So, a lot of you have probably been seeing threads regarding the ever increasing lethality of the game. Or maybe you've seen a few threads regarding that one Socal game and then calls to nerf freebootaz or ork Buggies.
I'm going to be honest and I think it's because over the editions a lot of things that stopped you from doing things were phased out. Once upon a time you couldn't fire at a target that wasn't the closest without passing a LD check, or fire a rapid fire gun unless you stayed stationary or were in half range, heavy weapons couldn't be fired on the move by infantry and vehicles could only fire 1 str6+ weapon on the move and a few str5 or lower as well. Running/advancing wasn't a thing, charge rolls were static ranges.
As the editions went on new things were brought in, old restrictions were loosened or dropped and mechanics like stunned/shaken vehicles or fleeing infantry vanished completely. In exchange a lot of weapons amped up their damage output rapidly amped up even during an addition.
Yes, sometimes it feels bad to have a unit that can't perform it's roll at any given time. But if all your units can perform then it reduces the impact your enemy can have on your army. Things are either dead or killing, no in between as before where a unit was in some form of CC.
Are there core rules that you can think of that would improve the chances of both armies having stuff on the table by T5? Things GW could implement without having to change the army books?
Shaken / stunned are still here in the form of damage tables. Weapon destroyed is effectively ( using the term loosely ) there for vehicles that lose BS or attacks where dreadnoughts are concerned.
Being forced to take leadership tests on LD7 as an Ork from losing 3 models from a 10 man ( or 1in a 3 man unit ) results in a unit that is running away 42% of the time and making them totally useless the next turn if they recover. Now it is a 33% chance to lose 1 and on average another model. A unit that has two less models, but can still act is way more useful than a unit that ran away from an objective by 2D6 inches. Heaven forbid you fallback to the table edge or flee in combat and get overrun.
When a pie plate from a battlecannon landed it did a S8 hit on every single model beneath it. So 10 models? 10 hits. S8 and AP3, which means even marines don't get a save. That would mean 8 marines would die ( or 4 in cover ). In the same scenario now -- you might kill 3 ( or less than 2 in cover ) with a double firing LRBT. The same scenario versus Orks gives us 8 and 4 again versus 8 and 8. So there's a disparity. Which is better? The one where elite models die at the same rate as hordes or the one where a roughly equal amount of points got killed?
Anti-tank guns were also considerably more capable of scoring a devastating blow. Your ordnance weapons would even get a 2D6 pen roll. A lucky set of rolls will see you off from a single shot. The same is no longer possible. You want no move and fire infantry? Then we'll see only vehicles.
Rapid fire bolters are not what's wrong with the game. Remember when marines could fire one shot in 8th and marines were pretty awful and then we got beta rules?
Vehicles weapons and facings are not what's wrong with the game ( unless you want to make the case that aircraft are fixed by making them face what they want to shoot, but then they'd be pretty useless ).
Is 40K deadly? Yes.
Are restrictions good? You bet.
Can more be done to make 40K better? Absolutely.
But we have a problem where people basically ignore the pieces they didn't like from the old editions to make this one the most savage. They pretend that low terrain tables now are more lethal than low terrain tables then. And remember how special characters were banned for literal editions at a time?
40K has issues. There are good suggestions and valid gripes out there and I'm not going to bother going through all of that again. But the community also has an issue where it's incapable of dealing with change and that's been a problem through every edition.
I feel like the previous post needs to be taken with a high degree of salt.
Like sure, Rapid fire bolters aren't a problem. . . But maybe Rapid Fire bolters after moving, with 32" range and -2 are indicative of something? Just maybe?
Insectum7 wrote: I feel like the previous post needs to be taken with a high degree of salt.
Like sure, Rapid fire bolters aren't a problem. . . But maybe Rapid Fire bolters after moving, with 32" range and -2 are indicative of something? Just maybe?
If you moved you get one shot generally, but certainly 15" is easier than 12". AP2 is only turns 2 and maybe 3. And how many of these units are you seeing? Maybe 3? 15 models are shaping the game?
The old Aggressors were way more stupid than that. gak even without double tap they're probably better on efficiency.
Daedalus81 wrote: Shaken / stunned are still here in the form of damage tables. Weapon destroyed is effectively ( using the term loosely ) there for vehicles that lose BS or attacks where dreadnoughts are concerned.
This isn't the same and there are plenty of ways around the damage table (like repairs, that previously could not repair shaken and stunned results)
Daedalus81 wrote: Being forced to take leadership tests on LD7 as an Ork from losing 3 models from a 10 man ( or 1in a 3 man unit ) results in a unit that is running away 42% of the time and making them totally useless the next turn if they recover. Now it is a 33% chance to lose 1 and on average another model. A unit that has two less models, but can still act is way more useful than a unit that ran away from an objective by 2D6 inches. Heaven forbid you fallback to the table edge or flee in combat and get overrun.
Totally useless is the point. That reduces lethality from that unit for the next turn.
Daedalus81 wrote: When a pie plate from a battlecannon landed it did a S8 hit on every single model beneath it. So 10 models? 10 hits. S8 and AP3, which means even marines don't get a save. That would mean 8 marines would die ( or 4 in cover ). In the same scenario now -- you might kill 3 ( or less than 2 in cover ) with a double firing LRBT. The same scenario versus Orks gives us 8 and 4 again versus 8 and 8. So there's a disparity. Which is better? The one where elite models die at the same rate as hordes or the one where a roughly equal amount of points got killed?
The one where the anti-elite gun kills elites efficiently and hordes less efficiently? Do the same math with a 4th edition Leman Russ Exterminator with HB sponsons (the anti-ork one that doesn't kill Marines well) and get back to me. This is like asking "is it good if an AP2 weapon kills terminators and Orks equally?"
Well, yes, because that means it is efficient against terminators and not against Orks.
Anti-tank guns were also considerably more capable of scoring a devastating blow. Your ordnance weapons would even get a 2D6 pen roll. A lucky set of rolls will see you off from a single shot. The same is no longer possible. You want no move and fire infantry? Then we'll see only vehicles.
Which is why 4th edition (that had these rules) was a vehicular terror and vehicles in 4th definitely aren't remembered mostly for being deathtraps...
Rapid fire bolters are not what's wrong with the game. Remember when marines could fire one shot in 8th and marines were pretty awful and then we got beta rules?
Vehicles weapons and facings are not what's wrong with the game ( unless you want to make the case that aircraft are fixed by making them face what they want to shoot, but then they'd be pretty useless ).
Is 40K deadly? Yes.
Are restrictions good? You bet.
Can more be done to make 40K better? Absolutely.
But we have a problem where people basically ignore the pieces they didn't like from the old editions to make this one the most savage. They pretend that low terrain tables now are more lethal than low terrain tables then. And remember how special characters were banned for literal editions at a time?
40K has issues. There are good suggestions and valid gripes out there and I'm not going to bother going through all of that again. But the community also has an issue where it's incapable of dealing with change and that's been a problem through every edition.
Perhaps modifying older editions is a better way to go than redefining from the ground up every now and again. GW can't do this well though
Unit1126PLL wrote: Perhaps modifying older editions is a better way to go than redefining from the ground up every now and again. GW can't do this well though
Maybe. I'm not going to sit here and say I didn't enjoy old editions. GW certainly didn't have the discipline to rework things well. They might still not, but I think they're at least a bit more aware.
I think the issue is that people just got around these rules.
I.E. a vehicle couldn't move and shoot effectively? Okay, they just never moved.
Units couldn't split fire? Okay, you just never took guns on units such that you'd ever really want to. Overkill gives rise to MSU but if everyone embraces that, whatever.
I personally think the rules today are better - its just things need less damage output. GW is in control of these stats - you don't need get a 40% return on shooting infantry into infantry. You don't need to average a 100% return because you targeted a tank with an anti-tank gun, or charged a melee unit into basically anything. Those are decisions they've made.
Restrictions need to be based on creating interesting choices for the players. Not being able to shoot isn't an interesting choice. You are either in range or you are not. Being able to move and shoot is a good thing. Facings were always a bad thing. Not because they couldn't be made to work, but because the models were never built to work with the rules. Dumb gak like the Necron Ghost Ark having arrays that only fire out a side so it needs to act like a pirate ship.
That is pretty indicative of 40k across the board. Bad restrictions because nobody takes into consideration all the elements of the game. Models built because they look neat, not because they fit with any of the rules.
If a vehicle has to sit still to perform then it's sacrificing something to be at full output. We see that in one unit (Doomsday ark) and it looks pathetic by comparison when another vehicle can move at full speed and still act freely.
At the moment it feels like you have to make less decisions. You can simply rock up, point and click. Yes there's less frustration in that "I can't do this or that" But could that be us as gamers being a bit spoilt?
Yes the lethality has amped up in a lot of areas. As someone mentioned, once upon a time a single gauss weapon had the chance to blow up a landraider. But there was also cases when a massive amount of weapons in the game simply could not even glance said raider.
A boltgun would chop through 5+sv due to how AP worked, but now a guardsmen could get a 6+ which is nice. But on the other hand cover only really affected light infantry. An ork boy would go from a 6+ to a 4+ by sitting behind a barricade. But a marine would only care if being hit by a lascannon.
So many little things have been tweaked over the years that gradually it's built into 40K as we know it.
Insectum7 wrote: I feel like the previous post needs to be taken with a high degree of salt.
Like sure, Rapid fire bolters aren't a problem. . . But maybe Rapid Fire bolters after moving, with 32" range and -2 are indicative of something? Just maybe?
If you moved you get one shot generally, but certainly 15" is easier than 12". AP2 is only turns 2 and maybe 3. And how many of these units are you seeing? Maybe 3? 15 models are shaping the game?
The old Aggressors were way more stupid than that. gak even without double tap they're probably better on efficiency.
As a UM player (the poster subfaction of the poster faction) I move and rapid fire happily.
But it's beside the point, I'm not saying it's "shaping the game", I'm saying it's indicative of the current paradigm vs. The past.
Insectum7 wrote: I feel like the previous post needs to be taken with a high degree of salt.
The previous post is yet another example of him trying to argue that 40k isn't any more lethal today than it was back in previous editions.
I mean, his own posts defeats itself in the morale section alone, where old morale reduced the effectiveness of a unit without actually killing additional models, whereas the current "morale" system straight up murders whole models without interfacing with any of the standard methods we use to determine casualties (toughness, armour saves, damage, wounds, etc.). As I've said before, it's a "lose more" mechanic that only adds to the lethality of the game.
Insectum7 wrote: I feel like the previous post needs to be taken with a high degree of salt.
The previous post is yet another example of him trying to argue that 40k isn't any more lethal today than it was back in previous editions.
I mean, his own posts defeats itself in the morale section alone, where old morale reduced the effectiveness of a unit without actually killing additional models, whereas the current "morale" system straight up murders whole models without interfacing with any of the standard methods we use to determine casualties (toughness, armour saves, damage, wounds, etc.). As I've said before, it's a "lose more" mechanic that only adds to the lethality of the game.
I mean I wasn't gonna just go straight at it like that, but yeah.
Tbf the CC resolution and morale mechanics in previous editions could be devastating. . . But at least there was some jockeying for position involved.
Lance845 wrote: Restrictions need to be based on creating interesting choices for the players. Not being able to shoot isn't an interesting choice. You are either in range or you are not. Being able to move and shoot is a good thing.
Having to balance maneuver to optimize positioning against offensive output is one of the most fundamental decisions in most wargames, and 40K nowadays is notable in not using it as a mechanic. I can't imagine what sort of interesting choices you can come up with if even that basic choice is off the table. Did you have anything in mind?
Insectum7 wrote: Tbf the CC resolution and morale mechanics in previous editions could be devastating. . . But at least there was some jockeying for position involved.
It also vacillated between "Caught" and "Caught and instantly wiped out!" between editions, and it was never a good rule. It, too, did away with all the structure of removing/causing casualties, and it was a bad rule then, so of course it's a bad rule now.
I'm of the phylosophy than in games, options are more defined by what they can't do than by what they can do.
You'll always have your all-rounder option. Thats a given. Your Mario. Not great at anything. But most people will always gravitate towars something that lacks what they don't want and leans heavier in something they really like.
Restrictions have to come always with the intention of forcing players to take meaningfull choices, to take risks, and to feel the rewards, and the failures. And always without being too lose in your ivory tower of game design, and forgot that under all of this, the game must be fun to play.
But I would not put any edition of warhammer both fantasy or 40k as any example of restrictions made right, TBH. Both games have always been a ton of "rolls dice to see what happens" and players trying to navigate the chaos that ensured. That made for some crazy moments but most of the actual player agency was removed.
Now, most of that stuff has dissapeared. And we have been left with a game where players can control everything, but theres nothing worthy to control.
Lance845 wrote: Restrictions need to be based on creating interesting choices for the players. Not being able to shoot isn't an interesting choice. You are either in range or you are not. Being able to move and shoot is a good thing.
Having to balance maneuver to optimize positioning against offensive output is one of the most fundamental decisions in most wargames, and 40K nowadays is notable in not using it as a mechanic. I can't imagine what sort of interesting choices you can come up with if even that basic choice is off the table. Did you have anything in mind?
Yeah. Ditching IGOUGO.
None of that stuff matters because your entire army is one massive club that you take turns swinging with your opponent. You don't need to restrict what units can and cannot do based on arbitrary facings. You need to force the PLAYER into decision making by choosing when, what, and to what effect he is using the resources at his disposal in a way that has consequences.
How would you go about it? Keep the general concept and enable the opponent to react to your actions, similar to how Infinity does it? Or is there any other system around that does away with player turns completely?
Insectum7 wrote: Tbf the CC resolution and morale mechanics in previous editions could be devastating. . . But at least there was some jockeying for position involved.
It also vacillated between "Caught" and "Caught and instantly wiped out!" between editions, and it was never a good rule. It, too, did away with all the structure of removing/causing casualties, and it was a bad rule then, so of course it's a bad rule now.
I'll disagree with that. I felt it was a pretty good mechanic fundamentally speaking. Issues arose out of the way modifiers were applied/ignored, but imo 4th handled it best.
How would you go about it? Keep the general concept and enable the opponent to react to your actions, similar to how Infinity does it? Or is there any other system around that does away with player turns completely?
H.B.M.C. wrote: I still don't know if AA is the panacea people think it is, or if IGOUGO really is the root of 40k's problems.
It's less that AA is a panacea. But it really is that IGOUGO is the root of SO MANY (not all, but many) of 40ks problems.
So much of what 40k is comes out of it's turn structure. Other solutions are band aids on the symptoms instead of addressing the root cause.
I am not saying going AA will fix everything. The problems with GWs designs are far too wide spread for that. But going AA addresses many problems, and provides a solid foundation to move forward from. Even just playing Apoc at 150ish PL (roughly equal to 2k points in 8th) is a huge step up for the game.
Whether it really is the root of 40K's problems or not, I will absolutely concede to Lance that some flavor of AA would add a lot more decision-making to the game. Choosing what to activate and when is a big element of strategy in AA games.
But, I still think part of the problem is lack of meaningful decision-making at the individual unit level, and that requires trade-offs. I think it'd be better if you not only had to decide what unit to activate, but also what you are activating that unit to do, since they wouldn't be capable of doing everything at once.
Since he brought up Apoc, I'd put that forward as a good example- each formation is given an order that dictates what its units can do when it activates. You can move+shoot, stay stationary but shoot at +1 to hit, or move double and/or fight in melee. That's a simple tradeoff between mobility and combat that emphasizes positioning and forces tough decisions. Since you allocate an order to each formation before you start activating formations (and in secret from your opponent), it also means you have to plan ahead, and then make the most of the orders you've already issued even if the battlefield situation is making them no longer relevant.
That's the sort of decision-making that makes for a more engaging experience than just 'I move everything that wants to move, and then everything shoots at full strength, and then I charge everything that wants to charge'. It's not that AA fixes everything, it's that AA meshes with other decision-making elements to produce a deeper play experience.
Insectum7 wrote: I feel like the previous post needs to be taken with a high degree of salt.
The previous post is yet another example of him trying to argue that 40k isn't any more lethal today than it was back in previous editions.
I mean, his own posts defeats itself in the morale section alone, where old morale reduced the effectiveness of a unit without actually killing additional models, whereas the current "morale" system straight up murders whole models without interfacing with any of the standard methods we use to determine casualties (toughness, armour saves, damage, wounds, etc.). As I've said before, it's a "lose more" mechanic that only adds to the lethality of the game.
It also vacillated between "Caught" and "Caught and instantly wiped out!" between editions, and it was never a good rule. It, too, did away with all the structure of removing/causing casualties, and it was a bad rule then, so of course it's a bad rule now.
And the old morale system can straight up murder whole units and if not makes them pretty useless. 4th allowed a regroup check when charged and destroyed you if you failed. 5th was an initiative check. And hopefully you rolled a 7+ on that 2D6 and still have half or more of your unit or otherwise you don't even get a chance to regroup.
Unless your army just ignores morale.
You don't get to cherry pick what you like and don't like. Low terrain in 9th? Low terrain in 5th. What happens?
Insectum7 wrote: I feel like the previous post needs to be taken with a high degree of salt.
The previous post is yet another example of him trying to argue that 40k isn't any more lethal today than it was back in previous editions.
I mean, his own posts defeats itself in the morale section alone, where old morale reduced the effectiveness of a unit without actually killing additional models, whereas the current "morale" system straight up murders whole models without interfacing with any of the standard methods we use to determine casualties (toughness, armour saves, damage, wounds, etc.). As I've said before, it's a "lose more" mechanic that only adds to the lethality of the game.
It also vacillated between "Caught" and "Caught and instantly wiped out!" between editions, and it was never a good rule. It, too, did away with all the structure of removing/causing casualties, and it was a bad rule then, so of course it's a bad rule now.
And the old morale system straight up murders whole units and if not makes them pretty useless. 4th allowed a regroup check when charged and destroyed you if you failed. 5th was an initiative check. And hopefully you rolled a 7+ on that 2D6 and still have half or more of your unit or otherwise you don't even get a chance to regroup.
Unless your army just ignores morale.
You don't get to cherry pick what you like and don't like. Low terrain in 9th? Low terrain in 5th. What happens?
Why do I care what happened in 5th if my favorite edition was 4th?
Unit1126PLL wrote: Why do I care what happened in 5th if my favorite edition was 4th?
Same problem. It's an IGOUGO system. If you don't have adequate terrain the person who goes first has a huge advantage.
This gotcha crap with editions is exhausting. No one wants to sit around and figure out what the efficiency of units were in 3rd or 4th or 5th and depending on which friggin' book was available so it makes it super simple to obfuscate and say things are just hunky dory in old hammer land.
Insectum7 wrote: I'll disagree with that. I felt it was a pretty good mechanic fundamentally speaking. Issues arose out of the way modifiers were applied/ignored, but imo 4th handled it best.
The game allowed a near full-strength unit of Chosen Terminators to fall back and be instantly wiped out because an errant Grot was in their way.
I'm sorry, but no. Getting caught/sweeping advanced/wiped out/no retreat was not a good mechanic.
Alternating Activations would certainly be interesting in 40K. But would you need to scrap the phase system? Or would it be AA in each phase?
Giving each unit a move and an aggressive action per turn would be interesting. And let some factions get special rules. Such as elder getting some nonsense or another.
cody.d. wrote: Alternating Activations would certainly be interesting in 40K. But would you need to scrap the phase system? Or would it be AA in each phase?
Giving each unit a move and an aggressive action per turn would be interesting. And let some factions get special rules. Such as elder getting some nonsense or another.
The basic version that works is just the unit you activate goes through all 4 phases when you activate it. There are a ton of different systems that have been proposed and most work more or less to some extent or the other. But the basic version requires the least work and no modification of the codexes or units. Which, in terms of getting people to play seems to be really important. You can grab the codex as is and just play with the new core rules.
I think a lot could be done for the current version of 40K if you moved restrictions into the army building phase of the game. It's often been said games of 40K are won or lost in the army construction phase. I don't think that is strictly true, but it's not a 0% factor either. The current ruleset basically allows so much freedom that you a well constructed army is so much more powerful than a thematic army in most cases.
But imagine what a difference it would make to the game played if more restrictions or requirements were made for army composition along with better designed points valuations? I'm talking things like:
Less min-maxing detachment options
Point Values that actually include the value of unit leaders and MSU unit selections
Requirements to take more then just minimum-sized units
Points value that encourage unit upgrades rather than bare-bone tax units
alextroy wrote: I think a lot could be done for the current version of 40K if you moved restrictions into the army building phase of the game. It's often been said games of 40K are won or lost in the army construction phase. I don't think that is strictly true, but it's not a 0% factor either. The current ruleset basically allows so much freedom that you a well constructed army is so much more powerful than a thematic army in most cases.
But imagine what a difference it would make to the game played if more restrictions or requirements were made for army composition along with better designed points valuations? I'm talking things like:
Less min-maxing detachment options
Point Values that actually include the value of unit leaders and MSU unit selections
Requirements to take more then just minimum-sized units
Points value that encourage unit upgrades rather than bare-bone tax units
You cannot possibly fix the game play issues of 40k by changing things that do not take place during the game.
If you want to devalue the list building you need to increase the value of player choices. There needs to be more tactical depth.
That being said, I think 30k did really interesting things with list building. Including Rites of war changing which FOC slots a unit can fill and flat costs for unit wide upgrades regardless of the size of the unit to create an efficiency of points to counteract the value of MSU (if jump packs costs 10 points whether it's a 5 man unit or a 15 man unit than you want a 15 man unit to get your best bang for your buck).
H.B.M.C. wrote: It doesn't stop you, so why shouldn't the rest of us?
If you say so.
But it's worse now. Demonstrably so. Why don't you get that?
You have no data to demonstrate this. All you have is vague feelings from a game you played regularly more than 10 years ago and I have anecdotes of horribly broken armies. And the kind of people playing oldhammer now aren't the type to go around making crazy lists, either.
The horse has left the barn. We have flyers and knights now and people aren't going to give those up any more than Unit will give up his superheavies.
There's stuff that we'll agree that could be done to make the game better, but this endless crusade of "it isn't the old 40K" just makes me feel like we're at a political rally full of octogenarians than think the 50s were best for everyone.
Anyway, I can feel myself getting into trouble again so I'll step out.
alextroy wrote: I think a lot could be done for the current version of 40K if you moved restrictions into the army building phase of the game. It's often been said games of 40K are won or lost in the army construction phase. I don't think that is strictly true, but it's not a 0% factor either. The current ruleset basically allows so much freedom that you a well constructed army is so much more powerful than a thematic army in most cases.
But imagine what a difference it would make to the game played if more restrictions or requirements were made for army composition along with better designed points valuations? I'm talking things like:
Less min-maxing detachment options
Point Values that actually include the value of unit leaders and MSU unit selections
Requirements to take more then just minimum-sized units
Points value that encourage unit upgrades rather than bare-bone tax units
You cannot possibly fix the game play issues of 40k by changing things that do not take place during the game.
If you want to devalue the list building you need to increase the value of player choices. There needs to be more tactical depth.
That being said, I think 30k did really interesting things with list building. Including Rites of war changing which FOC slots a unit can fill and flat costs for unit wide upgrades regardless of the size of the unit to create an efficiency of points to counteract the value of MSU (if jump packs costs 10 points whether it's a 5 man unit or a 15 man unit than you want a 15 man unit to get your best bang for your buck).
I'm confused. If list building rules cause interesting decisions in army construction, doesn't that change the game as played? Even today, they can change the game just with points values that make units viable or inviable. Why not have more of that, but on a better way than just adjusting the value of a single model or upgrade?
H.B.M.C. wrote: It doesn't stop you, so why shouldn't the rest of us?
If you say so.
But it's worse now. Demonstrably so. Why don't you get that?
You have no data to demonstrate this. All you have is vague feelings from a game you played regularly more than 10 years ago and I have anecdotes of horribly broken armies. And the kind of people playing oldhammer now aren't the type to go around making crazy lists, either.
The horse has left the barn. We have flyers and knights now and people aren't going to give those up any more than Unit will give up his superheavies.
There's stuff that we'll agree that could be done to make the game better, but this endless crusade of "it isn't the old 40K" just makes me feel like we're at a political rally full of octogenarians than think the 50s were best for everyone.
Anyway, I can feel myself getting into trouble again so I'll step out.
Feels like we're caught in the middle of some weird social media influence campaign.
There are suddenly a lot of threads about the need for restrictions related to how much can be destroyed in a single turn. The claims being made are mostly based on the outcomes of a small handful games by some competitive player.
Posts are full of socially / emotionally manipulative language, and demonstrations of actual data are being met with ridicule and scorn. The people pushing this keep asking where you would draw the line, it's very important to them to know what you think.
Feels like an attempt to gin up metrics about a need for a change where none is needed. This can only end badly.
H.B.M.C. wrote: It doesn't stop you, so why shouldn't the rest of us?
If you say so.
But it's worse now. Demonstrably so. Why don't you get that?
You have no data to demonstrate this. All you have is vague feelings from a game you played regularly more than 10 years ago and I have anecdotes of horribly broken armies. And the kind of people playing oldhammer now aren't the type to go around making crazy lists, either.
The horse has left the barn. We have flyers and knights now and people aren't going to give those up any more than Unit will give up his superheavies.
There's stuff that we'll agree that could be done to make the game better, but this endless crusade of "it isn't the old 40K" just makes me feel like we're at a political rally full of octogenarians than think the 50s were best for everyone.
Anyway, I can feel myself getting into trouble again so I'll step out.
Feels like we're caught in the middle of some weird social media influence campaign.
There are suddenly a lot of threads about the need for restrictions related to how much can be destroyed in a single turn. The claims being made are mostly based on the outcomes of a small handful games by some competitive player.
Posts are full of socially / emotionally manipulative language, and demonstrations of actual data are being met with ridicule and scorn. The people pushing this keep asking where you would draw the line, it's very important to them to know what you think.
Feels like an attempt to gin up metrics about a need for a change where none is needed. This can only end badly.
HBMC confirmed for elaborate Russian psyop for [insert name of tabletop wargame you don't like here]?
alextroy wrote: I think a lot could be done for the current version of 40K if you moved restrictions into the army building phase of the game. It's often been said games of 40K are won or lost in the army construction phase. I don't think that is strictly true, but it's not a 0% factor either. The current ruleset basically allows so much freedom that you a well constructed army is so much more powerful than a thematic army in most cases.
But imagine what a difference it would make to the game played if more restrictions or requirements were made for army composition along with better designed points valuations? I'm talking things like:
Less min-maxing detachment options
Point Values that actually include the value of unit leaders and MSU unit selections
Requirements to take more then just minimum-sized units
Points value that encourage unit upgrades rather than bare-bone tax units
You cannot possibly fix the game play issues of 40k by changing things that do not take place during the game.
If you want to devalue the list building you need to increase the value of player choices. There needs to be more tactical depth.
That being said, I think 30k did really interesting things with list building. Including Rites of war changing which FOC slots a unit can fill and flat costs for unit wide upgrades regardless of the size of the unit to create an efficiency of points to counteract the value of MSU (if jump packs costs 10 points whether it's a 5 man unit or a 15 man unit than you want a 15 man unit to get your best bang for your buck).
I'm confused. If list building rules cause interesting decisions in army construction, doesn't that change the game as played? Even today, they can change the game just with points values that make units viable or inviable. Why not have more of that, but on a better way than just adjusting the value of a single model or upgrade?
Which units are on the table does not change how the game is played. You still have massive down time. The decisions you make are still exactly the same. Pointing x units guns at their best target in range to kill y unit or bringing z unit to point their guns at their best target in range to kill y unit is more or less the same thing. You still spend your every turn swinging the club that is your whole army at your opponent with the goal of eliminating as many points worth of models as possible so that they are less capable of hurting you on their turn. Who gives a gak if the meta says these units are good or those units are good. The game itself doesn't change just because the meta has changed which units are now on the table.
Nothing in list building really changes the game play. It just changes whats on the table. There are small strategic differences, but no tactical ones.
posermcbogus wrote: HBMC confirmed for elaborate Russian psyop for [insert name of tabletop wargame you don't like here]?
Agreed, that is some bizarre, dare I say, asinine conspiracy theory crap. Sure, it's an issue that lit up recently because of a couple of awful tournament finals, but it's not like the "Game is too lethal" drum is one that hasn't been banged on for a damn good while around here.
Maybe the reason half a dozen different dakka users are posting half a dozen different threads about reigning in lethality, from the “oversaturating tables with LOS terrain is a bandaid patch for too much lethality in the game” (which combined with the LoS ignoring firepower being handed out negates that) to the “tourney players consistently know who is going to win by the end of turn two” to this post “restrictions are a good way to reign in the lethality” is a clear symptom that there is too much lethality in the game...
H.B.M.C. wrote: It doesn't stop you, so why shouldn't the rest of us?
If you say so.
But it's worse now. Demonstrably so. Why don't you get that?
You have no data to demonstrate this. All you have is vague feelings from a game you played regularly more than 10 years ago and I have anecdotes of horribly broken armies. And the kind of people playing oldhammer now aren't the type to go around making crazy lists, either.
The horse has left the barn. We have flyers and knights now and people aren't going to give those up any more than Unit will give up his superheavies.
There's stuff that we'll agree that could be done to make the game better, but this endless crusade of "it isn't the old 40K" just makes me feel like we're at a political rally full of octogenarians than think the 50s were best for everyone.
Anyway, I can feel myself getting into trouble again so I'll step out.
Feels like we're caught in the middle of some weird social media influence campaign.
There are suddenly a lot of threads about the need for restrictions related to how much can be destroyed in a single turn. The claims being made are mostly based on the outcomes of a small handful games by some competitive player.
Posts are full of socially / emotionally manipulative language, and demonstrations of actual data are being met with ridicule and scorn. The people pushing this keep asking where you would draw the line, it's very important to them to know what you think.
Feels like an attempt to gin up metrics about a need for a change where none is needed. This can only end badly.
I haven't seen anyone proposing any actual restrictions on how many units can be destroyed in a single turn (maybe I've missed them). What I've seen are proposals to decrease overall lethality. These have included:
1: A return to some of the restrictions from older editions, such as: No moving and firing heavy weapons, no moving and getting rapid fire, and vehicles not being able to move and fire all of their weapons (this thread).
2: A general decrease in number of shots/attacks and damage characteristics.
3: Changing how modifiers to hit stack by allowing self imposed negative modifiers to stack (moving with heavy/assault weapons, firing through DENSE terrain, etc) while keeping the limit of +/-1 for modifiers coming from direct defensive/offensive abilities (strategems, psychic powers, etc), and adding a -1 modifier for firing at more than 1/2 range, along with changes to terrain and interactions with it in order to make it easier to gain the benefits of terrain. And of course a change to how LOS works.
I personally prefer #3. How specifically do you think any of these would "end badly"?
H.B.M.C. wrote: It doesn't stop you, so why shouldn't the rest of us?
If you say so.
But it's worse now. Demonstrably so. Why don't you get that?
You have no data to demonstrate this. All you have is vague feelings from a game you played regularly more than 10 years ago and I have anecdotes of horribly broken armies. And the kind of people playing oldhammer now aren't the type to go around making crazy lists, either.
You're basing this assumption on....?
Daedalus81 wrote: The horse has left the barn. We have flyers and knights now and people aren't going to give those up any more than Unit will give up his superheavies.
