If the th is going to be that much simpler to learn and play do you think the game will become more balanced aswell?
My logic is that GW made the game so complicated with too many data point to adjust that creating balance was too difficult for them to achieve balance so they created the cycle of making armies OP and then nerfing them (this also seemed to help sales)
But if they got an easier job then balance might be achievable??
even if they had perfect balance it would still be mucked up after the first few books
think as with most GW games its a case of strap in, hang on and stick with it for the ride
there are flat out too many combinations to have a single point value system "balance" them on a unit by unit basis, at best you could do army by army if all armies have the tools to deal with all other armies
I don't think imbalance in 40k is particularly a function of it being complicated or there being too many combinations to understand.
The issue is feature creep. GW will think up new rules (or existing rules but re-packaged). These will then often be undercosted relative to everything that already exists. These will therefore be more powerful than everything that already exists.
I can't believe GW is going to make codexes a non-event in terms of faction abilities. They are therefore likely to be a source of imbalance. As has happened effectively every edition.
mrFickle wrote: If the th is going to be that much simpler to learn and play do you think the game will become more balanced aswell?
My logic is that GW made the game so complicated with too many data point to adjust that creating balance was too difficult for them to achieve balance so they created the cycle of making armies OP and then nerfing them (this also seemed to help sales)
But if they got an easier job then balance might be achievable??
No. Shifting imbalance is a feature. Not a bug.
As long as rules and models comes from same company when they are incentivized to do shifting imbalance no point hoping for balance.
Lord Damocles wrote: Anybody who believes that 10th ed. will be balanced has very poor pattern recognition abilities.
This, sadly. I've been around the block since 1997. GW isn't capable of balancing, even if they wanted to. They claim that's the goal, but do nothing to really take the proper strides towards it, and even if they do it ends up lasting a few months before inevitably a codex comes out that breaks the mold and sets a new standard.
Lord Damocles wrote: Anybody who believes that 10th ed. will be balanced has very poor pattern recognition abilities.
The question is exploring a change in the pattern
There is no change in pattern, because GW has no reason to change. They remain profitable, even more than before, despite having a game that's a huge mess and probably the worst wargame rules out there.
mrFickle wrote: My logic is that GW made the game so complicated with too many data point to adjust that creating balance was too difficult for them
GW already made the game much simpler in 8th, yet balance was never achieved
it is rather the opposite, the less restrictive the base is, the harder it is to balance additional content. So the more complex the basic structure is the easier it is to find balance as long as you stay within that structure
GW switched to a simpler base because they did not want to stay within a structure they wrote some years ago yet they were also not ready to handle the freedom of a simple system
This is also a reason why they switch back to a base that is more complex
if we get better balance with 10th simple depends of the designer understood the problems from the past or are making the same (as laying down the structure of the game with everything needed or the future or feeling the need to leave the basic structure with each new codex)
As someone who's been playing since 2nd, late 9th is the most balanced the game has ever been - but balance wasn't a major design consideration for most of its life.
With 10th being more steamlined and the same analytics-driven design team, the tournament win-rates for various factions will probably generally fall within their 45-55% sweet spot - if that's how we choose to define to balance.
mrFickle wrote: If the th is going to be that much simpler to learn and play do you think the game will become more balanced aswell?
My logic is that GW made the game so complicated with too many data point to adjust that creating balance was too difficult for them to achieve balance so they created the cycle of making armies OP and then nerfing them (this also seemed to help sales)
But if they got an easier job then balance might be achievable??
Nobody can really say at this moment as we do not have the full ruleset or the new datasheets.
Asmodai wrote: As someone who's been playing since 2nd, late 9th is the most balanced the game has ever been - but balance wasn't a major design consideration for most of its life.
With 10th being more steamlined and the same analytics-driven design team, the tournament win-rates for various factions will probably generally fall within their 45-55% sweet spot - if that's how we choose to define to balance.
Speaking of pattern recognition - people should see the input to the game is far more restricted, which CAN allow an easier path to balance. Where they screw it up is anyone's guess, but if they stick to the 2 pager model then - again - different pattern and less variables.
40k rules are controlled obsolescence. Arguably the reset helps mitigate the bloat of the last edition only to go bonkers as the edition's life goes on and then after 3 years apparently here is a new set to rinse and repeat. This is how it has felt with 8th and 9th, from what others have told me it is more or less the case for older editions as well.
I would say that a 45%-55% win rate is balanced enough as long as all of the armies fall into that range. I mean this isn't chess where each army has the exact same amount/type of pieces.
I don't think it will happen but that would be my goal if I ran the zoo.
mrFickle wrote: If the th is going to be that much simpler to learn and play do you think the game will become more balanced aswell?
My logic is that GW made the game so complicated with too many data point to adjust that creating balance was too difficult for them to achieve balance so they created the cycle of making armies OP and then nerfing them (this also seemed to help sales)
But if they got an easier job then balance might be achievable??
Not really. They're not changing much, just stripping out a bunch of minor flavor, and rearranging deck chairs by putting BS on the gun instead of the unit etc.
Lord Damocles wrote: Anybody who believes that 10th ed. will be balanced has very poor pattern recognition abilities.
Pretty much this.
GW will change their design philosophy halfway through the edition, just like every other edition that came before it, and feth it all up. It's the age-old fable of the scorpion and the frog. GW's the scorpion and we're all the frog.
I've been playing 8th edition books, the 9th edition rulebook at home, and I feel bad using so many Marine rules against my Ork player....
Oh wait, my SUPER Doctrine is now active! I get +1 attack for charging and when I'm charged! My rapid fire rule works diffently from Bolter Discipline. And I don't even use the broken Stratagems...
I had to stop using Armor of Contempt because it just felt wrong. I'll be alot happier with an even playing field.
Nightlord1987 wrote: I've been playing 8th edition books, the 9th edition rulebook at home, and I feel bad using so many Marine rules against my Ork player....
Oh wait, my SUPER Doctrine is now active! I get +1 attack for charging and when I'm charged! My rapid fire rule works diffently from Bolter Discipline. And I don't even use the broken Stratagems...
I had to stop using Armor of Contempt because it just felt wrong. I'll be alot happier with an even playing field.
the main downside of the edition isnt the balance but how boring and complicated it is
By now maybe but balance as an edition is ending isn’t great. For most of 9th SM had 2 wounds but CSM only just got that essential balancing update
I'd argue that balance at the end is the most important as anybody who doesn't want to move to the new edition gets something that needs minimal house ruling and balance changes to work for years to come. The rules and minis don't become useless just because GW publishes something new.
45-55% tournament win rate, would be decent balance if all the options not being taken are cut from the books
simple because everything not contributing to that balance is bloat and just there to add the illusion of options and value, as well as be a trap for newcomers buying stuff that is worthless as it will never see play
but if we want to keep that options, internal balance is added as well and this means, no matter the units taken, this 50+/-5% win rate does not change
because as soon as the "not popular" units are on an the winrate is down to 30% there is a problem, that is just ignored with "most balanced edition so shut up"
mrFickle wrote: If the th is going to be that much simpler to learn and play do you think the game will become more balanced aswell?
My logic is that GW made the game so complicated with too many data point to adjust that creating balance was too difficult for them to achieve balance so they created the cycle of making armies OP and then nerfing them (this also seemed to help sales)
But if they got an easier job then balance might be achievable??
Not really. They're not changing much, just stripping out a bunch of minor flavor, and rearranging deck chairs by putting BS on the gun instead of the unit etc.
I guess some people never liked the 'spot the difference' puzzles when they were kids. Buckle up folks- this is going to take a while.
Let's look at Terminators.
Spoiler:
OLD:
Spoiler:
- Chainfist no longer needs to declare it's unwieldy malus as it is built in to the WS. Additionally, instead of declaring the AV bonus it is encompassed entirely in [Anti-Vehicle 3+].
- Chainfist AP reduced by 2 and damage reduced by 1
- Powerfirst AP reduced by 1 and it is no longer unwieldy
- A separate sarge listing is no longer required as the power sword represents the extra attack and the LD bonus was made irrelevant
- Assault Cannon AP reduced and granted [Devastating Wounds]
- Heavy Flamer text stripped and placed behind USRs - <CHAPTER> keyword removed
- ADEPTUS ASTARTES keyword made a Faction keyword
- CORE removed and OC added as a state
- Angels of Death removed
- Combat Squads removed
- Bolter Discpline gone
- Teleport Strike placed behind Deepstrike USR - Toughness and Invuln increased by 1
- Oath of the Moment grants full rerolls on one unit per turn
- Other sources of external rerolls potentially removed - you now need a character to join the unit to gain abilities
- Characters than can join are restricted in type and ability
- Deathwing and Wolfguard clauses removed
- A stratagem providing +1 to hit at any time was converted to an ability that only applies when targeting the unit under OoM
- Doctrines were removed eliminating extra AP for Heavy in Devastator, RF in Tactical, etc thereby reducing total AP
- Eliminating faction specific traits, which become a single trait in the chosen detachment -- these included, but not limited to : +1 to hit when standing still, ignore cover, exploding 6s, +1 to hit vs small units, +1 to hit when charging / charged, 5+++ vs MW, fallback and shoot, ignore AP1, reroll a wound roll, 6+++, cover when 18" away, dense cover when 12" away, rr 1s with bolters, +3" to RF/Heavy, +1 to advance and charge, -1LD in 3", reroll one hit roll, 2s fail to wound, fallback and charge,
Eliminating super doctrines - +1A, increase AP, Increase AP in Heavy, +1 to wound for flamers, +1 hit and wound vs Characters, move and shoot w/o penalty, etc
Stratagems terminators could previously benefit from ( many of these lines condense multiple different stratagems into one line ) :
- Shoot at a unit arriving from deepstrike
- Apply all doctrines to the unit
- Remain stationary
- Perform an action and shoot
- Revive a model
- Receive rerolls from a dreadnought
- +1 to hit ( converted )
- Reroll hits vs CSM in melee
- Granting a relic to the sarge
- Redeploy
- 6s to wound increase AP - Fall, shoot, and charge without penalty
- Overwatch as a group
- 6" pile-in
- +1 to wound
- Heal D3
- Heroic intervention
- Ignore charge mods
- Deny as psyker
- Deny on 4+
- +1sv vs D1
- +1S
- Flamers cause mortals on 4+
- Flamers become pistols
- infiltrate move
- reroll charge
- cause mortals to unit moving close
- 6s to wound double wounds
- 5+++
Ok I'm 1/4 of the way though and I can't even take it. This doesn't count the prayers, spells, and warlord traits they can benefit from.
So what do they have access to now? A MAX of six strats that may or may not be useable on them ( and 12 other universals ). Up to two characters that need to be a specific type and that grant a specified buff. A MAX of six 'Enchancements' ( relics / traits ) given to characters that may or may not affect terminators.
- Over 29 stratagems able to affect terminators down to 6 or less.
- 6 to 18 WL traits ( per marine army ) and dozens of relics down to 6.
And this doesn't really encompass everything that is changing broadly with weapons and vehicles.
If someone thinks the new version isn't easier to balance then I don't want what you're smoking.
That's a fairly disingenuous attempt to dismiss that actual real consequence of rules changes from 9th to 10th - especially in light of the comment I replied to.
You also indirectly infer the detachment method, which only ever provides the same number of strats and enchancements, will be perverted when they've pretty explicitly stated that is the dynamic they're using for this edition.
The 8th index terminators is almost no different than 9th other than listing less of the weapons on it and not containing clauses for Deathwing or Wolfguard. The datasheet they gave for terminators in 10th is functionally complete.
Daedalus81 wrote: That's a fairly disingenuous attempt to dismiss that actual real consequence of rules changes from 9th to 10th - especially in light of the comment I replied to.
first we don't know if the Terminator one for 10th is complete or how it will change with the Codex coming up
so it is rather difficult to say that 10th is simpler than 9th, because comparing a 7th Edi Codex Terminator entry with the 8th Edi index entry is showing us the same result
Index 8th and Index 10th look similar, so if you want to make the point that 10th is easier to balance because there will be an Index instead of Codicies, this is valid
we just don't know if it stays that way as if the datasheets changes too much, like they did in the past, we end up with the same problem again
I don't think the terminator datasheet will change. It's more complex than any before it. I'm more worried that marines and nids were fleshed out like this and the rest of the armies are lackluster until codex.
The biggest problem with this discussion is that every single person involved has a different opinion on what "balance" actually means.
Some people define balance as: I can play any army I can dream up against any other army anyone else can dream up and always have a 50/50 shot at winning.
This is both completely impossible and not something GW (or a good chunk of the playerbase) wants(whether for presentation reasons or because a lot of people like list building). I'm sorry your 30 servitors backed up by footslogging boltpistol/chainsword assault marines isn't winning LVO, but the game is better off.
Some people define balance as: Every unit is competitively viable.
This is still probably impossible but is not totally unreasonable. GW have responded to this by rotating nerfs and buffs so that most units in an army get at least 1 format in the limelight.
Some people define balance as: Every game is decided entirely by player skill, regardless of what army they play.
This is a fair ask, but is also entirely impossible, even with mirrored forces. Even Chess isn't 100% player skill thanks to white's advantage. We also have dice to consider.
Some people define balance as: Every faction is competitively viable.
This is absolutely achievable and something GW has been making decent effort towards now that codexes aren't coming out broken to the wazoo. This is where GW has done the most in 10th to help themselves. The "2 page rules" means that it's literally a campaign book to get every struggling faction at least 1 reasonable build.
Not everyone is going to be happy with this, but frankly it's about the best any asymmetric game has ever managed.
And some people define balance as: The game plays exactly how I think it should play. Which is obviously nonsense.
ERJAK wrote: The biggest problem with this discussion is that every single person involved has a different opinion on what "balance" actually means.
Some people define balance as: I can play any army I can dream up against any other army anyone else can dream up and always have a 50/50 shot at winning.
This is both completely impossible and not something GW (or a good chunk of the playerbase) wants(whether for presentation reasons or because a lot of people like list building). I'm sorry your 30 servitors backed up by footslogging boltpistol/chainsword assault marines isn't winning LVO, but the game is better off.
Some people define balance as: Every unit is competitively viable.
This is still probably impossible but is not totally unreasonable. GW have responded to this by rotating nerfs and buffs so that most units in an army get at least 1 format in the limelight.
Some people define balance as: Every game is decided entirely by player skill, regardless of what army they play.
This is a fair ask, but is also entirely impossible, even with mirrored forces. Even Chess isn't 100% player skill thanks to white's advantage. We also have dice to consider.
Some people define balance as: Every faction is competitively viable.
This is absolutely achievable and something GW has been making decent effort towards now that codexes aren't coming out broken to the wazoo. This is where GW has done the most in 10th to help themselves. The "2 page rules" means that it's literally a campaign book to get every struggling faction at least 1 reasonable build.
Not everyone is going to be happy with this, but frankly it's about the best any asymmetric game has ever managed.
And some people define balance as: The game plays exactly how I think it should play. Which is obviously nonsense.
The biggest problem with this discussion is that every single person involved has a different opinion on what "balance" actually means.
Some people define balance as: I can play any army I can dream up against any other army anyone else can dream up and always have a 50/50 shot at winning.
This is both completely impossible and not something GW (or a good chunk of the playerbase) wants(whether for presentation reasons or because a lot of people like list building). I'm sorry your 30 servitors backed up by footslogging boltpistol/chainsword assault marines isn't winning LVO, but the game is better off.
Some people define balance as: Every unit is competitively viable.
This is still probably impossible but is not totally unreasonable. GW have responded to this by rotating nerfs and buffs so that most units in an army get at least 1 format in the limelight.
Some people define balance as: Every game is decided entirely by player skill, regardless of what army they play.
This is a fair ask, but is also entirely impossible, even with mirrored forces. Even Chess isn't 100% player skill thanks to white's advantage. We also have dice to consider.
Some people define balance as: Every faction is competitively viable.
This is absolutely achievable and something GW has been making decent effort towards now that codexes aren't coming out broken to the wazoo. This is where GW has done the most in 10th to help themselves. The "2 page rules" means that it's literally a campaign book to get every struggling faction at least 1 reasonable build.
Not everyone is going to be happy with this, but frankly it's about the best any asymmetric game has ever managed.
And some people define balance as: The game plays exactly how I think it should play. Which is obviously nonsense
.
ERJAK made a great post!!!
100% on the money.
Defining terms is always the most important part of engaging in reasoned discussion. Several posts in the thread are eyeroll inducing if you define the term 'balance' one way, but insightful and spot-on if you assume a different interpretation.
The first thing we need to decide to continue a thread like this is:
What do we mean when we say "Balance".
ERJAK wrote: The biggest problem with this discussion is that every single person involved has a different opinion on what "balance" actually means.
Some people define balance as: I can play any army I can dream up against any other army anyone else can dream up and always have a 50/50 shot at winning.
This is both completely impossible and not something GW (or a good chunk of the playerbase) wants(whether for presentation reasons or because a lot of people like list building). I'm sorry your 30 servitors backed up by footslogging boltpistol/chainsword assault marines isn't winning LVO, but the game is better off.
Some people define balance as: Every unit is competitively viable.
This is still probably impossible but is not totally unreasonable. GW have responded to this by rotating nerfs and buffs so that most units in an army get at least 1 format in the limelight.
Some people define balance as: Every game is decided entirely by player skill, regardless of what army they play.
This is a fair ask, but is also entirely impossible, even with mirrored forces. Even Chess isn't 100% player skill thanks to white's advantage. We also have dice to consider.
Some people define balance as: Every faction is competitively viable.
This is absolutely achievable and something GW has been making decent effort towards now that codexes aren't coming out broken to the wazoo. This is where GW has done the most in 10th to help themselves. The "2 page rules" means that it's literally a campaign book to get every struggling faction at least 1 reasonable build.
Not everyone is going to be happy with this, but frankly it's about the best any asymmetric game has ever managed.
And some people define balance as: The game plays exactly how I think it should play. Which is obviously nonsense.
I concur. The only thing more we can ask for is that competitively viable list don't involve completely ignoring the faction as GW presents it.
Balance should mean that all armies are capable of beating any other army given the variable of the players ability to build a competitive army list against their opponent. Each army should provide the option for various styles of play each with equal opportunity for effectiveness considering the variable of the opponent’s army list. No one army should have a unit/rule/doctrine that if overly advantageous regardless of the variable of the opponents army or player skill. All units should have a place in a competitive army list. All armies should have equal amount of choice for list building and strategy.
I'd say if the majority of games go the full duration, and in most of those cases the actual winner isn't clear until the dust settles its likely not too bad as balance goes
when the game is over at the end of the list building phase you have a problem
leopard wrote: I'd say if the majority of games go the full duration, and in most of those cases the actual winner isn't clear until the dust settles its likely not too bad as balance goes
when the game is over at the end of the list building phase you have a problem
Yeah I think when you think about what is balance you have to describe what imbalances looks like. I’ve never played tournaments but from what I have read the armies at the top and bottom of the tournament rankings is a result of the rules meta and only influenced by players and random dice rolls
ERJAK wrote: The biggest problem with this discussion is that every single person involved has a different opinion on what "balance" actually means.
Some people define balance as: I can play any army I can dream up against any other army anyone else can dream up and always have a 50/50 shot at winning.
This is both completely impossible and not something GW (or a good chunk of the playerbase) wants(whether for presentation reasons or because a lot of people like list building). I'm sorry your 30 servitors backed up by footslogging boltpistol/chainsword assault marines isn't winning LVO, but the game is better off.
Some people define balance as: Every unit is competitively viable.
This is still probably impossible but is not totally unreasonable. GW have responded to this by rotating nerfs and buffs so that most units in an army get at least 1 format in the limelight.
Some people define balance as: Every game is decided entirely by player skill, regardless of what army they play.
This is a fair ask, but is also entirely impossible, even with mirrored forces. Even Chess isn't 100% player skill thanks to white's advantage. We also have dice to consider.
Some people define balance as: Every faction is competitively viable.
This is absolutely achievable and something GW has been making decent effort towards now that codexes aren't coming out broken to the wazoo. This is where GW has done the most in 10th to help themselves. The "2 page rules" means that it's literally a campaign book to get every struggling faction at least 1 reasonable build.
Not everyone is going to be happy with this, but frankly it's about the best any asymmetric game has ever managed.
And some people define balance as: The game plays exactly how I think it should play. Which is obviously nonsense.
I concur. The only thing more we can ask for is that competitively viable list don't involve completely ignoring the faction as GW presents it.
I’d add to that list My Codex doesn’t limit me to one of a handful of builds.
Consider the Eldar. Traditionally, every edition they’ve absolutely had a power build. But typically, those were the result of spamming a handful of units, with everything else being ignored.
Now exactly how superior those power builds were to “just take what you like and see how you get on” lists i for one couldn’t tell you. But the fact remains that those wanting to field Eldar in a competitive environment were more limited in choice compared to other armies. That the resulting lists were super nasty is of little comfort.
Compare to the current Necron Codex. Now, I gather the end result of that Codex isn’t great, and it’s definitely showing its heritage as one of the first out the gate for 9th. But…internally? There are few truly stand out, must have units, and really it’s just the Hexmark Destroyer which isn’t quite the full shilling.
I’d prefer things to be closer to the Necron Codex. Because when most Codexes can produce decent enough army lists with the majority of its contents, you’re more likely to see greater variety on the board. That in turn really muddies the meta, as What Am I Likely To Face becomes less predictable. Which means you may see fewer Stacked Lists trying to take advantage of the meta.
My thoughts on the subject, which I don't think should be too contentious, are:
- Every codex should contain the tools to deal with any other codex, there should be no scissors-paper-stone type match-ups between factions
- A well-built TAC list from every codex should have around a 45-55% chance of winning against a similar TAC list from every other codex.
- A fluffy list should be at least vaguely competitive - codexes should work at least reasonably well when played in line with faction lore.
- List building should still matter - a well-designed army should be able to beat a random collection of units. However assuming similar well-built armies, player skill should make the difference.
- Within each codex, there should be no worthless options (e.g. the pyrovore back when). Each unit, and each unit option, should be at least situationally useful. Otherwise why have it?
I see no particular harm if Codex A has to work harder against Codex B, because it’s just a natural counter. For instance, Dark Eldar and their poisonous basic weapons don’t phase Knights, so the DE player has more to do, because their army just isn’t gonna be as effective as normal.
The problem is when you’re Codex Imperial Knights in 7th Ed, where if sprung on your opponent may seem them simply not having enough weapons capable of harming your Knights.
Each army having its own weakness which another might be able to particularly capitalise on isn’t undesirable, provided it’s not a universal weakness everyone else can freely exploit.
On the other hand, DE can also bring a lot of blasters and dark lances... They do have the tools available.
My concern is for new players, or people who only play in a limited group or even with just one regular opponent. If your army is the paper to your mates scissors, that's not much fun.
