We know that there is codex creep in 40k, the newer codex are stronger than the old. Normally we wait for nerfs to tone down the power of these codexes, but what if they take a different approach and scale down the previous nerfs.
Would you rather them remove the nerfs on the other books to power them back up or continue to power down the newer codex?
It wouldn't be a good idea to just remove every balance adjustment made so far. We'd just be right back to Dark Eldar and Admech being a problem again on top of the currently overperforming codexes. Removing some of the unnecessary nerfs might be a good idea, the nerfs to Death Guard and the Guard were unwarranted.
The problem is the way GW reacts, they are , with very few exeptions regarding stuff they really didn't expect or want, reacting to metas that no longer exist. When they were nerfing DEs, the players have already moved to a different list which was meat mountain. This leaves armies who can't just generate a second or third top tier army in a paculiar state, because their nerfs, like the ones DG got for example, feel just wierd, and unwarranted at the time they hit the meta game. Other armies who have or had one list, don't really get to play with anything after a big nerf, especially vs the new upcoming books.
Now the best thing for players, would be as if the balance patches were A free and B included both nerfs and buffs , with design studio commantary how they see the army should be played.
the we nerfed the core of your army, but this unit no one ever used is not 1-2 pts cheaper, go find a new way to play is not a good thing for a lot of factions. And can end with an anwser there is no good way to play the faction after the nerfs.
CKO wrote: We know that there is codex creep in 40k, the newer codex are stronger than the old. Normally we wait for nerfs to tone down the power of these codexes, but what if they take a different approach and scale down the previous nerfs.
Would you rather them remove the nerfs on the other books to power them back up or continue to power down the newer codex?
Because a game decided by turn 2 because everyone is powered up to the moon is not a fun game?
I want a game that is fun for the full 5 turns, with jocking for advantages and swings in who is ahead. Not play a game where a 2k army removed 1500 points of the opponent in the first turn and we can pack up and go home after the first shooting phase.
And yeah, peel back to foundations and re-assess everything. The old skirmish basis can't keep up with what the game is trying to be now, and its affecting everything.
Take some of the best bits from LotR and AoS (particularly the AoS take on command points) and past 40k editions (I actually miss Eternal Warrior now, thanks to how absurd guns have gotten) and start over.
Definitely reduce the mass dice rolls (and rerolls) and just lower attacks in general- its unnecessary and makes first turn advantage (and the lethality in general) too extreme.
CKO wrote: We know that there is codex creep in 40k, the newer codex are stronger than the old. Normally we wait for nerfs to tone down the power of these codexes, but what if they take a different approach and scale down the previous nerfs.
Would you rather them remove the nerfs on the other books to power them back up or continue to power down the newer codex?
Because a game decided by turn 2 because everyone is powered up to the moon is not a fun game?
I want a game that is fun for the full 5 turns, with jocking for advantages and swings in who is ahead. Not play a game where a 2k army removed 1500 points of the opponent in the first turn and we can pack up and go home after the first shooting phase.
Turn two isn't so bad for w40k. What is really bad is something like, you play custodes or knights or marines, and your tau opponent went first. Now unless magic is going to use on his dice, it is on avarge impossible for you to even draw the game.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lord Damocles wrote: The solution can't be to always be trying to cut points costs and/or stack even more rules on top of the pile.
The foundations need completely rebuilding.
And here is the crux of the whole thing. GW is in the black, without doing any of those things. The community seems to have accepted the fact that some factions are valid for 3-4 months every 8-9 years. And the ways to deal with GW games problems is, something I am sure GW loves, playing 2+ GW games and owning multiple armies and factions for it. I had and still have a horrible time playing my army in w40k. At the same time over a span of 2 years I got gifted 2 starter boxs for Lumineth Lords. I was not that happy about the gifts, as I didn't play AoS. Now I do, and with an investment of 3 boxs of infantry and 2 characters, I am having uncomperable more fun. Maybe that is what GW expects from its fans. Marines are bad? Play your stormcast army in AoS. Lumineth Lords got nerfed and are unfun to play ? Here you go here is an DE or Eldar army which will make you happy.
The bad side, for the community, is that you have to be able to financialy support owning those multiple armies.
Maybe if the Death Guard codex didn't have bad writing to begin with we could power down. As is, no. It's funny that it's the codex mentioned for "balanced".
Some stuff seem to be just tailor made for specific editions. I hope everyone remembers that when 9th started for a very long time, practically till DE book came out. We had Harlequins and Custodes being one of the top armies. And that was with old 8th ed books. This shows, I think, that if you layer good new edition rules, on top of a book which was already doing well or great, you get a broken book.
DE to dethrone harlis required someone at GW to write a perfect list and then force the point costs to encapsule it in 2000pts. Simple points up or points down can not achive such "balancing". Unless they were something drastic and terminators started running around costing 15pts or something crazy like that.
Ordana wrote: Because a game decided by turn 2 because everyone is powered up to the moon is not a fun game?
I want a game that is fun for the full 5 turns, with jocking for advantages and swings in who is ahead. Not play a game where a 2k army removed 1500 points of the opponent in the first turn and we can pack up and go home after the first shooting phase.
This really.
Faction balance is an intellectual concern. Its annoying that certain factions are clearly underpointed for their abilities compared with others.
But for the game as a whole, I think the biggest issue is that every faction is becoming "Codex: Glasshammer". The game is far too lethal - and consequently things are all too often decided far too early on. The only way to avoid this is to cover the board in convenient L-shaped ruins that allow you to deploy out of LOS and stay there for a while if you want to. Which you can argue is "skill" - but really its just a crutch.
And unfortunately I don't see any evidence that GW think this is an issue.
Imho, for me to be interested in learning a new edition of 40k, and anything more about this one including new codices yada, the game needs to return to roots. Lower models counts that are generally less Uber powerful E.g. no named characters unless by prior arrangement for some special scenario, larger tables with more realistic terrain and battlefield dynamics, rid of the card based whombo combo stackable power ups, and generally moar war less CCG with expensive plastic tokens.
Power up down whatever is mere band aid on the metastatic tumor one symptom of which is codex creep, another scale creep, another lethality creep, range creep, movement creep, and so on… trouble is marketing encroachment on game design, mba creeps imho.
jeff white wrote: E.g. no named characters unless by prior arrangement for some special scenario
I'm curious as to how you think this is a) viable as an option and b) would actually fix anything about the broken state of the game. Harlequins had a 96% win rate at Adepticon if you remove lists with skyweavers and mirror matches, they don't rely on named characters. Tau can shoot you without drawing LoS, no big reliance on named chars there. Custodes are just tougher and more killy than the models you have. Ad Mech and DE didn't really abuse named characters either. I love painting and playing with models like Grimaldus and Helbrecht but BTs aren't exactly tearing up the tournament (or even casual) scene, why shouldn't I be able to do that? There's 100 other major problems with the game that need fixed but I don't think that's one of them. I mostly hear that argument from people who haven't played much since 3rd edition and still think "named chars OP". Those are the same kind of people that want you to ask their permission to bring Forge World models despite the fact that 99.9% are less competitive for their points than that factions normal GW models...
CKO wrote: We know that there is codex creep in 40k, the newer codex are stronger than the old. Normally we wait for nerfs to tone down the power of these codexes, but what if they take a different approach and scale down the previous nerfs.
Would you rather them remove the nerfs on the other books to power them back up or continue to power down the newer codex?
jeff white wrote: Imho, for me to be interested in learning a new edition of 40k, and anything more about this one including new codices yada, the game needs to return to roots. Lower models counts that are generally less Uber powerful E.g. no named characters unless by prior arrangement for some special scenario, larger tables with more realistic terrain and battlefield dynamics, rid of the card based whombo combo stackable power ups, and generally moar war less CCG with expensive plastic tokens.
Power up down whatever is mere band aid on the metastatic tumor one symptom of which is codex creep, another scale creep, another lethality creep, range creep, movement creep, and so on… trouble is marketing encroachment on game design, mba creeps imho.
I agree with this! Less combos, please! Better and more varied terrain. Not every fight needs to be in ruined cities. Also, more reward for actually flanking units, getting side shots, etc. Reward positioning and movement and dynamic play rather than bland aura hammer. If that requires bring back vehicle facings and AV values then great! Also, bring back templates, for the love of god. They weren't hard to use and were great fun.
Keep some stratagems and CP stuff, but tone them down, make them one use or contingent upon certain conditions. Something like that.
Yes because the 27 slightly different special rules we have now for terrain just aren't enough to accurately portray half destroyed buildings...
The variable rules for terrain are basically:
+1 to save vs ranged
+1 to save vs ranged AND melee
Cannot-Be-Shot
Cannot-Be-Placed
Not-Actually-Protective.
There are a fuckton of words involved with all that (mostly because of GW's bizarre fascination with TLS), but that's basically what it boils down to. Not very interesting, engaging, or honestly effective.
I think that "better and more varied" refers to terrain features & rules which are actually... well.. a factor. As it stands the only terrain you give a feth about is the massive block of LoS blocking.
I'm of the opinion that terrain should be designed to be basically the most important thing on the battlefield. A unit should, once dug in, be quite difficult to kill with head-on gunfire. Leaving the primary solutions to such situations being flanking, melee, or specialized weapons (flamers) to remove them. A redesign which gives focus to thinks like flanking, and makes terrain more important and engaging than simply +1 sv would be more than welcome.
Unfortunately this would require a substantial rework of 40k itself, or at least a complete overhaul of how moral works. Making moral effect how a unit functions (suppression, movement, performance, ect) and be effected by more than just casualties would be great. 40ks biggest problem (imo) is that the only way to "interact" with enemy units is via killing them (with the exception of some psychic powers).
Would you rather them remove the nerfs on the other books to power them back up or continue to power down the newer codex?
A practical approach at this point is probably to power up and then power down. That is, it's probably easier to buff the underperformers and let everyone be a little hyper-lethal for the rest of 9th edition, and then to make a point to lower lethality in 10th edition.
Over the last few editions, my swooping hawks' lasblasters have gone from S3 Assault 3 to S3 Assault 4 to now being S4 Assault 4 and also auto-wounding on to-hit rolls of 6 for some reason. And frankly, I never felt like they were especially underpowered in either of the first two incarnations (though they did have more effective haywire grenades and grenade packs back when they were S3 Assault3.) I'd be happy to tone them back down in some way, and the same is true of a lot of the buffs my various armies' weapons have received recently. I can take or leave the AP-1 on my wyches' hekatarii blades, and I can certainly give up Blade Artists without complaint. I'm not sure my shuriken weapons really need the shuriken special rule now that they're AP-1 base. Pulse Rifles probably don't need the AP-`1 they just got. Etc.
But intentionally nerfing things like that is tricky to do unless you update everyone all at once. An edition change would be a reasonable time to do something like that. Release a great big Errata with a bunch of modest nerfs, and design the edition (and its codices) in a way that emphasizes interesting maneuvers/positioning rather than providing raw power boosts in the form of rerolls and whatnots. Take away some of the rules that grant rerolls. Give us more rules that grant a bonus when you catch the enemy in a crossfire.
Over the last few editions, my swooping hawks' lasblasters have gone from S3 Assault 3 to S3 Assault 4 to now being S4 Assault 4 and also auto-wounding on to-hit rolls of 6 for some reason.
I think this is where the issue lies. We are now rolling so many dice (and re-rolling) compared to previous editions. A Space Marine (Intercessor) can make 3 bolter shots at 24" compared to the 1 that their 7th edition First Born brother had. And the problem is across the board, not just a few select units.
Definitely power down.
And not by using points, changing points is only a last resort way to restore balance. Changing points means invalidating armies, and is also internally complex to change because they have to get the sales department involved in the changes (there is a target cost for an army of a certain faction).
Like the last dataslates did, you act on rules and profiles.
jeff white wrote: Imho, for me to be interested in learning a new edition of 40k, and anything more about this one including new codices yada, the game needs to return to roots. Lower models counts that are generally less Uber powerful E.g. no named characters unless by prior arrangement for some special scenario, larger tables with more realistic terrain and battlefield dynamics, rid of the card based whombo combo stackable power ups, and generally moar war less CCG with expensive plastic tokens.
Power up down whatever is mere band aid on the metastatic tumor one symptom of which is codex creep, another scale creep, another lethality creep, range creep, movement creep, and so on… trouble is marketing encroachment on game design, mba creeps imho.
LOOOOOOOOL imagine blaming named characters when they're basically not used hahahahahaha
Yeah... I do find that a lot of people who complain about named characters tend be misdiagnosing an issue. The only mechanical things that separate a named character from a generic one are:
* You can only have 1 instance of that datasheet in your army.
* They can't take relics.
* Sometimes they can't take warlord traits.
If you feel like named characters are too powerful or render their generic counterparts useless (i.e. a named librarian is always taken over a generic librarian), then what you really have a problem with is that a specific datasheet is too powerful or designed in a way that encroaches on another datasheet's niche. Neither of which is a problem unique to named characters.
