Your codexes will not be compatible with the new edition + All models we currently sell will have rules... jikes this could hurt both my armies a lot.
3 ways of playing, not impressed by this at all. We already have this. Unbound -> Not really accepted by most of my opponents. Campaigns with specific armies -> I am not into that Bound -> This is what all my games usually are. My guess is that the new system isn't going to change a lot about this.
Then again who know it might also be great and the worst that can happen is that I would only be be able to enjoy horus herecy and shadow wars.. I can live with that. Both games are fun and I rarely play 40k anyway nowadays. If it becomes popular and I don't like it I just sell my models and continue playing the games I like, if it is fun then yay I have an other fun game to play.
oldzoggy wrote: Your codexes will not be compatible with the new edition + All models we currently sell will have rules... jikes this could hurt both my armies a lot.
3 ways of playing, not impressed by this at all. We already have this.
Unbound -> Not really accepted by most of my opponents.
Campaigns with specific armies -> I am not into that
Bound -> This is what all my games usually are.
My guess is that the new system isn't going to change a lot about this.
Then again who know it might also be great and the worst that can happen is that I would only be be able to enjoy horus herecy and shadow wars.. I can live with that. Both games are fun and I rarely play 40k anyway nowadays. If it becomes popular and I don't like it I just sell my models and continue playing the games I like, if it is fun then yay I have an other fun game to play.
Bound is in no way balanced. I hope Matched play means restrictions on allies and no more GMC super heavies etc.
The Warp Forge wrote: Will have to admit, I do love the tongue-in-cheek answers in the FAQ lie the "Why Should I trust you?".
They know Kirby hurt its Rep and it does sound like they want to listen at least..
Bound is in no way balanced. I hope Matched play means restrictions on allies and no more GMC super heavies etc.
Mwha ha ha ha ha, sorry. Ehm imperial knights are one of the factions in the 8th edition spoiler. So you either have allies, adding them as allied super heavies in large games. Or you have super heavies at any point lv if they are actually a playable faction like the spoiler suggests
Bound is in no way balanced. I hope Matched play means restrictions on allies and no more GMC super heavies etc.
Mwha ha ha ha ha, sorry. Ehm imperial knights are one of the factions in the 8th edition spoiler.
So you either have allies, adding them as allied super heavies in large games. Or you have super heavies at any point lv if they are actually a playable faction like the spoiler suggests
Unless they change how super heavies work, given that everything is being changed over.
Bound is in no way balanced. I hope Matched play means restrictions on allies and no more GMC super heavies etc.
Mwha ha ha ha ha, sorry. Ehm imperial knights are one of the factions in the 8th edition spoiler.
So you either have allies, adding them as allied super heavies in large games. Or you have super heavies at any point lv if they are actually a playable faction like the spoiler suggests
That doesn't mean they are going to be part of "matched play" game. But yes it could also mean they will be part of it. but i hope they wont be.
Bound is in no way balanced. I hope Matched play means restrictions on allies and no more GMC super heavies etc.
Mwha ha ha ha ha, sorry. Ehm imperial knights are one of the factions in the 8th edition spoiler.
So you either have allies, adding them as allied super heavies in large games. Or you have super heavies at any point lv if they are actually a playable faction like the spoiler suggests
That doesn't mean they are going to be part of "matched play" game. But yes it could also mean they will be part of it. but i hope they wont be.
Why not? Knights aren't particularly powerful, they can create somewhat binary gameplay sure, but they're not that big of a deal and are pointed very appropriately.
Never understood the hate for superheavies, only the wraithknight was truly broken(non-forgeworld) even the stormsurge was just 'very strong'.
Bound is in no way balanced. I hope Matched play means restrictions on allies and no more GMC super heavies etc.
Mwha ha ha ha ha, sorry. Ehm imperial knights are one of the factions in the 8th edition spoiler.
So you either have allies, adding them as allied super heavies in large games. Or you have super heavies at any point lv if they are actually a playable faction like the spoiler suggests
That doesn't mean they are going to be part of "matched play" game. But yes it could also mean they will be part of it. but i hope they wont be.
Why not? Knights aren't particularly powerful, they can create somewhat binary gameplay sure, but they're not that big of a deal and are pointed very appropriately.
Never understood the hate for superheavies, only the wraithknight was truly broken(non-forgeworld) even the stormsurge was just 'very strong'.
THANK YOU. Anyone that's actually played against an Imperial Knight would know that.
commander dante wrote: Ahh i dunno
As long as i can field 3 Kytan Deamon Engines (Replacing Lord of Skulls) in a LEGAL Competitive list, ill be happy
But the "Your books are now Obsolete" is a HUGE slap in the face
Would you prefer the currently vastly imbalanced books would stay instead, in all honesty?
If not, would someone elaborate what exactly is the approach where the differences between the codices get fixed and they work in a whole new edition without them being outdated? More FAQs? Yeah, I'll pass.
What happens to my codexes?
The rules in our current range of Warhammer 40,000 codexes aren’t compatible with the new
edition of Warhammer 40,000. These books will be going off sale very soon. If you do want to
pick any up, now’s the time - as all of the great hobby content and background information will
be as valid as ever.
Yeah, before they retcon half the stuff within next few years.
Otherwise I'm excited for the new edition, bring it on already!
commander dante wrote: Ahh i dunno
As long as i can field 3 Kytan Deamon Engines (Replacing Lord of Skulls) in a LEGAL Competitive list, ill be happy
But the "Your books are now Obsolete" is a HUGE slap in the face
It's not at all if they have all the factions up on day one. Books becoming obsolete with new releases is normal and fine as long as there is something to replace them.
Altough it would kinda suck if we get placeholders only and then ahve to wait god knows how long until we get a proper update. Bretons in age of sigmar are still stuck with the initial pdf no?
commander dante wrote:Ahh i dunno
As long as i can field 3 Kytan Deamon Engines (Replacing Lord of Skulls) in a LEGAL Competitive list, ill be happy
But the "Your books are now Obsolete" is a HUGE slap in the face
Not at all. It's either that, or we continue with the same issues of armies playing with codices designed for earlier rulesets or later edition codices' power creep like we've been having.
Roknar wrote:
commander dante wrote: Ahh i dunno
As long as i can field 3 Kytan Deamon Engines (Replacing Lord of Skulls) in a LEGAL Competitive list, ill be happy
But the "Your books are now Obsolete" is a HUGE slap in the face
It's not at all if they have all the factions up on day one. Books becoming obsolete with new releases is normal and fine as long as there is something to replace them.
Altough it would kinda suck if we get placeholders only and then ahve to wait god knows how long until we get a proper update. Bretons in age of sigmar are still stuck with the initial pdf no?
I think because they're trying to phase out Bretonnia?
Bound is in no way balanced. I hope Matched play means restrictions on allies and no more GMC super heavies etc.
Mwha ha ha ha ha, sorry. Ehm imperial knights are one of the factions in the 8th edition spoiler.
So you either have allies, adding them as allied super heavies in large games. Or you have super heavies at any point lv if they are actually a playable faction like the spoiler suggests
That doesn't mean they are going to be part of "matched play" game. But yes it could also mean they will be part of it. but i hope they wont be.
Why not? Knights aren't particularly powerful, they can create somewhat binary gameplay sure, but they're not that big of a deal and are pointed very appropriately.
Never understood the hate for superheavies, only the wraithknight was truly broken(non-forgeworld) even the stormsurge was just 'very strong'.
THANK YOU. Anyone that's actually played against an Imperial Knight would know that.
Have you tried to kill a knight with a Tyranid list without GSC? I find it very difficult to do.
commander dante wrote: Ahh i dunno
As long as i can field 3 Kytan Deamon Engines (Replacing Lord of Skulls) in a LEGAL Competitive list, ill be happy
But the "Your books are now Obsolete" is a HUGE slap in the face
They woud have been anyway - older Codexes seledom work well and immediately start having rules issues and thats with relatively minor adjustments to the rules.
I, as others and I hope the game has actually been substantially adjusted and imporved from base upwards then there was never any way that the rules within the old codexes would have worked.
Currently there are two sorts of codexes - the Stupidly OPowered Dexes of 7.5 edition and the rest - again it cna only be hoped that they the various armies at least start off vaguely balanced.
Bound is in no way balanced. I hope Matched play means restrictions on allies and no more GMC super heavies etc.
Mwha ha ha ha ha, sorry. Ehm imperial knights are one of the factions in the 8th edition spoiler.
So you either have allies, adding them as allied super heavies in large games. Or you have super heavies at any point lv if they are actually a playable faction like the spoiler suggests
That doesn't mean they are going to be part of "matched play" game. But yes it could also mean they will be part of it. but i hope they wont be.
Why not? Knights aren't particularly powerful, they can create somewhat binary gameplay sure, but they're not that big of a deal and are pointed very appropriately.
Never understood the hate for superheavies, only the wraithknight was truly broken(non-forgeworld) even the stormsurge was just 'very strong'.
THANK YOU. Anyone that's actually played against an Imperial Knight would know that.
Have you tried to kill a knight with a Tyranid list without GSC? I find it very difficult to do.
Tyranids have always had problems with AT but yes I've done it. Bait one side and get the other by glancing into death, either with the Haywire flamer or S6 shooting.
But the Tyranid codex having little AT anyway is a Tyranid problem, is it not?
Tyranids have always had problems with AT but yes I've done it. Bait one side and get the other by glancing into death, either with the Haywire flamer or S6 shooting.
But the Tyranid codex having little AT anyway is a Tyranid problem, is it not?
Not so much. In 5th ed you could relay on your zoanthropes to handle the toughest vehicle which was a Land Raider. Know if your warpattack is banned or you dont have enough dice you are screwed.
crimsondave wrote: I'm optimistic. I am a little concerned that the current codex line isn't supported, but they are so unbalanced that is likely a good thing.
Aye, I'm actually fairly glad, the current 7E armies are so badly balanced and organized that dumping them is actually leaving me slightly optimistic.
Bound is in no way balanced. I hope Matched play means restrictions on allies and no more GMC super heavies etc.
Mwha ha ha ha ha, sorry. Ehm imperial knights are one of the factions in the 8th edition spoiler.
So you either have allies, adding them as allied super heavies in large games. Or you have super heavies at any point lv if they are actually a playable faction like the spoiler suggests
That doesn't mean they are going to be part of "matched play" game. But yes it could also mean they will be part of it. but i hope they wont be.
Why not? Knights aren't particularly powerful, they can create somewhat binary gameplay sure, but they're not that big of a deal and are pointed very appropriately.
Never understood the hate for superheavies, only the wraithknight was truly broken(non-forgeworld) even the stormsurge was just 'very strong'.
One Knight is fine, an entire army of them is something that many armies don't have a reasonable answer to without tailoring a list. As for other superheavies in general, the power level on a lot has risen and the pricetag has dropped, putting them into games too small for them to really have any business being in or resulting in firepower levels that an opponent cannot reasonably match.
oldzoggy wrote: Your codexes will not be compatible with the new edition + All models we currently sell will have rules... jikes this could hurt both my armies a lot.
3 ways of playing, not impressed by this at all. We already have this.
Unbound -> Not really accepted by most of my opponents.
Campaigns with specific armies -> I am not into that
Bound -> This is what all my games usually are.
My guess is that the new system isn't going to change a lot about this.
Then again who know it might also be great and the worst that can happen is that I would only be be able to enjoy horus herecy and shadow wars.. I can live with that. Both games are fun and I rarely play 40k anyway nowadays. If it becomes popular and I don't like it I just sell my models and continue playing the games I like, if it is fun then yay I have an other fun game to play.
Bound is in no way balanced. I hope Matched play means restrictions on allies and no more GMC super heavies etc.
I wonder how many years it's going to take for all the grandpa talk about GMC / Super Heavy to die down...
I'm sure you prefer getting face-wrecked by a barkStar or some other bastard build... So much better now there's no GMC/Super Heavy...
oldzoggy wrote: Your codexes will not be compatible with the new edition + All models we currently sell will have rules... jikes this could hurt both my armies a lot.
3 ways of playing, not impressed by this at all. We already have this.
Unbound -> Not really accepted by most of my opponents.
Campaigns with specific armies -> I am not into that
Bound -> This is what all my games usually are.
My guess is that the new system isn't going to change a lot about this.
Then again who know it might also be great and the worst that can happen is that I would only be be able to enjoy horus herecy and shadow wars.. I can live with that. Both games are fun and I rarely play 40k anyway nowadays. If it becomes popular and I don't like it I just sell my models and continue playing the games I like, if it is fun then yay I have an other fun game to play.
Bound is in no way balanced. I hope Matched play means restrictions on allies and no more GMC super heavies etc.
I wonder how many years it's going to take for all the grandpa talk about GMC / Super Heavy to die down...
I'm sure you prefer getting face-wrecked by a barkStar or some other bastard build... So much better now there's no GMC/Super Heavy...
Just because one thing is broken doesn't mean other stuff can't also be broken and in need of fixing too...
Just rename the thing and look at that issue solved ; )
Don't like superheavies well than no superheavies in the next rule set just really powerful walkers with tons of hit points, good deference and the best guns in the game.
The only question is what would be save to equip my stompas with considering that they will probably only them the weapon options the kit has.
nordsturmking wrote: Have you tried to kill a knight with a Tyranid list without GSC? I find it very difficult to do.
Have you tried killing anything with a Tyranid list without GSC?
Yes all the time. I used my almighty of pyrovores to kill everything . Seriously those have been useless since they were released.
oldzoggy wrote: Just rename the thing and look at that issue solved ; )
Don't like superheavies well than no superheavies in the next rule set just really powerful walkers with tons of hit points, good deference and the best guns in the game.
The only question is what would be save to equip my stompas with considering that they will probably only them the weapon options the kit has.
for that matter i count the wraithknight etc. as superheavy.
Also the chance they remove gmc and sh is just non existant. Sure they'll change the rules because they are even changing the core rules which means a Wraithknigbt now probably won't resemble a Wraithknigbt in 3 months from now. But there is literally 0% chance they remove models such as the wk such as ik etc. Simply because they sold far to many and are smart enough to realise they would be dealing with a customer rebellion from some of the most populated factions in the game. Simply put rules will change for them don't expect them to be op (even though a lot of then aren't right now anyways...) But do expect them to stay because that would be economic suicide.
I'm truly optimistic for the first time in almost a decade. Ditching the old codeci was the only truly logical decision. The folks buying books when a new edition had been hinted at for the past year knew full well what the possible outcome would be. At least they still have the fluff that came along with the books (possible retcons notwithstanding).
The last two editions have created some of the worst imbalances ever in 40k, and the only solution is a hard reset. Hopefully GW really has been paying attention and listening and learned from the debacle that was the AoS launch, and we get a much more smooth transition for 8th ed. Time will tell, of course, but I feel we may be headed for a solid ruleset.
I know my friends and I are excitedly waiting for the next few months to see whats in store.
I hope the books aren't too far behind though. I find digital rulebooks a pain in the ass to use for anything other than a quick reference on the go. I find it faster and more convenient to flick a few pages back and forth once you know where to look for stuff. Plus I miss the tactile experience and how it looks on your book shelf.
Bound is in no way balanced. I hope Matched play means restrictions on allies and no more GMC super heavies etc.
Mwha ha ha ha ha, sorry. Ehm imperial knights are one of the factions in the 8th edition spoiler.
So you either have allies, adding them as allied super heavies in large games. Or you have super heavies at any point lv if they are actually a playable faction like the spoiler suggests
Orks and Eldar grouped together? I'm fascinated. My big me just needs to dial his shokk attack gun to panzee and I'll get right on making a conversion with the upper torso of a howling banshee trying not to get sucked in all the way.
When it comes to superheavies, maybe they'll use the 30k 25% rule or use a rule like for Behemoths in AoS matched play? In AoS it breaks down like this:
1000 points: 0-2 Behemoths
2000 points: 0-4 Behemoths
2,500 points: 0-5 Behemoths
I have no idea if they'll do anything like that or not. I like the 25% rule myself, but they might just go 0-X as it is simpler. The thing I like about the 25% rule is that not all superheavies are in the same class, and as long as their points cost is appropriate the 25% rule accommodates for this. Two superheavies in a 1,000 point 7th Ed. game might be difficult for many armies to deal with. My understanding is that in AoS things die a lot easier.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
oldzoggy wrote: The only question is what would be save to equip my stompas with considering that they will probably only them the weapon options the kit has.
I've got two stompas, one still on sprue. I'm really hoping they make the rules for it a lot more like the Forgeworld Kustom Stompa. The lack of options for the Stompa in the current Ork codex is criminally un-Orky.
I'd like a klawstompa for my Goffs and a shootier stompa for my Bad Moons.
Dakka Flakka Flame wrote: the Forgeworld Kustom Stompa. The lack of options for the Stompa in the current Ork codex is criminally un-Orky.
I'd like a klawstompa for my Goffs and a shootier stompa for my Bad Moons.
The FW stompa is the only true stompa. And all my stoma's are klaw stompa's.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dakka Flakka Flame wrote: When it comes to superheavies, .. or use a rule like for
Behemoths in AoS matched play? In AoS it breaks down like this:
1000 points: 0-2 Behemoths
2000 points: 0-4 Behemoths
2,500 points: 0-5 Behemoths
.
Dakka Flakka Flame wrote: the Forgeworld Kustom Stompa. The lack of options for the Stompa in the current Ork codex is criminally un-Orky.
I'd like a klawstompa for my Goffs and a shootier stompa for my Bad Moons.
The FW stompa is the only true stompa. And all my stoma's are klaw stompa's.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dakka Flakka Flame wrote: When it comes to superheavies, .. or use a rule like for
Behemoths in AoS matched play? In AoS it breaks down like this:
1000 points: 0-2 Behemoths
2000 points: 0-4 Behemoths
2,500 points: 0-5 Behemoths
.
Yes please 2 stompa 1000 army here I come
You really should look at the updated AoS army creation rules. You'd save yourself a lot of effort and embarrassment.
I'm really enjoying watching people freak out over AoS game mechanics because its obvious they have never tried AoS. Since the GHB came out I've played 40k once mostly because 40k is trash and filled to the brim with intolerable win-bro ITC douches.
Watching ITC people whining over the thought of formations getting points as well as some formations disappearing and the rule of one being put in for matched play has been fantastic.
