There are significant issues with the game ATM. They don't cripple my play schedule, upset me too much, or interfere with my group, but they exist and I won't deny it.
I hope the Updates will fix them, and when they do my opinion will change. But right now, I'm having fun & playing steadily while acknowledging that armies like Grey Knights & most index armies are struggling.
I don't think the Chapter Approved is going to do much other than really disincentivize anything Forgeworld, and caused some minor rejiggling of a few netlists, and that's about it. The game still has massive balance issues and GW's response was typically incomprehensible, as is tradition. Overall the game is better than 7th, but not really in a better place than some previous editions. It's playable, but still has massive glaring issues.
Dumpster fire. 8th is a monument to bad game design that only looks good because 7th was somehow even worse. But TBH my biggest complaint isn't even the balance issues. It's the complete lack of strategic depth, over-homogenization, and obsessive D6 rolling. I can fix balance issues by agreeing to tone down the most abusive lists if it's necessary to have an enjoyable game with someone. I can't fix the issues with the core rules without writing an entirely new game.
The edition has his good amount of cheese, like everyone. Personally I have no problem with the core rules, I had never liked the system from 3rd to 7th. Too much stupid interactions with no real reason to be there. Theres some of those still, but things are much better.
I think this edition has been a good sign that GW is - slowly- moving into the right direction. I think it'll probably be a ninth edition before we see the type of balance otehr game companies are known for, but this edition has already done pretty well on reducing the amount of homeruling and custom tournament shenanigans needed to get stuff done.
I feel like for the first time you can attend a Warhammer game in another city and not need to be presented with some kind of custom ban list.
Still suffers from the same or similar issues as 7th but is fun enough to play every now and then, fully biased here but waiting for the Dark Angels codex to drop before I make my final judgement on whether to continue my 40k Angels or go full tard on my 30k ones.
auticus wrote: Unbalanced but fun for the occasional game. So long as you avoid tournament min/maxing, the game is entertaining to me.
It, like AOS, are more like board games to me though than actual wargames.
This is pretty much where I'm at as well.
For me the trick has been branching out to different games. Before WFB died, GW was pretty much my hobby. The death of that game caused me dabble in other systems, some of which I've really fallen in love with. I've come back to enjoy what 40k has to offer, but I know If GW/40K was it for me it'd be driving me crazy again. As it stands I can enjoy the occasional game without worrying much about what it doesn't do well, because next week I know I'll be playing bolt action, x wing, or KoW to scratch a different itch.
Peregrine wrote: Dumpster fire. 8th is a monument to bad game design that only looks good because 7th was somehow even worse. But TBH my biggest complaint isn't even the balance issues. It's the complete lack of strategic depth, over-homogenization, and obsessive D6 rolling. I can fix balance issues by agreeing to tone down the most abusive lists if it's necessary to have an enjoyable game with someone. I can't fix the issues with the core rules without writing an entirely new game.
Peregrine wrote: Dumpster fire. 8th is a monument to bad game design that only looks good because 7th was somehow even worse. But TBH my biggest complaint isn't even the balance issues. It's the complete lack of strategic depth, over-homogenization, and obsessive D6 rolling. I can fix balance issues by agreeing to tone down the most abusive lists if it's necessary to have an enjoyable game with someone. I can't fix the issues with the core rules without writing an entirely new game.
Peregrine wrote: Dumpster fire. 8th is a monument to bad game design that only looks good because 7th was somehow even worse. But TBH my biggest complaint isn't even the balance issues. It's the complete lack of strategic depth, over-homogenization, and obsessive D6 rolling. I can fix balance issues by agreeing to tone down the most abusive lists if it's necessary to have an enjoyable game with someone. I can't fix the issues with the core rules without writing an entirely new game.
Go play another game and leave us in peace?
If you don't want to hear opposing views don't go on a public forum.
He's as fully entitled to his view as you are to yours.
Fun to play. Depends.
''My tank chain can see your tank chain and so I can shoot you.'' Looks a bit dump.
The game has some gaps like cover and LoS. But I guess GW won't fix it anytime soon.
I actually don't have a problem with the lack of armour facings, firing arcs, and LOS being drawn from anywhere on the vehicle, because presumably, the vehicles are being manned by troopers who are trained in their use, and it's up to the individual crews and platoon commanders to micromanage the tanks.
This is a company scale game, and so I in the role of "company commander" should act like one. So, e.g., a unit is spending the entirety of its time behind a wall moving from point A to point B, in reality might be knocking holes in the wall to engage the enemy on the way, or popping up over a berm to pop back down again, or the like, in accordance with the tank commander's desires or even the Platoon Commander's. Generally, aside from "move to this area", a company commander is not going to micromanage targets, facings, firing positions, etc for all his tanks. He'll leave that to the crews and platoon leads.
Then it's also only fair that enemy AT weapons can shoot back at the model; after all, a good AT crew is going to wait until the tank knocks a hole in the wall or crests the berm to fire...
It's an enjoyable game. They got rid of a lot of bloat and I have the feeling that there are actual tactical decisions and positioning to do now, unlike in 6th/7th edition. Every unit type seems viable, vehicles feel like vehicles(meaning: my Rhino-tank is actually tougher than my plague marine), balance is on a good way and the scenarios and open war cards are awesome. It's still 40K, so you shouldn't take it overly serious but enjoy it for all the shiny explosions and warp surprises that can happen. Play narrative scenarios with as much matched play rules as you see fit and it's a really good game.
It's unbalanced, it's still fun and due to the demands of real life i only play occasionally, so while i selected that option I'd imagine it's with a different tone than the one in OP's mind.
Peregrine wrote: Dumpster fire. 8th is a monument to bad game design that only looks good because 7th was somehow even worse. But TBH my biggest complaint isn't even the balance issues. It's the complete lack of strategic depth, over-homogenization, and obsessive D6 rolling. I can fix balance issues by agreeing to tone down the most abusive lists if it's necessary to have an enjoyable game with someone. I can't fix the issues with the core rules without writing an entirely new game.
Go play another game and leave us in peace?
If you don't want to hear opposing views don't go on a public forum.
He's as fully entitled to his view as you are to yours.
I dont think he got the hypocrisy of what he said lol
Vaktathi wrote: I don't think the Chapter Approved is going to do much other than really disincentivize anything Forgeworld, and caused some minor rejiggling of a few netlists, and that's about it. The game still has massive balance issues and GW's response was typically incomprehensible, as is tradition. Overall the game is better than 7th, but not really in a better place than some previous editions. It's playable, but still has massive glaring issues.
Chaos lists are going to need more than a "minor rejiggling" now that the malefic lord is no longer playable, and I can pretty much guarantee you every SM and CSM list is going to have a fire raptor or two in it now.
I've played every edition from 2nd to 8th and this is the only one I hate. Every other edition, I enjoyed playing and I've played through and adapted to all the streamlining and changes they made along the way. I've looked forwards to the newness of every previous edition and have collected more than 10 different armies over the years. I was super excited for this edition, just like for all the others and I played tons when it came out. I discussed and tried to convince all the nay-Sayers to give it a chance and play around with it, but after many games, it slowly went from fun to boring to actually not enjoyable. And I played with people I enjoyed hanging out with and talking to during the game and people I played other editions with. I've gone so far as asked people who like the game to show me why, not trying to convince them to hate it too, but to show me the parts they love most so I can love my favourite game again. But it doesn't stick.
So now I play 30k. About half of my regular opponents now also almost exclusively play 30k. Those who like 8th, seem to really like it. I can't stand it. More power to you. Now that the Heresy is getting their own rules, live and let die. I'm selling my 40k armies (other than daemons) and if it comes down to sitting bored at home or playing a game of 40k and socializing, I'll have my 12th legion and 40k/FW codex
Arachnofiend wrote: I can pretty much guarantee you every SM and CSM list is going to have a fire raptor or two in it now.
What sort of WAAC players are you surrounded by? Most people I've met have their established collections which they add to over the years, and that's what they can pull models from. Who has the money or the will to drop £220 on two new models just because they're good this 6 month point cycle?
Arachnofiend wrote: I can pretty much guarantee you every SM and CSM list is going to have a fire raptor or two in it now.
What sort of WAAC players are you surrounded by? Most people I've met have their established collections which they add to over the years, and that's what they can pull models from. Who has the money or the will to drop £220 on two new models just because they're good this 6 month point cycle?
I'm talking strictly about the big tournaments here, local metas can vary wildly. The chaos players in my meta weren't running 8 malefic lords either because all of the chaos players (including myself) found that strategy pretty insufferable outside of a strictly play-to-win environment like an ITC major.
Arachnofiend wrote: I can pretty much guarantee you every SM and CSM list is going to have a fire raptor or two in it now.
What sort of WAAC players are you surrounded by? Most people I've met have their established collections which they add to over the years, and that's what they can pull models from. Who has the money or the will to drop £220 on two new models just because they're good this 6 month point cycle?
I do? Probably most adults who aren't living to the hilt? Hell even when I was a teenager I could have done that.
I have been doing customer surveys for over 20 years. The above survey uses the Excellent-Good-Neutral--Fair-Poor model. Whenever the top two responses fall below 75% it typically means there is a serious customer facing issue that needs to be addressed. Of course, I have never surveyed a company that is able to get people to throw money at whatever they produce like GW is able to do. Seriously, the $300 comment above sends chills down my spine. I sense Orkish mischief!
CREEEEEEEEED wrote: Who has the money or the will to drop £220 on two new models just because they're good this 6 month point cycle?
Plenty of people. $300 is not a massive amount of money in the context of adult hobbies.
Luckily no one in my area is party of that large groups of people
300$ are not a massive amount of money in the context of adult hobbies, I agree, I paid the equivalent of 600$ in a single day once, but I've bought a massive amount of new unsealed boxes with a significant discount price, not a single huge model. 300+ $ for a single model is not the normal.
I think the game is mediocre. Lots of things could be improved, and I hate the never ending rerolls.
Still, I have fun playing it. Partly because the minis and the settings are great, partly because the guys I play with are fun.
Still unbalanced but fun enough for occasional games
It is fun, and I play once every other week, but there's still some serious goofs and the players need to clarify a lot of things in terms of what they're bringing to the game. I've seen an upswing in activity since 7th, but it doesn't seem to be holding strong.
HuskyWarhammer wrote:I really think that marking the "too much cheese" option is a sign of your local meta and fellow players much more than an indicator of 8th edition.
Good, playing steady here.
The issue is that the game has to allow for it to get this bad.
Infantryman wrote:
CREEEEEEEEED wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote: I can pretty much guarantee you every SM and CSM list is going to have a fire raptor or two in it now.
What sort of WAAC players are you surrounded by? Most people I've met have their established collections which they add to over the years, and that's what they can pull models from. Who has the money or the will to drop £220 on two new models just because they're good this 6 month point cycle?
I do? Probably most adults who aren't living to the hilt? Hell even when I was a teenager I could have done that.
M.
What on earth were you doing as a teenager? It could be that the exchange rate makes it worse over here.
I have trouble justifying buying 2 models worth as much as an army. Especially considering how far I can get into other games with that money.
fresus wrote:I think the game is mediocre. Lots of things could be improved, and I hate the never ending rerolls.
Still, I have fun playing it. Partly because the minis and the settings are great, partly because the guys I play with are fun.
Pretty much this. I might have answered above "Still unbalanced but fun enough for occasional games" if I hadn't been seeing how much better games can be.
Vaktathi wrote: I don't think the Chapter Approved is going to do much other than really disincentivize anything Forgeworld, and caused some minor rejiggling of a few netlists, and that's about it. The game still has massive balance issues and GW's response was typically incomprehensible, as is tradition. Overall the game is better than 7th, but not really in a better place than some previous editions. It's playable, but still has massive glaring issues.
Chaos lists are going to need more than a "minor rejiggling" now that the malefic lord is no longer playable, and I can pretty much guarantee you every SM and CSM list is going to have a fire raptor or two in it now.
Arachnofiend wrote: I can pretty much guarantee you every SM and CSM list is going to have a fire raptor or two in it now.
What sort of WAAC players are you surrounded by? Most people I've met have their established collections which they add to over the years, and that's what they can pull models from. Who has the money or the will to drop £220 on two new models just because they're good this 6 month point cycle?
"Competitive" MTG players easy and they do it on a shorter cycle.
I've played 40k on and off since 3rd edition, and I prefer this edition to every previous edition of 40k that I've experienced. 7th edition was really horrendous, to the point of being nearly unplayable.
Some games do not need to be good for me to have fun playing them. Some badly designed games still somehow manage to entertain. Don't get me wrong, I really enjoy playing well-designed, balanced games, but 40k is much more than just a set of rules.
For me it's still sufficient that 8th edition is better than 6th and 7th editions.
Gonna concur with the "Dumpster fire" comment, the only things that kept me into 40k at all was the fluff (which I think turned to pure garbage now) and the minis (which I am also pretty disgusted with) so yeah the rules I find for 8th being easily the worst mini game on the market today.
Bad, to the point that I have boxed my IG collection that I have been playing with since 4th, and stopped playing entirely.
Its not the cheese for me, its the lack of depth to the rules, coupled with the massive price for the supplements including, laughably, the FAQ and errata (for reference when Bolt Action was in its first iteration and was found to have mistakes Warlord Games released an FAQ and errata and also included rules for new units, all for free.
By comparison GW is charging players through the nose for a bunch of half-assed changes that look as though they where done by throwing darts at a bunch of post-it-notes on a board.
The rules are shallow and look like someone was playing a RTS with a copy of AoS on the table nearby and thought "hmm, these would work well together". What litle strategy and tactics that was in the game has vanished.
Sure, Guard are strong now, but its a blatant cash grab as the only units that where good last edition have now been nerfed into oblivion whilst the previously 'so bad we never take them' units have been buffed to be autotakes in a blatant cash grab.
And, to add to this Guard have been nerfed heavily in the past few updates.
Still unbalanced and ok. Im in it for painting and collecting first, playing second. The occasional game is fun.
I think GW is headed in the right direction. I personally feel more appreciated and taken seriously by GW as a long time customer, which I appreciate.
Model releases have been stellar.
I voted awesome, I'm loving the new edition.
Not just for the rules and the fluff but because it has forced all those whiny annoying idiots to bugger off and let us play in peace. Just need to feed some pesticide to a certain little bird
It's "Bad. No fun." for me (not so much about the cheese part, as our group never had problem with communicating power level).
I'm narrative and not competetive player and what annoys me the most is that 8th feels so "flat" across factions compared to what we had before. Additionally "buff bubble" mechanics goes against "all over board presence" style of play I like. Because of this uniformity, there is so little to explore, so little to experiment with. Different builds often feel very samey and with every new Codex released stratagem mechanics already feels more like concealed formations than actual strategy cards of the old 2nd ed days. And for someone who played ~150 games of 7th and invested heavily in houseruling it, "out of the box" 8th severly lacks interesting replayability.
The biggest issue I have at the moment is that I really don't want to buy anything. The FAQs and CA have basically made it that any unit/weapon can be nerfed for any reason - even when it appeared underpowered/underused to begin with. Hence, I don't really want to buy a unit that seems decent now, only for it to be randomly nerfed a month or so down the line.
To be clear, this isn't me saying 'I want to buy the most OP stuff and have it stay OP'. This is me saying I don't want to buy something that isn't OP and then have it nerfed to the point of being basically unplayable.
Peregrine wrote: Dumpster fire. 8th is a monument to bad game design that only looks good because 7th was somehow even worse. But TBH my biggest complaint isn't even the balance issues. It's the complete lack of strategic depth, over-homogenization, and obsessive D6 rolling. I can fix balance issues by agreeing to tone down the most abusive lists if it's necessary to have an enjoyable game with someone. I can't fix the issues with the core rules without writing an entirely new game.
Peregrine, have you ever done a post listing your specific issues with 8th?
(I ask because I've only ever seen you call it a 'dumpster fire' and then move on. )
I'm not disagreeing with you or anything, I'd just be interested to see you explain what specifically you dislike about 8th.
The biggest issue I have at the moment is that I really don't want to buy anything
Same for different reasons - plenty of money to spend but when all they are releasing is Marine related - can't be bothered as I have hundreds of them already.
In fact has there been a single new model for 40k 8th ed that's not marine related? No new Eldar Aspects, no new Sisters, no new Mechanicus, Just more and more Marines. Yawn.
Still at least there is Necromunda and Shadespire to add some variety to their range - I don't know why they did not do a pdf for hive gang milita for 40k - cross selling is a thing..
Same for different reasons - plenty of money to spend but when all they are releasing is Marine related - can't be bothered as I have hundreds of them already.
In fact has there been a single new model for 40k 8th ed that's not marine related? No new Eldar Aspects, no new Sisters, no new Mechanicus, Just more and more Marines. Yawn.
That's also a very good point.
I think it's made even worse my GW clamping down even harder on options that don't have corresponding models.
For example, I'd be fine with GW letting my DEHQs take Jetbikes or Wings, even if there weren't appropriate models. I'd far rather spend some time converting Scourges or Reavers or whatever than not have those options exist at all.
Peregrine wrote: Dumpster fire. 8th is a monument to bad game design that only looks good because 7th was somehow even worse. But TBH my biggest complaint isn't even the balance issues. It's the complete lack of strategic depth, over-homogenization, and obsessive D6 rolling. I can fix balance issues by agreeing to tone down the most abusive lists if it's necessary to have an enjoyable game with someone. I can't fix the issues with the core rules without writing an entirely new game.
Oh look it's peregrine, here to say that 8th is one of the worst things to happen to 40k ever.
Again
If you don't like it, leave it. No one is forcing you to stay here.
Rolsheen wrote: I voted awesome, I'm loving the new edition.
Not just for the rules and the fluff but because it has forced all those whiny annoying idiots to bugger off and let us play in peace. Just need to feed some pesticide to a certain little bird
I love you too.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
kastelen wrote: If you don't like it, leave it. No one is forcing you to stay here.
Sorry, I thought this was the "state of 40k" poll thread, not the "post how much you love 40k" thread. My mistake.
Rolsheen wrote: I voted awesome, I'm loving the new edition.
Not just for the rules and the fluff but because it has forced all those whiny annoying idiots to bugger off and let us play in peace. Just need to feed some pesticide to a certain little bird
I love you too.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
kastelen wrote: If you don't like it, leave it. No one is forcing you to stay here.
Sorry, I thought this was the "state of 40k" poll thread, not the "post how much you love 40k" thread. My mistake.
There's a difference between "There are things bad with 8th that could be easily fixed, here they are." And "ABSOLUTE FETHING TRASH."
vipoid wrote: Peregrine, have you ever done a post listing your specific issues with 8th?
(I ask because I've only ever seen you call it a 'dumpster fire' and then move on. )
I'm not disagreeing with you or anything, I'd just be interested to see you explain what specifically you dislike about 8th.
I have, in various levels of detail, but I'll give a few here:
1) Incredibly shallow strategy, despite high complexity. 40k is a game with a ton of rules, but very limited strategy beyond assembling a list of overpowered options and then executing the obvious plan. The winner is usually the person who has the best dice luck and/or the more overpowered list. Only rarely do you see a clever strategic play winning a game. 8th edition makes this worse with things like easy no-scatter deep strike on the first turn. Once you figure out the obvious, that taking plasma IG command squads is good, there's very little strategy involved beyond "I have plasma, remove those units from the table". Or, now that heavy weapons can move and shoot with only a -1 penalty, who cares if you deploy them badly, just move to a better spot and keep shooting.
2) Massive over-homogenization. Everything wounds on at least a 6 and rarely better than a 3+, vehicles and MCs are now identical except for keywords, flyers are barely different from ground units, etc. Consider flyers, for example. In previous editions they were completely different from ground units, and you could be completely screwed if you didn't bring appropriate AA units. In 8th? Just shoot your normal guns at them. Or think about the heavy weapon problem again. The "move or shoot" rule is gone entirely, so heavy weapons are just better guns and you always take them whenever possible.
3) Excessive randomness. Roll a D6 to see how many D6s you roll to see how many D6s you roll, then roll some more D6s. Random shots is stupid, random damage is stupid. It replaces the pretty straightforward math of previous editions with a massive variation in possible outcomes and math that requires statistics software and way too much time to analyze. Instead of being able to make intelligent decisions about what to do all you can really do is throw some dice and hope they roll well.
4) Continued rules bloat. Remember how 8th edition was supposed to be simple? Yeah, that didn't last long. The core rules are shorter, but only because all of the USRs are copy/pasted onto every unit that has them.
5) Continued scale issues. 40k can't decide if it's a skirmish-scale game where the difference between a power sword and power axe on a sergeant is relevant, or an army-scale game where a massive titan can remove the sergeant and his entire squad in one shot. As a result it has rules that are an awkward combination of the two, doing neither thing well.
6) Pandering to "casual at all costs" idiocy. Power levels are just a point system for people who like virtue signalling about how they don't care about balance, and open play shouldn't even exist at all. GW's continued attempts to push an inherently poor system while marginalizing the superior one is irritating.
7) Continued incompetence in balance. CA is a debacle. Conscripts at the same 4ppm cost as infantry squads that are superior in every relevant way? FW models getting nerfed to the point of insanity, despite already being too weak to see any real use? It's clear that GW doesn't really understand the game, and has little or no interest in getting things right. I suppose it's better than 7th, but only because GW's previous efforts set such a low bar to overcome.
8) Character rules that are broken and easily exploitable. It's only the fact that most people aren't TFG enough to bring an army of nothing but characters and reduce the game to an exercise in masochism that this problem is somewhat mitigated.
9) List construction rules that favor "soup" lists and stacking buffs. Remember how death stars were supposed to be gone? Now you don't even need a separate detachment to bring the best buff HQs from a dozen different armies.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
kastelen wrote: There's a difference between "There are things bad with 8th that could be easily fixed, here they are." And "ABSOLUTE FETHING TRASH."
There is, and 8th is in the second category. If it was a decent game with a few minor and easily fixed flaws I would say so, but it isn't. 8th edition is a trash game with problems that are a fundamental part of GW's vision for what 8th edition is. The way to fix it is to delete the entire rulebook and start over.
vipoid wrote: Peregrine, have you ever done a post listing your specific issues with 8th?
(I ask because I've only ever seen you call it a 'dumpster fire' and then move on. )
I'm not disagreeing with you or anything, I'd just be interested to see you explain what specifically you dislike about 8th.
I have, in various levels of detail, but I'll give a few here:
1) Incredibly shallow strategy, despite high complexity. 40k is a game with a ton of rules, but very limited strategy beyond assembling a list of overpowered options and then executing the obvious plan. The winner is usually the person who has the best dice luck and/or the more overpowered list. Only rarely do you see a clever strategic play winning a game. 8th edition makes this worse with things like easy no-scatter deep strike on the first turn. Once you figure out the obvious, that taking plasma IG command squads is good, there's very little strategy involved beyond "I have plasma, remove those units from the table". Or, now that heavy weapons can move and shoot with only a -1 penalty, who cares if you deploy them badly, just move to a better spot and keep shooting.
2) Massive over-homogenization. Everything wounds on at least a 6 and rarely better than a 3+, vehicles and MCs are now identical except for keywords, flyers are barely different from ground units, etc. Consider flyers, for example. In previous editions they were completely different from ground units, and you could be completely screwed if you didn't bring appropriate AA units. In 8th? Just shoot your normal guns at them. Or think about the heavy weapon problem again. The "move or shoot" rule is gone entirely, so heavy weapons are just better guns and you always take them whenever possible.
3) Excessive randomness. Roll a D6 to see how many D6s you roll to see how many D6s you roll, then roll some more D6s. Random shots is stupid, random damage is stupid. It replaces the pretty straightforward math of previous editions with a massive variation in possible outcomes and math that requires statistics software and way too much time to analyze. Instead of being able to make intelligent decisions about what to do all you can really do is throw some dice and hope they roll well.
4) Continued rules bloat. Remember how 8th edition was supposed to be simple? Yeah, that didn't last long. The core rules are shorter, but only because all of the USRs are copy/pasted onto every unit that has them.
5) Continued scale issues. 40k can't decide if it's a skirmish-scale game where the difference between a power sword and power axe on a sergeant is relevant, or an army-scale game where a massive titan can remove the sergeant and his entire squad in one shot. As a result it has rules that are an awkward combination of the two, doing neither thing well.
6) Pandering to "casual at all costs" idiocy. Power levels are just a point system for people who like virtue signalling about how they don't care about balance, and open play shouldn't even exist at all. GW's continued attempts to push an inherently poor system while marginalizing the superior one is irritating.
7) Continued incompetence in balance. CA is a debacle. Conscripts at the same 4ppm cost as infantry squads that are superior in every relevant way? FW models getting nerfed to the point of insanity, despite already being too weak to see any real use? It's clear that GW doesn't really understand the game, and has little or no interest in getting things right. I suppose it's better than 7th, but only because GW's previous efforts set such a low bar to overcome.
8) Character rules that are broken and easily exploitable. It's only the fact that most people aren't TFG enough to bring an army of nothing but characters and reduce the game to an exercise in masochism that this problem is somewhat mitigated.
9) List construction rules that favor "soup" lists and stacking buffs. Remember how death stars were supposed to be gone? Now you don't even need a separate detachment to bring the best buff HQs from a dozen different armies.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
kastelen wrote: There's a difference between "There are things bad with 8th that could be easily fixed, here they are." And "ABSOLUTE FETHING TRASH."
There is, and 8th is in the second category. If it was a decent game with a few minor and easily fixed flaws I would say so, but it isn't. 8th edition is a trash game with problems that are a fundamental part of GW's vision for what 8th edition is. The way to fix it is to delete the entire rulebook and start over.
1. Eh, I'll give that to you but if you don't blatantly abuse the rules there is a small level of stratagy
2. no, saying everything wounds on a six is stupid unless you are spamming bare bones basic infantry against vehicles. A 2+ should be rare for wounding because balancing. I'll give you the flyers one but barely.
3. I can see your point but saying that something should act the same every time you use it is stupid when you look at a rapid fire weapon or laser that could have either struck or missed vital organs.
4. Carrying around 3 books (I play admech) isn't that bad, pure index armies are just going to have to spend slightly less money. You have a point about the USRs but that makes armies different which will open up new stratagies.
5. If you don't like it then make house rules or don't play at all. It's been working fine for me and my friends so your complaints aren't exactly universal...
6. Play matched play
7. better to make a unit just under unusable and slightly bump them up until they work than make them OP then UP until the unit is good
8. Make an army that could counter this, or just do it yourself if it's going to be too good.
9. I'll give you this one but soup armies will probably get you the label of TFG and you can't piss off people if they don't play with you. Deathstars can be countered by snipers, use them.
You're saying this like basically everything about 8th ed is wrong which is kind of stupid when you see all of the positive feedback GW have been getting. People will recognise when there's a problem and say it but I haven't seen that as much as I should if it's a dumpster fire.
I'm amazed how your response to people being sick of your complaining is to double down with larger complaining.
I'm digging 8th. I'm OK admitting it's not perfect, but it got me back into 40k since last playing in the 4E/5E transition. The game is quick and straightforward, and GW is making all the right moves with releases and community outreach to keep me engaged. The new approach of putting the rules on the unit entries is a huge benefit, just could use a little closer scrutiny for errors. The new models have been stunning, pretty much across the board. I'm happy to be a 40k fan again!
vipoid wrote: Peregrine, have you ever done a post listing your specific issues with 8th?
(I ask because I've only ever seen you call it a 'dumpster fire' and then move on. )
I'm not disagreeing with you or anything, I'd just be interested to see you explain what specifically you dislike about 8th.
I have, in various levels of detail, but I'll give a few here:
1) Incredibly shallow strategy, despite high complexity. 40k is a game with a ton of rules, but very limited strategy beyond assembling a list of overpowered options and then executing the obvious plan. The winner is usually the person who has the best dice luck and/or the more overpowered list. Only rarely do you see a clever strategic play winning a game. 8th edition makes this worse with things like easy no-scatter deep strike on the first turn. Once you figure out the obvious, that taking plasma IG command squads is good, there's very little strategy involved beyond "I have plasma, remove those units from the table". Or, now that heavy weapons can move and shoot with only a -1 penalty, who cares if you deploy them badly, just move to a better spot and keep shooting.
2) Massive over-homogenization. Everything wounds on at least a 6 and rarely better than a 3+, vehicles and MCs are now identical except for keywords, flyers are barely different from ground units, etc. Consider flyers, for example. In previous editions they were completely different from ground units, and you could be completely screwed if you didn't bring appropriate AA units. In 8th? Just shoot your normal guns at them. Or think about the heavy weapon problem again. The "move or shoot" rule is gone entirely, so heavy weapons are just better guns and you always take them whenever possible.
3) Excessive randomness. Roll a D6 to see how many D6s you roll to see how many D6s you roll, then roll some more D6s. Random shots is stupid, random damage is stupid. It replaces the pretty straightforward math of previous editions with a massive variation in possible outcomes and math that requires statistics software and way too much time to analyze. Instead of being able to make intelligent decisions about what to do all you can really do is throw some dice and hope they roll well.
4) Continued rules bloat. Remember how 8th edition was supposed to be simple? Yeah, that didn't last long. The core rules are shorter, but only because all of the USRs are copy/pasted onto every unit that has them.
5) Continued scale issues. 40k can't decide if it's a skirmish-scale game where the difference between a power sword and power axe on a sergeant is relevant, or an army-scale game where a massive titan can remove the sergeant and his entire squad in one shot. As a result it has rules that are an awkward combination of the two, doing neither thing well.
6) Pandering to "casual at all costs" idiocy. Power levels are just a point system for people who like virtue signalling about how they don't care about balance, and open play shouldn't even exist at all. GW's continued attempts to push an inherently poor system while marginalizing the superior one is irritating.
7) Continued incompetence in balance. CA is a debacle. Conscripts at the same 4ppm cost as infantry squads that are superior in every relevant way? FW models getting nerfed to the point of insanity, despite already being too weak to see any real use? It's clear that GW doesn't really understand the game, and has little or no interest in getting things right. I suppose it's better than 7th, but only because GW's previous efforts set such a low bar to overcome.
8) Character rules that are broken and easily exploitable. It's only the fact that most people aren't TFG enough to bring an army of nothing but characters and reduce the game to an exercise in masochism that this problem is somewhat mitigated.
9) List construction rules that favor "soup" lists and stacking buffs. Remember how death stars were supposed to be gone? Now you don't even need a separate detachment to bring the best buff HQs from a dozen different armies.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
kastelen wrote: There's a difference between "There are things bad with 8th that could be easily fixed, here they are." And "ABSOLUTE FETHING TRASH."
There is, and 8th is in the second category. If it was a decent game with a few minor and easily fixed flaws I would say so, but it isn't. 8th edition is a trash game with problems that are a fundamental part of GW's vision for what 8th edition is. The way to fix it is to delete the entire rulebook and start over.
1. Eh, I'll give that to you but if you don't blatantly abuse the rules there is a small level of stratagy
2. no, saying everything wounds on a six is stupid unless you are spamming bare bones basic infantry against vehicles. A 2+ should be rare for wounding because balancing. I'll give you the flyers one but barely.
3. I can see your point but saying that something should act the same every time you use it is stupid when you look at a rapid fire weapon or laser that could have either struck or missed vital organs.
4. Carrying around 3 books (I play admech) isn't that bad, pure index armies are just going to have to spend slightly less money. You have a point about the USRs but that makes armies different which will open up new stratagies.
5. If you don't like it then make house rules or don't play at all. It's been working fine for me and my friends so your complaints aren't exactly universal...
6. Play matched play
7. better to make a unit just under unusable and slightly bump them up until they work than make them OP then UP until the unit is good
8. Make an army that could counter this, or just do it yourself if it's going to be too good.
9. I'll give you this one but soup armies will probably get you the label of TFG and you can't piss off people if they don't play with you. Deathstars can be countered by snipers, use them.
You're saying this like basically everything about 8th ed is wrong which is kind of stupid when you see all of the positive feedback GW have been getting. People will recognise when there's a problem and say it but I haven't seen that as much as I should if it's a dumpster fire.
Kastelen, you are relatively new here, right? Peregrine doesn't do well in "broad multi-factor analysis of averaged community needs and eventual GW responses to said statistics", he goes by a simple "anything that isn't exactly my point of view is total BS and people who enjoy other things that I do or enjoy them differently are dumb".
That was my guess up until now but thanks for confirming it. I'm going to go to sleep now and when I wake up this thread better be a smoking hellscape.
kastelen wrote: 1. Eh, I'll give that to you but if you don't blatantly abuse the rules there is a small level of stratagy
This really just highlights my point. You have to house rule the game, and even if you do you only get a small amount of strategy. A game with 40k's level of rules complexity should have a lot more to justify the word count.
2. no, saying everything wounds on a six is stupid unless you are spamming bare bones basic infantry against vehicles. A 2+ should be rare for wounding because balancing. I'll give you the flyers one but barely.
I think you misunderstood. I meant that everything wounds on at least a 6. Lasguns should do literally nothing against frontal armor on a LRBT. But instead choosing the right weapon is usually little more than the difference between a 4+ and a 5+, instead of bad choices crippling your army and giving you no hope of success.
And why should wounding on a 2+ be rare? Why is it inherently more balanced to limit the power of certain weapons? There's nothing preventing you from having weapons that wound on a 2+ cost an appropriate amount of points to reflect their power.
3. I can see your point but saying that something should act the same every time you use it is stupid when you look at a rapid fire weapon or laser that could have either struck or missed vital organs.
That difference in hit location is already included in the to-hit and to-wound rolls, we don't need yet another D6 roll to see what happens.
4. Carrying around 3 books (I play admech) isn't that bad, pure index armies are just going to have to spend slightly less money. You have a point about the USRs but that makes armies different which will open up new stratagies.
It's not about book count, it's about the total length of the rules. 40k is a very shallow game that has a very high word count for its rules, which is poor design. A game with shallow strategy should have very simple rules, a game with complex rules should have deep strategy to justify the existence of those rules. If you aren't getting deep and interesting strategy out of your rules then you need to trim the length down to something more appropriate.
And no, it doesn't make armies different, because most of them are effectively the same rule. The slight differences between the dozens of deep strike variants or "re-roll 1s to hit" rules don't make armies unique, and offer nothing in return compared to just giving those units the same USR.
5. If you don't like it then make house rules or don't play at all. It's been working fine for me and my friends so your complaints aren't exactly universal...
It's impossible to house rule something that is a core part of the game. And the existence of a house rule is a concession that the rules are broken.
6. Play matched play
Yes, obviously you can avoid the problem by never using the rules, but those rules are terrible design even if you can choose not to use them. Saying "if you don't like it just do something else" is not a valid defense of them.
7. better to make a unit just under unusable and slightly bump them up until they work than make them OP then UP until the unit is good
Blatant false dilemma fallacy. There's a third option: make the unit balanced. Everyone with even a superficial understanding of the game can tell that 4ppm conscripts are not a viable option, and are effectively removed from the codex. There is no need to print those rules to see what happens with them, GW could have gone straight to the next iteration of balance changes.
8. Make an army that could counter this, or just do it yourself if it's going to be too good.
You're missing the point. It's not about winning, it's about the fact that the rules are poorly designed and easily exploitable in ways that are not fun at all. Winning with an exercise in masochism is not a solution to this problem.
You're saying this like basically everything about 8th ed is wrong which is kind of stupid when you see all of the positive feedback GW have been getting. People will recognise when there's a problem and say it but I haven't seen that as much as I should if it's a dumpster fire.
Four things:
1) People are bad at game design and understanding what makes a good game. A quick look at the proposed rules forum will tell you this.
2) Casual at all costs players love their virtue signalling, praising bad game design because it is "casual" and reinforces their beliefs about how the game is supposed to be played. It's still bad design.
3) GW gets a lot of credit simply because 8th is less of a dumpster fire than 7th, which was borderline unplayable by the end. A lot of the praise they are getting needs to be viewed in the context of "thank god it's not 7th", and it remains to be seen how long this positive attitude will last if GW doesn't start doing better than "not quite as terrible as the previous edition".
4) This is a GW-heavy forum, and people who hate the game often stop participating entirely. So there's going to be a strong selection bias at work, where the positive voices are over-represented because people who don't have positive opinions aren't around anymore to offer a counter. It's like showing up at a sporting event and asking how many people like the home team. Even if the team is unpopular with the world as a whole you're going to get an overwhelming majority of positive answers.
1) Incredibly shallow strategy, despite high complexity. 40k is a game with a ton of rules, but very limited strategy beyond assembling a list of overpowered options and then executing the obvious plan. The winner is usually the person who has the best dice luck and/or the more overpowered list. Only rarely do you see a clever strategic play winning a game. 8th edition makes this worse with things like easy no-scatter deep strike on the first turn. Once you figure out the obvious, that taking plasma IG command squads is good, there's very little strategy involved beyond "I have plasma, remove those units from the table". Or, now that heavy weapons can move and shoot with only a -1 penalty, who cares if you deploy them badly, just move to a better spot and keep shooting.
That's definitely true. I don't mind no-scatter deep-strike in principle (I don't think the randomness added much tactical depth), but being able to do it turn one with a ton of units for basically no cost makes it rather silly.
Regardless, I think 40k has always struggled with tactical depth. It seems you always end up with a ton of rules but few real options.
2) Massive over-homogenization. Everything wounds on at least a 6 and rarely better than a 3+, vehicles and MCs are now identical except for keywords, flyers are barely different from ground units, etc. Consider flyers, for example. In previous editions they were completely different from ground units, and you could be completely screwed if you didn't bring appropriate AA units. In 8th? Just shoot your normal guns at them. Or think about the heavy weapon problem again. The "move or shoot" rule is gone entirely, so heavy weapons are just better guns and you always take them whenever possible.
I'll admit to being torn on this. On the one hand, I get what you mean with regard to wounding. On the other, it's nice that lasguns actually have a function - as opposed ti 7th when they were just a light-show and never accomplished anything ever (even en masse).
And, frankly, I found fliers to be amongst the worst and most boring rules in 6th/7th. Having a unit that was basically invincible barring dumb luck didn't add much tactical depth to the game - especially when many armies had virtually no counters to them. I certainly prefer the current rules to that.
Perhaps the bigger issue though is that they don't really belong on the board in the first place. They shouldn't even be visible to units on the board, let along in range of their weapons. They're the sort of unit that should be represented by air-strikes or bombing runs, not by physical models.
I agree about Heavy Weapons. Also, whilst I don't especially mind vehicles and MCs both using toughness, giving every vehicle an attack characteristic just seems weird to me.
3) Excessive randomness. Roll a D6 to see how many D6s you roll to see how many D6s you roll, then roll some more D6s. Random shots is stupid, random damage is stupid. It replaces the pretty straightforward math of previous editions with a massive variation in possible outcomes and math that requires statistics software and way too much time to analyze. Instead of being able to make intelligent decisions about what to do all you can really do is throw some dice and hope they roll well.
4) Continued rules bloat. Remember how 8th edition was supposed to be simple? Yeah, that didn't last long. The core rules are shorter, but only because all of the USRs are copy/pasted onto every unit that has them.
Yeah, at the very least I think 8th should have just kept USRs. I mean, if Deep Strike is going to work the same on virtually every model, could they really not just call it Deep Strike on all of them?
5) Continued scale issues. 40k can't decide if it's a skirmish-scale game where the difference between a power sword and power axe on a sergeant is relevant, or an army-scale game where a massive titan can remove the sergeant and his entire squad in one shot. As a result it has rules that are an awkward combination of the two, doing neither thing well.
6) Pandering to "casual at all costs" idiocy. Power levels are just a point system for people who like virtue signalling about how they don't care about balance, and open play shouldn't even exist at all. GW's continued attempts to push an inherently poor system while marginalizing the superior one is irritating.
There seems to be a weird mindset wherein anything you do needs to be officially sanctioned by GW in writing. I feel the 'Open Play' section could have been replaced by a small note/suggestion on House Rules.
Reminds me of a while back when, in one of their general FAQs, GW said that they couldn't allow any 40k-related tattoos. There was no mention of how they intended to enforce this. Perhaps store managers were henceforth armed with cheese-graters?
7) Continued incompetence in balance. CA is a debacle. Conscripts at the same 4ppm cost as infantry squads that are superior in every relevant way? FW models getting nerfed to the point of insanity, despite already being too weak to see any real use? It's clear that GW doesn't really understand the game, and has little or no interest in getting things right. I suppose it's better than 7th, but only because GW's previous efforts set such a low bar to overcome.
CA definitely seems like a step backward. And one which players are expected to pay for.
I'm genuinely curious about how they decide what needs a change of point cost. I mean, who was complaining about Meltaguns on Scions or Veterans? Who was complaining about the price of the Command Rod on the Tempestor Prime? They just seem really random things to fiddle with.
8) Character rules that are broken and easily exploitable. It's only the fact that most people aren't TFG enough to bring an army of nothing but characters and reduce the game to an exercise in masochism that this problem is somewhat mitigated.
