I finally got around to playing a game of Shadow Wars: Armageddon today. In principle, the idea was appealing to me. It's a kill-team sized game based, by and large, around basic infantry models. No psychic powers. No tanks. No super heavies. No shenanigans. Right?

So, hey, I give it a shot.

I decide to play CSM. I make a kill team:

Sarge with bolt pistol, inferno bolts and a power sword.
3 CSM with boltguns, telescope sights and inferno bolts.
Cultist with autogun.

All marine models with Mark of Tzeentch.

A decent loadout, I think to myself. This is an infantry based game. Boltguns should be decent. The telescopic sights will give me range. And, of course, I need not worry about my opponents taking armor saves, since All Is Dust!

Yeah...

Here's how this went down.

In my first game, I was treated to Eldar guardians who didn't actually need line of sight for anything, since their LoS was drawn from their mobile weapons platforms, not from them. And, of course, I rarely had LoS to them, and even when I did, I never hit anything, since their weapons platforms fething gave them 50% or more obscurity.

[And while we're on the topic. What kind of sadist writes a fething rule that makes me try to judge how much 50% on a humanoid or quasi-humanoid figure is? Oh, there were arguments about this during the games I played. "It's obviously obscured 50% or more." "No, it's not. No, I can't see the legs or the back, but I can see the entire torso!" Again: "He is plainly visible to me! He's barely even obscured." "No, no, you don't understand. He's turned to the side like this. So, from your point of view, he's actually obscured OVER 50%!" I HATE variations of the 50% rule. I hope the 50 percent rule for vehicles dies in 8th edition. Feth you, 50% rule. It's a stupid rule. What am I fething supposed to do, start doing geometrical calculations and measurements? It's a stupid rule for vehicles, and it's even MORE fething stupid for models that aren't in basic, simple geometrical shapes.]

Of course, this never effected my opponent. Since in addition to Eldar weapons platform having the ridiculous, OP mechanics that they do (don't require line of sight FROM the user, but do OBSCURE line of sight TO the user), they also fired a ridiculous number of shots per phase.

Oh, my opponent needed a 5 or a 6? That's fine. He was getting an average of 4 shots anyway.

Even so, my armor protected me?

Doesn't matter. Because in this game, you don't actually have to take a wound for your model to be taken out of commission. Simply succeeding with a single "to hit" roll is enough to knock a model off of its feet and render him perfectly useless for at least a turn.

And the eldar have plenty of dice to roll. Each of their basic infantry get d3 hits with their basic guns.

Because why the feth, not, right?

And eldar models still have battle focus.

Overwatch is perfectly useless against the eldar. You know why? Because the overwatch rule says "during the opponent's movement phase." It doesn't say a thing about movements outside of the movement phase.

Suffice to say, I was eager to do an automatic retreat as soon as I could simply so that the game could end.

So my opponent uses tyrranid warriors next.

The frustration only increases.

Can't be pinned with anything less than S7. Three wounds a piece. High rate of fire at close range (not that they even needed to inflict wounds in the shooting phase: hooray for that broken mechanic: pinning).

And for the entire game, once again, I was only able to hit on 5s and 6s. 6s more often than 5s.

And here's the kicker. If you play a campaign in this game, you get penalized for losing. You can lose models over the course of a game. You can actually be at a significant points disadvantage later in the game.

Because that's fething GREAT game design, right?

Ultimately, I found this game, not a refreshing "break" from 7th. No, everything about 7th that I hate is fully present in this game:

Bolters are completely useless. Power armor is completely useless. Eldar is completely OP and broken. And basically any other option is better than a space marine, whether Chaos or not.

Ultimately, the way to win games is by picking the models with the most OP special rules and the weapons with the best mid-strength RoF.

This game was torture (and GW should probably be sanctioned by the UN for releasing it to the public). There is nothing about this game that was fun, nothing inspired me to want to play more of it. If anything, it just made me hate GW just that much more.

It was an exercise in frustration and futility.

Is there something that I'm missing here?

I honestly don't understand it.

Why do other people like this game?

Well first of all.. your starting list is bad

Telescopic sights on a boltgun are a waste of points and the MoT isn't that great

I also do believe your CSM duders can test to escape pinning at the start of each turn, so it isn't as bad as others..

Your Eldar opponent seems to be a bit of a dick, LOS is by the model not implied stance

You did go up against 2 of the toughest lots in the game.. Eldar with their OP move and shoot platform.. and Tyranids who also have a move and shoot heavy.. but are also very quick and relatively pinning immune.

Another thing is always use more terrain.. set the table up.. and if you have to think is that enough.. the answer is always no

A decent loadout, I think to myself. This is an infantry based game. Boltguns should be decent. The telescopic sights will give me range. And, of course, I need not worry about my opponents taking armor saves, since All Is Dust!

I can tell you right now you don't have a very decent loadout. Take the old Ork saying to heart, "Boyz Before Toyz". You want things like Heavy Weapons with their good range and good output, you want to fill out numbers so you can help overrun. You went too much into trusting the infantry weapon.

Eldar are a pain, Tyranids are possibly the strongest in the beginning.

Please never change, Traditio.

wow just realised you shelled out for Infernal Bolts for all your guys..

Infernal bolts are only useful against other CSM and Grey Knights.... on anything else they are a waste of points

GodDamUser wrote:
Telescopic sights on a boltgun are a waste of points and the MoT isn't that great

I mean, on paper, it at least makes sense, doesn't it?

Telescopic sights increased the range to 36 inches, and inferno bolts strip 4+ armor or better.

Given the fact that most opponents will be T3 and T4, I figured that it should be more or less effective.

But nope.

Because apparently, if you can't fire seven million shots in a turn, you can't hit anything.

I also do believe your CSM duders can test to escape pinning at the start of each turn, so it isn't as bad as others.

Nope.

Your Eldar opponent seems to be a bit of a dick, LOS is by the model not implied stance

My opponent made the claim that LoS is drawn from the weapons platform, not from the guardian which is manning the weapons platform.

Another thing is always use more terrain.. set the table up.. and if you have to think is that enough.. the answer is always no

The table was apparently covered in terrain. I think I maybe had ONE clear shot on my opponent for the games I played, and even then, I still had negative penalties for to hit roll because he was charging and I was firing overwatch.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

GodDamUser wrote:
wow just realised you shelled out for Infernal Bolts for all your guys..

Infernal bolts are only useful against other CSM and Grey Knights.... on anything else they are a waste of points

I wanted to run them as Thousand Sons.

 Traditio wrote:
I wanted to run them as Thousand Sons.

Do you want to Fluff?! OR DO YOU WANT TO WIN!

((Disclaimer, I don't play this game))

 Traditio wrote:

I mean, on paper, it at least makes sense, doesn't it?

Telescopic sights increased the range to 36 inches, and inferno bolts strip 4+ armor or better.

Yeah no.. when you are playing on heavy cover and moving around a 4' table, it isn't a bonus

 Traditio wrote:


My opponent made the claim that LoS is drawn from the weapons platform, not from the guardian which is manning the weapons platform.

I was talking about the general thing.. Eldar legit can shoot from the platform, the gunner need no LOS at all.. he can hid behind a wall safe all game and pop off shots

 Traditio wrote:

The table was apparently covered in terrain. I think I maybe had ONE clear shot on my opponent for the games I played, and even then, I still had negative penalties for to hit roll because he was charging and I was firing overwatch.

Overwatch tactic is only really good if you have the numbers which you did not

 Traditio wrote:

I wanted to run them as Thousand Sons.

No one says you have to equip them all with infernal bolts though for the theme.. that's a whole other marine right there


Automatically Appended Next Post:
You can also win a game, but still cop a massive negative if a model or two dies..

For example.. Tyranids, you have basically 3 models as a starting gang on average.. if you win a game, but 1 happens to die that is 1/3 of your force gone, and if it was the Gun beast, that is at least 2 rounds before you can get him back to where he was as they are pricey

 Talamare wrote:

 Traditio wrote:
I wanted to run them as Thousand Sons.

Do you want to Fluff?! OR DO YOU WANT TO WIN!

((Disclaimer, I don't play this game))

I don't recommend it.

As I said in the OP:

The UN should sanction GW. This game probably counts as torture under international law.

the game is awesome fun..

Just because you are bad at it doesn't mean the game is bad

ZebioLizard2 wrote:I can tell you right now you don't have a very decent loadout. Take the old Ork saying to heart, "Boyz Before Toyz". You want things like Heavy Weapons with their good range and good output, you want to fill out numbers so you can help overrun. You went too much into trusting the infantry weapon.

Eldar are a pain, Tyranids are possibly the strongest in the beginning.

This is part of what I don't like about 40k in general and GW:

My loadout probably wasn't very good, but I'm sure you can understand why I would think it makes sense.

And GW punishes you for doing it.

