About once or twice a year I watch a few friends enjoy a game of 40k and think, "That looks like fun."
I dust off my models, buy the current CSM codex, and load up ol' army builder for a game, only to remember it's not that simple anymore.
I show up with my 60 cultists, demon prince of tzeentch, screamers, and dino bots because dammit, dino bots are cool looking.
My opponent has all kinds of new stuff in play. (not in one game)
Str D weapons are a thing now?
Gargantuan creatures and superheavies?
Imperial Knights are their own army?
Getting in other peoples transports?
Skyhammer drop formations?
Everything in Warhammer has gotten so over the top! It's not about just putting your dudes on the table. Now there's extra books, extra rules, books for factions that are just splinters of a faction, taking free transports/weapons/units/non dying necrons... it's just like ..
It reminds me of the last year or two of an MMO, where everyone has tons and tons of over the top stuff. Where it was once cool to do 1,000 damage on a hit, unless you do 10,000 damage, your not keeping up. It feels like my poor little cult of tzeentch things are playing an entirely different game than everyone else.
So here I am, considering re-entering the game again and I don't even know where to start. I don't want to by an army by formation, but that seems the only way to play anymore... maximizing the best formation bonuses for as much free/power spam as you can get.
I remember my first league game coming back, when my opponent was flying around Belakor, 2 Lords of Change, pink horrors, and summoning mountains demons. I realized very quickly against double invis that I wasn't even in the same frame of mind as the rest of 40k anymore.
The "modeling" company wants you to buy the stuff that's needed in their power creeped formations.
And yes it is quite annoying to have a good game dragged down by greed.
As a stopgap measure, you can chat with your opponents and either try to pull the power level of the game down some, or maybe get some older edition games running. I also find large apocalypse games have enough going on that the individual imbalances like undercosted models and ridic formations don't matter as much.
Im not having a pop OP but youre blaming the game for not being fun because you are unfamiliar with new rules like D, GMCs etc and out of touch with recent developments?
A little unfair I feel. Ask your friends can you borrow the latest codicies, rules, formations, get to know what you;re up against and build a list against it.
Alternatively ask them to pick less "optimised" lists and have more friendly games.
What you are missing is a learning curve. Of course things will be frustrating and unfun if you play once a year with unoptimised CSM VS a top tier steam roller army.
40k has some poor rules and other bonkers rules but its still damn fun imho.
PSCSM is general considered so sub par as to be comical Im afraid :(
Chute82 wrote: My advice would be to look into other games..
Yea. I play a bunch of Sigmar, which is it's own barrel of disappointment sometimes. The problem is it's hard to break the mold when everyone has 40k armies.
I think Dropzone Commander is superior in every way, except maybe melee combat, but finding games is very difficult.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
niv-mizzet wrote: The "modeling" company wants you to buy the stuff that's needed in their power creeped formations.
And yes it is quite annoying to have a good game dragged down by greed.
As a stopgap measure, you can chat with your opponents and either try to pull the power level of the game down some, or maybe get some older edition games running. I also find large apocalypse games have enough going on that the individual imbalances like undercosted models and ridic formations don't matter as much.
Power creeps the word that sums it all up.
There's a ton of that with formations. I'm more okay with the new units and types than I am the creep and rigidity that the strong formations espouses.
If you play with friends, just ask them to use lists that will provide a challenging game for both sides, and you'll be fine and can continue enjoying the game. If you want to play pick up games or tournaments, then you'll have to accept that the arms race has continued in your absence.
Ratius wrote: Im not having a pop OP but youre blaming the game for not being fun because you are unfamiliar with new rules like D, GMCs etc and out of touch with recent developments?
A little unfair I feel. Ask your friends can you borrow the latest codicies, rules, formations, get to know what you;re up against and build a list against it.
Alternatively ask them to pick less "optimised" lists and have more friendly games.
What you are missing is a learning curve. Of course things will be frustrating and unfun if you play once a year with unoptimised CSM VS a top tier steam roller army.
40k has some poor rules and other bonkers rules but its still damn fun imho.
PSCSM is general considered so sub par as to be comical Im afraid :(
It may be a tad unfair, I agree. It came up because I joined a "Beginners league", and the amount of power in each army (except the tzeentchy ones it seems) was just overwhelming. Throughout the league I played some Belakor led demon circus, shooty cancer-gun martians who were getting +2 BS from their codex gods, and then by the time I closed, were dropping my T and increasing their WS. (allied to a GK strike formation), loads of D-flamer eldar scooting around in dark eldar transports, a necron decurion formation, imperial knights, space marines with almost 1800 points of free tanks, another space marine who was using skyhammer formations, and then a few other bottom feeders like myself, some guy using Renegade IG regiments, a guy playing nids, and a girl playing sisters.
The game is still -fun-, I guess, but the power of the 'haves' is sooooo much higher than the standard level of power. Winning with Chaos (or 5 ed Eldar)used to be a matter of "this is uphill, but doable." Just seems everyone is too stronk at the moment. Honesltly, it's not about winning even. Fantasy was always my 'competitive game'. I was just sort of shell shocked, is all.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JamesY wrote: If you play with friends, just ask them to use lists that will provide a challenging game for both sides, and you'll be fine and can continue enjoying the game. If you want to play pick up games or tournaments, then you'll have to accept that the arms race has continued in your absence.
Good point, +1.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Points value of Space Marine tanks is completely pulled out of my ass, btw.
I always believe that it is the people that you play that makes a good game, not the rules, lists or dice rolls. I have about 6-7 friends who I would happily play snakes and ladders with them using a d10, because I know that, win or lose, I'm going to have a fun time. Get your Dino bots out, and have fun with them.
JamesY wrote: I always believe that it is the people that you play that makes a good game, not the rules, lists or dice rolls. I have about 6-7 friends who I would happily play snakes and ladders with them using a d10, because I know that, win or lose, I'm going to have a fun time. Get your Dino bots out, and have fun with them.
I agree with this - 40K has become a beer and pretzels game (in spirit for me, albeit with roo many rules to be truly relaxing) with like-minded friends.
For competition I've gone to Saga, Lion Rampant and starting Frostgrave which are simple, quite well balanced and cheaper
I just play for fluff, if my petty humans get rolled by cheesey xenos armies, I just chalk it up to it being fluffy. I prefer dong campaigns, ans smaller 500 pt games anyways.
It is just power creep. You can do a lot more differents things, now.
You really have to discuss with your opponent before making your lists.
Because otherwise your friends will bring a war convocation with a flesh tearer detachement and destroy your poor cultists.
But if you were playing against me, for example, you would have your chances: I have 0 psy, few flamers, no super-heavy, etc... in my "main" list.
Just tell your friends to play "friendly and fluffy"
I play 40k with my brother and one of his friend. and that is all. I Bro's friend ahs all the armies, so it's always different everytime we play.
Barely any cheese and just general fun/funny/uncompetitive builds we're rolling. My build wouldn't last a turn if I'd go play at the local store.
My goal in 40k is to have fun. And demolishing my opponent with tons of grav guns ain't fun and neither is it fun for me to get face rekt by a cheese eldar build.
Chute82 wrote: My advice would be to look into other games..
40k is no longer playable at the global scale. We had a thread on this here and this was the outcome. However, it is still playable in a closed group where the members commit to some restrictions.
Why not Heresy?
Almost equal armies (as most of the time you will be fighting space marines)
No OP formations that ruin the fun of 40k (Im looking at you Decurion..)
also PRIMARCHS (Who wouldnt want their chapters/legions primarch running around the table punching things???)
Things change. Anyone who thought 40K would remain even remotely the same forever will be sorely disappointed.
Can feel overwhelming at first, the changes, but you'll get used to it. Your best bet of having fun if you result to playing strangers is finding people who agree to discussing lists beforehand.
About once or twice a year I watch a few friends enjoy a game of 40k and think, "That looks like fun."
I dust off my models, buy the current CSM codex, and load up ol' army builder for a game, only to remember it's not that simple anymore.
I show up with my 60 cultists, demon prince of tzeentch, screamers, and dino bots because dammit, dino bots are cool looking.
My opponent has all kinds of new stuff in play. (not in one game)
Str D weapons are a thing now?
Gargantuan creatures and superheavies?
Imperial Knights are their own army?
Getting in other peoples transports?
Skyhammer drop formations?
Everything in Warhammer has gotten so over the top! It's not about just putting your dudes on the table. Now there's extra books, extra rules, books for factions that are just splinters of a faction, taking free transports/weapons/units/non dying necrons... it's just like ..
It reminds me of the last year or two of an MMO, where everyone has tons and tons of over the top stuff. Where it was once cool to do 1,000 damage on a hit, unless you do 10,000 damage, your not keeping up. It feels like my poor little cult of tzeentch things are playing an entirely different game than everyone else.
So here I am, considering re-entering the game again and I don't even know where to start. I don't want to by an army by formation, but that seems the only way to play anymore... maximizing the best formation bonuses for as much free/power spam as you can get.
I remember my first league game coming back, when my opponent was flying around Belakor, 2 Lords of Change, pink horrors, and summoning mountains demons. I realized very quickly against double invis that I wasn't even in the same frame of mind as the rest of 40k anymore.
You're not alone by any means, and many playgroups are dying because of exactly this thing. My own play has been curtailed to almost nothing at this point, and my once large local playgroup is now practically nonexistent.
The ultra competitive crowd and garage-gamer crowds (that largely make their own fun) are the ones having a good time with this edition, but it's pushing just about everyone else out in my experience.
Chute82 wrote: My advice would be to look into other games..
40k is no longer playable at the global scale. We had a thread on this here and this was the outcome. However, it is still playable in a closed group where the members commit to some restrictions.
Very much this, I mostly play the same guys month in, month out and we agree what sort of things we are taking up front, so we might have a battle with no super heavies, no D, no flyers, etc. Other times we have a 10k a side battle with nothing but super heavies. Don't like the way your group want to play? Change group, its far easier than getting them to change.
Ratius wrote: Im not having a pop OP but youre blaming the game for not being fun because you are unfamiliar with new rules like D, GMCs etc and out of touch with recent developments?
A little unfair I feel. Ask your friends can you borrow the latest codicies, rules, formations, get to know what you;re up against and build a list against it.
Alternatively ask them to pick less "optimised" lists and have more friendly games.
What you are missing is a learning curve. Of course things will be frustrating and unfun if you play once a year with unoptimised CSM VS a top tier steam roller army.
40k has some poor rules and other bonkers rules but its still damn fun imho.
PSCSM is general considered so sub par as to be comical Im afraid :(
As a guy in a similar boat to the OP, it really feels like someone is playing a joke on you when you see some of this crazier stuff. You know what a person's reaction would be if you told them you had a strength D flamer back in 5th? They kick you out for cheating while laughing about how only an idiot would think that would be in standard 40k. Not to mention the formations that throw out free rules or models. Or things like the GMCs or knights (I can't believe how stupid they were to allow those in normal games) 40k is basically apocalypse now, there's nothing separating the two now, when back in the day they were VERY seperate.
You feel like you showed up to play a 1,000pt game and the other guy brought an 1850 list. It's not so much adapt as it is "looks like its time to buy a new army".
Yeah, everything has gotten bigger and more powerful.
Personally it's not an issue for me, as once again, things change. 40K today is more "apocalyptic" than it used to be before. I'm fine with that.
The presumption of the game remaining the same forever was never present to beginwith for me, and the change doesn't surprise me in any way, nor does it make any difference. It's a game that is different from how it was 10 years ago.
I guess it's only a problem if for some reason a person wants it to be how it used to be. Stuff was broken all the same, in some cases more badly than currently, the scale of battles and power is different. But it's the same for everyone.
I can imagine for someone who plays a few matches per edition the change happens in a blunt way. But personally I call someone like that more of a collector, since only 3 days out of the 365 days available are spent actually playing the game. I just clocked 100 games of 7th, so it feels like I'm more than ready for a new edition already.
My friend and I feel the same way. We don't use super heavies or gargantuan creatures without prior agreement and even then only in massive games. We have a max of one flier per game if that and rarely use formations. We're both poor so can't afford an arms race.
Ask your friends to bring just a CAD and no LoW. That'll help a LOT since you won't have to deal with all the formation shenanigans - and it will tone down their armies a bit so you have a chance at winning.
Really. That's your complaint about Warhammer 40.000. Maybe you should switch to a different universe that isn't, like, the most over-the-top universe I know?
Titans have been part of the universe for ages and he's complaining that a Space Marine sitting in a Chimera is over the top.
When people speak of problems with allied transports, the point is generally not Marines in Chimeras... It's more the Wraithguard in deepstriking/WWP raiders that are causing a stir.
Ashiraya wrote: When people speak of problems with allied transports, the point is generally not Marines in Chimeras... It's more the Wraithguard in deepstriking/WWP raiders that are causing a stir.
Yeah, I was going for one of the really boring variants to make a point.
I can completely agree that Super Heavies, D-weapons, GCs, and the like are annoying in small games. And I am totally against it. But, people still complain about Flyers? I think they were a cool addition to the game, and every army has them. So I don't see the big deal. The big, bad Flyers all have a drawback that can be exploited.
Ashiraya wrote: When people speak of problems with allied transports, the point is generally not Marines in Chimeras... It's more the Wraithguard in deepstriking/WWP raiders that are causing a stir.
Yeah, I was going for one of the really boring variants to make a point.
Don't Raiders hold 10 models? Wraithguard are Bulky and a min. size of 5. Where does the WWP toting model fit? If you are experiencing this as an issue, you may want to ask your opponent to show you the rules.
Now, that combo does fit inside a Wave Serpent, but the Wraithguard need to disembark...
The problem is you're playing with cheese-eating assmongers
They're bringing competitive lists against your fluff list
To be fair, it was a league with prizes at the end. I was just completely unprepared for the standard power of armies these days.
Really. That's your complaint about Warhammer 40.000. Maybe you should switch to a different universe that isn't, like, the most over-the-top universe I know?
Titans have been part of the universe for ages and he's complaining that a Space Marine sitting in a Chimera is over the top.
Fluff to table-top has no bearing. Thanks for adding literally nothing other than a criticism to the thread. Also, WG don't need a Spirit Seer to function anymore, so they fit just fine with 5 models.
Cindis wrote: The problem is you're playing with cheese-eating assmongers
They're bringing competitive lists against your fluff list
This statement is flawed. You're making the assumption that fluff lists aren't powerful and somehow it's the opponents fault that he's "playing the game wrong" because he's not being a "gentleman" and handicapping himself for your list. Mostly though, people that prefer extreme cheese combos play with other similar people, because they get bored just as easily as you do when they table you 20-0 in first turn, every game.
In fact, the game would be awesome if fluff was balanced vs fluff and cheese vs cheese, that way we could easily split the game into a hardcore/softcore section and everyone could play what ever they prefer. That's, however, not the case with 40k. Necron decurion, Eldar decurion, marine-decurion+ sky hammer are all extremely fluffy ways of making an army, yet they will absolutely murder any "fluffy" IG themed list or CSM with a good themed army and the game will be just as boringly one-sided as playing vs what ever TFG in your fantasy that you love to antagonize so much.
Don't blame the player for playing a game that's absurdly flawed, were somehow bringing a perfectly legal list suddenly turns you into a "TFG" because you don't like playing against it. That's a terrible way to excuse an atrocious gamesystem.
Cindis wrote: The problem is you're playing with cheese-eating assmongers
They're bringing competitive lists against your fluff list
This statement is flawed. You're making the assumption that fluff lists aren't powerful and somehow it's the opponents fault that he's "playing the game wrong" because he's not being a "gentleman" and handicapping himself for your list. Mostly though, people that prefer extreme cheese combos play with other similar people, because they get bored just as easily as you do when they table you 20-0 in first turn, every game.
In fact, the game would be awesome if fluff was balanced vs fluff and cheese vs cheese, that way we could easily split the game into a hardcore/softcore section and everyone could play what ever they prefer. That's, however, not the case with 40k. Necron decurion, Eldar decurion, marine-decurion+ sky hammer are all extremely fluffy ways of making an army, yet they will absolutely murder any "fluffy" IG themed list or CSM with a good themed army and the game will be just as boringly one-sided as playing vs what ever TFG in your fantasy that you love to antagonize so much.
Don't blame the player for playing a game that's absurdly flawed, were somehow bringing a perfectly legal list suddenly turns you into a "TFG" because you don't like playing against it. That's a terrible way to excuse an atrocious gamesystem.
You raise a good point. I try hard not to villainize the players with hyper-efficient lists. I know how to build them too, hell, I've won Ard' Boyz qualifiers back when those were still around in 5th ed. The main point of this thread was how far things have escalated in the system, with multiple sources, data slates, formations, and allies all being used in the most basic of lists anymore.
Usually with the rulebook, codices of your choice, the appropriate models, and enough dice. The latter two aren't necessary with Vassal though, but I've never used it.
Really. That's your complaint about Warhammer 40.000. Maybe you should switch to a different universe that isn't, like, the most over-the-top universe I know?
Titans have been part of the universe for ages and he's complaining that a Space Marine sitting in a Chimera is over the top.
Fluff to table-top has no bearing. Thanks for adding literally nothing other than a criticism to the thread. Also, WG don't need a Spirit Seer to function anymore, so they fit just fine with 5 models.
Sure, cut what I wrote before that and claim I only added criticism to the thread. Nice. And I never said anything about Seers or anything, so what's your problem here, mate?
And yes, if you complain about over-the-top'ness of a tabletops crunch, you should consider whether or not the fluff is over-the-top. Being over-the-top is what 40k is about - massive firepower, heros wading through the blood of their enemies and so on. Are many of the rules in 40k badly designed? Sure. But that's bad design, not "too much over-the-top". Destroyer weapons and Superheavies are fine as concepts - at least in my opinion. GWs execution - the rules we have - is highly questionable though.
Really. That's your complaint about Warhammer 40.000. Maybe you should switch to a different universe that isn't, like, the most over-the-top universe I know?
Titans have been part of the universe for ages and he's complaining that a Space Marine sitting in a Chimera is over the top.
Fluff to table-top has no bearing. Thanks for adding literally nothing other than a criticism to the thread. Also, WG don't need a Spirit Seer to function anymore, so they fit just fine with 5 models.
Sure, cut what I wrote before that and claim I only added criticism to the thread. Nice. And I never said anything about Seers or anything, so what's your problem here, mate?
And yes, if you complain about over-the-top'ness of a tabletops crunch, you should consider whether or not the fluff is over-the-top. Being over-the-top is what 40k is about - massive firepower, heros wading through the blood of their enemies and so on. Are many of the rules in 40k badly designed? Sure. But that's bad design, not "too much over-the-top". Destroyer weapons and Superheavies are fine as concepts - at least in my opinion. GWs execution - the rules we have - is highly questionable though.
I agree with everything here. If i missed something relevant from your first post, I apologize.
Actually, 40K of today is more like what 40K battles have always been described as, with superheavy vehicles, multiple factions, flyers etc.
One can argue it would work better without said things -but that's just an opinion and nothing more. It can work with them or without them all the same. The most likely reason, admitted or not (by my speculation) is just wanting things to be "the way they used to be" -and having a negative reaction to change by default. A reasonably common way to react to all change... for some.
Runic wrote: Actually, 40K of today is more like what 40K battles have always been described as, with superheavy vehicles, multiple factions, flyers etc.
One can argue it would work better without said things -but that's just an opinion and nothing more. It can work with them or without them all the same. The most likely reason, admitted or not (by my speculation) is just wanting things to be "the way they used to be" -and having a negative reaction to change by default. A reasonably common way to react to all change... for some.
I don't quite agree.
I didn't mind 6th, which had a lot of changes from 5th.
The problem comes from how many source books, how many extra rules are added, and how much easier it is to access a very high baseline of power for many of the codexes. It's not the inclusion of superheavies and gargantuans, but how they are implemented. They kept many of the old "seperate game" mechanics of Apoc, and shoehorned them into regular 40k. Formations are their own problem, in how much more rigid they make armies which are basically just formation groiups.
The problem is not super-heavies, d weapons and allies themselves - the problem is with op models. The majority of options are pretty tame. Most superheavies are quite mediocre - like imperial knights and stompas, some are simply bad like hierodule or a number of baneblades, others are op for the points like tau'nar or wraithknights. Same goes with allies. Most options are fluffy and not that over the top. It's the space marine battle bros, draigo-cents and things like that which spoil the fun. Some factions simply need allies to fill the gaps - like orks, harlequins, ig. Others use allies to up the cheeze - sm, eldar.
As far as i'm concerned, it's always been like this. No matter which edition you pick, there are always op things that people abuse. If what, i find that the balance has gone better simply for the fact that there are maelstorm missions and you don't necesserely need to kill the unkillable to actually win games. I've been havinh success with footslogging hordes, a full scout list and csm with mass mutlators. It's telling something.
I find it's difficult to win Maelstrom missions when your models are all dead, but I'm admittedly not a very strong 40k player anymore.
But again, this thread wasn't "Stuffs too op, I can't win.
It was "Holy crap, the scale and shape of the game have changed immensely, as well as the average level of power fielded by armies."
It's since been implied I haven't been running into average armies.
I really like the post pointing out 40k isn't a global scale pickup game anymore. Dialogue is needed before hand expressing the tone and power scale of the upcoming game.
koooaei wrote: s far as i'm concerned, it's always been like this. No matter which edition you pick, there are always op things that people abuse.
Exactly. This hasn't changed. The game has had broken units before, and I argue that nothing in the current game has reached the "op level" of 3rd ed Starcannon spam, the 5th ed GK or the like. Even Eldar, which are considered top dogs, can be beaten with other top tier armies and quite well at that. 5th ed GK ruled the edition, and there was nothing that even came close, same with the Starcannon spam of 3rd.
So in essence, the only difference is some changed rules and the new unit types. Everything is more powerful, sure. But a lot of things are powerful, not just one army. Also these days there are only a few builds that don't have an actual hard counter for them.
To the OP, yeah, your solution is open lists and discussion. Or participating in a tournament with set list restrictions.
I concur with the above. 40k to me has always been at it's best when you have an opponent who you can have a clear conversation with about what kind of game your looking for. I do wish at times GW would right a better rule set but as someone whose been here since 5th and the whole break the game to win, smash list has always been here.
HoundsofDemos wrote: I concur with the above. 40k to me has always been at it's best when you have an opponent who you can have a clear conversation with about what kind of game your looking for. I do wish at times GW would right a better rule set but as someone whose been here since 5th and the whole break the game to win, smash list has always been here.
The question remains though: why should there be any further conversation outside of point value and rolling for missions?
HoundsofDemos wrote: I concur with the above. 40k to me has always been at it's best when you have an opponent who you can have a clear conversation with about what kind of game your looking for. I do wish at times GW would right a better rule set but as someone whose been here since 5th and the whole break the game to win, smash list has always been here.
The question remains though: why should there be any further conversation outside of point value and rolling for missions?
That has become a part of the problem though. One guy turns up with a list designed for tournaments, the other guy gets smashed. So to win next time he tries to come up with a more competitive list, and smashes as different guy, who, to win his next game tries to come up with a more competitive list, and smashes a different guy... before long, the majority of the group are trying hard to win and shedding people who are no longer comfortable playing with them. Now although this has always been the case, netlists and super heavies/gargantuan creatures have only recently become so easily accessible to everyone and really exacerbated the issue. Having a like minded group, or a prior conversation saying 'i just want to have fun and playing a pure scatbike army with two wraithknights might not be fun to fight again' is very reasonable.
HoundsofDemos wrote: I concur with the above. 40k to me has always been at it's best when you have an opponent who you can have a clear conversation with about what kind of game your looking for. I do wish at times GW would right a better rule set but as someone whose been here since 5th and the whole break the game to win, smash list has always been here.
The question remains though: why should there be any further conversation outside of point value and rolling for missions?
This is common in almost any game or group activity though. For example I show up to play football with some friends expecting a friendly game. Another player on the other team decides to play how he would on a professional field, tackling hard, pushing people to the limit. The game and rules are known to both but we have very different expectations of play style. This doesn't make either game bad, though as I stated 40k could use a tighter rule set but with the literally 100s of options in this game your going to get two very different outcomes depending on why someone is playing.
The question remains though: why should there be any further conversation outside of point value and rolling for missions?
I dont think wanting something on principle will get anyone anywhere, as the world is not perfect. It's rare a wargame with many options where the guy expecting a fluffy casual match wont get decimated by someone bringing a top tier competituve list. This is true for Infinity, Bolt Action and WM/H, I've played them all, two in tournaments.
Ones options are, as discussed so many times before; adapt in a way that satisfies you, dont adapt and continue to want something that is not there, or stop completely.
I moved to a state thats not well off economically. I tried various gaming stores in the area, and pretty much nothing but the GW corporate store had any sort of community. The problem was, the community wanted to play with nothing but knights and forgeworld monstrosities.
The last game I watched before I walked out of the store and never came back was 5 knights (3 were forgeworld lancers etc) vs. 3 knights and some forgeworld space marine tanks. I looked down at my lovingly painted dark eldar wych army and realized this wasn't the game for me anymore.
On one hand, its great they've made a game with so many ways to play. But they've also destroyed 40k's greatest strength, the fact you could always find a game.
I think what people are missing is just how scaled up things have become in 7th. Back in 5th, I could actually win games with nothing but guardsmen and Leman Russ tanks. Not vets, infantry platoons. And we didn't have aegis lines or anything like that either (old man mode activated)
I could actually do a bayonet charge across the board with a wall of tanks behind them, and have a halfway decent chance. No, it was not the most competitive list in the world, but I always felt like I had a chance. At the very least i could bloody a n optimized list a bit before i went down. In 7th, I could have them completely fortified behind aegis lines and whatnot and lose 2/3rds of them by the end of turn 2. There's so much ignore cover, gmc's, special rules, and absolutely horribly bizarre combos that bringing normal infantry is literally pointless. I would spend more time getting my guardsmen out of the case than I would to put them back.
The game has scaled to the point where basic infantry are pointless. Who takes infantry platoons anymore? How about boyz mobs? Tactical squads? Fire warriors? Etc. Etc. It's all MC's and GMC's and invisible deathstars and jetbikes and knight titans. It's to the point where people will literally call it a "troop tax" because they don't want to use troop units.