9) List construction rules that favor "soup" lists and stacking buffs. Remember how death stars were supposed to be gone? Now you don't even need a separate detachment to bring the best buff HQs from a dozen different armies.
The detachment system also means that you can take basically anything, whilst still keeping different armies in their own detachments to maintain their bonuses.
I think we agree that 8th is an improvement over 7th (if only because of how abysmal 7th was). But I agree that there have been a lot of missteps and there's a lot of room for improvement.
nou wrote: Kastelen, you are relatively new here, right? Peregrine doesn't do well in "broad multi-factor analysis of averaged community needs and eventual GW responses to said statistics", he goes by a simple "anything that isn't exactly my point of view is total BS and people who enjoy other things that I do or enjoy them differently are dumb".
Alternatively, I don't buy the idea that the 40k rules are good for any part of the community. I have stated, over and over again, that there are different needs, but GW fails to meet any of them. The things that make 40k bad for competitive tournaments also make it bad for narrative and "casual" players. There is never any situation where, for example, having poor balance is a good thing. It never, under any circumstances, improves the game for anyone. It's just a failure of design.
Nor do I buy the idea that just because someone has an opinion I have to accept it as valid. People can be wrong about game design, and often are.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
vipoid wrote: I don't mind no-scatter deep-strike in principle (I don't think the randomness added much tactical depth)
Strongly disagree. The randomness added a lot of risk vs. reward strategy to something that would otherwise be an automatic choice. For example, to use melta effectively you needed to be within 6", but that meant accepting at least a 50% chance of either scattering out of range or into a mishap. You had to make hard choices on how aggressively you wanted to play your units, and what risk of failure you were willing to accept to get the best shot. And it forced you to consider other delivery options: outflanking, fast transports, etc, which had a weaker best-case scenario but a much lower level of risk.
With no-scatter deep strike it's just an automatic choice for every unit that is capable of it. There's no situation where using it ever hurts you, so why not deep strike those units directly into position?
On the other, it's nice that lasguns actually have a function - as opposed ti 7th when they were just a light-show and never accomplished anything ever (even en masse).
The problem there was less about the lasguns (which were fine in cost effectiveness against other troops) and more about things like MC spam, re-rollable 2++ death stars, etc. If you remove some of the stupidity of 7th you have lasguns that are an anti-infantry weapon, but not a substitute for bringing and effectively using actual anti-tank weapons.
And, frankly, I found fliers to be amongst the worst and most boring rules in 6th/7th. Having a unit that was basically invincible barring dumb luck didn't add much tactical depth to the game - especially when many armies had virtually no counters to them. I certainly prefer the current rules to that.
They were only invincible if you didn't bring AA, which is kind of my point. Why didn't you bring ground-based AA? Why didn't you bring air superiority fighters? If you were limited to throwing dice and hoping for 6s then you failed in list construction, and should be punished for your poor strategy. But now in 8th edition there's effectively no consequence to not bringing AA units. You just suffer a -1 penalty to hit, which is largely offset by the weaker durability of most flyers compared to normal vehicles. The same weapons that you bring to deal with tanks can deal with flyers just fine.
Reminds me of a while back when, in one of their general FAQs, GW said that they couldn't allow any 40k-related tattoos. There was no mention of how they intended to enforce this. Perhaps store managers were henceforth armed with cheese-graters?
To be fair, this is the sort of thing that GW has to say to maintain their IP rights. In practical terms it just gives them grounds for sending a C&D letter if they find out that a tattoo shop is infringing upon their IP rights, and provides written documentation that GW is not allowing anyone to use their IP in that way. It's a bit silly, but I can't hold that one against them.
The state of the game is still a mess.
We have some oversimplifications (such as the issue with cover).
They neither help the existing players nor will they bring more new players into the game.
We have zero new players here over the last two years.
nou wrote: Kastelen, you are relatively new here, right? Peregrine doesn't do well in "broad multi-factor analysis of averaged community needs and eventual GW responses to said statistics", he goes by a simple "anything that isn't exactly my point of view is total BS and people who enjoy other things that I do or enjoy them differently are dumb".
Alternatively, I don't buy the idea that the 40k rules are good for any part of the community. I have stated, over and over again, that there are different needs, but GW fails to meet any of them. The things that make 40k bad for competitive tournaments also make it bad for narrative and "casual" players. There is never any situation where, for example, having poor balance is a good thing. It never, under any circumstances, improves the game for anyone. It's just a failure of design.
Nor do I buy the idea that just because someone has an opinion I have to accept it as valid. People can be wrong about game design, and often are.
And yet there is whole lot of people who are both part of this community and enjoy 8th ed deeply, so apparently GW managed to meet needs of at least those people, no? You have empyrical proof right here in this very thread and yet you still claim, that GW does nothing good to anyone ever. You resolve to arguing with some theoretical "casual", "narrative" and "competetive" categories of community members instead of actually witnessing what numerous real people have to say about their enjoyment and actually LEARN something about this community for once...
We also discussed on various occasions, that what you personally think is good game design is not universally acknowledged as the ONLY WAY (or often even a good way altogether) of doing games the right way, because you still fail to understand one, very, very simple truth about people - what you THINK people needs are and what is good for them and what those needs trully ARE is not the same thing... And that different games may aim at different goals. There is no such thing as a single, best and greatest game ever that ends all of humanity gaming needs and no other game has to ever be wrote again... I personally don't enjoy 8th and I'm vocal about it, but don't think that people who do "are wrong about good game design".
And you don't have to accept any POV as valid, it's entirely up to you. But you should at least think about why there is an increasing number of dakkanauts that adress you specifically in different threads as the most stubborn/unthoughtfull/annoing person here. You always write in absolute statements (even in this very post I'm replying to right now) and usually resolve to "eristic juggling" when cornered (happened a lot in threads we were both active in). I can't remember any post from you in which you were genuinely content about anything. For quite a long time now I'm sincerely puzzled why on earth you still spend time on this forum and with 40K in general, as you seem to derive absolutely no pleasure (both in terms of fun or intelectual challange) from this game, or in fact anything GW related...
vipoid wrote: Peregrine, have you ever done a post listing your specific issues with 8th?
(I ask because I've only ever seen you call it a 'dumpster fire' and then move on. )
I'm not disagreeing with you or anything, I'd just be interested to see you explain what specifically you dislike about 8th.
I have, in various levels of detail, but I'll give a few here:
1) Incredibly shallow strategy, despite high complexity. 40k is a game with a ton of rules, but very limited strategy beyond assembling a list of overpowered options and then executing the obvious plan. The winner is usually the person who has the best dice luck and/or the more overpowered list. Only rarely do you see a clever strategic play winning a game. 8th edition makes this worse with things like easy no-scatter deep strike on the first turn. Once you figure out the obvious, that taking plasma IG command squads is good, there's very little strategy involved beyond "I have plasma, remove those units from the table". Or, now that heavy weapons can move and shoot with only a -1 penalty, who cares if you deploy them badly, just move to a better spot and keep shooting.
2) Massive over-homogenization. Everything wounds on at least a 6 and rarely better than a 3+, vehicles and MCs are now identical except for keywords, flyers are barely different from ground units, etc. Consider flyers, for example. In previous editions they were completely different from ground units, and you could be completely screwed if you didn't bring appropriate AA units. In 8th? Just shoot your normal guns at them. Or think about the heavy weapon problem again. The "move or shoot" rule is gone entirely, so heavy weapons are just better guns and you always take them whenever possible.
3) Excessive randomness. Roll a D6 to see how many D6s you roll to see how many D6s you roll, then roll some more D6s. Random shots is stupid, random damage is stupid. It replaces the pretty straightforward math of previous editions with a massive variation in possible outcomes and math that requires statistics software and way too much time to analyze. Instead of being able to make intelligent decisions about what to do all you can really do is throw some dice and hope they roll well.
4) Continued rules bloat. Remember how 8th edition was supposed to be simple? Yeah, that didn't last long. The core rules are shorter, but only because all of the USRs are copy/pasted onto every unit that has them.
5) Continued scale issues. 40k can't decide if it's a skirmish-scale game where the difference between a power sword and power axe on a sergeant is relevant, or an army-scale game where a massive titan can remove the sergeant and his entire squad in one shot. As a result it has rules that are an awkward combination of the two, doing neither thing well.
6) Pandering to "casual at all costs" idiocy. Power levels are just a point system for people who like virtue signalling about how they don't care about balance, and open play shouldn't even exist at all. GW's continued attempts to push an inherently poor system while marginalizing the superior one is irritating.
7) Continued incompetence in balance. CA is a debacle. Conscripts at the same 4ppm cost as infantry squads that are superior in every relevant way? FW models getting nerfed to the point of insanity, despite already being too weak to see any real use? It's clear that GW doesn't really understand the game, and has little or no interest in getting things right. I suppose it's better than 7th, but only because GW's previous efforts set such a low bar to overcome.
8) Character rules that are broken and easily exploitable. It's only the fact that most people aren't TFG enough to bring an army of nothing but characters and reduce the game to an exercise in masochism that this problem is somewhat mitigated.
9) List construction rules that favor "soup" lists and stacking buffs. Remember how death stars were supposed to be gone? Now you don't even need a separate detachment to bring the best buff HQs from a dozen different armies.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
kastelen wrote: There's a difference between "There are things bad with 8th that could be easily fixed, here they are." And "ABSOLUTE FETHING TRASH."
There is, and 8th is in the second category. If it was a decent game with a few minor and easily fixed flaws I would say so, but it isn't. 8th edition is a trash game with problems that are a fundamental part of GW's vision for what 8th edition is. The way to fix it is to delete the entire rulebook and start over.
Me and Peregrine rarely agree on things but this is one of them, I will add to that list though
10: the Fluff so far is some of the worst mary sue nonsense I have ever read from GW, not C.S Goto bad... Yet, it could have and should have been handled in a much better manner, but so far it breaks established fluff with handwavium and Deus Ex moments aplenty.....
11: 40k Players trying to infect 30k with 8th Ed rules, heres the kicker, most 30k players dont want it, some 40k players who also play 30k want it, 30k already had an edited ruleset in 7th, and it worked for 30k quite well, it was a different game that used a similar ruleset, and I for one am happy it has stayed in 7th, or 1st Ed 30k as it will be come to be known. Incidently a fan made 30k ruleset is good, because it is being done by people who are not incompitent.
They seemed to be off to a good start with the base indexes, but I feel they ran off into a minefield with the Codex releases, and feel CA is only going to make things worse.
I've only been buying the card sets at this point, and waiting to see what will be done with Tau and Necrons. There's a good chance my future purchases from GW have come to a screeching, utter halt. I have the models I want now, and their rules writing is not inspiring confidence in the longevity of 8th.
Stormonu wrote: They seemed to be off to a good start with the base indexes, but I feel they ran off into a minefield with the Codex releases, and feel CA is only going to make things worse.
I've only been buying the card sets at this point, and waiting to see what will be done with Tau and Necrons. There's a good chance my future purchases from GW have come to a screeching, utter halt. I have the models I want now, and their rules writing is not inspiring confidence in the longevity of 8th.
I am in the same boat as you mate, I am waiting to see what they do with Dark Angels and Orks at the moment, I have a £1k budget I have saved up for Orks for when they drop but the Index and CA have really put me off, either way I may end up buying the new Nobs and Ghazghull when they drop anyway.
Thinking about it some more, I believe when the indexes were released, the game was slanted towards infantry-heavy composition. The point reductions have been swinging the meta towards larger models and the inclusion of more vehicles.
I also have a feeling that GW has no desire nor clue about balancing Strategms, and is just giving them out wily-nilly without worry as to how they affect game balance overall. They might as well be called "Cool Points", not Command Points. They should have a clear idea at HQ that a command point is worth approximately X points, and be aware of how many CP's each army can potentially have at a given points level - I think CP's should, in fact, be limited by points/power level and not driven by the FO.
I am avoiding 8th. Aside from it being a symptom of GW Marketing and Design both being sidelined in favor of Legal and the game being "Their Dudes, not Your Dudes," the game as a whole just feels buggy and unfinished altogether.
However, the real issue I have is the game has managed to take the first-turn advantage associated with IGOUGO and amplify it by several factors. In 5th-7th, there were in fact scenarios where you might opt to go second. Alternating Deployment, turn 1 Deepstrike, and heavily nerfed cover have all made it so there really isn't a disadvantage to going first. Combine this with a general increase of firepower (TL weapons just double their rate of fire, which is great for Marines and Guard since they still get reroll auras), Reserves being restricted to specific units, and Command Points being all up-front (with higher numbers) rather than replenishing from turn-to-turn (but with lower numbers), and you really have little reason to do anything else except frontload those stratagems that help you alphastrike better.
Of course, Psychic Focus, Stratagems individually only usable once per phase, Soulburst being "one of each type per turn," etc. are fake balance. If you need to add such arbitrary caps into your game, maybe you should analyze your core mechanics and ask if the ideas were good to begin with? Da Jump may be "fair" because you only get to *attempt* it once per turn, yet if it brings your uberblob in range to delete several enemy units in one go, yet your opponent has one CP left to attempt "deny on 4+" then you're converging towards a situation where you might as well not play 40k, and simply reduce the whole affair to a coin toss!
This isn't unique to 8th of course. 7th had the same issue with certain power interactions. D was "fair" because it "only" deleted anything on a 6. At least until an Eldar player took a Lynx, rolled three 6s, and one-shotted an Adamantine Lance. Stomp was similarly "fair" because it "only" had a 1 in 6 chance of deleting what was underneath it, and the Grimoire was "fair" because it "only" had a 2 in 3 (well, 8 in 9) chance of adding +2 to a unit's Invulnerable Saves. Hell, Daemons as a whole were "fair" since they "only" had a 1 in 36 chance each turn of rolling to see if they risked losing half their army. Inversely, woe betide your foe if they played Eldar and you roll an 11, forcing a 3d6Ld check that could turn their Farseer (presumably their Warlord) into a Herald, giving auto Slay the Warlord!
MagicJuggler wrote: Combine this with a general increase of firepower (TL weapons just double their rate of fire, which is great for Marines and Guard since they still get reroll auras)
Well, unless you count the Exterminator Leman Russ - which had its Twin Linked Autocannons upgraded to . . . regular Autocannons.
Joking aside, I agree with basically everything you said. I especially agree with your points on 'fake balance' - wherein a dubious ability is 'balanced' by making it once-per-turn or based on a random roll.
Out of interest, how would you suggest changing Command Points to avoid the frontloading you talk about? Should you only able to use a certain number of Command Points each turn? Or should they be entirely independent of detachments?
Stormonu wrote: Thinking about it some more, I believe when the indexes were released, the game was slanted towards infantry-heavy composition. The point reductions have been swinging the meta towards larger models and the inclusion of more vehicles.
I also have a feeling that GW has no desire nor clue about balancing Strategms, and is just giving them out wily-nilly without worry as to how they affect game balance overall. They might as well be called "Cool Points", not Command Points. They should have a clear idea at HQ that a command point is worth approximately X points, and be aware of how many CP's each army can potentially have at a given points level - I think CP's should, in fact, be limited by points/power level and not driven by the FO.
I think this would be a good idea. Right now, the gimmick is to game as many CP as possible, preferably with a way to regain it. Remember when they said in the previews that CP would be a reward for building thematic (i.e. "fluffy") armies? Instead, it just encourages soup lists that can take tons of cheap troops and HQs to fill out Battalions.
At this point, all I can really say is it's better than 7th. I think that the ITC is going to have to step up and create a "Tournament Play" subset of matched play with extra restrictions to reel balance back in, because GW doesn't seem to want to do it. Things like, for example:
* To be Battle-forged, your army must contain at least TWO of the same keyword in all of your detachments, rather than just one (this alone I think would virtually kill soup lists) * An army cannot benefit from more than one faction trait, even if Battle-forged * CP only is granted by detachments that match the keywords of your primary detachment (i.e. no taking a cheap HQ/Troop battalion just for extra CP) * Effects that trigger on a 1 only trigger on a natural 1 (i.e. no more stacking penalties to make overcharged plasma explode 50% of the time) * A roll of 6 to hit or wound will always hit or wound (removed BS like Orks not being able to even shoot at units with a -2 penalty) * No special characters allowed (ignore the Ynnari FAQ requiring it for them; they were nerfed anyways) for ITC events
Just spitballing but you get the idea. ITC basically reworked most of 7th edition to make it playable, they will IMHO need to do the same thing (although potentially not as much) now for 8th to make it more balanced for tournament play.
Much prefer it to 7th - but the gloss is sort of coming off.
I am sort of hopeful they will do something about alpha strikes - in order to make the game more interactive with meaningful choices beyond list building - but I don't see how.
* To be Battle-forged, your army must contain at least TWO of the same keyword in all of your detachments, rather than just one (this alone I think would virtually kill soup lists)
This kills alot of things that are very fluffy. Gene Stealer and Tyranid Allies, for one. Also pretty much all Ynarri builds that use Harlequin, Craftworld or Dark Eldar. Which would really suck, especially as it goes against the narrative and further gimps none imperial factions.
* An army cannot benefit from more than one faction trait, even if Battle-forged (this would put an end to crap like taking a Mars detachment with Cawl and Kastelans and then taking a Stygies VIII detachment with 6 Dragoons just to exploit the -1 to hit, or things like taking an Alpha Legion chaos detachment to use Warptime on Mortarion in a Death Guard army)
Fair I guess, if you want, but it's not that big of a balance issue anyway.
In the game I'm working on, they're independent of detachments and generate at the start of the turn based on your army. However, rather than being used as a pseudo-mana for bespoke temporary statbuffs, they literally represent how coordinated the army is as a whole. I always found "I order you to outrun your Chimera" a little silly.
The game is Alternating Activation with Interrupts, and these Tactical Points let you manipulate activation and interrupt order. I think a good analogy would be Starcraft APM: You can only micro so much and when you overfocus on one part of the battle, you risk being outmaneuvered elsewhere.
Tactical Points are solely for turn structure. I imagine some characters have Hero Points that they can either use as ersatz Tactical Points, or for activating Heroic Feats (more akin to 8e Stratagems or WMH Power Actions). Hero Points are more flexible, but limited to specific heroes/their units, rather than being available armywide.
And based on this framework, you can differentiate "Command" armies, "Elite" armies, and "Heroic" armies. The "Command" armies have a lower number of base TP and their heroes have minimal HP, but their characters generate extra TP and they get discounts on assorted TP activation combos. "Elite" armies have a higher base TP value, while "Heroic" armies have more HP for their characters but lack a good TP pool. "Elite vs Heroic" could easily be the difference between, say, a Marian Legion and the 300 Spartans or so.
Stormonu wrote: They seemed to be off to a good start with the base indexes, but I feel they ran off into a minefield with the Codex releases, and feel CA is only going to make things worse.
I've only been buying the card sets at this point, and waiting to see what will be done with Tau and Necrons. There's a good chance my future purchases from GW have come to a screeching, utter halt. I have the models I want now, and their rules writing is not inspiring confidence in the longevity of 8th.
To quote a certain podcast, wait a month and it'll be a new 8th Edition
Altough I do feel for Xenos players. How SM Subfactions got a codex before Xenos mono-factions boggles the mind
4) This is a GW-heavy forum, and people who hate the game often stop participating entirely. So there's going to be a strong selection bias at work, where the positive voices are over-represented because people who don't have positive opinions aren't around anymore to offer a counter. It's like showing up at a sporting event and asking how many people like the home team. Even if the team is unpopular with the world as a whole you're going to get an overwhelming majority of positive answers.
I haven't experienced balance issues first hand, as all the games I strive to play are generally fairly balanced, I've had trouble finding games that are a middle ground between overly competitive, and a dumpster fire. I want to play a competent, strategic game, just not with 500 brimstone horrors, or two demon primarchs, or 15 razorbacks or whatever.
I feel 8th is a fun game, but should not be taken too seriously (same with all GW games I think, considering how terribly the game is optimized for competitive play.)
A definite upgrade from 7th, but it seems a lot of issues with different units are just fixed with the same things. Oh, a shooting unit is currently bad, GW fixes almost all of those issues with letting the unit shoot twice, with very little variety in the buffs implemented I think.
Stormonu wrote: They seemed to be off to a good start with the base indexes, but I feel they ran off into a minefield with the Codex releases, and feel CA is only going to make things worse.
I've only been buying the card sets at this point, and waiting to see what will be done with Tau and Necrons. There's a good chance my future purchases from GW have come to a screeching, utter halt. I have the models I want now, and their rules writing is not inspiring confidence in the longevity of 8th.
To quote a certain podcast, wait a month and it'll be a new 8th Edition
Altough I do feel for Xenos players. How SM Subfactions got a codex before Xenos mono-factions boggles the mind
At thirty years in, it shouldn't. Marines carry the product line and the company.
Could/should they do more for xenos factions? Sure.
But the business logic behind front loading Marines is pretty solid.
The only real surprise is that Space Wolves are still over the horizon in the unknown.
As the most special of special snowflakes chapter, they often get a lot more attention than the not-so-special Angel twins.
Which makes me think GW is waiting til they'll get a real release, not just some repacked boxes with an upgrade sprue and a LT each.
I have, in various levels of detail, but I'll give a few here:
1) Incredibly shallow strategy, despite high complexity. 40k is a game with a ton of rules, but very limited strategy beyond assembling a list of overpowered options and then executing the obvious plan. The winner is usually the person who has the best dice luck and/or the more overpowered list. Only rarely do you see a clever strategic play winning a game. 8th edition makes this worse with things like easy no-scatter deep strike on the first turn. Once you figure out the obvious, that taking plasma IG command squads is good, there's very little strategy involved beyond "I have plasma, remove those units from the table". Or, now that heavy weapons can move and shoot with only a -1 penalty, who cares if you deploy them badly, just move to a better spot and keep shooting.
2) Massive over-homogenization. Everything wounds on at least a 6 and rarely better than a 3+, vehicles and MCs are now identical except for keywords, flyers are barely different from ground units, etc. Consider flyers, for example. In previous editions they were completely different from ground units, and you could be completely screwed if you didn't bring appropriate AA units. In 8th? Just shoot your normal guns at them. Or think about the heavy weapon problem again. The "move or shoot" rule is gone entirely, so heavy weapons are just better guns and you always take them whenever possible.
3) Excessive randomness. Roll a D6 to see how many D6s you roll to see how many D6s you roll, then roll some more D6s. Random shots is stupid, random damage is stupid. It replaces the pretty straightforward math of previous editions with a massive variation in possible outcomes and math that requires statistics software and way too much time to analyze. Instead of being able to make intelligent decisions about what to do all you can really do is throw some dice and hope they roll well.
4) Continued rules bloat. Remember how 8th edition was supposed to be simple? Yeah, that didn't last long. The core rules are shorter, but only because all of the USRs are copy/pasted onto every unit that has them.
5) Continued scale issues. 40k can't decide if it's a skirmish-scale game where the difference between a power sword and power axe on a sergeant is relevant, or an army-scale game where a massive titan can remove the sergeant and his entire squad in one shot. As a result it has rules that are an awkward combination of the two, doing neither thing well.
6) Pandering to "casual at all costs" idiocy. Power levels are just a point system for people who like virtue signalling about how they don't care about balance, and open play shouldn't even exist at all. GW's continued attempts to push an inherently poor system while marginalizing the superior one is irritating.
7) Continued incompetence in balance. CA is a debacle. Conscripts at the same 4ppm cost as infantry squads that are superior in every relevant way? FW models getting nerfed to the point of insanity, despite already being too weak to see any real use? It's clear that GW doesn't really understand the game, and has little or no interest in getting things right. I suppose it's better than 7th, but only because GW's previous efforts set such a low bar to overcome.
8) Character rules that are broken and easily exploitable. It's only the fact that most people aren't TFG enough to bring an army of nothing but characters and reduce the game to an exercise in masochism that this problem is somewhat mitigated.
9) List construction rules that favor "soup" lists and stacking buffs. Remember how death stars were supposed to be gone? Now you don't even need a separate detachment to bring the best buff HQs from a dozen different armies.
Even though I disagree with the tone of the post, this x1000. I've had a nagging dissatisfaction with WH after the inital glow disapated from dusting off my army from 5th edition and this post seems to codify the issues I'm having.
The main things are:
#1. Agreed, it doesn't seem like a strategy game but a list building and dice rolling game. Which is fun but there seems to be a distinct lack of tactical play at the highest levels with really optimized lists. Feints, flanking, positioning all have very little impact because of the range of guns (48" is ridiculous on a 4x6 table, 60"...) movement (36"+ movements w/ psychics/strats, pinpoint deepstrike, flyers...) and virtual non-impact of terrain (if it doesn't block LOS 100% it has next to no impact)
#2. Agreed, again it takes away tactical choice. Why would I want to bring anti-tank and anti-infantry when guilliman assault cannons kill everything better. Everything killing everything has really put a emphasis on volume of fire (160 shot cultist blobs anyone)
#5. I think this is a fundamental issue and not sure how it can be fixed. I'd almost rather them have different rules and point costs for games under 1k, 1-3k, and then 3k+. Would allow for better granularity. Interaction between units does not scale well in this game and things that work at 1k points do not at 2k.
Peregrine wrote:
1) Incredibly shallow strategy, despite high complexity. 40k is a game with a ton of rules, but very limited strategy beyond assembling a list of overpowered options and then executing the obvious plan. The winner is usually the person who has the best dice luck and/or the more overpowered list. Only rarely do you see a clever strategic play winning a game. 8th edition makes this worse with things like easy no-scatter deep strike on the first turn. Once you figure out the obvious, that taking plasma IG command squads is good, there's very little strategy involved beyond "I have plasma, remove those units from the table". Or, now that heavy weapons can move and shoot with only a -1 penalty, who cares if you deploy them badly, just move to a better spot and keep shooting.
2) Massive over-homogenization. Everything wounds on at least a 6 and rarely better than a 3+, vehicles and MCs are now identical except for keywords, flyers are barely different from ground units, etc. Consider flyers, for example. In previous editions they were completely different from ground units, and you could be completely screwed if you didn't bring appropriate AA units. In 8th? Just shoot your normal guns at them. Or think about the heavy weapon problem again. The "move or shoot" rule is gone entirely, so heavy weapons are just better guns and you always take them whenever possible.
I think the simplification is good for Warhammer.
6) Pandering to "casual at all costs" idiocy. Power levels are just a point system for people who like virtue signalling about how they don't care about balance, and open play shouldn't even exist at all. GW's continued attempts to push an inherently poor system while marginalizing the superior one is irritating.
I think casual play is where Warhammer (either) is best. It does not suit everyone, but those people can play Infinity.
One of the best things about "NuGW" is that they seem to have realised that they don't need or want to please everyone. Take the Kharadron Overlords; there was a lot of "what the feth is this gak", but also plenty of "OMG steampunk sky dwarves! YES!". Those who don't like it don't matter, but going for pleasing one target group was the aim; rather than lots of "meh" from most people.
The rules, similarly, appeal to one type of player; which sucks if you're not it, but it's amazing if you are. Which seems to have been achieved; those who liked 40k despite 7th are loving it and those who have not liked the experience presented by Warhammer are shrugging (or raging) and going on to games better suited to them.
It's not a game for competitive play and as far as I can tell, never has been.
I'm not pleased with the load of rules GW expects us to buy now though.
The biggest issue I have at the moment is that I really don't want to buy anything
Same for different reasons - plenty of money to spend but when all they are releasing is Marine related - can't be bothered as I have hundreds of them already.
In fact has there been a single new model for 40k 8th ed that's not marine related? No new Eldar Aspects, no new Sisters, no new Mechanicus, Just more and more Marines. Yawn.
Still at least there is Necromunda and Shadespire to add some variety to their range - I don't know why they did not do a pdf for hive gang milita for 40k - cross selling is a thing..
....Cawl, Greyfax, and Celestine? Or do you mean 8th only? 6 months is a pretty damned small window.
I don't think Warhammer resembles a board game or a CCG purely because distance and speed matters a lot more than it does for those.
Say what you will for shallowness and lack of tactics, but the fact that using a 20x20 board instead of a 6x4 actually has a HUGE impact on the utility of various units and completely changes the way the game is played indicates to me that there is at least some semblance of maneuver.
We went from a half of a wargame to something that more resembles a board game or CCG.
Is that best? Well I suppose if one likes board games or CCG style play then yeah I can see how that would be best for them.
Exactly.
A time/labour intensive CCG, or more expensive and more time/labour intensive board game.
I was hoping for a wargame with 8th. 5th wasn't a great game by any stretch, but it was a damn sight better than this and 7th.
There's a lot in 8th that could be fixed without alienating people. Fixing balance issues would benefit everyone, and to honest, making the game more tactical/adding depth would please most people, seeing as 40k is still functionally a wargame, and people expect there to be some thought involved.
At this point, one of the big contentious points would be shrinking the game size down and/or removing flyers and superheavies form the game, which would alienate people who have grown to love armies heavily based around them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Unit1126PLL wrote: I don't think Warhammer resembles a board game or a CCG purely because distance and speed matters a lot more than it does for those.
Say what you will for shallowness and lack of tactics, but the fact that using a 20x20 board instead of a 6x4 actually has a HUGE impact on the utility of various units and completely changes the way the game is played indicates to me that there is at least some semblance of maneuver.
And...who exactly has the space, let alone the tables for a 20x20 board, not to mention the logistics of getting in to the middle of the board, let alone the huge amount of terrain that would be needed.
It'd just make more sense to change ranges, speeds, and shrink the game to make the board feel larger.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I don't think Warhammer resembles a board game or a CCG purely because distance and speed matters a lot more than it does for those.
Say what you will for shallowness and lack of tactics, but the fact that using a 20x20 board instead of a 6x4 actually has a HUGE impact on the utility of various units and completely changes the way the game is played indicates to me that there is at least some semblance of maneuver.
And...who exactly has the space, let alone the tables for a 20x20 board, not to mention the logistics of getting in to the middle of the board, let alone the huge amount of terrain that would be needed.
It'd just make more sense to change ranges, speeds, and shrink the game to make the board feel larger.
My buddy and I played on the floor of his game room plenty of times. The terrain was sometimes unpainted, because he liked to build it but not paint it, but we had enough. Cardstock and foamboard are cheap, and he loved making terrain.
But yes, you could play 6mm warhammer 40k, and there'd also be room for maneuver.
I'm also not sure how anything you said refutes my point that 'the fact that the space you play on matters a huge amount to how the game functions'.
We went from a half of a wargame to something that more resembles a board game or CCG.
Is that best? Well I suppose if one likes board games or CCG style play then yeah I can see how that would be best for them.
Exactly.
A time/labour intensive CCG, or more expensive and more time/labour intensive board game.
I was hoping for a wargame with 8th. 5th wasn't a great game by any stretch, but it was a damn sight better than this and 7th.
There's a lot in 8th that could be fixed without alienating people. Fixing balance issues would benefit everyone, and to honest, making the game more tactical/adding depth would please most people, seeing as 40k is still functionally a wargame, and people expect there to be some thought involved.
At this point, one of the big contentious points would be shrinking the game size down and/or removing flyers and superheavies form the game, which would alienate people who have grown to love armies heavily based around them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Unit1126PLL wrote: I don't think Warhammer resembles a board game or a CCG purely because distance and speed matters a lot more than it does for those.
Say what you will for shallowness and lack of tactics, but the fact that using a 20x20 board instead of a 6x4 actually has a HUGE impact on the utility of various units and completely changes the way the game is played indicates to me that there is at least some semblance of maneuver.
And...who exactly has the space, let alone the tables for a 20x20 board, not to mention the logistics of getting in to the middle of the board, let alone the huge amount of terrain that would be needed.
It'd just make more sense to change ranges, speeds, and shrink the game to make the board feel larger.
Space and available terrain have been a huge problem since... forever really. Except for very edge cases most batreps I see and FLGS I went into have too little terrain even for 6x4 tables and this has not changed since my early 2nd-3rd ed days. Maelstrom during 7th was sort of a way of artificially enlarging 6x4 table by forcing players to move around, but with 8th that is now gone, at least with higher end games of alpha-strikes and tabling.
Large area tables have to either be long but still 4-5' wide or divided into separate or ridge/portal connected zones, L or U shaped to be manageable. Only two FLGSs I've been to have necessary space to fit more than one such setup. Those things can be achieved, are fun to play on, but realistically speaking, there won't ever be a "movement" within this community strong enough to upscale "standard table" above 6x4...
Personally, I always was a fan of reducing all movement and ranges by 33%, and making squad coherency a 1" requirement (with certain units being able to disperse to 2-4" apart or so). Flamers/blasts would be the same, and ironically would be relatively more powerful as a result.
The biggest issue I have at the moment is that I really don't want to buy anything
Same for different reasons - plenty of money to spend but when all they are releasing is Marine related - can't be bothered as I have hundreds of them already.
In fact has there been a single new model for 40k 8th ed that's not marine related? No new Eldar Aspects, no new Sisters, no new Mechanicus, Just more and more Marines. Yawn.
Still at least there is Necromunda and Shadespire to add some variety to their range - I don't know why they did not do a pdf for hive gang milita for 40k - cross selling is a thing..
....Cawl, Greyfax, and Celestine? Or do you mean 8th only? 6 months is a pretty damned small window.
Yep 8th only - they were all produced for 7th ed. And yet how many new Marine models have we had in that time ?
Unit1126PLL wrote: I don't think Warhammer resembles a board game or a CCG purely because distance and speed matters a lot more than it does for those.
Say what you will for shallowness and lack of tactics, but the fact that using a 20x20 board instead of a 6x4 actually has a HUGE impact on the utility of various units and completely changes the way the game is played indicates to me that there is at least some semblance of maneuver.
Thats just it though... distance and speed don't really matter in 40k or AOS. In either game you can get into combat in turn 1, bypassing any need for maneuver. 40k is designed to be over by the end of the 2nd turn.
You can get the same results from 40k the card game. Both a CCG and 40k rely heavily on netlisting and listbuilding in general, neither really have any meaningful maneuver, and you just pick a target and roll some dice at it to see what happens.
A 20'x20' board is... I've seen that like three times in 25 years. The standard is a 6x4, and on a 6x4 with current metrics in place, the game is to me a glorified board game that utilizes popular card game mechanics only instead of cards we buy and paint miniatures.
Is it fun? It can be fun. Is it really a wargame? I'd say no, it stopped being that years ago. Is that bad? If you like board games or CCG style games then you're probably in heaven right now. If you want a wargame, you don't have much left on the market to pick from. Especially in the genre that 40k sits in. Gates of Antares is pretty much the only thing that comes to mind at this point.
My buddy and I played on the floor of his game room plenty of times. The terrain was sometimes unpainted, because he liked to build it but not paint it, but we had enough. Cardstock and foamboard are cheap, and he loved making terrain.
Man, I wish I had a 20x20 space I could clear out for games.
But yes, you could play 6mm warhammer 40k, and there'd also be room for maneuver.
That's the dream really. Make this current iteration of 40k into Epic again, and boom, a lot of issues would be solved. I'd love for that to happen.
I'm also not sure how anything you said refutes my point that 'the fact that the space you play on matters a huge amount to how the game functions'.
It refutes it simply on the impracticality of it. You are technically correct in that its a solution, but its super, super unrealistic to even suggest regularly using a 20x20 space. Frankly, its more plausible to use a converted ruleset on a standard table than play on a 20x20 area.
My buddy and I played on the floor of his game room plenty of times. The terrain was sometimes unpainted, because he liked to build it but not paint it, but we had enough. Cardstock and foamboard are cheap, and he loved making terrain.
Man, I wish I had a 20x20 space I could clear out for games.
But yes, you could play 6mm warhammer 40k, and there'd also be room for maneuver.
That's the dream really. Make this current iteration of 40k into Epic again, and boom, a lot of issues would be solved. I'd love for that to happen.
I'm also not sure how anything you said refutes my point that 'the fact that the space you play on matters a huge amount to how the game functions'.
It refutes it simply on the impracticality of it. You are technically correct in that its a solution, but its super, super unrealistic to even suggest regularly using a 20x20 space. Frankly, its more plausible to use a converted ruleset on a standard table than play on a 20x20 area.
Instead of converting ruleset you could just use tape measure in centimeters rather than in inches, since there are no more templates in the game and size of the bases don't matter all that much and BAM!, your 6'x4' table is now a bit larger than 15'x10'. Since cover and LOS are pretty much irrelevant now and level of abstraction in 40K is quite high now, you don't lose too much immersion but gain so needed space to manouver.
My buddy and I played on the floor of his game room plenty of times. The terrain was sometimes unpainted, because he liked to build it but not paint it, but we had enough. Cardstock and foamboard are cheap, and he loved making terrain.
Man, I wish I had a 20x20 space I could clear out for games.
But yes, you could play 6mm warhammer 40k, and there'd also be room for maneuver.
That's the dream really. Make this current iteration of 40k into Epic again, and boom, a lot of issues would be solved. I'd love for that to happen.
I'm also not sure how anything you said refutes my point that 'the fact that the space you play on matters a huge amount to how the game functions'.
It refutes it simply on the impracticality of it. You are technically correct in that its a solution, but its super, super unrealistic to even suggest regularly using a 20x20 space. Frankly, its more plausible to use a converted ruleset on a standard table than play on a 20x20 area.
Instead of converting ruleset you could just use tape measure in centimeters rather than in inches, since there are no more templates in the game and size of the bases don't matter all that much and BAM!, your 6'x4' table is now a bit larger than 15'x10'. Since cover and LOS are pretty much irrelevant now and level of abstraction in 40K is quite high now, you don't lose too much immersion but gain so needed space to manouver.
Plus if you use 40k Terrain then buildings look mega gothic and mega massive, just takes a bit of imagination.
You can get the same results from 40k the card game. Both a CCG and 40k rely heavily on netlisting and listbuilding in general, neither really have any meaningful maneuver, and you just pick a target and roll some dice at it to see what happens.
Is it fun? It can be fun. Is it really a wargame? I'd say no, it stopped being that years ago. Is that bad? If you like board games or CCG style games then you're probably in heaven right now. If you want a wargame, you don't have much left on the market to pick from. Especially in the genre that 40k sits in. Gates of Antares is pretty much the only thing that comes to mind at this point.
Oh gak! Sorry! I didn't realise that the definition of a wargame was whether a game is satisfying to you in particular. Oh great master of the tabletop.
Here I was thinking a wargame was a game using models and terrain on an open table (i.e. you have to measure, rather than having a board with markings on). I really though that some wargames could just have simpler rules, like Kings of War.
Didn't realise that game simplicity or design was the deciding factor, suppose cards are not what make them card games either.
I also forgot to look down on board games, no intelligence required there I guess. Does that make chess a wargame?
Depends on what exactly the genre is, if you mean grimdark science fantasy, no. If you mean SciFi then there's gates of Antares, Deadzone and Infinity.
Sorry folks, there will not be a 9th edition, Peregrine and I are in complete agreement which means the world is in fact going to explode and destroy us all.
I feel 8th is a fun game, but should not be taken too seriously (same with all GW games I think, considering how terribly the game is optimized for competitive play.)
Right.
The community would highly welcome a tournament based rule set like Steamroller for WMH. But GW is refusing this from the outset.
You can get the same results from 40k the card game. Both a CCG and 40k rely heavily on netlisting and listbuilding in general, neither really have any meaningful maneuver, and you just pick a target and roll some dice at it to see what happens.
Is it fun? It can be fun. Is it really a wargame? I'd say no, it stopped being that years ago. Is that bad? If you like board games or CCG style games then you're probably in heaven right now. If you want a wargame, you don't have much left on the market to pick from. Especially in the genre that 40k sits in. Gates of Antares is pretty much the only thing that comes to mind at this point.
Oh gak! Sorry! I didn't realise that the definition of a wargame was whether a game is satisfying to you in particular. Oh great master of the tabletop.
Here I was thinking a wargame was a game using models and terrain on an open table (i.e. you have to measure, rather than having a board with markings on). I really though that some wargames could just have simpler rules, like Kings of War.
Didn't realise that game simplicity or design was the deciding factor, suppose cards are not what make them card games either.
I also forgot to look down on board games, no intelligence required there I guess. Does that make chess a wargame?
Depends on what exactly the genre is, if you mean grimdark science fantasy, no. If you mean SciFi then there's gates of Antares, Deadzone and Infinity.
Oh boy. We took this down to dakka dakka land didn't we.
I don't think anywhere I posted that my *opinion* was the defacto for the world. It is my *opinion*. Also never mentioned anything about wargames and simpler rules not being wargames. So take it down a couple notches there Ultimate Warrior.
But I'll explain for you MY OPINION.
A wargame intuitively creates a battle or war. A card game like Magic could also be called "a wargame" because you are opposed against someone and you are "battliing them". Battleship could also be called a "wargame" for the same reason.