GW is winning in my books. If 40k is anywhere near the fun that Ive had with AoS they have my money on lock down.
Dakka Flakka Flame wrote: the Forgeworld Kustom Stompa. The lack of options for the Stompa in the current Ork codex is criminally un-Orky.
I'd like a klawstompa for my Goffs and a shootier stompa for my Bad Moons.
The FW stompa is the only true stompa. And all my stoma's are klaw stompa's.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dakka Flakka Flame wrote: When it comes to superheavies, .. or use a rule like for
Behemoths in AoS matched play? In AoS it breaks down like this:
1000 points: 0-2 Behemoths
2000 points: 0-4 Behemoths
2,500 points: 0-5 Behemoths
.
Yes please 2 stompa 1000 army here I come
Likely Lords of War will be 0-1 per 2000pts, and they'll have degrading charts
Likely it'll be something like
1-2 HQ 3-6 Troops
0-3 Elites
0-3 Fast
0-3 Heavy Support
With increases in points as you go and all detachments removed.
I like where 8th appears to be headed, although I'm not happy at all that my Dark Angels Battle Company build is most likely going the way of the dodo after all the time and money I've put into it. At least I can still use the models, but I might not have bought so many Razorbacks. Overall I have to say I agree with the decision, though, as there were major balance issues between books (looking at you Eldar...). If the game ends up better than it was and is still recognizable as the same game (as in, not as drastic of a rules change as between WHFB and AoS), then I am happy and will relish the challenge of developing new lists and strategies.
ZergSmasher wrote: I like where 8th appears to be headed, although I'm not happy at all that my Dark Angels Battle Company build is most likely going the way of the dodo after all the time and money I've put into it. At least I can still use the models, but I might not have bought so many Razorbacks. Overall I have to say I agree with the decision, though, as there were major balance issues between books (looking at you Eldar...). If the game ends up better than it was and is still recognizable as the same game (as in, not as drastic of a rules change as between WHFB and AoS), then I am happy and will relish the challenge of developing new lists and strategies.
Ive been around since 2nd ed, the best thing you can do is purge your small armies and keep an ear out for a new edition. That and if you played something that is a clear exploit of normal rules like getting free transports you cant expect it to be around for the next edition.
What you should expect is everything getting its own special rules and movement values as well as Keywords like in AoS. Degrading charts for Tanks and monsters alike and wounds to be cranked up to off set the new craziness. Also sadly I don't see templates sticking around. No one will know what is happening for a good long time while they unlearn all the old stats and rules and try and memorize all the new rules. Its going to be great.
ZergSmasher wrote: I like where 8th appears to be headed, although I'm not happy at all that my Dark Angels Battle Company build is most likely going the way of the dodo after all the time and money I've put into it. At least I can still use the models, but I might not have bought so many Razorbacks. Overall I have to say I agree with the decision, though, as there were major balance issues between books (looking at you Eldar...). If the game ends up better than it was and is still recognizable as the same game (as in, not as drastic of a rules change as between WHFB and AoS), then I am happy and will relish the challenge of developing new lists and strategies.
Ive been around since 2nd ed, the best thing you can do is purge your small armies and keep an ear out for a new edition. That and if you played something that is a clear exploit of normal rules like getting free transports you cant expect it to be around for the next edition.
What you should expect is everything getting its own special rules and movement values as well as Keywords like in AoS. Degrading charts for Tanks and monsters alike and wounds to be cranked up to off set the new craziness. Also sadly I don't see templates sticking around. No one will know what is happening for a good long time while they unlearn all the old stats and rules and try and memorize all the new rules. Its going to be great.
Sounds like something you should hope for. Expectation is an open door to disappointment.
ProwlerPC wrote: Orks and Eldar grouped together? I'm fascinated. My big me just needs to dial his shokk attack gun to panzee and I'll get right on making a conversion with the upper torso of a howling banshee trying not to get sucked in all the way.
I wouldn't read too much into the groupings of the various Xenos races together, beyond them all potentially getting(if they go the keyword route) "Xenos" as a keyword like how the various flavors of Orc, Ogre, and Giants all have the keyword "Destruction" in Age of Sigmar.
It would make it so that you could have things like Deathwatch getting bonuses against "Xenos" without having to name out all the books, while Grey Knights might get bonuses versus "Daemons" without getting bonuses against Chaos Marines or things like that.
TheIronCrow wrote: Yeah except Ive called everything right up to the release date so I'm not worried.
If you're playing 40k right now just try out some AoS and purge your brain of rules.
I've got an AoS army - the thing I hate most about AoS is people trying to convince me that I should call my Lizard-Men "Seraphon".
Its no different than Imperial guard being Astra Militarum. Its just GW getting control of their own IP. You can call your lizard people whatever you like.
ProwlerPC wrote: Orks and Eldar grouped together? I'm fascinated. My big me just needs to dial his shokk attack gun to panzee and I'll get right on making a conversion with the upper torso of a howling banshee trying not to get sucked in all the way.
I wouldn't read too much into the groupings of the various Xenos races together, beyond them all potentially getting(if they go the keyword route) "Xenos" as a keyword like how the various flavors of Orc, Ogre, and Giants all have the keyword "Destruction" in Age of Sigmar.
It would make it so that you could have things like Deathwatch getting bonuses against "Xenos" without having to name out all the books, while Grey Knights might get bonuses versus "Daemons" without getting bonuses against Chaos Marines or things like that.
Keywords are going to be a big thing in 40k, I highly doubt eldar and orks will be in the same "grand alliance"
ProwlerPC wrote: Orks and Eldar grouped together? I'm fascinated. My big me just needs to dial his shokk attack gun to panzee and I'll get right on making a conversion with the upper torso of a howling banshee trying not to get sucked in all the way.
I wouldn't read too much into the groupings of the various Xenos races together, beyond them all potentially getting(if they go the keyword route) "Xenos" as a keyword like how the various flavors of Orc, Ogre, and Giants all have the keyword "Destruction" in Age of Sigmar.
It would make it so that you could have things like Deathwatch getting bonuses against "Xenos" without having to name out all the books, while Grey Knights might get bonuses versus "Daemons" without getting bonuses against Chaos Marines or things like that.
Keywords are going to be a big thing in 40k, I highly doubt eldar and orks will be in the same "grand alliance"
As of right now, it's broken into:
Imperium
Chaos
Xenos
Eldar and Orks are currently in the same "Grand Alliance".
I was pulling my numbers from page 107 of The General's Handbook. Maybe I'm reading that part wrong?
Also, I have no idea whether or not superheavies will be treated like behemoths.
I wasn't referring to your post. I was talking to Old Zoggy. He's talking out of his ass when it comes to how armies are built in AoS. Regardless of points limit and number of formation, the are still battleline minimums and leader/behemoth maximums to meet.
commander dante wrote: Ahh i dunno
As long as i can field 3 Kytan Deamon Engines (Replacing Lord of Skulls) in a LEGAL Competitive list, ill be happy
But the "Your books are now Obsolete" is a HUGE slap in the face
I'm fine so long as they give us a PDF ala AOS. to be frank, releasing all the armies at once proably ensures greater balance. I mean sure chaos players COULD keep using their codex for another 2 years..
I was pulling my numbers from page 107 of The General's Handbook. Maybe I'm reading that part wrong?
Also, I have no idea whether or not superheavies will be treated like behemoths.
I wasn't referring to your post. I was talking to Old Zoggy. He's talking out of his ass when it comes to how armies are built in AoS. Regardless of points limit and number of formation, the are still battleline minimums and leader/behemoth maximums to meet.
I can't hear you over the sound my stompa's and goff rockers a making. Please come back later when we are able to read the rules.
commander dante wrote: Ahh i dunno
As long as i can field 3 Kytan Deamon Engines (Replacing Lord of Skulls) in a LEGAL Competitive list, ill be happy
But the "Your books are now Obsolete" is a HUGE slap in the face
I'm fine so long as they give us a PDF ala AOS. to be frank, releasing all the armies at once proably ensures greater balance. I mean sure chaos players COULD keep using their codex for another 2 years..
The whole 'noooo mah codex!' thing feels like complaining for the sakr of complaining. All of 4-5 factions in the game actually liked their books out of 24 races. Even admech/skitarii were begging for a new combined book and both of those armies are at keast playable.
As of right now, it's broken into:
Imperium
Chaos
Xenos
Eldar and Orks are currently in the same "Grand Alliance".
You're making the assumption that the organization of a website designed to inform/hype up new players is binding to rules and background in a similar way to AoS, despite the lack of the word "Grand Alliance" anywhere on said page.
As of right now, it's broken into:
Imperium
Chaos
Xenos
Eldar and Orks are currently in the same "Grand Alliance".
You're making the assumption that the organization of a website designed to inform/hype up new players is binding to rules and background in a similar way to AoS, despite the lack of the word "Grand Alliance" anywhere on said page.
That is... a very large assumption.
Well' it's the only thing we've got so far. "CHOOSE YOUR SIDE" is a heavy implication, especially considering how they structured factions in AoS.
The FAQ did make me giggle and it seems like the new GW is on the right track as far as community interaction goes. I haven't touched 40k in years and this might be just the right way to get me off of Infinity.
As of right now, it's broken into:
Imperium
Chaos
Xenos
Eldar and Orks are currently in the same "Grand Alliance".
You're making the assumption that the organization of a website designed to inform/hype up new players is binding to rules and background in a similar way to AoS, despite the lack of the word "Grand Alliance" anywhere on said page.
That is... a very large assumption.
It's not an unreasonable one though, given the way that things are written.
It's not like the Grand Alliances mean everyone works together and everything is sunshine and rainbows. Grand Alliance: Chaos has factions that would tear each other apart rather than work together, Order has the old Dark Elf factions which includes the Scourge Privateers who raid the various realms and take slaves.
The site organization makes sense, because that's how the fluff divides stuff (Chaos, Imperium and Xenos). I don't believe, however, that all xenos will be clumped in a single group. Maybe Eldar flavors will.
Roknar wrote: God I hope they drastically change the psychic phase.
Thats the one thing I am not looking forward to. We will end up with AoS on release and three psychic powers to choose from, perhaps more balanced. But WAY WAY less fun.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
demontalons wrote: Goodbye terrible chaos codex! Fingers crossed they fix the Tsons points cost........
They have had 10+ years to do that. What makes you think this year will be the year?
Well that's too bad. I wanted to weaponize all Howling Banshees as ammunition for my orks. Howling Banshees strapped with bombs for my tankbusta squad. Ammo for shock attack gun. Banshees strapped to rockits etc...
Not that I have anything against Howling Banshees. It's just that they will make all my ork weapons louder and we know how orks love louder weapons. The Banshees just need to scream as they rokkit towards the enemy.
Please can someone explain the AoS rules publications to me, so I can better understand what to expect with 40k?
I've never played AoS.
I know the original rules were 4 pages long and free.
I know there were warscrolls for each faction/unit, also free.
What does the GHB give you? Is it essential for playing the game?
What's a Battletome?
How do they release rules for new units (or even new factions, like the new Dwarves)?
As this is a guessing game here, I'll throw in. They're going to slim down all these side rules with the elimination of the codex and make each type - troops, elites, etc (and add Primarcks as it's own thing) have a set of rules and that's it. They'll redesign the universe so it will get a bit more desperate. Free rules? Welcome digital distribution. I hope they still support us old f*rts that don't have a smart phones or data slates (yes, there are some of us parchment and quill guys still around. Looks like I will need more printer cartridges.) Bet they still put out 'side rules' books for planes, terrain and strongholds. Obviously they have a new - and likely 'younger' crew - in game design who are perusing the web for opinions (thank you Dakkadakka). They are good in that they know if you don't change up the game regularly it will get stale, The models are still getting better (OMG, the details to paint...), and they hopefully will figure out what they're doing with all the oversized models. Interesting to see if D weapons get modified down. Reading between the words, "All the models we sell today will be supported". Heck, Cyphur's been out for years and we still don't know which codex he belongs to... Are Squats in?
I'm looking forward to the changes as long as they keep combat drugs and put the old ramshackle rule back in. The old Weird Boy rule where he can transform a character into something small would be nice, but unlikely. Well, gotta go list my codex (7 armies) in EBay's antique books section...
Automatically Appended Next Post: By the way, wanna post guesses - over and under - how many pages the new rules will be?
Whittlesey40k wrote: Please can someone explain the AoS rules publications to me, so I can better understand what to expect with 40k?
I've never played AoS.
I know the original rules were 4 pages long and free.
I know there were warscrolls for each faction/unit, also free.
What does the GHB give you? Is it essential for playing the game?
What's a Battletome?
How do they release rules for new units (or even new factions, like the new Dwarves)?
I'd like to know what to expect.
The GHB gives you points for you army for matched play, as well the allegiance battleline requirements, and some scenarios for matched play.
A battletome is like codex. It gives you bonus rules for your army like artefacts and allegiance abilities. It contains all of the unit rules, as well as a set of formations that give your army extra rules if you fulfil their requirements and pay the points cost for the formation.
New armies are released as so: The units are released on the GW website, where their rules are available. They also release a battletome which gives them their special rules, point allocations, and formation.
All of the points cost for those units are available for free on Scrollbuilder, the site that GW have officially co-opted from the community. There is also an App that has all of the warscrolls available, and for £1 a month you can subscribe to Azyr, the list build part of the app that lists the points costs for all of the units.
The bare minimum you need to play matched play is the free warscrolls available from GW's site, and the free points from the GW sponsored scrollbuilder site. You might need guidance from the General's Handbook for pre-sylvaneth army's battleline requirements, or the battletomes of slyvaneth onward armies, but the requirements are free on the scrollbuilder. You won't benefit from abilities or artefacts and so on, but you need only buy one battletome per army for that.
Campaign books have so far never supplemented the matched play rules, only added fluffy battalions for narrative and open.
There are obviously some issues with the timeline of books. The GHB will be updated this year and will probably have all of the current point costs in it, they will be invalidated by newer battletomes, but then it will be updated again, so the tomes and the GHB kinda leap-frog each other in terms of which is most up to date. As far as I can see it is the cheapest and most efficient way to get the rules out, without making it all free. I have successfully played about 10 games with my small Nurgle force without buying a single rule supplement, but I have bought the new Dwarves with their book. Nurgle will get a faction book eventually which will bring them up to scratch like Khorne and Tzeentch and I will likely buy that too,
Whittlesey40k wrote: Please can someone explain the AoS rules publications to me, so I can better understand what to expect with 40k?
I've never played AoS.
I know the original rules were 4 pages long and free.
I know there were warscrolls for each faction/unit, also free.
What does the GHB give you? Is it essential for playing the game?
What's a Battletome?
How do they release rules for new units (or even new factions, like the new Dwarves)?
I'd like to know what to expect.
The GHB gives you points for you army for matched play, as well the allegiance battleline requirements, and some scenarios for matched play.
A battletome is like codex. It gives you bonus rules for your army like artefacts and allegiance abilities. It contains all of the unit rules, as well as a set of formations that give your army extra rules if you fulfil their requirements and pay the points cost for the formation.
New armies are released as so: The units are released on the GW website, where their rules are available. They also release a battletome which gives them their special rules, point allocations, and formation.
All of the points cost for those units are available for free on Scrollbuilder, the site that GW have officially co-opted from the community. There is also an App that has all of the warscrolls available, and for £1 a month you can subscribe to Azyr, the list build part of the app that lists the points costs for all of the units.
The bare minimum you need to play matched play is the free warscrolls available from GW's site, and the free points from the GW sponsored scrollbuilder site. You might need guidance from the General's Handbook for pre-sylvaneth army's battleline requirements, or the battletomes of slyvaneth onward armies, but the requirements are free on the scrollbuilder. You won't benefit from abilities or artefacts and so on, but you need only buy one battletome per army for that.
Campaign books have so far never supplemented the matched play rules, only added fluffy battalions for narrative and open.
There are obviously some issues with the timeline of books. The GHB will be updated this year and will probably have all of the current point costs in it, they will be invalidated by newer battletomes, but then it will be updated again, so the tomes and the GHB kinda leap-frog each other in terms of which is most up to date. As far as I can see it is the cheapest and most efficient way to get the rules out, without making it all free. I have successfully played about 10 games with my small Nurgle force without buying a single rule supplement, but I have bought the new Dwarves with their book. Nurgle will get a faction book eventually which will bring them up to scratch like Khorne and Tzeentch and I will likely buy that too,
I hope that is clear enough!
Thanks!
So is it one Battletome per faction? Effectively just like the codexes currently? So we should still expect a codex per faction - just all new codexes.
So is it one Battletome per faction? Effectively just like the codexes currently? So we should still expect a codex per faction - just all new codexes.
Yes. Each faction currently sits in one of 4 grand alliances, Order, Death, Destruction, Chaos. New Battletomes cover the individual factions and usually only confer a bonus if all of the army is from that faction.
But, there are (very old now) battletomes for the four main alliances that have their own allegiance rules for armies that are not mono-faction. Quite foten, in the case of Destruction especially, these mixed factions are quite powerful, and perform well. The meta for AoS from my knowledge of it is not particularly fixed, all sorts of armies play and rank in tournaments, although shooting is quite heavy at the moment.
If they've learned from AoS they will make codexes for each faction. They basically exist to further define armies, rather than totally re-write them. It means of course that certain armies suffer for a while (Death is not looking healthy) but they cannot be all things to all men. Death will get its time to shine, and the low cost and smaller faction sizes means changes can be much quicker now, and quick balancing fixes can be done through points updates rather than whole new codexes.
I would expect, on the whole, the 40k transition to be far smoother as it took GW a long time to find its feet with AoS, but the Sylvaneth books onward seem to be the format they've decided on, and they're very good in my opinion.
They have had 10+ years to do that. What makes you think this year will be the year?
I'm holding onto hope; their position so far has been that they've involved and will keep involving tournament organizers in the game design part of the issue. It's my hope that those Tournament people impress up on the game designers that cool models aside, they actually need to be worth what their costed on the table top.
I want to know where everyone is getting there Time Machines, because a lot of people I've spoke to or seen online seem to have 100% certainty that 40k is going tot become AoS with sci-fi.
Until more drops on exact rules and books come out, we have no clue what will really happen.
