games at the local store. A lot of the frustration on dakkadakka seems to stem from players who just play against random joes in casual/tournament games. Designing a fun narrative and getting involved in it is a lot easier when you're playing with an established group of people whom you know personally.
My advice to GW gamers has always been: don't play in tournaments, don't play with competitive players unless you want to experience a lot of frustration and lose games before deployment is over. But I understand that for the guy who lives in the middle of nowhere with a just a single struggling hole-in-the-wall LGS, you don't get so much choice over your opponents. You probably can't get your friends to play due to the cost of the minis, so you end up with sort of a "blind date" system for gaming. You can't just choose not to play with Ted because he's smelly and obnoxious and does an annoying victory dance whenever he tables you with his unbound army of flyrants and knights; there's nobody else around to play with.
So here's where leaving the narrative to the player falls flat. You don't choose who the 40k fans in your local area are, so if one of them cares only about winning by shooting you to death with his tournament cheese list then you're probably stuck with him anyway.
jasper76 wrote: So my friend has more 40k campaign books and special supplements with different game rules and scenarios than I care to try and count.
Do these books just not provide good enough narrative tools, or is the idea that they haven't produced enough material?
I think the argument is that these aren't good enough. The way most people read these is "these are dataslates - additional options for your army - include it in your regular games". Alternatively, others think of it as "If we are playing a Damos Gulf campaign, then I can take these units". Neither of these are about providing a structure on how to run a Damos Gulf Campaign. That, at least, is how I see it. I'd like to see something like "Here's some styles of campaigns; map-based, narrative-based, escalation-based, reinforcement-based, item-based, character-based, dwindling-forces-based, etc." and then go through an example of each. A good example would be the D&D Dungeon Master's Guide. It's not just a resource of charts and magic items, it also tells you how to build interesting campaigns, interesting encounters, and how to handle players rather than just handling their characters.
Yarium wrote: I'd like to see something like "Here's some styles of campaigns; map-based, narrative-based, escalation-based, reinforcement-based, item-based, character-based, dwindling-forces-based, etc." and then go through an example of each. A good example would be the D&D Dungeon Master's Guide. It's not just a resource of charts and magic items, it also tells you how to build interesting campaigns, interesting encounters, and how to handle players rather than just handling their characters.
This! GW apparently likes publishing books more than they like to produce minis, and I figure they'll take any excuse to put out another book. GW basically sees each book as a catalog for their models though, so there would have to be some models/terrain that GW is trying to hawk.
jasper76 wrote: So my friend has more 40k campaign books and special supplements with different game rules and scenarios than I care to try and count.
Do these books just not provide good enough narrative tools, or is the idea that they haven't produced enough material?
40k's campaign books are really wonky, they're not really very good at all. They basically have a bunch of fluff on a particular battle or series of battles, some formations (which of course can apparently be used freely outside the campaign), and some minor-variant missions with no real connection to each other or timeline, nor a and only some extremely light notes on what units should be present, if at all . There's really very little actual "rooting" of the gaming material to the fluff of the particular engagement.
Essentially, they're typically "take your usual army, one side may or may not ay have to make some minor changes, play on a slightly modified normal normal rulebook mission, and go". GW just writes handful of missions, says "well, play through these in whatever order you like, or play through sequentially and whoever had the most VP's at the end wins!"
Relative to something like the old Battletech campaign books,or RPG campaigns, there's not a whole lot to them, and the narrative structuring is almost nonexistent. There's no branching missions/cause-and-effect, if you win one it doesn't make any difference in any of the others, nothing really carries over from mission to mission, etc. As far as an actual narrative campaign goes, it's paper thin in substance.
People are buying and using the campaign books for the one or two very strong formations they contain that can be used outside of the campaign, but not much else.
So, ultimately, we get a big, expensive book that was designed as a narrative supplement, that's not really actually very good at doing that, being primarily used to cherry-pick the powergaming elements out of it for use elsewhere because GW decided it's perfectly fine to do so. That's emblematic of the issue with GW's products. The implementation is atrocious, and a "narrative forging" product doesn't really do its job and instead drives powergaming.