(A more substantial argument against named characters is that it can be awkward for them to show up in your battles all the time, especially when they aren't especially long-lived. But at that point you're kind of just complaining about your opponent's taste in fluff.)
Baharroth was my first model, but I've yet to hear anyone accuse him of being "uber powerful" since I started playing in 5th.
Over the last few editions, my swooping hawks' lasblasters have gone from S3 Assault 3 to S3 Assault 4 to now being S4 Assault 4 and also auto-wounding on to-hit rolls of 6 for some reason.
I think this is where the issue lies. We are now rolling so many dice (and re-rolling) compared to previous editions. A Space Marine (Intercessor) can make 3 bolter shots at 24" compared to the 1 that their 7th edition First Born brother had. And the problem is across the board, not just a few select units.
Yep. And I don't see what's keeping us from rolling back changes like that other than the momentum of the power creep. (Which again, would be easy to reverse as part of an edition change.)
Game needs to be spread across 5 turns as much as possible, it shouldn't be a rush trying to annihilate the opponent as soon as possible (aka top of 2 or 3).
About named characters, it's more a design issue that a balance one. I also don't like named characters and wish they were much more restricted than they currently are, just like any massive centerpiece model, but that has nothing to do with limiting power creep.
Yes because the 27 slightly different special rules we have now for terrain just aren't enough to accurately portray half destroyed buildings...
The variable rules for terrain are basically:
+1 to save vs ranged
+1 to save vs ranged AND melee
Cannot-Be-Shot
Cannot-Be-Placed
Not-Actually-Protective.
There are a fuckton of words involved with all that (mostly because of GW's bizarre fascination with TLS), but that's basically what it boils down to. Not very interesting, engaging, or honestly effective.
I think that "better and more varied" refers to terrain features & rules which are actually... well.. a factor. As it stands the only terrain you give a feth about is the massive block of LoS blocking.
I'm of the opinion that terrain should be designed to be basically the most important thing on the battlefield. A unit should, once dug in, be quite difficult to kill with head-on gunfire. Leaving the primary solutions to such situations being flanking, melee, or specialized weapons (flamers) to remove them. A redesign which gives focus to thinks like flanking, and makes terrain more important and engaging than simply +1 sv would be more than welcome.
Unfortunately this would require a substantial rework of 40k itself, or at least a complete overhaul of how moral works. Making moral effect how a unit functions (suppression, movement, performance, ect) and be effected by more than just casualties would be great. 40ks biggest problem (imo) is that the only way to "interact" with enemy units is via killing them (with the exception of some psychic powers).
Exactly the sentiment, exalted.
About named characters, it was only one example. Flyers may be another, super big and heavy units another, yada... And, as an example of a named character that I think might require some forewarning, Mortarian, others... I can't count how many times I have seen/heard of Mortarian for example just decimating the opponent's forces and taking way too much attention from the rest of the field and units. I suppose that this is the idea, but doesn't seem so fun play against (more than once) or challenging to employ.
Personally, I am less concerned with winning/losing and more with story, as in why the feth is Mortarian here at all? Why is he everywhere, everytime? That sort of complaint is my complaint, for the most part... Not sure what this has to do with 3rd edition, but yeah, I did enjoy those earlier editions a lot more than current (since the tragic disappointment, for me, that was 8th) even though I won a lot less then and played a lot more...
Ordana wrote: Because a game decided by turn 2 because everyone is powered up to the moon is not a fun game?
I want a game that is fun for the full 5 turns, with jocking for advantages and swings in who is ahead. Not play a game where a 2k army removed 1500 points of the opponent in the first turn and we can pack up and go home after the first shooting phase.
This really.
Faction balance is an intellectual concern. Its annoying that certain factions are clearly underpointed for their abilities compared with others.
But for the game as a whole, I think the biggest issue is that every faction is becoming "Codex: Glasshammer". The game is far too lethal - and consequently things are all too often decided far too early on. The only way to avoid this is to cover the board in convenient L-shaped ruins that allow you to deploy out of LOS and stay there for a while if you want to. Which you can argue is "skill" - but really its just a crutch.
And unfortunately I don't see any evidence that GW think this is an issue.
Yeah. When you have the increase in power / lethality, plus the decreased board size (I *know* it's a minimum recommendation only, but seems I'm very much in the minority there), plus IGOUGO; you have a recipe for ending up with just getting your models out, tossing a coin and saying 'Yay, I go first, I win'.
Some of the best games I've had have involved a massive table (prob 8' x 4') and deploying on the short edges, so we had multiple turns of maneuvering before actually getting into combat range.
A well-balanced Codex should probably always start with maybe a 45ish% win-rate in the first few weeks and slowly rise up to that magical 50% as people get practice, reps and refine their lists.
Sunny Side Up wrote: A well-balanced Codex should probably always start with maybe a 45ish% win-rate in the first few weeks and slowly rise up to that magical 50% as people get practice, reps and refine their lists.
I think it's the opposite. A faction with a new codex should start very strong since the opponents know very little about it and haven't adapted their lists to the new meta yet. After a while that faction's WR should start dropping.
Some of the best games I've had have involved a massive table (prob 8' x 4') and deploying on the short edges, so we had multiple turns of maneuvering before actually getting into combat range.
If you halve all the ranges you might get the same results without involving massive tables.
jeff white wrote: Imho, for me to be interested in learning a new edition of 40k, and anything more about this one including new codices yada, the game needs to return to roots. Lower models counts that are generally less Uber powerful E.g. no named characters unless by prior arrangement for some special scenario, larger tables with more realistic terrain and battlefield dynamics, rid of the card based whombo combo stackable power ups, and generally moar war less CCG with expensive plastic tokens.
Power up down whatever is mere band aid on the metastatic tumor one symptom of which is codex creep, another scale creep, another lethality creep, range creep, movement creep, and so on… trouble is marketing encroachment on game design, mba creeps imho.
About named characters, it was only one example. Flyers may be another, super big and heavy units another, yada... And, as an example of a named character that I think might require some forewarning, Mortarian, others... I can't count how many times I have seen/heard of Mortarian for example just decimating the opponent's forces and taking way too much attention from the rest of the field and units. I suppose that this is the idea, but doesn't seem so fun play against (more than once) or challenging to employ.
Personally, I am less concerned with winning/losing and more with story, as in why the feth is Mortarian here at all? Why is he everywhere, everytime? That sort of complaint is my complaint, for the most part... Not sure what this has to do with 3rd edition, but yeah, I did enjoy those earlier editions a lot more than current (since the tragic disappointment, for me, that was 8th) even though I won a lot less then and played a lot more...
Flyers got nerfed and are now basically non-existent.
Super big (i'm guessing you mean land raiders, 'nauts?) units arent an issue
If you meant Lord of War then theyre already basically unplayable in this edition (paying CP and losing faction trait is just way too much)
Mortarion, stormsurge (and knights, which are designed to ignore all the LoW nerfs are the only ones that are kinda playable) and mortarion is far from tanky enough to do its job anymore.
I just don't understand how you seem to be stuck in the old editions of 40k where these models (named/LoW) were opt-in when they've been part of the game for a while now and havnt broke anything.
Why should i be penalised for bringing Haarken worldclaimer because you think named characters are OP, same with bringing a spartan or zarakynel
Automatically Appended Next Post:
The_Real_Chris wrote: It is getting really silly. 8th got me back in, 9th has convinced me to stop and play other stuff.
i've been playing more and more OnePageRules, even showing it to people at my LGS in an attempt to give them an alternative. So far, everyone i've shown it to felt it was a breath of fresh air and made the game actually tactical without exhausting you mentally with all the memorization
Lord Damocles wrote: The solution can't be to always be trying to cut points costs and/or stack even more rules on top of the pile.
The foundations need completely rebuilding.
This, tbh.
I would like to see the game power down overall but I don't think it's anywhere near as simple as some minor nerfs or point increases in newer books.
The core problems are far more fundamental and any solutions that don't address them are no better than slapping bandaids onto a collapsing building.
The core rules themselves are so completely anaemic that almost everything has to be outsourced to bespoke Codex rules or, God help us, Stratagems. The hilarious thing is that, despite every unit having half a page of "unique" rules, everything feels more samey than ever before. 'Oh boy, another rule with a unique name, I do hope it will let me reroll 1s or inflict Mortal Wounds!'
Also, Marines need to lose the extra wound. Sorry but it needs to happen. That or their cost needs to literally double. Anything else and we'll find ourselves right back in the present situation, where anti-infantry weapons are being given extra damage to compensate for the fact that the most common infantry in the game have had their durability doubled, which in turn means we need yet more bandaids (usually in the form of -1D) to compensate for the face that these weapons also became more effective against heavier infantry, bikes, monsters, vehicles etc.
And this is before we even get to the codex release schedule, which leads to constant creep in one or other direction as previous design stipulations (if they ever existed at all) are ignored or forgotten when writing newer books. Or the joys of writers trying to adapt books based on metas that will have changed several times before said books ever see the light of day. And this is without even getting into issues with favouritism, with some codices clearly being written by enthusiastic writers and others getting only the bare minimum of effort.
Oh, regarding named characters, I think the issue lies less with their respective power levels and more with how much they end up both dominating stories and also swallowing up all the neat rules and wargear (much of which has vanished from their generic counterparts). Though my favourite solution would be to make all special characters specific wargear/relic/warlord trait combinations for generic characters.
So 5 termintors would cost 400pts and 5 dudes in the nude would cost around 200pts. With no upgrades. At the same time something like the harli skimmer would clock around 100pts?
And the 1W 20+pts meq experiment was already tried in 8th and a big chunk of 9th. It does not work. I don't even know from where the need to nerf marines comes from. They aren't the best army, a lot of them aren't even middle of the pack. And I don't even know how this would balance something like csm, who right now are just attrocious game play wise.
Codices are normally powered up.
And occasionally it appears that older codices like that of Necrons are powered up as well to adapt to the newest power level.
So powering up older codexes seems the way to go unless GW manages to power down newer codexes.
And the 1W 20+pts meq experiment was already tried in 8th and a big chunk of 9th. It does not work.
What.
I didn't say Marines needed to be 20pts *and* 1W - I said Marines needed to be 20+pts *or* 1W.
Karol wrote: I don't even know from where the need to nerf marines comes from. They aren't the best army, a lot of them aren't even middle of the pack. And I don't even know how this would balance something like csm, who right now are just attrocious game play wise.
The intent is not to nerf Marines. The intent is to try and undo a change that completely destabilised 9th edition.
Again, it is terrible design to have a system wherein the majority of anti-infantry weapons are inefficient against the most common infantry type in the entire game.
Karol wrote: And I don't even know how this would balance something like csm, who right now are just attrocious game play wise.
You mean the yet--to-be-updated army that didn't get an extremely cheap extra wound on all their infantry and so is suffering from the effects of all the extra-damage/RoF weapons other armies were given, with none of the Marine perks that made such weapons necessary in the first place? Man, I can't imagine why they could possibly be having difficulties right now.
The intent is not to nerf Marines. The intent is to try and undo a change that completely destabilised 9th edition.
Marines got the buff, because before it, running their infantry made no sense. And marine armies turned, till 2.0 book in 8th, in to 15 scouts, 2 jump pack heroes and ally that weren't marines. Inari, Castellans etc were making stuff enough imbalanced way before marines got a 2ed wound.
No, you'd be looking at closer to 150pts. Bear in mind this would be instead of the measly ~4pts that was added to their cost.
GK dudes cost 20+pts per model. So if they were cost were to double they would cost 200pts for a naked squad of dudes.
I didn't mention Terminators.
Well good for me, as my army is almost 100% termintors, but I have my doubts that GW let 5 strikes cost more then 200 pts and 5 termintors exactly 200pts.
especially if termis would stay with 3W .
I didn't say Marines needed to be 20pts *and* 1W - I said Marines needed to be 20+pts *or* 1W.
GK cost 20+pts per meq, each time regular marines go up in price GK get points hiked too. And they were 1W for 20pts for most of 9th ed, CSM are that still, although their dudes don't cost 20pts. Still aren't played though.
Again, it is terrible design to have a system wherein the majority of anti-infantry weapons are inefficient against the most common infantry type in the entire game.
Why? if basic weapons of other armies, or even all armies easily kill marines, and marines cost more points per model. Then we are back to 8th ed where running marines is worthless, or we are in the situation csm are right now. Specially when the basic weapon of other armies are str 5ap1, shurkians with extra ap and the bolter is str 4 ap 0.
You mean the yet--to-be-updated army that didn't get an extremely cheap extra wound on all their infantry and so is suffering from the effects of all the extra-damage/RoF weapons other armies were given, with none of the Marine perks that made such weapons necessary in the first place? Man, I can't imagine why they could possibly be having difficulties right now.
