I noticed that a large chunk of the gaming industry is functionally moving toward the Fantasy Flight Games, Living Card Game (LCG) format. Without a doubt both X-Wing and Shadespire are LCGs with miniatures, right down to the card distribution method. CCGs have mostly become LCGs already and we are seeing many board games with subscription formatted expansions that even alter the base game over time.
Recently I have seen various comments that 40K 8th edition is a CCG. Since I have been mostly unplugged from this edition can someone explain in as much detail as possible why 40K is a CCG? In addition, are people using CCG out of familiarity or specificity? In other words, is 40K a CCG or LCG merely a semantic difference?
Maybe it's the "just take as many of the best things as you're allowed to" approach to listbuilding that 8E has going on? Seems reminiscent of deckbuilding in other games, as boring and lazy as it is there as well.
It is a slur being thrown around, and honestly just a gross simplification.
I mean, I can say that Warhammer has become a MMORPG because there are forums online and even tabletop emulators, massive amounts of people world-wide play the game, I am assuming the role of a battle-field commander lording over my army of peons, and it is indeed a game.
Though not sure how many people would agree with the last statement of it being a game.
Seems more like a chore for a lot of people anymore.
At least if you hear them talk about it...
Honestly, though, I am being harsh. There's just a direction that a portion of the community doesn't like with 8th edition, and they use CCG/LCG as slander to express their discontent.
Boss Salvage wrote: Maybe it's the "just take as many of the best things as you're allowed to" approach to listbuilding that 8E has going on? Seems reminiscent of deckbuilding in other games, as boring and lazy as it is there as well.
- Salvage
Kinda maybe.
most ccg has limits on what you can take and ban lists and different formats
though it doesnt stop people still taking those super powerful cards (often costing a significant amount of money. though this doesnt really apply to 40k since the model prices dont actually change.)
Xenomancers wrote: There is practically no difference between a LCG and a miniature wargame.
I need you to explain this good sir.
There are very significant differences that I can tell.
1st, CCGs are random purchases. If I want card X, I need to blindly buy a pack, or 20, just to get it.
Miniatures games, you just buy what you want
CCGs also draw cards randomly, so you don't always get the card you need for a combo
Miniature you just "activate" the model/unit you need and roll dice.
The only thing similar (to me) is the element or random, CCGs with drawing and Miniature with rolling dice. However even that is pretty different
The card you need being at the bottom of the deck is pretty different to rolling a few 1s.
Xenomancers wrote: There is practically no difference between a LCG and a miniature wargame.
.../s?
I mean, the materials, the rules, the expectation, the interactions, the different kinds of effort put in... I can think of a lot of differences.
Unless you want to get ultra-reductionist, at which point no game played on a flat surface with one or more people is unique. Hey everyone, Age of Sigmar is the exact same as Cards Against Humanity!
Erm... He's talking about LCGs (Living Card Games), not CCGs. They're currently the in vogue method for most card games, since they're not randomly distributed.
Boss Salvage wrote: Maybe it's the "just take as many of the best things as you're allowed to" approach to listbuilding that 8E has going on? Seems reminiscent of deckbuilding in other games, as boring and lazy as it is there as well.
- Salvage
This is the sort of thoughtful response I am looking for. EXALTED!
As I stated above, both X-Wing and Shadespire are literally LCGs because of distribution method and combos created across expansions. To all of the Captain Obvious's out there, we all know Dakka is rife with posters who throw around terminology just to be dicks. So what if people call 40K a CCG out of spite or even call it a Legacy game and smash their models with a hammer. We do not need to rehash that here. I am looking for some intelligent discussion on the morphing format of 40K and what it really is becoming.
EDIT: There has been some good stuff posted since I typed this, not trying to insult anyone here, just looking for people digging to the root rather than the low hanging fruit!
Desubot wrote: most ccg has limits on what you can take and ban lists and different formats
though it doesnt stop people still taking those super powerful cards (often costing a significant amount of money. though this doesnt really apply to 40k since the model prices dont actually change.)
I mean, I feel like all of that applies to 40k, including limits both in the game's architecture (org slots, special character limit, new Tau Commander style limits) and those imposed by events (WHFB 8E was heavily comped at the tournament level, no reason 40k won't occasionally be, and things like Highlanders have totally been event formats in the past). Annnnnd as for super powerful rare things that cost $$$, pretty sure that's where Forge World comes in
infinite_array wrote: Erm... He's talking about LCGs (Living Card Games), not CCGs. They're currently the in vogue method for most card games, since they're not randomly distributed.
That's good to know. I pretty much stopped playing CCGs because of how frustrating it was to want X card for your deck and not be able to get it (either because you couldn't find it or it was ludicrously expensive)
Still, random drawing the deck you built is still pretty different than rolling D6s for an army you built that "should" mitigate for better rolls.
Boss Salvage wrote: I mean, I feel like all of that applies to 40k, including limits both in the game's architecture (org slots, special character limit, new Tau Commander style limits) and those imposed by events (WHFB 8E was heavily comped at the tournament level, no reason 40k won't occasionally be, and things like Highlanders have totally been event formats in the past). Annnnnd as for super powerful rare things that cost $$$, pretty sure that's where Forge World comes in
- Salvage
FW isn't actually good or OP though so that pretty well falls apart.
I think it's because it's about listbuilding (deckbuilding) and comboing things together to make the super OP alpha strike "I summon Exodia the forbidden One!" combo that destroys your opponent
Boss Salvage wrote: Maybe it's the "just take as many of the best things as you're allowed to" approach to listbuilding that 8E has going on? Seems reminiscent of deckbuilding in other games, as boring and lazy as it is there as well.
- Salvage
This is spot on IMO, You don't need to like the army or enjoy their storyline. The way codices are approached since 6th ed. is buy the new hotness and win. What's so fun about playing the same meta every time you get to the table? if its just to smash your opponent its not to enjoy the game any longer.
When IMO they can balance the codices better and everyone wins. Not at the game obviously, but by having a competitive fun units in every codex where all it takes is savy and maybe a little luck.
Desubot wrote: most ccg has limits on what you can take and ban lists and different formats
though it doesnt stop people still taking those super powerful cards (often costing a significant amount of money. though this doesnt really apply to 40k since the model prices dont actually change.)
I mean, I feel like all of that applies to 40k, including limits both in the game's architecture (org slots, special character limit, new Tau Commander style limits) and those imposed by events (WHFB 8E was heavily comped at the tournament level, no reason 40k won't occasionally be, and things like Highlanders have totally been event formats in the past). Annnnnd as for super powerful rare things that cost $$$, pretty sure that's where Forge World comes in
- Salvage
Ha well thats true.
though i guess you could consider girlyman the jace the mindsculpter of 40k. the boogieman if you will.
or perhaps dark reapers are the cawblade of current tournament 40k.
but at least you dont have to open booster boxes to find all the bits.
re: the 'take as much of the best things you're allowed to' thing. Wasn't this the prevalent attitude through 7th? And 6th? And 5th?
And in fact any edition of 40k, at least in the views of certain areas of this hobby/game. I find the only common aspect between LCG's, CCG's and wargaming in general is that you're collecting items. But as for a gameplay comparison I'd argue that 40k doesn't have that much in common with something like Magic or Netrunner outside of having to havea pre-built list/deck/army for gaming purposes. But that same comparison applies to all wargames not just those by GW
Rune Stonegrinder wrote: This is spot on IMO, You don't need to like the army or enjoy their storyline. The way codices are approached since 6th ed. is buy the new hotness and win. What's so fun about playing the same meta every time you get to the table? if its just to smash your opponent its not to enjoy the game any longer.
When IMO they can balance the codices better and everyone wins. Not at the game obviously, but by having a competitive fun units in every codex where all it takes is savy and maybe a little luck.
Why is your meta so stale? That doesn't sound as much like an issue with the game as it does a slow revolution of armies and play styles in the local area. Also I'd very much so contend that just because something is new doesn't make it good.
infinite_array wrote: Erm... He's talking about LCGs (Living Card Games), not CCGs. They're currently the in vogue method for most card games, since they're not randomly distributed.
That's good to know. I pretty much stopped playing CCGs because of how frustrating it was to want X card for your deck and not be able to get it (either because you couldn't find it or it was ludicrously expensive)
Still, random drawing the deck you built is still pretty different than rolling D6s for an army you built that "should" mitigate for better rolls.
Yeah, the money sink now comes from a monthly release schedule and the knowledge that, even if you only play a faction or two, you have to buy an entire pack to get the specific cards you want.
Honestly, it why I dropped Xwing as a game, and why I'm cautious about investing too much in Test of Honour. I don't like being forced to purchase cards to customize units when they could easily be printed as a single line in a rulebook.
It's not, for all of MTG's current 'issues' it still has what well may be the most solid and comprehensive rule set I suspect I'll ever see, and 40k errrm doesn't
Farseer_V2 wrote: FW isn't actually good or OP though so that pretty well falls apart.
I guess I'm mostly referencing 6-7E, though our last local tournament had a lot of Fire Raptors. I mean like as many as there were players (and there were 20-30 players)
Farseer_V2 wrote: FW isn't actually good or OP though so that pretty well falls apart.
I guess I'm mostly referencing 6-7E, though our last local tournament had a lot of Fire Raptors. I mean like as many as there were players (and there were 20-30 players)
- Salvage
Fire Raptors are one of the few exceptions but even then they aren't meta warping.
Boss Salvage wrote: I mean, I feel like all of that applies to 40k, including limits both in the game's architecture (org slots, special character limit, new Tau Commander style limits) and those imposed by events (WHFB 8E was heavily comped at the tournament level, no reason 40k won't occasionally be, and things like Highlanders have totally been event formats in the past). Annnnnd as for super powerful rare things that cost $$$, pretty sure that's where Forge World comes in
- Salvage
FW isn't actually good or OP though so that pretty well falls apart.
.....what.....lol like what? Forge world is not good? Uhhhh there was a reason GW had to nerf the ever loving crap outta fw units in chapter approved. Even still the fire raptor is one of the best things to take as a space marine or chaos space marine. On top of that their super heavy takes are amazing. A falcion is a quick way to blast any LoW unit off the table in a single shooting round
Automatically Appended Next Post: Ok. You just posted I was gonna say what are you talking about lol....that said I just got an idea....I wonder if T sons can take a fire raptor
The game design philosophies in a CCG / LCG game have been inserted into AOS and 40k as well.
The difference is instead of cards, you are using miniatures instead.
Classic tabletop wargaming tropes such as maneuver have been almost removed in favor of busting out combos like you would with a CCG game.
Terrain is largely meaningless and serves more as a decoration, whereas in a real battle terrain and managing a battlefield are key areas, and classic wargaming tropes include these to some degree.
Both games revolve around the concept of deckbuilding and combo chaining and synergy as opposed to fielding an army of troops and using battlefield tactics and strategies to win the day, instead relying on spreadsheeting math formulas to find the best probabilities using discrete math combinations.
Things like that.
The games no longer represent what a battle would feel like, and instead feel more like a board game or a CCG style game only using miniatures. It is very abstract. It doesn't represent what you read about in war novels nor what you see in film, and trades that feeling with a more gamey game feeling wherein you could sub out your models for cards and it would work largely the same with some minor modifications.
Thats where you get the comparison from. As a comparison, it is part emotional and part pattern matching to each individual and can not be proven correct or incorrect.