Now a "wargame" has up until very recently involved two key factors that are absent from 40k. That being... maneuvering pieces being crucial, and battlefield management being key (managing terrain). In card games like Magic... or in board games like Battleship... or Dominion, or pick any of the hundreds of board games or card games that have us fighting our opponent, maneuver either doesn't exist at all (like card games) or is very benign (like board games).
40k doesn't have maneuver really. I mean technically you move models. But you can get engaged in turn 1 adn the game is designed to be over by turn 2. Maneuver is largely irrelevant. You can just point at what you want to fight, and your models alpha strike it and then you both roll a bunch of dice. Just like magic the gathering and just like a bunch of board games.
40k's terrain rules are also largely irrelevant. You don't have to manage the battlefield and the terrain because the terrain is for the most part ornamental and could just as easily not exist because it gives next to no impact in the actual game (by design, many people for years and years complained about terrain and how they don't like using terrain because it impacts the game and they didn't like that)
So you are left with a game that, *to me*, is more similar to a board game or a card game than it is a wargame.
This has nothing, zero, nada to do with simplicity or any of the other straw man points you pulled. Dragon Rampant has a very siimple ruleset and is more of a wargame than AOS is. Kings of War has maneuver and feels like a wargame. Age of Simgar is like 40k, its more like a board game or a card game because *to me* maneuver and battlefield management don't really exist in either system. Its all about target priority (just like magic and board games) and its all about list building (deckbuilding). Gates of Antares is absolutely a wargame that feels like an actual battle being played, and not two people deckbuilding some combos and then playing them out.
Neither 40k nor AOS feel like a battle would actually feel, nor do they really represent the fiction that the Black Library writers write in terms of the battles and how the battles play out, because iin the liiterature maneuvering and terrain do matter (as they would intuitively matter in any battle).
DarkBlack wrote: Here I was thinking a wargame was a game using models and terrain on an open table (i.e. you have to measure, rather than having a board with markings on).
Those are important parts of the definition of a wargame, but they're also things GW has been doing their best to minimize in 8th. Movement is largely irrelevant outside of "teleport across half the table to exactly the perfect position", measuring matters very little when everything either has full-table range or deploys within 12" of the target, terrain is purely decorative most of the time unless you add house rules to fix the problem, and the game is determined almost entirely by matching up how powerful each player's list is and then rolling dice at each other until someone wins. The tabletop aspects of the game are less and less relevant.
Kastelen, you are relatively new here, right? Peregrine doesn't do well in "broad multi-factor analysis of averaged community needs and eventual GW responses to said statistics", he goes by a simple "anything that isn't exactly my point of view is total BS and people who enjoy other things that I do or enjoy them differently are dumb".
DarkBlack wrote: I think the simplification is good for Warhammer.
40k isn't simple, it's shallow. The rules are still lengthy, often counter-intuitive, and difficult to fully understand as a new player. For example, in a simple game it wouldn't matter exactly what melee weapon a model is armed with, they'd just have their basic attack or a generic "power weapon" upgrade that represents the entire category of "things that are better than punching with your bare fists". The difference between an axe and a sword would not be something that is necessary to represent in a simple game. But in 40k there are different rules for axes and swords, and you have to care about which one your model is armed with. You might argue that this is a nice detail to have, but it sure as hell isn't simple.
What 40k actually has is shallow strategy. There's very little thought involved beyond creating the most powerful list possible, once you start playing the game it's little more than an exercise in target priority and rolling dice until someone (usually the player with the most powerful list) wins. You put a ton of effort into learning the bloated mess of rules, and in return you get almost nothing.
The rules, similarly, appeal to one type of player; which sucks if you're not it, but it's amazing if you are.
And that player seems defined entirely as "people who are addicted to GW's brand of crack and will buy anything we tell them to buy". The rules that I (and many other people) object to aren't good for any particular element of the community, and make their experiences worse in the same ways. It's bad design, not careful targeting.
You can get the same results from 40k the card game. Both a CCG and 40k rely heavily on netlisting and listbuilding in general, neither really have any meaningful maneuver, and you just pick a target and roll some dice at it to see what happens.
Is it fun? It can be fun. Is it really a wargame? I'd say no, it stopped being that years ago. Is that bad? If you like board games or CCG style games then you're probably in heaven right now. If you want a wargame, you don't have much left on the market to pick from. Especially in the genre that 40k sits in. Gates of Antares is pretty much the only thing that comes to mind at this point.
Oh gak! Sorry! I didn't realise that the definition of a wargame was whether a game is satisfying to you in particular. Oh great master of the tabletop.
Here I was thinking a wargame was a game using models and terrain on an open table (i.e. you have to measure, rather than having a board with markings on). I really though that some wargames could just have simpler rules, like Kings of War.
Didn't realise that game simplicity or design was the deciding factor, suppose cards are not what make them card games either.
I also forgot to look down on board games, no intelligence required there I guess. Does that make chess a wargame?
Depends on what exactly the genre is, if you mean grimdark science fantasy, no. If you mean SciFi then there's gates of Antares, Deadzone and Infinity.
Oh boy. We took this down to dakka dakka land didn't we.
I don't think anywhere I posted that my *opinion* was the defacto for the world. It is my *opinion*. Also never mentioned anything about wargames and simpler rules not being wargames. So take it down a couple notches there Ultimate Warrior.
But I'll explain for you MY OPINION.
A wargame intuitively creates a battle or war. A card game like Magic could also be called "a wargame" because you are opposed against someone and you are "battliing them". Battleship could also be called a "wargame" for the same reason.
Now a "wargame" has up until very recently involved two key factors that are absent from 40k. That being... maneuvering pieces being crucial, and battlefield management being key (managing terrain). In card games like Magic... or in board games like Battleship... or Dominion, or pick any of the hundreds of board games or card games that have us fighting our opponent, maneuver either doesn't exist at all (like card games) or is very benign (like board games).
40k doesn't have maneuver really. I mean technically you move models. But you can get engaged in turn 1 adn the game is designed to be over by turn 2. Maneuver is largely irrelevant. You can just point at what you want to fight, and your models alpha strike it and then you both roll a bunch of dice. Just like magic the gathering and just like a bunch of board games.
40k's terrain rules are also largely irrelevant.
So you are left with a game that, *to me*, is more similar to a board game or a card game than it is a wargame.
This has nothing, zero, nada to do with simplicity or any of the other straw man points you pulled. Dragon Rampant has a very siimple ruleset and is more of a wargame than AOS is. Kings of War has maneuver and feels like a wargame. Age of Simgar is like 40k, its more like a board game or a card game because *to me* maneuver and battlefield management don't really exist in either system. Its all about target priority (just like magic and board games) and its all about list building (deckbuilding). Gates of Antares is absolutely a wargame that feels like an actual battle being played, and not two people deckbuilding some combos and then playing them out.
Neither 40k nor AOS feel like a battle would actually feel, nor do they really represent the fiction that the Black Library writers write in terms of the battles and how the battles play out, because iin the liiterature maneuvering and terrain do matter (as they would intuitively matter in any battle).
@Auticus: a bit of a sidetrack, but you may want to check out a game called Neuroshima Hex (not Tactics or RPG). This is a small boardgame (like really small, board has only 19 spaces) which is the best wargame-to-boardgame adaptation I ever played. It has meaningfull manouvering, overall strategies, localized tactics, shooting, melee, various distinct factions that each have it's unique playstyle and even something resembling terrain (but this just hinted and only for some factions). It has e-version for mobile phones/tablets, but be warned - it's addictive as hell.
As for the stuff about the size of the game, I've always though a big problem with the game is the 28mm scale on a 6'x4' board. 24" has always felt too short for a boltgun or lazgun, and 72" far too short for something like a railgun, and yet it's still too far on a 6'x4' board. Equally, and this really is a personal thing, but I hate how you can't have a 6'x8' board for a last stand scenario in the centre because your arms just wouldn't be long enough, but the size and rectangular shape of 6'x4' just doesn't support a surrounded on all sides last stand.
CREEEEEEEEED wrote: As for the stuff about the size of the game, I've always though a big problem with the game is the 28mm scale on a 6'x4' board. 24" has always felt too short for a boltgun or lazgun, and 72" far too short for something like a railgun, and yet it's still too far on a 6'x4' board. Equally, and this really is a personal thing, but I hate how you can't have a 6'x8' board for a last stand scenario in the centre because your arms just wouldn't be long enough, but the size and rectangular shape of 6'x4' just doesn't support a surrounded on all sides last stand.
28mm is fine on a 6x4, its the sheer number of models and how the rules work that kills any potential strategic depth in 40k.
I played a realistic modern 28mm game with 40k models ported over many years ago, and we played on our club table, which was slightly larger than normal, I think closer to a 5x7. The heavy, vehicle based weaponry could shoot clean across the table, even lengthwise, while infantry weapons could mostly do the same as well. The big difference was that there were less than 30 models on the table total, and there were lots of modifiers to shooting. Infantry weapons had range bands that degraded rapidly, doubly so if they were moving or shooting into cover, or any number of other realistic factors. Tank weapons were similar, though obviously on a larger scale.
You could take your chance and fire your rifles at a target 36" away, but you'd need a 17+ on a D20 to even pin the unit, let alone do any meaningful damage. It was quite enjoyable. Faster, smoother, simpler, more intuitive than 40k, while offering more depth.
Kastelen, you are relatively new here, right? Peregrine doesn't do well in "broad multi-factor analysis of averaged community needs and eventual GW responses to said statistics", he goes by a simple "anything that isn't exactly my point of view is total BS and people who enjoy other things that I do or enjoy them differently are dumb".
Now now, that's not really fair.
Peregrine wrote:
And that player seems defined entirely as "people who are addicted to GW's brand of crack and will buy anything we tell them to buy". The rules that I (and many other people) object to aren't good for any particular element of the community, and make their experiences worse in the same ways. It's bad design, not careful targeting.
@CREEEEEEEEED: is it really? Do I really have to add anything beside this fresh "source" citation?
"Bad game design which addresses noones needs in any good way whatsoever" made GW the most succesfull company on London stock market last year simply because ￡38m sales worth of people are GW addicted crackpots? Is it really the most probable answer? Or did GW hit a nail in the head and addressed the proper audience for it's product and found an close-to-optimal ballance between game complexity/depth/accesibility to reach both new and old playerbase? Of course this is a ballance that cuts out both ends of a bell curve and leaves the likes as myself or Peregrine outside of target audience, but nevertheless 8th ed 40K is a great succes and a whole lot of people are enjoing it. There are other virtues of a tabletop game than just being a uber-realistic, perfectly mathcrunched deep wargame simulation...
Earth127 wrote: Also anyone who says movement and positioning is unimportant in 40K 8th edition just because vehicle facing is gone is wrong.
It's not just the removal of vehicle facings, it's the ease of alpha strikes in general. You don't have to care about movement or positioning when your entire army either has weapons that can fire the entire length of the table (and LOS-blocking terrain is rare) or fast enough movement (via deep strike or high movement stat) to start the game next to your target and immediately kill it. You don't have a situation like X-Wing, where it's move vs. counter-move trying to set up a shot, you just pick your target and roll dice to kill it.
I feel 8th is a fun game, but should not be taken too seriously (same with all GW games I think, considering how terribly the game is optimized for competitive play.)
Right. The community would highly welcome a tournament based rule set like Steamroller for WMH. But GW is refusing this from the outset.
Keep in mind Steamroller is 99% just tournament-focused scenarios. There isn't really any rules changes for the game. Technically this is what the ITC Missions are, just it comes from a third party and not from GW themselves. Honestly, I think it's time for ITC to just take it upon themselves to do this and make a set of tournament rules that add extra restrictions and the like on top of the normal matched play restrictions.
Also anyone who says movement and positioning is unimportant in 40K 8th edition just because vehicle facing is gone is wrong.
sure it's nowhere as important compared to other wargames on the market but it is not non existant.
I can't remember now. Chances are it was a home brewed game, or a heavily modified game. I remember it being D20 based, using lots of modifiers for ranges, cover, and movement, having 'command points' to rally troops and place them on overwatch, and that hitting a unit rarely resulted in direct casualties, but most often degraded their morale first, then would start piling on wounds.
There weren't any points, not that I knew of anyways. The forces were just similar; a Guard Russ and a few squads of infantry against a Hammerhead, a crisis suit squad, and a pathfinder squad.
I was new to wargaming, and my club was filled with top notch painters, amazing terrain builders, and rules writers (I think one guy is now working on a small rules company).
Kastelen, you are relatively new here, right? Peregrine doesn't do well in "broad multi-factor analysis of averaged community needs and eventual GW responses to said statistics", he goes by a simple "anything that isn't exactly my point of view is total BS and people who enjoy other things that I do or enjoy them differently are dumb".
Now now, that's not really fair.
Peregrine wrote:
And that player seems defined entirely as "people who are addicted to GW's brand of crack and will buy anything we tell them to buy". The rules that I (and many other people) object to aren't good for any particular element of the community, and make their experiences worse in the same ways. It's bad design, not careful targeting.
@CREEEEEEEEED: is it really? Do I really have to add anything beside this fresh "source" citation?
"Bad game design which addresses noones needs in any good way whatsoever" made GW the most succesfull company on London stock market last year simply because ￡38m sales worth of people are GW addicted crackpots? Is it really the most probable answer? Or did GW hit a nail in the head and addressed the proper audience for it's product and found an close-to-optimal ballance between game complexity/depth/accesibility to reach both new and old playerbase? Of course this is a ballance that cuts out both ends of a bell curve and leaves the likes as myself or Peregrine outside of target audience, but nevertheless 8th ed 40K is a great succes and a whole lot of people are enjoing it. There are other virtues of a tabletop game than just being a uber-realistic, perfectly mathcrunched deep wargame simulation...
nope and a big nope at that, GW actually takes part in marketing now, reaching out to its customers and actually trying to get new ones, they have a lot of presence on social media too, so when you throw that all together and then release a new edition then of course it will sell, the contents of the rules are largely irelavent (sp?) if you market it well, and GW marketed 8th very very well, this is why you see new and old players coming along, they have also continued this great marketing with the codex's and new units, marketing is the main reason why 8th sold so well, not the rules content.
Heres the thing, the rules department clearly means well and have tried to make this game great again, and they have suceeded on several levels, but they have also failed in several key areas, its too streamlined in some areas and not enough in others, for example, they marketed it as a simpler game than 7th, its not, there are just as many rules and crunch in 8th, its just moved mostly to the datasheet, its a side shift not an upgrade, but most people have bought into the marketing and believe its simpler without actually critically thinking about it, and thats what good marketing does, we all fall for it, but when the shine wares off a lot of people also then look at the rules and wonder where all the cool stuff went.
A good example of this is the WS chart, it was good for imersion and seperated characters quite well, now we have a blob of characters that are basically the same across the board (WS 2+) and all that differentiates them is options, which they also cut down on, so less options on the whole, cookie cutter characters leads to some boring gameplay, now apply this to the game as a whole, too much stuff is too similar.
So finally, if some people like this game thats fine, some dont, also fine, but the ones that like it refuse to see the glaring issues that cause people not to like it or push them to other systems.
I feel 8th is a fun game, but should not be taken too seriously (same with all GW games I think, considering how terribly the game is optimized for competitive play.)
Right.
The community would highly welcome a tournament based rule set like Steamroller for WMH. But GW is refusing this from the outset.
Keep in mind Steamroller is 99% just tournament-focused scenarios. There isn't really any rules changes for the game. Technically this is what the ITC Missions are, just it comes from a third party and not from GW themselves. Honestly, I think it's time for ITC to just take it upon themselves to do this and make a set of tournament rules that add extra restrictions and the like on top of the normal matched play restrictions.
As for Steamroller there is no need to provide rule changes or adaptions, since the rule set of WMH is already rather tight and tournament worthy.
In 40k, the situation is different as e.g. can be seen from the contributions to this thread.
You can get the same results from 40k the card game. Both a CCG and 40k rely heavily on netlisting and listbuilding in general, neither really have any meaningful maneuver, and you just pick a target and roll some dice at it to see what happens.
Is it fun? It can be fun. Is it really a wargame? I'd say no, it stopped being that years ago. Is that bad? If you like board games or CCG style games then you're probably in heaven right now. If you want a wargame, you don't have much left on the market to pick from. Especially in the genre that 40k sits in. Gates of Antares is pretty much the only thing that comes to mind at this point.
Oh gak! Sorry! I didn't realise that the definition of a wargame was whether a game is satisfying to you in particular. Oh great master of the tabletop.
Here I was thinking a wargame was a game using models and terrain on an open table (i.e. you have to measure, rather than having a board with markings on). I really though that some wargames could just have simpler rules, like Kings of War.
Didn't realise that game simplicity or design was the deciding factor, suppose cards are not what make them card games either.
I also forgot to look down on board games, no intelligence required there I guess. Does that make chess a wargame?
Depends on what exactly the genre is, if you mean grimdark science fantasy, no. If you mean SciFi then there's gates of Antares, Deadzone and Infinity.
Oh boy. We took this down to dakka dakka land didn't we.
I don't think anywhere I posted that my *opinion* was the defacto for the world. It is my *opinion*. Also never mentioned anything about wargames and simpler rules not being wargames. So take it down a couple notches there Ultimate Warrior.
But I'll explain for you MY OPINION.
A wargame intuitively creates a battle or war. A card game like Magic could also be called "a wargame" because you are opposed against someone and you are "battliing them". Battleship could also be called a "wargame" for the same reason.
Now a "wargame" has up until very recently involved two key factors that are absent from 40k. That being... maneuvering pieces being crucial, and battlefield management being key (managing terrain). In card games like Magic... or in board games like Battleship... or Dominion, or pick any of the hundreds of board games or card games that have us fighting our opponent, maneuver either doesn't exist at all (like card games) or is very benign (like board games).
40k doesn't have maneuver really. I mean technically you move models. But you can get engaged in turn 1 adn the game is designed to be over by turn 2. Maneuver is largely irrelevant. You can just point at what you want to fight, and your models alpha strike it and then you both roll a bunch of dice. Just like magic the gathering and just like a bunch of board games.
40k's terrain rules are also largely irrelevant.
So you are left with a game that, *to me*, is more similar to a board game or a card game than it is a wargame.
This has nothing, zero, nada to do with simplicity or any of the other straw man points you pulled. Dragon Rampant has a very siimple ruleset and is more of a wargame than AOS is. Kings of War has maneuver and feels like a wargame. Age of Simgar is like 40k, its more like a board game or a card game because *to me* maneuver and battlefield management don't really exist in either system. Its all about target priority (just like magic and board games) and its all about list building (deckbuilding). Gates of Antares is absolutely a wargame that feels like an actual battle being played, and not two people deckbuilding some combos and then playing them out.
Neither 40k nor AOS feel like a battle would actually feel, nor do they really represent the fiction that the Black Library writers write in terms of the battles and how the battles play out, because iin the liiterature maneuvering and terrain do matter (as they would intuitively matter in any battle).
@Auticus: a bit of a sidetrack, but you may want to check out a game called Neuroshima Hex (not Tactics or RPG). This is a small boardgame (like really small, board has only 19 spaces) which is the best wargame-to-boardgame adaptation I ever played. It has meaningfull manouvering, overall strategies, localized tactics, shooting, melee, various distinct factions that each have it's unique playstyle and even something resembling terrain (but this just hinted and only for some factions). It has e-version for mobile phones/tablets, but be warned - it's addictive as hell.
Also anyone who says movement and positioning is unimportant in 40K 8th edition just because vehicle facing is gone is wrong.
sure it's nowhere as important compared to other wargames on the market but it is not non existant.
Could you give some examples on how movement and positioning matter iin 40k?
I mean ... its not non-existent, but its next to non existent.
If I can alpha my entire army into your face on turn 1, there is no maneuver. The movement is me picking up my models from the table and putting them anywhere on the table that I want. There is no maneuver. There is picking up my models and placing them wherever I want for the most part and then charging and spending easily obtained command points to reroll charges or add to my charge distances or other similar items to make the charge pretty much guaranteed.
I don't have to maneuver to get into that position and my opponent cannot maneuver to combat thiis. He has to just take it in the face like a champ.
nou wrote: "Bad game design which addresses noones needs in any good way whatsoever" made GW the most succesfull company on London stock market last year simply because ￡38m sales worth of people are GW addicted crackpots?
Why are you ignoring the other factors involved here? You know, the people buying models because of the fluff/rules, or because in the UKGW's retail chain has driven independent stores out of the market and made GW's products the default (and, often, only) choice for people who want to get into tabletop wargames at all? Or the tons of money made from "three purchase" children who buy starter sets and then promptly drop out of the game? Or the fact that the gain is measured on a percentage basis, not total worth, on a stock exchange that doesn't include GW's primary competition?
Is it really the most probable answer? Or did GW hit a nail in the head and addressed the proper audience for it's product and found an close-to-optimal ballance between game complexity/depth/accesibility to reach both new and old playerbase?
Did they? Do you have any explanations of what good game design was involved, and how it benefits these particular people more than a game that fixed the problems I pointed out? Or are you just going to resort to "someone had fun, therefore GW is right?"
PS: after the debacle of 7th edition even a very poor game would look good and draw a lot of people back, simply because it isn't 7th. But that doesn't make it good on its own merits.
A good example of this is the WS chart, it was good for imersion and seperated characters quite well, now we have a blob of characters that are basically the same across the board (WS 2+) and all that differentiates them is options, which they also cut down on, so less options on the whole, cookie cutter characters leads to some boring gameplay, now apply this to the game as a whole, too much stuff is too similar.
It really didn't separate most things in the game - almost everything that was not a character was hitting on 4+ or 3+ - as they do now.
Characters were pretty much the same especially against other characters - now at least a Avatar of Khaine can hit a Gretchin (or say a stationary vehicle) at better than 3+.
The inverse of your statement is also true: No poster on dakka can convince me I am not having fun with 8th.
I do see it's glaring issues. But there are a lot of people who see nothing but said issues and are unwilling to look beyond anyhting. They play 1 kind of game, on 1 kind of table and talk about viability as if nothing exists outside the top 3 percent of choices.
A good example of this is the WS chart, it was good for imersion and seperated characters quite well, now we have a blob of characters that are basically the same across the board (WS 2+) and all that differentiates them is options, which they also cut down on, so less options on the whole, cookie cutter characters leads to some boring gameplay, now apply this to the game as a whole, too much stuff is too similar.
It really didn't separate most things in the game - almost everything that was not a character was hitting on 4+ or 3+ - as they do now.
Characters were pretty much the same especially against other characters - now at least a Avatar of Khaine can hit a Gretchin (or say a stationary vehicle) at better than 3+.
To be fair, they could have left WS the same and simply changed the chart such that units with at least twice the WS of their opponent hit on 2s.
Also, I appreciate that the old WS values were rather skewed, but you don't solve the problem by making things even more homogenised.
nou wrote: "Bad game design which addresses noones needs in any good way whatsoever" made GW the most succesfull company on London stock market last year simply because ￡38m sales worth of people are GW addicted crackpots?
Why are you ignoring the other factors involved here? You know, the people buying models because of the fluff/rules, or because in the UKGW's retail chain has driven independent stores out of the market and made GW's products the default (and, often, only) choice for people who want to get into tabletop wargames at all? Or the tons of money made from "three purchase" children who buy starter sets and then promptly drop out of the game? Or the fact that the gain is measured on a percentage basis, not total worth, on a stock exchange that doesn't include GW's primary competition?
Is it really the most probable answer? Or did GW hit a nail in the head and addressed the proper audience for it's product and found an close-to-optimal ballance between game complexity/depth/accesibility to reach both new and old playerbase?
Did they? Do you have any explanations of what good game design was involved, and how it benefits these particular people more than a game that fixed the problems I pointed out? Or are you just going to resort to "someone had fun, therefore GW is right?"
PS: after the debacle of 7th edition even a very poor game would look good and draw a lot of people back, simply because it isn't 7th. But that doesn't make it good on its own merits.
I'm not ignoring any factors, I'm just focusing on different than you do as a sort of "counterweight", because YOU are ignoring all non-rules factors (as in psychological, social, visual&tactile appeal, craftsmanship needs etc...) that make a "good game design". Statistically speaking, people don't play games because of those games ideal mathematical model or simulational value. They play what satisfy their particular need for fun and entertainment. This MAY BE a great mathematical ballance (as you may remember I am a quite able tournament Bridge player) or near-real-life tactical depth, but it can also be beer&pretzels actual throwing dice at painted models to see which will fall of the board faster and crash to more pieces... Or anything in between, depending on personal time available, individual levels of conscientiousness, introversion/extraversion, social skills etc... Discussing with you always devolves to talking about a strange "plato cave of ideal game design" without ever accounting for real players and their personalities. True "good game design" accounts for all those layers in a coherent fasion, with size of the assumed target audience being one of the key factors. You also falsely assume, that anyone who doesn't seek "mathematical depth" in 40K is somehow mentally inferior, despite repeatedly trying to prove yourself, that no edition of 40K is trully intelectually challangeing (Which I agree to fully, this is not "mental excercise game" out-of-the-box. It can be made into intelectuall excercise (of various sorts, but you also don't understand that such variety even exists, vide our past Maelstrom discussion), but almost any sandbox game can be made such with right starting conditions).
If you ask me "what good game design was involved" in 8th I can only "backengeneer" it, as I don't work at GW. My best guess was to make a game so stripped of individual tactical input so sheer volume of dice rolled ensures, that results are "statistically fair" and equalize odds of winning between old veterans and fresh players in a casual setting of non-optimised collections of minis this game has high enough win ratio to make players content. You may call it "bad game desig", I call it "catering to as wide target audience as possible". Does this make 40K a good wargame? Definately not as it crashes drastically when you can mathhammer most optimal builds and play in a "tournament" listbuilding fashion. Does this make 40K enjoyable for the largest number of people possible? Probably yes, because as we both saw numerous times at this forum, spectrum of needs that people try to fill with 40K is huge, ranging from beer&pretzels weekend enternainment to "up to teath near professional level of dedication". Even now you have people from both ends, some still complain about how overgrown mess this game is, some how stripped of content, variety or depth is...
I have a question for you - I don't remember any instance of you posting anything constructive on Proposed Rules forum. Like no houserules, no fandexes, no coherent reworks or scratchbuilt ruleset of your own design. None. And yet you seem to believe, that you are the only person here who really understands what good game desing is about. When asked directly what makes a good narrative game or a good fandex you always reply with "there is no such thing as good fandex/houserule" or that reply in broad but unprecise visions of what constitutes a good narrative game, all of which looks increasingly like you don't really play this game since at least 4th-early 5th ed. Am I right? How often do you play? How many games of 40K have you had in the last decade? How much practical experience with actually playing any wargame do you actually have and how much of your arguments are purely theoretical "I think that all of you would be happier if you just listened to what I think is good fun but I have totally no idea how to forge it into actual and succesfull game mechanics"?
The state of 40K is much as it's always been. The state of the company has changed for the better.
To me, 40K is a game played amongst friends...and we're not beholden to tournament rules or meta-lists or strict verbage. If we see something worth changing, we will do so. As such, it's a fun game to play and let's me put cool models on the tabletop. From a balanced, nuanced game for tournament setting? It's as crap as 40K has always been. Even taking tournament organizers opinions into account, the game is still a mess when it comes to balance and the massive issues IGOUGO presents on the table. It will always be that way, I'd imagine.
People have enjoyed all editions of 40K (some people actually enjoyed 7th). People have always not enjoyed editions of 40K and 8th will be no different.
You still need a few too many books, and some models are still terribly priced. You'll still have armies whcih are better than others in a competitive environment. 40K is still 40K. As a platform for creating an enjoyable table top experience with like-minded friends? 40K is also still 40K.
I did not enjoy Warhammer 40K in it's 3rd-7th iteration, so I quit playing at the beginning of 4th. I came back in late 7th to take a peek and hated it, resuming playing 2nd edition. I stated quite blatantly here on Dakka that I was doubtful GW would ever create a version of the game I'd be interested in playing again. So far, 8th is fun to play and it's brought back a good half-dozen buddies of mine who were likewise unenthused with 40K and had ditched it. So, amongst my friends and the way we play - the state of 40K is pretty good. I still prefer our modifications to 2nd edition, but 8th is fun.
The state of 40k is what you make out of it.
We have players in our gaming group who take it too serious. Game-testing every week with slightly modified armies.
Some like me have a more distant view of 40k with all its simplifications that came with 8th edition. And still, the simplifications dont bring new players into the game.
The success of GW has more to do with the overwhelming number of new products that they release every week. Not so much with the rule sets of 40k and AoS. But I must admit that the models are fantastic if you compare it with those of other companies like WMH.
A good example of this is the WS chart, it was good for imersion and seperated characters quite well, now we have a blob of characters that are basically the same across the board (WS 2+) and all that differentiates them is options, which they also cut down on, so less options on the whole, cookie cutter characters leads to some boring gameplay, now apply this to the game as a whole, too much stuff is too similar.
It really didn't separate most things in the game - almost everything that was not a character was hitting on 4+ or 3+ - as they do now.
Characters were pretty much the same especially against other characters - now at least a Avatar of Khaine can hit a Gretchin (or say a stationary vehicle) at better than 3+.
Characters, it separated characters, now all characters hit each other on the same, Kharn is a much better combatant than Azrael for example, but both hit each other on a 2+, same with other characters, and as you say not much changed, so why change it at all?
As for the rest of the stuff, it did separate them, but it didnt go far enough in doing so, personally I would have kept WS the same but made the chart a little more harsh, maybe tie it to the current wound chart, a Grot should have a hell of a time hitting Dark Eldar lord, not the same chance as hitting another grot or conscript, it breaks MY immersion, others are fine with it though.
The inverse of your statement is also true: No poster on dakka can convince me I am not having fun with 8th.
I do see it's glaring issues. But there are a lot of people who see nothing but said issues and are unwilling to look beyond anyhting. They play 1 kind of game, on 1 kind of table and talk about viability as if nothing exists outside the top 3 percent of choices.
100% agree dude, its swings and roundabouts, this game has some good stuff and bad stuff, I am one of those people that sees a problem and tries to fix it, so we at our club use house rules to get rid of the biggest issues or curb stuff GW hasnt got around to yet.
I have said it a few times over the past few months but i REALLY dislike the direction 8th edition has gone and the games I've played of 8th have been incredibly boring. It feels more like just rolling dice and picking up or shuffling models around instead of making tactical decisions.
Here are a few things that have really dulled down the strategic/tactical complexity of 40k.
1. Cover is largely irrelevant. And no don't give me the boiler plate response of "your just not using enough terrain". I have been a huge proponent of terrain heavy boards for years and in 8th if you play it RAW then you are rarely if ever getting a cover save. Most terrain has little to no impact on movement, charges, or saves so you can play an entire game of 40k and not have terrain come up as a modifier despite having models falling all over the place due to terrain pieces "being in the way". Cover when it does come into play is either LoS blocking (which while good shouldn't be the only function of terrain) or the rare times that you meet all the requirements for a save modifer. If your a low armor model (guardsmen, Boyz, pathfinder, kroot, etc) that cover is not helping all that much because your 5+ or 6+ save is going up one and can still be shredded away by AP. An Ork loota in ruins has a 5+ save and a space marine with a plasma gun will ignore that save entirely while in 7th shooting a plasma gun (or grav as people so loved to spam) was a fairly big waste against a soft armored target in hard cover because cover was a good defense against armor defeating weapons.
2. Weapons are heavily homogenized and somewhat don't fit their purpose on the battlefield. In 7th the factors for a weapon came down to a list of things
7th Edition
-Direct fire or Blast
-Low rate of fire or lots of shots
-Heavy weapon/Salvo or Assault/Rapid Fire (aka heavy vs light weapons)
-The strength of the weapon
-The ability to bypass armor/vehicle damage table impact
-And other utility factors such as ignore cover, pinning, melta, poision, etc
8th
-Number of hits (direct vs blast, rate of fire, and heavy vs light are rolled into this as the sum of these will determine your average number of hits against any target and if you should stand still to shoot or take that -1 to hit when you move)
- Strength of the weapon
- Save negating
- Damage
- Utility
It might still seem like a lot of stuff but weapon Utility has greatly diminished to the point that most weapons don't have any bonus effects or other factors that modify their behavior. The big two changes though is all weapons can wound all targets so strength is no longer keeping your lasguns or bolters from hurting a Battlewagon but instead it just means your hoping for a lot of 5s and 6s if your using low strength weapons against high toughness targets. Also without instant death using high strength weapons against low toughness targets doesn't instagib them if one wound gets through so low toughness but high wound targets aren't as concerned about high strength attacks. Also FNP works all the time so you can't double out a target to bypass any good FNP saves. The other big change is that AP just reduces your save (unless invuln) and without a separate cover save it just means that more AP is always better so target priority of using the right AP for the right target or using ignoring cover weapons against targets that rely on cover is not really a thing.
Ultimately though 8th editions weapons tend to just boil down to either throwing weight of dice at something until it dies or using heavy hitting weapons that do multiple wounds to a target. One fundamental problem with this is that while 30 boyz can somewhat effectively punch anything to death, using a railgun is never going to be effective against a mob of cheap, low toughness, single wound models so it generally pays to have volume of fire and/or ways to negate saves with strength being a less of a concern.
3. Movement is less relevant as now terrain doesn't really factor into things so units are less inclined to hug cover so they tend to either move forward or run away if they suck at melee combat. Adding into movement is charging as now multi charging is almost always the go to strategy for any assault units. Piling into other combats, having giant blobs of units in a massive melee in the center, and just overall an decrease in the importance of positioning makes movement feel less overall important. Removal of blast weapons means that piling into a pile of bodies has little to no impact and it basically starts to come down to either conga-lining to chain a buff aura or piling in close to fit everyone inside an buff aura that needs everyone to be in close or to squeeze out cover for infantry squads. Going back to shooting weapons (particularly blast weapons) having scatter meant that even if you didn't hit your desired target, if your shooting into the middle of an enemy line then its quite likely your blast will end up hitting a completely different unit which gave spacing and areas of unity density a somewhat small but, never the less, impactful feel to the game. In 7th weapons like the Killkannon where not all that reliable due to Ork shooting being horribly inaccurate but if i aimed it into the middle of a cluster of enemy units then its highly likely that its going to do damage to something. It made the opponent think about positioning and it made me think about target selection and weighting target density vs target priority vs the optimal target for my weapon to hurt.
4. Unit types have far less relevance anymore. Use to be that Vehicles played by a very different set of rules (MCs should of done something similar but that is another topic) and needed to be handled differently than you would handle a space marine. Infantry, Jump, Jet, Bike, Jet Bike, Cav, Vehicle, MC, Flyer, Super Heavy, Beast, Swarm, etc all have different properties and things that they did. Granted there are some inherent problems with USRs being baked into unit types (bikes, MCs, and Super Heavies tended to cause problems because of this). Now unit types don't really play too much of a role except for the Fly, Vehicle, and to a lesser extent Infantry and MC. Fly is probably the most impactful because it has rules about moving over enemy units, being able to fall back and still shoot, charging flying units, etc while vehicles generally just have certain things hurt them more such as "melta" weapons or hurt them less such as "poison". This point wouldn't be such an issue but it is with the next point.
5. Lack of any real Universal Special Rules. Rules like Relentless, Melta, Ignore Cover, Fearless, Eternal Warrior, Stealth/Shrouded, Jink, etc where huge factors for how a weapon or unit worked in the game. Everybody used the same USR unless you had some faction specific ones but generally if you said Melta the mechanic is understood if your playing Space Marines with your melta guns, Tau with their fusion blasters, Dark Eldar with their heat lance, etc. Now you have to put these USR on every unit entry and have it written out each version of this rule works. Melta and vehicle explodes are two of the most common entries that gets recycled over and over again but instead of just putting the "Melta" or "Explode d3" wording on it they have the put a unique rule length explanation for how it works for every relevant unit entry. Going back to unit types one of the things thats sorely missing is Relentless as before half the units in the game had some form of relentless (notably vehicles and MCs which should have it and bikes which it shouldn't of been baked into the core unit type rule imo). Those vehicles, MCs, Terminators, etc often had heavy weapons because they could properly wield it without penalty where as something like a Space Marine using a Plasma Cannon/Missile Launcher in a tactical marine squad would need to remain stationary to properly use it. Its bad seeing Grey Knights with almost all their ranged weapons being heavy (a hold over from 7th) but not relentless so unless using stormbolters they are hitting on 4s with their shooting (or standing still which is silly for an assault army). Granted 7th had a ton of fairly irrelevant USR (soulburn anyone?) and too many unit types that flat out ignored others (Pinning could of been good but most units couldn't be pinned).
6. The culmination of all the above changes and GW not redesigning units/weapons/etc to have a proper purpose in this new edition. Yes every unit got a new profile but in general most of the weapons and units have very similar stat lines as they did in 7th but have most of their special rules removed so they went from having utility and different functions to being fairly vanilla with maybe a special rule. Weapons are the real victums of this homogenization with blast weapons and a load of utility weapons being reduced to point and shoot weapons that often have incredibly similar profiles to that of other weapons. Good example of this is the Land Speeder Storm which has a Heavy Bolter and that Launcher weapon (forgot the name). In 7th that launcher was a S4 large blast that had the blind rule which made it quite good at disrupting the enemy to set up your other units to take advantage of a weakened foe (outflank that baby and flash bang clumps of enemies). Now that same weapon which was a utility and decent anti horde weapon now just does D6 shots and and still S4 so its basically like an unreliable (and heavy) bolter or stormbolter. A lot of the way units worked before has been stripped away so many units are just functionally too similar which means that you end up with stuff like Assault Marines vs Vanguard Vets which basically means actual Assault Marines never see play.
All of these changes plus others have taken away from the game but for all that which was removed or "streamlined" we get very little in return. The game was promised to be faster but other than removing template/blast weapons (which where both fun and time consuming...... zog i missed my grotzookas ) the game isn't really all that fast except now it just snowballs in favor of one player or the other quicker. I haven't really seen a game of 8th where objectives mattered because by turn 4 somebody is close to being tabled. Stratagems/Command Points are potentially nice but half the armies don't have proper ones yet and personally they have this...... gimmick feel to them that doesn't seem as enjoyable. Its a mix of reroll dice from Bloodbowl, and Munition abilities from Company of Heroes with a bit of this "gotcha" feel to that just doesn't quite hit the mark for me. Overall the game lacks that depth that made list building and playing the game fun with 7th but now it feels shallow and simplified. I personally loved things like AV on vehicles because it forced you to utilize different tools for different tasks while i generally disliked things like Strength D which made toughness, saves, AV, etc irrelevant. Now it feels like the more versatile and effective strategy is to just throw buckets of dice at the problem until its dead so having 30 boyz punch a tank to death is more effective because they math it to death with a ton of 6s while not being gimped when needing to mulch through 100s of T3 wounds. Everything plays too similar to each other and lacks any feel of variety which can be fine in a game like Bolt Action where its grounded in reality but this is sci-fi fantasy so I would expect some wild and exotic weapons/units.
nou wrote: "Bad game design which addresses noones needs in any good way whatsoever" made GW the most succesfull company on London stock market last year simply because ￡38m sales worth of people are GW addicted crackpots?
Why are you ignoring the other factors involved here? You know, the people buying models because of the fluff/rules, or because in the UKGW's retail chain has driven independent stores out of the market and made GW's products the default (and, often, only) choice for people who want to get into tabletop wargames at all? Or the tons of money made from "three purchase" children who buy starter sets and then promptly drop out of the game? Or the fact that the gain is measured on a percentage basis, not total worth, on a stock exchange that doesn't include GW's primary competition?
Is it really the most probable answer? Or did GW hit a nail in the head and addressed the proper audience for it's product and found an close-to-optimal ballance between game complexity/depth/accesibility to reach both new and old playerbase?
Did they? Do you have any explanations of what good game design was involved, and how it benefits these particular people more than a game that fixed the problems I pointed out? Or are you just going to resort to "someone had fun, therefore GW is right?"
PS: after the debacle of 7th edition even a very poor game would look good and draw a lot of people back, simply because it isn't 7th. But that doesn't make it good on its own merits.
I'm not ignoring any factors, I'm just focusing on different than you do as a sort of "counterweight", because YOU are ignoring all non-rules factors (as in psychological, social, visual&tactile appeal, craftsmanship needs etc...) that make a "good game design". Statistically speaking, people don't play games because of those games ideal mathematical model or simulational value. They play what satisfy their particular need for fun and entertainment. This MAY BE a great mathematical ballance (as you may remember I am a quite able tournament Bridge player) or near-real-life tactical depth, but it can also be beer&pretzels actual throwing dice at painted models to see which will fall of the board faster and crash to more pieces... Or anything in between, depending on personal time available, individual levels of conscientiousness, introversion/extraversion, social skills etc... Discussing with you always devolves to talking about a strange "plato cave of ideal game design" without ever accounting for real players and their personalities. True "good game design" accounts for all those layers in a coherent fasion, with size of the assumed target audience being one of the key factors. You also falsely assume, that anyone who doesn't seek "mathematical depth" in 40K is somehow mentally inferior, despite repeatedly trying to prove yourself, that no edition of 40K is trully intelectually challangeing (Which I agree to fully, this is not "mental excercise game" out-of-the-box. It can be made into intelectuall excercise (of various sorts, but you also don't understand that such variety even exists, vide our past Maelstrom discussion), but almost any sandbox game can be made such with right starting conditions).