Marines got an extra wound and it didn't make them blaze to 90% win rates, and they were the first codex out, everyone else was playing with 8th ed rules. CSM are going to have get some crazy extra rules to even reach the 50% win rate the better marine armies have. And I wish they do get good rules.
Honestly I think we are too far gone to try and "power down" stuff.
Just finished up a GT where i felt woefully under-equipped army wise against the meta lists. I played against 2 custard players, and a Crusher stampede. There is little to no scenario I can think of where my entire ork army can play meaningfully against them. Yeah I might kill most of their stuff by the end of turn 3 or 4 but at that point i'm completely dead as well and I haven't scored any mission objectives.
The best weapons I can take in CC for my boyz/meganobz are PKs and Killsaws, against a crusher list they are effectively 1dmg weapons. Against lists like Custodes who bring -1 to hit banners, most of my shooting becomes 6+ to hit, or a 50% reduction in dmg output. Worse, they are both faster and hit harder in CC than my guys as well, and not on a model to model basis but on a point to point basis.
The biggest point at which I felt underpowered was when I was talking to an opponent amicably about the Rukkatrukk nerf (Keep in mind, I don't own any) and I pointed out it was a stupid nerf since they weren't that oppressive to begin with, he countered by saying they were OP as all hell and needed the nerfs they got (22% price increase and limited to 1 squadron per army). I politely pointed to his dreadnought on the table which costs 2x that of the Squigbuggy but is both more durable and puts out more damage against targets than a pair of squigbuggies did. And god help me, lets not even compare them remotely to the Harlies new Voidweavers which make both look terrible by comparison.
So in light of that, if you wanted to "power down" to get to the point where my army has a chance against the current top tier, you are going to have to do a LOT of writing to fix the issues. Custodes, Tau, Harlies, Eldar, Crusher and to a lesser extent Drukhari and still Ad-Mech are all a tier above all the other armies out there right now. The necron "power up" helped a bit for them but I don't think it was enough yet, and as for SoB, Orkz, Deathguard and the other unmentioned 9th edition armies, we desperately need something to put us on even remotely equal terms to those top tier armies right now.
Marines got the buff, because before it, running their infantry made no sense. And marine armies turned, till 2.0 book in 8th, in to 15 scouts, 2 jump pack heroes and ally that weren't marines. Inari, Castellans etc were making stuff enough imbalanced way before marines got a 2ed wound.
I've underlined the important part. The 2.0 book proved that Marines could not only compete with 1W infantry but dominate.
So the idea that this is somehow the only thing holding their army together is demonstrably untrue.
Why? if basic weapons of other armies, or even all armies easily kill marines, and marines cost more points per model.
What are you measuring this against? Which armies' basic weapons were easily killing Marines in 8th?
Karol wrote: Specially when the basic weapon of other armies are str 5ap1, shurkians with extra ap and the bolter is str 4 ap 0.
You appear to have missed my entire point. The whole reason that basic weapons are now getting AP-1 and other such buffs as standard is precisely because Marines got such an absurd boost in durability.
If Marines go back down to 1W, we can also reduce Shuriken weapons (and other such weapons) back to AP0, as well as lowering damage on Heavy Bolters and the like back down to 1. This is literally what I've been arguing for.
Marines got an extra wound and it didn't make them blaze to 90% win rates.
Cool. Want to point me to where I said it did?
Literally the first sentence you quoted in your post was me saying that this change wasn't about nerfing Marines but about the fact that it had thrown so many weapons out of whack, and the attempts at compensation (extra AP, damage etc.) have only caused things to spiral further and further out of control.
You appear to have missed my entire point. The whole reason that basic weapons are now getting AP-1 and other such buffs as standard is precisely because Marines got such an absurd boost in durability.
Which means this is a loop, because marines got the 2W, because without them in prior edition they were not something marines player had to or wanted to run in their armies. And I would also like to point out that the "absurd" boost to durability still ment that only WS, and Salamanders for a very short time, made it to the top of the meta. Early 9th was ruled by Custodes and Harlequins. Even orks were doing suprisingly good, all things considered. And as soon as the non marines factions started to get their books, marines too a huge nose dive in power. There was no balancing of power to marines. SoB, DE, Ad Mecha, Orks, were all much better then marine armies. In some cases including post nerfs.
I've underlined the important part. The 2.0 book proved that Marines could not only compete with 1W infantry but dominate.
Only 2.0 lists were build around stuff like legions of intercessors, chaplain dreads, bouncing wounds to other stuff, primaris tanks, centurions etc All those things were multi wound and so good, that the old 15scout+2HQs started to be phased out. The advent of 2.0 books didn't make tacticals or venguard veterns a sudden enticing option.
Ah I also forgot the lists with 9 eliminators, another multi wound marine model. Excusse me for that I am not a marine player.
In 9th stuff like attack bikes or venguard veterans come to prominance directly because of +1W buff, and the over all change to melta rule, Which at the very start of 9th ed seemed powerful.
I take your point but it seems more a little disingenuous to refer to GKs with all their wargear as 'a squad of 5 regular dudes with no upgrades'.
You don't run any upgrades for ranged weapons on GK squads, because they make the units worse then they are with them. And if you somehow think that a 40pts termintor with a stormbolter seems to be a dangerous foe, I would like to point out that 5 of them cost as much as two harli voids.. 5 naked Strikes or the more common spamed interceptors cost more then 1 void. They also fall apart when compared to tau suits or other options of armies that are considered good right now.
What are you measuring this against? Which armies' basic weapons were easily killing Marines in 8th?
You just have to look at what is run by armies that have higher win rates then marines. But even the grunt guns of other armies are better, and those technically shouldn't be killing anything. Yet they are both better and carried by platforms which point for point are cheaper then a marine.
If Marines go back down to 1W, we can also reduce Shuriken weapons (and other such weapons) back to AP0, as well as lowering damage on Heavy Bolters and the like back down to 1. This is literally what I've been arguing for.
no we can't , because w don't own GW. And GW itself would not do it. They could nerf marines with a 10th ed codex, then for months on end other armies would keep their 9th buffed guns, and by the time we are mid in to 10th GW would start buffing stuff up again.
Cool. Want to point me to where I said it did?
your whole argument seems to be based on the idea that it is the buffs to marines that create the faction unbalance. when the marine changes ,of which the 2.0 were reverted with marine books coming out as first in 9th ed, didn't make them substentially better, then even faction that run on 9th ed books . Armies like orks, custodes, harlis. So if that is not the case, then clearly the unbalanc has to come from somewhere else. And I have a feeling that the tau or CWE rule set was not create to counter marine books with their 46-50% win rates, but rather armies like DEs, orks , Ad mecha and each other.
The way I remember it, marines (especially actual power armor marines) were considered pretty meh for most of 8th. Then they got...
* Bolter Discipline
* Shock Assault
* Revised Drop Pod rules
* Doctrines (possibly to discourage soup)
* Extra stratagems from chapter-specific books
* Extra psychic powers from chapter-specific books
* Super doctrines from chapter-specific books
* 2 Wounds (in the 9th edition codex and in an FAQ before that)
So basically, it seemed like GW gave them several layers of buffs in rapid succession to combat their UP status and to make mono-faction marines viable, and then they gave them 2 Wounds on top of that.
Personally, I think the second wound gets a lot of undeserved negativity. I like that my marines won't die to a single lucky las pistol shot. It feels fluff-appropriate and helps the army stand out as notably different most non-marine armies where 1W infantry are the norm. It's good for army identity and variety of playstyle.
So if we want to nerf marines, especially if we want to tone down lethality, we could look to get rid of doctrines and/or super doctrines. We could get rid of bolter discipline or give firstborn 2 Attacks and ditch shock assault. We could overhaul their stratagem list and ditch anything that basically just ups their killing power directly.
We [i[could[/i] get rid of the second wound, but personally I think that's one of the better changes they received. Also, I disagree with those who claim a second wound on marines means that they ought to be 200% the cost to balance them out. The cost of a model includes various considerations including things like offense and mobility. A 2 Wound marine isn't as powerful as multiple 1 Wound marines; he's putting out fewer shots, more susceptible to Damage 2+ weapons, gets outnumbered more easily on objectives, etc. Even if marines are underpaying for their extra wound, it's probably only off by a couple of points.
The extra wound for Marines is ok, the problem is when armies that should be similarly durable (Necrons and CSM) don't get it, it's just more effort given to the faction they already give the most effort to.
The extra wound for Marines is ok, the problem is when armies that should be similarly durable (Necrons and CSM) don't get it, it's just more effort given to the faction they already give the most effort to.
CSM is fair because there should've been some sorta errata, but they ARE getting it.
Necrons are tough...ish. I mean, Immortals are T5 3+ with a 5+++ sorta. For the stats, I'd argue they're pretty good, but Necrons should've always had more durability abilities sure.
The extra wound for Marines is ok, the problem is when armies that should be similarly durable (Necrons and CSM) don't get it, it's just more effort given to the faction they already give the most effort to.
CSM is fair because there should've been some sorta errata, but they ARE getting it.
Necrons are tough...ish. I mean, Immortals are T5 3+ with a 5+++ sorta. For the stats, I'd argue they're pretty good, but Necrons should've always had more durability abilities sure.
The biggest point at which I felt underpowered was when I was talking to an opponent amicably about the Rukkatrukk nerf (Keep in mind, I don't own any) and I pointed out it was a stupid nerf since they weren't that oppressive to begin with, he countered by saying they were OP as all hell and needed the nerfs they got (22% price increase and limited to 1 squadron per army). I politely pointed to his dreadnought on the table which costs 2x that of the Squigbuggy but is both more durable and puts out more damage against targets than a pair of squigbuggies did. And god help me, lets not even compare them remotely to the Harlies new Voidweavers which make both look terrible by comparison.
Yeh that's typical. Own army is never problem. It's always only the other armies that are OP. Reminds me when in AOS side stormcasts got "nerf" with translocation prayer for it to work like others(no teleport and then move) and dragons got nerfed. Stormcast players were all "why does GW hates us. Why always we get screwed. Dragons are useless crap now"...yet they are doing very well in tournaments dominating even. With both dragons and translocation being everywhere.
The extra wound for Marines is ok, the problem is when armies that should be similarly durable (Necrons and CSM) don't get it, it's just more effort given to the faction they already give the most effort to.
CSM is fair because there should've been some sorta errata, but they ARE getting it.
Necrons are tough...ish. I mean, Immortals are T5 3+ with a 5+++ sorta. For the stats, I'd argue they're pretty good, but Necrons should've always had more durability abilities sure.
Then again in practice immortals are now tougher except vs MW's. Thanks to weapon creep 1W and 2W is pretty much identical unless you have -1dam rule
That's mostly a meme born 1 year ago when all armies were tiered against marines.
Currently on the table you really feel the difference between 1W and 2W.
Ask sister players.
The best profile in the game is considered to be S5 -2Ap D1, so having 2 Wounds matters a lot.
yeah, D1 is far from absent on the tabletop.
And i think its fine that marines are harder to kill with small arms.
make marines hard to kill but less efficient when killing stuff. Them having the basic bolter as a standard weapon is fine and fits with how they should be IMO.
I think it's tough because most codexes have good to great damage output. But crusher stampede, T'au, custodes and quins have got significant defence boosts as well and I think that's the big difference.
Pretty much everything can kill stuff well, but most codexes don't have the defensive abilities to survive.
So, either tone down the outlying tougher forces and you get a much quicker and deadlier game or buff up the rest to be able to take more of a punch.
kingheff wrote: I think it's tough because most codexes have good to great damage output. But crusher stampede, T'au, custodes and quins have got significant defence boosts as well and I think that's the big difference.
Pretty much everything can kill stuff well, but most codexes don't have the defensive abilities to survive.
So, either tone down the outlying tougher forces and you get a much quicker and deadlier game or buff up the rest to be able to take more of a punch.
tone down the overall killyness for sure. the fact that tabling DG is that easy is ridiculous for example, remove the tons and tons of extra AP everything gets. Reduce the damage of a few outliers
My main annoyance with powering up is that it produces inconsistent and bloated gameplay.
Everything has AP, so let's give out invulns and damage reduction to increase durability. But it means that now certain weapons (high-AP, primarily) aren't very useful because everything they want to shoot has an invuln, and D2 weapons are great against some units but terrible against others, with no obvious rhyme or reason.
So, too many things have invulns, let's add... weapons that ignore invulns! And mortal wounds! So now your saves that, in concept, are supposed to be the ones you always get actually can now be ignored too, even when it makes no sense (the railgun slug is so lethal it... ignores your dodge save?), and in addition to the normal damaging mechanic there's also this completely separate take-extra-wounds-with-no-saves mechanic, except you can still use FNPs against it...
Units being powerful and tough increasingly does not come from their statlines but from layered special rules. It's a mess, and ratcheting up the damage and durability so that everyone is equally messy is not the ideal solution here.