Ok, Knights (in their present Imperial form) are a new addition. But step into yester-year & let me introduce you to Forgeworld flyers from 3rd ed+. We've also had (Armorcast) superheavies & Titans since 2e.
H.B.M.C. wrote: It doesn't stop you, so why shouldn't the rest of us?
If you say so.
But it's worse now. Demonstrably so. Why don't you get that?
You have no data to demonstrate this.
It's extremely easy to provide data showing that average army ranged output in 4th was less than ranged damage capability in 9th. You could start with the basic rifles of the most common faction, for example. 12" RF range on a bigger board, vs 32" on a smaller board. That's pretty straight forward.
Insectum7 wrote: I'll disagree with that. I felt it was a pretty good mechanic fundamentally speaking. Issues arose out of the way modifiers were applied/ignored, but imo 4th handled it best.
The game allowed a near full-strength unit of Chosen Terminators to fall back and be instantly wiped out because an errant Grot was in their way.
I'm sorry, but no. Getting caught/sweeping advanced/wiped out/no retreat was not a good mechanic.
There were some issues, but the fundamentals were in the right place imo. Agree to disagree.
posermcbogus wrote: HBMC confirmed for elaborate Russian psyop for [insert name of tabletop wargame you don't like here]?
Has Been Made Comrade.
Not so much an elaborate scheme. More like an attempt to influence the metrics generated by a social listening tool around popular topics and sentiment.
If someone gets reports from Meltwater / Cision / Sprinklr / Brandwatch / et al, they can get signals from Dakka and BolterAndChainsword. Highly discussed topics and prevalent attitudes get elevated to the attention of marketing types. Most people in the threads have no clue it's happening.
That's why you keep being asked what level you think is right. The AI in most of these systems can pick out quantitative data from natural language. Some marketing firms charge for this as a data trawling service.
I guess it's tough to find a way that ticks all the boxes. One Problem causing the lethality is the current AP system. In the old system every weapon that wasn't Ap2, had S6+ or had 4+ shots was useless. Ap4 to Ap- didn't matter (Ap3 was pretty rare) everything plinged off power armor or cover. So the current system made every weapon viable, as even Ap-1 is usually already good, and many weapons without AP have ways to get +1 to wound, rerolls, or have a lot of shots. Add to that that you don't waste shots anymore (Marines looking grumpy at a tank because the heavy weapons guy wants to shoot his Lascannon and they have to aim their bolters at the same target).
If you don't want to rework all weapons again to give them less shots (for example returning twin-linked weapons to their old version), movement, range, restrictions on Boni and cover are things you'd have to work with. Many people called for it since the start of 9th, the cap on -1 to hit should be reworked. Maybe add additional mali for shooting more than half range or not the closest unit.
Maybe allow any unit only to profit from two boni per turn (confered by Aura/ strat/ Warlord trait/psychic power).
posermcbogus wrote: HBMC confirmed for elaborate Russian psyop for [insert name of tabletop wargame you don't like here]?
CEO Kasen wrote: Agreed, that is some bizarre, dare I say, asinine conspiracy theory crap.
Whoa, hey, hold on. Now I'm perpetuating some kind of conspiracy? WTF???
Lotta loyalty for a hired gun!
(I can't speak for Kasen, but I was certainly responding to tech's suggestion that the recent slew of 40k fans starting threads on the minutiae of how 40k's rules are getting a bit much is not a symptom, of, say, general fan concern that the game is getting unhealthier, and discontent with that, but some grand social media campaign to sabotage algorithms so that when the singularity comes the T1000 is gonna be especially rude about 9th ed 40k or something I guess)
I concur completely with the OP. There is no other wargame on the market now or anytime in the past that is anything like as permissive on ranges, movement, moving and shooting, target priority, etc. as current 40k. The game often comes down to whose list is more cost-effective simply because most of your list gets to attack optimal targets at full effectiveness every turn.
posermcbogus wrote: HBMC confirmed for elaborate Russian psyop for [insert name of tabletop wargame you don't like here]?
Has Been Made Comrade.
Not so much an elaborate scheme. More like an attempt to influence the metrics generated by a social listening tool around popular topics and sentiment.
If someone gets reports from Meltwater / Cision / Sprinklr / Brandwatch / et al, they can get signals from Dakka and BolterAndChainsword. Highly discussed topics and prevalent attitudes get elevated to the attention of marketing types. Most people in the threads have no clue it's happening.
That's why you keep being asked what level you think is right. The AI in most of these systems can pick out quantitative data from natural language. Some marketing firms charge for this as a data trawling service.
So...because social listening tools exist voices you disagree with on the community must be an artificial attempt to generate data on those social listening tools? Is "some of us are genuinely upset" not the simpler explanation here? Is "nerds complain when things they like get changed" an unknown phenomenon where you come from?
Daedalus81 wrote: And the kind of people playing oldhammer now aren't the type to go around making crazy lists, either.
You're basing this assumption on....?....
I'm speculating here, but perhaps the fact that those of us trying to build oldhammer communities are trying to make the point that it's better than current 40k, and running around stomping people with whatever scatterbike-D-spam/musical-wounds/IW template-spam list was the cheese of the edition we're trying to root for isn't likely to be a good argument for why it's more fun?
posermcbogus wrote: HBMC confirmed for elaborate Russian psyop for [insert name of tabletop wargame you don't like here]?
CEO Kasen wrote: Agreed, that is some bizarre, dare I say, asinine conspiracy theory crap.
Whoa, hey, hold on. Now I'm perpetuating some kind of conspiracy? WTF???
Lotta loyalty for a hired gun!
(I can't speak for Kasen, but I was certainly responding to tech's suggestion that the recent slew of 40k fans starting threads on the minutiae of how 40k's rules are getting a bit much is not a symptom, of, say, general fan concern that the game is getting unhealthier, and discontent with that, but some grand social media campaign to sabotage algorithms so that when the singularity comes the T1000 is gonna be especially rude about 9th ed 40k or something I guess)
You nailed it, though. I did indeed think that the idea that all this discussion is some kind of search engine optimization conspiracy - or indeed, any kind of 'social engineering' whatsoever - was ridiculous and counterproductive, and, to be clear, not an idea HBMC is perpetuating.
Restrictions? I'd put flyers in their own detachment like the super heavy auxiliary detachment, just for cheaper.
Now flyers would have their own detachment with 0-1 slot for 1 CP.
I don't know if I'd keep the chance of getting the 3-5 slot detachment also for them, probably not. I feel like flyers are centerpiece models like superheavies and 0-1 per army should be enough.
I'd remove squadrons from units of models with more than 6W each.
Last but not least named characters would be allowed only by the opponent's consent, like in 3rd.
There is a fundamental practical issue with the idea of going back to an earlier edition. People just won't.
You have nostalgia for it and some others do too. And you and those can and will go play the older edition together. But there have been 5 editions since 4th and all of THOSE players want to use the models they have now that have come out since then. They want to use the latest rules.
Even if you could prove mathematically that 4th was a better game (and you can't), it doesn't matter. The majority just won't ditch their current toys to go join you.
H.B.M.C. wrote: It doesn't stop you, so why shouldn't the rest of us?
If you say so.
But it's worse now. Demonstrably so. Why don't you get that?
You have no data to demonstrate this. All you have is vague feelings from a game you played regularly more than 10 years ago and I have anecdotes of horribly broken armies. And the kind of people playing oldhammer now aren't the type to go around making crazy lists, either.
The horse has left the barn. We have flyers and knights now and people aren't going to give those up any more than Unit will give up his superheavies.
There's stuff that we'll agree that could be done to make the game better, but this endless crusade of "it isn't the old 40K" just makes me feel like we're at a political rally full of octogenarians than think the 50s were best for everyone.
Anyway, I can feel myself getting into trouble again so I'll step out.
Feels like we're caught in the middle of some weird social media influence campaign.
There are suddenly a lot of threads about the need for restrictions related to how much can be destroyed in a single turn. The claims being made are mostly based on the outcomes of a small handful games by some competitive player.
Posts are full of socially / emotionally manipulative language, and demonstrations of actual data are being met with ridicule and scorn. The people pushing this keep asking where you would draw the line, it's very important to them to know what you think.
Feels like an attempt to gin up metrics about a need for a change where none is needed. This can only end badly.
I, and others, have been complaining about increased lethality for ages. Its a hot topic now because its getting worse and worse and more and more people are realizing it is indeed a problem.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I still don't know if AA is the panacea people think it is, or if IGOUGO really is the root of 40k's problems.
I dont think so.
in another thread, I laid out how a battle between an extremely casual ynnari list and a fairly casual slaanesh list might go - demonstrating that with average rolling and not a whole lot of stratagem/aura stacking shenanigans it's very possible to destroy 60% of an opposing list in one single turn, even with an effectively alternating combat phase (because slaanesh daemons have 'always go first')
H.B.M.C. wrote: It doesn't stop you, so why shouldn't the rest of us?
If you say so.
But it's worse now. Demonstrably so. Why don't you get that?
You have no data to demonstrate this. All you have is vague feelings from a game you played regularly more than 10 years ago and I have anecdotes of horribly broken armies. And the kind of people playing oldhammer now aren't the type to go around making crazy lists, either.
The horse has left the barn. We have flyers and knights now and people aren't going to give those up any more than Unit will give up his superheavies.
There's stuff that we'll agree that could be done to make the game better, but this endless crusade of "it isn't the old 40K" just makes me feel like we're at a political rally full of octogenarians than think the 50s were best for everyone.
Anyway, I can feel myself getting into trouble again so I'll step out.
Feels like we're caught in the middle of some weird social media influence campaign.
There are suddenly a lot of threads about the need for restrictions related to how much can be destroyed in a single turn. The claims being made are mostly based on the outcomes of a small handful games by some competitive player.
Posts are full of socially / emotionally manipulative language, and demonstrations of actual data are being met with ridicule and scorn. The people pushing this keep asking where you would draw the line, it's very important to them to know what you think.
Feels like an attempt to gin up metrics about a need for a change where none is needed. This can only end badly.
Yes, people clearly were not just frustrated by a thing for a long time that's been steadily escalating with the release of the drukhari, then admech, then ork codexes to the point where people are having casual games where 1200-1500pts get demolished in one go, and suddenly you've got this highly public match where "the best 40k player in the world" loses 1800pts at once. It would be ridiculous that that would create some kind of wave of people going "see, this is a problem, look at this, no amount of 'gitting gud' stops this gak from happening".
Daedalus81 wrote: Shaken / stunned are still here in the form of damage tables. Weapon destroyed is effectively ( using the term loosely ) there for vehicles that lose BS or attacks where dreadnoughts are concerned.
Being forced to take leadership tests on LD7 as an Ork from losing 3 models from a 10 man ( or 1in a 3 man unit ) results in a unit that is running away 42% of the time and making them totally useless the next turn if they recover. Now it is a 33% chance to lose 1 and on average another model. A unit that has two less models, but can still act is way more useful than a unit that ran away from an objective by 2D6 inches. Heaven forbid you fallback to the table edge or flee in combat and get overrun.
When a pie plate from a battlecannon landed it did a S8 hit on every single model beneath it. So 10 models? 10 hits. S8 and AP3, which means even marines don't get a save. That would mean 8 marines would die ( or 4 in cover ). In the same scenario now -- you might kill 3 ( or less than 2 in cover ) with a double firing LRBT. The same scenario versus Orks gives us 8 and 4 again versus 8 and 8. So there's a disparity. Which is better? The one where elite models die at the same rate as hordes or the one where a roughly equal amount of points got killed?
Anti-tank guns were also considerably more capable of scoring a devastating blow. Your ordnance weapons would even get a 2D6 pen roll. A lucky set of rolls will see you off from a single shot. The same is no longer possible.
Except...it definitely definitely is. Roll a couple of '5s' and '6s' on damage D6 weapons, or just...shoot basically any dedicated antitank unit at a tank, and you're pretty much going to wipe them out in a single shot with average rolling.
Peak damage in older editions was POSSIBLE, but far less probable than at present. Ordinance weapons got a 2d6 pen roll, yes - with one single hit because they were typically Blast, and you'd generally have to get that 5 or 6, and then again another 6 to instantly destroy the vehicle, which meant those kinds of big earth-shattering kabooms or units getting swept were unusual events, which happened at the edges of the probability curve. While now, damage is much, much more consistent.
This is pretty easy to test. Take two identical armies, basic, fairly casual list setups, and run them against each other in 9th edition and then 5th edition. It's pretty starkly obvious that you'll have about 50% more dead models on any given battle round in 9th.
^Not to mention that it's easier to field large quantities of high damage weapons. Ordinance class weapons were rare unless you played Guard during 4th.
Also a tank couldn't fire Ordinance weapons and other weapons, reducing total potential damage output, nor could they move and fire, granting more defensive play against them.
techsoldaten wrote: Feels like we're caught in the middle of some weird social media influence campaign.
There are suddenly a lot of threads about the need for restrictions related to how much can be destroyed in a single turn. The claims being made are mostly based on the outcomes of a small handful games by some competitive player.
Posts are full of socially / emotionally manipulative language, and demonstrations of actual data are being met with ridicule and scorn. The people pushing this keep asking where you would draw the line, it's very important to them to know what you think.
Feels like an attempt to gin up metrics about a need for a change where none is needed. This can only end badly.
Posts like this are why I read dakkadakka on my breaks. Games Workshop iwar ops. Love it.
RE: "oldhammer was just as lethal and you're all deluded"
For 4th, we have the internet. I'm even using the Wayback Machine to look at 4th edition GW articles and stuff to facilitate the burgeoning 4th ed gameplay locally. (We have the technology. We can go back!)
My wife started calling me an internet archaeologist over it...
....anyways, the point is that the complaints from this edition are twofold (well, two-and-a-half-fold):
1) Eldar grav tanks don't ever die because holofields plus fast skimmer = big sad for dealing damage to them.
2) The damage chart is too punishing for vehicles and they spend too much time damaged and degraded.
2.5) Transports are deathtraps because a unit must disembark when they suffer a penetrating hit, and embarked units can be outright annihilated by Ordnance weapons.
Those complaints are actually in one case that a unit category is TOO DURABLE, and in the other two cases only tangentially related to lethality; vehicles being disabled is still better than vehicles being dead, especially given that there were mitigating things that could be done to reduce the likelyhood/impact of those disabling effects.
The last one is mostly just a complaint that transports kicked out units when the transport was penetrated, which is a reasonable complaint but not really lethality related (except that with bad maneuvering you could end up booted from your transport in front of all the enemy machine guns)
Vehicle Annihilated (the Ordnance 6 on-a-transport result) is the only direct lethality complaint, and fair enough; exploding both a transport AND its transported unit in one go is quite lethal. But as the_scotsman said, quite rare.
Im all for turning infanty weapons back down a few notches. though id take it 1 further and man portable weapons should be WEAKER than those mounted on vehicles or carried by weapon teams. like take a look at a landraider vs infantry with las cannons, same stats, but sorry bro the power generators and heat sinks are too massive cant carry as many units.
Hell id love to see more list building restrictions similar to bolt action (iv never played but I did like some of the things it has going for it for I looked into it)
though there are so many things id love changed about the game its an arduous task to list them all and honestly ill save the wish listing for another time.
40k has definately grown from the platoon scale when i first started it (3rd edition) into what apocalypse basically was back than is the normal now with all the problems that entails, and sadly i dont think we will ever see GW fixed their glaring issues when they have the market share with 0 competition.
Yes, people clearly were not just frustrated by a thing for a long time that's been steadily escalating with the release of the drukhari, then admech, then ork codexes to the point where people are having casual games where 1200-1500pts get demolished in one go, and suddenly you've got this highly public match where "the best 40k player in the world" loses 1800pts at once. It would be ridiculous that that would create some kind of wave of people going "see, this is a problem, look at this, no amount of 'gitting gud' stops this gak from happening".
I disagree with the escalating argument. Don't you think that SM could delete 1200-1500 points of enemy stuff when they came out at the beginning of 9th? Not even when eradicators were considered the most OP unit in 40k's history ? I mean 9-12 of them are still pretty cheap and those alone can ruin a Freebooter Speedwaaagh list's day pretty easily.
Deathguard had a similar problem but reversed. When they came out they looked like impossible to kill, especially with Mortarion in. Same with DA. And yet none of these armies are considered problematic anymore. Don't you think that cherry picking that one game with ork vs drukhari isn't some sort of overreacting? So far I haven't experienced losing more than 1000 points of stuff in turn 1 in 9th, and typically it's more like in the 200-500 range on the average game. Playing with 4-5 planes can lead to those extreme results, same if spamming the best units in the codex, but not many players bring army that cheesy and chase the flavour of the month, knowing that is a massive investment in money that would pay off for a limited amount of time. Lists with 3 dakkajets and 1 wazbom are extremely rare to face in real life, we can't assume that is representative of the state of 40k, because it isn't.
One dimensional armies vs their hard counters have always had bad times, to the point that they couldn't possibly win those specific games. A real "best 40k player in the world" wouldn't need a one dimensional army to try to break the game.
Yes, people clearly were not just frustrated by a thing for a long time that's been steadily escalating with the release of the drukhari, then admech, then ork codexes to the point where people are having casual games where 1200-1500pts get demolished in one go, and suddenly you've got this highly public match where "the best 40k player in the world" loses 1800pts at once. It would be ridiculous that that would create some kind of wave of people going "see, this is a problem, look at this, no amount of 'gitting gud' stops this gak from happening".
I disagree with the escalating argument. Don't you think that SM could delete 1200-1500 points of enemy stuff when they came out at the beginning of 9th? Not even when eradicators were considered the most OP unit in 40k's history ? I mean 9-12 of them are still pretty cheap and those alone can ruin a Freebooter Speedwaaagh list's day pretty easily.
Deathguard had a similar problem but reversed. When they came out they looked like impossible to kill, especially with Mortarion in. Same with DA. And yet none of these armies are considered problematic anymore. Don't you think that cherry picking that one game with ork vs drukhari isn't some sort of overreacting? So far I haven't experienced losing more than 1000 points of stuff in turn 1 in 9th, and typically it's more like in the 200-500 range on the average game. Playing with 4-5 planes can lead to those extreme results, same if spamming the best units in the codex, but not many players bring army that cheesy and chase the flavour of the month, knowing that is a massive investment in money that would pay off for a limited amount of time. Lists with 3 dakkajets and 1 wazbom are extremely rare to face in real life, we can't assume that is representative of the state of 40k, because it isn't.
One dimensional armies vs their hard counters have always had bad times, to the point that they couldn't possibly win those specific games. A real "best 40k player in the world" wouldn't need a one dimensional army to try to break the game.
The key word is "escalating". Meaning to "to increase as time passes".
But it's not escalating. It's simply updating armies. Orks aren't more oppressive than SM, nor are Thousand Sons or Grey Knights. They were all released after Drukhari and Ad Mech, the current top tiers, that's why I disagree about the escalating argument.
First, the game itself is escalating even if not all factions are escalating equally.
Second, more or less all codexes are escalations of the previous version. Even if they don't escalate at the same rate as others (and they don't because 40ks balance is non-existent).
warmaster21 wrote: Im all for turning infanty weapons back down a few notches. though id take it 1 further and man portable weapons should be WEAKER than those mounted on vehicles or carried by weapon teams. like take a look at a landraider vs infantry with las cannons, same stats, but sorry bro the power generators and heat sinks are too massive cant carry as many units.
warmaster21 wrote: Im all for turning infanty weapons back down a few notches. though id take it 1 further and man portable weapons should be WEAKER than those mounted on vehicles or carried by weapon teams. like take a look at a landraider vs infantry with las cannons, same stats, but sorry bro the power generators and heat sinks are too massive cant carry as many units.
Thats not a thing tho?
Isn't it? Thought that was the concept behind the Crusader/Redeemer holding more.
warmaster21 wrote: Im all for turning infanty weapons back down a few notches. though id take it 1 further and man portable weapons should be WEAKER than those mounted on vehicles or carried by weapon teams. like take a look at a landraider vs infantry with las cannons, same stats, but sorry bro the power generators and heat sinks are too massive cant carry as many units.
Thats not a thing tho?
Isn't it? Thought that was the concept behind the Crusader/Redeemer holding more.
You are correct. The lore reason behind the Crusaders bigger capacity is because they didn't need the bulky capacitors for the Lascannons.
To be fair, there's a certain absurdity in putting infantry-portable weapons on tanks anyways; especially in twin mounts.
If you can twin mount a lesser weapon, then you can single mount a greater weapon that's more likely to bonk the enemy on the head to death in a single shot.
Unit1126PLL wrote: To be fair, there's a certain absurdity in putting infantry-portable weapons on tanks anyways; especially in twin mounts.
If you can twin mount a lesser weapon, then you can single mount a greater weapon that's more likely to bonk the enemy on the head to death in a single shot.
I generally put that up to "40K thought", (which is to say backwards or sideways thinking). Could be a logistics thing, as parts become easier to service or maintain. But it could also be that the technology to make "an even biggerer laser cannon" is just lost to them. It could also be tradition at this point too, as using weapons ordained by the Emperor Himself during the Great Crusade is just part of the logic of military thought.
Unit1126PLL wrote: To be fair, there's a certain absurdity in putting infantry-portable weapons on tanks anyways; especially in twin mounts.
If you can twin mount a lesser weapon, then you can single mount a greater weapon that's more likely to bonk the enemy on the head to death in a single shot.
I wonder why an M1 Abrams mounts a .30 Cal and .50 Cal then?
I really can't understand where most of this thread is coming from. Adding restrictions takes away choices, and doesn't make the game more interesting.
In fact, if there's a problem with 9th, it's that *everything* is important. From army selection, to list building, to terrain on the table, positioning, movement, mission selection, objective marker placement, secondaries selection, even whether to add a special weapon to a squad or a tank. The list of what is important goes on and on.
The old editions had their own problems that people are forgetting. 12" rapid fire weapons? Sucks when there is no overwatch and your opponent is charging from 13" away. Vehicles? worthless because they'd get popped with 1 hit. Space Marines? Barely more effective than a guardsman. Too much terrain, then shooting armies were worthless. No objective markers, so movement didn't matter that much. Had to fire a Lascannon at the same target as a bolter, or couldn't fire it if you moved? Then just don't take the lascannon.
Again, all those restrictions subtracted from the game, they didn't add anything.
So now we place more terrain on the table. Shooting is more lethal, but positioning matters just as much to score objectives and shoot your opponent while minimizing return fire and charges. HtH matters. Movement matters to get on objectives and get into range for HtH. Movement matters so if you get charged the enemy can't pile into the unit behind the one that got charged.
The problem is AdMech and Ork flyers are getting around the terrain restriction, so except for those, everything matters.
If someone is saying nothing matters, it's not that it doesn't matter, it's that they have given up rather than focusing and making it matter (flyers excepted of course).
Even still, most games aren't at the top-tier competitive level where flyers rule the roost, and if someone is playing at the top-tier tournament level, you can bet they would take those skew lists if they could, so there is plenty to learn and try and master.
Da Boss wrote: I really liked the Force Organisation Chart. It was possible to abuse it, but it made armies look like actual armies.
Honestly, "Competitive armies dont look like real armies" isnt a complaint I have now. I think theyve almost nailed that aspect of things to the ground.
"oh man, have you seen this DISGUSTING ork army, it's got....ork bikers, a warbike HQ, a mek, buggies, and planes. It...yeah that's nothing like what the orks should be...in lore..."
Da Boss wrote: I really liked the Force Organisation Chart. It was possible to abuse it, but it made armies look like actual armies.
Honestly, "Competitive armies dont look like real armies" isnt a complaint I have now. I think theyve almost nailed that aspect of things to the ground.
"oh man, have you seen this DISGUSTING ork army, it's got....ork bikers, a warbike HQ, a mek, buggies, and planes. It...yeah that's nothing like what the orks should be...in lore..."
Unit1126PLL wrote: To be fair, there's a certain absurdity in putting infantry-portable weapons on tanks anyways; especially in twin mounts.
If you can twin mount a lesser weapon, then you can single mount a greater weapon that's more likely to bonk the enemy on the head to death in a single shot.
I generally put that up to "40K thought", (which is to say backwards or sideways thinking). Could be a logistics thing, as parts become easier to service or maintain. But it could also be that the technology to make "an even biggerer laser cannon" is just lost to them. It could also be tradition at this point too, as using weapons ordained by the Emperor Himself during the Great Crusade is just part of the logic of military thought.
Could also just be 40k universe physics where two weak shots generally works better than one strong shot unless the strong shot is a lot stronger.
Unit1126PLL wrote: To be fair, there's a certain absurdity in putting infantry-portable weapons on tanks anyways; especially in twin mounts.
If you can twin mount a lesser weapon, then you can single mount a greater weapon that's more likely to bonk the enemy on the head to death in a single shot.
I generally put that up to "40K thought", (which is to say backwards or sideways thinking). Could be a logistics thing, as parts become easier to service or maintain. But it could also be that the technology to make "an even biggerer laser cannon" is just lost to them. It could also be tradition at this point too, as using weapons ordained by the Emperor Himself during the Great Crusade is just part of the logic of military thought.
Could also just be 40k universe physics where two weak shots generally works better than one strong shot unless the strong shot is a lot stronger.
Heh. Doesn't help that Twin linked has gone through the gammut of:
Roll once to hit, twice to pen.
Reroll to hit, once to pen
Roll twice to hit and twice to pen
Unit1126PLL wrote: To be fair, there's a certain absurdity in putting infantry-portable weapons on tanks anyways; especially in twin mounts.
If you can twin mount a lesser weapon, then you can single mount a greater weapon that's more likely to bonk the enemy on the head to death in a single shot.
I wonder why an M1 Abrams mounts a .30 Cal and .50 Cal then?
So the lascannons on the Land Raider are it's tertiary and secondary weapon systems?
What, does that make the Heavy Bolter the primary weapon?
Da Boss wrote: I really liked the Force Organisation Chart. It was possible to abuse it, but it made armies look like actual armies.
Honestly, "Competitive armies dont look like real armies" isnt a complaint I have now. I think theyve almost nailed that aspect of things to the ground.
"oh man, have you seen this DISGUSTING ork army, it's got....ork bikers, a warbike HQ, a mek, buggies, and planes. It...yeah that's nothing like what the orks should be...in lore..."
Barely any Boyz tho, from what I hear.
Bikaz are boyz.
Just on a bike. They even were coretroops in the past when you fielded a warbika waaaghboss.
What you See there is a typical heiza warband.
If anything csm have subfactions that Look nothing Like they should...
In the past they were still 1W models though, firing 3 twin linked shoots with crappy BS and crappy AP. Now they have 3W and 10 shots in dakka range, 12 during the Speedwaaagh and with a point of cumulative AP. If Freeboota they may also hit on 4s. For basically the same points cost they had in older editions: exactly the same in 3rd and a bit more expensive than 4th and 7th editions bikers, when they could have been troops.
They're nothing like the unit they used to be, now they're definitely more than just boyz on a bike, even if boyz have the same value of T now. They're closer to light vehicles.
Yeah. Although technically the rider of a Bike is a Boy, that's really not what I'm talking about. I'm talking big mobs of 30 Orkses rampaging about on foot, or in the case of a Kult of Speed setup, Trukks loaded with Boyz ramming their way forward and swarming opposing units.
Unit1126PLL wrote: To be fair, there's a certain absurdity in putting infantry-portable weapons on tanks anyways; especially in twin mounts.
If you can twin mount a lesser weapon, then you can single mount a greater weapon that's more likely to bonk the enemy on the head to death in a single shot.
I wonder why an M1 Abrams mounts a .30 Cal and .50 Cal then?
So the lascannons on the Land Raider are it's tertiary and secondary weapon systems?
What, does that make the Heavy Bolter the primary weapon?
Don't be foolish. Weapons vary depending on need & role, not everything mounts the biggest gun they can. Humvees can mount .50 cal, .30 cal, TOW, etc, just like a Leman Russ, or a Predator. In the 40K universe, LasCannons are portable as they don't require massive amounts of ammo, just a power pack to get them thru the the engagement. Vehicles will have the power generators and additional ammo storage so they can fight longer, but those mechanics aren't represented in the game.
Unit1126PLL wrote: To be fair, there's a certain absurdity in putting infantry-portable weapons on tanks anyways; especially in twin mounts.
If you can twin mount a lesser weapon, then you can single mount a greater weapon that's more likely to bonk the enemy on the head to death in a single shot.
I wonder why an M1 Abrams mounts a .30 Cal and .50 Cal then?
So the lascannons on the Land Raider are it's tertiary and secondary weapon systems?
What, does that make the Heavy Bolter the primary weapon?
Don't be foolish. Weapons vary depending on need & role, not everything mounts the biggest gun they can. Humvees can mount .50 cal, .30 cal, TOW, etc, just like a Leman Russ, or a Predator. In the 40K universe, LasCannons are portable as they don't require massive amounts of ammo, just a power pack to get them thru the the engagement. Vehicles will have the power generators and additional ammo storage so they can fight longer, but those mechanics aren't represented in the game.
Yes, but as a general rule for a main battle tank primary weapon system, one big gun is better than two littler ones.
Now, I actually like the Land Raider as an IFV, not an MBT, and it excels in that role imo.
Insectum7 wrote: Yeah. Although technically the rider of a Bike is a Boy, that's really not what I'm talking about. I'm talking big mobs of 30 Orkses rampaging about on foot, or in the case of a Kult of Speed setup, Trukks loaded with Boyz ramming their way forward and swarming opposing units.
Well you see, what happened was that boyz went up in price, despite getting less durable from nerfing of kff, less mobile from nerfing of warboss and weirdboy, and also losing a bunch of sources of +1 attack.
There’s also internal stuff where for +1 point you can get a kommando which moves faster, deploys up the board, is monumentally tougher, and has more wargear.
Bikers are boyz though, and they’re one of the few units I feel is good and fluffy in the ork dex.
alextroy wrote: I think a lot could be done for the current version of 40K if you moved restrictions into the army building phase of the game. It's often been said games of 40K are won or lost in the army construction phase. I don't think that is strictly true, but it's not a 0% factor either. The current ruleset basically allows so much freedom that you a well constructed army is so much more powerful than a thematic army in most cases.
But imagine what a difference it would make to the game played if more restrictions or requirements were made for army composition along with better designed points valuations? I'm talking things like:
Less min-maxing detachment options
Point Values that actually include the value of unit leaders and MSU unit selections
Requirements to take more then just minimum-sized units
Points value that encourage unit upgrades rather than bare-bone tax units
People would still be min-maxing even if there were requirements. It's why people in certain editions always had "the best" tax unit available to their force and then went all out elsewhere.
Min-maxing kinda comes with the territory of wargames unless you remove army building entirely out of players' hands.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Da Boss wrote: I really liked the Force Organisation Chart. It was possible to abuse it, but it made armies look like actual armies.
Depends on the group you played with. Where I played it was still spam what was best and then there were some cheap troops to fill the tax. An actual army for me doesn't really look like 3x5 marine scouts(I'd argue Tac Squads and Intercessors make Marines feel more like an army) and then the rest is what is best.
It's why I'd want GW to focus on making troop slot units actually viable so you can see the core of the army better. I feel they did this much better in AoS 2.0, before the monster and hero meta of 3.0
Yeah it's definitely true that people will still game a FOC. That's fixable though, you can for example require 1 tactical squad - the old Tau army used to require 1 fire warriors squad.
I've never been a soldier, but detachments seem to make tactical sense to me more than an FOC ever did.