They punish you for taking options that it should make sense for you to take.

36 inch range bolters with rend - 3 should be amazing in an infantry-based game.

But they're terrible.

Bolters are terrible.

Basically any weapon that fires less than d3 shots per turn is basically useless.

Meanwhile, boltguns and autoguns are exactly the weapons that you would think it would be common sense to put on your basic troops.

But nope!

GW punishes you for doing things that make sense.

Because they don't bother play-testing their games, and they apparently don't bother doing basic math.

But the OP isn't just a rant post:

Have you guys had a similar experience?

Do you actually like this game?

What do you find so fun about it?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

GodDamUser wrote:
the game is awesome fun..

What's so fun about it?

What in particular do you like about the game?

Just because you are bad at it doesn't mean the game is bad

What faction do you use? And what does your list/load-out look like at 1000 points?

Also worth pointing out the exact wording for the Eldar:

If your kill team contains one or more Guardian Defender Gunners, you may purchase a single Heavy Weapon Platform...

(Emphasis mine)
Single. One. Uno. Less than two. No plurals.

Yes, it caught me out at first reading too.

 Traditio wrote:

This is part of what I don't like about 40k in general and GW:

My loadout probably wasn't very good, but I'm sure you can understand why I would think it makes sense.

And GW punishes you for doing it.

They punish you for taking options that it should make sense for you to take.

GodDamUser wrote:
the game is awesome fun..

What's so fun about it?

What in particular do you like about the game?

Just because you are bad at it doesn't mean the game is bad

What faction do you use? And what does your list/load-out look like at 1000 points?

Well see the first thing here is that you obviously never played the older versions of this game.. I.e. Necromunda, Gorkamorka, Mordenhiem (Gangs of Comeragh to a lesser extent)

You appear to have come into the game with a 40k mindset, while it is a 40k setting it isn't 40k

My main two lists I have been playing with are,

Genestealer Cult, that had 9 models at creation, using just the minis from Overkill..
So 7 Duders with Autoguns including the leader, 1 Mining Laser, 1 Grenade Launcher (if I was to optimal build, it could be Leader with BP and chainsword, duders with a mix of auto and lasgun, youths with autopistols, 2 Nade launchers)

And my Hard Mode Tyranids that are pure CC (using lictors for the models for fun)
optimal build, Leader and Warrior with Deathspitter, Gunbeast with Venomcannon, with adrenal glands on leader and warrior

What I like about the game is the progression, while not as in depth as Necromunda does have a set end point and can in theory with a small group get a campaign done over a weekend. I also do enjoy the challenge of after taking a heavy loss, working my way back up to the top

GodDamUser wrote:What I like about the game is the progression, while not as in depth as Necromunda does have a set end point and can in theory with a small group get a campaign done over a weekend. I also do enjoy the challenge of after taking a heavy loss, working my way back up to the top

How is that good game design or even remotely "balanced"?

It's a game that quite literally kicks you when you're down.

It's perfectly possible to play a game in which there is a massive points disparity between the players.

And not even by ordinary GW standards, where there is simply a de facto points disparity, because units and upgrade options are inappropriately priced.

No. It's a literal points disparity.

 Traditio wrote:

GodDamUser wrote:What I like about the game is the progression, while not as in depth as Necromunda does have a set end point and can in theory with a small group get a campaign done over a weekend. I also do enjoy the challenge of after taking a heavy loss, working my way back up to the top

How is that good game design or even remotely "balanced"?

It's a game that quite literally kicks you when you're down.

It's perfectly possible to play a game in which there is a massive points disparity between the players.

And not even by ordinary GW standards, where there is simply a de facto points disparity, because units and upgrade options are inappropriately priced.

No. It's a literal points disparity.

Welcome to gw games? I'm not sure what else there is to say.

 Traditio wrote:

GodDamUser wrote:What I like about the game is the progression, while not as in depth as Necromunda does have a set end point and can in theory with a small group get a campaign done over a weekend. I also do enjoy the challenge of after taking a heavy loss, working my way back up to the top

How is that good game design or even remotely "balanced"?

It's a game that quite literally kicks you when you're down.

It's perfectly possible to play a game in which there is a massive points disparity between the players.

And not even by ordinary GW standards, where there is simply a de facto points disparity, because units and upgrade options are inappropriately priced.

No. It's a literal points disparity.

Welcome to world of campaigns that aren't one off games. Blood bowl, necromunda, mordheim. Basically ANY game that has any form of campaign.

But you know it is actually possible to come back and while I don't know how shadow wars does it in other games at least underdogs usually get help in catching up.

I'm a fan of the game, but it is NOT meant to be competitive. Even with well built teams there is still a lot of random chance. "The monster" from the scavenger mission might eat a dude with a bunch of sweet gear, you can be significantly ahead and then your opponent rolls up that he is the attacker in the ambush mission and kills/captures a dude or two, and makes others miss the next battle.

Any game that has single die rolls here and there is going to be more "random" than a larger scale game like 40k, where there are enough dice thrown to bring out averages. Nah the first couple missions of an SW campaign are like starting a hard mode xcom game. Dudes will straight up miss with +2 short range pistols, tyranid warriors will triple fumble and have a cultist one round KO them, heavy bolter dudes will bring one single bullet to the battle...

Even if you do try to cheese your way to victory, one bad random mission or a couple bad severe injuries and you could find yourself back on even footing with the guy you were just stomping for the last few missions. In fact, we've discovered that that actually TENDS to happen during a full campaign. I got rekt mission 1, my vet scout straight up died to the first shot that came his way in full cover, my snipers both ran out of ammo on the first shot, and my opponent saved literally every roll. I made a trooper a new leader, had tough times the next couple missions, and than bam, I'm the attacker on the raid mission, and I proceed to tear his team apart while they're sentries, so bad that he was willing to drop a promethium just to voluntarily bottle out. He lost both heavy weapon guys, 1 dead and 1 captured, and had 3 other guys out for a mission. He then failed the rescue mission giving me more promethium and extra points, and I had started rolling up some badass skills like a heavy bolter scout with marksman, and a power sword dude getting "you can't outnumber me" along with +1 move, and dive, which made him awesome at closing in.

I ended up winning with my 15 to his 12 promethium after that horrendously bad start. Several of the missions are designed so that you can gut punch your opponent's team and bring the teams back into balance range of each other, you just have to wait for a chance to show up. It works in one v one campaigns, but is even more relevant in group campaigns. One or two missions and the guy in the lead can be the bottom feeder and vice versa.

For team building, you want at least 5 dudes so that one can drop and not force you into tests. Heavy weapons, despite their high price tag, tend to be amazing. Other than that, your starting team isn't all that important. By the time someone is staring at the final game with 15p saved up, you probably will have a full or almost full team with every relevant upgrade. Hell I was close to getting that done on our most recent campaign after game 6. Rolled up a scavenger-medic early and I kept winning missions that had extra points attached. I was up to 9 dudes, 0 recruits, 2 of them heavy bolters, 4 fully loaded toxic snipers, 2 chainsword/bp, and sarge with power sword/plasma pistol, and everyone had like, all the relevant wargear they could want.
And a couple games later I still lost a couple in a row from evil mission setups and some bad rolls.

Do not play shadow war if you are a "must win every game" person. Do not play shadow war if your opponent is one of those people. Be prepared for your guys to suck and die when they shouldn't, and occasionally pull off something awesome.

I like someone said it isn't a competitive game because it's random. Anything with dice is random.

Yeah, Shadow War sounds very "swingy", and meant more for fun than truly balanced, competitive play.

 Traditio wrote:

ZebioLizard2 wrote:I can tell you right now you don't have a very decent loadout. Take the old Ork saying to heart, "Boyz Before Toyz". You want things like Heavy Weapons with their good range and good output, you want to fill out numbers so you can help overrun. You went too much into trusting the infantry weapon.

Eldar are a pain, Tyranids are possibly the strongest in the beginning.

This is part of what I don't like about 40k in general and GW:

My loadout probably wasn't very good, but I'm sure you can understand why I would think it makes sense.

And GW punishes you for doing it.

They punish you for taking options that it should make sense for you to take.

36 inch range bolters with rend - 3 should be amazing in an infantry-based game.

But they're terrible.

Bolters are terrible.

Basically any weapon that fires less than d3 shots per turn is basically useless.

Meanwhile, boltguns and autoguns are exactly the weapons that you would think it would be common sense to put on your basic troops.

But nope!

GW punishes you for doing things that make sense.

Because they don't bother play-testing their games, and they apparently don't bother doing basic math.

But the OP isn't just a rant post:

Have you guys had a similar experience?

Do you actually like this game?

What do you find so fun about it?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

GodDamUser wrote:
the game is awesome fun..

What's so fun about it?

What in particular do you like about the game?