About named characters, it was only one example. Flyers may be another, super big and heavy units another
Except literally none of those things are the reason we have balance issues in the game. Go to BCP or Goonhammer innovations in 9th and tell me how many flyers or superheavies you see in any top table lists. For a brief time in 7th, flyrant spam was an issue and for a brief time in 9th, ork flyer spam was an issue. Other than that, they haven't been an issue or even worth taking in competitive builds for most armies. A guy took a Reaver Titan as a solo army to a GT and went winless. Yea, look at those superheavies unbalancing the game...
About named characters, it was only one example. Flyers may be another, super big and heavy units another
Except literally none of those things are the reason we have balance issues in the game. Go to BCP or Goonhammer innovations in 9th and tell me how many flyers or superheavies you see in any top table lists. For a brief time in 7th, flyrant spam was an issue and for a brief time in 9th, ork flyer spam was an issue. Other than that, they haven't been an issue or even worth taking in competitive builds for most armies. A guy took a Reaver Titan as a solo army to a GT and went winless. Yea, look at those superheavies unbalancing the game...
Remember all those scary Lords Of War and FW units dominating 7th?
To OP's question: in general design wise you want to buff rather than nerf. It feels far better to have something terrible be made good then it does to have something good be made bad.
OFC there are exceptions for outliers that actually break the game.
catbarf wrote: My main annoyance with powering up is that it produces inconsistent and bloated gameplay.
Everything has AP, so let's give out invulns and damage reduction to increase durability. But it means that now certain weapons (high-AP, primarily) aren't very useful because everything they want to shoot has an invuln, and D2 weapons are great against some units but terrible against others, with no obvious rhyme or reason.
So, too many things have invulns, let's add... weapons that ignore invulns! And mortal wounds! So now your saves that, in concept, are supposed to be the ones you always get actually can now be ignored too, even when it makes no sense (the railgun slug is so lethal it... ignores your dodge save?), and in addition to the normal damaging mechanic there's also this completely separate take-extra-wounds-with-no-saves mechanic, except you can still use FNPs against it...
Units being powerful and tough increasingly does not come from their statlines but from layered special rules. It's a mess, and ratcheting up the damage and durability so that everyone is equally messy is not the ideal solution here.
The nadir of this, for me personally, is the you can only take x amount of damage per phase. This is an extreme measures in the first place, which shows that offence has run past defence so a weird hotfix is needed. Then it turns out T'au, and possibly others, have a way of ignoring even that extreme measure so they can just one shot something that has been designed to not be one shot!
Earth127 wrote: To OP's question: in general design wise you want to buff rather than nerf. It feels far better to have something terrible be made good then it does to have something good be made bad.
OFC there are exceptions for outliers that actually break the game.
Disagree.
If you have 20 different armies in the game, bringing the top down to be balanced vs. the worst army increases the playability and enjoyment of 19 different armies every time you do it with everyone eventually balanced at the power level of the formerly worst army.
If you have 20 different armies in the game, brining the bottom up to be balanced vs. the best army increases the playability of that one army being brought up while simultaneously making thing worse for the other 18.
Spoletta wrote: That's mostly a meme born 1 year ago when all armies were tiered against marines.
Currently on the table you really feel the difference between 1W and 2W.
Ask sister players.
The best profile in the game is considered to be S5 -2Ap D1, so having 2 Wounds matters a lot.
Right now the basic profile of the avarge trooper for a good army is it being a small vehicle or monster with inv, -1D etc. Basic ork was a buggy. basic DE was an amalgam of raider and dudes inside, and then a monster, basic GK is an NDK, basic eldar is a harli skimer etc. something like a str 5 ap 2 gun isn't even that scary considering the basic weapons those carry.
About named characters, it was only one example. Flyers may be another, super big and heavy units another
Except literally none of those things are the reason we have balance issues in the game. Go to BCP or Goonhammer innovations in 9th and tell me how many flyers or superheavies you see in any top table lists. For a brief time in 7th, flyrant spam was an issue and for a brief time in 9th, ork flyer spam was an issue. Other than that, they haven't been an issue or even worth taking in competitive builds for most armies. A guy took a Reaver Titan as a solo army to a GT and went winless. Yea, look at those superheavies unbalancing the game...
Remember all those scary Lords Of War and FW units dominating 7th?
Oh yeah me neither.
I... would be okay with flyers/super heavies not being in 40k. Not because they're currently OP, but because they don't fit the scale very well. Like, you have flyers doing donuts because the battlefield doesn't really fit their speed. Imperial knights tend to create skew lists which, even if not OP, can leave people feeling like they're not playing the game they signed up for. I don't love spending all game fishing for 6s to wound.
Don't get me wrong. Love the models. Would love for them to have a format that they fit well. I'm just not sure 40k is it. (That said, knights and flyers are probably better balanced now than they have been in a long time.)
I... would be okay with flyers/super heavies not being in 40k. Not because they're currently OP, but because they don't fit the scale very well. Like, you have flyers doing donuts because the battlefield doesn't really fit their speed. Imperial knights tend to create skew lists which, even if not OP, can leave people feeling like they're not playing the game they signed up for. I don't love spending all game fishing for 6s to wound.
Wyldhunt wrote: Imperial knights tend to create skew lists which, even if not OP, can leave people feeling like they're not playing the game they signed up for. I don't love spending all game fishing for 6s to wound.
What about non-imperial knights Lord of Wars?
Is a Spartan really too big to fit in the game?
What about Zarakynel, gorkanaut, monolith, stormsurge or a malcador?
In my experience most of the people complaining about uber named characters, flyers, LoWs, etc... don't like that kind of massive models, rather than considering them problematic to handle. Which is fine, visuals has a significant impact on a game based on hand painted miniatures and terrain, and if someone doesn't like how something looks that's a legit opinion. Some people don't like non WYSIWYG models or unpainted miniatures for example and wish they never play against those.
Blackie wrote: In my experience most of the people complaining about uber named characters, flyers, LoWs, etc... don't like that kind of massive models, rather than considering them problematic to handle. Which is fine, visuals has a significant impact on a game based on hand painted miniatures and terrain, and if someone doesn't like how something looks that's a legit opinion. Some people don't like non WYSIWYG models or unpainted miniatures for example and wish they never play against those.
I agree-but the arguments are often couched in words that indicate that those models ARE balance issues, which is generally not true. And when it is true, it's not (to my knowledge) any kind of inherent issue, it's just a datasheet issue, that can be fixed with that datasheet.
IK are inherently skew, for instance, but not more than an IG Tank Company. And named characters are often just plain bad.
Blackie wrote: In my experience most of the people complaining about uber named characters, flyers, LoWs, etc... don't like that kind of massive models, rather than considering them problematic to handle. Which is fine, visuals has a significant impact on a game based on hand painted miniatures and terrain, and if someone doesn't like how something looks that's a legit opinion. Some people don't like non WYSIWYG models or unpainted miniatures for example and wish they never play against those.
All it takes is to remember the Castellan era, to have a high chance to not line big models. Or remember the times when eldar were spaming their undercosted knights. Or when tau riptides were, so good that everyone was taking them. It is not a question of visual, but GW being very bad an balancing such units. I don't think there are players, besides ork ones, who lose sleep over Stompas.
Plus right now one big vehicles wouldn't be that problematic, it is the swarms of light vehicles or medium monsters that make the game unfun for a lot of people. And armies like GK, orks, DE or harlis are great example of that. The basic "ork" trooper shouldn't be a buggy and the basic GK shouldn't be a NDK.
Blackie wrote: In my experience most of the people complaining about uber named characters, flyers, LoWs, etc... don't like that kind of massive models, rather than considering them problematic to handle. Which is fine, visuals has a significant impact on a game based on hand painted miniatures and terrain, and if someone doesn't like how something looks that's a legit opinion. Some people don't like non WYSIWYG models or unpainted miniatures for example and wish they never play against those.
Yeah. Its obviously worse when these things are competitive - but I don't think its unreasonable to say "I just don't enjoy playing this".
For example I've never seen someone play say 3 Monoliths and the Silent King (for probably not surprising reasons). Once might be a laugh. But because its got very few moving parts, its not that interesting to me. Same with triple Stormsurge. Every game is going to be largely the same. So even if it mathematically sucks, its going to get dull fast.
Flyers should probably just have been M20" skimmers and that should be that. Sure it might be a bit weird that a mob of Ork Boyz can just yolo down a jet. But its no more suspension of disbelief breaking than the idea aircraft moving multiple times the speed of sound can buzz around a tiny battlefield. Various people have suggested rules so they can act like a bombing run - but then they aren't on the table. And its a bit pointless having the model.
Special characters don't bother me. I think its a bit lame when you have special characters who are "regular characters+1" and so always taken - but its no different to seeing the same cookie cutter regular character loadouts.
Wyldhunt wrote: Imperial knights tend to create skew lists which, even if not OP, can leave people feeling like they're not playing the game they signed up for. I don't love spending all game fishing for 6s to wound.
What about non-imperial knights Lord of Wars?
Is a Spartan really too big to fit in the game?
What about Zarakynel, gorkanaut, monolith, stormsurge or a malcador?
I'm more familiar with some of those than others. It kind of varies. Most of those are fine, especially if you're just splashing them into a non-skew list. My main misgivings about superheavies are:
A.) Skew. This is mostly a knights and also largely a matter of 40k being unclear about what scope of battle it's trying to represent. I generally assume that we're about to have some squads of dudez duking it out. If I've brought striking scorpions or wracks to a pick up game, they don't really get to participate meaningfully in the core engagement (units fighting). Sure, they can score objectives, but that's a lot less satisfying than having them trade blows with enemies that they can hurt without fishing for 6s.
B.) It's tricky to balance a unit that has so many eggs in one basket. If one unit costs ~400 points, then you need it to perform. That generally means that you have to make them very killy and durable enough to not get removed at the top of 1. And in giving a unit firepower and durability outside the scope of more conventional units, it's easy to make them either so good that they become a huge pain, or so bad that it's hard to justify including them and then they rarely see use. And when such units are good enough to be a meta pick, it means that I have to start ignoring big chunks of my army collection, often not fielding some of the units I really enjoy, because I have to squeeze in a disproportionate amount of anti-tank units. Compare this to when something like eradicators were the new hotness. Sure, they're still scary, but at least all the units in my army can meaningfully interact with them.
Tyel wrote:
Blackie wrote: In my experience most of the people complaining about uber named characters, flyers, LoWs, etc... don't like that kind of massive models, rather than considering them problematic to handle. Which is fine, visuals has a significant impact on a game based on hand painted miniatures and terrain, and if someone doesn't like how something looks that's a legit opinion. Some people don't like non WYSIWYG models or unpainted miniatures for example and wish they never play against those.
Yeah. Its obviously worse when these things are competitive - but I don't think its unreasonable to say "I just don't enjoy playing this".
For example I've never seen someone play say 3 Monoliths and the Silent King (for probably not surprising reasons). Once might be a laugh. But because its got very few moving parts, its not that interesting to me. Same with triple Stormsurge. Every game is going to be largely the same. So even if it mathematically sucks, its going to get dull fast.
All of that, plus see above about some big models making certain portions of my army or codex feel left out.
Flyers should probably just have been M20" skimmers and that should be that. Sure it might be a bit weird that a mob of Ork Boyz can just yolo down a jet. But its no more suspension of disbelief breaking than the idea aircraft moving multiple times the speed of sound can buzz around a tiny battlefield. Various people have suggested rules so they can act like a bombing run - but then they aren't on the table. And its a bit pointless having the model.
Yes. Exactly. Flyers are cool models, and I don't think they're a balance problem right now. But they're also just too fast-moving to feel properly represented by a model on the table. They'd make more sense if you were playing on a massive table. I've seen them used in such games, and they're fine in that context. It's just really awkward having them do donuts and/or spend half the game off the table because of their size and speed. I feel like some sort of cross between Titanicus and Aeronautica could be awesome, but those also field much smaller models... Death From the Skies (or whatever it was called) was kind of an attempt at handling this. The flyers had to keep leaving the table to make sense, so they tried to add a dogfight subsystem that you did in a separate play space. But obviously that didn't really take off (pun intended).
Special characters don't bother me. I think its a bit lame when you have special characters who are "regular characters+1" and so always taken - but its no different to seeing the same cookie cutter regular character loadouts.
Agree with this. Love phoenix lords because there's not a unit that really behaves like them. Not as fond of Eldrad because he's basically a foot farseer but better. Fabius is cool because he changes the way your army works (or at least he used to; not sure how his faction's new rules work). Ahriman is less of a good design choice (even though I love his rules, fluff, and model) because he's mostly just an Exalted Sorcerer+. Basically, any datasheet should have a niche. If a unit is always taken over another, similar option, then that unit has probably failed to find its niche regardless of whether or it happens to be a named character.