Furthermore, detachment abuse was MOSTLY and 8th thing, when the number of CP you got was based on which detachments you used.
Now, the only detachments that don't COST you CP are the ones that have troops built in (Patrol, Battalion, Brigade), and even then, they're only free if they include your Warlord, so you're incentivized to only include one.
So if you include a detachment of another army, first off, it breaks you purity bonus, and second, you pay for the second detachment, even if it's a Patrol, a Battalion or a Brigade.
And if you include multiple subfaction- say SOB Valorous Heart + Bloody Rose, you get to keep army purity, but you still pay for the second detachment with CP.
Complaints about detachments were totally legit in 8th. In 9th, I just don't see it. Am I missing something?
The problem with detachments is they don't offer any meaningful restrictions. It's entirely possible to throw any units you want into an army and figure out which of the myriad detachment options you can use to represent it. You're not really building to a detachment any more, you're just taking whatever you want because it will inevitably fit into one of the legal options barring some weird outlier forces.
PenitentJake wrote: You read the part about them costing CP if they don't include troops AND your Warlord, right?
That's this new fangled thing we call an Estrictionray.
Yes. I'm not talking about literally any combination of units, I'm talking about anything even vaguely attempting to be built as an army will fit into one of the options. Knowing you need at least one HQ, for example, is kind of required for my point to stand but is also assumed to be understood rather than explicitly spelled out.
I don't view the CP costs as being meaningful costs given that the ability to build armies free of meaningful restrictions can easily overcome such a trivial cost.
alextroy wrote: I think a lot could be done for the current version of 40K if you moved restrictions into the army building phase of the game. It's often been said games of 40K are won or lost in the army construction phase. I don't think that is strictly true, but it's not a 0% factor either. The current ruleset basically allows so much freedom that you a well constructed army is so much more powerful than a thematic army in most cases.
But imagine what a difference it would make to the game played if more restrictions or requirements were made for army composition along with better designed points valuations? I'm talking things like:
Less min-maxing detachment options
Point Values that actually include the value of unit leaders and MSU unit selections
Requirements to take more then just minimum-sized units
Points value that encourage unit upgrades rather than bare-bone tax units
People would still be min-maxing even if there were requirements. It's why people in certain editions always had "the best" tax unit available to their force and then went all out elsewhere.
Min-maxing kinda comes with the territory of wargames unless you remove army building entirely out of players' hands.
While true, the way you build the rules for creating a list can completely change what min-maxing is. To take a simple example, the cost of 10 Tactical Marines is exactly the same if you take two 5-model squads as one 10-model squad. One option has two Sergeants for the exact same points cost. That is bad design and leads to units and forces that don't reflect the background.
I don’t care about having an optimized list I just want to feel like different lists I put together embody different types of forces, like an elite infantry force, or a force of mostly jump packs and bikes flanking and doing hit and run tactics, or heavy weapons infantry, tanks and heavy assault infantry for siege forces and what not. I want to build thematic lists that don’t autolose to the half or accidentally optimized lists by virtue of belonging to a force with better rules (and not necessarily designed to capitalize on them). Maybe armywide rules should come from the same pool and you figure out how to make your army what you want it to be, like just take the loyalist custom chapter table and smack it as a universal faction trait table. Roughly of course because some of it clearly isn’t going to work...
The FOC should scale based upon the size of the game, and you shouldn't be able to just add what you want without significant dedication of resources (ie. Aux Elite/FA/HS slot should just cost 3 CP, so if you need a 4th HS choice, then fine, but pay for it).
Slipspace wrote: The problem with detachments is they don't offer any meaningful restrictions.
That's my problem with them.
I'm limited to 3 HS slots, unless I spend some regenerating abstracted resource, and suddenly I have 5 more, so really I didn't have 3 HS slots, I had as many as I needed.
I've never been a soldier, but detachments seem to make tactical sense to me more than an FOC ever did.
Furthermore, detachment abuse was MOSTLY and 8th thing, when the number of CP you got was based on which detachments you used.
Now, the only detachments that don't COST you CP are the ones that have troops built in (Patrol, Battalion, Brigade), and even then, they're only free if they include your Warlord, so you're incentivized to only include one.
So if you include a detachment of another army, first off, it breaks you purity bonus, and second, you pay for the second detachment, even if it's a Patrol, a Battalion or a Brigade.
And if you include multiple subfaction- say SOB Valorous Heart + Bloody Rose, you get to keep army purity, but you still pay for the second detachment with CP.
Complaints about detachments were totally legit in 8th. In 9th, I just don't see it. Am I missing something?
No, you're not. It's just that some players run armies that work perfectly with the old FOC limitations and hate when other factions perform better than them by using armies that would break the old FOC. In fact giving up CPs in order to customize the list is already a choice and a limitation, sometimes even a strong one.
I for example can't stand LoWs and flyers so when a list with those wins against me I always have to hold back the feeling to convince my group of players to house rule the game and ban those units once and for all .
I actually find the NEW FOC more restrictive than the 4th edition one in some cases because the Imperial Guard's faction identity was killed.
Platoons are gone, command squads are optional, so even with 6 elites slots I am totally full and bloated and forced to use one Platoon Commander as a Company Commander.
In 4th edition I actually have ZERO elite slots filled.
Granted in 9th I could put any elites I wanted to take in a Auxiliary Detachment and pay 2cp each (for them and another 2cp if I wanted to mechanize them with a transport) but ...
I kind of mentioned this earlier but the FOC in 30k is really good with the concept (though not necessarily the execution) of rites of war.
To have the standard Battalion (the FoC of 7th etc...) but being able to modify what goes into what slots based on "criteria". A a FoC with the Ravenwing Keyword could then have the Ravenwing RoW which allows bikes to be taken as troops as well as FA. But no units with Deathwing can be taken in the detachment.
A nid FoC with the Skyblight Swarm RoW so that Gargs and Shrikes can be taken as troops, but Hive Tyrants bust have wings and Raveners, Mawlocs, and Trygons of both varieties cannot be taken.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I actually find the NEW FOC more restrictive than the 4th edition one in some cases because the Imperial Guard's faction identity was killed.
Platoons are gone, command squads are optional, so even with 6 elites slots I am totally full and bloated and forced to use one Platoon Commander as a Company Commander.
In 4th edition I actually have ZERO elite slots filled.
Granted in 9th I could put any elites I wanted to take in a Auxiliary Detachment and pay 2cp each (for them and another 2cp if I wanted to mechanize them with a transport) but ...
The Guard Platoon still exist. It's called a Battalion Detachment and cost 3 CP each
Unit1126PLL wrote: I actually find the NEW FOC more restrictive than the 4th edition one in some cases because the Imperial Guard's faction identity was killed.
Platoons are gone, command squads are optional, so even with 6 elites slots I am totally full and bloated and forced to use one Platoon Commander as a Company Commander.
In 4th edition I actually have ZERO elite slots filled.
Granted in 9th I could put any elites I wanted to take in a Auxiliary Detachment and pay 2cp each (for them and another 2cp if I wanted to mechanize them with a transport) but ...
The Guard Platoon still exist. It's called a Battalion Detachment and cost 3 CP each
Let me know what 2 9th edition IG units exist in the HQ slot that used to be in a platoon...
I'm still surprised they didn't go with the sensible option and give people a choice between tactical and strategic flexibility:
Swap the CP costs on brigades and patrols (and probably increase the CP costs on the other detachments).
You want the tactical flexibility to soup in another sub-faction easily (as in, only costs 1 troop tax unit)? Then it'll cost you strategic strength (CP).
Willing to invest in the troops to have a battalion/brigade? It'll cost you less CP.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I actually find the NEW FOC more restrictive than the 4th edition one in some cases because the Imperial Guard's faction identity was killed.
Platoons are gone, command squads are optional, so even with 6 elites slots I am totally full and bloated and forced to use one Platoon Commander as a Company Commander.
In 4th edition I actually have ZERO elite slots filled.
Granted in 9th I could put any elites I wanted to take in a Auxiliary Detachment and pay 2cp each (for them and another 2cp if I wanted to mechanize them with a transport) but ...
The Guard Platoon still exist. It's called a Battalion Detachment and cost 3 CP each
Let me know what 2 9th edition IG units exist in the HQ slot that used to be in a platoon...
Blackie wrote: It's just that some players run armies that work perfectly with the old FOC limitations and hate when other factions perform better than them by using armies that would break the old FOC.
Well that's certainly loaded. In person, I've encountered only a couple of lists in 9th that wouldn't work under the old FOC with mild tweaks- it's mostly the egregious spam lists that really wouldn't fit.
In theory, the detachment system allows you to have more freedom in building themed lists than the old FOC afforded. In practice, you get screwed both by 9th Ed gutting you on CPs and by rule of 3 preventing you from using a non-Troops unit as the backbone of your army. Want a Tanith army where Veterans are your troops? Too bad, rule of 3 says no. Armored Company? Not if you want the same shot of winning as everyone else, because every army lives and dies on command points.
I liked the FOC system specifically because it had exceptions where appropriate. Guard got platoons, Deathwing got Terminators as troops, etc. It limited the amount of abuse, reinforced faction/subfaction identity, and still allowed GW to curate what exceptions to the normal army composition were acceptable. Like Unit already pointed out, by forcing Guard into the same detachment system as everyone else, it stripped some of their faction identity and made them unreasonably difficult to build lists for. Having two Company Commanders for a couple squads of infantry (not even a full platoon) is kind of silly.
I didn't like many of the 3rd Ed changes, but the FOC was one of the worst things they brought in. Don't tell me what to bring to the game. Good riddance. Now get off my lawn before I throw a Vortex Grenade at you.
Blackie wrote: It's just that some players run armies that work perfectly with the old FOC limitations and hate when other factions perform better than them by using armies that would break the old FOC.
Well that's certainly loaded. In person, I've encountered only a couple of lists in 9th that wouldn't work under the old FOC with mild tweaks- it's mostly the egregious spam lists that really wouldn't fit.
In theory, the detachment system allows you to have more freedom in building themed lists than the old FOC afforded. In practice, you get screwed both by 9th Ed gutting you on CPs and by rule of 3 preventing you from using a non-Troops unit as the backbone of your army. Want a Tanith army where Veterans are your troops? Too bad, rule of 3 says no. Armored Company? Not if you want the same shot of winning as everyone else, because every army lives and dies on command points.
I liked the FOC system specifically because it had exceptions where appropriate. Guard got platoons, Deathwing got Terminators as troops, etc. It limited the amount of abuse, reinforced faction/subfaction identity, and still allowed GW to curate what exceptions to the normal army composition were acceptable. Like Unit already pointed out, by forcing Guard into the same detachment system as everyone else, it stripped some of their faction identity and made them unreasonably difficult to build lists for. Having two Company Commanders for a couple squads of infantry (not even a full platoon) is kind of silly.
Yeah, you liked it because the armies you played/liked fit that FOC very well. Orks for example always had too many heavy support choices, even units that should have never been listed under heavy support like dreads or lootas, and the FOC was extremely limiting for them.
Some armies can be ok with 10ish units, others want to bring much more to work properly and that might break the FOC. Last, but not least, in older editions smaller formats were much more common: I've played 1500 points from 3rd to 7th edition, when the standard was raised to the odd 1850, and with that 1500 points format it was definitely easier to fit a classic FOC. At 2000 points with units that cost 45-55 points and burns a whole precious FA/HS/Elite slot it might be really hard to field an optimized list (simply optimized, not even spammy or OP) without breaking the old FOC limitations.
Not everyone is SM my friend .
Oh, and rule of 3 is actually a good thing to limit spam. I don't even remember a non troop/transport that was used in 4+ units in older editions anyway. 15-30 terminators were definitely enough for a proper Deathwing army for example and they didn't break rule of 3. Just Dark Eldar Reavers in 7th come to my mind actually but their FOC allowed 6 FA and spamming min squads was a competitive build, not something necessary.
Blackie wrote: It's just that some players run armies that work perfectly with the old FOC limitations and hate when other factions perform better than them by using armies that would break the old FOC.
Well that's certainly loaded. In person, I've encountered only a couple of lists in 9th that wouldn't work under the old FOC with mild tweaks- it's mostly the egregious spam lists that really wouldn't fit.
In theory, the detachment system allows you to have more freedom in building themed lists than the old FOC afforded. In practice, you get screwed both by 9th Ed gutting you on CPs and by rule of 3 preventing you from using a non-Troops unit as the backbone of your army. Want a Tanith army where Veterans are your troops? Too bad, rule of 3 says no. Armored Company? Not if you want the same shot of winning as everyone else, because every army lives and dies on command points.
I liked the FOC system specifically because it had exceptions where appropriate. Guard got platoons, Deathwing got Terminators as troops, etc. It limited the amount of abuse, reinforced faction/subfaction identity, and still allowed GW to curate what exceptions to the normal army composition were acceptable. Like Unit already pointed out, by forcing Guard into the same detachment system as everyone else, it stripped some of their faction identity and made them unreasonably difficult to build lists for. Having two Company Commanders for a couple squads of infantry (not even a full platoon) is kind of silly.
Yeah, you liked it because the armies you played/liked fit that FOC very well.
No, he said
I liked the FOC system specifically because it had exceptions where appropriate.
Your whole post reads as very condecending by the way. He didn't say that the FOC was perfect, just that its a better system than we have now. I thought the ork codex was good now? Why are you still using that ork player martyr card?
Ignoring the fact as well (I do love when people pick out bad examples) that the Ork codex of 4-5th ed actually did have a FOC exception for Dreads. For each Big Mek you took as a HQ, you could shunt 1 Dread into a troop slot, freeing up more HS slots. Battlewagons, which also took up prime HS real estate could be took as dedicated transports for Nobz (who could also be shunted to troops for each Warboss like the Dreads), so not take up a precious HS slot.
Your whole post reads as very condecending by the way. He didn't say that the FOC was perfect, just that its a better system than we have now. I thought the ork codex was good now? Why are you still using that ork player martyr card?
I'm saying that "...where appropriate" was entirely subjective . Better is also entirely subjective.
The current ork codex is certainly good but I was referring to older editions since we're talking about the FOC. Pretty much every optimized list from the current codex, again not necessarily the OP ones, would have broken the old FOC, that's why I'm extremely relieved that it's gone.
The FOC made sense when armies had 4-5 of each heavy support, fast attack or elite options and smaller formats were common, now they have 20-30 for each section and games have been standardized to 2000 points. Limiting to 0-3 no matter what doesn't make any sense now.
Rule of 3 is very helpful to limit spam instead. That makes a lot of sense and should definitely stay.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grimtuff wrote: Ignoring the fact as well (I do love when people pick out bad examples) that the Ork codex of 4-5th ed actually did have a FOC exception for Dreads. For each Big Mek you took as a HQ, you could shunt 1 Dread into a troop slot, freeing up more HS slots. Battlewagons, which also took up prime HS real estate could be took as dedicated transports for Nobz (who could also be shunted to troops for each Warboss like the Dreads), so not take up a precious HS slot.
I didn't ignored it, I actually reported those examples . And to be fair none of those exceptions existed in 3rd and pretty much all of them, barring the BW as a dedicated transport for nobz/meganobz/flash gitz, didn't exist in 7th as well .
In theory, the detachment system allows you to have more freedom in building themed lists than the old FOC afforded. In practice, you get screwed both by 9th Ed gutting you on CPs and by rule of 3 preventing you from using a non-Troops unit as the backbone of your army. Want a Tanith army where Veterans are your troops? Too bad, rule of 3 says no. Armored Company? Not if you want the same shot of winning as everyone else, because every army lives and dies on command points.
Worth mentioning that Ro3 is a Matched play rule. It doesn't apply to Crusade or open.
Also, for armoured companies- I know far less about this than many Dakkanaughts, so I could be wrong, but many Guard tanks can be taken in squadrons. You can cram 12 Russes in a battalion if you take tanks commanders. True that you still need 3 troops choices, and maybe that's the issue. A Spearhead is 3CP, which isn't bad in Strikeforce and Onslaught games. It does hurt Incursion games, and it isn't possible RAW in Combat Patrol games.
Your point is still a strong one though- I'd like to see certain units confer the CP refund command benefit to non-core detachment types.
Blackie wrote: Yeah, you liked it because the armies you played/liked fit that FOC very well. Orks for example always had too many heavy support choices, even units that should have never been listed under heavy support like dreads or lootas, and the FOC was extremely limiting for them.
Some armies can be ok with 10ish units, others want to bring much more to work properly and that might break the FOC. Last, but not least, in older editions smaller formats were much more common: I've played 1500 points from 3rd to 7th edition, when the standard was raised to the odd 1850, and with that 1500 points format it was definitely easier to fit a classic FOC. At 2000 points with units that cost 45-55 points and burns a whole precious FA/HS/Elite slot it might be really hard to field an optimized list (simply optimized, not even spammy or OP) without breaking the old FOC limitations.
Not everyone is SM my friend .
First off, I've never collected SM.
Second, my armies included:
-Imperial Guard (Your Orks had too many Heavy Support choices to pick from? You had trouble with cheap units eating up slots? Tell me about it)
-Tyranids (who typically fielded large numbers of units that did brush up against FOC limitations- my standard 5th Ed 2K list maxed out the Troops choices)
-Renegades & Heretics (bursting with fun and thematic Elites choices and a ton of trench-themed Heavy Support, but you could only take three of either)
So yeah, I do actually get it. Dictating to me why I liked the FOC is pretty condescending and I'd appreciate if you stopped trying to read minds, because you're not doing a very good job of it.
I never said the old FOC was flawless and worked for every army, but as a mechanism for imposing structure and counteracting skew it did better than the current approach. Not every game system- particularly if you want it to be balanced, especially if you want it to be competitively balanced- needs total freedom in army construction. Restrictions are good for the game.
And if it's the chart you dislike, I'd be completely fine with a return to the 2nd Ed/WHFB approach of dictating percentages instead. The point was that that sort of structure provided less room for abuse than the system we currently have. You always have Narrative/Open as the license to do whatever you want in casual play.
Blackie wrote: Oh, and rule of 3 is actually a good thing to limit spam. I don't even remember a non troop/transport that was used in 4+ units in older editions anyway. 15-30 terminators were definitely enough for a proper Deathwing army for example and they didn't break rule of 3. Just Dark Eldar Reavers in 7th come to my mind actually but their FOC allowed 6 FA and spamming min squads was a competitive build, not something necessary.
You probably don't remember a non-troop/transport being used in 4+ units because under the standard FOC you couldn't take that many. You only had three slots each of Elites, Fast Attack, and Heavy Support. Rule of 3 was wholly redundant to the core army-building system.
And 15-30 Terminators may work as 3 slots if you're okay with maxing out unit sizes- can't do 6 units of 5 each. But it doesn't work so well for a Guard Veteran army, where three squads of infantry isn't enough for even 1000pts.
Meanwhile rule of 3 does allow me to take 12 units of Carnifexes, because there are four different Carnifex datasheets. Does that really seem fair?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
PenitentJake wrote: Worth mentioning that Ro3 is a Matched play rule. It doesn't apply to Crusade or open.
Also, for armoured companies- I know far less about this than many Dakkanaughts, so I could be wrong, but many Guard tanks can be taken in squadrons. You can cram 12 Russes in a battalion if you take tanks commanders. True that you still need 3 troops choices, and maybe that's the issue. A Spearhead is 3CP, which isn't bad in Strikeforce and Onslaught games. It does hurt Incursion games, and it isn't possible RAW in Combat Patrol games.
Right, so you play Crusade and take an army of Veterans and that's all well and good but now you don't have any command points to work with and you're at a major disadvantage. Same deal with the tank company as you pointed out, except it actually is Rule of 3 compliant.
Which I think highlights how absurd Ro3 is. 12 Leman Russes is A-OK (and you can get more than that with the FW variants), but four units of ten-man T3/5+ Veterans? Can't be having that, that would be a skew list!
If you Play Combat Patrol, you can't do this anyway (at that size, there's an actual rule that you MUST take a Patrol detachment (though it might be Crusade only)). At incursion, you normally get 6 CP + 1/turn, so it's a big hit.
But at Stikeforce, you get 12 + 1/turn. 3CP is NOT a huge deal in this context- especially if you include CP generation in your army.
At onsluaght, you get even more, so the 3 CP choice to use a different detachment is even less significant.
The FOC, by contrast NEEDS the bespoke exceptions you speak of in order to achieve what you want it to achieve. Perhaps it isn't the FOC that you liked, but the bespoke exceptions to it?
And if that's the case, the bespoke exceptions could be added to the detachment system just as easily as the FOC. And keep in mind that the 9th ed guard dex isn't actually out yet- for all we know, it could include specialized detachment rules to harken back to the design flexibility of bespoke FOC exceptions.
PenitentJake wrote: But at Stikeforce, you get 12 + 1/turn. 3CP is NOT a huge deal in this context- especially if you include CP generation in your army.
If your army is so skewed into a single slot that you can still fit everything you want into a single detachment, sure.
Which basically means you can build alternative forces so long as they're one-note. So, provided my opponent is okay with me ignoring Rule of 3, I can take a Vanguard detachment so as to take Veterans as troops- and then no more than two each of Fast Attack or Heavy Support. You can have your Spearhead of tanks, but no more than two HQ choices or Fast Attack. Want two units of Sentinels and a Hellhound alongside your tank company? Too bad, can't do it unless you take another detachment. At 1500-2000 points, that means you're down to half the CP of anyone with a Battalion.
The supposed advantage of this system is that it gives you more freedom and less restriction. I see more freedom, but with a laundry list of caveats that disincentivize actually taking advantage of it for fluffy reasons.
In practice, I've seen far more players opt to just take a Battalion or two and fit their theme into the limitations of that structure, with 'tax' Troops as needed. It's not as egregious as in 8th, but the extra CP in return for taking a few Troops you wouldn't otherwise is an enticing carrot. You can still cram a whole ton of Leman Russes into a single Battalion anyways, 3 HS slots and Ro3 be damned.
PenitentJake wrote: Perhaps it isn't the FOC that you liked, but the bespoke exceptions to it?
And if that's the case, the bespoke exceptions could be added to the detachment system just as easily as the FOC.
That only achieves half of the goal.
Let me try to boil this down to its bare essentials: Restrictions are good for the game. Exceptions are good for player choice.
I liked the FOC because it imposed restrictions on listbuilding that ensured armies fit within a general mold of what a 40K army should look like. There were broken lists in every edition, and there was skew that worked even within the FOC (part of the reason why I do actually like percentage-based systems better), but it generally ensured that you would see an army with some mix of the various unit types. The expected 40K army was an HQ or two, some troops, and then a varying amount of other stuff. The game was designed around that expectation.
I then liked the exceptions to the FOC because they provided characterful and fluffy alternatives where appropriate. Not wild west do-whatever-you-want bring-twenty-seven-Carnifexes, but someone put real thought into how a Guard army should work and how it should be structured. They were curated exceptions to the default army structure, and by that nature tended to work better than a more free-form but one-size-fits-all system that applies the same restrictions equally (with some armies being more equal than others- again, three squads of Veterans max versus twenty-seven Carnifexes).
Maybe the new Guard codex will make Veterans troops again and that particular example will go away. Maybe it'll also bring back the Platoon structure, too. Maybe they'll even get rid of multiple tanks per slot, so I can't take 12 Leman Russes in a single Battalion anymore. Those would all be positive changes (aside from killing the armored company outright). But it'll still be a core system that purports to offer ultimate choice (take whatever you want!) while imposing hard restrictions (but you better not want more than three of the same thing, or the same CP as everyone else!). And then you still get competitive lists that fall through the cracks by skewing without taking too many of any one unit.
Let me be clear about this: I never loved the old FOC as a mechanic. I just think the purported superiority of 9th's system is questionable, and the idea that everyone who doesn't overwhelmingly prefer the new system is a selfish grognard who resents atypical armies beating their FOC-compatible dinosaur is absolute garbage.
Honestly, it just seems like you want to take a Specialist Regiment styled setup without having to specialize?
So far, nothing is pointing towards Platoons returning. That trash is thankfully dead...but going off the way boxes have been done right now? It looks like some stuff is going to get separated out so that Guard have an easier time to fill out FOCs without going super model heavy.
Unless I'm reading too much into the Krieg solo kit and Cadian repack not including a Heavy Weapon Team...
I never played Guard back then but I always loved the platoon structure. I especially loved the version with all the different attachments and so on. Great system, and it made Guard feel really different to other armies by having lots and lots of small, weak squads running all over the place.
I also really liked the idea of command squads for Guard rather than individual heroes, as it made "normal" humans feel different to other factions with their extremely powerful heroes.
I mostly played Orks, and I always liked having a couple of big ole mobs as my core unless I was doing speed freaks, in which case I had to have a bunch of trukks. I liked the shape it gave armies and the way it forced choices in the army building phase.
There are definitely advantages to no FOC, it allows for much easier themed forces and even stuff like no restrictions on mixing armies allows for your personal background to be represented exactly on the table. I'm not denying that at all. But I do have nostalgia for the old FOC for 40K and Fantasy. I especially liked how the Fantasy version scaled at lower and higher points values.
I liked the platoon structure for how it facilitated deployment too.
Back then? Platoons showed up as a single deployment/reserves choice.
Now? If you want reserves? Well, sorry, your platoon's heavy weapon squad got turned around in albequerque, two thirds of the infantry squads arrived on time, the Command Squad doesn't show up till halfway through (should have followed your infantry, Platoon Sergeant!) and the third infantry squad showed up on the other board edge because they couldn't get with in 9" of the enemy.
Oh and the platoon leader Lieutenant was deployed in the board from the beginning because that makes perfect sense.
(This is using the Narrative reserves rule present in the Recon mission fyi, since I only play Crusade. I am aware you have more control in Matched)
I always thought it would be neat if the units in Platoons needed to be a certain distance from each other. The 2nd edition command rules would give modern players the fritz too.
Maybe the rule of 3 should be an exclusive for tournament play? I mean narrative play might incentivize skew lists but it seems to be a place for messing around with different flavors. Want to run an armored column of leman russes? Awesome. I don't play guard but I think we can have some fun with that. We could pit heavy weapons teams and tanks against that to see what would happen and come up with a cool story. How about a chaos space marine army of possessed, greater possessed, master of possession, daemon engines and other daemons? Heck orks absolutely should be able to make armies of speed freaks. Let your imagination run wild.
PenitentJake wrote: But at Stikeforce, you get 12 + 1/turn. 3CP is NOT a huge deal in this context- especially if you include CP generation in your army.
If your army is so skewed into a single slot that you can still fit everything you want into a single detachment, sure.
Which basically means you can build alternative forces so long as they're one-note. So, provided my opponent is okay with me ignoring Rule of 3, I can take a Vanguard detachment so as to take Veterans as troops- and then no more than two each of Fast Attack or Heavy Support. You can have your Spearhead of tanks, but no more than two HQ choices or Fast Attack. Want two units of Sentinels and a Hellhound alongside your tank company? Too bad, can't do it unless you take another detachment. At 1500-2000 points, that means you're down to half the CP of anyone with a Battalion.
The supposed advantage of this system is that it gives you more freedom and less restriction. I see more freedom, but with a laundry list of caveats that disincentivize actually taking advantage of it for fluffy reasons.
In practice, I've seen far more players opt to just take a Battalion or two and fit their theme into the limitations of that structure, with 'tax' Troops as needed. It's not as egregious as in 8th, but the extra CP in return for taking a few Troops you wouldn't otherwise is an enticing carrot. You can still cram a whole ton of Leman Russes into a single Battalion anyways, 3 HS slots and Ro3 be damned.
PenitentJake wrote: Perhaps it isn't the FOC that you liked, but the bespoke exceptions to it?
And if that's the case, the bespoke exceptions could be added to the detachment system just as easily as the FOC.
That only achieves half of the goal.
Let me try to boil this down to its bare essentials: Restrictions are good for the game. Exceptions are good for player choice.
I liked the FOC because it imposed restrictions on listbuilding that ensured armies fit within a general mold of what a 40K army should look like. There were broken lists in every edition, and there was skew that worked even within the FOC (part of the reason why I do actually like percentage-based systems better), but it generally ensured that you would see an army with some mix of the various unit types. The expected 40K army was an HQ or two, some troops, and then a varying amount of other stuff. The game was designed around that expectation.
I then liked the exceptions to the FOC because they provided characterful and fluffy alternatives where appropriate. Not wild west do-whatever-you-want bring-twenty-seven-Carnifexes, but someone put real thought into how a Guard army should work and how it should be structured. They were curated exceptions to the default army structure, and by that nature tended to work better than a more free-form but one-size-fits-all system that applies the same restrictions equally (with some armies being more equal than others- again, three squads of Veterans max versus twenty-seven Carnifexes).
Maybe the new Guard codex will make Veterans troops again and that particular example will go away. Maybe it'll also bring back the Platoon structure, too. Maybe they'll even get rid of multiple tanks per slot, so I can't take 12 Leman Russes in a single Battalion anymore. Those would all be positive changes (aside from killing the armored company outright). But it'll still be a core system that purports to offer ultimate choice (take whatever you want!) while imposing hard restrictions (but you better not want more than three of the same thing, or the same CP as everyone else!). And then you still get competitive lists that fall through the cracks by skewing without taking too many of any one unit.
Let me be clear about this: I never loved the old FOC as a mechanic. I just think the purported superiority of 9th's system is questionable, and the idea that everyone who doesn't overwhelmingly prefer the new system is a selfish grognard who resents atypical armies beating their FOC-compatible dinosaur is absolute garbage.
This was a great response- totally clarifies your POV and makes a lot of sense.
This is somewhat tangential, but w/r/t armies of Veterans - I wonder if this could be solved by having Vets be cut from the 'dex and replaced by a Veterancy upgrade (eg "for +X ppm [based on model], increase WS/BS and Ld by 1") available to some units and Platoons (+1 in favor of bringing them back). It always kind of irked me that we couldn't have Veteran HWTs or SWTs (or Veteran vehicle crews outside of Tank Commanders and the odd named character/FW model...).
Personally, I'd prefer we not bleed any more units than we've already lost since the start of 9e, and I'd be fine retaining Vets as a separate one-off unit in the Elites slot if you only want to have one or two squads of badasses as support (think back to that old unit fluff from the 6e 'dex where Harker's Hellraisers ambush some Orks attacking a trench line manned by regular units), but since my lists don't use Vets I have the luxury of feeling like it might be worth trying.
macluvin wrote: Maybe the rule of 3 should be an exclusive for tournament play? .
When it was introduced in 8th Ed thats what it was. But for some reason a majority of the 40k community seems to use standard tournament play as the standard play for ALL 40k games. Hence why most discussion revolves around Matched 2000pts BRB table sizes being the assumed format being discussed.
waefre_1 wrote: This is somewhat tangential, but w/r/t armies of Veterans - I wonder if this could be solved by having Vets be cut from the 'dex and replaced by a Veterancy upgrade (eg "for +X ppm [based on model], increase WS/BS and Ld by 1") available to some units and Platoons (+1 in favor of bringing them back). It always kind of irked me that we couldn't have Veteran HWTs or SWTs (or Veteran vehicle crews outside of Tank Commanders and the odd named character/FW model...).
Real-talk, I think the only way we're getting "Platoons" back is as a Stratagem that lets us deploy a set number of things all in one go for situations like Unit described.
Anything more is going to be bookkeeping, something GW's been kinda moving away from.