We didn't need that in 40k, that's what APOCALYPSE was for. So you could go nuts with the crazy stuff and not completely destroy the normal game. Why GW thought it was an even remotely smart idea to introduce that stuff to a normal game is beyond me from a balance perspective. You'd have to be insane to think a Knight titan or the eldar titan thing belongs in a standard game. They're perfect for apocalypse, and if that's what they'd been advertised as, apocalypse only, I would have been fine with it. But it destroys the average game and makes the core troop units of many factions pointless. Not to mention for newbies starting out, or old vets coming back after an edition, they have very little to fight this kind of stuff.
It's just an all around bad idea and should never have happened
MrMoustaffa wrote: I think what people are missing is just how scaled up things have become in 7th. Back in 5th, I could actually win games with nothing but guardsmen and Leman Russ tanks. Not vets, infantry platoons. And we didn't have aegis lines or anything like that either (old man mode activated)
I could actually do a bayonet charge across the board with a wall of tanks behind them, and have a halfway decent chance. No, it was not the most competitive list in the world, but I always felt like I had a chance. At the very least i could bloody a n optimized list a bit before i went down. In 7th, I could have them completely fortified behind aegis lines and whatnot and lose 2/3rds of them by the end of turn 2. There's so much ignore cover, gmc's, special rules, and absolutely horribly bizarre combos that bringing normal infantry is literally pointless. I would spend more time getting my guardsmen out of the case than I would to put them back.
The game has scaled to the point where basic infantry are pointless. Who takes infantry platoons anymore? How about boyz mobs? Tactical squads? Fire warriors? Etc. Etc. It's all MC's and GMC's and invisible deathstars and jetbikes and knight titans. It's to the point where people will literally call it a "troop tax" because they don't want to use troop units.
We didn't need that in 40k, that's what APOCALYPSE was for. So you could go nuts with the crazy stuff and not completely destroy the normal game. Why GW thought it was an even remotely smart idea to introduce that stuff to a normal game is beyond me from a balance perspective. You'd have to be insane to think a Knight titan or the eldar titan thing belongs in a standard game. They're perfect for apocalypse, and if that's what they'd been advertised as, apocalypse only, I would have been fine with it. But it destroys the average game and makes the core troop units of many factions pointless. Not to mention for newbies starting out, or old vets coming back after an edition, they have very little to fight this kind of stuff.
It's just an all around bad idea and should never have happened
Basically sums up my thoughts on the topic. I'd love to play the game again at a scale where 50 guardsmen is an infantry spam list, a single land raider is an almost unkillable juggernaut, and an average list is 1 HQ, 20 or so infantry, and a vehicle or two.
Platoon ig is quite powerful with allies and VSG. It's like a cheaper shootier greentide. I tend to do decent with them. Dudes are very choppy when you incorporate inquisitor with his crazy nades and priests in there.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jonolikespie wrote: I'd love to play the game again at a scale where 50 guardsmen is an infantry spam list, a single land raider is an almost unkillable juggernaut, and an average list is 1 HQ, 20 or so infantry, and a vehicle or two.
koooaei wrote: Platoon ig is quite powerful with allies and VSG. It's like a cheaper shootier greentide. I tend to do decent with them. Dudes are very choppy when you incorporate inquisitor with his crazy nades and priests in there.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jonolikespie wrote: I'd love to play the game again at a scale where 50 guardsmen is an infantry spam list, a single land raider is an almost unkillable juggernaut, and an average list is 1 HQ, 20 or so infantry, and a vehicle or two.
It's hard to tell, Knight will have an upper hand in melee but he must make it there first.
My money is on msu stuff though. Knight isall cool and stuff but it's 300 pt in one unit that can only score one flag.
koooaei wrote: It's hard to tell, Knight will have an upper hand in melee but he must make it there first.
My money is on msu stuff though. Knight isall cool and stuff but it's 300 pt in one unit that can only score one flag.
Wraithknight strikes first, and would probably take the Sword due to not having lots of targets to shoot D-Cannons at in such a small game.
jonolikespie wrote: I'd love to play the game again at a scale where 50 guardsmen is an infantry spam list, a single land raider is an almost unkillable juggernaut, and an average list is 1 HQ, 20 or so infantry, and a vehicle or two.
Play 500-750 pt?
That raises some other issues, I'm sure that if I had a good group of like minded people and an inclination to houserule it would be quite fun. However I would still have a lot of issues with balance, some of the core mechanics, and would want a lot of restrictions of what can actually be taken (like no knights).
jonolikespie wrote: ...if I had a good group of like minded people and an inclination to houserule it would be quite fun...
In all fairness, no game is gona be fun in a group of tfg. Balance is not as awful for such agame though. Warmachine s not much ahead in balance terms. Still has op combinations and garbage units.
jonolikespie wrote: ...if I had a good group of like minded people and an inclination to houserule it would be quite fun...
In all fairness, no game is gona be fun in a groop of tfg. Balance is not as awful for such agame though. Warmachine s not much ahead in balance terms. Still has op combinations and garbage units.
Just from my personal experiences I'd say 5th ed 40k (the last time I played) was a LOT less balanced than Warmachine. There is a difference between buffing assassins to def 19 and making them practically impossible to hit (but can be wiped by blast weapons) and a 2+ invun save :/
If I was playing a 500pt game I'd have maximised my troops choices, had a lesser powerful HQ to lead them and maybe squeezed in one infantry fighting vehicle eg Chimera, or a couple of Sentinels. If I brought 500 points of Guard infantry and Sentinels and my opponent was fielding a Lord of War, I probably wouldn't even start the game, I'd say "Ah, so that's the kind of player you are" and avoid them from then on.
40K is a game designed to be fun. However, power gamers just want to win at all costs. This is why I avoid "competitive players", eg people who play to win instead of enjoy the game or the fluff.
About once or twice a year I watch a few friends enjoy a game of 40k and think, "That looks like fun."
I dust off my models, buy the current CSM codex, and load up ol' army builder for a game, only to remember it's not that simple anymore.
I show up with my 60 cultists, demon prince of tzeentch, screamers, and dino bots because dammit, dino bots are cool looking.
My opponent has all kinds of new stuff in play. (not in one game)
Str D weapons are a thing now?
Gargantuan creatures and superheavies?
Imperial Knights are their own army?
Getting in other peoples transports?
Skyhammer drop formations?
Everything in Warhammer has gotten so over the top! It's not about just putting your dudes on the table. Now there's extra books, extra rules, books for factions that are just splinters of a faction, taking free transports/weapons/units/non dying necrons... it's just like ..
It reminds me of the last year or two of an MMO, where everyone has tons and tons of over the top stuff. Where it was once cool to do 1,000 damage on a hit, unless you do 10,000 damage, your not keeping up. It feels like my poor little cult of tzeentch things are playing an entirely different game than everyone else.
So here I am, considering re-entering the game again and I don't even know where to start. I don't want to by an army by formation, but that seems the only way to play anymore... maximizing the best formation bonuses for as much free/power spam as you can get.
I remember my first league game coming back, when my opponent was flying around Belakor, 2 Lords of Change, pink horrors, and summoning mountains demons. I realized very quickly against double invis that I wasn't even in the same frame of mind as the rest of 40k anymore.
Basically sums up my thoughts on the topic. I'd love to play the game again at a scale where 50 guardsmen is an infantry spam list, a single land raider is an almost unkillable juggernaut, and an average list is 1 HQ, 20 or so infantry, and a vehicle or two.
Which game are you referring to? I've never played an edition were a Landraider was ever qualified as "unkillable". In 5th edition, a Rhino/Razorback was much more survivable point-by-point than a Land Raider that cost over 7 times as much and was just as weak against melta, haywire and lance as anything else and it was also absurdly prone to being immobilized, making your huge taxi investment largely worthless, the later editions only exacerbated these problems tenfold.
Basically sums up my thoughts on the topic. I'd love to play the game again at a scale where 50 guardsmen is an infantry spam list, a single land raider is an almost unkillable juggernaut, and an average list is 1 HQ, 20 or so infantry, and a vehicle or two.
Which game are you referring to? I've never played an edition were a Landraider was ever qualified as "unkillable". In 5th edition, a Rhino/Razorback was much more survivable point-by-point than a Land Raider that cost over 7 times as much and was just as weak against melta, haywire and lance as anything else and it was also absurdly prone to being immobilized, making your huge taxi investment largely worthless, the later editions only exacerbated these problems tenfold.
I just mean that's the scale of things I'd like, with land raiders and monoliths being the biggest, beefiest things in the game.
I just somehow don't plain understand how some seem to struggle in playing the game in a way they want to.
GW has, for a long time now, declared they want nothing to do with the competitive scene, and encourage players ( even in the rulebook ) to adjust the game to have fun. It somehow seems some people are just plain unable to do this, and then become bitter eventhough they themselves played a part in making things more difficult than actually they need to be.
It is in essence paradoxical to want everything to be done by the book, yet ignore this very thing, written in the book. I guess it's possible you just can't find anyone, just seems very unlikely that it simply cannot be done (imo.) Tournaments aside, they have preset rules and you go in knowing what is to come. If a person themselves doesn't want to compromise, and wants this one singular thing and accepts nothing else when there are hundreds of thousands of players around with different tastes then I don't know. Will be a tough road, and a self inflicted one at that.
If the largest events in the world are fine with adjusting the game to make it more sensible, why aren't "you?" It is only as difficult as one makes it. Personally I have always found people who are willing to compromise, or plain agree the way you want to play. Occasionally I play the way they want to play, it's not the end of the world. I have, never, met a person who says "no way, never"" -when leaving the superheavies home or making a rerollable 2++ more sensible has been suggested.
I don't know. Just not an issue whatsoever altogether in my experience. Could be a cultural thing, I'm in the impression it's considered embarrassing to be stubborn about something this trivial where I live. You have to do this with other wargames aswell, just not always to the same extent. TFG's are always bad news, the platform hardly matters. Discuss the lists and details beforehand and if you can't come to a conclusion, just politely decline from playing ( ...or crush them at their own game. )
I have enjoyed and continue to enjoy the game tremendously. Tournaments are alive and well, players are developing their own FAQ and Errata that is mutually agreed upon, and the models are gorgeous.
I don't doubt that other games are potentially cheaper, faster, and or more balanced, but I think this game isn't getting the credit it deserves in this thread.
Cieged wrote: I have enjoyed and continue to enjoy the game tremendously. Tournaments are alive and well, players are developing their own FAQ and Errata that is mutually agreed upon, and the models are gorgeous.
I don't doubt that other games are potentially cheaper, faster, and or more balanced, but I think this game isn't getting the credit it deserves in this thread.
Yar sure, there's plenty of things wrong with it, but I could be reading, playing PS4, or meeting a hooker. In the end, it's all about whether or not you're having fun
Over all I think the game works well if you actually read the 7th edition rules and notice that GW very clearly states change what you feel doesn't work, talk to your opponent about what you want to do, and then have fun and through some dice. 40k has never been the best game for WAAC, and GW has outright stated such in the 7th edition rule book how they view the best way to play the game.
Runic wrote: I just somehow don't plain understand how some seem to struggle in playing the game in a way they want to.
GW has, for a long time now, declared they want nothing to do with the competitive scene, and encourage players ( even in the rulebook ) to adjust the game to have fun. It somehow seems some people are just plain unable to do this, and then become bitter eventhough they themselves played a part in making things more difficult than actually they need to be.
You call it a 'long time', I call it only the last three or four years. 5th was unbalanced, but the term Forge The Narrative didn't exist yet.
HoundsofDemos wrote: Over all I think the game works well if you actually read the 7th edition rules and notice that GW very clearly states change what you feel doesn't work, talk to your opponent about what you want to do, and then have fun and through some dice. 40k has never been the best game for WAAC, and GW has outright stated such in the 7th edition rule book how they view the best way to play the game.
40k is the best game for WAAC, because no other game is as easy to break as it. Now if you meant that 40k was never a COMPETITIVE game (big difference between the two) I'd again point to the pre 6th ed days when GW ran grand tournaments.
You're right though, that GW expect you to change things and houserule with your opponent to make the game what you want. Except that can be a large investment of time and at the end of it you're still playing a tactically shallow game. If I showed up at a game store and the options were discuss fixing 40k with someone and get a game in or knock out 3 games of x wing I'd be setting up x wing in a heartbeat.
Basically sums up my thoughts on the topic. I'd love to play the game again at a scale where 50 guardsmen is an infantry spam list, a single land raider is an almost unkillable juggernaut, and an average list is 1 HQ, 20 or so infantry, and a vehicle or two.
Which game are you referring to? I've never played an edition were a Landraider was ever qualified as "unkillable". In 5th edition, a Rhino/Razorback was much more survivable point-by-point than a Land Raider that cost over 7 times as much and was just as weak against melta, haywire and lance as anything else and it was also absurdly prone to being immobilized, making your huge taxi investment largely worthless, the later editions only exacerbated these problems tenfold.
I just mean that's the scale of things I'd like, with land raiders and monoliths being the biggest, beefiest things in the game.
That sums up what I want in the game as well. 30 models and a few vehicles. Perfect amount to paint to a good standard without getting overwhelmed and a great scale to make the more "mundane" vehicles more appreciable. Fortunately I have a buddy who enjoys smaller games as well, so we are always trying a house rule set du jour for our old 40k and Fantasy models.
Part of what keeps me here is the modelling and fluff though. No other game system has ever caught my eye the way 40k has even if i recognize that they are better games.
The problem I have with the "40k isn't meant to be competitive" mindset is, why not? Narrative play is still possible using a tournament-balanced ruleset.
I don't like the 40k isn't competitive mindset because it's relatively recent and hasn't been around that long. Many of us bought models when 40k was moving towards a competitive mindset, and seemed to be developing tighter and better rules.
The sudden switch, leaving many of us with thousands of dollars in models that we are not inclined to use, is upsetting.
I would think everyone can understand that, but I'd apparently be wrong.
I think the terms used lead to different outcomes for this discussion.
When I say the game system doesn't handle competitive play well, I don't mean 40k doesn't work in a tournament setting or that I don't try to win once the game starts.
What 40k doesn't handle well is a player whose only goal is to take a combination of units for the sole purpose of winning with no regards to background or story logic. When you get someone who only ever takes the best most smash build, it starts off an arms race and I don't think that is good for maintaining a healthy community long term. GW building and making rules for larger and more expensive models and making them overly strong compared to 28 mm infantry is another decision that I think long term will hurt this game because it lovers impulse buys and scares off new players.
Runic wrote: I just somehow don't plain understand how some seem to struggle in playing the game in a way they want to.
GW has, for a long time now, declared they want nothing to do with the competitive scene, and encourage players ( even in the rulebook ) to adjust the game to have fun. It somehow seems some people are just plain unable to do this, and then become bitter eventhough they themselves played a part in making things more difficult than actually they need to be.
It is in essence paradoxical to want everything to be done by the book, yet ignore this very thing, written in the book. I guess it's possible you just can't find anyone, just seems very unlikely that it simply cannot be done (imo.) Tournaments aside, they have preset rules and you go in knowing what is to come. If a person themselves doesn't want to compromise, and wants this one singular thing and accepts nothing else when there are hundreds of thousands of players around with different tastes then I don't know. Will be a tough road, and a self inflicted one at that.
If the largest events in the world are fine with adjusting the game to make it more sensible, why aren't "you?" It is only as difficult as one makes it. Personally I have always found people who are willing to compromise, or plain agree the way you want to play. Occasionally I play the way they want to play, it's not the end of the world. I have, never, met a person who says "no way, never"" -when leaving the superheavies home or making a rerollable 2++ more sensible has been suggested.
I don't know. Just not an issue whatsoever altogether in my experience. Could be a cultural thing, I'm in the impression it's considered embarrassing to be stubborn about something this trivial where I live. You have to do this with other wargames aswell, just not always to the same extent. TFG's are always bad news, the platform hardly matters. Discuss the lists and details beforehand and if you can't come to a conclusion, just politely decline from playing ( ...or crush them at their own game. )
I said this somewhere else, so I'm just gonna cliff note it
1. I travel a lot
2. Every area I go to seems to have its own house rules and "acceptable" playstyles
3. I shouldn't have to drop $300 and buy minis that mostly look terrible (if we're talking about most of the new stuff IG got) fortifications, or to ally with a whole extra army just to play the one I want. I signed up to play guard, not a token platoon hiding behind a forcefield with inquisitorial and space marine allies.
4. The game is rapidly spiralling out of control on an arms race for the biggest and baddest thing. This is bad for the health of the game and is essentially sending 40k down the route fantasy went, where the game was so ludicrously expensive to start it died out.
5. I have met a lot of people who balked the moment I even hinted I didn't want a game with superheavies, GMC's, ridiculous combos like the invisibility deathstars, or even a game at just 1500pts or less. It's even harder to find a good group since I travel a lot.
If 40k was fixed, I would be able to do what I do with X Wing and Flames of war. Aka I have a couple different lists that work fine no matter where I go, and I only tweak them if I'm playing a newbie or a guy who clearly plays tournaments a lot, but even then they're minor tweaks. Not to mention the lists are always at a pretty consistent level pointswise so I know what to expect before I even get there. Makes pickup games so much easier, you have no idea.
HoundsofDemos wrote: I think the terms used lead to different outcomes for this discussion.
When I say the game system doesn't handle competitive play well, I don't mean 40k doesn't work in a tournament setting or that I don't try to win once the game starts.
What 40k doesn't handle well is a player whose only goal is to take a combination of units for the sole purpose of winning with no regards to background or story logic. When you get someone who only ever takes the best most smash build, it starts off an arms race and I don't think that is good for maintaining a healthy community long term. GW building and making rules for larger and more expensive models and making them overly strong compared to 28 mm infantry is another decision that I think long term will hurt this game because it lovers impulse buys and scares off new players.
Just for reference, a WAAC player or a That Guy will try to break the game at the expense of the fun of their opponents, and are universally hated for it.
If you say 'competitive' player people who are not WAAC players or That Guy will consider themselves part of this group, and hate being smeared with the same brush as those other two groups.
Competitive players, for the most part, are just the types who are less interested in the story, and more in the tactical elements of the game itself. I consider myself a 'competitive' player, and the most fun games to me are those that come right down to the wire in the final turn were, win or lose, the deciding factor being a choice I or my opponent made that snatches victory from the jaws of defeat.
I actually had a really good game today, I was surprised.
I took my cultists and Tzeentch cult again, against a GK Strike Squad formation at 1250 points. Both she and I were taking lists that were representative of what we liked about our armies.
2 Herald of Tzeentch
. . 2 Herald of Tzeentch - S: Daemonic Instability
21 Pink Horrors of Tzeentch
. . 21 Pink Horrors of Tzeentch - S: Blue Horrors; S: Daemonic Instability; S: Magic Made Manifest
Total Roster Cost: 1249
Hers.
1 GK Librarian with staff and mastery 2
1 GKSS in Rhino
1 GK Interceptor Squad
1 GKGK Terminator Squad w/ 7? Termies
1 GK Papoose Knight
We had a lot of fun, and just laughed and played, and even though she had a formation and I had a lot of psyker dice (but not summoning), there were no Super heavines, GC, or anything that added a lot of stress to the game.
I think it's about finding the right opponents, like a few people have said. One post, which I exalted, had the phrase..
"Warhammer 40k is no longer fit for a globally accepted pick up game. You must find the parameters to make the game enjoyable for both people."
That's pretty true.
The days of just bein' like..
"Hey bud, do you want to play a game? Great. How many points?"
.. is out the window, unless you are willing to gamble on the experience.
I had a similar problem to the OP, and was very close to giving up on the whole tabletop wargaming thing.
Step 1 - Ebayed my 40k models.
Step 2 - Re-invested the money in a balanced game with a tight ruleset [my choice was Infinity].
Step 3 - Had lots of fun and re-discovered my passion for this strange little hobby.
Step 4 - Mentally berated myself for all of the time wasted in preparing for and playing a game with a shockingly bad ruleset [including all of the time trying to negotiate how the game was going to be played on each occasion].
It's difficult to appreciate just how outdated and poorly thought out the 40k ruleset is until you try something new.
Runic wrote: There you have it. Just communicate and be ready to compromise and you'll be fine. The end.
AKA exactly what the rulebook tells players to do.
Yeah but given the choice between doing that and not having to do that, all else equal I think I'll play the game that doesn't make me do that.
It's a legitimate fix certainly, but it's still a fix, meaning something is broken.
Well, it is what it is atleast for now. Too bad.
For me it went the other way around. I got plain bored of Warmachine & Hordes, with scenarios ending with a casterkill 80% of the time, atleast in tournaments, and the games occasionally being cut to few turns in length. I tried getting a few friends to play aswell, but they decided to quit as they realized they would be in for hundreds of those matches, until they basically knew what every model in the game does so they won't get surprised in a match ending way (the infamous "Gotcha!" -factor of WM/H, in my experience the biggest turnoff for new players.)
tyrannosaurus wrote: I had a similar problem to the OP, and was very close to giving up on the whole tabletop wargaming thing.
Step 1 - Ebayed my 40k models.
Step 2 - Re-invested the money in a balanced game with a tight ruleset [my choice was Infinity].
Step 3 - Had lots of fun and re-discovered my passion for this strange little hobby.
Step 4 - Mentally berated myself for all of the time wasted in preparing for and playing a game with a shockingly bad ruleset [including all of the time trying to negotiate how the game was going to be played on each occasion].
It's difficult to appreciate just how outdated and poorly thought out the 40k ruleset is until you try something new.
This is about how it went for me. Except I didn't ebay my stuff because I still think Tyranids are the best realised range of aliens a company has made. I just wish I could afford some of the new stuff.
Then additionally, when I realised how much I was getting for Infinity with the money I used to spend on 40k, I had two very sizeable collections for different armies, so I branched into another game. Then another. Then board games.
40k is so, so expensive to keep up with. You can fuel multiple games with the same money.
The game is fethed amd completely unbalanced. Unless you arrange with your opponent what you will both be using before the game. Which is sad an rules out tourney play for all but the uber-competative who get to play all the time.
Sometimes your army just cant beat the opponents too.
Most advice seems to point towards expensive FW stuff too, how are you supposed to know all their rules too? Rather than the codex being useful its now only half of it, yet it is the only readily available book to flick through at the store.
Oh well, the Warmachine rulebook is free atm so thats a better option for high end events.
For me it went the other way around. I got plain bored of Warmachine & Hordes, with scenarios ending with a casterkill 80% of the time, atleast in tournaments, and the games occasionally being cut to few turns in length.
How many of those caster kills were forced by scenario pressure though? I've never seen scenarios not be a factor in a game of warmachine.
And to be fair, some people enjoy being able to get in a quick game. I'd rather than than four hours of dice rolling which is what 40k and the various flavours of historicals I play can boil down to.
I tried getting a few friends to play aswell, but they decided to quit as they realized they would be in for hundreds of those matches, until they basically knew what every model in the game does so they won't get surprised in a match ending way (the infamous "Gotcha!" -factor of WM/H, in my experience the biggest turnoff for new players.)
Horses for courses to be fair. I dunno about this runic. In my experience with getting folks into the game, the steep learning curve of the game is actually an attractive feature. It's often sold that it's a gauntlet we all go through to earn our wings. That learning curve, the fact that experience counts for so much (in for hundreds of games and so on) the fact that there is so much going on, and so many intricate little synergies and things happening is quite a hook. As was told to me, 'You earn your wins' essentially, rather than just being the guy who wins because the codex he likes is a power build. As much as I am happy, willing and able to make forty-k work, I found warmachine to be quite empowering compared to it. I doubt I'm the only one.
Thst said, There is nothing wrong with not wanting to put all that effort in though to get good, and just get on with playing a game. This is a player thing as much as it is anything else though.
Runic wrote: I just somehow don't plain understand how some seem to struggle in playing the game in a way they want to.
GW has, for a long time now, declared they want nothing to do with the competitive scene, and encourage players ( even in the rulebook ) to adjust the game to have fun. It somehow seems some people are just plain unable to do this, and then become bitter eventhough they themselves played a part in making things more difficult than actually they need to be.
It is in essence paradoxical to want everything to be done by the book, yet ignore this very thing, written in the book. I guess it's possible you just can't find anyone, just seems very unlikely that it simply cannot be done (imo.) Tournaments aside, they have preset rules and you go in knowing what is to come. If a person themselves doesn't want to compromise, and wants this one singular thing and accepts nothing else when there are hundreds of thousands of players around with different tastes then I don't know. Will be a tough road, and a self inflicted one at that.
If the largest events in the world are fine with adjusting the game to make it more sensible, why aren't "you?" It is only as difficult as one makes it. Personally I have always found people who are willing to compromise, or plain agree the way you want to play. Occasionally I play the way they want to play, it's not the end of the world. I have, never, met a person who says "no way, never"" -when leaving the superheavies home or making a rerollable 2++ more sensible has been suggested.
I don't know. Just not an issue whatsoever altogether in my experience. Could be a cultural thing, I'm in the impression it's considered embarrassing to be stubborn about something this trivial where I live. You have to do this with other wargames aswell, just not always to the same extent. TFG's are always bad news, the platform hardly matters. Discuss the lists and details beforehand and if you can't come to a conclusion, just politely decline from playing ( ...or crush them at their own game. )
You know, I agree wit you here. You can make forty-k work like this. I enjoy home brewed games immensely - we do this with flames of war, infinity and various historicals ourselves. But, and there is a but here - it's often quite hazardous. There are a lot of hoops to jump through to get this to work, and frankly, quite a few consequences too. It takes a lot of organisation and forethought and input (and sometimes, it's nice to not have to do this, and just be able to play the game). You need a group of like minded people, often on the same general wavelength to make this work in the first place, which can often risk fracturing the community into independent 'cells', and the requirement for a 'negotiation phase' to make things work can often severely hamper pick up games and tournaments. For me, while its workable on the local scale, the second you try and push this beyond a small group of friends on a local level, it becomes like herding cats, because everyone wants something different and everyone is playing something different, and essentially, what I bring to the table can potentially arbitrarily be defined as either illegal or probably immoral at best. Having functional and balanced rules straight out of the box facilitates ease of play and a reduction in noise and argument. Ease of play facilitates pick up gaming and organised play. For me, it's the lack of a universal common ground that is potentially the biggest consequence. It makes things harder for the community at large, although individual groups might be happy out with their tske on things (and more power to them).
Let me say this: I am a treadhead. I love me some tanks.
