Why is it okay for GW to break their own game so long as they're doing it intentionally?
I just don't understand what the point is in telling people "GW doesn't want their game to be balanced". Yeah, I think GW's track record has made that clear by now, and I don't think anyone is "expecting" the company to fix the game; rather, they're hoping for it.
loki old fart wrote: This is the fantasy 40k edition.
Fantasy because GW thinks it will fix the game imbalance.
Fantasy because GW thinks merging two game systems is a good idea.
GW have never stated anywhere their intent is to fix game imbalance. If anything, their design philosophy is the exact opposite; they're creating a 'sandbox' game where balance is set aside for story purposes. If you're expecting carefully balanced rules and stats from 40k, you're playing the wrong game, because that's not what they're selling. Try chess instead.
Do you not think there is a sliding scale between controlled game mechanics/balance, and completely open-sandbox, and that it's possible to satisfy both elements within the context of 40k as a game?
On the one hand I completely agree with you - I play quite a few historical games where the 'points' system is extremely loose. But, we have a way of balancing the game by sticking to historical settings/battles (where it's not often as simple as 'win' or 'lose') and also knowing my playing partners well. The chances of someone turning up with some Panzer IVs and running over my units of Yorkist Billmen is pretty slim, because you are constrained by the setting.
But, I don't think 40k has these luxuries. Firstly, while the fantasy setting is well defined (as far as fantasies go) the 'right and wrong' of it is very much open to interpretation. While Nids playing alongside Marines might sound nuts to most players, I'm sure you could make a compelling, background-driven argument for it that would always be much more believable than Panzers running down chainmail-clad yeomen. As well as that, there will also be those who don't care about background, and will just go out and buy a number of massive plastic kits and plonk them down on the table.
This brings me to the other consideration - 40k is one of the most popular 'pick up' games in the wargaming world. You can go to pretty much any club or store and the chances are you will find someone who will give you a game. The problem is now that with the very loose rules structure, how do you balance that game and make sure that it can be enjoyable for both players? If you don't know the person socially, what kind of player they are and what they enjoy, you could be in for a bit of back and forth before you've even put your miniatures on the table. GW are now telling kids to go out and buy everything they want, put it down on the table, what then happens if they turn up with all of those expensive plastic kits, and are told they can't use them because that gaming community there has rejected that way of playing?
The more open nature of rules sounds great if you have a close-knit group of friends or club where you know each other. But, the problem is that these people will have being doing 'unbound' and 'apocalypse' for many years before GW codified it in a rule book. For everyone else, the tournament players and people who don't have regular opponents (and so need the rules structure in place) they are going to be forever worried that their forces of Hannibals elephants, crossing the mountains, looked very nice on the tabletop but don't tend to survive very well against cruise missiles.
xttz wrote: GW have never stated anywhere their intent is to fix game imbalance. If anything, their design philosophy is the exact opposite; they're creating a 'sandbox' game where balance is set aside for story purposes.
Those aren't opposites. Their inability to understand this is why they are so gak at their jobs. A balanced game still supports unbalanced scenarios; the difference is that everyone goes in knowing it's unbalanced because they're deliberately playing unbalanced points costs, or adding new rules on top to give one side an advantage over the other. Balancing the game is vital, even if it's for no other reason than to give people a landmark to work from.
Well the information leaks have slowed down, but the GW hate in this thread has picked up. Hard to get through all the banter and hand wringing.
Its kinda funny that the solid information from the new release comes from WD leaks that are going to be on the street anyways. Wheres the REAL dirt and leaks? Weekly WD the end of rumor mongers?
Byte wrote: Well the information leaks have slowed down, but the GW hate in this thread has picked up. Hard to get through all the banter and hand wringing.
Its kinda funny that the solid information from the new release comes from WD leaks that are going to be on the street anyways. Wheres the REAL dirt and leaks? Weekly WD the end of rumor mongers?
Solid rumor mongers have been dead for about a year now. 40k radio notwithstanding, and even they refuse to leak stuff anymore.
Do you not think there is a sliding scale between controlled game mechanics/balance, and completely open-sandbox, and that it's possible to satisfy both elements within the context of 40k as a game?
I think that while it's theoretically possible, it becomes highly impractical once you get to the complexities involved in 40k in addition to the release schedule. There's basically an infinite combination of units, upgrades, expansions and rules constantly adjusted by new products. A balanced game would require a fundamental shift in the way GW operates as a company, from product design to sales. Personally I think the only way to achieve balanced 40k is to 'fork' it and have a separate, tightly maintained and constantly updated branch of rules - the Epic Armageddon project was a great example of this. However GW will never see the benefit of doing this because it's clear that their management style is very short-term, and they only invest in ideas that are easy to quantify. The community suffers from far, far too many cooks to agree on a solution, and so in the end we're left with the 'easy' approach to balance; massive flexibility.
It's not ideal, but I'm sure deep down you know that even if GW did try to address game balance properly from the bottom up, there would still be a vocal minority screaming that it wasn't done properly because something didn't match the idealistic view in their heads.
This brings me to the other consideration - 40k is one of the most popular 'pick up' games in the wargaming world. You can go to pretty much any club or store and the chances are you will find someone who will give you a game. The problem is now that with the very loose rules structure, how do you balance that game and make sure that it can be enjoyable for both players? If you don't know the person socially, what kind of player they are and what they enjoy, you could be in for a bit of back and forth before you've even put your miniatures on the table. GW are now telling kids to go out and buy everything they want, put it down on the table, what then happens if they turn up with all of those expensive plastic kits, and are told they can't use them because that gaming community there has rejected that way of playing?
The more open nature of rules sounds great if you have a close-knit group of friends or club where you know each other. But, the problem is that these people will have being doing 'unbound' and 'apocalypse' for many years before GW codified it in a rule book. For everyone else, the tournament players and people who don't have regular opponents (and so need the rules structure in place) they are going to be forever worried that their forces of Hannibals elephants, crossing the mountains, looked very nice on the tabletop but don't tend to survive very well against cruise missiles.
I think GW's approach is the opposite of that scenario. They're making it easier for kids to use what they already have. Here's a related anecdote: when I first started with 40k in my early teens, my little sister insisted on buying some models too. She was about 9 or 10 at the time, didn't understand what anything was, and simply chose her purchases based on the picture on the front of the box. While I got Space Marines she had chosen a mix of Tyranids and WHFB Undead. Obviously we couldn't play against each other without trying to alter rules neither of us fully understood.
While that's a more extreme example, I have no doubt similar scenarios occur with new players every day. How many adolescents do you think will go in and buy a Dreadnought and box of Terminators thinking they look cool, only to find they're not game-legal because they don't fit the 1 HQ 2 Troop FOC? People try to demonise GW for "telling kids to go out and buy everything they want", but really I think the opposite is true. Kids will already buy what they want, GW are just trying to shut up the pedants who put rules above an inconsequential game and are happy to stop others from playing over a technicality.
The more I think about Unbound, the more I like it. It lets me work around the flaws in GW's products without waiting 4 years between fixes. As a Tyranid player who owns only one FMC (and doesn't want to buy anymore), I can struggle to compete with certain perfectly FOC-legal builds. Unbound means I don't need to have a long conversation with my opponent before a game explaining my lack of ranged anti-armour and why there should be some kind of handicap to fight his AV14-heavy army. Instead I just take a more appropriate force without worrying about the overcrowded Elite slots or mandatory but poorly performing Troops.
After reading some of the bile regurgitated here in the last couple of weeks, I'm inclined to agree. For every well reasoned post like yours with a constructive argument, there's several spewing mindless insults and throwing toys out of the pram because their personal little wishlist wasn't fulfilled. I've heard several quotes attributed to GW regarding a 'toxic element' in the playerbase, and that's never been clearer to me than in this last week. I'd much rather have a clueless customer to explain things to than a bitterly entrenched individual who whines about everything that changes and everything that remains the same.
GW has it's faults, sure. But an increasing number of the people around here are just as bad, if not worse, in the opposite way. It's god damn plastic spacemans people, get a grip.
Aside, balanced game does not equate to chess. Play other Wargames before stating this as almost all the other popular non historical aim for balance and succeed while maintaining faction and unit diversity.
Oh, and telling people to "get a grip" doesn't make friends. Balanced games are better for all play. Allows folks to bring what you want is bad... Structure helps ensure we don't get Jet Seer council + serpent spam versus a poorly organized Tyranids force. As stated, the ability for a game to operate in a pick up setting it important to many players and is a true test on the games rules.
Because if we aren't abiding by a rule set, why are we playing a game? Let's go get a beer instead....
We are exploring the time of 40k ending for alot of people I believe.
Yes, this will be the first edition of 40K I haven't bought. It might be my age (38) or it might be that I prefer games with a bit more structure and balance.
Well, I have ten years on you (I'm 48), and will be avoiding this edition completely as well. Possibly even to the point of divesting myself entirely of 40k.
After playing several other games, from other manufacturers, over the last six months I will say that it becomes more obvious just how poorly done 40k really is as a game. Sad part is, I no longer think for people still clinging to it that it is the rules doing it, but the years of building and collecting armies.
Everything I have seen with this edition so far, from my personal perspective, sounds like this is actually going to be worse than 6th edition turned into. They are, once again, just piling more on top of an already clunky ruleset and fixing NOTHING of what is really needed. There are a few tweaks, sure, but not any true fixes from everything that is known at this point.
Well I am 58, so I've got ten years on you aswell. I've played second world war games, I dabbled in DnD in the seventies. If I wanted to play a fantasy type game I would. But I chose 40k instead. Random this, random that is not fun.
We are exploring the time of 40k ending for alot of people I believe.
Yes, this will be the first edition of 40K I haven't bought. It might be my age (38) or it might be that I prefer games with a bit more structure and balance.
Well, I have ten years on you (I'm 48), and will be avoiding this edition completely as well. Possibly even to the point of divesting myself entirely of 40k.
After playing several other games, from other manufacturers, over the last six months I will say that it becomes more obvious just how poorly done 40k really is as a game. Sad part is, I no longer think for people still clinging to it that it is the rules doing it, but the years of building and collecting armies.
Everything I have seen with this edition so far, from my personal perspective, sounds like this is actually going to be worse than 6th edition turned into. They are, once again, just piling more on top of an already clunky ruleset and fixing NOTHING of what is really needed. There are a few tweaks, sure, but not any true fixes from everything that is known at this point.
Well I am 58, so I've got ten years on you aswell. I've played second world war games, I dabbled in DnD in the seventies. If I wanted to play a fantasy type game I would. But I chose 40k instead. Random this, random that is not fun.
Infinity is a great sci-fi game that keeps both players active. Dropzone commander is another solid sci-fi game, but I have no experience with it outside of the praise I've heard.
We are exploring the time of 40k ending for alot of people I believe.
Yes, this will be the first edition of 40K I haven't bought. It might be my age (38) or it might be that I prefer games with a bit more structure and balance.
Well, I have ten years on you (I'm 48), and will be avoiding this edition completely as well. Possibly even to the point of divesting myself entirely of 40k.
After playing several other games, from other manufacturers, over the last six months I will say that it becomes more obvious just how poorly done 40k really is as a game. Sad part is, I no longer think for people still clinging to it that it is the rules doing it, but the years of building and collecting armies.
Everything I have seen with this edition so far, from my personal perspective, sounds like this is actually going to be worse than 6th edition turned into. They are, once again, just piling more on top of an already clunky ruleset and fixing NOTHING of what is really needed. There are a few tweaks, sure, but not any true fixes from everything that is known at this point.
Well I am 58, so I've got ten years on you aswell. I've played second world war games, I dabbled in DnD in the seventies. If I wanted to play a fantasy type game I would. But I chose 40k instead. Random this, random that is not fun.
Infinity is a great sci-fi game that keeps both players active. Dropzone commander is another solid sci-fi game, but I have no experience with it outside of the praise I've heard.
Well sometimes I feel I've backed the wrong horse with 40k. But the fluff and the models drew me in. The idea I could get a game anywhere helped.
While that's a more extreme example, I have no doubt similar scenarios occur with new players every day. How many adolescents do you think will go in and buy a Dreadnought and box of Terminators thinking they look cool, only to find they're not game-legal because they don't fit the 1 HQ 2 Troop FOC? People try to demonise GW for "telling kids to go out and buy everything they want", but really I think the opposite is true. Kids will already buy what they want, GW are just trying to shut up the pedants who put rules above an inconsequential game and are happy to stop others from playing over a technicality.
I don't think the desire to play by the rules is a minor detail that someone could be "pedantic" about. While there are handfuls of kids that go out and buy what they want and expect to be able to play it, there are people who also put a lot of time and money into building a game-legal army and expect to be able to play by the rules. Rules are there for a reason. The FoC chart has always been there to give the army a bit of structure and so that both players know the limitations of each army. Just throwing down whatever you want is sort of a spit-in-the-face of people who take the rules seriously and want to play by them. Now, it is in the rules, so you might can see why those people are a little miffed by this.
I don't think it makes anyone a pedant to read through the rules and expect everyone who walks up to a table to also know them and want to play by them. It's like you sitting at a chess board and someone walks up with their checkers and puts them on their squares and says, "Okay, let's play!" Are you being pedantic to refuse to play whatever hybrid of Chess and Checkers you're about to create?
Who does GW think they're appealing too? Is there some central England core of gamers with millions invested in 40k we don't know about? Why can't they fix a few glaring loopholes? One PDF would fix this game?! Instead we get Unbound. I can't wish failure more on a company. They need to learn to follow their customers. Not screw/ignore them.
puma713 wrote:While there are handfuls of kids that go out and buy what they want and expect to be able to play it, there are people who also put a lot of time and money into building a game-legal army and expect to be able to play by the rules. Rules are there for a reason. The FoC chart has always been there to give the army a bit of structure and so that both players know the limitations of each army. Just throwing down whatever you want is sort of a spit-in-the-face of people who take the rules seriously and want to play by them. Now, it is in the rules, so you might can see why those people are a little miffed by this.
I don't think it makes anyone a pedant to read through the rules and expect everyone who walks up to a table to also know them and want to play by them. It's like you sitting at a chess board and someone walks up with their checkers and puts them on their squares and says, "Okay, let's play!" Are you being pedantic to refuse to play whatever hybrid of Chess and Checkers you're about to create?
You want to play by the rules? Awesome, because the rules now say you don't need to follow the FOC anymore! However if you still choose to do so, there's a benefit. You may personally disagree if that benefit compensates for the choice, but that's your opinion. And you know what they say about customers and opinions.
Also that analogy is terrible and doesn't help your case at all. How come most people post decent analogies?*
*that's rhetorical by the way
Lobukia wrote:Who does GW think they're appealing too?
I'm going to take a wild stab in the dark and say that they're successfully appealing to you, because that's a substantial donation you've made to the Lenton staff Christmas party right there.
I don't understand some of the negative reactions to the psychic phase. Psychic powers are a huge part of the 40K lore, heck isn't it basically how the Emperor is kept alive?? Farseers prevalent in the Eldar armies, the very existence of chaos itself?? having it's own phase is a major step forward if you ask me. It shouldn't be all about the shooting phase (oh, you play Tau...got it), and even the assault phase is an important aspect of the 40K lore. Sure, you'd expect melee to be dead in sci-fi, but it's not. It also doesn't have to represent a marine bashing in the skull of his opponent with the butt of his bolter, it could simply be close quarters use of his bolt pistol...still shooting.
I would say that there needs to be 2 more games added (some just brought back) into the 40K universe. Epic needs to return and a sqd based skirmish game needs to be introduced. 40K is trying to be all of these and it doesn't work so well. A tactical space marine is supposed to be a bad-ass, but that's not the case on the 40K battlefield (way too many AP3+ weapons abound), so a skirmish game should be developed where the role of individual marines (other races too) are highlighted. Also, some of this stuff we are seeing on tables (Titans, good lord) should be reserved for EPIC. 40K should be a middle of the road game with sqds of troops, some vehicles, dreads etc. Super heavies shouldn't be the norm (but I'm fine with rules allowing it for one off games) and fighter aircraft at this scale just is plain silly IMHO.
As it currently stands, 40K is trying to be a singular game that encompasses skirmish style troops, wargame style vehicles/sqds, and epic style games with super heavies, flyers and titans. A singular ruleset will just have too many problems incorporating these elements effectively together. I don't know about you guys, but I loved playing Space Marine and Adeptus Titanicus (why did I get rid of that stuff) and would love to see it's return as a mainstream game.
I have pre-ordered the rulebook for next week as I want to get back into 40K after a 6 year hiatus (playing FOW) but my games will be reserved to a small group where we can decide what level to play. I certainly don't relish removing sqds of tactical marines with a dustpan and brush each shooting phase so here's keeping my fingers crossed.
Lobukia wrote: Who does GW think they're appealing too? Is there some central England core of gamers with millions invested in 40k we don't know about? Why can't they fix a few glaring loopholes? One PDF would fix this game?! Instead we get Unbound. I can't wish failure more on a company. They need to learn to follow their customers. Not screw/ignore them.
GW isn't interested in maintaining a game, they want to make models with a few rules hovering around. That's what makes them different from other tabletop games like Flames of War or WM/H that explicitely focus on having a viable and reliable ruleset. GW doesn't care for balance or well thought-out rules. This has been a subjective impression a lot of people had in the past and 7th reinforced those "rumors" and made it official.
All GW games offer are lots of shinies, i.e. good-looking (often...some models are terrible) models, but as soon as the shiny effect wears off, the game falls apart as the ruleset is a terrible mess. 7th and especially Unfun is GW publicly saying "We gave up!" and now, they're desperately trying to push models.
Nem wrote: They think they are appealing to casual gamers.
And it seems that they are appealing to most casual gamers as well.
My small group of friends & I can't wait to try some Unbound, as it now gives us the ability to play the super fluffy forces we've always wanted to but never could due to the how restrictive the "3 and done" slot system is...
- Our DA player is hyped as he can now field a pure Ravenwing + Deathwing force without being forced to take an expensive special character. Instead, he get's his Bike Chappy + Termie Libby and a free for all between the various Ravenwing units and then some Deathwing Termies to Deep Strike into play.
He also has a Chaos Marine force, (because let's face it, DA's are just CSM's who haven't admitted it yet!), and is wanting to try out an all Termie CSM force.
- Our Ork player loves his Nobs. Now he can just field nothing but various Nob units + Flash Gits + Battlewagons.
- Our Night Lords player is stoked about being able to field a proper 'Terrorwing' force of massed Raptors + Bikers + deep striking Termies with only a handful of Chaos Marines in a supporting roll.
- I myself can finally field a 100% Daemonic force of Tzeentch goodness supported by masses of Possessed, Warp Talons, Oblits & Daemon Engines.
And so on so forth...
Unbound is only 100% awful when used by the same donkeycaves who already abuse the hell out of the system with the sole intent of dick-punching their opponent & crushing their army as fast as possible.
Tournaments will almost certainly ban Unbound lists, so hyper competitive players who only view 40k as a semi-pro sport shouldn't have too many problems.
That leaves Little Timmy & his friends to go play their own game of 'pew-pew' noises and immature name-calling, and TFG's who measure their tiny weenis by how "skilled" they are at toy soldiers.
Besides, IIRC, the WDW also mentioned that Unbound will be 'opponent's permission', which if true, means you can always just refuse to play it if that's your choice and/or you feel an opponent is only using it to curbstomp your army.
The more I think about Unbound, the more I like it. It lets me work around the flaws in GW's products without waiting 4 years between fixes. As a Tyranid player who owns only one FMC (and doesn't want to buy anymore), I can struggle to compete with certain perfectly FOC-legal builds. Unbound means I don't need to have a long conversation with my opponent before a game explaining my lack of ranged anti-armour and why there should be some kind of handicap to fight his AV14-heavy army. Instead I just take a more appropriate force without worrying about the overcrowded Elite slots or mandatory but poorly performing Troops.
Or it means, as the WD quote suggested, that he's going to show up with an entire list of AV14. Scoring AV14.
Because that is a legal list now. I don't understand why you can't understand that. It was in the very first White Dwarf quote. He said you can make an entire list of Leman Russes, and even encouraged it.
TheKbob wrote: Aside, balanced game does not equate to chess. Play other Wargames before stating this as almost all the other popular non historical aim for balance and succeed while maintaining faction and unit diversity.
Oh, and telling people to "get a grip" doesn't make friends. Balanced games are better for all play. Allows folks to bring what you want is bad... Structure helps ensure we don't get Jet Seer council + serpent spam versus a poorly organized Tyranids force. As stated, the ability for a game to operate in a pick up setting it important to many players and is a true test on the games rules.
Because if we aren't abiding by a rule set, why are we playing a game? Let's go get a beer instead....
This. I don't buy games so that I can not use their rule systems. And if I'm paying as much for a set of rules as the new book will cost, I'm expecting a set of rules that's worth that money--I can pass on the background and army profiles that every other edition featured.