I definitely expect Veterans to be a stratagem though. The Skitarii Veteran Cohort was a top-notch bit of Legendary Army and it's just a shame they didn't have it in the main book.
Personally, I'd prefer we not bleed any more units than we've already lost since the start of 9e, and I'd be fine retaining Vets as a separate one-off unit in the Elites slot if you only want to have one or two squads of badasses as support (think back to that old unit fluff from the 6e 'dex where Harker's Hellraisers ambush some Orks attacking a trench line manned by regular units), but since my lists don't use Vets I have the luxury of feeling like it might be worth trying.
Would be okay with losing Veterans as a unit if we saw Regimental splatbooks with unique units dropped. Rumour mill right now is pointing towards Kasrkin as part of a Cadian themed release(four kits) next year and Grenadiers+Death Riders accompanying the Krieg release whenever it fully happens.
Let me try to boil this down to its bare essentials: Restrictions are good for the game. Exceptions are good for player choice.
I liked the FOC because it imposed restrictions on listbuilding that ensured armies fit within a general mold of what a 40K army should look like.
I think choices in listbuilding are good for the game. In older editions lower points formats were common, rosters had 4-5 at most for each FA, HS or elite and in most cases the game pushed for large squads. Not to mention that GW almost never released FAQs, and OP units could stay OP for years. So the old FOC had some sense to limit skewing.
Now we play huge games of 2000 points, we have tons of datasheets to choose from, MSU are king of the edition so restricting slots is not the answer I think. Also some armies have squadrons, which could bypass the limitation. Some armies also have units that would fit different slots in other codexes: Heavy Intercessors would be Heavy Support or Elites in any other book, Eradicators would be Heavy Support in any other book, Tyranid Warriors would be Elites in any other book, Deff Dreads would be Elites in a SM book, some transports have the same firepower of other FA/HS vehicles etc...
With 9th edition codexes I feel armies are finally looking like proper collection of models as codexes are pretty balanced internally, and there's much less spam than in older editions even in competitive gaming.
If you really want restrictions on listbuilding try to play 1500 games. Now you really have to take decisions about what to take.
And 15-30 Terminators may work as 3 slots if you're okay with maxing out unit sizes- can't do 6 units of 5 each. But it doesn't work so well for a Guard Veteran army, where three squads of infantry isn't enough for even 1000pts.
You are against skew lists but sometimes push for playing skew For starters, terminators have so many datasheets that you can definitely run 6 units of 5 each, probably even more.
Then complete that guard veteran army with other stuff from the same book. It's like complaining that an ork army made only by nobz couldn't work under rule of 3 limitation. And why shouldn't those guard veterans be elites (so limited to max 3 with the FOC) in the first place?
Probably, an army with nothing but termies is the book definition of skew. But I'm also calling a full buggy list a skew army and not a proper fluffy Speed Freaks one for example.
Are Deathwings supposed to run only terminators or should they simply be based on a significant number of terminators? Because Speed Freeks aren't supposed to run only buggies, but any vehicles plus other fast stuff like stormboyz or even squigriders.
And according to the DA supplement there are 3 different datasheets for terminators in that book alone so even bringing 9 squads of termies is still legal with rule of 3.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Not Online!!! wrote: Not unless you play chaos. Then you only get 1 Type of terminators. (2 if dg if i member correctly).
Otoh, you can field an army out of chaos lords and daemonprinces.... Because Ro3 is well designed and functional...
Yeah, you can still bring 15-30 terminators, which IMHO is a MASSIVE amount of terminators . I'm in the same boat with meganobz and despite the fact that they're my favorite models I can't even think of a list based on that many bodies, it disgusts me.
Ro3 shouldn't exist in the first place, as people should avoid spamming units and play a bit of everything, more display armies than overly optimized ones. It's a patch to limit skew. Of course it doesn't remove it completely but still better than nothing. I'd definitely merge all those chaos lords, daemon princes, ork buggies, ork flyers, battlewagons etc into a single datasheet, don't get me wrong.
Blackie wrote: Probably, an army with nothing but termies is the book definition of skew.
I call it "themed". You seem too preoccupied with looking at thematic forces through the lens of how they break the game.
I hate mono-unit armies, themed or not, that's it. A speedfreaks army is still very themed if it has 4-5 buggies and then a bunch of koptas, infantries in trukks and/or wagons, bikers, stormboyz etc... It doesn't have to be 9-18 buggies and 3-5 planes to be "themed".
A deathwing is still a deathwing based army when it has 15-30 termies, vehicles, characters and eventually even a few non termy infantries since a DA battallion/patrol/whatever detachment + Deathwing Vanguard is still 100% fluffy.
Blackie wrote: I think choices in listbuilding are good for the game. In older editions lower points formats were common, rosters had 4-5 at most for each FA, HS or elite and in most cases the game pushed for large squads. Not to mention that GW almost never released FAQs, and OP units could stay OP for years. So the old FOC had some sense to limit skewing.
Can you point me to what FOC you're looking at? The standard one I know from 3rd-5th was up to 2 HQs, 3 Elites, 6 Troops, 3 Fast Attack, 3 Heavy Support for 1500-2000 points. Just making sure we're talking about the same thing.
Blackie wrote: Now we play huge games of 2000 points, we have tons of datasheets to choose from, MSU are king of the edition so restricting slots is not the answer I think. Also some armies have squadrons, which could bypass the limitation. Some armies also have units that would fit different slots in other codexes: Heavy Intercessors would be Heavy Support or Elites in any other book, Eradicators would be Heavy Support in any other book, Tyranid Warriors would be Elites in any other book, Deff Dreads would be Elites in a SM book, some transports have the same firepower of other FA/HS vehicles etc...
Like I said, using percentages like 2nd Ed did is one way to deal with MSU and cheap units being unfairly penalized.
Also, having certain units occupy certain slots in an army is one way of reinforcing themes. What constitutes Heavy Support for Eldar might be Fast Attack if it were Guard. There's nothing wrong with that; it helps define the strengths and limitations of each race.
Blackie wrote: With 9th edition codexes I feel armies are finally looking like proper collection of models as codexes are pretty balanced internally, and there's much less spam than in older editions even in competitive gaming.
If you really want restrictions on listbuilding try to play 1500 games. Now you really have to take decisions about what to take.
Being 'pretty balanced internally' and 'less spam than in older editions' means a tournament-winning Ork list composed of two characters, nine buggies, nine bikes, three artillery guns, and four aircraft that then was able to kill 1800pts of models in a single turn. That seems pretty spammy to me and not any more like a 'proper collection of models' in comparison to any prior edition. I guess if you ignore the static artillery and pretend the Boyz in Trukks are just off-table, you could call it Speed Freeks.
And having to make decisions about what to take doesn't prevent skew. Lower points limits plus freeform army construction easily makes skew worse since your opponent is less likely to have tools to deal with it. That's a big part of why the game doesn't work well at 500pts, whereas a game like Chain of Command (similar size to a 500pt 40K game, but much more restricted army composition) does.
Blackie wrote: You are against skew lists but sometimes push for playing skew For starters, terminators have so many datasheets that you can definitely run 6 units of 5 each, probably even more.
For one thing, I've been pretty consistent in saying that I liked curated exceptions to the normal FOC/army composition. The problem with skew lists isn't that being different is inherently bad, it's that they're usually constructed to either minimize defensive profiles or spam particular kinds of offensive fire, without any real tradeoffs, and that makes them overpowered and not fun to play against. If they've been designed with in-built tradeoffs or just aren't that egregious to begin with, then it's fine. Dark Angels being allowed to take Belial and then count Deathwing as Troops wasn't overpowered. Deathworld Veterans armies being able to take Veterans as Troops wasn't overpowered. Knights being able to spam Castellans was.
For another, having to exploit how Ro3 interacts with near-identical datasheets in order to take a bunch of units of them is downright stupid. Being allowed to take 3 Thornbacks and 3 Screamer-Killers but not 6 Carnifexes is stupid. Being able to take twelve different Daemon Princes in the same army is stupid. This is not a good system for player choice or mitigating spam, and the fact that some units/armies can exploit it is not a redeeming feature.
Blackie wrote: Then complete that guard veteran army with other stuff from the same book. It's like complaining that an ork army made only by nobz couldn't work under rule of 3 limitation. And why shouldn't those guard veterans be elites (so limited to max 3 with the FOC) in the first place?
So basically, your resolution to this conundrum is to give up on the idea of using Veterans as troops in a Guard army altogether and accept that Ro3 says no, making it no more viable now than when they were Elites under the old FOC. But if I want to spam six different Heavy Support choices, that I can do.
You're telling me that 9th Ed affords more freedom in army composition than ever before, and that anyone who prefers the old way is just a salty grognard who doesn't appreciate the newfound freedom, but when I suggest 'hey so can I run a Guard army using Veterans as my infantry like I could in 5th?' your reaction is 'What? Why would you want to do that? Just take a normal list, it wouldn't be fair if you could have more than 30 BS3+/T3/5+ Guardsmen on the field. Now, here's how you can abuse Ro3 to take 60 Terminators in one list'.
Also, just to reiterate a point from upthread: If catbarf were to ask to run a hypothetical previous Veteran IG list, RO3 says "No, you can't".
If catbarf were to run a hypothetical previous general Infantry list with more than three total Platoons/Company Command Squads, RO3 says "No, you can't (unless you give up on having Command Squads and potentially pay some extra CP for a Vanguard detachment to put them in)".
However, if catbarf were to run a hypothetical previous Armoured Company list, RO3 would say "Sure! Just be sure to mix in a few of the cheaper Russes if you want to stay under 2kpts".
Why is that? What about the Armoured Company makes it an acceptable skew list where both of the infantry-focused lists are unacceptable?
You get that the Armoured Company bit works because of LRBT Squadrons being 1-3 models per unit, right?
Veterans aren't giving you 3 "squads" per slot. Command Squads have been hit several times in 8E already, we know there's problems there. It sucks but it is what it is. Blame the metachasing goons who would spam plasma command squads of the Scion and Veteran varieties.
I'm genuinely not sure which "Deathworld Veterans" bit he's referencing. There was a Codex: Catachans for 3E and 4E(where it was a PDF), but both of those still used Infantry Platoons as Troops from what I can find.
Kanluwen wrote: You get that the Armoured Company bit works because of LRBT Squadrons being 1-3 models per unit, right?
Veterans aren't giving you 3 "squads" per slot.
Right, that's the point. The system considers thirty T3/5+ troopers to be equivalent to nine MBTs in terms of skew. It restricts 65-100pts of infantry exactly like it restricts 480-600pts of tanks. It says that four individual tanks is unfair, but eight tanks is fine as long as they're split into three units. It used to say eighteen tanks was just fine, then overnight Mars-Alpha variants were deleted from the game, and now only nine is okay and more than that is verboten.
Again, I'm not saying the old system avoided all these issues. It still had the same slot limitation issue, and the same ability to exploit units that allowed multiple expensive vehicles (or very large infantry squads) in a single slot. But at least it didn't have inconsistent, seemingly arbitrary loopholes where near-identical units could be spammed, or the capacity to build skew lists by maxing out on one section of the FOC so long as you don't take more than three of any one unit. It feels like what we have now is a lot of the same limitations on thematic armies, but with more opportunity for abuse.
Veterans are a good example of the constraints of the current listbuilding system, but they're far from the only one, because...
Kanluwen wrote: Command Squads have been hit several times in 8E already, we know there's problems there. It sucks but it is what it is. Blame the metachasing goons who would spam plasma command squads of the Scion and Veteran varieties.
...It's not just the command squads that get limited, but the officers too. If you're taking a lot of infantry, six Troops slots in a Battalion gets to be quite limiting. So if I want to play an infantry-heavy Guard list I'm generally taking two Battalions, but I also can't meet my HQ requirements with just infantry officers thanks to Ro3. Taking my max number of officers caps out at 9 orders per turn, so it's very possible in a 2000pt list for Ro3 to be the single barrier to having enough Orders coverage for my army. At 3K I have 50% more points to work with but can only take 33% more of each unit, making it worse.
And, of course, thanks to Ro3 I can't have a command squad for each of my officers. I'm not going to blame the players, I'm going to blame Ro3, as it was GW's knee-jerk reaction to the wholly unsurprising revelation that total freedom in army composition is easily abused. Even if GW took away special weapons from command squads now, I still wouldn't be able to take more than three.
To be clear, I single out the Guard for examples because their low individual cost makes them run into these limits quickly, and because the old FOC provided a bespoke platoon system specifically to solve this issue, but they're not the only army to run into odd RO3 limits. Like, why is four Trygons too much, but three Trygons and three Mawlocs and three Trygon Primes is fine? Why is it that if I want to make an army based on flying Tyranid forms, I have to cram my Gargoyles into just three units, but if I want to make a nidzilla list, thirty fething Carnifexes (across 12 units) is A-OK?
Kanluwen wrote: I'm genuinely not sure which "Deathworld Veterans" bit he's referencing. There was a Codex: Catachans for 3E and 4E(where it was a PDF), but both of those still used Infantry Platoons as Troops from what I can find.
Deathworld Veterans followed the Platoon structure, but had army-wide Infiltrate, WS4, a whole bunch of bonuses relating to terrain, and could be taken as five-man squads to max out on special and heavy weapons. All this could be yours for, in 3E, just a single point more per-model than a regular Guardsman. It was an infantry-focused skew list by design, with some pretty significant upgrades on those infantry, but the deliberate limitation of not allowing them to take anything heavier than a Sentinel (plus no lascannons) kept it in check (and actually made the army pretty weak on the whole, unless you played on a deathworld board).
Skew is only an issue when it provides advantages without disadvantages. Ideally a game system should allow skew but make it inherently no more advantageous compared to a more typical/expected/balanced force composition, but given that GW has never actually managed to achieve that, I would prefer to have a little more structure with curated exceptions as appropriate.
Kanluwen wrote: You get that the Armoured Company bit works because of LRBT Squadrons being 1-3 models per unit, right?
Veterans aren't giving you 3 "squads" per slot.
Right, that's the point. The system considers thirty T3/5+ troopers to be equivalent to nine MBTs in terms of skew. It restricts 65-100pts of infantry exactly like it restricts 480-600pts of tanks. It says that four individual tanks is unfair, but eight tanks is fine as long as they're split into three units. It used to say eighteen tanks was just fine, then overnight Mars-Alpha variants were deleted from the game, and now only nine is okay and more than that is verboten.
12. Tank Commanders are a separate unit entry.
Again, I'm not saying the old system avoided all these issues. It still had the same slot limitation issue, and the same ability to exploit units that allowed multiple expensive vehicles (or very large infantry squads) in a single slot. But at least it didn't have inconsistent, seemingly arbitrary loopholes where near-identical units could be spammed, or the capacity to build skew lists by maxing out on one section of the FOC so long as you don't take more than three of any one unit. It feels like what we have now is a lot of the same limitations on thematic armies, but with more opportunity for abuse.
Veterans are a good example of the constraints of the current listbuilding system, but they're far from the only one, because...
Kanluwen wrote: Command Squads have been hit several times in 8E already, we know there's problems there. It sucks but it is what it is. Blame the metachasing goons who would spam plasma command squads of the Scion and Veteran varieties.
...It's not just the command squads that get limited, but the officers too. If you're taking a lot of infantry, six Troops slots in a Battalion gets to be quite limiting. So if I want to play an infantry-heavy Guard list I'm generally taking two Battalions, but I also can't meet my HQ requirements with just infantry officers thanks to Ro3. Taking my max number of officers caps out at 9 orders per turn, so it's very possible in a 2000pt list for Ro3 to be the single barrier to having enough Orders coverage for my army. At 3K I have 50% more points to work with but can only take 33% more of each unit, making it worse.
And, of course, thanks to Ro3 I can't have a command squad for each of my officers. I'm not going to blame the players, I'm going to blame Ro3, as it was GW's knee-jerk reaction to the wholly unsurprising revelation that total freedom in army composition is easily abused. Even if GW took away special weapons from command squads now, I still wouldn't be able to take more than three.
Ro3 literally was created because of players spamming crap. Even without Ro3, Command Squads saw an early limitation of "1 per Officer" to curb the trash that metachasers were engaged in.
Blame the players. Blame the tourney folk who gave the feedback that led to that kind of nonsense being necessary in the first place.
To be clear, I single out the Guard for examples because their low individual cost makes them run into these limits quickly, and because the old FOC provided a bespoke platoon system specifically to solve this issue, but they're not the only army to run into odd RO3 limits. Like, why is four Trygons too much, but three Trygons and three Mawlocs and three Trygon Primes is fine? Why is it that if I want to make an army based on flying Tyranid forms, I have to cram my Gargoyles into just three units, but if I want to make a nidzilla list, thirty fething Carnifexes (across 12 units) is A-OK?
Mate, you're preaching to someone who had 3 Onager Squadrons get invalidated overnight. I get it. I'm sitting on 6 bloody spider-tanks that I can't really do anything with outside of make 'em look pretty on my shelf these days.
Guard are, as you and I have butted heads about in years past, a mess of a book. There's too much going on and they're shackled to the past too heavily. Scions being a Troops choice was a good move no matter what...but we're going to have to Wait And See where we go from here.
Kanluwen wrote: I'm genuinely not sure which "Deathworld Veterans" bit he's referencing. There was a Codex: Catachans for 3E and 4E(where it was a PDF), but both of those still used Infantry Platoons as Troops from what I can find.
Deathworld Veterans followed the Platoon structure, but had army-wide Infiltrate, WS4, a whole bunch of bonuses relating to terrain, and could be taken as five-man squads to max out on special and heavy weapons. All this could be yours for, in 3E, just a single point more per-model than a regular Guardsman. It was an infantry-focused skew list by design, with some pretty significant upgrades on those infantry, but the deliberate limitation of not allowing them to take anything heavier than a Sentinel (plus no lascannons) kept it in check (and actually made the army pretty weak on the whole, unless you played on a deathworld board).
Okay, so you're referring to the Catachan splatbook version right? The one with traps and the like?
I can't comment much on that one, since I never had interest in Catachans and it's a book that is long out of availability in a format I'm comfortable with. My understanding is that they were actually meant to represent a "Veteran" Regiment in general, right? Like D99 was?
Because that kinda thing goes great with these Armies of Legend that GW's been doing. Stratagem to upgrade the basic units and give them traits, restrictions on what can or can't be taken, and an armywide rule, etc.
Skew is only an issue when it provides advantages without disadvantages. Ideally a game system should allow skew but make it inherently no more advantageous compared to a more typical/expected/balanced force composition, but given that GW has never actually managed to achieve that, I would prefer to have a little more structure with curated exceptions as appropriate.
And I think the crux of it is that you're wanting something that's a bit more narrative oriented. Which is awesome! I love narrative stuff.
But unfortunately, everyone else seems to want to play with Matched Play rules in most pick-up games.
Kanluwen wrote: Okay, so you're referring to the Catachan splatbook version right? The one with traps and the like?
I can't comment much on that one, since I never had interest in Catachans and it's a book that is long out of availability in a format I'm comfortable with. My understanding is that they were actually meant to represent a "Veteran" Regiment in general, right? Like D99 was?
Because that kinda thing goes great with these Armies of Legend that GW's been doing. Stratagem to upgrade the basic units and give them traits, restrictions on what can or can't be taken, and an armywide rule, etc.
Kanluwen wrote: And I think the crux of it is that you're wanting something that's a bit more narrative oriented. Which is awesome! I love narrative stuff.
But unfortunately, everyone else seems to want to play with Matched Play rules in most pick-up games.
You misunderstand, I'm not asking for more narrative content. I'm saying if someone's objection to stricter force org for Matched Play is that it won't allow them to do themed skew armies, those spin-off lists and force org variants (eg Belial allowing Terminators as Troops) are examples of how to support thematic skew armies in a curated/balanced manner.
If someone wants to run a hard skew army that isn't supported by the fluff, well, maybe it ought to stay in Open/Narrative. I can't force people to accept that there's more to the game beyond Matched Play, but player choice has to be weighed against balance, and I never felt the old FOC was any more limiting than the current system for reasonably themed and balanced armies.
So basically, your resolution to this conundrum is to give up on the idea of using Veterans as troops in a Guard army altogether and accept that Ro3 says no, making it no more viable now than when they were Elites under the old FOC. But if I want to spam six different Heavy Support choices, that I can do.
Yes, with armies having 10+ units for each slot limiting those slots to max 3 is a concept that doesn't make sense anymore, while limiting spam always makes sense. I agree that with the current rules the limitations to reduce spam can be bypassed somehow though, that's why I'd remove most of the squadrons (making those units single models) and merge all similar datasheets into a single one. About Ro3 I'd go even further, making it rule of 2 or even rule of 1 is some cases, and I'm glad that at least commanders are getting limited to max 1 per detachment, although I think they should be limited to 1 per army.
Also don't use tournaments results to back up your points, tournaments always involved spamming stuff and shooting off the board the opponent turn 1 happened in older editions as well. I don't play tournaments but I've never seen in real life 1000+ of stuff removed in one turn in 9th, while I definitely experienced that in the past, including in 5th. Yes the ork list was very spammy, but remove two flyers, 4-6 buggies and take other stuff and that list could still be very competitive. There's no ork codex that has ever been as internally balanced as the current one. A spammy OP list doesn't mean that there's no internal balance, just have a look at all the ork lists that placed in 9th so far, you'll see tons of different units. You'll see tons of different factions as well, there has never been such variety in 40k.
You're telling me that 9th Ed affords more freedom in army composition than ever before, and that anyone who prefers the old way is just a salty grognard who doesn't appreciate the newfound freedom, but when I suggest 'hey so can I run a Guard army using Veterans as my infantry like I could in 5th?' your reaction is 'What? Why would you want to do that? Just take a normal list, it wouldn't be fair if you could have more than 30 BS3+/T3/5+ Guardsmen on the field.
Never said you're grognard, I respect people's opinions. Always . But you can still run a list that respects the old FOC if you want to, you just want to limit other players' options for some reasons.
But GW decided that those veterans aren't troops. For the same reason why lootas were elites in the 4th book and heavy support in any other codex or ork deff dreads aren't elites like SM ones. You can't run veterans as troops just like I can't run nobz as troops, and in 4th-5th I could have run nobz, meganobz, biker nobz, dreads or bikers as troops. Burnaboyz and tankbustas were troops in 3rd.
I disagree about the role on the detachment system of lots of units, so I may understand your pain for those veterans not being troops.
Kanluwen wrote: Even without Ro3, Command Squads saw an early limitation of "1 per Officer" to curb the trash that metachasers were engaged in.
In fairness to GW, the restriction of one Infantry Command Squad or Stormtrooper Command Squad per Infantry Officer or Stormtrooper Officer respectively is one that makes perfect sense to me, and is a restriction I know I have no issue with.
You want to take the Officer without his command squad, that's fine, but I don't think the other way around should be a thing.
Now we play huge games of 2000 points, we have tons of datasheets to choose from, MSU are king of the edition so restricting slots is not the answer I think.
MSU is king of the edition because you can spam MSU. If you can't spam is it king?
Also don't use tournaments results to back up your points, tournaments always involved spamming stuff and shooting off the board the opponent turn 1 happened in older editions as well. I don't play tournaments but I've never seen in real life 1000+ of stuff removed in one turn in 9th, while I definitely experienced that in the past, including in 5th. Yes the ork list was very spammy, but remove two flyers, 4-6 buggies and take other stuff and that list could still be very competitive. There's no ork codex that has ever been as internally balanced as the current one. A spammy OP list doesn't mean that there's no internal balance, just have a look at all the ork lists that placed in 9th so far, you'll see tons of different units. You'll see tons of different factions as well, there has never been such variety in 40k.
Theres a lot going on in this paragraph and I wish I hadn't woken up with a migraine so I could tackle it.
Spoiler:
>First turn advantage isn't real
>40k is the most balanced its ever been >Your opponent is WAAC >You should ask him to tone down his lists
>Just use more terrain
>houserule it till it works
>Tournament data shows the game is balanced >Tournaments aren't representitve of REAL 40K player >Crusade is better you should play that
>It works for MY group
>Find a new group/FLGS >You're just not playing it properly
>You're bad at the game
>your standards are too high
>most people just play for the models/lore
NEW ENTRY!
>I've never seen it happen in my games, so it never happens ]
I would have even managed to kill 1000pts in turn 1 in mostly melee with Blood Angels this edition if I had not forgotten to move my Lemartes in the movement phase in the last round at a GT(we were both 3-1 so not bottom table). I even went first so he was hunkered down in his deployment zone. Still killed 900+ points, which would have been about 1100+pts if I had moved Lemartes. Sure it was the old BA book and not the current one but the lethality of that book weren't at the level of the current top books. Now you don't even have to enter the opponents half of the table to do such damage since you can do it with range. At least that book needed to commit to get such results. Only had 290/2000 left on my half of the table when his turn started. Now you can do the reverse.
Now we play huge games of 2000 points, we have tons of datasheets to choose from, MSU are king of the edition so restricting slots is not the answer I think.
MSU is king of the edition because you can spam MSU. If you can't spam is it king?
Then those factions that can bring more MSU (aka effective MSU troops) than the others or more effective MSU will be king. Armies like custodes, harlequins and most of the SM variants for example would still bring the same exact armies with or without the old FOC limitations as they don't really need 4+ units among the elites/fast attacks/heavy support sections anyway. The old FOC still allowed 6 troops and 3 elites, other than 3 FA and HS and armies with expensive units would be totally unaffected by such limitations.
Problem with such old FOC and 9th mechanics is that armies that can bring MSU and the desired toys will change nothing, armies that would have to choose between MSU and toys would be crippled badly.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Klickor wrote: I would have even managed to kill 1000pts in turn 1 in mostly melee with Blood Angels this edition if I had not forgotten to move my Lemartes in the movement phase in the last round at a GT(we were both 3-1 so not bottom table). I even went first so he was hunkered down in his deployment zone. Still killed 900+ points, which would have been about 1100+pts if I had moved Lemartes. Sure it was the old BA book and not the current one but the lethality of that book weren't at the level of the current top books. Now you don't even have to enter the opponents half of the table to do such damage since you can do it with range. At least that book needed to commit to get such results. Only had 290/2000 left on my half of the table when his turn started. Now you can do the reverse.
I could do even more damage outside of a GT facing a worse player, wouldn't even need to have such a strong list either. My first few games of 8th with my casual 4th/5th marine army in a more casual environment than a tournament was even worse. I brought useless stuff like a Landraider, a Predator, Assault Marines, Terminators. LC/ML devastator squads, tactical marines etc. Lost insane amount of models due to me bringing overpriced trash even though what I faced wasn't very strong lists. Sure if I had brought a B tier list instead of an F tier list to face my opponents B tier list it would have been more fair.
At least in a tournament most lists are A-S tier and maybe someone who didn't care brought a B tier list but mostly people are playing at the same level. If you don't discuss in depth about what lists to bring to a game and just say "I will bring a toned down lists for a relaxed game" and one of the player plays Drukhari and show up with a casual A- tier list, instead of their SS, and their opponent comes with a casual Z tier Tau list it will be a stomp worse than anything you can expect at a more competitive event. Or someone shows up with 10 overpriced vehicles because there are no build restrictions and you can take whatever you want and face the guy who likes big numbers who chose an 18 Eradicators, 12 MM Devastators, 9 Las Fusil Eliminators, 0 Troop list because 9 anti tank Heavy support choices is Rad. And not even overpowered in a competitive setting, quite awful actually but it will trash some fun vehicle lists.
So much easier to make sure everyone have a good time if you start out with restrictions on what can be fielded and then tweak it a bit here and there to allow certain builds in exchange for disadvantages. Then both the players and the designers have a better grasp on what can be expected and then design their lists(if players) or rules(if GW) to match what will be played.
When I play other games I and my friends usually build whatever list we can come up with. Be it the hardest list we can put together or if it has a fun theme. And for some unfathomable reasons called balance, restrictions and less lethality we still can have fun games even if its a "tournament" list vs a fluffy "casual" list. Might take several turns for the stronger list to come out on top and not something like current 40k with 3 phases to decide the game. Because the games have more restricted list building rules it is easier for the designers to balance the units. They don't have to try to balance extreme skew because you can't build it in the first place.
The old FoC wasn't perfect but it sure was better than what we have now. I don't think anyone wants us to go back to the standard base FoC and do nothing else and be content with it. But using it as a starting point and make it work with the current units and perhaps a faction/subfaction specific version or two in each codex that mimics it but with unique tweaks. So what current army would still be broken under the exact old FoC is meaningless since that isnt really what is being argued. Restrictions are good and can lead to a better game. Restrictions != Only old FoC
Now we play huge games of 2000 points, we have tons of datasheets to choose from, MSU are king of the edition so restricting slots is not the answer I think.
MSU is king of the edition because you can spam MSU. If you can't spam is it king?
Then those factions that can bring more MSU (aka effective MSU troops) than the others or more effective MSU will be king. Armies like custodes, harlequins and most of the SM variants for example would still bring the same exact armies with or without the old FOC limitations as they don't really need 4+ units among the elites/fast attacks/heavy support sections anyway. The old FOC still allowed 6 troops and 3 elites, other than 3 FA and HS and armies with expensive units would be totally unaffected by such limitations.
Problem with such old FOC and 9th mechanics is that armies that can bring MSU and the desired toys will change nothing, armies that would have to choose between MSU and toys would be crippled badly.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Klickor wrote: I would have even managed to kill 1000pts in turn 1 in mostly melee with Blood Angels this edition if I had not forgotten to move my Lemartes in the movement phase in the last round at a GT(we were both 3-1 so not bottom table). I even went first so he was hunkered down in his deployment zone. Still killed 900+ points, which would have been about 1100+pts if I had moved Lemartes. Sure it was the old BA book and not the current one but the lethality of that book weren't at the level of the current top books. Now you don't even have to enter the opponents half of the table to do such damage since you can do it with range. At least that book needed to commit to get such results. Only had 290/2000 left on my half of the table when his turn started. Now you can do the reverse.
The game is insanely lethal.
Highlighted .
Can I highlight that you said not to use tournament data as evidence of lethality but you're happy to use it as evidence that the game is the most balanced it's been in terms of unit/list variety? Either its both or neither but can you at least be consistent? Its difficult to argue with someone when they keep changing what counts as vaild evidence of something.
Kanluwen wrote: Even without Ro3, Command Squads saw an early limitation of "1 per Officer" to curb the trash that metachasers were engaged in.
In fairness to GW, the restriction of one Infantry Command Squad or Stormtrooper Command Squad per Infantry Officer or Stormtrooper Officer respectively is one that makes perfect sense to me, and is a restriction I know I have no issue with.
You want to take the Officer without his command squad, that's fine, but I don't think the other way around should be a thing.
Frankly, the reason I brought it up is because there's a weird current of "it can't be the players' fault, ever!" that comes up with some of these kinds of things.
I agree that it makes sense...but it only became an issue because people used it as a way to stack plasmas. That's all. They used Command Squads to circumvent the "3 trash lasgunners" in a Special Weapon Squad for the Veteran element while the Scion one was just cheaper to field than the actual Scion squads.
For what it's worth though? There's a distinct problem that shows up with Command Squads:
Veteran Command Squads are 3 tops, while <Regiment> Officers (Master of Ordnance, Platoon Commander, Company Commander) on foot can be 9.
I don't know how to solve it all. I don't know how to do anything with Guard until we get a new fricking book and a design that isn't still locked in 3/4E.