An imbalanced game is fine as long as player skill can make up the shortfall of playing a lesser army. Knowing how to use underpowered units well should raise them above the level they seem just by raw stats can balance things out. Unfortunately 40k (currently) doesn't really have that option because there is so little player agency in the game to leverage possible ways that units could interact. The gaunt special rule that lets them move reactively gives me a bit of hope though.
Sim-Life wrote: An imbalanced game is fine as long as player skill can make up the shortfall of playing a lesser army. Knowing how to use underpowered units well should raise them above the level they seem just by raw stats can balance things out. Unfortunately 40k (currently) doesn't really have that option because there is so little player agency in the game to leverage possible ways that units could interact. The gaunt special rule that lets them move reactively gives me a bit of hope though.
Worse, victory can go to those who can rapidly get their head round Stratagems, which in their own way limit army choice. Not just generating Command Points, but ensuring your army and certain stratagems gel together.
Which is what put me off 8th and 9th Ed. I’d get my Codex, trying writing an army list, then look at the Stratagems and realise my force just isn’t going to work that well, especially if my opponent was more on top of that.
Mostly I just want to deploy, shoot stuff, break some heads and nab some objectives. I don’t want the book keeping side so much.
Crispy78 wrote: On the other hand, DE can also bring a lot of blasters and dark lances... They do have the tools available.
My concern is for new players, or people who only play in a limited group or even with just one regular opponent. If your army is the paper to your mates scissors, that's not much fun.
Milions times this. It is one thing for a player with 4 or more armies and collections ranging in thousands of points. It is another when 4 dude play and one builds his DE way GW shows it should be build, another builds a Harlaquin army out of the stuff that exists for them, and then there is one dude who picked marines and one who likes playing beastsnaggas orks. There is absolutly nothing the new DE and Harlequin players can do to help the marine players have fun, besides playing bad or letting them win. And I don't think many people consider, being allowed to win, a fun thing in the first place. Especialy if they notice it being done.
The problem with codexes having weaknesses is that its often code for "bad units". If you have a "bad shooting unit" in your codex, you aren't then encouraged to take it to balance out your "good assault unit". You just take two good assault units. You are now in a better spot than someone with a good assault unit and a bad shooting unit (or worse, two bad shooting units).
A faction will tend to be "good" if you can max out (2k points being standard) on the good units without having to compromise with the bad. This can happen because there's either enough there, or because every unit in the book is the excellent at what it does.
Which is why ERJAK says its more possible for every faction to have a viable list than every unit be viable. (I sort of agree - but think if you can get most units "close enough", you'll have more competitive units and in turn more competitive archetype builds for all the factions.)
It might be possible to create a ruleset that really favours having a bit of everything - by somehow making units become less effective when you spam them. I.E. "a bad shooting unit" might still somehow be better than the third "good assault unit" which has become "a really bad assault unit" because its the third one. I think Exarch abilities could sort of do this if more widely available across 40k. But then I know a lot of people don't enjoy or want to play soft highlander lists. Its also a bit boring if everyone's armies from a given faction are compelled to look the same since they don't enjoy massive rosters.
It might be possible to create a ruleset that really favours having a bit of everything - by somehow making units become less effective when you spam them. I.E. "a bad shooting unit" might still somehow be better than the third "good assault unit" which has become "a really bad assault unit" because its the third one. I think Exarch abilities could sort of do this if more widely available across 40k. But then I know a lot of people don't enjoy or want to play soft highlander lists. Its also a bit boring if everyone's armies from a given faction are compelled to look the same since they don't enjoy massive rosters.
Current (and ill assume future 10e+) 40k has too many nonsense rules already, thank you very much.
ERJAK wrote: The biggest problem with this discussion is that every single person involved has a different opinion on what "balance" actually means.
Some people define balance as: I can play any army I can dream up against any other army anyone else can dream up and always have a 50/50 shot at winning.
This is both completely impossible and not something GW (or a good chunk of the playerbase) wants(whether for presentation reasons or because a lot of people like list building). I'm sorry your 30 servitors backed up by footslogging boltpistol/chainsword assault marines isn't winning LVO, but the game is better off.
Some people define balance as: Every unit is competitively viable.
This is still probably impossible but is not totally unreasonable. GW have responded to this by rotating nerfs and buffs so that most units in an army get at least 1 format in the limelight.
Some people define balance as: Every game is decided entirely by player skill, regardless of what army they play.
This is a fair ask, but is also entirely impossible, even with mirrored forces. Even Chess isn't 100% player skill thanks to white's advantage. We also have dice to consider.
Some people define balance as: Every faction is competitively viable.
This is absolutely achievable and something GW has been making decent effort towards now that codexes aren't coming out broken to the wazoo. This is where GW has done the most in 10th to help themselves. The "2 page rules" means that it's literally a campaign book to get every struggling faction at least 1 reasonable build.
Not everyone is going to be happy with this, but frankly it's about the best any asymmetric game has ever managed.
And some people define balance as: The game plays exactly how I think it should play. Which is obviously nonsense.
My definition of balance is: Decisions made on the tabletop are more important than decisions made before the game.
That might sound wishy-washy but it's more of a useful heuristic. If the game plays itself and listbuilding is paramount, you need the balance between factions and units to be really good to have anything other than a solved game. If the actual gameplay can make bad units overperform and good units underperform depending on how they're used- or better yet, make it difficult to evaluate whether a unit is 'good' or 'bad' because utility and power are situational rather than something you can blandly express in average % returns- then having all units and armies at the exact same power level is less critical to a fun experience.
A balanced game is one where two players of comparable skill can put down competently designed armies and have an enjoyable game on a roughly level playing field, without having to have a pre-game conversation about 'how competitive' their lists are or having to analyze the codex to recognize trap options and must-haves.
Tyel wrote: The problem with codexes having weaknesses is that its often code for "bad units". If you have a "bad shooting unit" in your codex, you aren't then encouraged to take it to balance out your "good assault unit". You just take two good assault units. You are now in a better spot than someone with a good assault unit and a bad shooting unit (or worse, two bad shooting units).
A faction will tend to be "good" if you can max out (2k points being standard) on the good units without having to compromise with the bad. This can happen because there's either enough there, or because every unit in the book is the excellent at what it does.
The wrong way to make Tau bad at melee is to make Kroot a melee-only option that sucks.
The right way to make Tau bad at melee is to make Kroot a hybrid melee/shooting unit, so that even if they're worth the points, you can't make a melee Tau army by just spamming Kroot. The army on the whole then lacks the capability to specialize into melee, rather than making the units with that capability bad.
But more importanty, a ruleset that wants armies to have weaknesses should not be designed such that min-maxing into their strengths is a viable strategy. Ideally, you'd want hard counters, so that going all-in on shooting leaves you cripplingly vulnerable to... deep striking melee, or something. If taking all-shooting meant you were likely to lose to a more well-rounded list that contains that hard-counter to your gimmick, then maybe you'd want to take some Kroot to round out your own capabilities, rather than just spending those points on more gunline units.
You might then look at your codex and say 'huh, no dedicated melee units, that's a problem' instead of 'huh, no dedicated melee units, but I can field three Hammerheads so who cares'.
Making units get progressively the worse the more you take of them is looking at the issue from the wrong end, I think- instead of making spam less effective, the game ought to address the reasons why spam is valuable in the first place. In any case, we are seeing a hint of what you describe with the Weirdboy rules in 10th only allowing a single unit to Da Jump every turn, so there will be diminishing returns to taking multiples of the same unit if only one can use a key ability at a time.
catbarf wrote: But more importanty, a ruleset that wants armies to have weaknesses should not be designed such that min-maxing into their strengths is a viable strategy. Ideally, you'd want hard counters, so that going all-in on shooting leaves you cripplingly vulnerable to... deep striking melee, or something.
Looking back at the "muh 2+ cover for Marines" argument in the other thread, I don't know how popular this would be. I mean, I'm all in for the idea, but imagine a guy who gets mad just because his boltguns are soft-countered by cover being forced to play with actual hard-counters... the meltdown would be unreal.
We've already seen balanced 10th is simplified balance. But now gambits exist. You losing? Okay reveal this card roll 2d6 on a 12+ score 30 vp. My current pick for first nerf.
catbarf wrote: But more importanty, a ruleset that wants armies to have weaknesses should not be designed such that min-maxing into their strengths is a viable strategy. Ideally, you'd want hard counters, so that going all-in on shooting leaves you cripplingly vulnerable to... deep striking melee, or something.
Looking back at the "muh 2+ cover for Marines" argument in the other thread, I don't know how popular this would be. I mean, I'm all in for the idea, but imagine a guy who gets mad just because his boltguns are soft-countered by cover being forced to play with actual hard-counters... the meltdown would be unreal.
Marines are good for being (hypothetically) a good jack of all trades army. Someone is camping out in cover making your shooting less effective? Pull out the combat knives and go in after them. It’s not like they are Tau, where if the shooting doesn’t work your next best option is to curl up and die.
Marnies have always had a good toolbox to deal with problems. The question is always what’s be best place to get them into your list, and how required they are.
Marines are not a point efficient army enough to be an efficient "jack of all trades" army. Historicaly all good marine armies take one aspect of something it can take, and then spams its. 15 infilatrating centurion. Spaming dreadnoughts, Combining running multiple units of Sang. Guard and DC, running bricks of DW termintors.
I can't remember a single efficient marine army run in 8th or 9th, that was build around running 2 regular unit of intercessors 2 of melee intercessors, 2 units of support. 2 tanks etc.
If marines face a mechanic that puts them at a disadvantage, then when combined with armies generaly getting a ton of marine killing weapons, ends real bad for non focused marine armies.
Looking back at the "muh 2+ cover for Marines" argument in the other thread, I don't know how popular this would be. I mean, I'm all in for the idea, but imagine a guy who gets mad just because his boltguns are soft-countered by cover being forced to play with actual hard-counters... the meltdown would be unreal.
Imagine your army was designed by GW to use storm bolters. And there are no efficient replacment weapons to use against tanks, vehicles etc save maybe for melee weapons. I think you can imagine that someone playing such a bolter focused army, which unlike primaris weapons didn't get changed in 10th it seems, could make someone rather unhappy. Sprinkle change and changes to core mechanics of such an army on top of it, even more and I think you could imagine a certain high level of unhappiness. Besides we already had marines in cover with +2cover saves and AoC, and the only units that could really efficiently use it were those like Sang Guard with their build in basic +2 save.
Karol wrote: Marines are not a point efficient army enough to be an efficient "jack of all trades" army. Historicaly all good marine armies take one aspect of something it can take, and then spams its. 15 infilatrating centurion. Spaming dreadnoughts, Combining running multiple units of Sang. Guard and DC, running bricks of DW termintors.
I can't remember a single efficient marine army run in 8th or 9th, that was build around running 2 regular unit of intercessors 2 of melee intercessors, 2 units of support. 2 tanks etc.
If marines face a mechanic that puts them at a disadvantage, then when combined with armies generaly getting a ton of marine killing weapons, ends real bad for non focused marine armies.
That’s an issue with competitive play.
Marines can be effective in a lot of roles, but are not generally efficient. So when you are pushing the bleeding edge of competitiveness, you gravitate towards highly efficient specialized units, and exploit their advantages. You don’t see TAC lists. You get people focusing on what they do best, bludgeoning their opponent with it, and hope they don’t run across a hard counter. “Normal” marine lists don’t do well here, as they pay a lot for flexibility that they generally can’t leverage.
But once you take a step back from that edge, TAC marine lists do fine at the local level.
Your Milage May Vary. Some FLGS are still very competitive.
Marines can be effective in a lot of roles, but are not generally efficient. So when you are pushing the bleeding edge of competitiveness, you gravitate towards highly efficient specialized units, and exploit their advantages. You don’t see TAC lists. You get people focusing on what they do best, bludgeoning their opponent with it, and hope they don’t run across a hard counter. “Normal” marine lists don’t do well here, as they pay a lot for flexibility that they generally can’t leverage.
I think it's pretty much if GW wrote the point buy rules for D&D 3rd edition, they think an 18 in one stat is the same as two 14s in two stats. Which they just aren't. Having a broad base is nice, but it's not going to be as good as a focused one. Especially when a party (a 40k army) can have most of its bases covered with various specialists. Compared to a party of a bunch of generalists/weaker specialists.
It's just so much easier to leverage all the power out of a specialist compared to trying to leverage all the utility out of a generalist during any given game. So the generalist is generally over costed for what they get you.
What about say the go-wide Space Wolf lists that have been showing up? Skewed perhaps because they often dodge troops entirely, but that's Arks of Omen for you.
I.E.
Spoiler:
++ Arks of Omen Detachment (Imperium – Adeptus Astartes – Space Wolves) [112 PL, 1,999pts, ] ++
+ Configuration +
**Chapter Selector**: Born Heroes , Custom Chapter, Space Wolves Successor, Whirlwind of Rage
Arks of Omen Compulsory Type: Elites
Game Type: 5. Chapter Approved: Arks of Omen
+ HQ +
Captain on Bike [8 PL, 135pts, -4CP]: Chapter Command: Chapter Master, Combi-melta, Hunter, Power fist, Rites of War, Stratagem: A Trophy Bestowed, Stratagem: Relic, Stratagem: Warlord Trait, Stratagem: Warrior of Legend, The Armour of Russ, Warlord
Primaris Chaplain on Bike [8 PL, 135pts, -1CP]: 2. Catechism of Fire, 5. Recitation of Focus, Chapter Command: Master of Sanctity, Litany of Hate (Aura), Stratagem: Hero of the Chapter, Wise Orator
Primaris Lieutenant [5 PL, 65pts]
. Neo-volkite pistol, Master-crafted power sword and Storm Shield
+ Elites +
Wolf Guard [7 PL, 142pts]: Jump Pack
. Wolf Guard: Combi-melta, Lightning Claw
. Wolf Guard: Combi-melta, Lightning Claw
. Wolf Guard: Combi-melta, Lightning Claw
. Wolf Guard: Lightning Claw, Storm shield
. Wolf Guard Pack Leader: Combi-melta, Thunder hammer
Wolf Guard [7 PL, 142pts]: Jump Pack
. Wolf Guard: Combi-melta, Lightning Claw
. Wolf Guard: Combi-melta, Lightning Claw
. Wolf Guard: Combi-melta, Lightning Claw
. Wolf Guard: Lightning Claw, Storm shield
. Wolf Guard Pack Leader: Combi-melta, Thunder hammer
Wolf Guard [7 PL, 137pts]: Jump Pack
. Wolf Guard: Combi-melta, Lightning Claw
. Wolf Guard: Combi-melta, Lightning Claw
. Wolf Guard: Combi-melta, Lightning Claw
. Wolf Guard: Combi-melta, Lightning Claw
. Wolf Guard Pack Leader: Combi-melta, Thunder hammer
Long Fangs [9 PL, 149pts]: Armorium Cherub
. Long Fang: Grav-cannon
. Long Fang: Grav-cannon
. Long Fang: Grav-cannon
. Long Fang: Grav-cannon
. Long Fang Pack Leader: Grav-gun, Power fist
. Wolf Guard Terminator Pack Leader: Cyclone missile launcher, Storm shield, Thunder hammer
Long Fangs [9 PL, 149pts]: Armorium Cherub
. Long Fang: Grav-cannon
. Long Fang: Grav-cannon
. Long Fang: Grav-cannon
. Long Fang: Grav-cannon
. Long Fang Pack Leader: Grav-gun, Power fist
. Wolf Guard Terminator Pack Leader: Cyclone missile launcher, Storm shield, Thunder hammer
++ Total: [112 PL, 1,999pts] ++
There isn't really anything wrong with TAC lists. And a lot of good units tend to be good precisely because they are effective into most things.
But yes, GW have often been kidding themselves and others by claiming say a tactical squad is "a good generalist" because it's got a missile launcher. In practice this is a unit which puts out a modest amount of S4 AP- attacks. Its okay into GEQ, and not much use into anything further up the food chain. But we can know that and ignore it.
Not gonna lie, I've never played 2-4th but this 10th is by everything I'm reading, shaping up to be a re-vamped version of 2-3.5? I don't see 10th fixing all the foundational issues at GW that make this game a dumb mess. Rules team writers devoid of english writing education, game testers making "feels cool" more important than actually "plays correctly". A money focused mindset that puts player engagement behind player money engagement.
This is literally what WoTC were trying to achieve with DND:Next.
10th will be a giant bag of crap to older 40k players, and it will be fresh and exiting to the players who joined in 9th.
I pity the folks who just hang out for the lore. They're doomed.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Not gonna lie, I've never played 2-4th but this 10th is by everything I'm reading, shaping up to be a re-vamped version of 2-3.5? I don't see 10th fixing all the foundational issues at GW that make this game a dumb mess. Rules team writers devoid of english writing education, game testers making "feels cool" more important than actually "plays correctly". A money focused mindset that puts player engagement behind player money engagement.
This is literally what WoTC were trying to achieve with DND:Next.
10th will be a giant bag of crap to older 40k players, and it will be fresh and exiting to the players who joined in 9th.
I pity the folks who just hang out for the lore. They're doomed.
3 was awful and it was mostly a statline reconfig that failed miserably - I see more of 5th or 6th here - they've all kind of melded together after all this time, but I mean the one with the Demi Companies - and two Demicompanies making a full company and getting free transport stuff. I'm not saying its going to go that far that way - but instead that (almost) everything is based on your Top Level Detachment. I wouldn't be surprised to see them also have the top-Det contain Sub-Dets that can be satisfied by 0/1-X of a list of units. Captain OR Chaplain. May also include Libbies etc.
dominuschao wrote: We've already seen balanced 10th is simplified balance. But now gambits exist. You losing? Okay reveal this card roll 2d6 on a 12+ score 30 vp. My current pick for first nerf.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Not gonna lie, I've never played 2-4th but this 10th is by everything I'm reading, shaping up to be a re-vamped version of 2-3.5? I don't see 10th fixing all the foundational issues at GW that make this game a dumb mess. Rules team writers devoid of english writing education, game testers making "feels cool" more important than actually "plays correctly". A money focused mindset that puts player engagement behind player money engagement.
This is literally what WoTC were trying to achieve with DND:Next.
10th will be a giant bag of crap to older 40k players, and it will be fresh and exiting to the players who joined in 9th.
I pity the folks who just hang out for the lore. They're doomed.
3 was awful and it was mostly a statline reconfig that failed miserably - I see more of 5th or 6th here - they've all kind of melded together after all this time, but I mean the one with the Demi Companies - and two Demicompanies making a full company and getting free transport stuff. I'm not saying its going to go that far that way - but instead that (almost) everything is based on your Top Level Detachment. I wouldn't be surprised to see them also have the top-Det contain Sub-Dets that can be satisfied by 0/1-X of a list of units. Captain OR Chaplain. May also include Libbies etc.
If you can't differentiate 5th from 7th, perhaps it's time not to try to describe 3rd either...
The only time I played 40k and considered it balanced was in 6th edition under Swedish Comp rules. It saved both competitive and (even more so) casual/campaign games we played.
So my advice is: don't wait to get balance from GW but when some part of the community comes up with a good way to balance the game don't whine that it hits your overpowered army or that it is not official or that this balance is still not 100% perfect - embrace it and promote it so that it spreads and becomes norm.
Balanced norm is better than official norm in such a game.
At least get some games under your belt before you declare the sky is falling.
when was the last time were "wait and see" resulted in a positive development with GW rules?
Right now, we have no idea about so much, all this doomsaying is silly.
We don’t know point costs.
We don’t know stratagems.
We don’t know detachment rules.
We don’t know most mission parameters.
We don’t know faction rules.
We’ve seen the merest sliver of info so far. Yet here we are, with people determined to paint this as The Worst Thing Ever, with basically sod all evidence to support it.
GW's track record is "think the worst so the inevitable mediocrity will look like a win". So yeah, wait and see has never been a valid thing. Not should it be. You don't need evidence when 30 years of history indicate it'll be middling at best or spiral to another dumpster fire at worst.
There is a time for “wait and see” and there is a point where it’s folly.
Right now we just have a few scraps of hard info, and some info from stripped down demo games. We absolutely are in wait and see time.
Once we get full rules, or enough solid leaks to paint a whole pictures we can move past it. People who say “wait and see” who are holding out for the last 5% of unknowns might be grasping, but we are not at that point yet.
But we don’t know enough about 10th to doomcry the whole edition yet. Yes, there will be parts of it that are bad. But also parts that are good. Just like every edition of 40k ever. Or any other game. The overall balance of good/bad is unknown at this point. Now it might be that some of the things we do know are hard-stop dealbreakers for some people. That’s fair.
But we do not have enough of the whole picture on 10th to judge it.
dominuschao wrote: We've already seen balanced 10th is simplified balance. But now gambits exist. You losing? Okay reveal this card roll 2d6 on a 12+ score 30 vp. My current pick for first nerf.
You think it needs a nerf?
Honestly Idk man. But personally I do not like rules like this. It has potential to be unfun by hinging a game on one dice roll.
For example from what we know a gambit is something we choose, so they could be built for. That is fine. But 30 vp seems too much if scoring remains 90 pts up for grabs (10 is given).
If at the end of t3 you aren't ahead you'll need to do something drastic anyway. This is how I see this being built for, as a hail mary.
The further out a game gets the larger risks need to be taken to swing it back. In this case simply having a few fast msu units already designed for similar purposes is all you need.. to either deep strike or boost into 9" of a table corner and survive while possibly scoring BEL etc.
EoT 5 oops into a 10+ thats it. Not very likely but randomly successful about 1/6 of the time. This to potentially take a win from someone who outplayed you.
Imagine the top tables with this BS playing out as the fallback for eldar, GSC, daemons, harlies, drukhari, tau even or anyone with fast chaff.
In short I feel its a little too easy to build for the chance to flip a game they didn't earn.
Also on more reveals I wanna like 10th and I will try it but I don't really dig the change to overwatch either. I feel this sets the stage for untargetable ovewatch units to anchor around. IH MotA contemptors come to mind or tides or even HQ. Seems cool in theory but I think the power of this ability is very high and potentially really detrimental for assault based armies. For example imagine the dakka coldstar build of 30 shots reroll everything. Averages over 16 hits on OW. This unit is already a real big headache for armies like drukhari in good hands. If this or similar build still exists in 10th it can now OW on behalf of any unit in proximity to it.
Wayniac wrote: Remember, GW is successful DESPITE everything they do, not because of it.
Questionable quality of 40k rules aside, reality disagrees with you.
No, reality agrees. Any number of their decisions in the past would have ruined a smaller company. PP followed the GW playbook pretty closely and look at the state they're in.
GW: Finecast.
PP: tried to switch to some kind of plastic/resin hybrid which wasn't as bad as finecast but they had maufacturing issues. The Skorne hydra colossal being of particular note because it had a misprinted piece and PPs response was just "fix it yourself".