Just because you are bad at it doesn't mean the game is bad

What faction do you use? And what does your list/load-out look like at 1000 points?

>Doesn't use good loadout
>Doesn't understand why they're punished
I tell you what, nobody should question themselves if their AM platoons don't do well in melee even if they bought a bunch of power weapons. If you make a bunch of bad decisions on loadout you NEED to be punished. You get better from learning. You refuse to learn.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I like someone said it isn't a competitive game because it's random. Anything with dice is random.

I believe they were pointing out it's single dice, low numbers (so high variance).

I find it remarkable that so many people posting in here don't seem to understand basic probability theory.

I've not tried the game but this thread has the best title I've seen in a long time.

Sorry you don't like it. We have about twenty-five players at our store that love it though.

Admittedly I don't think SWA is a great game (it's really just a pale shadow of Mordheim/Necromunda to me) so I can understand Traditio's frustrations.

SWA suffers, mainly, from taking Necromunda mechanics which were designed around poorly equipped and hapless gangers...and is then applied to high-quality combat units from the 40K universe. I didn't find this combination worked well. While Necromunda games are far quicker than a normal 40K game they normally let you get stuck in. SWA games can be over in the first turn. This is fine as long as you're okay with that. The game is super duper violent. My first game, my Exarch chopped through four of my buddy's Guardsman who got a little too close. Fluffy? Sure, but not particularly fun. The Exarch has better stats and weapons than a Necromunda Gang Leader who had played 20+ games, etc.

I can understand people who haven't played Necromunda finding SWA amazeballs and a big change from the dumpster fire of 7th ed. 40K, but to me it didn't fully scratch that same itch. A little too fast, too violent (if there is such a thing).

My only genuine comment though...if you're playing a game with somebody who genuinely wants to argue over line-of-sight, you're playing with the wrong people. It's a game of toy soldiers. That should at the very worst be a 5 second "we'll roll a dice, 4+ he's fully obscured..." decision. It sounds like you're playing with jerks (and you may well be that jerk) or trying to be too competitive in a simple game. In SWA you need to be ready to win/lose a game in the first turn or two, then re-set and go onto the next game.

You remind me of our local 'That Guy' Traditio. The difference is he's actually good at these games and still bitches about how broken everything is while he wins.

I'll echo the chorus, the games good. Our group had a weekend devoted too it and even though TFG won and was as always miserable to play against, everyone had a ton of fun.

The highlight being a GSC named after G.I. Joes and skilled up to match their names.

I don't understand the 50% issues. Measure the height of the model, divide it by two, measure the height of the terrain. Is it less or more than half the model height?

...profit!

It really sounds like an issue with your opponents and expectations than anything wrong with the game itself. Oh, and your list. A terribad list, that one.

lonestarr777 wrote:
You remind me of our local 'That Guy' Traditio. The difference is he's actually good at these games and still bitches about how broken everything is while he wins.

I'll echo the chorus, the games good. Our group had a weekend devoted too it and even though TFG won and was as always miserable to play against, everyone had a ton of fun.

The highlight being a GSC named after G.I. Joes and skilled up to match their names.

Do you know how hard I would play a game with quality 28mm based on proper 1980-90's GI Joes...man...(and yes I know there are some "not" GI Joe figures out there...but damn)

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
I don't understand the 50% issues. Measure the height of the model, divide it by two, measure the height of the terrain. Is it less or more than half the model height?

...profit!

It really sounds like an issue with your opponents and expectations than anything wrong with the game itself. Oh, and your list. A terribad list, that one.

That doesn't work when you're trying to peer around the edge of a wall rather than over it.

GodDamUser wrote:
the game is awesome fun..

Just because you are bad at it doesn't mean the game is bad

He has some valid points, he is new to the game, but the rules prevent him from playing an army he likes to play (Thousand sons.)

I am also in the camp of "I don't get it" since the game is taking crap mechanics to a unit(s) scaled game.....

Blood bowl is immensely better....

CSM in general get punked in GWs idea of a skirmish game. (I play death guard.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Traditio wrote:

ZebioLizard2 wrote:I can tell you right now you don't have a very decent loadout. Take the old Ork saying to heart, "Boyz Before Toyz". You want things like Heavy Weapons with their good range and good output, you want to fill out numbers so you can help overrun. You went too much into trusting the infantry weapon.

Eldar are a pain, Tyranids are possibly the strongest in the beginning.

This is part of what I don't like about 40k in general and GW:

My loadout probably wasn't very good, but I'm sure you can understand why I would think it makes sense.

And GW punishes you for doing it.

They punish you for taking options that it should make sense for you to take.

36 inch range bolters with rend - 3 should be amazing in an infantry-based game.

But they're terrible.

Bolters are terrible.

Basically any weapon that fires less than d3 shots per turn is basically useless.

Meanwhile, boltguns and autoguns are exactly the weapons that you would think it would be common sense to put on your basic troops.

But nope!

GW punishes you for doing things that make sense.

Because they don't bother play-testing their games, and they apparently don't bother doing basic math.

But the OP isn't just a rant post:

Have you guys had a similar experience?

Do you actually like this game?

What do you find so fun about it?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

GodDamUser wrote:
the game is awesome fun..

What's so fun about it?

What in particular do you like about the game?

Just because you are bad at it doesn't mean the game is bad

What faction do you use? And what does your list/load-out look like at 1000 points?

>Doesn't use good loadout
>Doesn't understand why they're punished
I tell you what, nobody should question themselves if their AM platoons don't do well in melee even if they bought a bunch of power weapons. If you make a bunch of bad decisions on loadout you NEED to be punished. You get better from learning. You refuse to learn.

How are thousand sons with inferno bolts a "bad decision" form a fluff standpoint.

This is how we got 5th ed and 7th ed, GW ignoring the fluff and trying to sell models by buffing non-sense and nerfing stuff that should be the "stock" option for an army. See heldrakes for CSM, Jetbikes for eldar, Riptides for tau, grav guns and bikes for marines, flying monsters with dakka guns for nids, etc...

"Just take X" in a game that should be easily balanced is not an excuse for poor game design.

SW:A is Necromunda with 40k models, so direct your complaints to Rick Priestly and Andy Chambers circa 1995.

Going to try to draw an analogy to explain to Traditio exactly why his loadout makes no sense.

Dumping 165pts/model into telescopic-sight inferno-bolt Tzeentch Marines and then barging into Shadow War expecting your one-stop answer to all enemies to annihilate things is roughly the equivalent of trying to drive a main battle tank into an urban warzone with no infantry support. Yes, you have a giant gun. Good for you. You also can't maneuver, find the enemy, or control space in any way, and are going to get casually outflanked and exploded.

You didn't make a rational, fluff-based decision to try and play a Thousand Sons Kill-Team and get punished for not playing Eldar. You assumed that since GW was writing the game all you had to do was spring for the biggest infantry weapon you could lay your hands on, copy-paste it until you hit points cap, and march ahead and steamroll.

Shadow War isn't 40k. I suggest you try going back, reading the rulebook again, and trying to build a Kill-Team to play Shadow War with instead of doing stupid things and blaming it on the game.

 Traditio wrote:
And while we're on the topic. What kind of sadist writes a fething rule that makes me try to judge how much 50% on a humanoid or quasi-humanoid figure is? Oh, there were arguments about this during the games I played. "It's obviously obscured 50% or more." "No, it's not. No, I can't see the legs or the back, but I can see the entire torso!" Again: "He is plainly visible to me! He's barely even obscured." "No, no, you don't understand. He's turned to the side like this. So, from your point of view, he's actually obscured OVER 50%!" I HATE variations of the 50% rule. I hope the 50 percent rule for vehicles dies in 8th edition. Feth you, 50% rule. It's a stupid rule. What am I fething supposed to do, start doing geometrical calculations and measurements? It's a stupid rule for vehicles, and it's even MORE fething stupid for models that aren't in basic, simple geometrical shapes

No, you shrug, say "okay, I'll give it to you this time" or dice off. Its a beer and pretzels game with friendly beer and pretzels resolutions. If you feel the need to argue ad infinitum about whether this vehicle is 49 or 51% covered, maybe find a hobby that does promote clear and tournament designed rules. Or wait til 8th. Either way, unless your opponent is trying to claim 10% is 65% obscured, it should never be an issue and the only time I've ever heard of it being an issue is on this forum. It only ever comes up between die hard and obstinate tourney players or tourney wannabes.

Addendum/clarification: 40k is a ridiculously extreme outlier in terms of the ease with which you can take one guy/unit with a giant gun and have him explode the table (scatterbikes, Riptides, Titans...). The vast majority of wargames don't work that way.

I don't want to be too cliche about this but 40k is sort of the easy mode of wargames. Speeds are incredibly high. Ranges are incredibly long. Positioning is barely relevant. Weapon power is nice and straightforward and linear.