Yeah all that about balance and needing special lists or builds to compete against super heavy units, sure, not really my concern. I guess trying to beat a big tank in an armor heavy army can be fun if I have forewarning to prep and a proper agreement about scenario and so on but for me the game is just supposed to be about squads of dudes for the most part, on pretty big tables, with relatively limited ranges and damage output, and sure, some things on the table that they just cannot hurt, like my guardians should not be able to hurt a tank unless they get close with a bomb or mine or behind to rear armor or both. Flyers suck imho because they are just not the sort of thing that should be there, at least more than one turn, or skipping turns as they turn around and return to straffe infantry or drop a bomb or yada.., I suppose thematically can be fun especially with an objective such as secure the AA bunker to be able to hose that flyer but this is not how those units get implemented. Named characters I feel similarly, that they just do not belong there. I like my dude to be wysiwyg and appropriate to the context of engagement. So again, thematically can be fun to send an assassin to try to get eldrad when he is put with a relatively small force perhaps to retrieve a relic or yada but again, this is not how these special characters are used. Rather, some cat collects Mortarian and some other blokes with some tacky units and that is the game, trying to beat this Demi god and his buddies. Once, twice, ok, interesting. Three times, why is he here? Just makes no sense to me on the scale that I feel the game represents, mostly skirmish multi squad level with some mostly light support, walkers, skimmers, yada… and the occasional land raider and predator variant and so on.
I get it, harlequin rules are madness and skimmy bikes with killer clowns are deadly and they should be, ok… imho they should also be relatively rare, should not constitute their own faction, should be support for craft world or exodite forces, maybe dark eldar, but at the same time I do not think that eldar and dark eldar should ever ally, ever, at all, as in eldar would rather team up with orks, but that is just me.
While in general i think that the core rules are on the whole solid, if not exactly imaginative, there are a few things that have been changed since 3rd edition that have had a massive impact on the pace of the game. Increases in movement values, increased lethality of weapons (due in most part to the S/T interactions, but also number of shots) and the general lack of a lot of variety in how weapon types interact. Stratagems are a really late, in the scheme of things, addition that was pretty interesting originally, but has reached ludicrous levels of late.
Personally i would be inclined to power down all the factions, possibly to 50% of where they are now, and reign in the crazy speeds some units go.
If I was to change the core rules, I would start with having a very clear delineation between the weapon types, I think the original 3rd edition categories would be a good place to start, which in general covering the 4 main categories we now have were:
Rapid fire:
If stationary: 2 shots at half range, 1 shot at max range
If moved; 1 shot at half range
No assaulting after shooting rapid fire weapons
Cannot shoot while in close combat
Assault weapons
always Max shots at max range
Can assault after shooting
Cannot shoot while in close combat
Pistols
always Max shots at max range
Can shoot while in close combat
Can assault after shooting
Heavy weapons
Move or fire (unless vehicle mounted)
No assaulting after shooting (unless vehicle mounted)
Cannot shoot while in close combat (unless vehicle mounted)
no shooting, EVER, if you advance
no assaulting, EVER, if you advance
With the current rules, there are no real differences between the weapon types, and certainly no differences that special abilities, stratagems, chapter tactics and the like don't make meaningless. 3rd edition, for all its faults, gave you many decisions to make with how you moved your units, and how you equipped them, now a lot of things just feel homogenous.
I'm of the opinion that terrain should be designed to be basically the most important thing on the battlefield. A unit should, once dug in, be quite difficult to kill with head-on gunfire. Leaving the primary solutions to such situations being flanking, melee, or specialized weapons (flamers) to remove them. A redesign which gives focus to thinks like flanking, and makes terrain more important and engaging than simply +1 sv would be more than welcome.
Unfortunately this would require a substantial rework of 40k itself, or at least a complete overhaul of how moral works. Making moral effect how a unit functions (suppression, movement, performance, ect) and be effected by more than just casualties would be great. 40ks biggest problem (imo) is that the only way to "interact" with enemy units is via killing them (with the exception of some psychic powers).
Excellent distillation of the terrain rules. I think 9e terrain rules are better than the last couple editions but they don't matter much from a battlefield perspective outside of LOS blocking.
Completely agree that making terrain matter would make the game much more fun as well. A unit dug into terrain that can only be dislodged by flanking (or suicide charge) would add a fun dimension to the game. It would require taking the killy-parts of the game and dialing it down to a 3 instead of 11, otherwise units will never survive long enough to flank. Overwatch being a supression mechanic to make Charges harder would also be a fun mechanic involving morale.
What GW should do is increase the AP of all weapons except autoguns, lasguns and grot blastas by an additional -2 (so AP 0 becomes AP -2).
Then give every faction bespoke rules (with crazy names that barely describe the rule and written 3 different ways across the codices even though it does the same thing each time) that reduce the AP of all attacks by 3 (so an AP -1/-2/-3 weapons is reduced to AP 0). Win-win-win.
Almost everything gets better AP on their weapons (buff). Everyone gets better Saves (buff). And most importantly, CSM, IG and Orks are nerfed relative to the other factions (something GW is insistent to do at all times).
So, when do I start working for GW's rules designer department?
GW are very much in the policy of powering down. Just look at how they neutered Ad-Mech. They went from being meta dominant to roughly Sister power level.
DE they tried to nerf and they did. The problem is they also buffed "unused units" they weren't unused because they were bad, it's just that everything else was better. Which lead to thick city.
We'll most likely see GW nerf Custodes and Tau sometime around the next balance dataslate. It just sadly means we're likely forced to put up with these 2 factions for another 2 months.
The extra wound for Marines is ok, the problem is when armies that should be similarly durable (Necrons and CSM) don't get it, it's just more effort given to the faction they already give the most effort to.
CSM is fair because there should've been some sorta errata, but they ARE getting it.
Necrons are tough...ish. I mean, Immortals are T5 3+ with a 5+++ sorta. For the stats, I'd argue they're pretty good, but Necrons should've always had more durability abilities sure.
In my mind the basic Necron warrior should be about as tough as an Astartes. That's how it used to be, and it made them scary.
I get it, harlequin rules are madness and skimmy bikes with killer clowns are deadly and they should be, ok… imho they should also be relatively rare, should not constitute their own faction, should be support for craft world or exodite forces, maybe dark eldar, but at the same time I do not think that eldar and dark eldar should ever ally, ever, at all, as in eldar would rather team up with orks, but that is just me.
They simply should have never been a standalone army. 8 datasheets including 4 characters? I'd like to see them as standard units from the aeldari codex with harsh limitations on their numbers. Something like "for every two aeldari troops a player can then add an harlequin troupe", for "every fast attack/heavy support aeldari unit a player can then add a unit of harlequin bikes/voidweavers", "for every harlequin troupe, bike unit, voidweaver a player can add an harlequin character". Or just flat 0-1 on each harlequin unit except troupes and their transports which both would be capped at 0-3.
There's nothing wrong with Harlequins being their own army. They just need an extra troop choice or another Elite/Fast Attack squad to fill out the roster.
EviscerationPlague wrote: ...They just need an extra troop choice or another Elite/Fast Attack squad to fill out the roster.
And therein lies the problem, I think. If GW is unwilling/unable to add more choices to the Harlequin list to give it a reasonably complete roster, then leaving it as a separate 'dex would seem to be the worst of both worlds (neither able to fill in the gaps with regular Eldar units nor able to flourish on their own due to neglect/apathy).
EviscerationPlague wrote: ...They just need an extra troop choice or another Elite/Fast Attack squad to fill out the roster.
And therein lies the problem, I think. If GW is unwilling/unable to add more choices to the Harlequin list to give it a reasonably complete roster, then leaving it as a separate 'dex would seem to be the worst of both worlds (neither able to fill in the gaps with regular Eldar units nor able to flourish on their own due to neglect/apathy).
I mean, Custodes manages fine with about the same amount of choices if FW isn't included.
Honestly, the balance is so shot right now they need BOTH.
Sisters of battle were mid-tier at best but got FOUR major nerfs in just February.
Harlequins, Tau, and Custodes are rocking 70-80% winrates when not playing each other.
Fixing one of those issues has 0 impact on the other.
To start with EVERY nerf from CA2022 needs to be reverted. ALL of them, even Drukhari. Then, they need to compensate armies who were hit by the subfaction changes and the remain stationary ruling.
Then Tau, Custodes, and Harlequins should have a flat 30% increase applied across the entire army. All wargear, all units.
From there, we can start to actually look at balance.
Right now, we're living in a world where 1 CP to shoot 4 melta shots out of deepstrike (deadly descent) was considered "Too Overpowered" and had to be removed, but a Tau suit-mander can drop basically for free with enough firepower to wipe out 150% of it's point value guaranteed, while also being extremely difficult to kill.
How do you marry those to design philosphies together? How does the same person look at deepstriking melta Seraphim and Tau Suitmander drops side by side and go 'oh yeah, we can't let that tissue paper unit actually shoot their guns, that would be OP! The Tau thing is fine tho..."
I get it, harlequin rules are madness and skimmy bikes with killer clowns are deadly and they should be, ok… imho they should also be relatively rare, should not constitute their own faction, should be support for craft world or exodite forces, maybe dark eldar, but at the same time I do not think that eldar and dark eldar should ever ally, ever, at all, as in eldar would rather team up with orks, but that is just me.
They simply should have never been a standalone army. 8 datasheets including 4 characters? I'd like to see them as standard units from the aeldari codex with harsh limitations on their numbers.
Spoiler:
Something like "for every two aeldari troops a player can then add an harlequin troupe", for "every fast attack/heavy support aeldari unit a player can then add a unit of harlequin bikes/voidweavers", "for every harlequin troupe, bike unit, voidweaver a player can add an harlequin character". Or just flat 0-1 on each harlequin unit except troupes and their transports which both would be capped at 0-3.
I'm of the opinion that terrain should be designed to be basically the most important thing on the battlefield. A unit should, once dug in, be quite difficult to kill with head-on gunfire. Leaving the primary solutions to such situations being flanking, melee, or specialized weapons (flamers) to remove them. A redesign which gives focus to thinks like flanking, and makes terrain more important and engaging than simply +1 sv would be more than welcome.
Unfortunately this would require a substantial rework of 40k itself, or at least a complete overhaul of how moral works. Making moral effect how a unit functions (suppression, movement, performance, ect) and be effected by more than just casualties would be great. 40ks biggest problem (imo) is that the only way to "interact" with enemy units is via killing them (with the exception of some psychic powers).
Excellent distillation of the terrain rules. I think 9e terrain rules are better than the last couple editions but they don't matter much from a battlefield perspective outside of LOS blocking.
Completely agree that making terrain matter would make the game much more fun as well. A unit dug into terrain that can only be dislodged by flanking (or suicide charge) would add a fun dimension to the game. It would require taking the killy-parts of the game and dialing it down to a 3 instead of 11, otherwise units will never survive long enough to flank. Overwatch being a supression mechanic to make Charges harder would also be a fun mechanic involving morale.
EviscerationPlague wrote: ...They just need an extra troop choice or another Elite/Fast Attack squad to fill out the roster.
And therein lies the problem, I think. If GW is unwilling/unable to add more choices to the Harlequin list to give it a reasonably complete roster, then leaving it as a separate 'dex would seem to be the worst of both worlds (neither able to fill in the gaps with regular Eldar units nor able to flourish on their own due to neglect/apathy).
I mean, Custodes manages fine with about the same amount of choices if FW isn't included.
True, they are doing fine now, but I'd wonder how much of that is a combination of a new(er?) codex and the current metagame favoring dead 'ard Infantry (which is exactly the Custodes schtick). I haven't followed them too closely, but I recall some periods where they were pretty limp due to the winds of meta blowing against them. Also, Custodes're kinda one-trick-ponies in that regard, which leaves them akin to Harlies - if the game favors what they do, they do well; if the game is against them, their lack of other options cripples them.
EviscerationPlague wrote: There's nothing wrong with Harlequins being their own army. They just need an extra troop choice or another Elite/Fast Attack squad to fill out the roster.
I love my harlies, and I think they're probably doing fine as of the latest book. That said, I've kiiiind of come around to wishing harlequins were more of a rare "special" thing. Like, I almost wish harlequin characters were kind of assassin-y in their ability to run around the battlefield using colorful stratagems to do their jobs with troupes being few in number and harder to kill. Making them a full army means you have to make those troupes reasonably killable, but they sort of lose some of their mystique when they're leaving piles of corpses behind.
That said, I'm pretty okay with where they are at the moment.
I get it, harlequin rules are madness and skimmy bikes with killer clowns are deadly and they should be, ok… imho they should also be relatively rare, should not constitute their own faction, should be support for craft world or exodite forces, maybe dark eldar, but at the same time I do not think that eldar and dark eldar should ever ally, ever, at all, as in eldar would rather team up with orks, but that is just me.