If someone can name a game that lets me field tank companies in 28mm, with a big-mother centerpiece super tank like a Baneblade or Ordinatua, then I will give that game a shot.
Till then, I will stick to Ogre, Flames of War, and 40k and honestly, despite what people say about "other games being better and you don't know till you try something besides 40k", 40k is the best of the trio imo.
Deadnight wrote: How many of those caster kills were forced by scenario pressure though? I've never seen scenarios not be a factor in a game of warmachine.
Doesn't really matter to me, I find the scenario being irrelevant in the end quite dull all the same.
Deadnight wrote: Thst said, There is nothing wrong with not wanting to put all that effort in though to get good, and just get on with playing a game. This is a player thing as much as it is anything else though.
I personally understand them completely. Having played since MK1 I have no issues with knowing what does what, but imagine it feels like a waste of time to set up for a game only to be blown apart by a single reactive ability/assassination with no way to prevent it aside from knowing the rules of another players army from memory.
Deadnight wrote: Having functional and balanced rules straight out of the box facilitates ease of play and a reduction in noise and argument. Ease of play facilitates pick up gaming and organised play. For me, it's the lack of a universal common ground that is potentially the biggest consequence. It makes things harder for the community at large, although individual groups might be happy out with their tske on things (and more power to them).
Yep, they do indeed. 40K requires communication before the game, probably more than many other games. However, Bolt Action and Infinity also have grounds for some really unbalanced games if the opposite ends of the player spectrum meet. The only game I have personally played, and of which I therefore speak that hasn't got large issues in the matter is WM/H. In it too however you can easily crush a casual player by bringing a hyper competitive list. That said, on average pickup games are more even than in 40K thanks to the relatively balanced rules.
Don't think I have much to add, the three choices available to someone who wishes to play 40K in their own way have been listed before. Communicate & compromise, don't compromise and continue banging ones head against the wall, or stop completely. Don't know why anyone would choose the second one but I'm pretty sure I'm seeing people around who have chosen that very road.
As an avid board game player and the OP of the thread, the answer I've come to in light of my latest really fun game was kind of simple.
Reduce the game.
Galaxy Truckers was a favorite game of mine before they added the 3rd and 4th expansions. King of Tokyo was good fun for my young daughters, but evolutions confused them. Pokemon cards was something they really enjoyed with their old cards, but they liked less and less and EX Pokes and Mega-Evolutions started creeping in.
The solution for all of these was to reduce the game. We stuck to expansions 1 and 2 for Galaxy Truckers. We played box-only King of Tokyo. We stopped using the more tech savy pokemon cards, and we enjoyed these games again.
To answer my original question, "How does one even play this game anymore?" , the answer is similar but less digestable. Reduce the game.
"Sorry, I really don't like playing with Superheavies, Gargantuan Creatures, or super formations. I'm looking for a smaller, simpler game.'
Is this perfect? No. I might not find anyone to meet those guidelines and be assed out that day, with no game. This is certainly disappointing and might hurt my desire to keep trying to play 40k. It's also not really fair to the guy who bought an army of Knights, because he -is- fielding a legal and legitimate army. It reminds me of how I felt when I bought Grey Knights in 5th because of how cool the Grey Knights from Warhammer: Dawn of War were. They were still Demonhunters when I bought them, but when they gained power, I remember being kind of mad when people were like, "I don't want to play your army.", even though I had no Paladins or Stormravens.
Still, you can't enjoy a game thinking only about your opponents like and dislikes. You have to consider yourself too. And haggling is a thing. And I don't mind allies or flyers or any of the rules therein.
Back on topic though, what I've done is eliminate three pressures.
1. The monetary pressure of feeling like I have to keep buying new stuff until I can field 2500 points.
2. The time pressure of feeling like I can never paint the whole army. If I can play 1250 and have a fun, full 2 hour game, that's enough for me. I can add a little to it as time goes on if I want, but the initial "wall of grey" effect is reduced.
3. The resentment pressure of feeling like my army cannot compete in an environment of superheavies and decurion formations or all the other new crazy in the game. Playing with cultist chaos in unregulated 40ks current meta is like playing chess without a queen or bishops. It's nice to feel like I have a fair shot. I have fun joking about the death of droves of cultists anyways, so I don't mind losing every game as long as I can see where I might have won had something been different.
There's so many 40k players, odds are good I should find one person willing to de-escalate the game. If not, that's why I have board games and other hobbies for game-store night.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Let me say this: I am a treadhead. I love me some tanks.
If someone can name a game that lets me field tank companies in 28mm, with a big-mother centerpiece super tank like a Baneblade or Ordinatua, then I will give that game a shot.
Till then, I will stick to Ogre, Flames of War, and 40k and honestly, despite what people say about "other games being better and you don't know till you try something besides 40k", 40k is the best of the trio imo.
I don't know if it's played much but bolt action had an all tank supplement and tigers get pretty friken huge. Plus you don't need to use the cheap, simple, bolt action tanks, you can get the amazingly detailed Tamyia ones with metal barrels and brass etch.
*Edit*
Oh and it's not 28mm, but it's also not 15mm so I'm not sure what the scale is but Team Yankee made an appearance in my FLGS with lots of tanks, I believe it is the same rules as FoW but upscaled and played as a 1980s era cold war spilling over into alt history WWIII.
I don't know how you can claim scenario doesn't matter. scenario play was so overpowered that they had to nerf the two strongest scenario casters in the game (Denny 2 and H2).
Even now, elemental evolution and the new tier list for trolls are considered quite good due to AD giving them scenario pressure. Scenario is huge in competitive war machine. Caster kill is more common, but it usually results from scenario pressure or attrition advantage.
Whenever I belly up to the table, I gird my loins beforehand for the whatever bile and vomit list my opponent might bring to the table. Sometimes I'm pleasantly surprised and enjoy the game. Other times, I walk over to the beer fridge and start drinking heavily during the match.
Anymore it just feels like too extreme of a game. I either have a good game, or I want to go drink heavily and punch babies/kick a kitty.
War Machine is fun. It's just not the same type of game. Its more like playing 3D Magic.
c-c-c-c-combo breaker!
I like War Machine but I play it for entirely different reasons than Warhammer, and it has zilch to do with it being "better". It isn't. It's too different to compare them.
Flames of War is more comparable. I happen to enjoy the incredible job of balance the Flames of War game provides. It's incredibly hard to find, among all the games I do play, a better tournament game.
Warhammer, though is a far more interesting game than most I play. the magnitude of the variety in lists I have seen is mind boggling and i love that.
It's grown in actual rules but the game is still essentially one of learning what things do and getting better all the time like it always has been. Even before the deluge of rules lately, it is quite common for people not to be some kind of expert on every single codex. Most people focus on a couple armies they know exceedingly well and theres always table discussion about rules just because there are so many. It is only unhealthy if your opponent is a defensive D-bag about it.
Yep, they do indeed. 40K requires communication before the game, probably more than many other games. However, Bolt Action and Infinity also have grounds for some really unbalanced games if the opposite ends of the player spectrum meet. The only game I have personally played, and of which I therefore speak that hasn't got large issues in the matter is WM/H. In it too however you can easily crush a casual player by bringing a hyper competitive list. That said, on average pickup games are more even than in 40K thanks to the relatively balanced rules.
Don't think I have much to add, the three choices available to someone who wishes to play 40K in their own way have been listed before. Communicate & compromise, don't compromise and continue banging ones head against the wall, or stop completely. Don't know why anyone would choose the second one but I'm pretty sure I'm seeing people around who have chosen that very road.
I have to disagree on your point about Infinity. There's a thread on the Infinity forums where very experienced players take a randomly generated list against a less experienced player who takes a list tailored for that particular scenario. I think it's currently 2:1 to the experienced player with random list. I took a QK list based upon the list of the winner of Interplanetario against a friend of mine who was much less experienced, and using the USAriadna starter. Some stupid decisions on my part and it was a romp for my friend. I played another game against a really experienced Infinity player recently [I'm pretty new to the game] and, due to some [surprisingly] intelligent play on my part, gained maximum points. It doesn't matter what list you take, it's how you use it. That's how a game should work - player skill [or lack of] is the most important factor.
In terms of arranging a game for Infinity, the only questions are "what points level?" and "which scenario?" That's it. Actually, the first question only becomes relevant if one side chooses to play below 300 points as 300 is such a recognised standard points level. Before I quit 40k it would take days of negotiation and compromise to arrange a game [and that was with a group of friends].
Yep, they do indeed. 40K requires communication before the game, probably more than many other games. However, Bolt Action and Infinity also have grounds for some really unbalanced games if the opposite ends of the player spectrum meet. The only game I have personally played, and of which I therefore speak that hasn't got large issues in the matter is WM/H. In it too however you can easily crush a casual player by bringing a hyper competitive list. That said, on average pickup games are more even than in 40K thanks to the relatively balanced rules.
Don't think I have much to add, the three choices available to someone who wishes to play 40K in their own way have been listed before. Communicate & compromise, don't compromise and continue banging ones head against the wall, or stop completely. Don't know why anyone would choose the second one but I'm pretty sure I'm seeing people around who have chosen that very road.
I have to disagree on your point about Infinity. There's a thread on the Infinity forums where very experienced players take a randomly generated list against a less experienced player who takes a list tailored for that particular scenario. I think it's currently 2:1 to the experienced player with random list. I took a QK list based upon the list of the winner of Interplanetario against a friend of mine who was much less experienced, and using the USAriadna starter. Some stupid decisions on my part and it was a romp for my friend. I played another game against a really experienced Infinity player recently [I'm pretty new to the game] and, due to some [surprisingly] intelligent play on my part, gained maximum points. It doesn't matter what list you take, it's how you use it. That's how a game should work - player skill [or lack of] is the most important factor.
In terms of arranging a game for Infinity, the only questions are "what points level?" and "which scenario?" That's it. Actually, the first question only becomes relevant if one side chooses to play below 300 points as 300 is such a recognised standard points level. Before I quit 40k it would take days of negotiation and compromise to arrange a game [and that was with a group of friends].
So if this is the case, then there must be no strategy in army building; everything is so balanced that it is samey, it sounds like - randomly generated lists being able to beat intelligently built and tailored lists just tells me that there is no list building strategy at all.
Also, TFGs utterly killed Infinity in the local scene, doing things like deploying speculative fire weapons like grenades and Katyushas in solid buildings with no windows or doors and speculatively firing out of them.
I weep for anyone who could honestly think that, you need to play more games man.
I've played a couple infinity demos and the armies definitely play differently, it just means you have options. As a game should be.
Variety is pointless if only a couple of units in your army are worth a damn, which is why 40k has gotten so samey. Yes, there are hundreds of options in your codex, but will you really take very many, given how blatantly varied the power of those upgrades are?
So if this is the case, then there must be no strategy in army building; everything is so balanced that it is samey, it sounds like - randomly generated lists being able to beat intelligently built and tailored lists just tells me that there is no list building strategy at all.
Also, TFGs utterly killed Infinity in the local scene, doing things like deploying speculative fire weapons like grenades and Katyushas in solid buildings with no windows or doors and speculatively firing out of them.
It's more the case that, while an intelligent and tailored list can give you the edge, it's not as important as player skill. In addition, nearly any list can be successful [with a few caveats, for example the need to include specialists] as long as it is played well. This means that every unit is valid. Can the same be said about 40K?
One of the things I love about Infinity is that I have only scratched the surface. I've found some decent lists and strategies with my Qapu Kalkhi, but have hardly used my vanilla Haqq or Hassassin Bahram. And the best thing? They can all be successful lists once I learn how to use them well.
In reply to your negative experience of Infinity, that's a real shame. My experience is that it almost forces you to play in a friendly way as, for example, you will be asking your opponent whether they have LoS quite a lot. If they for some reason refused to tell you, then they would be gimping themselves as you, in return, wouldn't tell them. Unlikely crits also make for hilarity. such as when my opponent needed 1s to hit in a F2F with my sniper who needed 15s, and rolled two 1s to crit twice. I find Infinity to be conducive to a very genial gaming experience. Finally, if they pull the bs with the grenades again, don't forget that ani-materiel can be used to destroy walls...
Akiasura wrote: Even now, elemental evolution and the new tier list for trolls are considered quite good due to AD giving them scenario pressure. Scenario is huge in competitive war machine. Caster kill is more common, but it usually results from scenario pressure or attrition advantage.
And in the end the scenario in itself becomes factually irrelevant as nothing pertaining to it matters after your caster is dead, which again, I find boring, and that's that.
tyrannosaurus wrote: I have to disagree on your point about Infinity. There's a thread on the Infinity forums where very experienced players take a randomly generated list against a less experienced player who takes a list tailored for that particular scenario. I think it's currently 2:1 to the experienced player with random list. I took a QK list based upon the list of the winner of Interplanetario against a friend of mine who was much less experienced, and using the USAriadna starter. Some stupid decisions on my part and it was a romp for my friend. I played another game against a really experienced Infinity player recently [I'm pretty new to the game] and, due to some [surprisingly] intelligent play on my part, gained maximum points. It doesn't matter what list you take, it's how you use it. That's how a game should work - player skill [or lack of] is the most important factor.
In terms of arranging a game for Infinity, the only questions are "what points level?" and "which scenario?" That's it. Actually, the first question only becomes relevant if one side chooses to play below 300 points as 300 is such a recognised standard points level. Before I quit 40k it would take days of negotiation and compromise to arrange a game [and that was with a group of friends].
Having a random list hardly disproves a good player decimating a casual/beginner with a list of their choosing, which was my point. If a competitive players brings a competitive list of their choosing in Infinity against a "lesser" player, they are able to crush him with ease.
Ofcourse taking a random list makes it more even... that's obvious.
I also think saying setting up a game took -days- of negotiation is exaggeration, or then you had some really punctual friends. I never had to negotiate more than 5 minutes at most.
I also can't see why having your armylist being a big factor next to player skill is a problem. That's just one view, and no more correct than another. This varies per game, and it being a bad or good thing is only a matter of taste, nothing more. There's just no way argumenting around that, altough I'm sure someone will try. But ah, whatever. This discussion is already pointless. There's people who are able to play WH40K in an enjoyable way and there's people who cannot.
Runic wrote: Having a random list hardly disproves a good player decimating a casual/beginner with a list of their choosing, which was my point. If a competitive players brings a competitive list of their choosing in Infinity against a "lesser" player, they are able to crush him with ease.
You know some people like, dare I even say strongly prefer, a game were player skill is important and the results aren't down to random dice rolls. An experienced chess player is going to mop the floor with a noob, but that has not hurt the long term popularity of the game.
Runic wrote: Having a random list hardly disproves a good player decimating a casual/beginner with a list of their choosing, which was my point. If a competitive players brings a competitive list of their choosing in Infinity against a "lesser" player, they are able to crush him with ease.
You know some people like, dare I even say strongly prefer, a game were player skill is important and the results aren't down to random dice rolls. An experienced chess player is going to mop the floor with a noob, but that has not hurt the long term popularity of the game.
It's as if you were implying that skill doesn't matter in Warhammer 40,000. Couldn't be further from the truth. It matters, a lot. The games are down to player skill way more than they are to random dice rolls when good players are involved and the lists even. Last week I took a game against a Space Marine player who has half my games under his belt, the toughest thing in my army was a single Riptide. He had only Gravbikes, Tigurius and Centurions in Drop Pods, and Smashbane. I still won. He made some choices that caused him to lose the game in the end, which had nothing to do with dice. We played a hybrid mission with Maelstrom of War + Eternal War, ITC style.. My list didn't beat him, and my dice didn't beat him, it came down to player skill and know-how, and ability to plan ahead (which is a part of skill afaic.)
That, or you missed the point completely. It was about veterans having more equalized matches against beginners in Infinity using a randomly generated list having nothing to do with the fact that a veteran can still crush such a beginner with a competitive list of his own devising. By using that argument you could claim Warhammer 40,000 is balanced because veterans using randomly generated lists have more even matches against beginners (it's the exact same thing, afterall.)
I just see players often who had a realistic chance at winning a game but they botch it by playing poorly. It's easy to blame your army/opponents army/dice in WH40K as the balance is unstable, but often those factors are given too much credit when one should just look at his play and realize it's him who is losing the games by just not having a clue.
Akiasura wrote: Even now, elemental evolution and the new tier list for trolls are considered quite good due to AD giving them scenario pressure. Scenario is huge in competitive war machine. Caster kill is more common, but it usually results from scenario pressure or attrition advantage.
And in the end the scenario in itself becomes factually irrelevant as nothing pertaining to it matters after your caster is dead, which again, I find boring, and that's that.
If you find it boring, that's fine, but let's not make things up that are certainly not true.
Body and soul, a list that was sweeping the competitive scene for over a year, won entirely on scenario. H2, considered the most competitive caster in the game for 3+ years, usually won on scenario. Many casters in the game win on attrition at the competitive level, since caster kills are usually unable to be performed until a good chunk of the army is dead. If you read battle reports for competitive games, scenario pressure is huge and what drives their decisions from the start.
It's certainly not "factually irrelevant" because your caster is important. You could make the same argument against 40k (VPs don't matter if you get tabled) but it doesn't mean that VPs won't influence your decisions or list design.
Thunderfrog wrote: So here I am, considering re-entering the game again and I don't even know where to start. I don't want to by an army by formation, but that seems the only way to play anymore... maximizing the best formation bonuses for as much free/power spam as you can get.
Play beer and pretzel games until you get back into the swing of things.
GW has changed the way armies are built from the traditional CaD to formations. This is done on their part to help balance things. If one army is particularly weak, just released a new formation with detachments in a supplement that buffs a specific unit.
At least that seems to be the theory. In practice GW still does not playtest everything as deeply as they should and the balance is still out of wack. Seriously, when will GW just hire 50 of the top NOVA players to playtest their stuff?
Runic wrote: Having a random list hardly disproves a good player decimating a casual/beginner with a list of their choosing, which was my point. If a competitive players brings a competitive list of their choosing in Infinity against a "lesser" player, they are able to crush him with ease.
You know some people like, dare I even say strongly prefer, a game were player skill is important and the results aren't down to random dice rolls. An experienced chess player is going to mop the floor with a noob, but that has not hurt the long term popularity of the game.
What about poker? That game is almost purely random and on luck. Also you need skill as well. It seems random hasn't hurt that game either and has been around for more than a century as well.
So you can have random in the game and also have skill to play it as well.
At least that seems to be the theory. In practice GW still does not playtest everything as deeply as they should and the balance is still out of wack. Seriously, when will GW just hire 50 of the top NOVA players to playtest their stuff?
How will 50 people who must win with plastic toy soldiers balance a game? All these people do is take the best options. If these people were really that good, they should be using sub par units, and sub par options because then they will really know what balance is. No, they just take the easiest and best options in most cases and wouldn't balance 40K anymore than GW can.
What people are forgetting is a balanced game or a balanced codex is when you have great options and crappy options. Problem is, people who must win with plastic toy soldiers are using allies now, so they don't have to use the crappy options in both codices now. So how is that balanced? Take the good with the bad. Right now, everyone is just taking the good.
Also why NOVA? What makes them so good than say anyone else?
Runic wrote: Having a random list hardly disproves a good player decimating a casual/beginner with a list of their choosing, which was my point. If a competitive players brings a competitive list of their choosing in Infinity against a "lesser" player, they are able to crush him with ease.
You know some people like, dare I even say strongly prefer, a game were player skill is important and the results aren't down to random dice rolls. An experienced chess player is going to mop the floor with a noob, but that has not hurt the long term popularity of the game.
What about poker? That game is almost purely random and on luck. Also you need skill as well. It seems random hasn't hurt that game either and has been around for more than a century as well.
So you can have random in the game and also have skill to play it as well.
I think professional poker players who spend a lot of time learning to bluff and tell when someone is bluffing would disagree with your assessment of the role luck plays in that game
Runic wrote:
It's as if you were implying that skill doesn't matter in Warhammer 40,000. Couldn't be further from the truth. It matters, a lot. The games are down to player skill way more than they are to random dice rolls when good players are involved and the lists even.
.
'Where the lists are even' being the fundamental problem here. Getting to that point in 40k is problematic. The codices in 40k are terribly balanced You can have all the talents of sun tzu and often if will not help you. Now yes, you can 'do the negotiation' phase and compromise yourself into a game that might be 'acceptable', but to a lot of people, Being able to just get on with the bloody game without needing your opponent to acquiesce and enable you to do this is preferable. And they're not wrong for wanting that.
Davor wrote:
How will 50 people who must win with plastic toy soldiers balance a game? All these people do is take the best options. If these people were really that good, they should be using sub par units, and sub par options because then they will really know what balance is. No, they just take the easiest and best options in most cases and wouldn't balance 40K anymore than GW can.
Here's the thing - they know what's works and what doesn't, where there are problems and where there is room for improvement. Saying they'll just take the best options is really just missing the point. These are the people that will put a system through its paces, play rough with it, push it to its limits and find the weak points, grey areas and other areas where there are issues. This is called 'play testing'. Then take the feedback. The designers can then add, change and improve as required to make a robust game. Simples
Davor wrote:
What people are forgetting is a balanced game or a balanced codex is when you have great options and crappy options. Problem is, people who must win with plastic toy soldiers are using allies now, so they don't have to use the crappy options in both codices now. So how is that balanced? Take the good with the bad. Right now, everyone is just taking the good.
No. You have it completely backwards here. It's quite the opposite in fact. A balanced game is not one with great options and crappy options - that, by definition is a poorly balanced game. A balanced game is one where all the game pieces have value, and 'have game' essentially. When everything is playable and viable, you generate real variety and choice. Let's also not make the mistake of saying balanced equals homogenous. Because that is simply not true either When the game has good options and crappy ones, People simply gravitate to the good ones, the bad ones might as well not exist, and you end up with the illusion of choice and a very skewed and poorly realised gaming landscape, along with a frustrated player base.
Right now, everyone just taking the good is symptomatic of a poorly balanced game.
Runic wrote:
It's as if you were implying that skill doesn't matter in Warhammer 40,000. Couldn't be further from the truth. It matters, a lot. The games are down to player skill way more than they are to random dice rolls when good players are involved and the lists even.
.
'Where the lists are even' being the fundamental problem here. Getting to that point in 40k is problematic. The codices in 40k are terribly balanced You can have all the talents of sun tzu and often if will not help you. Now yes, you can 'do the negotiation' phase and compromise yourself into a game that might be 'acceptable', but to a lot of people, Being able to just get on with the bloody game without needing your opponent to acquiesce and enable you to do this is preferable. And they're not wrong for wanting that.
Davor wrote:
How will 50 people who must win with plastic toy soldiers balance a game? All these people do is take the best options. If these people were really that good, they should be using sub par units, and sub par options because then they will really know what balance is. No, they just take the easiest and best options in most cases and wouldn't balance 40K anymore than GW can.
Here's the thing - they know what's works and what doesn't, where there are problems and where there is room for improvement. Saying they'll just take the best options is really just missing the point. These are the people that will put a system through its paces, play rough with it, push it to its limits and find the weak points, grey areas and other areas where there are issues. This is called 'play testing'. Then take the feedback. The designers can then add, change and improve as required to make a robust game. Simples
Davor wrote:
What people are forgetting is a balanced game or a balanced codex is when you have great options and crappy options. Problem is, people who must win with plastic toy soldiers are using allies now, so they don't have to use the crappy options in both codices now. So how is that balanced? Take the good with the bad. Right now, everyone is just taking the good.
No. You have it completely backwards here. It's quite the opposite in fact. A balanced game is not one with great options and crappy options - that, by definition is a poorly balanced game. A balanced game is one where all the game pieces have value, and 'have game' essentially. When everything is playable and viable, you generate real variety and choice. Let's also not make the mistake of saying balanced equals homogenous. Because that is simply not true either When the game has good options and crappy ones, People simply gravitate to the good ones, the bad ones might as well not exist, and you end up with the illusion of choice and a very skewed and poorly realised gaming landscape, along with a frustrated player base.
Right now, everyone just taking the good is symptomatic of a poorly balanced game.
Don't forget the bit about a balanced ruleset also being easier to customise, for those who want to do that sort of thing.
Before people conjure the point of "being forced to talk to your opponent helps customisation".
You can never balance an all-Zerker army against an all Baneblade army for example. Even if the Zerker were 1 pt and the baneblade 3500 they still would never be able to stop it or even hurt it.
Davor wrote: How will 50 people who must win with plastic toy soldiers balance a game? All these people do is take the best options. If these people were really that good, they should be using sub par units, and sub par options because then they will really know what balance is. No, they just take the easiest and best options in most cases and wouldn't balance 40K anymore than GW can.
That's a remarkably negative view of the competitive 40k scene.
I'll admit I've met a few of the WAAC players, but they are the minority at big events.
The reason these top players would be good is because they can spot the cheese really quickly and exploit it. Then that cheese could be reduced before the release. Sub-par units could be identified as performing badly.
That's why they would be paid. To find the weaknesses in the rules and help balance them. 50 employees at 50k a year is only 2,500,000 salary before benefits and work space. To a company the size of GW to handle quality control, that's a pittance.
Davor wrote: Also why NOVA? What makes them so good than say anyone else?
The draw. It pulls a huge player base from the east coast -- where the majority of Americans live. Adepticon could do the same. I am not familiar enough with the European circuit to make a good enough call.
You can never balance an all-Zerker army against an all Baneblade army for example. Even if the Zerker were 1 pt and the baneblade 3500 they still would never be able to stop it or even hurt it.
Nor should they, they're an anti infantry unit after all. But those kinds of extremes shouldn't really be a consideration. A 2000 point all comers list for a Khorn army should be able to deal with a 2000 all comers Guard list. If someone fails to take any anti vehicle weapons in their list that is a tactical error on their part, not an inbalance in the game.
Or you know GW could run open beta tests like some other companies those see to catch the worst offenders....
As for all Zerker vs all Baneblade. IMO that shouldn't even be an option. But then I'm against super extreme armies and would prefer to see the game reward balanced list building through scenario structure.
tyrannosaurus wrote: I had a similar problem to the OP, and was very close to giving up on the whole tabletop wargaming thing.
Step 1 - Ebayed my 40k models.
Step 2 - Re-invested the money in a balanced game with a tight ruleset [my choice was Infinity].
Step 3 - Had lots of fun and re-discovered my passion for this strange little hobby.