If you ask me "what good game design was involved" in 8th I can only "backengeneer" it, as I don't work at GW. My best guess was to make a game so stripped of individual tactical input so sheer volume of dice rolled ensures, that results are "statistically fair" and equalize odds of winning between old veterans and fresh players in a casual setting of non-optimised collections of minis this game has high enough win ratio to make players content. You may call it "bad game desig", I call it "catering to as wide target audience as possible". Does this make 40K a good wargame? Definately not as it crashes drastically when you can mathhammer most optimal builds and play in a "tournament" listbuilding fashion. Does this make 40K enjoyable for the largest number of people possible? Probably yes, because as we both saw numerous times at this forum, spectrum of needs that people try to fill with 40K is huge, ranging from beer&pretzels weekend enternainment to "up to teath near professional level of dedication". Even now you have people from both ends, some still complain about how overgrown mess this game is, some how stripped of content, variety or depth is...
I have a question for you - I don't remember any instance of you posting anything constructive on Proposed Rules forum. Like no houserules, no fandexes, no coherent reworks or scratchbuilt ruleset of your own design. None. And yet you seem to believe, that you are the only person here who really understands what good game desing is about. When asked directly what makes a good narrative game or a good fandex you always reply with "there is no such thing as good fandex/houserule" or that reply in broad but unprecise visions of what constitutes a good narrative game, all of which looks increasingly like you don't really play this game since at least 4th-early 5th ed. Am I right? How often do you play? How many games of 40K have you had in the last decade? How much practical experience with actually playing any wargame do you actually have and how much of your arguments are purely theoretical "I think that all of you would be happier if you just listened to what I think is good fun but I have totally no idea how to forge it into actual and succesfull game mechanics"?
Very good points all around
Funnily enough over on the proposed rules forum I suggested a Deathwing Terminator Heavy support squad with cyclones, I was told it would be OP, a few months later Tyrant Siege terminators were published, other rules I proposed was a token system that let you RR things for Tzeench, was told it would be OP, we now have it for all armies, funny how life turns out sometimes.
nou wrote: YOU are ignoring all non-rules factors (as in psychological, social, visual&tactile appeal, craftsmanship needs etc...) that make a "good game design".
Game design, in this context, refers to the actual rules for the game. The aesthetic appeal of painting space marine models is an entirely separate subject, one where GW's products are far more successful in design.
You also falsely assume, that anyone who doesn't seek "mathematical depth" in 40K is somehow mentally inferior
I do no such thing. And I don't know why you're talking about "mathematical depth", whatever that is. Strategic depth has nothing to do with math, it's about strategy vs. counter-strategy. Do I take the center objective, or attack my opponent's left flank? Is their counter-attack their intended way of winning the game, or a decoy aimed at distracting me from their real objective? Etc. 40k has almost none of that. You build as powerful a list as possible, then roll dice to see if it works. The winner has very little to do with who is the better general, and a lot to do with whose army has more powerful rules, or whose dice rolled better at key moments.
And don't bother telling me that this only matters to competitive players. Casual and narrative players want to take on the fluff role of being a general leading an army, not merely rolling better dice than their opponent. In fact, it's the competitive players who have the least need for this sort of depth, since many competitive players are content to treat the game as an abstract exercise in list optimization.
My best guess was to make a game so stripped of individual tactical input so sheer volume of dice rolled ensures, that results are "statistically fair" and equalize odds of winning between old veterans and fresh players in a casual setting of non-optimised collections of minis this game has high enough win ratio to make players content. You may call it "bad game desig", I call it "catering to as wide target audience as possible".
IOW, "don't make 40k a game, just have each player roll a die and the higher number wins". If the game is reduced to an exercise in rolling dice, where a skilled veteran and a complete newbie are equally likely to win, then you aren't playing a game. You're paying thousands of dollars to build a diorama on the table and then flip a coin to see who wins the "game".
Does this make 40K enjoyable for the largest number of people possible?
Hell no it doesn't. Most of the people who are satisfied by a game where winning is 50/50 and has little to do with player input are not going to spend thousands of dollars and countless hours of painting time on it. What it actually produces is, at best, a situation where as many people as possible are not actively repulsed by the game and the people who get into the hobby primarily for the fluff and models continue to buy those models. They aren't enjoying it as much as they'd enjoy a better game, but the rules aren't so miserable an experience that it overwhelms their enjoyment of the story and art and gets them to stop buying.
I have a question for you - I don't remember any instance of you posting anything constructive on Proposed Rules forum. Like no houserules, no fandexes, no coherent reworks or scratchbuilt ruleset of your own design. None. And yet you seem to believe, that you are the only person here who really understands what good game desing is about. When asked directly what makes a good narrative game or a good fandex you always reply with "there is no such thing as good fandex/houserule" or that reply in broad but unprecise visions of what constitutes a good narrative game, all of which looks increasingly like you don't really play this game since at least 4th-early 5th ed. Am I right?
I haven't posted much on the proposed rules forum, because there's no point in doing so. Good game design requires a ton of time and effort, and it's just not worth doing that for a game where the IP owner will immediately shut down any attempt to get paid for your work, and the overwhelming majority of the community (at least in my experience) has zero acceptance of fan-made rules. If I'm not going to get paid for my work and I'm not going to get to use it in my own games what's the point of doing it?
How often do you play? How many games of 40K have you had in the last decade? How much practical experience with actually playing any wargame do you actually have and how much of your arguments are purely theoretical "I think that all of you would be happier if you just listened to what I think is good fun but I have totally no idea how to forge it into actual and succesfull game mechanics"?
Last decade? Quite a few, most of them of the casual/narrative kind. Last couple of years? Not many, as the poor quality of the 40k rules has resulted in most of my gaming time being spent on X-Wing instead (a game I play several times a week on average). Every game of 40k I've played since 5th edition (or maybe early 6th) has been a miserable experience that was, at best, barely justified by the enjoyment of seeing my fully-painted army on the table.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, can we just laugh at the absurdity of the "PROVE YOU CAN DO BETTER" argument? Do you apply the same expectations to criticism of other things? If your friend says a restaurant burned their food and it sucked do you demand that they become a famous chef before they can give a bad review? If they say a movie sucks do you tell them to STFU until they've made a movie with at least $100 million in ticket sales?
Incognito15 wrote: Just curious with Chapter Approved being released what peoples perceptions were in regards to 40k.
Personally i was initially loving 8th but hav not played a game since September. Going to give it another shot.
Meh. I am enjoying the hobby quite a bit, plenty of bits and ideas for conversions. I am having a blast with all the shades and technicals. I really feel creative.
The game.... well. On one hand, a lot of units and builds that were downright unusable can be used now. Even if sub-par, is not a downright suicide to deploy them. Try that in 7th. Also, I appreciate in principle many of the new weapon profiles with the d3 and d6 damage. They removed part of the randumb, Warlord and psychs are more like I wanted them.
OTOH, they over-corrected as always. They removed the blast weapons, and the "d6 for template" is one of the biggest failures in game design I ever witnessed. So big, they implemented hot fixes in itinere so we have Russes, Prisms and whatnot with the double fire. That makes them on-par I guess, but is clunky. Horrible. And balanced around BS 3+. Is another episode of "we playtest only Marines and Eldar". They removed a big chunk of the randumb, but as Peregrine noted, some of the randomness, especially the one implemented by old designers (deepstrike) was there to determine a risk factor. There should be a middle ground. The design team is incapable of this
Then we have all the "smart synergy" builds with the characters. Some of them is nice and has more than one combination, I appreciate that for my DG (excluded the primarch - I am not going to buy that). But some is just braindead, same-all. Nothing new. They made the biggest names like RG or Cawl the biggest buff givers so they moved 40k from a "your dudes" game to a more "Warmachine" in which we now, instead enjoying of a setting, we are following the adventures of a group of Mary Sues. And the tabletop reflects that. Disgusting.
I am ambivalent on the new wounding table. I think is a necessary evil because there is not way we put the super-heavy genie back in the bottle.
Terrain sucks. No other way to tell this.
We are already seeing the -1 penalties going out of hand.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MagicJuggler wrote: you're converging towards a situation where you might as well not play 40k, and simply reduce the whole affair to a coin toss!
This is what they like. They killed WHFB for AoS. A WHFB that changed drammatically from 5th to 8th, to a point that killing it was an act of mercy.
nou wrote: YOU are ignoring all non-rules factors (as in psychological, social, visual&tactile appeal, craftsmanship needs etc...) that make a "good game design".
Game design, in this context, refers to the actual rules for the game. The aesthetic appeal of painting space marine models is an entirely separate subject, one where GW's products are far more successful in design.
You also falsely assume, that anyone who doesn't seek "mathematical depth" in 40K is somehow mentally inferior
I do no such thing. And I don't know why you're talking about "mathematical depth", whatever that is. Strategic depth has nothing to do with math, it's about strategy vs. counter-strategy. Do I take the center objective, or attack my opponent's left flank? Is their counter-attack their intended way of winning the game, or a decoy aimed at distracting me from their real objective? Etc. 40k has almost none of that. You build as powerful a list as possible, then roll dice to see if it works. The winner has very little to do with who is the better general, and a lot to do with whose army has more powerful rules, or whose dice rolled better at key moments.
And don't bother telling me that this only matters to competitive players. Casual and narrative players want to take on the fluff role of being a general leading an army, not merely rolling better dice than their opponent. In fact, it's the competitive players who have the least need for this sort of depth, since many competitive players are content to treat the game as an abstract exercise in list optimization.
My best guess was to make a game so stripped of individual tactical input so sheer volume of dice rolled ensures, that results are "statistically fair" and equalize odds of winning between old veterans and fresh players in a casual setting of non-optimised collections of minis this game has high enough win ratio to make players content. You may call it "bad game desig", I call it "catering to as wide target audience as possible".
IOW, "don't make 40k a game, just have each player roll a die and the higher number wins". If the game is reduced to an exercise in rolling dice, where a skilled veteran and a complete newbie are equally likely to win, then you aren't playing a game. You're paying thousands of dollars to build a diorama on the table and then flip a coin to see who wins the "game".
Does this make 40K enjoyable for the largest number of people possible?
Hell no it doesn't. Most of the people who are satisfied by a game where winning is 50/50 and has little to do with player input are not going to spend thousands of dollars and countless hours of painting time on it. What it actually produces is, at best, a situation where as many people as possible are not actively repulsed by the game and the people who get into the hobby primarily for the fluff and models continue to buy those models. They aren't enjoying it as much as they'd enjoy a better game, but the rules aren't so miserable an experience that it overwhelms their enjoyment of the story and art and gets them to stop buying.
I have a question for you - I don't remember any instance of you posting anything constructive on Proposed Rules forum. Like no houserules, no fandexes, no coherent reworks or scratchbuilt ruleset of your own design. None. And yet you seem to believe, that you are the only person here who really understands what good game desing is about. When asked directly what makes a good narrative game or a good fandex you always reply with "there is no such thing as good fandex/houserule" or that reply in broad but unprecise visions of what constitutes a good narrative game, all of which looks increasingly like you don't really play this game since at least 4th-early 5th ed. Am I right?
I haven't posted much on the proposed rules forum, because there's no point in doing so. Good game design requires a ton of time and effort, and it's just not worth doing that for a game where the IP owner will immediately shut down any attempt to get paid for your work, and the overwhelming majority of the community (at least in my experience) has zero acceptance of fan-made rules. If I'm not going to get paid for my work and I'm not going to get to use it in my own games what's the point of doing it?
How often do you play? How many games of 40K have you had in the last decade? How much practical experience with actually playing any wargame do you actually have and how much of your arguments are purely theoretical "I think that all of you would be happier if you just listened to what I think is good fun but I have totally no idea how to forge it into actual and succesfull game mechanics"?
Last decade? Quite a few, most of them of the casual/narrative kind. Last couple of years? Not many, as the poor quality of the 40k rules has resulted in most of my gaming time being spent on X-Wing instead (a game I play several times a week on average). Every game of 40k I've played since 5th edition (or maybe early 6th) has been a miserable experience that was, at best, barely justified by the enjoyment of seeing my fully-painted army on the table.
This is pretty much the answer I was predicting from you, on all accounts. Please, reread my previous post carefully and try for once LEARN something new about the world... Just to clear two things for you:
1.) Strategic depth as you described is pure mathematical depth in context of game theory. Rulesets of all sorts are pretty much camouflaging basic game theory concepts into more or less obscure artificial decision making setup. As long as you cannot invent new actions mid-game, all games are games theory subjects and even if you can invent new actions mid-game you can approach such anvironment from a game theory standpoint, especially if you have any estimation of how likely it is to encounter such non-catalogued actions.
2.) Game design in context of this thread is NOT what you wish it to be - "a POV stripped to just core rules". You try hard to make it so and in the process you fail miserably at seeing the big picture. Game design in context of any-scale commercial enterprise is about all those factors I mentioned. It would be probably less confusing for you if I were to use term "40K experience" instead of "40K game" in my posts. Actual ruleset is only a portion of entire picture that "40K experience" is and even in that portion there are many different "attractors" game designer can choose as a basis for it's foundation, which you repeatedly neglect or call "bad design". And overall, broad picture factors heavily influence or even determine what choices can be made to output most succesfull "end result experience from a game". Football (soccer for those from US) is a terrible set of rules yet it is the most popular sports game on earth, making it a good game design from "total football experience" POV.
Like it or not, 8th ed 40K is thriving because many people like it immensely. We both may not be such persons, there may be a large-but-still-insignificant number of people who loose their interest in this game after codices started coming out, but you simply cannot deny observable fact, that 8th ed is a major success and days of doomsayers have ended. From my perspective this is 3rd ed all over again - a reshuffle in playerbase with more incoming new players stream than quitting old players stream. A couple of years from now there won't be anything left from 3rd-7th "core engine" and post-8th new editions will recreate the cycle of growing complexity, to keep new generation of players hooked. As was with WHFB and AOS, as is with all perpetually updated games undergoing a major shift in paradigm.
Like it or not, 8th ed 40K is thriving because many people like it immensely.
Sorry to jump in, just an observation about this - an high number of people liking something does not mean that this something is good. Look, as an example, at the current state of "popcorn" cinema.
nou wrote: "Bad game design which addresses noones needs in any good way whatsoever" made GW the most succesfull company on London stock market last year simply because ￡38m sales worth of people are GW addicted crackpots?
Why are you ignoring the other factors involved here? You know, the people buying models because of the fluff/rules, or because in the UKGW's retail chain has driven independent stores out of the market and made GW's products the default (and, often, only) choice for people who want to get into tabletop wargames at all? Or the tons of money made from "three purchase" children who buy starter sets and then promptly drop out of the game? Or the fact that the gain is measured on a percentage basis, not total worth, on a stock exchange that doesn't include GW's primary competition?
Is it really the most probable answer? Or did GW hit a nail in the head and addressed the proper audience for it's product and found an close-to-optimal ballance between game complexity/depth/accesibility to reach both new and old playerbase?
Did they? Do you have any explanations of what good game design was involved, and how it benefits these particular people more than a game that fixed the problems I pointed out? Or are you just going to resort to "someone had fun, therefore GW is right?"
PS: after the debacle of 7th edition even a very poor game would look good and draw a lot of people back, simply because it isn't 7th. But that doesn't make it good on its own merits.
I'm not ignoring any factors, I'm just focusing on different than you do as a sort of "counterweight", because YOU are ignoring all non-rules factors (as in psychological, social, visual&tactile appeal, craftsmanship needs etc...) that make a "good game design". Statistically speaking, people don't play games because of those games ideal mathematical model or simulational value. They play what satisfy their particular need for fun and entertainment. This MAY BE a great mathematical ballance (as you may remember I am a quite able tournament Bridge player) or near-real-life tactical depth, but it can also be beer&pretzels actual throwing dice at painted models to see which will fall of the board faster and crash to more pieces... Or anything in between, depending on personal time available, individual levels of conscientiousness, introversion/extraversion, social skills etc... Discussing with you always devolves to talking about a strange "plato cave of ideal game design" without ever accounting for real players and their personalities. True "good game design" accounts for all those layers in a coherent fasion, with size of the assumed target audience being one of the key factors. You also falsely assume, that anyone who doesn't seek "mathematical depth" in 40K is somehow mentally inferior, despite repeatedly trying to prove yourself, that no edition of 40K is trully intelectually challangeing (Which I agree to fully, this is not "mental excercise game" out-of-the-box. It can be made into intelectuall excercise (of various sorts, but you also don't understand that such variety even exists, vide our past Maelstrom discussion), but almost any sandbox game can be made such with right starting conditions).
If you ask me "what good game design was involved" in 8th I can only "backengeneer" it, as I don't work at GW. My best guess was to make a game so stripped of individual tactical input so sheer volume of dice rolled ensures, that results are "statistically fair" and equalize odds of winning between old veterans and fresh players in a casual setting of non-optimised collections of minis this game has high enough win ratio to make players content. You may call it "bad game desig", I call it "catering to as wide target audience as possible". Does this make 40K a good wargame? Definately not as it crashes drastically when you can mathhammer most optimal builds and play in a "tournament" listbuilding fashion. Does this make 40K enjoyable for the largest number of people possible? Probably yes, because as we both saw numerous times at this forum, spectrum of needs that people try to fill with 40K is huge, ranging from beer&pretzels weekend enternainment to "up to teath near professional level of dedication". Even now you have people from both ends, some still complain about how overgrown mess this game is, some how stripped of content, variety or depth is...
I have a question for you - I don't remember any instance of you posting anything constructive on Proposed Rules forum. Like no houserules, no fandexes, no coherent reworks or scratchbuilt ruleset of your own design. None. And yet you seem to believe, that you are the only person here who really understands what good game desing is about. When asked directly what makes a good narrative game or a good fandex you always reply with "there is no such thing as good fandex/houserule" or that reply in broad but unprecise visions of what constitutes a good narrative game, all of which looks increasingly like you don't really play this game since at least 4th-early 5th ed. Am I right? How often do you play? How many games of 40K have you had in the last decade? How much practical experience with actually playing any wargame do you actually have and how much of your arguments are purely theoretical "I think that all of you would be happier if you just listened to what I think is good fun but I have totally no idea how to forge it into actual and succesfull game mechanics"?
Very good points all around
Funnily enough over on the proposed rules forum I suggested a Deathwing Terminator Heavy support squad with cyclones, I was told it would be OP, a few months later Tyrant Siege terminators were published, other rules I proposed was a token system that let you RR things for Tzeench, was told it would be OP, we now have it for all armies, funny how life turns out sometimes.
Glad to hear someone agrees with those
I too have some "successes" in predicting and implementing some changes before GW made them officially part of the game, but where I differ/fail to predict is the overall concept of what assures ballanced core game mechanic. This one GW done totally opposite, resulting in prevalent Alpha Strikes and 2nd turn tabling... But I must admit I don't have a clue how to combine quick gameplay, massive model/unit count, faction variation and low enough rate of force decay all into a single game, and "too long gameplay" was one of the most often repeated complaints about 7th ed I have read or heard.
Like it or not, 8th ed 40K is thriving because many people like it immensely.
Sorry to jump in, just an observation about this - an high number of people liking something does not mean that this something is good.
Look, as an example, at the current state of "popcorn" cinema.
Well, that is a fundamental question to ask really - what constitutes something is "good". What I'm arguing is that in case of commercial enterprises, popularity is the key factor in being "good enough". I tend to exclude personal taste and far ends of normal distribution from all my analysis, as those usually bear no statistical significance. Just to remind you all who read my posts - I do not like and do not play 8th anymore. I "borrowed" bits of it into "my 7.5th" but otherwise it is just not a game that I find entertaining. But I also don't like many other "good games" or "good things" in general and often see virtues in things that are very unpopular. I suppose your and mine POV on "state of popcorn cinema" also vary greatly, judging from the tone of your sentence on this subject...
Thus, whether or not a game is good or not is subjective, at least if you abandon "popularity" as the metric by which goodness is measured.
Saying "8th is a bad game" is comparatively meaningless, because someone could equally say "8th is a good game!" and have just as much rationale as the first statement: "My sense of taste is satisfied/not satisfied."
This is normally a good thing, because people naturally gravitate towards things that they believe are good, and repel things that they believe are bad. One might suspect that this would result in the people who participate in a hobby being fairly likeminded.
Unfortunately, however, 40k does not, for whatever reason. Many people who don't play, and who hate the game, still participate on its hobby boards because they "can believe it can be better." Fundamentally, that means that they find the point of view of the people who like it as-is to be so abhorrent that they have to move MOUNTAINS to try to "fix" the game, instead of just being repelled because it no longer matches their subjective tastes.
Either that or you could use popularity as a metric.
Like it or not, 8th ed 40K is thriving because many people like it immensely.
Sorry to jump in, just an observation about this - an high number of people liking something does not mean that this something is good. Look, as an example, at the current state of "popcorn" cinema.
Well, that is a fundamental question to ask really - what constitutes something is "good". What I'm arguing is that in case of commercial enterprises, popularity is the key factor in being "good enough". I tend to exclude personal taste and far ends of normal distribution from all my analysis, as those usually bear no statistical significance. Just to remind you all who read my posts - I do not like and do not play 8th anymore. I "borrowed" bits of it into "my 7.5th" but otherwise it is just not a game that I find entertaining. But I also don't like many other "good games" or "good things" in general and often see virtues in things that are very unpopular. I suppose your and mine POV on "state of popcorn cinema" also vary greatly, judging from the tone of your sentence on this subject...
In modern "popcorn" cinema, we generally have rehashes that only superficially borrow from an original to deliver a shallow product. See Covenant vs the original Alien, to say. BTW same director and good visuals anyway for most part, but less creative, and fundamentally different writers. The fandom mentality created a sense of "belonging" that obfuscates any critical thinking about how the money are spent on the product. "Just turn off your brain, dude". Does it remember you anything? To bring the point home, the good old SMBC
Thus, whether or not a game is good or not is subjective, at least if you abandon "popularity" as the metric by which goodness is measured.
Saying "8th is a bad game" is comparatively meaningless, because someone could equally say "8th is a good game!" and have just as much rationale as the first statement: "My sense of taste is satisfied/not satisfied."
This is normally a good thing, because people naturally gravitate towards things that they believe are good, and repel things that they believe are bad. One might suspect that this would result in the people who participate in a hobby being fairly likeminded.
Unfortunately, however, 40k does not, for whatever reason. Many people who don't play, and who hate the game, still participate on its hobby boards because they "can believe it can be better." Fundamentally, that means that they find the point of view of the people who like it as-is to be so abhorrent that they have to move MOUNTAINS to try to "fix" the game, instead of just being repelled because it no longer matches their subjective tastes.
Either that or you could use popularity as a metric.
Huge part of the reason why 40K community is exactly how you describe it is the amount of time and effort needed to participate in this hobby, expecially when one is an invested painter/converter. It can be hard to simply "move on" and people cope with discontent in many various ways, some of which are positive/constructive and some are not but all those ways are there to provide some degree of relief. Another thing is that 40K is a complex phenomenon, and you can be totally hooked on one aspect of it and totally despise another so it is possible to be in constant state of dissonance. Pretty much like in toxic relationships...
Like it or not, 8th ed 40K is thriving because many people like it immensely.
Sorry to jump in, just an observation about this - an high number of people liking something does not mean that this something is good.
Look, as an example, at the current state of "popcorn" cinema.
Well, that is a fundamental question to ask really - what constitutes something is "good". What I'm arguing is that in case of commercial enterprises, popularity is the key factor in being "good enough". I tend to exclude personal taste and far ends of normal distribution from all my analysis, as those usually bear no statistical significance. Just to remind you all who read my posts - I do not like and do not play 8th anymore. I "borrowed" bits of it into "my 7.5th" but otherwise it is just not a game that I find entertaining. But I also don't like many other "good games" or "good things" in general and often see virtues in things that are very unpopular. I suppose your and mine POV on "state of popcorn cinema" also vary greatly, judging from the tone of your sentence on this subject...
In modern "popcorn" cinema, we generally have rehashes that only superficially borrow from an original to deliver a shallow product. Se Covenant vs the original Alien, to say.
BTW same director and good visuals anyway for most part, but less creative, and fundamentally different writers.
The fandom mentality created a sense of "belonging" that obfuscates any critical thinking about how the money are spent on the product. "Just turn off your brain, dude".
Does it remember you anything?
To bring the point home, the good old SMBC
Spoiler:
I really, really don't want to derail this thread and go off-topic. We could argue that some of those "rehashes" have value exactly because they are rechashes, a sort of "meta level". Or we could discuss what "popcorn cinema" actually means, as many of new and popular titles are a good piece of cinematic craft and some "intelectually demanding" high-end niche films are simply pretentious, but this is a subject for a whole new thread and a whole new flame war (to be clear, I'm NOT defending Covenant by this post )
I really, really don't want to derail this thread and go off-topic. We could argue that some of those "rehashes" have value exactly because they are rechashes, a sort of "meta level". Or we could discuss what "popcorn cinema" actually means, as many of new and popular titles are a good piece of cinematic craft and some "intelectually demanding" high-end niche films are simply pretentious, but this is a subject for a whole new thread and a whole new flame war (to be clear, I'm NOT defending Covenant by this post )
Is less off-topic than you can think. I stated "pop-corn cinema" because I wanted to exclude the "niche" movies from the equation outright, with no comment whatsoever. Focus on the "popcorn one" but I used the term in no demeaning way. Hear me out. I used Alien as an example because I see a parallelism with 40k. The original had themes, even serious ones (the rape leitmotif - of course I would never demand this from 40k, Slaanesh notwithstanding!) and was visceral, and part of the fascination was with the lovercraftian mystery. Still popcorn movie and that's fine. You can make a smart popcorn movie or a dumb one. You can make a beautiful arthouse movie or a load of pretentious nonsense. Hell I used the tem "lovercraftian". I ADORE lovercraft, but he was not a good writer. Still so influential. And so visionary, that a nobel prize like Borges homaged him with a tale he wrote. Now look what they did with Covenant, and what are they doing with the Heresy in 40k. Is the same pornographic approach to lore and background. Feth you, mystery. But people, at least in part, will go to watch Covenant because they want to feel the same thing of the old movie. Also, we transformed many pop-culture icons in literal memes to the point that people identify as "nerds" and will go to watch Star Wars no matter Lucas (then) or Disney (now) will put on the screen. This is, among other things, another aspect of the emotional investment you very cleverly just described. It works the other way around, too. (Also, then I finish with the off-topic: there are rehashes with some value and thought put in. See Blade Runner 2049).
So does the "sunk cost" or "gambler's" fallacy apply to emotion?
I get that it's a lot of time, money, effort, and emotion into an army. I have the same problem when I'm told I can't play my army for whatever reason.
But if you don't enjoy it any more, then investing even more time, effort, money, and emotional energy is just going to be painful.
Better then 7th? Yeah, but 7th was a fine base rule set that was destroyed by mismanagement. Works just fine for 30k.
My biggest issues are
1.Cover rules are a joke.
2.Vehical facings are a joke. My tire can totally shoot that las cannon!
3.CQC is a pain when your enemy falls back for free and then guns you down. There should at least be a check of some kind. Part of the defense of melee has always been getting stuck in so you can not be shot.
4. Primares Fluff hurts my soul, but the rest of the lore updates are honestly pretty great.
I really, really don't want to derail this thread and go off-topic. We could argue that some of those "rehashes" have value exactly because they are rechashes, a sort of "meta level". Or we could discuss what "popcorn cinema" actually means, as many of new and popular titles are a good piece of cinematic craft and some "intelectually demanding" high-end niche films are simply pretentious, but this is a subject for a whole new thread and a whole new flame war (to be clear, I'm NOT defending Covenant by this post )
Is less off-topic than you can think. I stated "pop-corn cinema" because I wanted to exclude the "niche" movies from the equation outright, with no comment whatsoever. Focus on the "popcorn one" but I used the term in no demeaning way. Hear me out.
I used Alien as an example because I see a parallelism with 40k. The original had themes, even serious ones (the rape leitmotif - of course I would never demand this from 40k, Slaanesh notwithstanding!) and was visceral, and part of the fascination was with the lovercraftian mystery. Still popcorn movie and that's fine. You can make a smart popcorn movie or a dumb one. You can make a beautiful arthouse movie or a load of pretentious nonsense. Hell I used the tem "lovercraftian". I ADORE lovercraft, but he was not a good writer. Still so influential. And so visionary, that a nobel prize like Borges homaged him with a tale he wrote.
Now look what they did with Covenant, and what are they doing with the Heresy in 40k. Is the same pornographic approach to lore and background. Feth you, mystery.
But people, at least in part, will go to watch Covenant because they want to feel the same thing of the old movie. Also, we transformed many pop-culture icons in literal memes to the point that people identify as "nerds" and will go to watch Star Wars no matter Lucas (then) or Disney (now) will put on the screen. This is, among other things, another aspect of the emotional investment you very cleverly just described. It works the other way around, too.
(Also, then I finish with the off-topic: there are rehashes with some value and thought put in. See Blade Runner 2049).
You can say the same about a ruleset.
Funnily enough, I thought about throwing Blade Runner 2049 "at you" in my previous post I think I see where you're coming from with this (IMHO still rather far stretched) analogy. One thing though - there is substantial difference between active participation and investment in hobbies like 40K and passive participation in things like, say, Marvel Cinematic Universe. It is now quite a time burden to watch all those movies released since first Iron Man to be "up to date" with every plot since, but you really don't loose anything if you decide not to follow MCU further (for whatever reason you might have) if you started in 2008. With 40K however, after couple of years of "being up to date", collecting and painting your models you have invested not only time and money - there is a strong factor of personal achievement/personal growth in 40K. Quitting 40K after few years is more akin to changing career path or parting ways with your significant other (of course to much lesser extent, but still. I'm speaking from personal experience of switching/quiting/not being able to further participate in various hobbies/professions/careers in last 20 years, including quitting 40K for 15 years) than quitting on Dr. Who after n-th season... I think what you describe is more a feeling of dissapointment with how things develop than parting/forfeiting with something you held dear.
The sunk cost mentality definetly hurts 40k in some ways. Almost everyting GW ever realeased has to be included in the newer editions of the game. People get very upset (rightfully so) when their conversions are no longer legal but it means that GW never gets rid of its luggage.
Magic has 3 ways to play as well, and between them they vary wich cards are allowed and not allowed. It's community as far as I know does not mind as much as ours does.
On the movement debate, there is more I want to say but I can't find a good way to say it so maybe later.
It amazes me how often dakka polls turn into functional bell curves. It's actually rare for that sort of distribution to be repeated so often. It shows a remarkable degree of cohesion as people are clearly listening to one another, to draw even dissenting opinions closer to the norm so consistently.
But yeah, I think CA is showing a real trend of continuous improvement for the game. I think most people still upset are either those who resent their army having to wait for their codex (which is understandable), found their own personal play style/army composition neglected, or just hate the edition at its very core and can't be swayed.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Earth127 wrote: Magic has 3 ways to play as well, and between them they vary wich cards are allowed and not allowed. It's community as far as I know does not mind as much as ours does.
That's because MTG is very clear about how cards will be invalidated over time. If you sink money into standard you are aware a lot of that value is going to be lost a few years down the line. However, when they do restrict something in modern that was previously a mainstay, you do see a lot of anger. It just doesn't happen much. They also don't dare do it in legacy, that would be anger that would make the nastiest 40k community seem nice.
I think 8th is pretty great so far. Not perfect, but pretty great.
Personally I'm glad vehicle facing is gone. How many times do I have to argue no, you don't actually see my side. Yes, you can charge backwards to keep your front armor facing a certain direction. Is the front of the sponson a part of front armor or side armor?
It simplifies things for the better. For every "my tire can totally shoot this lascannon!" it eliminates 3 "charge with my ass, swivel in ways that make no sense to keep this side facing this direction, etc"
And firing from the barrels of the gun is gone, and I'm glad too. It's hard enough trying to put my face against the table to see if my unit can see another unit. You want me to do it for every weapon on my leman russ? You want me to squint from 4 different directions? How can you even know what the hull lascannon sees? You're never behind it.
I don't think anywhere I posted that my *opinion* was the defacto for the world. It is my *opinion*. Also never mentioned anything about wargames and simpler rules not being wargames. So take it down a couple notches there Ultimate Warrior.
Now a "wargame" has up until very recently involved two key factors that are absent from 40k. That being... maneuvering pieces being crucial, and battlefield management being key (managing terrain). In card games like Magic... or in board games like Battleship... or Dominion, or pick any of the hundreds of board games or card games that have us fighting our opponent, maneuver either doesn't exist at all (like card games) or is very benign (like board games).
So you are left with a game that, *to me*, is more similar to a board game or a card game than it is a wargame.
This has nothing, zero, nada to do with simplicity or any of the other straw man points you pulled. Dragon Rampant has a very siimple ruleset and is more of a wargame than AOS is. Kings of War has maneuver and feels like a wargame. Age of Simgar is like 40k, its more like a board game or a card game because *to me* maneuver and battlefield management don't really exist in either system. Its all about target priority (just like magic and board games) and its all about list building (deckbuilding). Gates of Antares is absolutely a wargame that feels like an actual battle being played, and not two people deckbuilding some combos and then playing them out.
Oh right, you can say anything because all OPINIONS are valid. Be that as it may, I'm still calling you out on it. How much maneuvering you feel a game has is a terrible distinction for what a board game or wargame is. Chess is a board game and it's all about maneuver.
So no, 40k is not a board game, nor is noting a perceived similarity to a board game a valid criticism of a wargame.
On this Peregrine vs nou debate:Peregrine is largely correct. It's not a particular great game, I personally prefer other games too (it's the wargaming equivalent of the marvel movies, lets not get tripped up with the analogy please). You're missing the point nou is making though.
People still like it, it might not be a test of skill or mental ability, but the experience delivered is pleasing to many people. 40k is more popular with this edition and I was already the most popular wargame ever.
I realise it's not an experience that you are looking for (nou and I feel the same), but that does not make it bad. Your criteria seem to be the reasonable for how a wargame should be judged (I like those things too), but that is not what the people GW want to sell to care about (fools, I know). You're judging a fish on it's ability to climb a tree.
8th edition? Absolutely loving it and I've been playing since the early days of Rogue Trader. I've seen what each edition brought to the table and as much as I loved 5th through 7th, 8th has become my absolute favourite.
I certainly agree that it isn't 100% perfect and that the changes are going to turn more hard core wargamers away but for the newer players to the hobby and those players who play more casual or narrative games this edition is the bee's knees. I have a much easier time remembering rules, how combo's work and just getting my head around things than I did previously. I've had better games under 8th and a lot more fun. I think the problem is that people are largely looking at 8th edition as a new edition of 40K when really you need to look at it as a whole new game. What you used to do and what you used to play will have changed so much and trying to stick to the old ways just won't work. Perhaps GW are looking at directing the game towards a different market dynamic now and hoping that established players will stick with it.
As for balance I have yet to see an unbalanced game thus far. Codex doesn't necessarily trump an Index army. Nor have I seen or played a game where I felt that the game was determined either by one army or another at the start or after the results of turn one. I have seen one what I would call an alpha strike list featuring Guilliman, a stormraven and two stormtalons but that player lost in the end because he couldn't hold the objectives.
At the end of the day, 8th edition is a fun more casual game than can be played competitively but only if you can let go of the past and have fun with it. In my opinion at least.
I think part of the issue is, as said before, the sunk cost fallacy. Which is also why I think people put up with 40k sometimes; they don't want to look stupid for spending hundreds (if not thousands) of dollars on a crappy game.
Ultimately though GW's decision to not invalidate things is going to cripple them, because it needs to be done. Look how they backtracked on the index stuff and now there's a ton of abusive combos by taking index wargear with codex updates (see: Eldar Autarch with wings and Dark Reaper launcher and the trait that lets him snipe characters).
They should have upfront said this will invalidate some model choices, but it has to be done to properly balance the game. People would still be upset, sure, but at least there'd be a valid explanation from GW about why it's being done, and I bet a lot of people would agree that it probably is for the best. It's the same reason Windows is such crap, all the legacy junk that Microsoft is forced to keep around so that crappy business still running a program written for windows 98 20 years ago can still run. It might suck but somebody who still is using models from Rogue Trader might not be able to currently use them 30 years later, nor should they expect (nay, demand) to be able to.
Oh right, you can say anything because all OPINIONS are valid. Be that as it may, I'm still calling you out on it. How much maneuvering you feel a game has is a terrible distinction for what a board game or wargame is. Chess is a board game and it's all about maneuver.
So no, 40k is not a board game, nor is noting a perceived similarity to a board game a valid criticism of a wargame.
Wayniac wrote: I think part of the issue is, as said before, the sunk cost fallacy. Which is also why I think people put up with 40k sometimes; they don't want to look stupid for spending hundreds (if not thousands) of dollars on a crappy game.
Ultimately though GW's decision to not invalidate things is going to cripple them, because it needs to be done. Look how they backtracked on the index stuff and now there's a ton of abusive combos by taking index wargear with codex updates (see: Eldar Autarch with wings and Dark Reaper launcher and the trait that lets him snipe characters).
They should have upfront said this will invalidate some model choices, but it has to be done to properly balance the game. People would still be upset, sure, but at least there'd be a valid explanation from GW about why it's being done, and I bet a lot of people would agree that it probably is for the best. It's the same reason Windows is such crap, all the legacy junk that Microsoft is forced to keep around so that crappy business still running a program written for windows 98 20 years ago can still run. It might suck but somebody who still is using models from Rogue Trader might not be able to currently use them 30 years later, nor should they expect (nay, demand) to be able to.
GW's reasons for invalidating things is fairly obvious and it has nothing to do with game balance but what wargear comes on the sprue/sculpt. Using balance as justification to remove stuff like rough riders or autarch wargear options would just be a bold faced lie and the community could call them out on it before you could say "chapterhouse". 8th was GWs attempt to cut off the old dead weight and start fresh but in roughly 6 months we are right back with multiple source rules bloat and inconsistent game design decisions.
Funnily enough, I thought about throwing Blade Runner 2049 "at you" in my previous post I think I see where you're coming from with this (IMHO still rather far stretched) analogy. One thing though - there is substantial difference between active participation and investment in hobbies like 40K and passive participation in things like, say, Marvel Cinematic Universe. It is now quite a time burden to watch all those movies released since first Iron Man to be "up to date" with every plot since, but you really don't loose anything if you decide not to follow MCU further (for whatever reason you might have) if you started in 2008. With 40K however, after couple of years of "being up to date", collecting and painting your models you have invested not only time and money - there is a strong factor of personal achievement/personal growth in 40K. Quitting 40K after few years is more akin to changing career path or parting ways with your significant other (of course to much lesser extent, but still. I'm speaking from personal experience of switching/quiting/not being able to further participate in various hobbies/professions/careers in last 20 years, including quitting 40K for 15 years) than quitting on Dr. Who after n-th season... I think what you describe is more a feeling of dissapointment with how things develop than parting/forfeiting with something you held dear.
Your analysis may be correct and explain more the phenomenon than the fanboyism - I can concede this without any problem. Nonetheless, I think that the fanboy culture has been pushed somehow in the, as I call it, post Big-Bang-Theory world in which "nerdity" has been made more normal because is easier to have consumers in this way. Look what happened to Star Wars (that was just a nice overrated space opera movie before*). If what I say looks too far fetched again, I can argue that GW brought it to a whole new level. "Hire for attitude" The design team is composed by "exalted" fanboys, and their creativity, enthusiasm and complete amateur approach is reflected in the product. A positive loop between fanboys if you wish. This can explain the Black Library, too!
*not completely correct because merchandising started from day 2 and Sir Alec Guinness understood it from day 0.
I'm kinda unclear on how removing units from the game is in service of improving the game as a whole, or even reducing overall game bloat. I fail to see how the removal of rough riders from the rules improved the game as a whole for example.
You can argue having the courage to remove things is good, but to what end? Magic does it because it prevents the artificial rarity of their products from swelling the price of said cards to the point it's impossible for a newcomer to enter the game. What purpose does it serve specifically in context of 40k?
SilverAlien wrote: I'm kinda unclear on how removing units from the game is in service of improving the game as a whole, or even reducing overall game bloat. I fail to see how the removal of rough riders from the rules improved the game as a whole for example.
You can argue having the courage to remove things is good, but to what end? Magic does it because it prevents the artificial rarity of their products from swelling the price of said cards to the point it's impossible for a newcomer to enter the game. What purpose does it serve specifically in context of 40k?