Go find an Infinity player and ask him whether Ramboing a TAG is a good idea. Find a Warmachine player and ask when the last time his Colossal up and casually killed everything was. Ask a Bolt Action player whether he'd play a list of just tanks. Ask a Mordheim player why he doesn't take armour.

So to those coming to Shadow War from 40k, welcome. You've taken your first step into a larger world.

Wont shadowjuarez just be dropped like all other gw boxed games are?

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Addendum/clarification: 40k is a ridiculously extreme outlier in terms of the ease with which you can take one guy/unit with a giant gun and have him explode the table (scatterbikes, Riptides, Titans...). The vast majority of wargames don't work that way.

I don't want to be too cliche about this but 40k is sort of the easy mode of wargames. Speeds are incredibly high. Ranges are incredibly long. Positioning is barely relevant. Weapon power is nice and straightforward and linear.

Go find an Infinity player and ask him whether Ramboing a TAG is a good idea. Find a Warmachine player and ask when the last time his Colossal up and casually killed everything was. Ask a Bolt Action player whether he'd play a list of just tanks. Ask a Mordheim player why he doesn't take armour.

So to those coming to Shadow War from 40k, welcome. You've taken your first step into a larger world.

All of which focus more on realistic wargame fighting than the cinematic world of 40k. Apples and Oranges. 40k never tried to be realistic, it tried to give you scope for your armoured spearhead to fight another armoured spearhead and leave the squishies at home, and for your giant robot/monster to go Godzilla and kill whole armies, and for your awesomesauce hero to walk away with another epic victory to add to his saga, like the legendary warriors of old.

 Deadshot wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Addendum/clarification: 40k is a ridiculously extreme outlier in terms of the ease with which you can take one guy/unit with a giant gun and have him explode the table (scatterbikes, Riptides, Titans...). The vast majority of wargames don't work that way.

I don't want to be too cliche about this but 40k is sort of the easy mode of wargames. Speeds are incredibly high. Ranges are incredibly long. Positioning is barely relevant. Weapon power is nice and straightforward and linear.

Go find an Infinity player and ask him whether Ramboing a TAG is a good idea. Find a Warmachine player and ask when the last time his Colossal up and casually killed everything was. Ask a Bolt Action player whether he'd play a list of just tanks. Ask a Mordheim player why he doesn't take armour.

So to those coming to Shadow War from 40k, welcome. You've taken your first step into a larger world.

All of which focus more on realistic wargame fighting than the cinematic world of 40k. Apples and Oranges. 40k never tried to be realistic, it tried to give you scope for your armoured spearhead to fight another armoured spearhead and leave the squishies at home, and for your giant robot/monster to go Godzilla and kill whole armies, and for your awesomesauce hero to walk away with another epic victory to add to his saga, like the legendary warriors of old.

Exactly. Apples to oranges. Throw out anything you know about apples, we're dealing with oranges now. Try to take an apple tart recipe with delicious flaky pastry and do a straight 1-1 substitution for oranges and you won't get an orange tart, you'll get a godawful mess.

There are many sorts of games in the world. 40k is one. SWA is a very different one. Try to take assumptions about how lists work and what's good/bad from 40k and carry them over to SWA, and you're just going to make a mess of it. Rolling this back to the original post and the question in the topic title Shadow War is a terrible game if you choose to try and play it like you would play 40k. People enjoy it when they try to play the game they're playing, rather than the other game that uses the same models.

This entire thread can be summed up as "OP charged a machine gun nest and expected to live while using one of the best teams and is super grumpy wumpens about it"

zerosignal wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I like someone said it isn't a competitive game because it's random. Anything with dice is random.

I believe they were pointing out it's single dice, low numbers (so high variance).

I find it remarkable that so many people posting in here don't seem to understand basic probability theory.

Isn't that hard to plan for. Craps is done with just a couple of dice but nobody thinks it's not competitive or fun.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sfshilo wrote:

GodDamUser wrote:
the game is awesome fun..

Just because you are bad at it doesn't mean the game is bad

He has some valid points, he is new to the game, but the rules prevent him from playing an army he likes to play (Thousand sons.)

I am also in the camp of "I don't get it" since the game is taking crap mechanics to a unit(s) scaled game.....

Blood bowl is immensely better....

CSM in general get punked in GWs idea of a skirmish game. (I play death guard.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Traditio wrote:

ZebioLizard2 wrote:I can tell you right now you don't have a very decent loadout. Take the old Ork saying to heart, "Boyz Before Toyz". You want things like Heavy Weapons with their good range and good output, you want to fill out numbers so you can help overrun. You went too much into trusting the infantry weapon.

Eldar are a pain, Tyranids are possibly the strongest in the beginning.

This is part of what I don't like about 40k in general and GW:

My loadout probably wasn't very good, but I'm sure you can understand why I would think it makes sense.

And GW punishes you for doing it.

They punish you for taking options that it should make sense for you to take.

36 inch range bolters with rend - 3 should be amazing in an infantry-based game.

But they're terrible.

Bolters are terrible.

Basically any weapon that fires less than d3 shots per turn is basically useless.

Meanwhile, boltguns and autoguns are exactly the weapons that you would think it would be common sense to put on your basic troops.

But nope!

GW punishes you for doing things that make sense.

Because they don't bother play-testing their games, and they apparently don't bother doing basic math.

But the OP isn't just a rant post:

Have you guys had a similar experience?

Do you actually like this game?

What do you find so fun about it?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

GodDamUser wrote:
the game is awesome fun..

What's so fun about it?

What in particular do you like about the game?

Just because you are bad at it doesn't mean the game is bad

What faction do you use? And what does your list/load-out look like at 1000 points?

>Doesn't use good loadout
>Doesn't understand why they're punished
I tell you what, nobody should question themselves if their AM platoons don't do well in melee even if they bought a bunch of power weapons. If you make a bunch of bad decisions on loadout you NEED to be punished. You get better from learning. You refuse to learn.

How are thousand sons with inferno bolts a "bad decision" form a fluff standpoint.

This is how we got 5th ed and 7th ed, GW ignoring the fluff and trying to sell models by buffing non-sense and nerfing stuff that should be the "stock" option for an army. See heldrakes for CSM, Jetbikes for eldar, Riptides for tau, grav guns and bikes for marines, flying monsters with dakka guns for nids, etc...

"Just take X" in a game that should be easily balanced is not an excuse for poor game design.

It's a bad decision to throw all your eggs in one basket in the game. It's also not like either upgrade is bad, but taking both at the same time creates an expensive model. That's the OP's own fault. If they want to have a single Rubric or two that's fine, but don't go overboard.

Well it has been part of gamer-culture at least concerning GW games to overload the basket in pretty much any competitive environment. Thats how winning was done.

Games that punish you for overloading the basket can be new and frightening things for people not used to it.

I think the game is an absolute blast. I have several kill teams. My favorite is a space marine carcharodon scout squad (sgt with bp/cs, two with snipers, the rest with bolters... all have camo cloaks). They are quick, fairly cheap, and can hold their own against most armies ( I try to upgrade the specialist to have a heavy bolter after a few games). Bolters aren't junk and have killed many things.

My chaos army is alpha legion (sgt bp/cs, bp/cs, three with bolters, and the rest cultist spam).

This game is about numbers. Load up on fancy gear like tyranids or grey knights and you will fail in the long run during campaigns. You need bodies to take wounds, you can upgrade them to have fancy bolter rounds, etc as a campaign progresses.

You can still be fluffy (alpha legion with cultists, etc), but you have to build a balanced force. All out fluff only works if your opponent builds the same type of lists!!!

To the OP... I'd say to give the game another chance, but don't treat it like 40k Skirmish.

Build a balanced list. You want a leader, a handful of Dudes and a bunch of Noobs. Maybe a Heavy, maybe not. Avoid fancy looking upgrades until later in a campaign.

This is probably a decent enough starting list for CSM. It's 1000 points exactly and has plenty of room to grow as you progress through a campaign.

CSM Lord w/Bolt Pistol and Chainsword (275)
Dude w/Bolt Pistol and Chainsword (170)
Dude w/Bolt Pistol and Chainsword (170)
Heavy Dude w/Plasmagun and Clip Harness (220)
Cultist w/Autopistol (60)
Cultist w/Autopistol (60)
Cultist (45)

The Bolt Pistols are typically fine. If you're sticking to cover and staying out of line of sight, you should hopefully only have one or two rounds of shooting before you wade in with Chainswords. If you have to send someone out into the open, send a Cultist. They're not great, but they can still pin someone with an Autopistol.

 Luciferian wrote:
SW:A is Necromunda with 40k models, so direct your complaints to Rick Priestly and Andy Chambers circa 1995.