I think restrictions only work when the game has design to incentivise a natural army selection to the desired outcome.
40k is too top heavy for damage output as most of the factions have no design towards the game itself.
Games workshop wants a buy and play anything you want, and will design it open to that until it breaks. And try to plug the holes with a design team years behind.
I think it’s noticeable that most other games don’t really have much restrictions and where they do, it’s more for unique units.
Rather than specifically powerful ones.
I think it comes from poor management over years, than the rules itself.
It’s why I think people do enjoy the older editions with the restrictions set by the force org, as it restricted all equally before allowing factions to break it under specific circumstances.
Kanluwen wrote: Even without Ro3, Command Squads saw an early limitation of "1 per Officer" to curb the trash that metachasers were engaged in.
In fairness to GW, the restriction of one Infantry Command Squad or Stormtrooper Command Squad per Infantry Officer or Stormtrooper Officer respectively is one that makes perfect sense to me, and is a restriction I know I have no issue with.
You want to take the Officer without his command squad, that's fine, but I don't think the other way around should be a thing.
Frankly, the reason I brought it up is because there's a weird current of "it can't be the players' fault, ever!" that comes up with some of these kinds of things.
I agree that it makes sense...but it only became an issue because people used it as a way to stack plasmas. That's all. They used Command Squads to circumvent the "3 trash lasgunners" in a Special Weapon Squad for the Veteran element while the Scion one was just cheaper to field than the actual Scion squads.
Thats because its not the players fault. We play by the rules GW sells us as a product. Its to them to make the product work, not us. If the game starts to fall apart because of the way people use the product and subsequently drive other people away from using the product that way its up to GW to fix the issue to bring the disillusioned players back.
Thats because its not the players fault. We play by the rules GW sells us as a product. Its to them to make the product work, not us. If the game starts to fall apart because of the way people use the product and subsequently drive other people away from using the product that way its up to GW to fix the issue to bring the disillusioned players back.
It literally is the players' fault when they choose to min/max or play an army based on a tourney list they found online.
GW isn't making you take Command Squads over Special Weapon Squads. GW wasn't making you spam Smashcaptains. GW wasn't making you copy netlists. That's YOU choosing to do those things, then trying to pawn the blame off on GW "because I can do it in the book!".
Things that are not the players' fault: -When a unit they took for fun previously suddenly becomes a powerhouse overnight. -When a subfaction they liked becomes a powerhouse in the next book. Etc. Etc.
There very much is a number of things that can have the blame laid at GW's feet. Just like there is for the people who chase the meta.
Thats because its not the players fault. We play by the rules GW sells us as a product. Its to them to make the product work, not us. If the game starts to fall apart because of the way people use the product and subsequently drive other people away from using the product that way its up to GW to fix the issue to bring the disillusioned players back.
It literally is the players' fault when they choose to min/max or play an army based on a tourney list they found online.
GW isn't making you take Command Squads over Special Weapon Squads. GW wasn't making you spam Smashcaptains. GW wasn't making you copy netlists. That's YOU choosing to do those things, then trying to pawn the blame off on GW "because I can do it in the book!".
If I play a super thematic Deathwing list with all the hot stuff (which as far as I know actually fits the theme pretty nice) and my friend uses his lot's o' Gretchin themed Snakebite list and get's ridiculously stomped, whose fault is that?
I said it on another thread: It's GWs fault that the gap between some things is as huge as it is, the min/maxing is a choice of the players, but the difference of a min/maxed list to a "normal" list is on GW
Thats because its not the players fault. We play by the rules GW sells us as a product. Its to them to make the product work, not us. If the game starts to fall apart because of the way people use the product and subsequently drive other people away from using the product that way its up to GW to fix the issue to bring the disillusioned players back.
It literally is the players' fault when they choose to min/max or play an army based on a tourney list they found online.
GW isn't making you take Command Squads over Special Weapon Squads. GW wasn't making you spam Smashcaptains. GW wasn't making you copy netlists.
That's YOU choosing to do those things, then trying to pawn the blame off on GW "because I can do it in the book!".
Things that are not the players' fault:
-When a unit they took for fun previously suddenly becomes a powerhouse overnight.
-When a subfaction they liked becomes a powerhouse in the next book.
Etc. Etc.
There very much is a number of things that can have the blame laid at GW's feet. Just like there is for the people who chase the meta.
No it's not.
The game mechanics encourage certain behaviors. It is not the players fault for falling into the ruts created by the mechanics. The goal of a game is to win. The mechanics are available for the players to use. Those that use them to win are just playing the game. It is 100% not the players fault for doing what the game has encouraged them to do.
The game mechanics encourage certain behaviors. It is not the players fault for falling into the ruts created by the mechanics. The goal of a game is to win. The mechanics are available for the players to use. Those that use them to win are just playing the game. It is 100% not the players fault for doing what the game has encouraged them to do.
The goal of a game is to play the game.
And this is where the problem lies. Too many people see the ultimate and only goal as "winning".
Games have two parties involved. Neither of those parties are GW.
The game mechanics encourage certain behaviors. It is not the players fault for falling into the ruts created by the mechanics. The goal of a game is to win. The mechanics are available for the players to use. Those that use them to win are just playing the game. It is 100% not the players fault for doing what the game has encouraged them to do.
The goal of a game is to play the game.
And this is where the problem lies. Too many people see the ultimate and only goal as "winning".
Games have two parties involved. Neither of those parties are GW.
No.
The POINT of a game is to have fun playing. Which means different things for different people.
The GOAL of a game is to win.
You don't get to tell someone they are playing wrong while in pursuit of the goal. Especially if they find that pursuit to be fun.
The game mechanics encourage certain behaviors. It is not the players fault for falling into the ruts created by the mechanics. The goal of a game is to win. The mechanics are available for the players to use. Those that use them to win are just playing the game. It is 100% not the players fault for doing what the game has encouraged them to do.
The goal of a game is to play the game.
And this is where the problem lies. Too many people see the ultimate and only goal as "winning".
Games have two parties involved. Neither of those parties are GW.
Absolutely true, and to play the game, you need rules. The goals of those rules are basically that each of the (mostly) two players enjoys the game as much as the other. If this is not happening, the creator of those rules is at fault
EDIT: Also Lance is completely right. I didn't think of this, but different people of course want different things from this game and again it is on GW to create a ruleset that allows as many people with as many goals as possible to play with each other on an equal level (as equal as it gets)
The game mechanics encourage certain behaviors. It is not the players fault for falling into the ruts created by the mechanics. The goal of a game is to win. The mechanics are available for the players to use. Those that use them to win are just playing the game. It is 100% not the players fault for doing what the game has encouraged them to do.
The goal of a game is to play the game.
And this is where the problem lies. Too many people see the ultimate and only goal as "winning".
Games have two parties involved. Neither of those parties are GW.
At what point does, I have fun wining and am willing to put effort into that become the players fault.
And it isn’t the players fault if they want to avoid units that provide little fun, at GW prices a bad unit can effectively be wasted money and see no value in play.
If I play a super thematic Deathwing list with all the hot stuff (which as far as I know actually fits the theme pretty nice) and my friend uses his lot's o' Gretchin themed Snakebite list and get's ridiculously stomped, whose fault is that?
I said it on another thread: It's GWs fault that the gap between some things is as huge as it is, the min/maxing is a choice of the players, but the difference of a min/maxed list to a "normal" list is on GW
EDIT: Didn't see your edit, when I was replying
One of the problems is that your comparison is a bit flawed. Deathwing is, by its nature, a highly specialized entity. It pays for it in points. There's also a lore restriction that doesn't get talked much about(the Deathwing number exactly 100 when deployed in Terminator Armor...that's all the armor they can field in one engagement at the First Company level, characters obviously are said to have their own suits) but realistically won't be a Big Deal in most instances because who is going to field 100 models in Terminator Armor?!
Snakebites, even themed around Gretchin, are still going to have other elements in them. And it's not like being Snakebites locks you out of the rest of the army for your theme anyways. It just reduces what you might have, numberswise.
At what point does, I have fun wining and am willing to put effort into that become the players fault.
And it isn’t the players fault if they want to avoid units that provide little fun, at GW prices a bad unit can effectively be wasted money and see no value in play.
And now you're getting into something entirely different.
If someone doesn't find value in a unit, then they shouldn't have to play it. If they can't find anything in the army that appeals to them?
Maybe. Just maybe...they shouldn't be playing that army!
If I play a super thematic Deathwing list with all the hot stuff (which as far as I know actually fits the theme pretty nice) and my friend uses his lot's o' Gretchin themed Snakebite list and get's ridiculously stomped, whose fault is that?
I said it on another thread: It's GWs fault that the gap between some things is as huge as it is, the min/maxing is a choice of the players, but the difference of a min/maxed list to a "normal" list is on GW
EDIT: Didn't see your edit, when I was replying
One of the problems is that your comparison is a bit flawed. Deathwing is, by its nature, a highly specialized entity. It pays for it in points. There's also a lore restriction that doesn't get talked much about(the Deathwing number exactly 100 when deployed in Terminator Armor...that's all the armor they can field in one engagement at the First Company level, characters obviously are said to have their own suits) but realistically won't be a Big Deal in most instances because who is going to field 100 models in Terminator Armor?!
Snakebites, even themed around Gretchin, are still going to have other elements in them. And it's not like being Snakebites locks you out of the rest of the army for your theme anyways. It just reduces what you might have, numberswise.
That doesn't answer my question at all....also I'm not sure I'm getting this right: Your argument is that the Deathwing player would not be allowed to field MORE than 100 models?!?! How many points are they supposed to play? 3500?
Absolutely true, and to play the game, you need rules. The goals of those rules are basically that each of the (mostly) two players enjoys the game as much as the other. If this is not happening, the creator of those rules is at fault
EDIT: Also Lance is completely right. I didn't think of this, but different people of course want different things from this game and again it is on GW to create a ruleset that allows as many people with as many goals as possible to play with each other on an equal level (as equal as it gets)
And it's up to players to know what is or isn't enjoyable.
People, this isn't bloody hard. Not every game needs to be a knives out deathmatch. You don't need to own the most souped up, compwinningest army.
Until people cease looking at armies as "investments" in either win rates or $, this whole path of discussion will continue to be a farce.
Your question wasn't really worth answering. You picked a goofy concept with not one but two restrictions in it(Snakebite themed Gretchin) and paired it with a well-known theme(so much so that it inspired a whole moniker of 2+ save army concepts being called <insert name here>-wing) that only has one restriction(Deathwing has Terminator Armor: that's it. That's the restriction).
also I'm not sure I'm getting this right: Your argument is that the Deathwing player would not be allowed to field MORE than 100 models?!?! How many points are they supposed to play? 3500?
If you're going to claim you're playing Deathwing, having more than 100 non-character models in Terminator Armor is breaking the lore.
Absolutely true, and to play the game, you need rules. The goals of those rules are basically that each of the (mostly) two players enjoys the game as much as the other. If this is not happening, the creator of those rules is at fault
EDIT: Also Lance is completely right. I didn't think of this, but different people of course want different things from this game and again it is on GW to create a ruleset that allows as many people with as many goals as possible to play with each other on an equal level (as equal as it gets)
And it's up to players to know what is or isn't enjoyable.
People, this isn't bloody hard. Not every game needs to be a knives out deathmatch. You don't need to own the most souped up, compwinningest army.
Until people cease looking at armies as "investments" in either win rates or $, this whole path of discussion will continue to be a farce.
And this is where you're wrong. SOME people do want it to be the (figurative) knives out deathmatch. They enjoy the pure competitive side of the game and want to find the most effective list and hone their skills against the bestest of the best players. This is one way to play the game, I don't like it, but it's exactly of the same value than narrative gaming.
Now you ask one of those players to play a "friendly" list in a pickup game and you can be sure that this list will still be much more optimized than my fluffy Ulthwe Storm Guardian list. There was communication, the players talked to each other but still the experience will be bad for both of them.
It's GWs job to create a rulesystem where both end of the spectrum can enjoy the majority of the games they play, and it seems to me they failed miserably.
Absolutely true, and to play the game, you need rules. The goals of those rules are basically that each of the (mostly) two players enjoys the game as much as the other. If this is not happening, the creator of those rules is at fault
EDIT: Also Lance is completely right. I didn't think of this, but different people of course want different things from this game and again it is on GW to create a ruleset that allows as many people with as many goals as possible to play with each other on an equal level (as equal as it gets)
And it's up to players to know what is or isn't enjoyable.
People, this isn't bloody hard. Not every game needs to be a knives out deathmatch. You don't need to own the most souped up, compwinningest army.
Until people cease looking at armies as "investments" in either win rates or $, this whole path of discussion will continue to be a farce.
If GW actually balanced the game properly (or at least made a better attempt than they do now) we wouldn't be in a position of having to moderate our armies to the extent we currently do. It's entirely possible for all selections to be balanced and armies to be structured in such a way that it's not really possible to break the game to the extent it is now.
All you're doing is blaming the players for GW's ineptitude. This is especially problematic if GW manage to break things so badly it's almost impossible to self-moderate. That happened with SM 2.0 in 8th edition. I eventually had to stop playing mine against certain armies because it was almost impossible to reduce the power level enough to make for an engaging game without entering into loads of negotiations and discussions about what would and wouldn't be fair. That's not my fault.
Your question wasn't really worth answering. You picked a goofy concept with not one but two restrictions in it(Snakebite themed Gretchin) and paired it with a well-known theme(so much so that it inspired a whole moniker of 2+ save army concepts being called <insert name here>-wing) that only has one restriction(Deathwing has Terminator Armor: that's it. That's the restriction).
also I'm not sure I'm getting this right: Your argument is that the Deathwing player would not be allowed to field MORE than 100 models?!?! How many points are they supposed to play? 3500?
If you're going to claim you're playing Deathwing, having more than 100 non-character models in Terminator Armor is breaking the lore.
Nothing stopping you beyond that.
Wat
You: It's the player fault Me: If those two themed armies battle each other, one of them has a major advantage (Implying that it is not the players fault, since some armies simply are more powerful, no matter min/maxing) You: goofy concept, its still the players fault
Blackie wrote: Yes, with armies having 10+ units for each slot limiting those slots to max 3 is a concept that doesn't make sense anymore, while limiting spam always makes sense. I agree that with the current rules the limitations to reduce spam can be bypassed somehow though, that's why I'd remove most of the squadrons (making those units single models) and merge all similar datasheets into a single one. About Ro3 I'd go even further, making it rule of 2 or even rule of 1 is some cases, and I'm glad that at least commanders are getting limited to max 1 per detachment, although I think they should be limited to 1 per army.
My issue is that this system doesn't limit spam as a whole. It limits spam of individual units, but does nothing to stop you from spamming similarly-roled (or outright redundant) units, and the factions with 10+ units for each slot certainly have those. Even without squadrons, a list that takes three each of three different types of tank is every bit as much a spam/skew list as one with six Flyrants, but only the latter is limited by Ro3.
An army being entirely composed of tanks (of four different types) or 300+ infantry (Troops, so no restriction) is more of a problem than a player wanting to bring four MSU squads of Nobz. Ro3 isn't providing appropriate structure.
Making Ro3 become Ro2 or Ro1 would only make it worse for player freedom in army composition, and brings me right back to my original point- that this system already constrains reasonable army builds in artificial ways, yet doesn't limit skew as well as the old FOC did.
Blackie wrote: But you can still run a list that respects the old FOC if you want to, you just want to limit other players' options for some reasons.
Well, yes? You want to 'limit other players' options for some reasons' when you suggest a stricter Ro3; don't phrase it like that's an unreasonable concept now.
I am asserting that allowing an army to be composed of nothing but Heavy Support choices (or nothing but Elites, or nothing but FA) is bad for competitive balance, and since Ro3 is already constraining fluffy/interesting builds that could otherwise take advantage of the unlimited slots, it would only be a positive to structure Matched Play a bit better. Not the old FOC specifically, just more structure. The 'some reason' is because the game is easy to break and hard to balance, and virtually unlimited ability to skew is certainly part of it.
Waaaghbert wrote: Absolutely true, and to play the game, you need rules. The goals of those rules are basically that each of the (mostly) two players enjoys the game as much as the other. If this is not happening, the creator of those rules is at fault
Yeah, this. I get where Kanluwen is coming from, but I don't see other games get this sort of treatment. When games have balance problems that are easily exploited, that should be called out as a game problem, not pinned on the players. You can't design a game where the in-game objective is to destroy the enemy, give players the option of what units to take in order to destroy the enemy, and then go 'whoah, why'd you take units that are good at destroying the enemy?'.
What if GW released 10th edition, and the first rules launched were purely casual formatted? Balanced across all units and what not. No busted wombo combos. No stacks on stacks of buffs. And they let this settle for a bit. So we are all used to playing with the rules.
Then they launch 40k competitive edition where they launch ultra competitive rules and all kinds of crazy rules, and state that these rules in particular require the consent of your opponent or TO policy. Would starting with casual gamer support THEN launching ultra competitive support be beneficial, and get us stuck out of this rut of everyone playing the tourney edition 40k?
Absolutely true, and to play the game, you need rules. The goals of those rules are basically that each of the (mostly) two players enjoys the game as much as the other. If this is not happening, the creator of those rules is at fault
EDIT: Also Lance is completely right. I didn't think of this, but different people of course want different things from this game and again it is on GW to create a ruleset that allows as many people with as many goals as possible to play with each other on an equal level (as equal as it gets)
And it's up to players to know what is or isn't enjoyable.
People, this isn't bloody hard. Not every game needs to be a knives out deathmatch. You don't need to own the most souped up, compwinningest army.
Until people cease looking at armies as "investments" in either win rates or $, this whole path of discussion will continue to be a farce.
And this is where you're wrong. SOME people do want it to be the (figurative) knives out deathmatch. They enjoy the pure competitive side of the game and want to find the most effective list and hone their skills against the bestest of the best players. This is one way to play the game, I don't like it, but it's exactly of the same value than narrative gaming.
COOL! There's a whole bloody place for them to be:
Tournaments! But some of those same people that claim to want those things also will do everything they can to keep being big fish in small ponds.
Because it's not actually competition they want. It's domination. And this is an important thing to suss out. Stomping all over people isn't playing the game. It isn't being competitive. It's just ruining someone else's fun.
Now you ask one of those players to play a "friendly" list in a pickup game and you can be sure that this list will still be much more optimized than my fluffy Ulthwe Storm Guardian list. There was communication, the players talked to each other but still the experience will be bad for both of them.
Funny you mention that. I backtracked on posting this anecdote earlier but I guess you opened the door for this.
When the Skitarii codex first dropped? I arranged a game locally. I wanted to get my 1k force built so there was a week or so prior to the game, and I saw zero harm in keeping my opponent appraised of stuff in the book since it was effectively still a new army on the scene and nobody locally was playing them. My opponent played Eldar, owning some 7k+ of models since RT. Opponent kept commenting that the Skitarii seemed like they can't handle Wraithknights(which was true--Wraithknights were a hard target because of GMC rules and since they weren't vehicles couldn't really do tricksy Armourbane Sniper stuff on them) so I asked if they wouldn't mind running a Wraithknight-less list. Never got a firm committal from them on it, but I was excited for the game and didn't think much to press the issue.
Game day comes, and I'm fighting a Wraithknight and an all-Wraith army.
Is that GW's fault? No.
It was my opponent choosing that list, knowing full well the capabilities of my army.
It's GWs job to create a rulesystem where both end of the spectrum can enjoy the majority of the games they play, and it seems to me they failed miserably.
It is not GW's job to babysit you during the listwriting stage when you're playing in a non-tournament environment.
Waaaghbert wrote: Absolutely true, and to play the game, you need rules. The goals of those rules are basically that each of the (mostly) two players enjoys the game as much as the other. If this is not happening, the creator of those rules is at fault
Yeah, this. I get where Kanluwen is coming from, but I don't see other games get this sort of treatment. When games have balance problems that are easily exploited, that should be called out as a game problem, not pinned on the players. You can't design a game where the in-game objective is to destroy the enemy, give players the option of what units to take in order to destroy the enemy, and then go 'whoah, why'd you take units that are good at destroying the enemy?'.
This attitude is funny to me, because a portion of Infinity's fanbase literally had a meme that they'd use to crap all over new players.
"It's not your list, it's you"
So yeah. Maybe I do overly place blame on the players...but when you hear them constantly lamenting how X or Y is too samey and suggestions of "using different mission packs" or the like is met with "IT'S DLC!!!", it becomes hard to have sympathy.
macluvin wrote: What if GW released 10th edition, and the first rules launched were purely casual formatted? Balanced across all units and what not. No busted wombo combos. No stacks on stacks of buffs. And they let this settle for a bit. So we are all used to playing with the rules.
Then they launch 40k competitive edition where they launch ultra competitive rules and all kinds of crazy rules, and state that these rules in particular require the consent of your opponent or TO policy. Would starting with casual gamer support THEN launching ultra competitive support be beneficial, and get us stuck out of this rut of everyone playing the tourney edition 40k?
The idea that casual and competitive are inherently separate is a fallacy.
You don't have different rules for casual and competitive chess. You just have chess. And you have different skill levels involved. 40k should just have rules. And that rules should be functional at all levels of play with the difference being the PLAYERS skill. Not the games rules.
40k is so baked into the list building and competitive versus casual lists and the players themselves have so little to do with anything outside of building their lists. Its broken because the game itself is broken. Its broken because the game is so inherently decided by your list that games are decided before the models touch the table.
Kanluwen places the burden of responsibility entirely on the opponent. On all opponents.
Which means it is the responsibility of every player to not just understand the capabilities of their own property with the most up to date rules, but also to understand the capabilities of every other persons property with THEIR most up to date rules, and then to own enough stuff to change your list to meet the lowest common denominator. Which, btw, the points are supposed to be doing for us. So feth it. Lets ditch points and PL. Since they don't work and it's the players responsibility to suss all this out anyway it's all open play all the time from here on out.
Basically, Kanluwen's position is unrealistic in any sense of a real world application. In order to play 40k you need to buy multiples of everything and then list tailor to your opponents equivalency. And it's not GWs fault for making the game this terrible. It's YOURS for not doing it. fething insanity.
YES.
If GW did its job properly at balancing the game you would have been able to have a fair game regardless of which armies you took.
No it’s my dumbass fault for thinking that chaos space marine squads belong in a chaos space marine list. And buying 30 of those models... also right before they got an updated box XD
Kanluwen wrote: This attitude is funny to me, because a portion of Infinity's fanbase literally had a meme that they'd use to crap all over new players.
"It's not your list, it's you"
What rot. I've never seen anything approaching the level of toxicity in Infinity that is present in 40k, a significant portion of it because of people like you who bitch and whine that a player built a functioning army. As if netlisting is a crime and not ubiquitous in every comparable game, and is literally only an issue because GW sucks at rules writing. As if playing to win is bad sportsmanship. That you need to be perpetually vigilant that you aren't playing the game too well or somebody is going to accuse you of being a dirty WAAC player.
If the game has holes then GW should fix them. The game is exactly as they've made it.
Well if GW won’t fix it then I suppose we can either argue and be bitter about it and be uncourteous to each other or discuss how to live with it. Or we can gtfo the hobby. I’m more interested in figuring out how to live with it because I have no control over what GW does and I am trying not to be a toxic douche, which I fail at at times.
macluvin wrote: Well if GW won’t fix it then I suppose we can either argue and be bitter about it and be uncourteous to each other or discuss how to live with it. Or we can gtfo the hobby. I’m more interested in figuring out how to live with it because I have no control over what GW does and I am trying not to be a toxic douche, which I fail at at times.
Play literally any of the other rule sets that exist that are better. Or stop playing all together.
macluvin wrote: What if GW released 10th edition, and the first rules launched were purely casual formatted? Balanced across all units and what not. No busted wombo combos. No stacks on stacks of buffs. And they let this settle for a bit. So we are all used to playing with the rules.
Then they launch 40k competitive edition where they launch ultra competitive rules and all kinds of crazy rules, and state that these rules in particular require the consent of your opponent or TO policy. Would starting with casual gamer support THEN launching ultra competitive support be beneficial, and get us stuck out of this rut of everyone playing the tourney edition 40k?
So older editions? The problems aren't a 'competitive edition' thing. The wombo combos and buff stacks aren't a 'competitive edition' thing. They're just the way modern GW does rules design, and really came to the forefront when they started with the 'Forge the Narrative' and '3 ways to play' nonsense. I'm not saying its a causal relationship, its just that marketing push accompanied the change in rules design.
Past editions didn't have the rules layers that modern 40k does and didn't pretend there was some magical separation between 'casual, narrative and matched play.' There was just... the game. We don't need this weird tribalism. It doesn't help anything at all.
Kanluwen wrote: This attitude is funny to me, because a portion of Infinity's fanbase literally had a meme that they'd use to crap all over new players. "It's not your list, it's you"
What rot. I've never seen anything approaching the level of toxicity in Infinity that is present in 40k, a significant portion of it because of people like you who bitch and whine that a player built a functioning army.
Feels like I struck a nerve here. Hrmh...let's explore why!
As if netlisting is a crime and not ubiquitous in every comparable game, and is literally only an issue because GW sucks at rules writing.
Nah. It's "literally only an issue" because people do not bother to netlist non-winning lists. They only go for whatever they see winning events. They make no attempt to play the army beforehand. They make no attempt to understand what the army is or how it functions. They assume that everything is correct.
I had to spend a month playing with people running that stupid Atlanta Guard list with the Primaris Psyker with Relic of Lost Cadia+Manticores detachment because of netlisting. That list had zero to do with GW "sucking at ruleswriting" and 100% to do with a netlist getting attention for being "SO GOOD!" with an illegal list(funny how few people who found the list found out that part!) and the player who ran it didn't read the bloody codex properly.
Netlisting is detrimental to this game and every game out there. This isn't Ye Olden Days where these lists might show up in one spot online. They're bloody everywhere. Some of them get pointed towards people when they first ask for advice on the armies in question.
As if playing to win is bad sportsmanship. That you need to be perpetually vigilant that you aren't playing the game too well or somebody is going to accuse you of being a dirty WAAC player.
Where did I say "playing to win is bad sportsmanship"? Or any of the trash you and Lance are throwing out there?
I said the point of a game is to play the game. I also said that there are some individuals who aren't actually "competitive" and avoid playing in actual competitive environments, instead preferring to be "big fish in little ponds".
Yes, there are some people who will accuse someone who plays well of being something bad. That person might be (gasp) a poor sportsman too!
The door swings both ways. Winners can be poor sports and so can losers.
If the game has holes then GW should fix them. The game is exactly as they've made it.
Or you could just not try to constantly take advantage of holes and then crying whenever they get plugged up later. That's the toxicity that I've seen the most in 40k over the years.
Personally, I choose to take responsibility for my own enjoyment. That's not saying "I have to", nor is it saying "everybody should" because it is up to each individual whether they choose to do that.
I will build my armies based on the models I like, and themes and narratives- if that happens to be meta, my win rate will improve; if it isn't, my win rate will drop. I don't actually care either way, since my playstyle (Crusade escalation campaign) allows me to enjoy myself win or lose.
I will seek players who do the same, and politely decline games with those who habitually impact my ability to enjoy the game- whether that's because they are meta-chasers, rules lawyers, intentionally slow players or just nasty people who say a bunch of stuff over the course of the game that makes me crazy.
Everyone has the right to decide whether they want to take similar steps. I have to be okay with them choosing not to, and instead whining for pages and pages about how someone else should be responsible for whether or not they can have fun, because they have the right to do that.
I might wonder why they make that choice. I might think they'd be happier if they made a different choice. But it is still their right to choose to be unhappy if that's what they want to do, and I respect their right to do so.
Kanluwen wrote: I had to spend a month playing with people running that stupid Atlanta Guard list with the Primaris Psyker with Relic of Lost Cadia+Manticores detachment because of netlisting. That list had zero to do with GW "sucking at ruleswriting" and 100% to do with a netlist getting attention for being "SO GOOD!" with an illegal list and the player who ran it didn't read the bloody codex properly.
I think you need to return to this paragraph and REALLY examine it. Lets assume the list was legal (though an argument could be made that if rules are so convoluted that NO ONE picked up on the list being an illegal until well after the fact then that in itself is a problem) then why is the players fault that GW wrote a list that got a lot of attention for being good?
Were people writing down rules on scraps of paper before their games and the opponents just going "yeah sure man whatever"?. Were they making them up as they went along? No, they're using the rules sold to them by GW. I don't understand why the idea that GW not balancing their game is what enables the behaviour of the people using WAAC lists and thusly its GW thats at fault for not writing the rules in such a way that WAAC play isn't possible or at least easier to counter is so complicated for you to understand
Personally, I choose to take responsibility for my own enjoyment. That's not saying "I have to", nor is it saying "everybody should" because it is up to each individual whether they choose to do that.
I will build my armies based on the models I like, and themes and narratives- if that happens to be meta, my win rate will improve; if it isn't, my win rate will drop. I don't actually care either way, since my playstyle (Crusade escalation campaign) allows me to enjoy myself win or lose.
I will seek players who do the same, and politely decline games with those who habitually impact my ability to enjoy the game- whether that's because they are meta-chasers, rules lawyers, intentionally slow players or just nasty people who say a bunch of stuff over the course of the game that makes me crazy.
Everyone has the right to decide whether they want to take similar steps. I have to be okay with them choosing not to, and instead whining for pages and pages about how someone else should be responsible for whether or not they can have fun, because they have the right to do that.
I might wonder why they make that choice. I might think they'd be happier if they made a different choice. But it is still their right to choose to be unhappy if that's what they want to do, and I respect their right to do so.
Personally, I choose to take responsibility for my own enjoyment. That's not saying "I have to", nor is it saying "everybody should" because it is up to each individual whether they choose to do that.
I will build my armies based on the models I like, and themes and narratives- if that happens to be meta, my win rate will improve; if it isn't, my win rate will drop. I don't actually care either way, since my playstyle (Crusade escalation campaign) allows me to enjoy myself win or lose.
I will seek players who do the same, and politely decline games with those who habitually impact my ability to enjoy the game- whether that's because they are meta-chasers, rules lawyers, intentionally slow players or just nasty people who say a bunch of stuff over the course of the game that makes me crazy.
Everyone has the right to decide whether they want to take similar steps. I have to be okay with them choosing not to, and instead whining for pages and pages about how someone else should be responsible for whether or not they can have fun, because they have the right to do that.
I might wonder why they make that choice. I might think they'd be happier if they made a different choice. But it is still their right to choose to be unhappy if that's what they want to do, and I respect their right to do so.
Jake dropping bombs.
I'm glad Jake's "It works for me" nonsense confirmed your bias and made you feel good. Shame it's a load of twaddle. His entire stance works on the assumption that most people get to choose their communities or have multiple communities to choose from, which a lot of people don't. But hey, screw them right? It works for you so there's no need to demand anything more from GW.
Kanluwen wrote: I had to spend a month playing with people running that stupid Atlanta Guard list with the Primaris Psyker with Relic of Lost Cadia+Manticores detachment because of netlisting. That list had zero to do with GW "sucking at ruleswriting" and 100% to do with a netlist getting attention for being "SO GOOD!" with an illegal list and the player who ran it didn't read the bloody codex properly.
I think you need to return to this paragraph and REALLY examine it. Lets assume the list was legal (though an argument could be made that if rules are so convoluted that NO ONE picked up on the list being an illegal until well after the fact then that in itself is a problem) then why is the players fault that GW wrote a list that got a lot of attention for being good?