Compare AOS or 40k with something like Bolt Action or Saga or Hail Caesar and you can feel the difference in the two styles of gameplay.
Boss Salvage wrote: I mean, I feel like all of that applies to 40k, including limits both in the game's architecture (org slots, special character limit, new Tau Commander style limits) and those imposed by events (WHFB 8E was heavily comped at the tournament level, no reason 40k won't occasionally be, and things like Highlanders have totally been event formats in the past). Annnnnd as for super powerful rare things that cost $$$, pretty sure that's where Forge World comes in
- Salvage
FW isn't actually good or OP though so that pretty well falls apart.
.....what.....lol like what? Forge world is not good? Uhhhh there was a reason GW had to nerf the ever loving crap outta fw units in chapter approved. Even still the fire raptor is one of the best things to take as a space marine or chaos space marine. On top of that their super heavy takes are amazing. A falcion is a quick way to blast any LoW unit off the table in a single shooting round
Yeah because so much of it shows up in winning lists or defines formats. There was an exception in Malefic Lords but they did indeed get demolished. The rest of FW that got demolished was I guess just a happenstance of being Forge World models. Forgeworld units certainly don't fit the pay to compete model that the poster is trying to set them up in. Also I'd suggest shifting out of the hyperbole of 'lol like what dude?!?!' and instead I'd post examples of say top table lists at events that have used many FW units as a much better basis for an argument.
Farseer_V2 wrote: FW isn't actually good or OP though so that pretty well falls apart.
I guess I'm mostly referencing 6-7E, though our last local tournament had a lot of Fire Raptors. I mean like as many as there were players (and there were 20-30 players)
- Salvage
Fire Raptors are one of the few exceptions but even then they aren't meta warping.
Elysians were for a bit
iirc tarantulas were taken as super cheap slot fillers
i dont think they are currently though but at the beginning of 8th when the fw indexs popped up i recall them being pretty popular.
The one that broke it iirc were the mulific lords where they got spammed. Also alphabet soup (ateos rau kares) was a absolute go to unit for chaos players. Think he was 600 points for a greater LoC that had a 2d6 laz Cannon staff.
infinite_array wrote: Erm... He's talking about LCGs (Living Card Games), not CCGs. They're currently the in vogue method for most card games, since they're not randomly distributed.
That's good to know. I pretty much stopped playing CCGs because of how frustrating it was to want X card for your deck and not be able to get it (either because you couldn't find it or it was ludicrously expensive)
Still, random drawing the deck you built is still pretty different than rolling D6s for an army you built that "should" mitigate for better rolls.
-
Well in response to the CCG topic - the random nature of boster packs and such. The best way to make a competitive deck is just to buy the cards you want. Which is what competitive players do. So it might be a core difference about what you do in the hobby - it doesn't really affect the way the game is played. I will just explain my point though.
In a very broad sense LCG play exactly like a table top wargame.
LCG has a card that tells you the stats of a model that you place on the board and it interacts with other models in the game based on RNG. Rolling dice and drawing cards are just RNG.
Xenomancers wrote: There is practically no difference between a LCG and a miniature wargame.
.../s?
I mean, the materials, the rules, the expectation, the interactions, the different kinds of effort put in... I can think of a lot of differences.
Unless you want to get ultra-reductionist, at which point no game played on a flat surface with one or more people is unique. Hey everyone, Age of Sigmar is the exact same as Cards Against Humanity!
Erm... He's talking about LCGs (Living Card Games), not CCGs. They're currently the in vogue method for most card games, since they're not randomly distributed.
I was being very reductionist with my statement there. Ofc their are differences but that the core a LCG has cards(data slates) represented by some kind of model (just like 40k) and they interact based on their stats with some kind of RNG (just like in 40k). I don't even consider it an insult. Effort put in is a good point and probably the major difference. However, I hear people complaining about the rules of 8th and then throwing LCG around as an insult. The only big difference I see between the two types of games has to do with modeling and painting and cost (effort put in) and that has nothing to do with the rules of the game.
i think it’s a rather extreme statement to say it’s like an LCG, but from a gameplay perspective I can understand why.
Essentially it boils down to the fact that many/most games are played out in the list building phase, as opposed to each game being a unique experience. I’m not talking about power relevancies or balance here, I’m talking about strategies and tactics.
It feels and looks like every model and unit has a predetermined and obvious place, irrespective of a particular game or opposing list. It’s all about the combos/auras/alpha strikes built into the list, that change little or not at all game to game.
Executing that strategy still requires some skill and practice, granted, but still it seems really boring. The extreme killiness (is this actually a word?) and one dimensional nature of most of the most popular choices brings each game down to one of target priortization, and little else.
It doesn’t matter much what terrain is on the table, what the mission is, or if one player makes some clever moves. It comes down to who kills the most during turn one based on their already formed when the list was made alpha strike combo of doom.
IMHO of course.
It’s defintiely a different kind of game to others, like the more traditional war game feeling of bolt action.
Boss Salvage wrote: I mean, I feel like all of that applies to 40k, including limits both in the game's architecture (org slots, special character limit, new Tau Commander style limits) and those imposed by events (WHFB 8E was heavily comped at the tournament level, no reason 40k won't occasionally be, and things like Highlanders have totally been event formats in the past). Annnnnd as for super powerful rare things that cost $$$, pretty sure that's where Forge World comes in
- Salvage
FW isn't actually good or OP though so that pretty well falls apart.
.....what.....lol like what? Forge world is not good? Uhhhh there was a reason GW had to nerf the ever loving crap outta fw units in chapter approved. Even still the fire raptor is one of the best things to take as a space marine or chaos space marine. On top of that their super heavy takes are amazing. A falcion is a quick way to blast any LoW unit off the table in a single shooting round
Yeah because so much of it shows up in winning lists or defines formats. There was an exception in Malefic Lords but they did indeed get demolished. The rest of FW that got demolished was I guess just a happenstance of being Forge World models. Forgeworld units certainly don't fit the pay to compete model that the poster is trying to set them up in. Also I'd suggest shifting out of the hyperbole of 'lol like what dude?!?!' and instead I'd post examples of say top table lists at events that have used many FW units as a much better basis for an argument.
Forgeworld's problem in 8th isn't that they're OP, it's that their indexes were so poorly written that their stuff was all over the damn place. Some units straight up didn't work RAW.
ERJAK wrote: Forgeworld's problem in 8th isn't that they're OP, it's that their indexes were so poorly written that their stuff was all over the damn place. Some units straight up didn't work RAW.
That's fine, to be clear I'm not defending FW, I just felt it needed to be pointed out that it isn't some magical P2W button.
.....what.....lol like what? Forge world is not good? Uhhhh there was a reason GW had to nerf the ever loving crap outta fw units in chapter approved. Even still the fire raptor is one of the best things to take as a space marine or chaos space marine. On top of that their super heavy takes are amazing. A falcion is a quick way to blast any LoW unit off the table in a single shooting round
Yeah there was a reason. But it was not a balance. It's because resin is labour intensive expensive material to produce. Thus 100£ spend on resin is lot less profitable for GW than 100£ on plastic. GW doesn't want to sell tons of resin models. They are fine selling small numbers for collectors who wouldn't be spamming same plastic models over and over so resin works great for that purpose but for gamers who spam most powerful choice they want to buy plastic as their margin is LOT better for GW.
Vast majority of broken stuff is actually GW models. For FW we have stuff like 300% price hike for models that you didn't even SEE on tournaments let alone dominate. If those models were as broken as GW claimed every single top-10 army in tournaments would have been spamming that like hell...
Chapter approved changes were just pure marketing move. GW didn't even try to pretend anything else.
The fundamental difference that is ignored when people compare 40k to LCGs is the lack of a deck mechanic.
List building is somewhat akin to deck building, in that you're determining the resources you have available to you. However, I can't think of any LCGs where, at the start of the game, you draw your entire deck into your hand and play every single card. The initial game states (deploying your army, versus drawing a limited and random hand of cards) are nothing alike.
That difference flows through into gameplay. In general, your resources in 40k start at maximum and decline over the course of the game. Most LCGs start with both players having minimal resources, and they build up to a 'win condition' state (some manner of unstoppable mechanism for defeating the opponent) over time. Completely opposite directions.
So when people say "40k is just an LCG now", all they're really saying is that they don't understand 40k, or LCGs (generally with a heaped serving of "and I don't like either of them!" on the side).
I never really understood that comparison to be honest.
I can understand it from auticus's point of view, but all of those criticisms are things that are easily addressed depending on large amounts of factors (e.g. table size and terrain)...
.... which are factors that don't exist in a card game.
Just to go down auticus's list of things he finds don't matter in his games:
1) Maneuver - I find board space is actually the largest problem here. 28mm on a 6x4 will tend towards immobility simply because of space. Playing on a 12x8 will dramatically increase the amount of maneuver that things have to do, especially if the terrain is scaled up accordingly with tons of LOS-blockers, etc. A Baneblade having to move around a GW ruin to get LOS (because it is automatically in range on a 6x4) is dramatically different to a Baneblade moving around a 3x2 foot warehouse that completely blocks LOS, while also having to pay attention to ranges, etc.
2) Terrain management: absolutely matters. Taking the 12x8 board with a reasonable amount of terrain on it, you'll end up with varied terrain. If you use GW's advanced terrain rules from the 8th edition rulebook, it's not even hard to illustrate the difference between e.g. a fortified Governor's Palace surrounded by barricades/bastions/ruins, and a forest with large impassable (to large things) ponds and tall hills.
3) Combo-chaining: most of these rely on abilities with ranges. 6" from your SM Captain-turned-Chapter-Master feels a lot tinier on a good sized board than it does on a 6x4.
40k can absolutely be a wargame, but you have to deviate somewhat from the "pickup game 6x4 using Matched Play" standard and actually try to make it a wargame. I understand that this may not be easy or whatever, but it's still, at its core, a wargame, and can be one if people want it to be. They just have to put in the effort with the right kind of terrain and board sizes.
Tokhuah wrote: Without a doubt both X-Wing and Shadespire are LCGs with miniatures, right down to the card distribution method.
Not at all. X-Wing is nothing like a CCG, its cards have no gameplay function whatsoever. FFG just cut the rulebook up into sections and sold each piece with a different ship to force you to buy everything if you want to play in FFG's official events. If you aren't attending a FFG event where you are required to bring the cards as a proof of purchase there is little reason to even take the cards out of your box. You can just keep them nearby as a rules reference, like you would do with a 40k rulebook.
The reason 40k is like a CCG is not its distribution method, it's how the game plays. One of the major differences between a CCG and a wargame is that the CCG has no concept of position on the battlefield. Things are either "in play" or "not in play", but once a card is on the table it's in the same location as everything else. There's no checking distance between units/creatures/whatever, there's no movement, etc. For example, to attack in MTG you don't move a creature into range of your opponent, you declare "I'm attacking" and then your opponent can declare that some of their creatures will block. If you want to cast a lightning bolt you don't have a threat range originating from a wizard, you declare "lightning bolt" and then pick a target creature or player anywhere on the table. You don't out-flank a creature to stab it in the back, you cast "stab in the back" that destroys target creature. Etc.