Yes we can take cues from what happened with Fantasy to AoS, but that isn't necessarily what will happen. Fantasy was a different beast. When AoS dropped a lot of people hated that it was a massive change and that they would have to buy new stuff. You don't have to buy it, and when I asked what new things they had bought for 8th ed fantasy, most of the local group admitted they hadn't bought any new models for about 5+ years. Yet expect to be given luxury treatment because they had bought armies already and decided they deserve more free stuff.
You can't expect things to happen your way if you don't put money into the company. At the end of the day you can still play 7th, or Horus Heresy. GW aren't sending out death squads to seize all your old material and books and forcing you to play new stuff. Yes they aren't producing the 7th ed codexes anymore, but they aren't producing 2nd ed ones still either.
It hasn't invalidated all your previous purchases, you haven't wasted money on stuff when a new edition drops. How many hours of painting and modelling has gone into an army, how many evenings spent having fun with mates playing and goofing around. They don't disappear with the old edition. Yes you might have to buy £100 worth of new books, but same goes for previous times rules were updated and you didn't lose those fond memories of the previous editions, but added new ones and new experiences and friends.
I've spent a lot on this hobby, but I feel it's paid back with lasting friendships, hours of games, all the painting and making my army mine. It's more than just pumping money at a game. It's a lifestyle we chose to do, and not one I'm going to throw away until I see what will become of it, and probably will still play for many more years to come.
I think they will very much try and retain 40k's status as more complex than AoS.
They simply want to make it so that it is easier to get into. A smaller core rule set with free rule cards for units so that people can buy anything they want and play within hours of buying a box - and these boxes will often work over multiple systems, like Shadow War.
A matched play system will then allow those new players to transition into the more complex organised play, with its own restrictions.
The biggest triumph of AoS is how modular it is in terms of rules and models. You can add as many or as few levels of complexity as you wish. You can even stick your hero units in Warhammer Quest. Soon, Shadespire will give you minis you can put in your AoS armies. I fully understand people's hesitations, but I do not think AoS is as bad as many people think it actually is.
I have joined this forum because for the first time since playing 2nd and 3rd edition as a kid, I am interested in getting back into 40k. The lower bracket of entry and the more nimble and adaptable ruleset is a god send for players like me. Tthe feeling I get from the AoS community is that GW have done a very good job of straddling the gap between players such as myself, and those who are interested in making strong, tournament viable lists. There is no insta-win list in AoS, and despite the more updated factions being more powerful overall, it has not stopped less supported factions from placing well.
What I really want to know is if they will be keeping the scale of the game the same, making it larger, or smaller. As of right now, it seems to take too much money and time invested to even want to create a new army.
Has there been any word on this at all? It would be nice if the amount of models on the table at the current 2,000 point game shrank just slightly to make it more manageable to get started again and attract new players.
HANZERtank wrote: It hasn't invalidated all your previous purchases, you haven't wasted money on stuff when a new edition drops. How many hours of painting and modelling has gone into an army, how many evenings spent having fun with mates playing and goofing around. They don't disappear with the old edition. Yes you might have to buy £100 worth of new books, but same goes for previous times rules were updated and you didn't lose those fond memories of the previous editions, but added new ones and new experiences and friends.
While I agree with everything you've said above, I think its important to remember one thing. Before each previous edition change, the same type of people also bitched unendingly about rumors and hear-say taken as the absolute word of God. Unfortunately, until 8th edition comes out, most online 40k communities will devolve into misguided temper tantrums and futile efforts to contain and redirect those temper tantrums. I can only hope for more burning armies!
NH Gunsmith wrote: What I really want to know is if they will be keeping the scale of the game the same, making it larger, or smaller. As of right now, it seems to take too much money and time invested to even want to create a new army.
Has there been any word on this at all? It would be nice if the amount of models on the table at the current 2,000 point game shrank just slightly to make it more manageable to get started again and attract new players.
People generally don't play 2,000 points. 1,850 is the go to points value (because that's what tournaments tend to use), but I usually play 1000 or 1500.
If you want fewer models, play a 500 point game.
There are no rules on how many points you should use.
Thats the one thing I am not looking forward to. We will end up with AoS on release and three psychic powers to choose from, perhaps more balanced. But WAY WAY less fun.
So long as I can actually use a single psyker without gimping myself I would feel better about the psyker system. As it is you either go big or go home when it comes to psykers and those that can either abuse it or have the most powerful formations for it tend to have fun with it.
The days of having a single librarian or sorcerer and still casting okay is the days I want to come back!
NH Gunsmith wrote: What I really want to know is if they will be keeping the scale of the game the same, making it larger, or smaller. As of right now, it seems to take too much money and time invested to even want to create a new army.
Has there been any word on this at all? It would be nice if the amount of models on the table at the current 2,000 point game shrank just slightly to make it more manageable to get started again and attract new players.
People generally don't play 2,000 points. 1,850 is the go to points value (because that's what tournaments tend to use), but I usually play 1000 or 1500.
If you want fewer models, play a 500 point game.
There are no rules on how many points you should use.
I haven't had somebody ask me if I wanted to play an 1850 game over a 2000 point game since Dakka Dakka was a brick and mortar store in New Hampshire. I just moved from Colorado to Texas, and while I was in Colorado, nobody really wanted anything to do with points levels below 2000. Unless you were playing the Heralds of Ruin version of Killteam. If you were to mention a 500 point game they looked down on you as a player and you didn't get games. I understand that the standard size varies based off your location, but so far trying to get groups to consider a smaller size of game has been quite a chore for me.
NH Gunsmith wrote: What I really want to know is if they will be keeping the scale of the game the same, making it larger, or smaller. As of right now, it seems to take too much money and time invested to even want to create a new army.
Has there been any word on this at all? It would be nice if the amount of models on the table at the current 2,000 point game shrank just slightly to make it more manageable to get started again and attract new players.
People generally don't play 2,000 points. 1,850 is the go to points value (because that's what tournaments tend to use), but I usually play 1000 or 1500.
If you want fewer models, play a 500 point game.
There are no rules on how many points you should use.
I haven't had somebody ask me if I wanted to play an 1850 game over a 2000 point game since Dakka Dakka was a brick and mortar store in New Hampshire. I just moved from Colorado to Texas, and while I was in Colorado, nobody really wanted anything to do with points levels below 2000. Unless you were playing the Heralds of Ruin version of Killteam. If you were to mention a 500 point game they looked down on you as a player and you didn't get games. I understand that the standard size varies based off your location, but so far trying to get groups to consider a smaller size of game has been quite a chore for me.
Oh, that sucks a bit. If you can find like minded people you'll be able to play with the number of models you want. I imagine if the 2000 point players want to use the same lists they'll just start playing 2500 or 3000 point games if the new points are higher anyway.
Good luck finding a game at the right points for you!!
Jancoran wrote:Its not an FAQ, its just a release anouncement in fancy format. We shall see what the FAQ's are like...
It's an announcement FAQ, not a rules FAQ. It happens a lot for products under development that have reached a point that marketing will be done. Name a computer game in existence and you'll find an FAQ that is meant to help people understand the product being developed. It's used to help people get hyped for the product and start setting pennies aside to purchase upon release. Most are pretty boring, though, and don't hype very well.
Open (no-points)
Narrative (points or no points revolves around a story or scenario)
Matched ("classic" 40k)
Unbound and Bound are the same way to play. You can play an Unbound army against a Bound army using the same exact ruleset.
Narrative is just a friggin adjective...it is meaningless in terms of what rules you currently play with. You might as well say "big" and "small" games use two different sets of rules. Or that "fun" is a distinct type of game.
This new stuff is just more BS you have to negotiate with your opponent to get a game going.
And this is to mention nothing of all the new crap they JUST released and are immediately invalidating (specifically Gathering Storm, Imperial Agents and Chaos Legions).
They should have stopped publishing new materials months and months ago if they were going to do invalidate all the old books.
But they wanted your $$$$$, and now they want lots more. Shareholders first and foremost.
Automatically Appended Next Post: But I'm not bitter or anything
Just noticed that points will only be used in "Matched Play". So one can only assume your average PUG will be "I'll put whatever I want on the table, and you do the same."
Barf. This is why AoS is a joke. I didn't believe they do it, but they did it.
jasper76 wrote: Just noticed that points will only be used in "Matched Play". So one can only assume your average PUG will be "I'll put whatever I want on the table, and you do the same."
Barf. This is why AoS is a joke. I didn't believe they do it, but they did it.
jasper76 wrote: Just noticed that points will only be used in "Matched Play". So one can only assume your average PUG will be "I'll put whatever I want on the table, and you do the same."
Barf. This is why AoS is a joke. I didn't believe they do it, but they did it.
You obviously have never played any AoS
I tried. I got the starter set for 40 bucks, but no-one would play because of no points.
Players at my flgs stuck with the prior edition of WHFB, because no points and 4 pages of rules.
Some of us like complex games. I like points systems. It's one of the things that makes TT gaming fun for me.
You do relies there have been a lot of changes with AoS
Everyone agrees its initial release was no good, but now it plays quite well
Try having another go of it..
But I do like how you like 'complex' games.. the basic no points and deploy to someone says stops, put a lot of tactics into the whole deployment.. as you had to try and out counter your opponent and give yourself the advantage.. To me that added a lot of challenge to the game
GodDamUser wrote: You do relies there have been a lot of changes with AoS
Everyone agrees its initial release was no good, but now it plays quite well
Try having another go of it
Well, if they added a points system, I applaud them for doing that.
But like I said, there's no local interest and in AoS. Personally, I get my TT fantasy itch from LOTR with a couple friends, and another friend runs games using an old D&D Battle System ruleset, which is pretty cool because it can be adapted for almost anything you can dream up.
jasper76 wrote: Just noticed that points will only be used in "Matched Play". So one can only assume your average PUG will be "I'll put whatever I want on the table, and you do the same."
Barf. This is why AoS is a joke. I didn't believe they do it, but they did it.
Indeed. The sky if falling. Please retire to your designated emergency shelter. The rest of us will just stay here and discuss what the world will be like after Plastic Armageddon.
GodDamUser wrote: I wonder how many fantasy duders, that were dedicated to sticking to 8th edition, are still sticking to their guns.. or have moved on to AoS
The guy who went and burnt his Dark Elf army on youtube is playing Stormcast.
commander dante wrote: Ahh i dunno
As long as i can field 3 Kytan Deamon Engines (Replacing Lord of Skulls) in a LEGAL Competitive list, ill be happy
But the "Your books are now Obsolete" is a HUGE slap in the face
I guess all formations are gone. Decurion, Gladius and whatnot.
Not a bad thing.
It is in fact the single most refreshing thing I can imagine out of an 8E thus far.
True.
But I guess it won't last long and GW will release new supplementary books again. Just for money making.
assuming they follow the way AOS did formations I doubt it'll be that b ig an issue, no one would even blink if people had to shell out say 300 points to run a battle company gladius. And no one found the one with just a demi-company exciting.
Scimmed the last few pages so appolgise if someone already said. However, my 2 cents:
The new 40k rules (because free) will be simplified a lot.
There will be no armour values etc (Its free so will prob be like AoS and under 5 pages, for basic game rules)
Prob lose initiative (to be replaced by individual unit movement back again) and a break point will be instigated like AoS over Ld. Moreover, unit sizes I think will be adapted to the Aos model (sells more models).
Everything will have wounds (Less rules, less mess). Specialised weapons will have a rend (Armour Pierce Value) like AoS and will instigate a mortal (Catastrophic) wound system (example: for D cause -3 APV all the time and cause D6 catastrophic wounds on any role of 6 to wound. Melta cause -3 APV all the time and cause an extra catastrophic wound on any role of 5+ to wound etc...). Catastrophic= no save (except invul) APV = minus to an armour save. Something to that extant.
The initial/basic rules will be free but then you will pay $2.99 for special formation/detachment rules each or $29.99 etc for a book on that faction (Eg. all Detachments/formations, units and their costs for Orks). Then maybe pay like $49.99 for the current entire Imperium rules for example, something like that. This will update etc etc (make money in small lots then less in one chunk).
My initial thoughts. Will be good cause if mostly online is way easier and if can buy in small lots (eg the rules/formations etc), will be more convenient too (They will still have some paperback but woefully more expensive). Don't have to wait for "out of stock" etc. I buy all my codex's online now days anyway (don't have room or want to lug around a million books) so will be so much easier if like AoS.
I will be happy to see armour ratings go in comparison to monstrous creatures (things will just get a good save, high wounds or an invul save etc to balance), will balance the game so much more.
Just some quick thoughts. Have to wait and see. However, if get an app like Aos has will be good (espec for those of us with alot of different armies).
Runic wrote: What a group. They decided to stick with 7th without knowing anything concrete about 8th.
Admirable haste in decision making.
The decision is primarily motivated by money. I'd have to buy 6 new codexes plus the rules to upgrade to 8th, and it's just not something I'm willing to do. I had the door half open on 8th, but the invalidation of the codices closed it for me and my group. It's not exactly an uniformed decision.
3 game modes with 2 of them having no points is just more reasons not to upgrade. Add the fact that since 8th is such a major update, surely 9th will be just around the corner to plug the holes.
I'll add that it's pretty gross that the FAQ is actually encouraging people to buy codices that will soon be put of print (for the lore of course, nothing to do with money). They should really take all of the old stuff off the shelf ASAP. Hopefully GW stores and FLGSs will do the right thing and give folks plenty of warning if they come in and buy an obsolete book. They should have done this month's and months ago instead of continuing to release new material they knew would become obsolete. But this has more to do with the way GW is treating it's customers rather than the rules themselves.
Now I've gotten this out of my system, I promise I won't haunt the boards with the ghost of 7th.
I'm very happy with the announcement. I don't mind 7th edition that much since Traitor Legion and Fenris brought my armies on par with the others, but I'm still hoping for a more tactical approach with simplified rules. Similar to Lotr, which is easy to learn but hard to handle.
I'm also excited about the scenario play. Coming from lotr I was always surprised about the lack of these (and consequently made them up myself). Also not minding the lack of points here. I see open play, however, go the way of unbound - you only use it if you are a collector and finally want to try out your unrelated models one time.
Nevertheless I also hope that matched play has a mechanic about restricting superheavies and stuff like that. Maybe even the old "only allowed if you play with more than 2000+ points". Or only, if your opponent has a superheavy as well. Ideally, they could also balance the superheavies with point costs, of course.
Runic wrote: What a group. They decided to stick with 7th without knowing anything concrete about 8th.
Admirable haste in decision making.
The decision is primarily motivated by money. I'd have to buy 6 new codexes plus the rules to upgrade to 8th, and it's just not something I'm willing to do. I had the door half open on 8th, but the invalidation of the codices closed it for me and my group. It's not exactly an uniformed decision.
rules are free, as will the unit rules be... and there will likely be only 2/3 books for unit rules all togeather
jasper76 wrote: Just noticed that points will only be used in "Matched Play". So one can only assume your average PUG will be "I'll put whatever I want on the table, and you do the same."
Barf. This is why AoS is a joke. I didn't believe they do it, but they did it.
I think just the opposite. AoS fell on its face at initial release due to the lack of points, so one couldn't play PUGs with any kind of semblance of balance. The slap-what-you-got-on-the-table mode is for newbies who just bought their first box of stuff and want to have a go with it. Thematic play is for people who are well acquainted who work out the experience in advance. PUG players are going to come with lists written to a certain amount of points, because they're looking for an even game, not for a goofball mess or to recreate so-and-so's last stand.
Runic wrote: What a group. They decided to stick with 7th without knowing anything concrete about 8th.
Admirable haste in decision making.
The decision is primarily motivated by money. I'd have to buy 6 new codexes plus the rules to upgrade to 8th, and it's just not something I'm willing to do. I had the door half open on 8th, but the invalidation of the codices closed it for me and my group. It's not exactly an uniformed decision.
3 game modes with 2 of them having no points is just more reasons not to upgrade. Add the fact that since 8th is such a major update, surely 9th will be just around the corner to plug the holes.
I'll add that it's pretty gross that the FAQ is actually encouraging people to buy codices that will soon be put of print (for the lore of course, nothing to do with money). They should really take all of the old stuff off the shelf ASAP. Hopefully GW stores and FLGSs will do the right thing and give folks plenty of warning if they come in and buy an obsolete book. They should have done this month's and months ago instead of continuing to release new material they knew would become obsolete. But this has more to do with the way GW is treating it's customers rather than the rules themselves.
Now I've gotten this out of my system, I promise I won't haunt the boards with the ghost of 7th.
6? There's going to be 5 codexes at launc and at a lower price than current ones.
nordsturmking wrote: Have you tried to kill a knight with a Tyranid list without GSC? I find it very difficult to do.
Have you tried killing anything with a Tyranid list without GSC?
My grey knights can do it solo build. If grey Knights, CSM and guard can do it then it's fine. Using the worst contender as a benchmark is not a good way of telling of something is balenced.
Runic wrote: What a group. They decided to stick with 7th without knowing anything concrete about 8th.
Admirable haste in decision making.
The decision is primarily motivated by money. I'd have to buy 6 new codexes plus the rules to upgrade to 8th, and it's just not something I'm willing to do. I had the door half open on 8th, but the invalidation of the codices closed it for me and my group. It's not exactly an uniformed decision.
3 game modes with 2 of them having no points is just more reasons not to upgrade. Add the fact that since 8th is such a major update, surely 9th will be just around the corner to plug the holes.
I'll add that it's pretty gross that the FAQ is actually encouraging people to buy codices that will soon be put of print (for the lore of course, nothing to do with money). They should really take all of the old stuff off the shelf ASAP. Hopefully GW stores and FLGSs will do the right thing and give folks plenty of warning if they come in and buy an obsolete book. They should have done this month's and months ago instead of continuing to release new material they knew would become obsolete. But this has more to do with the way GW is treating it's customers rather than the rules themselves.
Now I've gotten this out of my system, I promise I won't haunt the boards with the ghost of 7th.
6? There's going to be 5 codexes at launc and at a lower price than current ones.
Along with free core rules and most likely an app where you can buy only the formations/units you need for a couple of bucks each.
jasper76 wrote: Just noticed that points will only be used in "Matched Play". So one can only assume your average PUG will be "I'll put whatever I want on the table, and you do the same."
Barf. This is why AoS is a joke. I didn't believe they do it, but they did it.
No, the average way to play PUGs will be with points. Just like AoS when they finally came out with the GH.