Well, not one of game play at all. It's just so GW can grip its IP in a stranglehold and try in vain to stave off third-party manufacturers. In my opinion a poor decision all around.
SilverAlien wrote: I'm kinda unclear on how removing units from the game is in service of improving the game as a whole, or even reducing overall game bloat. I fail to see how the removal of rough riders from the rules improved the game as a whole for example.
You can argue having the courage to remove things is good, but to what end? Magic does it because it prevents the artificial rarity of their products from swelling the price of said cards to the point it's impossible for a newcomer to enter the game. What purpose does it serve specifically in context of 40k?
Well, not one of game play at all. It's just so GW can grip its IP in a stranglehold and try in vain to stave off third-party manufacturers. In my opinion a poor decision all around.
As good as GW is doing, Asmodee still more than doubled its profit. They are making strides to be sure, but I am not convinced they will be able to knock off Xwing, You do usually see new editions do quite well in every game, staying power is more impressive. Even D&D 4th edition (roundly considered pure trash) sold very well when it came out. Dark Vengeance did very well when it first debut as well.
SilverAlien wrote: I'm kinda unclear on how removing units from the game is in service of improving the game as a whole, or even reducing overall game bloat. I fail to see how the removal of rough riders from the rules improved the game as a whole for example.
You can argue having the courage to remove things is good, but to what end? Magic does it because it prevents the artificial rarity of their products from swelling the price of said cards to the point it's impossible for a newcomer to enter the game. What purpose does it serve specifically in context of 40k?
It lowers the barrier of entry for new players. It's a real pain in the ass for the best models to be ones that don't even exist and you have to go hunting on 3rd party bitz sites to find the pieces for.
I've been playing 40K since 2nd edition, and I've to say 8th is the best edition thus far. Though I still have to say it is unbalanced, yet sufficiently fun. It is just that the level of imbalance is much more tolerable; the difference between the top units and armies and bottom tier trash is way lesser than in many previous editions.
I liked most of the streamlining of the core rules, though I have to say they wen't too far with the terrain. I also did not like the removal of weapon options in the indices, and I was really disappointed that with codices there often were not more gear options, there was even less! Having a lot of gear options is the sort of complexity I like, simply for the reason that it allows personalising the models more. On the other hand I feel the codices have added some unneeded complexity and created some balance issues. I was afraid that this would happen when they announced subfaction traits for all armies; some traits would simply be vastly better than others making some subfactions no-brainer choices from competitive perspective. And of course this was exactly what happened. Frankly, I think the game would have been better without such traits.
SilverAlien wrote: I'm kinda unclear on how removing units from the game is in service of improving the game as a whole, or even reducing overall game bloat. I fail to see how the removal of rough riders from the rules improved the game as a whole for example.
You can argue having the courage to remove things is good, but to what end? Magic does it because it prevents the artificial rarity of their products from swelling the price of said cards to the point it's impossible for a newcomer to enter the game. What purpose does it serve specifically in context of 40k?
It lowers the barrier of entry for new players. It's a real pain in the ass for the best models to be ones that don't even exist and you have to go hunting on 3rd party bitz sites to find the pieces for.
"Kitbashing is scary. In the grim darkness of GWs future, there is only monopose."
I like 8th. It has a lot going for it....enough to bring me back after 14 years. I still play 2nd.
Building a list for 8th is more fun. Playing 2nd is more fun.
I get tired of rolling hundreds of dice....even moreso the rerolls.
I get annoyed that no matter how you 'protect' a unit with vehicle screens or bubble wrap your opponent can shoot at whatever it seems almost always.
ofc the cover rules and lack of LOS barriers are an issue.
Less dice, some type of target priorities, better terrain rules and (all weapons outside of flamers and pistols should shoot farther than 12 "...If I can move about double my weapons range...there is a problem)
Actually, that is another thing that has really bugged me about 40K this year.
We have seen nothing but a solid year of Marine releases for 40K. New 'better' marines, 'better' marines sneaky guys, 'better' marines jumppack guys, 'better' marines bastardised hybrid skimmer tank, etc. Of course, we have also had Chaos releases, but they have also been marines, so that doesnt really count...
In the meantime, as Marines are getting their billionth undeserved (loyalist anyway) update and new line (and then you wonder why they sell well?) SoB players are still stuck with £5.50 - a - model 23 year old monopose models, Guard are still using 16 - 18 year old infantry and vehicles and several xenos races are also showing their age.
It would be nice to see something other than marines and bolterporn being shoved in my face every once in a while.
master of ordinance wrote: Actually, that is another thing that has really bugged me about 40K this year.
We have seen nothing but a solid year of Marine releases for 40K. New 'better' marines, 'better' marines sneaky guys, 'better' marines jumppack guys, 'better' marines bastardised hybrid skimmer tank, etc. Of course, we have also had Chaos releases, but they have also been marines, so that doesnt really count...
In the meantime, as Marines are getting their billionth undeserved (loyalist anyway) update and new line (and then you wonder why they sell well?) SoB players are still stuck with £5.50 - a - model 23 year old monopose models, Guard are still using 16 - 18 year old infantry and vehicles and several xenos races are also showing their age.
It would be nice to see something other than marines and bolterporn being shoved in my face every once in a while.
Well, we know there's going to be some new Nurgle daemons early next year so there's that.
SilverAlien wrote: I'm kinda unclear on how removing units from the game is in service of improving the game as a whole, or even reducing overall game bloat. I fail to see how the removal of rough riders from the rules improved the game as a whole for example.
You can argue having the courage to remove things is good, but to what end? Magic does it because it prevents the artificial rarity of their products from swelling the price of said cards to the point it's impossible for a newcomer to enter the game. What purpose does it serve specifically in context of 40k?
It lowers the barrier of entry for new players. It's a real pain in the ass for the best models to be ones that don't even exist and you have to go hunting on 3rd party bitz sites to find the pieces for.
I've started all my armies only because of the possibility of conversions
I hate monopose models and in fact I consider all the triumvirate guys, the death guard and primaris the ugliest miniatures in GW history, thousand sons are quite awful as well. All of them don't offer many possibilities of doing customizations and conversions.
I've created my own models that don't exist as official models since 3rd edition when I was 14 years old. For someone this may be a pain in the ass, for me it's the first reason I started collecting and playing my armies.
nou wrote: This is pretty much the answer I was predicting from you, on all accounts. Please, reread my previous post carefully and try for once LEARN something new about the world... Just to clear two things for you:
I've learned plenty. I've simply learned your opinion, then discarded it as wrong.
1.) Strategic depth as you described is pure mathematical depth in context of game theory. Rulesets of all sorts are pretty much camouflaging basic game theory concepts into more or less obscure artificial decision making setup. As long as you cannot invent new actions mid-game, all games are games theory subjects and even if you can invent new actions mid-game you can approach such anvironment from a game theory standpoint, especially if you have any estimation of how likely it is to encounter such non-catalogued actions.
That sounds nice in theory, but it doesn't match reality. People aren't doing game theory calculations when they're making decisions mid-game, and there's a definite difference between the strategy vs. counter-strategy decisions I mentioned and the pure mathematical analysis of things like average damage output per point. Pointing out that technically game theory is considered to be in the overall field of math from an academic point of view is not really relevant to this discussion.
2.) Game design in context of this thread is NOT what you wish it to be - "a POV stripped to just core rules". You try hard to make it so and in the process you fail miserably at seeing the big picture. Game design in context of any-scale commercial enterprise is about all those factors I mentioned. It would be probably less confusing for you if I were to use term "40K experience" instead of "40K game" in my posts. Actual ruleset is only a portion of entire picture that "40K experience" is and even in that portion there are many different "attractors" game designer can choose as a basis for it's foundation, which you repeatedly neglect or call "bad design". And overall, broad picture factors heavily influence or even determine what choices can be made to output most succesfull "end result experience from a game". Football (soccer for those from US) is a terrible set of rules yet it is the most popular sports game on earth, making it a good game design from "total football experience" POV.
Context matters. The context here is a discussion of the 8th edition rules, not how much you enjoy the aesthetics of the new space marine kit and how that improves your enjoyment of the game experience as a whole. Please don't move the goalposts and try to turn this into a discussion of GW's successes in the plastic model kit business, as if making an aesthetically pleasing model has anything to do with the quality of the 8th edition rules.
Like it or not, 8th ed 40K is thriving because many people like it immensely.
We both may not be such persons, there may be a large-but-still-insignificant number of people who loose their interest in this game after codices started coming out, but you simply cannot deny observable fact, that 8th ed is a major success and days of doomsayers have ended.
Not only can I deny it, I will deny it. 8th edition has not been a success. Why? Because it has fallen well short of its potential. It has only managed to bring back in the people that pretty much any new edition would have recovered, assuming even an absolute minimum of competence in fixing the obvious flaws of 7th edition. Deleting invisibility and formations and re-rollable saves, in a one-page errata document for 7th, would probably have had almost the same effect. But look at this thread: even on a heavily pro-GW forum about 40% of the votes are some version of "not happy with 8th edition", and a lot of people are commenting with specific complaints about where the rules are poorly designed. A major success would have been a game that convinced even the doubters that it's a good game, a game where only the bitterest of GW haters can find anything bad to say about it. This is not that game.
But really, it's a reflection of GW's overall business philosophy. They're content to be a small player in a niche market, and consider it a "success" as long as they make a modest profit every year. They have zero interest in growing the company beyond their niche and achieving any kind of mainstream success or matching the profit numbers of larger companies. 8th edition is just that on a smaller scale: adequate to keep a net profit for the year, not enough to really change the game.
From my perspective this is 3rd ed all over again - a reshuffle in playerbase with more incoming new players stream than quitting old players stream. A couple of years from now there won't be anything left from 3rd-7th "core engine" and post-8th new editions will recreate the cycle of growing complexity, to keep new generation of players hooked. As was with WHFB and AOS, as is with all perpetually updated games undergoing a major shift in paradigm.
That makes no sense at all. Why would GW want to hit the reset button like that and dump their existing customers, when a well-designed new edition could bring in new customers AND keep the existing ones? That's suicide from a business point of view. And it doesn't match what we know of GW's business model, where the core of the business is high-turnover sales to kids. A 14 year old buying a space marine starter set doesn't know about 6th edition or the history of the rules over the past few years, and probably won't be playing when 9th edition arrives. The only people who are going to be drawn into the game specifically because of an edition change are lapsed customers who are persuaded to reinvest in the hobby by something positive about the new edition. And you know what's better than trying to chase returning customers with a new edition? Not letting those customers go in the first place.
nou wrote: This is pretty much the answer I was predicting from you, on all accounts. Please, reread my previous post carefully and try for once LEARN something new about the world... Just to clear two things for you:
I've learned plenty. I've simply learned your opinion, then discarded it as wrong.
1.) Strategic depth as you described is pure mathematical depth in context of game theory. Rulesets of all sorts are pretty much camouflaging basic game theory concepts into more or less obscure artificial decision making setup. As long as you cannot invent new actions mid-game, all games are games theory subjects and even if you can invent new actions mid-game you can approach such anvironment from a game theory standpoint, especially if you have any estimation of how likely it is to encounter such non-catalogued actions.
That sounds nice in theory, but it doesn't match reality. People aren't doing game theory calculations when they're making decisions mid-game, and there's a definite difference between the strategy vs. counter-strategy decisions I mentioned and the pure mathematical analysis of things like average damage output per point. Pointing out that technically game theory is considered to be in the overall field of math from an academic point of view is not really relevant to this discussion.
2.) Game design in context of this thread is NOT what you wish it to be - "a POV stripped to just core rules". You try hard to make it so and in the process you fail miserably at seeing the big picture. Game design in context of any-scale commercial enterprise is about all those factors I mentioned. It would be probably less confusing for you if I were to use term "40K experience" instead of "40K game" in my posts. Actual ruleset is only a portion of entire picture that "40K experience" is and even in that portion there are many different "attractors" game designer can choose as a basis for it's foundation, which you repeatedly neglect or call "bad design". And overall, broad picture factors heavily influence or even determine what choices can be made to output most succesfull "end result experience from a game". Football (soccer for those from US) is a terrible set of rules yet it is the most popular sports game on earth, making it a good game design from "total football experience" POV.
Context matters. The context here is a discussion of the 8th edition rules, not how much you enjoy the aesthetics of the new space marine kit and how that improves your enjoyment of the game experience as a whole. Please don't move the goalposts and try to turn this into a discussion of GW's successes in the plastic model kit business, as if making an aesthetically pleasing model has anything to do with the quality of the 8th edition rules.
We both may not be such persons, there may be a large-but-still-insignificant number of people who loose their interest in this game after codices started coming out, but you simply cannot deny observable fact, that 8th ed is a major success and days of doomsayers have ended.
Not only can I deny it, I will deny it. 8th edition has not been a success. Why? Because it has fallen well short of its potential. It has only managed to bring back in the people that pretty much any new edition would have recovered, assuming even an absolute minimum of competence in fixing the obvious flaws of 7th edition. Deleting invisibility and formations and re-rollable saves, in a one-page errata document for 7th, would probably have had almost the same effect. But look at this thread: even on a heavily pro-GW forum about 40% of the votes are some version of "not happy with 8th edition", and a lot of people are commenting with specific complaints about where the rules are poorly designed. A major success would have been a game that convinced even the doubters that it's a good game, a game where only the bitterest of GW haters can find anything bad to say about it. This is not that game.
But really, it's a reflection of GW's overall business philosophy. They're content to be a small player in a niche market, and consider it a "success" as long as they make a modest profit every year. They have zero interest in growing the company beyond their niche and achieving any kind of mainstream success or matching the profit numbers of larger companies. 8th edition is just that on a smaller scale: adequate to keep a net profit for the year, not enough to really change the game.
From my perspective this is 3rd ed all over again - a reshuffle in playerbase with more incoming new players stream than quitting old players stream. A couple of years from now there won't be anything left from 3rd-7th "core engine" and post-8th new editions will recreate the cycle of growing complexity, to keep new generation of players hooked. As was with WHFB and AOS, as is with all perpetually updated games undergoing a major shift in paradigm.
That makes no sense at all. Why would GW want to hit the reset button like that and dump their existing customers, when a well-designed new edition could bring in new customers AND keep the existing ones? That's suicide from a business point of view. And it doesn't match what we know of GW's business model, where the core of the business is high-turnover sales to kids. A 14 year old buying a space marine starter set doesn't know about 6th edition or the history of the rules over the past few years, and probably won't be playing when 9th edition arrives. The only people who are going to be drawn into the game specifically because of an edition change are lapsed customers who are persuaded to reinvest in the hobby by something positive about the new edition. And you know what's better than trying to chase returning customers with a new edition? Not letting those customers go in the first place.
master of ordinance wrote: Actually, that is another thing that has really bugged me about 40K this year.
We have seen nothing but a solid year of Marine releases for 40K. New 'better' marines, 'better' marines sneaky guys, 'better' marines jumppack guys, 'better' marines bastardised hybrid skimmer tank, etc. Of course, we have also had Chaos releases, but they have also been marines, so that doesnt really count...
In the meantime, as Marines are getting their billionth undeserved (loyalist anyway) update and new line (and then you wonder why they sell well?) SoB players are still stuck with £5.50 - a - model 23 year old monopose models, Guard are still using 16 - 18 year old infantry and vehicles and several xenos races are also showing their age.
It would be nice to see something other than marines and bolterporn being shoved in my face every once in a while.
nou wrote: This is pretty much the answer I was predicting from you, on all accounts. Please, reread my previous post carefully and try for once LEARN something new about the world... Just to clear two things for you:
I've learned plenty. I've simply learned your opinion, then discarded it as wrong.
1.) Strategic depth as you described is pure mathematical depth in context of game theory. Rulesets of all sorts are pretty much camouflaging basic game theory concepts into more or less obscure artificial decision making setup. As long as you cannot invent new actions mid-game, all games are games theory subjects and even if you can invent new actions mid-game you can approach such anvironment from a game theory standpoint, especially if you have any estimation of how likely it is to encounter such non-catalogued actions.
That sounds nice in theory, but it doesn't match reality. People aren't doing game theory calculations when they're making decisions mid-game, and there's a definite difference between the strategy vs. counter-strategy decisions I mentioned and the pure mathematical analysis of things like average damage output per point. Pointing out that technically game theory is considered to be in the overall field of math from an academic point of view is not really relevant to this discussion.
2.) Game design in context of this thread is NOT what you wish it to be - "a POV stripped to just core rules". You try hard to make it so and in the process you fail miserably at seeing the big picture. Game design in context of any-scale commercial enterprise is about all those factors I mentioned. It would be probably less confusing for you if I were to use term "40K experience" instead of "40K game" in my posts. Actual ruleset is only a portion of entire picture that "40K experience" is and even in that portion there are many different "attractors" game designer can choose as a basis for it's foundation, which you repeatedly neglect or call "bad design". And overall, broad picture factors heavily influence or even determine what choices can be made to output most succesfull "end result experience from a game". Football (soccer for those from US) is a terrible set of rules yet it is the most popular sports game on earth, making it a good game design from "total football experience" POV.
Context matters. The context here is a discussion of the 8th edition rules, not how much you enjoy the aesthetics of the new space marine kit and how that improves your enjoyment of the game experience as a whole. Please don't move the goalposts and try to turn this into a discussion of GW's successes in the plastic model kit business, as if making an aesthetically pleasing model has anything to do with the quality of the 8th edition rules.
We both may not be such persons, there may be a large-but-still-insignificant number of people who loose their interest in this game after codices started coming out, but you simply cannot deny observable fact, that 8th ed is a major success and days of doomsayers have ended.
Not only can I deny it, I will deny it. 8th edition has not been a success. Why? Because it has fallen well short of its potential. It has only managed to bring back in the people that pretty much any new edition would have recovered, assuming even an absolute minimum of competence in fixing the obvious flaws of 7th edition. Deleting invisibility and formations and re-rollable saves, in a one-page errata document for 7th, would probably have had almost the same effect. But look at this thread: even on a heavily pro-GW forum about 40% of the votes are some version of "not happy with 8th edition", and a lot of people are commenting with specific complaints about where the rules are poorly designed. A major success would have been a game that convinced even the doubters that it's a good game, a game where only the bitterest of GW haters can find anything bad to say about it. This is not that game.
But really, it's a reflection of GW's overall business philosophy. They're content to be a small player in a niche market, and consider it a "success" as long as they make a modest profit every year. They have zero interest in growing the company beyond their niche and achieving any kind of mainstream success or matching the profit numbers of larger companies. 8th edition is just that on a smaller scale: adequate to keep a net profit for the year, not enough to really change the game.
From my perspective this is 3rd ed all over again - a reshuffle in playerbase with more incoming new players stream than quitting old players stream. A couple of years from now there won't be anything left from 3rd-7th "core engine" and post-8th new editions will recreate the cycle of growing complexity, to keep new generation of players hooked. As was with WHFB and AOS, as is with all perpetually updated games undergoing a major shift in paradigm.
That makes no sense at all. Why would GW want to hit the reset button like that and dump their existing customers, when a well-designed new edition could bring in new customers AND keep the existing ones? That's suicide from a business point of view. And it doesn't match what we know of GW's business model, where the core of the business is high-turnover sales to kids. A 14 year old buying a space marine starter set doesn't know about 6th edition or the history of the rules over the past few years, and probably won't be playing when 9th edition arrives. The only people who are going to be drawn into the game specifically because of an edition change are lapsed customers who are persuaded to reinvest in the hobby by something positive about the new edition. And you know what's better than trying to chase returning customers with a new edition? Not letting those customers go in the first place.
"Good ol' Peregrine, steady as a mountain"... All I can say is read my posts again and again untill you actually understand what I wrote as your responses CLEARLY show, that you understood nearly nothing (and your game theory response is really quite ridiculous example of having no clue at all about what I wrote means exactly). As usual I may add... All my possible responses are already written above, so best luck to you, I'm out of this thread. You "won" the debate again and can cherish your feel of mental superiority.
nou I hate to burst your bubble but Peregrine has actually argued his points a lot better than you have, and is ultimately much more convincing. There is no denying that a tighter ruleset is better for everyone, not just competitive players.
Anyway, in response to the actual thread, my group is still shaking down 8th edition. We really miss templates, and everyone hates the disengage rule, but we're still having fun with it. I still really miss 5th edition, but I probably always will so that's not a slight on the game as it is now.
I think a tighter ruleset isn't just about competitive play. Its about having a wargame play intuitively like you'd expect a battle to play out. It impacts narrative players just as much looking for a wargame that plays out how a battle would be expected to where things like cover and terrain are part of managing any battlefield in reality or fictitious literature.
The state of the rules for AOS and 40k right now alienate a very large chunk of the community (not the gw community, the overall wargaming community) in favor of a very gamey ruleset.
Its also not even about extremes. It doesn't NEED to be ultra complex, but a few bones thrown in to help immersion and intuitiveness would go a long way into bringing others back as well as not going too overboard with it to kill what has been built now.
creeping-deth87 wrote: nou I hate to burst your bubble but Peregrine has actually argued his points a lot better than you have, and is ultimately much more convincing. There is no denying that a tighter ruleset is better for everyone, not just competitive players.
This. Peregrine comes off as incredibly rude and condescending most of the time, but his points are still often very sound and accurate. A well written game benefits everybody, a poorly written one only benefits people who know how to abuse it. For instance, 40k's imbalances and poor rules hurt the casual/narrative players more than the competitive ones, because the competitive players don't care enough about the background or story to not just switch to whatever the FOTM army/list is. It's the person who really likes Orks or Necrons or Deathwatch that gets screwed because they have an emotional investment in their army, will build the army in certain ways that match the story/feel they want, and then find out that their choices, in the context of the game itself, are just bad and they have no hope of winning (or very little hope) with what they selected. How is that a good thing? Meanwhile, the competitive person doesn't care because they're just going to build the army using the best choices available, even if they are supposed to be rare or whatnot, so the poor rules benefit them more because they are exploiting it since they lack the emotional attachment to their choices, it's merely "optimal" or "not optimal".
40k as a game thrives DESPITE its poor quality rules and abysmal balance, not as a result of it. Now just why it thrives despite that has been debated for decades, but it does. The game lacks any serious merit to be considered a good game. The models sure are high quality (although perhaps not for the price, but that's another debate) but the game itself has no legs to stand on without them. Solid rules sets often can stand on their own merit if you took away the models (whether or not people would, the game itself would still be a solid set of rules regardless). Warmahordes, for example, if you took away the models and used appropriately sized counters (a common joke/retort to naysayers of the game, but valid for this comparison), the game itself could still stand on its own merit (assuming you had people who didn't mind using counters, let's assume that for purposes of discussion). Kings of War too (I've often seen people say the best way to test out factions in KoW is to use bases since the game is based on the size of a regiment's base, not individual models). Likely a lot of historical games (which, it's common to actually USE counters or just empty bases to test things out for these games, despite figures being cheaply available). But Warhammer? Take away the models, and you basically have nothing. I doubt anybody would touch Warhammer with a 10 foot pole if they replaced the models with counters of the correct size, while other games could stand alone on their rules and balance regardless of what's used in them.
"Good ol' Peregrine, steady as a mountain"... All I can say is read my posts again and again untill you actually understand what I wrote as your responses CLEARLY show, that you understood nearly nothing (and your game theory response is really quite ridiculous example of having no clue at all about what I wrote means exactly). As usual I may add... All my possible responses are already written above, so best luck to you, I'm out of this thread. You "won" the debate again and can cherish your feel of mental superiority.
From my perspective, it certainly seems like not only did Perry understand what you wrote, Perry actually argued the points better than you.
This. Peregrine comes off as incredibly rude and condescending most of the time, but his points are still often very sound and accurate. A well written game benefits everybody, a poorly written one only benefits people who know how to abuse it. For instance, 40k's imbalances and poor rules hurt the casual/narrative players more than the competitive ones, because the competitive players don't care enough about the background or story to not just switch to whatever the FOTM army/list is. It's the person who really likes Orks or Necrons or Deathwatch that gets screwed because they have an emotional investment in their army, will build the army in certain ways that match the story/feel they want, and then find out that their choices, in the context of the game itself, are just bad and they have no hope of winning (or very little hope) with what they selected. How is that a good thing? Meanwhile, the competitive person doesn't care because they're just going to build the army using the best choices available, even if they are supposed to be rare or whatnot, so the poor rules benefit them more because they are exploiting it since they lack the emotional attachment to their choices, it's merely "optimal" or "not optimal".
This is absolutely true. I just want to be able to build a nice looking thematic army and not to be completely gimped game-wise due my unit choices. Though I feel 8th is better in this regard than many previous editions, albeit far (far!) from perfect.
ahyh, the good old dakka error in conflation of 'the game has problems' with 'you're a fupwit for playing it', whilst folks on Dakka can be a smidge brusque its usually a result of how miserably benign rational discussion tends to go down with folks wilfully misunderstanding and then calling foul when they 'lose'
Whilst I've got a copy of 8th and my Eldar codex don't have much urge to play. I think its partly due questionable design choices and partly due to opportunity cost as due to RL commitments I only get to game once a week and I'd rather use the time for a 'good' game than Mc40k.
I'm sue I'll have a junk game blow out of Aeldari shenanigans at some point as mixing up what games you play tends to stop things going stale, part of my grumps with X-Wing stems from playing it into the ground.
Part of the issue with narrative play vs balanced is some themed armies just won't be able to be balanced.
Take the example of the Baneblade company; most people agree that it's fairly unbalanced one way or another (either it gets creamed or it does the creaming) which is unfun gameplay wise.
But it's a thematic list present in at least three 40k novels and various books and codices, and has been available in some iteration of the game's rules since 4th edition (though in 4th and 6th the Baneblade coy was apoc only - you could only take 1 in a regular army).
But it's very difficult to balance, as it's so skew. In fact, I think truly themed lists in 40k have to be skewed these days because factions have become caricatures of themselves. "Oh, you play blood angels? Well, if not every model has a jump pack you're DOING IT WRONG!"
I saw it in 30k too - questions like "is it fluffy for World Eaters to have a superheavy tank?" Well, of course it is; they are a legion just like everyone else. The idea that a faction is "<Unit Specialty> x 1000 and nothing else" causes the theme to skew a bit.
The blame for this rests solely on the shoulders of GW, who instead of saying "the Raven Guard are specialists at fluid warfare" says instead "the raven guard are the sneakiest and are so sneaky that they can't bring tanks with their superhuman power-armoured jetpack-wearing ninjas."
To be honest I agree with many of the 8th edition critizism here, but I can't understand one.
Why is people saying that 8th edition is complicated? My 10 year old niece learned to play just with the basic missions of "First Strike", and my 14 year-old small brother was capable of playing a full game agaisn't him just because he learned the rules of the game watching us play two games.
They did some mistakes, of course, but the game was pretty smooth.
It's a poor game that only seems better because 7th was just -THAT- bad and people were desperate for anything else that it seems amazing by comparison.
Of course, because 90% of people haven't played anything but a GW game (and 40k at that), their only really comparison to what makes it 'so good' are other poorly thought out, imbalanced GW games and editions.
It's not awful, but it's not very good either and the cracks are already seriously showing. Chapter Approved shows GW still have absolutely no idea what they're doing. Templates needs to come back and fast, vehicle facings too. Hell, anything that adds a splash of depth to positioning instead of turning the game into 'run your guys up the board, mosh pit in the middle and hope you brought the more powerful units'.
Galas wrote: To be honest I agree with many of the 8th edition critizism here, but I can't understand one.
Why is people saying that 8th edition is complicated? My 10 year old niece learned to play just with the basic missions of "First Strike", and my 14 year-old small brother was capable of playing a full game agaisn't him just because he learned the rules of the game watching us play two games.
They did some mistakes, of course, but the game was pretty smooth.
Just look at the word count. It's not Starfleet Battles levels of complexity, but the complete game (not just the basic tutorial missions) is a complicated mess. Just being able to understand the rules, including the unit-specific rules and how they interact with each other, and play without making mistakes takes a lot of work. Just reading the entire rulebook and codices for two armies is going to take longer than learning the rules for a genuinely simple game.
Galas wrote: To be honest I agree with many of the 8th edition critizism here, but I can't understand one.
Why is people saying that 8th edition is complicated? My 10 year old niece learned to play just with the basic missions of "First Strike", and my 14 year-old small brother was capable of playing a full game agaisn't him just because he learned the rules of the game watching us play two games.
They did some mistakes, of course, but the game was pretty smooth.
Compared to a lot of other games I've played it's still pretty complicated in terms of word count, not as complicated as infinity or something but still up there.
The thing that boggles me though is people saying it's simpler that 7th, it's not, it's a side shift at best
Formosa wrote: Compared to a lot of other games I've played it's still pretty complicated in terms of word count, not as complicated as infinity or something but still up there.
The thing that boggles me though is people saying it's simpler that 7th, it's not, it's a side shift at best
I don't see it.
8th has very basic initial rules and you then follow your own units special rules. There are occasionally some vaguely complicated interactions but not many.
Compare that with 7th where almost every unit type operated differently to other types.
You had 36 pages covering standard special rules (which, as in every edition, they stuck to early on then started throwing on faction-specific rules like confetti).
I mean what does Zealot do to a Jump Monstrous Creature?
Its not exactly rocket science - but having to carry this rule encyclopedia was far more difficult for new players to grasp than 8th.
Galas wrote: To be honest I agree with many of the 8th edition critizism here, but I can't understand one.
Why is people saying that 8th edition is complicated? My 10 year old niece learned to play just with the basic missions of "First Strike", and my 14 year-old small brother was capable of playing a full game agaisn't him just because he learned the rules of the game watching us play two games.
They did some mistakes, of course, but the game was pretty smooth.
Just look at the word count. It's not Starfleet Battles levels of complexity, but the complete game (not just the basic tutorial missions) is a complicated mess. Just being able to understand the rules, including the unit-specific rules and how they interact with each other, and play without making mistakes takes a lot of work. Just reading the entire rulebook and codices for two armies is going to take longer than learning the rules for a genuinely simple game.
You are right, if you have no idea about this game and you take the books and start reading them, it will be much more complex to learn how to play than if you have someone that knows how to play and explains it to you avoiding all the confusion normal GW rulebooks have. Probably thats why they understood it with ease, but I can see how giving them the rulebooks and saying "There you have it, read this and learn how to play" could be totally different.
Galas wrote: You are right, if you have no idea about this game and you take the books and start reading them, it will be much more complex to learn how to play than if you have someone that knows how to play and explains it to you avoiding all the confusion normal GW rulebooks have. Probably thats why they understood it with ease, but I can see how giving them the rulebooks and saying "There you have it, read this and learn how to play" could be totally different.
Yeah, having help makes a big difference. And TBH the issue is not complexity in isolation, it's complexity relative to depth (or, in 40k's case, lack thereof). 40k has a very high word count for its rules, but very little strategic depth. I keep using this example, but consider the situation with power weapons: you have to care about whether your model is armed with an axe or a sword, despite the fact that you're playing a game where a titan can kill the whole unit in one shot. You have to try to figure out how to best approximate the effects of all the random weapon stats when you're incorporating them into your strategy, even though having random shot count adds little or nothing to the depth of the game. Etc. The end result is that you could have a much simpler game that is easier to learn, even without help, without sacrificing any meaningful strategic depth.
Unit, you've been told to quit it. So quit it. Do not apologize in response. Just quit it. It's not funny anymore. It used to be funny, and now it's not. This is not one of those things that's funny, then not funny, but if you keep going it gets funny again. It just stays not funny any more.
8th edition is better than 7th, because 7th was gaudoffal. 8th isn't a good game, for me, as I just don't find it that much fun. Again, a lot of the points made above resound as accurate. Games with simple mechanics can be complex, and games with complicated mechanics can be simple. Chess, hell, Checkers has simple mechanics, but has complexity. 40k has a simple base, but each unit is a snowflake. It has complicated mechanics, in practice, without giving a complicated, meaningful choice filled game.
Tight balance helps all players. It helps casuals most, because a "casual" player can take what they want, with a fairly broad scope, and still compete with a min/max list. Imagine that min/maxing could only achieve a 5% effectiveness boost vs a list of random units and upgrades. I'm not saying it should be that way, I like having unit choices matter in a game like 40k, but not to the degree that choosing a list can give you a 50% effectiveness boost. That's still a problem.
The risk/reward systems are skewed, there's basically no reason to not infiltrate, not deep strike, not outflank. There's just no meaningful decisions to be made as a player there. Just observe the obvious and go for it. Infiltration at least put you in a position where you could be assaulted 1st turn, where now that can happen in your deployment zone.
The game is not able to scratch my competitive game itch, currently. There's no real sense of accomplishment to "outwitting" my opponent at 40k, especially with Guard as my main army. It was challenging, if ultimately futile, to play my Guard into my friend's Eldar in 7th. I enjoyed that more than the utter stomping I give now, unless I take a points handicap.
I was excited for 8th, and I like it better than 7th, but not nearly so much as 5th / 6th pre-Knight codex. If early 6th had an even playing field for all allies, I think it was my favourite edition, and I happened to like 5th a lot.
Unit, you've been told to quit it. So quit it. Do not apologize in response. Just quit it. It's not funny anymore. It used to be funny, and now it's not. This is not one of those things that's funny, then not funny, but if you keep going it gets funny again. It just stays not funny any more.
I can edit Knights in if you want.
Seriously, though, this is a real problem in the game. I use my own personal experience as an example of it, but don't pretend that the problem of Lords of War existing is something only I have, and that telling me to be quiet about it is somehow going to make it go away.
In the future, I'll type "knight house" instead of "baneblade company" if that makes people feel better. The problem still exists and won't go away just because you have a specific problem with the words I've chosen to convey it.
EDIT: So do you have any specific problem with the post I actually made and the points it has for the thread? Or are you just telling me to shut up?
EDIT: So do you have any specific problem with the post I actually made and the points it has for the thread? Or are you just telling me to shut up?
The specific problem is that, like certain Blood Angels aficionados, repeating the same post over and over again gets tiresome. It grates on the nerves. Yes, it would be nice to see the word "Super Heavy" detachments without the whining about how your precious big-tanks are fluffy but no one... will keep listening to me whine anymore.
If you want your posts taken seriously, quit complaining about your personal problems, and phrase the concerns in a way that keeps your personal whine out of it. You don't want to be "That Guy" on the internet, that has nothing to do with your gaming and everything to do with how you present your opinion. Your voice will carry more weight when you quit crying over your very niche example.
Also, I think it's unfortunate that the game can't keep Super Heavies in their own, EPIC game, where they would have a better rules fit. *shrug* My 2 cents on Super-Heavies in 40k, is that it deforms the shape of the game, unless you increase the rng range beyond a d6. Issue with core rules, not with models or the people that play them.
EDIT: So do you have any specific problem with the post I actually made and the points it has for the thread? Or are you just telling me to shut up?
The specific problem is that, like certain Blood Angels aficionados, repeating the same post over and over again gets tiresome. It grates on the nerves. Yes, it would be nice to see the word "Super Heavy" detachments without the whining about how your precious big-tanks are fluffy but no one... will keep listening to me whine anymore.
If you want your posts taken seriously, quit complaining about your personal problems, and phrase the concerns in a way that keeps your personal whine out of it. You don't want to be "That Guy" on the internet, that has nothing to do with your gaming and everything to do with how you present your opinion. Your voice will carry more weight when you quit crying over your very niche example.
Also, I think it's unfortunate that the game can't keep Super Heavies in their own, EPIC game, where they would have a better rules fit. *shrug* My 2 cents on Super-Heavies in 40k, is that it deforms the shape of the game, unless you increase the rng range beyond a d6. Issue with core rules, not with models or the people that play them.
I don't think I whined anywhere in the post; if I did, could you point it out to me? I was trying to illustrate a problem with 40k's balance from a personal standpoint, but in the future I'll just use some generic term instead of the specific one I'm familiar with.
And you and I agree fundamentally on the problem, but I think we disagree about how to fix it. But yes, the problem is with GW.
Formosa wrote: Compared to a lot of other games I've played it's still pretty complicated in terms of word count, not as complicated as infinity or something but still up there.
The thing that boggles me though is people saying it's simpler that 7th, it's not, it's a side shift at best
I don't see it.
8th has very basic initial rules and you then follow your own units special rules. There are occasionally some vaguely complicated interactions but not many.
Compare that with 7th where almost every unit type operated differently to other types.
You had 36 pages covering standard special rules (which, as in every edition, they stuck to early on then started throwing on faction-specific rules like confetti).
I mean what does Zealot do to a Jump Monstrous Creature?
Its not exactly rocket science - but having to carry this rule encyclopedia was far more difficult for new players to grasp than 8th.
They removed a couple of charts, and added lots more, they removed bs and ws charts and replaced it with a fixed dice role, then applied modifiers, then applied exceptions to modifiers, shooting and assault got streamlined and had a lot more complexity added after, weapons got streamlined and lots of randumb added to them, they created the indices, then released the codexs then chapter approved and all are required to use all your models/options/points cost etc.
Basically for every fix, they seemed to create another problem or exception, you are required to own 3/4 books just to play properly, that compared to actual simple games is shocking, hence why I say it's a side shift and not a dumpster fire.
Formosa wrote: Compared to a lot of other games I've played it's still pretty complicated in terms of word count, not as complicated as infinity or something but still up there.
The thing that boggles me though is people saying it's simpler that 7th, it's not, it's a side shift at best
I don't see it.
8th has very basic initial rules and you then follow your own units special rules. There are occasionally some vaguely complicated interactions but not many.
Compare that with 7th where almost every unit type operated differently to other types.
You had 36 pages covering standard special rules (which, as in every edition, they stuck to early on then started throwing on faction-specific rules like confetti).
I mean what does Zealot do to a Jump Monstrous Creature?
Its not exactly rocket science - but having to carry this rule encyclopedia was far more difficult for new players to grasp than 8th.
For better or for worse having your BRB with the rules for how a bike worked or what the melta rule does makes it universal across all armies and gives a standardization for the game. In 7th if a trukk explodes its going to act the same as a Hammerhead, Ghost Ark, Rhino, Leman Russ Tank (the Primarch explodes in a different way ), Wave Serpent, Raider, Land Speeder, etc. I don't have to look up every single vehicle to see what you need to roll for it to explode and how much damage that explosion does because in 7th it was standardized. Same thing for rules like melta, fearless, relentless, etc where in 7th if you just say the special rule then the vast majority of players instantly know what that does. With 8th you cannot have proper rules complexity because they have to spell out how each rule works on each datasheet entry. Granted some of the old special rules where just bloat like Soulfire but trimming it down and having a few core special rules makes way more sense than what GW did.
Galas wrote: To be honest I agree with many of the 8th edition critizism here, but I can't understand one.
Why is people saying that 8th edition is complicated? My 10 year old niece learned to play just with the basic missions of "First Strike", and my 14 year-old small brother was capable of playing a full game agaisn't him just because he learned the rules of the game watching us play two games.
They did some mistakes, of course, but the game was pretty smooth.
Its the layout of the rules, couple with the fact that they use a lot of words to convey very little. More to the point, the keywords nonsense and the sheer level of "not!" special rules. The game in essence also has glaring issues like a general lack of tactical depth and somehow managing to confuse people still.
I saw some people compare 40K with Infinity earlier. Infinity is by far the superior game, it has tighter rules, is better written and is very simple to play. At the core of it you have orders, with each model generating an order. You spend an order on your chosen model and do either 2 small actions or 1 big action. If an enemy model sees you perform an action then they can try to shoot you, dodge away, pop smoke or twiddle their thumbs.Yellow orders can only be spent on the models that generate them and green orders can be spent on any model. Its at the special rules that things get a bit complicated, but once you read it it makes sense, and all the special rules are in the rulebooks anyway, so everyone knows what they do.
In 40K 8th edition you have units. Each unit can walk, then it can shoot but it can also run but to find out how far it can run you roll a d6, then if you ran you now have penalties to how you shoot, but they only apply to certain weapons and other weapons give penalties for moving as well, then you roll a d6 to find how many d6's you roll to see how many d6's you roll to see how many d6's your opponent rolls to see if you do anything, then you can also assault which is actually really simple for a change until you get to the special rules, and every model has them listed under its own sheet and they often do the same thing, but have a different name...... And this is before stratagems.
And yet somehow, despite being more complicated to play 8th edition manages to have none of the complexity or depth that Infinity has, with your average 8th ed game devolving too pushing models into the middle and making pewpew noises as you roll your bucket of d6's to find how many buckets of d6's you have to roll to find out how many.......
I don't think I whined anywhere in the post; if I did, could you point it out to me? I was trying to illustrate a problem with 40k's balance from a personal standpoint, but in the future I'll just use some generic term instead of the specific one I'm familiar with.
"Part of the issue with narrative play vs balanced is some themed armies just won't be able to be balanced.
Take the example of the Baneblade company; most people agree that it's fairly unbalanced one way or another (either it gets creamed or it does the creaming) which is unfun gameplay wise.