Because the guy literally admitted that he didn't properly read the codex and missed that Primaris Psykers don't have the <Regiment> trait...and because it was a "major ITC event" so nobody thought to question anything.
Kanluwen wrote: Or you could just not try to constantly take advantage of holes and then crying whenever they get plugged up later. That's the toxicity that I've seen the most in 40k over the years.
There's absolutely no chance whatsoever this isn't a lie. I don't even think I need to defend that statement, it should be glaringly obvious to anyone who's been in the hobby for any length of time.
Someone suggested alternate rules systems which while not exactly on topic seems to be a much more fruitful discussion to be had. Or, we can discuss what forms restrictions can take, and Maybe discuss restrictions that might be worth imposing on ourselves. Can we work with each other to produce a more enjoyable experience within the system GW produced? Are a different system of restrictions or changes to the current system of restrictions the way to make this system better?
Automatically Appended Next Post: I’m just trying to point y’all anywhere besides where you are now because it is quickly losing its civility...
Kanluwen wrote: I had to spend a month playing with people running that stupid Atlanta Guard list with the Primaris Psyker with Relic of Lost Cadia+Manticores detachment because of netlisting. That list had zero to do with GW "sucking at ruleswriting" and 100% to do with a netlist getting attention for being "SO GOOD!" with an illegal list and the player who ran it didn't read the bloody codex properly.
I think you need to return to this paragraph and REALLY examine it. Lets assume the list was legal (though an argument could be made that if rules are so convoluted that NO ONE picked up on the list being an illegal until well after the fact then that in itself is a problem) then why is the players fault that GW wrote a list that got a lot of attention for being good?
Because the guy literally admitted that he didn't properly read the codex and missed that Primaris Psykers don't have the <Regiment> trait...and because it was a "major ITC event" so nobody thought to question anything.
Way to deflect.
Since you're having trouble actually addressing the point made I'll just ask you this:
Why is it not GWs responsibility to ensure that the product they sell does not allow or tries to minimise people exploiting it and ruining the product experience for others?
From what, someone having an illegal list not having read their codex properly?
Relic of Lost Cadia is a Cadian only Relic.
In order to get the Cadian tag, you picked a <Regiment>.
Primaris Psykers didn't have <Regiment>. Nothing told you to treat them as having a <Regiment>.
There is no way, shape, or form that blows back on GW. You can go look up "Warzone Atlanta 2017 Guard List" if you'd like to know more.
Kanluwen wrote: From what, someone having an illegal list not having read their codex properly?
Relic of Lost Cadia is a Cadian only Relic.
In order to get the Cadian tag, you picked a <Regiment>.
Primaris Psykers didn't have <Regiment>. Nothing told you to treat them as having a <Regiment>.
There is no way, shape, or form that blows back on GW. You can go look up "Warzone Atlanta 2017 Guard List" if you'd like to know more.
I edited my last post so this might get confusing if you're replying to the edit. But the post you're responding to asked that you assume that the list was legal. You ignored that part of the post to focus on the legality of the list, rather than address my point.
Why is it not GWs responsibility to ensure that the product they sell does not allow or tries to minimise people exploiting it and ruining the product experience for others?
Why is it not also ours?
Gw are hardly faultless but we, as players are the other side of the exact same coin.
I'm glad Jake's "It works for me" nonsense confirmed your bias and made you feel good. Shame it's a load of twaddle. His entire stance works on the assumption that most people get to choose their communities or have multiple communities to choose from, which a lot of people don't. But hey, screw them right? It works for you so there's no need to demand anything more from GW.
It's neither nonsense nor twaddle- what jake says is a perfectly legitimate approach.
Its fair to demand more from gw, but people are demanding unicorns and claiming we as players are neither responsible for our choices, actions or their consequences. And I think it's perfectly fair to clap back and say there's things we can do at out end too, both within our communities and how we choose to approach our games.
People always have a choice. You can say 'no'. In my experience though a lot of gamers dont want to put work until their communities and treat other gamers as disposable npc's and would rather put all their exp into list building rather than community building. I think in the long term its a self defeating approach. Trust me, its hard bloody work. I won't lie. For us though, extremely rewarding.
Personally, I choose to take responsibility for my own enjoyment. That's not saying "I have to", nor is it saying "everybody should" because it is up to each individual whether they choose to do that.
I will build my armies based on the models I like, and themes and narratives- if that happens to be meta, my win rate will improve; if it isn't, my win rate will drop. I don't actually care either way, since my playstyle (Crusade escalation campaign) allows me to enjoy myself win or lose.
I will seek players who do the same, and politely decline games with those who habitually impact my ability to enjoy the game- whether that's because they are meta-chasers, rules lawyers, intentionally slow players or just nasty people who say a bunch of stuff over the course of the game that makes me crazy.
Everyone has the right to decide whether they want to take similar steps. I have to be okay with them choosing not to, and instead whining for pages and pages about how someone else should be responsible for whether or not they can have fun, because they have the right to do that.
I might wonder why they make that choice. I might think they'd be happier if they made a different choice. But it is still their right to choose to be unhappy if that's what they want to do, and I respect their right to do so.
Jake dropping bombs.
I'm glad Jake's "It works for me" nonsense confirmed your bias and made you feel good. Shame it's a load of twaddle. His entire stance works on the assumption that most people get to choose their communities or have multiple communities to choose from, which a lot of people don't. But hey, screw them right? It works for you so there's no need to demand anything more from GW.
Maybe, and this is a wild take I know, maybe if your community is that toxic, you should consider NOT playing Warhammer.
Sim-Life wrote: So rather than ask GW to fix their game people should just give up their hobby? Good stuff.
Is that what I said?
Someone else said that there is no rules set that will fix donkey-cavery. This is the truth. If your community is SO TOXIC that you NEED GW to make a ruleset that absolutely no one anywhere can take advantage of, that will cater to the way YOU want to play Warhammer so exclusively that no one will ever possibly play a game with you that gives you grief, where netlisters and meta-chasers are literally impossible, you're wishing on a star.
You might get more hobby-related enjoyment from a different community, and if that is literally impossible for you, you might want to consider a different hobby.
EDIT: We have chosen, for whatever reason, to play a social game that requires other people to play. That means, to some extent, we are at the mercy of those other people for our enjoyment. GW can (and should!) work to create a framework that allows us to enjoy ourselves to the maximum possible extent within the limitations of "other people."
I notice that the conversation has turned from competitive players, to WAAC players to donkey-caves. Not all donkey-caves are WAAC players, not all WAAC players are donkey-caves. No one has really answered my question.
So to drag the point kicking and screaming back to where we were, why is it not GWs responsibility to balance the game to the point where casual can compete fairly with WAAC?
Why is it not GWs responsibility to ensure that the product they sell does not allow or tries to minimise people exploiting it and ruining the product experience for others?
Why is it not also ours?
Gw are hardly faultless but we, as players are the other side of the exact same coin.
Personal responsibility is a thing.
The players only responsibility with a game is to follow the rules.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kanluwen wrote: The crux of the matter is that you seem to believe that GW is responsible for managing the behavior of players via the rules in their books.
They're not. They literally cannot be.
Can they tighten up rules? Sure. And they should.
But there will never be a rules set in existence that can prevent people from being jerks.
No. The issues we are talking about is not players behavior outside the scope of the rules. Its their behavior WITHIN the scope of the rules. You think the players need to be responsible to go above and beyond following the rules because failing to do so ruins the game. If that is the case than the game itself is broken and that falls directly onto GW.
Sim-Life wrote: So to drag the point kicking and screaming back to where we were, why is it not GWs responsibility to balance the game to the point where casual can compete fairly with WAAC?
Sure, it is. They should (morally) balance the game perfectly, so every possible interaction with every possible combination of every possible codex is perfectly on par with every OTHER possible etc. etc., such that the only determining factor of who wins or loses is player skill and tactical accomplishment.
HOWEVER, it is also OUR responsibility to recognize a) that's never going to happen, and b) it's on us (practically, not morally) to make do with what we get, and to wring as much joy and pleasure out of it as we can however we can. For some people, that means being a WAAC player, and for some it means being a casual player. Sometimes, those things do not synch up as well as we, the players, would like.
Feel free to continue exhorting GW to make the perfect game. But what I, and at least two others, are recommending is that you ALSO attempt to derive as much entertainment and enjoyment from what you HAVE as is possible within that framework.
Sim-Life wrote: I notice that the conversation has turned from competitive players, to WAAC players to donkey-caves. Not all donkey-caves are WAAC players, not all WAAC players are donkey-caves. No one has really answered my question.
So to drag the point kicking and screaming back to where we were, why is it not GWs responsibility to balance the game to the point where casual can compete fairly with WAAC?
Due to it being inherently impossible. There are faaaaaarrrrrr too many shades of gray.
Sim-Life wrote: So to drag the point kicking and screaming back to where we were, why is it not GWs responsibility to balance the game to the point where casual can compete fairly with WAAC?
Sure, it is. They should (morally) balance the game perfectly, so every possible interaction with every possible combination of every possible codex is perfectly on par with every OTHER possible etc. etc., such that the only determining factor of who wins or loses is player skill and tactical accomplishment.
HOWEVER, it is also OUR responsibility to recognize a) that's never going to happen, and b) it's on us (practically, not morally) to make do with what we get, and to wring as much joy and pleasure out of it as we can however we can. For some people, that means being a WAAC player, and for some it means being a casual player. Sometimes, those things do not synch up as well as we, the players, would like.
Feel free to continue exhorting GW to make the perfect game. But what I, and at least two others, are recommending is that you ALSO attempt to derive as much entertainment and enjoyment from what you HAVE as is possible within that framework.
Its never going to happen while we have people blaming the players for GWs failures. I also never asked for a perfect game. I asked for a reasonably balanced game. If Warmachine can have 80+ units per major faction and achieve reasonable balance then I fail to see why 40k also can't achieve that.
Sim-Life wrote: So to drag the point kicking and screaming back to where we were, why is it not GWs responsibility to balance the game to the point where casual can compete fairly with WAAC?
Sure, it is. They should (morally) balance the game perfectly, so every possible interaction with every possible combination of every possible codex is perfectly on par with every OTHER possible etc. etc., such that the only determining factor of who wins or loses is player skill and tactical accomplishment.
HOWEVER, it is also OUR responsibility to recognize a) that's never going to happen, and b) it's on us (practically, not morally) to make do with what we get, and to wring as much joy and pleasure out of it as we can however we can. For some people, that means being a WAAC player, and for some it means being a casual player. Sometimes, those things do not synch up as well as we, the players, would like.
Feel free to continue exhorting GW to make the perfect game. But what I, and at least two others, are recommending is that you ALSO attempt to derive as much entertainment and enjoyment from what you HAVE as is possible within that framework.
Its never going to happen while we have people blaming the players for GWs failures. I also never asked for a perfect game. I asked for a reasonably balanced game. If Warmachine can have 80+ units per major faction and achieve reasonable balance then I fail to see why 40k also can't achieve that.
Okay, so you're asking for a reasonably balanced game that GW has not delivered. What are you going to do about it?
Sim-Life wrote: So to drag the point kicking and screaming back to where we were, why is it not GWs responsibility to balance the game to the point where casual can compete fairly with WAAC?
Sure, it is. They should (morally) balance the game perfectly, so every possible interaction with every possible combination of every possible codex is perfectly on par with every OTHER possible etc. etc., such that the only determining factor of who wins or loses is player skill and tactical accomplishment.
No, You just need player decision making to matter more than list building. This isn't some insane feat that is impossible to accomplish. Other games do it ALL THE TIME. 40k is just so devoid of meaningful player choice that the list building is all that matters.
HOWEVER, it is also OUR responsibility to recognize a) that's never going to happen,
Because GW sucks.
and b) it's on us (practically, not morally) to make do with what we get, and to wring as much joy and pleasure out of it as we can however we can.
No its fething not. You don't have any obligation to GW. Nobody does. You don't HAVE to play by their rules. And you don't HAVE to make the most of the gak situation they have tried to sell you and you have been a sucker for buying. Again, literally play any other more balanced and better rule set.
For some people, that means being a WAAC player, and for some it means being a casual player. Sometimes, those things do not synch up as well as we, the players, would like.
Feel free to continue exhorting GW to make the perfect game. But what I, and at least two others, are recommending is that you ALSO attempt to derive as much entertainment and enjoyment from what you HAVE as is possible within that framework.
See above. Derive your joy while not subjecting everyone to GW's Sysipheon hill.
Lance845 wrote: See above. Derive your joy while not subjecting everyone to GW's Sysipheon hill.
I'm not subjecting a single soul to any hill, Sisyphean or otherwise. I'm saying, practically, you have a thing. That thing is not ideal, but it exists. You can a) exhort the makers of said thing to make it better, b) derive pleasure from the thing as it exists (which, let's be fair, does include house rules), and/or c) not play with the thing.
Sim-Life wrote: So to drag the point kicking and screaming back to where we were, why is it not GWs responsibility to balance the game to the point where casual can compete fairly with WAAC?
Sure, it is. They should (morally) balance the game perfectly, so every possible interaction with every possible combination of every possible codex is perfectly on par with every OTHER possible etc. etc., such that the only determining factor of who wins or loses is player skill and tactical accomplishment.
HOWEVER, it is also OUR responsibility to recognize a) that's never going to happen, and b) it's on us (practically, not morally) to make do with what we get, and to wring as much joy and pleasure out of it as we can however we can. For some people, that means being a WAAC player, and for some it means being a casual player. Sometimes, those things do not synch up as well as we, the players, would like.
Feel free to continue exhorting GW to make the perfect game. But what I, and at least two others, are recommending is that you ALSO attempt to derive as much entertainment and enjoyment from what you HAVE as is possible within that framework.
Its never going to happen while we have people blaming the players for GWs failures. I also never asked for a perfect game. I asked for a reasonably balanced game. If Warmachine can have 80+ units per major faction and achieve reasonable balance then I fail to see why 40k also can't achieve that.
Okay, so you're asking for a reasonably balanced game that GW has not delivered. What are you going to do about it?
Lance845 wrote: See above. Derive your joy while not subjecting everyone to GW's Sysipheon hill.
I'm not subjecting a single soul to any hill, Sisyphean or otherwise. I'm saying, practically, you have a thing. That thing is not ideal, but it exists. You can a) exhort the makers of said thing to make it better, b) derive pleasure from the thing as it exists (which, let's be fair, does include house rules), and/or c) not play with the thing.
I'm choosing A and B. What are you choosing?
As long as you are buying from the maker you are not doing A.
Lance845 wrote: See above. Derive your joy while not subjecting everyone to GW's Sysipheon hill.
I'm not subjecting a single soul to any hill, Sisyphean or otherwise. I'm saying, practically, you have a thing. That thing is not ideal, but it exists. You can a) exhort the makers of said thing to make it better, b) derive pleasure from the thing as it exists (which, let's be fair, does include house rules), and/or c) not play with the thing.
I'm choosing A and B. What are you choosing?
As long as you are buying from the maker you are not doing A.
Lance845 wrote:
The players only responsibility with a game is to follow the rules.
I dunno man. 'We were just following orders' doesn't get much traction at the Hague.
'But it's legal', or even better 'but iys not against the rules' is often a copout of the morally bankrupt in real life.
'Following the rules' doesn't absolve you from responsibility when said rules are poor, or when abuse of said rules has negative consequences .
Our responsibilities extend to ensuring we all have a good time.
Personal responsibility is a thing, whether you like it or not.
Sim-Life wrote:
Its never going to happen while we have people blaming the players for GWs failures. I also never asked for a perfect game. I asked for a reasonably balanced game. If Warmachine can have 80+ units per major faction and achieve reasonable balance then I fail to see why 40k also can't achieve that.
It's never going to happen so long as players refuse to accept they have a role to play in it either. Gw can do a hell of a lot better. So can the players. I mean, thing x is broken. Players take a dozen of them. Some of the responsibility is on us for that.
You asked for a resonable game and point to warmachine. Mate, i loved wmh and played the hell out of mk2 to a pretty decent level (coyple of placings and even scalped a UK masters winner with... strakhov1 once upon a time). warmachine was decent but still, often broken as hell and often very poorly implemented. In mk2, cryx and legion were quite ott, the game had loads of silver bullets and control casters like haley 2 were serious NPEs. There was a very large % of each faction that was generally never taken and what was, often boiled down to crutches and plenty casters had go-to lists. A handful of casters dominated the meta. If you were goodies, you could mitigate it to an extent, but it was always uphill. If as many people played wmh as 40k, anf its balance was aa good as wmh, you'd see no difference in the content of the online discussion.
Lance845 wrote: See above. Derive your joy while not subjecting everyone to GW's Sysipheon hill.
I'm not subjecting a single soul to any hill, Sisyphean or otherwise. I'm saying, practically, you have a thing. That thing is not ideal, but it exists. You can a) exhort the makers of said thing to make it better, b) derive pleasure from the thing as it exists (which, let's be fair, does include house rules), and/or c) not play with the thing.
I'm choosing A and B. What are you choosing?
As long as you are buying from the maker you are not doing A.
You dodged the question.
I didn't. My answer was in the post you quoted. I have said my answer several times in this thread. Play an entirely different game by choosing any of the other community created rule sets. Not some house rules. A game entirely built out of house rules. You want people to bend within GWs bad game to make other peoples experience more enjoyable something you have no rules for, is entirely up to interpretation, has different values for different people, and will never work on any scale that matters.
GW sucks at writing rules. It's unreasonable to expect them to get better while throwing money at them. Stop paying and playing them. Get your joy anywhere else.
GW sucks at writing rules. It's unreasonable to expect them to get better while throwing money at them. Stop paying and playing them. Get your joy anywhere else.
I see. So in order for you to get what you want, I'm going to have to give up something that makes ME happy.
Sounds an awful lot like what you were accusing me of... something something Sisyphean hill something something.
Whatever. I'm going to keep buying GW's stuff as long as I can keep enjoying it an amount roughly equal to how much I'm paying for it. So far, that's occasionally. Good luck trying to stop people. Have fun! Or don't, your call.
Sim-Life wrote: I notice that the conversation has turned from competitive players, to WAAC players to donkey-caves. Not all donkey-caves are WAAC players, not all WAAC players are donkey-caves. No one has really answered my question.
Because you lot keep trying to equate "competitive players" with "WAAC players" and shifting goalposts.
WAAC is a specific mentality. There's a reason why it has always been treated as an insult. It means Winning At All Costs. It's everything short of actively cheating.
There's another reason that it got used as a de facto insult for so long: it tended to go hand in hand with an extremely argumentative attitude.
So to drag the point kicking and screaming back to where we were, why is it not GWs responsibility to balance the game to the point where casual can compete fairly with WAAC?
It's right there in the name. Winning At All Costs.
Lance845 wrote:
The players only responsibility with a game is to follow the rules.
I dunno man. 'We were just following orders' doesn't get much traction at the Hague.
'But it's legal', or even better 'but iys not against the rules' is often a copout of the morally bankrupt in real life.
'Following the rules' doesn't absolve you from responsibility when said rules are poor, or when abuse of said rules has negative consequences .
Our responsibilities extend to ensuring we all have a good time.
Personal responsibility is a thing, whether you like it or not.
If you want to go with those analogies, when a governments rules are bad it means revolt, revolution, and war.
GW sucks at writing rules. It's unreasonable to expect them to get better while throwing money at them. Stop paying and playing them. Get your joy anywhere else.
I see. So in order for you to get what you want, I'm going to have to give up something that makes ME happy.
You mean like telling other players they have a responsibility to tone down what makes THEM happy for YOUR enjoyment? Again, the burden of responsibility here isn't on the players. Because it cannot be. The burden of responsibility is on the game and the game makers. If they are incompetent or unwilling your options are a) stew in their garbage. b) play a different game.
Sim-Life wrote: I notice that the conversation has turned from competitive players, to WAAC players to donkey-caves. Not all donkey-caves are WAAC players, not all WAAC players are donkey-caves. No one has really answered my question.
Because you lot keep trying to equate "competitive players" with "WAAC players" and shifting goalposts.
WAAC is a specific mentality. There's a reason why it has always been treated as an insult. It means Winning At All Costs. It's everything short of actively cheating.
There's another reason that it got used as a de facto insult for so long: it tended to go hand in hand with an extremely argumentative attitude.
So to drag the point kicking and screaming back to where we were, why is it not GWs responsibility to balance the game to the point where casual can compete fairly with WAAC?
It's right there in the name. Winning At All Costs.
One of the nicest guys in my group is WAAC as hell. But I'd love nothing more than to be able to take a fluffy list and try to beat him with skill, clever plays and knowledge of my army. 40k currently does not facilitate this.
Lance845 wrote: I see. So in order for you to get what you want, I'm going to have to give up something that makes ME happy.
You mean like telling other players they have a responsibility to tone down what makes THEM happy for YOUR enjoyment? Again, the burden of responsibility here isn't on the players. Because it cannot be. The burden of responsibility is on the game and the game makers. If they are incompetent or unwilling your options are a) stew in their garbage. b) play a different game.
I choose B. What do YOU choose?
Woah, WOAH! I don't recall telling anyone to tone down what makes them happy for my enjoyment. I think I said, "Maybe, and this is a wild take I know, maybe if your community is that toxic, you should consider NOT playing Warhammer."
I choose C, the option where I get to play what makes me happy, and you get to do whatever you want to do, too. Maybe consider that option?
EDIT: Damn, I screwed up the quotes. Sorry, folks.
Sim-Life wrote: What does that have to do with the topic at hand?
Everything. You're asking whether or not GW should make a better game. I said yes. Now what?
So then you acknowledge there are deficiencies in the game that are beyond the players control, so it isn't the players fault if one side gets curbstomped by the other?
Sim-Life wrote: What does that have to do with the topic at hand?
Everything. You're asking whether or not GW should make a better game. I said yes. Now what?
So then you acknowledge there are deficiencies in the game that are beyond the players control, so it isn't the players fault if one side gets curbstomped by the other?
Its never going to happen while we have people blaming the players for GWs failures. I also never asked for a perfect game. I asked for a reasonably balanced game.
How in the world is not being able to properly write an army list or understanding how your army functions something that you can reasonably lay as one of GW's failures?
Seriously. I want to know. I get that some factions are stronger than others and I'm sure that somewhere someone just happened to stumble into a powergamer winning combo from their starting point, but it's not like in an active community you don't have people discussing these things and trying to figure out stuff.
Also:
You don't have to accept every single game you're offered in a more casual setup. You're not bound under some kind of geas, whereupon you'll be rendered into a Squig every game you fail to accept.
This is something I've learned over the years. It's the best thing I've learned in my hobby time. There comes a time to accept that certain individuals just aren't fun to play with and you don't have to subject yourself to it.
If Warmachine can have 80+ units per major faction and achieve reasonable balance then I fail to see why 40k also can't achieve that.
It's weird how Warmahordes gets held up as this shining beacon of balance in one spot on this forum and blasted as a hideously imbalanced and poorly designed game in others.
If Warmachine can have 80+ units per major faction and achieve reasonable balance then I fail to see why 40k also can't achieve that.
It's weird how Warmahordes gets held up as this shining beacon of balance in one spot on this forum and blasted as a hideously imbalanced and poorly designed game in others.
Its never going to happen while we have people blaming the players for GWs failures. I also never asked for a perfect game. I asked for a reasonably balanced game.
How in the world is not being able to properly write an army list or understanding how your army functions something that you can reasonably lay as one of GW's failures?
Seriously. I want to know. I get that some factions are stronger than others and I'm sure that somewhere someone just happened to stumble into a powergamer winning combo from their starting point, but it's not like in an active community you don't have people discussing these things and trying to figure out stuff.
We are not talking about properly writing an army list or understanding how your army functions. We are talking about understanding how ALL armies function and other players capabilities so that you can write a list that is roughly equivalent to their capabilities outside of the point structure.
You explain to me how every person is supposed to do that and come up with equivalent answers.
One of the nicest guys in my group is WAAC as hell. But I'd love nothing more than to be able to take a fluffy list and try to beat him with skill, clever plays and knowledge of my army. 40k currently does not facilitate this.
You mean like telling other players they have a responsibility to tone down what makes THEM happy for YOUR enjoyment? Again, the burden of responsibility here isn't on the players. Because it cannot be. The burden of responsibility is on the game and the game makers. If they are incompetent or unwilling your options are a) stew in their garbage. b) play a different game.
I choose B. What do YOU choose?
Woah, WOAH! I don't recall telling anyone to tone down what makes them happy for my enjoyment. I think I said, "Maybe, and this is a wild take I know, maybe if your community is that toxic, you should consider NOT playing Warhammer."
I choose C, the option where I get to play what makes me happy, and you get to do whatever you want to do, too. Maybe consider that option?
EDIT: Damn, I screwed up the quotes. Sorry, folks.
I am not pretending to have any control over any other person. Nor do I want it. This is a discussion. And right now this discussion is about the burden of responsibility for an enjoyable game. My stance is that the players don't shoulder that responsibility.
If you want to go with those analogies, when a governments rules are bad it means revolt, revolution, and war.
GWs rules are bad.
It's time for a new regime.
Course they are bad. Just like water is wet. And the sky is grey (scotland). Gw rules writing is notorious and has been for forty years.
Sure, if you want. Go ahead, declare 'war'. Be angry. I'm the meantime ill be enjoying my hobby.
Another approach is to not slavishly follow said rules if you know they're broken. I find 'making the game my own' is the best kind of rebellion against bad rules. We don't have to push the boat out to the point the game is screaming and it breaks down. And in my group, we don't. And guess what? We have fun! And no gami.g police have one knocking on our door complaining that we are not playing 'hard enough'.
I've played the hell out of a lot of those other games too by the way. Warmachine, infinity, bolt action, flames of war, a bit of firestorm.armada, x-wing, Dropzone commander, probably a few others besides. Loved some of them. Wasn't too bothered by others. Ultimately, never came across a game without issues ir that couldn't be twisted into.somethimg nasty. Grass isn't always greener.
And honestly though? Last few years, the most fun I've had has been gw games. Shadespire, warcry, necromunda, kill team etc. Maybe it's less about 'the rules' and more about put approach and the fact I put my exp into community building instead.
You mean like telling other players they have a responsibility to tone down what makes THEM happy for YOUR enjoyment? Again, the burden of responsibility here isn't on the players. Because it cannot be. The burden of responsibility is on the game and the game makers. If they are incompetent or unwilling your options are a) stew in their garbage. b) play a different game.
I choose B. What do YOU choose?
Woah, WOAH! I don't recall telling anyone to tone down what makes them happy for my enjoyment. I think I said, "Maybe, and this is a wild take I know, maybe if your community is that toxic, you should consider NOT playing Warhammer."
I choose C, the option where I get to play what makes me happy, and you get to do whatever you want to do, too. Maybe consider that option?
EDIT: Damn, I screwed up the quotes. Sorry, folks.
I am not pretending to have any control over any other person. Nor do I want it. This is a discussion. And right now this discussion is about the burden of responsibility for an enjoyable game. My stance is that the players don't shoulder that responsibility.
And my stance is that the players don't shoulder the responsibility for MAKING an enjoyable game. That falls, oddly enough, on the maker of the game. The players do, however, have some amount of personal responsibility (and that amount, by the way, is debatable, anywhere from barely any to almost all) for enjoying what they have.
If you want to go with those analogies, when a governments rules are bad it means revolt, revolution, and war.
GWs rules are bad.
It's time for a new regime.
Sure, if you want. Go ahead, declare 'war'. Be angry. I'm the meantime ill be enjoying my hobby.
I am not angry. I don't need to declare war. I am literally spoiled for choice in "countries I want to join" games I want to play. I have like... 8 different 40k rule sets available to me right now within 10 minutes of searching. GW isn't the hobby. You shouldn't conflate the 2. GWs greatest marketing scam is tying that word to their product so that you think they are one and the same. They are not.
Another approach is to not slavishly follow said rules if you know they're broken. I find 'making the game my own' is the best kind of rebellion against bad rules. We don't have to push the boat out to the point the game is screaming and it breaks down. And in my group, we don't. And guess what? We have fun! And no gami.g police have one knocking on our door complaining that we are not playing 'hard enough'.
Its never going to happen while we have people blaming the players for GWs failures. I also never asked for a perfect game. I asked for a reasonably balanced game.
How in the world is not being able to properly write an army list or understanding how your army functions something that you can reasonably lay as one of GW's failures?
Seriously. I want to know. I get that some factions are stronger than others and I'm sure that somewhere someone just happened to stumble into a powergamer winning combo from their starting point, but it's not like in an active community you don't have people discussing these things and trying to figure out stuff.
Also:
You don't have to accept every single game you're offered in a more casual setup. You're not bound under some kind of geas, whereupon you'll be rendered into a Squig every game you fail to accept.
This is something I've learned over the years. It's the best thing I've learned in my hobby time. There comes a time to accept that certain individuals just aren't fun to play with and you don't have to subject yourself to it.
If Warmachine can have 80+ units per major faction and achieve reasonable balance then I fail to see why 40k also can't achieve that.
It's weird how Warmahordes gets held up as this shining beacon of balance in one spot on this forum and blasted as a hideously imbalanced and poorly designed game in others.
To your first point: what? What are you actually talking about? So when if army only has one viable list (such as nids have had to deal with several time) that means the codex has reached acceptable balance?
Second point: 40k is not a short game and you generally only get one game in an evening (though if the game is over on turn 1 thats possibly not true anymore). Not everyone can play multiple times every week or even month. People have jobs, school, children etc. Sometimes they have no choice but to accept what they're given. GW are charging a premium for rules and they should accommodate as much of the player base as possible without people having to engage in lengthy discussions beforehand.
As for Warmachine its balance has a better track record than 40k and people frequently claim that 40k can never possibly be balanced because its so big. While WmH had its own issues you could still take non-meta lists (I'm saying this as an Old Witch 1 and Rhyas1 player) and have a good game against top tier meta lists again not something 40k can claim.
Sim-Life wrote: Sometimes they have no choice but to accept what they're given
As for Warmachine its balance has a better track record than 40k and people frequently claim that 40k can never possibly be balanced because its so big. While WmH had its own issues you could still take non-meta lists and have a good game against top tier meta lists again not something 40k can claim.
First, you don't have to accept what you're given. If someone is offering you a gak sandwich, and that is somehow your only possible food option, you can decline to eat at all.
Second, WMH is still going, still has balance issues, and is held up by some in the WMH forums as one of the worst balanced games ever, when non-meta lists will get you curb-stomped as fast as they will in WH40K.
Sim-Life wrote: Sometimes they have no choice but to accept what they're given
As for Warmachine its balance has a better track record than 40k and people frequently claim that 40k can never possibly be balanced because its so big. While WmH had its own issues you could still take non-meta lists and have a good game against top tier meta lists again not something 40k can claim.
First, you don't have to accept what you're given. If someone is offering you a gak sandwich, and that is somehow your only possible food option, you can decline to eat at all.
Second, WMH is still going, still has balance issues, and is held up by some in the WMH forums as one of the worst balanced games ever, when non-meta lists will get you curb-stomped as fast as they will in WH40K.
So.... yeah.
Again we're back to "GW doesn't need to make an effort, works for me, screw those other guys".
Also nah, WmH is dead but I've literally never seen anyone claim its the "worst balanced game ever".