If you look at GW's recent design choices you see them moving very strongly in that direction. Terrain now does little or nothing to slow movement or block LOS (without third-party rules to fix GW's decisions). Movement speeds for many units are fast enough to consistently get turn-1 charges anywhere on the table. Deep striking now has no drawbacks and lets you deploy directly into attack range. Vehicles no longer have firing arcs or armor facings. Etc. It matters less and less where your models are on the table because their threat range has become "pick a target anywhere on the table". For example, as an IG player I can cast "plasma squad" anywhere on the table on turn 1 and unload 8 dice of plasma into something, after which my one-shot weapon is spent and probably never fires again. My Basilisk can hit anywhere on the table without ever bothering to move. My Valkyrie full of Ogryns can deliver a turn 1 charge anywhere on the table, unless my opponent blocks with a screening unit (just like creatures block in MTG). And when positioning or movement do matter the choice is almost always very obvious to everyone involved, making it a pretty limited part of the game. The far more important factor in who wins is list construction and target priority, just like in a CCG.
Now, is the comparison perfect? Of course not. 40k is not literally a CCG in every possible way. But nobody is saying so, and to object that the comparison is not 100% literally accurate is missing the point. It's like the people in 6th and 7th edition arguing that Eldar weren't overpowered, because there was this one unit that was pretty bad.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Unit1126PLL wrote: 1) Maneuver - I find board space is actually the largest problem here. 28mm on a 6x4 will tend towards immobility simply because of space. Playing on a 12x8 will dramatically increase the amount of maneuver that things have to do, especially if the terrain is scaled up accordingly with tons of LOS-blockers, etc. A Baneblade having to move around a GW ruin to get LOS (because it is automatically in range on a 6x4) is dramatically different to a Baneblade moving around a 3x2 foot warehouse that completely blocks LOS, while also having to pay attention to ranges, etc.
Ok? Hardly anyone plays on anything larger than 6x4, and larger boards are usually impractical even if you wanted to build one. There's no sense in talking about how the game works fine in a situation that effectively doesn't exist.
2) Terrain management: absolutely matters. Taking the 12x8 board with a reasonable amount of terrain on it, you'll end up with varied terrain. If you use GW's advanced terrain rules from the 8th edition rulebook, it's not even hard to illustrate the difference between e.g. a fortified Governor's Palace surrounded by barricades/bastions/ruins, and a forest with large impassable (to large things) ponds and tall hills.
Except it really isn't easy to illustrate that difference in functional terms. Aesthetically, sure, you can theme your table however you like, but the vast majority of terrain blocks neither LOS nor movement and offers the same +1 save bonus (under ridiculously restrictive circumstances) that every other piece of terrain has. To make terrain interesting and relevant you pretty much have to dump the standard rules and bring your own terrain and LOS rules.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Backspacehacker wrote: A falcion is a quick way to blast any LoW unit off the table in a single shooting round
So is a Shadowsword, which costs significantly less (even before the absurd nerf) and is a GW codex unit. It's insane to suggest that the post-nerf Falchion is equivalent in power to the pair of Shadowswords you could buy instead.
Unit1126PLL wrote: 1) Maneuver - I find board space is actually the largest problem here. 28mm on a 6x4 will tend towards immobility simply because of space. Playing on a 12x8 will dramatically increase the amount of maneuver that things have to do, especially if the terrain is scaled up accordingly with tons of LOS-blockers, etc. A Baneblade having to move around a GW ruin to get LOS (because it is automatically in range on a 6x4) is dramatically different to a Baneblade moving around a 3x2 foot warehouse that completely blocks LOS, while also having to pay attention to ranges, etc.
Ok? Hardly anyone plays on anything larger than 6x4, and larger boards are usually impractical even if you wanted to build one. There's no sense in talking about how the game works fine in a situation that effectively doesn't exist
You know you can make it exist, right? I know hardly anyone plays that way, but it's a catch-22: "The game is bad because of the way people play it, but we can't make it good because that's not how people play it."
2) Terrain management: absolutely matters. Taking the 12x8 board with a reasonable amount of terrain on it, you'll end up with varied terrain. If you use GW's advanced terrain rules from the 8th edition rulebook, it's not even hard to illustrate the difference between e.g. a fortified Governor's Palace surrounded by barricades/bastions/ruins, and a forest with large impassable (to large things) ponds and tall hills.
Except it really isn't easy to illustrate that difference in functional terms. Aesthetically, sure, you can theme your table however you like, but the vast majority of terrain blocks neither LOS nor movement and offers the same +1 save bonus (under ridiculously restrictive circumstances) that every other piece of terrain has. To make terrain interesting and relevant you pretty much have to dump the standard rules and bring your own terrain and LOS rules.
Well, except that ruins/barricades hide tanks way better than woods do, but are also impassable to tanks, unlike woods. So right there, the effectiveness of a tank company changes based on the terrain (since we've agreed that positioning now matters, being restricted to city streets is a big hit to mobility vs. moving through woods). As for it not blocking LOS... then make terrain that blocks LOS. This is not a rules issue. It's not like the rules say "Terrain shall never block LOS."
Like literally, the difference between "my baneblade can sit anywhere that's not a pond and hit anything in range (except perhaps behind that big hill...)" and "my baneblade can only travel down narrow roads, and with luck at a crossroads can cover four directions, but only out to three feet before those roads turn again" is all in the terrain.
Not really. Anything above 6x4 runs into space limits, and significantly over 6x4 it becomes very difficult to reach into the middle of the table. Non-standard table sizes are not a solution.
I know hardly anyone plays that way, but it's a catch-22: "The game is bad because of the way people play it, but we can't make it good because that's not how people play it."
Remember, 6x4 is what GW recommends. It's entirely fair to point out that the game as GW published it is bad, even if you can make your own 40k-inspired game that works better. When discussing what the actual 40k rules are it's important to consider the standard rules, not some obscure house-ruled variant that your group invented to fix everything.
Well, except that ruins/barricades hide tanks way better than woods do, but are also impassable to tanks, unlike woods.
They really don't. Ruins/barricades don't hide anything most of the time because of how LOS works. If I can see 1mm of the tip of one antenna on your tank poking out from behind the terrain feature I can shoot it as if the terrain wasn't there at all. Meanwhile woods block movement just as much as ruins, as they don't grant vehicles any special exception to the general rule of not being allowed to move through terrain features. The difference between woods and ruins is almost entirely aesthetic.
As for it not blocking LOS... then make terrain that blocks LOS. This is not a rules issue. It's not like the rules say "Terrain shall never block LOS."
The problem is that unless you make your terrain in the form of solid boxes it doesn't block LOS. 8th edition's LOS rules are so absurdly generous that it becomes nearly impossible to block LOS completely for anything but small infantry units. The common terrain, including the terrain that GW sells and recommends for standard games, does effectively nothing to block LOS.
(Now, you can fix this with house rules, of course, but that's not the standard 40k rules as GW published them.)
Well, except that ruins/barricades hide tanks way better than woods do, but are also impassable to tanks, unlike woods. So right there, the effectiveness of a tank company changes based on the terrain (since we've agreed that positioning now matters, being restricted to city streets is a big hit to mobility vs. moving through woods). As for it not blocking LOS... then make terrain that blocks LOS. This is not a rules issue. It's not like the rules say "Terrain shall never block LOS."
Like literally, the difference between "my baneblade can sit anywhere that's not a pond and hit anything in range (except perhaps behind that big hill...)" and "my baneblade can only travel down narrow roads, and with luck at a crossroads can cover four directions, but only out to three feet before those roads turn again" is all in the terrain.
Ruins and Barricades are not impassible to vehicles. Just have to end your turn on the ground level of a ruin (if you lack fly or aren't infantry) and barricades do nothing to / for vehicles (maybe your thinking tank traps which only slow them when advancing or charging). The problem with 8th's terrain rules is that you have to be completely inside the terrain and if not infantry you need to also be 50% obscured to get any benefit from cover (+1 to your save which can still be mitigated by AP). Requiring a vehicle to be completely inside the woods and 50% obscured is basically impossible because no sane person makes woods dense enough to hide models that much and still be able to physically fit models inside of it. Most people treat woods as an abstraction (an area or base with a few removable trees makes for a playable woods in past editions) but GW lets you fire lascannons out of your tanks exhaust pipe but requires actual tree coverage to get a cover save for a rhino parked in the woods.
Most 40k boards I've seen are usually a city block with some bombed out ruins with streets and makeshift barracades, ruins, craters, etc litering the streets. For non urban boards it a mix of some ruins, rocks, woods, craters, maybe some hills, etc. Not once in my 4 years of 40k have I've seen a labyrinth of solid walls blocking line of sight because its both unnatural (with either a man made urban environment or naturally occurring setting) and very few people have that many solid wall structures to fill up a board. The only thing close to that would be a zone mortalis board which has its own set of rules (at least it did back in 7th) and is not conducive to using vehicles or large MCs. The normal terrain GW sells is full of holes and openings so you don't get true LoS blocking and if your declaring those ruin walls LoS blocking then your basically house ruling at this point.
I think that a lot depends on which factions you play with and against.
With my tyranids there is no doubt that the movement phase is still the most important one and the one that takes me longer to correctly define. I win and lose in the movement phase or due to a wrong deployment, every game.
Terrain matters a lot more than it did in 7th, where everything ignored LOS and cover. At least now cover is a massive buff for important models, while still being easy to gain (toe in cover and a couple of models in front of it is usually enough).
There are wargames where positioning and battlefield count more? Yes, there are, AoS being an example.
Is it something that started this edition? No, 7th and 6th had it much worse than this, the game was literally played during list building. The game ended when you were shown your opponent's list, the rest was just hoping in dumb luck.
It's like those people that say that plasma overheating more during night makes 8th dumb, until they remember than in previous editions shooting with 2 plasma weapons at the same time removed the risk of overheat...
As soon as a new edition comes out, players start looking at past editions with rose colored lens. Well i remember perfectly well the horrors of 6th and 7th.
Well, except that ruins/barricades hide tanks way better than woods do, but are also impassable to tanks, unlike woods. So right there, the effectiveness of a tank company changes based on the terrain (since we've agreed that positioning now matters, being restricted to city streets is a big hit to mobility vs. moving through woods). As for it not blocking LOS... then make terrain that blocks LOS. This is not a rules issue. It's not like the rules say "Terrain shall never block LOS."
Like literally, the difference between "my baneblade can sit anywhere that's not a pond and hit anything in range (except perhaps behind that big hill...)" and "my baneblade can only travel down narrow roads, and with luck at a crossroads can cover four directions, but only out to three feet before those roads turn again" is all in the terrain.
Ruins and Barricades are not impassible to vehicles. Just have to end your turn on the ground level of a ruin (if you lack fly or aren't infantry) and barricades do nothing to / for vehicles (maybe your thinking tank traps which only slow them when advancing or charging). The problem with 8th's terrain rules is that you have to be completely inside the terrain and if not infantry you need to also be 50% obscured to get any benefit from cover (+1 to your save which can still be mitigated by AP). Requiring a vehicle to be completely inside the woods and 50% obscured is basically impossible because no sane person makes woods dense enough to hide models that much and still be able to physically fit models inside of it. Most people treat woods as an abstraction (an area or base with a few removable trees makes for a playable woods in past editions) but GW lets you fire lascannons out of your tanks exhaust pipe but requires actual tree coverage to get a cover save for a rhino parked in the woods.