Yarium wrote: Throwing this out there Haldir, but maybe your game attendance is down because you're trying to reinforce old way of playing? I'm hearing the same thing from people now who try to play AoS like it was still Fantasy. It's not the same game that it used to be. If you try to force it to be that, you're not going to have fun.
40k as it is now allows for tons of unique and awesome interactions with allies and formations and unique detachments. Give it a go, start with "small" 1500 point games, and let each other bring some of the new "broken, no fun, won't play!" stuff - you might be surprised!
How do you enforce the new ways of playing when half of the people are having pre decurion dex and the others post decurion. And the ally idea is stupid the way it is right now. iT may have been fun if iit add a little new stuff to an already existing lists that worked. But it doesn't work like that. Some armies can play solo, like an eldar player can play an eldar army. While an IG army should actualy play wyverns with main army being something else and knights, because IG have no way to deal with LoW or other knights. In fact after some time the IG player starts to notice that the IG part of his list only hinders him in winning.
I really enjoy the pot shots at saying anything not nice about GW/40k. Really helps move the discussion along you know. And you know, the irony of being negative yourself to people you think are negative.
Just get tiring reading post after post of it. That is all. Carry on as normal.
@Vakathi, when LOTR was popular, GW printed a whole bunch of books with IMO excellent campaignss and scenarios, some of which included pre-set army lists. I didn't think I would like this at first (not making my own army list), but most of those lists were very well balanced for the scenario and victory conditions. I had great fun running through alot of those scenarios, and Id like it if they started putting together some similar stuff for 40k.
jasper76 wrote: So my friend has more 40k campaign books and special supplements with different game rules and scenarios than I care to try and count.
Do these books just not provide good enough narrative tools, or is the idea that they haven't produced enough material?
If the campaign books are meant to be the main narrative supplements for 40k.... then no, they do not provide good enough narrative tools. There needs to be actual gameplay mechanics that foster the collaborative storytelling that you would want out of narrative gameplay - the campaign books have some tools for that, but they're very simplistic compared to what tabletop RPGs have been doing for decades.
I've been participating in a narrative campaign that a friend of mine is running (mostly in the role of an Opposing Force for the main players when needed), and it's a really cool experience... but he's basically had to cook up all the narrative gameplay mechanics from scratch, because they don't currently exist in the game, nor do they really exist in the campaign books. The FFG40k roleplaying games have been a great source for harvesting ideas for narrative play.
Yarium wrote: Throwing this out there Haldir, but maybe your game attendance is down because you're trying to reinforce old way of playing? I'm hearing the same thing from people now who try to play AoS like it was still Fantasy. It's not the same game that it used to be. If you try to force it to be that, you're not going to have fun.
40k as it is now allows for tons of unique and awesome interactions with allies and formations and unique detachments. Give it a go, start with "small" 1500 point games, and let each other bring some of the new "broken, no fun, won't play!" stuff - you might be surprised!
How do you enforce the new ways of playing when half of the people are having pre decurion dex and the others post decurion. And the ally idea is stupid the way it is right now. iT may have been fun if iit add a little new stuff to an already existing lists that worked. But it doesn't work like that. Some armies can play solo, like an eldar player can play an eldar army. While an IG army should actualy play wyverns with main army being something else and knights, because IG have no way to deal with LoW or other knights. In fact after some time the IG player starts to notice that the IG part of his list only hinders him in winning.
Also is 1500 small?
40k has always been in a state of "codex creep" even before pre/post decurion, with certain armies being "haves" and others "have nots". I'm sure for casual games you can figure out your own balancing factors. For tournaments though, well, you shouldn't try to artificially enforce balance. Players that play well, or even just "bought the winning list" should still be rewarded - but you also have painting awards, and sportsmanship awards, and best overall! If half the players are uber and the other not, then chances are at a tournament, if you lose your first game, you (at most) will only have 25% of the bottom half bracket in the second round be ubers, and only (at most) 12.5% in the third round. In other words, the players with more balanced armies will tend to fight each other, and that's a good thing!