Sim-Life wrote: Sometimes they have no choice but to accept what they're given
As for Warmachine its balance has a better track record than 40k and people frequently claim that 40k can never possibly be balanced because its so big. While WmH had its own issues you could still take non-meta lists and have a good game against top tier meta lists again not something 40k can claim.
First, you don't have to accept what you're given. If someone is offering you a gak sandwich, and that is somehow your only possible food option, you can decline to eat at all.
Second, WMH is still going, still has balance issues, and is held up by some in the WMH forums as one of the worst balanced games ever, when non-meta lists will get you curb-stomped as fast as they will in WH40K.
So.... yeah.
Again we're back to "GW doesn't need to make an effort, works for me, screw those other guys".
Also nah, WmH is dead but I've literally never seen anyone claim its the "worst balanced game ever".
"No U"
We're not back to that, don't put words in my mouth. There is a middle ground between "GW has all the responsibility and I have none" and "I have all the responsibility and GW has none."
Also, I have seen that claim made. So, if one of us is claiming it is never said, and the other has HEARD it, which of us is wrong?
Also also, you still haven't answered my question.
So, GW brought out that little balance dataslate thingie. A few points adjustments and a few rules tweaks here and there. Mostly positives, except for the orks who got hit with the 0-1 restriction that a lot of factions used to have in older editions. And despite being an ork player at heart, a buggie heavy one too. I'm fairly okay with it. Hell i'd happily have more of this. On some FW units as an example. The relic rule some of them have is clunky and annoying. Just make it 0-1 and you're good to go. Sure no triple volkite contemptor dreads, but is that really a bad thing for fluff and balance?
The problem is you thinking that the players are to blame in your continued - endless, eternal, everlasting, nonperishable - attempts to defend GW from anything and everything they do (except your small pet peeves, like AdMech, Lasguns on Sergeants, etc.).
cody.d. wrote: So, GW brought out that little balance dataslate thingie. A few points adjustments and a few rules tweaks here and there. Mostly positives, except for the orks who got hit with the 0-1 restriction that a lot of factions used to have in older editions. And despite being an ork player at heart, a buggie heavy one too. I'm fairly okay with it. Hell i'd happily have more of this. On some FW units as an example. The relic rule some of them have is clunky and annoying. Just make it 0-1 and you're good to go. Sure no triple volkite contemptor dreads, but is that really a bad thing for fluff and balance?
I'm fairly keen to see if GW keeps this up.
I don't think it's a positive.
1) the value of player decision making hasn't changed. The game is still won or lost in the list building as far as this conversation is concerned.
2) they didn't bother to fix the issues with units, they simply put restrictions on how many anyone can take by creating additional rules that restrict player decisions in the list building.
There are some good things in there. Like putting more CORE units for necrons. But it doesn't actually address any root cause of any issue. It simply puts a band aid on some of the symptoms.
Lance845 wrote: See above. Derive your joy while not subjecting everyone to GW's Sysipheon hill.
I'm not subjecting a single soul to any hill, Sisyphean or otherwise. I'm saying, practically, you have a thing. That thing is not ideal, but it exists. You can a) exhort the makers of said thing to make it better, b) derive pleasure from the thing as it exists (which, let's be fair, does include house rules), and/or c) not play with the thing.
I'm choosing A and B. What are you choosing?
As long as you are buying from the maker you are not doing A.
I blame GW for that.
Those bastards keep making models I like.
If Warmachine can have 80+ units per major faction and achieve reasonable balance then I fail to see why 40k also can't achieve that.
It's weird how Warmahordes gets held up as this shining beacon of balance in one spot on this forum and blasted as a hideously imbalanced and poorly designed game in others.
Was it the same people saying both things? If so, they might just be a dingus.
But, if it was different people... The forum ain't a monolith. Some people will hold one opinion, others will hold the opposite.
1) the value of player decision making hasn't changed. The game is still won or lost in the list building as far as this conversation is concerned.
#1 is demonstrably false, as the Ork list that won SoCal hasn't won every single solitary tournament since then, much less every single solitary game across the entire world.
And I think it's important for people to remember that GW is under absolutely no obligation to create a game you like or even a perfectly balanced game.
Period.Done.End.Of.Story.Welcome.To.Life.
Those saying GW has to make a perfectly balanced game are just trolling, and refusing to take responsibility for themselves. And if they think GW won't survive, we were having these same discussions 25 years ago in 2nd edition, and there was a HELL of a lot less updates and balance tweaks.
That being said, we'd like them to, and we believe it's in their best interest, but there is still no obligation. There's no legal contract, explicit or implied (and even if there was, GW has the lawyers to get them out of it!) It's impossible to account for all the players in the world, with time to play the game, intelligence, experience, terrain, money to buy models, skill level of opponents, even how many points you decide to play with. That's where player (personal) responsibility comes in.
If you don't like the list someone is bringing you can choose not to play. Nothing is forcing you. If your opponent is a WAAC, politely decline their offer for a game saying "Thank you for the challenge, but I'm looking for a different style of game". That's you taking responsibility for your own enjoyment. Go play someone else, or go play TTS if that's the only group in your area. Go play a different game. That responsibility is entirely on *you*. Nobody else on the entire planet has any responsibility for your happiness or enjoyment, not 1 in 7,899,999,999 people. Not in 40K, TV, marriage, kids, your job or life in general. Get used to it. Make the best of it or take your posterior somewhere else. And that is why I stopped playing 40K for 10 years.
Now I'm back, because I think the game is in a better spot than possibly 2nd edition. Does it have issues, absolutely (as does everything).
But the other thing you have to realize is that not every game is in the same meta as the OP lists. The internet provides waaaayyyyy too much opportunity for trolling, and make it seem like the sky is falling and it's the end of the world. Reading these forums, I'd think 9th is the worst edition ever, when I really think it's one of the best, and heading in the right direction (though not perfect). I'd believe Orks were unbeatable and totally dominating everywhere, but the reality is that I'm winning so much with my IG that my gaming club is scared of me (I beat AdMech, Sisters and drew against new BT). I'm actually toning my list down depending on my opponent and their faction.
That's me taking responsibility for myself.
I filled out the GW Customer Survey with *constructive* feedback (not just griping). That's me taking responsibility to help them
GW did a balance update, that was them accepting responsibility and making the changes they deemed necessary. They weren't required or obligated to, but they did it, and I like the changes they made. Since they made changes I like, I choose to reward them with a purchase not off eBay
Honestly I too would consider 9th one of the best editions if they cranked out all the codices BEFORE releasing supplements and if they didn’t bloat the rules this much. I think it is one of the best core rules that 40k has ever had. They just smothered it. I would love to see them just blow the edition up and start from scratch with the codices and supplements but that would suck for everyone that bought into all the rules already... not like that didn’t stop them before.
1) the value of player decision making hasn't changed. The game is still won or lost in the list building as far as this conversation is concerned.
#1 is demonstrably false, as the Ork list that won SoCal hasn't won every single solitary tournament since then, much less every single solitary game across the entire world.
And I think it's important for people to remember that GW is under absolutely no obligation to create a game you like or even a perfectly balanced game.
It isn't important. Its actually one of the least important things said so far in this thread. Supporting the idea that GW shouldn't put out a quality product and that customers shouldn't like the products they buy is just... bizarre.
1) the value of player decision making hasn't changed. The game is still won or lost in the list building as far as this conversation is concerned.
#1 is demonstrably false, as the Ork list that won SoCal hasn't won every single solitary tournament since then, much less every single solitary game across the entire world.
And I think it's important for people to remember that GW is under absolutely no obligation to create a game you like or even a perfectly balanced game.
It isn't important. Its actually one of the least important things said so far in this thread. Supporting the idea that GW shouldn't put out a quality product and that customers shouldn't like the products they buy is just... bizarre.
Agreed. Not only is that statement asinine, but I am going to address his first point as well. It is in fact demonstrably true. Every. Single. Time. that anyone talks about anything that happens in any tourny or anyone discusses any issue that they have in any game the very first thing anyone mentions is their list. There are exactly zero discussions about the tactical game of cat and mouse that turned the tide and won a game. Nobody discusses the tactical brilliancy of anyone who wins any tourny of 40k ever. They discuss their list and the STRATEGY they came up with for utilizing it. Tactics and strategy are 2 very different things. Look them up if you need to. There is borderline zero meaningful tactical decisions in 40k. Which means it's all strategy and list building. That doesn't mean any one list will win every situation. But it does mean games are generally decided before they start. Especially when coupled with first turn advantage.
Well I think part of that is that you have to have watched the game to know what tactical decisions a player made in their wins, which very few people do (I know I don't!). What list a player brought is pretty easy for anyone look at and make their hot takes about.
Arachnofiend wrote: Well I think part of that is that you have to have watched the game to know what tactical decisions a player made in their wins, which very few people do (I know I don't!). What list a player brought is pretty easy for anyone look at and make their hot takes about.
I remember when the hot list for nids was that guy who made the mawloc, lictor list that was fething with people. It still had flyrants but it wasn't the talking point. The lictors and mawlocs disrupted peoples lines and fethed with their strategy. They even interviewed the guy if I remember. And nobody gave a single gak about any one moment in the game because those moments don't exist.
The game is about taking turns swinging the club that is your army at each other. There isn't enough nuance to have tactical decisions that matter. You don't hear about them because they don't exist.
1) the value of player decision making hasn't changed. The game is still won or lost in the list building as far as this conversation is concerned.
And I think it's important for people to remember that GW is under absolutely no obligation to create a game you like or even a perfectly balanced game.
Period.Done.End.Of.Story.Welcome.To.Life.
[...]
Didn't read your post, because this part comes over as condescending as hell. You have your opinion, it is not suddenly "more" true than before let alone someone elses. People have different opinions and that is EXACTLY why it is not "the players fault" because there is such a multitude of ways to play this game. There is no right or wrong way to play this game and neither you nor me nor anyone else can claim that his/her way is better than someone elses. The rules should keep those different ways to play as close to each other as possible, since there is a good chance that a player of one end ends up playing a player of the other end of the "competititve-narrative-spectrum"
The problem is you thinking that the players are to blame in your continued - endless, eternal, everlasting, nonperishable - attempts to defend GW from anything and everything they do (except your small pet peeves, like AdMech, Lasguns on Sergeants, etc.).
Players do need to shoulder some of the blame and some of the responsibility too. That's not wrong. That's not absolving gw either. In my experience a bit of work on the front end, not playing as 'hard' as possible* on the bleeding edge of the competitive expression of the game where we know it breaks down, and playing with like minded folks resolves a lot of issues.
* with the caveat that it's a gw game and often playing softly isn't a guarantee of not having any issues either...
H.B.M.C. wrote: And I love the subtle inclusion of "perfectly" in front of "balanced". No one's asking for perfect balance because no one here is a complete idiot.
Well... not everyone.
The issue though is when people then say the balance they want and demand is 'good enough' because, as you say perfect balance doesn't exist.
all well and good in theory but every time I've asked what 'good enough' actually means and looks like in the real world, I get the exact same unicorn - there is so little daylight between 'good enough' and 'perfect balance', they might as well be the same thing.
We've seen warmachine touted here for example. I mean, I loved that game and it's balance was OK, but it had issues. If you had cryx or legion you were laughing. In comparison, retribution had far less of an easy ride. If 40k had warmachines level of balance, you'd see no difference in the online chatter regarding game
problems or balance issues.
So, to turn it round, if 'good enough' is what is wanted, how much imbalance is actually OK as a component of 'good enough'?
Thats because its not the players fault. We play by the rules GW sells us as a product. Its to them to make the product work, not us.
What to do with a product is entirely on the customer though. GW sells miniatures and rules, if people buy them in satisfying numbers for the company then it's a good job for GW, regardless of the actual state of its games. Sometimes (most of the times?) a not completely unbalanced game sells more than a totally balanced one. If the company gets the desired profit the product works and works very well. Don't forget we're talking about a luxury product, how much that product worths it's entirely subjective.
If you want to go with those analogies, when a governments rules are bad it means revolt, revolution, and war.
GWs rules are bad.
It's time for a new regime.
Yeah, do you find GW totally unsatisfying and can't accept playinig outside strict a RAW context? Buy from someone else or find another hobby. It's extremely simple.
1) the value of player decision making hasn't changed. The game is still won or lost in the list building as far as this conversation is concerned.
#1 is demonstrably false, as the Ork list that won SoCal hasn't won every single solitary tournament since then, much less every single solitary game across the entire world.
And I think it's important for people to remember that GW is under absolutely no obligation to create a game you like or even a perfectly balanced game.
It isn't important. Its actually one of the least important things said so far in this thread. Supporting the idea that GW shouldn't put out a quality product and that customers shouldn't like the products they buy is just... bizarre.
Agreed. Not only is that statement asinine, but I am going to address his first point as well. It is in fact demonstrably true. Every. Single. Time. that anyone talks about anything that happens in any tourny or anyone discusses any issue that they have in any game the very first thing anyone mentions is their list. There are exactly zero discussions about the tactical game of cat and mouse that turned the tide and won a game. Nobody discusses the tactical brilliancy of anyone who wins any tourny of 40k ever. They discuss their list and the STRATEGY they came up with for utilizing it. Tactics and strategy are 2 very different things. Look them up if you need to. There is borderline zero meaningful tactical decisions in 40k. Which means it's all strategy and list building. That doesn't mean any one list will win every situation. But it does mean games are generally decided before they start. Especially when coupled with first turn advantage.
That statement is more than just asinine. Go over to BoLS, look up the last Chaos player that placed in the top 3. How was that accomplished? Is Chaos OP? What about Richard Siegler and his Tau list from a month or 3 ago. Are Tau OP? As was mentioned, all you have access to is the list, not how it was played, not how many times the player practiced with that list, not the deployment strategies. Nothing. So you can't have a meaningful conversation about what really happened most of the time. People just say "list is OP. NERF BAT!! BALANCE!!" Try learning chess, then go play a Chess Grandmaster. You'll get your A$$ handed to you. Then compare the lists (ya, ridiculous isn't it), then you'll realize there's more to it than just the list.
There are exactly zero discussions about the tactical game of cat and mouse that turned the tide and won a game.
Really? Then you're not even looking. There are several talks about how games went & how they played out. Not enough? Go over to the B&C, Space Wolves, and look up TiguriusX . He talks about his tournament deployment, army lists, strategies, what when right & wrong, etc. Go watch some of the recap of the SN Battle Reports open. Go watch the SoCal open about the buggy list. There's a lot of talk about how & why they are deploying & how the game went, etc. Go look at how the Ork played deployed to limit what the DE could do if they went first. Go look at what the DE player did in case he went second. Go watch the DE player's 1st turn as he maneuvered to limit the ork alpha strike, and then realize what happened with the bad dice rolls. Also go look at how the players placed terrain, and what an impact that had.
For something simpler, go watch Tabletop Titans on youtube. They constantly talk about their in-game strategies and tactics, what went right & wrong, what they would change, etc,. Go watch Stephen of Vanguard Tactics talk about how he built his list to score on the primary and secondaries while getting tabled so his opponents still think they're in the game. The game is in the list, but it's also in the strategy, in the tactics, the deployments, if/when stratagems are used and in the dice.
Again, you're just not looking. Or worse, there is those players that think they can just buy a unit, equip them wrong, deploy them wrong, move them wrong, not focus on objectives, shoot the wrong target, charge the wrong target, pile in and consolidate wrong, use the wrong stratagems on the wrong units and should still have a 50-50 chance of winning.
You have your opinion, it is not suddenly "more" true than before let alone someone elses. People have different opinions and that is EXACTLY why it is not "the players fault" because there is such a multitude of ways to play this game.
Read that again, but s l o w l y...
You're saying people have their own opinions, but none is more true than anybody else's, but people aren't allowed to have their opinion, except for GW, who isn't allowed to have their own opinion! Seriously?
I never said GW shouldn't put out a quality product. I just believe they have. It's not perfect, but it's among the best they've ever done, and they've just made it better with a Dataslate.
And the statement that "nobody owes you anything" isn't opinion, it's a fact. Just like some people believe the earth is flat, or the world owes them something, they're wrong. And that too, is a fact. The sooner you accept that, the happier you will be.
This is a thread where we got into the thick of it in what the difference is between strategy, which is everything you are talking about in your post, and meaningful tactics, which 40k does not really have.
These are the text book definitions.
tac·tic /ˈtaktik/ Learn to pronounce noun plural noun: tactics
an action or strategy carefully planned to achieve a specific end.
a plan of action or policy designed to achieve a major or overall aim.
The "tactics" of 40k amount to shooting your anti infantry guns at the infantry and your anti tank guns at the tanks. They are accomplished by a flow chart. Players can be better or worse at recognizing the flow chart and acting on it. They can make missteps where they choose non-optimized choices. But, and this is important, they are not doing that against the opponent. They are doing it against a mostly static game state in which their opponent has next to no ability to interact with whatever you are doing. Meaningful tactics don't exist in 40k.
And again, that means it's all strategy. A big component of which is list building.
See this
Quick and concise.
In 40k you sit there and wait for your turn when the opponent hits you with their entire army.
When it's your turn, you employ your strategy by moving into optimal positions and pointing your weapons at optimized priority targets. Can you get a VP? Then do it. Can you not? Then you remove as many models as possible from the enemy to reduce their ability to get VP on their turn. Preferably you do both.
Thats it. Thats the tactical depth of 40k. There is no deception. There is no cat and mouse. There is no meaningful choice or depth. 40k is so paper thin it's see through.
Lance845 wrote: There isn't enough nuance to have tactical decisions that matter. You don't hear about them because they don't exist.
You don't hear about them, because they require a ton of context in the moment that is based around the specific terrain, mission, and armies in play at the time.
No, there isn't some grand gesture where someone is going to state how they pulled some crazy maneuver to outwit the opponent. 40K is a thousand small decisions that add up.
Lance845 wrote: There isn't enough nuance to have tactical decisions that matter. You don't hear about them because they don't exist.
You don't hear about them, because they require a ton of context in the moment that is based around the specific terrain, mission, and armies in play at the time.
No, there isn't some grand gesture where someone is going to state how they pulled some crazy maneuver to outwit the opponent. 40K is a thousand small decisions that add up.
1000 small simplistic decisions against the current game state. Not the opponent. Can you shoot a priority target with a gun thats good against them? Yes? Do it. No? Shoot whatever is best thats in range.
Lance845 wrote: 1000 small simplistic decisions against the current game state. Not the opponent. Can you shoot a priority target with a gun thats good against them? Yes? Do it. No? Shoot whatever is best thats in range.
You follow the logic that if you didn't make a move directly following an opponent's move then it isn't worthwhile and it isn't tactics. Any simpleton can move a unit back from a melee unit. People like to pretend that they'd massively outwit an opponent that's on an equal skill level and it just isn't reality.
Fantasy was my jam. You could set up redirecting units so when they charged they'd go out of position. The reality of it? You needed the correct unit to accomplish that task ( small and cheap light cavalry ).
It's a lot easier to represent choices in a game like X-Wing when you have 3 to 8 models a piece
And the conversions still heavily involve units:
Spoiler:
I wanted to fly something with style. And who's one of the coolest pilots? The answer is easy: Soontir Fel. I decided to load him up with Lone Wolf and Stealth Device to really feel what it means to be an unhittable ace. Because I wanted to fly a 2 ship list a brought Rexler (not Vader because I can't fly this chassis and I really don't like him). I won my first tournament with him so he will always have a place in my heart. Putting Advanced Sensors onto him is mandatory if you run him in a 2 ship build. And more importantly the predictability of the Defender is gone. Outmaneuver works better than Juke because you don't have your evade when triggering Adv.Sens. The HLC is there because I had the points.
This means the list has a 25 point bid... So I will move last even against Guri/Fenn. Is this list good? I don't think so. I mean it's really defensive but it's offensive output could be problematic. I expected going 0-3 or 1-2 at best...
- Jedi Aces are so fragile. If they blank once they nearly dead. Also the 2 dice primary just doesn't do enough damage and getting the bullseye without getting shot isn't that easy, either
- The IG's are really fast and can create good killboxes with their great k-turn/sloop/sideslip potential
This game was a perfect example of how strong the IG's defense is in this build. My opponent rolled 2 red dice most of the time with a focus 1 reroll (thanks to Malarus) but wasn't able to get any meaningful damage through. The bots lost one shield here and another one there but dodged so much incoming fire.
- That was unexpected. But the combination of Elusive 2 Calculates was so strong in this one.
- Getting behind the opponent using AS and these great maneuvering options feels really great and powerful
- the bombs are doing so much work. Forcing your opponent to fly different is key.
Lance845 wrote: 1000 small simplistic decisions against the current game state. Not the opponent. Can you shoot a priority target with a gun thats good against them? Yes? Do it. No? Shoot whatever is best thats in range.
You follow the logic that if you didn't make a move directly following an opponent's move then it isn't worthwhile and it isn't tactics. Any simpleton can move a unit back from a melee unit. People like to pretend that they'd massively outwit an opponent that's on an equal skill level and it just isn't reality.
That is not my logic.
My logic is that because your actions are uninterrupted, because the opponent has no say in how your entire army gets to perform, you are not playing against a person. You are playing against the math of the game. You take turns playing against that math and establishing the new status quo before passing the buck. There is no give and take. There is no weighing your options against what the opponent might do (a central, vital, element needed for meaningful tactical game play).
It's not strictly alternating activations (though that is a great way to introduce actual tactics). It's the dynamic of your choices having a cost outside of the randomness of dice rolls and your own ability to recognize a mathematical optimization.
You bring up xwing. Where your tactical decision making in how your ships move is based on trying to out maneuver an opponent who is trying to out maneuver you. You don't get to act with all your ships unimpeded by the opponent. Your performance is entirely down to the how capable you and your opponent are at reading and playing against each other. A better player can crush a better list by never giving the opponent a clean shot. 40k doesn't have a single shred of that.
In 40k you sit there and wait for your turn when the opponent hits you with their entire army.
When it's your turn, you employ your strategy by moving into optimal positions and pointing your weapons at optimized priority targets. Can you get a VP? Then do it. Can you not? Then you remove as many models as possible from the enemy to reduce their ability to get VP on their turn. Preferably you do both.
Thats it. Thats the tactical depth of 40k. There is no deception. There is no cat and mouse. There is no meaningful choice or depth. 40k is so paper thin it's see through.
Oversimplification.
I would say:
In 40k, while your opponent is hitting the units in your army which aren't hidden behind obscuring terrain or kept in reserve with the units in his army which aren't using battlefield actions to complete objectives or holding territory, you are watching him to try to figure out which of his units will move toward objectives and which aura-bearing characters are accompanying them so that you can figure out which of your units you will need to use to most effectively thwart that strategy, and whether they will need aura and strategem support.
When your turn comes, you attempt to implement the plan you devised based on those observations, which may include sacrificing some of your units to screen others from charges, or to tempt your opponent away from an objective. It will also involve ensuring that your aura support is where it needs to be to not only provide the strongest synergy, but to ensure that this synergy is used where it's needed most; it will also include using enough of your limited strategems to achieve your goal, but not so many that you find yourself short on subsequent turns.
Now I realize that in previous editions when every unit in the game had an equal capacity to pin every other unit in the game; when multiple units could catch a single unit in a crossfire; when you had to decide whether to move or to shoot because you couldn't do both; when you had to decide how to position a vehicle so that side guns could hit what they needed to hit vs presenting the strongest armour to the greatest threat that all of these decisions FELT more like to YOU like tactics than any of the things that I list in the paragraphs above. But just because they FELT more like tactics (to YOU), that doesn't make it objectively true.
Because deciding whether my aura character buffs the unit that is trying to achieve an objective for me, or deny one from you is every bit as objectively tactical as any of the "to move or to shoot cuz I can't do both" decisions of editions gone by regardless of how it feels (to YOU).
It's also worth noting that the definition of tactics you quoted above includes the word strategy, which means from an actual LANGUAGE perspective, the two words are similar enough to be classified as synonyms by people in the business of writing dictionaries despite the efforts of a select few members of the online community to attach connotative meanings to each of the words in order to advance a particular narrative based on their personal feelings about which of two equally valid points of view is more objectively true.
Lance845 wrote: 1000 small simplistic decisions against the current game state. Not the opponent. Can you shoot a priority target with a gun thats good against them? Yes? Do it. No? Shoot whatever is best thats in range.
You follow the logic that if you didn't make a move directly following an opponent's move then it isn't worthwhile and it isn't tactics. Any simpleton can move a unit back from a melee unit. People like to pretend that they'd massively outwit an opponent that's on an equal skill level and it just isn't reality.
That is not my logic.
My logic is that because your actions are uninterrupted, because the opponent has no say in how your entire army gets to perform, you are not playing against a person. You are playing against the math of the game. You take turns playing against that math and establishing the new status quo before passing the buck. There is no give and take. There is no weighing your options against what the opponent might do (a central, vital, element needed for meaningful tactical game play).
It's not strictly alternating activations (though that is a great way to introduce actual tactics). It's the dynamic of your choices having a cost outside of the randomness of dice rolls and your own ability to recognize a mathematical optimization.
You bring up xwing. Where your tactical decision making in how your ships move is based on trying to out maneuver an opponent who is trying to out maneuver you. You don't get to act with all your ships unimpeded by the opponent. Your performance is entirely down to the how capable you and your opponent are at reading and playing against each other. A better player can crush a better list by never giving the opponent a clean shot. 40k doesn't have a single shred of that.
Because X-Wing has so few units, but you can't accomplish some maneuvers without specific upgrades and ships.
Some armies in 40K are just super straightforward. People who take lists with no redeploy or other kinds of flexibility are very one dimensional and they'll have a very different experience than someone who is able to capitalize on the developing board state.
In 40k you sit there and wait for your turn when the opponent hits you with their entire army.
When it's your turn, you employ your strategy by moving into optimal positions and pointing your weapons at optimized priority targets. Can you get a VP? Then do it. Can you not? Then you remove as many models as possible from the enemy to reduce their ability to get VP on their turn. Preferably you do both.
Thats it. Thats the tactical depth of 40k. There is no deception. There is no cat and mouse. There is no meaningful choice or depth. 40k is so paper thin it's see through.
Interesting video, and it fits in quite well with my understanding.
The army list is part of the strategy. But how you use your units during a game turn is tactics. For example, I take Chimeras and Hellhounds in my IG list. Why? It's part of my strategy to improve my mobility and take objectives. My tactic is to throw those 2 units out first so my opponents take the bait and shoot those instead of my TCs. Then my TCs and Manticores take out the tank killing units that got exposed to take out my chimera. The strategy is to trade-up. The tactic is how you accomplish it.
* A tactic I also use is to place a screening infantry unit 4.1 inches in front of my TCs, so you have to charge them and not my TC, and if I spread out far enough, they can't wrap my infantry to pile/consolidate into my TCs
* Another tactic I use is to throw a cheap unit off to the side, so my opponent can either go after them (and get out of position) or leave me in an advantageous position for the following turn. You'll find that a lot of inexperienced players will expose an entire unit (or 3!) to wipe out one of yours. So place your unit where the 1-2 models of the enemy unit can see them, but will expose themselves to charging anr/or return fire by doing so.
How many of you believe flanking is a thing in 40K? Because it is. My strategy is "the swirl", but as I move up one side of the board, my tactic is to look for positions where I can take advantage of my opponent over-reaching or over-exposing, and them making them pay for it with my ranged weaponry.
I'm learning that all those nuances are what the top players have mastered. They've mastered the list building to accomplish their objectives (like you can't shoot an enemy off the board with a HtH army, or compete in HtH with IG...), the strategy of how they want the game to play out, then the tactics to make their strategy play out they way they want to.
How many of you have a 5-turn game plan starting the moment mission is chosen and the objectives & terrain are laid down? (I can barely do 2 turns right now, on a good day with a gallon of caffeine in me). I still get baited by killing the best unit in front of me, rather than focusing on the unit that's going to win my opponent the game 2 turns down the road. That's my opponent's strategy & tactics beating my strategy & tactics.
While your opponent is moving & shooting, are you looking at what they are trying to accomplish? Where they are going to move next? What units will they send out next?
You don't hear about them, because they require a ton of context in the moment that is based around the specific terrain, mission, and armies in play at the time.
No, there isn't some grand gesture where someone is going to state how they pulled some crazy maneuver to outwit the opponent. 40K is a thousand small decisions that add up.
Every turn you're battling your opponent and their army. Are they conservative, or overly aggressive. What if they swap their playstyle the next turn, what impact will that have on my strategy? Can I make them go one way or the other to my advantage? If you're not playing your opponent, you're being played by them.
In 40k you sit there and wait for your turn when the opponent hits you with their entire army.
When it's your turn, you employ your strategy by moving into optimal positions and pointing your weapons at optimized priority targets. Can you get a VP? Then do it. Can you not? Then you remove as many models as possible from the enemy to reduce their ability to get VP on their turn. Preferably you do both.
Thats it. Thats the tactical depth of 40k. There is no deception. There is no cat and mouse. There is no meaningful choice or depth. 40k is so paper thin it's see through.
Oversimplification.
I would say:
In 40k, while your opponent is hitting the units in your army which aren't hidden behind obscuring terrain or kept in reserve with the units in his army which aren't using battlefield actions to complete objectives or holding territory, you are watching him to try to figure out which of his units will move toward objectives and which aura-bearing characters are accompanying them so that you can figure out which of your units you will need to use to most effectively thwart that strategy, and whether they will need aura and strategem support.
Any amount of "trying to figure out" that you are doing is a waste of your brain power. Trying to predict where he will move what units in conjunction with other units is a matter of waiting. You could literally walk away from the table, eat a sandwich, and come back to see where they ended up and it would get you exactly the same result as any amount of "trying to figure out" that you wasted your thoughts doing.
When your turn comes, you attempt to implement the plan you devised based on those observations, which may include sacrificing some of your units to screen others from charges, or to tempt your opponent away from an objective. It will also involve ensuring that your aura support is where it needs to be to not only provide the strongest synergy, but to ensure that this synergy is used where it's needed most; it will also include using enough of your limited strategems to achieve your goal, but not so many that you find yourself short on subsequent turns.
Again, any plan you devised mid their turn was a waste of your time. It doesn't matter what plan you created during their movement phase. What matters is the plan you come up with in your movement phase after all your losses have been removed, the melees are over, and the turn is yours. You cannot create a plan for your turn until you know what resources you have at your disposal. It's now your opponents turn to go eat a sandwich.
Now I realize that in previous editions when every unit in the game had an equal capacity to pin every other unit in the game; when multiple units could catch a single unit in a crossfire; when you had to decide whether to move or to shoot because you couldn't do both; when you had to decide how to position a vehicle so that side guns could hit what they needed to hit vs presenting the strongest armour to the greatest threat that all of these decisions FELT more like to YOU like tactics than any of the things that I list in the paragraphs above. But just because they FELT more like tactics (to YOU), that doesn't make it objectively true.
No. 40k NEVER FELT like anything tactically deep to me. Previous editions were more COMPLICATED. But that complication is not depth. I want DEPTH. 40k has never had depth.
Because deciding whether my aura character buffs the unit that is trying to achieve an objective for me, or deny one from you is every bit as objectively tactical as any of the "to move or to shoot cuz I can't do both" decisions of editions gone by regardless of how it feels (to YOU).
Again. A misunderstanding of my feelings. I get that you THINK thats some kind of meaningful tactics. But it's not. It's a flow chart of optimized actions that is only impeded by your own ability to calculate it.