But it's a thematic list present in at least three 40k novels and various books and codices, and has been available in some iteration of the game's rules since 4th edition (though in 4th and 6th the Baneblade coy was apoc only - you could only take 1 in a regular army)."
Comes across as...
I read these books, and I liked the idea of them, and now I want to do that, but it turns out it's not fun on the tabletop and that's not fair to me because I want to play the game my way and I should be allowed to do that. Basically, other people should be cool with what I want to do.
Which is a mild form of a forming habit, and I'm trying, dickishly, to inform you that you're becoming a cariacature. We have plenty of posters that will reply with something so predictable, it just... you start to stop taking them seriously. Someone's going to be a crunch-meister, and dickpunch anyone that thinks otherwise. Someone's a fluffbunny and anyone that considers gameplay before fluff is responsible for utterly destroying the fun in the game. Someone thinks Riptides are the Devil. Someone thinks that even if Blood Angels somehow get the bestest best codex ever, that they'll suck and melee sucks, and red paint sucks, and everything about Blood Angels sucks, and because of that 40k is sucks. You know, like that. And you read it often enough you can just look at the name on the left and know what they said, without having to look at their post.
Point is, that in the "State of 40k" thread, you've got to see beyond. Like how it's a miracle that "Someone" hasn't started complaining about how Forgeworld still isn't everyone's thing. I've never seen FW pieces in my 20 years of gaming, on a tabletop. I've seen exactly one Baneblade be used, ever. I've played against SoB once, I think. I expect that's probably a majority status, for the players of 40k on the whole. So the State of 40k includes the potential to face Multi-Super-Heavy forces, as well as Multi-Detachments of a Million Guardsmen, but it's uncommon.
By extending the bubble to "Super Heavy Lists" you're speaking to the issues of Knights, Wraithknights, Baneblades, Stompas [Or the mini-gargants, whatever they're called] and that's more inclusive to the state of the game. Not just, "I can't play the army I want to" but instead, "Here's an issue with Super Heavies, here's how it could be better".
For example, 7th edition Guardsmen were worthless because their weapon did not allow them to interact, meaningfully, with T7 + or vehicles. They didn't have the mobility to gain sight on JSJ troops. A low strength weapon was pointless in the game of invisible, rerolling saves targets. A concession to that, in 8th, is that everything can now wound on a 6, to offset somewhat the concept of scale.
If you want Super-Heavy armies to exist, they can't roflstomp armies that don't have access to plentiful AT at the expense of all other weapons. So you have to allow them to be wounded on 6's, or something, and that's a lame way to deal with it. Anyhow, that's what I'm getting at.
I put unbalanced but fun for occasional games because I have yet to win a single game of 8th, the new edition's changes to damage make gunlines much more oppressive to play against with a combat orientated army, my list which I have run several variations of was previously a very good allcomers list in 7th as it has a bit of everything albeit with a focus to combat (being space wolves and all) now gets utterly destroyed by the end of the 1st or 2nd turn which is before I can usually make any impact on the game as my guys are footslogging up the board what with rhinos being completely useless now. In terms of rules, the game has become way too homogenized and simple, removal of universal special rules was idiotic as now I have to ask my opponent and get them to show me why unit X can reroll X dice rather than him saying that they have zealot, master crafted etc. and me instantly knowing the rule. removal of initiative steps and turn taking to activate units is stupid as it makes the game less cinematic and takes even longer to complete the combat phase not to mention how easy it is to forget which units have attacked or not. I would also argue it makes the game less strategic as you can charge your units in guaranteeing they attack first, removing the need for thought about whether it's actually a good idea or not to charge half the time.
I'll be closely sticking to 30k as FW clearly realize that they've created a good ruleset from 7th and want to stick with it.
Despite all this I am in the process of starting a tyranid army as I've wanted some of the mini's for ages.
With the game containing practically no depth of play, there really is no reason to go through the hassle of bringing out all the gear and setting everything up for a two turn game. Most modern board games provide a richer more rewarding experience than 8th edition 40k.
Pancakey wrote: The current state has killed my gaming group.
With the game containing practically no depth of play, there really is no reason to go through the hassle of bringing out all the gear and setting everything up for a two turn game. Most modern board games provide a richer more rewarding experience than 8th edition 40k.
That's a pity. It went the other way round in our gaming group. We had a local tourney with 10 players at the 1500 pt level, recently. Players were really satisfied how it went. Mostly.
But I must admit that the 8th is lacking depth. GW made a shallow rule set which is not what players find challenging. I'm thinking of playing less 40k in the future.
The problem with the current state is that each army that still doesn't have a codex can't compete, even in semi-competitive metas, I'm not even considering tournaments.
The current state of 40k is a game with 8-10 playable factions out of 20ish.
For me, that I own 3 armies that still must use the index, I must tailor a lot against armies that use codex. In 7th edition I had way more viable options. And I play Drukhari, Orks and Space Wolves, nothing that was overpowered.
Speaking about myself the current state of 40k is extremely bad because I'm basically forced to play a green tide with the orks and a gunline with drukhari, which are two styles that I really hate. However CA made SW a bit more viable, and I'm enjoying them for the first time in this edition.
A fun fact to start: when you calculate the dmg output of power sword, axe and maul you actually get the same result against most targets (there was an exception around T6 where the axe was slightly better).
I'll say the biggest improvement 7th has over 8th is simplicity to learn the basics. If you compare the rules for a basic unit of say jump assault marines are on 1-4 pages in 8th (sometimes 1 if the weapon profile is included on the sheat). in 7th you would have: 1 the basic profile, 2 the page with the options, 3 the page with the special weapons lists, 4 The weapon profile page (all of these still exist but 1 and 2 are always on the same page), 5 the USR's, 6 the unit type, 7 the USR associated woth the unit type, 8 army-wide special special rule (still in 8th). 8th reduced the amount of pages you need to consult by anything between 50% and 12.5% for a basic unit and that is not even counting old formation/ detachment bonusses tough I will say they have been moved to stratagems wich is a more in depth system if you ignore poor balance , I'll get to that later. And that page count is complicated bloat that in the end doesn't come down to much more then shove different buckets of dice around. Tough of course no dice based game system ever really does. Reducing that page count drastically lowers the complexity of getting into the system tough. It doesn't reallly affect a veteran player, who among us would have a problem knowing the basic rules of a jump infantry model?
The biggest problem GW has with balance is the variety of ways people like to play 40K tough. As an example let's compare magicjuggler and Unit. Unit really wants to be able to use his3 baneblade list, whereas Magicjuggler wants to have a more skirmish style infanrty models fighting. GW wants both to be able to use the 40k rule-set to make a legally viable (not as in chance to win but chance to play without cheating) in all 3 of its ways to play. And this leads to the main rule balance problem. It's just an insane amount of variables and GW wants these things to feel different. As far as GW is concerned (and this has been covered in white dwarf etc.. ) the game supports the models not the other way around. In their own words they are a modelling company not a games company. Why do power axes/mauls/swords have differtent rules if the dmg output is functionally the same? So the feeling of playing axe is different then the feeling of playing sword.
Another factor is that identifying a problem is the easiest (tough most often forgotten) step of problem solving. Finding a solution is harder. A lot of people on dakka (or anywhere probably including GW) know where the main balance concerns are, but can we agree on a solution?
More accurately, I'm an MSE type of player. Meaning I like having lots of smaller units that can punch above their own weight, as being in multiple places does afford a certain tactical flexibility. When I ran Chaos in 7th, I used a Warband. So two small Marine units, two Plasma Termicide units, two small Bike units of Slaanesh (I gave the Champions Powerlances, since I got VoTLW for free anyway, and figure most Marine units don't tool for melee), and two Helbrutes. Not Havocs since I found them static alphastrike bait, but Helbrutes for more midfielding.
I skipped 6th and got back into 7th, so when I first tried it, I heard all these horror stories about fliers and superheavies, and somehow I found that really never added up. Yes, aircraft could only be hit on 6s, but they had to Reserve, and had limited fire arcs and maneuver. Sure, Eldar fliers had Vector Dancer but they were also fragile! I never particularly considered Stormravens either unfair or absolute crap, just a relatively middling unit that didn't see competitive play due to the need for rapid midpoint scoring.
Likewise, maybe it was because I skipped the earlier parts of 7th with the Adamantine Lance, but Knights didn't scare me too much. I remember one game versus a Knight, where I summoned a unit of Daemonettes to surround it for a turn (Fleet and +3 Run to reverse-bubblewrap it), while I focused on killing supporting elements. What *was* funny was I was also able to prevent the Knight from turning around to counterfire, due to its oval base. When the time was right, I used Ghoststorm to teleport Melta units to "finish the job" at pointblank.
I did use summoning, but the whole "recursive factory" was definitely something I found wouldn't work. Recursive zombies were easy to counter in WHFB if you brought enough choppy and dakka, and 40k exceeds Fantasy in both. Furthermore, the investment in points for Warp Charge tended to outpace the cost of just buying those units up-front.
Personally, the way I view it is the way I played (lots of small units, supports, elites) should be viable, alongside hordeplay, or taking a few superheavies. However, for that to work, the game shouldn't attempt to create a false equivalence between the units from all three playstyles, especially since in some cases that might ironically create its own inequivalence. For example, take vehicle weapons: In 7th, they had limited fire arcs. In 8th, you measure a single point from the hull. It looks equal at first since not a few proponents would argue that if you're for vehicles having fire arcs, you "must" be in favor of every unit having a fire arc and that would slow the game down. A strawman of course, even if you consider that certain units (ex: Riptides) would have gotten less hate with vehicle-like LOS. The detractors will note that a single vehicle has the firepower of a small infantry squad, only focused on one model. Due to the rules for casualty allocation, a Stormraven gets its full firepower against a 10-man Tacsquad as long as it is in range of *one* of the Tacmarines, but the inverse is explicitly untrue. Thus a performance inequivalence has been introduced in the name of equivalency! (Similar arguments can be made for flattened damage and AP penalizing elite armies over hordes, Psychic Focus favoring Magnus over other casters, etc).
Rather than false equivalency between armies, a more proper faction calculus should be established. There should be more "tech" ways to win a game, besides going for the brute force win. Sure, going first, getting uninterrupted Plasma Drops and killing your foe's firepower on your first turn is efficient but it's incredibly shallow. There's not the same degree of satisfaction as using a terrain-movement power to steal your opponent's Void Shield, using Tank Shock to shove enemy units out of cover, etc. The game should have a more "robust" ruleset that allows for improvised rather than bespoke tactics, and makes units feel and act distinctly (ex: Tanks shouldn't be allowed to Tokyo Drift or shoot from their treads), and I believe that can be done even while cutting out a lot of the bloat from 7th and 8th.
Peregrine wrote: Dumpster fire. 8th is a monument to bad game design that only looks good because 7th was somehow even worse. But TBH my biggest complaint isn't even the balance issues. It's the complete lack of strategic depth, over-homogenization, and obsessive D6 rolling. I can fix balance issues by agreeing to tone down the most abusive lists if it's necessary to have an enjoyable game with someone. I can't fix the issues with the core rules without writing an entirely new game.
Arbitrator wrote:
Templates needs to come back and fast, vehicle facings too. Hell, anything that adds a splash of depth to positioning instead of turning the game into 'run your guys up the board, mosh pit in the middle and hope you brought the more powerful units'.
Please no. Templates didn't add to the game enough to justify the arguing about how they scatter, what's under them and moke the game slower, because every. single. model. has. to. be 2'. away. from. the. next. model. Ant the en result isn't that different from just randomising.
Formosa wrote:
Galas wrote: To be honest I agree with many of the 8th edition critizism here, but I can't understand one.
Why is people saying that 8th edition is complicated? My 10 year old niece learned to play just with the basic missions of "First Strike", and my 14 year-old small brother was capable of playing a full game agaisnt him just because he learned the rules of the game watching us play two games.
They did some mistakes, of course, but the game was pretty smooth.
Compared to a lot of other games I've played it's still pretty complicated in terms of word count, not as complicated as infinity or something but still up there.
The thing that boggles me though is people saying it's simpler that 7th, it's not, it's a side shift at best
It is simpler. the core is easy to grasp and then bolt things on top of. There might not be less rules total, but the rules you need are easy easy fro everyone and accessible for your own stuff. You don't need to understand every rule of every unit to play the game.
Vankraken wrote:For better or for worse having your BRB with the rules for how a bike worked or what the melta rule does makes it universal across all armies and gives a standardization for the game. In 7th if a trukk explodes its going to act the same as a Hammerhead, Ghost Ark, Rhino, Leman Russ Tank (the Primarch explodes in a different way ), Wave Serpent, Raider, Land Speeder, etc. I don't have to look up every single vehicle to see what you need to roll for it to explode and how much damage that explosion does because in 7th it was standardized. Same thing for rules like melta, fearless, relentless, etc where in 7th if you just say the special rule then the vast majority of players instantly know what that does. With 8th you cannot have proper rules complexity because they have to spell out how each rule works on each datasheet entry. Granted some of the old special rules where just bloat like Soulfire but trimming it down and having a few core special rules makes way more sense than what GW did.
No. Please no. List of special rules that are, in turn, lists of special rules spread over several books was horrible. Having all the rules for each unit in on place is so much better.
Takes less looking up too.
Templates prevented Conscript/Ork Boy Napoleonics. And spacing out for max coherency is still a thing, due to congalines, setting up bubblewrap, and the odd beam Psyker power/Orbital Bombardment. Play with better opponents.
USRs were not the problem. Redundant USRs (Stealth vs Shrouded) or USRs with nonindicative names (Crusader vs Zealot) were, as was a lack of "Meta-USRs." Case in point, Camo Cloaks gave +1 Cover instead of Stealth so a Lord Commissar couldn't give an entire squad Stealth. Wheras Warmachine would differentiate Stealth vs Granted[Stealth] or Field Marshal[Pathfinder] or any other degree of second-degree rule composites. USRs enable futureproofing, and not answering the same question twice.
Also, Keywords are interesting but GW shows how not to use them. Case in point, FAQing Grey Hunter Terminators so "they count as though they have the Terminator Keyword," rather than using variable scoping. Or making Stratagems and abilities work off of regex matches instead of scoping Keywords to weapons. Apparently Kustom Mega-Blastas and Starcannons are not plasma weapons. It's a good thing Haemotrope Reactors are only usable by Infantry or else you would get Carnifexes that can use them but not Exocrines, since Exocrines don't shoot Plasma, they shoot Plasmic. And Promethium can fuel change itself, as long as it's Flickering Flames of Tzeentch, and not Pink Fire of Tzeentch, since Fire is not Flame, but Flame is change.
Zealot wasn't a USR, it was blurb that said use these 2 USRs.
Hordes are powerfull now because there isn't a weapon desigend to deal with just them. Any weapon that has the shots to eat through a horde can also use it to chip away elites/tougher models. We need weapons that gain shots based on amount of models in an enemy unit, that would help
I'll say what I always say on these types of threads, but if you haven't already done so, get yourself into Bolt Action.
It's the same scale as 40k, rulebooks are cheap, and the design team is the ex-GW staff from yesteryear: Alessio C, Paul Sawyer, and the God-Emperor himself, Rick P.
Warlord Games' own model range is superb and well priced, but because it's historics, there are a ton of rival companies out there making high quality minis at very competitive prices. Minis are in both plastic and metal. And the alternate unit activation system is very good. It's not perfect, but it's a damn good game.
Earth127 wrote: Zealot wasn't a USR, it was blurb that said use these 2 USRs.
Hordes are powerfull now because there isn't a weapon desigend to deal with just them. Any weapon that has the shots to eat through a horde can also use it to chip away elites/tougher models. We need weapons that gain shots based on amount of models in an enemy unit, that would help
Zealot=Hatred+Fearless, and I get that you could Ctrl-C/Ctrl-V all instances of Zealot with Hatred+Fearless (except for one Word Bearers Warlord Trait, but that's an extreme edgecase). The point is, the rules "sound" similar but do completely different things. Ditto Furious Charge versus Rage. Making it "Charge Bonus[+1 Attack] or Charge Bonus[+1 Strength] would both cut down on redundant USRs, and provide a central rule to handle rulings on. For example, "how do abilities that nullify Charge Bonuses work" as opposed to having to say "negates bonuses from abilities that grant bonuses on the charge." ("But what about Crusaders? They reroll to hit anytime they are engaged by a new unit in melee. Do they still get the bonus on a charge, since the ability is not being granted by charging?" Now imagine multiplying this question across multiple bespoke rules).
Regarding hordes, you mean like...AOEs? Incidentally, weapons that hit based on the number of models "in a unit" fail to also model the fact that an AOE could hit multiple units. You know, Heavy Flamers on a Chimera while toasting the squad in the middle. It's now either or, a randomshot machinegun.
Arbitrator wrote: It's a poor game that only seems better because 7th was just -THAT- bad and people were desperate for anything else that it seems amazing by comparison.
Of course, because 90% of people haven't played anything but a GW game (and 40k at that), their only really comparison to what makes it 'so good' are other poorly thought out, imbalanced GW games and editions.
It's not awful, but it's not very good either and the cracks are already seriously showing. Chapter Approved shows GW still have absolutely no idea what they're doing. Templates needs to come back and fast, vehicle facings too. Hell, anything that adds a splash of depth to positioning instead of turning the game into 'run your guys up the board, mosh pit in the middle and hope you brought the more powerful units'.
I think with Index release GW had half a clue of what they were doing - only because they had involved a non-GW playtesting community. Now that they are back in their Ivory Tower cranking out crap rules, they're heading right back to the same flaming pit that was their previous rule sets. The recent jazz hands with conscripts and commisars shows they're overreacting without proper playtesting before they release anything post-index into the wild. If they'd let people play for a YEAR with the indexes before starting up Codexes again, I'd be decently reassured that they've done more than simply wanting to "power up" the game and just entice everyone into quick-buying the next shiny available from them.
They did the same thing with AOS though. When it was just the Grand Alliance books, things were fairly okay (still some issues, but overall not bad). Then came battletomes, which were fine at first, then they added in special rules to make them more Codex-like, and it just escalated from there. The indexes were fine for the most part, there were just some minor things they needed to adjust.
Wayniac wrote: They did the same thing with AOS though. When it was just the Grand Alliance books, things were fairly okay (still some issues, but overall not bad). Then came battletomes, which were fine at first, then they added in special rules to make them more Codex-like, and it just escalated from there. The indexes were fine for the most part, there were just some minor things they needed to adjust.
I think we can expect an escalation step in the 8th ed of 40k, too.
Some armies have pt entries in the index, in the subsequent codex, and in the subsequent CA.
Been playing this game since 2nd edition and it has NEVER been balanced. There are always 1-3 armies that are just plain stronger than all the others in every edition and can or will fluctuate mid-edition through FAQ's.
If balance is what you are looking for in a war game, you won't find it in any of Games Workshop's offerings.
The main thing that has changed IMO over the years is the divide between casual players and WAAC players.
These two styles of players (who play the same game) either antagonize or be passive aggressive (like hipsters arguing their thing is cooler than other person's) to just downright hostile towards each other . And you can see it in other game systems too like Magic or X-Wing where there is both casual and tournament play available.
If you love the models and fluff of GW games, you can stick with this game by finding other players who play the game like you do (and this might actually take you awhile). If you are WAAC, go find other WAAC players and you will have fun putting your most efficient best against your opponent's most efficient best.
If you're a hobbyist, go find other hobbyists and you will have fun putting together cool looking battles and finding fun narratives to talk about while playing.
There are even some players who like to play both ways (such as myself) and all it takes is a little conversation prior to playing to have a fun game for both of you.
If balance is what you are looking for in a war game, you won't find it in any of Games Workshop's offerings.
Yes you will in lotr.
Other than that I agree with your post. 40K is simply too large to be balanced. But I think GW is at least trying to adjust the outliers steadily now, which is a vast improvement to prior editions. The best way to balance the game is to talk to your opponent before the game.
If balance is what you are looking for in a war game, you won't find it in any of Games Workshop's offerings.
Yes you will in lotr.
Other than that I agree with your post. 40K is simply too large to be balanced. But I think GW is at least trying to adjust the outliers steadily now, which is a vast improvement to prior editions. The best way to balance the game is to talk to your opponent before the game.
I think they missed a great opportunity to do like Mantic did with Warpath; you have a squad-based game, and then a larger, more abstract game that has round movement trays to represent larger forces. Warhammer should have been like that, because part of the big problem is that it's a game that tries to have the low-level detail of a skirmish or squad-based game (e.g. This model has a power sword, this other model has a power maul) but also wants to have large armies where you want abstract values (e.g. This model has a power weapon, the exact type does not matter). From what I have seen, Warpath handles this very well and actually scales up correctly.
I'd like something to be done to mitigate the level of alphastrike, like letting us null deploy but with the potential for consequences, like how we could in 5th edition but you had to roll for units to arrive.
If balance is what you are looking for in a war game, you won't find it in any of Games Workshop's offerings.
Yes you will in lotr.
Other than that I agree with your post. 40K is simply too large to be balanced. But I think GW is at least trying to adjust the outliers steadily now, which is a vast improvement to prior editions. The best way to balance the game is to talk to your opponent before the game.
I think they missed a great opportunity to do like Mantic did with Warpath; you have a squad-based game, and then a larger, more abstract game that has round movement trays to represent larger forces. Warhammer should have been like that, because part of the big problem is that it's a game that tries to have the low-level detail of a skirmish or squad-based game (e.g. This model has a power sword, this other model has a power maul) but also wants to have large armies where you want abstract values (e.g. This model has a power weapon, the exact type does not matter). From what I have seen, Warpath handles this very well and actually scales up correctly.
That's true. When they announced 3 ways to play in the rumors of 8th edition I had actually hoped they'd do sth. like that. One of the problems of 40K is that it's always apocalypse and Kill team at the same time.
I don't say they should go back to pre-6th edition where you had unit limits depending on the number of points you played, but it would be cool if apocalypse was more than just "well, you can play more than 2000 points, you know?"
Like wotr allowed for lotr players to field huge armies and play a game in less than 5 hours.
If balance is what you are looking for in a war game, you won't find it in any of Games Workshop's offerings.
Yes you will in lotr.
Other than that I agree with your post. 40K is simply too large to be balanced. But I think GW is at least trying to adjust the outliers steadily now, which is a vast improvement to prior editions. The best way to balance the game is to talk to your opponent before the game.
I think they missed a great opportunity to do like Mantic did with Warpath; you have a squad-based game, and then a larger, more abstract game that has round movement trays to represent larger forces. Warhammer should have been like that, because part of the big problem is that it's a game that tries to have the low-level detail of a skirmish or squad-based game (e.g. This model has a power sword, this other model has a power maul) but also wants to have large armies where you want abstract values (e.g. This model has a power weapon, the exact type does not matter). From what I have seen, Warpath handles this very well and actually scales up correctly.
That's true. When they announced 3 ways to play in the rumors of 8th edition I had actually hoped they'd do sth. like that. One of the problems of 40K is that it's always apocalypse and Kill team at the same time.
I don't say they should go back to pre-6th edition where you had unit limits depending on the number of points you played, but it would be cool if apocalypse was more than just "well, you can play more than 2000 points, you know?"
Like wotr allowed for lotr players to field huge armies and play a game in less than 5 hours.
Yes. LOTR seems to handle it right. You have Battle Companies (which seems to be more skirmish?), the regular game which is squad level, and then War of the Ring which is the one with the movement trays to fight large battles, right?
That's how AOS and 40k should have both been. It would have even given AOS something vaguely resembling the "rank and flank" that WHFB had.
I think the #1 thing that could help fix 40k in the short term is getting rid of I go, you go. Alternating activation really curbs the alpha strike problem, which is the #1 worst thing this edition has brought to the fore.
The second issue I am seeing with 8th edition are the Stratagems. They are a good idea that GW is spamming again, creating a whole host of problems (like how Formations started off ok, then degenerated quite quickly).
The lack of codexes is a temporary problem that will likely be solved in the next 6 months.
Vaktathi wrote: I don't think the Chapter Approved is going to do much other than really disincentivize anything Forgeworld, and caused some minor rejiggling of a few netlists, and that's about it. The game still has massive balance issues and GW's response was typically incomprehensible, as is tradition. Overall the game is better than 7th, but not really in a better place than some previous editions. It's playable, but still has massive glaring issues.
Chaos lists are going to need more than a "minor rejiggling" now that the malefic lord is no longer playable, and I can pretty much guarantee you every SM and CSM list is going to have a fire raptor or two in it now.
I was already seeing this.
Double Fire Raptor Dark Angels lists with Imperial Guard screening.
It was good before, it'll be better now.
I voted unbalanced. They're trying but look at all the nerfs they have thrown at imperial guard, and look at how absolutely DOMINANT that faction still is even after them. It's absurd. The core game mechanic of shooting without LOS needs to be fixed. A unit with that kind of ability should NEVER have strength on their weapons above 5 and should suffer a -1 to hit if they can't see their target. I would happily accept this nerf on hive guards as well.
Vaktathi wrote: I don't think the Chapter Approved is going to do much other than really disincentivize anything Forgeworld, and caused some minor rejiggling of a few netlists, and that's about it. The game still has massive balance issues and GW's response was typically incomprehensible, as is tradition. Overall the game is better than 7th, but not really in a better place than some previous editions. It's playable, but still has massive glaring issues.
Chaos lists are going to need more than a "minor rejiggling" now that the malefic lord is no longer playable, and I can pretty much guarantee you every SM and CSM list is going to have a fire raptor or two in it now.
I was already seeing this.
Double Fire Raptor Dark Angels lists with Imperial Guard screening.
It was good before, it'll be better now.
I voted unbalanced. They're trying but look at all the nerfs they have thrown at imperial guard, and look at how absolutely DOMINANT that faction still is even after them. It's absurd. The core game mechanic of shooting without LOS needs to be fixed. A unit with that kind of ability should NEVER have strength on their weapons above 5 and should suffer a -1 to hit if they can't see their target. I would happily accept this nerf on hive guards as well.
Guard have had >S5 no-los artillery weapons for...ever. In literally every edition actually. Most of which IG were absolute garbage in from a competitive standpoint. In fact, in the only other edition IG were ever considered particularly good, 5th, indirect fire artillery wasnt their chief punch either.
Yet suddenly such units and weapons are unthinkably powerful and just should not exist?
auticus wrote: The rumor back in the day before whfb died was that whfb 9th edition was going to use LOTR rules and I was very excited for that.
Now I wish they'd give us something a little more crunchy for AOS.
And 40k is ... well... it needs something too.
I was hoping AoS was going to be more like LOTR in rules, instead of the 4 pages of gak.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Red_Five wrote: I think the #1 thing that could help fix 40k in the short term is getting rid of I go, you go. Alternating activation really curbs the alpha strike problem, which is the #1 worst thing this edition has brought to the fore.
The second issue I am seeing with 8th edition are the Stratagems. They are a good idea that GW is spamming again, creating a whole host of problems (like how Formations started off ok, then degenerated quite quickly).
The lack of codexes is a temporary problem that will likely be solved in the next 6 months.
IT also suffers from too many models that are too large on too small of a playing area.
Red_Five wrote: I think the #1 thing that could help fix 40k in the short term is getting rid of I go, you go. Alternating activation really curbs the alpha strike problem, which is the #1 worst thing this edition has brought to the fore.
The second issue I am seeing with 8th edition are the Stratagems. They are a good idea that GW is spamming again, creating a whole host of problems (like how Formations started off ok, then degenerated quite quickly).
The lack of codexes is a temporary problem that will likely be solved in the next 6 months.
IT also suffers from too many models that are too large on too small of a playing area.
Yeah the size of the models and the sheer number now required have definitely affected the game, since we still play on a 6x4 table.
Red_Five wrote: I think the #1 thing that could help fix 40k in the short term is getting rid of I go, you go. Alternating activation really curbs the alpha strike problem, which is the #1 worst thing this edition has brought to the fore.
Being a grumbly old 2nd edition player, from what I've seen the biggest issue is terrain, which is not really a fault of the game unless we include the guidance/rules in the rulebook for how much terrain to put on the board. There was a video batrep posted on here the other day, Knights vs AM, and the amount of terrain being used was frankly laughable. If you go back to the 2nd ed campaign supplement (battle for Armageddon) that came with the boxed game, inside it had layouts (using the cardboard ruins that came in the box) for each of the battles. I'd be amazed in those set ups if you could even draw a line between any two points that was more than 20" long. The standard set up for a 40k game at that time was that you shouldn't really be able to see much of the opponents army (if any) from your own deployment zone.
Red_Five wrote: I think the #1 thing that could help fix 40k in the short term is getting rid of I go, you go. Alternating activation really curbs the alpha strike problem, which is the #1 worst thing this edition has brought to the fore.
Being a grumbly old 2nd edition player, from what I've seen the biggest issue is terrain, which is not really a fault of the game unless we include the guidance/rules in the rulebook for how much terrain to put on the board. There was a video batrep posted on here the other day, Knights vs AM, and the amount of terrain being used was frankly laughable. If you go back to the 2nd ed campaign supplement (battle for Armageddon) that came with the boxed game, inside it had layouts (using the cardboard ruins that came in the box) for each of the battles. I'd be amazed in those set ups if you could even draw a line between any two points that was more than 20" long. The standard set up for a 40k game at that time was that you shouldn't really be able to see much of the opponents army (if any) from your own deployment zone.
Grumble, grumble, in my day....
My take as well, terrain is the key. I mostly play footslogging Death Guard vs. Catachan Guard and it is mostly very fun and meaningful to the end as we use heavy terrain and Cities of Death rules for digging in. One has to actually manouver to get LOS, destroying artillery via deep striking does not actually lead to whole enemy army shooting at said units, tanks have to advance into city ruins proper and what not. Then again, we do use a houserule for units gaining cover if shot through intervening terrain and gentlemanly apply the barricade rules for cover rather liberally, because it makes for a better experience altogether. Can recommend for anyone.
Regarding alphastrike problems, new missions in Chapter Approved are taking tentative steps to fix that. Roving Patrol, for an example. You split your force in three, randomize one of them to start on field, roll 3+ for all others on turn two and get all the rest on the third. Can't wreck everything from the get go, won't have reliable bubble wrap against deep strikes, will actually have to plan movements to get to the objectives in time. Me likey.
Red_Five wrote: I think the #1 thing that could help fix 40k in the short term is getting rid of I go, you go. Alternating activation really curbs the alpha strike problem, which is the #1 worst thing this edition has brought to the fore.
The second issue I am seeing with 8th edition are the Stratagems. They are a good idea that GW is spamming again, creating a whole host of problems (like how Formations started off ok, then degenerated quite quickly).
The lack of codexes is a temporary problem that will likely be solved in the next 6 months.
IT also suffers from too many models that are too large on too small of a playing area.
Yeah the size of the models and the sheer number now required have definitely affected the game, since we still play on a 6x4 table.
I was a bit shocked to see 2 knights (1 per army) and some primaris repulsors on our 6x4 RoB board., almost the whole table was taken up by deployed forces, it was nuts. I can see the 4 pages for "here is a basic overview" but its far too shallow for where I think they want AoS to go. Ideally smaller forces for AoS and 8th seem to play better, but I rarely see 20-30PL forces or small warscroll count forces (too many warscrolls make it so the only benefit is to have hordes of guys)
auticus wrote: Yeah the base rules we have for 40k or AOS now work great fora basic game. But I really really want an advanced system on top of that.
This request gets shouted down quite often and leads to bannings from forums lol.
Where are you getting banned for advocating for a more advanced ruleset!? I can only imagine on an official GW group, can't imagine somewhere like here banning for discussing a more advanced ruleset.
auticus wrote:Yeah the base rules we have for 40k or AOS now work great fora basic game. But I really really want an advanced system on top of that.
This request gets shouted down quite often and leads to bannings from forums lol.
Thats actually very unsurprising as GW are of the mindset that "if it talks against my product it is verbotten, my game is perfect".
thekingofkings wrote:
auticus wrote: Yeah the base rules we have for 40k or AOS now work great fora basic game. But I really really want an advanced system on top of that.
This request gets shouted down quite often and leads to bannings from forums lol.
the problem is its so base that we almost dont have a game at all.
Quite literally this. 8th ed is about a step above waving toy soldiers around and making pew-pew noises.
Blacksails wrote:
auticus wrote: Yeah the base rules we have for 40k or AOS now work great fora basic game. But I really really want an advanced system on top of that.
This request gets shouted down quite often and leads to bannings from forums lol.
Where are you getting banned for advocating for a more advanced ruleset!? I can only imagine on an official GW group, can't imagine somewhere like here banning for discussing a more advanced ruleset.
Its Gw, they are known for their heavy handed censoring.
auticus wrote: Yeah the base rules we have for 40k or AOS now work great fora basic game. But I really really want an advanced system on top of that.
This request gets shouted down quite often and leads to bannings from forums lol.
Where are you getting banned for advocating for a more advanced ruleset!? I can only imagine on an official GW group, can't imagine somewhere like here banning for discussing a more advanced ruleset.
Pretty sure he's referring to a certain popular AOS forum that might as well be run by GW since it has a lot of the well known UK people who collaborate with GW and even has GW designers posting there from time to time. They don't take lightly to criticism of AOS there, not even when it's backed up by math and from someone who developed their own comp system before GW did, and if GW had been US based might have been the inspiration for the General's Handbook instead of SCGT.
Being a grumbly old 2nd edition player, from what I've seen the biggest issue is terrain, which is not really a fault of the game unless we include the guidance/rules in the rulebook for how much terrain to put on the board. There was a video batrep posted on here the other day, Knights vs AM, and the amount of terrain being used was frankly laughable. If you go back to the 2nd ed campaign supplement (battle for Armageddon) that came with the boxed game, inside it had layouts (using the cardboard ruins that came in the box) for each of the battles. I'd be amazed in those set ups if you could even draw a line between any two points that was more than 20" long. The standard set up for a 40k game at that time was that you shouldn't really be able to see much of the opponents army (if any) from your own deployment zone.
Grumble, grumble, in my day....
It is at least partly fault of the game because the terrain rules are really lacklustre. It is completely absurd that intervening terrain does nothing. There can be shitton of terrain between the target and the shooter, but as long as the target is not on the terrain, and the shooter can draw a LOS through a window or a hole in the wall, the terrain might as well not be there.
It seems like the vocal minority are the ones complaining looking at the results of the poll. Also it is annoying to me when people casually suggest UGIG like it is super easy to implement right after the release of a new edition.
Being a grumbly old 2nd edition player, from what I've seen the biggest issue is terrain, which is not really a fault of the game unless we include the guidance/rules in the rulebook for how much terrain to put on the board. There was a video batrep posted on here the other day, Knights vs AM, and the amount of terrain being used was frankly laughable. If you go back to the 2nd ed campaign supplement (battle for Armageddon) that came with the boxed game, inside it had layouts (using the cardboard ruins that came in the box) for each of the battles. I'd be amazed in those set ups if you could even draw a line between any two points that was more than 20" long. The standard set up for a 40k game at that time was that you shouldn't really be able to see much of the opponents army (if any) from your own deployment zone.
Grumble, grumble, in my day....
It is at least partly fault of the game because the terrain rules are really lacklustre. It is completely absurd that intervening terrain does nothing. There can be shitton of terrain between the target and the shooter, but as long as the target is not on the terrain, and the shooter can draw a LOS through a window or a hole in the wall, the terrain might as well not be there.
That is a big problem. It's like.. the entire game feels fake. You can have a ton of terrain on the board, and like 95% of it will do absolutely nothing and might as well not be there at all.
Primark G wrote: It seems like the vocal minority are the ones complaining looking at the results of the poll. Also it is annoying to me when people casually suggest UGIG like it is super easy to implement right after the release of a new edition.
the results of the poll and reading the comments show that while even the ones with positive leanings still generally are not without complaint, primarily on terrain rules. on a pro-gw board 53% positive is still not stellar by any means.
auticus wrote: Yeah the base rules we have for 40k or AOS now work great fora basic game. But I really really want an advanced system on top of that.
This request gets shouted down quite often and leads to bannings from forums lol.
Where are you getting banned for advocating for a more advanced ruleset!? I can only imagine on an official GW group, can't imagine somewhere like here banning for discussing a more advanced ruleset.
Pretty sure he's referring to a certain popular AOS forum that might as well be run by GW since it has a lot of the well known UK people who collaborate with GW and even has GW designers posting there from time to time. They don't take lightly to criticism of AOS there, not even when it's backed up by math and from someone who developed their own comp system before GW did, and if GW had been US based might have been the inspiration for the General's Handbook instead of SCGT.
Couldn't possibly have reasoned criticism, could we now eh?
As much as I'd love BFG to come back for new (plastic!) models, and the bonus that a 'living' game has in finding other players, I'm quite enjoying the excellent fan-made balance, tweaks, and expansions to the ruleset. I doubt GW could do better than the handful of individuals who have effectively fixed and improved upon a solid base game.
Still, plastic spaceships makes me happy in ways I probably shouldn't speak out loud.
auticus wrote: Yeah the base rules we have for 40k or AOS now work great fora basic game. But I really really want an advanced system on top of that.
This request gets shouted down quite often and leads to bannings from forums lol.
Where are you getting banned for advocating for a more advanced ruleset!? I can only imagine on an official GW group, can't imagine somewhere like here banning for discussing a more advanced ruleset.
I was banned from the TGA AOS forum for overly criticizing AOS' rules. I don't have this all set in stone so take with a grain of salt but after le banning a couple guys hit me up on twitter and we talked and the popular guess based on the fact that they all hang out over there and I'm over here in the USA so don't actually get any real facetime with them is not so much GW doesn't want to hear criticism, but rather the guys that love AOS how it is don't want criticism or asking for an advanced optional ruleset to be seriously considered because they don't feel its necessary or wanted and that complaining about the rules may bring about some change that they wouldn't like.
The rule over there is very much you cannot criticize the game. That is an actual rule that can get you banned. My particular instance came after responding in a thread that was started by someone else to discuss flaws with the game (i assume that anyone that posted negatively in that thread was warned or banned). I was struck with a warning for criticizing the game, so told the moderator if its a bannable offense to discuss the flaws in the game, particularly in a thread about that topic created by someone else, to just go ahead and ban me, which he did. There was no nasty language or anything from either me or the mod or anything dramatic.
That forum also does indeed have a few rules developers that post there, to include a couple of new developers that were hired on recently after creating fan content for the game and promoting it on that forum.
I'm getting back into the LOTR game now for my fantasy as I've always liked the system.
Primark G wrote: It seems like the vocal minority are the ones complaining looking at the results of the poll. Also it is annoying to me when people casually suggest UGIG like it is super easy to implement right after the release of a new edition.
People at the end still love and play the game, or at last try to. Myself, I put an intermediate score but I cannot say people are wrong with their criticism. Concerning the game, some idea is absolutely excellent, some execution less stellar, but the overall trend is dumbing down, fake-smart combos and tabletop-sues. You cannot deny that.
I was banned from the TGA AOS forum for overly criticizing AOS' rules. I don't have this all set in stone so take with a grain of salt but after le banning a couple guys hit me up on twitter and we talked and the popular guess based on the fact that they all hang out over there and I'm over here in the USA so don't actually get any real facetime with them is not so much GW doesn't want to hear criticism, but rather the guys that love AOS how it is don't want criticism or asking for an advanced optional ruleset to be seriously considered because they don't feel its necessary or wanted and that complaining about the rules may bring about some change that they wouldn't like.
The rule over there is very much you cannot criticize the game. That is an actual rule that can get you banned. My particular instance came after responding in a thread that was started by someone else to discuss flaws with the game (i assume that anyone that posted negatively in that thread was warned or banned). I was struck with a warning for criticizing the game, so told the moderator if its a bannable offense to discuss the flaws in the game, particularly in a thread about that topic created by someone else, to just go ahead and ban me, which he did. There was no nasty language or anything from either me or the mod or anything dramatic.
That forum also does indeed have a few rules developers that post there, to include a couple of new developers that were hired on recently after creating fan content for the game and promoting it on that forum.
feth, wow, that's some next level gak. Up there with the ridiculousness of r/warhammer with one of their mods. Not a place worth spending much time at unless there was another pull to the community, like a great painting/modelling section.
Its one thing to ban unreasonable discussions and gak posting, but level headed discussions and criticisms of the product? That's not gonna keep me there long.
auticus wrote: Yeah the base rules we have for 40k or AOS now work great fora basic game. But I really really want an advanced system on top of that.
This request gets shouted down quite often and leads to bannings from forums lol.
Where are you getting banned for advocating for a more advanced ruleset!? I can only imagine on an official GW group, can't imagine somewhere like here banning for discussing a more advanced ruleset.
I was banned from the TGA AOS forum for overly criticizing AOS' rules. I don't have this all set in stone so take with a grain of salt but after le banning a couple guys hit me up on twitter and we talked and the popular guess based on the fact that they all hang out over there and I'm over here in the USA so don't actually get any real facetime with them is not so much GW doesn't want to hear criticism, but rather the guys that love AOS how it is don't want criticism or asking for an advanced optional ruleset to be seriously considered because they don't feel its necessary or wanted and that complaining about the rules may bring about some change that they wouldn't like.