They simply should have never been a standalone army. 8 datasheets including 4 characters? I'd like to see them as standard units from the aeldari codex with harsh limitations on their numbers. Something like "for every two aeldari troops a player can then add an harlequin troupe", for "every fast attack/heavy support aeldari unit a player can then add a unit of harlequin bikes/voidweavers", "for every harlequin troupe, bike unit, voidweaver a player can add an harlequin character". Or just flat 0-1 on each harlequin unit except troupes and their transports which both would be capped at 0-3.
Only if the same happens to everyone's Space Marines.
They're fine for the scale that 40k takes place at. You can take your hatred that one of the armies I play is a faction at all and shove it. They've been around longer than Craftworld Eldar. And they had more units back then, even, so let's get those.
Space marines have something like 200 datasheets, so I don't understand what you mean.
Maybe you meant Imperial Knights, and if that was the case I'd completely agree, they simply should be a standard LoW for 1-2 factions instead of being a standalone army.
Blackie wrote: Space marines have something like 200 datasheets, so I don't understand what you mean.
Maybe you meant Imperial Knights, and if that was the case I'd completely agree, they simply should be a standard LoW for 1-2 factions instead of being a standalone army.
No, I mean because they're supposed to be similarly rare and elite in the setting.
How do you marry those to design philosphies together? How does the same person look at deepstriking melta Seraphim and Tau Suitmander drops side by side and go 'oh yeah, we can't let that tissue paper unit actually shoot their guns, that would be OP! The Tau thing is fine tho..."
Maybe it is sales related. If SoB sell more models, and there has to be clearly something about the faction considering people were playing it when it was all metal models or all recasts, then tau . Then GW has to do more to keep the tau rules good for longer. They have have to put more effort to sell what ever the number of tau sales units GWHQ has planned for. On the other hand with something like sm , or maybe even csm, you don't really have to work that much. It doesn't really matter if they have good or bad rules, because they seem to have buyer pools big enough for sales to reach acceptable numbers. Over lay this with the possibility that the studio may just like playing with some armies better then others, and you get stuff we get now.
It is that or they really do expect everyone to have multiple armies for multiple factions of thousands of points bought, and when one army is unfun to play with, you are suppose to jump to another one. Kind of a what the tournament players do. Which can have influance on army design , because those top tournament players are the playtesters for the game. For tournaments having 4-5 armies countering each other ain't bad at all. It is bad for jimmy, the csm player, who gets skipped with good army rules for multiple editions.
Blackie wrote: Space marines have something like 200 datasheets, so I don't understand what you mean.
Maybe you meant Imperial Knights, and if that was the case I'd completely agree, they simply should be a standard LoW for 1-2 factions instead of being a standalone army.
No, I mean because they're supposed to be similarly rare and elite in the setting.
SM have always been a standalone army and part of 40k since day 1 though. Unlike harlequins, which missed at least a decade of 40k and were just dark eldar units for a few other years. Now they don't have their own codex and they're not a standalone army anymore, so making them rare like their lore suggests and not easy to spam is not unreasonable.
When they got revamped they simply should have stayed that way, giving them their own codex was a mistake. Scions was another mistake as a standalone army, which I'm glad it has been fixed.
In 8th marine armies had to run the loyal 32, to be even close to being compatitive, and when castellans came out, the marine armies weren't running much marines, besides HQs, and 15 scouts. And marine books are not divided in to two books, because the faction never existed or don't exist right now, alongside respective player bases. they still do. GW just thought it would be a grand idea to make someone buy 2 books instead of 1. There are no mechanical barriers for GW to make a codex SW instead of an add on for the marine codex. And it is not a unique thing to marines either. DE to be played required the Stryfe rules from the campaign books. If anything it shows us that unlike other factions, marines have player bases big enough to support a book being just a few SW or DA units, while other factions have to be bundled up in an event book to be worth printing.
Not really clear why Harlequins couldn't be their own thing. I'd guess without much evidence that they didn't sell well enough - or no one in the studio had sufficient inspiration - to get a second wave like GSC.
Scions had a single kit (I guess you can throw in the Taurox for 2?) and so always felt like quite bit more of a reach.
I'm of the opinion that terrain should be designed to be basically the most important thing on the battlefield. A unit should, once dug in, be quite difficult to kill with head-on gunfire. Leaving the primary solutions to such situations being flanking, melee, or specialized weapons (flamers) to remove them. A redesign which gives focus to thinks like flanking, and makes terrain more important and engaging than simply +1 sv would be more than welcome.
Unfortunately this would require a substantial rework of 40k itself, or at least a complete overhaul of how moral works. Making moral effect how a unit functions (suppression, movement, performance, ect) and be effected by more than just casualties would be great. 40ks biggest problem (imo) is that the only way to "interact" with enemy units is via killing them (with the exception of some psychic powers).
Excellent distillation of the terrain rules. I think 9e terrain rules are better than the last couple editions but they don't matter much from a battlefield perspective outside of LOS blocking.
Completely agree that making terrain matter would make the game much more fun as well. A unit dug into terrain that can only be dislodged by flanking (or suicide charge) would add a fun dimension to the game. It would require taking the killy-parts of the game and dialing it down to a 3 instead of 11, otherwise units will never survive long enough to flank. Overwatch being a supression mechanic to make Charges harder would also be a fun mechanic involving morale.
You are literally playing the wrong game. That stuff you are describing is how a wargame works. GW has made a number of design and style decisions that means 40k gets tactics from list building, aura's, stratagems and combo's. That could change massively next edition, but why would it? And GW designers do understand that stuff - look at Epic A where the best way to clear, say a town occupied with a company of guardsmen is to encircle, shoot and then assault. They lose the assault and have to vacate the terrain or be cut down. 40k has changed massively from that and GW seems to be doing very well out of those decisions.
Tyel wrote: Not really clear why Harlequins couldn't be their own thing. I'd guess without much evidence that they didn't sell well enough - or no one in the studio had sufficient inspiration - to get a second wave like GSC.
Scions had a single kit (I guess you can throw in the Taurox for 2?) and so always felt like quite bit more of a reach.
cleary if GW had the numbers ,and they have them, that would point out at harlis having awesome sales, maybe even equaling the sales of CWE they would have been given a separate book. GK got a book just by inertion of having ones in the past. And I don't think pre new codex anyone seen GK stuff buying bought, unless they played GK themselfs.
You think TOs don't have armies they don't like or don't like, or people they know or like who play or don't play specific armies? You leave people make the decisions and it always ends bad.
Plus the way it was printed only is good for people who got a good initial army or at least the units they like are good in the book. I have my doubts a Necron player would like to revert his army to pre FAQ state or that a 1ksons player wouldn't want some substential changes to his.
Karol wrote: You think TOs don't have armies they don't like or don't like, or people they know or like who play or don't play specific armies? You leave people make the decisions and it always ends bad.
Plus the way it was printed only is good for people who got a good initial army or at least the units they like are good in the book. I have my doubts a Necron player would like to revert his army to pre FAQ state or that a 1ksons player wouldn't want some substential changes to his.
FAQless thousand sons are more fun to play than current ones
Tittliewinks22 wrote: They should not buff or nerf anything. Leave it up to the TO scene to ban/restrict options.
Would be nice in a casual setting if the $50 book I buy worked the way it was printed.
You would rather have something remain broken for several years just because you want the book to stay valid? Maybe I'm crazy but to me the solution is to stop tying rules to an outdated model that's slow to update and just make them digital.
Tittliewinks22 wrote: They should not buff or nerf anything. Leave it up to the TO scene to ban/restrict options.
Would be nice in a casual setting if the $50 book I buy worked the way it was printed.
I wish you good luck having a fun casual game playing Tau vs original Necrons.
See, they're imagining the 10th+ game they play against a friend who feels bad whenever they stomp you too badly. This is well after they started bringing weaker and weaker lists desperately trying to stoop down to where your army is before finally just secretly playing 1500pt and SAYING it's 2000 to make it somewhat even.
Once it gets to that point, I imagine it's a lot of fun. For you. Not as much for your opponent but w/e.
Karol wrote: You think TOs don't have armies they don't like or don't like, or people they know or like who play or don't play specific armies? You leave people make the decisions and it always ends bad.
Plus the way it was printed only is good for people who got a good initial army or at least the units they like are good in the book. I have my doubts a Necron player would like to revert his army to pre FAQ state or that a 1ksons player wouldn't want some substential changes to his.
FAQless thousand sons are more fun to play than current ones
FAQless sisters are a full tier better than current.
I added a poll in hopes of getting people to focus on how GW is trying to balance the game. GW mostly power down units which impacts the meta greatly. They buff Necrons recently which created another option for balancing the game, which is boasting the power of other armies via lowering point cost. Which do you think will make the community happier?
CKO wrote: I added a poll in hopes of getting people to focus on how GW is trying to balance the game. GW mostly power down units which impacts the meta greatly. They buff Necrons recently which created another option for balancing the game, which is boasting the power of other armies. Which do you think will make the community happier?
Your poll is an either/or but they need to do both. They need to meet in the middle rather than nerfing everyone to the power level of IG or buffing everyone to the power level of Harlequins.
CKO wrote: I added a poll in hopes of getting people to focus on how GW is trying to balance the game. GW mostly power down units which impacts the meta greatly. They buff Necrons recently which created another option for balancing the game, which is boasting the power of other armies. Which do you think will make the community happier?
Your poll is an either/or but they need to do both. They need to meet in the middle rather than nerfing everyone to the power level of IG or buffing everyone to the power level of Harlequins.
I get it, harlequin rules are madness and skimmy bikes with killer clowns are deadly and they should be, ok… imho they should also be relatively rare, should not constitute their own faction, should be support for craft world or exodite forces, maybe dark eldar, but at the same time I do not think that eldar and dark eldar should ever ally, ever, at all, as in eldar would rather team up with orks, but that is just me.
They simply should have never been a standalone army. 8 datasheets including 4 characters? I'd like to see them as standard units from the aeldari codex with harsh limitations on their numbers. Something like "for every two aeldari troops a player can then add an harlequin troupe", for "every fast attack/heavy support aeldari unit a player can then add a unit of harlequin bikes/voidweavers", "for every harlequin troupe, bike unit, voidweaver a player can add an harlequin character". Or just flat 0-1 on each harlequin unit except troupes and their transports which both would be capped at 0-3.
Only if the same happens to everyone's Space Marines.
They're fine for the scale that 40k takes place at. You can take your hatred that one of the armies I play is a faction at all and shove it. They've been around longer than Craftworld Eldar. And they had more units back then, even, so let's get those.
Hatred? Strong language not close to the sentiments motivating the discussion from our end, assuredly.
Projection, much?
And, boy, shove it yourself. Welcome to the ignore pile…
I get it, harlequin rules are madness and skimmy bikes with killer clowns are deadly and they should be, ok… imho they should also be relatively rare, should not constitute their own faction, should be support for craft world or exodite forces, maybe dark eldar, but at the same time I do not think that eldar and dark eldar should ever ally, ever, at all, as in eldar would rather team up with orks, but that is just me.
They simply should have never been a standalone army. 8 datasheets including 4 characters? I'd like to see them as standard units from the aeldari codex with harsh limitations on their numbers. Something like "for every two aeldari troops a player can then add an harlequin troupe", for "every fast attack/heavy support aeldari unit a player can then add a unit of harlequin bikes/voidweavers", "for every harlequin troupe, bike unit, voidweaver a player can add an harlequin character". Or just flat 0-1 on each harlequin unit except troupes and their transports which both would be capped at 0-3.
Only if the same happens to everyone's Space Marines.
They're fine for the scale that 40k takes place at. You can take your hatred that one of the armies I play is a faction at all and shove it. They've been around longer than Craftworld Eldar. And they had more units back then, even, so let's get those.
Hatred? Strong language not close to the sentiments motivating the discussion from our end, assuredly.
Projection, much?
And, boy, shove it yourself. Welcome to the ignore pile…
LOL can't argue points so you throw people on the Ignore list. Super convenient.
Tittliewinks22 wrote: They should not buff or nerf anything. Leave it up to the TO scene to ban/restrict options.
Would be nice in a casual setting if the $50 book I buy worked the way it was printed.
You would rather have something remain broken for several years just because you want the book to stay valid? Maybe I'm crazy but to me the solution is to stop tying rules to an outdated model that's slow to update and just make them digital.
6th and 7th I played Orks and Dark Eldar. The armies were probably the worst through those editions, however I had ALOT more enjoyability even facing down the Eldar / T'au / mega formation armies because the edition itself was more hands-off.
A hands on GW would have been ideal if GW had the capability to actually balance their product in real time. They have shown time and again they cannot support this effort. The Tournament scene (TO's) do have the time to support this effort because they have a vested interest in balance to draw in larger crowds. GW does not, and their ham-fisted attempts at balance slates/faq/errata are typically months too late or in response to a meta that no longer exists. If you disapprove of the TO's balance changes then don't participate in those events, if enough people avoid them, then the TO is poised to reconsider. GW at this point is too large to fail, it's impossible to convince their audience to boycott with their wallets in any meaningful manner to enact change, and expecting them to alter course when they are showing record profits across all systems is lunacy.