Nem wrote: They think they are appealing to casual gamers.
When I think "casual" games, I think of something with a low buy-in, where I can just sit down and play without needing to negotiate with my opponent to ensure neither army is "too good", and something where the rules can be explained quickly and clearly.
When I think "casual" games, I think of something with a low buy-in, where I can just sit down and play without needing to negotiate with my opponent to ensure neither army is "too good", and something where the rules can be explained quickly and clearly.
This 1000 times. Casual is sit down and have a few laughs over a game that's easy to pick up and requires nearly zero time learning to play...that's casual by any definition. Deck building games are casual, miniature board games like descent or even super dungeon explore or casual, warhammer is not a casual game.....unless you play like the developers do and ignore the rules. If we can just ignore the rules, there's really no point in paying $85 for them; I can ignore them just fine without paying a penny.
I really want the people saying "balance is possible with open gaming and narrative play" to show games that manage it, as I can't think of any. Cirtanly non that reach the diversity and scale of 40k. Yes 40k could be more balanced, but the more open you get, the more rules interactions you get, the more room for broken combinations. And the more open the choices the more rules interact, the more likely there is to be problems.
Steve steveson wrote: I really want the people saying "balance is possible with open gaming and narrative play" to show games that manage it, as I can't think of any. Cirtanly non that reach the diversity and scale of 40k. Yes 40k could be more balanced, but the more open you get, the more rules interactions you get, the more room for broken combinations. And the more open the choices the more rules interact, the more likely there is to be problems.
I would disagree and say that "narrative play" is an excuse to apply a little handwavium in order to explain no attempt whatsoever at any semblance of balance. Take that excuse away and you have a poorly written rule set. Let's take the larger context away and look at individual army books. The writers at GW can't even produce an army book that is balanced with itself much less a larger game system.
Warmachine/Hordes does a fair job of balance while having literally more options than GW games to deal with. More factions, more special rules even two entirely different rules mechanics that somehow play nice with each other (hordes vs. warmachine). Sure certain builds are more viable than others but the difference is that skill plays a larger role in WM/H than 40k or WHFB and a good general can take a subpar list and actually beat net-lists....not so much with 40k....though it used to be better than it's currently headed.
Shooting is as much a part of the game as assault is and has every right to be, especially when you have entire armies dedicated to the concept, like Tau, which simply won't function without it. I've invested as much into this game as anyone else and I have every right to enjoy it the same, whether I'm playing Tau or Marines, and whether or not the dice I'm rolling are for bullets or clubs.
Assault is not "the most important aspect of 40k lore". It's an aspect, like shooting is, but nothing more than that. If it seems like the game, art or fluff revolves around assault or that it's glorified in some way, then it's only because close quarters fighting is considered more "cinematic" than shooting at range, and that's what GW's all about anymore. It's more "cinematic" when the plucky hero and the hard villain get into a long, dramatic, "honorable" sword fight instead of poking out of cover every few seconds to pop shots off at each other. Having the mighty Space Marine smash a demon's skull with his energy hammer tells a better "narrative" than having the same Marine put a bolter round between its eyes from range. In other words it makes the product look "cooler" and that's pretty much it.
When I think "casual" games, I think of something with a low buy-in, where I can just sit down and play without needing to negotiate with my opponent to ensure neither army is "too good", and something where the rules can be explained quickly and clearly.
This, pretty much. 40k and WHF are about the farthest you can possibly get from "casual" games, with buy-ins easily approaching four figures and requiring massive investments of time on top of that to learn the rules and get your army in a playable state, and then you still need a table to actually play on. 40k is anything but casual, and when we're paying almost as much as it costs to buy entire self-contained board games just for the rules, people have every right to criticize them if they don't hold up to scrutiny. 40k is priced like it's the best game on earth and it's a fething joke. Good on you if you think it's worth it, but it really isn't for a lot of people.
Cards Against Humanity is the perfect example of a casual, "beer and pretzels" game. $100 gets you the game and all the expansions for it. It's easy to learn in minutes, easy to set up and play, and almost literally designed for intoxicated friends wanting to kill time. It requires no real thought or investment.
puma713 wrote:While there are handfuls of kids that go out and buy what they want and expect to be able to play it, there are people who also put a lot of time and money into building a game-legal army and expect to be able to play by the rules. Rules are there for a reason. The FoC chart has always been there to give the army a bit of structure and so that both players know the limitations of each army. Just throwing down whatever you want is sort of a spit-in-the-face of people who take the rules seriously and want to play by them. Now, it is in the rules, so you might can see why those people are a little miffed by this.
I don't think it makes anyone a pedant to read through the rules and expect everyone who walks up to a table to also know them and want to play by them. It's like you sitting at a chess board and someone walks up with their checkers and puts them on their squares and says, "Okay, let's play!" Are you being pedantic to refuse to play whatever hybrid of Chess and Checkers you're about to create?
You want to play by the rules? Awesome, because the rules now say you don't need to follow the FOC anymore! However if you still choose to do so, there's a benefit. You may personally disagree if that benefit compensates for the choice, but that's your opinion. And you know what they say about customers and opinions.
Also that analogy is terrible and doesn't help your case at all. How come most people post decent analogies?*
*that's rhetorical by the way
Lobukia wrote:Who does GW think they're appealing too?
I'm going to take a wild stab in the dark and say that they're successfully appealing to you, because that's a substantial donation you've made to the Lenton staff Christmas party right there.
There is nothing pedantic about wanting a set of rules that are logical. The last gasp of logic in the rules was 5th ed. and it was pushing it.
What they say about customers opinions is...."The customer is always right." I don't think that this particular cliche works to prove your point.
Steve steveson wrote: I really want the people saying "balance is possible with open gaming and narrative play" to show games that manage it, as I can't think of any.
That would be virtually any war game. All you need for a "narrative" game is some imagination from the players. It's easy to tinker with a ruleset in order to play a special scenario you dreamed up, or use an unusual force composition, if that's what you want to do. "These guys are ambushing your column, so they get to deploy here in hiding, and you get 50% more units", or whatever. Literally anyone could do that in any war game, and because it's actually a narrative, the winner or loser doesn't matter so much. It's a story and you're seeing what happens. You can always choose to break a ruleset as much as you like, they don't need to come pre-broken for you.
If you want to square off against someone on equal footing, it's much harder to go the other way, and balance an unbalanced game.
Incidentally I would say that 90% or more of 40k games I've seen involved zero narrative. Grabbing two armies, picking a rulebook mission, and seeing who gets more points in the end isn't actually a narrative game, no matter how loose and random the ruleset is.
Steve steveson wrote: I really want the people saying "balance is possible with open gaming and narrative play" to show games that manage it, as I can't think of any.
That would be virtually any war game. All you need for a "narrative" game is some imagination from the players. It's easy to tinker with a ruleset in order to play a special scenario you dreamed up, or use an unusual force composition, if that's what you want to do. "These guys are ambushing your column, so they get to deploy here in hiding, and you get 50% more units", or whatever. Literally anyone could do that in any war game, and because it's actually a narrative, the winner or loser doesn't matter so much. It's a story and you're seeing what happens. You can always choose to break a ruleset as much as you like, they don't need to come pre-broken for you.
If you're worried about squaring off against someone on equal footing, it's much harder to go the other way, and balance an unbalanced game.
Incidentally I would say that 90% or more of 40k games I've seen involved zero narrative. Grabbing two armies, picking a rulebook mission, and seeing who gets more points in the end isn't actually a narrative game, no matter how loose and random the ruleset is.
Have an exalt for explaining it better than I could.
Steve steveson wrote: I really want the people saying "balance is possible with open gaming and narrative play" to show games that manage it, as I can't think of any. Cirtanly non that reach the diversity and scale of 40k. Yes 40k could be more balanced, but the more open you get, the more rules interactions you get, the more room for broken combinations. And the more open the choices the more rules interact, the more likely there is to be problems.
Flames of War? Highly narrative game, vast amount of tactical possibilities, vastly superior balance.
Steve steveson wrote: I really want the people saying "balance is possible with open gaming and narrative play" to show games that manage it, as I can't think of any. Cirtanly non that reach the diversity and scale of 40k. Yes 40k could be more balanced, but the more open you get, the more rules interactions you get, the more room for broken combinations. And the more open the choices the more rules interact, the more likely there is to be problems.
The problem is not that the odd broken combination gets through whatever passes for "play testing" at GW, every single widely played game of any note has had those sorts of issues, be it CCG, electronic or tabletop, but the utter lack of action to correct it that is unforgivable.
With regard to narrative gaming, this has nothing to do with rules "openness" whatever that means, and everything to do with the player input. Infinity is perfectly usable as a ruleset to recreate a small force raiding a base in order to retrieve stolen data files, one can easily use FoW to try and recreate the landings at Omaha beach, want to play a game that represents the last ditch attempt of a beleaguered Retribution outrider force to break through an encircling Khador army? Warmachine will have you covered, want to play a game where a small allied infantry force tries to hold a farmhouse against a mechanised German force? Try Bolt Action!
There is nothing inherent to the GW ruleset that makes it more suitable for storytelling games, and to try and argue otherwise probably suggests a relative ignorance of other systems or an acceptance of the GW marketing spin more than anything.
Perfect balance is tricky, and pretty much requires a living ruleset of some sort, with regular FAQs and updates to ensure everything is balanced.
However, adding options to every faction/army/character, that might not be used often but that CAN be used if a particular tactic or build is dominating play, is Multiplayer Asymmetric Game Design 101.
Finding the current game full of flyers? Just pack the Specialised Super-Anti-Flyer Unit! Your codex does have one, obviously, because it's balanced. And if you've filled the force org slot with three of those and are still getting overwhelmed with flyers, it's time to bring in an Almost As Specialised Almost As Super-Anti-Flyer Unit or three.
Current game full of MSU vehicles? Switch around a bit so you have at least a few Specialised Super-Anti-Light-Vehicle units...
It's pretty easy.
What? Your codex doesn't have those units...? Not even one? Sorry, that's just plain bad game design. I would be quite willing to fail a student project that didn't include those kinds of backup options, where the designer didn't actually expect anyone to need to field very many of them, but where they are available in case another army's options proved unbalanced (because you can't predict for that perfectly, or balance for it perfectly, at least in the 1st iteration of your ruleset, even with way more playtesting than GW does).
Steve steveson wrote: I really want the people saying "balance is possible with open gaming and narrative play" to show games that manage it, as I can't think of any. Cirtanly non that reach the diversity and scale of 40k. Yes 40k could be more balanced, but the more open you get, the more rules interactions you get, the more room for broken combinations. And the more open the choices the more rules interact, the more likely there is to be problems.
That I've played: Infinity, Malifaux, Warmachine. None of them are perfect, and gurus on the game could likely point to things that are under- or over-costed or overly effective combos, but almost never to the extremes of funless non-games that 40K can manage. It's really not that hard, if the rules writers simply care about balance, and make an effort.
As for narratives, I've never had a real problem imagining a story with any of those games (especially not Malifaux, which has a whole chapter devoted to story-based encounters). Certainly, it was never as hard as justifying why an Ordo Xenos inquisitor was chilling out with Dark Eldar.
He's hanging with both vanilla and chocolate flavors of eldar, btw. Totally legit... and barely as "narrative" as the ridiculous combinations of unbound possible.
However, adding options to every faction/army/character, that might not be used often but that CAN be used if a particular tactic or build is dominating play, is Multiplayer Asymmetric Game Design 101.
Finding the current game full of flyers? Just pack the Specialised Super-Anti-Flyer Unit! Your codex does have one, obviously, because it's balanced. And if you've filled the force org slot with three of those and are still getting overwhelmed with flyers, it's time to bring in an Almost As Specialised Almost As Super-Anti-Flyer Unit or three.
That's pretty much how X-Wing works. Even though there's only 2 sides, they do end up doing mirror matches in tournaments. But yeah, you see TIE Fighter swarms, more people look at fielding assault missiles or the other various combination counters.
As long as the game is fun to play, the models look great, the rules are clear and concise, and the armies are pretty balanced; then I don't care about narrative at all. If you do, you can easily interject that into your game. GW has only really got the model part down.
But some cool scenarios like ambushes, assaulting bases, and other types of games would be great as well.
xttz wrote:
GW have never stated anywhere their intent is to fix game imbalance. If anything, their design philosophy is the exact opposite; they're creating a 'sandbox' game where balance is set aside for story purposes. If you're expecting carefully balanced rules and stats from 40k, you're playing the wrong game, because that's not what they're selling. Try chess instead.
It's not chess?
Ahh, please to understand the confusion with their being so many "White Knights" on the board.
xttz wrote:
It's really sad to see so many old-school players bitch and moan when a good chunk of the extra features in this release are founded in some degree of nostalgia. Some people wouldn't be happy even if the manager of the design studio made a personal visit to their house, implemented their entire wishlist of terrible rules ideas and orally pleasured them afterward.
Maybe we old players are "bitching" because GW "is" ruining the game by trying to cash in on nostalgia. The move away from 2nd ed was hailed as a good move by the "majority" of the playerbase. In fact, sales figures back up that editions 3-5 saw the best growth for the 40k community.
6th has not been a success primarily "because" of GW revisiting broken game mechanics from the past. We "old" players bitch because we remember how bad these "nostalgic" elements were for game play.
Byte wrote:Well the information leaks have slowed down, but the GW hate in this thread has picked up. Hard to get through all the banter and hand wringing.
Hard to have a discussion with all the White Knights interrupting
every discussion to brand those who question GWs direction as "haters"(read heretics).
Experiment 626 wrote:
Nem wrote: They think they are appealing to casual gamers.
And it seems that they are appealing to most casual gamers as well.
My small group of friends & I can't wait to try some Unbound, as it now gives us the ability to play the super fluffy forces we've always wanted to but never could due to the how restrictive the "3 and done" slot system is...
- Our DA player is hyped as he can now field a pure Ravenwing + Deathwing force without being forced to take an expensive special character. Instead, he get's his Bike Chappy + Termie Libby and a 9free for all between the various Ravenwing units and then some Deathwing Termies to Deep Strike into play.
He also has a Chaos Marine force, (because let's face it, DA's are just CSM's who haven't admitted it yet!), and is wanting to try out an all Termie CSM force.
- Our Ork player loves his Nobs. Now he can just field nothing but various Nob units + Flash Gits + Battlewagons.
- Our Night Lords player is stoked about being able to field a proper 'Terrorwing' force of massed Raptors + Bikers + deep striking Termies with only a handful of Chaos Marines in a supporting roll.
- I myself can finally field a 100% Daemonic force of Tzeentch goodness supported by masses of Possessed, Warp Talons, Oblits & Daemon Engines.
And so on so forth...
We get it. GW made 7th ed "just" for "you" and "your" gaming group. I'm sure that you'll enjoy having the 40k universe all to "yourselves".
There is a difference between appealing to "most" casual players and appealing to "only the most" casual players.
Experiment wrote:Unbound is only 100% awful when used by the same donkeycaves who already abuse the hell out of the system with the sole intent of dick-punching their opponent & crushing their army as fast as possible.
Love the CGM(casual gamer mafia) hyperbole and propaganda here.
Seriously, I am tired of treating the special snowflakes with kit gloves.
9 times out of 10 the donkeycave is some casual gamer bully that wants to "force" you to play their "narrative" of where his /her "super special elite battle group" of nothing but homebrewed/home statted special characters wipes a legal army off the board.
( Actual quote from one of these people...." This is my Warlord, PureShadow. She is Commander Shadowsuns daughter. She costs 150 points and has the *new xv 28 stealth armor that only allows the opponent to target her if they are within 12". It has a 3+ save, 2++ invul and 2+ coversave that is re-rollable. She is armed with 2 experimental Fusion Gatlings that are range 18" S8 AP2 assault 3...blah blah...FNP.....blah blah Eternal warrior...and so on.) And the rest of the army is just as over the top.
Point being, I'm tired of being bullied with the threatof being branded as a comp donkeycave because I dont want to play with some emotionally challenged individual that is way to invested in their creation.
Experiment wrote:
Besides, IIRC, the WDW also mentioned that Unbound will be 'opponent's permission', which if true, means you can always just refuse to play it if that's your choice and/or you feel an opponent is only using it to curbstomp your army.
This right here is a major part of the problem that you don't seem to understand. It is not just unbound vs battle forged that are by opponents permission only. ALL GAMES are by opponents permission only. And you shouldn't need a WD to tell you that.
If we follow the implication of what you typed above then you are, in essence, saying that an unbound or battle forged player could in some way "force" another player with the same type army into a game. Yep seems to fit with the "casual/narrative" based players that I've had to deal with.
When I game, thats what I want to do, play a game. I do not want to instead help some individual live out their fantasy-reality. Seriously, not much in this life more unconfortable than finding out your opponent is semi-psychotic and in the course of playing against them you "break" their fantasy.
The more I think about Unbound, the more I like it. It lets me work around the flaws in GW's products without waiting 4 years between fixes. As a Tyranid player who owns only one FMC (and doesn't want to buy anymore), I can struggle to compete with certain perfectly FOC-legal builds. Unbound means I don't need to have a long conversation with my opponent before a game explaining my lack of ranged anti-armour and why there should be some kind of handicap to fight his AV14-heavy army. Instead I just take a more appropriate force without worrying about the overcrowded Elite slots or mandatory but poorly performing Troops.
Or it means, as the WD quote suggested, that he's going to show up with an entire list of AV14. Scoring AV14.
Because that is a legal list now. I don't understand why you can't understand that. It was in the very first White Dwarf quote. He said you can make an entire list of Leman Russes, and even encouraged it.
I understand it perfectly. Yes, 7E lets you take highly focused or spammy lists. But so did 2E, 3E, 4E, 5E and 6E - literally nothing has changed on that front. Anyone willing to field a scoring Russ list with no prior discussion or warning would also have no compunction about fielding pure Skyblight+FMC spam, Wave Serpent spam, re-rollable 2++ Daemon lists, or any number of other lists that are little fun to play against.. This is human nature, some people will just put their own sense of 'fun' in front of everyone else's and a bunch of text written in a game manual isn't going to change that.
What's new is that there is now a wider scope for both list creation and counter. While they weren't scoring under 6E, it's already perfectly legal to put 10 Leman Russ into a single FOC along with a very strong character unit. However there are two reasons I'm not worried about that scenario:
1) No one at my club ever randomly showed up with such a list without discussing it first, because they know it's not fun to play against.
2) If someone did say they wanted to try an armoured company list, I now have two ways to deal with it without changing or ignoring any rules. I can either stick with Battle Forged and override their scoring ability, or I can go Unbound and bring all the Elite options I own without needing to pad my list with pointless Troops or useless chaff to unlock certain formations.
If someone showed up to a game with one of the many now possible 'not fun' lists unannounced in 7E, I now at least have options to try and counter it. If I didn't have what I needed, they'd simply get the same response from me as under any of the previous 6 editions: tone it down or take it home.
All this "narrative" stuff misses the boat. Sure, you can do fun narrative games with your close friends. I enjoy it quite a bit as you can see in this thread here: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/524342.page However, its not something I can do all the time, or even would want to do all the time. Most 40K for me consists of showing up at the store and getting a game with someone you don't know all that well, and even that isn't that common. Somebody has to mediate between us and we pay the game design company to do that. I don't want to feel bad if I use two fliers, and I would prefer not having to guilt my opponent into not using 6 fliers. Any two people ought to be able to meet up with any two legal lists and expect a fair game. I like a competitive game, I want a reasonably level playing field that isn't too random. Negotiating with strangers sucks. I want to be able to use the best things I can find without feeling like a jerk, and I want my opponent to be able to do the same. Yes there ware broken lists in the past. I expect there to be FEWER with each edition, not more.
We are exploring the time of 40k ending for alot of people I believe.
Yes, this will be the first edition of 40K I haven't bought. It might be my age (38) or it might be that I prefer games with a bit more structure and balance.
Well, I have ten years on you (I'm 48), and will be avoiding this edition completely as well. Possibly even to the point of divesting myself entirely of 40k.
After playing several other games, from other manufacturers, over the last six months I will say that it becomes more obvious just how poorly done 40k really is as a game. Sad part is, I no longer think for people still clinging to it that it is the rules doing it, but the years of building and collecting armies.
Everything I have seen with this edition so far, from my personal perspective, sounds like this is actually going to be worse than 6th edition turned into. They are, once again, just piling more on top of an already clunky ruleset and fixing NOTHING of what is really needed. There are a few tweaks, sure, but not any true fixes from everything that is known at this point.
Well I am 58, so I've got ten years on you aswell. I've played second world war games, I dabbled in DnD in the seventies. If I wanted to play a fantasy type game I would. But I chose 40k instead. Random this, random that is not fun.