1. Cover saves will be gone. Instead you'll have modifiers to hit. So that cover save will be built in to the hit roll.
2. Wounding will still follow a chart. This isn't AoS, it makes 0 sense for a boltgun to wound a guardsman on a 4 and a hive tyrant on a 4. Fixed wound rolls do not work here.
3. Hit rolls in melee I am guessing will be fixed, similar to ballistic skill. I don't particularly like this, but there may also be modifiers in some way or another.
4. Save modifiers will be a thing, and as a result, things will die a lot easier, but also invulnerable saves are treated as an additive bonus to your save total, after negative modifiers are applied (ie, -3 save mod (AP3) on 2+/5++ drops the save to 5+, but then +2 from the invuln save, for a net save of 3+). I would guess the invuln saves would also read as +X, such as +2 instead of 5++.
I would imagine a psychic phase that is based on leadership. Perhaps that trait will be renamed so it is more generally applicable. Spells would test your ldr on some combination of D3 and D6 dice, with a fixed number of spells that can be cast per turn based on the psyker.
Runic wrote: What a group. They decided to stick with 7th without knowing anything concrete about 8th.
Admirable haste in decision making.
The decision is primarily motivated by money. I'd have to buy 6 new codexes plus the rules to upgrade to 8th, and it's just not something I'm willing to do. I had the door half open on 8th, but the invalidation of the codices closed it for me and my group. It's not exactly an uniformed decision.
3 game modes with 2 of them having no points is just more reasons not to upgrade. Add the fact that since 8th is such a major update, surely 9th will be just around the corner to plug the holes.
I'll add that it's pretty gross that the FAQ is actually encouraging people to buy codices that will soon be put of print (for the lore of course, nothing to do with money). They should really take all of the old stuff off the shelf ASAP. Hopefully GW stores and FLGSs will do the right thing and give folks plenty of warning if they come in and buy an obsolete book. They should have done this month's and months ago instead of continuing to release new material they knew would become obsolete. But this has more to do with the way GW is treating it's customers rather than the rules themselves.
Now I've gotten this out of my system, I promise I won't haunt the boards with the ghost of 7th.
6? There's going to be 5 codexes at launc and at a lower price than current ones.
Along with free core rules and most likely an app where you can buy only the formations/units you need for a couple of bucks each.
I saw that the core rules are free, but the full rules are gonna cost.
I've also seen here that the new codices will be like 30 bucks a pop. Let's just pretend best case that the full rules will cost 50. I would need all 5 codices, and would not settle for an incomplete (but free) core ruleset.
So at a minimum the cost of entry for me would be 5 x $30 + $50 = $200. And I'm not interested in paying that.
I don't look down on anyone who is upgrading or anything like that, it's just that me and my little group decided not to fork over any more money.
Plus we are generally happy with 7th, and it will be fun to homebrew some fixes for the rules we don't like and come up with some new rules that we want (examples, we are going to allow manned guns on vehicles to overwatch because they realistically would be able to do so, and we're gonna dream up some rules for vehicle crew infantry, because crew should not just magically disappear when a vehicle is wrecked).
I'm happy to have my part of the conversation on this topic conclude with: you do what you want to do, and I'll do what I want to do.
All of the changes from GW seem to be a far cry from the night terrors some have espoused about the future of the game. I am thinking that I like aaaaaalmost all of it that I saw. I still do not like individualized movement and that seems all but certain. Theelimination of Blasts and Templates was a REALLY unexpected move but I can foresee them just giving a flamer a range and saying "D6+3 hits" or something like that. Similarly, the Large Blast will just do like "D6+4" hits or something like that. That is actually more terrifying on a lot of levels though. Spreading out well has been a part of the game forever and now it seems...maybe not.
Personally I don't know why they'd really bother supporting a game mode without points, because almost no one plays that way. But hey, more power to them for giving people options.
Luciferian wrote: Personally I don't know why they'd really bother supporting a game mode without points, because almost no one plays that way. But hey, more power to them for giving people options.
What, you don't just throw a bunch of models onto a table and roll dice to see what happens?
Joking aside, it's absolutely fine that they included it, but I personally would have just put the points-free play in their 'narrative' mode. That's what it'll be used for, after all, right?
Why do i feel Invulnerable saves will stay, and will be treated as Unmodifiable saves?
(E.G Say AP1 is a -4 to your saves (so a 2+ will become a 6+) but you have a Storm Shield, which is an Unmodifiable 3++ Save)
Because if so, Invulnerable save spam is going to be the META
Luciferian wrote: Personally I don't know why they'd really bother supporting a game mode without points, because almost no one plays that way. But hey, more power to them for giving people options.
What, you don't just throw a bunch of models onto a table and roll dice to see what happens?
Joking aside, it's absolutely fine that they included it, but I personally would have just put the points-free play in their 'narrative' mode. That's what it'll be used for, after all, right?
I'm not sure, I've never played that way or heard of anyone playing that way. I did hear that in 8th, narrative play is still going to be based on points but without wargear and weapons choices being taken into account.
Jancoran wrote: All of the changes from GW seem to be a far cry from the night terrors some have espoused about the future of the game. I am thinking that I like aaaaaalmost all of it that I saw. I still do not like individualized movement and that seems all but certain. Theelimination of Blasts and Templates was a REALLY unexpected move but I can foresee them just giving a flamer a range and saying "D6+3 hits" or something like that. Similarly, the Large Blast will just do like "D6+4" hits or something like that. That is actually more terrifying on a lot of levels though. Spreading out well has been a part of the game forever and now it seems...maybe not.
Is the removal of templates and blasts confirmed? Or is that an AoS thing?
The only thing I've seen GW confirm rule-wise is the return of the movement stat (which personally I prefer) and the save modifiers. Have I missed something on blasts?
Whittlesey40k wrote: Is the removal of templates and blasts confirmed? Or is that an AoS thing?
The only thing I've seen GW confirm rule-wise is the return of the movement stat (which personally I prefer) and the save modifiers. Have I missed something on blasts?
In the Q&A that GW hosted earlier today, they said that there will no longer be templates.
Jancoran wrote: All of the changes from GW seem to be a far cry from the night terrors some have espoused about the future of the game. I am thinking that I like aaaaaalmost all of it that I saw. I still do not like individualized movement and that seems all but certain. Theelimination of Blasts and Templates was a REALLY unexpected move but I can foresee them just giving a flamer a range and saying "D6+3 hits" or something like that. Similarly, the Large Blast will just do like "D6+4" hits or something like that. That is actually more terrifying on a lot of levels though. Spreading out well has been a part of the game forever and now it seems...maybe not.
Is the removal of templates and blasts confirmed? Or is that an AoS thing?
The only thing I've seen GW confirm rule-wise is the return of the movement stat (which personally I prefer) and the save modifiers. Have I missed something on blasts?
The guy on the warhammer TV video confirmed templates are history
Whittlesey40k wrote: Is the removal of templates and blasts confirmed? Or is that an AoS thing?
The only thing I've seen GW confirm rule-wise is the return of the movement stat (which personally I prefer) and the save modifiers. Have I missed something on blasts?
Templates are indeed out. They're even on the list of things that stores should stop selling.
Whittlesey40k wrote: Is the removal of templates and blasts confirmed? Or is that an AoS thing?
The only thing I've seen GW confirm rule-wise is the return of the movement stat (which personally I prefer) and the save modifiers. Have I missed something on blasts?
Templates are indeed out. They're even on the list of things that stores should stop selling.
Whittlesey40k wrote: Is the removal of templates and blasts confirmed? Or is that an AoS thing?
The only thing I've seen GW confirm rule-wise is the return of the movement stat (which personally I prefer) and the save modifiers. Have I missed something on blasts?
Templates are indeed out. They're even on the list of things that stores should stop selling.
Odd move...templates are fun!
I dunno, they're a cheap brittle plastic, they can be lost etc. I won't be sad to see them gone
Whittlesey40k wrote: Is the removal of templates and blasts confirmed? Or is that an AoS thing?
The only thing I've seen GW confirm rule-wise is the return of the movement stat (which personally I prefer) and the save modifiers. Have I missed something on blasts?
Templates are indeed out. They're even on the list of things that stores should stop selling.
Odd move...templates are fun!
I dunno, they're a cheap brittle plastic, they can be lost etc. I won't be sad to see them gone
I never found them difficult to maintain or keep track of
But I just like catching dudes in bunches and laying flame on them. Something fun about counting all those models you catch beneath a template or blast.
I never found them difficult to maintain or keep track of
But I just like catching dudes in bunches and laying flame on them. Something fun about counting all those models you catch beneath a template or blast.
I also like the idea of templates, but there are pros and cons to each approach. Templates are flavorful, but can be timestaking to use and prone to human error. Rolling removes any question of proper placement and is faster but doesn't have the cool factor or the interactivity.
Jancoran wrote: All of the changes from GW seem to be a far cry from the night terrors some have espoused about the future of the game. I am thinking that I like aaaaaalmost all of it that I saw. I still do not like individualized movement and that seems all but certain. Theelimination of Blasts and Templates was a REALLY unexpected move but I can foresee them just giving a flamer a range and saying "D6+3 hits" or something like that. Similarly, the Large Blast will just do like "D6+4" hits or something like that. That is actually more terrifying on a lot of levels though. Spreading out well has been a part of the game forever and now it seems...maybe not.
Is the removal of templates and blasts confirmed? Or is that an AoS thing?
The only thing I've seen GW confirm rule-wise is the return of the movement stat (which personally I prefer) and the save modifiers. Have I missed something on blasts?
Jancoran wrote: All of the changes from GW seem to be a far cry from the night terrors some have espoused about the future of the game. I am thinking that I like aaaaaalmost all of it that I saw. I still do not like individualized movement and that seems all but certain. Theelimination of Blasts and Templates was a REALLY unexpected move but I can foresee them just giving a flamer a range and saying "D6+3 hits" or something like that. Similarly, the Large Blast will just do like "D6+4" hits or something like that. That is actually more terrifying on a lot of levels though. Spreading out well has been a part of the game forever and now it seems...maybe not.
At first i didn’t liked the idea of templates going away. But the more i think about it the more i like it. I see more pro than cons in this. And i never enjoyed moving 30 Gants. Cuz you had to spread them out. And you had to be careful not to but them to close together. You couldn’t fit a lot of them in a terrain piece. Cuz one large blast with no cover or a few small once would take out the whole unit. So it makes the game faster by getting rid of dice indecated directions. Or shooting 3 Thunderfire Cannons.
nordsturmking wrote: At first i didn’t liked the idea of templates going away. But the more i think about it the more i like it. I see more pro than cons in this. And i never enjoyed moving 30 Gants. Cuz you had to spread them out. And you had to be careful not to but them to close together. You couldn’t fit a lot of them in a terrain piece. Cuz one large blast with no cover or a few small once would take out the whole unit. So it makes the game faster by getting rid of dice indecated directions. Or shooting 3 Thunderfire Cannons.
Also one less set of things to lose or buff of a friend. Also better for new players so they don't feel like they have to spend "even more" after they get their models all built.
Roknar wrote: God I hope they drastically change the psychic phase.
Hell yeah
I wonder what happens to disciplines. Not sure how magic in AoS works or if it gives any indication how the psychic phase will be. Concepts like Primaris and having 6 powers per discipline might be up ended.
Roknar wrote: God I hope they drastically change the psychic phase.
Hell yeah
I wonder what happens to disciplines. Not sure how magic in AoS works or if it gives any indication how the psychic phase will be. Concepts like Primaris and having 6 powers per discipline might be up ended.
Magic in AoS works in general: You get two basic spells, a +1 to saves that can be conferred to a unit, and a damaging D3 Mortal(Unable to be saved normally) wounds bolt. Casters tend to get one extra unique spell to whoever they are as well/.
With Matched Play you cannot cast the same spell repeatedly by multiple casters, the rule of one. Only one mystic shield attempted per turn for example. The battletomes add in six extra spells/prayers for use by wizards, they can take one extra from this discipline (or roll for it if they really want)
Runic wrote: What a group. They decided to stick with 7th without knowing anything concrete about 8th.
Admirable haste in decision making.
The decision is primarily motivated by money. I'd have to buy 6 new codexes plus the rules to upgrade to 8th, and it's just not something I'm willing to do. I had the door half open on 8th, but the invalidation of the codices closed it for me and my group. It's not exactly an uniformed decision
I think your decision might be better informed after reading this thread, or maybe just waiting for 8th to drop.
There's a saying for this type of things... " wait and see "
Roknar wrote: God I hope they drastically change the psychic phase.
Hell yeah
I wonder what happens to disciplines. Not sure how magic in AoS works or if it gives any indication how the psychic phase will be. Concepts like Primaris and having 6 powers per discipline might be up ended.
Magic in AoS works in general: You get two basic spells, a +1 to saves that can be conferred to a unit, and a damaging D3 Mortal(Unable to be saved normally) wounds bolt. Casters tend to get one extra unique spell to whoever they are as well/.
With Matched Play you cannot cast the same spell repeatedly by multiple casters, the rule of one. Only one mystic shield attempted per turn for example. The battletomes add in six extra spells/prayers for use by wizards, they can take one extra from this discipline (or roll for it if they really want)
I hope 8th edition makes psykic stuff a LITTTLE more complex,
oldzoggy wrote: Your codexes will not be compatible with the new edition + All models we currently sell will have rules... jikes this could hurt both my armies a lot.
3 ways of playing, not impressed by this at all. We already have this.
Unbound -> Not really accepted by most of my opponents.
Campaigns with specific armies -> I am not into that
Bound -> This is what all my games usually are.
My guess is that the new system isn't going to change a lot about this.
Then again who know it might also be great and the worst that can happen is that I would only be be able to enjoy horus herecy and shadow wars.. I can live with that. Both games are fun and I rarely play 40k anyway nowadays. If it becomes popular and I don't like it I just sell my models and continue playing the games I like, if it is fun then yay I have an other fun game to play.
Pretty much agreed with you (though I do enjoy campaign or thematic games). The ''3 ways to play'' is one of the lamest marketing spin I have ever seen considering that, as you pointed out, we already have this. Makes you realize that the old cliche of 'GW groupies mindlessly drinking the Kool-aid 'has more than a shred of truth to it.
Roknar wrote: God I hope they drastically change the psychic phase.
Hell yeah
I wonder what happens to disciplines. Not sure how magic in AoS works or if it gives any indication how the psychic phase will be. Concepts like Primaris and having 6 powers per discipline might be up ended.
Magic in AoS works in general: You get two basic spells, a +1 to saves that can be conferred to a unit, and a damaging D3 Mortal(Unable to be saved normally) wounds bolt. Casters tend to get one extra unique spell to whoever they are as well/.
With Matched Play you cannot cast the same spell repeatedly by multiple casters, the rule of one. Only one mystic shield attempted per turn for example. The battletomes add in six extra spells/prayers for use by wizards, they can take one extra from this discipline (or roll for it if they really want)
I hope 8th edition makes psykic stuff a LITTTLE more complex,
Well, he's forgotten about army specific lores. IF your army goes full alleigance (all models have a certain keyword) you get access to a specific lore which you can CHOOSE spells from,
oldzoggy wrote: Your codexes will not be compatible with the new edition + All models we currently sell will have rules... jikes this could hurt both my armies a lot.
3 ways of playing, not impressed by this at all. We already have this.
Unbound -> Not really accepted by most of my opponents.
Campaigns with specific armies -> I am not into that
Bound -> This is what all my games usually are.
My guess is that the new system isn't going to change a lot about this.
Then again who know it might also be great and the worst that can happen is that I would only be be able to enjoy horus herecy and shadow wars.. I can live with that. Both games are fun and I rarely play 40k anyway nowadays. If it becomes popular and I don't like it I just sell my models and continue playing the games I like, if it is fun then yay I have an other fun game to play.
Pretty much agreed with you (though I do enjoy campaign or thematic games). The ''3 ways to play'' is one of the lamest marketing spin I have ever seen considering that, as you pointed out, we already have this. Makes you realize that the old cliche of 'GW groupies mindlessly drinking the Kool-aid 'has more than a shred of truth to it.
Or people have actually different tastes and appreciate the approach. Just saying.
Or people have actually different tastes and appreciate the approach. Just saying.
It got nothing to do with having different tastes or appreciating the approach. Unless GW pull a seriously big rabbit out of their hat and they come up with something really innovative, it's simply plain ridiculous to see people hyping the new ''3 ways to play'' approach when we already have it in this edition.
Pretty much agreed with you (though I do enjoy campaign or thematic games). The ''3 ways to play'' is one of the lamest marketing spin I have ever seen considering that, as you pointed out, we already have this. Makes you realize that the old cliche of 'GW groupies mindlessly drinking the Kool-aid 'has more than a shred of truth to it.
It's not a lame marketing spin, it's giving official rules support to one of the ways people LIKE to play this game, and currently do.
I know way too many people who whine because their armies are weak, yearn for "balanced, fun" games, which with their definition of "a good army list" is entirely impossible within a framework of point costs, which is one of the ways to play, and the only thing we have in this edition.
We do not currently have this in the game and having official support will help people state: I want a type X game, thereby starting to fix the problem of crappy lists going up against top competitive lists.
I'd say the majority of 40k gamers don't actually know how to make a scenario or campaign system that works, so the support for Narrative play is valuable just in the form of pre made scenarios, campaign rules and the approximation points system they are adding to help in scenario design is reason enough to see "3 ways to play" as more than marketing spin. It's real content lots of people are going to find useful.
Pretty much agreed with you (though I do enjoy campaign or thematic games). The ''3 ways to play'' is one of the lamest marketing spin I have ever seen considering that, as you pointed out, we already have this. Makes you realize that the old cliche of 'GW groupies mindlessly drinking the Kool-aid 'has more than a shred of truth to it.
It's not a lame marketing spin, it's giving official rules support to one of the ways people LIKE to play this game, and currently do.
I know way too many people who whine because their armies are weak, yearn for "balanced, fun" games, which with their definition of "a good army list" is entirely impossible within a framework of point costs, which is one of the ways to play, and the only thing we have in this edition.
We do not currently have this in the game and having official support will help people state: I want a type X game, thereby starting to fix the problem of crappy lists going up against top competitive lists.
There's a ton of Narrative campaigns/scenarios in the numerous released supplements. As per p.116 of the BRB (They are many ways to choose an army and they all have their strengths. The first thing to do is to determine whether or not you and your opponent will be using points limit), 7th edition already endorsed open play (even if nobody played it). So, unless I'm missing something, we already have all of this and ''3 ways to plays'' is nothing new really.