To be fair, there's probably nothing wrong with the fundamental rules, but rather the way GW is attempting to use them. A basic "garbage" expendable Guardsmen in 40k is a well equipped combatant in in Necromunda. When you start scaling that to include supersoldiers and the like which were never intended to be portrayed by such a rules system, issues emerge.

That said, it also sounds like the opponent in this instance went straight for the most broken stufd available also

I so want to try this. But I want to use the single model teams to see if I can win with just a Solitaire!

building a couple of these warbands and gonna see how hard it will be to bring my eschers and orloks into it.

Vaktathi wrote:To be fair, there's probably nothing wrong with the fundamental rules, but rather the way GW is attempting to use them. A basic "garbage" expendable Guardsmen in 40k is a well equipped combatant in in Necromunda. When you start scaling that to include supersoldiers and the like which were never intended to be portrayed by such a rules system, issues emerge.

That said, it also sounds like the opponent in this instance went straight for the most broken stufd available also

Very true.

thekingofkings wrote:building a couple of these warbands and gonna see how hard it will be to bring my eschers and orloks into it.

From what I understand, you should be able to play your old gangers according to their Necromunda rules, perhaps with minor adjustments.

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
I don't understand the 50% issues. Measure the height of the model, divide it by two, measure the height of the terrain. Is it less or more than half the model height?

That's utterly ridiculous.

Have you seen a tyranid warrior?

Long, skiny legs. Bulky torso. Big head.

The only way that a height measurement to determine 50% obscurity works is if there is an even distribution of mass on the top and bottom halves of the model.

This cannot be assumed.

Furthermore, what if a model is "peeking out behind a wall," so to speak, so that, for example, the right side of the body is obscured, but the left side is not?

The only way to really determine whether or not a model is actually 50% obscured or more with any real accuracy, at least in border line cases, is to directly measure the surface area of the model facing, then measure the surface area which is not obscured, and then calculate accordingly.

This is an unreasonable expectation for a game like Shadow Wars.

What they should have done is simply made cover of any sort a -1 to hit, and allowed hiding if the model is able to claim cover at all.

Simple. Elegant. Perfectly clear. No arguments.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 niv-mizzet wrote:
I'm a fan of the game, but it is NOT meant to be competitive.

This is such a cop-out.

Of course Shadow Wars is meant to be competitive. A game of shadow wars involves two opposed players trying to satisfy mutually exclusive win conditions. There is a clear winner and a clear loser in each game.

That is the very DEFINITION of competitive.

Saying that "it's not meant to be competitive" is essentially an ADMISSION that the game is terrible.

What that says is that GW was too lazy and didn't care enough to give us a decent game.

As is usual with GW.

Even with well built teams there is still a lot of random chance.

That's not my complaint. Yes, of course there's going to be random chance. No, of course you won't have enough models to ensure "statistical averages" in most shooting phases.

My complaint is that the rules are terrible and difficult to apply, the actual game play is frustrating (consistently having my 3+ downgraded to a 5+ or a 6+; being pinned by S3 shooting, etc.) and there is wild imbalance between different factions and weapons.

Shuriken catapults get d3 shots as opposed to the boltgun's 1.

And need I repeat: floating heavy weapons platforms that can move and fire at full BS, that can magically teleport, that cannot be targeted, that can obscure LoS AND does not draw line of sight from the model that's actually using it?

Somebody justify that.

Somebody please try to tell me how that is not completely overpowered in a game like Shadow Wars.

Ahhh, my bad. I didn't realize the utterly ridiculous levels of overthinking you were doing. Continue to hate things without my interference.

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
Ahhh, my bad. I didn't realize the utterly ridiculous levels of overthinking you were doing. Continue to hate things without my interference.

It's not "overthinking."

This is a very practical matter.

I'm targeting a tyranid's warrior with my boltgun. I cannot see his legs below the knees. I cannot see the spines on his back. I cannot see his arms.

However, I still have a GIGANTIC target with his torso and his head.

Is that 50% or not?

 Luciferian wrote:

Vaktathi wrote:To be fair, there's probably nothing wrong with the fundamental rules, but rather the way GW is attempting to use them. A basic "garbage" expendable Guardsmen in 40k is a well equipped combatant in in Necromunda. When you start scaling that to include supersoldiers and the like which were never intended to be portrayed by such a rules system, issues emerge.

That said, it also sounds like the opponent in this instance went straight for the most broken stufd available also

Very true.

thekingofkings wrote:building a couple of these warbands and gonna see how hard it will be to bring my eschers and orloks into it.

From what I understand, you should be able to play your old gangers according to their Necromunda rules, perhaps with minor adjustments.

yeah, hoping so, and that they are still in playable shape (sat in a basement for a looooong time)

 thekingofkings wrote:


yeah, hoping so, and that they are still in playable shape (sat in a basement for a looooong time)

Nothing a little elbow grease can't fix

I've literally never had an argument over cover. This seems very foreign to me. In an event where there's a disagreement I just let my opponent call it. Maybe the group i'm a part of is just a little more laid back than usual.

 Marmatag wrote:
I've literally never had an argument over cover. This seems very foreign to me. In an event where there's a disagreement I just let my opponent call it. Maybe the group i'm a part of is just a little more laid back than usual.

Nah, I think certain people are just less laid back than usual

 Traditio wrote:
...And need I repeat: floating heavy weapons platforms that can move and fire at full BS, that can magically teleport, that cannot be targeted, that can obscure LoS AND does not draw line of sight from the model that's actually using it?

Somebody justify that.

Somebody please try to tell me how that is not completely overpowered in a game like Shadow Wars...

It dies if you can kill a single-Wound T3 model with a 5+ armour save.

You're the one insisting on designing a team that can't do anything to it beyond stand in front of it and get shot.

 Traditio wrote:
Of course Shadow Wars is meant to be competitive. A game of shadow wars involves two opposed players trying to satisfy mutually exclusive win conditions. There is a clear winner and a clear loser in each game.

That is the very DEFINITION of competitive.

I distinguish between "competition" and "conflict." I'm not sure if we (you and I specifically, Traditio) have ever had the occasion to discuss this but I tend to look at games on a spectrum between, on the one end, those meant to test the relative skill of players and, on the other end, those meant to generate a narrative. Are we playing to see who is better or are we playing to see what happens? Shadow War is pretty far down the "see what happens" end of that spectrum. There are opposed teams and victory conditions because those elements create the conflict that comprise the narrative - they are not necessarily evidence that the game is meant to test which player has more mastery over a fair and balanced ruleset. To your main point, SWA is certainly not a fair and balanced ruleset.

AnomanderRake wrote:It dies if you can kill a single-Wound T3 model with a 5+ armour save.

You're the one insisting on designing a team that can't do anything to it beyond stand in front of it and get shot.

Good luck!

Between the fact that it can literally be anywhere within 2 inches of the person who's manning it AND the fact that guardians have battle focus, good luck hitting that model, much less killing him.

Especially with a weapon that only fires one shot per turn.

 Traditio wrote:

AnomanderRake wrote:It dies if you can kill a single-Wound T3 model with a 5+ armour save.

You're the one insisting on designing a team that can't do anything to it beyond stand in front of it and get shot.

Good luck!

Between the fact that it can literally be anywhere within 2 inches of the person who's manning it AND the fact that guardians have battle focus, good luck hitting that model, much less killing him.

Especially with a weapon that only fires one shot per turn.

Bet you wish you weren't spending a hundred and sixty points on each one-shot weapon now, don't you?

AnomanderRake wrote:Bet you wish you weren't spending a hundred and sixty points on each one-shot weapon now, don't you?

180 points (120 + 35 + 25).

Just the marine with boltgun and no other gear would be 155.

But you're basically just corroborating my point:

There is a massive power disparity for different weapons, even accounting for points costs differences.

Power armored marines with bolt guns are completely useless in this game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AnomanderRake wrote:Bet you wish you weren't spending a hundred and sixty points on each one-shot weapon now, don't you?

I also wish to point out that this is a non-answer to what I'm arguing.

You're trying, I assume, to claim that the HWP is not OP.

You support this by saying that it's "just" a T3 model with a 5+ save on the other side.

My answer is that the statistics of the gunner aren't what make the equipment OP. What makes the equipment OP is the equipment, and even more so when combined with battle focus..

The statistics of the gunner are irrelevant if he can literally sit in a barrel and then close off the end of the barrel with the HWP.

Trad, part of your problem is that you're focusing too much on the individual game and not the campaign, which is how the game is meant to be played. You can put together an amazing team and do everything right and lose a game. If you do that for the length of a campaign, you are most likely winning. That's why you still get the same amount of build points even in losses, because you're supposed to take losses.

You could actually consider the results of entire campaign to be legitimately competitive, and I wouldn't mind playing in a SW campaign tourney for example, but the individual games are not.