I too am in the 40-50-ish age range and agree with you guys. I sat out 6th ed and seeing as 7th ed looks to be only worse, I'll be sitting this one out too.
I have come to the opinion that 40k has reached a point for a pathfinder type ruleset. This is why I am now announcing the creation of the collaborative effort called the "Gamee Waaughyors"(GW). We are a group who will look to use the legal protection of "satire" and court decisions stating that unsupported games can not be protected by ip laws in order to produce a stream-lined and FREE "4DK" ruleset from past(no longer supported editions).
kb305 wrote: take whatever you want from your collection and put it on the table.................. 85 dollars please.
they must have thought really hard on that one. probably took 5+ years in development and now they are ready to unveil their masterpiece.
And there is the truth that they constantly deny. Of course they know that the majority of players adhere closely, if not in complete lockstep, with the rules in the book. These "little changes" which are in fact foundational paradigm shifts are suited just for those that strictly adhere to the rules and play in a socially competitive way or strictly competitive way. It's an obvious marketing ploy, but they cannot let that be stated outright.
You don't have to have rules written to explain how to use your imagination. I never had to tell any of my children how to play pretend or that if you don't like the way a game plays to change how it works. That ability is inherent in the human condition.
The same marketing stratagem can be witnessed in the new Psychic rules. They stated that they found that psykers were woeful in 6th ed. and needed to boost them. That's utter hogwash for anyone that has played the game. They merely added rules that would can cause you to buy another codex and more models from a historically poor performing line of product with an emphasis on purchasing the really big/expensive models that don't cost them that much more to make.
Shooting is as much a part of the game as assault is and has every right to be, especially when you have entire armies dedicated to the concept, like Tau, which simply won't function without it. I've invested as much into this game as anyone else and I have every right to enjoy it the same, whether I'm playing Tau or Marines, and whether or not the dice I'm rolling are for bullets or clubs.
Assault is not "the most important aspect of 40k lore". It's an aspect, like shooting is, but nothing more than that. If it seems like the game, art or fluff revolves around assault or that it's glorified in some way, then it's only because close quarters fighting is considered more "cinematic" than shooting at range, and that's what GW's all about anymore. It's more "cinematic" when the plucky hero and the hard villain get into a long, dramatic, "honorable" sword fight instead of poking out of cover every few seconds to pop shots off at each other. Having the mighty Space Marine smash a demon's skull with his energy hammer tells a better "narrative" than having the same Marine put a bolter round between its eyes from range. In other words it makes the product look "cooler" and that's pretty much it.
If you're going to put quotation marks about what I said have the common decency to actually use the words I wrote and not insert your own. That's straight up BS right there and basically makes the rest of your material worthless.
I never once said shooting is NOT important, it is, but it should not be the only aspect of importance. Of course, someone who's army is geared around shooting would want ti that way so they can win all their battles of toy soldiers and be the king of the game store...well done, you're a legend. But since it's inception, 40K has had the assault phase be an integral part of the game and it should remain so. This does not mean that it should be a breeze for armies to charge into combat and mash the other army in one turn, but just because your army lacks cc ability or psykers should not diminish that role for other armies where they are important parts of their army.
For me, the worst thing (at least from the little I can glean here) is that the expectation and onus of who is "right" has changed too much. In the past, if you came with a batpoop crazy army of spammed OP stuff, you didn't reasonably expect it to be fine with everyone else. Now, that utterly ridiculous army is, according to WD, the defacto baseline for the game. If you break it, people will build it and (more importantly) buy it. It changes from the "bad guy" being the one bringing the previously illegal army to the mean guy who won't let him play with his completely legal toys. In a tourney setting, that's fine because all participants know (or at least should know) what they can or can't use. That isn't the case with pickup games with strangers.
I had an interesting discussion with another gamer yesterday about this and he said he noticed young gamers who came into 40k with 6e not having any issue with fliers, allies, and spam whereas it was a steep learning curve for him to accept (which he ultimately did). I suspect we'll have the same breakdown (pun intended) with this new edition that doubles down on the stuff seeming that alot of veteran players don't like whereas new players won't mind it as much since they don't know any better.
I'm probably coming across as a horrid WAAC tourney-playing GW-hater, but I have a pre-order placed with my FLGS for 7th edition, and I played a huge fluffy Apocalypse game yesterday with a bunch of such Extreme! Narrative Builders that none of them cared about points limits and they were using a more-or-less random mix of 4th to 6th ed rules (and a mix of 5th and 6th ed Apoc).
puma713 wrote:Now, it is in the rules, so you might can see why those people are a little miffed by this.
You want to play by the rules? Awesome, because the rules now say you don't need to follow the FOC anymore!
. . .thanks? for simply repeating what I pointed out. Did you have anything to add to the conversation or did you just want to belittle others for having a differing opinion? Because right now, it seems like the latter rather than the former.
Love the CGM(casual gamer mafia) hyperbole and propaganda here.
....
9 times out of 10 the donkeycave is some casual gamer bully that wants to "force" you to play their "narrative" of where his /her "super special elite battle group of nothing but homebrewed/home statted special characters wipes a legal army off the board.
Pro tip: it's generally considered poor form to complain about hyperbole, then write your own hyperbole within 2 lines
Maybe we old players are "bitching" because GW "is" ruining the game by trying to cash in on nostalgia. The move away from 2nd ed was hailed as a good move by the "majority" of the playerbase. In fact, sales figures back up that editions 3-5 saw the best growth for the 40k community.
6th has not been a success primarily "because" of GW revisiting broken game mechanics from the past. We "old" players bitch because we remember how bad these "nostalgic" elements were for game play.
Byte wrote:Well the information leaks have slowed down, but the GW hate in this thread has picked up. Hard to get through all the banter and hand wringing.
Hard to have a discussion with all the White Knights interrupting
every discussion to brand those who question GWs direction as "haters"(read heretics).
We get it. GW made 7th ed "just" for "you" and "your" gaming group. I'm sure that you'll enjoy having the 40k universe all to "yourselves".
There is a difference between appealing to "most" casual players and appealing to "only the most" casual players.
You're misunderstanding me completely. I'm not defending or white knighting GW in any way shape or form. At no point have I said that I agreed with their practices or like their way of doing business. I disagree with a lot of their decisions, most notably the closure of the Specialist Games line. And if I wasn't so heavily invested with 20 years of Warhamming fluff, I very much doubt I'd ever get into this hobby today based on the merits of the rules.
I'm also not gaking up a rumour thread by whining about what GW should or should not be doing in some theoretical parallel universe. What I am doing is injecting some reality into this thread, and from this post it's clear you need some of that. GW did in fact make 7E just for him and his gaming group, and any other gaming groups just like it. They also made Rogue Trader, 2E, 3E, 4E, 5E and 6E for the same audience. This should be abundantly clear by now after years of this approach to game design. Wailing and gnashing of teeth on some random internet forum isn't going to change the 40k game into something it isn't and never has been.
Complaining 40k doesn't have a tightly balanced ruleset is like ordering apple pie and complaining it doesn't taste of strawberries. If you want strawberries, go buy some strawberries and stop gaking up a news + rumour thread with your unrelated gripes.
I have really been enjoying 40k.
The players in the area (even at two tourneys i went too) have for the most part engaged in playing for the fun of the game rather than trying to bring the most OP unit spam to the table possible. Sure theres always a neck beard in every crowd, but for the most part, if you play for fun, take units you want to field together, the game can be a lot of fun and the lack of balance is not really a factor in how much fun i have.
The randomness can be a bit of a problem, however ANY game that relies on dice is inherently random. I too would like to see a bit more balance in 40k, however, even when loosing i enjoy seeing the game pan out. Narrative or not, the game was never designed for competitive play, and those often very vocal individuals in the community who complain endlessly about balance and wanting a competitive game will never be happy.
I enjoy building, covering and painting the models. I enjoy collecting said models. i enjoy playing the game with my friends. Since i play with my friends, the balance issue i not a big deal. If your playing with someone and you know they field cheese you can choose to either not play them, or to play cheese yourself.
I for one am interested to see what the next edition brings to the table. The daemon summoning psychic abilities worry me, but since NO ONE i know has seen what the rules are beyond the limited info GW has released. I'm not going to get all worked up and rage quit.
Complaining 40k doesn't have a tightly balanced ruleset is like ordering apple pie and complaining it doesn't taste of strawberries. If you want strawberries, go buy some strawberries and stop gaking up a news + rumour thread with your unrelated gripes.
Wouldn't complaining that the rules not only aren't "tightly balance" but have also become even less balanced be right on the nose for a news and rumors discussion? Considering that the discussion all revolves around the news and rumors of the game becoming less balanced.
xttz wrote: GW did in fact make 7E just for him and his gaming group, and any other gaming groups just like it. They also made Rogue Trader, 2E, 3E, 4E, 5E and 6E for the same audience. This should be abundantly clear by now after years of this approach to game design. Wailing and gnashing of teeth on some random internet forum isn't going to change the 40k game into something it isn't and never has been.
I actually agree with this. They have always said it is a "beer and pretzels" game. The more recent editions lent themselves to expansive Tournament play, but it was never a game built for tournaments and the people that crave that sort of balance/gameplay. Now that it has shifted back toward its roots a bit (and added some more loose allowances), the people clamoring for balance and rigidity in the rules seem to be the event/tournament crowd. The casual gamer can just as easily discuss with his opponent beforehand about the game, but the tournament player builds armies, practices, tweaks their list, etc., so to have a rule(s) come out that could possibly shake up that ritual is disturbing.
But, in the end, it was a beer and pretzels game that got picked up by the tournament scene. Now that it has shifted away from that again, the group that it picked up along the way isn't happy about it, while the ones who are happy may not notice the change as starkly as the event-goer.
xttz wrote: GW did in fact make 7E just for him and his gaming group, and any other gaming groups just like it. They also made Rogue Trader, 2E, 3E, 4E, 5E and 6E for the same audience. This should be abundantly clear by now after years of this approach to game design. Wailing and gnashing of teeth on some random internet forum isn't going to change the 40k game into something it isn't and never has been.
I actually agree with this. They have always said it is a "beer and pretzels" game. The more recent editions lent themselves to expansive Tournament play, but it was never a game built for tournaments and the people that crave that sort of balance/gameplay. Now that it has shifted back toward its roots a bit (and added some more loose allowances), the people clamoring for balance and rigidity in the rules seem to be the event/tournament crowd. The casual gamer can just as easily discuss with his opponent beforehand about the game, but the tournament player builds armies, practices, tweaks their list, etc., so to have a rule(s) come out that could possibly shake up that ritual is disturbing.
But, in the end, it was a beer and pretzels game that got picked up by the tournament scene. Now that it has shifted away from that again, the group that it picked up along the way isn't happy about it, while the ones who are happy may not notice the change as starkly as the event-goer.
Without the tournament crowd driving up sales this game will wither away before next edition (sometimes next year?)
Which brings back to the question of who, outside of themselves, are GW making the game for?
Well, in my opinion, they're not making it for anyone particular. They're making it for dollar signs. With the new edition being rumored to fail to fix glaring issues and instead add more issues, it feels like a cash-grab (maybe they thought 6E wasn't making enough money, so Unbound was the answer?) than anything. Just buy what you want and play. You don't need to follow a strict FoC. Oh, but you will need a separate codex and this book to play all that, though.
azreal13 wrote: Except 40K pretty much defies all but the most twisted and contorted definitions of what constitutes a "beer and pretzels" game.
Which brings back to the question of who, outside of themselves, are GW making the game for?
People who play Warhammered? You know, were you replace all your minis with shots of alchohol of the appropriate color (use of food coloring is allowed) that you have to drink if they die (Necrons have to refill their shots everytime they come back).
Because who cares about how good the rules are when you're three sheets to the wind?
Which brings back to the question of who, outside of themselves, are GW making the game for?
Well, in my opinion, they're not making it for anyone particular.
They're making it for dollar signs.
Those two ideas, while I don't necessarily think you're wrong, are almost mutually exclusive. But then, I've got far more criticism for the way GW appear to do business than the way they design their games.
With the new edition being rumored to fail to fix glaring issues and instead add more issues, it feels like a cash-grab (maybe they thought 6E wasn't making enough money, so Unbound was the answer?) than anything. Just buy what you want and play. You don't need to follow a strict FoC. Oh, but you will need a separate codex and this book to play all that, though.
Double digit drops in interim profits and turnover will send a public company scrambling for a short term fix, it's true.
I'm not sure anyone is "driving up sales". If sales were being driven up, I doubt they'd have released a new edition so soon.
It's their only way to sell more models. Highly comp WAAC players will immediately buy overpowered crap like there was no tomorrow. I imagine Riptide sales to rocket to the sky soon after they were found guilty of being massively overpowered and then, just as fast, going down again. 3-4 Riptides per army, done. No need to buy additional models, the comp crowd has what they need. With a new edition that might throw balance around again, new stuff might become OP. New stuff that gets bought.
But alas, veterans aren't GW's target market. In the contrary, long-time players are more likely to leave the game again when they find out that it has nothing more to offer.
Which brings back to the question of who, outside of themselves, are GW making the game for?
Well, in my opinion, they're not making it for anyone particular.
They're making it for dollar signs.
Those two ideas, while I don't necessarily think you're wrong, are almost mutually exclusive. But then, I've got far more criticism for the way GW appear to do business than the way they design their games.
True, you need to have a target market, but maybe that's what feels so desperate about it. I'm not sure they do.
xttz wrote: GW did in fact make 7E just for him and his gaming group, and any other gaming groups just like it. They also made Rogue Trader, 2E, 3E, 4E, 5E and 6E for the same audience. This should be abundantly clear by now after years of this approach to game design. Wailing and gnashing of teeth on some random internet forum isn't going to change the 40k game into something it isn't and never has been.
I actually agree with this. They have always said it is a "beer and pretzels" game. The more recent editions lent themselves to expansive Tournament play, but it was never a game built for tournaments and the people that crave that sort of balance/gameplay. Now that it has shifted back toward its roots a bit (and added some more loose allowances), the people clamoring for balance and rigidity in the rules seem to be the event/tournament crowd. The casual gamer can just as easily discuss with his opponent beforehand about the game, but the tournament player builds armies, practices, tweaks their list, etc., so to have a rule(s) come out that could possibly shake up that ritual is disturbing.
But, in the end, it was a beer and pretzels game that got picked up by the tournament scene. Now that it has shifted away from that again, the group that it picked up along the way isn't happy about it, while the ones who are happy may not notice the change as starkly as the event-goer.
You're clearly not a tournament gamer then. And that's fine. Enjoy your game your way. But, if you were a tournament gamer, you'd be aware that the tournament gamers aren't the ones suffering the most from the messed up balance issues. When it comes to balance, tournaments are better than they ever were. Up until the current craziness you could in advance know which army, and more or less which army list, would win any given event. It's gone from BA Rhino Rush, to massive Eldar Seer Councils, to Iron Warriors, to Leafblowers, to Grey Knights. Now it's a toss-up. O'vesastar could win, but so could a Seer Council, or a Beastpack, or a Centurionstar, or a Farsight Bomb, or even Drop Wolves. Tournaments are fine. And tournament participants know what they're getting into. Want to win? Bring a great list and know how to use it. Same as it ever was, except more choice in lists.
But casual, just having a laugh, games are not fine. I have a casual Blood Angels list. It's a motley collection of units I like and that are painted well, that has grown over many years into what it is now. Most of the units used to be a part of a competitive list at some point in the past, others are just there because I thought they were cool. I love my Blood Angels, and I love that list. It's pretty much the definition of casual listbuilding and gaming, isn't it? Well, there's this guy at my club. He's a purely casual player (unlike me, who also enjoys tournaments), and he has the exact same kind of list, having built it up over many years, consisting of stuff he thinks is cool and likes to paint. He doesn't even have a single unit repeated in that list. Not even troops. Because he'd rather not paint the same thing twice. Some of the units he has are there just because he thinks the models and concepts are awesome. And, his list even follows an established background theme. Sounds like we'd have some great games together, right? Wrong. See, he plays Eldar. We've played a couple of games with these lists, and it's just ridiculous. It's such a one-way street that even deploying the armies is just a waste of time. Even though he's a great guy. Even though we approach the game in the same way.
And in comparison, I went to a tournament a couple of months ago with my hard-as-nails Taudar army, and had five close, super-fun games against five great guys.
That's why I want balanced rules. Not for tournaments, but for casual games.
Here's the thing, folks: Labeling people with charged tags like 'haters' or 'white knights' because they have an opinion that differs from your own accomplishes nothing other than to sidetrack the discussion with pointless back-and-forth that someone then has to remove from the thread to refocus things on the topic.
I have removed the latest example of this from the thread. Please avoid a repeat performance.
I find it utterly laughable that someone can say "The more recent editions lent themselves to expansive tournament play" as if 6th edition and 5th edition were somehow the beginning of tournament hammer. They were the end of it. I played over a hundred tournaments in 3rd edition and it was great fun. I played a ton of tournaments in 2nd too of course and in 4th.
40K has never been less suited for tournament gaming or even semi-competitive gaming than it will be in the start of the 7th edition. Virtually the whole game is flat out unplayable with official rules if you're looking for even a suspension of disbelief type of game balance, and it has to be house ruled from top to bottom to become in any way shape or form playable. It might possibly be the worst mainstream tabletop game ever. I know these words sound harsh, but what other tabletop game is actually designed even worse than 40K? The only thing good about 40K is the stuff that has nothing to do with the game: The models and the fiction.
xttz wrote: How many adolescents do you think will go in and buy a Dreadnought and box of Terminators thinking they look cool, only to find they're not game-legal because they don't fit the 1 HQ 2 Troop FOC?.
Quite a few, no doubt. As they have for the last 20 years.
And, also as they have in the last 20 years, they'll play games with other adolescents who have similar collections, regardless of what the rules say or don't say they should use.
TableTopJosh wrote: Have there been any confirmed or realistic rumors about:
1. Changes to how many HQs can be in a unit?
2. Shooting at fliers?
3. New ally matrix?
1. Nothing so far.
2. Rumours of -2BS to snap shots are being bandied about by some, and shot down by others.
3. WD said "new ally matrix." What exactly that entails is unsure. Rumours of the only battle brothers being Eldar/DE, CSM/Daemons, Imperium are floating around.
Has there been anything losted about benefits to counter lords of war? Didn't escalation have some sort of reroll to steal initiative or other relatively meaningless (when compared o a mulriple str D weapon wielding superheavy) benefit when only one player had a lord of war? I wonder if that carried over or if getting double screwed by both super heavies AND unbound are made up with the warlord reroll and super scoring (dead) troops.
warboss wrote: Has there been anything losted about benefits to counter lords of war? Didn't escalation have some sort of reroll to steal initiative or other relatively meaningless (when compared o a mulriple str D weapon wielding superheavy) benefit when only one player had a lord of war? I wonder if that carried over or if getting double screwed by both super heavies AND unbound are made up with the warlord reroll and super scoring (dead) troops.
Not yet, I suspect this would be filed under the "many small changes" they've been banging on about with little detail (other than the small box out in WDW)
Goes to illustrate how little we really know about what's coming.
Noticed this in the new promo vid.
Seems like it says that both armies have to be chosen using the same method. So no unbound vs battle forged.
Unless the omitted word is 'not' instead of 'to'.
Hammernator wrote: Noticed this in the new promo vid.
Seems like it says that both armies have to be chosen using the same method. So no unbound vs battle forged.
Unless the omitted word is 'not' instead of 'to'.
Consensus on that bit popping up in the past was that it was "not" IIRC.
Hammernator wrote: Noticed this in the new promo vid.
Seems like it says that both armies have to be chosen using the same method. So no unbound vs battle forged.
Unless the omitted word is 'not' instead of 'to'.
I'm fairly certain its 'not' that's missing there. I don't have the pic handy, but I'm mostly sure there's a full size pic of that.
Hammernator wrote: Noticed this in the new promo vid.
Seems like it says that both armies have to be chosen using the same method. So no unbound vs battle forged.
Unless the omitted word is 'not' instead of 'to'.
I'm fairly certain its 'not' that's missing there. I don't have the pic handy, but I'm mostly sure there's a full size pic of that.
I just went back through the video and it says, "both players need not use the same method."
Hammernator wrote: Noticed this in the new promo vid.
Seems like it says that both armies have to be chosen using the same method. So no unbound vs battle forged.
Unless the omitted word is 'not' instead of 'to'.
I'm fairly certain its 'not' that's missing there. I don't have the pic handy, but I'm mostly sure there's a full size pic of that.
I just went back through the video and it says, "both players need not use the same method."
Hammernator wrote: Noticed this in the new promo vid.
Seems like it says that both armies have to be chosen using the same method. So no unbound vs battle forged.
Unless the omitted word is 'not' instead of 'to'.