I notice more and more of the vocal internet community around 40k being unwilling to discuss imbalances and create scenarios that are fun for all parties involved. The goal of the hobby should be to have fun. Competitions primary goal is to win, not to have fun. The way 8th and 9th rules have been curated encourage the advancement of competition to the detriment of fun and it has destroyed every local community that I was apart of since about Psychic Awakening.
So to reiterate, yes; I want GW to just print the publications however they may be, then be hands off with the exception of typo, misprints or to clear up ambiguous phrasing with an FAQ, leaving the meta balance to the tournament scenes that should house this meta, not the pick-up-games or clubs that should focus on enjoyability for all parties.
6th and 7th I played Orks and Dark Eldar. The armies were probably the worst through those editions, however I had ALOT more enjoyability even facing down the Eldar / T'au / mega formation armies because the edition itself was more hands-off.
I played the exact same two armies in 7th and have much much much way more fun now playing against the top tiers than in 7th. And in 7th I even had massive collections that allowed me to field the most competitive builds and chase the flavour of the months myself for my armies. Over the years I've significantly reduced my forces and I don't feel the need to expand them anymore. This edition is way more balanced than it was in 7th, at least from my perspective as an orks, space wolves, drukhari, adepta sororitas player or former player of such factions.
And I wonder how long those new codexes will stay this strong. In 7th playing against tau, SM or eldar was a nightmare for the entire edition, now I can accept a couple of months of heavy losses, at most, before things settle down. It's also much easier to power up or down the lists in order to have nice home games than it was in 7th.
Restricting options as an house rule should always be a thing in friendly casual metas, not in tournaments.
Blackie wrote: I played the exact same two armies in 7th and have much much much way more fun now playing against the top tiers than in 7th. And in 7th I even had massive collections that allowed me to field the most competitive builds and chase the flavour of the months myself for my armies. Over the years I've significantly reduced my forces and I don't feel the need to expand them anymore. This edition is way more balanced than it was in 7th, at least from my perspective as an orks, space wolves, drukhari, adepta sororitas player or former player of such factions.
And I wonder how long those new codexes will stay this strong. In 7th playing against tau, SM or eldar was a nightmare for the entire edition, now I can accept a couple of months of heavy losses, at most, before things settle down. It's also much easier to power up or down the lists in order to have nice home games than it was in 7th.
Everyone's experience is different - but this chimes with mine.
I mean Custodes and Tau have been bad for about 2 months. Harlequins for a a week or two. But... for me at least, there's one guy in the club with a fleshed out Harlequins army - and he doesn't have 9 voidweavers (yet anyway). That may change if this was to be "the state of play" for a year - but no on believes it will be. Tau and Custodes are undoubtedly a bit more popular - but not crazy amounts. (I mean I have a decidedly unoptimized Tau army.... so I guess here I'm part of the problem.)
By contrast in late 7th... Eldar, SM & Tau must have been approaching... 60-70%~ of the playerbase where I played? I think I've described before there was one afternoon I looked up from my DE being crushed and across 8 tables I could see 5 Wraith Knights. Running DE, Orks, CSM, Tyranids, IG into this felt hopeless - because it often was. (Cue stories of shooting an entire DE army into Necrons and failing to kill 10 warriors...)
FAQless thousand sons are more fun to play than current ones
Same with GK, even ones that run 0 NDKs or power armoured units. But I am used to boomerang nerfs, so it is what it is. 1ksons really didn't need them though. What is worse, after the nerfs CWE book comes out and suddenly harlis can be souped in to all eldar no problem. Making the whole prior balancing kind of a iffy.
Competitions primary goal is to win, not to have fun.
I look at this sentance. I understand the words. But I really can't understand the idea behind it. Because for it to be logical, it would require the assumption that winning can be unfun. I have never seen anyone in my 4 years at school, who won a bout or a competition and was unhappy about it. Maybe it is different when betting is involved and you know that there are going to be sad guys coming to "talk" to you. But I don't think GW games have a betting sceen.
There's times when winning can definitely not be fun.
1) We've got one guy who plays in our leagues, Crusades, etc that's simply a bad player. Even with terrible dice rolls you'd have to put some effort into losing against him. You draw him as an opponent & it's a 99%+ assured win. Yay! My units will score max xp etc. But winning the game against him isn't really fun. Just mostly a mechanical procedure.
2) There's one guy at the local shop that's simply not fun to play with. He's an donkey-cave. Win/lose/draw you won't have fun.....
3) Myself? 40k, Magic, etc, I get no enjoyment out of winning (or playing) tourney games. It's a job. A task to be accomplished as efficiently as possible in pursuit of the prize. Wich often clashes with how I like to build armies.
Wich is one of the reasons I no longer play in tournaments.
I look at this sentance. I understand the words. But I really can't understand the idea behind it. Because for it to be logical, it would require the assumption that winning can be unfun. I have never seen anyone in my 4 years at school, who won a bout or a competition and was unhappy about it. Maybe it is different when betting is involved and you know that there are going to be sad guys coming to "talk" to you. But I don't think GW games have a betting sceen.
i had a game recently where i played Thousand Sons against Black templar against a friend of mine that was getting back in the hobby.
I get turn 1 and kill most of her crusaders squad and drop her storm speeder hammerstrike to lowest bracket.
On her turn one, she tries charging my terminators only to deal a single wound to them before getting wiped.
At this point i'm solidly in the lead so i just skip any offensive psychic and start purposely not using units to their max capacity (i had Magnus that i straight up told her i wouldnt do anything with), still she couldnt come back from my lead.
At the end of the game i was doing stuff like actions on my terminator blob and not shooting with them (even if i bought the upgrade that lets them do so) and letting her kill stuff without popping defensive stuff on it.
She almost tabled me but on turn 5 i had magnus charge in her characters and get into a nice slapfest.
i managed to make the game semi-fun but if i had gone full tryhard then it wouldve been over on my turn 2 and the game wouldve been super boring an unfun. our weekly game night that usually lasts 3-4 hours wouldve lasted about 1 hour instead.
VladimirHerzog wrote: \
i had a game recently where i played Thousand Sons against Black templar against a friend of mine that was getting back in the hobby.
I get turn 1 and kill most of her crusaders squad and drop her storm speeder hammerstrike to lowest bracket.
On her turn one, she tries charging my terminators only to deal a single wound to them before getting wiped.
At this point i'm solidly in the lead so i just skip any offensive psychic and start purposely not using units to their max capacity (i had Magnus that i straight up told her i wouldnt do anything with), still she couldnt come back from my lead.
At the end of the game i was doing stuff like actions on my terminator blob and not shooting with them (even if i bought the upgrade that lets them do so) and letting her kill stuff without popping defensive stuff on it.
She almost tabled me but on turn 5 i had magnus charge in her characters and get into a nice slapfest.
i managed to make the game semi-fun but if i had gone full tryhard then it wouldve been over on my turn 2 and the game wouldve been super boring an unfun. our weekly game night that usually lasts 3-4 hours wouldve lasted about 1 hour instead.
Man, knowing my opponent was purposefully pulling their punches like that would take all the fun out of the game for me.
Man, knowing my opponent was purposefully pulling their punches like that would take all the fun out of the game for me.
everyone is different and it wasnt my first game agaisnt that opponent so i knew that she would prefer if i did. At least she got to see what her units do instead of losing all of them.
I look at this sentance. I understand the words. But I really can't understand the idea behind it. Because for it to be logical, it would require the assumption that winning can be unfun. I have never seen anyone in my 4 years at school, who won a bout or a competition and was unhappy about it. Maybe it is different when betting is involved and you know that there are going to be sad guys coming to "talk" to you. But I don't think GW games have a betting sceen.
i had a game recently where i played Thousand Sons against Black templar against a friend of mine that was getting back in the hobby.
I get turn 1 and kill most of her crusaders squad and drop her storm speeder hammerstrike to lowest bracket.
On her turn one, she tries charging my terminators only to deal a single wound to them before getting wiped.
At this point i'm solidly in the lead so i just skip any offensive psychic and start purposely not using units to their max capacity (i had Magnus that i straight up told her i wouldnt do anything with), still she couldnt come back from my lead.
At the end of the game i was doing stuff like actions on my terminator blob and not shooting with them (even if i bought the upgrade that lets them do so) and letting her kill stuff without popping defensive stuff on it.
She almost tabled me but on turn 5 i had magnus charge in her characters and get into a nice slapfest.
i managed to make the game semi-fun but if i had gone full tryhard then it wouldve been over on my turn 2 and the game wouldve been super boring an unfun. our weekly game night that usually lasts 3-4 hours wouldve lasted about 1 hour instead.
Honestly if the dice rolls are THAT bad for them......just win the game and do a new one with them. It's absurd that to make the game FUN you have to play badly on purpose.
Honestly if the dice rolls are THAT bad for them......just win the game and do a new one with them. It's absurd that to make the game FUN you have to play badly on purpose.
It wasn't the dice rolls. it was the army compositions, 2 meltas against rubric/scarab occult/magnus.
And it was game night, where we play post opening hours so we have limited time (don't want to keep the guy organising it super late) so starting another game wasnt really a possibility.
Instead we kept playing and i gave her tips as to what moves she could do (so she would improve). She straight up thanked me after and told me that she had fun with the game.
I'm not saying this is how everyone should act, theres a big part of it that is about being able to read people and know what they feel, put yourself in their place basically.
i was giving a counter example to karol when they said that winning is always fun
everyone is different and it wasnt my first game agaisnt that opponent so i knew that she would prefer if i did. At least she got to see what her units do instead of losing all of them.
But then it stops being a game, and becomes some sort of pretend play. I will just settle on not understanding this. I am unable to imagine the mindset to come to the conclusion. Thankfuly understanding other people outside of game mechanics is not required to play the game. So not that bad for me.
Instead we kept playing and i gave her tips as to what moves she could do
I think your opponent would have to both know you really well and like you for that to happen. I don't think I would want to hear someone telling me that, if I want to keep playing w40k. I just have to rebuy my army, ditch the models I like, buy 8 boxs of power armoured dudes, 4NDKs and build a real 9th ed army made out of all the units I dislike.
Man, knowing my opponent was purposefully pulling their punches like that would take all the fun out of the game for me.
everyone is different and it wasnt my first game agaisnt that opponent so i knew that she would prefer if i did. At least she got to see what her units do instead of losing all of them.
I guess. I would find someone who insisted that other players not play their best so they could win more to be selfish.
Thankfuly understanding other people outside of game mechanics is not required to play the game. So not that bad for me.
only in your hellhole in poland, in normal non-toxic games, the best way to make games enjoyable for both parties is to understand and "vibe" with them
I think your opponent would have to both know you really well and like you for that to happen. I don't think I would want to hear someone telling me that, if I want to keep playing w40k. I just have to rebuy my army, ditch the models I like, buy 8 boxs of power armoured dudes, 4NDKs and build a real 9th ed army made out of all the units I dislike.
i've done it with brand new players that i never played against before. As soon as i notice a skill difference, i do my best to transfer my experience to my opponent. Its not about buying a new army, its about helping them realise what the optimal use of their units is (for example, charging scarab occcults with assault intercessors isn't the best move)
Man, knowing my opponent was purposefully pulling their punches like that would take all the fun out of the game for me.
everyone is different and it wasnt my first game agaisnt that opponent so i knew that she would prefer if i did. At least she got to see what her units do instead of losing all of them.
I guess. I would find someone who insisted that other players not play their best so they could win more to be selfish.
it wasn't about winning or losing, just about not going to the store for an hour of gaming and then wandering around the other tables looking at the other games.
I'm not convinced people would insist on anything - but unless you only play people who know as much about the game as you do, I don't think its surprising people tone things down to try and make a game of it rather than a one-sided massacre.
I mean I know beer and pretzels is evil etc - but a game of 40k takes...2-3 hours? Getting on for 4+ if you are at someone's house and get through a few aforementioned beers? A lot of people are looking to just entertain themselves over a Saturday/Sunday Afternoon - not prove they are the greatest general who ever lived.
I get it, harlequin rules are madness and skimmy bikes with killer clowns are deadly and they should be, ok… imho they should also be relatively rare, should not constitute their own faction, should be support for craft world or exodite forces, maybe dark eldar, but at the same time I do not think that eldar and dark eldar should ever ally, ever, at all, as in eldar would rather team up with orks, but that is just me.
They simply should have never been a standalone army. 8 datasheets including 4 characters? I'd like to see them as standard units from the aeldari codex with harsh limitations on their numbers. Something like "for every two aeldari troops a player can then add an harlequin troupe", for "every fast attack/heavy support aeldari unit a player can then add a unit of harlequin bikes/voidweavers", "for every harlequin troupe, bike unit, voidweaver a player can add an harlequin character". Or just flat 0-1 on each harlequin unit except troupes and their transports which both would be capped at 0-3.