Seriously, especially the first few games are just the starting point. You aren't really into the meat of the game until you have multiple guys with special skills equipped accordingly to take advantage of them, like a melee guy that can triple move for running and claim hidden status at the end of a run, or close range dudes with dual pistols tryin' to be a wannabe cypher with some hard to hit skills and such.

Don't try more games.
Try a campaign.

 niv-mizzet wrote:

Don't try more games.
Try a campaign.

That is true the basic fight mission really favours the one play style of max duders and Overwatch.. The other missions and random conditions add a lot to the game

There are several scenarios in which you can win without firing a shot and technically losing the round (running early)

I would have started with a named guy, and put together a chaos warband in according to being a ... chaos Space marine. YOU as a champion, gather up a close combat guy, a heavy, and a couple of cultists, as you cut your way through the resistance, as you capture meat and sacrifice them to the blood god, as you wear their skins as a trophy... but that's just me.

As Ulrick, the Carnal, I am obliged to slaughter, rape and pillage my way across the under-hive, as I take skulls and have my way with anyone I come across...

close combat some of them, autoguns for the rest to start, then have the close combat and heavy as change up. clip them in a high position, and commence the slaughter.

I see how you went wrong, and I suggest that you go back and rework your warband for more bodies, and less tricky. close combat weapons, autoguns, a few bolters/ heavy bolter, and stick to simple. go in for the kill, and roll the opponent, as you bounce from one target to the next.

You tried being cute, it didn't work. now go in and go harder on the attack. The game favors attacker, not sitting back waiting to get owned.

Start slow, add in as you cut your teeth, and add in stuff like the spawn, and other nutty stuff.

 Traditio wrote:

AnomanderRake wrote:Bet you wish you weren't spending a hundred and sixty points on each one-shot weapon now, don't you?

180 points (120 + 35 + 25).

Just the marine with boltgun and no other gear would be 155.

But you're basically just corroborating my point:

There is a massive power disparity for different weapons, even accounting for points costs differences.

Power armored marines with bolt guns are completely useless in this game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AnomanderRake wrote:Bet you wish you weren't spending a hundred and sixty points on each one-shot weapon now, don't you?

I also wish to point out that this is a non-answer to what I'm arguing.

You're trying, I assume, to claim that the HWP is not OP.

You support this by saying that it's "just" a T3 model with a 5+ save on the other side.

My answer is that the statistics of the gunner aren't what make the equipment OP. What makes the equipment OP is the equipment, and even more so when combined with battle focus..

The statistics of the gunner are irrelevant if he can literally sit in a barrel and then close off the end of the barrel with the HWP.

No. I'm trying to claim that it hard-counters your specific strategy of feeding a warband composed entirely of expensive models with single-shot weapons down its barrel.

Maybe if you had access to some cheap dudes you could, I don't know, spread out some, flank the operator? Like, say, Cultists? Or a Sustained Fire weapon of your own, so getting into a firefight with the operator wasn't quite so suicidal?

As for the 'cap-off-the-barrel-with-the-gun-platform' crap I put it to you that you're playing on a really, really stupid board if you've got a position where that's a) possible and b) gives the gunner a decent field of fire while doing so.

 Traditio wrote:

Between the fact that it can literally be anywhere within 2 inches of the person who's manning it AND the fact that guardians have battle focus, good luck hitting that model, much less killing him.

You may want to re-read Battle Focus. It isn't the same as it is in 40k.

Why didn't you mellee them to death? Crawl up your dudes, use cover to hide behind. Don't forget that weapon platforms are extremely expensive - means that they won't have enough guyz to deal with your outnumbering marines crawling up the board.

 Luciferian wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
I've literally never had an argument over cover. This seems very foreign to me. In an event where there's a disagreement I just let my opponent call it. Maybe the group i'm a part of is just a little more laid back than usual.

Nah, I think certain people are just less laid back than usual

When in doubt, you announce your intention. "My guardsman is moving behind these barrels to take cover. It should be heavy cover." opponent: "Yup, heavy cover."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Traditio wrote:

AnomanderRake wrote:It dies if you can kill a single-Wound T3 model with a 5+ armour save.

You're the one insisting on designing a team that can't do anything to it beyond stand in front of it and get shot.

Good luck!

Between the fact that it can literally be anywhere within 2 inches of the person who's manning it AND the fact that guardians have battle focus, good luck hitting that model, much less killing him.

Especially with a weapon that only fires one shot per turn.

Very easy to take out with a 25 point frag grenade. Toss it at the weapon platform, and blow up the Guardian.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
to the OP -

The Eldar HWP is powerful, but with a limit of one, it's easily ignored. You could shut it down by advancing hidden so it can't target your models. Then pop a grenade and kill the operator in the explosion. It sounds like you approached the game like stand up fight instead of a Tactical Stealth Espionage game.

But it could be that Shadow War is just not a game for you! The game shines with tons of cover (no more than six inches of clear LOS is my goal), stealthy movement, ambushes, ridiculous skills, epic close combats on the precipice of terrain fifteen inches from the ground, etc.

 koooaei wrote:
Why didn't you mellee them to death? Crawl up your dudes, use cover to hide behind..

Most specifically, use the Hide ability.

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 koooaei wrote:
Why didn't you mellee them to death? Crawl up your dudes, use cover to hide behind..

Most specifically, use the Hide ability.

in my estimation, Hide is not used nearly enough - and it's because of two things - either people not realizing how powerful it is, or a distinct lack of terrain on the tabletop. any model should be able to hide any turn, basically.

Agree with the OP, SWA is terrible.

A lot of people here tried it, even hosted a tourney for it. Not well received at all and we gave it a few tries. Tourney only had 4 people turn up (one person being the host himself playing).

All they did was try to feed on peoples nostalgia for necromunda by releasing a bastardized version of it. But for what it is worth, necromunda is terrible also as both games are not balanced in any form for campaign

yeah I haven't had the chance to play this version. As a fan of Necromunda and a Thousand Sons player (I would have made the same list, infernal bolts are the BOMB!) I saw myself returning to WH40K (Been away awhile due to KIDS!!!!!). The last tourney I played in was only 500 points and I was treated to a slaughter by those who cheese!

Thanks for posting your experience and giving me insight to this games play style. It is very frustrating when you go to have a good game but find it is not balanced. My gaming group is trying out Infinity which is very similar and this sounds a lot like what GW is trying to do to survive the competition.

I guess I should play my Eldar if I do get the chance to play (Finally my guardians will be better used than as cannon fodder!!!!)

Have fun in all things!!!
Tim (Deathguard633)

P.S. Yeah my main army is Death Guard but it is all RT and drives the judges crazy as they always tell me those are NOT legit models but the joke is on them!!!!! They are!!!!

Infinity is nowhere near balanced either.

str00dles1 wrote:
necromunda is terrible also as both games are not balanced in any form for campaign

lol how isn't Necro balanced?

probably one of the most balanced games I have played tbh..

TBF at this point we're going to need a precise definition of "balanced" in order for the conversation to meaningfully continue.

 koooaei wrote:
Infinity is nowhere near balanced either.

I'd really be interested to know why you think that. Games I feel are unbalanced you can tell by just what factions are playing who's going to win.

 Manchu wrote:
TBF at this point we're going to need a precise definition of "balanced" in order for the conversation to meaningfully continue.

I don't believe this can ever happen, as people's ideas of balanced are very different.


To me, balanced means every single option in the game has an equal amount of usefulness in the game. Some options will give a benefit against certain enemies, others will give against others. But the usefulness will always change with the meta. Look for example at the 5th Ed GK codex's Plasma Syphon, which forces any weapon that uses Plasma to shoot at BS1.

Now, if Orks are the latest flavour of the month, this becomes next to useless. However, if everyone and their brother is bringing many Fire Warriors, a Plasma Syphon becomes the best thing since sliced bread, as sticking one of the se models deep in Fire Warrior territory strips them of their most potent aspect, their firepower. If this became all too common, Tau would eventually die out or switch to Crisis suits with Burst cannons or ion weapons. The Plasma Syphon then becomes useless again, as do Fire Warriors, as when the Fire Warriors return, the Plasma Syphon does too, cancelling each other out in an endless cycle.

This is the issue of balanced in a meta-based competitive circuit. Some things are better against others, and there will always be those switching to the top tier competitive options, which may be as simple as Tactical Squads MSU.

A balanced game would have no meta because nothing would be top tier and more powerful than anything else, meaning everything is equally good against everything, making 40k into a "A > B > C > D > A" situation. Except, that C doesn't just beat D, but also A, as replacing D with C now means A is no longer working, forcing switch to B, which means C is no longer useful, meaning C now switches to A, in an endless loop.

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:

 koooaei wrote:
Infinity is nowhere near balanced either.

I'd really be interested to know why you think that. Games I feel are unbalanced you can tell by just what factions are playing who's going to win.