Constantly. For this first battle, I chose a Battleforged
Ork army with plenty of vehicles. Jes, meanwhile, has taken a liking to Unbound
Tyranid armies consisting entirely of Monstrous Creatures and went for as many big
creatures as he could fit in 1200 points (you can see our army lists on page 29). For our game,
we rolled The Spoils of War, a mission with a strong focus on capturing the Objective
Markers dotted around the battlefield. We then set up our armies, each drew three Tactical
Pure speculation, but that doesn't seem as daft as anyone expecting the whole rulebook to be updated on digital platforms. I'd still not expect I though, just be pleasantly surprised if it happens.
Pure speculation, but that doesn't seem as daft as anyone expecting the whole rulebook to be updated on digital platforms. I'd still not expect I though, just be pleasantly surprised if it happens.
Well so far as we all know, the Psyker spell types are all still there, just the two Daemonology types to add on.. though GW never ceases to surprise..
Love the CGM(casual gamer mafia) hyperbole and propaganda here.
....
9 times out of 10 the donkeycave is some casual gamer bully that wants to "force" you to play their "narrative" of where his /her "super special elite battle group" of nothing but homebrewed/home statted special characters wipes a legal army off the board.
Pro tip: it's generally considered poor form to complain about hyperbole, then write your own hyperbole within 2 lines
Pro- Pro-tip: Don't accuse something of being hyperbole before finding out whether or not said instance has occurred in real life.
What I described above has happened numerous times with one instance of the individual actaully describing his list as his " super special elite homebrewed battlegroup."
Love the CGM(casual gamer mafia) hyperbole and propaganda here.
....
9 times out of 10 the donkeycave is some casual gamer bully that wants to "force" you to play their "narrative" of where his /her "super special elite battle group" of nothing but homebrewed/home statted special characters wipes a legal army off the board.
Pro tip: it's generally considered poor form to complain about hyperbole, then write your own hyperbole within 2 lines
Pro- Pro-tip: Don't accuse something of being hyperbole before finding out whether or not said instance has occurred in real life.
9 times out of 10, starting a sentence with "9 times out of 10" is hyperbole.
Pure speculation, but that doesn't seem as daft as anyone expecting the whole rulebook to be updated on digital platforms. I'd still not expect I though, just be pleasantly surprised if it happens.
Well so far as we all know, the Psyker spell types are all still there, just the two Daemonology types to add on.. though GW never ceases to surprise..
They may all be substantially revised or rewritten to allow for the different casting time, or to adjust their efficacy/clarify their wording. Again, like I said, not impossible, but not a slam dunk either.
Love the CGM(casual gamer mafia) hyperbole and propaganda here.
....
9 times out of 10 the donkeycave is some casual gamer bully that wants to "force" you to play their "narrative" of where his /her "super special elite battle group" of nothing but homebrewed/home statted special characters wipes a legal army off the board.
Pro tip: it's generally considered poor form to complain about hyperbole, then write your own hyperbole within 2 lines
Pro- Pro-tip: Don't accuse something of being hyperbole before finding out whether or not said instance has occurred in real life.
9 times out of 10, starting a sentence with "9 times out of 10" is hyperbole.
Not by my experience.
You can accuse my example of being anecdotal, yes.
Doesn't contradict that my personal experience with 40k donkey caves has been dominated by the "casual" homebrew crowd. When I say 9 out of 10 I mean that out of the last 10 negative experiences in 40k ..9 of them were the self proclaimed cssual players.
I mean I get it,. Being called a rules nazi because someone didn't like that I turned down a game because I didn't want to play by rules he was trying to make up on the spot is supposed to be fun.
Being called a coward because I didn't want to indulge someone by playing their "Court of the Emperor"(Imperial version of eldar high king with homebrew rules for the primarchs) is a joy. I love have to resist the urge to smack the jerks and instead take my complaint to the store owner/manager.
I have other examples but you should get the gist.
- All Armies get some/all of the book powers, inferred from the WD info on No Demonology for Nids.
- Allies are refined (i.e. Your primary detachment cannot join/embark/buff/debuff your secondary detachment)
- Snap Firing.... there is going to be an extra caveat to support BS3 models. Or some additional item like grounding is on a 2+ now (but only after a wound is suffered, roll once per phase).
- Nid/Deldar/Necron - some interesting additions to their psychic phase, perhaps -1 to all power rolls when used vs a Deldar army.
- Challenges refined (somehow)
- LOS changed/removed or limited.
- The HEAVY vehicle type or/and the Ordnance weapon type amended/improved.
- Infantry Movement and/or wound allocation amended to support Infantry Movement.
Just wanted to show + I will look back to see if I've come close on any of these....
Actually, excess wounds spill over in challenges now, not clear if that is actual damage to the unit or just for purposes of combat res, but it is confirmed from WDW
azreal13 wrote: Actually, excess wounds spill over in challenges now, not clear if that is actual damage to the unit or just for purposes of combat res, but it is confirmed from WDW
. Yeah I'm curious on this one myself. I'd much rather it just be for combat resolution, but I'm betting in the minority for that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hammernator wrote: Noticed this in the new promo vid.
Seems like it says that both armies have to be chosen using the same method. So no unbound vs battle forged.
Unless the omitted word is 'not' instead of 'to'.
azreal13 wrote: Actually, excess wounds spill over in challenges now, not clear if that is actual damage to the unit or just for purposes of combat res, but it is confirmed from WDW
. Yeah I'm curious on this one myself. I'd much rather it just be for combat resolution, but I'm betting in the minority for that.
I'd be fine with that. I just have a sneaking suspicion based on their "watch out for Bloodthirsters" comment that it won't work that way.
azreal13 wrote: Actually, excess wounds spill over in challenges now, not clear if that is actual damage to the unit or just for purposes of combat res, but it is confirmed from WDW
. Yeah I'm curious on this one myself. I'd much rather it just be for combat resolution, but I'm betting in the minority for that.
I'd be fine with that. I just have a sneaking suspicion based on their "watch out for Bloodthirsters" comment that it won't work that way.
It always felt really "gamey" to make a BT or hive tyrant chump a round of combat on some mook sergeant. This would ensure they fulfill their potential in cc for the points you pay.
azreal13 wrote: Actually, excess wounds spill over in challenges now, not clear if that is actual damage to the unit or just for purposes of combat res, but it is confirmed from WDW
. Yeah I'm curious on this one myself. I'd much rather it just be for combat resolution, but I'm betting in the minority for that.
I'd be fine with that. I just have a sneaking suspicion based on their "watch out for Bloodthirsters" comment that it won't work that way.
It always felt really "gamey" to make a BT or hive tyrant chump a round of combat on some mook sergeant. This would ensure they fulfill their potential in cc for the points you pay.
Exactly.
This dude:
Spoiler:
should not have to stop inflicting mass carnage just because one of these guys:
Mij'aan wrote: If the latest army is better than the previously released army, chances are you're going to buy said army...
What happened with Tyranids 6th edition though?
It's simple, the problem is, rather than trying to balance units and then writing the fluff for the stuff, they write the fluff and then write rules for the army. This is the reason Unbound will be such a minefield; you can't reliable give that much freedom in a game with such poor internal and external balance
azreal13 wrote: Actually, excess wounds spill over in challenges now, not clear if that is actual damage to the unit or just for purposes of combat res, but it is confirmed from WDW
. Yeah I'm curious on this one myself. I'd much rather it just be for combat resolution, but I'm betting in the minority for that.
I'd be fine with that. I just have a sneaking suspicion based on their "watch out for Bloodthirsters" comment that it won't work that way.
It always felt really "gamey" to make a BT or hive tyrant chump a round of combat on some mook sergeant. This would ensure they fulfill their potential in cc for the points you pay.
Exactly.
This dude:
Spoiler:
should not have to stop inflicting mass carnage just because one of these guys:
Spoiler:
threw a glove at him.
Maybe it's to represent the extra time it takes the BT to compose himself from all the laughing?
Hammernator wrote: Noticed this in the new promo vid.
Seems like it says that both armies have to be chosen using the same method. So no unbound vs battle forged.
Unless the omitted word is 'not' instead of 'to'.
Boy I hope you're right. I'd be so happy.
It was confirmed some time ago that the sentence in question has a 'not' in it.
I actually like that the excess wound from the challenge spill over. I just hope that the rabble not involved in the challenge can hit back as well.
I'm getting pissed off that my big blob of cultist cant take down a single character, since the cult leader has to declare a challenge (stupid un-chaosy rule), he always get slaughtered while the 20 cultist do nothing , which make me lose the combat badly and the 20 cultist flee.
That, or excess wounds will just count as extra combat resolution, and instead of losing by -1 you instead lose by -4, or more, depending on the character/rolls/etc.
I realize what is said in the latest WD. But I want to remind everyone what was printed in the previous WD. On pp16-17 Jes writes about Unbound lists:
"...take whatever you want...throw the FOC out the window (while still adhering to unit sizes and heeding the relationships described by the all-new allies matrix)"
There is a rumor that 'Come Apoc' allies will act like 'Desperate Allies'... but either way, this does but something of a restraint on some of these Unbound lists.
azreal13 wrote: Actually, excess wounds spill over in challenges now, not clear if that is actual damage to the unit or just for purposes of combat res, but it is confirmed from WDW
. Yeah I'm curious on this one myself. I'd much rather it just be for combat resolution, but I'm betting in the minority for that.
I'd be fine with that. I just have a sneaking suspicion based on their "watch out for Bloodthirsters" comment that it won't work that way.
It always felt really "gamey" to make a BT or hive tyrant chump a round of combat on some mook sergeant. This would ensure they fulfill their potential in cc for the points you pay.
Exactly.
This dude:
Spoiler:
should not have to stop inflicting mass carnage just because one of these guys:
Spoiler:
threw a glove at him.
Agreed, but the solution isn't that sarg has to fight it alone and get butchered. Why on earth are sarg's two options fight it alone or do nothing? Makes no sense.
Should be simple enough to have a system that lets cc big baddies do their thing but doesn't make every sarg and squad character worthless in points and stupid in demeanor.
Honestly, there's no reason for challenges to have anywhere near the significance they do. The 40k universe is not the WHFB universe, and most races don't have enough respect for their enemies to justify any penalty for refusing a challenge, if it is offered at all.
exactly, for example Tyranids dont care about honor, as the example of the eldar avatar challenging a Hive Tyrant only to be crushed by a brood of carnifex shows. At worst, the rule for refusing a challenge should be minus 1 to combat resolution, to show that the cowardly act of the leader affect the morale of the troopers.
I realize what is said in the latest WD. But I want to remind everyone what was printed in the previous WD. On pp16-17 Jes writes about Unbound lists:
"...take whatever you want...throw the FOC out the window (while still adhering to unit sizes and heeding the relationships described by the all-new allies matrix)"
There is a rumor that 'Come Apoc' allies will act like 'Desperate Allies'... but either way, this does but something of a restraint on some of these Unbound lists.
Fair enough, but you must remember that GW gamer designers have repeatedly shown a lack of understanding of their own rules. So anything in WD should be considered a rumor with about a 60% accuracy rate.
streetsamurai wrote: exactly, for example Tyranids dont care about honor, as the example of the eldar avatar challenging a Hive Tyrant only to be crushed by a brood of carnifex shows. At worst, the rule for refusing a challenge should be minus 1 to combat resolution, to show that the cowardly act of the leader affect the morale of the troopers.
Why should it be about honor? It's about leaders meeting face to face for a showdown. Tyranid's see their leaders, and raise them a bonesword.
Each sides 'Champions' meeting on the battle field 1-2-1 is pretty much the standard.
If it was only -1 LD, then there really would be no point in the rule o.0
Nem wrote: If it was only -1 LD, then there really would be no point in the rule o.0
That would imply that there was a gameplay-related point behind that rule when it was designed in the first place.
Which is something I'm not sure of. The only reason I can think of is to provide a tool for everyone to clear up that annoying hidden special equipment. But considering that was the edition that introduced precision strikes/shots as a general rule, it makes me think that challenges became going overboard with the idea, bringing a lot of unfortunate consequences alongside due to mechanics being universal and affecting much more than wound allocation.
An argument may be made that other effects were intentional (hard to argue otherwise tbh), but to me it seems that they did more damage than improvement.
The game designers want people to fight challenges. That's why they implemented the rule. That's why someone refusing a challenge will always suffer a heavy penalty like not being able to fight at all. I highly doubt that this will change.
Jidmah wrote: The game designers want people to fight challenges.
A simple question: why on earth would they want it considering that not all factions are built around such idea? In fact, even from "narrative" point of view it makes little (even less than from gameplay standpoint, actually) sense.
azreal13 wrote: Except 40K pretty much defies all but the most twisted and contorted definitions of what constitutes a "beer and pretzels" game.
Which brings back to the question of who, outside of themselves, are GW making the game for?
Exactly. I'm not sure the people who are claiming 40K is good because it's a beer and pretzels game really know what that means.
Steve steveson wrote: I really want the people saying "balance is possible with open gaming and narrative play" to show games that manage it, as I can't think of any. Cirtanly non that reach the diversity and scale of 40k. Yes 40k could be more balanced, but the more open you get, the more rules interactions you get, the more room for broken combinations. And the more open the choices the more rules interact, the more likely there is to be problems.
I genuinely can't understand how 40K is more narrative than any other game. It doesn't mean anything.
As for balanced and "narrative" games; I'd say that Malifaux and Flames Of War are better than GW in every way.
Malifaux seems to have pretty decent internal/external balance, with a decent mix of craziness, plenty of story line and a reasonable chance of victory. I've played in 2 Tournaments so far and almost all of the games have been pretty close. There was even one where my master and henchment were being ragdolled by a giant teddy bear and somehow I still won the game on points. It's a very small scale game though, with a few characters per side (I think my 40ss crew runs to 9 minis).
Flames Of War seems pretty balanced; equivalent points armies usually stand a reasonable chance, and the rules allow some advantages to an infantry army against a tank army (making them defenders). Most of the balance issues I've encountered have been down to not bringing suitable options like not bringing any AA weapons when your opponent has aircraft, or not bringing any A/T guns when your opponent fields a tank army. I've never played a game where I didn't feel I had a chance of winning somehow. It's a lot more complex than 40K rules wise though, but it's all very clear so you don't need to refer to the rules often.
I've had plenty narrative games too, where the victory has come down to a single die roll. In one large game we got to the last turn with the enemy holding more objectives, and I had a unit of paras within charging range of contesting one to make it a draw. I charged, did quite well but ultimately failed, to the cheering of the victors.
Whereas in 40K, I've got a pretty casual mostly infantry IG army (PCS, 2 infantry squads, HWT team [Lascannon, HB, Missile Launcher], Ogryns, Squats, 2 Chimeras, 2 Russes, 2 Sentinels), and of my latest games I've done alright against a casual Marines army, but have been regularly tabled by everything else. Including a turn 2 victory by a Tau force with a riptide. Every deploying Marbo with a successful demo charge taking out a unit or something had no effect. The only reason I wasn't wiped out in turn 1 was because he ran out of dice. I'll still play it by my personal objectives have moved from "maybe I can win this" to "maybe I can hold out or 4 turns, or at least take out that ___ at the same time". I've no interest in spamming up my army to make winning possible. Whereas with the other 2 games I rarely see any game as a foregone conclusion at the deployment stage.
streetsamurai wrote: I actually like that the excess wound from the challenge spill over. I just hope that the rabble not involved in the challenge can hit back as well.
I'm getting pissed off that my big blob of cultist cant take down a single character, since the cult leader has to declare a challenge (stupid un-chaosy rule), he always get slaughtered while the 20 cultist do nothing , which make me lose the combat badly and the 20 cultist flee.
I understand why you want that, but if people in the challenge can kill people outside the challenge, and people outside the challenge can kill people inside of it… does the challenge effectively do anything ?
Jidmah wrote: The game designers want people to fight challenges.
A simple question: why on earth would they want it considering that not all factions are built around such idea? In fact, even from "narrative" point of view it makes little (even less than from gameplay standpoint, actually) sense.
Indeed, why would my Guard Sergeant accept a challenge from a Greater Daemon or Mephiston or whatever, when the only conclusion is that he's going to get annihilated. Or why would a Necron, Tau or Tyranid accept a challenge?
I can see it making some sense for Chaos and Orks and Dark Eldar, but the rest it just seems like they are trying to force more of a storyline at the expense of, well, everything else.
streetsamurai wrote: I actually like that the excess wound from the challenge spill over. I just hope that the rabble not involved in the challenge can hit back as well.
I'm getting pissed off that my big blob of cultist cant take down a single character, since the cult leader has to declare a challenge (stupid un-chaosy rule), he always get slaughtered while the 20 cultist do nothing , which make me lose the combat badly and the 20 cultist flee.
I understand why you want that, but if people in the challenge can kill people outside the challenge, and people outside the challenge can kill people inside of it… does the challenge effectively do anything ?
It could resolve first. But does the challenge actually add anything to the game other than another round to deal with?
Nem wrote: If it was only -1 LD, then there really would be no point in the rule o.0
That would imply that there was a gameplay-related point behind that rule when it was designed in the first place.
Which is something I'm not sure of. The only reason I can think of is to provide a tool for everyone to clear up that annoying hidden special equipment. But considering that was the edition that introduced precision strikes/shots as a general rule, it makes me think that challenges became going overboard with the idea, bringing a lot of unfortunate consequences alongside due to mechanics being universal and affecting much more than wound allocation.
An argument may be made that other effects were intentional (hard to argue otherwise tbh), but to me it seems that they did more damage than improvement.
Some armies (like Tyranids) have single model (Most of the time...) Unit's which can be specialized in CC, while precision strikes help, single models don't get -that- many attacks in CC, it can take them 3 turns to wipe out rest of a unit if the unit ignores combat res or SA's (Which is the majority of the represented armies), by that time your Hive Tyrants may even be dead from force/power weapons or weight of hits from the unit (I mean.. 4 wounds... just 4 wounds...). Many characters have extra layers of defense themselves, I wouldn't them easy kills even with Challenges, most of the time I'm hoping a Smash wound goes through - And all that is after you've spent time getting shot in the face, ran around the board to catch up just to get there.
Without challenges, the effectiveness of these units against units with other characters are very limited - It also works in favor of CC based armies where a Character is in a unit - Basically it's something that gives CC characters the upper hand.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wounds spilling over, is probably in response to the fact uber CC machines were forced into 2 or more rounds of combat from being challenged. While you could say 'sacrifice is a strategic choice' If you know you had no chance it's just a mechanic which slows the character down. Challenges arn't meant to be at the detriment to Mr Uber, hence the change.
Obviously I believe there is a game related point.
A different possibility would be to change wound allocation in CC so attackers allocate wounds, but that still doesn't help single model unit's much.
Jidmah wrote: The game designers want people to fight challenges.
A simple question: why on earth would they want it considering that not all factions are built around such idea? In fact, even from "narrative" point of view it makes little (even less than from gameplay standpoint, actually) sense.
In the fluff (Codex and BL) :
Orks are more than happy to fight challenges, show them who's boss and all that.
Astartes are more than happy to fight in challenges.
Dark Elder are more than happy to fight in challenges.
Eldar are more than happy to fight in challenges.
Sororitas are more than happy to fight in challenges.
Astra Millitarium are either happy to do so or don't want to be seen to be refusing.
The only ones that are not are:
'Nids - they don't really see the point except maybe the SC Hive Tyrant?
Tau - Its close combat - not something they seek out - although Farsight would be up for it.
So IMO most factions it would make perfect sense and like Skaven in WFB you make a rule for those that don't....................
As for balanced and "narrative" games; I'd say that Malifaux and Flames Of War are better than GW in every way.
Malifaux seems to have pretty decent internal/external balance, with a decent mix of craziness, plenty of story line and a reasonable chance of victory. I've played in 2 Tournaments so far and almost all of the games have been pretty close. There was even one where my master and henchment were being ragdolled by a giant teddy bear and somehow I still won the game on points. It's a very small scale game though, with a few characters per side (I think my 40ss crew runs to 9 minis).
Flames Of War seems pretty balanced; equivalent points armies usually stand a reasonable chance, and the rules allow some advantages to an infantry army against a tank army (making them defenders). Most of the balance issues I've encountered have been down to not bringing suitable options like not bringing any AA weapons when your opponent has aircraft, or not bringing any A/T guns when your opponent fields a tank army. I've never played a game where I didn't feel I had a chance of winning somehow. It's a lot more complex than 40K rules wise though, but it's all very clear so you don't need to refer to the rules often.
I've had plenty narrative games too, where the victory has come down to a single die roll. In one large game we got to the last turn with the enemy holding more objectives, and I had a unit of paras within charging range of contesting one to make it a draw. I charged, did quite well but ultimately failed, to the cheering of the victors.