Only if the same happens to everyone's Space Marines.
They're fine for the scale that 40k takes place at. You can take your hatred that one of the armies I play is a faction at all and shove it. They've been around longer than Craftworld Eldar. And they had more units back then, even, so let's get those.
Hatred? Strong language not close to the sentiments motivating the discussion from our end, assuredly.
Projection, much?
And, boy, shove it yourself. Welcome to the ignore pile…
LOL can't argue points so you throw people on the Ignore list. Super convenient.
...exactly what points was Jeff meant to argue there?
Hecaton has shot from the hip in response to a comment that maybe Harlequins shouldn't've been a solo faction given the limited number of available datasheets. I can understand the argument, even if I don't necessarily agree with it - given how much GW charges for a 'dex, I'd be wanting more units in there meself!
This is also a poster known for their slightly irrational posts when it comes to anything to do with the Imperium, so claiming that all Space Marine factions should stop being a thing is definitely going off the deep end, if not in a way that is entirely out of character.
Not sure I'd've acted the same way, but having someone tell me I hate a faction because I suggest they don't have a deep enough bench to be an independent faction? I can see why jeff responded as he did.
only in your hellhole in poland, in normal non-toxic games, the best way to make games enjoyable for both parties is to understand and "vibe" with them
Hellhole is a place to the right of us. You should know it, there is a huge Ukrainian diaspora in Canada. I don't really know you "vibe" within a constrains of a game. Your opponent brings his 2000pts of good list and you bring 2000pts of yours. If the disproportions in power are big, no amount of vibing will change the result of the game. It is not very enjoyable if the opponent throws the game, unless some outside prizes or qualifires are involved. Armies can't be changed in most cases either. Even if someone has more then one, they generally don't take bus trips with 4k pts of models. And the very idea that someone would want others to buy bad models and build bad armies, is something I can't wrap my head around either. You would have to not care about the game at all. But for that the money investment would have to be something inconsequential. And while I can imagine people having enough money for w40k to seem cheap, those people generaly don't play w40k, because they have better stuff to do. Or they invest the money.
i've done it with brand new players that i never played against before. As soon as i notice a skill difference, i do my best to transfer my experience to my opponent. Its not about buying a new army, its about helping them realise what the optimal use of their units is (for example, charging scarab occcults with assault intercessors isn't the best move)
.
But it creates bad habits, people think they can change the rules or do take backs etc. It is like as I said durning a match, stop I made an error lets reset everything to standing, because losing in first 20 sec is not going to be fun for me. It is just bizzar, maybe in training games this makes sense, but I don't play in tournaments, neither probably most of the people that play w40k.
Tyel wrote: I'm not convinced people would insist on anything - but unless you only play people who know as much about the game as you do, I don't think its surprising people tone things down to try and make a game of it rather than a one-sided massacre.
I mean I know beer and pretzels is evil etc - but a game of 40k takes...2-3 hours? Getting on for 4+ if you are at someone's house and get through a few aforementioned beers? A lot of people are looking to just entertain themselves over a Saturday/Sunday Afternoon - not prove they are the greatest general who ever lived.
Hellhole is a place to the right of us. You should know it, there is a huge Ukrainian diaspora in Canada. I don't really know you "vibe" within a constrains of a game. Your opponent brings his 2000pts of good list and you bring 2000pts of yours. If the disproportions in power are big, no amount of vibing will change the result of the game.
FYI, half my family is from poland so i know about the situation very well with Ukraine.
And yes, vibing won't change the result of the game BUT : its not about the destination, it's about the journey. It's called being a good winner/loser.
But it creates bad habits, people think they can change the rules or do take backs etc. It is like as I said durning a match, stop I made an error lets reset everything to standing, because losing in first 20 sec is not going to be fun for me. It is just bizzar, maybe in training games this makes sense, but I don't play in tournaments, neither probably most of the people that play w40k.
i play casually, why is me telling my opponent about auspex scan or that they have a juicier target to shoot with their anti-tank guns givign them a bad habit? Why are takebacks a bad habit (if theyre caught quickly)?
My goal is to have FUN , regardless of the outcome of the game
Honestly if the dice rolls are THAT bad for them......just win the game and do a new one with them. It's absurd that to make the game FUN you have to play badly on purpose.
It wasn't the dice rolls. it was the army compositions, 2 meltas against rubric/scarab occult/magnus.
And it was game night, where we play post opening hours so we have limited time (don't want to keep the guy organising it super late) so starting another game wasnt really a possibility.
Instead we kept playing and i gave her tips as to what moves she could do (so she would improve). She straight up thanked me after and told me that she had fun with the game.
I'm not saying this is how everyone should act, theres a big part of it that is about being able to read people and know what they feel, put yourself in their place basically.
i was giving a counter example to karol when they said that winning is always fun
You're not wrong that both parties should aim to have fun, but the problem is how much responsibility the GW defenders place on the players rather than GW itself.
The point of any game is to have fun, but the goal is to win. This isn't D&D, this is a game with a winner and loser.
You're not wrong that both parties should aim to have fun, but the problem is how much responsibility the GW defenders place on the players rather than GW itself.
The point of any game is to have fun, but the goal is to win. This isn't D&D, this is a game with a winner and loser.
i'm not saying GW isnt to blame, their gak balancing is 100% on them. And i'd say the point AND goal is to have fun honestly. To me at least, the outcome of the game has nothing to do with the enjoyment i have
The fact GW rules writing is clearly handed over to about 3 people barely scraping above minimum wage is bad - and I suspect why its often a joke. But institutionally, they clearly think they are building something much closer to D&D than chess.
Dysartes wrote: This is also a poster known for their slightly irrational posts when it comes to anything to do with the Imperium, so claiming that all Space Marine factions should stop being a thing is definitely going off the deep end, if not in a way that is entirely out of character.
My posts are definitely less irrational than anyone claiming the Imperium is heroic. Societies that practice widespread infanticide are generally considered to be monstrous.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tyel wrote: The fact GW rules writing is clearly handed over to about 3 people barely scraping above minimum wage is bad - and I suspect why its often a joke. But institutionally, they clearly think they are building something much closer to D&D than chess.
You get what you pay for in this context. Game design is hard, and even very intelligent people need lots of experience and training to do it well. GW doesn't have either thing going for them.
My posts are definitely less irrational than anyone claiming the Imperium is heroic. Societies that practice widespread infanticide are generally considered to be monstrous.
Romans and Greeks did it. Practicaly every city based civilisation in europe did it. Some even had special official that had to gather the bodies before the animals got to them. No one goes around saying the Dutch or French were "monstrous". In Poland after WWII, churchs of all convictions created so called "life windows" because the problem of women dumbing children, specially in the new build soviet style cities were gigantic. But it is not like they were much bigger then what was going in in cities like Lodz or Warsaw, before either of the great wars.
The imperium of men fights for humans, against non humans that makes it automaticaly heroic, unless someone is or thinks himself not human.
The imperium of men fights for humans, against non humans that makes it automaticaly heroic, unless someone is or thinks himself not human.
Own side isn't always the heroic one. In litterature, cinema, comics, etc... there are plenty of examples of that. Take Avatar, which narrates of a war between humans and aliens: aliens are the heroic guys, humans are the scum of the galaxy. To the point that the human protagonist, which fights with the aliens against humasn, is turned into an alien at the end of the movie, and the viewers are happy for him.
People that aren't brainwashed by propaganda can definitely consider their own side as the wrong, evil, not right, etc... one.
Favouring an alien, whose goal is to kill and subjagate your race, is an example of outright I don't know what. It sound insane. It like pondering, if in 1939 soviets and germans weren't kind of a right. And those are at least humans in theory.
There is nothing good about an ork, eldar, necron , chaos worshiper, tyranid, tau etc. There for anything any organisation does to get rid this imminent threat to humanity is something good. Considering the power of enemy forces and the scale of threats, the fight can not be called anything else then heroic. Humanity in the w40k setting is at best stalling its enemies and most of the time fighting a slowly losing fight to the bitter end.
I don't understand the avatar example. How were the alien the good guys. They killed humans, they stopped earth from developing a more succesful and wealthy society stopping them from aquiring the floating rock resources. And they did that without having any real rights to the land or resources. Only humans can own land, assuming avatar humans are based on earth people. The alien claiming the planet and its resources for themselfs is as if orcas suddenly claimed that the oceans belong to them, and humans are not allowed to use them.
You're not wrong that both parties should aim to have fun, but the problem is how much responsibility the GW defenders place on the players rather than GW itself.
The point of any game is to have fun, but the goal is to win. This isn't D&D, this is a game with a winner and loser.
No you don't understand, you're just having fun wrong if you don't have a UN meeting before the game and let your opponent dictate your entire list so they can "have fun". That's much more reasonable than expecting a company with hundreds of millions of dollars in annual revenue to properly playtest their game and make sure one person doesn't autolose just because of the faction they've chosen... /s
Karol wrote: Favouring an alien, whose goal is to kill and subjagate your race, is an example of outright I don't know what. It sound insane. It like pondering, if in 1939 soviets and germans weren't kind of a right. And those are at least humans in theory.
There is nothing good about an ork, eldar, necron , chaos worshiper, tyranid, tau etc. There for anything any organisation does to get rid this imminent threat to humanity is something good. Considering the power of enemy forces and the scale of threats, the fight can not be called anything else then heroic. Humanity in the w40k setting is at best stalling its enemies and most of the time fighting a slowly losing fight to the bitter end.
I don't understand the avatar example. How were the alien the good guys. They killed humans, they stopped earth from developing a more succesful and wealthy society stopping them from aquiring the floating rock resources. And they did that without having any real rights to the land or resources. Only humans can own land, assuming avatar humans are based on earth people. The alien claiming the planet and its resources for themselfs is as if orcas suddenly claimed that the oceans belong to them, and humans are not allowed to use them.
Watch the movie, you'll understand. Hopefully.
Or any american western movie that sides with the indians and not the americans, same thing.
Yeah, Avatar reveals the other side of the propaganda bubble, through the eyes of a marginalised insider who gets out of said bubble and sees the reality… in 40k, the propaganda bubble is most obvious in satire such as the Regimental Standard. I understand what Karol is saying, but in all honesty, orca do own the oceans, humans are renting and ruining them and this is the biggest evidence that they do not own them, so to speak… beside the point, but what humans do to whales with their ridiculous sonar is enough Avatar for me to see that human beings are not the heroes on this planet, and will not be on any other either… not by the current neo feudal banality that is latter day corporate fascistic capitalism
I don't understand the avatar example. How were the alien the good guys. They killed humans, they stopped earth from developing a more succesful and wealthy society stopping them from aquiring the floating rock resources. And they did that without having any real rights to the land or resources. Only humans can own land, assuming avatar humans are based on earth people. The alien claiming the planet and its resources for themselfs is as if orcas suddenly claimed that the oceans belong to them, and humans are not allowed to use them.
There are two sides to any story. That's the point of Avatar. Where do you get the idea only humans can own land and claim resources? What gives us the right over and above another sentient species? Try to think of a reason that couldn't equally be used by the other side to justify their own supremacy. For example, claiming "because we're humans" doesn't work because in this case there's no reason the aliens can't reply with "because we're Na'vi" and be equally justified in their eyes.
In the same way the US and Canada can have political and cultural differences but still co-operate, or at worst tolerate, one another, we can imagine the same happening with an alien species.
To bring it back to gaming, one of the things I find myself doing a lot is playing new or returning players. In those situations, going all-out with some meta army and utterly crushing them is completely counter productive. That's because the goal is to have fun and encourage these players to keep playing the game, not turn them away with a terrible experience. Once they have more experience they can decide how they want to participate in the hobby. Some will be all about hyper-competitive games, others might prefer Crusade or homebrew but they'll never find out if you treat every game as a life-or-death experience.
Also, frankly, destroying some newbie in their first game isn't exactly a victory anyway. There's no achievement there, no skill involved and thus no satisfaction. For the reasons mentioned above, it likely feels worse than a loss.
Plus did anyone else think the blues were aliens? Every species had 6 limbs bar them. They clearly look bioengineered (far too tough, built in interface to exploit native creatures...) and not native to that planet, or perhaps a remnant of a previous civilisation that had heavily altered itself.
Plus did anyone else think the blues were aliens? Every species had 6 limbs bar them. They clearly look bioengineered (far too tough, built in interface to exploit native creatures...) and not native to that planet, or perhaps a remnant of a previous civilisation that had heavily altered itself.
No, that'd require me putting more thought into it than I consider this movie being worth.
Avatar is a mediocre film. It was entertaining enough, and didn't really have consistency issues that you see everywhere nowadays. But it is a good example of showing hoe people can root for aliens over humans.