Step 4 - Mentally berated myself for all of the time wasted in preparing for and playing a game with a shockingly bad ruleset [including all of the time trying to negotiate how the game was going to be played on each occasion].
It's difficult to appreciate just how outdated and poorly thought out the 40k ruleset is until you try something new.
This is exactly what I did, minus the 1st step. I jumped ship with a buddy when Operation Icestorm got released and almost had a relapse towards playing 40k again, until they made the new Eldar codex, then I quickly decided to burn that bridge forever. Don't think I've spent a single penny at GW products except for some of their paints ever since.
I thought I'd be sad about it but the apathy I've built up towards 40k over a long period simply killed off any affection I used to have for the game.
As an avid board game player and the OP of the thread, the answer I've come to in light of my latest really fun game was kind of simple.
Reduce the game.
Galaxy Truckers was a favorite game of mine before they added the 3rd and 4th expansions. King of Tokyo was good fun for my young daughters, but evolutions confused them. Pokemon cards was something they really enjoyed with their old cards, but they liked less and less and EX Pokes and Mega-Evolutions started creeping in.
The solution for all of these was to reduce the game. We stuck to expansions 1 and 2 for Galaxy Truckers. We played box-only King of Tokyo. We stopped using the more tech savy pokemon cards, and we enjoyed these games again.
To answer my original question, "How does one even play this game anymore?" , the answer is similar but less digestable. Reduce the game.
"Sorry, I really don't like playing with Superheavies, Gargantuan Creatures, or super formations. I'm looking for a smaller, simpler game.'
Is this perfect? No. I might not find anyone to meet those guidelines and be assed out that day, with no game. This is certainly disappointing and might hurt my desire to keep trying to play 40k. It's also not really fair to the guy who bought an army of Knights, because he -is- fielding a legal and legitimate army. It reminds me of how I felt when I bought Grey Knights in 5th because of how cool the Grey Knights from Warhammer: Dawn of War were. They were still Demonhunters when I bought them, but when they gained power, I remember being kind of mad when people were like, "I don't want to play your army.", even though I had no Paladins or Stormravens.
Still, you can't enjoy a game thinking only about your opponents like and dislikes. You have to consider yourself too. And haggling is a thing. And I don't mind allies or flyers or any of the rules therein.
Back on topic though, what I've done is eliminate three pressures.
1. The monetary pressure of feeling like I have to keep buying new stuff until I can field 2500 points.
2. The time pressure of feeling like I can never paint the whole army. If I can play 1250 and have a fun, full 2 hour game, that's enough for me. I can add a little to it as time goes on if I want, but the initial "wall of grey" effect is reduced.
3. The resentment pressure of feeling like my army cannot compete in an environment of superheavies and decurion formations or all the other new crazy in the game. Playing with cultist chaos in unregulated 40ks current meta is like playing chess without a queen or bishops. It's nice to feel like I have a fair shot. I have fun joking about the death of droves of cultists anyways, so I don't mind losing every game as long as I can see where I might have won had something been different.
There's so many 40k players, odds are good I should find one person willing to de-escalate the game. If not, that's why I have board games and other hobbies for game-store night.
Me and my friends often do this in role playing games. It makes everything more special if you're not the superpowered cheese machines later editions inevitably end up offering, as well as skip the min/max of races/classes.
MrMoustaffa wrote: I think what people are missing is just how scaled up things have become in 7th. Back in 5th, I could actually win games with nothing but guardsmen and Leman Russ tanks. Not vets, infantry platoons. And we didn't have aegis lines or anything like that either (old man mode activated)
I could actually do a bayonet charge across the board with a wall of tanks behind them, and have a halfway decent chance. No, it was not the most competitive list in the world, but I always felt like I had a chance. At the very least i could bloody a n optimized list a bit before i went down. In 7th, I could have them completely fortified behind aegis lines and whatnot and lose 2/3rds of them by the end of turn 2. There's so much ignore cover, gmc's, special rules, and absolutely horribly bizarre combos that bringing normal infantry is literally pointless. I would spend more time getting my guardsmen out of the case than I would to put them back.
The game has scaled to the point where basic infantry are pointless. Who takes infantry platoons anymore? How about boyz mobs? Tactical squads? Fire warriors? Etc. Etc. It's all MC's and GMC's and invisible deathstars and jetbikes and knight titans. It's to the point where people will literally call it a "troop tax" because they don't want to use troop units.
We didn't need that in 40k, that's what APOCALYPSE was for. So you could go nuts with the crazy stuff and not completely destroy the normal game. Why GW thought it was an even remotely smart idea to introduce that stuff to a normal game is beyond me from a balance perspective. You'd have to be insane to think a Knight titan or the eldar titan thing belongs in a standard game. They're perfect for apocalypse, and if that's what they'd been advertised as, apocalypse only, I would have been fine with it. But it destroys the average game and makes the core troop units of many factions pointless. Not to mention for newbies starting out, or old vets coming back after an edition, they have very little to fight this kind of stuff.
It's just an all around bad idea and should never have happened
Funny story. I recently played in a 2v2 tournament with myeslf going full standard guard (100 grunts, 2 russes, 1 chimera) and my mate going Deep strike storm troopers with a Knight (So 6 or so Deep striking squads and a Knight). He bought fortifications for his remaining points. Anyway we where both completly new to 7th, last time we'd played was in 5th. The first two games where horrible failures, we really got our ass handed to us. Of course we got in a bad mood. We hadn't just lost, we'd been severly outclassed. Then something remarkable happened. We knocked our heads togheter and had a long talk. Then we decided to completly change our tactics. And boom, the remaining two games won. It was tempting to complain about how we'd faced people with far stronger lists than us (which we did) but in the end we realised we had a couple of advantages. Namely we scored the hell out of everything. The Knight was mostly important to soak up fire and the rest just foccused on objectives and damn did it go well. With two platoons of guardsmen marching forward through the death and destruction of overpowered shenanigans and storm troopers dropping all over to hold vital objectives we left our comming opposition in the dust. I'm absolutely certain we'd have performed much, much better in the other two games had we just been slightly more experienced.
So the moral of the story is that in the 7th edition, with sufficient boots on the ground and objective foccused tactical thinking you can pull some nice victories away from scary opposition.
I play 40k since it exists and enjoyed it in all editions.
Some editions have more broken stuff then others, but i can always adapt and enjoy both the game and above all the models and the setting.
Funny to sell 40k to buy Infinity...
You can play Infinity with any models.
And yes, many (but not all) Infinity models are beautifull, but they are quite expensive too.
And the Infinity rules have a huge hole too (buying cheap models just to get more activations for others) that nobody seems to want to fix, because the big models have to be sold.
Sounds familiar somehow... ;-)
I play lots of different games and sometimes one gets better or worse, but i am in it for the hobby, which is painting and modelling too. Every miniature producing company that is big enough has to sell miniatures. And to keep on selling, the game and units and models have to change.
That's just the way it in the miniature wargaming world.
ORicK wrote: I play 40k since it exists and enjoyed it in all editions.
Some editions have more broken stuff then others, but i can always adapt and enjoy both the game and above all the models and the setting.
Funny to sell 40k to buy Infinity...
You can play Infinity with any models.
And yes, many (but not all) Infinity models are beautifull, but they are quite expensive too.
And the Infinity rules have a huge hole too (buying cheap models just to get more activations for others) that nobody seems to want to fix, because the big models have to be sold.
Sounds familiar somehow... ;-)
I play lots of different games and sometimes one gets better or worse, but i am in it for the hobby, which is painting and modelling too. Every miniature producing company that is big enough has to sell miniatures. And to keep on selling, the game and units and models have to change.
That's just the way it in the miniature wargaming world.
What big hole are you referring to?
Cheap models get used all the time, especially with fireteams, some armies spam them because a large part of their army consists of cheap infantry (like Ariadna) and many armies (almost all) have very cheap war band units that gets moved for either distraction, mine clearing or smoke launching.
ORicK wrote: I play 40k since it exists and enjoyed it in all editions.
Some editions have more broken stuff then others, but i can always adapt and enjoy both the game and above all the models and the setting.
Funny to sell 40k to buy Infinity...
You can play Infinity with any models.
And yes, many (but not all) Infinity models are beautifull, but they are quite expensive too.
And the Infinity rules have a huge hole too (buying cheap models just to get more activations for others) that nobody seems to want to fix, because the big models have to be sold.
Sounds familiar somehow... ;-)
I play lots of different games and sometimes one gets better or worse, but i am in it for the hobby, which is painting and modelling too. Every miniature producing company that is big enough has to sell miniatures. And to keep on selling, the game and units and models have to change.
That's just the way it in the miniature wargaming world.
What big hole are you referring to?
Cheap models get used all the time, especially with fireteams, some armies spam them because a large part of their army consists of cheap infantry (like Ariadna) and many armies (almost all) have very cheap war band units that gets moved for either distraction, mine clearing or smoke launching.
I've not yet got the the point with Infinity where I am playing competitively, but I was under the impression order efficiency with 5 man fireteams packing a HMG made them every bit as viable as a single TAG. I certainly wouldn't call it a hole either way though, in my limited experience I've never encountered a scenario when the single 'big' model dominated the game unopposed.
I also have to laugh at the idea it is expensive, an Infinity character is $10-20 locally and metal, GWs Aus prices put a plastic chatacter at $22 for the oldest ones, $53 for the newest small based ones.I can get TAGs for less than the new assassins.
You can never balance an all-Zerker army against an all Baneblade army for example. Even if the Zerker were 1 pt and the baneblade 3500 they still would never be able to stop it or even hurt it.
There is a distinct difference between poor balance and poor player decisions.
Part of the skill of list building in any game of this type is constructing a well rounded list which has an answer to most of the common threats it is likely to face.
One could allow the player to build a pure anti-infantry force, but that that list would have no answer to an armour heavy list is no fault of the game.
The balance in the context of Bezerkers isn't making them effective against all types of target, it's making them effective at their designated role, either through stats, USRs or options, and pricing them appropriately so that they're not hopelessly less efficient than other options in the codex for the same role, or when compared to other units fulfilling that role in other armies.
The hole in Infinity i refer to is the fact that a big model can use the actions of cheaper ones. A hole that was, for some reason, not fixed in the current new edition.
In some, but indeed not all scenario's, that can totaly break the game.I don't like that in any game system.
But beside this, it completely takes the realism out of a game that IMO feels VERY realistic in general, which is why i like it.
A comparison: if i am in a group of 5 people, i cannot run 5 times as fast if the others stand still. That is complete nonsense.
Personally,I don't like this at all...
I recently discussed this at a gaming convention where the game developer was (Crisis in Antwerp). This "problem" is known, but gameplay and fun is deemed more important than realism or balance in regard to this issue.
In regard to prices: i have thousands of miniatures, metal, plastic and resin and from many producers. I also have Infinity.
It is very typical that people who defend a game always take an extreme of one game system to compare it to another.
Yes, GW has expensive plastic characters, but also much cheaper and just as detailed plastics. Typical that Infinity players only compare to characters and small models, not to other GW plastics and big models.
Infinity is quality, it is not cheap, i don't even think it has to be. It is also metal, not easily to convert.
Azreal13 wrote: There is a distinct difference between poor balance and poor player decisions.
Exactly. A well-made game can not and should not allow you to deliberately create a terrible army and still have just as much of a chance of winning as a player who creates their army with a coherent strategy behind their unit choices and skill in executing that strategy. The fact that a player who deliberately refuses to take any anti-tank units will struggle to deal with armies that contain tanks is a virtue, not a flaw.
ORicK wrote: The hole in Infinity i refer to is the fact that a big model can use the actions of cheaper ones. A hole that was, for some reason, not fixed in the current new edition.
In some, but indeed not all scenario's, that can totally break the game.I don't like that in any game system.
If that is your experience with the game all I can say is it seems yours was an unusual experience because that is not a hole, it is a feature. It is a highly lethal game, someone running Achilles up the table all on his own risks him turning a corner, taking a shot to the face from one of those cheerleaders, and losing the game.
I also think of it as a much slower game in terms of how long in 'real in game time' a battle is supposed to take. A 40k battle is about about a minute on the battlefield, Infinity not so much. I see 5 people providing orders to 1 not one guy running 5 times faster than the rest, it is 4 men covering firing lanes, radioing in what they see, giving orders and all that while the one guy is the only one advancing under covering fire.
As for comparing Infinity models to GW character models, Infinity models are for all intents and purposes character models, but if you want to go that way I'm still paying $40 for 4 Australian. That is still only $10 a model for metal models. GW can be as cheap as $41 for 10, which is rather nice, but old models. The most recent models (new dwarves) are $70 for 5, more expensive per model than metal.
Probably. Should I complain instead about weapon ranges and table space making the game seem like movement really doesn't matter nearly as much as in games like Warmachine, Kings of War, or Infinity?
You can never balance an all-Zerker army against an all Baneblade army for example. Even if the Zerker were 1 pt and the baneblade 3500 they still would never be able to stop it or even hurt it.
There is a distinct difference between poor balance and poor player decisions.
Part of the skill of list building in any game of this type is constructing a well rounded list which has an answer to most of the common threats it is likely to face.
One could allow the player to build a pure anti-infantry force, but that that list would have no answer to an armour heavy list is no fault of the game.
The balance in the context of Bezerkers isn't making them effective against all types of target, it's making them effective at their designated role, either through stats, USRs or options, and pricing them appropriately so that they're not hopelessly less efficient than other options in the codex for the same role, or when compared to other units fulfilling that role in other armies.
Absolutely true, additionally an army made up entirely of Baneblades needs to have enough downside as to make it impractical for the purpose of winning games reliably, because it might overwhelm balnced amounts of anti-tank weaponry. Part of the problem with 40k stems from the "tabling wins" idea, and lack of good scenario play.
You can never balance an all-Zerker army against an all Baneblade army for example. Even if the Zerker were 1 pt and the baneblade 3500 they still would never be able to stop it or even hurt it.
Nor should they, they're an anti infantry unit after all. But those kinds of extremes shouldn't really be a consideration. A 2000 point all comers list for a Khorn army should be able to deal with a 2000 all comers Guard list. If someone fails to take any anti vehicle weapons in their list that is a tactical error on their part, not an inbalance in the game.
Should a 2000 point Khorne all comers list be able to beat an all-Baneblade list?
You can never balance an all-Zerker army against an all Baneblade army for example. Even if the Zerker were 1 pt and the baneblade 3500 they still would never be able to stop it or even hurt it.
There is a distinct difference between poor balance and poor player decisions.
Part of the skill of list building in any game of this type is constructing a well rounded list which has an answer to most of the common threats it is likely to face.
One could allow the player to build a pure anti-infantry force, but that that list would have no answer to an armour heavy list is no fault of the game.
The balance in the context of Bezerkers isn't making them effective against all types of target, it's making them effective at their designated role, either through stats, USRs or options, and pricing them appropriately so that they're not hopelessly less efficient than other options in the codex for the same role, or when compared to other units fulfilling that role in other armies.
Absolutely true, additionally an army made up entirely of Baneblades needs to have enough downside as to make it impractical for the purpose of winning games reliably, because it might overwhelm balnced amounts of anti-tank weaponry. Part of the problem with 40k stems from the "tabling wins" idea, and lack of good scenario play.
Why should superheavy tank companies be deliberately nerfed? They exist in the lore, and in the lore are frightening and powerful opponents to face.
You can never balance an all-Zerker army against an all Baneblade army for example. Even if the Zerker were 1 pt and the baneblade 3500 they still would never be able to stop it or even hurt it.
Nor should they, they're an anti infantry unit after all. But those kinds of extremes shouldn't really be a consideration. A 2000 point all comers list for a Khorn army should be able to deal with a 2000 all comers Guard list. If someone fails to take any anti vehicle weapons in their list that is a tactical error on their part, not an inbalance in the game.
Should a 2000 point Khorne all comers list be able to beat an all-Baneblade list?
It should have a reasonable chance, and with a bit of luck or a more skilled general, yes.
Alternatively, an all-Baneblade list should not exist.
Probably not if you are a superheavy anti-tank company.
However I take your point and I agree. Fortunately, Unbound allows players to make whatever lists they like. The downside is the possible development of a Paper, Scissors, Stone style of play in which extreme armies can easily beat lists that aren't tailored against them, and lose badly to hard counters.
Personally I think games in which the outcome is heavily biased before the start due to the choices of armies, are inherently less interesting that games in which it makes more difference if you use tactics, however people aren't required to play any one way if they don't want to. (Except for the "Official Rules" factor.)
ORicK wrote: The hole in Infinity i refer to is the fact that a big model can use the actions of cheaper ones. A hole that was, for some reason, not fixed in the current new edition.
In some, but indeed not all scenario's, that can totally break the game.I don't like that in any game system.
If that is your experience with the game all I can say is it seems yours was an unusual experience because that is not a hole, it is a feature. It is a highly lethal game, someone running Achilles up the table all on his own risks him turning a corner, taking a shot to the face from one of those cheerleaders, and losing the game.
That was exactly my experience too. Three Scotsmen take a smoke break on one side of the table, while a werewolf with a shotgun runs and super-jumps down the other at twice the speed of sound, intuitively avoiding the facings of everything in my army, and none of my soldiers could react to him climbing up the building or gunning down their buddies until he actually shoots them in the back. But if those random dudes sitting around doing nothing were to die, then the werewolf would run slower because, erm....
I love the models and background, but between people insisting "no, that's a feature, and it promotes tactics!" and endlessly craning over the table to try and make sure I wouldn't get reaction shot in the sliver of visibility through a building and two windows, I realised Infinity wasn't my game.
jonolikespie wrote:
It should have a reasonable chance, and with a bit of luck or a more skilled general, yes.
Alternatively, an all-Baneblade list should not exist.
So my options are: Make the Baneblade about the same toughness as every other tank (so that an 'adequate' amount of antitank firepower is sufficient to down a entire army of Baneblades), or not play a superheavy tank company at all.
That's what bugs me about 'balance'. It's all well and good until you start making things samey (e.g. the toughness of the Baneblade and a Russ, for example), or removing options entirely.
Kilkrazy wrote:Probably not if you are a superheavy anti-tank company.
However I take your point and I agree. Fortunately, Unbound allows players to make whatever lists they like. The downside is the possible development of a Paper, Scissors, Stone style of play in which extreme armies can easily beat lists that aren't tailored against them, and lose badly to hard counters.
Personally I think games in which the outcome is heavily biased before the start due to the choices of armies, are inherently less interesting that games in which it makes more difference if you use tactics, however people aren't required to play any one way if they don't want to. (Except for the "Official Rules" factor.)
I understand your point, but I don't play 40k in some quest for tactical depth, I play it because I enjoy the lore, and removing options from gameplay that are decidedly in the lore (and comparatively common, at that, its likely there are more Baneblades than there are Space Marines in the galaxy), then you're taking out a big chunk of my motivation to play.
It'd be like removing King Tigers from Flames of War.
You can never balance an all-Zerker army against an all Baneblade army for example. Even if the Zerker were 1 pt and the baneblade 3500 they still would never be able to stop it or even hurt it.
Nor should they, they're an anti infantry unit after all. But those kinds of extremes shouldn't really be a consideration. A 2000 point all comers list for a Khorn army should be able to deal with a 2000 all comers Guard list. If someone fails to take any anti vehicle weapons in their list that is a tactical error on their part, not an inbalance in the game.
Should a 2000 point Khorne all comers list be able to beat an all-Baneblade list?
It should have a reasonable chance, and with a bit of luck or a more skilled general, yes.
Alternatively, an all-Baneblade list should not exist.
a bunch of foot slogging infantry whom exist for close combat should not be able to take on a Super Heavy tank company and win easily. It should be a tough and close battle at best for them.
I never played 40K in search of tactical depth, it's always been a relatively shallow game, but making it a Paper,Scissors, Stone kind of game reduced my motivation to bother with the effort and expense of maintaining an army.
The optional Apocalypse rules made it completely possible to have a superheavy tank versus superheavy anti-tank battle, for people who wanted to.
Kilkrazy wrote: I never played 40K in search of tactical depth, it's always been a relatively shallow game, but making it a Paper,Scissors, Stone kind of game reduced my motivation to bother with the effort and expense of maintaining an army.
The optional Apocalypse rules made it completely possible to have a superheavy tank versus superheavy anti-tank battle, for people who wanted to.
I agree with this. Whilst a SH company should be strong it should also be apoc only.
I'm always blown away by certain posters and what they choose to say in regards to 40k. Here we are on a miniatures forum, explicitly in the 40k subdirectory, explicitly in a 40k post. Yet, somehow, some who claim to have "burnt all bridges" or "quit years ago" or "eBayed their beloved Kharn conversion for the god-send of Infinity whilst burning the Games Workshop emblem" are apparently still on the active 40k forums and - more importantly - feel the need to post.
Why do you do this? Are you so angry that you lurk in the digital shadows waiting to inform others of how crappy the game you *used* to play is? Or ... are you lying, because you do still play the game but your point is better made if you claim to have done more aggressive quitting strategies to properly demonstrate your hatred?
Playing the game or building the hobby is about fun. Somewhere between the story, the sculpts, the rules, the dice, or the players you find something fun and apparently wish to share in that discussion or fun with others online. You should pursue this dream of entertainment, spend your money and time on what you believe is worth doing. something that makes you happy.
If you're posting only to convince strangers on the internet, you should let it go. One, because it most certainly can't be fun. Unless it is and you should have that professionally addressed. Two, because of the game is as bad as you claim it is, it'll die a natural death without your 'end is neigh!' billboard. Meaning it's a waste of time, if you're right your voice won't be needed, if you're wrong your voice definitely isn't needed and could prevent others from having the fun they're pursuing.
This makes a simple and plain sense to me, which makes me wonder if those criticizing here are being fictitious.
Or, just maybe, you're looking for someone to convince you that you're wrong about 40k and it actually is a fun and interesting game. Hm. A thought.
If someone wants to play all baneblades awesome, just don't be surprised if the other side never plays you again, or tailer lists to kill that army. I have a impguard player that brings nothing but 2 baneblades and Lemun russes. He won't play me again against my Nurgle daemons (lulz soul grinder BS with summon spam) or against my Renegade guard ("you have HOW MANY artillary emplacements?")
It's very easy to tell between who wants a fun game, and who just wants to make a dumb list to stroke their own ego
Martel732 wrote: All BA lists are dumb lists that stroke my opponent's ego...
If that BA list includes multiple LoWs in a Low-Mid point game? Sure. The Lemun Russes weren't OP in there, its simply that jamming two baneblades into a 1600(maybe 1800, I forget) list is obnoxious. Further into the game its easy to tell the point of balance when a player says their list is fair, but when they start losing they say the opponents list isn't fair. Was told taking two Flying Nurgle Princes was cheese, since his wall of blast weapons couldn't hit them
Do they? Honestly don't know. But don't they have the same choices as SM? Including all those FW Relic vehicles? Or warhound titans, which are annoying at low points even if they are overcosted
So my options are: Make the Baneblade about the same toughness as every other tank (so that an 'adequate' amount of antitank firepower is sufficient to down a entire army of Baneblades), or not play a superheavy tank company at all.
That's what bugs me about 'balance'. It's all well and good until you start making things samey (e.g. the toughness of the Baneblade and a Russ, for example), or removing options entirely.
Why should superheavy tank companies be deliberately nerfed? They exist in the lore, and in the lore are frightening and powerful opponents to face.
It doesn't all need to be the same, but in an average game both armies should ahve a reasonable chance to win the engagement. To me that is the crux of it, this is a game, and it is only so much fun for me if I bring a balance army with some anti-infantry, some anti-MC, Anti-tank etc, and end up facing an extreme list of say nothing but heavy tanks where most of my army is useless. That is not a fun game. Now if we go into the game with you saying hey I want to try out this super heavy things (AKA playing apoc) that is cool because I'll prepare for it. But in an average game it should not be a thing. Superheavys should either a.) Not be in games below a certain point level (pick one), b.) Be prohibitively expensive as to make them difficult to use at low points, c.) toned down to make them more like standard units.
I don't really understand where the fun in the game is for you when you show up with your say 6 baneblades gainst your opponents 6 melta guns or whatever. Where a good deal of their units just duck and cover etc. That kind of game can be cool as a one off story scenario where the defender tries to survive against said units etc.
That said I feel like balancing through scenarios is the best way to go, remove tabling as an auto win, make it neccessary to field varried units to achieve different objectives etc. This allows for more units to be useful.
As for the "exists in the lore" argument it is a hollow argument because the game poorly reflects the lore (space marines don't murder things singlehandedly etc).
In the end the problem with the game is scale, there are units in this game that are designed around smaller squad based combat, and then there are superheavies etc that are for large war like battles, the game is not good at supporting both of these at the same time.
^this. There is a reason narrative campaigns tend to do much better over here then tournaments. One thing that I keep seeing is the ability to have 3000pts in "options" for a campaign, that you choose from for a basic scenario. So if you spend a majority of that on Super heavies, good luck when the mission is in Necromunda level terrain placement
The way you can avoid my 6 Baneblades or whatever coming against your 6 Meltaguns is by talking about it beforehand.
I know it gets repeated in every 40k thread but seriously, I routinely play leviathan detachments in 30k and 40k games replete with superheavies, and no one in any of the three cities I've lived in for most of my like has batted an eyelash.
Because I mention it before the game, talk with them, learn their name, make friends, buy them a drink or whatever, and then roll some dice.
The idea of Take-All-Comers lists died with the idea of random Pick-Up-Games.
Honestly, you don't NEED any of the things you listed to play unless you want to go into the larger-scale tournment scene. I played with a usual CAD all throughout 7th, and still do (even though I mainly play 30k). Honestly, some of the most fun I've had in 7th was playing "non-balanced" games (1,500 vs. 2,500), custom missions, and generally had fun. But in bringing this up to dakka (or most online forums) where there is a loud vocal minority who dislike, and up to dispise, the game is like going to a ford dealership and asking about dodge cars. Expect quite a few people praising every other game system, whining about price, and how "warhammer was better back when I was 12! .... what rose tinted goggles?"
Honestly, it's my one complaint about this community (and most online communities, for that matter) is all the whining (yes, I know I'm whining ), mainly since the people content with the game aren't usually the ones commenting on these types of posts.