Most 40k boards I've seen are usually a city block with some bombed out ruins with streets and makeshift barracades, ruins, craters, etc litering the streets. For non urban boards it a mix of some ruins, rocks, woods, craters, maybe some hills, etc. Not once in my 4 years of 40k have I've seen a labyrinth of solid walls blocking line of sight because its both unnatural (with either a man made urban environment or naturally occurring setting) and very few people have that many solid wall structures to fill up a board. The only thing close to that would be a zone mortalis board which has its own set of rules (at least it did back in 7th) and is not conducive to using vehicles or large MCs. The normal terrain GW sells is full of holes and openings so you don't get true LoS blocking and if your declaring those ruin walls LoS blocking then your basically house ruling at this point.
Lol no. That's not how terrain works in 8th.
Non infantry models need to just be within terrain, even a mm of it is enough, and then be obscured by the firer by at least 50%. Note that being obscured does not mean obscured by terrain, but by anything between you and the attacker, even enemy models.
Non infantry models have it real easy when it comes to claim cover.
Peregrine wrote: One of the major differences between a CCG and a wargame is that the CCG has no concept of position on the battlefield. Things are either "in play" or "not in play", but once a card is on the table it's in the same location as everything else.
Wow. Is M:tG the only CCG you've ever played? Plenty of CCGs/LCGs use positioning mechanics, with different zones, ranges, etc. The use of "positioning" as a gameplay mechanic does not distinguish wargames from card games... at all.
kadeton wrote: Wow. Is M:tG the only CCG you've ever played? Plenty of CCGs/LCGs use positioning mechanics, with different zones, ranges, etc. The use of "positioning" as a gameplay mechanic does not distinguish wargames from card games... at all.
Even when CCGs have different zones it's a heavily abstracted "zone" that exists for rules purposes but isn't related to where the cards are on the table. It isn't the same kind of simulationist approach that wargames have, where a model's position on the table is its actual location. Perhaps you could do something like this with a CCG, but the genre-defining game doesn't do it at all and none of the games I've ever seen have any meaningful wargame-style movement or positioning mechanics.
Spoletta wrote: I think that a lot depends on which factions you play with and against.
With my tyranids there is no doubt that the movement phase is still the most important one and the one that takes me longer to correctly define. I win and lose in the movement phase or due to a wrong deployment, every game.
Terrain matters a lot more than it did in 7th, where everything ignored LOS and cover. At least now cover is a massive buff for important models, while still being easy to gain (toe in cover and a couple of models in front of it is usually enough).
There are wargames where positioning and battlefield count more? Yes, there are, AoS being an example.
Is it something that started this edition? No, 7th and 6th had it much worse than this, the game was literally played during list building. The game ended when you were shown your opponent's list, the rest was just hoping in dumb luck.
It's like those people that say that plasma overheating more during night makes 8th dumb, until they remember than in previous editions shooting with 2 plasma weapons at the same time removed the risk of overheat...
As soon as a new edition comes out, players start looking at past editions with rose colored lens. Well i remember perfectly well the horrors of 6th and 7th.
Well, except that ruins/barricades hide tanks way better than woods do, but are also impassable to tanks, unlike woods. So right there, the effectiveness of a tank company changes based on the terrain (since we've agreed that positioning now matters, being restricted to city streets is a big hit to mobility vs. moving through woods). As for it not blocking LOS... then make terrain that blocks LOS. This is not a rules issue. It's not like the rules say "Terrain shall never block LOS."
Like literally, the difference between "my baneblade can sit anywhere that's not a pond and hit anything in range (except perhaps behind that big hill...)" and "my baneblade can only travel down narrow roads, and with luck at a crossroads can cover four directions, but only out to three feet before those roads turn again" is all in the terrain.
Ruins and Barricades are not impassible to vehicles. Just have to end your turn on the ground level of a ruin (if you lack fly or aren't infantry) and barricades do nothing to / for vehicles (maybe your thinking tank traps which only slow them when advancing or charging). The problem with 8th's terrain rules is that you have to be completely inside the terrain and if not infantry you need to also be 50% obscured to get any benefit from cover (+1 to your save which can still be mitigated by AP). Requiring a vehicle to be completely inside the woods and 50% obscured is basically impossible because no sane person makes woods dense enough to hide models that much and still be able to physically fit models inside of it. Most people treat woods as an abstraction (an area or base with a few removable trees makes for a playable woods in past editions) but GW lets you fire lascannons out of your tanks exhaust pipe but requires actual tree coverage to get a cover save for a rhino parked in the woods.
Most 40k boards I've seen are usually a city block with some bombed out ruins with streets and makeshift barracades, ruins, craters, etc litering the streets. For non urban boards it a mix of some ruins, rocks, woods, craters, maybe some hills, etc. Not once in my 4 years of 40k have I've seen a labyrinth of solid walls blocking line of sight because its both unnatural (with either a man made urban environment or naturally occurring setting) and very few people have that many solid wall structures to fill up a board. The only thing close to that would be a zone mortalis board which has its own set of rules (at least it did back in 7th) and is not conducive to using vehicles or large MCs. The normal terrain GW sells is full of holes and openings so you don't get true LoS blocking and if your declaring those ruin walls LoS blocking then your basically house ruling at this point.
Lol no. That's not how terrain works in 8th.
Non infantry models need to just be within terrain, even a mm of it is enough, and then be obscured by the firer by at least 50%. Note that being obscured does not mean obscured by terrain, but by anything between you and the attacker, even enemy models.
Non infantry models have it real easy when it comes to claim cover.
Your definition of easy is very different from mine because 50% obscured is still quite the feat to achieve as it means you basically need more of the model hidden than seen which often times getting a view of TLOS can be quite tricky so your view ends up coming from a slightly elevated point which can make in between obstruction seem less obscuring. Also a lot of the cover that was taken in 7th was from things being inbetween points A and B which now doesn't really matter now because you need to be in area terrain to get any benefit (if your out in the open but you have ruins, a forest, a mob of boyz, and some wreckage between you and that lascannon team then your tanking lascannons to the face without cover because you wheren't standing in terrain despite having a whole host of stuff in the way). Even with infantry you need every model within area terrain to get any cover so if your guys are entering terrain but some of the guys in back didn't quite make it then you don't get cover because despite being on the other side of the terrain from the shooter you still need to be inside the terrain to get any benefit.
Peregrine wrote: Even when CCGs have different zones it's a heavily abstracted "zone" that exists for rules purposes but isn't related to where the cards are on the table. It isn't the same kind of simulationist approach that wargames have, where a model's position on the table is its actual location. Perhaps you could do something like this with a CCG, but the genre-defining game doesn't do it at all and none of the games I've ever seen have any meaningful wargame-style movement or positioning mechanics.
Okay. But now you're just shifting goalposts - you've gone from "no positioning mechanics" to "no simulationist positioning mechanics", which is quite a different statement.
It also negates your central thesis: 40k very much does have simulationist positioning mechanics, "where a model's position on the table is its actual location", so I guess it can't be a CCG after all?
You could definitely argue that 40k's positioning mechanics are less important to the outcome of a game than in some other wargames, due to long weapon ranges, simplified cover, TLOS, no facing, etc. But to argue that they don't exist, or even that they don't meaningfully contribute to the outcome, is nonsense... and any other similarities between 40k and CCGs are superficial at best, given the fundamental differences.
kadeton wrote: Okay. But now you're just shifting goalposts - you've gone from "no positioning mechanics" to "no simulationist positioning mechanics", which is quite a different statement.
It's not really that different, you're just trying to broaden "positioning mechanics" way more than it should be. A game where you have cards in zone 1 and cards in zone 2 and the two zones can't interact technically has "positioning" in that you decide where to place cards, but it doesn't have the same kind of "moving models on the table" mechanics that wargames have. You aren't moving 1" left to get around terrain. You aren't drawing LOS from card to card to see if you can attack. Etc. Most of the time you could pick the cards up off the table and just remember which zone each card is assigned to without losing any game state information.
It also negates your central thesis: 40k very much does have simulationist positioning mechanics, "where a model's position on the table is its actual location", so I guess it can't be a CCG after all?
It doesn't negate it at all, because the entire point is that GW is moving away from those mechanics mattering. Yes, a model's position on the table is technically still its actual location, but that position is becoming less and less relevant. I could move the model 12" to the side and it would have little meaningful impact on how the game plays out, so can you honestly say that the positioning mechanic really exists?
You could definitely argue that 40k's positioning mechanics are less important to the outcome of a game than in some other wargames, due to long weapon ranges, simplified cover, TLOS, no facing, etc. But to argue that they don't exist, or even that they don't meaningfully contribute to the outcome, is nonsense... and any other similarities between 40k and CCGs are superficial at best, given the fundamental differences.
Like other people you're making the mistake of assuming that if 40k has this kind of mechanic at all, no matter how dumbed-down and irrelevant it may be, it isn't literally a CCG therefore the comparison fails. It's like arguing that 6th/7th edition Eldar weren't overpowered because it wasn't literally a 100% overpowered codex, there was that one unit that wasn't very good. 40k may not literally be a CCG, but it's sure as hell moving in a CCG-like direction in a very bad way.
Spoletta wrote: I think that a lot depends on which factions you play with and against.
With my tyranids there is no doubt that the movement phase is still the most important one and the one that takes me longer to correctly define. I win and lose in the movement phase or due to a wrong deployment, every game. Terrain matters a lot more than it did in 7th, where everything ignored LOS and cover. At least now cover is a massive buff for important models, while still being easy to gain (toe in cover and a couple of models in front of it is usually enough).
There are wargames where positioning and battlefield count more? Yes, there are, AoS being an example. Is it something that started this edition? No, 7th and 6th had it much worse than this, the game was literally played during list building. The game ended when you were shown your opponent's list, the rest was just hoping in dumb luck.
It's like those people that say that plasma overheating more during night makes 8th dumb, until they remember than in previous editions shooting with 2 plasma weapons at the same time removed the risk of overheat...
As soon as a new edition comes out, players start looking at past editions with rose colored lens. Well i remember perfectly well the horrors of 6th and 7th.
Well, except that ruins/barricades hide tanks way better than woods do, but are also impassable to tanks, unlike woods. So right there, the effectiveness of a tank company changes based on the terrain (since we've agreed that positioning now matters, being restricted to city streets is a big hit to mobility vs. moving through woods). As for it not blocking LOS... then make terrain that blocks LOS. This is not a rules issue. It's not like the rules say "Terrain shall never block LOS."
Like literally, the difference between "my baneblade can sit anywhere that's not a pond and hit anything in range (except perhaps behind that big hill...)" and "my baneblade can only travel down narrow roads, and with luck at a crossroads can cover four directions, but only out to three feet before those roads turn again" is all in the terrain.
Ruins and Barricades are not impassible to vehicles. Just have to end your turn on the ground level of a ruin (if you lack fly or aren't infantry) and barricades do nothing to / for vehicles (maybe your thinking tank traps which only slow them when advancing or charging). The problem with 8th's terrain rules is that you have to be completely inside the terrain and if not infantry you need to also be 50% obscured to get any benefit from cover (+1 to your save which can still be mitigated by AP). Requiring a vehicle to be completely inside the woods and 50% obscured is basically impossible because no sane person makes woods dense enough to hide models that much and still be able to physically fit models inside of it. Most people treat woods as an abstraction (an area or base with a few removable trees makes for a playable woods in past editions) but GW lets you fire lascannons out of your tanks exhaust pipe but requires actual tree coverage to get a cover save for a rhino parked in the woods.