As for 1500, no it's not small, but I find older player with big collects try to shoot for playing as big games as they can. I've found that making sure you don't just go big fast is a good way to keep the game fresh. There's been a real resurgence of Combat Patrol in my area recently, as people realize that smaller games are just as interesting, if not sometimes more so, than smaller games!
Try harder.
I TO very sucessful events once a month that are as competative as we can get in my area. Generally turn out about 17 or 18 people. We follow ITC and have maybe 1 or 2 stumper questions. Everything else is in the rules and covered by ITC. TO DATE a netlist has never won an event. Ive held maybe 25 - 30 events so far. Adamantine lance got stomped, FSE with TE allies got stomped. Out top winners are homebrew space marines and homebrew blood angels. We have people in the meta who are skilled and actually put work and time into getting a tourny victory.
I feel we are missing the big picture as a consumer. 40K is overloaded with overtly convoluted rules that you have to pay for. Codices with broken units and formations that you have to pay for. Not to mention an ever shortening life span. AOS is free rules and free war scrolls. GW is a terrible rule writing company but have the best fluff , models and artwork . So use them as a loose framework and make the game that you and people in your area enjoy.
jasper76 wrote: @Vakathi, when LOTR was popular, GW printed a whole bunch of books with IMO excellent campaignss and scenarios, some of which included pre-set army lists. I didn't think I would like this at first (not making my own army list), but most of those lists were very well balanced for the scenario and victory conditions. I had great fun running through alot of those scenarios, and Id like it if they started putting together some similar stuff for 40k.
Yeah, that would be great (in theory, if designed well) but is unfortunately diametrically opposed to GW's current paradigm of "take anything and everything from everywhere at any time!"
die toten hosen wrote: Try harder.
I TO very sucessful events once a month that are as competative as we can get in my area. Generally turn out about 17 or 18 people. We follow ITC and have maybe 1 or 2 stumper questions. Everything else is in the rules and covered by ITC. TO DATE a netlist has never won an event. Ive held maybe 25 - 30 events so far. Adamantine lance got stomped, FSE with TE allies got stomped. Out top winners are homebrew space marines and homebrew blood angels. We have people in the meta who are skilled and actually put work and time into getting a tourny victory.
A lot of issues with the lists you're talking about aren't so much that they're going to be unbeatable for everyone, but that they're unbeatable for large numbers of opponents, and resulting in lots of games that just aren't fun.Sure, an Adamantine Lance may not win an event, but the games it does win are likely one-sided curbstomps that nobody wants to spend 2 hours rolling dice for, and present such an effective hardcounter for many armies that they've got no chance of winning either. That's a really terrible play experience for many, and only "balances" on a very high scale "meta" level, not in terms of a typical game.
Also, you're talking about using a set of community developed house-rules which radically change many core rules and victory conditions that results in radically different games from "pickup" play using just the straight core ruleset.
WoW, it's almost like net lists are specifically designed to win with as little effort as possible or something? weird right?
1: Summoning is only as broken as the number of models you have, and when used within moderation, very fluffy
2: 2+ rerollable will fail eventually, yeah its a cheese move, but it's no garentee of victory. work around the often 1 normal speed model.
3: Allies is fine, untill someone abuses it. Guard + space marines makes perfect sense, chaos + daemons, Eldar + dark eldar are all fluffy and good for the game
4: doesn't take long untill people start spamming psykers
I hate to repeat myself, but it sounds like people abusing game mechanics *gasp* break the game.
I hope that 40k never goes AoS. I've tried around 10 games of AoS and I don't like it. Yeah, free rules are nice, but the rules are too loose, and at quite a few points, plain stupid.
Been mostly just playing exclusively with Friends now. It has made the game a lot more fun since no one really list tailors or WAAC, its mostly been... well, Forging a Narrative and running fun scenarios we create or fluff lists we always want to play.