GW: high prices, monopose models
PP: same
GW: "Most playtested edition ever" turns out to be an unbalanced mess
PP: same thing
GW: Rules updates every six months. Get praised.
PP: Almost as frequent rules update, people complained it was hard to keep track of what was going on
There are probably more points of comparison but I can't be bothered to note them.
Wayniac wrote: Remember, GW is successful DESPITE everything they do, not because of it.
Questionable quality of 40k rules aside, reality disagrees with you.
No, reality agrees. Any number of their decisions in the past would have ruined a smaller company. PP followed the GW playbook pretty closely and look at the state they're in.
GW: Finecast. PP: tried to switch to some kind of plastic/resin hybrid which wasn't as bad as finecast but they had maufacturing issues. The Skorne hydra colossal being of particular note because it had a misprinted piece and PPs response was just "fix it yourself".
GW: high prices, monopose models PP: same
GW: "Most playtested edition ever" turns out to be an unbalanced mess PP: same thing
GW: Rules updates every six months. Get praised. PP: Almost as frequent rules update, people complained it was hard to keep track of what was going on
There are probably more points of comparison but I can't be bothered to note them.
Pretty much. GW's #1 thing seems to be that period where it had no real competition and managed to get traction in game stores across the world. That alone meant it was an uphill battle to get anything else going on, and it got worse over the years where now GW is firmly entrenched in most game stores and isn't budging. And I've personally see how difficult it is to even MENTION another game and not get told to feth off.
I have to think at this point it's mostly sunk cost, and people don't want to look like idiots for liking such a terrible set of rules. The miniatures are the only thing that can be pointed to as good quality, and they still have a lot of issues compared to "real" miniature companies that do actual model kits.
But yeah, PP did the same stuff GW does now and was busted for it, GW does it and its' like "Oh look at this, this is great!" It's really some kind of cognitive dissonance
When you are a company with millions of customers and operating on all continents, the rules side of the equation become far less relevant than the logistics and production.
And GW's ability to supply millions of customers worldwide didn't magically manifest out of the ether, it had to be built and maintained.
That's also why part of the reason it is so such an uphill battle to challenge them, because you can be great at writing rules and designing models but that means nothing if you know little about industrial processes or international logistics.
ERJAK wrote: The biggest problem with this discussion is that every single person involved has a different opinion on what "balance" actually means.
Some people define balance as: I can play any army I can dream up against any other army anyone else can dream up and always have a 50/50 shot at winning.
This is both completely impossible and not something GW (or a good chunk of the playerbase) wants(whether for presentation reasons or because a lot of people like list building). I'm sorry your 30 servitors backed up by footslogging boltpistol/chainsword assault marines isn't winning LVO, but the game is better off.
Some people define balance as: Every unit is competitively viable.
This is still probably impossible but is not totally unreasonable. GW have responded to this by rotating nerfs and buffs so that most units in an army get at least 1 format in the limelight.
Some people define balance as: Every game is decided entirely by player skill, regardless of what army they play.
This is a fair ask, but is also entirely impossible, even with mirrored forces. Even Chess isn't 100% player skill thanks to white's advantage. We also have dice to consider.
Some people define balance as: Every faction is competitively viable.
This is absolutely achievable and something GW has been making decent effort towards now that codexes aren't coming out broken to the wazoo. This is where GW has done the most in 10th to help themselves. The "2 page rules" means that it's literally a campaign book to get every struggling faction at least 1 reasonable build.
Not everyone is going to be happy with this, but frankly it's about the best any asymmetric game has ever managed.
And some people define balance as: The game plays exactly how I think it should play. Which is obviously nonsense.
I concur. The only thing more we can ask for is that competitively viable list don't involve completely ignoring the faction as GW presents it.
I’d add to that list My Codex doesn’t limit me to one of a handful of builds.
Consider the Eldar. Traditionally, every edition they’ve absolutely had a power build. But typically, those were the result of spamming a handful of units, with everything else being ignored.
Now exactly how superior those power builds were to “just take what you like and see how you get on” lists i for one couldn’t tell you. But the fact remains that those wanting to field Eldar in a competitive environment were more limited in choice compared to other armies. That the resulting lists were super nasty is of little comfort.
Compare to the current Necron Codex. Now, I gather the end result of that Codex isn’t great, and it’s definitely showing its heritage as one of the first out the gate for 9th. But…internally? There are few truly stand out, must have units, and really it’s just the Hexmark Destroyer which isn’t quite the full shilling.
I’d prefer things to be closer to the Necron Codex. Because when most Codexes can produce decent enough army lists with the majority of its contents, you’re more likely to see greater variety on the board. That in turn really muddies the meta, as What Am I Likely To Face becomes less predictable. Which means you may see fewer Stacked Lists trying to take advantage of the meta.
At least, y’know, that’s the theory!
Funnily enough the current Craftworlds section of the Aeldari codex is in the most ideal spot right now.
You actually have a range of viable and different subfactions to choose from, rather than one overpowering all. Certain units show up in every list, but there's still an impressive amount of variety in unit choice and overall builds which is made even more impressive by how many datasheets the book has. In the HQ slot alone you might have 1 Farseer/3PL's, or maybe 3 Farseers, or 2 Farseers/2PL's, or one singular Farseer and that's it, the Avatar shows up in lists, Autarchs even show up in lists, I've even see 0 Farseer lists that do well. An added benefit is that the army feels like how Aeldari should play; a lot of the units reflect their lore well on the tabletop.
And on top of all of this is that the army is not overpowered. It is right in the goldilocks zone of balance by most metrics.
dominuschao wrote: We've already seen balanced 10th is simplified balance. But now gambits exist. You losing? Okay reveal this card roll 2d6 on a 12+ score 30 vp. My current pick for first nerf.
You think it needs a nerf?
Honestly Idk man. But personally I do not like rules like this. It has potential to be unfun by hinging a game on one dice roll.
For example from what we know a gambit is something we choose, so they could be built for. That is fine. But 30 vp seems too much if scoring remains 90 pts up for grabs (10 is given).
If at the end of t3 you aren't ahead you'll need to do something drastic anyway. This is how I see this being built for, as a hail mary.
The further out a game gets the larger risks need to be taken to swing it back. In this case simply having a few fast msu units already designed for similar purposes is all you need.. to either deep strike or boost into 9" of a table corner and survive while possibly scoring BEL etc.
EoT 5 oops into a 10+ thats it. Not very likely but randomly successful about 1/6 of the time. This to potentially take a win from someone who outplayed you.
Imagine the top tables with this BS playing out as the fallback for eldar, GSC, daemons, harlies, drukhari, tau even or anyone with fast chaff.
In short I feel its a little too easy to build for the chance to flip a game they didn't earn.
Also on more reveals I wanna like 10th and I will try it but I don't really dig the change to overwatch either. I feel this sets the stage for untargetable ovewatch units to anchor around. IH MotA contemptors come to mind or tides or even HQ. Seems cool in theory but I think the power of this ability is very high and potentially really detrimental for assault based armies. For example imagine the dakka coldstar build of 30 shots reroll everything. Averages over 16 hits on OW. This unit is already a real big headache for armies like drukhari in good hands. If this or similar build still exists in 10th it can now OW on behalf of any unit in proximity to it.
So missions will usually have 5 objectives and it looks as if there is no 'hold more'.
With 5 per objective you need to hold 3 to get max leaving your opponent with 2. Primary scoring will almost certainly be capped at 60.
So a game will either 20-20 to 30-20 before the choice to use gambits is made.
- If the opponent can still hold 3 objectives then your gambit will be a wash AT BEST.
- If the opponent can't hold 3 then you're down then a gambit might be a good decision provided you have more units available than they do, but it's still a risk.
They know where you need to go and just have to break units. Given a screamer killer can move 8, run, and shoot to 18 and force a battleshock with a -1 just from hits means being unbroken could be pretty difficult.
It will likely be rare for the gambit to win a game on it's own. And to get to that point you need to make some good battlefield level analysis to get a chance to pull it off.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wayniac wrote: Given their recent supply issues I'd question if it's still a thing lol
Implementing a new ERP with no issues is incredibly difficult to do.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wayniac wrote: I have to think at this point it's mostly sunk cost, and people don't want to look like idiots for liking such a terrible set of rules.
If that's what you have to tell yourself so that you can feel superior then have at it, I guess.
We’ve seen one so far. And that is indeed a long shot.
I mean, stop and consider. Whilst we don’t yet have an idea of the lethality, other than it looking less than 9th Ed? The one we’ve seen can’t be played until Turn 5 at the earliest, yes?
I then need to have at least unit, with 9” of a board corner, not within my deployment zone to start qualifying.
I can then increase my odds of scoring those VP by having similarly positioned, getting no more than +3 to my roll.
Now. Do not get me wrong. If I’m winning the game, and my opponent pulls off that base 1 in 36 chance stunner? It could feel cheap.
But? Will my opponent be in much shape to be able to pull it off in the first place? If I’m ahead on points, chances are (and this is where ‘we don’t know what lethality looks like’ comes in) they’ve taken a mauling. So around turn 3, turn 4? It’s not gonna take a huge amount of in-game experience to see if they’re trying to position for that. And I can then plan accordingly. And indeed, blooter his units accordingly.
I suspect it may make for a more engaging game, as even when trouncing a foe, I still need to consider “what is your end game, beyond all your d00dz being little splutchy pancakes”.
[Ii]If[/i] all gambits are similarly high risk, I do nothing to prevent my opponent qualifying and they bag the game? I’ve only myself to blame.
I don't like that they are based on a dice roll, but maybe it isn't a rule and this is only one example.
I would have preferred if they were alternative win conditions. Once you select a gamebit (which you don't reveal) you can no longer score points. If you can complete your gambit, you win.
Comeback mechanics are really good to have, but they can't be random.
I don't like that they are based on a dice roll, but maybe it isn't a rule and this is only one example.
I would have preferred if they were alternative win conditions. Once you select a gamebit (which you don't reveal) you can no longer score points. If you can complete your gambit, you win.
Comeback mechanics are really good to have, but they can't be random.
They seem to be selectable. Way I read it you randomly discard one card. then choose your gambit in secret so you could plan for these as a fallback.
dominuschao wrote: I agree its a long shot. Maybe it adds some spice to a game that is otherwise over. Just feels cheese ball if it happens.
Thats the point of hail mary plays. Its a big swing that will probably miss and you're leaving it up to chance. Honestly I've never seen anyone complain about a big hail mary play succeeding because the odds are always against it (hence why its a hail mary and not just a normal play). I'm sure some people do get pissy about them but honestly that's just bad sportsmanship. If someone pulls a last minute win against me with only like a <10% chance to actually pull it off then obviously fate decided to intervene.
I’d also argue anyone who’s entire game plan “I are do my gambit and I am the wins” is either gonna be really, really, really good? Or seriously needs their bumps felt and aren’t going to be a tricky opponent in the first place.
But let us also remember. Gambits swing both ways (oooer!).
I could be fairly comfortably ahead on points, but be able to see that my current position, though strong, is a bit tenuous.
Then? Because I keep my current score, I can consider switching up and going for my own Gambit. That can, potentially, turn a slim near pyrrhic victory, into a crushing defeat for my opponent.
Hell if I’m ahead on points by a super “my opponent will have to Gambit” degree? What better way to defend my victory than going for my own Gambit? Especially if I can’t reasonably score more than I already have.
I think it's great. In casual games. Who actually feels bad losing to a last minute Hail Mary play? Do you also get angry when you get hit by a blue shell in Mario Kart and lose? It's a casual game. That's just part of the fun. What's more important is keeping the game exciting past T3.
The competitive scene will likely reject this, but what they do doesn't matter for 99% of the player base.
Eldarsif wrote: I think the greatest trick GW ever did was to get so many people who obviously hate Warhammer to collect Warhammer.
If I were WotC I'd be asking GW for pointers.
It's less hate and more "You can do better, but you CHOOSE not to, and you're rewarded for it". With GW's resources there's no reason why they can't have great rules and models, and not a business model that makes you feel like you're being robbed blind with everything. Yet they do, and their "fans" overlook it while talking gak about other companies that try to do the same thing/better.
Wayniac wrote: Remember, GW is successful DESPITE everything they do, not because of it.
Questionable quality of 40k rules aside, reality disagrees with you.
Even in my part of the world, if a company was selling a product, that would not work and work require the user to repair or fix on their own, and sometimes it would be unfixable, the company would be in a lot of trouble. Now that that doesn't mean everything GW does is bad, at idea level they do a ton of smart things. A patrol box based game, boarding action. Good ideas, not so good impelmentation. But stuff like AoS survived its first years, because of people who still wanted to play with their model and wanted to try out the new game. The players saved AoS by fixing stuff, and adding points to the game, inspite of what GW was trying to do with it. W40k is the GW flagship product and it has horrible player retention, is full of feels bad and gatcha moments for new players, but it has a core audiance of 30+ year olds, that are okey with how the game is. If any other table top game tried to sell people core rules on a quarterly reset schedul, made them wait for 2+ years for update rules and then told them, to more or less fix the balance problems on their own, then the companies game would be dead within a year. So all things considered I think, that Wayniac is right to a high degree here. GW really isn't helping itself with the way they run the game. I do they think will happen when my generation is 30+, that the 2-3 of us per store will replace the 20 guys who will be dead or too old to play?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Eldarsif wrote: I think the greatest trick GW ever did was to get so many people who obviously hate Warhammer to collect Warhammer.
If I were WotC I'd be asking GW for pointers.
It is not a trick. It is the privilage of being a monopolist. In my country there is 1 gigantic, state/ruling party supported gas/oil supplier. The company does stuff like telling people that they didn't lower the prices of oil to prepare us for war, and that we would have hurt ourself it gas was "too cheap". And then they go off and buy out all(as in the country) local TV, newspaper stations etc because this autum there will be elections.
GW is the same. They litteraly expect people to pay and wait for rules, which may not fix the players problems. While at the same time acting, as if the Real® way to play the game was to fix the problems on your own. It is mind blowing crazy to expect to work for a normal company, but when you are a monopolist it makes 100% sense. What will people do? It is the dominant game, new people often won't even know something besides warhammer exists, 10-20-30y veterans have so much sunk cost in to the game, that if they didn't leave they will swallow everything GW gives them. And if someone leaves they leave, and they are no longer a GW problem. In fact they can be burned by GW games so much, that they may not even try to pick up games from other companies. So it is a double win for GW. The only thing that GW needs for the holy trifect is to start making models that bio degrade, to "save the planet".
dominuschao wrote: I agree its a long shot. Maybe it adds some spice to a game that is otherwise over. Just feels cheese ball if it happens.
Thats the point of hail mary plays. Its a big swing that will probably miss and you're leaving it up to chance. Honestly I've never seen anyone complain about a big hail mary play succeeding because the odds are always against it (hence why its a hail mary and not just a normal play). I'm sure some people do get pissy about them but honestly that's just bad sportsmanship. If someone pulls a last minute win against me with only like a <10% chance to actually pull it off then obviously fate decided to intervene.
If the opponent did a good job of removing my ability to hold 3 objectives and can still get solidly in the corners then they deserve the points for the counterplay.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Karol wrote: GW is the same. They litteraly expect people to pay and wait for rules, which may not fix the players problems. While at the same time acting, as if the Real® way to play the game was to fix the problems on your own. It is mind blowing crazy to expect to work for a normal company, but when you are a monopolist it makes 100% sense. What will people do? It is the dominant game, new people often won't even know something besides warhammer exists, 10-20-30y veterans have so much sunk cost in to the game, that if they didn't leave they will swallow everything GW gives them. And if someone leaves they leave, and they are no longer a GW problem. In fact they can be burned by GW games so much, that they may not even try to pick up games from other companies. So it is a double win for GW. The only thing that GW needs for the holy trifect is to start making models that bio degrade, to "save the planet".
And yet for all your clairvoyance... You're. Still. Here. Posting.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Not gonna lie, I've never played 2-4th but this 10th is by everything I'm reading, shaping up to be a re-vamped version of 2-3.5? I don't see 10th fixing all the foundational issues at GW that make this game a dumb mess. Rules team writers devoid of english writing education, game testers making "feels cool" more important than actually "plays correctly". A money focused mindset that puts player engagement behind player money engagement.
This is literally what WoTC were trying to achieve with DND:Next.
10th will be a giant bag of crap to older 40k players, and it will be fresh and exiting to the players who joined in 9th.
I pity the folks who just hang out for the lore. They're doomed.
3 was awful and it was mostly a statline reconfig that failed miserably - I see more of 5th or 6th here - they've all kind of melded together after all this time, but I mean the one with the Demi Companies - and two Demicompanies making a full company and getting free transport stuff. I'm not saying its going to go that far that way - but instead that (almost) everything is based on your Top Level Detachment. I wouldn't be surprised to see them also have the top-Det contain Sub-Dets that can be satisfied by 0/1-X of a list of units. Captain OR Chaplain. May also include Libbies etc.
If you can't differentiate 5th from 7th, perhaps it's time not to try to describe 3rd either...
There's a difference between differentiating between them and remembering which one was which - especially when may of them were just variations on each other. But its not hard to remember 2nd was far closer to Herohammer+ and 3rd was a rubber band effect correction.
At least get some games under your belt before you declare the sky is falling.
when was the last time were "wait and see" resulted in a positive development with GW rules?
Right now, we have no idea about so much, all this doomsaying is silly.
We don’t know point costs.
We don’t know stratagems.
We don’t know detachment rules.
We don’t know most mission parameters.
We don’t know faction rules.
We’ve seen the merest sliver of info so far. Yet here we are, with people determined to paint this as The Worst Thing Ever, with basically sod all evidence to support it.
Yeah I joined Dakka just before the release of 9th and it’s the same with every release. The levels of pessimism are incredible it’s like people don’t want to enjoy it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wayniac wrote: It shouldn't be something you ever see. Remember, GW is successful DESPITE everything they do, not because of it.
This can’t be true, they have a product that is hoovered up by their huge customer base. They must be doing something right? Perhaps there’s a much larger community of GW customers who aren’t on Dakka that actually enjoy playing 40K
There's a difference between differentiating between them and remembering which one was which - especially when may of them were just variations on each other. But its not hard to remember 2nd was far closer to Herohammer+ and 3rd was a rubber band effect correction.
Dunno. Here 2nd was more about big guns. Bloodthirster isn't that scary when max he can kill is 1 model(you only could kill what you were in b2b and opponent wasn't required to bring models to contact and was able to shoot elsewhere) and then require leadership failure to get more kills. As long as you didn"' spam expensive characters and tanks expensive heroes never made points back.
And of course any squad leader could carry stasis grenade making expensive heroes liability.
Multiple assault cannons, cyclones, warp spiders...now that's where power was in.
But the wailing and gnashing of teeth is comically premature.
Me? I’m genuinely excited for 10th. As covered many times elsewhere, due to professional pressures I’ve not really played in the past ten and a half years. Because commuting sucks.
So I fell out of step, and by the time 9th came around it was all just too much. The very basics remain the same, but stratagems, CP harvesting are alien to me. And given cunning use thereof is the key to victory, I found the game impenetrable.
10th however seems to have stripped it all back. Or at least that’s the promise being made.
And y’know? I’m not the only one. My oldest and besterest friend, who is a phenomenal painter, is also interested in getting back to the board. And with my FLGS just around the corner, we won’t hurt for venues.
The skepticism/wailing is based on seeing what GW has done every single edition over the past 30 years. At some point you stop falling for the "I'm sorry I hit you honey, I won't do it again I promise!" excuses and, even if you're hopeful like I am, that hope is tempered by knowing their track record says it'll happen again. One of GW's own 40k quotes of the day is "Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment" and I think it's pretty apt for this.
If anything, GW is the only company I've seen that continues to get a pass for always going back to their old ways, every single time and no matter the marketing BS they throw out to hype it up. Everyone else who tries gets rightly lambasted and usually ends up failing, but not GeeDubs. GW could sell you literal gak and people would be saying how it's not so bad, but if Warlord or Mantic or Privateer did the same thing, it'd be a laughingstock. Only GW gets away with doing this every time and always being forgiven.
Saw this same junk when 8th came. They hyped it as the literal second coming, it literally killed Warmachine overnight at my FLGS and had a 40k resurgence when people were all like 7th was trash but this is "new GW", they've changed guys trust me, and in true GW fashion turned into garbage once the codex creep started. Same in 9th. I have no reason to think 10th will be any different because GW's marketing doofuses say it will be.
but this time it will be different, just wait until you get all the information
if it is still that bad, wait for the first codex, and the fist CA and no worry, with 11th they will finally solve all the problems and make it a game
PS: a good reason why GW can do that while others fail is that they have a solid customer base which does not play the game
there are different survey out that ~50% of the people having an army, never played that game
so all the negativity from the gaming side does not matter for them as they just collect and paint
but do it because they eventually can have a game with their collection, they never will but they might
and from those that play, a lot of people are driven by tournaments, as even the narrative players live from the local community that focus around events
and the people use 40k for their events because it is the game everyone plays and were everyone has models
and the gaming side just ignores a lot of issues because they can get the rules for free, people don't mind the issues and constant change because they don't have to pay it but pirate it
but that away and let people pay for all the rules and force them to pay the original models, the situation will be very different
this was one of the problems with PP, they copied GW but without the "pirate the rules and use cheaper models to play because we make money with the collectors"
I'm reasonably optimistic about the direction. 9th was too lethal? Lets reduce the lethality. People didn't like all the subfactions, purity bonuses and dozens of stratagems? Lets cut them down to size.
Even the Gambit rule is a good idea "conceptually" - I'm just not sure it does what its seemingly meant to do.
Like Spoletta said, I'd have preferred some sort of alternate concrete win condition - but I'm not sure how you'd ever balance that. A game coming down to "do you roll a 10, 11, 12 etc on the final dice roll" isn't really indicative of skill if you succeed, or non-skill if you fail. Its just luck. Yes there's skill to get to that position - but moving fast units to table corners isn't overly difficult.
And sure - if you are getting stomped, getting 30VP won't be enough to catch up and therefore it won't matter. But that's the point. The less likely it is to happen, the more gimmicky and un-earned it will feel when it does.
I don't think its a deal-breaker. But I don't think its the best approach.
dominuschao wrote: We've already seen balanced 10th is simplified balance. But now gambits exist. You losing? Okay reveal this card roll 2d6 on a 12+ score 30 vp. My current pick for first nerf.
You think it needs a nerf?
No, if anything it needs a buff lmao, its gonna be sooo trivial to deny your opponent the opportunity to even roll dice lol
Tyel wrote: I'm reasonably optimistic about the direction. 9th was too lethal? Lets reduce the lethality. People didn't like all the subfactions, purity bonuses and dozens of stratagems? Lets cut them down to size.
Even the Gambit rule is a good idea "conceptually" - I'm just not sure it does what its seemingly meant to do.