It's also worth noting that the definition of tactics you quoted above includes the word strategy, which means from an actual LANGUAGE perspective, the two words are similar enough to be classified as synonyms by people in the business of writing dictionaries despite the efforts of a select few members of the online community to attach connotative meanings to each of the words in order to advance a particular narrative based on their personal feelings about which of two equally valid points of view is more objectively true.
Lets see how this logic holds up.
cul·ture /ˈkəlCHər/ Learn to pronounce See definitions in: all biology horticulture noun noun: culture; plural noun: cultures
1. the arts and other manifestations of human intellectual achievement regarded collectively. "20th century popular culture" h Similar: the arts
The definition of Culture includes the word manifestations which means the two words are so similar so as to be synonyms.
So like.. A cultist cultures a deamon from the warp.
Because X-Wing has so few units, but you can't accomplish some maneuvers without specific upgrades and ships.
No. Its because Xwing has player interaction.
Some armies in 40K are just super straightforward. People who take lists with no redeploy or other kinds of flexibility are very one dimensional and they'll have a very different experience than someone who is able to capitalize on the developing board state.
There is no developing board state. There is only the current board state at the start of your turn. Nothing else matters because you have no ability to interact with it at any other time.
PenitentJake wrote:It's also worth noting that the definition of tactics you quoted above includes the word strategy, which means from an actual LANGUAGE perspective, the two words are similar enough to be classified as synonyms by people in the business of writing dictionaries despite the efforts of a select few members of the online community to attach connotative meanings to each of the words in order to advance a particular narrative based on their personal feelings about which of two equally valid points of view is more objectively true
Absolutely not. I might agree that people spend too much time nitpicking their relevance in terms of tabletop games, but from an actual real-world military perspective this is utterly and abjectly wrong in all possible ways. It is an extremely necessary distinction of language.
That you think its an 'online community' issue is kind of frightening.
But I encourage you to share this view with military folks. It should be enlightening.
It's also worth noting that the definition of tactics you quoted above includes the word strategy, which means from an actual LANGUAGE perspective, the two words are similar enough to be classified as synonyms by people in the business of writing dictionaries despite the efforts of a select few members of the online community to attach connotative meanings to each of the words in order to advance a particular narrative based on their personal feelings about which of two equally valid points of view is more objectively true.
Lets see how this logic holds up.
cul·ture
/ˈkəlCHər/
Learn to pronounce
See definitions in:
all
biology
horticulture
noun
noun: culture; plural noun: cultures
1.
the arts and other manifestations of human intellectual achievement regarded collectively.
"20th century popular culture"
h
Similar:
the arts
The definition of Culture includes the word manifestations which means the two words are so similar so as to be synonyms.
So like.. A cultist cultures a deamon from the warp.
Yup. Totally works.
This is an incorrect application of the logic. The section you're looking to apply here is "manifestations of human intellectual achievement". Not just the singular word "manifestation". But also, "A cultist [maintains in conditions suitable for growth*] a daemon from the warp" (*a definition of culture) does 100% work, interestingly enough!
But anyways, if a tactic is a "strategy carefully planned to achieve a specific end", then a strategy is just a tactic waiting for a plan. But more importantly, a synonym for tactic is "stratagem", which 40k 9th edition is chock full of! Perhaps too many, according to some. I guess nobody can argue 40k 9th edition lacks tactics.
If I said "40k lacks strategies carefully planned to achieve a specific end!" you would forgive somebody for not knowing that I'm talking about tactics and not strategies, right?
Lance845 wrote: There isn't enough nuance to have tactical decisions that matter. You don't hear about them because they don't exist.
You don't hear about them, because they require a ton of context in the moment that is based around the specific terrain, mission, and armies in play at the time.
No, there isn't some grand gesture where someone is going to state how they pulled some crazy maneuver to outwit the opponent. 40K is a thousand small decisions that add up.
Daedelus is correct. Tactics DO exist in 40k. They are just harder to have a conversation about without proper context. Also, because of the tendency towards misunderstanding and disingenuousness in online forums, they don't show up as much as mathhammer and Strat-combos in dialogue.
No. 40k NEVER FELT like anything tactically deep to me. Previous editions were more COMPLICATED. But that complication is not depth. I want DEPTH. 40k has never had depth.
Well, since you know what you want, and 40k doesn't provide it, why do you keep playing 40k?
No. 40k NEVER FELT like anything tactically deep to me. Previous editions were more COMPLICATED. But that complication is not depth. I want DEPTH. 40k has never had depth.
Well, since you know what you want, and 40k doesn't provide it, why do you keep playing 40k?
I don't think he does.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lance845 wrote: A better player can crush a better list by never giving the opponent a clean shot.
And do you think this is actually a good thing for a game? One involving dice in particular?
Lance845 wrote: A better player can crush a better list by never giving the opponent a clean shot.
And do you think this is actually a good thing for a game? One involving dice in particular?
Yes. Note that Lance said "can" not "will always". List building should matter, to the extent that an absolutely terrible list should struggle against a very good, well-designed list even with a large player skill gap. The difference in games with good tactical depth is the skill gap accounts for more of the final result than in less tactically deep games, such that better players can more easily overcome weaknesses created at the list building stage.
I'm a bit confused why you seem to think this is a bad thing. The logical conclusion of your stance is that list building is the only thing that should matter.
But if you go with the "can" route instead of "will always" even the current edition of 40k allows a better player to crush an opponent without giving him a clean shot. It happens.
To me, more than listbuilding, it's the dice rolling that should matter a lot, in a way that even a noob can compete with a much better player assuming lists are basically on par. If a noob or a pure beer and pretzel player has no chance against a skilled competitive player (still assuming both lists are equally good) that's a terrible game design IMHO.
To be clear in a version of 40k I like things that matter are: randomness of dice rolling, listbuilding, players' skills. In this order. My biggest complain about 9th isn't about depth, but about the massive dice rolling and the tools to "fix/enhance" the dice rolling, making 40k the game of averages or even above averages. That's the real issue, I think players choices during the game already play a big part in 40k, I definitely don't feel the need to add more depth.
Well if you want balance first thing to do is get rid of GW from the equation. You can't have rule writer be same guys who benefit from imbalance for sake of model sales.
To be clear in a version of 40k I like things that matter are: randomness of dice rolling, listbuilding, players' skills. In this order.
This explains sooooo much about your attitude towards the game.
Wasn't it clear before? But yeah, to me it's amusing to see what people expect from a dice game.
So how do you derive balance from randomness with no mitigation? They game would have to be so random as to be meaningless.
Who said no mitigation? Or totally random?
Consider Necromunda: there you have models like Van Saar that have +1BS which is a massive upgrade, except you're basically firing single shots with no modifiers or re-roll everytime. So it can happen, and it happens quite frequently, that even a well kitted bunch of dudes fails to do something by missing several shots during a turn. In 40k that doesn't happen because each unit let the player roll a bazillion of dice, which can also be easily modified. That's what I mean when I say I'd like to increase randomness. Units that fire 30 shots with access to re-rolls and modifiers should fire 10 instead, with no access to re-rolls or modifiers outside extremely limited exceptions, making the game more unpredictable without changing anything to the core mechanics.
My ideal game would be determined by 40% dice rolling, 30% list building, 30% players' decisions. At the moment to me it feels like it's 20% dice rolling, 50% list building, 30% players' decisions.
A game that is based on dice rolling can't really be balanced, it can only achieve a reasonable amount of balance. But what amount of balance is satisfying or even just acceptable is totally subjective. If I wanted to play a really balanced game, something that is mostly (if not entirely) based on players' skills, I'd play chess. Or football.
Game play is a series of interesting choices. Dice rolls are not choices. They are a mechanic for random number generation. While list building does include interesting choices its not game play because it happens pre game. Its game set up.
Basically your ideal game is only 30% gameplay. Do you realize how crazy that is? How bad it is?
MINIMUM the game should be 60% player choices 20% list 20% dice. Any additional game play is better. But bare minimum the players should be driving the experience.
Lance845 wrote: Game play is a series of interesting choices. Dice rolls are not choices. They are a mechanic for random number generation. While list building does include interesting choices its not game play because it happens pre game. Its game set up.
Basically your ideal game is only 30% gameplay. Do you realize how crazy that is? How bad it is?
MINIMUM the game should be 60% player choices 20% list 20% dice. Any additional game play is better. But bare minimum the players should be driving the experience.
Nah, it would turn 40k into poker .
To me it's still a garage hammer beer and pretzel experience between friends and family and should stay that way .
I think players' choices are already a thing in current 40k and I wouldn't like to increase additional imbalance when a more skilled player faces a noob or someone that doesn't play very often. Noob needs to have the chance to compete with the veteran, always, that's where (a reasonable amount of) randomness kicks in.
In poker there's also randomness but a noob stands basically no chance against a veteran player.
Lance845 wrote: Game play is a series of interesting choices. Dice rolls are not choices. They are a mechanic for random number generation. While list building does include interesting choices its not game play because it happens pre game. Its game set up.
Basically your ideal game is only 30% gameplay. Do you realize how crazy that is? How bad it is?
MINIMUM the game should be 60% player choices 20% list 20% dice. Any additional game play is better. But bare minimum the players should be driving the experience.
Nah, it would turn 40k into poker .
To me it's still a garage hammer beer and pretzel experience between friends and family and should stay that way .
I think players' choices are already a thing in current 40k and I wouldn't like to increase additional imbalance when a more skilled player faces a noob or someone that doesn't play very often. Noob needs to have the chance to compete with the veteran, always, that's where (a reasonable amount of) randomness kicks in.
In poker there's also randomness but a noob stands basically no chance against a veteran player.
No it wouldn't, it would turn it into a game instead of a glorified model putting away simulator. I'm having a hard time forming a response because the idea of someone wanting a game with literally no skill ceiling is so strange to me that I can't think of where to begin with how bad of an idea it is. You're basically asking that 40k becomes Snakes/Chutes and Ladders but without any snakes/chutes or ladders
I have no idea about what Snake/Chutes and Ladders is but I've always said that players' choices and skills should matter in 40k. And I mean choices outside listbuilding, which in fact are still players' choices.
If you think that current 40k (or any other older version of 40k actually) is a game with literally no skill ceiling ok, that's your opinion and I disagree. I might feel we're playing a different game then. Assuming you're actually still playing of course .
I'm not really asking about anything, I love 40k as it is. I just think it has its flaws, and it's mostly down to the fact that dice rolling is too heavy, making rolls almost pointless since they are too predictable. Heavy dice rolling with guaranteed result are a problem, but overall I definitely like the game mechanics. In the past players didn't throw that many dice and they didn't have easy access to fix the results, game was more random and smooth.
The OP stated "restrictions are good the for game" and I agree, since the second main problem of 40k is having too many options to choose from (and I mean actual units and wargear, not rules) and there has to be a limit somehow. Capping the flyers to 1 every 1000 points was a step in the right direction.
Smaller armies rosters and limited dice rolling are the only things I miss from old editions of 40k.
You said a noob needs to be able to beat a veteran. The only way this could happen is by removing player skill as a factor, either skill in list building or skill in in game decisions. There's no way around that.
Sim-Life wrote: You said a noob needs to be able to beat a veteran. The only way this could happen is by removing player skill as a factor, either skill in list building or skill in in game decisions. There's no way around that.
I see where he's coming from though. When I play blood-bowl, or whatever with Mrs.deadnight, who absolutely is not a gamer and absolutely does not have 20 years of ttg experience, from my pov its actually quite nice that my experience/skill doesn't simply give me an auto-win at it, that with the luck/random factor being as strong as it is - my ork team (axe devil's jagwaaaaghs) love knocking themselves out. It means she can engage with me on an even level and do well without coaching or me holding her hand. And that despite all my experience I can engage with her as an equal on a level playing field. Ultimately it's an enjoyable evening for us both.
It's actually not a bad thing at all to bake that into a game and allow casual players to.engage strongly. Especially when most of thr player base leans towards casual and Especially for people who value the social side of a game more so than the absolute -competitiveness and conpetitive-at-all-cost.
Sim-Life wrote: You said a noob needs to be able to beat a veteran. The only way this could happen is by removing player skill as a factor, either skill in list building or skill in in game decisions. There's no way around that.
By limiting it, not removing it entirely. A veteran plays better but might be unlucky, which is enough grounds to give the noob a chance to compete for winning the game. That's it. In a game like poker, which I adore, in order to let than happen the noob has to be really extremely lucky, which is something I wouldn't want for 40k. In fact, on average, the most skilled player already wins regularly against a noob and would still have more chances to win even if we would go back to 3rd-5th editions' amount of dice rolling, which was way lower than now and allowed more randomness to the game. Like it should be: better odds, but no guaranteed results.
40k is a game in which dice are rolled for evertything: hit, wound, armour, other saves, charge, number of shots, number of damage, to determine if an ability/power/stratagem works at all, etc... if randomness doesn't matter or has little impact to the game why rolling for everything (and with that amount of dice) in the first place? Why not playing using averages and pre-determined results instead of rolling the dice?
Hmmm. I'd say in heads up poker a noob just needs to be relatively lucky. If I get the better hand than you any time you draw something half decent, there's not much you can do beyond just not play at all. This isn't to say there isn't skill in it - there's a huge amount and better players usually win - but sometimes the cards just say no.
Dice can do that in 40k (or Bloodbowl) - but equally there's a lot you are in control of.
Movement and positioning for instance largely isn't controlled by dice. If I can shoot my anti-X into your X, while keeping my Y hidden from your anti-Y, the odds are heavily skewed in my favour. If I know approximately what I'd expect to die in both your and my turns, I can engineer I have stuff on objectives and keep scoring while you'll be surprised to find you don't and there's nothing you can do.
This usually prompts the whinge that a lot of skill in 40k is just mastering "tricks". The optimal way of messing with someone using a flyer-base for instance. A noob might hit on it by pure fluke - an expert will do it to you every time.
The bottom line is this is at its core a wargame. And that means tactics and strategy. It means the players have to have their agency.
Chutes and ladders is a non-game with zero decisions to make given to childen ages 3-5 to teach them dice rolling/spinner mechanics. Its not a game because it has no gameplay. Skill doesnt matter. Anyone can win. Its pure luck.
40k is closer to chutes and ladders than not. It just has a very extended set up in which players make choices that heavily impact the balance of the board. After that the decision making is borderline juvenile. Its complex, in a draconian way, but not deep. And that complexity prevents a noob from beating a vet. But so does the size of your wallet. Because its odd as hell knowledge of inscrutable bs that influences your list building that impacts who wins the game.
Thats not beer and pretzels. Thats not what your claiming to want blackie. And its sure as hell not good for a noob.
Chutes and ladders is a non-game with zero decisions
40k is closer to chutes and ladders than not.
[40K] players make choices that heavily impact the balance of the board.
Seriously, which one is it? One one hand you're saying 40K has absolutely no decisions that matter, but then say those decisions heavily impact the board. Your argument is an oxymoron.
These are all important parts of the game:
- faction choice
- list choices
- terrain choices
- mission selection
- deployment placement
- who has first turn
- movement
- shooting
- hth capabilities
- pile in
- consolidation
- going all-in at the right time
- going all-in at the wrong time
- pushing forward with too much
- pushing forward with too little
- not prepping your units during deployment and prior setup so you can go all-in at the right time
- having enough firepower
- not having enough firepower
- having enough melee
- not having enough melee
- over-exposing a unit
- under-exposing a unit
- screening out deepstrikers properly
- not screening out deepstrikers properly
The list goes on and on. I can see where you're coming from if you're facing AdMech with no terrain, but that's a choice. Choose not to face AdMech and/or add more terrain. No faction has a 100% win rate. it comes down to all those factors and the dice rolls.
Seriously brainpsyk. Read what i wrote. List building is not game play. Decisions made pre game are not game play.
Thats not an oxymoron. You just have to read the whole sentence.
The game has no meaningful choices. Not no choices. No meaningful choices.
Which is why they can be calculated woth a flow chart. Which is why they are juvenile.
The first 6 things on your list are not game play.
The last 9 are mostly the same. Screening is ongoing, but your decision to screen started before you placed your first model onto the table.
Going all in or pushing forward is 4 things on your list whose answer is solved with tje flow chart. Which one statistically kills more models? Which one statistically gets you vp? Do that. Its not rocket science. And the opponent cannot stop you.
4 of the remaining 5 are just the phases of the game and the 5th is list building.
Lance845 wrote: The game has no meaningful choices. Not no choices. No meaningful choices.
Which is why they can be calculated woth a flow chart. Which is why they are juvenile.
Sometime, I would like to see this flow chart. I would like to keep a copy with me and use it in every game to play my statistically best game every time.
Lance845 wrote: The game has no meaningful choices. Not no choices. No meaningful choices.
Which is why they can be calculated woth a flow chart. Which is why they are juvenile.
Sometime, I would like to see this flow chart. I would like to keep a copy with me and use it in every game to play my statistically best game every time.
My brother has made one. If you have more points in "the zone" (he has never described what "the zone" is), you shoot/fight. If you have less points, you move out of "the zone" (and presumably into another zone, to make it so you have more points in that other zone).
He has consistently defeated me in the majority of games we play, so I'm guessing that it's working and that this is the flowchart people keep talking about.
Lance845 wrote: The game has no meaningful choices. Not no choices. No meaningful choices.
Which is why they can be calculated woth a flow chart. Which is why they are juvenile.
Sometime, I would like to see this flow chart. I would like to keep a copy with me and use it in every game to play my statistically best game every time.
TBF for my Slaanesh Daemons it really is flow-charty, because my army does one thing and does it exceedingly well, so EVERY SINGLE DECISION is focused on doing that one thing. I'll write it out for you:
(1) Is the enemy in Charge Range? - IF Yes, then charge and kill him. - IF NO, see (2)
(2) IS ENEMY SHOOTY - IF YES, then see (3) - IF NO, then see (4)
(3) CAN THE ENEMY WIPE A KEEPER IN ONE SHOOTING PHASE: - IF YES, then see (5) - IF NO, then see (6)
(4) IS THE ENEMY FASTER THAN YOU: - IF YES, then you are not playing Warhammer 40k as Slaanesh Daemons have some of the fastest models in the game. - IF NO, move to bring them in your charge range without being in their charge range and return to (1)
(5) CAN THE KEEPERS HIDE: - If YES, hide behind Obscuring terrain until (5) is either NO or (1) is YES. - If NO, move closer and return to (1).
There you go, all threads return to (1) with clear decisions to be made and all of them done obviously before the game even starts based on a few obvious criteria.
What I do is sort of mentally roughly multiply the effectiveness of a gun against a target, and the strategic value of nuking a target. Like I could wipe out a vanquisher russ with a few rokkits from a green tide list, or I could use them to finish off some guardsmen screening the big stuff. If I let the guardsmen stick around by taking the optimal target then I’m delayed a turn, and maybe save a single boy from being popped. If I kill the guardsmen my army can move up faster but the russ will just shred a single boy.
Back in the day with my Guard it was a simple case of applying the least possible amount of force for the most return on investment.
Biggest threat were rushing transports, usually Rhinos filled with Marines. S5 weapons could get them, so we start with Heavy Bolters and try to immobilise as many as possible. Once we're out of HBs to shoot, onto the S6 multi-lasers, then the S7 Autocannons and Plasma Guns (and if you were playing properly those were your main squad weapons), then S9 Lascannons (because you didn't take Missile Launchers in Guard armies) and then, if you were desperate, Ordnance weapons.
A simply hierarchy of Strength. Do that until you either win, or are in combat, then you get to choose between cauterising the wound (run away from the unit engaged, and shoot the bejesus out them once they're done with your unit), or swarm swarm swarm, and drown 'em in bodies.
Seriously @Lance845, you're making oxymoronic claims, and not backing them up at all.
The game has no meaningful choices. Not no choices. No meaningful choices.
Really, so it doesn't matter whether you choose AdMech or GSC? It doesn't matter if you deploy out in the open or behind terrain?
You can win or lose the game by getting any one item in that list wrong. Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it isn't there.
How is setting up terrain not part of the game? How are missions not part of the game? They are all still part of the game , same as reading up on strategies and moves in chess. It's knowing the game and being prepared.
In all seriousness, pick any one item from the list. All else being equal, I'll give you a scenario where that list item wins or loses the game.
For simplicity's sake, I'll pick the first 2:
1 - AdMech vs. GSC. Any AdMech army played at an equal level to GSC will win most of the time. So Faction matters.
2 - Blood Angels as a shooting army will lose to Blood Angels as a Melee army. So list matters.
Here's another freebie
Going all in or pushing forward is 4 things on your list whose answer is solved with tje flow chart. Which one statistically kills more models?
Soooooooo wrong...
#1 - killing models doesn't matter as much as scoring objectives. I don't care about getting tabled as long as I'm scoring my VPs #2 - by that reasoning, exposing your entire army turn 1 to kill off my bait unit(s) because it kills the most models leaves you entire army open to my return fire as IG, you just lost.
You're not understanding the difference between Strategy and Tactic. You're just actively ignoring the definition that Lance goes by, and saying their view of it is incorrect. Pretty poor faith argument all together.
It's been a hot minute since I've played 40k, but last I did, my flowchart was pretty damn simple.
Strategy. Ultramarines, with Dreadnoughts, footslogging primaris of all sorts, and some other stuff. I fight the shooty and I shoot the fighty. Worked out pretty well for me.
The tactics. Assessing board state, applying my strategy as best as I can to the board state in the most mathematically efficient ways to score points. There's very little moment-to-moment responding to what my foe is doing. I wait for my turn, and respond in the best way with what's left in my army. There's no "Aha, because you did this action, I spring a trap suddenly in a way you couldn't have foreseen!" It's just going through the motions of applying effective means of victory against a static board, then having it done to me.
Thadin wrote: You're not understanding the difference between Strategy and Tactic. You're just actively ignoring the definition that Lance goes by, and saying their view of it is incorrect. Pretty poor faith argument all together.
It's been a hot minute since I've played 40k, but last I did, my flowchart was pretty damn simple.
Strategy. Ultramarines, with Dreadnoughts, footslogging primaris of all sorts, and some other stuff. I fight the shooty and I shoot the fighty. Worked out pretty well for me.
The tactics. Assessing board state, applying my strategy as best as I can to the board state in the most mathematically efficient ways to score points. There's very little moment-to-moment responding to what my foe is doing. I wait for my turn, and respond in the best way with what's left in my army. There's no "Aha, because you did this action, I spring a trap suddenly in a way you couldn't have foreseen!" It's just going through the motions of applying effective means of victory against a static board, then having it done to me.
Thank you Thadin. You're a champ. I appreciate you.
@brain. Your army choice is pre game. Its not game play. Its game set up. Terrain is pre game. Its not game play. Its set up.
Thadin wrote: You're not understanding the difference between Strategy and Tactic. You're just actively ignoring the definition that Lance goes by, and saying their view of it is incorrect. Pretty poor faith argument all together.
Not at all. In fact, I *listen* (it's a practiced skill)
Strategy. Ultramarines, with Dreadnoughts, footslogging primaris of all sorts, and some other stuff. I fight the shooty and I shoot the fighty. Worked out pretty well for me.
So faction, army list, shooting, hth and tactics matter. Gotcha. We're 100% in agreement here
The tactics. Assessing board state, applying my strategy as best as I can to the board state in the most mathematically efficient ways to score points.
So you're examining the board, making decision on how to move, who to shoot, who to melee, and target priority. Sounds like you're having to make meaningful decisions here. Question, on "mathematically efficient" - if you can reasonably kill 4 models this turn, do you kill the 3 Eradicators you can see and have range now, or the 4 Bladeguard veterans that can do anything to you for 2 turns?
If can reasonably kill 15 Necron warriors (of 20) by exposing 2 units to return fire (and potentially losing both those units) do you do it knowing your opponent has a rez orb nearby?
Thadin wrote: There's very little moment-to-moment responding to what my foe is doing. I wait for my turn, and respond in the best way with what's left in my army.
So each turn your are assessing the board, applying your strategy, figuring out how best to apply it, which unit(s) to kill, how to move to achieve those kills. Sounds like you are making decisions and acting on those decisions because they meaningfully impact the game. We're still in 100% agreement here
Thadin wrote: There's no "Aha, because you did this action, I spring a trap suddenly in a way you couldn't have foreseen!" It's just going through the motions of applying effective means of victory against a static board, then having it done to me.
yet above, you're making decisons and doing things that meaningfully impact the game. You just don't realize it, probably because a lot of these things have become second nature, rather than things you have to actively think about.
You're doing it again. You're calling the strategy of how my army functions best, a tactic.
Tactic. I see 3 Eradicators on the enemy side. I consider that the bulk of my killing power is vehicles/high wound models that are efficient targets for Eradicators. I target them first. There's really nothing deep to that.
I see an enemy unit poised to move on to objectives, or is likely to do the most damage in return if I leave them alone. I answer this threat. The enemy has minimal ways to respond to my actions. In turn, I have minimal ways to respond to the threat unless it's my turn, where I am not interacting with the threat, I am applying my offensive math to it's defenses.
Your foe, or you, making a mistake and capitalizing on that mistake when it's your turn to swing your whole army at them isn't a tactic.
Breaking up peoples posts is also very annoying. Try to not do it.
@brainpsyk If you want to appear as though you're actually listening you should probably reign in the sarcastic tone.
As stated, not all decisions are meaningful. Just because you made the decision to move and shoot the most optimal target doesn't mean that's meaningful and engaging gameplay. You can play most games of 40k on auto-pilot. I don't think I've ever started a turn of 40k by sitting in silence and trying to work out how to best play out my turn because as H.B.M.C said weapon strength determines what you shoot your gun at. Theres no meaningful decision in choosing to shoot a tank with a lascannon because theres almost no reason to ever shoot infantry with it.
Sim-Life wrote: @brainpsyk If you want to appear as though you're actually listening you should probably reign in the sarcastic tone.
As stated, not all decisions are meaningful. Just because you made the decision to move and shoot the most optimal target doesn't mean that's meaningful and engaging gameplay. You can play most games of 40k on auto-pilot. I don't think I've ever started a turn of 40k by sitting in silence and trying to work out how to best play out my turn because as H.B.M.C said weapon strength determines what you shoot your gun at. Theres no meaningful decision in choosing to shoot a tank with a lascannon because theres almost no reason to ever shoot infantry with it.
Decision making in 40k is the illusion of choice.
Yep, 40k was my first wargame and i've tried other since (infinity and Malifaux) and in both these games, most of my turns start with me assessing my options and deciding on what angle is best for me. 40k i just chat with people in the LGS as i move stuff then start shooting.
40k is a great ruleset for having social conversations and spectacle fights. Though, stratagems to increase the mental load of things to remember (But again, not make meaningful choices, because you just remember the best one to use for the current situation)
Thadin wrote: 40k is a great ruleset for having social conversations and spectacle fights. Though, stratagems to increase the mental load of things to remember (But again, not make meaningful choices, because you just remember the best one to use for the current situation)
I was actually talking to a friend about this the other day about how we were both tired of 40k and we both arrived at the conclusion that when it gets to a certain point (probably after turn 2) you don't even decide what strats to use, you just default to keeping CP for the reroll strat.
So, let's assume, for the sake of argument, that everyone on this board is in perfect agreement that 40K sucks. It has no depth, no meaningful choices, no tactics or strategy or whatever you want to call that.
Sure.
What now? You say you're playing other rulesets. Great! Go play them, then? And maybe quick gakking where we're eating?
You say you want to hold GW accountable and make them change. Great! Go talk to them? And maybe quit gakking where we're eating?
As long as what you're doing is just telling us that we're wrong for liking what we have, or even for tolerating what we have and making the best of it, we're unlikely to treat your commentary on the forums dedicated to playing the game you don't want to play as "in good faith."
Octopoid wrote: So, let's assume, for the sake of argument, that everyone on this board is in perfect agreement that 40K sucks. It has no depth, no meaningful choices, no tactics or strategy or whatever you want to call that.
Sure.
What now? You say you're playing other rulesets. Great! Go play them, then? And maybe quick gakking where we're eating?
You say you want to hold GW accountable and make them change. Great! Go talk to them? And maybe quit gakking where we're eating?
As long as what you're doing is just telling us that we're wrong for liking what we have, or even for tolerating what we have and making the best of it, we're unlikely to treat your commentary on the forums dedicated to playing the game you don't want to play as "in good faith."
You don't have to respond to this thread, or read it, if you don't want to. But as long as threads get started with the idea that the game could be better then people who want to have that talk are going to participate by identifying root cause and suggesting solutions.
Don't tell other people not to participate in a conversation just because they are correctly identifying issues and their scope with something you like. Nobody is saying you don't get to like a bad thing. I like lots of bad things. My liking it doesn't make it any less bad.
Thadin wrote: You're doing it again. You're calling the strategy of how my army functions best, a tactic.
Tactic. I see 3 Eradicators on the enemy side. I consider that the bulk of my killing power is vehicles/high wound models that are efficient targets for Eradicators. I target them first. There's really nothing deep to that.
I see an enemy unit poised to move on to objectives, or is likely to do the most damage in return if I leave them alone. I answer this threat. The enemy has minimal ways to respond to my actions. In turn, I have minimal ways to respond to the threat unless it's my turn, where I am not interacting with the threat, I am applying my offensive math to it's defenses.
Your foe, or you, making a mistake and capitalizing on that mistake when it's your turn to swing your whole army at them isn't a tactic.
You're coming around
The decision to shoot the 3 Eradicators is a meaningful decision because it's not the most mathematically efficient. How you move to target them is important, how much you commit to killing them is important, which is what we've been saying all along. Sometimes the decisions are small, and it's true that not all decisions are meaningful. At the same time, that doesn't mean *all* decisions are meaningless (which several people have stated). Even small decisions add up.
While mistakes aren't a tactic, how you capitalize on them absolutely is. If they overextended, do you go all-in? If they didn't push their advantage, how do you capitalize on that? Brian of Tabletop Titans won against Nick Nanavati of Art of War after Nick's AdMech wiped 50% of Brian's army turn 1. This was before Orks, and Brian wasn't playing DE or AdMech. How? Nick didn't press his advantage and Brian won on points, by deciding not to give up, and figuring out what it would take to win and then doing it.
Thinking decisions don't matter or are just illusions means we lose the game the moment anything goes wrong. But the better players figure it out then play it out. That's how they take weaker armies and list and win against tougher armies and lists. They reduce the game to the decisions, and make it less about the dice and armies. That's why decisions are there, and are important
As stated, not all decisions are meaningful. Just because you made the decision to move and shoot the most optimal target doesn't mean that's meaningful and engaging gameplay. You can play most games of 40k on auto-pilot. I don't think I've ever started a turn of 40k by sitting in silence and trying to work out how to best play out my turn because as H.B.M.C said weapon strength determines what you shoot your gun at. Theres no meaningful decision in choosing to shoot a tank with a lascannon because theres almost no reason to ever shoot infantry with it.
Decision making in 40k is the illusion of choice.
I would say the amount of in-game decision making has a heavy amount to do with the type of list you've built. Some units really are point-and-shoot. Other units much less so, and board context matters to a much greater extent. Some people really like making "point and shoot" lists though. That's literally what most "netlists" aspire to be, the "I win" button.
You don't have to build lists like that though, and you'll probably have a more engaging game if you don't.
? I mean 9-12 of them are still pretty cheap and those alone can ruin a Freebooter Speedwaaagh list's day pretty easily.