Talking beforehand is the objectively correct way to do it, since it takes both sides opinions in mind and creates a good experience. But the problem here us that the "norm" is to make a list with no knowledge of what you are fighting. I've gotten death glares for asking what army they are using before, let alone list compensation. I also hate taking lots of anti armor, so even a lemun ruas army can chap my hide when all I want to play is cultist revolution xD
autumnlotus wrote: Talking beforehand is the objectively correct way to do it, since it takes both sides opinions in mind and creates a good experience. But the problem here us that the "norm" is to make a list with no knowledge of what you are fighting. I've gotten death glares for asking what army they are using before, let alone list compensation. I also hate taking lots of anti armor, so even a lemun ruas army can chap my hide when all I want to play is cultist revolution xD
Well, I think GW is trying to kill the competitive meta by forcing people to talk in order to enjoy themselves. I hope the idea of "secret lists" dies with it.
They aren't sadly. They encourage forging the Narrative, but also made one of the hugest gaps in power I have seen for several editions. The power gap between Deldar and CWeldar is staggering. You can't be casual in gameplay if you lose 200% of the time to your opponent before tactics even come up
Martel732 wrote:My group is all secret list all the time. That's the whole point of a list, right?
No, the point of a list is to have a way for your opponent to verify that what you brought fits within the points limit. In fact, that means they -have- to see it.
autumnlotus wrote:They aren't sadly. They encourage forging the Narrative, but also made one of the hugest gaps in power I have seen for several editions. The power gap between Deldar and CWeldar is staggering. You can't be casual in gameplay if you lose 200% of the time to your opponent before tactics even come up
You can play casually while talking before hand. That's my point.
Martel732 wrote:My group is all secret list all the time. That's the whole point of a list, right?
No, the point of a list is to have a way for your opponent to verify that what you brought fits within the points limit. In fact, that means they -have- to see it.
autumnlotus wrote:They aren't sadly. They encourage forging the Narrative, but also made one of the hugest gaps in power I have seen for several editions. The power gap between Deldar and CWeldar is staggering. You can't be casual in gameplay if you lose 200% of the time to your opponent before tactics even come up
You can play casually while talking before hand. That's my point.
Yeah, I see it, but no list modifications can be made at that point.
Martel732 wrote:My group is all secret list all the time. That's the whole point of a list, right?
No, the point of a list is to have a way for your opponent to verify that what you brought fits within the points limit. In fact, that means they -have- to see it.
autumnlotus wrote:They aren't sadly. They encourage forging the Narrative, but also made one of the hugest gaps in power I have seen for several editions. The power gap between Deldar and CWeldar is staggering. You can't be casual in gameplay if you lose 200% of the time to your opponent before tactics even come up
You can play casually while talking before hand. That's my point.
Yeah, I see it, but no list modifications can be made at that point.
Why not? Just go over to your opponent and be like "I saw you have 15 Wraithknights in your list - would you mind only taking, say, one? Or zero? I know it's a lot to ask, but I can't deal with what you have here and won't have fun. If you can't change, I'll look elsewhere."
Martel732 wrote: Because that's the meta. It is what it is. No one tones down anything for BA. In fact, there is a lot of peer pressure to table me ASAP.
That's not "the meta" that's "a meta" among many. Go elsewhere. I know people that drive as far as an hour and thirty minutes to the FLGS where I live rather than play in their own meta because of people doing stuff like what you describe.
You can never balance an all-Zerker army against an all Baneblade army for example. Even if the Zerker were 1 pt and the baneblade 3500 they still would never be able to stop it or even hurt it.
There is a distinct difference between poor balance and poor player decisions.
Part of the skill of list building in any game of this type is constructing a well rounded list which has an answer to most of the common threats it is likely to face.
One could allow the player to build a pure anti-infantry force, but that that list would have no answer to an armour heavy list is no fault of the game.
The balance in the context of Bezerkers isn't making them effective against all types of target, it's making them effective at their designated role, either through stats, USRs or options, and pricing them appropriately so that they're not hopelessly less efficient than other options in the codex for the same role, or when compared to other units fulfilling that role in other armies.
Absolutely true, additionally an army made up entirely of Baneblades needs to have enough downside as to make it impractical for the purpose of winning games reliably, because it might overwhelm balnced amounts of anti-tank weaponry. Part of the problem with 40k stems from the "tabling wins" idea, and lack of good scenario play.
Why should superheavy tank companies be deliberately nerfed? They exist in the lore, and in the lore are frightening and powerful opponents to face.
In the lore, a Space Marine Tactical Squad can take out wave upon wave of Ork Boyz, holding the line for far longer than the scope of a game of 40K encompasses.
Lore =\= good gameplay.
I'd much rather a game where a Superheavy Company canwin against a well rounded, less biased force, but neither side was a forgone conclusion, than an accurate replication of fluff that essentially devolved into an exercise in unpacking miniatures, rolling some dice then putting them all back in their case.
I've never heard of secret lists and that seems like a very shady thing to do. Your opponent should have full access to your list, rules and codex/ dataslates. Anything less than that leads to confusion and gotcha moments at best and at worst the ability to cheat.
You can never balance an all-Zerker army against an all Baneblade army for example. Even if the Zerker were 1 pt and the baneblade 3500 they still would never be able to stop it or even hurt it.
There is a distinct difference between poor balance and poor player decisions.
Part of the skill of list building in any game of this type is constructing a well rounded list which has an answer to most of the common threats it is likely to face.
One could allow the player to build a pure anti-infantry force, but that that list would have no answer to an armour heavy list is no fault of the game.
The balance in the context of Bezerkers isn't making them effective against all types of target, it's making them effective at their designated role, either through stats, USRs or options, and pricing them appropriately so that they're not hopelessly less efficient than other options in the codex for the same role, or when compared to other units fulfilling that role in other armies.
Absolutely true, additionally an army made up entirely of Baneblades needs to have enough downside as to make it impractical for the purpose of winning games reliably, because it might overwhelm balnced amounts of anti-tank weaponry. Part of the problem with 40k stems from the "tabling wins" idea, and lack of good scenario play.
Why should superheavy tank companies be deliberately nerfed? They exist in the lore, and in the lore are frightening and powerful opponents to face.
In the lore, a Space Marine Tactical Squad can take out wave upon wave of Ork Boyz, holding the line for far longer than the scope of a game of 40K encompasses.
Lore =\= good gameplay.
I'd much rather a game where a Superheavy Company canwin against a well rounded, less biased force, but neither side was a forgone conclusion, than an accurate replication of fluff that essentially devolved into an exercise in unpacking miniatures, rolling some dice then putting them all back in their case.
I like roleplaying games. Do you? Is it fair that the protagonists can mow down hordes of NPCs which the GM worked so tirelessly to create? Are RPGs bad gameplay?
HoundsofDemos wrote: I've never heard of secret lists and that seems like a very shady thing to do. Your opponent should have full access to your list, rules and codex/ dataslates. Anything less than that leads to confusion and gotcha moments at best and at worst the ability to cheat.
I'm assuming secret lists means that the lists are devised in secret. Meaning, I make my 1500 point list, you make yours, and we fight.
We don't design two lists by committee and see how they work on the table.
I could be wrong, but it's always been the policy of competitive wargames that the enemy can 100% see your list. If they couldn't, outflanking units would sky rocket in power, as would deep strikes.
Edit;
Unit1126PLL,
That is a bad comparison. Games like DnD are cooperative games that have no winner and loser, no sides contesting. If they did, the GM drops a deity on you using Rule zero and packs up within 4 minutes easy.
40k has a clearly defined winner and loser, and no GM equivalent (although it used to). It's really not the same at all.
Because by default chaos marines are weaker then space marines. It takes a lot of deliberate handicapping on the space marine players side to make that game fair. Sure wraithknight are an issue, but the eldar codex as a whole is better then most optimised builds in the game. So unless that eldar player has fistfuls of guardians to use exclusively, you will be outmatched. That's the issue: the game is not even close to balanced, meaning casual games suffer just as much as WAAC games
If that's the case that makes more sense. I usually find it helpful to have a few lists with you when your just looking for a game and ask your opponent ahead of time how competitive you want to be. It seems there is a lot of resistance to having a conversation based on what i've seen on this thread.
autumnlotus wrote: Because by default chaos marines are weaker then space marines. It takes a lot of deliberate handicapping on the space marine players side to make that game fair. Sure wraithknight are an issue, but the eldar codex as a whole is better then most optimised builds in the game. So unless that eldar player has fistfuls of guardians to use exclusively, you will be outmatched. That's the issue: the game is not even close to balanced, meaning casual games suffer just as much as WAAC games
That isn't an issue at all. I have seen Chaos and Eldar play at my FLGS with my own eyes and saw both players having fun. The Eldar player self-nerfed, yes, it's true, at the Chaos player's request, but the power disparity was mitigated by both players working together to make the game fun, and it worked out.
Well that's surprising to me. What does the eldar player use? I ask because unless they avoided all psykers and most of the aspect warriors it sounds bizarre that it works well there. Does the chaos player just not care about the imbalance?
autumnlotus wrote: Well that's surprising to me. What does the eldar player use? I ask because unless they avoided all psykers and most of the aspect warriors it sounds bizarre that it works well there. Does the chaos player just not care about the imbalance?
*Shrug* The Eldar player had the Falcon formation full of DAs, the Guardian warhost, two units of Windriders (though he kept the heavy weapons to 1 in 3) a Farseer, three Howling Banshee ladies in another Aspect formation, and I think either two fire prisms or two nightspinners - they were hiding out of LOS when I walked by most of the time so I suspect nightspinners.
HoundsofDemos wrote: If that's the case that makes more sense. I usually find it helpful to have a few lists with you when your just looking for a game and ask your opponent ahead of time how competitive you want to be. It seems there is a lot of resistance to having a conversation based on what i've seen on this thread.
If 40k is the only game you ever play, this may seem fine and normal to you. The game already takes 3-4 hours at 2k points (assuming both players know the rules), what's another hour to hash out two lists that work?
The problems arise when the following occurs;
1) 40k is not the only game you play.
Other games, like WMH, don't require any discussion behind "Steam Roller?" and "50 points?". All of the really OP models/tiers (tiers are like formations in a way) are getting nerfed, and the weaker models are slowly being brought up. There are bad matchups, but unless you know your opponents list before hand its hard to tech for it. Most WMH players design a 2 caster pair and decide what to drop into it, removing all need for any cooperative list building or discussion.
To be frank, 40k and fantasy are the only games I've ever needed to discuss anything in such detail, not including mordenheim or necromunda (where the plethora of house rules and lack of official support has caused the need for a discussion).
2) You and your opponent don't agree on power levels of armies or units.
There are many examples of this right here on the front page.
Let's say I'm eldar and you are CSM. My list contains Warpspiders, WK, and Hawks with a smattering of other things, all MSU.
Your list is mutilators, talons, and possessed.
What is the power difference in our units? I feel it's huge and require a list construction from both of us. You might think it's minor and we can play the game. Or you want a point handicap. Or I want to edit mutilators to have fleet or +1W. Or you want to remove flicker jump.
Or or or or the list goes on. This is why there are official rules after all.
3) You own a limited collection.
If all you own or brought with you is stationary tanks (say you are SM, Guard, or BA) and all I brought was 9 mutilators and oblits, we are not going to have a fun game. But I didn't bring my 10k points from 4 armies, and you didn't bring 5k points with you.
This isn't so bad if you play at home (personally, most of us keep our models at a friends house) but if you play at a club this can be a big deal.
4) You want to get 2 games in.
Co-op list design can take a long time if you have any issues. Getting 2-3 games of 40k in a full day is already hard. You had 2-3 hours of discussion into the mix, say with strangers, and you are probably getting 1-2 games in max. That's a big drop in gameplay.
I don't think it takes an hour to come up with a list. Additionally a lot of this can be mitigated by bringing three or four premade list that vary on power.
I agree that the book power disparity is an issue but one that is slowly being taken care off. All the 7.5 books play well against each other both competitively and casually for the most part. The problem is that half the books arn't there yet and many haven't aged well.
HoundsofDemos wrote: If that's the case that makes more sense. I usually find it helpful to have a few lists with you when your just looking for a game and ask your opponent ahead of time how competitive you want to be. It seems there is a lot of resistance to having a conversation based on what i've seen on this thread.
If 40k is the only game you ever play, this may seem fine and normal to you. The game already takes 3-4 hours at 2k points (assuming both players know the rules), what's another hour to hash out two lists that work?
The problems arise when the following occurs;
1) 40k is not the only game you play.
Other games, like WMH, don't require any discussion behind "Steam Roller?" and "50 points?". All of the really OP models/tiers (tiers are like formations in a way) are getting nerfed, and the weaker models are slowly being brought up. There are bad matchups, but unless you know your opponents list before hand its hard to tech for it. Most WMH players design a 2 caster pair and decide what to drop into it, removing all need for any cooperative list building or discussion.
To be frank, 40k and fantasy are the only games I've ever needed to discuss anything in such detail, not including mordenheim or necromunda (where the plethora of house rules and lack of official support has caused the need for a discussion).
2) You and your opponent don't agree on power levels of armies or units.
There are many examples of this right here on the front page.
Let's say I'm eldar and you are CSM. My list contains Warpspiders, WK, and Hawks with a smattering of other things, all MSU.
Your list is mutilators, talons, and possessed.
What is the power difference in our units? I feel it's huge and require a list construction from both of us. You might think it's minor and we can play the game. Or you want a point handicap. Or I want to edit mutilators to have fleet or +1W. Or you want to remove flicker jump.
Or or or or the list goes on. This is why there are official rules after all.
3) You own a limited collection.
If all you own or brought with you is stationary tanks (say you are SM, Guard, or BA) and all I brought was 9 mutilators and oblits, we are not going to have a fun game. But I didn't bring my 10k points from 4 armies, and you didn't bring 5k points with you.
This isn't so bad if you play at home (personally, most of us keep our models at a friends house) but if you play at a club this can be a big deal.
4) You want to get 2 games in.
Co-op list design can take a long time if you have any issues. Getting 2-3 games of 40k in a full day is already hard. You had 2-3 hours of discussion into the mix, say with strangers, and you are probably getting 1-2 games in max. That's a big drop in gameplay.
1) I play other games, but I don't mind putting a little extra time in for 40k.
2) It's okay not to play some one. An agreement is required to play the game, but no one is forcing you to play the game in the first place.
3) Is unfortunately true, though I have run into it and as the person with the larger collection it is my responsibility to compromise more because I can.
4) This is also true, though I admit I haven't had list designing take so long as your experience provides, I won't deny that it certainly could.
If any of these four things makes you feel like you don't want to go the extra mile, that's fine - no one is forcing you to play 40k, either.
1) I play other games, but I don't mind putting a little extra time in for 40k.
That's your decision, other people do mind having to put in extra time. Time that wasn't required in earlier editions.
I would hope you can understand why some people, like myself who work quite a bit, don't relish spending time not playing the game. I've given up playing against strangers at this point because of it, I only do WMH at my local club.
2) It's okay not to play some one. An agreement is required to play the game, but no one is forcing you to play the game in the first place.
While technically true, if you own $500 worth of models and bought $150 worth of dexes/rule books, you probably want to play the game. The big draw of 40k has always been that you can play anywhere with anyone (I used to bring a suitcase with my 40k models to science conventions knowing at least 5 people would do the same). This is not the case at all now.
A lower playing pool is bad, and disagreements are more common now than ever.
3) Is unfortunately true, though I have run into it and as the person with the larger collection it is my responsibility to compromise more because I can.
There is some truth to that, but that doesn't alleviate the fact that I may not have brought the models needed to play this new guy. We can't get a game in, start talking, and have a new member in our little group because of it.
This doesn't really happen in WMH unless someone just can't design a list at all.
4) This is also true, though I admit I haven't had list designing take so long as your experience provides, I won't deny that it certainly could.
I can't imagine cooperatively building a list quickly. Considering we have a thread on mutilators that is 15+ pages, I don't think it's crazy to think that it can take that long. Especially if collections are limited.
If any of these four things makes you feel like you don't want to go the extra mile, that's fine - no one is forcing you to play 40k, either.
As stated, I own a lot of 40k models and rulebooks. I love the fluff. This makes me want to play, but the game itself isn't fun to set up. Often it isn't fun to play without a lot of work, and it takes a long time to play.
Saying "well just don't play" isn't really much of an argument after I already own a ton of models.
You can never balance an all-Zerker army against an all Baneblade army for example. Even if the Zerker were 1 pt and the baneblade 3500 they still would never be able to stop it or even hurt it.
There is a distinct difference between poor balance and poor player decisions.
Part of the skill of list building in any game of this type is constructing a well rounded list which has an answer to most of the common threats it is likely to face.
One could allow the player to build a pure anti-infantry force, but that that list would have no answer to an armour heavy list is no fault of the game.
The balance in the context of Bezerkers isn't making them effective against all types of target, it's making them effective at their designated role, either through stats, USRs or options, and pricing them appropriately so that they're not hopelessly less efficient than other options in the codex for the same role, or when compared to other units fulfilling that role in other armies.
Absolutely true, additionally an army made up entirely of Baneblades needs to have enough downside as to make it impractical for the purpose of winning games reliably, because it might overwhelm balnced amounts of anti-tank weaponry. Part of the problem with 40k stems from the "tabling wins" idea, and lack of good scenario play.
Why should superheavy tank companies be deliberately nerfed? They exist in the lore, and in the lore are frightening and powerful opponents to face.
In the lore, a Space Marine Tactical Squad can take out wave upon wave of Ork Boyz, holding the line for far longer than the scope of a game of 40K encompasses.
Lore =\= good gameplay.
I'd much rather a game where a Superheavy Company canwin against a well rounded, less biased force, but neither side was a forgone conclusion, than an accurate replication of fluff that essentially devolved into an exercise in unpacking miniatures, rolling some dice then putting them all back in their case.
I like roleplaying games. Do you? Is it fair that the protagonists can mow down hordes of NPCs which the GM worked so tirelessly to create? Are RPGs bad gameplay?
That's a huge false equivalency you're trying to sneak in under your skirt there.
RPGs are a collaborative endeavour. Wargames are an oppositional one. I'm sure role playing a group of Marines mowing down rank upon rank of oncoming Xenos makes for a fun role playing scenario if you're the Marines. I'm not sure a wargamer fielding an army of those Xeonos and trying to win a game against the same sort of imbalance of power is going to have much fun.
We play with blind lists alot of the time, and several of us even like to play that your opponent doesn't know what's in a Dedicated Transport until the unit isnide disembarks.
But we're fluffy players for the most part who trust each other not to be DBs.
Unit1126PLL wrote: The way you can avoid my 6 Baneblades or whatever coming against your 6 Meltaguns is by talking about it beforehand.
I know it gets repeated in every 40k thread but seriously, I routinely play leviathan detachments in 30k and 40k games replete with superheavies, and no one in any of the three cities I've lived in for most of my like has batted an eyelash.
Because I mention it before the game, talk with them, learn their name, make friends, buy them a drink or whatever, and then roll some dice.
The idea of Take-All-Comers lists died with the idea of random Pick-Up-Games.
As others have said that works fine if and this is a big if, we both brought/own extra models. But say that list is all I own, do you really want to never play your ideal of 6 bane blades? IF so at that point how is it any different than if you were not allowed to. The only way it is different is not you are grumpy with me because I never let you use your toys. Talking about stuff ahead of time is all well and good, until I've sunk a bunch of money and time building an army no one wants to face. Now I need to shelve units I like, and/or buy new models just to play. Which is essentially why I have only played 2 twice in the last year and a half, I just don't enjoy the game as the mess it has become. Occasionally it can be fun, but I don't want to need to either throw down imbalanced lists/spend tons more money/take tons of time to set up a game on a regular basis when other games have proven more enjoyable on a regular basis. I still have my models and would love to use them if the game was better, but when I can expect to face multiple superheavies on a regular basis, or invis-stars, or Tons of ignores cover shooting etc, my pre-game discussion would be me asking too much from my opponents to be any fun. Plus it narrows the field of opponents (in an area with relatively few already) Most super casual people don't come out to open gaming, so I never see them. Those that do at least half are somewhat competitive and as such want to tourney practice a good amount of time, so pre game conference ammounts to not playing, or playing against top level stuff. So that leaves me with mostly newer players, who often already have games set up....
The idea of Take-All-Comers lists died with the idea of random Pick-Up-Games.
Bolt Action A take all comers list can be made and it will do just fine in a PUG.
I was talking about 40k. And no, I actually asked if it was possible to get a PUG with Bolt Action using the new all-tank supplement and got told to play someone else who brought the same supplement.
You can never balance an all-Zerker army against an all Baneblade army for example. Even if the Zerker were 1 pt and the baneblade 3500 they still would never be able to stop it or even hurt it.
There is a distinct difference between poor balance and poor player decisions.
Part of the skill of list building in any game of this type is constructing a well rounded list which has an answer to most of the common threats it is likely to face.
One could allow the player to build a pure anti-infantry force, but that that list would have no answer to an armour heavy list is no fault of the game.
The balance in the context of Bezerkers isn't making them effective against all types of target, it's making them effective at their designated role, either through stats, USRs or options, and pricing them appropriately so that they're not hopelessly less efficient than other options in the codex for the same role, or when compared to other units fulfilling that role in other armies.
Absolutely true, additionally an army made up entirely of Baneblades needs to have enough downside as to make it impractical for the purpose of winning games reliably, because it might overwhelm balnced amounts of anti-tank weaponry. Part of the problem with 40k stems from the "tabling wins" idea, and lack of good scenario play.
Why should superheavy tank companies be deliberately nerfed? They exist in the lore, and in the lore are frightening and powerful opponents to face.
In the lore, a Space Marine Tactical Squad can take out wave upon wave of Ork Boyz, holding the line for far longer than the scope of a game of 40K encompasses.
Lore =\= good gameplay.
I'd much rather a game where a Superheavy Company canwin against a well rounded, less biased force, but neither side was a forgone conclusion, than an accurate replication of fluff that essentially devolved into an exercise in unpacking miniatures, rolling some dice then putting them all back in their case.
I like roleplaying games. Do you? Is it fair that the protagonists can mow down hordes of NPCs which the GM worked so tirelessly to create? Are RPGs bad gameplay?
That's a huge false equivalency you're trying to sneak in under your skirt there.
RPGs are a collaborative endeavour. Wargames are an oppositional one. I'm sure role playing a group of Marines mowing down rank upon rank of oncoming Xenos makes for a fun role playing scenario if you're the Marines. I'm not sure a wargamer fielding an army of those Xeonos and trying to win a game against the same sort of imbalance of power is going to have much fun.
You fell into my trap! While most wargames are oppositional, 40k is collaborative. It's why I keep saying you have to collaborate before the game, to determine how balanced you want the game to be, or not be, if that's the case. Sometimes, my friend wants to play my Baneblade company with his thundercav spam and I get to be the mowed down goons. Other times he brings footguard to see how long they can endure the onslaught of the tanks! WOO! Collaboration!
1) I play other games, but I don't mind putting a little extra time in for 40k.
That's your decision, other people do mind having to put in extra time. Time that wasn't required in earlier editions. I would hope you can understand why some people, like myself who work quite a bit, don't relish spending time not playing the game. I've given up playing against strangers at this point because of it, I only do WMH at my local club.
2) It's okay not to play some one. An agreement is required to play the game, but no one is forcing you to play the game in the first place.
While technically true, if you own $500 worth of models and bought $150 worth of dexes/rule books, you probably want to play the game. The big draw of 40k has always been that you can play anywhere with anyone (I used to bring a suitcase with my 40k models to science conventions knowing at least 5 people would do the same). This is not the case at all now. A lower playing pool is bad, and disagreements are more common now than ever.
3) Is unfortunately true, though I have run into it and as the person with the larger collection it is my responsibility to compromise more because I can.
There is some truth to that, but that doesn't alleviate the fact that I may not have brought the models needed to play this new guy. We can't get a game in, start talking, and have a new member in our little group because of it. This doesn't really happen in WMH unless someone just can't design a list at all.
4) This is also true, though I admit I haven't had list designing take so long as your experience provides, I won't deny that it certainly could.
I can't imagine cooperatively building a list quickly. Considering we have a thread on mutilators that is 15+ pages, I don't think it's crazy to think that it can take that long. Especially if collections are limited.
If any of these four things makes you feel like you don't want to go the extra mile, that's fine - no one is forcing you to play 40k, either.
As stated, I own a lot of 40k models and rulebooks. I love the fluff. This makes me want to play, but the game itself isn't fun to set up. Often it isn't fun to play without a lot of work, and it takes a long time to play. Saying "well just don't play" isn't really much of an argument after I already own a ton of models.
i can understand your frustration, but you're suffering from 'sunk cost' fallacy, which is "I already spent so much money I'd better keep going." There's a reason the sunk cost fallacy is a fallacy - it's wrong. If you don't enjoy an activity, just stop.
Cieged wrote: I'm always blown away by certain posters and what they choose to say in regards to 40k. Here we are on a miniatures forum, explicitly in the 40k subdirectory, explicitly in a 40k post. Yet, somehow, some who claim to have "burnt all bridges" or "quit years ago" or "eBayed their beloved Kharn conversion for the god-send of Infinity whilst burning the Games Workshop emblem" are apparently still on the active 40k forums and - more importantly - feel the need to post.
Why do you do this? Are you so angry that you lurk in the digital shadows waiting to inform others of how crappy the game you *used* to play is? Or ... are you lying, because you do still play the game but your point is better made if you claim to have done more aggressive quitting strategies to properly demonstrate your hatred?
Playing the game or building the hobby is about fun. Somewhere between the story, the sculpts, the rules, the dice, or the players you find something fun and apparently wish to share in that discussion or fun with others online. You should pursue this dream of entertainment, spend your money and time on what you believe is worth doing. something that makes you happy.
If you're posting only to convince strangers on the internet, you should let it go. One, because it most certainly can't be fun. Unless it is and you should have that professionally addressed. Two, because of the game is as bad as you claim it is, it'll die a natural death without your 'end is neigh!' billboard. Meaning it's a waste of time, if you're right your voice won't be needed, if you're wrong your voice definitely isn't needed and could prevent others from having the fun they're pursuing.
This makes a simple and plain sense to me, which makes me wonder if those criticizing here are being fictitious.
Or, just maybe, you're looking for someone to convince you that you're wrong about 40k and it actually is a fun and interesting game. Hm. A thought.
Most of us still like the models and background but can't stand the game anymore.