Like Spoletta said, I'd have preferred some sort of alternate concrete win condition - but I'm not sure how you'd ever balance that. A game coming down to "do you roll a 10, 11, 12 etc on the final dice roll" isn't really indicative of skill if you succeed, or non-skill if you fail. Its just luck. Yes there's skill to get to that position - but moving fast units to table corners isn't overly difficult.
And sure - if you are getting stomped, getting 30VP won't be enough to catch up and therefore it won't matter. But that's the point. The less likely it is to happen, the more gimmicky and un-earned it will feel when it does.
I don't think its a deal-breaker. But I don't think its the best approach.
You could be right, but I don't think you can get a feel for how that decision tree develops without playing the game. You could play 30 games and never see a viable opportunity to turn a win with a gambit. Some other guy might go for the gambit every single time and maybe gets lucky once in 30 games. The likelihood that you encounter that regularly is pretty slim.
It's hard to conceptualize though, because we have no way of visualizing how many models are on the table when these decisions are made until we play the new datasheets enough. At the bottom of 3 it's possible there could still be a lot of units left. If they can tie you up on primary and still get to corners - well played, potentially.
Tyel wrote: A game coming down to "do you roll a 10, 11, 12 etc on the final dice roll" isn't really indicative of skill if you succeed, or non-skill if you fail. Its just luck. Yes there's skill to get to that position - but moving fast units to table corners isn't overly difficult.
its not just a roll, and if you manage to keep your fast units alive for the whole game, after 2 turns of telegraphing what your plan is (and even if you manage to do so, is more likely to fail than not) then you deserve the win, it IS an alternate wincon that only let you get the points 27% of the time when you manage it (and even with those points, you might still not win
One flaw I do see is that if the gambit player goes first they have a turn to 'get away' while the rest of their army speed bumps. If you don't have enough models to cover primary and chase then it could put you in a pickle if they get a lucky roll. But even all that requires lots of decision making and I am very interested to see it play out.
Daedalus81 wrote: You could be right, but I don't think you can get a feel for how that decision tree develops without playing the game. You could play 30 games and never see a viable opportunity to turn a win with a gambit. Some other guy might go for the gambit every single time and maybe gets lucky once in 30 games. The likelihood that you encounter that regularly is pretty slim.
It's hard to conceptualize though, because we have no way of visualizing how many models are on the table when these decisions are made until we play the new datasheets enough. At the bottom of 3 it's possible there could still be a lot of units left. If they can tie you up on primary and still get to corners - well played, potentially.
The interesting question is going to be how things breakdown if both players activate their Gambit.
Maybe I'm biased from playing DE here - but I just don't see how difficult its going to be to keep something alive (mainly by hiding), then punt it into the corners for turn 5. As I see it an objective of this edition is that we aren't people tabled by the bottom of turn 3. You are right that we don't know the datasheets - but I imagine fast stuff will continue to be fast.
I can see gambits being super unpopular in tournaments where margin of victory is a factor.
You could, through solid plans and cunning game play, be thrashing your opponent, only for them to drastically reduce your margin of victory with a single, flukey roll.
Wayniac wrote: The skepticism/wailing is based on seeing what GW has done every single edition over the past 30 years. At some point you stop falling for the "I'm sorry I hit you honey, I won't do it again I promise!" excuses and, even if you're hopeful like I am, that hope is tempered by knowing their track record says it'll happen again. One of GW's own 40k quotes of the day is "Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment" and I think it's pretty apt for this.
Ah good, the ever-popular domestic abuse comparison. Glad we're keeping things in perspective.
Wayniac wrote: If anything, GW is the only company I've seen that continues to get a pass for always going back to their old ways, every single time and no matter the marketing BS they throw out to hype it up. Everyone else who tries gets rightly lambasted and usually ends up failing, but not GeeDubs. GW could sell you literal gak and people would be saying how it's not so bad, but if Warlord or Mantic or Privateer did the same thing, it'd be a laughingstock. Only GW gets away with doing this every time and always being forgiven.
Saw this same junk when 8th came. They hyped it as the literal second coming, it literally killed Warmachine overnight at my FLGS and had a 40k resurgence when people were all like 7th was trash but this is "new GW", they've changed guys trust me, and in true GW fashion turned into garbage once the codex creep started. Same in 9th. I have no reason to think 10th will be any different because GW's marketing doofuses say it will be.
I'm no fan of GW for competitive play. It genuinely confuses me why so many people try to treat it like some hyper-competitive eSport. However, it's clear GW know what their audience wants. We have seen a massive increase in participation and revenue since 8th edition. More accurately, I think it's been since the end of the Tom Kirby era and it applies not just to 40k. You can decry them as doofuses, idiots, semi-literate chimpanzees or any other insult you want to throw out, but whatever they're doing, it works, and I suspect that's because GW know their own market better than any single group of gamers do. It sounds like the game has been successful where you are, just not in the way you would prefer. You seem to be going down the classic route of "everyone's having fun wrong", rather than trying to understand why a particular style of play has been so successful.
To be clear, I think GW's rules are pretty poor from a competitive POV. Their balance needs a lot of work. I can't think of anything I'd rather do less than play a whole weekend of tournament 40k. They do seem to be trying to improve balance, with mixed results. But I acknowledge their approach has worked for GW and made them very successful. That style of game isn't for me, but I have a group that doesn't exclusively play that way and I can have fun playing a less cut-throat version of the game most of the time. Apparently you can't do that, which is unfortunate, but much of your anger is being directed at the wrong place.
Tyel wrote: You could be right, but I don't think you can get a feel for how that decision tree develops without playing the game. You could play 30 games and never see a viable opportunity to turn a win with a gambit. Some other guy might go for the gambit every single time and maybe gets lucky once in 30 games. The likelihood that you encounter that regularly is pretty slim.
It's hard to conceptualize though, because we have no way of visualizing how many models are on the table when these decisions are made until we play the new datasheets enough. At the bottom of 3 it's possible there could still be a lot of units left. If they can tie you up on primary and still get to corners - well played, potentially.
And those units also need to be unable to score primaries which are quaranteed vs at best 27% odds.
The interesting question is going to be how things breakdown if both players activate their Gambit.
Maybe I'm biased from playing DE here - but I just don't see how difficult its going to be to keep something alive (mainly by hiding), then punt it into the corners for turn 5. As I see it an objective of this edition is that we aren't people tabled by the bottom of turn 3. You are right that we don't know the datasheets - but I imagine fast stuff will continue to be fast.
Do keep in mind Gambits are also somewhat All Or Nothing. So there’s going to be a decision to be made as to whether it’s really worth abandoning your existing Primary. Which will almost certainly also include consideration about your Secondary, and whether you can score some points from that.
I’m going to make a bold prediction here. Like, really bold.
Gambits won’t be a crutch to poor play throughout the game - but will offer someone a way back from a truly disastrous “the dice said no” turn or two,
We’ve all had turns or even games where Disobedient Dice firmly refuse to let you achieve anything. Nothing hits. Nothing saves. And whilst such games can absolutely still be a laugh, mostly at your own misfortune, they can still be frustrating, as you see any chance of a draw, let alone victory, vanish into the ether through no real fault of your own.
We’ve all had turns where we have absolutely botched it. We may have planned too far in advance. We may have simply blundered and forgot to move something. I mean, any individual game has a huge amount of moving parts to it, and we can all lose track of bits and bobs.
From such things we might be able to claw back from Absolutely Farcical Defeat through astute cunning and shrewd decision making. And Gambits will form part of that.
But, I don’t think we’re going to see Gambits simply deliver wins to people who haven’t otherwise worked for every victory point they can.
As I said this is a bold prediction. And happy to be proven wrong in due course.
Karol wrote: GW is the same. They litteraly expect people to pay and wait for rules, which may not fix the players problems. While at the same time acting, as if the Real® way to play the game was to fix the problems on your own. It is mind blowing crazy to expect to work for a normal company, but when you are a monopolist it makes 100% sense. What will people do? It is the dominant game, new people often won't even know something besides warhammer exists, 10-20-30y veterans have so much sunk cost in to the game, that if they didn't leave they will swallow everything GW gives them. And if someone leaves they leave, and they are no longer a GW problem. In fact they can be burned by GW games so much, that they may not even try to pick up games from other companies. So it is a double win for GW. The only thing that GW needs for the holy trifect is to start making models that bio degrade, to "save the planet".
And yet for all your clairvoyance... You're. Still. Here. Posting.
The ultimate non-argument. Reminds me of the conservatives that reply "HE LIVES IN YOUR HEAD RENT FREE" when discussing how awful Trump was and the consequences of his presidency.
You'd have better off not have replied to Karol instead of posting crap like "OH YOU STILL POST, CHRCKMATE".
Daedalus81 wrote: You could be right, but I don't think you can get a feel for how that decision tree develops without playing the game. You could play 30 games and never see a viable opportunity to turn a win with a gambit. Some other guy might go for the gambit every single time and maybe gets lucky once in 30 games. The likelihood that you encounter that regularly is pretty slim.
It's hard to conceptualize though, because we have no way of visualizing how many models are on the table when these decisions are made until we play the new datasheets enough. At the bottom of 3 it's possible there could still be a lot of units left. If they can tie you up on primary and still get to corners - well played, potentially.
The interesting question is going to be how things breakdown if both players activate their Gambit.
Maybe I'm biased from playing DE here - but I just don't see how difficult its going to be to keep something alive (mainly by hiding), then punt it into the corners for turn 5. As I see it an objective of this edition is that we aren't people tabled by the bottom of turn 3. You are right that we don't know the datasheets - but I imagine fast stuff will continue to be fast.
There's a point where you're probably telegraphing that you're going to gambit. Transports will likely force you to buy a squad to take them so that you don't have empty venoms zipping around from the start.
I think this will largely be irrelevant in tournaments as no top player is going to gamble not getting max or close to max score as they can push them out of the running. Tournaments will probably exclude them anyway.
Karol wrote: GW is the same. They litteraly expect people to pay and wait for rules, which may not fix the players problems. While at the same time acting, as if the Real® way to play the game was to fix the problems on your own. It is mind blowing crazy to expect to work for a normal company, but when you are a monopolist it makes 100% sense. What will people do? It is the dominant game, new people often won't even know something besides warhammer exists, 10-20-30y veterans have so much sunk cost in to the game, that if they didn't leave they will swallow everything GW gives them. And if someone leaves they leave, and they are no longer a GW problem. In fact they can be burned by GW games so much, that they may not even try to pick up games from other companies. So it is a double win for GW. The only thing that GW needs for the holy trifect is to start making models that bio degrade, to "save the planet".
And yet for all your clairvoyance... You're. Still. Here. Posting.
The ultimate non-argument. Reminds me of the conservatives that reply "HE LIVES IN YOUR HEAD RENT FREE" when discussing how awful Trump was and the consequences of his presidency.
You'd have better off not have replied to Karol instead of posting crap like "OH YOU STILL POST, CHRCKMATE".
I'm just making a point to mark people who very clearly would never fall for GW's shenanigans when they try and muscle into a future discussion to pretend like they know the game lest they reveal themselves as hypocrites.
Karol wrote: GW is the same. They litteraly expect people to pay and wait for rules, which may not fix the players problems. While at the same time acting, as if the Real® way to play the game was to fix the problems on your own. It is mind blowing crazy to expect to work for a normal company, but when you are a monopolist it makes 100% sense. What will people do? It is the dominant game, new people often won't even know something besides warhammer exists, 10-20-30y veterans have so much sunk cost in to the game, that if they didn't leave they will swallow everything GW gives them. And if someone leaves they leave, and they are no longer a GW problem. In fact they can be burned by GW games so much, that they may not even try to pick up games from other companies. So it is a double win for GW. The only thing that GW needs for the holy trifect is to start making models that bio degrade, to "save the planet".
And yet for all your clairvoyance... You're. Still. Here. Posting.
The ultimate non-argument. Reminds me of the conservatives that reply "HE LIVES IN YOUR HEAD RENT FREE" when discussing how awful Trump was and the consequences of his presidency.
You'd have better off not have replied to Karol instead of posting crap like "OH YOU STILL POST, CHRCKMATE".
I'm just making a point to mark people who very clearly would never fall for GW's shenanigans when they try and muscle into a future discussion to pretend like they know the game lest they reveal themselves as hypocrites.
Karol isn't going out buying a bunch of models, and seems to mostly have kept up with the rule books. Nothing about what he posted there was hypocritical. You made no point.
I'm talking future discussions. If people want to come and make silly, absurd or insulting comments then they can put their money where their mouth it and not buy GW product. And then when 10th is out they can't pretend they understand the game they never bought into.
Am I being absurd myself? Absolutely. At the same time I'm pretty much over this stuff or having to put a clause on every post that no, I don't think this is the most magical edition ever simply because people can't separate their disdain for GW to have actual meaningful discussion.
kodos wrote: but this time it will be different, just wait until you get all the information if it is still that bad, wait for the first codex, and the fist CA and no worry, with 11th they will finally solve all the problems and make it a game
PS: a good reason why GW can do that while others fail is that they have a solid customer base which does not play the game there are different survey out that ~50% of the people having an army, never played that game
so all the negativity from the gaming side does not matter for them as they just collect and paint but do it because they eventually can have a game with their collection, they never will but they might
and from those that play, a lot of people are driven by tournaments, as even the narrative players live from the local community that focus around events and the people use 40k for their events because it is the game everyone plays and were everyone has models
and the gaming side just ignores a lot of issues because they can get the rules for free, people don't mind the issues and constant change because they don't have to pay it but pirate it but that away and let people pay for all the rules and force them to pay the original models, the situation will be very different
this was one of the problems with PP, they copied GW but without the "pirate the rules and use cheaper models to play because we make money with the collectors"
So wait...40k players are only playing 40k because the rules are free and you can use cheaper proxy models...but people use 40k for events because everyone has models...but the rules are terrible...but people are playing the game anyway? Despite the fact that everyone is just pirating rules and is simultaneously using all proxy models and 0 proxy models?
Also, 50% of people who own 40karmies have never played the game? Source: trust me bro?
Oh, and painters somehow aren't leading the charge on proxying/3d printing models despite there be even less of a reason to avoid doing so?
Nothing in that screed makes sense. I wish I had the Billy Madison: 'May god have mercy on your soul' gif saved.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Daedalus81 wrote: I'm talking future discussions. If people want to come and make silly, absurd or insulting comments then they can put their money where their mouth it and not buy GW product. And then when 10th is out they can't pretend they understand the game they never bought into.
Am I being absurd myself? Absolutely. At the same time I'm pretty much over this stuff or having to put a clause on every post that no, I don't think this is the most magical edition ever simply because people can't separate their disdain for GW to have actual meaningful discussion.
75% of the most vocal detractors on this forum have played maybe 1 game of ninth, if any at all. I'm not even convinced that Unit, for example, even owns any 40k models that aren't also usable in Heresy.
Wayniac wrote: The skepticism/wailing is based on seeing what GW has done every single edition over the past 30 years. At some point you stop falling for the "I'm sorry I hit you honey, I won't do it again I promise!" excuses and, even if you're hopeful like I am, that hope is tempered by knowing their track record says it'll happen again. One of GW's own 40k quotes of the day is "Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment" and I think it's pretty apt for this.
This right here is why nothing you say has any merit.
Continuing to play a GW game is in no way comparable to the very real problem of domestic violence.
Wayniac wrote: If anything, GW is the only company I've seen that continues to get a pass for always going back to their old ways, every single time and no matter the marketing BS they throw out to hype it up. Everyone else who tries gets rightly lambasted and usually ends up failing, but not GeeDubs. GW could sell you literal gak and people would be saying how it's not so bad, but if Warlord or Mantic or Privateer did the same thing, it'd be a laughingstock. Only GW gets away with doing this every time and always being forgiven.
Saw this same junk when 8th came. They hyped it as the literal second coming, it literally killed Warmachine overnight at my FLGS and had a 40k resurgence when people were all like 7th was trash but this is "new GW", they've changed guys trust me, and in true GW fashion turned into garbage once the codex creep started. Same in 9th. I have no reason to think 10th will be any different because GW's marketing doofuses say it will be.
This is a game. If you decide you don't like the game (or a particular edition of it) for whatever reason? Leave. Quit. Go play something else*. Beyond your circle of immediate friends nobody in the world will know or care. Not even GW.
*And for anyone who claims "But GW is a monopoly...."? They aren't. There's plenty of games out there of every genre/scale/price range/quality/complexity you could want - and as you're reading this on-line I know you have access to them. Pick one that looks interesting.
Now about 40k 8th killing Warmachine overnight at your local shop? You've got to ask WHY? Had PP done something to alienate those players & the coming of 40k 8e was at just the right moment? Were those WM/H players also 40k players who'd grown dissatisfied with whatever edition & were taking a break by playing something else (remember, GWs not a monopoly) until they thought 40k improved? Was there a sudden growth of NEW 40k players? Did those WM players stop gaming or did they shift to 40k?
Did you ever even ask the (former) WM players why they quit WM?
Something happened & it wasn't just GW proclaiming that the next best edition since sliced bread had arrived.
mrFickle wrote: If the th is going to be that much simpler to learn and play do you think the game will become more balanced aswell?
My logic is that GW made the game so complicated with too many data point to adjust that creating balance was too difficult for them to achieve balance so they created the cycle of making armies OP and then nerfing them (this also seemed to help sales)
But if they got an easier job then balance might be achievable??
I think there's a decent chance that the initial release will be better balanced, but it likely won't last the whole edition.
Overall, I like that they're gonna have the initial batch of rules for free, so you can dip your feet in without dropping tons of moolah on soon-to-be-obsolete books.
why should a painter use proxies?
I really want to paint the new Tyranids, so I buy some 3D prints that are similar but different?
Have you ever looked at painting/model conventions, you are not going to see any proxy because there is no reason to do so
people proxy/3D print because it is cheaper for gaming, were you need the same unit/model several times the models you need change over time with new rules/codex
and yes, a lot of people just play because Wahapedia and Battlescribe are a thing, they won't pay for the rules and if Wahapedia disappears they are gone
if you really think the painters are leading the 3D printed market and the players are the ones who pay the full priced originals, you have neither visit a painting convention nor a tournament.
Wayniac wrote: The skepticism/wailing is based on seeing what GW has done every single edition over the past 30 years. At some point you stop falling for the "I'm sorry I hit you honey, I won't do it again I promise!" excuses and, even if you're hopeful like I am, that hope is tempered by knowing their track record says it'll happen again. One of GW's own 40k quotes of the day is "Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment" and I think it's pretty apt for this.
This right here is why nothing you say has any merit.
Continuing to play a GW game is in no way comparable to the very real problem of domestic violence.
Wayniac wrote: If anything, GW is the only company I've seen that continues to get a pass for always going back to their old ways, every single time and no matter the marketing BS they throw out to hype it up. Everyone else who tries gets rightly lambasted and usually ends up failing, but not GeeDubs. GW could sell you literal gak and people would be saying how it's not so bad, but if Warlord or Mantic or Privateer did the same thing, it'd be a laughingstock. Only GW gets away with doing this every time and always being forgiven.
Saw this same junk when 8th came. They hyped it as the literal second coming, it literally killed Warmachine overnight at my FLGS and had a 40k resurgence when people were all like 7th was trash but this is "new GW", they've changed guys trust me, and in true GW fashion turned into garbage once the codex creep started. Same in 9th. I have no reason to think 10th will be any different because GW's marketing doofuses say it will be.
This is a game. If you decide you don't like the game (or a particular edition of it) for whatever reason? Leave. Quit. Go play something else*. Beyond your circle of immediate friends nobody in the world will know or care. Not even GW.
*And for anyone who claims "But GW is a monopoly...."? They aren't. There's plenty of games out there of every genre/scale/price range/quality/complexity you could want - and as you're reading this on-line I know you have access to them. Pick one that looks interesting.
Now about 40k 8th killing Warmachine overnight at your local shop? You've got to ask WHY? Had PP done something to alienate those players & the coming of 40k 8e was at just the right moment? Were those WM/H players also 40k players who'd grown dissatisfied with whatever edition & were taking a break by playing something else (remember, GWs not a monopoly) until they thought 40k improved? Was there a sudden growth of NEW 40k players? Did those WM players stop gaming or did they shift to 40k?
Did you ever even ask the (former) WM players why they quit WM?
Something happened & it wasn't just GW proclaiming that the next best edition since sliced bread had arrived.
The idea that the game that YOU like and think should be the game everybody plays is worse and less enjoyable than 40k is a real hard pill to swallow for a lot of people here.
I love MCP. I think it's the best skirmish game on the market and that it doesn't get anywhere near the love it should. I also think it's in a better place than 40k currently. That doesn't mean I don't understand that people just aren't interested for a multitude of reason up to and including 'they like 40k better.'
Wayniac wrote: The skepticism/wailing is based on seeing what GW has done every single edition over the past 30 years. At some point you stop falling for the "I'm sorry I hit you honey, I won't do it again I promise!" excuses and, even if you're hopeful like I am, that hope is tempered by knowing their track record says it'll happen again. One of GW's own 40k quotes of the day is "Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment" and I think it's pretty apt for this.
This right here is why nothing you say has any merit.
Continuing to play a GW game is in no way comparable to the very real problem of domestic violence.
Wayniac wrote: If anything, GW is the only company I've seen that continues to get a pass for always going back to their old ways, every single time and no matter the marketing BS they throw out to hype it up. Everyone else who tries gets rightly lambasted and usually ends up failing, but not GeeDubs. GW could sell you literal gak and people would be saying how it's not so bad, but if Warlord or Mantic or Privateer did the same thing, it'd be a laughingstock. Only GW gets away with doing this every time and always being forgiven.
Saw this same junk when 8th came. They hyped it as the literal second coming, it literally killed Warmachine overnight at my FLGS and had a 40k resurgence when people were all like 7th was trash but this is "new GW", they've changed guys trust me, and in true GW fashion turned into garbage once the codex creep started. Same in 9th. I have no reason to think 10th will be any different because GW's marketing doofuses say it will be.
This is a game. If you decide you don't like the game (or a particular edition of it) for whatever reason? Leave. Quit. Go play something else*. Beyond your circle of immediate friends nobody in the world will know or care. Not even GW.
*And for anyone who claims "But GW is a monopoly...."? They aren't. There's plenty of games out there of every genre/scale/price range/quality/complexity you could want - and as you're reading this on-line I know you have access to them. Pick one that looks interesting.
Now about 40k 8th killing Warmachine overnight at your local shop? You've got to ask WHY? Had PP done something to alienate those players & the coming of 40k 8e was at just the right moment? Were those WM/H players also 40k players who'd grown dissatisfied with whatever edition & were taking a break by playing something else (remember, GWs not a monopoly) until they thought 40k improved? Was there a sudden growth of NEW 40k players? Did those WM players stop gaming or did they shift to 40k?
Did you ever even ask the (former) WM players why they quit WM?
Something happened & it wasn't just GW proclaiming that the next best edition since sliced bread had arrived.