Any faction can create an awful list that's gona loose to about anything. You can't tell that orks will loose to eldar. That's simply not true. An ork can bring a trukk rush list while eldar will jump around with footslogging guardians or spiders (that's considered to be a strong list but doesn't do particularly well vs trukkboyz). It's all about listbuilding.

GodDamUser wrote:

str00dles1 wrote:
necromunda is terrible also as both games are not balanced in any form for campaign

lol how isn't Necro balanced?

probably one of the most balanced games I have played tbh..

The whole game is a campaign game. The campaign is so broken its unplayable

Eh? People have been playing and enjoying Necromunda campaigns for over 20 years!

It seems that the definition of "balanced" in this thread is:
"no matter what I take, and no matter how poorly I play, there should be an exact 50% chance that I will win the game"

I think someone complained earlier that you get punished in a campaign game for losing.

Imagine that!

Cover's not an issue. Sometimes, it's up in the air, in which case, have a quick talk with your opponent. If you can't agree, roll a die. On a 1-3, it's partial cover, on a 4-6, it's full cover.

Alternatively, if you play at a gaming shop, ask one of the other customers to take a peak and give their opinion, as a neutral third party.

It probably could be BETTER, but it's hardly bad.

Tradito, you complain a lot about people just using instant-win buttons. Why are you complaining that your first attempt isn't just an instant win?

 Torga_DW wrote:

 Traditio wrote:

GodDamUser wrote:What I like about the game is the progression, while not as in depth as Necromunda does have a set end point and can in theory with a small group get a campaign done over a weekend. I also do enjoy the challenge of after taking a heavy loss, working my way back up to the top

How is that good game design or even remotely "balanced"?

It's a game that quite literally kicks you when you're down.

It's perfectly possible to play a game in which there is a massive points disparity between the players.

And not even by ordinary GW standards, where there is simply a de facto points disparity, because units and upgrade options are inappropriately priced.

No. It's a literal points disparity.

Welcome to gw games? I'm not sure what else there is to say.

I have to quote all of this for emphasis.

There are expectations to be considered here, and expecting GW to have a tightly balanced game is an expectation that is born of people that are obliviously new, or just oblivious. The past 40 years of precedent should be enough to inform even casual observers of their game designs.

But you aren't new, yet have expectations that GW games conform to your ideal instead of taking them at face value for what they are. This is a trap a lot of people get caught up in with games, and instead of dealing with it on the terms of the design, they refuse to accept that reality and decide it is flawed because of that delusion.

It's not meant to be a criticism of the person, but of the mind set that so many have and then complain about it publically. It may be time to find a game design you do enjoy rather than kvetch about this being terrible. Time spent on something you do enjoy, is time well spent. Life's too short to do stuff that stinks. Ain't nobody got time fo' dat!

Agree with judgedoug - I don't think "balanced" can reasonably be understood to mean that any possible list will have an equal chance of winning against any other possible list, all else equal. That's what I would call the "hard" definition of balance, which is applicable to something like chess - games with little to no set up variation and little to no randomization. Clearly, SWA is nothing like that.

I think a better definition of "balanced" for SWA is that a reasonably strong list from each faction has a chance of winning against a reasonably strong list (but please note, not any reasonably strong list) from every other faction. I'd call this the "soft" definition of balance. Put it another way, a balanced game is one where play is not abstractly dominated by one or two strategies - which implies more than just list building, of course.

Plus - part of the fun of games with a list-building component is, after all, game mastery - discovering which combinations work better and worse.

The thing that makes Necromunda the most balanced game for me is that, All of the gangs are basically the same and have pretty much the same options in the list build.. the main difference is in their Skill Trees

As it is a game about becoming the top dog, in a campaign there is someone who is going to be stronger as a whole.. but this is also balanced out by giving bonuses to the weaker gang, and several missions where the weaker gang can have the advantage (Ambush comes to mind, as well as raid)

 Manchu wrote:
...I think a better definition of "balanced" for SWA is that a reasonably strong list from each faction has a chance of winning against a reasonably strong list (but please note, not any reasonably strong list) from every other faction. I'd call this the "soft" definition of balance. Put it another way, a balanced game is one where play is not abstractly dominated by one or two strategies - which implies more than just list building, of course...

My short-form working definition of "balanced" is "every faction, option, and unit comes with a good reason to use it". I don't have enough live experience with SWA to comment more directly, but if you find yourself saying frequently/constantly (examples from 40k) "Pyrovores suck, never take them" or "You must field Dreadknights to play Grey Knights" you've run into pretty strong indicators that the game isn't well-balanced.

(By that definition Infinity seems fairly well-balanced to me; I haven't seen every faction/unit in action but the only thing I've run across that actually shouldn't be used is basic non-specialist line infantry (and that mostly because the FO upgrade is so absurdly cheap).)

 AnomanderRake wrote:

My short-form working definition of "balanced" is "every faction, option, and unit comes with a good reason to use it".

This is true in SWA for faction and unit, no arguments. It's not so much true on every option. There aren't many objectively poor choices, but some exist.

Also the issue here is that the OP didn't make a 'Balanced list' he wrote a fluffy list and then was sad when he lost

GodDamUser wrote:

str00dles1 wrote:
necromunda is terrible also as both games are not balanced in any form for campaign

lol how isn't Necro balanced?

probably one of the most balanced games I have played tbh..

I will play Ratskins (or else Spryers) against your Hivers any time. Bring it. You will lose every campaign against me.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

I will play Ratskins (or else Spryers) against your Hivers any time. Bring it. You will lose every campaign against me.

Pfft.. you wish..

Spyers are terrible (but they are a gimmick list)

and Ratskins are not any better than any other gang, the only thing they have going for them is they ignore a lot of the 'weather'

I know I have never lost a Campaign with my Delaque...

TL;DR: Guy plays a game where you have to pick your forces, picks a terrible combo, gets pwnd, soapbox "the game is broken".

If you want a game where picking your units has zero impact, you should play a game where you can't pick your units.

 koooaei wrote:
Infinity is nowhere near balanced either.

Sorry for being harsh but... You obviously have little experience with infinity...


Btw, back on topic... I tried the game and I found it lacking, for my taste. It is s simplistic ruleset that gives little tactical depth to the game. Moreover, it is a ruleset designed for representing gangs of thugs and it poorly scales up once you include aliens, supehumans and cyborgs.

I guess that its suitability for campaigns is its strong point.

 punkow wrote:

 koooaei wrote:
Infinity is nowhere near balanced either.

Sorry for being harsh but... You obviously have little experience with infinity...

I guess different people understand balance differently. I cringe from infinity's action point system.

Back to swa. We're havving a lot of fun running it and you can never tell who's going to win. There even was a game where witches lost 5/7 fighters vs a 5-man necron team in the first few rounds of combat and than pulled a win via cunning positioning and acrobatics. There are lots of equipment options 95% of which make sense. Skill trees are also quite even. Though shooting seems dominant, it's not improving as dramatically as close combat depending on what skills you're getting. And cc is a really vital part of this game - not just an afterthought. While at the same time, you can't really auto-win with any of the playstyles. Isn't it balance?

Yep, there are some issues with how specialists balance out against each other but they seem ok overall.

A) SWA is not a well-balanced competitive game, as others have pointed out. That means it is meant to be played with a fair amount of gentlemanly agreement.

B) Sounds like you played one game, with sub-par list, against a pretty well optimized list. Did you even bother to roll for the after-game campaign stuff? The game is designed to be very forgiving, over the course of a campaign even if you lose. In fact, you may end up losing in the actual game but winning with the stats on your warband after the game ends. Again, this is not to be balanced but to be fun and to be forgiving (or at times brutally, unfairly punishing), and personally, it gives me the context to enjoy an unevenly matched battle.

For example, i played a game the other day where my gaggle of mutants faced off against four grey knights... a great deal of my warband was skipping the mission due to rolls on the injury chart from last game... including my heavy weapons.. but i still can say i enjoyed the challenge of being the underdog, because i know i may come back.

Anyway the point is that SWA has so much of a random-generated swing to it that you have a good chance of enjoying the ride even if your warband is outclassed, and if it is, there are ways you can react to that. But paragon of competitive balance and modern streamlined rules it is not. That is not to say that with some decently balanced forces it can't be a very tactical and deep game to play at times.

But in any case there's nothing wrong with giving a bad review of something, it may inform others with a similar mindset to you.

Honestly OP's list isn't bad - you can make any list work.

But it seems like OP has no concept of the tactics to employ in Shadow War. Unfortunately, probably never will.

A list like that could easily work if you advance your guys hidden to negate the shooting advantage of the enemy.

Plus list building is relatively useless in Shadow War. After two games your list is totally different, you're buying new equipment and new guys to take advantage of certain skills and out of action guys. You can start with the "worst" list ever and win a campaign.

Games of SWA aren't the discrete unit where balance is intended to occur. SWA is designed as a campaign.