The rule over there is very much you cannot criticize the game. That is an actual rule that can get you banned. My particular instance came after responding in a thread that was started by someone else to discuss flaws with the game (i assume that anyone that posted negatively in that thread was warned or banned). I was struck with a warning for criticizing the game, so told the moderator if its a bannable offense to discuss the flaws in the game, particularly in a thread about that topic created by someone else, to just go ahead and ban me, which he did. There was no nasty language or anything from either me or the mod or anything dramatic.
That forum also does indeed have a few rules developers that post there, to include a couple of new developers that were hired on recently after creating fan content for the game and promoting it on that forum.
I'm getting back into the LOTR game now for my fantasy as I've always liked the system.
That forum was basically created due to the fact that when AOS first came out you couldnt discuss it anywhere without being dragged down due to negativity around the old warhammer setting being destroyed.
I think I prefer it haveing a goal of positivity rather than negativity.
Constant complaints about the same thing, which is not always something anyone but they can fix, is tiresome, and often not really a discussion.
I can understand that. Those weren't the complaints I had though (the setting). And after the owner stated a board wide warning to criticism I largely stopped, until that post came up and I replied in it (the post about discussing the flaws of the game)
Which for me are largely the same as my thoughts on the flaws for 40k.
The rules are very basic, need another layer on top of them such as actual terrain rules, and they could run optional so that if you liked the very basic rules you can still use those.
The irony here is that i was banned from warseer by Darnok for defending AOS as that was considered "trolling" the inflamed WHFB vets.
auticus wrote: I can understand that. Those weren't the complaints I had though (the setting). And after the owner stated a board wide warning to criticism I largely stopped, until that post came up and I replied in it (the post about discussing the flaws of the game)
Which for me are largely the same as my thoughts on the flaws for 40k.
The rules are very basic, need another layer on top of them such as actual terrain rules, and they could run optional so that if you liked the very basic rules you can still use those.
I don't personally find them to be to basic, and the terrain rules are decent I mean within the framework you can create "official" rules to cover most things, since im aware house rules are not accepted by your play group.
Im not trying to have a go at you or anything just wanted to offer a different persepctive to yourself and wayniacs.
TGA is like the safe zone between misions in Left 4 Dead 2, you know? Is a nice place to stay for some time, regain energies with other people, etc... but is not a place to stay all the time.
The real deal is out there, with the zombies, the guns, the action, the discussion, the heated arguments ,etc... but that at the end of the day comes with a mental toll for everyone involved. So is nice to have different places. I have many critizism agaisn't AoS. I post them in other forums, not in TGA.
auticus wrote: I can understand that. Those weren't the complaints I had though (the setting). And after the owner stated a board wide warning to criticism I largely stopped, until that post came up and I replied in it (the post about discussing the flaws of the game)
Which for me are largely the same as my thoughts on the flaws for 40k.
The rules are very basic, need another layer on top of them such as actual terrain rules, and they could run optional so that if you liked the very basic rules you can still use those.
I don't personally find them to be to basic, and the terrain rules are decent I mean within the framework you can create "official" rules to cover most things, since im aware house rules are not accepted by your play group.
Im not trying to have a go at you or anything just wanted to offer a different persepctive to yourself and wayniacs.
The problem with houseruling is that you shouldnt have to. the cost of the game and its reputation as a whole means it should be good enough as is. IT is a problem that neither AoS nor 40k 8th are good enough out of the box. they went for as basic (Imo lazy) as they could to churn profit.
I got into wargaming to play a game that resembled a war. A battle. Intuitively. Like I read about and watch in film. Thats what excited me about tabletop wargaming.
Wargames up until the past three or four years pretty much tried to do this at some level. Starting with Warmachine back in the early 00s, games have slowly eroded that and have moved more toward gamey elements as opposed to intuitive battle experiences.
An intuitive battle features maneuver and battlefield management.
Over the editions, beginning in whfb in 2010 and 6th edition 40k in 2012, these elements began to leave, and now with 40k and AOS these elements largely do not exist at all.
Both games are designed as primarily a deckbuilding game, only we use models instead of cards.
Both games feature a fast experience, where you start off and can get engaged in combat in turn 1. Indeed 40k is all about massive alpha strikes and largely ending the game in turn 2 or 3.
AOS is very similar.
Both games really appeal to people that love gamey games and who don't care about the intuitive battle part that drew a lot of us other guys in. However, a game where you can alpha puke all over your opponent every game and not really have to maneuver at all other than pick your target and deploy your models next to your target anywhere on the table does not resemble a game that requires some solid maneuver.
Now there is really nothing like that left on the market. Its all gamey games that don't resemble battles anymore so much as model versions of magic the gathering where you are popping card power combos off and rolling a lot of dice.
That can be fun and I'm not arguing that, but thats not tabletop wargaming to me. Thats just another board game in a sea of skirmish games and other board games or games that resemble board games more than they do a tabletop wargame that features maneuver and battlefield management.
Now I will emphasize the "to me" part because I believe in this thread there was an ultimate keyboard warrior that leapt on me and tried to net-singe me with his rage over my opinion on what a tabletop wargame is, and will emphasize this is my opinion.
Optional more advanced rules such as forests that block line of sight, rivers and water features that impede movement, etc... would be very small... and go a very long way.
I got into wargaming to play a game that resembled a war. A battle. Intuitively. Like I read about and watch in film. Thats what excited me about tabletop wargaming.
Wargames up until the past three or four years pretty much tried to do this at some level. Starting with Warmachine back in the early 00s, games have slowly eroded that and have moved more toward gamey elements as opposed to intuitive battle experiences.
An intuitive battle features maneuver and battlefield management.
Over the editions, beginning in whfb in 2010 and 6th edition 40k in 2012, these elements began to leave, and now with 40k and AOS these elements largely do not exist at all.
Both games are designed as primarily a deckbuilding game, only we use models instead of cards.
Both games feature a fast experience, where you start off and can get engaged in combat in turn 1. Indeed 40k is all about massive alpha strikes and largely ending the game in turn 2 or 3.
AOS is very similar.
Both games really appeal to people that love gamey games and who don't care about the intuitive battle part that drew a lot of us other guys in.
Now there is really nothing like that left on the market. Its all gamey games that don't resemble battles anymore so much as model versions of magic the gathering where you are popping card power combos off and rolling a lot of dice.
That can be fun and I'm not arguing that, but thats not tabletop wargaming to me. Thats just another board game in a sea of skirmish games and other board games or games that resemble board games more than they do a tabletop wargame that features maneuver and battlefield management.
Now I will emphasize the "to me" part because I believe in this thread there was an ultimate keyboard warrior that leapt on me and tried to net-singe me with his rage over my opinion on what a tabletop wargame is, and will emphasize this is my opinion.
To be honest I think you have experienced with wargaming the same thing many people has experienced with videogames. As the bigger fish on the industry try to catter to the more broad and "casual" (Not in a offensive manner) population, that is the bigger and as a result gives them the more money, the more "old" or "hardcore" fans look for things that retain the old-school feeling.
In videogames, you have that on Indie games, or videogames that small studios do. For example games like Battle Brothers, Thea: The Awakening or even Undertale, are pseudo-indie/indie games with a style of gameplay that you don't find anymore in the big AAA productions. Wargaming is the same. If you like for a more "proper" wargaming old-school experience, you need to go to more obscure and small games.
The problem? Indie games are normally single player. Wargames can't be single player, normally, and they need a much bigger investment to play than just dowloading a game and playing. So if the mainstream market doesn't have a place for proper old-school wargames, I can totally understand the frustration of not finding people to play that kind of more niche style of games.
Personall, with my group we use expanded terrain rules (That are really very simple, like as you said, forests covering line of sight, etc...), so I have find no problem with terrain don't being relevant in our games.
That is very accurate! You have to dig up obscure rulesets or do what I do and write your own.
The problem is that no matter the quality of the ruleset... be them great or bad, indie rulesets in the wargaming stratosphere are largely something you have to play solo.
I am working on adapting my 28mm ruleset to work more with 10mm scale now actually. The advantage is I can get some models easily for this scale since detail is not really that high and I can port it over onto the PC fairly easy.
auticus wrote: I can understand that. Those weren't the complaints I had though (the setting). And after the owner stated a board wide warning to criticism I largely stopped, until that post came up and I replied in it (the post about discussing the flaws of the game)
Which for me are largely the same as my thoughts on the flaws for 40k.
The rules are very basic, need another layer on top of them such as actual terrain rules, and they could run optional so that if you liked the very basic rules you can still use those.
I don't personally find them to be to basic, and the terrain rules are decent I mean within the framework you can create "official" rules to cover most things, since im aware house rules are not accepted by your play group.
Im not trying to have a go at you or anything just wanted to offer a different persepctive to yourself and wayniacs.
The problem with houseruling is that you shouldnt have to. the cost of the game and its reputation as a whole means it should be good enough as is. IT is a problem that neither AoS nor 40k 8th are good enough out of the box. they went for as basic (Imo lazy) as they could to churn profit.
But thats purely subjective, for many people it is good enough out of the box, so its just a matter of taste at that point.
I got into wargaming to play a game that resembled a war. A battle. Intuitively. Like I read about and watch in film. Thats what excited me about tabletop wargaming.
Wargames up until the past three or four years pretty much tried to do this at some level. Starting with Warmachine back in the early 00s, games have slowly eroded that and have moved more toward gamey elements as opposed to intuitive battle experiences.
An intuitive battle features maneuver and battlefield management.
Over the editions, beginning in whfb in 2010 and 6th edition 40k in 2012, these elements began to leave, and now with 40k and AOS these elements largely do not exist at all.
Both games are designed as primarily a deckbuilding game, only we use models instead of cards.
Both games feature a fast experience, where you start off and can get engaged in combat in turn 1. Indeed 40k is all about massive alpha strikes and largely ending the game in turn 2 or 3.
AOS is very similar.
Both games really appeal to people that love gamey games and who don't care about the intuitive battle part that drew a lot of us other guys in. However, a game where you can alpha puke all over your opponent every game and not really have to maneuver at all other than pick your target and deploy your models next to your target anywhere on the table does not resemble a game that requires some solid maneuver.
Now there is really nothing like that left on the market. Its all gamey games that don't resemble battles anymore so much as model versions of magic the gathering where you are popping card power combos off and rolling a lot of dice.
That can be fun and I'm not arguing that, but thats not tabletop wargaming to me. Thats just another board game in a sea of skirmish games and other board games or games that resemble board games more than they do a tabletop wargame that features maneuver and battlefield management.
Now I will emphasize the "to me" part because I believe in this thread there was an ultimate keyboard warrior that leapt on me and tried to net-singe me with his rage over my opinion on what a tabletop wargame is, and will emphasize this is my opinion.
Optional more advanced rules such as forests that block line of sight, rivers and water features that impede movement, etc... would be very small... and go a very long way.
really want to recommend to you LOTR, Wrath of Kings, and Confrontation to take a look at. LOTR is lMO the most "battle" like with shield walls, massed archery , cavalry etc...
Sgt. Cortez wrote:
Other than that I agree with your post. 40K is simply too large to be balanced. But I think GW is at least trying to adjust the outliers steadily now, which is a vast improvement to prior editions. The best way to balance the game is to talk to your opponent before the game.
bs. Infinity and Malifaux have a huge number of options and those games don't have serious balance issues. GW's (esp. new) style with stacking buffs and exciting and powerful abilities and units make balancing harder, but GW does far worse than the have excuses for. I've given up on telling myself they care about it; which is one of the reasons I don't think GW intend to make games well suited to competition.
auticus wrote:The rumor back in the day before whfb died was that whfb 9th edition was going to use LOTR rules and I was very excited for that.
Now I wish they'd give us something a little more crunchy for AOS.
And 40k is ... well... it needs something too.
That would have been nice. Less crunchy games seem to be what GW prefer and what makes money for them.
Spoiler:
auticus wrote:
I was banned from the TGA AOS forum for overly criticizing AOS' rules. I don't have this all set in stone so take with a grain of salt but after le banning a couple guys hit me up on twitter and we talked and the popular guess based on the fact that they all hang out over there and I'm over here in the USA so don't actually get any real facetime with them is not so much GW doesn't want to hear criticism, but rather the guys that love AOS how it is don't want criticism or asking for an advanced optional ruleset to be seriously considered because they don't feel its necessary or wanted and that complaining about the rules may bring about some change that they wouldn't like.
The rule over there is very much you cannot criticize the game. That is an actual rule that can get you banned. My particular instance came after responding in a thread that was started by someone else to discuss flaws with the game (i assume that anyone that posted negatively in that thread was warned or banned). I was struck with a warning for criticizing the game, so told the moderator if its a bannable offense to discuss the flaws in the game, particularly in a thread about that topic created by someone else, to just go ahead and ban me, which he did. There was no nasty language or anything from either me or the mod or anything dramatic.
That forum also does indeed have a few rules developers that post there, to include a couple of new developers that were hired on recently after creating fan content for the game and promoting it on that forum.
I'm getting back into the LOTR game now for my fantasy as I've always liked the system.
It's important to note that TGA was meant to be a place where AoS players can discuss their game without getting shat on for just saying they enjoy it. So removing people who criticize the AoS is in line with what they are (or were) trying to achieve. Whether that is a good fit or worth taking part in is another matter.
auticus wrote:Let me put it this way.
I got into wargaming to play a game that resembled a war. A battle. Intuitively. Like I read about and watch in film. Thats what excited me about tabletop wargaming.
Wargames up until the past three or four years pretty much tried to do this at some level. Starting with Warmachine back in the early 00s, games have slowly eroded that and have moved more toward gamey elements as opposed to intuitive battle experiences.
An intuitive battle features maneuver and battlefield management.
Sadly, this seems to be less popular and profitable.
Now there is really nothing like that left on the market. Its all gamey games that don't resemble battles anymore so much as model versions of magic the gathering where you are popping card power combos off and rolling a lot of dice.
How hard are you looking? Infinity, Kings of War (depending on your taste and definition) and most historical games have what you are looking for.
Both games are designed as primarily a deckbuilding game, only we use models instead of cards. That can be fun and I'm not arguing that, but thats not tabletop wargaming to me.
Thats just another board game in a sea of skirmish games and other board games or games that resemble board games more than they do a tabletop wargame that features maneuver and battlefield management.
Now I will emphasize the "to me" part because I believe in this thread there was an ultimate keyboard warrior that leapt on me and tried to net-singe me with his rage over my opinion on what a tabletop wargame is, and will emphasize this is my opinion.
Here's my issue with your posts: You take you subjective opinion, exaggerate it to make what you are "criticizing" sound ridiculous (i.e. make a strawman) and then try to pass it off as true. You also demean things that other people enjoy while you're at it, like skirmish games (it's a different style of wargame you don't even seem to be familiar with).
E.g. Reliance on list building is similar to deck building; therefore 40k actually a card game, which means:
Both games are designed as primarily a deckbuilding game, only we use models instead of cards.
You don't know that, on what actual evidence did you assign that intention to other people?
It's bad way to reason and it's misleading. Calling you out on it does not make one:
an ultimate keyboard warrior that leapt on me and tried to net-singe me with his rage
That exaggerated and you have no idea what my state of mind is.
Historical gaming is where that stuff still exists. The problem with that is A) It's an acquired taste, and B) It's like finding a rooster's teeth to find an old-timey gaming club that does historical gaming, because most of them are like secret societies that you have to know somebody who knows somebody. But those games still maintain that kind of feel.
I agree though. Tabletop games now have become incredibly gamey; it's part of why I could never really "get" Warmachine despite jumping into it and loving the core rules mechanics, but everything else felt like it was a game about metagaming the rules. Losing because you moved a single model a fraction of an inch too far forward or too far to the left may be incredible depth, but IMHO it doesn't belong in a tabletop game. 40k's IMHO only redeeming factor is the backstory (AOS has a good backstory I think, but has the stigma of not being WHFB), yet you constantly see people talk about "competitive' 40k lists designed to alpha strike or exploit rules, and again it feels like it's entirely metagaming the game instead of having an actual experience and telling a story through the models. it's like playing D&D where there's no roleplaying whatsoever, just metagaming.
I'm very familiar with skirmish games. You're taking offense when no offense was given. I certainly never demeaned skirmish games or wrote anything negative about skirmish games. I wrote I prefer battle games over skirmish games. I play a solid half dozen skirmish games on a regular basis. I'd like for not all my games to be skirmish based and I'm irked that the last bastions that I had are now gone and that everything has to be skirmish scale now it seems.
A deckbuilding game is a game where you have elements and you build a force from those elements where combinations are key. There are dozens of examples of deckbuilding games. They typically involve cards (hence the nomenclature "deckbuilding".
40k and AOS are deckbuilding games. You can replace the models with cards, and you approach the game the same as you would with any other deckbuilding game. They even removed most of the maneuver out of it.
The evidence is reading the rules and seeing how it is played.
The evidence is reading their developer's posts on forums, especially the newer devs that weren't devs a few months ago but are now and seeing them discuss game design. I am also a games designer and have designed deckbuilding games.
Explain and counter argue how exactly 40k and AOS are NOT like other deckbuilding games (other than saying... well they use miniatures instead of cards so they can't be deckbuilding games) and we can have a discussion. Because right now AOS and 40k do not in any circumstance resemble any battle that would be fought both in the real world, in film, or in fantasy literature. It has divorced itself from resembling a battle and in its stead we have a game (that can be fun which is the point of games) where you deckbuild a force and optimize its combos and then deploy it. One could design a game that uses the same basic mechanics, alter movement to strip it out entirely and replace it with a deck of game cards and dice and get the exact same experience out of it.
What would that look like?
On my turn I play my hand. I deploy my 5 death company cards and pick your targets. I roll dice. That gives me the outcome. Then whats left of your deck can retaliate. That is the same as alpha strikiing my entire 40k collection on you that is legally allowed and then using my strategems to deploy next to you with whats left and then charge. Same basic experience to me and to a lot of people.
That exaggerated and you have no idea what my state of mind is.
Your language was inflammatory and overtly and hyperly aggressive. I don't need to know what your state of mind was to read your remarks and find them beyond the realm of proper discussion and into the realm of aggressive attacking and posturing, which have no place in a discussion.
"Calliing people out" on their opinion on game design and plastic men is also largely useless and does nothing except spark return aggressive remarks. Thats not how you have a discussion or a debate. Thats trying to "win an internet argument", which is a totally different experience and not something I"m interested in pursuing.
Now onto other areas of discussion, from my own research as a game designer whose retirement fund is fueled completely by the games I help design and sell, gamey games DO make more money because the general populace is in general NOT interested in traditional wargames because of their complexity and their degree of difficulty in mastering and understanding. You're going to sell a lot more units of a game that resembles other popular games (which in this era are the deckbuilding games that derived from Magic). I attended a design conference last fall about this very topic. Game designers that continue down the complicated and complex game path do so at their own peril if making money is their goal.
Historicals do exactly what I want them to do minus the fact that they have no fantastical elements largely, but you have to play those solo often because people just aren't interested in games like that, or dont' want to play and invest in a system that few others do.
This is one reason 40k has still been successful DESPITE its rules, which I'm betting the majority of the 40k gaming populace would agree are fairly bad. It succeeds despite general consensus of bad rules BECAUSE you can always find a game. It is a snowball rolling down the hill. It feeds itself. You can write the best game system ever seen, and still have no players because players don't want to play a system that has few other players.
I am just now starting to embrace solo play because it will be how I get any use out of my huge miniatures investment. I am also working on adapting a 28mm system I wrote into 10mm because 3d printing and modeling allows me to make 10mm guys pretty easily (as you don't need a lot of detail).
What I do find interesting, auticus, is that you mention people not being interested in traditional wargames due to their complexity and degree of difficulty in mastering and understanding, yet it's been my experience that other than Warhammer most other "gamey" games have vast complexity and difficulty in mastering and understanding. Warmahordes is the big example of this one IMHO and the one I have experience with. The rules themselves are simple to learn, but there is a vast depth of complexity regarding unit interactions and positioning and everything else that goes into the game and a huge learning curve, yet it's basically (discounting X-Wing which isn't really a "wargame") the second most popular tabletop game besides Warhammer. Certainly the depth of mastery and complexity in Warmahordes seems well above the handful of historical rules that I've looked at.
I haven't looked at warmahordes in many years, but when I was playing its complexity was on par with whfb at the time.
Games like warmarhordes are also losing a lot of favor and ground, both from my own experience where I live (it is almost non existent now here) to what I read commonly on forums and fb groups. I'd also consiider Hail Caesar (the historical i'm most familiar with) to be a bit more than warmachine was back ini the day that I played it.
Games like xwing became HUGE and xwing is definitely not a wargame, and I am seeing a lot of developers try to copy its basic formula which is simplicity at its root and very gamey elements.
Simple rules. Small number of pieces to have to manage (skirmish scale). Quick game times. This is the new mantra of tabletop design today and if you attend game design conferences you'll see a lot of and hear a lot about.
The only thing 40k doesn't have on that list is small number of pieces to manage.
Sgt. Cortez wrote:
Other than that I agree with your post. 40K is simply too large to be balanced. But I think GW is at least trying to adjust the outliers steadily now, which is a vast improvement to prior editions. The best way to balance the game is to talk to your opponent before the game.
bs. Infinity and Malifaux have a huge number of options and those games don't have serious balance issues. GW's (esp. new) style with stacking buffs and exciting and powerful abilities and units make balancing harder, but GW does far worse than the have excuses for. I've given up on telling myself they care about it; which is one of the reasons I don't think GW intend to make games well suited to competition.
I'm not as familiar with Infinity, but Malifaux pales in comparison to GW when it comes to number of options. They are perhaps getting closer with number of units, but those units have few to no options. GWs style of giving options at the unit level has always been difficult to balance, and you are right that including buffs, especially auras makes this very difficult to balance.
auticus wrote: Games like xwing became HUGE and xwing is definitely not a wargame, and I am seeing a lot of developers try to copy its basic formula which is simplicity at its root and very gamey elements.
It's funny that you say that, because IMO X-Wing is more of a wargame than 40k. It doesn't have the same number of units on the table (unless you're playing with LoW, of course) but it does have way more emphasis on movement and positioning than modern 40k.
Sgt. Cortez wrote:
Other than that I agree with your post. 40K is simply too large to be balanced. But I think GW is at least trying to adjust the outliers steadily now, which is a vast improvement to prior editions. The best way to balance the game is to talk to your opponent before the game.
bs. Infinity and Malifaux have a huge number of options and those games don't have serious balance issues. GW's (esp. new) style with stacking buffs and exciting and powerful abilities and units make balancing harder, but GW does far worse than the have excuses for. I've given up on telling myself they care about it; which is one of the reasons I don't think GW intend to make games well suited to competition.
I'm not as familiar with Infinity, but Malifaux pales in comparison to GW when it comes to number of options. They are perhaps getting closer with number of units, but those units have few to no options. GWs style of giving options at the unit level has always been difficult to balance, and you are right that including buffs, especially auras makes this very difficult to balance.
I think this is part of the issue. GW's "complexity" comes from what is basically minutiae; squad-based equipment. Other games complexity is actual rules interactions and abilities that work with other things. So n the surface GW seems to have more complexity because there are dozens of options available. But once you scratch the surface, it becomes evident that their complexity is basically just the illusion of complexity whilst there is no real complexity to be found.
Wayniac wrote: I think this is part of the issue. GW's "complexity" comes from what is basically minutiae; squad-based equipment. Other games complexity is actual rules interactions and abilities that work with other things. So n the surface GW seems to have more complexity because there are dozens of options available. But once you scratch the surface, it becomes evident that their complexity is basically just the illusion of complexity whilst there is no real complexity to be found.
You're describing depth vs. complexity. Depth is the level of interesting strategic decisions to make, complexity is the word count of the rules. 40k has tons of complexity but very little depth.
Sgt. Cortez wrote:
Other than that I agree with your post. 40K is simply too large to be balanced. But I think GW is at least trying to adjust the outliers steadily now, which is a vast improvement to prior editions. The best way to balance the game is to talk to your opponent before the game.
bs. Infinity and Malifaux have a huge number of options and those games don't have serious balance issues. GW's (esp. new) style with stacking buffs and exciting and powerful abilities and units make balancing harder, but GW does far worse than the have excuses for. I've given up on telling myself they care about it; which is one of the reasons I don't think GW intend to make games well suited to competition.
I'm not as familiar with Infinity, but Malifaux pales in comparison to GW when it comes to number of options. They are perhaps getting closer with number of units, but those units have few to no options. GWs style of giving options at the unit level has always been difficult to balance, and you are right that including buffs, especially auras makes this very difficult to balance.
I think this is part of the issue. GW's "complexity" comes from what is basically minutiae; squad-based equipment. Other games complexity is actual rules interactions and abilities that work with other things. So n the surface GW seems to have more complexity because there are dozens of options available. But once you scratch the surface, it becomes evident that their complexity is basically just the illusion of complexity whilst there is no real complexity to be found.
GWs complexity is in finding the most min-maxed list, and less about maneuver on the table. The synergies between units are super obvious. This is one of the things I liked best about Primaris Marines, they really lack options, if all units were like this and had a defined role the game would be much easier to balance.
Oddly enough, the way GW handled Chapter Approved seems to have really irritated my local community. When 8 launched, the feelings here ranged from cautiously optimistic to outright excited. The excitement slowly gave way to nervousness that GW was going to ruin a good thing (because 8 was very well recieved here - yeah, it had its flaws, but they were WAY better than 6/7) and apparently now, people are getting fed up again. I've been busy with work so I haven't been to the LGS in about 3 months. Our LGS has a "bitz box" program where you can trade used wargames books and miniatures to the store in exchange for store credit. In the box last night were several core rule books, a bunch of 8th ed codexes and several full armies in the bitz box.
When I asked why, I was told that people were slowly getting frustrated and that the way Chapter Approved was handled really turned off a lot of people. I find it surprising that it made them mad enough to quit when these same people played all the way through the utter chaos that was 7th, but to each his own I suppose.
As for me, I am enjoying it for what it is. I think this set is fun for now, but I do think they are going to begin having issues within the next year. One of the defining features of 8th is the lack of rules bloat. It feels like they were aiming for something like Warmahordes where the rules were simple, but the in-game interactions between those rules could generate a lot of depth/complexity. I don't think they hit that mark. Between terrain being essentially pointless now, and the fact that you can only design so many re-roll buffs before the characters from different armies start functioning identically to one another, I think they are going to need to add more rules to up the depth of the game. When it comes to GW rules writing, we all know where that leads. I'm staying optimistic as I am enjoying 8th (and because AoS seems to be going strong with basically the same core structure), but I'd be lying if I said I wasn't worried.
@Peregrine:
I swear it feels like GW could mail actual gold bars to its customers as a "thank you", and you would complain that yours had a chaos symbol instead of an aquilla. In all the time I've been on here, I've only ever seen you aggressively bash all things GW. Don't get me wrong, they've earned plenty of that, but serious question - why are you still here? Is there ANYTHING about GW that you actually like? A few pages back, you accused a rule set that went from over 100 pages down to like ... 12 of having "continued rules bloat". Have they ever done something you were a fan of?
Wayniac wrote: I think this is part of the issue. GW's "complexity" comes from what is basically minutiae; squad-based equipment. Other games complexity is actual rules interactions and abilities that work with other things. So n the surface GW seems to have more complexity because there are dozens of options available. But once you scratch the surface, it becomes evident that their complexity is basically just the illusion of complexity whilst there is no real complexity to be found.
You're describing depth vs. complexity. Depth is the level of interesting strategic decisions to make, complexity is the word count of the rules. 40k has tons of complexity but very little depth.
This. In case it hasn't been posted here yet, here is what Extra Credits said on the Depth vs Complexity issue. They approach it from the perspective of video games but many of their points can be easily transferred across.
Tycho wrote: I swear it feels like GW could mail actual gold bars to its customers as a "thank you", and you would complain that yours had a chaos symbol instead of an aquilla. In all the time I've been on here, I've only ever seen you aggressively bash all things GW. Don't get me wrong, they've earned plenty of that, but serious question - why are you still here? Is there ANYTHING about GW that you actually like?
I like the fluff and the models, at least when GW's recent choices don't bring them down. If I hated everything GW does I'd just leave, because I wouldn't care anymore. But, like most of GW's critics, I care because I want to see the hobby I love overcome GW's incompetence in handling it and become a game worth playing.
A few pages back, you accused a rule set that went from over 100 pages down to like ... 12 of having "continued rules bloat". Have they ever done something you were a fan of?
I made that accusation because it's true. 8th cut the length of the core rules, but a lot of that came from moving the former USRs to each unit's individual rules. And in some ways that makes the rules bloat worse, not better. Where you used to have a brief section in the core rules for vehicles exploding when destroyed you now have dozens of different versions of the rule on individual units. And there are still too many rules that have little practical effect on the outcome of the game. The idea that 8th edition is a simple game is purely a myth. You can argue that it's slightly less bloated than the disaster of 7th (which tested the limits of how bloated the rules can get before the game becomes unplayable), but it's still a problem.
One of my biggest criticisms of 7th was that they had like five abstractions for the same thing.
Furious Charge, Hammer of Wrath, the Wulfen-hitting-twice thing, the extra +1 attack on the charge rules, and all that were, each and every one, abstractions of the basic concept of "this unit do good on the charge"
The scale is a problem, I think. When you're playing platoon level forces, the difference between Ogryns with Hammer of Wrath and Berzerkers with Furious Charge matters a bit more than if you're playing a Brigade-scale game, where "they're both good at charging so both get Furious Charge" is abstract enough.
40k is super hung up on tracking what individual models are doing even though you're ostensibly a company commander; no company commander should have to worry about what an individual conscript is doing on the battlefield at any one time; that's why the chain of command exists.
Having said all that... I actually like that about 40k. I don't enjoy micromanaging the conscript; that's not what I mean. What I do enjoy is watching a singular conscript do something awesome like slay a carnifex or survive an extra turn against a genestealer onslaught to protect his tanks. Stuff like that.
I like the fluff and the models, at least when GW's recent choices don't bring them down. If I hated everything GW does I'd just leave, because I wouldn't care anymore. But, like most of GW's critics, I care because I want to see the hobby I love overcome GW's incompetence in handling it and become a game worth playing.
Which is fair, I just don't recall seeing you say you like something.
I made that accusation because it's true. 8th cut the length of the core rules, but a lot of that came from moving the former USRs to each unit's individual rules. And in some ways that makes the rules bloat worse, not better. Where you used to have a brief section in the core rules for vehicles exploding when destroyed you now have dozens of different versions of the rule on individual units. And there are still too many rules that have little practical effect on the outcome of the game. The idea that 8th edition is a simple game is purely a myth. You can argue that it's slightly less bloated than the disaster of 7th (which tested the limits of how bloated the rules can get before the game becomes unplayable), but it's still a problem.
It just feels like you're really trying super hard to find a way to stick with the "bloat" argument. Yeah, they moved *some* USRS to the unit sheets. Others they eliminated entirely. In 7th, you had USRs in the rule book AND different ones in the codexes. Now at least, you have the USRs in the spot where they are relevant, while others have been removed from the game entirely. In addition, they handled the USRs in such a way that if for example, something like "Disgustingly Resilient" were to become a game balance issue, they can FAQ "Disgustingly Resiliant" by itself without effecting any other units. In the old system, they would have had to FAQFnP and then FAQ it again when they realized that they had now accidentally caused other units w/FnP to suddenly suck. This IS a much more simple system. Additionally, you seem to only want to point to the USRs as the only place they trimmed down the core rules which is clearly incorrect. Lets talk about the complexity of the 7th ed psychic phase vs 8th ...
They very clearly DID eliminate rules bloat, and 8th is a simple game. I can introduce a newbie to it and have them up and running in minutes. I'm not sure how that indicates anything other than an easy to learn game. Remember what that was like in 7th?
I WILL say that they made some mistakes. For example, some of the streamlining involved cutting terrain rules. I think this is an area where they really dropped the ball in 8th. They over-simplified terrain to the point that it's almost useless.
So, TL;DR:
Yeah, 8th isn't perfect and they DID make some odd mistakes, but I'm not sure you can accuse this edition of rules bloat and be taken seriously. Not liking that the USRs are on the unit cards is one thing, but it does NOT mean that there is "bloat".
They reduced rules bloat, but they didn't eliminate it. 8th is still a bloated mess of a game, even if it's somewhat less so than 7th. That's why the post you quoted said "continued rules bloat" not "worse rules bloat".
I think bespoke rules was a poor choice. Go back to USRs, and actually stick with them. Rather then have a unit with the rule 'Angry Running Smash', and another with 'Raging Dash' that give the general benefit of hitting harder when charging, you could just have 'Furious Charge'.
Well, the biggest problem is that GW is trying to do a "one game to rule them all" approach when they should be having a core rules "engine" and then vary the abstraction/depth based on the size. A skirmish or squad-based game cares about weapon details, a large-scale army game does not. Again, I think Mantic hit the nail on the head with this approach with Warpath; there is a "Firefight" squad-based game that plays (or looks to play) similar to older style 40k or Bolt Action/Gates of Antares, where you have mostly squads and then like maybe a tank or transport or walker, and then a larger scale game that has round movement trays and more abstracted rules to allow for larger battles which is where you see the flyers and superheavies. GW missed a huge opportunity to do this. They could have finally had a way to do skirmish/platoon/army sized games using the same core set of rules, with almost seamless scaling between them. So you could play a big game with abstract rules to go fast, and then "drop down" to a firefight, and then drop down to a handful of guys making an elite raid or something.
Tycho wrote: I swear it feels like GW could mail actual gold bars to its customers as a "thank you", and you would complain that yours had a chaos symbol instead of an aquilla. In all the time I've been on here, I've only ever seen you aggressively bash all things GW. Don't get me wrong, they've earned plenty of that, but serious question - why are you still here? Is there ANYTHING about GW that you actually like?
I like the fluff and the models, at least when GW's recent choices don't bring them down. If I hated everything GW does I'd just leave, because I wouldn't care anymore. But, like most of GW's critics, I care because I want to see the hobby I love overcome GW's incompetence in handling it and become a game worth playing.
A few pages back, you accused a rule set that went from over 100 pages down to like ... 12 of having "continued rules bloat". Have they ever done something you were a fan of?
I made that accusation because it's true. 8th cut the length of the core rules, but a lot of that came from moving the former USRs to each unit's individual rules. And in some ways that makes the rules bloat worse, not better. Where you used to have a brief section in the core rules for vehicles exploding when destroyed you now have dozens of different versions of the rule on individual units. And there are still too many rules that have little practical effect on the outcome of the game. The idea that 8th edition is a simple game is purely a myth. You can argue that it's slightly less bloated than the disaster of 7th (which tested the limits of how bloated the rules can get before the game becomes unplayable), but it's still a problem.
I'm gonna weigh in here and say that I am profoundly confused by the criticisms around removing USRs and giving each unit their rules. One of my biggest issues with trying to play 40k previously was the unwieldy way you had to have access to the BRB and your codex at the same time and be cross-referencing rules from one to the other. Just from a physical, having a table full of models and needing somewhere to put the books, this always felt cumbersome to me. Why is moving the rules to the units a bad thing? The way I see it, the physical act of playing the game is streamlined because all I need is the 'base' rules foldout from the starter box, and my unit's data slates, which come with their rules listed and explained. Much less clutter on the table, and less fighting with giant hardcover books that will never lay flat no matter how hard you try. Pushing the rules down to the units also allows for granularity in things like the way vehicles explode. My Predators explode on a 6+ because they're well made, but my Bloat Drones and Hellhounds explode on a 4+ and do more/different damage because they contain volatile or icky substances in a less well-made frame. That adds flavor, and doesn't really slow up the game because whichever rule I need to play it out is listed on the unit's data card. That seems much easier to me than having to find a rule in the BRB, which has a terrible index, and making sure I'm looking at 'extra explodey' instead of 'regular explodey'. The fact that the same name (deep strike) has a whole bunch of different names doesn't matter for gameplay, and strengthens the theme.
Blacksails wrote: I think bespoke rules was a poor choice. Go back to USRs, and actually stick with them. Rather then have a unit with the rule 'Angry Running Smash', and another with 'Raging Dash' that give the general benefit of hitting harder when charging, you could just have 'Furious Charge'.
This, exactly.
You could still make some 8th-style changes, like keeping Keywords, as I think those are useful, but destroying unit types and replacing them with Keywords. Take the whole section on vehicles out, fold it into the way other models work (as was done in 8th) and you've already got a way simpler ruleset.
1) stick to the core USRs. 'Explodes' for example, could be a USR - and have it happen on a 5+, which seems to be about the average between all the 6+ explodes, 4+ explodes, and 2+ explodes vehicles out there.
2) replace "unit type" and faction weirdness with Keywords, the way they've done.
I'm gonna weigh in here and say that I am profoundly confused by the criticisms around removing USRs and giving each unit their rules. One of my biggest issues with trying to play 40k previously was the unwieldy way you had to have access to the BRB and your codex at the same time and be cross-referencing rules from one to the other. Just from a physical, having a table full of models and needing somewhere to put the books, this always felt cumbersome to me. Why is moving the rules to the units a bad thing? The way I see it, the physical act of playing the game is streamlined because all I need is the 'base' rules foldout from the starter box, and my unit's data slates, which come with their rules listed and explained. Much less clutter on the table, and less fighting with giant hardcover books that will never lay flat no matter how hard you try. Pushing the rules down to the units also allows for granularity in things like the way vehicles explode. My Predators explode on a 6+ because they're well made, but my Bloat Drones and Hellhounds explode on a 4+ and do more/different damage because they contain volatile or icky substances in a less well-made frame. That adds flavor, and doesn't really slow up the game because whichever rule I need to play it out is listed on the unit's data card. That seems much easier to me than having to find a rule in the BRB, which has a terrible index, and making sure I'm looking at 'extra explodey' instead of 'regular explodey'. The fact that the same name (deep strike) has a whole bunch of different names doesn't matter for gameplay, and strengthens the theme.
Yeah, my thoughts exactly.
I think bespoke rules was a poor choice. Go back to USRs, and actually stick with them. Rather then have a unit with the rule 'Angry Running Smash', and another with 'Raging Dash' that give the general benefit of hitting harder when charging, you could just have 'Furious Charge'.
This, exactly.
You could still make some 8th-style changes, like keeping Keywords, as I think those are useful, but destroying unit types and replacing them with Keywords. Take the whole section on vehicles out, fold it into the way other models work (as was done in 8th) and you've already got a way simpler ruleset.
1) stick to the core USRs. 'Explodes' for example, could be a USR - and have it happen on a 5+, which seems to be about the average between all the 6+ explodes, 4+ explodes, and 2+ explodes vehicles out there.
2) replace "unit type" and faction weirdness with Keywords, the way they've done.
Why though? We've seen that this approach really doesn't work. How, with your proposed solution, would they FAQ a USR? Would you have "Furious Charge" and then have different unit keywords that it applies to? That just seems like a more complicated way to achieve what we already have in 8th ...
They reduced rules bloat, but they didn't eliminate it. 8th is still a bloated mess of a game, even if it's somewhat less so than 7th. That's why the post you quoted said "continued rules bloat" not "worse rules bloat".
It seems like what you actually dislike is the way the info is laid out, but you're trying to blame it on something else. That, or you're trying to make an old school Jancoran/Alairos argument where you deliberately take a contrarian stance just for the sake of it. I can certainly get behind organizational issues with the game (organizing info has never been GWs strong point and it's almost like they've never even heard of things like alphanumeric order), but I really just don't see the bloat argument. At all.
I like the fluff and the models, at least when GW's recent choices don't bring them down. If I hated everything GW does I'd just leave, because I wouldn't care anymore. But, like most of GW's critics, I care because I want to see the hobby I love overcome GW's incompetence in handling it and become a game worth playing.
Which is fair, I just don't recall seeing you say you like something.
I made that accusation because it's true. 8th cut the length of the core rules, but a lot of that came from moving the former USRs to each unit's individual rules. And in some ways that makes the rules bloat worse, not better. Where you used to have a brief section in the core rules for vehicles exploding when destroyed you now have dozens of different versions of the rule on individual units. And there are still too many rules that have little practical effect on the outcome of the game. The idea that 8th edition is a simple game is purely a myth. You can argue that it's slightly less bloated than the disaster of 7th (which tested the limits of how bloated the rules can get before the game becomes unplayable), but it's still a problem.