Whereas in 40K, I've got a pretty casual mostly infantry IG army (PCS, 2 infantry squads, HWT team [Lascannon, HB, Missile Launcher], Ogryns, Squats, 2 Chimeras, 2 Russes, 2 Sentinels), and of my latest games I've done alright against a casual Marines army, but have been regularly tabled by everything else. Including a turn 2 victory by a Tau force with a riptide. Every deploying Marbo with a successful demo charge taking out a unit or something had no effect. The only reason I wasn't wiped out in turn 1 was because he ran out of dice. I'll still play it by my personal objectives have moved from "maybe I can win this" to "maybe I can hold out or 4 turns, or at least take out that ___ at the same time". I've no interest in spamming up my army to make winning possible. Whereas with the other 2 games I rarely see any game as a foregone conclusion at the deployment stage.
I'd say this exactly has been my experience over the last six months. It seems every game, but 40k, you have a good chance at a close game no matter how the forces go on the table. With 40k, a close game is actually a rarity and most games end up being one side getting tabled. This is the part that GW most needs to fix yet, with this coming edition, this glaring problem is going to get worse, not better.
Yeah, if I play a game of Infinity, it's pretty clear that the winner, every time, is either the player who made fewest mistakes in game, or the player who best capitalised on his/her opponent's mistakes. Winning and losing both happen due to player agency.
In 40K it's much more likely that you come away from a game thinking that there was pretty much nothing you could have done to change the outcome. Not always, but often enough to be dissatisfying.
Jidmah wrote: The game designers want people to fight challenges.
A simple question: why on earth would they want it considering that not all factions are built around such idea? In fact, even from "narrative" point of view it makes little (even less than from gameplay standpoint, actually) sense.
In the fluff (Codex and BL) :
Orks are more than happy to fight challenges, show them who's boss and all that.
Astartes are more than happy to fight in challenges.
Dark Elder are more than happy to fight in challenges.
Eldar are more than happy to fight in challenges.
Sororitas are more than happy to fight in challenges.
Astra Millitarium are either happy to do so or don't want to be seen to be refusing.
The only ones that are not are:
'Nids - they don't really see the point except maybe the SC Hive Tyrant?
Tau - Its close combat - not something they seek out - although Farsight would be up for it.
So IMO most factions it would make perfect sense and like Skaven in WFB you make a rule for those that don't....................
Why wouldn't Tyranids? Just because they want to nom things does not mean they are all stupid or don't act in a strategic manner. Some are spawned with the explicit purpose of taking down the strongest enemies from among the enemy ranks.
-The the Swarmlord bellowed a challenge to Calgar
The rules for accepting or not either way when issued a challenge make sense to any army, either you stand up and fight, or seek protection / are protected by your men, which is exactly what happens. The rules for Characters also say they must pile in as soon as they are able - they're place is on the front line. Seems GW line of thinking is Characters are the braver, captain goes down with his ship type.
More than the randomness, I object to the way that the vast majority of playing time seems to have no effect on the outcome. By the end of turn two it seems that most games have been settled.
Perfect Organism wrote: More than the randomness, I object to the way that the vast majority of playing time seems to have no effect on the outcome. By the end of turn two it seems that most games have been settled.
I saw a game where white scars relying on their jink lost the initiative. That was pretty much settled with that dice roll lol.
Maybe it's my meta, but 80% of our games can be called as 'close', 1 or 2 VP apart, most are actually draws etc.
Most of my good games of 40k come down to 3-4 individual rolls at the end of the game. The problem comes when I play against people who dont know the rules, or are bad at making lists. If that is the kind of game they want to play, thats fine, however I need to know in advance so I can have the right list ready. I am not going to have that list ready in a tournament, I am going in assuming that I am facing competition.
Leth wrote: Most of my good games of 40k come down to 3-4 individual rolls at the end of the game. The problem comes when I play against people who dont know the rules, or are bad at making lists. If that is the kind of game they want to play, thats fine, however I need to know in advance so I can have the right list ready. I am not going to have that list ready in a tournament, I am going in assuming that I am facing competition.
I know what you mean, I often find it's difficult to find the balance between curbstomping your opponent and losing... but I often learn more from a game when I lose, so I don't mind. It is indeed incredibly fun when the game comes down to a few rolls though. Like my friend failing 3 saves and losing 3 wounds on his 2+ armour save by rolling 3 ones, and despite the odds being heavily stacked in his favour up to that point, he lost. Stuff like that is legendary and won't be forgotten.
Jidmah wrote: The game designers want people to fight challenges.
A simple question: why on earth would they want it considering that not all factions are built around such idea? In fact, even from "narrative" point of view it makes little (even less than from gameplay standpoint, actually) sense.
Good question. That's a question a game developer is supposed to ask the game designer. At least up till now, Warhammer 40k had no such development workflow, so no one asked the designers what they were thinking.
At least they seem to have gotten that challenges were bastardized as defense mechanism against close combat characters, and are trying to fix that. Better than nothing, I guess.
Why wouldn't Tyranids? Just because they want to nom things does not mean they are all stupid or don't act in a strategic manner. Some are spawned with the explicit purpose of taking down the strongest enemies from among the enemy ranks.
-The the Swarmlord bellowed a challenge to Calgar
The rules for accepting or not either way when issued a challenge make sense to any army, either you stand up and fight, or seek protection / are protected by your men, which is exactly what happens. The rules for Characters also say they must pile in as soon as they are able - they're place is on the front line. Seems GW line of thinking is Characters are the braver, captain goes down with his ship type.
Tyranids are all about wiping everything out in the most efficient and fastest way possible. They're content to hurl massive numbers of fodder at their enemies, happy in the knowledge that it's not actually a waste because the corpses will be consumed and broken down to be used once more. Tyranids also are heavily suggested to lack sentience, even amongst the 'upper' creatures such as Hive Tyrants. There are exceptions (hello Swarmlord).
That said, accepting and issuing Challenges makes no sense for Nids. Nids have no concept of honor or pride. They don't want to show off their skill in combat to anyone be they friend or foe. With the exception of the Swarmlord and specially grown creatures, their solution to -every- problem is "throw more bodies at it".
Tyranids issuing challenges is wierd because it's inefficient; why religate your four armed, bio-plasma puking, hulking Hive Tyrant to dueling one human a quarter of his size when he could just slaughter the whole dozen of them just as fast? Not to mention that (so far as I know) there's no examples of Nids ever speaking any real languages. They hiss, but it doesn't really mean anything. With regards to accepting challenges, I'd argue that Nids wouldn't even understand what was going on (again, Swarmlord not withstanding). Even if they did they wouldn't care; they've no concept of honor or showmanship. Again, why fight one little humie when you can slaughter the whole group? Lastly, it would be dangerous. Synapse creatures are extremely important to the Nids, and they know full-well that the best way to beat them is to hurt the web. Discounting every above point made, the mere act of risking something as critical as a higher synapse life-form is so horribly far from what the Tyranids are supposed to do.
Tyranids are all about wiping everything out in the most efficient and fastest way possible. They're content to hurl massive numbers of fodder at their enemies, happy in the knowledge that it's not actually a waste because the corpses will be consumed and broken down to be used once more. Tyranids also are heavily suggested to lack sentience, even amongst the 'upper' creatures such as Hive Tyrants. There are exceptions (hello Swarmlord).
Just because the biomass is recovered, doesn't mean there is no loss in (a) growing these organisms in the first place, (b) breaking it down again (digesting things is one of the most energy-draining things an organism can do, hence why you get tired after eating a lot), and (c) re-growing these organisms again.
Quite a few animals consume many times their bodyweight on a daily or near-daily basis just to keep active. It certainly takes many hundred-times the body weight of any given creature to grow a new version of it.
Recovering biomass of slain Nids mitigates the loss a little bit, but it's still only a drop in the bucket and possibly not always the most efficient way to fight.
Why wouldn't Tyranids? Just because they want to nom things does not mean they are all stupid or don't act in a strategic manner. Some are spawned with the explicit purpose of taking down the strongest enemies from among the enemy ranks.
-The the Swarmlord bellowed a challenge to Calgar
The rules for accepting or not either way when issued a challenge make sense to any army, either you stand up and fight, or seek protection / are protected by your men, which is exactly what happens. The rules for Characters also say they must pile in as soon as they are able - they're place is on the front line. Seems GW line of thinking is Characters are the braver, captain goes down with his ship type.
Tyranids are all about wiping everything out in the most efficient and fastest way possible. They're content to hurl massive numbers of fodder at their enemies, happy in the knowledge that it's not actually a waste because the corpses will be consumed and broken down to be used once more. Tyranids also are heavily suggested to lack sentience, even amongst the 'upper' creatures such as Hive Tyrants. There are exceptions (hello Swarmlord).
That said, accepting and issuing Challenges makes no sense for Nids. Nids have no concept of honor or pride. They don't want to show off their skill in combat to anyone be they friend or foe. With the exception of the Swarmlord and specially grown creatures, their solution to -every- problem is "throw more bodies at it".
Tyranids issuing challenges is wierd because it's inefficient; why religate your four armed, bio-plasma puking, hulking Hive Tyrant to dueling one human a quarter of his size when he could just slaughter the whole dozen of them just as fast? Not to mention that (so far as I know) there's no examples of Nids ever speaking any real languages. They hiss, but it doesn't really mean anything. With regards to accepting challenges, I'd argue that Nids wouldn't even understand what was going on (again, Swarmlord not withstanding). Even if they did they wouldn't care; they've no concept of honor or showmanship. Again, why fight one little humie when you can slaughter the whole group? Lastly, it would be dangerous. Synapse creatures are extremely important to the Nids, and they know full-well that the best way to beat them is to hurt the web. Discounting every above point made, the mere act of risking something as critical as a higher synapse life-form is so horribly far from what the Tyranids are supposed to do.
>_> Sorry, got kind of off topic there.
You are actually incorrect, the hive mind cares only about victory, if they think the best way to do that is throw bodies at it then they will do that, if they sense some sort of psychological weakness in their prey they can exploit they will do that as well. To behead the beast is all that matters.
@morganfreeman ..wait, morgan freeman? wow.
Anyway, Largely agree with everything you've said there. It's a shame that GW show nids no love these days..
Tyranids should have their own ruleset for challenges. BUT - That said, let's see what the new edition has in store.
Why wouldn't Tyranids? Just because they want to nom things does not mean they are all stupid or don't act in a strategic manner. Some are spawned with the explicit purpose of taking down the strongest enemies from among the enemy ranks.
-The the Swarmlord bellowed a challenge to Calgar
The rules for accepting or not either way when issued a challenge make sense to any army, either you stand up and fight, or seek protection / are protected by your men, which is exactly what happens. The rules for Characters also say they must pile in as soon as they are able - they're place is on the front line. Seems GW line of thinking is Characters are the braver, captain goes down with his ship type.
Tyranids are all about wiping everything out in the most efficient and fastest way possible. They're content to hurl massive numbers of fodder at their enemies, happy in the knowledge that it's not actually a waste because the corpses will be consumed and broken down to be used once more. Tyranids also are heavily suggested to lack sentience, even amongst the 'upper' creatures such as Hive Tyrants. There are exceptions (hello Swarmlord).
That said, accepting and issuing Challenges makes no sense for Nids. Nids have no concept of honor or pride. They don't want to show off their skill in combat to anyone be they friend or foe. With the exception of the Swarmlord and specially grown creatures, their solution to -every- problem is "throw more bodies at it".
Tyranids issuing challenges is wierd because it's inefficient; why religate your four armed, bio-plasma puking, hulking Hive Tyrant to dueling one human a quarter of his size when he could just slaughter the whole dozen of them just as fast? Not to mention that (so far as I know) there's no examples of Nids ever speaking any real languages. They hiss, but it doesn't really mean anything. With regards to accepting challenges, I'd argue that Nids wouldn't even understand what was going on (again, Swarmlord not withstanding). Even if they did they wouldn't care; they've no concept of honor or showmanship. Again, why fight one little humie when you can slaughter the whole group? Lastly, it would be dangerous. Synapse creatures are extremely important to the Nids, and they know full-well that the best way to beat them is to hurt the web. Discounting every above point made, the mere act of risking something as critical as a higher synapse life-form is so horribly far from what the Tyranids are supposed to do.
>_> Sorry, got kind of off topic there.
Bowing to the will of the hive mind does not mean they, nor the Hive mind are stupid. The hive fleets operate in a strategic manner, it prioritizes and adapts to threats. See that one guy organizing the enemy troops? No reason to think the hive mind wouldn't priorities and put wanted posters directly to his head.
I get mad when people suggest 'Nids are too stupid to understand things. They accidentally made Doom, not in relation to their enemy or anything. Genestealers drop first out of luck. Yeah... no. While most will default to omnom programming, many of them are independent, and while influenced by the Hive mind the army is anything but stupid.
Even animals recognize a challenge.
Who says challenges rely on speaking? Many will simply be meeting on the battlefield look at each other and go 'yeah, he's mine' or 'I'll handle this', 'For glory!' etc etc. There are many reasons people choose to fight 1 to 1. You watch movies? Not always asking if they want to challenge.
I consider the challenged issued by nids to be just the critter laying claim to his meal. The Alpha lion always gets the largest and best share of the meat after all.
In this case, the lion is a Hive Tyrant and the meat is some poor commander who just happened to be within smelling distance.
Why wouldn't Tyranids? Just because they want to nom things does not mean they are all stupid or don't act in a strategic manner. Some are spawned with the explicit purpose of taking down the strongest enemies from among the enemy ranks.
-The the Swarmlord bellowed a challenge to Calgar
The rules for accepting or not either way when issued a challenge make sense to any army, either you stand up and fight, or seek protection / are protected by your men, which is exactly what happens. The rules for Characters also say they must pile in as soon as they are able - they're place is on the front line. Seems GW line of thinking is Characters are the braver, captain goes down with his ship type.
Tyranids are all about wiping everything out in the most efficient and fastest way possible. They're content to hurl massive numbers of fodder at their enemies, happy in the knowledge that it's not actually a waste because the corpses will be consumed and broken down to be used once more. Tyranids also are heavily suggested to lack sentience, even amongst the 'upper' creatures such as Hive Tyrants. There are exceptions (hello Swarmlord).
That said, accepting and issuing Challenges makes no sense for Nids. Nids have no concept of honor or pride. They don't want to show off their skill in combat to anyone be they friend or foe. With the exception of the Swarmlord and specially grown creatures, their solution to -every- problem is "throw more bodies at it".
Tyranids issuing challenges is wierd because it's inefficient; why religate your four armed, bio-plasma puking, hulking Hive Tyrant to dueling one human a quarter of his size when he could just slaughter the whole dozen of them just as fast? Not to mention that (so far as I know) there's no examples of Nids ever speaking any real languages. They hiss, but it doesn't really mean anything. With regards to accepting challenges, I'd argue that Nids wouldn't even understand what was going on (again, Swarmlord not withstanding). Even if they did they wouldn't care; they've no concept of honor or showmanship. Again, why fight one little humie when you can slaughter the whole group? Lastly, it would be dangerous. Synapse creatures are extremely important to the Nids, and they know full-well that the best way to beat them is to hurt the web. Discounting every above point made, the mere act of risking something as critical as a higher synapse life-form is so horribly far from what the Tyranids are supposed to do.
>_> Sorry, got kind of off topic there.
Bowing to the will of the hive mind does not mean they, nor the Hive mind are stupid. The hive fleets operate in a strategic manner, it prioritizes and adapts to threats. See that one guy organizing the enemy troops? No reason to think the hive mind wouldn't priorities and put wanted posters directly to his head.
I get mad when people suggest 'Nids are too stupid to understand things. They accidentally made Doom, not in relation to their enemy or anything. Genestealers drop first out of luck. Yeah... no. While most will default to omnom programming, many of them are independent, and while influenced by the Hive mind the army is anything but stupid.
Even animals recognize a challenge.
Who says challenges rely on speaking? Many will simply be meeting on the battlefield look at each other and go 'yeah, he's mine' or 'I'll handle this', 'For glory!' etc etc. There are many reasons people choose to fight 1 to 1. You watch movies? Not always asking if they want to challenge.
Would it not make more sense for the entire nearby brood to attack the Commander or leader rather than leaving one (particularly valuable) organism to do it? It seems counter productive for an entire brood of tyranid organisms to standby and watch whilst their hive tyrant is cut in half by thier opponent.
It IS a strange one. But it is also off topic so let's get back on topic.
I hope they change the challenge rules in the new edition, somehow.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CthuluIsSpy wrote: In my head-canon, the "challenges" issued by nids are basically just the critter laying claim to his meal. The Alpha lion always gets the largest and best share of the meat after all.
In this case, the lion is a Hive Tyrant and the meat is some poor commander who just happened to be within smelling distance.
I can't see this happening. The hive mind controls the Tyranids movements, decisions, placements, targets etc. The hive tyrant would be moving in for the kill because it was the best possible course of action seen by the hive mind.
Why wouldn't Tyranids? Just because they want to nom things does not mean they are all stupid or don't act in a strategic manner. Some are spawned with the explicit purpose of taking down the strongest enemies from among the enemy ranks.
-The the Swarmlord bellowed a challenge to Calgar
The rules for accepting or not either way when issued a challenge make sense to any army, either you stand up and fight, or seek protection / are protected by your men, which is exactly what happens. The rules for Characters also say they must pile in as soon as they are able - they're place is on the front line. Seems GW line of thinking is Characters are the braver, captain goes down with his ship type.
Tyranids are all about wiping everything out in the most efficient and fastest way possible. They're content to hurl massive numbers of fodder at their enemies, happy in the knowledge that it's not actually a waste because the corpses will be consumed and broken down to be used once more. Tyranids also are heavily suggested to lack sentience, even amongst the 'upper' creatures such as Hive Tyrants. There are exceptions (hello Swarmlord).
That said, accepting and issuing Challenges makes no sense for Nids. Nids have no concept of honor or pride. They don't want to show off their skill in combat to anyone be they friend or foe. With the exception of the Swarmlord and specially grown creatures, their solution to -every- problem is "throw more bodies at it".
Tyranids issuing challenges is wierd because it's inefficient; why religate your four armed, bio-plasma puking, hulking Hive Tyrant to dueling one human a quarter of his size when he could just slaughter the whole dozen of them just as fast? Not to mention that (so far as I know) there's no examples of Nids ever speaking any real languages. They hiss, but it doesn't really mean anything. With regards to accepting challenges, I'd argue that Nids wouldn't even understand what was going on (again, Swarmlord not withstanding). Even if they did they wouldn't care; they've no concept of honor or showmanship. Again, why fight one little humie when you can slaughter the whole group? Lastly, it would be dangerous. Synapse creatures are extremely important to the Nids, and they know full-well that the best way to beat them is to hurt the web. Discounting every above point made, the mere act of risking something as critical as a higher synapse life-form is so horribly far from what the Tyranids are supposed to do.
>_> Sorry, got kind of off topic there.
Bowing to the will of the hive mind does not mean they, nor the Hive mind are stupid. The hive fleets operate in a strategic manner, it prioritizes and adapts to threats. See that one guy organizing the enemy troops? No reason to think the hive mind wouldn't priorities and put wanted posters directly to his head.
I get mad when people suggest 'Nids are too stupid to understand things. They accidentally made Doom, not in relation to their enemy or anything. Genestealers drop first out of luck. Yeah... no. While most will default to omnom programming, many of them are independent, and while influenced by the Hive mind the army is anything but stupid.
Even animals recognize a challenge.
Who says challenges rely on speaking? Many will simply be meeting on the battlefield look at each other and go 'yeah, he's mine' or 'I'll handle this', 'For glory!' etc etc. There are many reasons people choose to fight 1 to 1. You watch movies? Not always asking if they want to challenge.
Don't misunderstand me; I never said Nids are stupid. That's not even remotely what I'm implying.
At the end of the day though, I look at the Nids the same way I'd look at Gigar's alien. A creature / creatures who are very intelligent, easily able at picking out the weaknesses of their foes, and utterly bent on surviving and over-coming. Yet despite that, at the end of the day they are not humans. They do not think like humans and their intelligence is blended with instinct and animal ferocity.
Look at this from another perspective if you will. We've all seen Alien, right? Right. We've also all probably seen Aliens, eh? Hell, most of us have probably all even played (at least) one or two of the various games spawned by that universe?
Now let's imagine a scene in a movie which never happend. Let's imagine that there's a whole room full of marines, with Sergeant Badass xxx leading them. Suddenly, out of nowhere, a lone alien drops into their midst and doesn't attack anyone. Instead it simply hisses at the Sergeant and bares its fangs, clearing saying it wants to 1v1 the human in melee combat.
Yeah no. That bug's gonna get pasted without a second thought.
On the flip side, random sergeant walks into the alien hive, maybe finds the queen. Shouts some challenge to the queen. Subsequently the walls are jam-packed with drones, warriors, what have you.. However none of them help the queen. Instead she alone fights this lone intruder, whilst the entire hive risks its future by letting their beloved matron settle an honor duel.