I will readily admit I still paint and occasionally buy GW models, usually used, but their game is an atrocious mess.
It'd be like fans of a band complaining that their new album and direction is terrible, yet still listen to their old music. Or fans of a writer who say "wow, this new stuff is terrible" but still like his old stuff.
You have no idea how badly I wish 40k was a good game, but its not. I would love to play it again without all the BS that's crept into it.
You fell into my trap! While most wargames are oppositional, 40k is collaborative.
No, 40k is oppositional. Collaborative games don't have things like winners and losers, or victory conditions that are defined. You'll notice these things are missing from games like Exalted, DnD, Deathwatch, but are present in oppositional games like WMH, Bolt action. The DM/GM/ST doesn't win or lose no matter what the players decide in those games.
Just because 40k requires collaboration before the game starts does not make it a collaborative game.
It's why I keep saying you have to collaborate before the game, to determine how balanced you want the game to be, not, if that's the case. Sometimes, my friend wants to play my Baneblade company with his thundercav spam and I get to be the mowed down goons. Other times he brings footguard to see how long they can endure the onslaught of the tanks! WOO! Collaboration!
In both of those instances, you are clearly opposed to each other and a victor and loser were clearly laid out.
If you enjoy spending 3-4 hours automatically losing before the game begins, more power to you. I don't think that represents the vast majority of players who are interested in a oppositional game, and GW certainly does not make that clear. There is no "Winner" stamp on the eldar dex and "Loser" stamp on the IG dex.
1) I play other games, but I don't mind putting a little extra time in for 40k.
That's your decision, other people do mind having to put in extra time. Time that wasn't required in earlier editions.
I would hope you can understand why some people, like myself who work quite a bit, don't relish spending time not playing the game. I've given up playing against strangers at this point because of it, I only do WMH at my local club.
2) It's okay not to play some one. An agreement is required to play the game, but no one is forcing you to play the game in the first place.
While technically true, if you own $500 worth of models and bought $150 worth of dexes/rule books, you probably want to play the game. The big draw of 40k has always been that you can play anywhere with anyone (I used to bring a suitcase with my 40k models to science conventions knowing at least 5 people would do the same). This is not the case at all now.
A lower playing pool is bad, and disagreements are more common now than ever.
3) Is unfortunately true, though I have run into it and as the person with the larger collection it is my responsibility to compromise more because I can.
There is some truth to that, but that doesn't alleviate the fact that I may not have brought the models needed to play this new guy. We can't get a game in, start talking, and have a new member in our little group because of it.
This doesn't really happen in WMH unless someone just can't design a list at all.
4) This is also true, though I admit I haven't had list designing take so long as your experience provides, I won't deny that it certainly could.
I can't imagine cooperatively building a list quickly. Considering we have a thread on mutilators that is 15+ pages, I don't think it's crazy to think that it can take that long. Especially if collections are limited.
If any of these four things makes you feel like you don't want to go the extra mile, that's fine - no one is forcing you to play 40k, either.
As stated, I own a lot of 40k models and rulebooks. I love the fluff. This makes me want to play, but the game itself isn't fun to set up. Often it isn't fun to play without a lot of work, and it takes a long time to play.
Saying "well just don't play" isn't really much of an argument after I already own a ton of models.
i can understand your frustration, but you're suffering from 'sunk cost' fallacy, which is "I already spent so much money I'd better keep going." There's a reason the sunk cost fallacy is a fallacy - it's wrong. If you don't enjoy an activity, just stop.
Not really, I've already trimmed my 40k games from 3/week to 1-2/month. I've already gone from playing at a few clubs in the area to my friends house with 5 people. You are not correctly applying the fallacy.
I've adjusted my playtime in regards to 40k to reflect my enjoyment I get from the game. My WMH playtime is now massive instead.
Also the sunk cost idea does not mean that one cannot be frustrated with the game as it stands due to that sunk cost.
Your argument would be similar to saying.
Well I bought this new car and paid into it for 5 years, then it broke down so I should obviously just buy a new car, and not be upset that the old one broke.
I can have cut back on my playing and still lament my enjoyment of the game, and wish it were in a vastly better place, largely due to that sunk cost. If I had only invested say $50 and 2 months before realizing the game was no good, it would be very different from multiple years and several thousand dollars, then having things change (IMO) for the worse.
Essentially there is a difference between "keep going because money spent" and pissed off that I don't want to because money spent.
You fell into my trap! While most wargames are oppositional, 40k is collaborative.
No, 40k is oppositional. Collaborative games don't have things like winners and losers, or victory conditions that are defined. You'll notice these things are missing from games like Exalted, DnD, Deathwatch, but are present in oppositional games like WMH, Bolt action. The DM/GM/ST doesn't win or lose no matter what the players decide in those games.
Just because 40k requires collaboration before the game starts does not make it a collaborative game.
It's why I keep saying you have to collaborate before the game, to determine how balanced you want the game to be, not, if that's the case. Sometimes, my friend wants to play my Baneblade company with his thundercav spam and I get to be the mowed down goons. Other times he brings footguard to see how long they can endure the onslaught of the tanks! WOO! Collaboration!
In both of those instances, you are clearly opposed to each other and a victor and loser were clearly laid out. If you enjoy spending 3-4 hours automatically losing before the game begins, more power to you. I don't think that represents the vast majority of players who are interested in a oppositional game, and GW certainly does not make that clear. There is no "Winner" stamp on the eldar dex and "Loser" stamp on the IG dex.
1) I play other games, but I don't mind putting a little extra time in for 40k.
That's your decision, other people do mind having to put in extra time. Time that wasn't required in earlier editions. I would hope you can understand why some people, like myself who work quite a bit, don't relish spending time not playing the game. I've given up playing against strangers at this point because of it, I only do WMH at my local club.
2) It's okay not to play some one. An agreement is required to play the game, but no one is forcing you to play the game in the first place.
While technically true, if you own $500 worth of models and bought $150 worth of dexes/rule books, you probably want to play the game. The big draw of 40k has always been that you can play anywhere with anyone (I used to bring a suitcase with my 40k models to science conventions knowing at least 5 people would do the same). This is not the case at all now. A lower playing pool is bad, and disagreements are more common now than ever.
3) Is unfortunately true, though I have run into it and as the person with the larger collection it is my responsibility to compromise more because I can.
There is some truth to that, but that doesn't alleviate the fact that I may not have brought the models needed to play this new guy. We can't get a game in, start talking, and have a new member in our little group because of it. This doesn't really happen in WMH unless someone just can't design a list at all.
4) This is also true, though I admit I haven't had list designing take so long as your experience provides, I won't deny that it certainly could.
I can't imagine cooperatively building a list quickly. Considering we have a thread on mutilators that is 15+ pages, I don't think it's crazy to think that it can take that long. Especially if collections are limited.
If any of these four things makes you feel like you don't want to go the extra mile, that's fine - no one is forcing you to play 40k, either.
As stated, I own a lot of 40k models and rulebooks. I love the fluff. This makes me want to play, but the game itself isn't fun to set up. Often it isn't fun to play without a lot of work, and it takes a long time to play. Saying "well just don't play" isn't really much of an argument after I already own a ton of models.
i can understand your frustration, but you're suffering from 'sunk cost' fallacy, which is "I already spent so much money I'd better keep going." There's a reason the sunk cost fallacy is a fallacy - it's wrong. If you don't enjoy an activity, just stop.
Not really, I've already trimmed my 40k games from 3/week to 1-2/month. I've already gone from playing at a few clubs in the area to my friends house with 5 people. You are not correctly applying the fallacy. I've adjusted my playtime in regards to 40k to reflect my enjoyment I get from the game. My WMH playtime is now massive instead.
Then what's the problem? Sounds like you're having fun with 40k on your own time when you feel like you want to. I don't see an issue.
Spoiler:
Azreal13 wrote:If you determine a winner at the end of your games, it's oppositional.
Everything else is just Koolaid and bull gak.
Perhaps you shouldn't declare a winner then! Just call the game at the end of Turn 5, 6, or 7, don't tally points, shake hands, have a beer! It's not like it really matters who won the game, aside from perhaps some people's ego.
Spoiler:
Breng77 wrote:Also the sunk cost idea does not mean that one cannot be frustrated with the game as it stands due to that sunk cost.
Your argument would be similar to saying.
Well I bought this new car and paid into it for 5 years, then it broke down so I should obviously just buy a new car, and not be upset that the old one broke.
I can have cut back on my playing and still lament my enjoyment of the game, and wish it were in a vastly better place, largely due to that sunk cost. If I had only invested say $50 and 2 months before realizing the game was no good, it would be very different from multiple years and several thousand dollars, then having things change (IMO) for the worse.
Essentially there is a difference between "keep going because money spent" and pissed off that I don't want to because money spent.
Yes, you can be mad. But trying to play 40k after it is no longer fun is like sitting in your broken down car and shouting "WHY WON'T IT GO!" It's broken. Be mad, go to the dealer and whallop his face, do whatever, but it isn't going to start working because you shouted at it.
Which for me is all this amounts to, being mad, playing rarely, and enjoying other games. I just wish (as with the broken car) that my purchase still worked as originally advertised.
I think most people who are beginning to despise this game continue to try because of the community and social aspect of it. Trust me, if I could have pulled everyone from 40k and fantasy into playing blood bowl or infinity I would. Bit I have friends who play 40k, so I play it too. I buy my daemons from eBay, by codexes 2nd hand from people quitting the game, and just enjoy the game for the broken garbage it is. But when GW innevitably one ups its awful history I will point it out, and innevitably apologists will come out and say its all perfect. It's a cycle until cynicism leaves the fanbase as nothing more then model collectors with no upper limit in budget
Breng77 wrote: Well I bought this new car and paid into it for 5 years, then it broke down so I should obviously just buy a new car, and not be upset that the old one broke.
I can have cut back on my playing and still lament my enjoyment of the game, and wish it were in a vastly better place, largely due to that sunk cost. If I had only invested say $50 and 2 months before realizing the game was no good, it would be very different from multiple years and several thousand dollars, then having things change (IMO) for the worse.
Essentially there is a difference between "keep going because money spent" and pissed off that I don't want to because money spent.
It depends on your perspective on life and on how you look at the original investment.
If you invested in 40k and expected to play a thousand dollars of models for 20 years but only got 5, that would suck. On the other hand, if you just bought models, played games, and enjoyed it along the way, then you spent $200 a year, which seems like not a lot of money for doing something you enjoyed.
Likewise, you can look back fondly at something that used to be fun, but isn't anymore, and say, "Well, I had a good time with it. Fun while it lasted!" Or, you can scream at how terrible the game has become. I guess, you could have not had fun for any of those years, too, but then that would be kind of crazy that you kept going on with it all.
When I look back at the thousands of hours I spent on Diablo 2 and 3 which have resulted in nothing useful for me today, I don't think, "Gee, I wasted my life. Lord, Diablo 3 sucks now." I think, "That was really fun -- I had a great time with it! When is Diablo 4 coming out?"
Or you could be like "God diablo 3 is such trash, blizzard gouged me money for this garbage? I'm going back to 2" ...yknow like people are doing when they start exclusively playing 3e 5e etc instead of the latest edition
I can see that to a point (though video games is a bad analogy at their price point) I don't regret my investment, I only wish it was more transferable going forward. Especially because of the community aspect of it. I would love to enjoy playing 40k with all the friends I made doing it, but many have left the game/hobby as have I to some extent.
You fell into my trap! While most wargames are oppositional, 40k is collaborative.
No, 40k is oppositional. Collaborative games don't have things like winners and losers, or victory conditions that are defined. You'll notice these things are missing from games like Exalted, DnD, Deathwatch, but are present in oppositional games like WMH, Bolt action. The DM/GM/ST doesn't win or lose no matter what the players decide in those games.
Just because 40k requires collaboration before the game starts does not make it a collaborative game.
It's why I keep saying you have to collaborate before the game, to determine how balanced you want the game to be, not, if that's the case. Sometimes, my friend wants to play my Baneblade company with his thundercav spam and I get to be the mowed down goons. Other times he brings footguard to see how long they can endure the onslaught of the tanks! WOO! Collaboration!
In both of those instances, you are clearly opposed to each other and a victor and loser were clearly laid out.
If you enjoy spending 3-4 hours automatically losing before the game begins, more power to you. I don't think that represents the vast majority of players who are interested in a oppositional game, and GW certainly does not make that clear. There is no "Winner" stamp on the eldar dex and "Loser" stamp on the IG dex.
1) I play other games, but I don't mind putting a little extra time in for 40k.
That's your decision, other people do mind having to put in extra time. Time that wasn't required in earlier editions.
I would hope you can understand why some people, like myself who work quite a bit, don't relish spending time not playing the game. I've given up playing against strangers at this point because of it, I only do WMH at my local club.
2) It's okay not to play some one. An agreement is required to play the game, but no one is forcing you to play the game in the first place.
While technically true, if you own $500 worth of models and bought $150 worth of dexes/rule books, you probably want to play the game. The big draw of 40k has always been that you can play anywhere with anyone (I used to bring a suitcase with my 40k models to science conventions knowing at least 5 people would do the same). This is not the case at all now.
A lower playing pool is bad, and disagreements are more common now than ever.
3) Is unfortunately true, though I have run into it and as the person with the larger collection it is my responsibility to compromise more because I can.
There is some truth to that, but that doesn't alleviate the fact that I may not have brought the models needed to play this new guy. We can't get a game in, start talking, and have a new member in our little group because of it.
This doesn't really happen in WMH unless someone just can't design a list at all.
4) This is also true, though I admit I haven't had list designing take so long as your experience provides, I won't deny that it certainly could.
I can't imagine cooperatively building a list quickly. Considering we have a thread on mutilators that is 15+ pages, I don't think it's crazy to think that it can take that long. Especially if collections are limited.
If any of these four things makes you feel like you don't want to go the extra mile, that's fine - no one is forcing you to play 40k, either.
As stated, I own a lot of 40k models and rulebooks. I love the fluff. This makes me want to play, but the game itself isn't fun to set up. Often it isn't fun to play without a lot of work, and it takes a long time to play.
Saying "well just don't play" isn't really much of an argument after I already own a ton of models.
i can understand your frustration, but you're suffering from 'sunk cost' fallacy, which is "I already spent so much money I'd better keep going." There's a reason the sunk cost fallacy is a fallacy - it's wrong. If you don't enjoy an activity, just stop.
Not really, I've already trimmed my 40k games from 3/week to 1-2/month. I've already gone from playing at a few clubs in the area to my friends house with 5 people. You are not correctly applying the fallacy.
I've adjusted my playtime in regards to 40k to reflect my enjoyment I get from the game. My WMH playtime is now massive instead.
Then what's the problem? Sounds like you're having fun with 40k on your own time when you feel like you want to. I don't see an issue.
The issue is that if 40k was a better game I could play more? Pretty sure that is what everyone is complaining about if they are upset. I doubt someone who has never played, doesn't own any models, and never intends to is here complaining.
I'm not really sure how you are not seeing the issue. I've gone from 12+ games a month to 1-2 games a month. I've gone from dropping several thousand a year into models to not buying anything in nearly 3 years outside of the main rule book. Not only is this an issue for me, as older editions of 40k were pretty good and I derived a lot of enjoyment out of that and made new friends, but GW is now losing money and my ability to bring in new players.
Judging by their falling revenue for a while now, this is an issue. Both for me and t he company.
Unless your point is that no one should complain about anything ever, I'm not really sure I understand what you are saying beyond trying to make it seem (and imo, failing) that 40k is not an oppositional game despite it clearly been marketed and working like one. It just doesn't work well, but it's clearly intended to be an oppositional game. You have to houserule (by your own statement) a lot of the rulebook out to make it work as such.
To me that is no different when people used to claim that the 40k rules allowed for narrative games, despite there being zero support for narrative games in the rules and several mechanics that don't contribute (really, hurt) narrative play.
Edit,
Talys, your analogy with the Diablos doesn't really work though.
It is extremely rare in video games for a sequel to allow you to import anything at all. Occasionally you'll get some minor bonuses like the Mass effect or Dragon age series does, but for the most part the Tales games, Final Fantasy, or Diablo 1, 2, and 3 don't allow you to move anything forward.
When you bought Diablo 2, you knew you were getting Diablo 2. If you bought Diablo 2 thinking it would somehow import over to 3, then you made a poor decision. Games generally don't work that way (unless it's an expansion) and Blizzard never mentioned it would continue to do so.
Minis games, however, do not work that way. Minis are good for as long as the game is being played. My space marines I bought in 3rd still are viable in 7th (and there is no game that comes to mind that has that kind of longevitiy for use, including WoW). I might have to buy a new rulebook and codex, but I should not have to buy minis unless I want those new minis. When I bought into the game, that was a selling point for me. I could play this game with my kids if I kept all my models for decades, and use all my minis. It's one reason I was okay with the price of entry being so high...as you provided, over the years it works out to not be a horrible number. Diablo 2 isn't nearly expensive enough for me to think "Okay, I better get 5 years out of this game or I got screwed" like it is with Mini games.
For the most part that has held true. Recently it is starting to fray quite badly, but it's really not comparable to video games in that regard.
Breng77 wrote: Well I bought this new car and paid into it for 5 years, then it broke down so I should obviously just buy a new car, and not be upset that the old one broke.
I can have cut back on my playing and still lament my enjoyment of the game, and wish it were in a vastly better place, largely due to that sunk cost. If I had only invested say $50 and 2 months before realizing the game was no good, it would be very different from multiple years and several thousand dollars, then having things change (IMO) for the worse.
Essentially there is a difference between "keep going because money spent" and pissed off that I don't want to because money spent.
It depends on your perspective on life and on how you look at the original investment.
If you invested in 40k and expected to play a thousand dollars of models for 20 years but only got 5, that would suck. On the other hand, if you just bought models, played games, and enjoyed it along the way, then you spent $200 a year, which seems like not a lot of money for doing something you enjoyed.
Likewise, you can look back fondly at something that used to be fun, but isn't anymore, and say, "Well, I had a good time with it. Fun while it lasted!" Or, you can scream at how terrible the game has become. I guess, you could have not had fun for any of those years, too, but then that would be kind of crazy that you kept going on with it all.
When I look back at the thousands of hours I spent on Diablo 2 and 3 which have resulted in nothing useful for me today, I don't think, "Gee, I wasted my life. Lord, Diablo 3 sucks now." I think, "That was really fun -- I had a great time with it! When is Diablo 4 coming out?"
So you literally do not care that the game was screwed up, then expect that by not complaining or posting criticism in any way, the game will get better on its own?
This is like US citizens complaining that the government sucks, then not voting.
That's not being mature, that's just ignoring the problem and thinking that the company will read your mind and change it.
If Diablo 3 sucks for example, and then people buy it anyways and don't voice complaints, Blizzard would naturally think "ok, so they like this now, we'll keep going with that." Not "huh, maybe we should do it different for Diablo 4"
I don't get how on earth anyone who can say this
"Likewise, you can look back fondly at something that used to be fun, but isn't anymore, and say, "Well, I had a good time with it. Fun while it lasted!"
Wouldn't be angry that what they used to enjoy was screwed up. Just because you enjoyed something back then doesn't give the company free reign to screw something up now.
It's worth noting that I'm, at least, fine with the current state of the game. I've been playing 30k and loving it, and my SOB in 40k remain bizarrely competitive at times.
Unit1126PLL wrote: It's worth noting that I'm, at least, fine with the current state of the game. I've been playing 30k and loving it, and my SOB in 40k remain bizarrely competitive at times.
So I don't think it needs to be 'fixed'.
That is, IMO, a very selfish view but you are entitled to it I suppose.
I currently play Eldar but I still see the game as incredibly flawed.
Unit1126PLL wrote: It's worth noting that I'm, at least, fine with the current state of the game. I've been playing 30k and loving it, and my SOB in 40k remain bizarrely competitive at times.
So I don't think it needs to be 'fixed'.
That is, IMO, a very selfish view but you are entitled to it I suppose.
I currently play Eldar but I still see the game as incredibly flawed.
Enjoying things as they are is selfish? I would expect that constantly trying to adjust an okay system is more selfish.
Saying that people should just accept their armies as is because you personally are okay with yours is a bit selfish when looked at from the outside. It's like saying everyone's issues are worth less then your own opinion
Unit1126PLL wrote: It's worth noting that I'm, at least, fine with the current state of the game. I've been playing 30k and loving it, and my SOB in 40k remain bizarrely competitive at times.
So I don't think it needs to be 'fixed'.
That is, IMO, a very selfish view but you are entitled to it I suppose.
I currently play Eldar but I still see the game as incredibly flawed.
Enjoying things as they are is selfish? I would expect that constantly trying to adjust an okay system is more selfish.
You said "Well I play 30k and SoB aren't in a bad spot, so I'm fine with it".
Basically, you don't care about people that play CSM, IG, BA, DE, or any of the other weaker codexes. Or anyone who has issues, valid or no, because your portion of the game is working as intended (even though half of that isn't even 40k).
That seems incredibly selfish.
I don't see how you can paint trying to fix a system that is broken for many dexes, when someone plays armies that are excelling right now, as selfish. You'll have to walk me through that one.
Breng77 wrote: Well I bought this new car and paid into it for 5 years, then it broke down so I should obviously just buy a new car, and not be upset that the old one broke.
I can have cut back on my playing and still lament my enjoyment of the game, and wish it were in a vastly better place, largely due to that sunk cost. If I had only invested say $50 and 2 months before realizing the game was no good, it would be very different from multiple years and several thousand dollars, then having things change (IMO) for the worse.
Essentially there is a difference between "keep going because money spent" and pissed off that I don't want to because money spent.
It depends on your perspective on life and on how you look at the original investment.
If you invested in 40k and expected to play a thousand dollars of models for 20 years but only got 5, that would suck. On the other hand, if you just bought models, played games, and enjoyed it along the way, then you spent $200 a year, which seems like not a lot of money for doing something you enjoyed.
Likewise, you can look back fondly at something that used to be fun, but isn't anymore, and say, "Well, I had a good time with it. Fun while it lasted!" Or, you can scream at how terrible the game has become. I guess, you could have not had fun for any of those years, too, but then that would be kind of crazy that you kept going on with it all.
When I look back at the thousands of hours I spent on Diablo 2 and 3 which have resulted in nothing useful for me today, I don't think, "Gee, I wasted my life. Lord, Diablo 3 sucks now." I think, "That was really fun -- I had a great time with it! When is Diablo 4 coming out?"
So you literally do not care that the game was screwed up, then expect that by not complaining or posting criticism in any way, the game will get better on its own?
This is like US citizens complaining that the government sucks, then not voting.
That's not being mature, that's just ignoring the problem and thinking that the company will read your mind and change it.
If Diablo 3 sucks for example, and then people buy it anyways and don't voice complaints, Blizzard would naturally think "ok, so they like this now, we'll keep going with that." Not "huh, maybe we should do it different for Diablo 4"
I don't get how on earth anyone who can say this
"Likewise, you can look back fondly at something that used to be fun, but isn't anymore, and say, "Well, I had a good time with it. Fun while it lasted!"
Wouldn't be angry that what they used to enjoy was screwed up. Just because you enjoyed something back then doesn't give the company free reign to screw something up now.
Except, that is in no way how it works. GW does not monitor Dakka Dakka or any other forums. Also, it does seem that there is a major division in how people view the game, their time spent playing it, and the money spent on it that just cannot be resolved. One group views it as a limited window hobby (like the vast majority of hobbies) and is OK provided that they had fun while they were still actively involved in purchasing the models, etc. The other group wants GW to respond to their displeasure and "fix" the game (I put in quotations because it is a relative concept) in order to make it more popular in their area.
But, to the OP's initial question, it just depends on your gaming group and the people you associate with (as it usually does in almost all circumstances). Many people play older versions of the game, others agree to restrictions or have gentlemen agreements on what is OK and what isn't for general game play. Being angry over being forced to keep up with the evolution in the game, as so many people who have posted on here seem to be, is misdirected anger. GW has no power to enforce how you play the game, what version of the rules to use, etc. It is your local gaming group and gaming culture that is ultimately responsible. GW makes a product and attempts to sell it based on their own sales model. Exactly how much of their product (i.e., the rulebooks, codices, expansions) each individual decides to support is entirely on them. I will say it seems inexplicably odd that there appears to be a fairly large number of people who think it would be economically viable for a company that makes and sells miniatures in an absolutely tiny niche market to remain stagnant.
Unit1126PLL wrote: It's worth noting that I'm, at least, fine with the current state of the game. I've been playing 30k and loving it, and my SOB in 40k remain bizarrely competitive at times.
So I don't think it needs to be 'fixed'.
That is, IMO, a very selfish view but you are entitled to it I suppose.
I currently play Eldar but I still see the game as incredibly flawed.
Enjoying things as they are is selfish? I would expect that constantly trying to adjust an okay system is more selfish.
You said "Well I play 30k and SoB aren't in a bad spot, so I'm fine with it".
Basically, you don't care about people that play CSM, IG, BA, DE, or any of the other weaker codexes. Or anyone who has issues, valid or no, because your portion of the game is working as intended (even though half of that isn't even 40k).
That seems incredibly selfish.
I don't see how you can paint trying to fix a system that is broken for many dexes, when someone plays armies that are excelling right now, as selfish. You'll have to walk me through that one.
I do care about those people! It's why I advocate talking to your opponent - because rather than shedding my tears and martyring my own fun by not buying anything, I'll offer constructive aid instead.
Those armies have not been squatted, those armies have not stopped production - all they require is for you and your opponent to be human beings and have a conversation, cooperate to have fun.
Breng77 wrote: Well I bought this new car and paid into it for 5 years, then it broke down so I should obviously just buy a new car, and not be upset that the old one broke.
I can have cut back on my playing and still lament my enjoyment of the game, and wish it were in a vastly better place, largely due to that sunk cost. If I had only invested say $50 and 2 months before realizing the game was no good, it would be very different from multiple years and several thousand dollars, then having things change (IMO) for the worse.
Essentially there is a difference between "keep going because money spent" and pissed off that I don't want to because money spent.
It depends on your perspective on life and on how you look at the original investment.
If you invested in 40k and expected to play a thousand dollars of models for 20 years but only got 5, that would suck. On the other hand, if you just bought models, played games, and enjoyed it along the way, then you spent $200 a year, which seems like not a lot of money for doing something you enjoyed.