Most 40k boards I've seen are usually a city block with some bombed out ruins with streets and makeshift barracades, ruins, craters, etc litering the streets. For non urban boards it a mix of some ruins, rocks, woods, craters, maybe some hills, etc. Not once in my 4 years of 40k have I've seen a labyrinth of solid walls blocking line of sight because its both unnatural (with either a man made urban environment or naturally occurring setting) and very few people have that many solid wall structures to fill up a board. The only thing close to that would be a zone mortalis board which has its own set of rules (at least it did back in 7th) and is not conducive to using vehicles or large MCs. The normal terrain GW sells is full of holes and openings so you don't get true LoS blocking and if your declaring those ruin walls LoS blocking then your basically house ruling at this point.
Lol no. That's not how terrain works in 8th.
Non infantry models need to just be within terrain, even a mm of it is enough, and then be obscured by the firer by at least 50%. Note that being obscured does not mean obscured by terrain, but by anything between you and the attacker, even enemy models. Non infantry models have it real easy when it comes to claim cover.
Your definition of easy is very different from mine because 50% obscured is still quite the feat to achieve as it means you basically need more of the model hidden than seen which often times getting a view of TLOS can be quite tricky so your view ends up coming from a slightly elevated point which can make in between obstruction seem less obscuring. Also a lot of the cover that was taken in 7th was from things being inbetween points A and B which now doesn't really matter now because you need to be in area terrain to get any benefit (if your out in the open but you have ruins, a forest, a mob of boyz, and some wreckage between you and that lascannon team then your tanking lascannons to the face without cover because you wheren't standing in terrain despite having a whole host of stuff in the way). Even with infantry you need every model within area terrain to get any cover so if your guys are entering terrain but some of the guys in back didn't quite make it then you don't get cover because despite being on the other side of the terrain from the shooter you still need to be inside the terrain to get any benefit.
How can it not be easy, a predator is 50% covered by 3 of 4 tactical marines, you can also do it with a couple of primaris (assuming that the enemy is shooting at you without any hindrance from the rest of his army). Also, it's false that a squad has to be totally within a terrain piece to gain cover. In your example, the ones that are not in cover die first (correctly) and then the other ones have the benefits of cover.
Sure, being in an elevated position means that you will negate cover on most vehicles, but you know, positioning matters in this game.
kadeton wrote: Wow. Is M:tG the only CCG you've ever played? Plenty of CCGs/LCGs use positioning mechanics, with different zones, ranges, etc. The use of "positioning" as a gameplay mechanic does not distinguish wargames from card games... at all.
Even when CCGs have different zones it's a heavily abstracted "zone" that exists for rules purposes but isn't related to where the cards are on the table. It isn't the same kind of simulationist approach that wargames have, where a model's position on the table is its actual location. Perhaps you could do something like this with a CCG, but the genre-defining game doesn't do it at all and none of the games I've ever seen have any meaningful wargame-style movement or positioning mechanics.
Mage Wars. The Original one. Significant movememt, line of sight and range mechanics.
Of course warhammer is not a CCG. But this statement is not supposed to be taken literally.
It's pointing out that one of the main traits of CCG is that you generally can't win an opponent if he has a better deck. Sure, you can try to use some combos to boost your army or counters to weaken your opponent's army...but you still get beaten regardless. So, deckbuilding is unproportionally more important than actually playing the game.
Same goes for 40k. Sure, you can try to use tactics with your sub-par army vs your opponent's top tier army but the tactical part of the game has gotten oversimplified, limited and will likely not affect the game outcome anywayz. So, deckbuilding listbuilding is also unproportionally more important than actually playing the game.
Peregrine wrote: It's not really that different, you're just trying to broaden "positioning mechanics" way more than it should be. A game where you have cards in zone 1 and cards in zone 2 and the two zones can't interact technically has "positioning" in that you decide where to place cards, but it doesn't have the same kind of "moving models on the table" mechanics that wargames have. You aren't moving 1" left to get around terrain. You aren't drawing LOS from card to card to see if you can attack. Etc. Most of the time you could pick the cards up off the table and just remember which zone each card is assigned to without losing any game state information.
Again, you're talking about simulationist positioning as if that is the only thing that matters. Any game in which the position of game pieces relative to each other is significant and can be changed has positioning elements. The ways in which position is significant and can change are fundamentally different between wargames and card games.
Peregrine wrote: It doesn't negate it at all, because the entire point is that GW is moving away from those mechanics mattering. Yes, a model's position on the table is technically still its actual location, but that position is becoming less and less relevant. I could move the model 12" to the side and it would have little meaningful impact on how the game plays out, so can you honestly say that the positioning mechanic really exists?
Yes, clearly. If the model is moved 12", now it's out of LoS. It's no longer in cover. It's out of range. It can't make the charge. It can't score the objective. It's now vulnerable to Smite. It's lost its Character protection. Its aura's out of range.
All of the above could be equally true if you only moved the model 1" instead of 12. It won't be true for all units all of the time, but that doesn't mean it doesn't matter. You don't get to ignore it just because you don't like the specific abstraction that the rules use.
Peregrine wrote: Like other people you're making the mistake of assuming that if 40k has this kind of mechanic at all, no matter how dumbed-down and irrelevant it may be, it isn't literally a CCG therefore the comparison fails. It's like arguing that 6th/7th edition Eldar weren't overpowered because it wasn't literally a 100% overpowered codex, there was that one unit that wasn't very good. 40k may not literally be a CCG, but it's sure as hell moving in a CCG-like direction in a very bad way.
No, it's like arguing that a dog isn't a frog, even though they both have four legs and share two letters. You're making so many stupid conflations that it's hard to untangle them all, but here's the main one:
"The positioning mechanics are becoming dumbed-down and irrelevant, so it's moving in a CCG-like direction"
No. At most, it's moving in a dumb wargame direction, and it was already the dumbest wargame on the market. The positioning mechanics in wargames and card games are fundamentally different forms of abstraction - there's no "direction" to get from one to the other.
From what I can tell, this seems to be the only way in which 40k is "CCG-like", which ignores every other way in which they are fundamentally dissimilar.
We get it, you don't like the abstraction of positioning that 8th ed uses. But again, saying that it's a CCG doesn't tell us anything other than you don't understand 40k, or CCGs.
Farseer_V2 wrote: FW isn't actually good or OP though so that pretty well falls apart.
I guess I'm mostly referencing 6-7E, though our last local tournament had a lot of Fire Raptors. I mean like as many as there were players (and there were 20-30 players)
- Salvage
Fire Raptors are one of the few exceptions but even then they aren't meta warping.
Elysians were for a bit
Were they? How? I missed that. It would have been nice to be That Guy just once.
koooaei wrote: Of course warhammer is not a CCG. But this statement is not supposed to be taken literally.
It's pointing out that one of the main traits of CCG is that you generally can't win an opponent if he has a better deck. Sure, you can try to use some combos to boost your army or counters to weaken your opponent's army...but you still get beaten regardless. So, deckbuilding is unproportionally more important than actually playing the game.
Same goes for 40k. Sure, you can try to use tactics with your sub-par army vs your opponent's top tier army but the tactical part of the game has gotten oversimplified, limited and will likely not affect the game outcome anywayz. So, deckbuilding listbuilding is also unproportionally more important than actually playing the game.
Having a better list that will beat worse lists is a feature of games, not a bug. 'Field everything and you still have a chance of winning' means that nothing matter and the rules are made up, like Calvinball.
quentra wrote: Having a better list that will beat worse lists is a feature of games, not a bug. 'Field everything and you still have a chance of winning' means that nothing matter and the rules are made up, like Calvinball.
Having a better list that will beat worse lists is a feature of games, not a bug. 'Field everything and you still have a chance of winning' means that nothing matter and the rules are made up, like Calvinball.
I'm not talking about 'field everything'. I'm talking about people's desire for tactics to matter. That is currently not satisfied at all with how little tactics mean compared to listbuilding. And that's why people call 8-th edition CCG.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I never really understood that comparison to be honest.
I can understand it from auticus's point of view, but all of those criticisms are things that are easily addressed depending on large amounts of factors (e.g. table size and terrain)...
.... which are factors that don't exist in a card game.
Just to go down auticus's list of things he finds don't matter in his games:
1) Maneuver - I find board space is actually the largest problem here. 28mm on a 6x4 will tend towards immobility simply because of space. Playing on a 12x8 will dramatically increase the amount of maneuver that things have to do, especially if the terrain is scaled up accordingly with tons of LOS-blockers, etc. A Baneblade having to move around a GW ruin to get LOS (because it is automatically in range on a 6x4) is dramatically different to a Baneblade moving around a 3x2 foot warehouse that completely blocks LOS, while also having to pay attention to ranges, etc.
2) Terrain management: absolutely matters. Taking the 12x8 board with a reasonable amount of terrain on it, you'll end up with varied terrain. If you use GW's advanced terrain rules from the 8th edition rulebook, it's not even hard to illustrate the difference between e.g. a fortified Governor's Palace surrounded by barricades/bastions/ruins, and a forest with large impassable (to large things) ponds and tall hills.
3) Combo-chaining: most of these rely on abilities with ranges. 6" from your SM Captain-turned-Chapter-Master feels a lot tinier on a good sized board than it does on a 6x4.
40k can absolutely be a wargame, but you have to deviate somewhat from the "pickup game 6x4 using Matched Play" standard and actually try to make it a wargame. I understand that this may not be easy or whatever, but it's still, at its core, a wargame, and can be one if people want it to be. They just have to put in the effort with the right kind of terrain and board sizes.
I play several 28mm games on a 6x4 space and maneuver is still one of the most important aspects of the game. Look at classic WHFB and Hail Caesar as an example. Saga is another example. Kings of War is another example. AOS and 40k... you just deep strike as much of your crap in as you can, or the rules make it so you are engaged in combat in turn 1 wiping out swathes of the enemy. No flanks. No rears. No need to worry about anything other than move as fast as possible and get into contact for the alpha strike and hopefully end the game by turn 3.
Terrain management can be a thiing as you poiinted out, but the expectation in my local area and the region around it for 20+ years has always been to emulate tournament halls and if you load down the table with terrain you will get stink eye and accused of rigging the game in your favor. GW needs actual rules for placing terrain other than what exists today. Tournament halls are normally with the exception of a couple usually barren flat tables with four or five small pieces of terrain stretched across a 6x4 area. Thats what the player expectation is. I have many examples of players storming out of the store and then going on an explicit filled rant on facebook about me organizing a campaign event in a jungle or some harsh world where impassable terrain and line of sight blocking terrain was everywhere because it "wasn't real 40k". No one wants to deal with that in trying to set up a game but gamer culture is what it is today and I don't see it changing.
Combo chaining is simply deck building up a list that uses command traits and strategems to accomplish your goals. It doesn't feel like a real battle, it feels more like making a magic the gathering deck to me.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I never really understood that comparison to be honest.
I can understand it from auticus's point of view, but all of those criticisms are things that are easily addressed depending on large amounts of factors (e.g. table size and terrain)...
.... which are factors that don't exist in a card game.