Neither of those scenarios make much sense do they? And yet the Alien is the -original- hyper intelligent fully organic alien beast. It's what the Nids draw most of their inspiration from.
The bottom-line here is that challenges in their generalized format do not make any sense for Nids what-so-ever (again, swarmlord not included). You want to cut off the head of the beast and leave the army leaderless? Nuke the crap out of him with sporemines. Have a Genestealer brood / a few lictors burst from the foilage and rip him to pieces. Hell, have a Crone dive-bomb from the sky and carry him screaming into the distance. There are plenty of ways which make perfect sense, and are also way more efficient / safer than this challenge nonsense. Can anyone really stomach the image of a Hive Tyrant running upto some random space marine and basically throwing down a gauntlet of challenge? Potentially whilst the -entire- swarm simply sits idle behind them, letting their tyrant fight this lone defender of humanity?
Edit: I spelled Giger wrong. /the worst nerd ever.
Bowing to the will of the hive mind does not mean they, nor the Hive mind are stupid. The hive fleets operate in a strategic manner, it prioritizes and adapts to threats. See that one guy organizing the enemy troops? No reason to think the hive mind wouldn't priorities and put wanted posters directly to his head.
I get mad when people suggest 'Nids are too stupid to understand things. They accidentally made Doom, not in relation to their enemy or anything. Genestealers drop first out of luck. Yeah... no. While most will default to omnom programming, many of them are independent, and while influenced by the Hive mind the army is anything but stupid.
Even animals recognize a challenge.
Who says challenges rely on speaking? Many will simply be meeting on the battlefield look at each other and go 'yeah, he's mine' or 'I'll handle this', 'For glory!' etc etc. There are many reasons people choose to fight 1 to 1. You watch movies? Not always asking if they want to challenge.
Now that would imply that 40k players would need to apply logic to understand the mechanics of the game, which clearly noone wants to do. Simply saying that someones army is stupid or less awesome usually does the trick, so lets keep doing that
Tyranids are not people. They should not think like people, they should not have special characters like people, and they should not have unique wargear like people. We are not arguing that Tyranids are stupid, we're arguing that Tyranids would no more fight in a challenge than you would duel an individual ant.
AlexHolker wrote: Tyranids are not people. They should not think like people, they should not have special characters like people, and they should not have unique wargear like people. We are not arguing that Tyranids are stupid, we're arguing that Tyranids would no more fight in a challenge than you would duel an individual ant.
Imagine this...
Hive tyrants drops down 20 or so yards front of a Tau squad, Does a funky roar. In relation, it's massive and the squad did not eat their weetabix this morning. they stutter, with a slight back step before readying there weapons. The commander, fueled by snickers, charges through the ranks right up in the HT's face.
The HT isn't going to walk around and dance with the commander to make sure he's hitting everyone. This is an cinematic example of a challenge where the Tau commander is challenging.
Other way around?
Tyranid waves are met by Marines. Marines are bunkered up, have nice multilayer defense line lay, the Tyranid body's pile up and the marines retreat back to the next line - and while some Hormagaunts manage to break through the numbers are not significant enough to make a difference. Awsome Marine, with his Thunder Hammer swinging is organizing the effort, halting the rouge Gants, prior attempts to cut him down with even Warrior talons failing to dink the Halo, Hive mind orders the Tyrant to take down this mighty threat.
The Tyrant descends, and Awesome marine can meet him, or fall back through the ranks.
Issuing a challenge doesn't have to be literal. It's like saying When fighting Tyranid's your HQ's should defect and attacks your own unit as they will have been all Genestealer'd by the time the rest of the Nid threat is in sight. It's called artistic license.
Nice examples, particularly the second one Nem but again, would the marines not be more at an advantage if he stayed to fight along side his brothers rather than cowering behind them?
I can see the marine running in for glory. Fine.. But running away and hiding behind his brothers expecting them to do the work for him? Why MUST he fight the tyrant one on one, or not at all? The challenge system is poor.
Edit: Surely the best course of action at this point would be to fight the Tyrant off with multiple men.. Giving the commander the edge he needs to smash the thing into oblivion...
Mij'aan wrote: Nice examples, particularly the second one Nem but again, would the marines not be more at an advantage if he stayed to fight along side his brothers rather than cowering behind them?
I can see the marine running in for glory. Fine.. But running away and hiding behind his brothers expecting them to do the work for him? Why MUST he fight the tyrant one on one, or not at all? The challenge system is poor.
Edit: Surely the best course of action at this point would be to fight the Tyrant off with multiple men.. Giving the commander the edge he needs to smash the thing into oblivion...
When faced with a significant threat it's not always be better to throw more people at it (Or at least by what were lead to believe), Hive Tyrants armor is strong, and normal marine do not have the weapons to deal with it (Not AP3). Think akin to Ringwraith splattering everyone who comes at it, and Eowyn bossing because she knows she alone can do it (By virtue of not being male... or something) Why get your men slaughtered when they lack the tools to be able to deal with it?
Because even if you can't kill it, maybe you can distract/deflect it enough for your commander to get a killing blow in. Or just to cover their flank (like shieldbearers)
Mij'aan wrote: Nice examples, particularly the second one Nem but again, would the marines not be more at an advantage if he stayed to fight along side his brothers rather than cowering behind them?
I can see the marine running in for glory. Fine.. But running away and hiding behind his brothers expecting them to do the work for him? Why MUST he fight the tyrant one on one, or not at all? The challenge system is poor.
Edit: Surely the best course of action at this point would be to fight the Tyrant off with multiple men.. Giving the commander the edge he needs to smash the thing into oblivion...
But then the Commander wont get all the glory, and the rest if his squad is encoraging him and making sure they dont get over run by the rest of the Tyranids?
I dont mind the chalange rule, its the "look out sir" rule i hate.
Nem wrote: When faced with a significant threat it's not always be better to throw more people at it (Or at least by what were lead to believe), Hive Tyrants armor is strong, and normal marine do not have the weapons to deal with it (Not AP3). Think akin to Ringwraith splattering everyone who comes at it, and Eowyn bossing because she knows she alone can do it (By virtue of not being male... or something) Why get your men slaughtered when they lack the tools to be able to deal with it?
The rest of the people on pelennor fields were busy fighting. Not standing around in a circle twiddling their thumbs while Eowyn took on the witch king. You will note also that she wins, in part, because merry is a badass and helps her out rather than watching.
There is literally zero reason for a challenge to ever occur unless you're a glory seeking Bretonnian / Marine. Possibly vying for favour from the chaos gods. A sensible captain of a squad will look at the lone man bellowing a challenge, dismiss him as a spanker and have the squad pile in on him.
Yes. When faced with a threat, and given the option of dying one by one or attempting to overwhelm your opponent, the latter is a better idea. Given that there's no voluntary breaking from melee and melee is so broken to begin with.
Ah well, everyone is making very good points but the thread is de railed again. Let's try to keep on topic. Why were we even talking about challenges again?
Nem wrote: Some armies (like Tyranids) have single model (Most of the time...) Unit's which can be specialized in CC, while precision strikes help, single models don't get -that- many attacks in CC, it can take them 3 turns to wipe out rest of a unit if the unit ignores combat res or SA's (Which is the majority of the represented armies), by that time your Hive Tyrants may even be dead from force/power weapons or weight of hits from the unit (I mean.. 4 wounds... just 4 wounds...). Many characters have extra layers of defense themselves, I wouldn't them easy kills even with Challenges, most of the time I'm hoping a Smash wound goes through - And all that is after you've spent time getting shot in the face, ran around the board to catch up just to get there.
Without challenges, the effectiveness of these units against units with other characters are very limited - It also works in favor of CC based armies where a Character is in a unit - Basically it's something that gives CC characters the upper hand.
Well, I understand that "duelist" characters could be a joke before, but you didn't have to introduce general mech in order to fix them, it was enough to make challenges available via special rule given to those specific characters. This way you could achieve the desireable effect where it was needed without disturbing proverbial bee hive of dozens of the rest units.
It could be a USR handed (via errata) to very specific ICs. In fact, challenges kinda-sorta existed in 5e exactly in this shape - as unit-specific special rule (Chapter champions anyone?).
I'm afraid that's the way things are done way to often - attempts to fix something via changing general rules although addressing a single problematic unit or creating an exception for some specific result regardless of means used to aquire it would do the trick without breaking the game somewhere else.
Also I should probably specify that I did not mean existing general rules of acquiring Precision shots/hits, rather I'm saying that GW aknowledge that there should be means to pick off specific models which is indicated by them creating precision shots/strkes rule as general BRB rule. But I'm not saying that the way it was implemented is sufficient. Right now it's hard to actually use it on demand (it was never intended to be like that, so yeah). GW could've introduced specific "anti-wargear platforms" for different factions like they once did with Vindicars or recently with DW Knights. Instead of specific tools to counter another specific tool - "hidden" wargear, we've gotten aforementioned "broad strokes treatment" for the issue that possibly does as much harm as good. It could be rather interesting, allowing those tools to be more offensive ("sniper" archetype, dedicated to screwing with strategically important equipment), or more defensive (ex.: it looks like DW Knights' "You shall not hide" was designed specifically to remove weapon that can threaten them once HtH starts - unless it was just another fluffy "get that fallen dude" rule that just happen to accidentally make sense in terms of gameplay). But right now it's random bone that is occasionally thrown to player by the whim of the dice.
What do GW try to achieve? Making their game look more balanced by outsourcing everything that is important to Random Number God and saying, "see, everyone can win in this game"? Yeah, if d6 says so, sure...
Nem wrote: Just because they want to nom things does not mean they are all stupid or don't act in a strategic manner.
Exactly. Because of that fighting 1-on-1 when you have entire swarm of different organisms controlled by a single emotionless mind just reeks of the opposite of "non-stupid strategic manner" - yet you may be forced into this kind of thing on tabletop under normal circumstances. Like...
...and when they wanted to take down some ork that was less dim than others, they just ambushed him with lictors, like 8 on 1 or so, without bothering to inform him in advance that they recognize him to be the only real threat to their grand scheme he was.
That's what I mean here. There are many ways to handle key crew or gear, and one would think that different factions would go differently about it, from isolating and ambushing important units to a single shot in the head from several kms to going all-out space fantasy and shouting profanities and engaging in duel and whatnot. While it looks like I'm talking fluff here, it's easy to see that different armies have practical means to pull off some of those tricks but not others, but that was disrespected and we've gotten universal rule only for the latter. Which, being universal, got immideately abused to invalidate some units (mostly ones that were supposed to handle multiple models in HtH, but there are other specific victims like Lucas).
To sum it all up, it's fair to say that "devs wanted us to fight challenges" regardless of everything: fluff, existing rules, fighting styles of different factions - as well as common sense, even if it's 40k brand of common sense.
I'd see as an act of heroism: "I think I can slain by myself, so let's kill the beast before it eats some of my brother in arms".
Or just think of a Chaos Warlord. Really. Can you imagine Abaddon, the strongest, baddest and brutal "mortal" being in the whole galaxy hide behind 5 Justaerin Terminators?
Really? And he would expect to run a Black Crusade after that, maybe?
Honestly I believe that the "MUST challenge" rule for Chaos makes perfectly sense, fluss-wise. Yes, from a game perspective is never nice to "lose" control, but how I said, it would be stupid to see a mighty Warlord hide behind his subjects or refuse the opportunity to glorify himself to the eyes of the chaos gods.
Maybe it would be nicer to see the rule valid only for HQ characters (a tactical aspirant champion is not really that powerful/important) and a really bigger malus if you deny, more than being forced. But then we'd be talking about codices, not the BRB
Some information about Sanctic and Malefic Daemonology stuff there...
Sanctic Powers: Psykers from Codex: Grey Knights can take Sanctic Powers, but cannot generate Malefic powers at all.
It then says that "all other Psykers that attempt to manifest Sanctic powers suffer Perils of the Warp on a Psychic test that includes any double, whether the Psychic test was successful or not."
Malefic Powers: Psykers with the Daemon special rule can manifest Malefic powers as they would any other psychic power, but they cannot generate Sanctic powers at all.
All other Psykers that attempt to manifest Malefic powers suffer Perils of the Warp on a Psychic test that includes any double, whether the Psychic test was successful or not.
The images also expand out to full page rules. Grey Knights manifest Santic Powers as normal (No perils on doubles) but cannot manifest Maleficarum at all. Psykers with the Daemons special rule have the reverse.
All other psykers who use daemonology suffer perils on doubles.
Santic looks like to be definitely Daemon banishment as per the "Forge the Narrative" box.
Nothing new from the vehicle page other than adding instruction for the psychic phase.
We can also see that they added the relentless definition there. If they have a full section for USR and also copied them all over the place where needed as quick reference, it might explain some of the extra pages of rules compared to the 6th edition rules page count.
paqman wrote: Nothing new from the vehicle page other than adding instruction for the psychic phase.
We can also see that they added the relentless definition there. If they have a full section for USR and also copied them all over the place where needed as quick reference, it might explain some of the extra pages of rules compared to the 6th edition rules page count.
Yeah it looks like there is no difference to Ordnance weaponry which is a shame.
First turn is interesting. Seems like you roll off for deploying, then after having deployed, the player that deployed first can decide to go first or second.
paqman wrote: Nothing new from the vehicle page other than adding instruction for the psychic phase.
We can also see that they added the relentless definition there. If they have a full section for USR and also copied them all over the place where needed as quick reference, it might explain some of the extra pages of rules compared to the 6th edition rules page count.
From what has been written in White Dwarf so far, there are also the rules for Superheavy Vehicles and updated lists of fortifications in the main rulebook...so that's "extra pages of rules" as well.
I like what I'm seeing with the new daemonolgy info. Makes sense that others find it harder to cast Santic powrs, and is more balanced then anti-daemon powers everywhere. The same is true for Malefic powers. No spamming daemons everywhere and no mass daemon slaughtering everywhere.
Will be interesting to see if GK and Daemons can have a fair fight in 7th, though.
Thud wrote: Deploy objectives before picking sides. Good.
First turn is interesting. Seems like you roll off for deploying, then after having deployed, the player that deployed first can decide to go first or second.
First blood is still in. :(
I was just about to comment on all these things. I'll add in this: There is a "Standard Deployment" type when setting up for a mission. I'd bet a car that there's also an "Alternating Deployment" setup for some missions in 7th.
I like the fact that the winner of the roll-off has to deploy first, no matter what, then take the tactical decision of going first or second. Also by the way it reads, if the player setting up first decides to go second, he cannot go back and try to seize the initiative to go first. There goes a Vect tactic right out the window for DE players (good riddance, if you ask me).
Super excited, only 5 more days until we can start playing the new style. Call me optimistic but i really believe that some of the GW staff really has been paying attention to gripes with the game we've been having.
paqman wrote: Nothing new from the vehicle page other than adding instruction for the psychic phase.
We can also see that they added the relentless definition there. If they have a full section for USR and also copied them all over the place where needed as quick reference, it might explain some of the extra pages of rules compared to the 6th edition rules page count.
From what has been written in White Dwarf so far, there are also the rules for Superheavy Vehicles and updated lists of fortifications in the main rulebook...so that's "extra pages of rules" as well.
Yeah,that's for sure
That's funny. GW is our biggest source of "leaks" for this release. I hope we have a QnA thread starting tomorow or Wednesday when the book ends up in someone's hands.
Reading the FOC rules pages, looks like there are no need for Double FOC rules, as you can pick any number of detachments... so, if I understand it correctly, you can have an army with all but HQs and Troops? 3 combined armies detachments, giving you 6 HQs and potentially 18 Troops (not even using allies)
Some information about Sanctic and Malefic Daemonology stuff there...
Sanctic Powers: Psykers from Codex: Grey Knights can take Sanctic Powers, but cannot generate Malefic powers at all.
It then says that "all other Psykers that attempt to manifest Sanctic powers suffer Perils of the Warp on a Psychic test that includes any double, whether the Psychic test was successful or not."
Malefic Powers: Psykers with the Daemon special rule can manifest Malefic powers as they would any other psychic power, but they cannot generate Sanctic powers at all.
All other Psykers that attempt to manifest Malefic powers suffer Perils of the Warp on a Psychic test that includes any double, whether the Psychic test was successful or not.
Bah, honestly I don't get this.
I can't see why Ahriman or any ML3 Chaos Sorcerer should have more troubles in summoning daemons than a pathetic ML1 Herald. It just doesn't make sense to me.
Hope they'll fix that with specific FAQs for Chaos Sorcerers
Diablix wrote: I'd see as an act of heroism: "I think I can slain by myself, so let's kill the beast before it eats some of my brother in arms".
Yes, that's how I see it. However it makes no sense that IG sarge can stop BT from killing half a dozen people including himself taking all hits by himself.
Diablix wrote: Or just think of a Chaos Warlord. Really. Can you imagine Abaddon, the strongest, baddest and brutal "mortal" being in the whole galaxy hide behind 5 Justaerin Terminators?
Really? And he would expect to run a Black Crusade after that, maybe?
Honestly I believe that the "MUST challenge" rule for Chaos makes perfectly sense, fluss-wise. Yes, from a game perspective is never nice to "lose" control, but how I said, it would be stupid to see a mighty Warlord hide behind his subjects or refuse the opportunity to glorify himself to the eyes of the chaos gods.
Maybe it would be nicer to see the rule valid only for HQ characters (a tactical aspirant champion is not really that powerful/important) and a really bigger malus if you deny, more than being forced. But then we'd be talking about codices, not the BRB
That's what I'm saying. It's fine for some specific models to challenge whether it's to murder something important or to tank strong attacker, but it's not fine as a general rule IMO.
From fluff perspective, somtimes it does more harm than good to allow youself to be provoked, sometimes it's even bad from PR standpoint, not to mention fighting to win aspect ("So, have you seen Abbaddon getting all worked up over something incoherent that corpse slave was shouting? Some ten millenia warlord right there. I wonder how far we're going to advance under command of someone this impulsive. Yeah, he did slay that mongrel, but I've snapped several necks in that exact timeframe, so what are we arguing about again?"). Sometimes you are capable enough to distract that incoming monstrosity for any meaningful time, sometimes not. Not every faction has similar idea about purpose and honor either ("That's just on man! Not enough blood for the Blood God, you are pathetic, enjoy your spawnhood."). Rules as they are do not take that into perspective, they assume that everyone are the same. You don't have to be tough-as-nails Nork to stop that murdertrain of a daemon from ripping your squad to shreds, you can't be Slaaneshi lord who can say "I'm gonna shred that fool's brethren to pieces first and then hang him on their intestines for what he just said, I'm gonna enjoy the look on his face when he sees that". That's where fluff meets pragmatic gameplay. It's in our imagination. But when you introduce "fluffy rule" as a general rule (even if it's just codex-wide, not game-wide), you inevitably create a situation where it sometimes works and sometimes not, something you could've avoided if you approached with case-by-case basis.
We don't need "cinematic rules" and whatnot to create "epic narrative". We need imagination and incentive to be as different on the battlefield as our factions, doing "cool stuff" not because it's cool, but because it makes sense - then the "narrative" will be "forged" by itself, and you wont't have to repeat it again and again. But ofc it's easier to write something that only fits the fluff if you only look from one perspective and not another and make rules that create a lot of issues, and then blame players for not playing properly.
Vector Strike wrote: Reading the FOC rules pages, looks like there are no need for Double FOC rules, as you can pick any number of detachments... so, if I understand it correctly, you can have an army with all but HQs and Troops? 3 combined armies detachments, giving you 6 HQs and potentially 18 Troops (not even using allies)
But wait, there's more. Each of those detachments can be from the same book...
Perfect Organism wrote: More than the randomness, I object to the way that the vast majority of playing time seems to have no effect on the outcome. By the end of turn two it seems that most games have been settled.
When i loose, unless i was facing a neck beard list, i can often tell you where i made the mistake.
Last tourni i went too, we lost one match because i didn't challenge my foes war boss in melee. Lost the match as a result.
Sometimes you win because you make a hail mary die roll, or loose because you just failed to roll that well. Most games outside of checkers and chess roll much the same way.
Bah, honestly I don't get this.
I can't see why Ahriman or any ML3 Chaos Sorcerer should have more troubles in summoning daemons than a pathetic ML1 Herald. It just doesn't make sense to me.
Hope they'll fix that with specific FAQs for Chaos Sorcerers
In fairness the same argument could be said for Santic powers and the likes of Inquisitors from Codex Inquisition.
And a ML1 Herald knows infinitely more about the warp than any human. It does however give a Sorcerer from the Crimson Slaughter Supplement with the Prophet of the Voices relic a bit of an upgrade as he will now get a buff to summoning Daemons.