So firstly moral grandstanding (not comparing GW to an abusive relationship) isn't an argument. Its an appeal to emotion. The comparison is apt because GW fans DO do a lot "but they said they were sorry and promised to do better". If you can think of a better comparison then feel free to present it.
Secondly no, GW don't have a LITERAL monopoly but they might as well. Almost all of us who are dissatisfied with GW have tried starting new wargames and more often than not people just gravitate back to 40k after a few weeks. There's a lot of reasons for this. No one wants to learn new rules, buy new models, ease of availability, ease of finding a game etc. For all intents and purposes GW MIGHT AS WELL have a monopoly. It's like saying "well no one is FORCING you to watch Disney stuff" when lile 80% of the entertainment media created is by Disney.
As for 8th 40k killing WMH, well PP is pretty much to blame on that one.
GW doesn't have a monopoly. Star Wars and Marvel do quite well on their own. GoT still does well. Battletech is making a resurgence.
The difference between those and GW? GW always has releases. They always have new stuff for some person. Star Wars will eventually reach the end of what it can release. Maybe GW will some day, too, but they're working real hard to spin out tons of other games with Old World and Epic on the horizon again.
GW DOES have a monopoly on twisted gothic sci-fi and that can be appealing all on it's own. It's more than just Empire vs Rebels ( and some minor side factions ). It's more than just big mechs. It's big armies without sacrificing on details as other games this size might - often to it's own detriment.
Daedalus81 wrote: I'm talking future discussions. If people want to come and make silly, absurd or insulting comments then they can put their money where their mouth it and not buy GW product. And then when 10th is out they can't pretend they understand the game they never bought into.
Am I being absurd myself? Absolutely. At the same time I'm pretty much over this stuff or having to put a clause on every post that no, I don't think this is the most magical edition ever simply because people can't separate their disdain for GW to have actual meaningful discussion.
75% of the most vocal detractors on this forum have played maybe 1 game of ninth, if any at all. I'm not even convinced that Unit, for example, even owns any 40k models that aren't also usable in Heresy.
We have had posters relatively recently go "40k sucks, its sucked for 30 years. Btw I've not bought a model since 5th or played a game since 7th."
My main concerns about balance and mechanics in 10th relate to the fact I think 9th is quite good. Sorry if anyone reading this hates it, but there we are.
By contrast, I had very few fears over the 7th to 8th jump, because I didn't think it was possible to get much worse. I guess if it had, I've have used that as the opportunity to step away.
Daedalus81 wrote: GW doesn't have a monopoly. Star Wars and Marvel do quite well on their own. GoT still does well. Battletech is making a resurgence.
The difference between those and GW? GW always has releases. They always have new stuff for some person. Star Wars will eventually reach the end of what it can release. Maybe GW will some day, too, but they're working real hard to spin out tons of other games with Old World and Epic on the horizon again.
GW DOES have a monopoly on twisted gothic sci-fi and that can be appealing all on it's own. It's more than just Empire vs Rebels ( and some minor side factions ). It's more than just big mechs. It's big armies without sacrificing on details as other games this size might - often to it's own detriment.
GW will never run out of releases for 40K. They’ve built a galaxy where any old thing can happen and primed the lore with mystery’s that be solved with model releases. The old ones, the missing primarchs, Krorks and so on. There was no lore for TAU or necrons that I recall from 2nd or 3rd but here we are. Squats got squatted but the LOV are back
Star Wars is a universe that’s focused on movie and tv production so the game can’t break those worlds and has to tread more carefully despite the huge volume of lore that has been written for the Star Wars universe. It also is probably very low down the list of priorities for the IP owners due to the amount of revenue that comes from the movies, toys Lego and so on. So if the people running the game said we want to introduce some new characters I doubt they’d be allowed
the rules will suck, the rules have largely always sucked, the key is though the overall "experience" around the background and the models has always offset the fact that while the rules suck, they don't suck enough to go elsewhere
which is also why conceptually "better" games don't take over.
it turns out the rules sucking isn't as important as some people think
I wish they were better, by this point they should be damned near perfect, the fact they are not suggests they never will be, the fact the game is still popular suggests it will continue to not overly matter
So firstly moral grandstanding (not comparing GW to an abusive relationship) isn't an argument. Its an appeal to emotion. The comparison is apt because GW fans DO do a lot "but they said they were sorry and promised to do better". If you can think of a better comparison then feel free to present it.
How do people get away with such tripe? Can you not even see it?
MAKING THE COMPARISON IN THE FIRST PLACE IS ALSO AN APPEAL TO EMOTION, NO MATTER HOW GOOD YOU THINK THE COMPARISON IS!!
So firstly moral grandstanding (not comparing GW to an abusive relationship) isn't an argument. Its an appeal to emotion. The comparison is apt because GW fans DO do a lot "but they said they were sorry and promised to do better". If you can think of a better comparison then feel free to present it.
How do people get away with such tripe? Can you not even see it?
MAKING THE COMPARISON IN THE FIRST PLACE IS ALSO AN APPEAL TO EMOTION, NO MATTER HOW GOOD YOU THINK THE COMPARISON IS!!
No, making the comparison is a way to make the situation easier to explain. As I said if you can present a more apt comparison that explain the GW/Customer relationship present it and we'll use that but until then abusive relationship is the best we have.
And just by the by, companies can have an abusive relationship with their customers. It's not purely a term reserved for domestic situations.
Oh my god, stop the abusive relationship thing. Its vile.
I really don't enjoy modern 40k at all but get a bloody grip. These people you are talking to just have different tastes to you. That's it. And you come out with this crap.GW is a company looking to profit by appealing to as many as possible. Thats it. Don't like it? Walk away. This is not abuse, you can do so.
If you are genuinely in a position where it feels like an abusive relationship and you cannot leave yet still feel abused by the company, seek help. This is not an insult. Genuinely seek help, there's something going very wrong in your mind.
Dai wrote: Oh my god, stop the abusive relationship thing. Its vile.
I really don't enjoy modern 40k at all but get a bloody grip. These people you are talking to just have different tastes to you. That's it. And you come out with this crap.GW is a company looking to profit by appealing to as many as possible. Thats it. Don't like it? Walk away. This is not abuse, you can do so.
If you are genuinely in a position where it feels like an abusive relationship and you cannot leave yet still feel abused by the company, seek help. This is not an insult. Genuinely seek help, there's something going very wrong in your mind.
You know shopping addictions are a thing and corporations like GW prey on people with them yes?
Sim-Life wrote: It's like saying "well no one is FORCING you to watch Disney stuff" when lile 80% of the entertainment media created is by Disney.
That is such a hilariously bad argument because Disney definitely doesn't create 80% of entertainment. Do you have Netflix? Amazon Prime? HBO? Do you watch anime? Mexican or Turkish Soap Operas? then you likely have consumed non-Disney media. And that's just for TV and movie entertainment, videogames, comics and books are mostly beyond Disney.
If Disney is your go to example for a monopoly then you have a bad argument.
So firstly moral grandstanding (not comparing GW to an abusive relationship) isn't an argument. Its an appeal to emotion. The comparison is apt because GW fans DO do a lot "but they said they were sorry and promised to do better". If you can think of a better comparison then feel free to present it.
How do people get away with such tripe? Can you not even see it?
MAKING THE COMPARISON IN THE FIRST PLACE IS ALSO AN APPEAL TO EMOTION, NO MATTER HOW GOOD YOU THINK THE COMPARISON IS!!
No, making the comparison is a way to make the situation easier to explain. As I said if you can present a more apt comparison that explain the GW/Customer relationship present it and we'll use that but until then abusive relationship is the best we have.
And just by the by, companies can have an abusive relationship with their customers. It's not purely a term reserved for domestic situations.
Why is it up to us to present a more apt description? If you're going to double down on the horrible and absurd comparison that's on you. I won't be digging you out of that hole. You may also want to read the comment that caused this whole thing in the first place. It's specifically about violent domestic abuse, not some other type of barely related abusive relationship like psychological marketing tricks.
It's really hard to take any argument seriously when this is the comparison you're choosing to make (or support). GW could do better than they are when it comes to rules, yes. I'd love better balance and a more equitable distribution of resources so armies like DE might actually get some additions to their army instead of yet another SM Lt model. But I also acknowledge they're doing something right. Their profits seem to keep going up and participation seems to be going in the same direction. If that squeezes other games out of a given group maybe that's because those games are doing a worse job in some way (probably marketing). Or maybe people are happy playing GW games and don't want to put the time investment into another game. Blaming GW for that seems bizarre to me. That's especially true when I see decent communities around me for lots of different games, including Bolt Action, Malifaux, X-Wing and MCP, so this clearly isn't a universal problem.
Eldarsif wrote: I think the greatest trick GW ever did was to get so many people who obviously hate Warhammer to collect Warhammer.
If I were WotC I'd be asking GW for pointers.
It's less hate and more "You can do better, but you CHOOSE not to, and you're rewarded for it". With GW's resources there's no reason why they can't have great rules and models, and not a business model that makes you feel like you're being robbed blind with everything. Yet they do, and their "fans" overlook it while talking gak about other companies that try to do the same thing/better.
I've honestly never met anyone who talks gak about lesser companies. If anything people seem more inclined to talk gak about GW than the other companies. Now, if you are referring to the setting that's an entirely different thing. A company could release the greatest game ever, but if they put it in WW2 setting I'll have almost 0 interest in it. Same goes for people who have no interest in Marvel and therefore have no interest in MCP. They don't hate the game, but they are not a fan of the setting.
Eldarsif wrote: I think the greatest trick GW ever did was to get so many people who obviously hate Warhammer to collect Warhammer.
If I were WotC I'd be asking GW for pointers.
It's less hate and more "You can do better, but you CHOOSE not to, and you're rewarded for it". With GW's resources there's no reason why they can't have great rules and models, and not a business model that makes you feel like you're being robbed blind with everything. Yet they do, and their "fans" overlook it while talking gak about other companies that try to do the same thing/better.
I've honestly never met anyone who talks gak about lesser companies. If anything people seem more inclined to talk gak about GW than the other companies. Now, if you are referring to the setting that's an entirely different thing. A company could release the greatest game ever, but if they put it in WW2 setting I'll have almost 0 interest in it. Same goes for people who have no interest in Marvel and therefore have no interest in MCP. They don't hate the game, but they are not a fan of the setting.
Same here. I can't remember the last time a GW fan started criticizing other gaming companies. Usually all you get is a "never heard of it" or "haven't played it", not some diatribe about the company itself. Maybe once or twice it would happen, but usually because of good reasons (PP and page 5 springs to mind).
get back on topic, now and in the future do not make such disgusting comparisons either. Your relationship with a toy company is nothing like an abusive relationship and you should feel ashamed of yourself to even think such let alone post it.
But the wailing and gnashing of teeth is comically premature.
Me? I’m genuinely excited for 10th. As covered many times elsewhere, due to professional pressures I’ve not really played in the past ten and a half years. Because commuting sucks.
I'm more excited for 11th. GW tends to have a rubber band effect for their sweeping changes. They overcorrect. Hard. And the edition after that when the snap back from the overcorrection is closer to palatable is the fun one. For example, look at close combat in 8th/9th. They stripped out +1A for assorted things - charging, two weapons, etc - and it just killed the assault phase for a lot of armies. I think Assault Marines were underappreciated/overlooked still at the end of 9th, but it just too so long for GW to make them close enough to viable.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
kodos wrote: why should a painter use proxies?
I really want to paint the new Tyranids, so I buy some 3D prints that are similar but different?
Have you ever looked at painting/model conventions, you are not going to see any proxy because there is no reason to do so
people proxy/3D print because it is cheaper for gaming, were you need the same unit/model several times the models you need change over time with new rules/codex
and yes, a lot of people just play because Wahapedia and Battlescribe are a thing, they won't pay for the rules and if Wahapedia disappears they are gone
if you really think the painters are leading the 3D printed market and the players are the ones who pay the full priced originals, you have neither visit a painting convention nor a tournament.
Not the fake look alikes, but yeah some will 3D print optional looks. I've seen a Repulsor/Primaris theme guy who makes them all look like Lost In Space tv toys.
But those people do it because they want that specific look for a painting project
same as I have seen people using GW based designs for a Vietnam theme or Tau-Gundam Army made with Tau models
(while the people who proxy for gaming are using the Gundam models for Tau because they are cheaper)
they don't proxy a Space Marine with a look alike if they want to paint a Space Marine because it is cheaper, they do it if they want to paint that alternative
saying the painters leading the 3D printing market because they have less reason to buy originals than the gamers do, is like the opposite of reality (as they only reason to buy the GW models if you like to paint and collect them)
Friend I mentioned earlier that’s also had their interest piqued by 10th?
He has a 3D Printer, and he’s a damned good painter. These two are linked.
What he doesn’t do is use his 3D Printer to produce knock-offs/carbon copies. Rather it’s a cost effective way for him to be able to obtain and then paint whatever it is that’s tickling his fancy in the moment.
Lord Damocles wrote: Remember how 8th ed was the most playtested edition ever, and then Assault weapons didn't work by RAW and never got errata'd?
Remember how GW asked for community feedback on the proposed 8th ed rules, but only a couple of weeks before release so it was totally pointless?
Yes. I also remember 9th starting out pretty well, and within a few months bloating to a dumpster fire with codex creep and adding in more and more stratagems and other junk.
Lord Damocles wrote: Remember how 8th ed was the most playtested edition ever, and then Assault weapons didn't work by RAW and never got errata'd?
Remember how GW asked for community feedback on the proposed 8th ed rules, but only a couple of weeks before release so it was totally pointless?
Yes. I also remember 9th starting out pretty well, and within a few months bloating to a dumpster fire with codex creep and adding in more and more stratagems and other junk.
Lord Damocles wrote: Remember how 8th ed was the most playtested edition ever, and then Assault weapons didn't work by RAW and never got errata'd?
Remember how GW asked for community feedback on the proposed 8th ed rules, but only a couple of weeks before release so it was totally pointless?
Yes. I also remember 9th starting out pretty well, and within a few months bloating to a dumpster fire with codex creep and adding in more and more stratagems and other junk.
And where is 9th now?
I think there are still too many outliers in the balance of 9th, but it's better than we've seen for a while. My main problem is how long it took to get there. DE and AdMech were really strong for a little while, but Nids and Harlequins took an absolute age to bring back into line. I think GW are too devoted to their quarterly updates. If they remain as bad as they currently are at the initial balance of factions I'd like to see them be more proactive when big problems show up. Weirdly, the most proactive they've been is for Votann before they were even released, yet it took probably 3 months longer than it should have for them to bring Nids back into line.
As always the hope is not that they get it right early on it's that they stay with it. That seems to always be their problem. They can never actually stick with it and have to bloat it with extra nonsense to sell you the codex and updates
Wayniac wrote: As always the hope is not that they get it right early on it's that they stay with it. That seems to always be their problem. They can never actually stick with it and have to bloat it with extra nonsense to sell you the codex and updates
Right, but can someone here predict along what axis that will occur? They'll sell codexes for the extra detachments and new models.
GW proliferated weapons in 8th and then traits and strats in 9th. Now all of those things are adjusted back, rescaled, or severely limited.
- Your detachment will always be two pages. If there's a bad detachment we can throw that out until they fix it instead of the entire army.
- The datasheets being shown are already reasonably complex. What would they add that will totally up-end the game?
- Characters are unit locked, CP is very low, etc
The only thing I can think of is points being totally out of whack.
Wayniac wrote: As always the hope is not that they get it right early on it's that they stay with it. That seems to always be their problem. They can never actually stick with it and have to bloat it with extra nonsense to sell you the codex and updates
Right, but can someone here predict along what axis that will occur? They'll sell codexes for the extra detachments and new models.
GW proliferated weapons in 8th and then traits and strats in 9th. Now all of those things are adjusted back, rescaled, or severely limited.
- Your detachment will always be two pages. If there's a bad detachment we can throw that out until they fix it instead of the entire army.
- The datasheets being shown are already reasonably complex. What would they add that will totally up-end the game?
- Characters are unit locked, CP is very low, etc
The only thing I can think of is points being totally out of whack.
They still have the opportunity to just flat out make a unit ability too strong. 9th was far too complicated by the interwoven rules of sub-factions, units, strats, psychic powers, auras, relics, etc. 10th looks to be doing a good job of taming that, but there's still the possibility of GW replicating what they did with Nids, where a big part of the problem was the units just being far too good. With fewer moving parts, points might be a more effective lever to pull to balance that than we've seen in the past, at least.
Daedalus81 wrote: GW proliferated weapons in 8th and then traits and strats in 9th. Now all of those things are adjusted back, rescaled, or severely limited.
- Your detachment will always be two pages. If there's a bad detachment we can throw that out until they fix it instead of the entire army.
- The datasheets being shown are already reasonably complex. What would they add that will totally up-end the game?
- Characters are unit locked, CP is very low, etc
The only thing I can think of is points being totally out of whack.
They've scaled back on stratagems, army abilities, and layered rules, but there's no telling whether they'll stay the course. If the codices start coming out and now instead of one faction ability each faction is getting two or three, oh and here's a set of stratagems that applies regardless of what detachment you run, then we'll be resuming the same mess we currently have.
It would be immediately contrary to their stated design goals, but GW finds it hard to resist cramming new and shiny stuff into each codex rather than just iterating on what's already been hammered out.
That said, I will be completely fine with the books just adding thirteen million detachments with a bazillion stratagems and abilities if they all follow the format of what we've seen so far; ie short enough that you can just talk through it all with your opponent before the game.
Lord Damocles wrote: Remember how 8th ed was the most playtested edition ever, and then Assault weapons didn't work by RAW and never got errata'd?
Remember how GW asked for community feedback on the proposed 8th ed rules, but only a couple of weeks before release so it was totally pointless?
Yes. I also remember 9th starting out pretty well, and within a few months bloating to a dumpster fire with codex creep and adding in more and more stratagems and other junk.
And where is 9th now?
In a place where my Canoness can't take a Rod of Office unless she very specifically also has a plasma pistol and power sword (NOT A BLESSED BLADE YOU HEATHENS! *slap*) because 'screw you, that's why'.
kodos wrote: But those people do it because they want that specific look for a painting project
same as I have seen people using GW based designs for a Vietnam theme or Tau-Gundam Army made with Tau models
(while the people who proxy for gaming are using the Gundam models for Tau because they are cheaper)
they don't proxy a Space Marine with a look alike if they want to paint a Space Marine because it is cheaper, they do it if they want to paint that alternative
saying the painters leading the 3D printing market because they have less reason to buy originals than the gamers do, is like the opposite of reality (as they only reason to buy the GW models if you like to paint and collect them)
You've got a Chicken/Egg scenario here. Did I print my cheaper Lost In Space because I liked the aesthetic or did I like the aesthetic because it was cheaper?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Friend I mentioned earlier that’s also had their interest piqued by 10th?
He has a 3D Printer, and he’s a damned good painter. These two are linked.
What he doesn’t do is use his 3D Printer to produce knock-offs/carbon copies. Rather it’s a cost effective way for him to be able to obtain and then paint whatever it is that’s tickling his fancy in the moment.
It depends on what people want to call knock-offs and carbon copies. I've printed Molded Shoulder Pads - But I get both halves not just the chapter half but also the Battle Role half. I've printed alternate Shields/Swords, I've printed the Dawn of War Space Marine HQ building for terrain. I've printed Redemptor Chest panels. I haven't printed them yet, but I have the downloads to print Impuslor/Gladiator Toppers for magnetization/swaps. Some of that is an overlap I could get from GW - but I'd rather have matching Left and Right pads than GW official Chapter Pads and home made role pads.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Daedalus81 wrote: Hence why things are so stripped out in 10th. Peeling back the layer cake of 9th is a long winded battle that would be difficult to truly get right.
In some ways they're repeating their punt after 7th, going back to indexes - and so far it looks like they're changing far less than they did from 7-8 than 9-10.
Right, but can someone here predict along what axis that will occur? They'll sell codexes for the extra detachments and new models.
GW proliferated weapons in 8th and then traits and strats in 9th. Now all of those things are adjusted back, rescaled, or severely limited.
- Your detachment will always be two pages. If there's a bad detachment we can throw that out until they fix it instead of the entire army.
- The datasheets being shown are already reasonably complex. What would they add that will totally up-end the game?
- Characters are unit locked, CP is very low, etc
The only thing I can think of is points being totally out of whack.
It all boils down to what the detachment is going to do. I think we can expect the DA codex to have a DW, RW, "regular marines/mixed force" detachment. Maybe also something for the fallen, maybe something centered around the Lion. If the DW models in a DW detachment were, lets say can only be wounded on +3. How does one balance thier cost in the "regular marines" detachment? One option would be of course to entice not taking any RW or DW models in a regular army. This could end up to locked detachments style armies, where TWC and wulfen are only run in a TWC&Wulfen detachment, because in that they get X, Y and Z and in any other SW detachment they are just overcosted or lacking some crucial rules (like a FnP boosting resiliance or boost to movment).
Over all the core rules and core mechanics for 10th look sound and have a lot of the thing I thought w40k should have had from 8th ed. 9th for me was better then 8th, by a lot. 10th could be , depeneding on how the GK index looks like, be more fun then 9th. Which probably means that in 2-3 editions, I could have a lot of fun.
Tyran wrote: The thing here is that a DW/RW detachment isn't going to have access to Doctrines and other Gladius detachment rules.
I could also see GW separating point costs when it comes to Marine chapters, so a DA termie doesn't cost the same as a regular one.
You sure about that? This is going to be the only DET out there for a while as near as I can tell - and it sounds like they're going back to a 6th/7th design paradigm in addition to walking back the troops required thing. Its entirely possible DW/RW can do Gladius.
Tyran wrote: The thing here is that a DW/RW detachment isn't going to have access to Doctrines and other Gladius detachment rules.
I could also see GW separating point costs when it comes to Marine chapters, so a DA termie doesn't cost the same as a regular one.
You sure about that? This is going to be the only DET out there for a while as near as I can tell - and it sounds like they're going back to a 6th/7th design paradigm in addition to walking back the troops required thing. Its entirely possible DW/RW can do Gladius.
They can do Gladius, but they cannot do DW/RW detachment and Gladius detachment, they have to chose one.
Tyran wrote: The thing here is that a DW/RW detachment isn't going to have access to Doctrines and other Gladius detachment rules.
I could also see GW separating point costs when it comes to Marine chapters, so a DA termie doesn't cost the same as a regular one.
The impression I got from the Q&A is that DA/BA/SW/BT will be their own "Factions" - so they may not get Oath of Moment either, in addition to having something different than Gladius Strike Force as their Index detachment. I'm certainly curious to see their preview articles to see how distinct they'll be.
Tyran wrote: The thing here is that a DW/RW detachment isn't going to have access to Doctrines and other Gladius detachment rules.
I could also see GW separating point costs when it comes to Marine chapters, so a DA termie doesn't cost the same as a regular one.