Likewise, you can look back fondly at something that used to be fun, but isn't anymore, and say, "Well, I had a good time with it. Fun while it lasted!" Or, you can scream at how terrible the game has become. I guess, you could have not had fun for any of those years, too, but then that would be kind of crazy that you kept going on with it all.
When I look back at the thousands of hours I spent on Diablo 2 and 3 which have resulted in nothing useful for me today, I don't think, "Gee, I wasted my life. Lord, Diablo 3 sucks now." I think, "That was really fun -- I had a great time with it! When is Diablo 4 coming out?"
So you literally do not care that the game was screwed up, then expect that by not complaining or posting criticism in any way, the game will get better on its own?
This is like US citizens complaining that the government sucks, then not voting.
That's not being mature, that's just ignoring the problem and thinking that the company will read your mind and change it.
If Diablo 3 sucks for example, and then people buy it anyways and don't voice complaints, Blizzard would naturally think "ok, so they like this now, we'll keep going with that." Not "huh, maybe we should do it different for Diablo 4"
I don't get how on earth anyone who can say this
"Likewise, you can look back fondly at something that used to be fun, but isn't anymore, and say, "Well, I had a good time with it. Fun while it lasted!"
Wouldn't be angry that what they used to enjoy was screwed up. Just because you enjoyed something back then doesn't give the company free reign to screw something up now.
Except, that is in no way how it works. GW does not monitor Dakka Dakka or any other forums. Also, it does seem that there is a major division in how people view the game, their time spent playing it, and the money spent on it that just cannot be resolved. One group views it as a limited window hobby (like the vast majority of hobbies) and is OK provided that they had fun while they were still actively involved in purchasing the models, etc. The other group wants GW to respond to their displeasure and "fix" the game (I put in quotations because it is a relative concept) in order to make it more popular in their area.
But, to the OP's initial question, it just depends on your gaming group and the people you associate with (as it usually does in almost all circumstances). Many people play older versions of the game, others agree to restrictions or have gentlemen agreements on what is OK and what isn't for general game play. Being angry over being forced to keep up with the evolution in the game, as so many people who have posted on here seem to be, is misdirected anger. GW has no power to enforce how you play the game, what version of the rules to use, etc. It is your local gaming group and gaming culture that is ultimately responsible. GW makes a product and attempts to sell it based on their own sales model. Exactly how much of their product (i.e., the rulebooks, codices, expansions) each individual decides to support is entirely on them. I will say it seems inexplicably odd that there appears to be a fairly large number of people who think it would be economically viable for a company that makes and sells miniatures in an absolutely tiny niche market to remain stagnant.
This, basically, at least the part about being gentlemen and local metas. You can work it out people! The world has not ended because your codex is pre-7.5.
There's only so much you can do for, say, a fight between chaos marines and tau. How many helldrakes would I need to buy to be competitive, knowing that I despise the model? Even if the tau takes nothing but fire warriors and pathfinders they are still likely to win given their army abilities. Should the tau player ignore those rules? Should I get a point handicap? What level of finagling does this setup have to do before its obvious that the game should already have this balanced? I'm honestly curious, because most of my opponents are high tier and they feel guilty when they mop the floor with my marines
Unit1126PLL wrote: You fell into my trap! While most wargames are oppositional, 40k is collaborative. It's why I keep saying you have to collaborate before the game, to determine how balanced you want the game to be, or not be, if that's the case. Sometimes, my friend wants to play my Baneblade company with his thundercav spam and I get to be the mowed down goons. Other times he brings footguard to see how long they can endure the onslaught of the tanks! WOO! Collaboration!
Sorry, but this is just laughably wrong. 40k isn't "collaborative" because it's some ideal paragon of two players working together to build a story, it requires this "collaboration" because the rules are garbage and it's way too easy for one or both players to have very little fun if you don't carefully negotiate everything up front and work together to fix GW's mistakes. A better game would not have this problem, you could simply play your Baneblade company against any reasonably well designed opposing list and both players would enjoy the game.
I do care about those people! It's why I advocate talking to your opponent - because rather than shedding my tears and martyring my own fun by not buying anything, I'll offer constructive aid instead.
So far I haven't seen any constructive aid.
Just comments like the above, a really terrible attempt to trap someone, and a comment suggesting that because the game works fine for you personally it's okay and everyone shouldn't shed tears and martyr their own fun.
Those armies have not been squatted, those armies have not stopped production - all they require is for you and your opponent to be human beings and have a conversation, cooperate to have fun.
As has been pointed out, those discussions can be incredibly difficult and complicated to manage if the disparity in power is great. Given infinite models, money, and time, sure, you can come to an agreement, but that isn't often the reality of the situation for most people.
I haven't seen any tips on how to balance the game between two codexes that have a great disparity, merely an offhand remark that those discussions shouldn't go for an hour.
I also find it odd that you think human beings can so easily cooperate, especially if they are strangers. Look at this discussion. You've already suggested others are selfish for wanting the game fixed, were called selfish because you feel the game is fine (and most likely wouldn't be open to change then) because SoB are doing okay, and have tried to trap people into saying the game is collaborative (it's not). This doesn't help cooperation.
Breng77 wrote: Well I bought this new car and paid into it for 5 years, then it broke down so I should obviously just buy a new car, and not be upset that the old one broke.
I can have cut back on my playing and still lament my enjoyment of the game, and wish it were in a vastly better place, largely due to that sunk cost. If I had only invested say $50 and 2 months before realizing the game was no good, it would be very different from multiple years and several thousand dollars, then having things change (IMO) for the worse.
Essentially there is a difference between "keep going because money spent" and pissed off that I don't want to because money spent.
It depends on your perspective on life and on how you look at the original investment.
If you invested in 40k and expected to play a thousand dollars of models for 20 years but only got 5, that would suck. On the other hand, if you just bought models, played games, and enjoyed it along the way, then you spent $200 a year, which seems like not a lot of money for doing something you enjoyed.
Likewise, you can look back fondly at something that used to be fun, but isn't anymore, and say, "Well, I had a good time with it. Fun while it lasted!" Or, you can scream at how terrible the game has become. I guess, you could have not had fun for any of those years, too, but then that would be kind of crazy that you kept going on with it all.
When I look back at the thousands of hours I spent on Diablo 2 and 3 which have resulted in nothing useful for me today, I don't think, "Gee, I wasted my life. Lord, Diablo 3 sucks now." I think, "That was really fun -- I had a great time with it! When is Diablo 4 coming out?"
So you literally do not care that the game was screwed up, then expect that by not complaining or posting criticism in any way, the game will get better on its own?
This is like US citizens complaining that the government sucks, then not voting.
That's not being mature, that's just ignoring the problem and thinking that the company will read your mind and change it.
If Diablo 3 sucks for example, and then people buy it anyways and don't voice complaints, Blizzard would naturally think "ok, so they like this now, we'll keep going with that." Not "huh, maybe we should do it different for Diablo 4"
I don't get how on earth anyone who can say this
"Likewise, you can look back fondly at something that used to be fun, but isn't anymore, and say, "Well, I had a good time with it. Fun while it lasted!"
Wouldn't be angry that what they used to enjoy was screwed up. Just because you enjoyed something back then doesn't give the company free reign to screw something up now.
Except, that is in no way how it works. GW does not monitor Dakka Dakka or any other forums. Also, it does seem that there is a major division in how people view the game, their time spent playing it, and the money spent on it that just cannot be resolved. One group views it as a limited window hobby (like the vast majority of hobbies) and is OK provided that they had fun while they were still actively involved in purchasing the models, etc. The other group wants GW to respond to their displeasure and "fix" the game (I put in quotations because it is a relative concept) in order to make it more popular in their area.
But, to the OP's initial question, it just depends on your gaming group and the people you associate with (as it usually does in almost all circumstances). Many people play older versions of the game, others agree to restrictions or have gentlemen agreements on what is OK and what isn't for general game play. Being angry over being forced to keep up with the evolution in the game, as so many people who have posted on here seem to be, is misdirected anger. GW has no power to enforce how you play the game, what version of the rules to use, etc. It is your local gaming group and gaming culture that is ultimately responsible. GW makes a product and attempts to sell it based on their own sales model. Exactly how much of their product (i.e., the rulebooks, codices, expansions) each individual decides to support is entirely on them. I will say it seems inexplicably odd that there appears to be a fairly large number of people who think it would be economically viable for a company that makes and sells miniatures in an absolutely tiny niche market to remain stagnant.
This, basically, at least the part about being gentlemen and local metas. You can work it out people! The world has not ended because your codex is pre-7.5.
Again, hyperbole isn't constructive aid.
Why don't you offer a suggestion instead, one that is workable?
I play a Biel-Tan list. I don't own Howling banshees, and have 1-2 of each aspect squad at least. I don't own guardians or many vehicles outside of wave serpents/falcolns/fireprisms (which for a long time were practically the same model).
My friend plays CSM and doesn't own forgeworld and despises nurgle (he plays 1k sons mainly, though owns a lot of the tanks). How should our discussion go so we can play the game?
Breng77 wrote: Well I bought this new car and paid into it for 5 years, then it broke down so I should obviously just buy a new car, and not be upset that the old one broke.
I can have cut back on my playing and still lament my enjoyment of the game, and wish it were in a vastly better place, largely due to that sunk cost. If I had only invested say $50 and 2 months before realizing the game was no good, it would be very different from multiple years and several thousand dollars, then having things change (IMO) for the worse.
Essentially there is a difference between "keep going because money spent" and pissed off that I don't want to because money spent.
It depends on your perspective on life and on how you look at the original investment.
If you invested in 40k and expected to play a thousand dollars of models for 20 years but only got 5, that would suck. On the other hand, if you just bought models, played games, and enjoyed it along the way, then you spent $200 a year, which seems like not a lot of money for doing something you enjoyed.
Likewise, you can look back fondly at something that used to be fun, but isn't anymore, and say, "Well, I had a good time with it. Fun while it lasted!" Or, you can scream at how terrible the game has become. I guess, you could have not had fun for any of those years, too, but then that would be kind of crazy that you kept going on with it all.
When I look back at the thousands of hours I spent on Diablo 2 and 3 which have resulted in nothing useful for me today, I don't think, "Gee, I wasted my life. Lord, Diablo 3 sucks now." I think, "That was really fun -- I had a great time with it! When is Diablo 4 coming out?"
Just a question, but are points even useable anymore? With the current state of imbalance and the 'free stuff for me' formations is there any real point in using points to build armies or should we just move to a AoS 'bring whatever you like' style of game?
There is only a few formations that give free things to my knowledge.
Most formations arn't that bad and are even fluffy. There are a handful of over the top formations but if you can avoid them if your looking for a more balanced game
master of ordinance wrote: Just a question, but are points even useable anymore? With the current state of imbalance and the 'free stuff for me' formations is there any real point in using points to build armies or should we just move to a AoS 'bring whatever you like' style of game?
It's at least a rough estimate of what an army contains, a starting point that you can adjust to get better balance if necessary. At least it ensures that you're playing, say, 1500 points of value against 2000 points. In AoS you have no starting point at all and even players who aren't trying to abuse the system could easily end up with 1000 points of value against 5,000 points.
But look at te power disparity betwixt the codexes.
I can bring 2000 points of my Guard but if the other guy brings Tau or SM then he is getting a lot more for his points than I am.
master of ordinance wrote: But look at te power disparity betwixt the codexes.
I can bring 2000 points of my Guard but if the other guy brings Tau or SM then he is getting a lot more for his points than I am.
But, again, it's at least roughly the same. If we agree to play a 2000 point game your 2000 points of IG are not going to be orders of magnitudes weaker than my 2000 points of Tau. You might be facing 3000 points of value, or even 4000 if the game is really badly balanced. But you won't be facing 20,000 points, or 200,000 points. And that's what can happen in AoS. If both players just dump their collections on the table you could easily have that 2000 points vs. 20,000 points game.
master of ordinance wrote: But look at te power disparity betwixt the codexes. I can bring 2000 points of my Guard but if the other guy brings Tau or SM then he is getting a lot more for his points than I am.
Yeah but you are aware of the discrepency and can fix it with house ruling or self policing. Also the difference in power is marginalized so its not such a huge power gap.
In AoS their is literally no baseline to determine what power levels are what so its just random luck a match is balanced or not and how unbalanced it is can be by a much larger margin
The above is not a new problem though, and with the ramp up in releases eventually it will even out. Yes, Guard isn't in a great spot right now but you have an old book. Even the oldest books in the game are only a few years old right now though. This is worlds better than 4th or 5th when codexs might not be touched for a decade. With in a year or two at GWs current rate chance are nearly every book will probably be brought up to 7.5 status.
Most of us still like the models and background but can't stand the game anymore.
.
Whose "us".
I hope you mean the people in your local circle because I am pretty sure thats not how a lot of the other "us" feel.
The guy asked me why people come into the 40k general if they don't play the game and feel it's horribly broken because of GW's decisions. That's the group I was identifying with. The "vocal few".
If you'd read my earlier posts in the thread, you would know I don't have a local group, which is why I say with such commitment over and over again that the game is broken. I have been traveling constantly across the USA for 2 years. EVERY GROUP IVE MET IS DIFFERENT. Different house rules, different 'accepted' playstyles, different points limits, some even have entirely banned armies, etc. People say "oh the 7.5 codexes are balanced against each other, just wait a while an all be balanced." You know where I've heard that before? 5th and 6th, where they'd do that for a while, then randomly go back to crap codexes. Mark my words, another stinker will be out in the next few months and that light of hope will be gone again.
I also play flames of war and X Wing. You want to know how much " compromise" and discussion I had to do for getting a game of either of those in the 8 or so states I was in? Here, I'll post the longest conversation.
"Hey, want a game of X Wing?"
Other guy "yeah, I'm new though and only a few ships, is it OK if we play something lower than a 100? Say 75?"
"Sure, although you're also welcome to borrow some of mine if you'd like"
"OK, I'd like to try out X, Y and Z if you have it."
"Sure thing."
Bam, conversation was over and we were playing. Literally took a minute. Flames of war takes even less. Points are very standard based on what the world toruney uses that year, so its usually just asking what era they play.
Trust me, travel outside of your local group, or even just try out some different games. Flames of war and X Wing ain't perfect but they're a damn sight better than GW. Both actively listen to their communities and will actually admit that yes, that rule was terrible, they should fix that, like naval gunfire support in flames or Munitions in X Wing. Not to mention unified communities where I can expect the same game in Fargo ND, Denver Colorado, St George Utah, or Lexington Kentucky with no "culture shock" whatsoever. You know, signs that a ruleset isn't so crap that every community has to patch it themselves.
But there's an old saying, "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink." I've posted my reasons, cited experience and evidence from a lot of traveling across the USA, and tried my best to explain my point of view. It's pretty clear that further arguing at this point is meaningless, as I'm essentially having to make the same post over and over to prove that it's not an opinion that 40k as a game is broken, its an actual fact.
I'm out. Feel free to say you "win" if you want. I'll be waiting for the "age of Roboutte" edition to break 40k even more so people will realize that 40k could be better, so much better, similar to what fantasy has going on right now and make their own fan version. FCan't be worse than 7th.
Edit: forgot to state that I couldn't wait for age of roboutte to break 40k, sounded like I thought age of sigmar was a good ruleset originally, which ain't the case.
Most of us still like the models and background but can't stand the game anymore.
.
Whose "us".
I hope you mean the people in your local circle because I am pretty sure thats not how a lot of the other "us" feel.
The guy asked me why people come into the 40k general if they don't play the game and feel it's horribly broken because of GW's decisions. That's the group I was identifying with. The "vocal few".
Je Suis MrMoustaffa!
"Hey, want a game of X Wing?"
Other guy "yeah, I'm new though and only a few ships, is it OK if we play something lower than a 100? Say 75?"
"Sure, although you're also welcome to borrow some of mine if you'd like"
"OK, I'd like to try out X, Y and Z if you have it."
Only in X Wing would one be able to fulfill that request literally!
I don't know how you can say there are few auto-includes.
Scatbikes, Warp Spiders, Hawks, WK, Dragons are very much auto includes in the newest eldar dex.
Stormsurge seems like an auto include, and that new formation they have is also an autoinclude.
For SM, Gladius strike force is an auto include if you have the models. Cent star is also very auto include.
Necrons, Wraiths are an auto include. You can easily say Decurion is an auto include.
Nids have FMC as auto includes.
There have always been auto includes in 40k, but let's not pretend the current dexes have amazing internal balance. They still have auto includes.
The problem is that the weaker dexes auto includes can't handle the strongest dexes auto includes.
I do not think newer dexes will fix the problem. This has been something I've heard for a long time in this game. A few dexes in a row will be roughly the same power level, everyone will claim it's a new era of balance, and then something like Cruddance's Nids will drop and destroy that idea. Heck, at the start, people were claiming that with Orks and Chaos, and look where we are at now!
We have no guarantees that any of the new codexes will be at the same power level. As someone who owns Chaos Marines, I don't expect they will ever have a good codex.
Peregrine wrote: Sorry, but this is just laughably wrong. 40k isn't "collaborative" because it's some ideal paragon of two players working together to build a story
Did you see that Orkingrad batrep? Or the one where the Tau were evacuating a LZ overrun by Tyranids, and VPs were awarded by how many units successfully escaped? 40k's core ruleset seems to work more or less fine in those situations, or in a more casual environment between friends where the social contract is stronger.
40k will always break down under min-maxing players. You know what they say... live by the sword, die by the sword!
You understand the difference between players collaborating and a collaborative rule set?
I can make a narrative game out of chess with a willing opponent and a good idea, that doesn't mean there's anything inherent about the rule set that encourages it.
Yoyoyo wrote: Did you see that Orkingrad batrep? Or the one where the Tau were evacuating a LZ overrun by Tyranids, and VPs were awarded by how many units successfully escaped? 40k's core ruleset seems to work more or less fine in those situations, or in a more casual environment between friends where the social contract is stronger.
Those things aren't possible because of 40k's rules, they're happening despite40k's rules. They would also happen the same way in a better version of 40k which is suitable for competitive tournament gaming.
40k will always break down under min-maxing players. You know what they say... live by the sword, die by the sword!
The point is that it shouldn't break down like that. It breaks down because the rules are garbage and GW's rule authors are incompetent, not because breaking down under min-maxing players is an inherent property of miniature wargames.
40k has always had their rules scattered everywhere. I remember thinking that trying to figure out the current rules to my armies was like researching a college term paper. (and this was 3rd edition!)
If your not into the things you mentioned: Super heavies, flyers, D weapons and a few other things - you don't have play with them in casual games. People playing competitively are going to bring that stuff, so just find a few people interested in your style of game. Most of my 40k games I play with one friend and we come up with a campaign, a storyline and play it out. We have a lot of fun without all that stuff you mentioned disliking.
Peregrine wrote: Those things aren't possible because of 40k's rules, they're happening despite40k's rules. They would also happen the same way in a better version of 40k which is suitable for competitive tournament gaming.
So is that an admission that the ruleset isn't broken, it's just broken for "competitive tournament gaming"?
40k is not a simple and universal game like chess, or a "competitive gaming" exercise like Magic or an RTS where the developers encourage a tournament scene and monitor balance.
On GWs side I think they don't want to be associated with the vibe that extremely competitive people bring to "the hobby", so I wouldn't expect it to change either.
Yoyoyo wrote: So is that an admission that the ruleset isn't broken, it's just broken for "competitive tournament gaming"?
No, it's broken for everything. I'm just countering this idea that a competitive version of 40k would somehow be terrible for narrative gaming.
40k is not a simple and universal game like chess, or a "competitive gaming" exercise like Magic or an RTS where the developers encourage a tournament scene and monitor balance.
You're right, it isn't. And this is a failure by GW. They could monitor balance, ensure that the rules work with no ambiguity, etc, they're just too lazy and/or incompetent to do it.
On GWs side I think they don't want to be associated with the vibe that extremely competitive people bring to "the hobby", so I wouldn't expect it to change either.
And this is one of GW's biggest failures: they've decided that they have their target market and anyone else is not welcome. Contrast this with WOTC, where the competitive market is a primary focus but there's still lots of effort dedicated to appealing to less-competitive players and everyone can enjoy the game. GW's idea of Causal At All Costs, as reinforced by certain obnoxious elements of the community, is not something that successful businesses do.
Peregrine wrote: Those things aren't possible because of 40k's rules, they're happening despite40k's rules. They would also happen the same way in a better version of 40k which is suitable for competitive tournament gaming.
So is that an admission that the ruleset isn't broken, it's just broken for "competitive tournament gaming"?
40k is not a simple and universal game like chess, or a "competitive gaming" exercise like Magic or an RTS where the developers encourage a tournament scene and monitor balance.
On GWs side I think they don't want to be associated with the vibe that extremely competitive people bring to "the hobby", so I wouldn't expect it to change either.
1) Its not broken for tournament gaming. It doesn't work as a competitive game at all however.
If anything the game works well in a WAAC tournament environment, since the really powerful combos are obvious and the only counters are the other few obscene combos. It's hard to imagine the amount of gameplay required to overcome a gladius strike force, or a MSU eldar list, or a Tau formation without the ITC ruling limiting them.
This isn't a tactically deep game where you have to stress a ton of match ups, counters, abilities, and learn skills such as movement and placement. List building, knowledge of the rules, and target priority is usually just fine.
2) 40k is a much simpler game then chess in terms of strategy. In terms of rules, it is much more complex than chess, true.
3) Gw didn't seem to have a problem with this "vibe" for a large chunk of their history. I am unsure what vibe you are referring to. Why would you want to exclude any part of the player base anyway? Is it the failing revenue?
The numbers of people that participate in tournaments compared to the overall sales of a game makes their numbers extremely small, generally well under 1% from the examples I could find numbers for. Even assuming that you multiply this up to count people who are this competitive and don’t ever attend a tourney, it’s still a small minority. However, these are usually passionate and enthusiastic players who are more active online than the majority of casual gamers who just play round their mate’s house with a few friends.
I know this from over 30 years of gaming and working within the industry, talking to thousands of other gamers, parents and traders, having access to sales figures for a number of products, and running tournaments and other events. While I was at GW I did a project to look into the impact/noise of tournament players, and found that while it’s impossible to be entirely exact (too many fuzzy variables), and while it was probably not as much of a swing as the urban myth version, it was still true.
master of ordinance wrote: But look at te power disparity betwixt the codexes.
I can bring 2000 points of my Guard but if the other guy brings Tau or SM then he is getting a lot more for his points than I am.
Not true with Tau but pretty obviously you're referring to the Battle Company here and yeah: Tons of free transports is no laughing matter. It was ill advised to do. The War Convocation equally so. I'm still kind of trying to figure out what the idea was there. The old Blood Angels thing was essentially giving them the same thing if you recall only less restricted on what they could take. Maybe they figured that a "Rolling Thunder" army wouldn't be so bad if all you're delivering is Marines, but I have to say: Grav Gun hurt and you can pack an awful lot of them in there.
Compare the Space Marines Battle Company to my Adepta Sororitas. holy crap. That disparity grew big time.
Having said ALL that, i still mostly like what they've done. A couple key mistakes KEEP taking what is otherwise a fine situation and forcing the ITC to step in on a thing or two. But the players have self legislated a ot the last three years so I sort of anticipate that to continue.
Cieged wrote: I'm always blown away by certain posters and what they choose to say in regards to 40k. Here we are on a miniatures forum, explicitly in the 40k subdirectory, explicitly in a 40k post. Yet, somehow, some who claim to have "burnt all bridges" or "quit years ago" or "eBayed their beloved Kharn conversion for the god-send of Infinity whilst burning the Games Workshop emblem" are apparently still on the active 40k forums and - more importantly - feel the need to post.
Why do you do this? Are you so angry that you lurk in the digital shadows waiting to inform others of how crappy the game you *used* to play is? Or ... are you lying, because you do still play the game but your point is better made if you claim to have done more aggressive quitting strategies to properly demonstrate your hatred?
Playing the game or building the hobby is about fun. Somewhere between the story, the sculpts, the rules, the dice, or the players you find something fun and apparently wish to share in that discussion or fun with others online. You should pursue this dream of entertainment, spend your money and time on what you believe is worth doing. something that makes you happy.
If you're posting only to convince strangers on the internet, you should let it go. One, because it most certainly can't be fun. Unless it is and you should have that professionally addressed. Two, because of the game is as bad as you claim it is, it'll die a natural death without your 'end is neigh!' billboard. Meaning it's a waste of time, if you're right your voice won't be needed, if you're wrong your voice definitely isn't needed and could prevent others from having the fun they're pursuing.
This makes a simple and plain sense to me, which makes me wonder if those criticizing here are being fictitious.
Or, just maybe, you're looking for someone to convince you that you're wrong about 40k and it actually is a fun and interesting game. Hm. A thought.
I think you're the one forging the narrative too hard here. DakkaDakka is a forum that have many subcategories and if there's nothing new on the Infinity and News & Rumors categories, it's not really that uncommon to just browse the 40k general forum, especially when you're used to being engaged with that hobby and forum for many years. This isn't some kind of conspirancy, were people specifically target 40k forums to troll with fictional stories.
The numbers of people that participate in tournaments compared to the overall sales of a game makes their numbers extremely small, generally well under 1% from the examples I could find numbers for. Even assuming that you multiply this up to count people who are this competitive and don’t ever attend a tourney, it’s still a small minority. However, these are usually passionate and enthusiastic players who are more active online than the majority of casual gamers who just play round their mate’s house with a few friends.
I know this from over 30 years of gaming and working within the industry, talking to thousands of other gamers, parents and traders, having access to sales figures for a number of products, and running tournaments and other events. While I was at GW I did a project to look into the impact/noise of tournament players, and found that while it’s impossible to be entirely exact (too many fuzzy variables), and while it was probably not as much of a swing as the urban myth version, it was still true.
That doesn't invalidate the idea of a ruleset designed for tournaments also being used for non-tournament games.
WRG Ancients was specifically written for the Society of Ancients competition, but it was such a good set it became the de facto standard for all ancient/mediaeval non-skirmish games.
Given that wargames are inherently competitive, and people generally like fairness in competitions, the idea that wargame rules should not make a proper attempt to be fair because not many people go to tournaments, is rather strange.
Kilkrazy wrote: That doesn't invalidate the idea of a ruleset designed for tournaments also being used for non-tournament games.