Yes, I hope Ahriman gets a faq for some Demonology goodness. There's multiple occasions of him summoning hordes of demons. 1st Apoc book, GK Codex (I think), and his cronies have no issues getting Lords of Change whenever they want..
but of course I bet GW will just overlook him and keep going, considering he will have an obsolete Chaos Artefact due to the new Witchfire rules.
Sadly I doubt they can be bothered to actually change stats, special rules or points values - I really hope I am wrong and we get a comprehensive FAQ launch for 7th Ed - but that implies they are
1. prepared - unlike when the website changed.
2. Willing to actually take the time to look at any rules problems or interactions.
It is weird that my Raiders have the same Hull Points as my Leman Russ's but hey.......
Looking forward to seeing how having Adamantium Will on all Sororitas vehicles works with the new Psychic phase
Diablix wrote: I'd see as an act of heroism: "I think I can slain by myself, so let's kill the beast before it eats some of my brother in arms".
Or just think of a Chaos Warlord. Really. Can you imagine Abaddon, the strongest, baddest and brutal "mortal" being in the whole galaxy hide behind 5 Justaerin Terminators?
Really? And he would expect to run a Black Crusade after that, maybe?
Honestly I believe that the "MUST challenge" rule for Chaos makes perfectly sense, fluss-wise. Yes, from a game perspective is never nice to "lose" control, but how I said, it would be stupid to see a mighty Warlord hide behind his subjects or refuse the opportunity to glorify himself to the eyes of the chaos gods.
Maybe it would be nicer to see the rule valid only for HQ characters (a tactical aspirant champion is not really that powerful/important) and a really bigger malus if you deny, more than being forced. But then we'd be talking about codices, not the BRB
It makes sense for Abaddon, it makes no sense for a Chaos sorcerer.
And I can't see Calgar or Draigo scurrying behind their bodyguard to avoid single combat either, yet normal space marines have no such rule.
I just took a closer look at the Munitorum box set (The Psychic Power card, to be specific) and it looks like it's +3 Strength/Toughness and grants the Smash special rule.
So, Daemon Princes are no longer Eternal Warrior, at least? Just need to get a Force Weapon that won't die before it gets to swing that can also hurt T8.
Crazyterran wrote: I just took a closer look at the Munitorum box set (The Psychic Power card, to be specific) and it looks like it's +3 Strength/Toughness and grants the Smash special rule.
So, Daemon Princes are no longer Eternal Warrior, at least? Just need to get a Force Weapon that won't die before it gets to swing that can also hurt T8.
Nice catch. Bit of a nerf for MC but on your average Sorcerer or BA Librarian that's a handy buff. Assuming Smash hasn't changed in some form or another a Sorcerer with a Force Mace would be Strength 9 AP2 attacking at Initiative. It does look like it is Warp Charge 1 so it isn't that difficult to cast I'd imagine though if I was your opponent and likely to get assaulted by that guy I might do my level best to stop that.
Crazyterran wrote: I just took a closer look at the Munitorum box set (The Psychic Power card, to be specific) and it looks like it's +3 Strength/Toughness and grants the Smash special rule.
Is that the new Biomancy Iron Arm?
So, Daemon Princes are no longer Eternal Warrior, at least? Just need to get a Force Weapon that won't die before it gets to swing that can also hurt T8.
AFAIK, there's only one Pince that has EW... that's Bela'kor. (might be getting my books mixed up)
So lemme get this straight...Inquisitor Coteaz from the Grey Knights codex cannot summon Daemons, but Inquisitor Coteaz from the Inquisition codex can summon Daemons?
Crazyterran wrote: I just took a closer look at the Munitorum box set (The Psychic Power card, to be specific) and it looks like it's +3 Strength/Toughness and grants the Smash special rule.
Is that the new Biomancy Iron Arm?
So, Daemon Princes are no longer Eternal Warrior, at least? Just need to get a Force Weapon that won't die before it gets to swing that can also hurt T8.
AFAIK, there's only one Pince that has EW... that's Bela'kor. (might be getting my books mixed up)
Aye but Daemon Princes could pick up EW from Iron Arm.
Bah, honestly I don't get this.
I can't see why Ahriman or any ML3 Chaos Sorcerer should have more troubles in summoning daemons than a pathetic ML1 Herald. It just doesn't make sense to me.
Hope they'll fix that with specific FAQs for Chaos Sorcerers
In fairness the same argument could be said for Santic powers and the likes of Inquisitors from Codex Inquisition.
Yes it's, true, Ordo Malleus Inquisitors should not be any worse than any GK psyker in Santic powers (however at least GK have the excuse of being the very best and most thoroughly tested amongs the best genetically engineered warriors in the galaxy, while Inquisitors are just the best amongst "ordinary" men). I just did not think of them.
And a ML1 Herald knows infinitely more about the warp than any human. It does however give a Sorcerer from the Crimson Slaughter Supplement with the Prophet of the Voices relic a bit of an upgrade as he will now get a buff to summoning Daemons.
Maybe, but it does not have even nearly the same amount of power of Ahriman (which I wouldn't exactly just define "a human". Come on, 10 000 years old genetically engineered superhuman psyker with the favour of the god of magic is.... a human?)
Come on, rule-wise being ML4 Ahriman as a Psyker is stronger than any daemon bar the Fateweaver himself. Should he be afraid of summoning a pink horror or two?
The same is true for any other Chaos Sorcerer. They are nearly immortal superhuman psyker who spend all their spare time in the Eye of Terror itself. Really, most of them have had their last ten thousand breakfasts in a maddening realm between alluring daemonettes and flesh-eating spawns.
I believe the all doubles Perils of the Warp thing represent the temptation of daemons and the risk of damning their soul forever. Well, they are accustomed to the former, and already lost the latter.
Wait - How did Daemon Princes get eternal warrior from Iron arm? Am I missing something?
Edit: With regards to this "doubles is always perils" stuff, It would make more sense for any Psyker with a mark of chaos to be able to AVOID this particular downside if he was summoning daemons associated with this mark. No?
I mean, that might leave a bit Khorne out of favour but why would my Emperor's Children Sorcerer be worried about summoning some Daemonettes? Come on, that is silly.
Crazyterran wrote: I just took a closer look at the Munitorum box set (The Psychic Power card, to be specific) and it looks like it's +3 Strength/Toughness and grants the Smash special rule.
Is that the new Biomancy Iron Arm?
So, Daemon Princes are no longer Eternal Warrior, at least? Just need to get a Force Weapon that won't die before it gets to swing that can also hurt T8.
AFAIK, there's only one Pince that has EW... that's Bela'kor. (might be getting my books mixed up)
Aye but Daemon Princes could pick up EW from Iron Arm.
Oh ouch I missed the bit where this was talking about the new iron arm, still it's not exactly a regular occurrence to end up in CC with a force weapon at the minute against most armies, will have to see how many there are post update, would be interested to see if you could just throw denial dice at force weapons and stop them activating with the new mechanics.
Crazyterran wrote: I just took a closer look at the Munitorum box set (The Psychic Power card, to be specific) and it looks like it's +3 Strength/Toughness and grants the Smash special rule.
So, Daemon Princes are no longer Eternal Warrior, at least? Just need to get a Force Weapon that won't die before it gets to swing that can also hurt T8.
Consistent T8 is definitely nicer than T6-8, though losing EW obviously hurts.
Great Unclean One consistently at T10? Yes please!
Mij'aan wrote: Wait - How did Daemon Princes get eternal warrior from Iron arm? Am I missing something?
Edit: With regards to this "doubles is always perils" stuff, It would make more sense for any Psyker with a mark of chaos to be able to AVOID this particular downside if he was summoning daemons associated with this mark. No?
I mean, that might leave a bit Khorne out of favour but why would my Emperor's Children Sorcerer be worried about summoning some Daemonettes? Come on, that is silly.
Iron Arm currently grants D3 Strength and Toughness and the Eternal Warrior special rule. Daemon Princes of all varieties get access to Biomancy.
Mij'aan wrote: Wait - How did Daemon Princes get eternal warrior from Iron arm? Am I missing something?
Edit: With regards to this "doubles is always perils" stuff, It would make more sense for any Psyker with a mark of chaos to be able to AVOID this particular downside if he was summoning daemons associated with this mark. No?
I mean, that might leave a bit Khorne out of favour but why would my Emperor's Children Sorcerer be worried about summoning some Daemonettes? Come on, that is silly.
Iron Arm currently grants D3 Strength and Toughness and the Eternal Warrior special rule. Daemon Princes of all varieties get access to Biomancy.
Heh, didn't even notice it granted Eternal Warrior. Not come across it that much since tyranids no longer have access to it.
Maybe, but it does not have even nearly the same amount of power of Ahriman (which I wouldn't exactly just define "a human". Come on, 10 000 years old genetically engineered superhuman psyker with the favour of the god of magic is.... a human?)
Come on, rule-wise being ML4 Ahriman as a Psyker is stronger than any daemon bar the Fateweaver himself. Should he be afraid of summoning a pink horror or two?
My apologies, I didn't intend to demean Ahriman as he is certainly one of the most power mortal Pyskers but what I'm getting at is that any Daemon will understand the nature of the warp far more than any non-Daemon. Mortals will always be on the outside looking in and this represents the difficulty of that. I would like CSM to get some sort of buff to Maleficarum but I'd prefer it to be in the form of a Cultist altar or rituals. Also we don't know how the "Spell Familer" will be FAQd if at all and even in it's current for it could be quite beneficial. On top of that the Black Staff of Ahriman will definitely need an FAQ as it wont be doing anything in the new edition.
Mij'aan wrote: Wait - How did Daemon Princes get eternal warrior from Iron arm? Am I missing something?
Edit: With regards to this "doubles is always perils" stuff, It would make more sense for any Psyker with a mark of chaos to be able to AVOID this particular downside if he was summoning daemons associated with this mark. No?
I mean, that might leave a bit Khorne out of favour but why would my Emperor's Children Sorcerer be worried about summoning some Daemonettes? Come on, that is silly.
Yeah the 6th Ed version of Iron Arm gave +D3 Strength and Toughness and Eternal Warrior, pg 419 of the Big Rulebook.
Vector Strike wrote: Reading the FOC rules pages, looks like there are no need for Double FOC rules, as you can pick any number of detachments... so, if I understand it correctly, you can have an army with all but HQs and Troops? 3 combined armies detachments, giving you 6 HQs and potentially 18 Troops (not even using allies)
I can't find that page scan again, but I am pretty sure there was also talk about "Primary Detachments" and such. So it may not be possible to take mroe than 1 Combined Arms detachments.
It also seems that you can take a formation, but any troops in the formation will *not* have Objective Secured special rule.
Pedro Kantor wrote: Its release is this Saturday, the 24th. So firm information will follow next week.
You can bet sure money on someone getting an advance copy a few days before the actual release, that has been the case with nearly any codex we've had for a while now. I'd say we'll start getting solid info on Thursday.
Ian Sturrock wrote: So my Psychic Power cards are out of date too...? Great. Note to self: don't buy any of the optional stuff, even if it seems like a bargain.
There's a reason I made my own psychic cards (and warlord cards) with Magic Set Editor. I'll definitely be revising them as well as making new ones for the objective cards once I get a copy of the rulebook.
Sir Arun wrote: So lemme get this straight...Inquisitor Coteaz from the Grey Knights codex cannot summon Daemons, but Inquisitor Coteaz from the Inquisition codex can summon Daemons?
Basically depends on who he's rolling with apparently.
Sir Arun wrote: So lemme get this straight...Inquisitor Coteaz from the Grey Knights codex cannot summon Daemons, but Inquisitor Coteaz from the Inquisition codex can summon Daemons?
Basically depends on who he's rolling with apparently.
Maybe he's just on his best behavior when he's hanging out with the lads from Titan.
Vector Strike wrote: Reading the FOC rules pages, looks like there are no need for Double FOC rules, as you can pick any number of detachments... so, if I understand it correctly, you can have an army with all but HQs and Troops? 3 combined armies detachments, giving you 6 HQs and potentially 18 Troops (not even using allies)
I can't find that page scan again, but I am pretty sure there was also talk about "Primary Detachments" and such. So it may not be possible to take mroe than 1 Combined Arms detachments.
It also seems that you can take a formation, but any troops in the formation will *not* have Objective Secured special rule.
Sir Arun wrote: So lemme get this straight...Inquisitor Coteaz from the Grey Knights codex cannot summon Daemons, but Inquisitor Coteaz from the Inquisition codex can summon Daemons?
Basically depends on who he's rolling with apparently.
Maybe he's just on his best behavior when he's hanging out with the lads from Titan.
Sir Arun wrote: So lemme get this straight...Inquisitor Coteaz from the Grey Knights codex cannot summon Daemons, but Inquisitor Coteaz from the Inquisition codex can summon Daemons?
Basically depends on who he's rolling with apparently.
If you're not sure which Coteaz is which, check if he has a goatee or not.
Well tried to pre-order the rules and the cards on the first day, had issues, at checkout the system told me to call GW customer service which I had to wait until today, issue still not resolved. Probably just my GW profile so no worries. In the mean time I checked out DreamForge and Iron Core. Pretty impressed, but they don't have their rules out yet otherwise I may have jumped ship and crossed over to the other side.
So I'm guessing Sanctic will have some GK codex powers along with some hopefully new powers if its being considered the Demonology discipline thats to banish daemons
An interesting passage I noted on the scan of the Force Organization chart page:
Occasionally a Force Organization slot will not specify a Battlefield Role, in which case any type of unit can be taken, or it will specify a particular unit or units, in which case only those particular units may (or must) be taken.
Assuming that 'Battlefield Role' means HQ, Elites, Troops, etc. it looks like there may be certain Force Organization charts that may allow you to fill a slot with any type of unit.
The only time re rolling warlord traits will be marginally useful is with Tau Ethereals.. (and only if they use the set in the Tau Codex) - 1/2 of them they can't use, and can reroll. So if they land one one of the 3 they don't want, they can reroll that and continue to reroll until they reroll something they're no longer allowed to reroll.
Mij'aan wrote: The only time re rolling warlord traits will be marginally useful is with Tau Ethereals.. (and only if they use the set in the Tau Codex) - 1/2 of them they can't use, and can reroll. So if they land one one of the 3 they don't want, they can reroll that and continue to reroll until they reroll something they're no longer allowed to reroll.
Who said you can't reroll a reroll?
playing with eldar using a wraithknight as a warlord I'd love to be able to reroll to ensure I get the outflank ability....cause outflanking wraithknights are fun
Mij'aan wrote: The only time re rolling warlord traits will be marginally useful is with Tau Ethereals.. (and only if they use the set in the Tau Codex) - 1/2 of them they can't use, and can reroll. So if they land one one of the 3 they don't want, they can reroll that and continue to reroll until they reroll something they're no longer allowed to reroll.
Who said you can't reroll a reroll?
playing with eldar using a wraithknight as a warlord I'd love to be able to reroll to ensure I get the outflank ability....cause outflanking wraithknights are fun
But what are the odds? 1/6 and if it fails 1/6 again?
Not quite 1/3 / 1/3 is it? Eldar cannot uitilise the rerolling reroll of a reroll quite as well as an ethereal.
Then again, I actually have 0 idea about the eldar codex or supplements!
Mij'aan wrote: The only time re rolling warlord traits will be marginally useful is with Tau Ethereals.. (and only if they use the set in the Tau Codex) - 1/2 of them they can't use, and can reroll. So if they land one one of the 3 they don't want, they can reroll that and continue to reroll until they reroll something they're no longer allowed to reroll.
Who said you can't reroll a reroll?
I already do that with Ethereals. I keep re-rolling until I get one of the allowed ones
Mij'aan wrote: The only time re rolling warlord traits will be marginally useful is with Tau Ethereals.. (and only if they use the set in the Tau Codex) - 1/2 of them they can't use, and can reroll. So if they land one one of the 3 they don't want, they can reroll that and continue to reroll until they reroll something they're no longer allowed to reroll.
Who said you can't reroll a reroll?
I already do that with Ethereals. I keep re-rolling until I get one of the allowed ones
Exactly! But, with this new feat, you can reroll again if you don't like that re-roll that you just rerolled.
See? It's amazing.
The current BRB means NOTHING as the new one will likely say "You can only re-roll a re-roll if your re-rolls were re-rolled for an Ethereal's re-roll, when he is re-rolling his warlord trait rolls. Re-roll."
FYI, I was at my LFGS when they got the bad news. Card sets have been under printed.
Local store is receiving 120 Rulebooks, 14 sets of psychic cards and 8 sets of the Objective cards.
tdwg83 wrote: FYI, I was at my LFGS when they got the bad news. Card sets have been under printed.
Local store is receiving 120 Rulebooks, 14 sets of psychic cards and 8 sets of the Objective cards.
Don't worry, I'm sure you'll get plenty at your local GW store.
Vector Strike wrote: Reading the FOC rules pages, looks like there are no need for Double FOC rules, as you can pick any number of detachments... so, if I understand it correctly, you can have an army with all but HQs and Troops? 3 combined armies detachments, giving you 6 HQs and potentially 18 Troops (not even using allies)
I can't find that page scan again, but I am pretty sure there was also talk about "Primary Detachments" and such. So it may not be possible to take mroe than 1 Combined Arms detachments.
It also seems that you can take a formation, but any troops in the formation will *not* have Objective Secured special rule.
I've read it in the first or second column
Incomplete rules are still incomplete.
There was a scan of the page 122, where they show the FOC for Combined Arms and Allies. The issue is what *they* say about primary detachments, and what other rules pertain to primary detachments.
Yea I just checked, out of 18 pre-orders he is only guaranteed 4 sets of cards. Gonna try the other store in town and see if they can guarantee me some cards.
In most tournaments I took part in in 6th, it was ruled that you were allowed to roll on two different Warlord tables and then choose one of the results.
Colpicklejar wrote: Why should rerolling traits suddenly be awesome? Are traits cooler now?
Why not just let players choose, would make a lot more sense.
I'm not sure how that is great either. Usually there is only 1 or 2 that you actually want on a single chart so I agree that choosing would have been more meaningful yet still nothing special to overcome the absurd cheese possible with unbound. On top of that, the "benefit" is largely meaningless anytime you use a special character that automatically comes with a preselected warlord trait. It's a largely meaningless "bonus" much like the ability to superscore with troops that will likely be dead once the unbound list gets their first few turns.
My store did, roll a dice Then you were allowed to pick one from any of the tables according to the dice rolled. So a rolling a 5 gave you access to three options.
paqman wrote: Nothing new from the vehicle page other than adding instruction for the psychic phase.
We can also see that they added the relentless definition there. If they have a full section for USR and also copied them all over the place where needed as quick reference, it might explain some of the extra pages of rules compared to the 6th edition rules page count.
Yeah it looks like there is no difference to Ordnance weaponry which is a shame.
I don't completely agree. Removing the drawback of snapshots to other weapons does not makes much sense for regular vehicles. The only vehicle being handicapped by this rule is LRBT (and demolisher). However, there is still hope the dev's have thought of reassessing LRBT playability : we don't know if "heavy" rule is modified in a positive way.
Thud wrote:Deploy objectives before picking sides. Good.
First turn is interesting. Seems like you roll off for deploying, then after having deployed, the player that deployed first can decide to go first or second.
First blood is still in. :(
Yeah. First blood is a bothering and unfair rule mostly dependant on luck. In the recent tournament I co-organized, I had the idea of swapping it for something that both players can claim (just as line-breaker & slay the warlord, which makes sense). A move that was hailed by many players. I was hoping for some sort of change in V7, alas nothing good here.
I've heard of First Blood being changed in some tourneys to being a point earned for wiping out a unit in the first game turn. Not easy, and clearly harder for some armies than others, but at least both sides have a chance to claim it that way. I'd support a change in that direction and if GW doesn't do it, house-rules it is, I guess.
I really don't see them backing out of the ordinance rules. While I agree it was a stupid change, they're really isn't a point to it if the most common ordinance using tanks all ignore it. It's the same logic to why the Daemon USR lost EW.
I always thought a "Break the Enemy" would be nice instead of First Blood. If you kill half your opponents units, rounding up, you get to claim a 1VP for Break the Enemy.
So now that Vehicles officially have the Relentless rule (for some reason, I thought they already had it), I wonder if this will pass on to any passengers in the vehicle? This not only will fix the broken Burning Chariot, but it will make transports with firing ports much more effective because they will be able to move and fire heavy weapons (Rhinos for Devastators anyone?), especially with the way it is worded in the vehicle rule section.
ClassicCarraway wrote: So now that Vehicles officially have the Relentless rule (for some reason, I thought they already had it), I wonder if this will pass on to any passengers in the vehicle? This not only will fix the broken Burning Chariot, but it will make transports with firing ports much more effective because they will be able to move and fire heavy weapons (Rhinos for Devastators anyone?), especially with the way it is worded in the vehicle rule section.
I think the point of that rumor was that passengers inside a vehicle have the relentless special rule.