You sure about that? This is going to be the only DET out there for a while as near as I can tell - and it sounds like they're going back to a 6th/7th design paradigm in addition to walking back the troops required thing. Its entirely possible DW/RW can do Gladius.
They can do Gladius, but they cannot do DW/RW detachment and Gladius detachment, they have to chose one.
Ahh, you mean the Det that gets theoretically gets added for the DW/RW faction, not the DW/RW faction choosing the Gladius Det. I read that as Faction + Det not Faction as Placeholder Name for hypothetical Det.
Of course I still wouldn't bet on it. I watched them give Doctrines to UM in one edition, then spread it to everyone (even some sort of version for non-Marines) in the next couple editions.
If I was going to pick a Faction/Detachment ability to act as the baseline for all the Marines they're going to hand out in the codexes, I'd pick Doctrines so I could give everyone Doctrines + This Other Thing. Heck that's basically what they did in the last Dark Angels Supplement - During This Doctrine Ravenwing gets X, Deathwing gets A, during That doctrine Ravenwing gets Y, Deathwing gets B and so on.
Tyran wrote: The thing here is that a DW/RW detachment isn't going to have access to Doctrines and other Gladius detachment rules.
I could also see GW separating point costs when it comes to Marine chapters, so a DA termie doesn't cost the same as a regular one.
Which is a bad idea. Terminators should be the same all around.
What? Guns/units being the same cost regardless of factions/platform is one of the main reason theres so much internal imbalance in the game. If a unit has more benefits in one subfaction than in another, it should cost more.
kodos wrote: But those people do it because they want that specific look for a painting project
same as I have seen people using GW based designs for a Vietnam theme or Tau-Gundam Army made with Tau models
(while the people who proxy for gaming are using the Gundam models for Tau because they are cheaper)
they don't proxy a Space Marine with a look alike if they want to paint a Space Marine because it is cheaper, they do it if they want to paint that alternative
saying the painters leading the 3D printing market because they have less reason to buy originals than the gamers do, is like the opposite of reality (as they only reason to buy the GW models if you like to paint and collect them)
You've got a Chicken/Egg scenario here. Did I print my cheaper Lost In Space because I liked the aesthetic or did I like the aesthetic because it was cheaper?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Friend I mentioned earlier that’s also had their interest piqued by 10th?
He has a 3D Printer, and he’s a damned good painter. These two are linked.
What he doesn’t do is use his 3D Printer to produce knock-offs/carbon copies. Rather it’s a cost effective way for him to be able to obtain and then paint whatever it is that’s tickling his fancy in the moment.
It depends on what people want to call knock-offs and carbon copies. I've printed Molded Shoulder Pads - But I get both halves not just the chapter half but also the Battle Role half. I've printed alternate Shields/Swords, I've printed the Dawn of War Space Marine HQ building for terrain. I've printed Redemptor Chest panels. I haven't printed them yet, but I have the downloads to print Impuslor/Gladiator Toppers for magnetization/swaps. Some of that is an overlap I could get from GW - but I'd rather have matching Left and Right pads than GW official Chapter Pads and home made role pads.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Daedalus81 wrote: Hence why things are so stripped out in 10th. Peeling back the layer cake of 9th is a long winded battle that would be difficult to truly get right.
In some ways they're repeating their punt after 7th, going back to indexes - and so far it looks like they're changing far less than they did from 7-8 than 9-10.
Less was broken in 9th than was broken in 7th.
People forget, but the 7th edition rulebook was 260 pages WITHOUT fluff. Also, by the end of 7th it was possible to make a unit of blue horrors (who cost 50pts and would summon brimstone horrors on death anyway) 2++ rerolling with a 4++ feel no pain, also you could only hit them on 6s. With minimal investment.
EviscerationPlague 809777 11528396 wrote:
Which is a bad idea. Terminators should be the same all around.
Which circles us back to stuff like either regular terminators being overcosted, because there is a detachment that makes them good. Or termintors being extremly undercosted in one detachment, and we end up seeing bricks of 30 of them running in every lists. I remember powerfists for marines and IG costing the same. It is not good design.
The armour save should reflect the armour they’re wearing. Wounds and toughness should represent the resilience of the person wearing that armour. Terminators shouldn’t be getting extra wounds and toughness from their armour. It’s a way of circumventing the AP system. Everybody else plays by those rules. Sisters don’t get 2 wounds or toughness 4 because they’re wearing power armour so I don’t see why marines should be. Especially because these bonuses are never worked into points properly.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Marines are physically tougher than Sisters though, which is why they're T4/W2.
Terminators are still marines. They get T5 and bonus wounds from their armour. Same with Gravis. There’s no reason roughness should go up because of armour.
I’d rather have “This unit is durable on the whole” given more credence than “This unit must be more durable in these specific ways, whether or not it works well in the game”.
JNAProductions wrote: I’d rather have “This unit is durable on the whole” given more credence than “This unit must be more durable in these specific ways, whether or not it works well in the game”.
Fine. A Sister of Battle should be more durable than an Eldar guardian but not as durable as a Space Marine. Since armour is trash this should be represented either by an extra wound or a pip of toughness. This represents than being mid tier in terms of durability for basic infantry. You’re not a Guardsman but your marine is still a good bit more durable.
If you’re all “oh no, the armour save covers all that mate.” Well that’s not really making a unit tough overall. AP makes armour irrelevant. I might as well just take forty Repentia because I am dead if I get shot anyway. That should not be a thing. They’re not Eldar and shouldn’t play as a glass cannon.
JNAProductions wrote: Do you know that Sisters are still T3 3+?
You’ve got their index early? You should probably share that.
Cute.
I’d be very surprised if they made any change to the core profile of the unit. It’s got nothing to do with whether the unit needs that to be considered mid tier infantry for durability. It’s because T4 or multi wounds is associated with marines so they’re going to drag their feet on that. It’s ingrained and so it’s not as simple as with Genestealer where it’s a monster so they can do what they want.
Going to keep insisting that 8 points giving you two extra attacks, an extra wound, AP on your gun and extra WS is reasonable.
They might give them some kind of ward save. They might up the WS. That’s it. I think GW might think that they can work around this by tweaking the AP so that “oh AP minus is so rare now. So that 3 up armour is now more consistent. They don’t need any points or stat changes.”. Completely ignores that those 10 point sisters in 3rd edition weren’t having the volume of wounds thrown at them as they are now.
Once upon a time? A brief period in 1st Edition. Marines weren't even Marines back then. Nothing was anything. 40k hadn't been rationalised like it was at the start of 2nd.
Totalwar1402 wrote: Terminators are still marines. They get T5 and bonus wounds from their armour. Same with Gravis. There’s no reason roughness should go up because of armour.
Armour tops out at 2+. When that fails to represent how tough something is, you have to use other mechanics (such as Invulnerable saves, the very first change they made to Terminators in 3rd Edition). Plus thicker armour could easily be represented as wounds and toughness, as there are more redundant systems and parts of pure armour that could be blasted off without wounding the person inside, but still reducing the overall durability of the suit.
And Sisters are tougher than Eldar Guardians, because they have better armour. Simply saying "armour is trash" doesn't make it so, especially with the reductions we've seen to AP values in the 10th previews.
JNAProductions wrote: I’d rather have “This unit is durable on the whole” given more credence than “This unit must be more durable in these specific ways, whether or not it works well in the game”.
It rather begs the question as to why we have three separate stats for durability if they don't actually represent anything specific and can be used interchangeably.
Having and using multiple ways to make a unit tough in different but complimentary ways is good for the game. Say what you will about the layers of rules added in 9th Edition, abandoning the 3rd Edition stats for a wide variety of units was a good improvement in the game.
I mean, isn't nice that Orks can actually be tougher than a Marine in one manner?
Having different stats that can also show relative degrees of durability also limits the need for exceptions and special rules outside of the existing stats systems.
If you can show using simple numbers the difference between a Sister of Battle, a Space Marine, a Gravis Marine, a Nob, a Terminator and a Plague Terminator without needing to create a "Disgustingly Resilient" or "Duty Eternal" rule, the better.
ERJAK wrote: People forget, but the 7th edition rulebook was 260 pages WITHOUT fluff. Also, by the end of 7th it was possible to make a unit of blue horrors (who cost 50pts and would summon brimstone horrors on death anyway) 2++ rerolling with a 4++ feel no pain, also you could only hit them on 6s. With minimal investment.
and this problem was not because of the rulebook, oterhwise you would have been able to do it right at the start
also the rulebook of 7th is still there and works
some forget that most problems came up because GW adds Codex rules to ignore the rulebook, not to build on it
hence why GW thought not having one will solve all the problems, yet it made it worse
one would hope, but suspect a false hope, that GW have at least sketched out all the core codex rules alongside the main rulebook
ok individual units will come and go but the core of "this is how this factions works this edition" should be written down somewhere in the Nottingham bunker
the problem is invariably half way through an edition a codex is released that ignores half the core rules in some way and from that point on all bets are off
I guess they do this, but in a very basic way like:
DA: Plasma and Bikes
BA: Melee and Flames
Space Wolves: Wolves
Orks: Melee and Dakka
Tau: Drones and Suits
JNAProductions wrote: Do you know that Sisters are still T3 3+?
You’ve got their index early? You should probably share that.
Cute.
I’d be very surprised if they made any change to the core profile of the unit. It’s got nothing to do with whether the unit needs that to be considered mid tier infantry for durability. It’s because T4 or multi wounds is associated with marines so they’re going to drag their feet on that. It’s ingrained and so it’s not as simple as with Genestealer where it’s a monster so they can do what they want.
Going to keep insisting that 8 points giving you two extra attacks, an extra wound, AP on your gun and extra WS is reasonable.
They might give them some kind of ward save. They might up the WS. That’s it. I think GW might think that they can work around this by tweaking the AP so that “oh AP minus is so rare now. So that 3 up armour is now more consistent. They don’t need any points or stat changes.”. Completely ignores that those 10 point sisters in 3rd edition weren’t having the volume of wounds thrown at them as they are now.
The thing about W2 is that it's really susceptible to D2. Sisters don't care one bit and being that those guns tend to be more expensive and Sisters less expensive than marines it becomes a less efficient way to remove them.
You're also really only thinking along the stat-line axis. There are lots of other avenues where Sisters can be impacted.
I think the bigger response is just "yes, surely Sisters are a Glass Cannon Army"? What do you think elite T3 models are going to be?
I think moving Genestealers to 2 wounds (and potentially a bunch of other elite approaching 20ish points infantry) is a good idea. Maybe it moves everyone towards being Marines. But if you keep boosting offense, you turn everyone into glass cannons (and the game into checkers).
Its also theoretically easier to balance. I.E. Genestealers get a 20 point offensive ability. Genestealers get a 20 point defensive ability. Genestealers cost 20 points.
Rather than Genestealers get a 20 point offensive ability, and an 8 point defensive ability. They presumably cost somewhere in the middle but GW aren't really sure, so quite easily get it wrong and produce OP/UP units.
Certain armies should perhaps be a bit more skewed - so you'd expect Eldar and say Sisters to be a bit more front forward while Necrons and Death Guard are tougher with less damage. But this should in turn somehow balance. I.E. Eldar do more damage - but DG are tough so take less. DG do lower damage - but Eldar are fragile so take more.
The problem is you tend to end up with movement being the issue (and forming another axis of value), and its very hard to make a "slow" army feel powerful without making it overpowered. Usually because there's a tipping point - you either have the movement you need during a game or you don't.
The bigger issue of all this unfortunately is basic Space Marines, who I think should be a relatively tanky but low damage army, buoyed up by reliability (via rerolls etc) and multi-function units. But GW have never really managed that, and usually want their poster boys, the angels of death, the tip of the spear, etc etc to be the best at everything. Which they tend to be for a while - until everyone else catches up, and once OP marines become both pillowfisted and fragile. And then the cycle starts over.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Marines are physically tougher than Sisters though, which is why they're T4/W2.
Terminators are still marines. They get T5 and bonus wounds from their armour. Same with Gravis. There’s no reason roughness should go up because of armour.
Want to give them -1+ save?
Oh and how points should be reflected properly? I trust your not suggesting bonker idea of double wounds, douple points
JNAProductions wrote: I’d rather have “This unit is durable on the whole” given more credence than “This unit must be more durable in these specific ways, whether or not it works well in the game”.
Fine. A Sister of Battle should be more durable than an Eldar guardian but not as durable as a Space Marine. Since armour is trash this should be represented either by an extra wound or a pip of toughness. This represents than being mid tier in terms of durability for basic infantry. You’re not a Guardsman but your marine is still a good bit more durable.
If you’re all “oh no, the armour save covers all that mate.” Well that’s not really making a unit tough overall. AP makes armour irrelevant. I might as well just take forty Repentia because I am dead if I get shot anyway. That should not be a thing. They’re not Eldar and shouldn’t play as a glass cannon.
So armour is worthless because of ap which is getting reduced.
ERJAK wrote: People forget, but the 7th edition rulebook was 260 pages WITHOUT fluff. Also, by the end of 7th it was possible to make a unit of blue horrors (who cost 50pts and would summon brimstone horrors on death anyway) 2++ rerolling with a 4++ feel no pain, also you could only hit them on 6s. With minimal investment.
and this problem was not because of the rulebook, oterhwise you would have been able to do it right at the start
also the rulebook of 7th is still there and works
some forget that most problems came up because GW adds Codex rules to ignore the rulebook, not to build on it
hence why GW thought not having one will solve all the problems, yet it made it worse
The rulebook was stupid. It wasted 200 pages spinning it's wheels about nonsense that made absolutely no difference to anything. Just to be able to move any model from out in the open, into cover, was 35 pages of rules.
It also straight up didn't work from the start. Vehicle rules meant that if one unit capable of making a penetrating hit existed, all vehicles were worthless. Facings made sponsons worthless on the majority of tanks. Facings created massive issues with units like Knights. The USRs were such a mess that half of them were just a different USR with a 'and also' attached. Morale meant that pinning a unit was better than killing it a lot of the time.
Tyran wrote: The thing here is that a DW/RW detachment isn't going to have access to Doctrines and other Gladius detachment rules.
I could also see GW separating point costs when it comes to Marine chapters, so a DA termie doesn't cost the same as a regular one.
Which is a bad idea. Terminators should be the same all around.
If terminator faction a is better than faction b why points should be same?
Unless you mean same rules regardless of faction/detachment
Same rules regardless of detachment. Dark Angels having some more Terminator armor =/= Better Terminators, it just means they can "field more", when in reality Rule of 3 stops everyone from using even 50 or so Terminators to begin with.
It also creates weird issues where only Dark Angels successors have that many Terminator suits despite it being so "rare", and no other Chapter does. It's like how just Blood Angels get Heavy Flamers/Hand Flamers and Melta pistols, despite them not even being THE fire Chapter. However, why would I only want that option reserved to Salamanders anyway?
Dark Angels Don't even have many more Terminators than other Chapters. The Blood Angels boarded Sin of Damnation with over 80, and the Ultramarine organisation in the 3rd ed Codex had over 70, for example.
Dark Angels being the 'Terminator Marines' for having an extra 15 or so dudes out of 1000 is entirely arbitrary.
So armour is worthless because of ap which is getting reduced.
Yep. Your aquments still suck. Never change.
If it was third edition where two plasma guns is considered a dangerous unit sure. 3 plus armour alone is mid tier. But we’re not playing 3rd edition.
You’ve got so many attacks, rerolls and other boosts that the volume of shots just overwhelms them. Why do you think they’re boosting all these other units in the game if damage isn’t still increasing? This is because the shooting is meant to kill two wound marines. So even if you balance the game so that you kill two Intercessors which is reasonable attrition for the marines, that same damage kills most of a sisters squad and takes a whole unit out the game.
Which would be fine if Sisters didn’t have the same profile and costs as they had in 3rd edition. 11 points for T3 model with 3 up armour. In fact it’s worse since your boltgun doesn’t punch through five up Armour anymore because reasons.
Intercessor 18 points
Sister of Battle 11 points
For just 7 points you get a model whose gun has longer range and a pip of AP. It hits on 3 plus in CC. It has an extra point of strength and toughness. It has twice the wounds and twice the attacks. The only benefit is a six invulnerable save which is a you only get to use if your armours bypassed.
Now, I think that is ridiculous and ain’t remotely balanced. The intercessor should cost at least double and probably getting on to triple what the Sister of Battle costs. Instead, they’re pretty much in the same points bracket with a few extra points getting a massive upgrade in every category.
Sisters of Battle should not be a glass cannon. The selling point is that they’re an elite army in power armour. They shouldn’t play like Eldar where you have to move very fragile units to deliver an absurd amount of damage. They should be able to take a bit of Ork or Imperial guard shooting on the chin. You should be encouraged to take big blocks of Sisters and park them on objectives, not have little min size squads hiding out in ruins as objective tokens. The army doesn’t remotely resemble how it’s meant to be.
That’s only going to get worse if they keep boosting other factions like doubling Genestealer wounds for literally no reason. Giving Orks toughness 5 which makes no sense.
By the Throne, can you stop wailing until you actually have something to wail about? T
he Faction Focus article will come out soon enough and give us an idea of just what a Battle Sister Squad looks like if the past articles are any indication of what we will see. Then we will have something beyond the wildest speculations of your brain to discuss.
alextroy wrote: By the Throne, can you stop wailing until you actually have something to wail about? T
he Faction Focus article will come out soon enough and give us an idea of just what a Battle Sister Squad looks like if the past articles are any indication of what we will see. Then we will have something beyond the wildest speculations of your brain to discuss.
Because as hilarious as it would be for people to complain about 2W Sisters of Battle after being silent on T5 Orks, 2W Genestealers, 2W/3A marines and T5 Terminators; I don’t see them ever doing that.
They should either be cheaper or get a stat increase.
The focus should be -
- Move away from glass hammer. Lower damage and boost durability for power armoured units. They aren’t Eldar. Moving AP around isn’t going to cut it if all heavy weapons are hitting on 2 plus with exploding 6s.
- Provide a reason to take Sisters of Battle in larger squads. They should be the core of the force.
- Find some army wide act of faith system that keeps the spirit of the earlier one.
- Redo the Paragon warsuit profile to work.
- Points shouldn’t make “elite” sisters infantry almost the same cost as their troops.
You’ve got so many attacks, rerolls and other boosts
We've got more of those things than GW's hype for the edition may have led some of us to believe, but we seem to be getting fewer of them in 10th than we have right now by virtue of the the fact that Leaders can only confer them upon the unit to whom they are attached, and others like Oath of Moment can only target five unit over the course of the entire game unless you bring Bobby.
Except that the weapons that are carried in volume (basic weapons) all have lower AP, meaning that armour saves will matter more. At the same time, weapons that DO have AP will want to focus fire on vehicles, because small arms volume of fire is far less effective against vehicles than it was in 9th, and vehicles require dedicated anti-vehicle fire to deal with them.
Why do you think they’re boosting all these other units in the game if damage isn’t still increasing?
Damage (as in the damage characteristic) doesn't seem to have gone up significantly on the majority of the units we've seen, while AP is universally down, twin linked is no longer MOAR shots, and rerolls are more focused than general use. We've also been told about defensive reaction strats, though to be fair I don't think we've seen any yet.
Just like rerolls, lethality is still going to be there, but it's very clearly not going to be as over the top as it is now.
This is because the shooting is meant to kill two wound marines. So even if you balance the game so that you kill two Intercessors which is reasonable attrition for the marines, that same damage kills most of a sisters squad and takes a whole unit out the game.
Multi-damage weapons with AP are what's most capable of destroying marines. A skilled player will not choose to waste these types of shots on 1W infantry if any other target is available.
Which would be fine if Sisters didn’t have the same profile and costs as they had in 3rd edition. 11 points for T3 model with 3 up armour. In fact it’s worse since your boltgun doesn’t punch through five up Armour anymore because reasons.
If our boltguns don't punch through five up armour anymore then neither do the boltguns of our enemies punch through ours, right? And that's a lot of 9th ed "evidence" that doesn't effectively support our thoughts about 10th.
I don't think we've seen 10th ed points for Intercessors, and I know we haven't seen them for sisters. Ninth ed points aren't relevant to the discussion at hand.
For just 7 points you get a model whose gun has longer range and a pip of AP. It hits on 3 plus in CC. It has an extra point of strength and toughness. It has twice the wounds and twice the attacks. The only benefit is a six invulnerable save which is a you only get to use if your armours bypassed.
Well, I'll cut you some slack on this one- marines certainly were, and will likely continue to be better than sisters by perhaps a greater margin than they should be... I mean, obviously yes, a marine should be tougher... But maybe not quite that much tougher. So I get where you're coming from...
But again, these arguments are based on information about 9th, and quite frankly, until we see the new AoF, we have no idea how tough Sisters are going to be. AoF, if handled correctly, have the capacity to get us throwing punches above our weight.
Not a glass canon, I agree. But we do have a thing with Martyrdom. Look at our fluff- Sanctuary 101, the Martyrdoms of our founding saints, the slaughter at Armageddon that had OoOML change their colours to honour the numbers who died. So if not glass canon, then at least stoic martyr willing to die to see the will of the Emperor made manifest.
They shouldn’t play like Eldar where you have to move very fragile units to deliver an absurd amount of damage. They should be able to take a bit of Ork or Imperial guard shooting on the chin. You should be encouraged to take big blocks of Sisters and park them on objectives, not have little min size squads hiding out in ruins as objective tokens.
I'm with you here too, and I think this is where sisters might excel. If you look at some of 10th's mechanics that we've seen so far, like the buffs provided by attached heroes and the changes to Blast weapons, and the hints about defensive reactions and the unknown effects of Faith, I expect big units of sisters holding objectives to be the standard.
I hope that the reductions in AP across the board finally give us that middle ground between 2nd Ed/9th Ed, where too many things had save modifiers so a 3+ armour save was never really a 3+ armour save, and 3rd-7th Ed, where armour was an either/or situation, where you either had your full save, or no save at all.
One of my most enduring 40k memories was my surprise at seeing a Marine take a 3+ save in the first game of 3rd Ed I ever witnessed, my experience thus far having just been 2nd Ed where everyone and his dog's chew toy had at least a -1 Save Mod.
9th won't have that, as save mods are still a thing, but if basic small arms fire exchanged between infantry actually involves their full armour saves, I'd be happy with that.
Also changes the strategies/tactics around infantry weapons.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I hope that the reductions in AP across the board finally give us that middle ground between 2nd Ed/9th Ed, where too many things had save modifiers so a 3+ armour save was never really a 3+ armour save, and 3rd-7th Ed, where armour was an either/or situation, where you either had your full save, or no save at all.
One of my most enduring 40k memories was my surprise at seeing a Marine take a 3+ save in the first game of 3rd Ed I ever witnessed, my experience thus far having just been 2nd Ed where everyone and his dog's chew toy had at least a -1 Save Mod.