Pretty much agreed with you (though I do enjoy campaign or thematic games). The ''3 ways to play'' is one of the lamest marketing spin I have ever seen considering that, as you pointed out, we already have this. Makes you realize that the old cliche of 'GW groupies mindlessly drinking the Kool-aid 'has more than a shred of truth to it.
It's not a lame marketing spin, it's giving official rules support to one of the ways people LIKE to play this game, and currently do.
I know way too many people who whine because their armies are weak, yearn for "balanced, fun" games, which with their definition of "a good army list" is entirely impossible within a framework of point costs, which is one of the ways to play, and the only thing we have in this edition.
We do not currently have this in the game and having official support will help people state: I want a type X game, thereby starting to fix the problem of crappy lists going up against top competitive lists.
There's a ton of Narrative campaigns/scenarios in the numerous released supplements. As per p.116 of the BRB (They are many ways to choose an army and they all have their strengths. The first thing to do is to determine whether or not you and your opponent will be using points limit), 7th edition already endorsed open play (even if nobody played it). So, unless I'm missing something, we already have all of this and ''3 ways to plays'' is nothing new really.
There's a big difference between a tiny one-liner nobody even reads, and "one of the three ways to play".
Like there's a big difference between GW telling everyone that FW is included in the game, and then GW later including superheavies in regular 40K and nerfing all of FW into oblivion in order to help that transition finally happen.
The point is, most people have a lot of trouble accepting to play with a points handicap (for me) and making those "narrative", "miniature oriented" ways to play an important part of 8th edition is a recipe for success.
You have to understand that FW has been "legal" for a very long time, yet most people still resist the idea, like we have constant old-guard comments on dakka about how "GMC don't belong in 40K, go back to apocalypse you dirty 40k-migrants".
At this point in time, narrative and miniature oriented games are so non-existent that they don't even get that whine.
Hell, people haven't used unbound once since 7th started.
Making those three ways to play one of the core statements of 8th is definitely a great thing, and I'm fairly sure they'll have a lot more than just a one-liner on p.116 of the BRB, which is new and required if we want to see that type of game actually happen at all.
Mind you, just like the GMC-racists, it's going to take another ten years for people to begin to acknowledge it, but it's still a clear step forward in the right direction.
Pretty much agreed with you (though I do enjoy campaign or thematic games). The ''3 ways to play'' is one of the lamest marketing spin I have ever seen considering that, as you pointed out, we already have this. Makes you realize that the old cliche of 'GW groupies mindlessly drinking the Kool-aid 'has more than a shred of truth to it.
It's not a lame marketing spin, it's giving official rules support to one of the ways people LIKE to play this game, and currently do.
I know way too many people who whine because their armies are weak, yearn for "balanced, fun" games, which with their definition of "a good army list" is entirely impossible within a framework of point costs, which is one of the ways to play, and the only thing we have in this edition.
We do not currently have this in the game and having official support will help people state: I want a type X game, thereby starting to fix the problem of crappy lists going up against top competitive lists.
There's a ton of Narrative campaigns/scenarios in the numerous released supplements. As per p.116 of the BRB (They are many ways to choose an army and they all have their strengths. The first thing to do is to determine whether or not you and your opponent will be using points limit), 7th edition already endorsed open play (even if nobody played it). So, unless I'm missing something, we already have all of this and ''3 ways to plays'' is nothing new really.
dividing unbound away from points play seems a pretty good thing to me, people who want structured games will have it, and the 2 people in the world who like unbound can do it.
meanwhile narritive rules are NOT something GW did much of in the past editions. not when compared to other table top games I've played.
dividing unbound away from points play seems a pretty good thing to me, people who want structured games will have it, and the 2 people in the world who like unbound can do it.
meanwhile narritive rules are NOT something GW did much of in the past editions. not when compared to other table top games I've played.
And here's some more conservationism with unbound is new so it must be bad... seriously... almost everyone wants unbound but hasn't realized it yet.
I actually think unbound/open players are far more common than people realize. They are the casual players who play on the kitchen table who don't show up to store events or post on message boards. They paint their miniatures at home or with friends and have some fun and simple games.
It's like how no one believes Wizards of the Coast when they say the majority of their Magic card customers don't play in sanctioned events and formats but play casual decks with less rules about what can and cannot be included.
Do I think they are the majority in 40k? No, probably not. Although at an old Games Day UK Jervis did say that a majority of their customers didn't really play the full game rules, so maybe it is the majority. I think it's probably less.
Think of Open Play as an agreed format where you can house rule anything with your opponent and use the rules in a modular fashion.
When I started AoS I played with points, but without allegiance abilities or artefacts because I didn't want to engage with that level of granularity in my frist few games.
Me and my opponent used 1250 points, but we discredited the 2 battleline requirement so we could play with everything we had.
Those are all VERBOTEN in matched play, and sure you could argue that we are just adding house rules to matched play, but some people are sticklers for rules and when a guy came over and asked us why we only had one battleline each we said "we're playing open" and he was like: "that's cool, I do that sometimes when I want to run elite armies against my pals." Having it sanctioned by GW is great for players that are new, inexperienced, young or just want a casual game. This whole "no one will use it" attitude is exclusionary nonsense.
DynamicCalories wrote: Those are all VERBOTEN in matched play, and sure you could argue that we are just adding house rules to matched play, but some people are sticklers for rules and when a guy came over and asked us why we only had one battleline each we said "we're playing open" and he was like: "that's cool, I do that sometimes when I want to run elite armies against my pals." Having it sanctioned by GW is great for players that are new, inexperienced, young or just want a casual game. This whole "no one will use it" attitude is exclusionary nonsense.
That's actually a really good point.
Hobbies involving other people (like playing games) often involve a level of social norms. And while many people are independent thinkers, for the most part people won't necessarily do something against the norms. And even if it's a small percent of people who would like to play in a way other than matched play but don't because they are conforming to the normal way it is done locally, having it spelled out as a sanctioned, normal and accepted approach will probably be of benefit to them. Some people need permission to do things they want when they don't know what is and is not acceptable among other people. It's not a weakness either. It's a useful skill to be that way at times.
The caveat is that open play is not super well supported by GW at the moment, and I feel that is becuase they haven't highlighted its real strength, which is that it is modular.
You can take a narrative battleplan, an army from two grand alliances, given them the allegience ability from a third alliance if you wish, make all the army the same unit, only use monsters, use 20 generals and 1 battleline - you can do whatever, and it's all given the thumbs up by GW.
It's a sandbox format for workshopping or breaking whatever you want. Sure you can do that in Matched play with house rules... but then you aren't playing Matched play. You could also make it a narrative thing, but if you aren't following the battleplans and rules for narrative then... you aren't playing narrative.
Ergo... open play is the third way of play. Staggeringly simple, wonderful for everyone in the hobby.
DynamicCalories wrote: The caveat is that open play is not super well supported by GW at the moment, and I feel that is becuase they haven't highlighted its real strength, which is that it is modular.
You can take a narrative battleplan, an army from two grand alliances, given them the allegience ability from a third alliance if you wish, make all the army the same unit, only use monsters, use 20 generals and 1 battleline - you can do whatever, and it's all given the thumbs up by GW.
It's a sandbox format for workshopping or breaking whatever you want. Sure you can do that in Matched play with house rules... but then you aren't playing Matched play. You could also make it a narrative thing, but if you aren't following the battleplans and rules for narrative then... you aren't playing narrative.
Ergo... open play is the third way of play. Staggeringly simple, wonderful for everyone in the hobby.
in short open play is what roleplayers have long called "rule zero"
frozenwastes wrote: I actually think unbound/open players are far more common than people realize. They are the casual players who play on the kitchen table who don't show up to store events or post on message boards. They paint their miniatures at home or with friends and have some fun and simple games.
It's like how no one believes Wizards of the Coast when they say the majority of their Magic card customers don't play in sanctioned events and formats but play casual decks with less rules about what can and cannot be included.
Do I think they are the majority in 40k? No, probably not. Although at an old Games Day UK Jervis did say that a majority of their customers didn't really play the full game rules, so maybe it is the majority. I think it's probably less.
Thanks for making this point. I exclusively play games at home with a small group of friends, and the system we play is "simple 7th"* with some house rules, and the armies are 'semi-battleforged' - we stick to the FOC, but occasionally sticking in an extra elite or HQ so we can play with our cool models. We stick to that Long War mantra of 'chillin' in the beats lab, havin' fun rollin' some dice'. Because no one sees it, it's assumed we don't exist, but we really do! We spend a lot of money on miniatures and books and play 40k a lot, but because we don't go to clubs or tournaments, our way of playing is not often heard of.
*no overwatch, charge is 6+D6", no going to ground, no pinning, power weapons are all identical (and AP2), specialist weapon doesn't exist, true grit does exist, and so on. We just made our own game out of the rules, and sometimes we make it up as we go along. it kind of surprises me that this isn't the norm in a hobby that is essentially about painting up little monsters and moving them around a table (I say this with my tongue in my cheek)!
To bring this all back on topic, to 8th edition: my group won't be playing 8th for a while because we're not even playing 7th now! The only problem will be if a new unit is created and we want to play with it, but no doubt we'll find a way to make it 'count as' something else.
corpuschain wrote: We just made our own game out of the rules, and sometimes we make it up as we go along. it kind of surprises me that this isn't the norm in a hobby that is essentially about painting up little monsters and moving them around a table (I say this with my tongue in my cheek)!
Consider for a second that some people do not even care to paint their own armies and realise that what is a hobby to you, is just a game for some, and is a combination of both for others. Standardized/static rules are very important to a lot of people who enjoy the strategy side of the game, I'd genuinely rather not play than "make the rules up as I go along" there is zero fun in that for me.
People complaining in the thread about these books that they know absolutely nothing about.
We don't know how much they'll cost: we don't know what's going to be in the books: we don't know what books will be required for playing 8th. What are you complaining about, other than things you made up yourself?
And all that, considering they have outright said the core rules will be freely available...
Pretty much agreed with you (though I do enjoy campaign or thematic games). The ''3 ways to play'' is one of the lamest marketing spin I have ever seen considering that, as you pointed out, we already have this. Makes you realize that the old cliche of 'GW groupies mindlessly drinking the Kool-aid 'has more than a shred of truth to it.
Wow, you really had your mind made up already on this didn't you? There is no possible way any rational human being could hold an opinion different to your own! They must be BRAINWASHED!
Maybe it's not some sinister 'spin' (said as if that's something weird for a company to do in the first place: are they not allowed to try to control the narrative of the product they made? that's what MARKETING is!), maybe it's just not at all a big deal in terms of what should factor into your value statement about the game?
Personally I'm psyched-we'll download FREE rules and scratch build our own minis and see what happens. Nothing ventured but a little bit of time.
As for the "unbound" play style, it's a great way to learn the game. I learnt 40k with the minis from Space Crusade and WHFB with the HeroQuest ones- they didn't follow FOCs..
Yeah I remember 2nd ed was pretty much unbound and people didn't have issues..
there was a % requirement but that required thinking so I know a lot of people ignored that.
But I know I am fully looking forward to these new rules, and I am just hoping my Tyranid force is able to come back out.. while I get my GSC army up to scratch
I'm kind of sad that templates are going away. I mean I understand how they're tough to use in a competitive setting, so I can appreciate reducing any chance for an argument. But, as someone who didn't really have arguments related to scatter dice, i'm going to miss it.
Did everyone here actually miss the statement where they said there was two different point systems?
Open play (Toss whatever models you want on table and play)
Narrative play (Use either point system 1 or Point system 2 or build set armies for your campaign/scenerios)
Match Play (Depending on agreed rules of match use Point system 1 or Point system 2, this also includes extra rules for deployment, scenarios with objectives and reserves)
Point system 1: Units cost X amount and you get upgrades based off the warscroll.
Point System 2 Units cost a base amount and must pay for all upgrades seperately.
Youn wrote: Did everyone here actually miss the statement where they said there was two different point systems?
Open play (Toss whatever models you want on table and play) Narrative play (Use either point system 1 or Point system 2 or build set armies for your campaign/scenerios) Match Play (Depending on agreed rules of match use Point system 1 or Point system 2, this also includes extra rules for deployment, scenarios with objectives and reserves)
Point system 1: Units cost X amount and you get upgrades based off the warscroll. Point System 2 Units cost a base amount and must pay for all upgrades seperately.
I think you might have misinterpreted what they meant here (unless I did).
Point system 1 goes with Open Play/Narrative Play Point system 2 goes with Match Play
That was my understanding.
Edit: in which case no one "actually missed the statement where they said there was two different point systems"
Edit 2: I think I am right, this is according to warhammer community site:
"Matched play is the final type of play-style. This system will be very familiar to those of you who play Warhammer 40,000 regularly now. Like the game today, it is based around one of two mission tables of 6 possible battles – either Eternal War, or Maelstrom of War, though the missions briefs have all been updated a little.
Your armies for matched play games will always be Battle-forged (more on that in future) and use points values to help ensure a balanced game. Rules and points for every single model in the game are being realigned for the new edition – so expect to see many units that might have been absent from competitive play make a welcome return. Army selection is still quite open though, and if you have a Battle-forged army for the current edition of Warhammer 40,000, you’ll be able to build a Battle-forged army for the new edition as well."
Edit 3: From the FAQ;
"Are you getting rid of points? Not at all. There will be a full points system, for use in matched play – one of three ways to play covered in the rulebook." (I bolded the "a" but it is hard to see)
I have to say, I'm pretty excited about the changes that 8th edition will bring. What with all the balance issues and rules problems the current form of 40k has, any sort of streamlining would be welcome.
It's worth keeping in mind that GW isn't just hoping to fix what are (in their mind) the problems with 40k in the new edition. GW wants to attract new players to the game. If the YMDC section has conclusively proven anything over the years, its that Warhammer 40,000 is a very complex game with a not entirely intuitive ruleset. As long as the core spirit of the game is preserved, I can only see benefits in making tha game simpler to allow for an easier learning experience for new players.
And now for six pages of collected multi-quotes!
Roknar wrote:God I hope they drastically change the psychic phase.
I liked the concept of the 7th edition Psychic phase; lord knows it was an improvement in implementation over 6th edition psychic rules. The problems were with being able to cast the same spell multiple times per phase with different casters (allowing summoning shenanigans) and not capping the dice that could be generated per turn (making some armies utterly dominant beyond any hope of resistance in the psychic phase).
Roknar wrote:I hope the books aren't too far behind though. I find digital rulebooks a pain in the ass to use for anything other than a quick reference on the go. I find it faster and more convenient to flick a few pages back and forth once you know where to look for stuff. Plus I miss the tactile experience and how it looks on your book shelf.
I agree about the superiority of physical vs. digital media for wargaming. Having your army list on a phone or tablet is fine (as long as you let me look it over/have it handy for questions), but a digital rulebook is IMO much slower to look up information than a physical rulebook.
On the other hand, nothing appears to be stopping anyone from simply printing out copies of the Warscrolls (or whatever they end up being called) out onto paper for reference.
TheIronCrow wrote:I'm really enjoying watching people freak out over AoS game mechanics because its obvious they have never tried AoS. Since the GHB came out I've played 40k once mostly because 40k is trash and filled to the brim with intolerable win-bro ITC douches.
Watching ITC people whining over the thought of formations getting points as well as some formations disappearing and the rule of one being put in for matched play has been fantastic.
TL;DR: A player at an ITC event beat the luch money out of you and now you don't like the entire competitive 40k scene. If you weren't expecting to lose, and lose badly, why did you even attend a tournament?
The ITC were about the only people attempting to balance 6th and 7th editions, at least in the USA. They weren't perfect, but their rules did cut down on some of the more absurdly broken shenanigans and combos that could be brought to the table. With any luck they'll keep on holding events and making FAQs if balance problems arise.
TheIronCrow wrote:Likely Lords of War will be 0-1 per 2000pts, and they'll have degrading charts
Likely it'll be something like
1-2 HQ 3-6 Troops
0-3 Elites
0-3 Fast
0-3 Heavy Support
With increases in points as you go and all detachments removed.
Supposedly everything will have wounds and most all vehicles/MCs will get penalties as they get more wounded.
I don't think detachments are going away. If the FAQ is to be believed there will be equivalents of detachments for every army.
ProwlerPC wrote: Orks and Eldar grouped together? I'm fascinated. My big me just needs to dial his shokk attack gun to panzee and I'll get right on making a conversion with the upper torso of a howling banshee trying not to get sucked in all the way.
I wouldn't read too much into the groupings of the various Xenos races together, beyond them all potentially getting(if they go the keyword route) "Xenos" as a keyword like how the various flavors of Orc, Ogre, and Giants all have the keyword "Destruction" in Age of Sigmar.
It would make it so that you could have things like Deathwatch getting bonuses against "Xenos" without having to name out all the books, while Grey Knights might get bonuses versus "Daemons" without getting bonuses against Chaos Marines or things like that.
Keywords are going to be a big thing in 40k, I highly doubt eldar and orks will be in the same "grand alliance"
As of right now, it's broken into:
Imperium
Chaos
Xenos
Eldar and Orks are currently in the same "Grand Alliance".
It seems like less of a "Grand Alliance" and more of a way of organizing the various different factions into exclusive groups that can then be further sub-divided.
wuestenfux wrote:
commander dante wrote: Ahh i dunno
As long as i can field 3 Kytan Deamon Engines (Replacing Lord of Skulls) in a LEGAL Competitive list, ill be happy
But the "Your books are now Obsolete" is a HUGE slap in the face
I guess all formations are gone. Decurion, Gladius and whatnot.
Not a bad thing.
Totally unfounded speculation: Formations and detachments will return; but not in their current form. The various Decurion-style detachments from 7th might be carried over as a way of organizing what units each faction can take. What sort of bonuses these detachments will give, as well as whether formations will cost points like in Sigmar remains to be seen.
EnTyme wrote:
jasper76 wrote: Just noticed that points will only be used in "Matched Play". So one can only assume your average PUG will be "I'll put whatever I want on the table, and you do the same."
Barf. This is why AoS is a joke. I didn't believe they do it, but they did it.
Indeed. The sky if falling. Please retire to your designated emergency shelter. The rest of us will just stay here and discuss what the world will be like after Plastic Armageddon.