Just to go down auticus's list of things he finds don't matter in his games:
1) Maneuver - I find board space is actually the largest problem here. 28mm on a 6x4 will tend towards immobility simply because of space. Playing on a 12x8 will dramatically increase the amount of maneuver that things have to do, especially if the terrain is scaled up accordingly with tons of LOS-blockers, etc. A Baneblade having to move around a GW ruin to get LOS (because it is automatically in range on a 6x4) is dramatically different to a Baneblade moving around a 3x2 foot warehouse that completely blocks LOS, while also having to pay attention to ranges, etc.
2) Terrain management: absolutely matters. Taking the 12x8 board with a reasonable amount of terrain on it, you'll end up with varied terrain. If you use GW's advanced terrain rules from the 8th edition rulebook, it's not even hard to illustrate the difference between e.g. a fortified Governor's Palace surrounded by barricades/bastions/ruins, and a forest with large impassable (to large things) ponds and tall hills.
3) Combo-chaining: most of these rely on abilities with ranges. 6" from your SM Captain-turned-Chapter-Master feels a lot tinier on a good sized board than it does on a 6x4.
40k can absolutely be a wargame, but you have to deviate somewhat from the "pickup game 6x4 using Matched Play" standard and actually try to make it a wargame. I understand that this may not be easy or whatever, but it's still, at its core, a wargame, and can be one if people want it to be. They just have to put in the effort with the right kind of terrain and board sizes.
I play several 28mm games on a 6x4 space and maneuver is still one of the most important aspects of the game. Look at classic WHFB and Hail Caesar as an example. Saga is another example. Kings of War is another example. AOS and 40k... you just deep strike as much of your crap in as you can, or the rules make it so you are engaged in combat in turn 1 wiping out swathes of the enemy. No flanks. No rears. No need to worry about anything other than move as fast as possible and get into contact for the alpha strike and hopefully end the game by turn 3.
Terrain management can be a thiing as you poiinted out, but the expectation in my local area and the region around it for 20+ years has always been to emulate tournament halls and if you load down the table with terrain you will get stink eye and accused of rigging the game in your favor. GW needs actual rules for placing terrain other than what exists today. Tournament halls are normally with the exception of a couple usually barren flat tables with four or five small pieces of terrain stretched across a 6x4 area. Thats what the player expectation is. I have many examples of players storming out of the store and then going on an explicit filled rant on facebook about me organizing a campaign event in a jungle or some harsh world where impassable terrain and line of sight blocking terrain was everywhere because it "wasn't real 40k". No one wants to deal with that in trying to set up a game but gamer culture is what it is today and I don't see it changing.
Combo chaining is simply deck building up a list that uses command traits and strategems to accomplish your goals. It doesn't feel like a real battle, it feels more like making a magic the gathering deck to me.
Well, your problem there is that it is at that level.
40k has always been a game that's given you as an individual player a whole lot of leeway to set the game up as you like it - we currently have 3 different ways to organize our armies, 4 different standard mission sets (including the invitation and many examples to just make up your own), and we have and have always had explicit permission to play at any army size, table size, and game setup that we like as players.
If you choose to set up the scenario in such a way that nothing but alpha strike/combos/list building and matchups matters, because that's what tournaments do for the sake of making sure everyone gets to play several scenarios in a single day...then that's what you'll get. But that's a choice you're making, and its hardly unique to 8th edition 40k for games to be boiled down to that level in order to ensure everyone can play a bunch of different opponents in an event. I've been to guild ball, WMH, Malifaux and many other game tournaments where the setup was explicitly similar to what you describe.
"Well, my players where I am complain when I do things differently" means there's a problem with those players, not the game system inherently.
Really its... I can play it like a tournament because thats how my community plays it.
Or I can play with myself in my garage.
The reality is I have gotten out of most miniature gaming entirely until I find a system that runs in a way that I enjoy.
Assuming that I can get people to play with a lot of terrain to make terrain matter, that still leaves us with the movement phase being relatively a secondary thing with their strong push for alpha striking and ending the game by turn 3.
Blah blah blah stuff that isn't rules and therefore is irrelevant when discussing rules.
I did mention in my post it may be impractical, but it's not impossible. As for "you can't reach the table" - I've played on a 12x8 before, and we managed. It's possible, trust me.
I know hardly anyone plays that way, but it's a catch-22: "The game is bad because of the way people play it, but we can't make it good because that's not how people play it."
Remember, 6x4 is what GW recommends. It's entirely fair to point out that the game as GW published it is bad, even if you can make your own 40k-inspired game that works better. When discussing what the actual 40k rules are it's important to consider the standard rules, not some obscure house-ruled variant that your group invented to fix everything.
"Recommends" is not the same thing as "rules." GW recommends it precisely for the reasons you do, i.e. practicality. It's not a "rule" anymore than "3 detachments max in Matched Play" is a rule; it's a recommendation. The 40krules (you know, the bits that aren't recommendations) actually function fine for a wargame, if players actually want to play a wargame and make the necessary spatial and temporal accommodations.
Well, except that ruins/barricades hide tanks way better than woods do, but are also impassable to tanks, unlike woods.
They really don't. Ruins/barricades don't hide anything most of the time because of how LOS works. If I can see 1mm of the tip of one antenna on your tank poking out from behind the terrain feature I can shoot it as if the terrain wasn't there at all. Meanwhile woods block movement just as much as ruins, as they don't grant vehicles any special exception to the general rule of not being allowed to move through terrain features. The difference between woods and ruins is almost entirely aesthetic.
That's not true at all. Vehicles are explicitly forbidden from moving through buildings/ruined walls, where no such restriction exists for woods in the rules. As for "ruins/barricades don't hide anything" - sure, whatever man. That's not rules though, that's shoddy terrain. They can hide things, and the rules handle situations for hiding things, and in fact mandate that things not be hidden in order to be shot at. So... make better terrain? You don't have to change the rules to make this work. You just have to try and put a bit of effort into your fun.
As for it not blocking LOS... then make terrain that blocks LOS. This is not a rules issue. It's not like the rules say "Terrain shall never block LOS."
The problem is that unless you make your terrain in the form of solid boxes it doesn't block LOS. 8th edition's LOS rules are so absurdly generous that it becomes nearly impossible to block LOS completely for anything but small infantry units. The common terrain, including the terrain that GW sells and recommends for standard games, does effectively nothing to block LOS.
(Now, you can fix this with house rules, of course, but that's not the standard 40k rules as GW published them.)
No, you don't need house rules to fix it. Go outside of your house and tell me if you could see a car parked on the other side. The answer? No, you can't.
As for whether or not what GW sells/what other companies sell and if it blocks LOS or not: that's not rules, man. I don't know why you keep conflating "the way people play 40k" with "the 40k rules" because they're not the same. The rules function fine as wargame rules, but factors unrelated to the rules turn it into the CCG-like experience you're having. Those factors can be easily changed without changing/violating the written rules (not that you, apparently, can distinguish, but that's okay, I don't expect you to actually put in the effort to understand my point).
infinite_array wrote: Erm... He's talking about LCGs (Living Card Games), not CCGs. They're currently the in vogue method for most card games, since they're not randomly distributed.
That's good to know. I pretty much stopped playing CCGs because of how frustrating it was to want X card for your deck and not be able to get it (either because you couldn't find it or it was ludicrously expensive)
-
I actually have the opposite view. I love the rarity of certain powerful cards. It means you don't get fed up with seeing them all the time and having to find ways of beating them in order to be able to win a single game. It necessitates variety in deckbuilding and means that you can't just buy the best cards and automatically have the most powerful deck. I have long thought that it would be interesting to make 40k have something similar, so that models such as Guilliman, Mortarion, Grey Knight Grandmasters and Ynnead are quite rare and not everyone can field them. I have no idea how it would work in practice (and I probably wouldn't want it), but it's a nice thought experiment.
I have many examples of players storming out of the store and then going on an explicit filled rant on facebook about me organizing a campaign event in a jungle or some harsh world where impassable terrain and line of sight blocking terrain was everywhere because it "wasn't real 40k". No one wants to deal with that in trying to set up a game but gamer culture is what it is today and I don't see it changing.
Sheesh, that's awful! Perhaps a solution might be to have people set up the terrain for tables on which they're not playing - i.e. move to the next table to do their terrain? That way you can't game the terrain in your own favour.
I can't believe people prefer games with hardly any terrain. Terrain is part of the spectacle, and changing it up from one game to the next keeps it interesting. Frankly, to play 40k on an almost bare table sounds terrible to me. I would hate it. It becomes a game of 'my list versus your list,' rather than a cinematic interaction between different models and their environment. Terrain makes the game interesting. The people you describe would freak out if they came to my house and I told them their mission was to assault the massive fortress I'm building, while I defend it!
Setting up the terrain isn't the problem. The problem is that I set the games on different locations that aren't always planet bowling ball.
Cityfight battles generate the same level of rage because that isn't standard 40k.
Let me express that not all players do this, maybe not even the majority, but it only takes a couple tantrums to make people shy away from deviating from standard in a store group.
auticus wrote: Setting up the terrain isn't the problem. The problem is that I set the games on different locations that aren't always planet bowling ball.
Cityfight battles generate the same level of rage because that isn't standard 40k.
Let me express that not all players do this, maybe not even the majority, but it only takes a couple tantrums to make people shy away from deviating from standard in a store group.
This isn't 40k rules's fault though, this is the players. That's the point: 40k's rules are actually fairly good for a wargame but the players reduce it to a CCG because they're not looking for a real wargame. You could easily, even without house rules, make 40k a fairly good "simulation of war", if you went into effort on the not-rules part (e.g. terrain building and placement, table size, scenario development, etc. etc.).
corpuschain wrote: I actually have the opposite view. I love the rarity of certain powerful cards. It means you don't get fed up with seeing them all the time and having to find ways of beating them in order to be able to win a single game. It necessitates variety in deckbuilding and means that you can't just buy the best cards and automatically have the most powerful deck. I have long thought that it would be interesting to make 40k have something similar, so that models such as Guilliman, Mortarion, Grey Knight Grandmasters and Ynnead are quite rare and not everyone can field them. I have no idea how it would work in practice (and I probably wouldn't want it), but it's a nice thought experiment.
The issue though is at high level play you do always see those rare cards. They are effectively a barrier to entry to play at the higher level (i.e. you must purchase the card) but with a singles market rarity isn't a balancing tool. Card accessibility only has an impact on new players or players who specifically play in a group who don't purchase singles.
auticus wrote: Setting up the terrain isn't the problem. The problem is that I set the games on different locations that aren't always planet bowling ball.
Cityfight battles generate the same level of rage because that isn't standard 40k.
Let me express that not all players do this, maybe not even the majority, but it only takes a couple tantrums to make people shy away from deviating from standard in a store group.
This isn't 40k rules's fault though, this is the players. That's the point: 40k's rules are actually fairly good for a wargame but the players reduce it to a CCG because they're not looking for a real wargame. You could easily, even without house rules, make 40k a fairly good "simulation of war", if you went into effort on the not-rules part (e.g. terrain building and placement, table size, scenario development, etc. etc.).
I would counter that the rules allowing the player community to turn the game into feeling like a CCG *is* part of the rules fault. If there were rules for placing terrain, rules to mitigate alpha striking, rules to put back the importance of movement, these things would be lessened.
auticus wrote: Setting up the terrain isn't the problem. The problem is that I set the games on different locations that aren't always planet bowling ball.
Cityfight battles generate the same level of rage because that isn't standard 40k.
Let me express that not all players do this, maybe not even the majority, but it only takes a couple tantrums to make people shy away from deviating from standard in a store group.