9th won't have that, as save mods are still a thing, but if basic small arms fire exchanged between infantry actually involves their full armour saves, I'd be happy with that.
Also changes the strategies/tactics around infantry weapons.
I fully agree with this.
Although one of my memories of early 3rd was watching my Deathwing get blown or slashed off the board by foes I didn’t really worry about in 2nd.
Tyel wrote: I think the bigger response is just "yes, surely Sisters are a Glass Cannon Army"? What do you think elite T3 models are going to be?
I think moving Genestealers to 2 wounds (and potentially a bunch of other elite approaching 20ish points infantry) is a good idea. Maybe it moves everyone towards being Marines. But if you keep boosting offense, you turn everyone into glass cannons (and the game into checkers).
Its also theoretically easier to balance. I.E. Genestealers get a 20 point offensive ability. Genestealers get a 20 point defensive ability. Genestealers cost 20 points.
Well I'd start by questioning your premise. 2 Wounds does not a glass cannon make. This edition was almost specifically to reduce offense, and continues a theme you've seen most apparently in their repeated attempts to "fix" vehicles. Assuming Genestealers cost 20 points (and Marines etc also stay relatively similar) - 2 wounds and 2*X quality Y attacks would be the right ballpark. The trick for GW is managing the "sweet spots". Given the sheer number of attacks/weapons across all the various factions many will concentrate in certain areas of preference. T3, T4, T8. 5+, 3+, Wound multiples of 2, 3, etc. - that's going to be a natural and somewhat desired outcome. The trick I'm getting at is managing the faction/units so they don't exactly fall into those sweet spots - the T5 3W Warrior/Terminator/suit/nob/whatever the T3 6W Ripper swarms,
Rather than Genestealers get a 20 point offensive ability, and an 8 point defensive ability. They presumably cost somewhere in the middle but GW aren't really sure, so quite easily get it wrong and produce OP/UP units.
Certain armies should perhaps be a bit more skewed - so you'd expect Eldar and say Sisters to be a bit more front forward while Necrons and Death Guard are tougher with less damage. But this should in turn somehow balance. I.E. Eldar do more damage - but DG are tough so take less. DG do lower damage - but Eldar are fragile so take more.
The problem is you tend to end up with movement being the issue (and forming another axis of value), and its very hard to make a "slow" army feel powerful without making it overpowered. Usually because there's a tipping point - you either have the movement you need during a game or you don't.
The bigger issue of all this unfortunately is basic Space Marines, who I think should be a relatively tanky but low damage army, buoyed up by reliability (via rerolls etc) and multi-function units. But GW have never really managed that, and usually want their poster boys, the angels of death, the tip of the spear, etc etc to be the best at everything. Which they tend to be for a while - until everyone else catches up, and once OP marines become both pillowfisted and fragile. And then the cycle starts over.
But we wait and see.
Some of that should be in here, but some of it should just be some armies are high off and high def - I'd make Marines the baseline - Medium Tanky, and Medium damage - then the Guard would individually be lower in both, but as an army more damaging and less tanky, Custodes/Knights would be more and more simply because of model/unit count not allowing much room there. Eldar and Nids could be either based on build and so on.
I'm not sure what the arguments about sisters are. They were never an "elite" army, they have always been sort of a middle ground where they're surprisingly numerous but still have some decent defenses. If AP is going down that's still how they'll look.
If there's a decent miracle mechanic then they'll likely also do well with the melta. It's easier than ever to deliver with reworked transports and if you can miracle then the strength gets less important.
novembermike wrote: I'm not sure what the arguments about sisters are. They were never an "elite" army, they have always been sort of a middle ground where they're surprisingly numerous but still have some decent defenses. If AP is going down that's still how they'll look.
If there's a decent miracle mechanic then they'll likely also do well with the melta. It's easier than ever to deliver with reworked transports and if you can miracle then the strength gets less important.
When they first came out they were a relatively elite army. When they first came out flamers and meltas were both pretty good (flamers could light you on fire and cause followup "attacks" if it didn't outright kill you) and T3, 3+ was only 1 Toughness away from tops.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I hope that the reductions in AP across the board finally give us that middle ground between 2nd Ed/9th Ed, where too many things had save modifiers so a 3+ armour save was never really a 3+ armour save, and 3rd-7th Ed, where armour was an either/or situation, where you either had your full save, or no save at all.
One of my most enduring 40k memories was my surprise at seeing a Marine take a 3+ save in the first game of 3rd Ed I ever witnessed, my experience thus far having just been 2nd Ed where everyone and his dog's chew toy had at least a -1 Save Mod.
9th won't have that, as save mods are still a thing, but if basic small arms fire exchanged between infantry actually involves their full armour saves, I'd be happy with that.
Also changes the strategies/tactics around infantry weapons.
I fully agree with this.
Although one of my memories of early 3rd was watching my Deathwing get blown or slashed off the board by foes I didn’t really worry about in 2nd.
ahhh fond memory of 3rd. ripping terminators apart with my ork choppas reducing their save to 4+. making 85% of my 6+ save on my orc vehicles from that upgrade. burnas in choppa squads for extra power weapons.... fun times
novembermike wrote: I'm not sure what the arguments about sisters are. They were never an "elite" army, they have always been sort of a middle ground where they're surprisingly numerous but still have some decent defenses. If AP is going down that's still how they'll look.
If there's a decent miracle mechanic then they'll likely also do well with the melta. It's easier than ever to deliver with reworked transports and if you can miracle then the strength gets less important.
Because theyre not a mid tier unit. An intercessor is a 2 wound and 2/3 attack character one thunder hammer away from being an independent character. They haven’t given every battle sister the same attack and wounds as a Canoness from third edition. Times have moved on.
Sisters of Battle troops are hideously overcosted for what they are. Which is why people go out of their way to take as few of them as possible with little five model units hiding out as objective tokens. Even within the army itself you can get Xephrim or Sacrosanct or Repentia for a very modest few extra points.
Guard with lasguns can put out far more dakka than a few boltguns yet cost a fraction. In 3rd, those boltguns would chew up T3 5 up armour infantry.
novembermike wrote: I'm not sure what the arguments about sisters are. They were never an "elite" army, they have always been sort of a middle ground where they're surprisingly numerous but still have some decent defenses. If AP is going down that's still how they'll look.
If there's a decent miracle mechanic then they'll likely also do well with the melta. It's easier than ever to deliver with reworked transports and if you can miracle then the strength gets less important.
Because theyre not a mid tier unit. An intercessor is a 2 wound and 2/3 attack character one thunder hammer away from being an independent character. They haven’t given every battle sister the same attack and wounds as a Canoness from third edition. Times have moved on.
Sisters of Battle troops are hideously overcosted for what they are. Which is why people go out of their way to take as few of them as possible with little five model units hiding out as objective tokens. Even within the army itself you can get Xephrim or Sacrosanct or Repentia for a very modest few extra points.
Guard with lasguns can put out far more dakka than a few boltguns yet cost a fraction. In 3rd, those boltguns would chew up T3 5 up armour infantry.
As much as I love Sisters, a basic battle sister is a liability currently. They used to be superior to marines because they weren't wasting points on stats they didn't use (who used to melee with tac marines?) but ever since a basic marine became two sisters of a battle glued together for 5 more PPM, the troop battle sister has become a major limiting factor for the army.
Isn't the basic sister to the SoB army the same as a marine basic infantry for a marine army? As in something that is run in minimal numbers, and would be run at zero. If only the SoB players could run just the good non troop stuff from the codex.
Because theyre not a mid tier unit. An intercessor is a 2 wound and 2/3 attack character one thunder hammer away from being an independent character. They haven’t given every battle sister the same attack and wounds as a Canoness from third edition. Times have moved on.
This means one of two things. Either mid tier is another word for bad. Because no one is running intercessor, especialy if they can avoid it. Or the other option, the bread and butter of SoB armies aren't SoB, something maybe not intuitial, but marines of all types know what it is, but all the Elite/HEAVY/FA options that make the army. Which makes the basic SoB a unit of paragons, repentia or the shield carrying ones, etc and always spamed and run in unit groups of 3 and combined with other units that do the same, also run in groups of 3. If a SoB player could run 6-12 units of repentia and 6-12 units of the shield ones, they would do it. Marines have done it for ages. Intercessors or tacticals, csm squads are tax. The SM armies are build around multitple bricks of possessed, terminators, 30 interceptors etc. Now is this fun? No. But if you want to have fun playing with a lot of troop units, you have to play custodes in w30k. Or an army that doesn't really care what it runs, because it rules have been optimised to function, no matter what the player does. Like for example WE or sometime ago Necrons.
Karol wrote: Isn't the basic sister to the SoB army the same as a marine basic infantry for a marine army? As in something that is run in minimal numbers, and would be run at zero. If only the SoB players could run just the good non troop stuff from the codex.
Because theyre not a mid tier unit. An intercessor is a 2 wound and 2/3 attack character one thunder hammer away from being an independent character. They haven’t given every battle sister the same attack and wounds as a Canoness from third edition. Times have moved on.
This means one of two things. Either mid tier is another word for bad. Because no one is running intercessor, especialy if they can avoid it. Or the other option, the bread and butter of SoB armies aren't SoB, something maybe not intuitial, but marines of all types know what it is, but all the Elite/HEAVY/FA options that make the army. Which makes the basic SoB a unit of paragons, repentia or the shield carrying ones, etc and always spamed and run in unit groups of 3 and combined with other units that do the same, also run in groups of 3. If a SoB player could run 6-12 units of repentia and 6-12 units of the shield ones, they would do it. Marines have done it for ages. Intercessors or tacticals, csm squads are tax. The SM armies are build around multitple bricks of possessed, terminators, 30 interceptors etc. Now is this fun? No. But if you want to have fun playing with a lot of troop units, you have to play custodes in w30k. Or an army that doesn't really care what it runs, because it rules have been optimised to function, no matter what the player does. Like for example WE or sometime ago Necrons.
That’s a separate issue. The game as whole has never been able to balance troops against elite units. I am firmly of the view that every army should be built around its troop slots and I don’t like the five unit objective tokens. It’s incredibly silly and immersion breaking. You shouldn’t be able to double the number of objectives you control, force the opponent to waste shots overkilling your unit, for no extra points and no drawbacks. Frankly I think 5 man units shouldn’t be able to claim objectives, you get less objective points or suffer some massive morale penalties to stop the “I’ll get four units of five sisters randomly hiding out in buildings whilst the actual battle goes on”. Like, no, they should be holding the objective and fighting off units trying to secure it, not hiding whilst your actual army does the fighting.
But with Sisters the issue is a lot greater because
1) They should be the absolute core of the army. You can just about handwave an elite or tank heavy marine army as being some sort of strike force. Not really the case with Sisters. The army should encourage you to take blocks of 20 of them that form a core part of the force.
2) I am using the term mid tier sarcastically because your standard Sister of Battle was a mid tier unit back in 3rd edition. But that the gap between them and a marine has become far greater and isn’t reflected in points. You’re paying almost as much as intercessor for a unit that is worse in every regard and where the thing they used to be able to do like tank small arms fire on objectives or use bolters to kill T3 5 armour infantry doesn’t work anymore. They got worse, everybody got better and they’re still the same points.
3) Their elite units are stupidly cheap and many times better. You can still get a block of Intercessors and use strats to have them do a reasonable amount of damage to light tier infantry and park them on an objective. It’s not the most efficient or best bang for your buck; but it’s pretty solid. Whereas twenty sisters of Battle is a massive opportunity cost and you’re getting a really substandard unit that isn’t tough and can’t do all that much damage.
4) Because damage has went up they’ve pushed the army towards being a glass cannon. Sure retributors and Repentia hit like a truck. But this idea that it’s an all or nothing and you have to destroy the enemy in a single devastating attack or be cut down. That’s not Sisters of Battle. That’s Eldar. Sisters should be able to fight a battle of attrition using numbers in place of some of the better marine stat profiles. But individually they should still be able to be tough enough individually that you need to commit serious dakka to shift them. It shouldn’t be the case that you might as well take Repentia because you die anyway. Repentia should be a gamble.
When you do that. the one Army gets ultra cheap chaff units in powerful transports, scatter bikes or horde armies that will out perform elite armies point by point every time. While the marine player wonders, why he has to take 20-40pts per model bad troop options.
At best what it would achive is to make marine players unhappy, to such a degree that they start moving to HH. And being the main spender/buyer group in w40k, what do you think would happen, if their main money bringer stops buying models.
What you guys try to do, is to do things that are impossible to achive for many factions at 2000pts entry game. You try to make something balanced and "lore accurate", with no one idea what either of those things should be for each and all armies in the game. For some it includes the removal of some armies.
There for, if a task is impossible to achive, one should do that which is possible. Pre build armies by GW, tested within the same core rule system, against each other, with maybe a sprinkle of faction fantasy. Tau should have a "suit detachment" , DA should have a Deathwing one etc.
Ah and gambling in games in stupid, you want to flatten the curve and remove as many variables from the game as possible. A "gamble" style repentia unit is a unit that people will not play with, which means people will not buy it,because it ain't marines, only marines rebuy their armies on a edition or shorter schedul. And in the end GW cares the most about selling models and making models. If the game/units/faction sells enough, but it isn't balanced, lore accurate or even fun, they will not change it.
It took GW a WHOLE edition to notice that against armies like GK or 1ksons Abhore the Witch is a auto take secondary, that is always maxed out and unlike any other allows to double dip. And they "fixed" it 2-3 months pre new edition, where most games don't matter.
This is all nice speculation, but we don't know what a 10th Edition Battle Sister looks like. We don't know the Faction rule. We don't know anything at all.
We do know that AP is being toned down, so that will help our presumedly 3+ Sv be more effective. We have hints of what some of our equipment may look like (Bolters with 2 attacks, not Rapid Fire?), but the new datasheet paradigm means even that may be different for our units compared to others.
So how about we wait for the Adepta Sororitas Faction Focus before bemoaning our 10th Edition fate? Is that too much to ask?
Karol wrote: Isn't the basic sister to the SoB army the same as a marine basic infantry for a marine army? As in something that is run in minimal numbers, and would be run at zero. If only the SoB players could run just the good non troop stuff from the codex.
Because theyre not a mid tier unit. An intercessor is a 2 wound and 2/3 attack character one thunder hammer away from being an independent character. They haven’t given every battle sister the same attack and wounds as a Canoness from third edition. Times have moved on.
This means one of two things. Either mid tier is another word for bad. Because no one is running intercessor, especialy if they can avoid it. Or the other option, the bread and butter of SoB armies aren't SoB, something maybe not intuitial, but marines of all types know what it is, but all the Elite/HEAVY/FA options that make the army. Which makes the basic SoB a unit of paragons, repentia or the shield carrying ones, etc and always spamed and run in unit groups of 3 and combined with other units that do the same, also run in groups of 3. If a SoB player could run 6-12 units of repentia and 6-12 units of the shield ones, they would do it. Marines have done it for ages. Intercessors or tacticals, csm squads are tax. The SM armies are build around multitple bricks of possessed, terminators, 30 interceptors etc. Now is this fun? No. But if you want to have fun playing with a lot of troop units, you have to play custodes in w30k. Or an army that doesn't really care what it runs, because it rules have been optimised to function, no matter what the player does. Like for example WE or sometime ago Necrons.
That’s a separate issue. The game as whole has never been able to balance troops against elite units. I am firmly of the view that every army should be built around its troop slots and I don’t like the five unit objective tokens. It’s incredibly silly and immersion breaking. You shouldn’t be able to double the number of objectives you control, force the opponent to waste shots overkilling your unit, for no extra points and no drawbacks. Frankly I think 5 man units shouldn’t be able to claim objectives, you get less objective points or suffer some massive morale penalties to stop the “I’ll get four units of five sisters randomly hiding out in buildings whilst the actual battle goes on”. Like, no, they should be holding the objective and fighting off units trying to secure it, not hiding whilst your actual army does the fighting.
But with Sisters the issue is a lot greater because
1) They should be the absolute core of the army. You can just about handwave an elite or tank heavy marine army as being some sort of strike force. Not really the case with Sisters. The army should encourage you to take blocks of 20 of them that form a core part of the force.
2) I am using the term mid tier sarcastically because your standard Sister of Battle was a mid tier unit back in 3rd edition. But that the gap between them and a marine has become far greater and isn’t reflected in points. You’re paying almost as much as intercessor for a unit that is worse in every regard and where the thing they used to be able to do like tank small arms fire on objectives or use bolters to kill T3 5 armour infantry doesn’t work anymore. They got worse, everybody got better and they’re still the same points.
3) Their elite units are stupidly cheap and many times better. You can still get a block of Intercessors and use strats to have them do a reasonable amount of damage to light tier infantry and park them on an objective. It’s not the most efficient or best bang for your buck; but it’s pretty solid. Whereas twenty sisters of Battle is a massive opportunity cost and you’re getting a really substandard unit that isn’t tough and can’t do all that much damage.
4) Because damage has went up they’ve pushed the army towards being a glass cannon. Sure retributors and Repentia hit like a truck. But this idea that it’s an all or nothing and you have to destroy the enemy in a single devastating attack or be cut down. That’s not Sisters of Battle. That’s Eldar. Sisters should be able to fight a battle of attrition using numbers in place of some of the better marine stat profiles. But individually they should still be able to be tough enough individually that you need to commit serious dakka to shift them. It shouldn’t be the case that you might as well take Repentia because you die anyway. Repentia should be a gamble.
I have a hard time agreeing with this.
It's 11/18 - 61% the cost of a marine. And the Artificier Storm Bolter is pretty damn great. I think most marine players would kill to have Sisters as their troop choice -- my presumption, in any case
Karol wrote: Isn't the basic sister to the SoB army the same as a marine basic infantry for a marine army? As in something that is run in minimal numbers, and would be run at zero. If only the SoB players could run just the good non troop stuff from the codex.
Because theyre not a mid tier unit. An intercessor is a 2 wound and 2/3 attack character one thunder hammer away from being an independent character. They haven’t given every battle sister the same attack and wounds as a Canoness from third edition. Times have moved on.
This means one of two things. Either mid tier is another word for bad. Because no one is running intercessor, especialy if they can avoid it. Or the other option, the bread and butter of SoB armies aren't SoB, something maybe not intuitial, but marines of all types know what it is, but all the Elite/HEAVY/FA options that make the army. Which makes the basic SoB a unit of paragons, repentia or the shield carrying ones, etc and always spamed and run in unit groups of 3 and combined with other units that do the same, also run in groups of 3. If a SoB player could run 6-12 units of repentia and 6-12 units of the shield ones, they would do it. Marines have done it for ages. Intercessors or tacticals, csm squads are tax. The SM armies are build around multitple bricks of possessed, terminators, 30 interceptors etc. Now is this fun? No. But if you want to have fun playing with a lot of troop units, you have to play custodes in w30k. Or an army that doesn't really care what it runs, because it rules have been optimised to function, no matter what the player does. Like for example WE or sometime ago Necrons.
That’s a separate issue. The game as whole has never been able to balance troops against elite units. I am firmly of the view that every army should be built around its troop slots and I don’t like the five unit objective tokens. It’s incredibly silly and immersion breaking. You shouldn’t be able to double the number of objectives you control, force the opponent to waste shots overkilling your unit, for no extra points and no drawbacks. Frankly I think 5 man units shouldn’t be able to claim objectives, you get less objective points or suffer some massive morale penalties to stop the “I’ll get four units of five sisters randomly hiding out in buildings whilst the actual battle goes on”. Like, no, they should be holding the objective and fighting off units trying to secure it, not hiding whilst your actual army does the fighting.
But with Sisters the issue is a lot greater because
1) They should be the absolute core of the army. You can just about handwave an elite or tank heavy marine army as being some sort of strike force. Not really the case with Sisters. The army should encourage you to take blocks of 20 of them that form a core part of the force.
2) I am using the term mid tier sarcastically because your standard Sister of Battle was a mid tier unit back in 3rd edition. But that the gap between them and a marine has become far greater and isn’t reflected in points. You’re paying almost as much as intercessor for a unit that is worse in every regard and where the thing they used to be able to do like tank small arms fire on objectives or use bolters to kill T3 5 armour infantry doesn’t work anymore. They got worse, everybody got better and they’re still the same points.
3) Their elite units are stupidly cheap and many times better. You can still get a block of Intercessors and use strats to have them do a reasonable amount of damage to light tier infantry and park them on an objective. It’s not the most efficient or best bang for your buck; but it’s pretty solid. Whereas twenty sisters of Battle is a massive opportunity cost and you’re getting a really substandard unit that isn’t tough and can’t do all that much damage.
4) Because damage has went up they’ve pushed the army towards being a glass cannon. Sure retributors and Repentia hit like a truck. But this idea that it’s an all or nothing and you have to destroy the enemy in a single devastating attack or be cut down. That’s not Sisters of Battle. That’s Eldar. Sisters should be able to fight a battle of attrition using numbers in place of some of the better marine stat profiles. But individually they should still be able to be tough enough individually that you need to commit serious dakka to shift them. It shouldn’t be the case that you might as well take Repentia because you die anyway. Repentia should be a gamble.
I have a hard time agreeing with this.
It's 11/18 - 61% the cost of a marine. And the Artificier Storm Bolter is pretty damn great. I think most marine players would kill to have Sisters as their troop choice -- my presumption, in any case
Which isn’t even 2 to 1 for a model with half the wounds, half the attacks, 1 less WS, 1 less strength and 1 less toughness. The gun also has longer range and a pip of AP. In new edition they haven’t lost any of that and actually gained an attack. Is another boltgun worth that? I really don’t think it is.
An undercosted gun does not make the unit as a whole good or fun. That just means the rest of the unit are a tax and you would just end up taking Dominions if you really wanted to spam that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Spoletta wrote: Sister's army rule is probably going to be Shield of Faith.
Sister troops will 100% gain a bonus to the shield of faith, plus another bonus when on top of an objective.
Well if it’s their 6 up invulnerable save that’s a bit limited and dependent on you buying other stuff to boost it if they even let you do that. You’re not very likely to pass it and it’s armour or invulnerable not both. So you’re only really getting this boost occasionally.
They’d have to make a move away from it being an invulnerable save to really move the durability of the unit if they were determined not to touch wounds or toughness. Like make it feel no pain or give them transhuman where you can only wound them past a certain.
Plus the special rule could also focus on the Act of Faith system and involve some sort of reroll or dice shenanigans as the army rule. In fact I reckon that’s much more likely given that was their main rule before and so integral to the faction last two editions.
Spoletta wrote: Sister's army rule is probably going to be Shield of Faith.
Sister troops will 100% gain a bonus to the shield of faith, plus another bonus when on top of an objective.
I'd argue Acts of Faith over Shield of Faith, though it is possible we'll get both like Nids got both Synapse and Shadow of the Warp.