If I could Exalt a post twice, I would!
frozenwastes wrote:I'd say the majority of 40k gamers don't actually know how to make a scenario or campaign system that works, so the support for Narrative play is valuable just in the form of pre made scenarios, campaign rules and the approximation points system they are adding to help in scenario design is reason enough to see "3 ways to play" as more than marketing spin. It's real content lots of people are going to find useful.
If the campaign tools are structured enough to give players enough guidance for how to string together their games, I would expect it to succeed. Other games have done this before; look at Armada or Infinity. Up until now GW has given expansions in the rules and models for various armies in the campaign books, but no real campaign structure to speak of.
The ITC were about the only people attempting to balance 6th and 7th editions, at least in the USA. They weren't perfect, but their rules did cut down on some of the more absurdly broken shenanigans and combos that could be brought to the table. With any luck they'll keep on holding events and making FAQs if balance problems arise
in fairness 99% of the cheese was first discovered, published and pushed by tourny goers. I garentee you, casual narritive basement players wheren't even thinking of dragio/cent star.
The ITC were about the only people attempting to balance 6th and 7th editions, at least in the USA. They weren't perfect, but their rules did cut down on some of the more absurdly broken shenanigans and combos that could be brought to the table. With any luck they'll keep on holding events and making FAQs if balance problems arise
in fairness 99% of the cheese was first discovered, published and pushed by tourny goers. I garentee you, casual narritive basement players wheren't even thinking of dragio/cent star.
You can't blame the player for breaking the game. You bring the best possible list to a tournament, and do whatever you need to do to make that list the best. If anything, the party ultimately at fault for broken unit combinations is the writer of the rules for the game.
At least GW will (hopefully) move toward a more balanced and streamlined rules set in the next edition.
Game design is about trade offs. When GW decided to allow allies and mixing units from different space marine chapters, it was to allow people to broaden their collection and to encourage the purchase of a wider range of new releases by each customer. It wasn't to make a game with cross faction deathstars like Tigerius and Azrael holding hands while taking fifty dogs for a walk.
"They should have known" or "they should have errata'd it!" or whatever.
Nah, people were just doing something with the game the designers never intended and then blaming the designers for it. Like exceeding the load limit of a bridge and blaming the engineers when it collapses.
Game design is about trade offs. When GW decided to allow allies and mixing units from different space marine chapters, it was to allow people to broaden their collection and to encourage the purchase of a wider range of new releases by each customer. It wasn't to make a game with cross faction deathstars like Tigerius and Azrael holding hands while taking fifty dogs for a walk.
"They should have known" or "they should have errata'd it!" or whatever.
Nah, people were just doing something with the game the designers never intended and then blaming the designers for it. Like exceeding the load limit of a bridge and blaming the engineers when it collapses.
-
Yes, well.... video games have a fix for that, don't they?
The faqd of the matter is that GW missed a ton of opportunities to release FAQs that would've nipped those ridiculous problems in the bud.
But since they didn't, those exploits were allowed to continue indefinitely, and that's definitely something they're now doing something about, which is awesome.
The faqd of the matter is that GW missed a ton of opportunities to release FAQs that would've nipped those ridiculous problems in the bud.
But since they didn't, those exploits were allowed to continue indefinitely, and that's definitely something they're now doing something about, which is awesome.
Yep. That's definitely the faqd of the matter.
While it's true that game designers can indeed fix a lot of things, I think the idea that GW has ever been about really balanced rules sets is a bit of misconception about what their design team is for. I really hope this new edition involves a change for the better. An actual willingness to spend some staff hours adjusting things rather than prioritizing working on the rules for the next release.
The problems were definitely fixable, but I think GW simply chose not to because fixing tournament play in the current edition just wasn't a priority for them when they could concentrate on making competitive play better in the next edition. The designers probably feel the best solution to cross faction synergy outstripping everything else was the adoption of AoS style keywords. And that effectively requires a new edition.
I believe GW when they say in the FAQ that all current armies will be legal. That you'll still be able to take Tigerius, Azrael and all the Fenrisian wolves in the world. Their abilities just won't do anything because they'll be missing the chapter specific keywords. Or have totally different abilities. But it will still technically be legal.
In the 90s White Dwarf provided a semi-regular reminder of the fix for any balance issue caused by players pushing things further than the game designers intended to the detriment of an individual's enjoyment of the game. I wonder how many years it has been since "don't play with gits" appeared in the pages of White Dwarf.
I liked the concept of the 7th edition Psychic phase; lord knows it was an improvement in implementation over 6th edition psychic rules. The problems were with being able to cast the same spell multiple times per phase with different casters (allowing summoning shenanigans) and not capping the dice that could be generated per turn (making some armies utterly dominant beyond any hope of resistance in the psychic phase
Disagree, the psychic phase was broken in design because some armies (like demons or Grey Knights) were designed to have a ton of psykers, some of which had limited access to powers. So limiting the casting of spells to one of each per turn, or capping dice would have made things like Tzeentch armies unplayable as written. The problem with powers was they were made too powerful in 6e, and too easy to cast. 7e didn't fix the level of power (they actually made it worse in many cases), but instead made the phase totally one sided. Now if they re-wrote all codices to make it so that only HQ units were psykers, and other "psychic units" just had powers they could choose to use or something, maybe they could have fixed it, but I think in general it was a poor attempt to copy the fantasy magic phase.
You most certainly can.
Game design is about trade offs. When GW decided to allow allies and mixing units from different space marine chapters, it was to allow people to broaden their collection and to encourage the purchase of a wider range of new releases by each customer. It wasn't to make a game with cross faction deathstars like Tigerius and Azrael holding hands while taking fifty dogs for a walk.
"They should have known" or "they should have errata'd it!" or whatever.
Nah, people were just doing something with the game the designers never intended and then blaming the designers for it. Like exceeding the load limit of a bridge and blaming the engineers when it collapses.
You really cannot though, because in a tournament setting you cannot rely on other people making use of the holes in the rules to win. So asking people to "not use broken rules" unless they tournament is then FAQing or Comping, is asking them to compete at a disadvantage. It is not at all similar to your bridge example because that presumably has a posted rule that is being actually broken. It is also inaccurate to say it never happens in casual play. There are plenty of times I have seen very mismatched games in casual play because people took models they liked (Riptides, Wraithknights, Knights, Heldrakes).
Except that 40k had never been a tournament game, and never was intended to be.
So what happened in tournament is of no importance, at all.
My friends and I always played the game as it was intended to be, and we never had any deathstar problem or unfluffy alliance, everything was good.
Now, with 8th, things seem different however.
godardc wrote: Except that 40k had never been a tournament game, and never was intended to be.
So what happened in tournament is of no importance, at all.
My friends and I always played the game as it was intended to be, and we never had any deathstar problem or unfluffy alliance, everything was good.
Now, with 8th, things seem different however.
Nice anecdotal evidence. I on the other hand have seen "fluffy" casual games with 3 Riptides against Orks because one guy liked big robots. Alliances and deathstars aren't the only problem in the game.
Further GW pushed "bring your broken stuff" back in 5e when they ran ard boyz tournaments. So you cannot say out of one side of your mouth that it isn't a tournament game or intended, while on the other side you run a tournament that encourages bringing the most broken stuff.
godardc wrote: Except that 40k had never been a tournament game, and never was intended to be.
Whether true or not, that doesn't matter in the slightest. Where do you draw the line for how the "game is meant to be played?" Sure, stacking special characters might be an obvious one, but where exactly is the line drawn? It's going to be different from group to group and person to person. It's a gakky ruleset, and you can't just write a gakky ruleset and then say "well, while you're using it as it's written, you're not using it right" and just shift the blame for your gakky ruleset to the customer without giving any inclination as to what "right" is. A gakky ruleset is a gakky ruleset, no matter what side you're looking at it from.
godardc wrote: Except that 40k had never been a tournament game, and never was intended to be.
GW has been running official tournaments in their own stores for over 25 years.
Agreed. I think its absurd not to acknowledge the competitive nature of the game which has existed since its inception almost. I think it's pretty funny when people suggest that the "right" way to play 40K is to abandon common since in your builds. Have advantage, use advantage. The real goal of this edition should be to make sure broken things dont stay that way for long, as Privateer Press has done and Magic: The Gathering has attempted to do. Being able to correct things midstream is going to be really cool if they can pull it off. Then the fluff guys and tournament guys can stop pretending for each other.
godardc wrote: Except that 40k had never been a tournament game, and never was intended to be.
So what happened in tournament is of no importance, at all.
My friends and I always played the game as it was intended to be, and we never had any deathstar problem or unfluffy alliance, everything was good.
Now, with 8th, things seem different however.
I say anyone who plays 40k like this are playing it like fools and are a bunch of scrub-lords too afraid of realizing just how bad they are at the game to man up and play a REAL game.
Not very fun when people dismiss your playstyle out of hand is it?
godardc wrote: Except that 40k had never been a tournament game, and never was intended to be. So what happened in tournament is of no importance, at all. My friends and I always played the game as it was intended to be, and we never had any deathstar problem or unfluffy alliance, everything was good. Now, with 8th, things seem different however.
I say anyone who plays 40k like this are playing it like fools and are a bunch of scrub-lords too afraid of realizing just how bad they are at the game to man up and play a REAL game.
Not very fun when people dismiss your playstyle out of hand is it?
And yet godardc doesn't have to deal with deathstars or unfluffy alliances and the tournament players do. So regardless of how out of hand play styles are dismissed, the fact remains that the egregious armies of the later part of 7th edition are something tournament players did to themselves.
And as well, if you think competing with toy soldiers counts as "manning up" well....
godardc wrote: Except that 40k had never been a tournament game, and never was intended to be.
So what happened in tournament is of no importance, at all.
My friends and I always played the game as it was intended to be, and we never had any deathstar problem or unfluffy alliance, everything was good.
Now, with 8th, things seem different however.
I say anyone who plays 40k like this are playing it like fools and are a bunch of scrub-lords too afraid of realizing just how bad they are at the game to man up and play a REAL game.
Not very fun when people dismiss your playstyle out of hand is it?
And yet godardc doesn't have to deal with deathstars or unfluffy alliances and the tournament players do. So regardless of how out of hand play styles are dismissed, the fact remains that the egregious armies of the later part of 7th edition are something tournament players did to themselves.
And as well, if you think competing with toy soldiers counts as "manning up" well....
It's cute that the concept of pointed hyperbole just sails right over your head.
godardc wrote: Except that 40k had never been a tournament game, and never was intended to be. So what happened in tournament is of no importance, at all. My friends and I always played the game as it was intended to be, and we never had any deathstar problem or unfluffy alliance, everything was good. Now, with 8th, things seem different however.
I say anyone who plays 40k like this are playing it like fools and are a bunch of scrub-lords too afraid of realizing just how bad they are at the game to man up and play a REAL game.
Not very fun when people dismiss your playstyle out of hand is it?
And yet godardc doesn't have to deal with deathstars or unfluffy alliances and the tournament players do. So regardless of how out of hand play styles are dismissed, the fact remains that the egregious armies of the later part of 7th edition are something tournament players did to themselves.
And as well, if you think competing with toy soldiers counts as "manning up" well....
It's cute that the concept of pointed hyperbole just sails right over your head.
Nope, I caught it.
Maybe the real manning up is accepting that a game might not be designed for your play style and thus it's actually logical that it is dismissed as not being how the game was intended to be played?
Hopefully 8th edition actually delivers on the promise of 3 ways to play in a way that actually supports a tournament approach for those who want it. If it doesn't, then people who don't play that way will keep not having problems just like they didn't have problems in 7th. And the tournament players will get to deal with whatever replaces things like bark bark or crazy shooting armies.
While it's true that game designers can indeed fix a lot of things, I think the idea that GW has ever been about really balanced rules sets is a bit of misconception about what their design team is for. I really hope this new edition involves a change for the better. An actual willingness to spend some staff hours adjusting things rather than prioritizing working on the rules for the next release.
I used to hope that the 'new' edition would involve a change for the better. An actual willingness to try to balance the game would be nice this time around.
frozenwastes wrote: The problems were definitely fixable, but I think GW simply chose not to because fixing tournament play in the current edition just wasn't a priority for them when they could concentrate on making competitive play better in the next edition. The designers probably feel the best solution to cross faction synergy outstripping everything else was the adoption of AoS style keywords. And that effectively requires a new edition.
Except they never tried to make competitive play better in the 'next' edition. They just randomly changed things around and put a price tag on it. I haven't been following AoS much since the announcement of the general's handbook - is the game relatively balanced? That's what i'm looking for.
frozenwastes wrote: In the 90s White Dwarf provided a semi-regular reminder of the fix for any balance issue caused by players pushing things further than the game designers intended to the detriment of an individual's enjoyment of the game. I wonder how many years it has been since "don't play with gits" appeared in the pages of White Dwarf.
Sometimes "don't play with gits" means "don't play at all". Having a good ruleset does a lot to mitigate the problems that gits will cause. It was too easy to push things further than the game designers intended because they didn't do a lot in the way of designing. My million dollar question is - has this changed? Or is this another case of same old s***, different edition?
Torga_DW wrote: Except they never tried to make competitive play better in the 'next' edition. They just randomly changed things around and put a price tag on it. I haven't been following AoS much since the announcement of the general's handbook - is the game relatively balanced? That's what i'm looking for.
I've been looking through some of the lists at the bigger tournaments that have happened at Adepticon and the South Coast GT and there definitely is a power level difference between those lists and if you just take random stuff you think is cool. Even if you concentrate on synergy and making sure your keywords line up, I still don't think you'll get to where the top lists are. They are usually really well crafted to accomplish specific tasks related to scoring in scenarios and dealing with other top tier armies.
The tournament players say it's way ahead of current 40k in balance, but the way they talk about it sounds exactly like how X-Wing players talk about what makes a list competitive in that game. So if you just get a start collecting box and add some units you think are cool, you'll probably not have a chance of getting in the top half of a larger tournament. Just like if an X-Wing player did the same thing.
frozenwastes wrote: Sometimes "don't play with gits" means "don't play at all". Having a good ruleset does a lot to mitigate the problems that gits will cause. It was too easy to push things further than the game designers intended because they didn't do a lot in the way of designing. My million dollar question is - has this changed? Or is this another case of same old s***, different edition?
My guess is that the new version of 40k will have a similar period of relative balance (the army lists are all being playtested together) and then future balance will depend entirely on how the annual review of points actually works. We're coming up on the first Age of Sigmar annual review, so no one has yet seen whether or not the idea actually works.
frozenwastes wrote: I've been looking through some of the lists at the bigger tournaments that have happened at Adepticon and the South Coast GT and there definitely is a power level difference between those lists and if you just take random stuff you think is cool. Even if you concentrate on synergy and making sure your keywords line up, I still don't think you'll get to where the top lists are. They are usually really well crafted to accomplish specific tasks related to scoring in scenarios and dealing with other top tier armies.
The tournament players say it's way ahead of current 40k in balance, but the way they talk about it sounds exactly like how X-Wing players talk about what makes a list competitive in that game. So if you just get a start collecting box and add some units you think are cool, you'll probably not have a chance of getting in the top half of a larger tournament. Just like if an X-Wing player did the same thing.
That sounds like it could go either way then. The chaos marine codex was relatively balanced in the past - if you took certain combos. The thing is, i never really played in tournaments but i was in a power-heavy meta, so if something was broken i was going to meet it eventually.
frozenwastes wrote: My guess is that the new version of 40k will have a similar period of relative balance (the army lists are all being playtested together) and then future balance will depend entirely on how the annual review of points actually works. We're coming up on the first Age of Sigmar annual review, so no one has yet seen whether or not the idea actually works.
So, wait and see is still the best option. Well, it has the potential to be better at least. Here's hoping it delivers.
SHUPPET wrote: Blaming the players for an unbalanced game. Yep, only in GW.
Let's be fair: the players didn't create the imbalance per se but players do contribute pretty readily to the perception of imbalance. The myths regarding the enormous gulfs between codex's are perpetuated and sung from the mountaintops by players until they gain just mythical proportion. I can say with confidence that GW could do better...and looks like they will... But players have overblown the "bad job" they've done to an extreme. No one is arguing that overall power can be silly in places but the rift to hear some players tell it is as big as the grand canyon.
SHUPPET wrote: Blaming the players for an unbalanced game. Yep, only in GW.
Let's be fair: the players didn't create the imbalance per se but players do contribute pretty readily to the perception of imbalance. The myths regarding the enormous gulfs between codex's are perpetuated and sung from the mountaintops by players until they gain just mythical proportion. I can say with confidence that GW could do better...and looks like they will... But players have overblown the "bad job" they've done to an extreme. No one is arguing that overall power can be silly in places but the rift to hear some players tell it is as big as the grand canyon.
Oh yes, complete myth. Dark Eldar vs Eldar, completely winnable match up. Have fun with that.
There really is a massive tier difference between the bottom tier and the upper tier. Is there a massive tier swing between say Necrons and Tau? No. But saying that there isn't a big power difference between many armies is just ridiculous. 40k is hands down the least balanced game I've ever played except for competitive video games that were never given patches. 40k is 30 years old and has been getting new balance updates multiple times yearly, and ones that cost the player $100 for his own army and more again for the core rules in my country's prices. There is no way it's balanced sufficiently, and absolutely no way that there isn't MASSIVE power gaps between certain armies.
That being said, I do partially agree with your sentiment - some match ups that aren't so bad are definitely exaggerated, as most people are close minded to doing anything different or taking a more TAC style lists and then complain that they have hard counters in other armies when they bring say 5 flyers to the table.
SHUPPET wrote: Blaming the players for an unbalanced game. Yep, only in GW.
Let's be fair: the players didn't create the imbalance per se but players do contribute pretty readily to the perception of imbalance. The myths regarding the enormous gulfs between codex's are perpetuated and sung from the mountaintops by players until they gain just mythical proportion. I can say with confidence that GW could do better...and looks like they will... But players have overblown the "bad job" they've done to an extreme. No one is arguing that overall power can be silly in places but the rift to hear some players tell it is as big as the grand canyon.
Oh yes, complete myth. Dark Eldar vs Eldar, completely winnable match up. Have fun with that.