No worries there. But if tourney players are less than 1% of the total sales, it would explain why GW isn't especially concerned about competitive balance. The company is guided by executives after all, and there is only a limited number of projects they would assign to a team at one time.
Yoyoyo wrote: No worries there. But if tourney players are less than 1% of the total sales, it would explain why GW isn't especially concerned about competitive balance. The company is guided by executives after all, and there is only a limited number of projects they would assign to a team at one time.
Except competitive balance is good for casual/narrative/etc games as well as competitive tournaments. GW doesn't care about it because the company is run by incompetent morons, not because it's something they don't need to worry about. A better company wouldn't have this problem.
MrMoustaffa wrote: I think what people are missing is just how scaled up things have become in 7th. Back in 5th, I could actually win games with nothing but guardsmen and Leman Russ tanks. Not vets, infantry platoons. And we didn't have aegis lines or anything like that either (old man mode activated)
I could actually do a bayonet charge across the board with a wall of tanks behind them, and have a halfway decent chance. No, it was not the most competitive list in the world, but I always felt like I had a chance. At the very least i could bloody a n optimized list a bit before i went down. In 7th, I could have them completely fortified behind aegis lines and whatnot and lose 2/3rds of them by the end of turn 2. There's so much ignore cover, gmc's, special rules, and absolutely horribly bizarre combos that bringing normal infantry is literally pointless. I would spend more time getting my guardsmen out of the case than I would to put them back.
The game has scaled to the point where basic infantry are pointless. Who takes infantry platoons anymore? How about boyz mobs? Tactical squads? Fire warriors? Etc. Etc. It's all MC's and GMC's and invisible deathstars and jetbikes and knight titans. It's to the point where people will literally call it a "troop tax" because they don't want to use troop units.
We didn't need that in 40k, that's what APOCALYPSE was for. So you could go nuts with the crazy stuff and not completely destroy the normal game. Why GW thought it was an even remotely smart idea to introduce that stuff to a normal game is beyond me from a balance perspective. You'd have to be insane to think a Knight titan or the eldar titan thing belongs in a standard game. They're perfect for apocalypse, and if that's what they'd been advertised as, apocalypse only, I would have been fine with it. But it destroys the average game and makes the core troop units of many factions pointless. Not to mention for newbies starting out, or old vets coming back after an edition, they have very little to fight this kind of stuff.
It's just an all around bad idea and should never have happened
Basically sums up my thoughts on the topic. I'd love to play the game again at a scale where 50 guardsmen is an infantry spam list, a single land raider is an almost unkillable juggernaut, and an average list is 1 HQ, 20 or so infantry, and a vehicle or two.
Kilkrazy wrote: That doesn't invalidate the idea of a ruleset designed for tournaments also being used for non-tournament games.
No worries there. But if tourney players are less than 1% of the total sales, it would explain why GW isn't especially concerned about competitive balance. The company is guided by executives after all, and there is only a limited number of projects they would assign to a team at one time.
Why on earth are we assuming toruney players only make up 1% of sales?
The numbers of people that participate in tournaments compared to the overall sales of a game makes their numbers extremely small, generally well under 1% from the examples I could find numbers for. Even assuming that you multiply this up to count people who are this competitive and don’t ever attend a tourney, it’s still a small minority. However, these are usually passionate and enthusiastic players who are more active online than the majority of casual gamers who just play round their mate’s house with a few friends.
I know this from over 30 years of gaming and working within the industry, talking to thousands of other gamers, parents and traders, having access to sales figures for a number of products, and running tournaments and other events. While I was at GW I did a project to look into the impact/noise of tournament players, and found that while it’s impossible to be entirely exact (too many fuzzy variables), and while it was probably not as much of a swing as the urban myth version, it was still true.
40k will always break down under min-maxing players. You know what they say... live by the sword, die by the sword!
I mean, even balanced games can be broken from min-maxing players. Take X-wing for example. I've seen people running dual Firespray's in tournaments. That gaks on the fluff, soooo much. But they did it. I've also seen people do nothing but spam K-wings with TLT. And of course all of the "Whisper"s you see in competitive lists.
I will agree it's still harder to pull off, but no matter the game, people are going to do it. 40k is no different. (Though easier to do so)
The link where the guy states his opinion without any data to back it up? Just because someone has an opinion and claims to be an expert doesn't mean he's right. The article reads like he is defending age of sigmar, which is fine, but from every piece of evidence I've seen (stories online, personal experience, sales figures) the game was a giant flop.
GW doesn't do market research, they've stated as much, and I can't see how you would track competitive players purchases versus casual player purchases without a very intensive round of market research. You'd have to identify who are competitive tournament players and who are casual players, somehow track their purchases within a certain time frame...it'd be really difficult to do, especially for a company that doesn't do any research at all.
What we do know is that GW is currently trying to alienate competitive/tournament goers both in 40k and Fantasy. While other games are coming out of the woodwork, they also tend to appeal to more competitive gamers (or ones with less capital to spend, although it should be noted that these types of games have had a upward trend lately). Ever since that has happened, GW has experienced a falling revenue that has steadily declined.
While correlation doesn't equal causation, it's not unreasonable to extrapolate that the alienation of a certain subset of the community can be a factor. The opinion of one game designer (someone who doesn't even do market research...) doesn't invalidate anything.
40k will always break down under min-maxing players. You know what they say... live by the sword, die by the sword!
I mean, even balanced games can be broken from min-maxing players. Take X-wing for example. I've seen people running dual Firespray's in tournaments. That gaks on the fluff, soooo much. But they did it. I've also seen people do nothing but spam K-wings with TLT. And of course all of the "Whisper"s you see in competitive lists.
I will agree it's still harder to pull off, but no matter the game, people are going to do it. 40k is no different. (Though easier to do so)
A) Have those people been sweeping those tourneys, because none of those sound like 'meta' lists to me.
B) How on earth is dual firesprays unfluffy? You know they are other pilots for it than Fett right?
Basically sums up my thoughts on the topic. I'd love to play the game again at a scale where 50 guardsmen is an infantry spam list, a single land raider is an almost unkillable juggernaut, and an average list is 1 HQ, 20 or so infantry, and a vehicle or two.
Bolt Action says Hi !
+1 to this. Bolt Action is pretty damn amazing and most armies only have around thirty Infantry plus a few supporting teams and a tank on the table. And tanks are bloody hard to kill unless you come prepared!
40k will always break down under min-maxing players. You know what they say... live by the sword, die by the sword!
I mean, even balanced games can be broken from min-maxing players. Take X-wing for example. I've seen people running dual Firespray's in tournaments. That gaks on the fluff, soooo much. But they did it. I've also seen people do nothing but spam K-wings with TLT. And of course all of the "Whisper"s you see in competitive lists.
I will agree it's still harder to pull off, but no matter the game, people are going to do it. 40k is no different. (Though easier to do so)
A) Have those people been sweeping those tourneys, because none of those sound like 'meta' lists to me.
B) How on earth is dual firesprays unfluffy? You know they are other pilots for it than Fett right?
A. You're right, I forgot to mention all the Poe Dameron's flying around. My bad.
B. Well, I would make an argument, but I remember that the EU is no longer Canon, so I guess it doesn't really matter anymore. Though seeing Boba flying with another Firespray still doesn't feel right with me.
Yoyoyo wrote: No worries there. But if tourney players are less than 1% of the total sales, it would explain why GW isn't especially concerned about competitive balance. The company is guided by executives after all, and there is only a limited number of projects they would assign to a team at one time.
Except competitive balance is good for casual/narrative/etc games as well as competitive tournaments. GW doesn't care about it because the company is run by incompetent morons, not because it's something they don't need to worry about. A better company wouldn't have this problem.
Exactly, balanced and unambiguous rules benefit everyone. It doesn't matter how casually you play or how much you like to houserule - starting with clear, balanced rules makes it easier and more fun.
With that said, GW have put themselves into a difficult position. The sheer variety of unit types and the range of customization for those unit types makes achieving balance very difficult. Would the game be better if that variety and customizability was sacrificed for balance? I'm not sure that it would be. Certainly for myself, that variety is why I come back to 40K when other games start to get samey. That doesn't mean it can't be much better than it is now.
And there is no excuse for the way the rules are written. Consistent and unambiguous rules writing doesn't even appear to be a goal as far as we can tell. Refusing to issue FAQs to correct ambiguous rules is the icing on the cake (and issuing errata to fix balance issues is unthinkable apparently...)
40k will always break down under min-maxing players. You know what they say... live by the sword, die by the sword!
I mean, even balanced games can be broken from min-maxing players. Take X-wing for example. I've seen people running dual Firespray's in tournaments. That gaks on the fluff, soooo much. But they did it. I've also seen people do nothing but spam K-wings with TLT. And of course all of the "Whisper"s you see in competitive lists.
I will agree it's still harder to pull off, but no matter the game, people are going to do it. 40k is no different. (Though easier to do so)
A) Have those people been sweeping those tourneys, because none of those sound like 'meta' lists to me.
B) How on earth is dual firesprays unfluffy? You know they are other pilots for it than Fett right?
A. You're right, I forgot to mention all the Poe Dameron's flying around. My bad.
B. Well, I would make an argument, but I remember that the EU is no longer Canon, so I guess it doesn't really matter anymore. Though seeing Boba flying with another Firespray still doesn't feel right with me.
So.... People like Poe? Unless you can explain how he is OP and breaking the game rather than just saying people take him (of course they are, he's the one new big name character currently playable from that record smashing movie that just came out), or explain how there is anything wrong with a pair of firesprays (I can't think of a reason why Bobba wouldn't work with another bounty hunter, nor why they can't just be 2 generic pilots) then I'm sorry, but you're talking out your ass.
I don't think perfect balance is achievable with any game, and the larger and more complex the game is the further away from perfect balance you will be.
However, I don't think 40k is as complex as people say it is. Most of the equipment is standard (Most imperial armies have PG, Melta, Flamer, etc etc) and the xenos armies don't have nearly as many options on their units (look at eldar or dark eldar).
The game is on a 1-10 stat system, so the disparity in units is small for most armies. Most orks have a similar profile, most marines have a similar profile, etc etc (Nids being the exception but that is their whole thing).
The game where it is now, where it has 1k Sons and Gravcents in the same game, is crazy to me. The god of magic having some of the worst psykers in the game, and the worst powers, is also crazy to me.
Akiasura wrote: However, I don't think 40k is as complex as people say it is. Most of the equipment is standard (Most imperial armies have PG, Melta, Flamer, etc etc)
That assumption of standardization is actually a good example of where GW go wrong.
A meltagun on a guardsman is not worth the same points as a meltagun on a marine. The former is much more fragile and has few options to deliver him to melta range making him much less effective. Plus, a single meltagun in a squad is much less valuable than a meltagun in squad that can take three or four special weapons - this is why units that can take multiple good weapons get used far more than those that can't.
Akiasura wrote: Just because someone has an opinion and claims to be an expert doesn't mean he's right.
Well... once again:
"I know this from over 30 years of gaming and working within the industry, talking to thousands of other gamers, parents and traders, having access to sales figures for a number of products, and running tournaments and other events. While I was at GW I did a project to look into the impact/noise of tournament players, and found that while it’s impossible to be entirely exact (too many fuzzy variables), and while it was probably not as much of a swing as the urban myth version, it was still true."
So, he did conduct research.... just throwing that out there. Have you?
Kilkrazy wrote: That doesn't invalidate the idea of a ruleset designed for tournaments also being used for non-tournament games.
No worries there. But if tourney players are less than 1% of the total sales, it would explain why GW isn't especially concerned about competitive balance. The company is guided by executives after all, and there is only a limited number of projects they would assign to a team at one time.
Why on earth are we assuming toruney players only make up 1% of sales?
He doesn't say that, he says they make up 1% of players.
Doesn't mean they don't spend a disproportionate amount on stuff. Neither does it exclude people, such as myself, who find no enjoyment in cheese, imbalance, min/maxing or any other buzzword for things that make 40K no fun for me any more, and sent me into a 40K hibernation of sorts.
Basically sums up my thoughts on the topic. I'd love to play the game again at a scale where 50 guardsmen is an infantry spam list, a single land raider is an almost unkillable juggernaut, and an average list is 1 HQ, 20 or so infantry, and a vehicle or two.
Bolt Action says Hi !
+1 to this. Bolt Action is pretty damn amazing and most armies only have around thirty Infantry plus a few supporting teams and a tank on the table. And tanks are bloody hard to kill unless you come prepared!
Can I duck in here and recommend One Page 40k as a potential replacement ruleset?
It has exactly what you're looking for. Building restrictions for games up to 1500 points (a large game; small is 750) is 1 "Hero" unit, 2 "Special" units (any combination of Monster, Walker, and Vehicles). It feels a lot like 5th Edition.
It's actually got me building a small Tau force when I can get the miniatures at a good deal, like a box of the new Crisis suits for 50% off.
That doesn't invalidate the idea of a ruleset designed for tournaments also being used for non-tournament games.
WRG Ancients was specifically written for the Society of Ancients competition, but it was such a good set it became the de facto standard for all ancient/mediaeval non-skirmish games.
Given that wargames are inherently competitive, and people generally like fairness in competitions, the idea that wargame rules should not make a proper attempt to be fair because not many people go to tournaments, is rather strange.
This. Actually, a solid core ruleset [by which I mean balanced units and well thought out restrictions on lists] increases the options and the scope for trying out new things, and therefore increases the fun. With Infinity I can play ITS if I want a highly tactical game with an emphasis on list building, or 20x20/YAMS if I want a bit more freedom and to take my badass TAG. Negotiation needed before the game? "Fancy trying out 20x20 at 300 points?" "OK". It also encourages me to try out different units as there are no auto-includes and pretty much everything is equally valid.
I found that with 40k there was a reluctance to deviate from what you considered the 'right way' to play as it had the potential to so heavily skew the game one way of another. I also found myself taking the same units over and over, with others sitting on the shelf collecting dust.
In my experience, a tighter ruleset increases the options for different types of games rather than decreases it, and vice-versa with a loose ruleset. YMMV.
Akiasura wrote: Just because someone has an opinion and claims to be an expert doesn't mean he's right.
Well... once again:
"I know this from over 30 years of gaming and working within the industry, talking to thousands of other gamers, parents and traders, having access to sales figures for a number of products, and running tournaments and other events. While I was at GW I did a project to look into the impact/noise of tournament players, and found that while it’s impossible to be entirely exact (too many fuzzy variables), and while it was probably not as much of a swing as the urban myth version, it was still true."
So, he did conduct research.... just throwing that out there. Have you?
He never once mentions what the research entailed, when or where was it done, or really any information about it what so ever. Which I mentioned is the problem with people on the internet and using them as resources without evaluating their methodology.
Akiasura wrote: Just because someone has an opinion and claims to be an expert doesn't mean he's right.
Well... once again:
"I know this from over 30 years of gaming and working within the industry, talking to thousands of other gamers, parents and traders, having access to sales figures for a number of products, and running tournaments and other events. While I was at GW I did a project to look into the impact/noise of tournament players, and found that while it’s impossible to be entirely exact (too many fuzzy variables), and while it was probably not as much of a swing as the urban myth version, it was still true."
So, he did conduct research.... just throwing that out there. Have you?
He never once mentions what the research entailed, when or where was it done, or really any information about it what so ever. Which I mentioned is the problem with people on the internet and using them as resources without evaluating their methodology.
But, given that standard, I have done research
While I wouldn't want to dismiss it entirely out of hand, I too find it... dubious.
A fair interpretation of what's written there could be that they had no idea about the numbers but their gut feeling said X.
Or that if they looked at the amount of people participating in GW tourneys and decided tourney players are a minority are they counting non-GW run tourneys? Are they counting the amount of tourney players who have quit the game over the years because it was not good for tourney play, but are potential customers none the less?
It just reads like someone's opinion who has worked in the industry. As a game designer, not marketing. I mean, the article is defending Age of Sigmar, so the guy probably has some kind of bias or agenda.
As someone involved in research that often involves the FDA, I am always suspicious of claims of research. The word gets thrown around a lot nowadays and doesn't mean what it once did. You have to carefully analyze how the sampling was done, what questions were asked, when did the research take place...none of these are answered here.
Without any kind of methodology, supporting information or details, the fact he did research for GW at some point is worthless. It's, at best, an appeal to authority because it backs up someone's opinion, but the standard is so incredibly low I can't take it seriously. Especially given GWs current financials, and how that reflects poorly on the non competitive 7th edition and Age of Sigmar. For all we know, the guy did his research during rogue trader or 3rd edition, and it has no bearing on the current market.
The article clearly isn't defending AoS. He's obviously dubious about many elements, but has adopted a more "wait and see" attitude than many others. If one reads between the lines, as he's clearly being politic because he's a games designer and he's making a public post about people that have been his employers and given the small pool of people in the area, may well be again one day, he's far more critical than anything, especially about the idea of abandoning the old world.
Equally, and I'm saying this again, he didn't claim 1% of GW sales were to tournament players, he said that about 1% of GW's customers were tournament players, and that the 1% were disproportionately vocal online.
I'm beginning to think I read a different article!
While he is somewhat critical of AoS, considering how many people feel about AoS, a wait and see approach is defending it. At least, imo. I have seen little defense of AoS and much vitriol. He does mention he wishes he could have designed something similar in the studio I believe, which to me is an endorsement, although backhanded.
The political mention is interesting and something I hadn't considered, but that really just makes his claims more suspect.
How do you define a tournament player? Someone who has played in 1 tournament ever? Or someone who travels and goes to many tournaments?
If the former, I have a hard time believing it's 1%. If the latter I'm not surprised it's 1%. Since he never defines the term, it's impossible to say, and using his "research" to support an opinion a dubious proposition at best, which is all I'm claiming.
What's truely worrisome is what was mentioned above: this research could easily have been a series of loaded questions to people frequenting GW stores. Given that they rarely if ever hold tournaments, it would not be surprising few people mention Going to tournaments. Then they look at sales for AoS, taking in sales for all fantasy models and the terrain and the books, and probably comparing them to sales Before end times, as most (likely biassed) estimates show that end times made fantasy sales skyrocket compared to the stagnation beforehand. At the store I frequent, for example, the fantasy section was 4-6 boxes at the start. End times made it rise up to 20 boxes maybe, with them circling out every week or too. This scaled back to maybe 10 boxes, and when AoS released the store had a 50% off sale for the day of release. After the news of how awful the system was the fantasy section has disappeared after the sale, getting no new models. The same seems to occur with factions in 40k.Eldar were the new hotness, they sold for a week, then nobody bought then again. A friend of mine plays tau, and when the release hit he got a ripetide and ghostkeel box. Now those models are beginning to vanish and aren't being restocked. Thats how a successful hype train. But then you get to the updated rules for blood angels and impguard..and it didn't sell at all. Not even the dedicated players of those armies bought, as the new rules were easily found online and took a page or two of space, and the new models were just rehashes of older models...notice how that's so similar to AoS xD
Akiasura wrote: While he is somewhat critical of AoS, considering how many people feel about AoS, a wait and see approach is defending it. At least, imo. I have seen little defense of AoS and much vitriol. He does mention he wishes he could have designed something similar in the studio I believe, which to me is an endorsement, although backhanded.
Yes, he expressed his desire to have been able throw out the old system and start from scratch, not to have designed AoS as it stands.
The political mention is interesting and something I hadn't considered, but that really just makes his claims more suspect.
Not really, he says exactly what he intends to say, you've just got to allow for the fact that as a known "face" in the industry and assuming he wishes to keep working, overtly stating "what a bunch of gak" isn't a good idea and would actually be hugely unprofessional.
How do you define a tournament player? Someone who has played in 1 tournament ever? Or someone who travels and goes to many tournaments?
If the former, I have a hard time believing it's 1%. If the latter I'm not surprised it's 1%. Since he never defines the term, it's impossible to say, and using his "research" to support an opinion a dubious proposition at best, which is all I'm claiming.
I've honestly not got too much of an issue with that number. He also goes on to describe them as some of the most passionate, and I don't feel he's critical of them as a group, more that because GW feel they're a small number that they're not interested in them, and regardless of what % you attach to it, active tournament players almost certainly are a small minority in the context of all the home and club players, 12 year old 2 Christmas and a Birthday players, I know probably close to 2 dozen 40K players, or those who could play if they wanted, and I know only one of them who has attended tournaments in the past. If anything, I'd say he disagrees with this, as ignoring your most passionate and vocal fans is potentially damaging, especially if you rely on customer networking as a keystone of your business strategy.
krodarklorr wrote: I mean, even balanced games can be broken from min-maxing players. Take X-wing for example. I've seen people running dual Firespray's in tournaments. That gaks on the fluff, soooo much. But they did it. I've also seen people do nothing but spam K-wings with TLT. And of course all of the "Whisper"s you see in competitive lists.
I will agree it's still harder to pull off, but no matter the game, people are going to do it. 40k is no different. (Though easier to do so)
You seem to be confused about the difference between "this breaks the game" and "this list doesn't follow my personal opinion of how the fluff should be". Dual Firespray lists are not even close to game-breaking. It's a mid-tier list, at best, and certainly not something that the average player is going to struggle excessively with. The fact that you don't like its fluff is irrelevant.
To be honest, though, I don't care if tournament players are only 1% of the total number. I still prefer a balanced game to one that's all over the place.
In response to the OP, you have to find a specific playgroup that wants to play the game in the same manner you do. If you like or don't like LOW/D-Weapons/Deathstar of the week, make sure that your opponents feel the same way and are willing to make lists that are on the same competitive level. Personally, I think that D-weapons and LOW were HORRIBLE additions to the game - and were made worse by the huge disparity in the power level of each army's options - so I only play if my opponent feels the same way. I don't own a LOW and I don't see myself spending that much money on a model just to keep up with the Joneses. Needless to say, I don't play very often. When I started in 2008 or so, the playgroup I joined was about 10 people and we actually added more plus there's a shop about 20 minutes from my house; now it's 2 of us and the move to 6th/7th, precipitated a good portion of that player loss. I won't even go to a shop to play anymore as I don't want to have a 1/2 hour discussion about what units and rules and detachments and blah, blah, blah before we discuss points and missions. I haven't quit, I haven't sold my models, as I haven't found a system whose models and fluff excite me as much as my Tyranids and CSM, but I also haven't touched my models since November and, where once I would have been begging someone by now for a game of 40K, I just find myself saying maybe we'll get a game sometime. It's sad, really; I used to have a passion for the game, but I feel it's gotten so out of bounds as to be ridiculous.
In the meantime, I've started playing X-Wing and I love it. I really believe this game is going to get a lot of the time I used to pour into 40K and I know a number of people that are playing the game.
Azreal13 wrote: I've honestly not got too much of an issue with that number.
Regardless of the accuracy of that number, I imagine he's still shedding some light on the design practices and beliefs at GW. The weird thing is that in contrast, FW is fairly responsive to emails about rules questions. I mean, isn't that potentially the same rules team? So I'd think the lack of client engagement at GW is probably top driven, though I don't understand the point of the policy. BTW Azrael, since you're obviously competent at reading between the lines here's another juicy one for you.
The greatest risk is the same one that we repeat each year, namely, management. So long as we have great people we will be fine. Problems will arise if the board allows egos and private agendas to rule. I will do my utmost to ensure that this does not happen.
Yeah, I'd seen it. In fact, the last two reports (his only two this far) have included little nuggets like this which seem to be tacit acknowledgment of some of the issues.
There were one or two references to value and addressing the issue of improving it in the last report IIRC.
TBH, if I'd a mind to, and considering the banners I constantly wave in the "health of GW" type threads that pop up, I could feel like he's reading my posts and answering back in the reports!
Battlesong wrote: In response to the OP, you have to find a specific playgroup that wants to play the game in the same manner you do. If you like or don't like LOW/D-Weapons/Deathstar of the week, make sure that your opponents feel the same way and are willing to make lists that are on the same competitive level. Personally, I think that D-weapons and LOW were HORRIBLE additions to the game - and were made worse by the huge disparity in the power level of each army's options - so I only play if my opponent feels the same way. I don't own a LOW and I don't see myself spending that much money on a model just to keep up with the Joneses. Needless to say, I don't play very often. When I started in 2008 or so, the playgroup I joined was about 10 people and we actually added more plus there's a shop about 20 minutes from my house; now it's 2 of us and the move to 6th/7th, precipitated a good portion of that player loss. I won't even go to a shop to play anymore as I don't want to have a 1/2 hour discussion about what units and rules and detachments and blah, blah, blah before we discuss points and missions. I haven't quit, I haven't sold my models, as I haven't found a system whose models and fluff excite me as much as my Tyranids and CSM, but I also haven't touched my models since November and, where once I would have been begging someone by now for a game of 40K, I just find myself saying maybe we'll get a game sometime. It's sad, really; I used to have a passion for the game, but I feel it's gotten so out of bounds as to be ridiculous.
In the meantime, I've started playing X-Wing and I love it. I really believe this game is going to get a lot of the time I used to pour into 40K and I know a number of people that are playing the game.
I remember feeling bad for taking flying demon princes at one point.
MrMoustaffa wrote: 40k is basically apocalypse now, there's nothing separating the two now, when back in the day they were VERY seperate.
You feel like you showed up to play a 1,000pt game and the other guy brought an 1850 list. It's not so much adapt as it is "looks like its time to buy a new army".
100%Agree and that's what is at the core of 40k's problems, its become apoc, a bloated terrible mess with no standards or formats.
As for the fragmentation of the 40k gaming community, when culture attempts to fill in the gaps left by poor rules or omission of rules, you quickly find any discussion of rules invariably becomes a discussion about people. Turning 40k into apoc has lead essentially to a mindset of cultural relativism, there's no right and wrong way to play, it's just 40k after all... (vomits)
The trope of the casual gamer and the competitive gamer is boring. Don't hate the player, hate the game I say.
I'm on a 40k trial separation, 30k is much more attractive, fair minded and isn't a bloated mess.
Crimson Devil wrote: Exchanging 40k for 30k is like dating your ex-wife's younger sister.
Younger sister with a robust physique, ability to get ready in 2 minutes flat and somehow less entitled than the ex wife. (restrictions on lords of war, force org actually being relevant). The average 7th ed game was taking like 5-8 hours to play by the end, since I've been playing 30k, games are fast, averaging 2-3 hours. It really does feel like 5th
)