It just feels like you're really trying super hard to find a way to stick with the "bloat" argument. Yeah, they moved *some* USRS to the unit sheets. Others they eliminated entirely. In 7th, you had USRs in the rule book AND different ones in the codexes. Now at least, you have the USRs in the spot where they are relevant, while others have been removed from the game entirely. In addition, they handled the USRs in such a way that if for example, something like "Disgustingly Resilient" were to become a game balance issue, they can FAQ "Disgustingly Resiliant" by itself without effecting any other units. In the old system, they would have had to FAQFnP and then FAQ it again when they realized that they had now accidentally caused other units w/FnP to suddenly suck. This IS a much more simple system. Additionally, you seem to only want to point to the USRs as the only place they trimmed down the core rules which is clearly incorrect. Lets talk about the complexity of the 7th ed psychic phase vs 8th ...
The 7e system wasn't that complex. It's main issue was it was a "battery" system, and casting/denial was all-or-nothing. For a list of Psykers of equal power, you got logarithmic return in linear point investment. For a supercaster, ymmv. Prior to Wrath of Magnus, you usually only had one or two Psykers (ex: A Lib Conclave) casting tops. I found flat plastic marbles made an easy way to represent remaining Warp Charge. With 8th, Smite is strictly linear for linear investment, while other options do not scale at all.
The real issue with non-universal rules is that no FAQ becomes a precedent for another, and in the advent of bad RAW ("Does a Blood Lance inflict a max of N mortal wounds or N*N Mortal Wounds?"), that RAW must have its FAQs copypasted repeatedly.
As Unit mentioned earlier, USR redundancy was an issue. So rather than Rage, Furious Charge, Hammer of Wrath, etc, you create a single USR called "Charge Bonus[bonus]," so you don't need to add case-by-case exceptions like ("Rage does not work versus Disordered Charges. Furious Charge does not work versus Disordered Charges." etc). GWUSRs were seldom universal. Rather than Hammer of Wrath, have Charge Bonus[Initial Attack[attack]], with Initial Attack also representing Litany of the Electromancer, exploding Brimstones/Spore mines/etc. Make the rules composite and reusable.
Incidentally, names should imply what the rules actually do. What is the difference between Hating an enemy or preferring it? Is it the difference between revenge and a safari hunt? Make "Versus [Enemy]" a USR qualifier.
Incidentally, my favorite 7e USR was Missile Lock. Only one weapon in the entire game used it. This was despite there being numerous weapons that were fluffed as missiles that lock onto their target. Smart Missiles, Tentaclids, Skyspears, etc. were all "lock-on" missiles that did not Missile Lock.
I find it passable aside from a few things which do annoy me (units I cannot shoot at preventing me shooting at characters for instance)
It seems thoroughly average which is a problem. I want GW striving for excellence. It feels like a guiding vision is missing and a "that will do, next" culture prevails.
I think bespoke rules was a poor choice. Go back to USRs, and actually stick with them. Rather then have a unit with the rule 'Angry Running Smash', and another with 'Raging Dash' that give the general benefit of hitting harder when charging, you could just have 'Furious Charge'.
This, exactly.
You could still make some 8th-style changes, like keeping Keywords, as I think those are useful, but destroying unit types and replacing them with Keywords. Take the whole section on vehicles out, fold it into the way other models work (as was done in 8th) and you've already got a way simpler ruleset.
1) stick to the core USRs. 'Explodes' for example, could be a USR - and have it happen on a 5+, which seems to be about the average between all the 6+ explodes, 4+ explodes, and 2+ explodes vehicles out there.
2) replace "unit type" and faction weirdness with Keywords, the way they've done.
Why though? We've seen that this approach really doesn't work. How, with your proposed solution, would they FAQ a USR? Would you have "Furious Charge" and then have different unit keywords that it applies to? That just seems like a more complicated way to achieve what we already have in 8th ...
What do you mean how would they FAQ a USR?
What you would see is your unit datasheet, which says "Hard to Hit", then you would look up what the USR does in the BRB. It's actually easier to FAQ, because if you changed Hard to Hit in the Blood Angels FAQ, then BA flyers would act differently than every other flyer - but if they just had the USR and you changed it in the main rulebook, then every flyer in the game would be updated simultaneously...
I don't really know what you mean by the keyword system; units either have a rule or they don't, and keywords shouldn't give rules by themselves (I actually don't like, for example, that the Fly keyword gives rules). Keywords should be for interactions only, e.g. Melta getting bonuses versus the Vehicle keyword, or for faction interactions if it's a faction keyword obviously.
As Unit mentioned earlier, USR redundancy was an issue. So rather than Rage, Furious Charge, Hammer of Wrath, etc, you create a single USR called "Charge Bonus[bonus]," so you don't need to add case-by-case exceptions like ("Rage does not work versus Disordered Charges. Furious Charge does not work versus Disordered Charges." etc). GWUSRs were seldom universal. Rather than Hammer of Wrath, have Charge Bonus[Initial Attack[attack]], with Initial Attack also representing Litany of the Electromancer, exploding Brimstones/Spore mines/etc. Make the rules composite and reusable.
Right, so when 10 units have "Hammer of Wrath", and it's fine on 8 of them, but is found to create real issues on 2 of them ... how do you FAQ it? That's how we ended up with Rules, exceptions to the rules, addendums to the exceptions to the rules, etc etc.
I get the point about FAQ reliance, but honestly, that's been an issue for years. It was not created by 8th, but 8th DOES make better use of them (theoretically anyway lol). I would love for GW to write rules well enough to not need regular FAQs, but ...
The 7e system wasn't that complex. It's main issue was it was a "battery" system, and casting/denial was all-or-nothing. Prior to Wrath of Magnus, you usually only had one or two Psykers (ex: A Lib Conclave) casting tops. I found flat plastic marbles made an easy way to represent remaining Warp Charge.
So you're saying the psychic phase in 7th is just as simple as the one in 8th? Because my point is only that they simplified it.
You FAQ it by removing it from the problem units? If it's causing a problem on those units?
If a rule is too strong on a unit, then you can just remove it.
That doesn't seem like a solution at all, because now you've got a unit that's missing rules. You've completely broken the unit and need to redo it, you can't just remove a chunk of its rules.
I don't get why they can't do like Warmahordes does. A rule is basically the same and it gets put on a unit's card (i..e datasheet to 40k) that indicates it has that ability.
for instance:
Hypothetical 40k Rulebook wrote: FURIOUS CHARGE: A unit with Furious Charge adds +1 to their Strength characteristic when charging. This bonus is added after any Strength multipliers (e.g. from a Powerfist)
Now anything that has said rule says it has Furious charge; you don't need to also have "Angry Charge" or "Ravening Charge" or whatever that are the same rule but for a different type. What else is needed? The rule is already defined in the rulebook, you're just stating that this unit gets to apply that rule. This would have let them codify base rules instead of coming up with different names for the same rule. Warmahordes had that same problem in MK1; you had different abilities that were virtually identical but had different names, and they consolidated it to basically be a core set of abilities that can be applied. So, for example, your re-roll to hit ability becomes let's say:
Hypothetical 40k Rulebook wrote: Focused Attack [<KEYWORD>]: Friendly <KEYWORD> units within 6" of a model with Focused Attack can re-roll 1s to hit.
Enhanced Focused Attack [<KEYWORD>]: Friendly <KEYWORD> units within 6" of a model with Enhanced Focused Attack can re-roll all failed to-hit rolls.
Hypothetical 40k Datasheet wrote: Space Marine Captain Keywords: <CHAPTER>, Adeptus Astartes
Abilities Focused Attack [<CHAPTER>] (and so on ...)
Why could that not work in 40k? Codify the rules interactions with common names, and then just apply those abilities without having to make them slightly different.
Right, so when 10 units have "Hammer of Wrath", and it's fine on 8 of them, but is found to create real issues on 2 of them ... how do you FAQ it? That's how we ended up with Rules, exceptions to the rules, addendums to the exceptions to the rules, etc etc.
I get the point about FAQ reliance, but honestly, that's been an issue for years. It was not created by 8th, but 8th DOES make better use of them (theoretically anyway lol). I would love for GW to write rules well enough to not need regular FAQs, but ...
You then adjust other aspects of the unit in question, as they do now. The simplest method would be to just tweak the cost.
No need for exceptions or addendums.
We shouldn't need to even get to this point anyways though if GW did proper testing beforehand.
You FAQ it by removing it from the problem units? If it's causing a problem on those units?
If a rule is too strong on a unit, then you can just remove it.
That's just poor/lazy design in my opinion. The current system allows for granularity. Under the current system, if a unit's particular version of "Hammer of Wrath" is too strong on them, you can tweak it to make it less crazy without just eliminating it. That way, you maintain the integrity of that unit, while toning down the strength of it, and without screwing up any other units. To me, that seems much better.
You then adjust other aspects of the unit in question, as they do now. The simplest method would be to just tweak the cost.
No need for exceptions or addendums.
Six of one half dozen of the other I suppose. This solution would work (theoretically), but you are still relying on FAQs. Honestly, I like having the rules on the unit card.
As Unit mentioned earlier, USR redundancy was an issue. So rather than Rage, Furious Charge, Hammer of Wrath, etc, you create a single USR called "Charge Bonus[bonus]," so you don't need to add case-by-case exceptions like ("Rage does not work versus Disordered Charges. Furious Charge does not work versus Disordered Charges." etc). GWUSRs were seldom universal. Rather than Hammer of Wrath, have Charge Bonus[Initial Attack[attack]], with Initial Attack also representing Litany of the Electromancer, exploding Brimstones/Spore mines/etc. Make the rules composite and reusable.
Right, so when 10 units have "Hammer of Wrath", and it's fine on 8 of them, but is found to create real issues on 2 of them ... how do you FAQ it? That's how we ended up with Rules, exceptions to the rules, addendums to the exceptions to the rules, etc etc.
I get the point about FAQ reliance, but honestly, that's been an issue for years. It was not created by 8th, but 8th DOES make better use of them (theoretically anyway lol). I would love for GW to write rules well enough to not need regular FAQs, but ...
The 7e system wasn't that complex. It's main issue was it was a "battery" system, and casting/denial was all-or-nothing. Prior to Wrath of Magnus, you usually only had one or two Psykers (ex: A Lib Conclave) casting tops. I found flat plastic marbles made an easy way to represent remaining Warp Charge.
So you're saying the psychic phase in 7th is just as simple as the one in 8th? Because my point is only that they simplified it.
Technically they simplified the Psychic Phase by adding Rule of One and Smitespam, a power that itself cannot even choose its own target.
Define such a problem-case? Two of the units have Charge Bonus[Initial Attack[S: User, AP -, A 1, Autohit]], but somehow this makes them too good? Neither Charge Bonus nor Initial Attack themselves need FAQing, but the actual unit could be tweaked. Privateer does this periodically, the most notable example near the end of Mk2 when they errata'd the Siege Animantarax to be allowed to spend Rage Tokens on its Reiver gun. This didn't require changing any rules for tokens, etc.
Incidentally, GW needs to figure out "slain" versus "removed from play", "before the battle," "alive," and how to actually define tokens as a game term. For example, in 7th you could technically you could argue that Siphon Magic let you store dice from turn to turn, since tokens that could be "spent as additional Warp Charge" were RAW not Warp Charge, since Warp Charge can be used by your whole army and the Siphon Magic tokens were restricted to the caster with Siphon Magic. You could further cite Neurothropes as a precedent, as they had a power called Spirit Leech that generated Warp Charge. "This Warp Charge may only be used by the Neurothrope's unit to manifest Warp Blast."
l
Six of one half dozen of the other I suppose. This solution would work (theoretically), but you are still relying on FAQs. Honestly, I like having the rules on the unit card.
We're relying on FAQs now anyways, so there's no difference there.
Theoretically, if a unit is a problem, then its cost can be adjusted to make it less of a problem.
This isn't an panacea, as there are certain units with auras and whatnot whose cost varies throughout the game and deployment, etc. but that's also just bad game design, really.
And a unit cannot be "missing" rules. Taking "Amphibious" away from the Chimera didn't suddenly make the Chimera feel empty and useless (though it does feel a bit soulless now without it ). A unit has what rules GW gives it.
This is why I have a problem with the codex-index options FAQ. I'm fairly certain it is intended to allow veteran players to continue to play models that otherwise would have to be retired and that would make them ANGRY. But instead it's used as a justification for simply including the options in any ol' army, as if they were never removed in the first place.
really, they can also adjust things. If a unit is too good with Furious Charge, errata it to remove Furious Charge. Like, I much like the way PP balances Warmahordes, they will adjust a unit's stats (harder to do in 40k, granted) or remove or swap around rules on its card.
We're relying on FAQs now anyways, so there's no difference there.
*Edit* I can't quote apparently
lol We've all been there. Yeah, tweaking the points via FAQ or using the current system is two different ways of doing the same thing so it just comes down to personal preference. I like the way they are doing it now, but I can't say your suggestion is "wrong" or "wouldn't work".
I actually don't like USR and I prefer every unit to be his special snowflake... with some basic things, of course. For example, something like Deepstriking could have been made a generic rule that you only put is name in the dathaseet like ATSKNF. If some unit has a "special" Deepstrike like the Trygon, then you give him his special rule in the Dathasheet.
We're relying on FAQs now anyways, so there's no difference there.
*Edit* I can't quote apparently
lol We've all been there. Yeah, tweaking the points via FAQ or using the current system is two different ways of doing the same thing so it just comes down to personal preference. I like the way they are doing it now, but I can't say your suggestion is "wrong" or "wouldn't work".
Sure, just like I'm not inherently opposed to the current system, where we at least have handy unit cards to reference, which is just about the only way to make bespoke rules work.
I think for the scale of the game with the amount of units, it just makes it simpler in the long run to learn some 20-30 odd USRs then to remember what the hundreds of bespoke rules do. But again, thank feth for the easy accessibility of the rules.
I also don't know why we don't also roll the psychic phase back to what it was in 5th. That was simple, didn't punish players for taking multiple, weaker psykers, and let players choose their powers from their own fluffy selection.
I think you're looking at the 5e Psyker Phase with rose-tinted glasses. Jaws, Rune Staves, 24" bubble Nullzone and Warp Quake/Cleansing Flame all say hi.
MagicJuggler wrote: I think you're looking at the 5e Psyker Phase with rose-tinted glasses. Jaws, Rune Staves, 24" bubble Nullzone and Warp Quake/Cleansing Flame all say hi.
Oh some of the powers were ridiculous, but the underlying mechanics of it was better.
Galas, I actually agree with you (as mentioned) as I love each unit feeling unique and cool and special in its own way...
... but they're really not, at the scale which the game is played at.
Much like a given company commander literally in mid-battle is unconcerned with whether or not his soldier is using an AKM or an AK-47, the minutiae of a given unit's capabilities are up to that unit's sergeant or lieutenant or whatever to oversee.
The difference between Khorne Berzerkers and a bunch of angry Chaos Space Marines with identical wargear is, on balance, probably not going to fundamentally change a warlord's strategy. "What, we've no berzerkers but just these angry guys with identical gear? That's it, call the whole thing off. We can't win." is never a statement I imagine hearing a warband leader saying.
It's the same reason I don't have a problem with removing armour arcs and firing arcs - because frankly, a company commander won't micromanage his vehicles in the middle of a running gunfight. The crews, if trained, can be trusted to get it right. It always bothered me that if someone got side armour, it was my error and not the tank driver's/commander's. After all, as the company commander, it's not my job to make sure you point your front at the baddies.
Still by far the best "magic" "psychic" phase is 8th Ed fantasy, all players were involved and it didnt require you to have a psyker to stop powers.
Now the Spells were balls out crazy so they dont need to transition, although the laws could just in a different guise, alwaty wondered why 40k has no fireball or lightning balls etc.
As it stands
2d6 power dice, capped at 12, highest d6 for dispel and psykers use power levels to add to rolls, channeling on a 6+ and every spell having a set amount to cast as well as a "overcast" ability, get rid of Irresistible force and have the fantasy perils chart, turn the templates into bubble (so str10 -4sv d6 hits to all units within 6" or something).
because for the last 3 Eds the "magic" phase in 40k has been utter craptastic.
Formosa wrote: Still by far the best "magic" "psychic" phase is 8th Ed fantasy, all players were involved and it didnt require you to have a psyker to stop powers.
Now the Spells were balls out crazy so they dont need to transition, although the laws could just in a different guise, alwaty wondered why 40k has no fireball or lightning balls etc.
As it stands
2d6 power dice, capped at 12, highest d6 for dispel and psykers use power levels to add to rolls, channeling on a 6+ and every spell having a set amount to cast as well as a "overcast" ability, get rid of Irresistible force and have the fantasy perils chart, turn the templates into bubble (so str10 -4sv d6 hits to all units within 6" or something).
because for the last 3 Eds the "magic" phase in 40k has been utter craptastic.
I actually think the 6th ed psychic phase was largely fine. Deny could have used a buff to be able to stop buff spells. The issue with 6th was the power of some of the buff spells in combination. 8th ed is also largely fine, but largely suffers from the same issues that the powers are a problem. The idea of casting on 2D6 above a certain value works just fine, with the opposite for deny, the issue is just that some powers are too powerful and that each power can only be used once, though with 6 powers in each lore this is less of an issue.
I think a combination of 6th Psyker levels + primaris powers and 8th casting could easily work well.
Give each psyker a level - this is how many dice they roll for casting, if cheap psykers are level 1 and smite stays at a 5 to cast this is an instant fix to smite spam. Then have more powerful spells be more difficult to cast but higher level psykers able to roll more dice (so Eldrad is Lv 4, he can roll up 4 dice to cast, leave perils on double 1s or 6s so more dice = more risk)
Give every lore a primaris power with a low cast that can be cast by every psyker with that lore like smite (they can have smite or this power, if some of these are cast value 3 for instance they might be a good alternative to smite for weak psykers)
Have deny be the opposite of casting - maybe give psykers a separate deny level for how many dice they can roll for deny.
With variable casting values even things like Invisibility could be balanced if it is difficult enough to cast If it is say WC value 15 only the best psykers even have a shot, and even they will struggle to get it off. It makes it a powerful but unreliable buff.
Primark G wrote: It seems like the vocal minority are the ones complaining looking at the results of the poll. Also it is annoying to me when people casually suggest UGIG like it is super easy to implement right after the release of a new edition.
the results of the poll and reading the comments show that while even the ones with positive leanings still generally are not without complaint, primarily on terrain rules. on a pro-gw board 53% positive is still not stellar by any means.
13% is almost less than one in ten unhappy just saying.
auticus wrote: I haven't looked at warmahordes in many years, but when I was playing its complexity was on par with whfb at the time.
Games like warmarhordes are also losing a lot of favor and ground, both from my own experience where I live (it is almost non existent now here) to what I read commonly on forums and fb groups. I'd also consiider Hail Caesar (the historical i'm most familiar with) to be a bit more than warmachine was back ini the day that I played it.
Games like xwing became HUGE and xwing is definitely not a wargame, and I am seeing a lot of developers try to copy its basic formula which is simplicity at its root and very gamey elements.
Simple rules. Small number of pieces to have to manage (skirmish scale). Quick game times. This is the new mantra of tabletop design today and if you attend game design conferences you'll see a lot of and hear a lot about.
The only thing 40k doesn't have on that list is small number of pieces to manage.
I wouldnt give forums or facebook or what not any credence, jus off that you may assume where I am there is no warmahordes community, but the reality is you can go into any one of our flgs almost any night and find anywhere from 6-20 people playing it, especially at the one closest to where I live, it has leagues and CoI going as well, conversely you have to go to GW to see even a hint of 40k.
Sgt. Cortez wrote:
Other than that I agree with your post. 40K is simply too large to be balanced. But I think GW is at least trying to adjust the outliers steadily now, which is a vast improvement to prior editions. The best way to balance the game is to talk to your opponent before the game.
bs. Infinity and Malifaux have a huge number of options and those games don't have serious balance issues. GW's (esp. new) style with stacking buffs and exciting and powerful abilities and units make balancing harder, but GW does far worse than the have excuses for. I've given up on telling myself they care about it; which is one of the reasons I don't think GW intend to make games well suited to competition.
I'm not as familiar with Infinity, but Malifaux pales in comparison to GW when it comes to number of options. They are perhaps getting closer with number of units, but those units have few to no options. GWs style of giving options at the unit level has always been difficult to balance, and you are right that including buffs, especially auras makes this very difficult to balance.
couldnt disagree more, I play and collect malilfaux quite a bit and have found it to be on par or better than 40k at options, particularly in that there are really no "auto includes" and just about any unit can be effective based on what you are trying to do.
Primark G wrote: It seems like the vocal minority are the ones complaining looking at the results of the poll. Also it is annoying to me when people casually suggest UGIG like it is super easy to implement right after the release of a new edition.
the results of the poll and reading the comments show that while even the ones with positive leanings still generally are not without complaint, primarily on terrain rules. on a pro-gw board 53% positive is still not stellar by any means.
13% is almost less than one in ten unhappy just saying.
thats just the folks that are basically done with the game, the middle group are in the "grey area" but again you have to look at the comments going with them, people who are "generally" ok with the game still have a lot of issues with it. Polls can be interpreted to say alot, but guided questions can hide issues very well. 29% saying the game is still unbalanced puts the game IMO squarely in the realm of needing some review by GW. Granted this is a small poll on a small forum,. but you have 53% vs 42% give or take on what should be very friendly ground.
I am loving 8th edition. It is what brought me back into 40k after playing a few games of the mess that was 7th edition. I think the rules are tight for the most part, easy to teach new players,and the game plays faster than it ever has, which is a big deal when you want a quick game. I don't play tournaments, only causal games where basically everyone is on the same level about how much of the "broken" units/combos that are taken, and 8th certainly is the best edition for casual play, as when people are not trying to break the game, the codexes are so much more balanced to each other than previous editions. Are there overpowered lists and units? Of course, but 40k has always had that issue with some units being too powerful or come combos being too good. GW also is at least trying to fix issues with overpowered lists or units, which is more than you can say about them previously where once a codex was out, it would be years until things were fixed. While 8th edition is my favorite edition so far, there are a few things that I have some complaint about:
1. I have seen complaints that games are over by turn 2 many times and that alpha strike is an issue. Personally have not have had this issue in the dozen or so games I played, all of which were competitive until late in the game. I think this is not really an issue with the rules, but a combination of people not using enough terrain on the field, especially LOS blocking terrain that actually does a good job at blocking line of site, and people playing broken lists that of course kill the opponent by turn two, that is what they are designed to do. Also this existed in previous versions of 40k (anyone remember "leaf blower" lists). The other thing is that I think having objectives that score during the game (not only at the end) really helps as it makes you have to maneuver.
2. Cover rules. Yea this is the worst part of 8th edition. The cover rules basically make it so almost no units get cover, especially if you don't use enough terrain. I have a proposed fix that I am going to put in the proposed rules section.
3. Power Level/Points. Personally I hate the power level mechanic. It just doesn't work in balancing when a unit that is 150 pints or 450 points is the same Power Level. To me they missed a huge opportunity but not figuring a way to put the points on the datesheets, and for most units I don't think this would add a whole lot of space. But this is only really a minor point. The main thing about the points is currently I don't think they are very well balanced as a whole, and GW has never been that great with providing units with proper points. I mean Thousand Sons Rubrics have been over priced since they existed, and even now seem so when compared to at 17 point plague marine. It also seems that GW is still stuck in the pre-8th mindset for determining points. An example is a 5++ save on a 2+ save model. The 5++ is almost worthless as it does not even kick in until an ap of -4 (which is not super common) yet if feel like models are paying 3-5 points for this ability. I would gladly give up the 5++ on my terminators for 3-5 points back. However, at this point I think I am going to give GW the benefit of the doubt and wait until all Codexes are released and any points fixes with those before I pass judgement if the points system is still very unbalanced or not.
4. Again this is not major, but why are all the "shooting" psychic powers mortal wounds? Would it really have been that hard to have a spell that says, "once this power is manifested the model may make a shooting attack as if were the shooting phase with the following profile". I think that this would allow for greater diversity in the spells, and maybe allow for a few more spells per army, which would reduce the issue about only being able to attempt each spell once.
Basically the only thing that I think is a major problem with the core rules is the cover, but other than that I am loving 8th edition.
Dakka tends to be a bitchfest against 40k so I see the complaints coming mainly from a vocal minority. If you look at all the votes not that many people are posting that took Pepsi challenge.
I have been playing 40K since third edition and for the first time ever I have played a game of an older system while I had access to newer rules.
8th edition is fun enough to play but it lost out on a lot of the immersion rules that I thought made 40k really fun (armor values, facings, firing arcs, scatter, etc). They made the game way to simple and honestly made all the armies feel pretty much the same.
I also discovered that I don't actually like stratagems as much as I thought I did. They tend to slow the game down with a lot of "you activated my trap" moments. They are a cool idea but after going back and playing 7th I have discovered they are a step sideways at best.
Full disclosure, I am the sort of person who had no problem memorizing all the books and rules and also one of the people who enjoyed the more bizarre random shenanigans that 7th had like the chaos boon table. Don't get me wrong, 7th had its problems like major swings in codex power (Eldar) and invisibility was honestly just stupid, but I would rather take an over the top ridiculous level of crazy to the bland nothing we have now. At least it is memorable.
auticus wrote:A deckbuilding game is a game where you have elements and you build a force from those elements where combinations are key. There are dozens of examples of deckbuilding games. They typically involve cards (hence the nomenclature "deckbuilding".
Spoiler:
40k and AOS are deckbuilding games. You can replace the models with cards, and you approach the game the same as you would with any other deckbuilding game. They even removed most of the maneuver out of it.
The evidence is reading the rules and seeing how it is played.
The evidence is reading their developer's posts on forums, especially the newer devs that weren't devs a few months ago but are now and seeing them discuss game design. I am also a games designer and have designed deckbuilding games.
Explain and counter argue how exactly 40k and AOS are NOT like other deckbuilding games (other than saying... well they use miniatures instead of cards so they can't be deckbuilding games) and we can have a discussion. Because right now AOS and 40k do not in any circumstance resemble any battle that would be fought both in the real world, in film, or in fantasy literature. It has divorced itself from resembling a battle and in its stead we have a game (that can be fun which is the point of games) where you deckbuild a force and optimize its combos and then deploy it. One could design a game that uses the same basic mechanics, alter movement to strip it out entirely and replace it with a deck of game cards and dice and get the exact same experience out of it.
What would that look like?
On my turn I play my hand. I deploy my 5 death company cards and pick your targets. I roll dice. That gives me the outcome. Then whats left of your deck can retaliate. That is the same as alpha strikiing my entire 40k collection on you that is legally allowed and then using my strategems to deploy next to you with whats left and then charge. Same basic experience to me and to a lot of people.
The games have a spatial dimension and use dice to randomise. You don't have a random sample drawn from your deck, you put you whole list on the table (usually).
Terrain might not matter much as wargames go, but it's still there making us move differently and blocking line of sight; how much terrain do card games have? Line of sight and weapon ranges means you have to get unit into certain positions to interact with other units, it that common in card games? I realise that either Warhammer has some insane movement shenanigans, but you still need to move or use an ability to get in range or to an objective and that only matters if positioning does too.
If positioning is irrelevant then why is this a problem:
Positioning is largely irrelevant when you can just deploy into combat. It is mechanically identical to tapping my magic card and saying it attacks your magic card.
Note my use of the term *largely irrelevant*, as opposed to *totally irrelevant* or *there is NO movement or positioning* or *terrain doesn't do ANYTHING*. I don't say those things.
I say they *largely* don't do anything impactful in either game.
Sgt. Cortez wrote:
Other than that I agree with your post. 40K is simply too large to be balanced. But I think GW is at least trying to adjust the outliers steadily now, which is a vast improvement to prior editions. The best way to balance the game is to talk to your opponent before the game.
bs. Infinity and Malifaux have a huge number of options and those games don't have serious balance issues. GW's (esp. new) style with stacking buffs and exciting and powerful abilities and units make balancing harder, but GW does far worse than the have excuses for. I've given up on telling myself they care about it; which is one of the reasons I don't think GW intend to make games well suited to competition.
I'm not as familiar with Infinity, but Malifaux pales in comparison to GW when it comes to number of options. They are perhaps getting closer with number of units, but those units have few to no options. GWs style of giving options at the unit level has always been difficult to balance, and you are right that including buffs, especially auras makes this very difficult to balance.
couldnt disagree more, I play and collect malilfaux quite a bit and have found it to be on par or better than 40k at options, particularly in that there are really no "auto includes" and just about any unit can be effective based on what you are trying to Automatically Appended Next Post: .
Better options =\= more options. 40k has about twice as many factions, many of which have more choices than the malifaux factions, further there are units in 40k with more options (possible combinations of wargear etc) than are available in an entire malifaux list. I'm not suggesting these are better, or improve the game just that they make it harder to balance.
Ok so if i was to go for balance i'd say it can be just as bad as before.
I played a space wolf player with my dark eldar on monday and he had like 6 or so single wolves and then deep striked everything in on the board (2 heroes with logan and someone else, 20 wolf guard with storm bolters in two 10 man squads, a unit of 10 terminators and 3 squads of 5 wulfen each). I seized turn one and i placed everything around to prevent him coming in easily.
I killed a unit of wulfen, some terminators, about 10 wolf guard with storm bolters (2 different squads) and some single wolves. I on the other hand just about got tabled on turn 4 i think it was. We stopped because i deemed it pointless to continue. The guy he faced the day before killed even less than i did. I wasn't even aware space wolves could both DS so much and shoot so hard with the storm bolters. Wulfen are also still hard to kill up to the point of just being best to avoid them or use mortal wounds. This is all provided you can give mortal wounds.
Seriously GW fix Chapter Approved it broke space wolves. Also apparently he plays a more powerful guard army. He said he managed to only lose a few models against one guy. GW this is pathetic and horrible. The rules need to be fixed. The balance is at least as bad as before.
auticus wrote:Positioning is largely irrelevant when you can just deploy into combat. It is mechanically identical to tapping my magic card and saying it attacks your magic card.
Except you have to choose a place to put it, I can block your magic card with any of mine; but in a wargame your unit can only interact or be interacted with by other units in range. Where the position of everthing else isimpacts where you have to put your DS unit and then after it has come down it's limited in what it can interact with.
Note my use of the term *largely irrelevant*, as opposed to *totally irrelevant* or *there is NO movement or positioning* or *terrain doesn't do ANYTHING*. I don't say those things.
I say they *largely* don't do anything impactful in either game.
Sure, but in a card game terrain and positioning are not "largely irrelevant" those dimensions don't exist.
List building being too important, maneuver and terrain not being important enough are valid criticisms. It's taking your point past being metaphor/simile so that you can imply that it's not even worth being called a wargame that's misleading.
flamingkillamajig wrote: Ok so if i was to go for balance i'd say it can be just as bad as before.
I played a space wolf player with my dark eldar on monday and he had like 6 or so single wolves and then deep striked everything in on the board (2 heroes with logan and someone else, 20 wolf guard with storm bolters in two 10 man squads, a unit of 10 terminators and 3 squads of 5 wulfen each). I seized turn one and i placed everything around to prevent him coming in easily.
I killed a unit of wulfen, some terminators, about 10 wolf guard with storm bolters (2 different squads) and some single wolves. I on the other hand just about got tabled on turn 4 i think it was. We stopped because i deemed it pointless to continue. The guy he faced the day before killed even less than i did. I wasn't even aware space wolves could both DS so much and shoot so hard with the storm bolters. Wulfen are also still hard to kill up to the point of just being best to avoid them or use mortal wounds. This is all provided you can give mortal wounds.
Seriously GW fix Chapter Approved it broke space wolves. Also apparently he plays a more powerful guard army. He said he managed to only lose a few models against one guy. GW this is pathetic and horrible. The rules need to be fixed. The balance is at least as bad as before.
As a SW and drukhari player, CA didn't broke anything. It just made SW viable as a SW army and not as a SM one painted in light blue and yellow. Drukhari are among the worst armies at the moment and forced to play as a pure gunline. After CA the new SW are not even mid tiers, but at last we can play now with a typical SW army without relying too much on SM shenanigans (the razorback spam).
It's taking your point past being metaphor/simile so that you can imply that it's not even worth being called a wargame that's misleading.
What I actually said was that to me its closer to a boardgame or a cardgame than a wargame, not that its not worth being called a wargame.
I'm not a binary person. I don't see things as 100% this or 100% this.
On a sliding scale where on one end we have board games and card games and on the other extreme end we have classical wargames where maneuver and intuitive battle replication exist, 40k traditionally sat around the middle. Going as far back as 3rd edition, maneuver was not as important in 40k because you can move in whatever direction you wanted and being outflanked didn't really do anything. However, terrain slowed you down and battlefield management was still a thing (and people largely accepted this and accepted that whfb was the game where maneuver was going to be king still and were ok with that)
Now I just feel that it, and AOS, are more toward board/card games than they are wargames because not only do maneuver don't matter really, you can alpha strike your whole army in some cases, and terrain is mostly decoration that has little impact in the game. Its still a "wargame" but the needle has slid even further toward the gamey board game position.
Of course we can now redefine wargame as anything that features pretend war with an opponent, which opens up all kinds of games that can be considered wargames such as Dominion or battleship or risk etc... but when I'm talking about classical wargames I'm talking about games that emulated a real battle as opposed to a gamey game with a lot of abstraction.
40k and AOS when iit comes to feeling like a real battle that emulates their own literature is definitely filled with grandiose abstraction and gamey game elements over intuitive feeling like a battle.
Take the game and make it your own, enjoy a narrative campaign, make some custom terrain etc. Use it as a tool to socialise with friends, have a laugh and spend quality time with them. It's all it was ever meant for.
Except that you're always competing against your opponent by the very nature of the game, and that GW has ran their own sponsored tournaments for decades now with 40k.
Its never been a good competitive game, but to claim its not a competitive game is grossly incorrect.
auticus wrote:What I actually said was that to me its closer to a boardgame or a cardgame than a wargame, not that its not worth being called a wargame.
You started here:
auticus wrote:
We went from a half of a wargame to something that more resembles a board game or CCG.
Is that best? Well I suppose if one likes board games or CCG style play then yeah I can see how that would be best for them.
...but then:
Spoiler:
auticus wrote:
You can get the same results from 40k the card game. Both a CCG and 40k rely heavily on netlisting and listbuilding in general, neither really have any meaningful maneuver, and you just pick a target and roll some dice at it to see what happens.
Is it fun? It can be fun. Is it really a wargame? I'd say no, it stopped being that years ago. Is that bad? If you like board games or CCG style games then you're probably in heaven right now. If you want a wargame, you don't have much left on the market to pick from. Especially in the genre that 40k sits in. Gates of Antares is pretty much the only thing that comes to mind at this point.
auticus wrote:A deckbuilding game is a game where you have elements and you build a force from those elements where combinations are key. There are dozens of examples of deckbuilding games. They typically involve cards (hence the nomenclature "deckbuilding".
40k and AOS are deckbuilding games. You can replace the models with cards, and you approach the game the same as you would with any other deckbuilding game. They even removed most of the maneuver out of it.
On my turn I play my hand. I deploy my 5 death company cards and pick your targets. I roll dice. That gives me the outcome. Then whats left of your deck can retaliate. That is the same as alpha strikiing my entire 40k collection on you that is legally allowed and then using my strategems to deploy next to you with whats left and then charge. Same basic experience to me and to a lot of people.
auticus wrote:On a sliding scale where on one end we have board games and card games and on the other extreme end we have classical wargames where maneuver and intuitive battle replication exist, 40k traditionally sat around the middle. Now I just feel that it, and AOS, are more toward board/card games than they are wargames.
Of course we can now redefine wargame as anything that features pretend war with an opponent, which opens up all kinds of games that can be considered wargames such as Dominion or battleship or risk etc... but when I'm talking about classical wargames I'm talking about games that emulated a real battle as opposed to a gamey game with a lot of abstraction.
Feel about it as you will, this definition is too subjective to be useful.
Except that you're always competing against your opponent by the very nature of the game, and that GW has ran their own sponsored tournaments for decades now with 40k.
Its never been a good competitive game, but to claim its not a competitive game is grossly incorrect.
Exactly its not a co-op game there are three win conditions win/lose/draw.
Its not a good game for tournaments but its been used for them for too long to claim its not a competitive game.
I know where I started. Everything quoted above is what I defined.
"We went from a half of a wargame to something that more resembles a board game or CCG. "
Thats the sliding scale I was talking about. It doesn't say "we went from half of a wargame to a board game or CCG". The key phrase in that sentence is "that more resembles" meaning "it slid back toward board game or CCG.
Feel about it as you will, this definition is too subjective to be useful.
Sure. Except that in years of using that language and analogy, 99% of everyone I have conversed with understood where I was coming from. So to me its been plenty useful to convey how I feel about the game. I gave you an example with the magic the gathering scenario on how the mechanics of the game right now could be ported over to a game that uses cards and pretty much keep most of the same experience.
I'm not sure about what we are discussing here anymore. My guess is that you don't like that I compare it being similar to a boardgame or card game. I haven't seen any real counterpoints though that would contradict my assertion though.
Wayniac wrote: really, they can also adjust things. If a unit is too good with Furious Charge, errata it to remove Furious Charge. Like, I much like the way PP balances Warmahordes, they will adjust a unit's stats (harder to do in 40k, granted) or remove or swap around rules on its card.
Seems like GW is hearing what the community says, whining inclusive.
The situation is not so much different with PP. In mk3, they nerved Cryx quite hard and then rolled back to some extent, see Asphyxious 2.
Primark G wrote: It seems like the vocal minority are the ones complaining looking at the results of the poll. Also it is annoying to me when people casually suggest UGIG like it is super easy to implement right after the release of a new edition.
the results of the poll and reading the comments show that while even the ones with positive leanings still generally are not without complaint, primarily on terrain rules. on a pro-gw board 53% positive is still not stellar by any means.
13% is almost less than one in ten unhappy just saying.
I am afraid you got it wrong. Is 42% of the players that find the game flawed. The middle is "Still unbalanced but fun enough for occasional games." It does not end well. Is the same pattern of 7th. Also, you accuse people of whining. Look at the short report of flamingkillamajig. That thing happened after a book that was supposed to be an improvement of gameplay. I don't know you, but I could have had 10 times the people to play with if GW hired competent designers. Many people I played with just gave up. I did and still do for periods when the stupidity is off scale. Is just that I enjoy other aspects of the hobby. Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wayniac wrote: really, they can also adjust things. If a unit is too good with Furious Charge, errata it to remove Furious Charge. Like, I much like the way PP balances Warmahordes, they will adjust a unit's stats (harder to do in 40k, granted) or remove or swap around rules on its card.
Seems like GW is hearing what the community says, whining inclusive.
The situation is not so much different with PP. In mk3, they crippled Cryx quite hard and then rolled back to some extent, see Asphyxious 2.
Wayniac wrote: really, they can also adjust things. If a unit is too good with Furious Charge, errata it to remove Furious Charge. Like, I much like the way PP balances Warmahordes, they will adjust a unit's stats (harder to do in 40k, granted) or remove or swap around rules on its card.
Seems like GW is hearing what the community says, whining inclusive.
The situation is not so much different with PP. In mk3, they nerved Cryx quite hard and then rolled back to some extent, see Asphyxious 2.
Warmahordes also has the benefit of now doing CID (community integrated testing; basically public beta) of rules so they can be tweaked before release. If GW did something like that, it might go a long way to fixing some glaring issues.
Wayniac wrote: really, they can also adjust things. If a unit is too good with Furious Charge, errata it to remove Furious Charge. Like, I much like the way PP balances Warmahordes, they will adjust a unit's stats (harder to do in 40k, granted) or remove or swap around rules on its card.
Seems like GW is hearing what the community says, whining inclusive.
The situation is not so much different with PP. In mk3, they nerved Cryx quite hard and then rolled back to some extent, see Asphyxious 2.
Warmahordes also has the benefit of now doing CID (community integrated testing; basically public beta) of rules so they can be tweaked before release. If GW did something like that, it might go a long way to fixing some glaring issues.
Not sure. At the beginning of 2017, PP released Una2 and she did very well with Scarsfell Griffons. Then they rolled back shortly after the release.
These companies seem to invest too less time and money into game testing.
I am afraid you got it wrong. Is 42% of the players that find the game flawed. The middle is "Still unbalanced but fun enough for occasional games." It does not end well. Is the same pattern of 7th.
Eh. That has basically been my opinion on 40K for twenty years. I don't consider it being particularly negative, but merely being realistic about how well a game that contains both cretchin and knight titans can be balanced.
) the game isn't really all that fast except now it just snowballs in favor of one player or the other quicker. I haven't really seen a game of 8th where objectives mattered because by turn 4 somebody is close to being tabled. Stratagems/Command Points are potentially nice but half the armies don't have proper ones yet and personally they have this...... gimmick feel to them that doesn't seem as enjoyable. Its a mix of reroll dice from Bloodbowl, and Munition abilities from Company of Heroes with a bit of this "gotcha" feel to that just doesn't quite hit the mark for me. Overall the game lacks that depth that made list building and playing the game fun with 7th but now it feels shallow and simplified. I personally loved things like 