How can anybody enjoy this?

Man, there's a non-zero amount of rational, functioning, adult human beings out there that love nothing more than a good hard stomp on some of the more sensitive parts of their anatomy at the end of a hard day at work.

With that in mind, it doesn't stretch my imagination that somebody could like a particular miniatures wargame.

I didn't like SWA much, but I feel that 'terrible' is a strong word. I just didn't think it was very fun.

I think my biggest issue is that there's very little variability. Every army basically gets their most basic troop choices and little else.

I mean, for orks, I get to choose between boyz, boyz, boyz, boyz, and boyz. And I thought that was a little dull.

 Kap'n Krump wrote:
I didn't like SWA much, but I feel that 'terrible' is a strong word. I just didn't think it was very fun.

I think my biggest issue is that there's very little variability. Every army basically gets their most basic troop choices and little else.

I mean, for orks, I get to choose between boyz, boyz, boyz, boyz, and boyz. And I thought that was a little dull.

You have to be the first ork player I have seen that doesn't like taking more boys...

The difference between Boyz starts with their gear and ends with whatever advances they may get.

 Jambles wrote:

How can anybody enjoy this?

Man, there's a non-zero amount of rational, functioning, adult human beings out there that love nothing more than a good hard stomp on some of the more sensitive parts of their anatomy at the end of a hard day at work.

Actually...

...That's not a bad description of SWA.

That's about how I would describe my experience playing that horrible game.

Another thing is that csm start relatively weak and end quite strong. Simply because they can get 10 marines on board that are too expensive to amass at start and not so quick to purchase but are great once maxed out. So, you should start cautiously.

@Kriswall
Cultists start at 40, not 45. With your spare points I'd suggest another Autopistol for the guy without

@Traditio

Starting list 1k points:
Champion- Plasma Pistol+Power Sword 325
Gunner- Autocannon 280
Gunner- Autocannon 280
Cultist- Shotgun or Autogun 60
Cultist- Autopistol 55
=1000

You're forced to shoot the closest models in SWA, Cultists body block while your Gunners booty-blast everyone from 40" away. Champion will have 3 attacks, 4 if you do MoK, and provides more High Impact shots with his pistol. As multiple people have pointed out already, if you start the game in a subpar position then take your first turn to hide. Wait for your opponent to extend and jump on them with massive Str7 shots and brutal CC.
If you're wanting to forgo the Cultists and do a more pure CSM force(I don't recommend it, cultists are some of the best throwaway units in the game):

Champion- Bolt Pistol 250
Gunner- Plasmagun+Red Dot 230
Gunner- Plasmagun 210
CSM- Boltgun 155
CSM- Boltgun 155
=1000

Compare to your starting list: 5PA vs 4PA+1Cultist. 3Bolt shots+2D3Plasma vs 4Bolt+1Autogun. More shots, better shots, hitting more reliably, and brings the very important High Impact. The biggest weakness in your list is that you spent way too much on the bling that should be purchased after the first couple games in your campaign. Play a couple games, roll your Gunners up on the Shooting table, maybe take a roll on Muscle to throw guys off the roof with your Champ or chance Guerilla for the scavenger and medic skills.

Priority at the start of the campaign should be: Start with the most expensive items(Gunners with their toy)-> More bodies(9 ASAP)-> Extra Gear. More bodies=More target saturation+More dakka, even if it's only one shot you can pin the enemy fighter for a turn, or focus down a single enemy fighter. The big numbers are 5 and 9, you will win or lose ~90% of your games to bottle checks(Undivided Champion for Ld10?) so you want to bring your 25% and 50% models down/out up as soon as you can. This will also provide backup for when a model/s have to sit out a game, you'll still have guys to put on the table. Win or lose spend a Promethium Cache after the end of the first few missions to bump your buying power to (200) to make this happen. Now buy that bling: PhotoVisor=F--- Your Cover, Red Dot(Hit open targets on 2+, light cover as well if you have PhotoVisor), Camo Gear/Telescopic/Grenades/Inferno Bolts.

Boltguns are plenty fine but are designed with mobility in mind. You can sit still with Telescopic Sights with 36" on Overwatch, or you can move and shoot at something with-in 28". You complain about the negative to hit modifiers, but consider:
Boltgun: Red Dot, Photo Visor, Close Range. Target ran the previous turn and is behind light cover. Hit them on 2+. Heavy cover? Still only need 3+. Heck in in Overwatch it's only 4+, if they're in heavy cover.
Boltgun:Red Dot, Photo Visor: Target in light cover=2+. Ran? Still 3+, 4+ if in heavy cover.

The biggest issue I've seen with the game is people coming in and trying a couple 1k point games, not knowing all the rules, and playing poorly because of it. Play a small/mini-campaign with someone or a small group of folks, learn the ins and outs. I truly believe that you'll come back to the game with a different opinion.

I am really not seeing this as a "tournament" style game, so I am pretty much all in on this one. The OP's issue have lots of workarounds. with 40k going to close to AoS this will be my go to game for 40k. I personally prefer more cultists, they get better...or not, but they are great meat shields so eff em

GodDamUser wrote:

 Kap'n Krump wrote:
I didn't like SWA much, but I feel that 'terrible' is a strong word. I just didn't think it was very fun.

I think my biggest issue is that there's very little variability. Every army basically gets their most basic troop choices and little else.

I mean, for orks, I get to choose between boyz, boyz, boyz, boyz, and boyz. And I thought that was a little dull.

You have to be the first ork player I have seen that doesn't like taking more boys...

Oh, I like boyz well enough, but I like a bit of variety too. Kommandos, burnas, tankbustas, lootas, even though all of those are fundamentally boyz, still bring a lot of variability. Then there's things like mega/nobz, deffkoptas, bikes, etc.

I understand no bikes in SW:A. That'd get a little ridiculous.

OP makes a very good point. This applies to anyone not impressed by this game.

The best way to impress your displeasure upon GW is to PM me that you do not enjoy the game and we will make arrangements for you to send me your SWA.

While this might become a serious physical space issue for me, I'm willing to do this for the miniature gaming community.

You are welcome.


(Hey, my 14th post in 9 years....*AND*.....it was a really nice post!)

Resting One wrote:
OP makes a very good point. This applies to anyone not impressed by this game.

The best way to impress your displeasure upon GW is to PM me that you do not enjoy the game and we will make arrangements for you to send me your SWA.

While this might become a serious physical space issue for me, I'm willing to do this for the miniature gaming community.

You are welcome.


(Hey, my 14th post in 9 years....*AND*.....it was a really nice post!)

There are plenty of us willing to share that burden sir, have no fear!

"Should be sanctioned by the UN"

Comedy gold

 Megaknob wrote:
"Should be sanctioned by the UN"

Comedy gold

Look, I'm just saying...

...people think Guantanamo Bay is bad?

That's nothing.

Amnesty International needs to get involved, because this game...

I wonder if OP threw the controller across the room when he played Metal Gear Solid for the first time because it wasn't Call of Duty

 judgedoug wrote:
I wonder if OP threw the controller across the room when he played Metal Gear Solid for the first time because it wasn't Call of Duty

And in so doing, he accidentally figured out how to beat Psycho Mantis...

 Jambles wrote:

 judgedoug wrote:
I wonder if OP threw the controller across the room when he played Metal Gear Solid for the first time because it wasn't Call of Duty

And in so doing, he accidentally figured out how to beat Psycho Mantis...

TANKMEN!! Hells yeah!

 koooaei wrote:
Another thing is that csm start relatively weak and end quite strong. Simply because they can get 10 marines on board that are too expensive to amass at start and not so quick to purchase but are great once maxed out. So, you should start cautiously.

This.

I played a small campaign run with a pal of mine last week, pure marine team of Nurgle CSM vs. his Guard, and it was very fun. It was very clear from the start that this wasn't balls-to-the-walls gang war but 40k: the Shadow Ninja edition. I didn't have the bodies to begin with, his guys exploded if they came into my view. Very tactical, very cautious. After half a dozen games or so, I began to have the edge with more marines. BUT! That didn't mean the Guard was ready to toss in the towel yet, for the three special weapons (heavy flamers and meltas) they can bring are truly capable of forcing the marines into hiding.

I'd say that with CSM, if one decides to go full marines, the balancing factor comes in recruitment: one can't even buy marines without burning promethium or hitting some extras in the missions. You have to keep up your victories if you want to finance that. I like that.

I just can't believe you guys are continuing to engage with this guy [OP]... have you seen his other threads in General for example?

 Gunzhard wrote:
I just can't believe you guys are continuing to engage with this guy [OP]... have you seen his other threads in General for example?

Most of us are mocking him, precisely because we've seen his other threads.

 thekingofkings wrote:

TANKMEN!! Hells yeah!

Hey Captain, lookin' mighty handsome today.