This isn't 40k rules's fault though, this is the players. That's the point: 40k's rules are actually fairly good for a wargame but the players reduce it to a CCG because they're not looking for a real wargame. You could easily, even without house rules, make 40k a fairly good "simulation of war", if you went into effort on the not-rules part (e.g. terrain building and placement, table size, scenario development, etc. etc.).
I would counter that the rules allowing the player community to turn the game into feeling like a CCG *is* part of the rules fault. If there were rules for placing terrain, rules to mitigate alpha striking, rules to put back the importance of movement, these things would be lessened.
Well, yes, but you must understand that GW is a game company, and panders to what people want. The ridiculous boom of popularity and sales in 8th Edition is giving GW a demand signal that "simpler is better, we want CCGs". I consider it unlikely GW will reverse this huge financial success in the interest of ... what exactly? Preventing the people who enjoy the CCGness from playing the game, because it's not "realistic" enough? How is having rules for terrain placement somehow more realistic/simulationist than not? "Putting back the importance of movement" is subjective; if you play the way I suggested earlier, movement is the most important phase. People just don't, because they don't want to.
corpuschain wrote: I actually have the opposite view. I love the rarity of certain powerful cards. It means you don't get fed up with seeing them all the time and having to find ways of beating them in order to be able to win a single game. It necessitates variety in deckbuilding and means that you can't just buy the best cards and automatically have the most powerful deck. I have long thought that it would be interesting to make 40k have something similar, so that models such as Guilliman, Mortarion, Grey Knight Grandmasters and Ynnead are quite rare and not everyone can field them. I have no idea how it would work in practice (and I probably wouldn't want it), but it's a nice thought experiment.
The issue though is at high level play you do always see those rare cards. They are effectively a barrier to entry to play at the higher level (i.e. you must purchase the card) but with a singles market rarity isn't a balancing tool. Card accessibility only has an impact on new players or players who specifically play in a group who don't purchase singles.
I think if that deckbuilding culture of powerful rare cards/models crept into 40k most players would not be affected. But they would affect competitive play for sure. It would cause alot of controversy nonetheless which is great for lively forums!
auticus wrote: Setting up the terrain isn't the problem. The problem is that I set the games on different locations that aren't always planet bowling ball.
Cityfight battles generate the same level of rage because that isn't standard 40k.
Let me express that not all players do this, maybe not even the majority, but it only takes a couple tantrums to make people shy away from deviating from standard in a store group.
This isn't 40k rules's fault though, this is the players. That's the point: 40k's rules are actually fairly good for a wargame but the players reduce it to a CCG because they're not looking for a real wargame. You could easily, even without house rules, make 40k a fairly good "simulation of war", if you went into effort on the not-rules part (e.g. terrain building and placement, table size, scenario development, etc. etc.).
I would counter that the rules allowing the player community to turn the game into feeling like a CCG *is* part of the rules fault. If there were rules for placing terrain, rules to mitigate alpha striking, rules to put back the importance of movement, these things would be lessened.
If your community is so fixated on "Standard 40K games" then they should open the rulebook. They would see that a "Standard 40K game" at 2000 points uses on average 12 terrain elements, but 18 too is a legit quantity.
We would be getting into pedantry at that point. Standard 40k to most people is what the default is at public events and tournaments. That is the expectation that they use.
If its something that they feel they'd run into at Adepticon or LVO then they are all for it. Otherwise you'll get flak, sometimes severe flak, for introducing it into your games.
I ran a mission straight out of warhammer world and got lit up by someone screaming at me for wasting their time with house rules (well they used all caps in the facebook post which to me is screaming), because it was something they wouldn't experience in a real tournament.
auticus wrote: Setting up the terrain isn't the problem. The problem is that I set the games on different locations that aren't always planet bowling ball.
Cityfight battles generate the same level of rage because that isn't standard 40k.
Let me express that not all players do this, maybe not even the majority, but it only takes a couple tantrums to make people shy away from deviating from standard in a store group.
This isn't 40k rules's fault though, this is the players. That's the point: 40k's rules are actually fairly good for a wargame but the players reduce it to a CCG because they're not looking for a real wargame. You could easily, even without house rules, make 40k a fairly good "simulation of war", if you went into effort on the not-rules part (e.g. terrain building and placement, table size, scenario development, etc. etc.).
I would counter that the rules allowing the player community to turn the game into feeling like a CCG *is* part of the rules fault. If there were rules for placing terrain, rules to mitigate alpha striking, rules to put back the importance of movement, these things would be lessened.
Well, yes, but you must understand that GW is a game company, and panders to what people want. The ridiculous boom of popularity and sales in 8th Edition is giving GW a demand signal that "simpler is better, we want CCGs". I consider it unlikely GW will reverse this huge financial success in the interest of ... what exactly? Preventing the people who enjoy the CCGness from playing the game, because it's not "realistic" enough? How is having rules for terrain placement somehow more realistic/simulationist than not? "Putting back the importance of movement" is subjective; if you play the way I suggested earlier, movement is the most important phase. People just don't, because they don't want to.
I agree with you. This is why I stopped really arguing or worrying about the future of GW games. The current gamer culture demands the simpler, CCG style gameplay. Its the equivalent of me screaming into a hurricane trying to change anything. Suffice to say if someone had introduced me to 40k today instead of in 1998 I wouldn't have invested a dime in the game right now because it offers me nothing that I am interested in. Sadly I have a sizable collection sitting around in cases that I've spent too much time on, that I may be able to get 1/20th of the cost back from if I bothered trying to sell it.
auticus wrote: I agree with you. This is why I stopped really arguing or worrying about the future of GW games. The current gamer culture demands the simpler, CCG style gameplay. Its the equivalent of me screaming into a hurricane trying to change anything. Suffice to say if someone had introduced me to 40k today instead of in 1998 I wouldn't have invested a dime in the game right now because it offers me nothing that I am interested in. Sadly I have a sizable collection sitting around in cases that I've spent too much time on, that I may be able to get 1/20th of the cost back from if I bothered trying to sell it.
This seems very doom-and-gloom. You can still change the way you and your friends play, even if you cannot change the demand signal GW is receiving. Just as an example, my local club introduced my Slaanesh daemons into the club's fluff by adopting a "ritual" mission from Age of Sigmar where a ritual had to be stopped by an attacking force. I played Slaaneshi cultists with undivided allies against Inquisitor Greyfax and a bunch of Storm Troopers allied with Ultramarines. We used the AOS scenario (with some modifications), but instead of the game ending when the ritual succeeded, we allowed me to deep-strike Zarakynel, the Bringer of Torments, near the ritual altar, and then the Imperial players got 666 points of Grey Knights.
We didn't houserule anything, because as Marmatag has so eloquently convinced me of, "missions" are not "rules" so inventing your own missions are not inventing house-rules. We used the normal 40k rules in the book, with a mission of our own devising.
As has been said the card gaminess is in how pre-packaged combos dominate anything else. My alpha strike of X units with Y synergy plus Z stratagem should, on normal dice, kill 800 points of your army. This will be decisive unless you have a solid beta strike or I fluff the dice.
To some extent this has always been there, but the fact it was delayed to turn 3 in past editions hid it. You could also arguably do more about it in game (since you had two turns to move around) rather than counter listing.
auticus wrote: I agree with you. This is why I stopped really arguing or worrying about the future of GW games. The current gamer culture demands the simpler, CCG style gameplay. Its the equivalent of me screaming into a hurricane trying to change anything. Suffice to say if someone had introduced me to 40k today instead of in 1998 I wouldn't have invested a dime in the game right now because it offers me nothing that I am interested in. Sadly I have a sizable collection sitting around in cases that I've spent too much time on, that I may be able to get 1/20th of the cost back from if I bothered trying to sell it.
This seems very doom-and-gloom. You can still change the way you and your friends play, even if you cannot change the demand signal GW is receiving. Just as an example, my local club introduced my Slaanesh daemons into the club's fluff by adopting a "ritual" mission from Age of Sigmar where a ritual had to be stopped by an attacking force. I played Slaaneshi cultists with undivided allies against Inquisitor Greyfax and a bunch of Storm Troopers allied with Ultramarines. We used the AOS scenario (with some modifications), but instead of the game ending when the ritual succeeded, we allowed me to deep-strike Zarakynel, the Bringer of Torments, near the ritual altar, and then the Imperial players got 666 points of Grey Knights.
We didn't houserule anything, because as Marmatag has so eloquently convinced me of, "missions" are not "rules" so inventing your own missions are not inventing house-rules. We used the normal 40k rules in the book, with a mission of our own devising.
I've been doing this for over twenty years. Your area will dictate a lot. You can go in and try to change how they play, and in some groups that will work, and in other groups you'll be shown the door and cursed at for wasting peoples' time. It depends on how much time you want to put into trying to whizz into the wind and have to heavily politic your way to get in games that aren't tournament standard.
Let me reemphasize again how the attempt to insert non standard *missions* (to include WARHAMMER WORLD missions) resulted often in tantrums, rants, and facebook screaming (all caps rants) about how the non standard missions were ruining the game and ruining the community. (that doesn't even go into the house rule aspect, which takes that and turns it up a few notches)
auticus wrote: I agree with you. This is why I stopped really arguing or worrying about the future of GW games. The current gamer culture demands the simpler, CCG style gameplay. Its the equivalent of me screaming into a hurricane trying to change anything. Suffice to say if someone had introduced me to 40k today instead of in 1998 I wouldn't have invested a dime in the game right now because it offers me nothing that I am interested in. Sadly I have a sizable collection sitting around in cases that I've spent too much time on, that I may be able to get 1/20th of the cost back from if I bothered trying to sell it.
This seems very doom-and-gloom. You can still change the way you and your friends play, even if you cannot change the demand signal GW is receiving. Just as an example, my local club introduced my Slaanesh daemons into the club's fluff by adopting a "ritual" mission from Age of Sigmar where a ritual had to be stopped by an attacking force. I played Slaaneshi cultists with undivided allies against Inquisitor Greyfax and a bunch of Storm Troopers allied with Ultramarines. We used the AOS scenario (with some modifications), but instead of the game ending when the ritual succeeded, we allowed me to deep-strike Zarakynel, the Bringer of Torments, near the ritual altar, and then the Imperial players got 666 points of Grey Knights.
We didn't houserule anything, because as Marmatag has so eloquently convinced me of, "missions" are not "rules" so inventing your own missions are not inventing house-rules. We used the normal 40k rules in the book, with a mission of our own devising.
I've been doing this for over twenty years. Your area will dictate a lot. You can go in and try to change how they play, and in some groups that will work, and in other groups you'll be shown the door and cursed at for wasting peoples' time. It depends on how much time you want to put into trying to whizz into the wind and have to heavily politic your way to get in games that aren't tournament standard.
Let me reemphasize again how the attempt to insert non standard *missions* (to include WARHAMMER WORLD missions) resulted often in tantrums, rants, and facebook screaming (all caps rants) about how the non standard missions were ruining the game and ruining the community. (that doesn't even go into the house rule aspect, which takes that and turns it up a few notches)
Yes... and as I've mentioned, those are the players, not the game. 40k is as much as CCG as it is a simulation wargame or a cooperative RPG or a boardgame or whathaveyou. It depends on how you build the parameters not covered in the rules. Many people would consider this flexibility a strength, though it's clear that the community isn't interested in leveraging the game to its fullest.