There really is a massive tier difference between the bottom tier and the upper tier. Is there a massive tier swing between say Necrons and Tau? No. But saying that there isn't a big power difference between many armies is just ridiculous. 40k is hands down the least balanced game I've ever played except for competitive video games that were never given patches. 40k is 30 years old and has been getting new balance updates multiple times yearly, and ones that cost the player $100 for his own army and more again for the core rules in my country's prices. There is no way it's balanced sufficiently, and absolutely no way that there isn't MASSIVE power gaps between certain armies.
That being said, I do partially agree with your sentiment - some match ups that aren't so bad are definitely exaggerated, as most people are close minded to doing anything different or taking a more TAC style lists and then complain that they have hard counters in other armies when they bring say 5 flyers to the table.
My Dark Eldar...ironically...did win their last battle with Ynnari.
SHUPPET wrote: Blaming the players for an unbalanced game. Yep, only in GW.
Let's be fair: the players didn't create the imbalance per se but players do contribute pretty readily to the perception of imbalance. The myths regarding the enormous gulfs between codex's are perpetuated and sung from the mountaintops by players until they gain just mythical proportion. I can say with confidence that GW could do better...and looks like they will... But players have overblown the "bad job" they've done to an extreme. No one is arguing that overall power can be silly in places but the rift to hear some players tell it is as big as the grand canyon.
Oh yes, complete myth. Dark Eldar vs Eldar, completely winnable match up. Have fun with that.
There really is a massive tier difference between the bottom tier and the upper tier. Is there a massive tier swing between say Necrons and Tau? No. But saying that there isn't a big power difference between many armies is just ridiculous. 40k is hands down the least balanced game I've ever played except for competitive video games that were never given patches. 40k is 30 years old and has been getting new balance updates multiple times yearly, and ones that cost the player $100 for his own army and more again for the core rules in my country's prices. There is no way it's balanced sufficiently, and absolutely no way that there isn't MASSIVE power gaps between certain armies.
That being said, I do partially agree with your sentiment - some match ups that aren't so bad are definitely exaggerated, as most people are close minded to doing anything different or taking a more TAC style lists and then complain that they have hard counters in other armies when they bring say 5 flyers to the table.
My Dark Eldar...ironically...did win their last battle with Ynnari.
SHUPPET wrote:Blaming the players for an unbalanced game. Yep, only in GW.
Game 1 and game 2 can both be the same category of game and have drastically different approaches to play if you want the game to work. So if you take an approach not suited the game, then who else is to blame? The designer for not making the game they didn't intend to make?
A perfect example from the RPG world would be if you played D&D 3.5/Pathfinder and then went and played Call of Cthulhu in the exact same way as you did 3.5/PF. It's going to not work and it's not the designer's fault. So who is left?
The players.
Though the ultimate blame might be on the zeitgeist of the community that ends up encouraging an approach to play contrary to what would work. This in turn might be shaped by bad marketing or communication by the original publisher. Though I don't really know if GW ever really pretended their games worked for tournaments without heavy patching, composition rules, soft scores, etc.,. Even back in the days of UK and US GTs run directly by GW. They certainly spent more recent years downplaying the competitive approach.
You can play matched play without trying to find the places where the points system falls apart or where synergy gives your list power well beyond the individual point costs of the things you take. You don't have to approach list building with the goal of breaking the game. And surely it's silly to blame the designer when the player goes out of their way to break things.
SHUPPET wrote:Blaming the players for an unbalanced game. Yep, only in GW.
Game 1 and game 2 can both be the same category of game and have drastically different approaches to play if you want the game to work. So if you take an approach not suited the game, then who else is to blame? The designer for not making the game they didn't intend to make?
No. it's the designers for making the game they didn't intend to make.
If something can be done within the confines of the rules but isn't intended by the designers, then the designers need to add a clause that stops it from being done. It's supposed to be a rigid ruleset, not a compilation of intentions.
SHUPPET wrote:Blaming the players for an unbalanced game. Yep, only in GW.
Game 1 and game 2 can both be the same category of game and have drastically different approaches to play if you want the game to work. So if you take an approach not suited the game, then who else is to blame? The designer for not making the game they didn't intend to make?
A perfect example from the RPG world would be if you played D&D 3.5/Pathfinder and then went and played Call of Cthulhu in the exact same way as you did 3.5/PF. It's going to not work and it's not the designer's fault. So who is left?
The players.
Though the ultimate blame might be on the zeitgeist of the community that ends up encouraging an approach to play contrary to what would work. This in turn might be shaped by bad marketing or communication by the original publisher. Though I don't really know if GW ever really pretended their games worked for tournaments without heavy patching, composition rules, soft scores, etc.,. Even back in the days of UK and US GTs run directly by GW. They certainly spent more recent years downplaying the competitive approach.
You can play matched play without trying to find the places where the points system falls apart or where synergy gives your list power well beyond the individual point costs of the things you take. You don't have to approach list building with the goal of breaking the game. And surely it's silly to blame the designer when the player goes out of their way to break things.
this myth that balance doesn't benefit casual play has been dispelled so many times, so this argument doesn't even have the legs to make it off the ground
but assuming you were right, and they deliberately said "balance is absolutely irrelevant to this game its supposed to be played casually", and were somehow correct in this statement, then it makes no difference. That just confirms it's a direct result of their choices that the game is unbalanced, and not at all the players fault. They would have been making a conscious decision not to support tournament play, and such, anyone who claims that this game is completely unbalanced at a tournament level thanks to Game's Workshops choice here, would be absolutely correct.
I don't see how this is even a debate to be honest.
this myth that balance doesn't benefit casual play has been dispelled so many times, so this argument doesn't even have the legs to make it off the ground
I'm not making that argument. I'm point out that casual play can mitigate the damage done by intentionally pushing the boundaries of the points system for maximum advantage by simply only having those problems appear by accident rather than on purpose. it's far more likely to happen on purpose. Something tells me no casual player accidentally paired Tigerius, Azrael and 50 fenrisian wolves.
"balance is absolutely irrelevant to this game its supposed to be played casually"
Not "absolutely irrelevant." Just not as important as the damage that can be done by intentionally pushing on the boundries of a points system.
I don't see how this is even a debate to be honest.
Probably because you think I'm saying something I'm not.
I'm pointing out that there have been many people who played 7th edition without encountering the types of armies that people run at the top tier of tournaments. The ones that people describe as the worst problem lists and hope 8th fixes.
So if person A takes the same game as person B and they get different results, it's probably not the game that is doing it but the difference in what person A and B are doing with the game in question.
Obviously balance helps casual players, but how people approach the game can have a greater impact.
The game designer simply isn't there to protect you from the actions of other players if they intentionally try to push things to the breaking point.
I sincerely hope the annual points evaluations end up working. It benefits everyone if it does. That said, if it doesn't quite work out, those who are experiencing games with people intentionally trying to find the weaknesses in the points system will be more prone to problems than those involving people who are not trying to do that on purpose,
I think flexibility is better than rigidity. You want something else. Hopefully the execution of "three ways to play" will give us both what we want. Something tells me though that it is very unlikely to create a points system that can stand people intentionally trying to find the errors and spam the more efficient options while looking to create synergy so they can have more power in their list than what the points costs indicate.
Think of it this way:
What are points systems for?
To help players have enjoyable balanced games.
So if someone takes a points system and uses it as a tool to seek out imbalance then aren't they going against the very reason the system exists?
"We have this tool to make balance. Let's use it to make imbalance so we can win more!"
"Stupid designers! Why can't they make a points system that works?"
@frozenwastes - You seem to think that bad unbalanced matchups only happen through deathstar combos. This is provably false. There have been plenty of casual players that have had to face multiple Knights (imperial or wraith), or wave serpents back in their day, or Riptide wing (built into the game by the designers). What about scat bikes? Was it unintended for people to take scatter lasers on every bike?
You cannot blame players for the incredible imbalance in the game. There are some units that are horribly overpowered and others that are horribly underpowered.
You seem to imply that this only happens in ridiculous situations where things like Azreal and Tiggy Join Wolves. What about things that happen within single books? What about invisibility? What about 2+ re-rollable saves? Grav vs terminators? None of these things take "pushing the rules to the breaking point" to be wildly un-fun to play against, to make wildly unbalanced games etc.
Bad design is bad design, it is not the fault of the players.
So if person A takes the same game as person B and they get different results, it's probably not the game that is doing it but the difference in what person A and B are doing with the game in question.
False it is the game, just because one person doesn't end up with an unbalanced game doesn't mean those who do are doing something "wrong" to end up with that imbalanced game.
Breng77 wrote: @frozenwastes - You seem to think that bad unbalanced matchups only happen through deathstar combos.
No, I don't think that. It does happen by accident in a variety of forms. Deathstar combos are simply a really obvious example of things going wrong in a lot of people's minds. It's an example of something loads of people hope is not in 8th edition.
Which will produce more bad unbalanced matchups:
The ones that happen by accident The ones that happen by accident and the ones people intentionally try to create.
Considering that one is a subset of the other, the answer should be obvious.
Bad design is bad design, it is not the fault of the players.
Yes, but bad design to make one type of game might be good design to make another. Sadly GW's design brief for 40k has been so out of touch with what most players want.
Hopefully the three ways to play and annual reviews will help there be less of a disconnect. But even if they fail, see above for which approach will have less bad unbalanced matchups.
False it is the game, just because one person doesn't end up with an unbalanced game doesn't mean those who do are doing something "wrong" to end up with that imbalanced game.
If you are trying to have two different armies with the same points end up with differing power levels then you are using a tool to help you balance to intentionally introduce unbalance. And then blaming the designer for something you did.
So if someone takes a points system and uses it as a tool to seek out imbalance then aren't they going against the very reason the system exists?
"We have this tool to make balance. Let's use it to make imbalance so we can win more!"
"Stupid designers! Why can't they make a points system that works?"
-
No, a points system is not "to help players have enjoyable balanced games." It's to create a balanced playing field in which to match wits, and building a list that does a job very well or that takes your opponent by surprise is very enjoyable. You can't do that in 40k because the counter is to simply spam whatever is the strongest, and you can be as clever as you want, it won't win you the game. Not to mention that if you completely outbuild your opponent, even if you did it in an intelligent way, since you know how imbalanced 40k is, you still have that feeling like "maybe I just beat him because my guys are better and imbalanced, and it had nothing to do with my skill either in the field or as a list builder?"
There are a MULTITUDE of other games that have points systems that work very well. I want to bring up Malifaux, where every model does a wildly different job, and yet almost everything has a place.
Yes, stupid designers. Why have they made a points system that is not just easy to abuse, but one that you can actually abuse by accident! You can know nothing about the game, just think that a certain unit is incredibly cool, and accidentally make an army that is nigh unbeatable. If two new people each make an army based only on looks with no experience of the game between them, chances are one of them is going to get ground to paste every single game because the other guy randomly hit something that was ridiculously stronger than his. That's a poorly made points system.
A points system tells you that "these things are balanced to work together in these amounts." That's what it's supposed to do. But it's just a lie in current 40k. You might as well just roll dice to see how many guys you have in each unit. It will be the same balance.
If a tool that is made to create balance CAN BE USED TO CREATE IMBALANCE it's clearly a gak tool. It's not doing the one job it was made to do.
A points system is about making the game FAIR. This points system doesn't even start to attempt that.
No, I don't think that. It does happen by accident in a variety of forms. Deathstar combos are simply a really obvious example of things going wrong in a lot of people's minds. It's an example of something loads of people hope is not in 8th edition.
Which will produce more bad unbalanced matchups:
The ones that happen by accident
The ones that happen by accident and the ones people intentionally try to create.
Considering that one is a subset of the other, the answer should be obvious.
My question is which creates less bad match-ups a system where accidents don't produce wildly imbalanced match-ups, or one that does? it is also disingenuous to say those things happen by accident when they are part of the design of the game. Perfectly fluffy armies exist that are wildly imbalanced with regards to other such armies.
Yes, but bad design to make one type of game might be good design to make another. Sadly GW's design brief for 40k has been so out of touch with what most players want.
Hopefully the three ways to play and annual reviews will help there be less of a disconnect. But even if they fail, see above for which approach will have less bad unbalanced matchups.
See my above response for what system will have the least bad matchups, I do have high hopes that they are going a long way to resolve some of these issues.
If you are trying to have two different armies with the same points end up with differing power levels then you are using a tool to help you balance to intentionally introduce unbalance. And then blaming the designer for something you did.
Except the point system is far from providing balance so far so that I don't need to try to create imbalance.
At this point I think it's fair to say that we have fundamentally different assumptions about miniature gaming. I accept the responsibility of players in creating balance if they desire it. And the cause of imbalance when they don't, or worse, intentionally try to create it by having more power per point than the opponent.
A more balanced rules set is better for everyone, but it probably can't both survive contact with those trying to get an advantage and still be as flexible as needed to represent the breadth of units GW wants to make model kits for and sell. They might be able to get close, but there is probably a point of diminishing returns in terms of balance produced per dollar spent on studio salaries.
The thing you have the most control over in the creation of balance in your games is how you approach list building. It's the point where you decide what the gaming experience will be like for both players. Act accordingly.
ugh. People. Seriously. Who gives a crap why anyone plays this game? Really, does it matter? Is there now a "wrong" MOTIVATION to play as well as a wrong "Way" to play? Is this really a road worth a damn? I think not.
The reality is, there's this game called 40K. if you like playing it...play it. If you lose because you are a so-called "fluffy player" then you got exactly what you wanted out of it... You played a fluffy army and got to push plastic around. If you are REALLY there to compete and win...stop calling yourself a fluffy player and just get down to business.
If youre a tournament player and you play to get better and compete, then you got what you wanted: a pell who calls himself a fluffy player. Dont like soft targets? Play someone else.
Either way who gives a rip. Play or dont. Lets talk about the actual game itself instead of trying to find some weird gamer moral high ground. Lots of crunchy bitz to discuss in this thread that is entitled "New 8th Edition FAQ"
.
Is that in a tourney sense there is always going to be a 'Right' build and all others are wrong..
The best we can hope for is that we get more than 3 races with the 'right' build
Its just like a MOBA there is a 'Right' build for every character.. and then maybe 1-2 situational alternatives.. If you are not building to the right build you are doing it wrong
Is that in a tourney sense there is always going to be a 'Right' build and all others are wrong..
The best we can hope for is that we get more than 3 races with the 'right' build
Its just like a MOBA there is a 'Right' build for every character.. and then maybe 1-2 situational alternatives.. If you are not building to the right build you are doing it wrong
At least until someone who can make it "right" in certain situations. It may only suit them, but when some does amazingly well against a certain build with an "off" build, people then try to make that "off" build work, and then fail.
Even in MtG there are usually only three builds after any new release settles.
There's still the fun of a 'Rogue' deck that is only good against one or two of the top builds but gets lucky and draws those decks for opponents.
Dakka Wolf wrote: Even in MtG there are usually only three builds after any new release settles.
There's still the fun of a 'Rogue' deck that is only good against one or two of the top builds but gets lucky and draws those decks for opponents.
Hopefully new 40k turns out to be more like Modern than Standard to use an MTG comparison.
Jancoran wrote: ugh. People. Seriously. Who gives a crap why anyone plays this game? Really, does it matter? Is there now a "wrong" MOTIVATION to play as well as a wrong "Way" to play? Is this really a road worth a damn? I think not.
The reality is, there's this game called 40K. if you like playing it...play it. If you lose because you are a so-called "fluffy player" then you got exactly what you wanted out of it... You played a fluffy army and got to push plastic around. If you are REALLY there to compete and win...stop calling yourself a fluffy player and just get down to business.
If youre a tournament player and you play to get better and compete, then you got what you wanted: a pell who calls himself a fluffy player. Dont like soft targets? Play someone else.
Either way who gives a rip. Play or dont. Lets talk about the actual game itself instead of trying to find some weird gamer moral high ground. Lots of crunchy bitz to discuss in this thread that is entitled "New 8th Edition FAQ"
.
smartest thing you ever said.
Theres no consistency in their argument, "fluffy" players whining that competitive players broke the game, and that the point system is not designed to make it so each player has a balanced army worth of units on the field. But reality check, if you are complaining that your fluffy list doesn't win against tournament lists then you aren't a fluffy player, you are just a bad competitor, because if you are out there getting invested in winning against other people, the only difference is that they brought a better build. And acting like it's up to the people trying to play a game competitively to just handicap themselves for the sake of the weaker lists is just ridiculous. The players didn't "break the game", everything is still a part of the game whether they use it or not, they simply pushed themselves to compete in a strategy game at the highest level, and the armies as have been designed do not provide an even playing field.
This thread just tells me people will ALWAYS have an excuse. In other games, you see people try to play off unbalanced stuff as not so bad, and say this is the dev's vision, etc. This game is so blatantly unbalanced that this excuse doesn't work, so now the excuse is that it's the players fault for using the unbalanced stuff. Utterly ridiculous, and only in GW have I ever and probably will I ever see this level of dedication to rejecting reality.
This thread just tells me people will ALWAYS have an excuse. In other games, you see people try to play off unbalanced stuff as not so bad, and say this is the dev's vision, etc. This game is so blatantly unbalanced that this excuse doesn't work, so now the excuse is that it's the players fault for using the unbalanced stuff. Utterly ridiculous, and only in GW have I ever and probably will I ever see this level of dedication to rejecting reality.
It is absolutely your fault that the game was a waste of time if you bring a Reaver Titan, or whatever the lol nope eldar version is called and reliable invisibility without warning. There are units or codex powers which fundamentally change the game into something that doesn't resemble the 'baseline' experience, for which the only counter is familiarity - something that can only be achieved through the random chance of the player's community having decided to include it.
This thread just tells me people will ALWAYS have an excuse. In other games, you see people try to play off unbalanced stuff as not so bad, and say this is the dev's vision, etc. This game is so blatantly unbalanced that this excuse doesn't work, so now the excuse is that it's the players fault for using the unbalanced stuff. Utterly ridiculous, and only in GW have I ever and probably will I ever see this level of dedication to rejecting reality.
It is absolutely your fault that the game was a waste of time if you bring a Reaver Titan, or whatever the lol nope eldar version is called and reliable invisibility without warning. There are units or codex powers which fundamentally change the game into something that doesn't resemble the 'baseline' experience, for which the only counter is familiarity - something that can only be achieved through the random chance of the player's community having decided to include it.