Crablezworth wrote: Why not just let players choose, would make a lot more sense.
Because rolling dice on tables that are largely useless Forges a Narrative!!
I think it's more that letting players choose would require that some of the traits be toned down. For example, 1 on the Strategic chart (Stealth in Ruins, Move Through Cover) is quite good, as are the two that either let you reroll reservers, or give your opponent -1 penalty to reserve rolls. I think that almost no one would choose anything other than those.
paqman wrote: Nothing new from the vehicle page other than adding instruction for the psychic phase.
We can also see that they added the relentless definition there. If they have a full section for USR and also copied them all over the place where needed as quick reference, it might explain some of the extra pages of rules compared to the 6th edition rules page count.
Yeah it looks like there is no difference to Ordnance weaponry which is a shame.
I don't completely agree. Removing the drawback of snapshots to other weapons does not makes much sense for regular vehicles. The only vehicle being handicapped by this rule is LRBT (and demolisher). However, there is still hope the dev's have thought of reassessing LRBT playability : we don't know if "heavy" rule is modified in a positive way.
ClassicCarraway wrote: So now that Vehicles officially have the Relentless rule (for some reason, I thought they already had it), I wonder if this will pass on to any passengers in the vehicle? This not only will fix the broken Burning Chariot, but it will make transports with firing ports much more effective because they will be able to move and fire heavy weapons (Rhinos for Devastators anyone?), especially with the way it is worded in the vehicle rule section.
While I doubt this is the case, it would be crazy if it's true. Devastators wouldn't be buffed so much, they still have 2 more heavy weapons than fire ports. Tact squad would get the most benefit, as you could take advantage of the heavy weapon in a ten man squad, as well as move and use a grav gun rather just auto-taking the plasma. I would really hate to see mech vets with lascannons/autocannons, even more reason for a parking lot.
First turn is interesting. Seems like you roll off for deploying, then after having deployed, the player that deployed first can decide to go first or second.
Thank the Empra for this. Deploying first and then moving second is a HUGE tactical disadvantage because the second deploying player get to sets up in response to the first players set up and then move first. Looks like we won't be seeing much of that nonsense any more.
AlexHolker wrote: Tyranids are not people. They should not think like people, they should not have special characters like people, and they should not have unique wargear like people. We are not arguing that Tyranids are stupid, we're arguing that Tyranids would no more fight in a challenge than you would duel an individual ant.
Imagine this...
Hive tyrants drops down 20 or so yards front of a Tau squad, Does a funky roar. In relation, it's massive and the squad did not eat their weetabix this morning. they stutter, with a slight back step before readying there weapons. The commander, fueled by snickers, charges through the ranks right up in the HT's face.
The HT isn't going to walk around and dance with the commander to make sure he's hitting everyone. This is an cinematic example of a challenge where the Tau commander is challenging.
And if the Hive Tyrant felt like ignoring the lone Commander whose weapons he barely registers as a threat and instead just tackling into the squad which is its actual objective, he would do it. He would "decline" the challenge and proceed to butcher the rest of the squad.
He wouldn't glance at the Commander, decide he's not worth fighting and then run away like a frightened child. Monstrous Creatures are literally walking battering-rams, they don't "have" to fight anything that they don't want to fight in melee, they can walk right through them.
My problem with challenges isn't that they exist, my problem with challenges is the penalty you get for declining them. Declining a challenge should not prevent you from fighting. Simple as that. Put some other penalty on there.
BlaxicanX wrote: My problem with challenges isn't that they exist, my problem with challenges is the penalty you get for declining them. Declining a challenge should not prevent you from fighting. Simple as that. Put some other penalty on there.
The simple solution is some morale-based test or penalty. If an IG sergeant ducks from a challenge, it makes his squad more likely to run away. If a Hive Tyrant ignores a challenge, his Tyrant Guard don't give a crap.
But we're getting off topic somewhat. Someone post more rulebook info, stat!
paqman wrote: Nothing new from the vehicle page other than adding instruction for the psychic phase.
We can also see that they added the relentless definition there. If they have a full section for USR and also copied them all over the place where needed as quick reference, it might explain some of the extra pages of rules compared to the 6th edition rules page count.
Yeah it looks like there is no difference to Ordnance weaponry which is a shame.
I don't completely agree. Removing the drawback of snapshots to other weapons does not makes much sense for regular vehicles. The only vehicle being handicapped by this rule is LRBT (and demolisher). However, there is still hope the dev's have thought of reassessing LRBT playability : we don't know if "heavy" rule is modified in a positive way.
The problem with the rule in general is just as you mentioned, there aren't really any vehicles with ordnance weapons that have other meaningful weaponry besides a Leman Russ tank. Basilisks firing their Earthshaker cannon at a unit out of sight on the other side of the table won't care much, Vindicators dumping an s10 AP2 pieplate on a heavy infantry unit usually aren't bemoaning the loss of their stormbolter, Defilers are the only other vehicles that *might* matter, but largely the restriction is only meaningful on the Leman Russ in the first place.
Ok, so I finally caught up. 229 pages, wow. Anyway, I really want to throw in my 2 cents on what we know so far:
Unbound - Great idea, but utterly hamstrung by the lack of both overall game balance and internal army balance. As was said previously, this would work so much better if all units were built using a consistents point per attribute system; and re-rolls on the Warlord table, let me just jump for joy at that one. For gaming groups, great, for tourneys, probably not even a factor, for friendly pick-up games at a store, this can be a minefield.
Lord of War/D-weapons - not happy that they're in (knew they would be, but not happy about it), but at least content that they nerfed d-weapons
Psychic phase - Like the idea, I just hope this phase doesn't take over the game; I'll need to see how they reworked the powers
Wound allocation - also a good idea, but I can just see this dragging games out even longer than they are now. I wish they would stop writing rules like this is still a skirmish game.
Daemonology - I like this, I really do, but cripes, I don't want to buy another 50.00 codex just to use a cool new power - I don't even mind buying the models to use, just making us shell for a new codex to use said cool new power is rather underhanded
Vehicles - Like the 7 to explode, hoping that they changed SOMETHING about how hull points work
-2 to Charging through terrain - If true this will help some, but my Nids sure hope that there is some other type of help for assault armies
85.00 rulebook - Really, I mean just really. I also play a lot of RPGs and my this is more than most RPG books. I was discussing this with a friend of mine and compared this to Pathfinder, and he was right - for the Pathfinder book (50) and the Bestiary (40), it's the same cost as the 40k book; I pointed out, though, that after the 40k book, you still need at least one 50.00 codex, and then you need several hundred dollars worth of models to functionally play the game. Look, I know this was never invented, or intended, to be a budget hobby, but there is a point where this gets ludicrous...I believe GW just went plaid.
Dude instead of spending points on psykers that can explode into bloodthirsters I think that I will spend points on bloodthirsters that can explode into bloodthirsters.
Also, I like the space balls ref in the post above
Here's another: just like at the end of the movie the BT will breakout of the BTs chest with a top hat and cane and start singing a ditty.
WrentheFaceless wrote: Call me crazy, but I dont see Games Workshop adopting a Call of Duty, or Assassin's Creed release cycle.
Why not? If the player base is willing to pay for new rules editions more frequently why wouldn't GW capitalize on that desire and build a shorter life cycle for their editions?
If your reasoning for why GW wouldn't do that has anything to do with game balance or maintaining goodwill among players then I will happily accept your challenge and call you crazy.
I just finished reading the painful new WD. Are they listening at GW design studio? Yes. Vehicles dying easily is a problem, however, I'm afraid that and Allies are all they heard. The addition of the psychic phase, the addition of the tactical objective cards and the addition of Unbounded tells me they are listening more to the marketing team. There's no talk of fixing the deep strike no-assault craziness, First Blood will remain ridiculous, and seeing Coteaz surrounded by daemons makes me insane.
I will not buy this edition until it's had 3 months in the wild. I hate Look Out, Sir as a mechanic so much...I also hate precision strikes as it just takes momentum out of them game. I will paint my 30k stuff and dream of DZC armies.
Well I'm participating in a 6th Ed anything goes tourney on the 25th. I'm buying it... and hanging on until the Ork Codex. Then, hopefully it'll be so good I'll be super stoked or so bad I can quit this silly game.... but I love it.... dang it.
bodazoka wrote: I am confused, surely the psychic phase and tactical objectives are there to help fix the 6th ed problems?
I'm not sure what problem the tactical objectives are supposed to fix.
The changes to psychic powers do fix the problem of non-psychic armies being unable to counter blessings, but I can't help thinking that there should have been a more elegant solution than adding a whole extra phase back in.
Basimpo wrote: Dude instead of spending points on psykers that can explode into bloodthirsters I think that I will spend points on bloodthirsters that can explode into bloodthirsters.
Also, I like the space balls ref in the post above
Here's another: just like at the end of the movie the BT will breakout of the BTs chest with a top hat and cane and start singing a ditty.
Exactly. Adding a phase and a card set?!? Just so much added without addressing the many, many big problems. Allies getting fixed is great. Flying monstrous creatures? Thank you, GW. But fix assault. Fix deep strike. Fix instant death. Fix flyers so they act like planes. Fix Look Out Sir and First Blood!
bodazoka wrote: I am confused, surely the psychic phase and tactical objectives are there to help fix the 6th ed problems?
I'm not sure what problem the tactical objectives are supposed to fix.
Being able to play a game easily with only the codex and rulebook but no other purchases?
You do know that all of the rules for the cards are in the rulebook right? Its the same as the psychic cards, a convenience if you want it.
Also the psychic phase is there to consolidate all the powers into one phase instead of dealing with them all over the place. Simplifies it instead of remember start of turn, or start of psykers movement, or start of shooting, or during shooting, or start of assault phase, or after charging etc. Its all done at once.
Also we are incomplete on rules. We know next to nothing about assault, or anything else so to say it is or isnt fixed is premature.
bodazoka wrote: I am confused, surely the psychic phase and tactical objectives are there to help fix the 6th ed problems?
I'm not sure what problem the tactical objectives are supposed to fix.
The changes to psychic powers do fix the problem of non-psychic armies being unable to counter blessings, but I can't help thinking that there should have been a more elegant solution than adding a whole extra phase back in.
The 4 main problems I have currently are
1. People late game contesting my objectives with nothing I can do about it
2. People getting first blood and then hiding all game or castling on one objective meaning I loose turn 1/2 effectively
3. People getting all the high number objectives on there table edge and me loosing the game basically in deployment
4. Relic.. in general, hate it always re-roll it.
I believe that accumulative VP's and an ever changing mission structure goes some way to fixing some of the issues above. It is hard to sing the praises of this though as I don't have all the information, it could end up not being a fix but I do believe it is at least an attempt at a fix from GW. When 50 odd games are played and the people more knowledgeable than me on here figure it out I am sure we will have an answer.
bodazoka wrote: I am confused, surely the psychic phase and tactical objectives are there to help fix the 6th ed problems?
I'm not sure what problem the tactical objectives are supposed to fix.
Being able to play a game easily with only the codex and rulebook but no other purchases?
You do know that all of the rules for the cards are in the rulebook right? Its the same as the psychic cards, a convenience if you want it.
Also the psychic phase is there to consolidate all the powers into one phase instead of dealing with them all over the place. Simplifies it instead of remember start of turn, or start of psykers movement, or start of shooting, or during shooting, or start of assault phase, or after charging etc. Its all done at once.
Also we are incomplete on rules. We know next to nothing about assault, or anything else so to say it is or isnt fixed is premature.
We don't know, but man the WD just makes me depressed.
Leth wrote: Also the psychic phase is there to consolidate all the powers into one phase instead of dealing with them all over the place. Simplifies it instead of remember start of turn, or start of psykers movement, or start of shooting, or during shooting, or start of assault phase, or after charging etc. Its all done at once.
By that logic, we should also have a 'special abilities' phase. And possibly a 'Rapid Fire' phase, a 'Heavy' phase and a 'Move Your Vehicles' phase.
Having the different types of psychic powers function at different times during the turn was never a problem, because they all affect different things. Dropping them all out into a separate phase was uneccessary, and breaks the flow of the game even further than the current IGYG system does already.
And the silliness of allowing a psyker to cast multiple wychfires and then still also get to shoot his ranged weapon?
Leth wrote: Also the psychic phase is there to consolidate all the powers into one phase instead of dealing with them all over the place. Simplifies it instead of remember start of turn, or start of psykers movement, or start of shooting, or during shooting, or start of assault phase, or after charging etc. Its all done at once.
By that logic, we should also have a 'special abilities' phase. And possibly a 'Rapid Fire' phase, a 'Heavy' phase and a 'Move Your Vehicles' phase.
Having the different types of psychic powers function at different times during the turn was never a problem, because they all affect different things. Dropping them all out into a separate phase was uneccessary, and breaks the flow of the game even further than the current IGYG system does already.
And the silliness of allowing a psyker to cast multiple wychfires and then still also get to shoot his ranged weapon?
Psykers casting multiple witchfires is a good thing, not a bad thing. Compared to other powers and other weapons, witchfires were less effective- you had to get the power off, then get through deny the witch, then roll to hit, roll to wound, and get through saves. Other powers only had to do the first two, and shooting weapons had to do the latter three. And being able to split fire makes putting a psyker in a unit with witchfire powers less of a handicap, like often a heavy or special weapon in a squad can be as well. Changes to splitfire also seems to address the problem of "wasted" shots somewhat as well.
Putting all the psychic powers in one phase does streamline things. While many of the powers affect different things, they all tended to last until the start of the next turn anyways, so doing them at the same time is not going to make any major difference. Having them go off after movement and before shooting also opens up a lot of flexability compared to the current mix where some were start of the turn, some were in the shooting phase, some were done other times. But I also would rather see Flat Out and Run be lumped back into the movement phase to streamline that as well.
MajorWesJanson wrote: Psykers casting multiple witchfires is a good thing, not a bad thing. Compared to other powers and other weapons, witchfires were less effective- you had to get the power off, then get through deny the witch, then roll to hit, roll to wound, and get through saves. Other powers only had to do the first two, and shooting weapons had to do the latter three. And being able to split fire makes putting a psyker in a unit with witchfire powers less of a handicap, like often a heavy or special weapon in a squad can be as well. Changes to splitfire also seems to address the problem of "wasted" shots somewhat as well.
Putting all the psychic powers in one phase does streamline things. While many of the powers affect different things, they all tended to last until the start of the next turn anyways, so doing them at the same time is not going to make any major difference. Having them go off after movement and before shooting also opens up a lot of flexability compared to the current mix where some were start of the turn, some were in the shooting phase, some were done other times. But I also would rather see Flat Out and Run be lumped back into the movement phase to streamline that as well.
Agree with all of that!
Now that you mention it.. run and flat out really should be in the movement! to that effect I generally always do it in the movement phase anyway (just ask my opponent first).
Leth wrote: Also the psychic phase is there to consolidate all the powers into one phase instead of dealing with them all over the place. Simplifies it instead of remember start of turn, or start of psykers movement, or start of shooting, or during shooting, or start of assault phase, or after charging etc. Its all done at once.
By that logic, we should also have a 'special abilities' phase. And possibly a 'Rapid Fire' phase, a 'Heavy' phase and a 'Move Your Vehicles' phase.
Having the different types of psychic powers function at different times during the turn was never a problem, because they all affect different things. Dropping them all out into a separate phase was uneccessary, and breaks the flow of the game even further than the current IGYG system does already.
And the silliness of allowing a psyker to cast multiple wychfires and then still also get to shoot his ranged weapon?
Except all of those happen in one phase with no required order.
Psykers have fixed time in multiple phases that they can cast. Not quite comparable.
bodazoka wrote: Now that you mention it.. run and flat out really should be in the movement! to that effect I generally always do it in the movement phase anyway (just ask my opponent first).
They were specifically moved out of the movement phase to make it easier for players to remember them. Previous editions saw the common mistake of players running or moving flat out and then forgetting about it and trying to shoot in the shooting phase.
bodazoka wrote: Now that you mention it.. run and flat out really should be in the movement! to that effect I generally always do it in the movement phase anyway (just ask my opponent first).
They were specifically moved out of the movement phase to make it easier for players to remember them. Previous editions saw the common mistake of players running or moving flat out and then forgetting about it and trying to shoot in the shooting phase.
Funny, for me and most people i know, it's easier to keep straight in the movement phase.
Lobukia wrote: Funny, for me and most people i know, it's easier to keep straight in the movement phase.
It's easier to remember in a shooting phase that you already ran that unit in the previous phase than it is to just run the unit in the shooting phase?
My big thing that I would like to see is a slight change to Heavy vehicles, specifically how snapfire works.
I'd like to be able to snap fire a flamer or heavy flamer from an ordnance firing tank such as a Demolisher. I'd happily pay the points to be able to mount a pair of heavy flamer sponsons on my demolisher provided I could then fire the demolisher cannon at a target while still being able to drop flamer templates on the same nearby squad. Even if it's only D3 hits per flamer a-la the overwatch rule for flamers, so long as you can reach the squad in question with the flamer template, they should be able to fling promethium at them.
Or, even better, I wish that the Heavy Vehicle rule allowed you to fire an ordnance weapon and one other weapon at full BS while moving 6" or less (at the same target of course, not trying to horn in on PotMS here). Any other weapons firing would be snap shots, but at least it gives you the option to mount a lascannon to the hull of you LRBT and use it to it's full effectiveness versus paying the points for it and hoping for a 6 every turn while you fling battlecannon shells around. Heavy Vehicle would also allow you to move up to 6" and, provided you didn't fire an ordnance weapon, fire all weapons on the vehicle at full BS.
Those are what I'm hoping for. I doubt either of these will come in to play, but as they say, a man can dream.
Uriels_Flame wrote: I would like to see the "you go, I go" mechanic removed.
Make it more action/response type.
I feel that removing IGYG would slow the game down even more. With the game expanding to 100+ models(generally speaking), I don't think it would really be feasible. And the difference in numbers of units on the field could just ruin the experience for one or both players- either someone gets extra turns, or one player gets a bunch of models that sit there for the entire game. The unit by unit works fine for smaller scale games, but I feel 40k has gotten a little too big for that. Not to mention the upkeep involved to remember who activated or not.
Uriels_Flame wrote: I would like to see the "you go, I go" mechanic removed.
Make it more action/response type.
I feel that removing IGYG would slow the game down even more. With the game expanding to 100+ models(generally speaking), I don't think it would really be feasible. And the difference in numbers of units on the field could just ruin the experience for one or both players- either someone gets extra turns, or one player gets a bunch of models that sit there for the entire game. The unit by unit works fine for smaller scale games, but I feel 40k has gotten a little too big for that. Not to mention the upkeep involved to remember who activated or not.
You could organize your army into "detachments" of several units which activate together.
Uriels_Flame wrote: I would like to see the "you go, I go" mechanic removed.
Make it more action/response type.
I feel that removing IGYG would slow the game down even more. With the game expanding to 100+ models(generally speaking), I don't think it would really be feasible. And the difference in numbers of units on the field could just ruin the experience for one or both players- either someone gets extra turns, or one player gets a bunch of models that sit there for the entire game. The unit by unit works fine for smaller scale games, but I feel 40k has gotten a little too big for that. Not to mention the upkeep involved to remember who activated or not.
You could organize your army into "detachments" of several units which activate together.
There are several ways one could go about it, but I still feel the larger size of 40k games work against it. After a certain point there is too much upkeep- and the game right now is overburdened with memorizing who did what or what tokens it has. A change from IGYG would exacerbate this problem.
I'm most looking forward to the flyer and challenge changes myself. Although honestly, I think GW should give up the ghost and make the game into a modular RPG system. It seems they're headed that way- forging a narrative, requiring opponent's permission, and the extra rules bloat(warlord traits and challenges spring foremost in my mind). A build your own rules system for playing 40k. Have a streamlined set, with optional extra content to add to your game.
Sinful Hero wrote: Although honestly, I think GW should give up the ghost and make the game into a modular RPG system. It seems they're headed that way- forging a narrative, requiring opponent's permission, and the extra rules bloat(warlord traits and challenges spring foremost in my mind). A build your own rules system for playing 40k. Have a streamlined set, with optional extra content to add to your game.
I believe that accumulative VP's and an ever changing mission structure goes some way to fixing some of the issues above. It is hard to sing the praises of this though as I don't have all the information, it could end up not being a fix but I do believe it is at least an attempt at a fix from GW. When 50 odd games are played and the people more knowledgeable than me on here figure it out I am sure we will have an answer.
Based on the cards we have seen it's just kinda arbitrary. Think of the scouring, you, just like me have likely experienced pretty bad luck in the distribution of vp's to objectives. The problem is that cards do a similar thing, of the 4 cards shown, 2 of them can potentially give the owning player vp's just for picking them up. That doesn't sound very fair to me.
), and is wanting to try out an all Termie 