I struggle to equate 40k with a hail caesar or a kings of war as a CCG style game though.
The rules themselves lend a certain behavior credence. If hail caesar or kings (for example) was as CCG as 40k I would expect to see the same issues over there, and you don't.
Tokhuah wrote: Without a doubt both X-Wing and Shadespire are LCGs with miniatures, right down to the card distribution method.
Not at all. X-Wing is nothing like a CCG, its cards have no gameplay function whatsoever. FFG just cut the rulebook up into sections and sold each piece with a different ship to force you to buy everything if you want to play in FFG's official events. If you aren't attending a FFG event where you are required to bring the cards as a proof of purchase there is little reason to even take the cards out of your box. You can just keep them nearby as a rules reference, like you would do with a 40k rulebook.
X-Wing cards are required for game play just like GW models are required for 40K play. The cards and models in their totality are what make X-Wing/Shadespire a LCG and your argument against it just reinforces what I was saying. You could print and play an LCG as easily as the X-Wings cards with Star Wars Toys and PDF of the rules so stop being stuck on stupid.
Tyel wrote: As has been said the card gaminess is in how pre-packaged combos dominate anything else. My alpha strike of X units with Y synergy plus Z stratagem should, on normal dice, kill 800 points of your army. This will be decisive unless you have a solid beta strike or I fluff the dice.
To some extent this has always been there, but the fact it was delayed to turn 3 in past editions hid it. You could also arguably do more about it in game (since you had two turns to move around) rather than counter listing.
Unit1126PLL wrote: As for "ruins/barricades don't hide anything" - sure, whatever man. That's not rules though, that's shoddy terrain. They can hide things, and the rules handle situations for hiding things, and in fact mandate that things not be hidden in order to be shot at. So... make better terrain? You don't have to change the rules to make this work. You just have to try and put a bit of effort into your fun.
Actually, it is the rules. Back in 4th edition. Everything had a height value. If a model was behind a model or a piece of terrain with a higher height it couldn't be seen. Simple and it was a good abstraction to show that even though the models are static, what they represented isn't. While also giving players the creative freedom to convert.
Back on topic.
I think what we are seeing is a response in game design based on trends. Warmachines/Hordes took the combo element from CCG'S and made it into a miniature game. It proved to be very popular, almost to the point of being a worthy contender for GW's monopoly of the fantasy/sci-fi market. Their game was aimed at a very competitive player base, there must have been a spill over into the 40k community. It made sense for GW to emulate that trend, 40k had grown stale over the years as it was stuck into a cycle of regurgitation.
We may not all like what GW are doing, but it is easy to see the influence of the CCG, and it is refreshing to see them breaking their cycles.
If only the combo element of CCGs had come about when I was getting into the hobby I would have saved myself about $20,000 in investment and time lmao.
auticus wrote: If only the combo element of CCGs had come about when I was getting into the hobby I would have saved myself about $20,000 in investment and time lmao.
But you wouldn't have something to endlessly complain about on the internet and isn't that what's really important?
auticus wrote: If only the combo element of CCGs had come about when I was getting into the hobby I would have saved myself about $20,000 in investment and time lmao.
this one the stupidest posts I’ve seen on here in a while
You yourself have said you’ve been playing for 20+ years. Did you hate playing 40k the entire time? Heck just imagine applying this statement to anything else like a car.
“I bought a car for 20k. I spent 20 years driving it and maintaining it. Then it died on me. What a waste of of 20000 dollars”.
Yes 40k is not an amazing game and there is plenty wrong with it. But all I see in threads complaining about how bad 40k has become is overstated hyperbole and and buzzwords like WAAC and calling 40k a CCG.
And this is coming from someone who quit 40K a few months ago
auticus wrote: If only the combo element of CCGs had come about when I was getting into the hobby I would have saved myself about $20,000 in investment and time lmao.
this one the stupidest posts I’ve seen on here in a while
You yourself have said you’ve been playing for 20+ years. Did you hate playing 40k the entire time? Heck just imagine applying this statement to anything else like a car.
“I bought a car for 20k. I spent 20 years driving it and maintaining it. Then it died on me. What a waste of of 20000 dollars”.
Yes 40k is not an amazing game and there is plenty wrong with it. But all I see in threads complaining about how bad 40k has become is overstated hyperbole and and buzzwords like WAAC and calling 40k a CCG.
And this is coming from someone who quit 40K a few months ago
I came back to 8th after quitting at the beginning of 6th.
Yes, spam was a thing in 5th (and 4th... and 3rd), but things like "comp scores" * awaits all the hissing a booing* really did a lot to curb this mentality. Sure, it artificially forced people to take worse units, but it made the game much more interesting.
8th really isn't that bad. Sure, games go a little quickly, and man do things wreck house, but its a great baseline to build a great game. GW's mentality of patching the game is great too, they are fixing stuff slowly and surely, and while some kneejerking has been a bit overboard (conscript nerf, malefic lords nerf), I think they'll get the hang of it
this one the stupidest posts I’ve seen on here in a while
(y)
I'm stuck with a mountain of models I have no use for right now that aren't really worth anything. Had I known that when I picked up the game that it would have turned into...this... I would have invested in something else.
Complaining about how bad 40k is is not overstated hyperbole. Its peoples' opinions about the game not being what they got into in the first place.
For a cheap $50 video game thats fine. WHen you invest years and thousands of dollars, you're going to get people who have a lot invested in it who are going to complain.
I really think the 4x6 was so that tournament play could fit enough tables in....not to mention transporting the terrain.
My garage sets up within 2 hours for a 12 x 6 table.
We used to play on 8x8 but that is difficult to move items.
Then we played on my modular 22"x22" boards for 3 boards x6 boards....that was good...but pre built boards limit what the theme is.
So I use 4x6 boards set up side by side.
I can go a mx of 16 x 6 in my garage for 6 vs 6 play.
At our LFS we do 2 vs 2 on 4x8 tables.
But the depth of play on a 6 foot deep deployment zone is so much tied to the terrain and the layers of troop deployment.
Not to mention ....it is easy for any adult to reach 3 feet in from the edge to move pieces around. Anything more is difficult for some if not most...but 3 feet is very doable.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I did mention in my post it may be impractical, but it's not impossible. As for "you can't reach the table" - I've played on a 12x8 before, and we managed. It's possible, trust me.
It might be possible, but it's a pain in the ass to deal with and has a much higher chance of broken models because you bumped someone's flyer while reaching across the table or whatever. And it almost certainly means acknowledging that you aren't going to be measuring with anything resembling accuracy, as it's very difficult to do so while leaning over 4' of table and reaching down between terrain pieces. There's a reason why even Apocalpyse games limit the table size and use non-rectangular tables to keep reaching distances to a minimum, along with minimizing terrain to keep the clutter out of the way. Trying to play a heavy-terrain 40k game on a 12x8 table would be a nightmare.
"Recommends" is not the same thing as "rules." GW recommends it precisely for the reasons you do, i.e. practicality. It's not a "rule" anymore than "3 detachments max in Matched Play" is a rule; it's a recommendation. The 40krules (you know, the bits that aren't recommendations) actually function fine for a wargame, if players actually want to play a wargame and make the necessary spatial and temporal accommodations.
No, it isn't the same as a rule, but it does tell us what GW considers "standard 40k" to be. At minimum you're having to deviate from the standard game and play a variant, even if it isn't a variant that is explicitly forbidden by the rules. It's just like how, if someone came up with a game-breaking tournament list with 15 detachments, we'd place most of the blame on the event for not following the 3-detachment guidelines and very little of the blame on GW for failing to catch a balance issue in a weird variant game that they recommended against playing.
Vehicles are explicitly forbidden from moving through buildings/ruined walls, where no such restriction exists for woods in the rules.
Wrong. The prohibition is on moving through terrain features, walls are merely mentioned as one example of a terrain feature. If the gaps between trees are not sufficiently large for the vehicle to fit between trees at all points along its route then the woods are impassible terrain for it, and most forest terrain pieces do not have large enough gaps.
As for "ruins/barricades don't hide anything" - sure, whatever man. That's not rules though, that's shoddy terrain. They can hide things, and the rules handle situations for hiding things, and in fact mandate that things not be hidden in order to be shot at. So... make better terrain? You don't have to change the rules to make this work. You just have to try and put a bit of effort into your fun.
Sorry, but a "barricade" that is 6" tall is not a barricade by any conventional understanding of the word (and anything shorter than that will not hide a vehicle). And the "shoddy terrain" you're talking about is the standard terrain kits that GW sells for 40k. Do you not see a problem with GW selling 40k terrain that can't be used for 40k and the game being designed around the expectation that players will make their own terrain out of solid boxes?
The problem here is not the terrain, it's the use of TLOS and allowing any part of a model to count for LOS such that 1mm of the tip of a hair-thin antenna poking out above the level of a terrain feature is enough to shoot at a vehicle as if the terrain wasn't there at all (and for the vehicle to shoot back as if the terrain wasn't there at all).
As for whether or not what GW sells/what other companies sell and if it blocks LOS or not: that's not rules, man. I don't know why you keep conflating "the way people play 40k" with "the 40k rules" because they're not the same. The rules function fine as wargame rules, but factors unrelated to the rules turn it into the CCG-like experience you're having. Those factors can be easily changed without changing/violating the written rules (not that you, apparently, can distinguish, but that's okay, I don't expect you to actually put in the effort to understand my point).
Of course it's the rules, FFS. It's that the rules for LOS and cover are idiotic even compared to previous versions of 40k, and can't handle the typical wargaming terrain players use (including the terrain sold by GW for use in 40k). And it's not like this is a very complicated problem to solve. Even rules as simple as "LOS can not be drawn through windows/cracks/doors/etc in the walls of a ruin" and "models obscured by terrain get a cover bonus even if their base isn't within the terrain feature" would be a huge improvement and make terrain into a much more significant factor.
Yes, I think that the lack of good terrain rules is probably one of the most damning things about the game currently. Most terrain seems to be little more than decoration because there are always gaps or Windows or whatever that let you see past them which means models behind them get absolutely nothing, and there is not even any sort of worthwhile rules around forests. At the very least I think it should be that you can shoot into a forest but not past it so that they would actually have a use on the table. The fact that the majority of terrain might as well not even exist and is only for Battlefield decoration is absolutely ridiculous
However, GW seems to have gone with the laziest approach possible and shows no indication of wanting to fix it.
Not going to cycle through the posts as just reading the first page lets me know what I'm in for. I will however answer the best way I know how.
Synergy.
Ye gods, I can taste copper. I do believe I threw up blood just typing the word.
Back when I played Magic: The Gathering as a consequence of my part timing at a FLGS, the stackable synergies (Erf, there it is again...) were the goal. +1/+1 granted to all creatures of a certain type for each one of that certain type. 12 Angel cards on the table? +11/+11. Plainswalk, whatever other perk you stacked on your stacked perks combined with other stacked perks.
THAT is what AOS and 40K has been adopting lately, and THAT is what's drawing the CCG/LCG comparison. Nobody is obtuse enough to think that it infers that our minis are made of cardstock, or that we are buying blindpack boosters of models. It comes down to style of play, and the synergy (This is going to take some Tums here in a minute...) mechanic that gives the "feel" of those other gaming systems.
Using a reference card for your units and their abilities does not turn it into a 