Hows that though? You went to a tournament, what if your opponent brought the same stuff? You now have a game, it's only a waste of time if you DIDN'T bring stuff of that level of power. This whole post just makes no sense to me at all. "The game is only unbalanced if you play unbalanced stuff, from the game, made to be a part of the game!" Yeah, what you are describing is a lack of balance in the game. By this logic, it's impossible for any game ever to be unbalanced.
Plus, you act like its impossible to just stumble on the broke gak. I know a guy a year or so back who had 2 games to his name, loved anime, was encouraged to pick up Tau, fell in love with the Riptide model... and couldn't work out why house rules said his perfectly legal 40k army wasn't allowed to enter the first local tourney he tried to join. That's besides the point, the point is the guy wasn't a cheeser, wasn't some guy who was trying to break the rules, he just wanted to play with as much of the coolest model in his army as he could fit in. Totally his own fault for going out of his way to break the rules that he was still yet to learn though, right?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Just bringing an army from Codex Eldar vs an army of Codex Dark Eldar is already a massive imbalance. The DE player has to build the strongest list he can imagine and still having a losing match against a randomly generated Eldar list. How in god name you guys spin this to be a fault of the players is absurd.
SHUPPET wrote: Plus, you act like its impossible to just stumble on the broke gak. I know a guy a year or so back who had 2 games to his name, loved anime, was encouraged to pick up Tau, fell in love with the Riptide model... and couldn't work out why house rules said his perfectly legal 40k army wasn't allowed to enter the first local tourney he tried to join. That's besides the point, the point is the guy wasn't a cheeser, wasn't some guy who was trying to break the rules, he just wanted to play with as much of the coolest model in his army as he could fit in. Totally his own fault for going out of his way to break the rules that he was still yet to learn though, right?
Had a mate who hadn't been to an event before come to a friendly event to encourage newer players.. Brought his Grey Knights and got Complaint against him and lost points because he had 2 Dredknights within the list, but not an optimal layout or list at all.. the guy that did the complaining had done some ganky combo, and was a tourney regular.. (cant remember what is was now.. but it was strong)
Really killed my mates willingness to go to future events
SHUPPET wrote: Plus, you act like its impossible to just stumble on the broke gak. I know a guy a year or so back who had 2 games to his name, loved anime, was encouraged to pick up Tau, fell in love with the Riptide model... and couldn't work out why house rules said his perfectly legal 40k army wasn't allowed to enter the first local tourney he tried to join. That's besides the point, the point is the guy wasn't a cheeser, wasn't some guy who was trying to break the rules, he just wanted to play with as much of the coolest model in his army as he could fit in. Totally his own fault for going out of his way to break the rules that he was still yet to learn though, right?
Had a mate who hadn't been to an event before come to a friendly event to encourage newer players.. Brought his Grey Knights and got Complaint against him and lost points because he had 2 Dredknights within the list, but not an optimal layout or list at all.. the guy that did the complaining had done some ganky combo, and was a tourney regular.. (cant remember what is was now.. but it was strong)
Really killed my mates willingness to go to future events
Yeah its sad to see, sounds very similar what happened here, at least ours was a little less malicious though. Really sucks to have people discredit your wins just because you built a competitive list, must suck even more so if you just threw together the coolest models you can afford. I'm sick to death seeing these so called "fluffy" players rage about losing to better armies than what they brought, and blaming the players for balance, sorry but the players didn't make the game, so either you are competing or you aren't, and if you aren't then don't complain that you lost to the guy who is because you should never be able to beat him, and this sentiment is applicable to every competitive game ever. I've also noticed that the buck stops immediately at their own list. E.G. Tau guy with 1 Riptide loses to guy with three, that's just pure cheese. Won't remove the same model from his list when it comes to mop the guy playing his collection of fluffy Orks though of course. It's such a blatantly self serving mentality, no, the competitive players are NOT responsible for the unbalanced game design, and you will find the people at the highest level of play are the ones pushing the hardest to GET balance. Then you have people handwaving the balance issues and even worse, mindlessly debating the people who are trying to see a higher standard from GW, but then blaming and complaing about the players who beat them because of the balance issues that they were supposedly okay with, because they just play for the "fluff" and not to win, when they clearly are playing to win or they wouldn't be whining about their loss due to balance in the first place. It's such ridiculous, cartoonishly stereotypical behavior, that contradicts itself on multiple levels. I'm not going to participate in this argument with them any further, they are their own worst enemy. Can't logic someone out of a position they haven't logic'd themselves into.
My suggestion for everyone is to see the list they are building as their contribution to the experience of both players. Figure out what kind of experience both you and your opponent want to have and make an appropriate list. Think about your approach to the game and their approach and make the list that gives the game experience that both people want.
Hopefully the new edition will make doing so easier for everyone.
If your goal is a balanced game though, you may have to think about what it means when you select a unit that you know is pointed incorrectly. What it means when you identify the most efficient options and take as many of them as possible. What it means when you look for synergy where the power produced is greater than the individual models and how they are costed.
if it's for an event where that is the norm, then go for it. But then you don't want balance, you want to set up the game for your victory in advance. If that's what you are into, go for it. But don't blame the designer when you succeed. And certainly don't blame them when you take that same list and play someone who is not looking for the same thing from the game and they react negatively to what you are doing.
When you intentionally seek efficiency, synergy and undercosted units when list building, you are seeking out imbalance in the very system meant to help achieve balance. Just admit that and go hard in the tournament and stop blaming others for your actions. And when people don't like what you are doing, don't write them off as making excuses for their own lack of competitive performance. They may not even be looking for a competitive experience. It's also entirely possible that other gamers don't like the idea of the game being decided in the list building stage.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SHUPPET wrote: Really sucks to have people discredit your wins just because you built a competitive list
If the results aren't based on the decisions made during the game, then it sounds like a fake win to me. So the only wins you really should count are those against people who are doing the same thing as you. Those would definitely not be fake as they would be dependent on decisions made during the game.
But those terrible people with their excuses! How dare they not want the game to be decided before it even happens?! What scrubs!
Automatically Appended Next Post: I think the biggest problem with solely blaming the designer is that it just leaves you stuck. If the players contributed nothing to the imbalance by picking the most efficient options, looking for undercosted units, gaining uncosted power through synergy and so on, then you're just stuck hoping the next codex release or the next edition will fix things. The designers obviously did not make the game sufficiently balanced to stop players who are intentionally seeking imbalance from being able to do so. The design doesn't even stop it from popping up accidentally. So I guess you just hope someone else solves your problem for you with a future published product? Advocate loudly for balance on internet forums?
If you accept the player does have a role, then you can actually do something about problems as they come up. You can be honest with your prospective opponents about what "way to play" you actually are interested in and what approach you are not interested in. And if the system does have actual inherent balance problems (and it does) you'll at least be spared of the additional intentionally created problems that come with making the list building pre-game a key part of the game experience. You'll only have to address the ones that come up by accident.
Accepting that players seeking advantage is a cause of imbalance allows you to actually take responsibility for your game experience (and that of your opponent) and actually do something about it. Rather than hoping someone else will rescue you with a new codex or edition.
Or, if you're having no problem with the current state of 40k because you like the primacy of the pre-game list building deciding things if the opponent doesn't do likewise then just carry on. You have what you want. You can play gunline vs invincible synergy list to your heart's content.
Dakka Wolf wrote: Even in MtG there are usually only three builds after any new release settles.
There's still the fun of a 'Rogue' deck that is only good against one or two of the top builds but gets lucky and draws those decks for opponents.
Hopefully new 40k turns out to be more like Modern than Standard to use an MTG comparison.
25 decks ranging from 1-8% of the field. Though some might find the cost shocking
It'll be tough for GW to pull that off with 40k. Hopefully the annual review of the points gets things in that direction.
I miss Extended.
I was looking forwards to the end of ElDrazi, then Wizards withdraws support from Extended and release new ElDrazi in Standard. Just no winning.
Dakka Wolf wrote: Even in MtG there are usually only three builds after any new release settles.
There's still the fun of a 'Rogue' deck that is only good against one or two of the top builds but gets lucky and draws those decks for opponents.
Hopefully new 40k turns out to be more like Modern than Standard to use an MTG comparison.
25 decks ranging from 1-8% of the field. Though some might find the cost shocking
It'll be tough for GW to pull that off with 40k. Hopefully the annual review of the points gets things in that direction.
I miss Extended.
I was looking forwards to the end of ElDrazi, then Wizards withdraws support from Extended and release new ElDrazi in Standard. Just no winning.
I know exactly what you mean. Eldrazi Winter in modern was awful. Though the local player base really did rally together and refused to play the deck. We had a month solid of players automatically conceding to anyone who played Eldrazi aggro in Modern. So you could play the broken list and automatically win. Actually playing was more important to them than winning in the end it only took a month before we got back to our weekly modern even not being busted. Another store flattened the prizing and then gave an extra pack to everyone who didn't have Eldrazi in their deck.
Dakka Wolf wrote: Even in MtG there are usually only three builds after any new release settles.
There's still the fun of a 'Rogue' deck that is only good against one or two of the top builds but gets lucky and draws those decks for opponents.
Hopefully new 40k turns out to be more like Modern than Standard to use an MTG comparison.
25 decks ranging from 1-8% of the field. Though some might find the cost shocking
It'll be tough for GW to pull that off with 40k. Hopefully the annual review of the points gets things in that direction.
I miss Extended.
I was looking forwards to the end of ElDrazi, then Wizards withdraws support from Extended and release new ElDrazi in Standard. Just no winning.
I know exactly what you mean. Eldrazi Winter in modern was awful. Though the local player base really did rally together and refused to play the deck. We had a month solid of players automatically conceding to anyone who played Eldrazi aggro in Modern. So you could play the broken list and automatically win. Actually playing was more important to them than winning in the end it only took a month before we got back to our weekly modern even not being busted. Another store flattened the prizing and then gave an extra pack to everyone who didn't have Eldrazi in their deck.
Wow, wish things went that way at my FLGS - Eldrazi are popular, people without ElDrazi decks are looked at as oddballs.
SHUPPET wrote: Plus, you act like its impossible to just stumble on the broke gak. I know a guy a year or so back who had 2 games to his name, loved anime, was encouraged to pick up Tau, fell in love with the Riptide model... and couldn't work out why house rules said his perfectly legal 40k army wasn't allowed to enter the first local tourney he tried to join. That's besides the point, the point is the guy wasn't a cheeser, wasn't some guy who was trying to break the rules, he just wanted to play with as much of the coolest model in his army as he could fit in. Totally his own fault for going out of his way to break the rules that he was still yet to learn though, right?
Had a mate who hadn't been to an event before come to a friendly event to encourage newer players.. Brought his Grey Knights and got Complaint against him and lost points because he had 2 Dredknights within the list, but not an optimal layout or list at all.. the guy that did the complaining had done some ganky combo, and was a tourney regular.. (cant remember what is was now.. but it was strong)
Really killed my mates willingness to go to future events
But here's the thing; if the game wasn't so ridiculously imbalanced, that conversation would be much more muted or never even come up.
In 40k there is an accepted truth that you can EITHER play "fluffy" or "competitive." That's not really a thing in other games because they have some semblance of balance! I play Malifaux, so I keep coming back to that. There is no faction that is not viable in that game. However, I play one master and one master only. That master has a lot of weaknesses. Normally, you'll have a handful of masters, and you'll pick one that's good at the objective you're going to do, but I don't do that. I play her into the objectives she's the very worst at too. It's basically the equivalent of "playing fluffy." And while some games are real uphill battles, I never feel like they're completely impossible. At least not until a few rounds in when the game has started to show how it's going to pan out. (I play Colette, for anyone that knows the masters and is wondering.)
It's like taking a full grot list, or a list built around Ratling snipers in 40k and still feeling like you have at least a passing shot at winning every game, no matter how optimised and tournament perfect a list your enemy brings. Can you imagine that?
If the results aren't based on the decisions made during the game, then it sounds like a fake win to me. So the only wins you really should count are those against people who are doing the same thing as you. Those would definitely not be fake as they would be dependent on decisions made during the game.
This, exactly this. It's the whole "bringing a chainsaw to a chess boxing fight" approach. that disrupts the validity of the event. If the armies could be appropriately *classed* so you can operate on the same level as your opponents while going in blind there wouldn't be a problem. Same thing for non-competition games really would make pick ups a lot simpler.
Hows that though? You went to a tournament, what if your opponent brought the same stuff? You now have a game, it's only a waste of time if you DIDN'T bring stuff of that level of power. This whole post just makes no sense to me at all. "The game is only unbalanced if you play unbalanced stuff, from the game, made to be a part of the game!" Yeah, what you are describing is a lack of balance in the game. By this logic, it's impossible for any game ever to be unbalanced.
What i'm describing is the existence of game progression disrupting options which change the underlying expectations of how the game is played in some cases.
What exactly is the point of a spontaneous titan dance off, in an arranged competition event though? Quite reasonably Titans and most other FW stuff are barred from many events because their inclusion means the basic premise of the event itself is changed from "Lets play 40k" to "lets slap each other in the face with our wallets for 6 hours".
Plus, you act like its impossible to just stumble on the broke gak. I know a guy a year or so back who had 2 games to his name, loved anime, was encouraged to pick up Tau, fell in love with the Riptide model... and couldn't work out why house rules said his perfectly legal 40k army wasn't allowed to enter the first local tourney he tried to join. That's besides the point, the point is the guy wasn't a cheeser, wasn't some guy who was trying to break the rules, he just wanted to play with as much of the coolest model in his army as he could fit in. Totally his own fault for going out of his way to break the rules that he was still yet to learn though, right?
... so why didn't someone come out and explain it to him? If the quality of your community is such that they impose rules without taking the time to explain and demonstrate why they've been applied when it's not immediately obvious to beginners, i'd suggest you're grappling with deeper problems than badly organised power levels.
SHUPPET wrote: Really sucks to have people discredit your wins just because you built a competitive list
If the results aren't based on the decisions made during the game, then it sounds like a fake win to me. So the only wins you really should count are those against people who are doing the same thing as you. Those would definitely not be fake as they would be dependent on decisions made during the game.
But those terrible people with their excuses! How dare they not want the game to be decided before it even happens?! What scrubs!
Sounds like you have absolutely ZERO concept of how this game works, to me, to the point that you may as well be playing a different game. If I wanted a game where list building, and taking the smartest list possible for my army was not a part of who wins, I'd be playing Chess. Trying to act like you have to bring the exact same thing as your opponent to be playing "real" 40k is just utterly ridiculous, competitive building is a staple in every modern competitive game. I come to play against other people bringing their A-Game, thus I bring my A-Game myself, no fake wins here. Look at my profile anyway, I'm a Tyranid main, and any of the people in the Tyranid community will tell you I'm a pretty big advocate against spamming fliers. It's not like I'm the one bringing the cheese, here. Doesn't mean I blame the players who do, why would I want them to handicap themselves to some arbitary level set to the strength of my dex? That's not a victory to me. What I want changed is to see their dex balanced, so that they can still build the smartest list they can, but be at a similar power level to the rest of the game.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
frozenwastes wrote: M
I think the biggest problem with solely blaming the designer is that it just leaves you stuck. If the players contributed nothing to the imbalance by picking the most efficient options, looking for undercosted units, gaining uncosted power through synergy and so on, then you're just stuck hoping the next codex release or the next edition will fix things. The designers obviously did not make the game sufficiently balanced to stop players who are intentionally seeking imbalance from being able to do so. The design doesn't even stop it from popping up accidentally. So I guess you just hope someone else solves your problem for you with a future published product? Advocate loudly for balance on internet forums?
If you accept the player does have a role, then you can actually do something about problems as they come up. You can be honest with your prospective opponents about what "way to play" you actually are interested in and what approach you are not interested in. And if the system does have actual inherent balance problems (and it does) you'll at least be spared of the additional intentionally created problems that come with making the list building pre-game a key part of the game experience. You'll only have to address the ones that come up by accident.
Accepting that players seeking advantage is a cause of imbalance allows you to actually take responsibility for your game experience (and that of your opponent) and actually do something about it. Rather than hoping someone else will rescue you with a new codex or edition.
Or, if you're having no problem with the current state of 40k because you like the primacy of the pre-game list building deciding things if the opponent doesn't do likewise then just carry on. You have what you want. You can play gunline vs invincible synergy list to your heart's content.
How is that any different at all to relying on the players to make that change? I'm just as stuck hoping that every single player or tournament handicaps themselves to a much lower level of play, if not more so. And how would that be done to the point that dexes like Orks and DE can compete with Eldar, without either banning a MASSIVE amount of someone's dex, or just rewriting the rules ourselves? We pay GW a large premium for the rules for this game, it is our right or even responsibility as consumers to give critical feedback on where we think the game could be improved. If you disagree and it's not a problem for you, good for you! It does not change other people's experience. I can't for the life of me understand why people would argue AGAINST a balanced game, where you CAN take an army of Riptide's because you love anime or whatever, and not be a "cheeser".
Plus, you act like its impossible to just stumble on the broke gak. I know a guy a year or so back who had 2 games to his name, loved anime, was encouraged to pick up Tau, fell in love with the Riptide model... and couldn't work out why house rules said his perfectly legal 40k army wasn't allowed to enter the first local tourney he tried to join. That's besides the point, the point is the guy wasn't a cheeser, wasn't some guy who was trying to break the rules, he just wanted to play with as much of the coolest model in his army as he could fit in. Totally his own fault for going out of his way to break the rules that he was still yet to learn though, right?
... so why didn't someone come out and explain it to him? If the quality of your community is such that they impose rules without taking the time to explain and demonstrate why they've been applied when it's not immediately obvious to beginners, i'd suggest you're grappling with deeper problems than badly organised power levels.
This is pretty large amounts of projection based on what I just mentioned, but it's whatever. You're talking to someone who is against those house rules to begin with. I play with the groups I have available because there is no alternative. Some are better managed than others. I'll leave it at that.
SHUPPET wrote: This is pretty large amounts of projection based on what I just mentioned, but it's whatever. You're talking to someone who is against those house rules to begin with. I play with the groups I have available because there is no alternative. Some are better managed than others. I'll leave it at that.
Which returns to the issue if the house rules are considered necessary, because people chose things which change the games structure to the point the game itself becomes unrewarding due to a lack of effective functional equivalence. I've been on both sides of it and it's only because we've been around long enough to read armies quickly that it's no longer a problem for me or my group.
. Seriously those have been useless since they were released.