Acts of Faith literally are the mechanic that defines Sisters; when I am describing factions to people who don't play, I mention battlefield miracles every time I talk about sisters. I only mention Shield of Faith when I'm going into more detail.
Without AoF, Sisters are not Sisters.
Now, it is possible the each detachment will have a specific AoF it can do, which would make them detachment rules. If so, it will suck.
It's possible each unit will have a specific AoF it can do. If so, this will also suck.
Faith is so important to the concept of Sister (IMHO) that each unit having access to all uses of Faith is an important part of the army's identity and versatility. I don't want bespoke AoF for specific units or detachments, but since we're getting bespoke Psychic powers for specific units, it will not surprise me if GW go this way, though it will leave me disappointed.
Having an invulnerable save as an army-wide rule just seems dull and boring.
Having an invulnerable save as an army-wide rule just seems dull and boring.
It's also contrary to the design intent of not having rules for things that don't need to be rules.
There's no point having a rule saying "All units in this army get a 6+ Invulnerable save". Just put a 6+ invulnerable save on each datasheet. Making it a separate rule to remember adds no value.
Shield of Faith as a 6++ would be pretty useless this edition. How many AP4/5 weapons will target Sisters to make it worth it?
More likely is the units that can make use of it just have an invulnerable and a different army rule takes over.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Totalwar1402 wrote: Which isn’t even 2 to 1 for a model with half the wounds, half the attacks, 1 less WS, 1 less strength and 1 less toughness. The gun also has longer range and a pip of AP. In new edition they haven’t lost any of that and actually gained an attack. Is another boltgun worth that? I really don’t think it is.
An undercosted gun does not make the unit as a whole good or fun. That just means the rest of the unit are a tax and you would just end up taking Dominions if you really wanted to spam that.
I don't think the melee portion really comes into play all that much. Most actual marine troops on tables are objective sitters. Now it's possible this dynamic changes lots and people are getting use out of both profiles more frequently. They're not quite half points, but only take 50% more wounds from S3, 33% from S4 and 25% more from S6. That S3 is of fairly low concern, usually.
The new bolt rifle is down to 24", but has fancy abilities so a wash there, I guess.
Having an invulnerable save as an army-wide rule just seems dull and boring.
It's also contrary to the design intent of not having rules for things that don't need to be rules.
There's no point having a rule saying "All units in this army get a 6+ Invulnerable save". Just put a 6+ invulnerable save on each datasheet. Making it a separate rule to remember adds no value.
Except for the ways to make it better. But I agree their rule is probably not the Invuln. They're lowering lethality from the offensive side - reducing shots, AP, and occasionally accuracy. I forsee an invuln for Battle Sisters who are on an objective as a bespoke rule on their unit entry - That seems to be a theme - inconic rule as bespoke on the iconic troop - or turned up to 11 - around objectives. I expect the faction ability to be some sort of Pick 1 use once per turn out of 3.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Marines are physically tougher than Sisters though, which is why they're T4/W2.
Terminators are still marines. They get T5 and bonus wounds from their armour. Same with Gravis. There’s no reason roughness should go up because of armour.
They're Marines in mini-Dreadnought armor. Its name is Tactical Dreadnought Armor. Adding extra T and a W for extra thick armor plating - like tanks have over speeders makes sense.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Marines are physically tougher than Sisters though, which is why they're T4/W2.
Terminators are still marines. They get T5 and bonus wounds from their armour. Same with Gravis. There’s no reason roughness should go up because of armour.
They're Marines in mini-Dreadnought armor. Its name is Tactical Dreadnought Armor. Adding extra T and a W for extra thick armor plating - like tanks have over speeders makes sense.
Not until very recently.
Terminators always had marine profile with the assumption 2 up armour represented their armour. This has been heavily eroded because firepower has went up massively so you need to boost the profile to get closer to it. Boosting firepower whilst leaving Sisters of Battle with same profile they had in 3rd edition (less ap5) just means they’re much easily gunned down. Yet you’re still paying same points for them.
Either they make sisters very cheap and they become a horde unit or you increase the durability of the unit to justify that points cost as an actual mid tier unit. You shouldn’t be left thinking you may as well take Repentia because any shooting will kill you anyway.
It also doesn’t explain marines and Genestealers randomly getting two wounds for no reason and Orks becoming toughness 5.
Wounds were the untapped resource for reflecting a unit’s overall resilience.
Even going back to 2nd Ed, it was very rare for any non-character unit to have multiple wounds on its profile. And until 8th, GW never really changed that.
But now? A units relative resilience can be reflected by Toughness, Wounds, Save and Invulnerable Save. Which has opened the field up somewhat, especially now some weapons do multiple damage.
Have GW got that quite right? Doesn’t seem so, at least not from what I read on Dakka. But it is still for me a welcome development.
From a background centric point of view, it’s the difference between being difficult to inflict a telling wound on (T4, W1) and being difficult to inflict a telling wound on, and still being able to fight whilst missing an arm (T4 W2)
Hence I’m broadly happy with unenhanced human infantry remaining T3 W1, or T4 W1, with their resilience being expressed through superior armour (Sisters)
Changing the toughness of a battle sister to 4 would be fine with me.
A S3 T4 3+ 1W statline is different from a guardsmen S3 T3 5+ 1W, the Scion S3 T3 4+ 1W or a marine S4 T4 3+ 2W. It requires more diverse investments for a TAC list, which is always a good thing.
I'm not too fixed about toughness representing the human and save the actual armor, as a tough armor should be ... Tough. And properly represented in the toughness stat.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Marines are physically tougher than Sisters though, which is why they're T4/W2.
Terminators are still marines. They get T5 and bonus wounds from their armour. Same with Gravis. There’s no reason roughness should go up because of armour.
They're Marines in mini-Dreadnought armor. Its name is Tactical Dreadnought Armor. Adding extra T and a W for extra thick armor plating - like tanks have over speeders makes sense.
Not until very recently.
Terminators always had marine profile with the assumption 2 up armour represented their armour. This has been heavily eroded because firepower has went up massively so you need to boost the profile to get closer to it. Boosting firepower whilst leaving Sisters of Battle with same profile they had in 3rd edition (less ap5) just means they’re much easily gunned down. Yet you’re still paying same points for them.
Either they make sisters very cheap and they become a horde unit or you increase the durability of the unit to justify that points cost as an actual mid tier unit. You shouldn’t be left thinking you may as well take Repentia because any shooting will kill you anyway.
It also doesn’t explain marines and Genestealers randomly getting two wounds for no reason and Orks becoming toughness 5.
So how much do Sisters cost in 10th? How much are Terminators? Or those new Genestealers?
Lethality does seem to be coming down a decent amount, not up as you're claiming. Notably, there seems to be a reduction in the random -1AP weapons that were very prevalent in 9th edition. That's a big help to armies like Sisters with near-universal 3+ saves. It's entirely possible for Sisters to fit into that semi-elite niche between regular Guardsmen and SM even with their current stat line. We've also seen quite a few units get benefits when on objectives and Sisters may have something similar that helps boost them over their basic statline.
And as I've said before, many times, AoF will make or break Sisters. Without knowing how they work, we can't even begin to speculate on a Sister's value.
With the right AoF at the right time, I'll take a battle sister over any troops choice in the game.
If AoF are wimpy bespoke unit or detachment abilities that remove all choice, I'll just keep playing 9th.
Maybe GW thinks demons and SoB, should be played with minimal troops and maxed out "elite" and special units, which boxes cost coviniently for GW more then the regular troops.
There are AoS factions, that suffer from the syndrom of troops=bad, and the whole armies being based around spaming big kits or more expensive elite units and characters.
Karol wrote: Maybe GW thinks demons and SoB, should be played with minimal troops and maxed out "elite" and special units, which boxes cost coviniently for GW more then the regular troops.
There are AoS factions, that suffer from the syndrom of troops=bad, and the whole armies being based around spaming big kits or more expensive elite units and characters.
Them not previewing a troop unit in the article isn't a ploy to sell big kits. Come on.
I don't think it is a ploy. Who knows, besides GW, what plans they have, how people should be playing a faction. But there is stuff like design limitation and existing in a game where stuff is decided with a d6, and not a d10 or d20. Some armies , marines for example, do gravitate to be very troop light.
and in AoS this is often the case, where a stormcast army would be , 2 sesons earlier, minimal ground troops and max dragons. Or blades of khorns be a bucket of characters and bloodthirsters with chaff. With stuff one would think be strong like blood warriors or StD warriors, being sometimes like marines in w40k, not really worth the points, where more elite versions of them exist.
This edition will be the true test at making troops interesting. So far the datasheets are enticing, but whether or not vehicles and other stuff still smother them is unknown.
I think after seeing the stats for GK termintors with a "smite" and some one psychic power that doesn't really do much, I will move on to playing even more AoS.
Could GW write interesting stuff ? Sure, but from the unit line ups they have shown, units of infantry don't have much rules layered on to them. Monsters, characters, tanks have more. GW can of course write and make everything. They could kill w40k tomorrow, if they wanted to. I just don't think that without a codex or sesonal detachments the game will be spicy enough to be fun to play. AND I REALLY hope they keep the town the same, something they never did in the past. I would suck to have marines, nids, custodes, DA etc come with 1-2 rules per unit, and then in then after 12 months get hit by units running around with double or triple the rules, with more impact then "and do a break test".
Each type of GK unit could have a different power- in an edition where psychic powers are assigned to individual units with no player input, this is the only way to make it feel like there are a variety of powers available to the army as a whole.
So units that typically fill a melee role will probably have a CC based buff or debuff; a unit that is typically shooty would have a shooting buff or debuff, and objective holders might have defensive buffs.
Characters will have access to more than one power based on their status- very powerful characters will have the most.
Karol wrote: I think after seeing the stats for GK termintors with a "smite" and some one psychic power that doesn't really do much, I will move on to playing even more AoS.
As you move further away from 40k, do yourself a favor (space permitting) and DON'T sell off your GKs.
Editions wax & wane, as does ones interest in any given game no matter how good/bad the rules are.
What doesn't change is the ever increasing cost of buying into game. GW games especially.
It's cheaper to store an army in the bottom of a closet for an edition or two until things improve/interest returns, than re-buying it later.
And then there's the assembly & painting time....
PenitentJake wrote: Each type of GK unit could have a different power- in an edition where psychic powers are assigned to individual units with no player input, this is the only way to make it feel like there are a variety of powers available to the army as a whole.
So units that typically fill a melee role will probably have a CC based buff or debuff; a unit that is typically shooty would have a shooting buff or debuff, and objective holders might have defensive buffs.
Characters will have access to more than one power based on their status- very powerful characters will have the most.
That's how they used to work. Specific units got abilities suited to their roles. It worked quite well as you had the combination of esoteric equipment and lots of mini buffs across all your units making them feel suitably elite. It was a much better approach than 8th and 9th where GK and TS basically get a whole extra phase with little interaction with their opponent and lots of dice rolling without much player agency.
alextroy wrote: Sisters of Battle Faction Focus Tomorrow! A good number of our questions should be answered soon.
hopefully they wont arbitrarily skip showing a troop unit like with the daemon article
They may not have shown a troop unit, but they did show more depth to their "playstyle" - The Shadows Of Chaos thing looks like its going to be pretty interesting, between 6" Deep Strikes, corrupting objectives, mortal wounding battle shocks, and Be’lakor running around with a permanent Ouch Zone.
They also gave us a sneak peak at one of the questions we've been having when they gave us the "extra attacks" ability glimpse. I wonder if that will be on Desolators and some of the other two non-twin-linked ranged stuff or if it'll just be melee only. Also interesting is the Keeper with Armor save, Invuln, and FNP all three - but its not
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Daedalus81 wrote: This edition will be the true test at making troops interesting. So far the datasheets are enticing, but whether or not vehicles and other stuff still smother them is unknown.
I don't think vehicles were doing it because they were vehicles. I generally like what they're doing with the objective/combat rules. I think the "bad" vehicles will be better, and the Elite/FA/HS infantry getting OC is nice. I think the biggest improvement to what used to be troops is how so much is being keyed off of objective proximity and/or control. I'm hoping that each faction gets offensive and defensive version on assorted troops/whatever though - for example the Chaos Marine ability we saw was offensive while the Necron Warrior was defensive - if those don't match up with an Attacker/Defender scenario that bends the "rules" when it comes to victory conditions or such it could cause some imbalances so I worry a bit about that.
PenitentJake wrote: Each type of GK unit could have a different power- in an edition where psychic powers are assigned to individual units with no player input, this is the only way to make it feel like there are a variety of powers available to the army as a whole.
So units that typically fill a melee role will probably have a CC based buff or debuff; a unit that is typically shooty would have a shooting buff or debuff, and objective holders might have defensive buffs.
Characters will have access to more than one power based on their status- very powerful characters will have the most.
That's how they used to work. Specific units got abilities suited to their roles. It worked quite well as you had the combination of esoteric equipment and lots of mini buffs across all your units making them feel suitably elite. It was a much better approach than 8th and 9th where GK and TS basically get a whole extra phase with little interaction with their opponent and lots of dice rolling without much player agency.
You have a right to your opinion, and I get where you're comiing from, but I'm going to HARD disagree.
People complain about how subfaction rules "Flanderized" subfactions. Well, in my opinion bespoke psychic powers on units "Flanderizes" those units. If I want my GK Termies to perform a given function, I should be able to equip them and give them psychic powers that suit the role I want them to perform. If GW decides they must have power X, that means they only have one role, and it isn't me, the guy who bought, assembled and painted them that gets to make that choice.
Any gains in "Player Agency" to the defender during my psychic phase are had only at the expense of MY player agency as the Psyker.
It used to be fun to include more than one Librarian in an army when they could have different powers- now they can't, so it isn't. And this can be said of GK units too; having six units of strikes would be WAY more interesting if I could give three of them defensive powers and three of them offensive powers. But NOPE. ALL Strikes must have the same power because reasons. It's total bs.
If enough other stuff in the game is handled well, the game itself will be fine, but the way they've handled psykers this edition is definitely one of the biggest things that I personally dislike about the edition. I also hypothesize that once all the dexes are out, GW will release a psychic expansion like they did in second ed that brings real psychic powers back to all factions (or at least psychic mitigations to increase the agency of factions that are not typically psychic)... But we'll see.
I lament the same things, but honestly being able to make it so the 'haves' and 'have nots' aren't so far apart is not a bad thing. People largely avoided psykers if you weren't GK / TS / Nids. Now having one in other armies is viable and we don't need to have abhor the witch tilting against TS and GK.
Ultimately we need to see the enhancements and other facets to see how technical the psyker factions can get.
I lament the same things, but honestly being able to make it so the 'haves' and 'have nots' aren't so far apart is not a bad thing. People largely avoided psykers if you weren't GK / TS / Nids. Now having one in other armies is viable and we don't need to have abhor the witch tilting against TS and GK.
Ultimately we need to see the enhancements and other facets to see how technical the psyker factions can get.
This is a reasonable response... There certainly is a lot of Wait and See.
As for folks not taking psykers if they weren't GK, Ksons or Nids... That may have been true, but it doesn't mean that psykers weren't viable in other armies, it just means that they didn't suit competitive min/max meta for those other armies.
As for Abhor, you fix that problem by removing Abhor, not by curb stomping, flanderizing and blandifying psykers.
But again, you're right; there are ways that psychic powers can be made interesting in the context of synergy from other rules, so wait an see is a better approach than shaking my fists at the internet.
The thing that I like about specific powers for specific units is that it gives psyker-heavy armies more choice- for my Tyranids at least, when everything had the same set of powers it meant there were certain platforms that were better than others. It's like having a set of heavy weapons and then four or five units that each pick exactly one; their roles end up being redundant and there are usually winners and losers. By instead tying different powers to different units, they can instead have more distinct roles.
But I 100% sympathize with the complaint that it's bland for certain units to be locked into just one power. I wouldn't mind some of the more powerful psykers (eg Librarians) having a choice of a couple of powers.
I lament the same things, but honestly being able to make it so the 'haves' and 'have nots' aren't so far apart is not a bad thing. People largely avoided psykers if you weren't GK / TS / Nids. Now having one in other armies is viable and we don't need to have abhor the witch tilting against TS and GK.
Ultimately we need to see the enhancements and other facets to see how technical the psyker factions can get.
Games should avoid, as much as it is possible, not leting people play with their stuff or punishing people for playing with their stuff. A tau player should be happy that he is playing with a lot of suits, tyranid player should be happy to have a lot of big monsters and an ork should feel the same playing his horde of vehicles. They shouldn't feel "If only I had X, Y, Z my army wouldn't be unfun" and if that still somehow happened the fix should be not to remove X, Y and Z from other armies, but making the armies that don't have X, Y and Z fun in their own way. But that is magical happy land that is not GW. GW is a company that lets knight player have a rule set that doesn't work under a new edition or makes all GK/1ksons players chuckle telling 3-4 months before an edition end that Abhore is kind of a bad.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ccs 809777 11531506 wrote:
As you move further away from 40k, do yourself a favor (space permitting) and DON'T sell off your GKs.
Editions wax & wane, as does ones interest in any given game no matter how good/bad the rules are.
What doesn't change is the ever increasing cost of buying into game. GW games especially.
It's cheaper to store an army in the bottom of a closet for an edition or two until things improve/interest returns, than re-buying it later.
And then there's the assembly & painting time....
Oh I would never sell the model. I hated 8th, like it was really bad for my mental health I think. 9th was much better, not for my terminator army, but in general it was much better then 8th. In the end terminators are the models I like, and not just any termintors, the GK one or similar ones, like the EC ones from HH. I don't like power armoured GK, no idea why , they just don't feel right to me.
The comperation to AoS in fun/quality of gaming is like heaven and hell though. And remember I play in the same place and the same people. AoS wasn't even a councious choice I picked. My aunt bought me starter set, then for some unexplained reason bought the copy of it again year later. The things waited 1+year for me to even start assembling them G
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Daedalus81 wrote: So far all the army rules are unit type agnostic. Any model can benefit.
I doubt GK units will have smite or if they do it will be in tandem with something else.
Then I hope that psycanons become like the new auto canons and not heavy bolters. without MW, killing all those vehicles or monsters , assuming there not being some army that invalidates those type of units/armies, is going to be hard.
I think the best thing I could expect is "smite"/"overloaded smite" and then 1-2 psychic powers to pick for units, or one to pick and one build in (so purfires always get flame etc). And then characters getting their smite+1-3 powers depending on type with certain powers being build in. It is going to be a meh world going down from potential 13 to non potential 1-2, maybe 3.
catbarf wrote: The thing that I like about specific powers for specific units is that it gives psyker-heavy armies more choice- for my Tyranids at least, when everything had the same set of powers it meant there were certain platforms that were better than others. It's like having a set of heavy weapons and then four or five units that each pick exactly one; their roles end up being redundant and there are usually winners and losers. By instead tying different powers to different units, they can instead have more distinct roles.
I don't buy this.
You're saying that a psychic unit that can choose from 6 powers is limited because there will usually be a best-power build... But in the new system, you don't get to make the choice at all, so what you get is not the BEST build, it's the ONLY build.
Now, because some units get multiple powers, it is technically possible that the total number of psychic abilities available to the army is greater than the number of powers, but that's far from guaranteed, and even if it's true, it's still only 6 choices:
Include unit A: Y/N and how many (if not unique)
Include unit B: Y/N and how many (if not unique)
Include unit C: Y/N and how many (if not unique)
Include unit D: Y/N and how many (if not unique)
Include unit E: Y/N and how many (if not unique)
Include unit F: Y/N and how many (if not unique)
Under the old system, if even two of the six powers are viable, you've got twice as many choices. And if you decide to take more than one of a particular psychic unit because you like the unit, you aren't forced to take the the same psychic power, meaning you can have variety if you want to... Though you're still just as free to build all of the units if you want to.
And for the record, there's usually three powers I like for each unit... though four some it's only two. Fours are very rare.
Literally the only way 10th can provide more choice than 9th is if there are more psychic units in 10th than there were in 9th. And for some armies- Nids in particular, that is going to be true. And that's assuming that there is only one viable 9th option for each of those units... And whether that "FEELS" true to you or not, I think it's pretty safe to say it objectively isn't.
PenitentJake wrote: You're saying that a psychic unit that can choose from 6 powers is limited because there will usually be a best-power build
No, I didn't say that at all.
I'm not comparing different powers for a single platform. I'm comparing different platforms that all get the same powers, such that they don't do anything really different from one another.
I think that removing all choice with psychic powers was a mistake. More a mistake was putting specific powers with specific types of characters. Even if each psyker had a choice between 2-3 powers, with some overlap between types, that would be better.
PenitentJake wrote: You're saying that a psychic unit that can choose from 6 powers is limited because there will usually be a best-power build
No, I didn't say that at all.
I'm not comparing different powers for a single platform. I'm comparing different platforms that all get the same powers, such that they don't do anything really different from one another.
Either way, different platforms that choose from the same six powers still give you more choice than different platforms whose powers you don't get to choose- unless there are more platforms to choose from. For every "choice" you get to make, I get to make six.
You can choose a Farseer or not. So can I... But if I do, I can chose more versions of that farseer than you can.
You can choose to include a unit of Warlocks. So can I, but if I do I have more versions of them to choose from than you do.
Every choice you can make, I can make too. But I have access to choices you don't.
Now, you're a smart guy, and I agree with almost everything you post, so I think what you mean is that assigning powers to specific models allows DESIGNERS to create powers or suites of powers that allow them to ensure that each psychic unit is well suited to a role without having to worry that every power they create has to be able to work for every unit that has access to the discipline. And I could agree with that- some of the new psychic powers or suites of powers may turn out to be more interesting/effective/fluffy simply because they were designed specifically to work with a given unit's unique characteristics and role within the army.
But none of that increases player choice- that's all I'm saying.
I lament the same things, but honestly being able to make it so the 'haves' and 'have nots' aren't so far apart is not a bad thing. People largely avoided psykers if you weren't GK / TS / Nids. Now having one in other armies is viable and we don't need to have abhor the witch tilting against TS and GK.
Ultimately we need to see the enhancements and other facets to see how technical the psyker factions can get.
I didn't avoid Tiggy, but I didn't really take him for the psychics. They were a bonus against most armies, and something I didn't count on otherwise. I took him for the beat stick + bespokes (nullify, and Precog)
Games should avoid, as much as it is possible, not leting people play with their stuff or punishing people for playing with their stuff. A tau player should be happy that he is playing with a lot of suits, tyranid player should be happy to have a lot of big monsters and an ork should feel the same playing his horde of vehicles. They shouldn't feel "If only I had X, Y, Z my army wouldn't be unfun"
You're fighting human nature there, not the game system. People focus on "My stuff dies twice as fast as Marines" more than "I have twice as many as Marines".
You're saying that a psychic unit that can choose from 6 powers is limited because there will usually be a best-power build...
I always thought what they should have done is every psyker has access to all their faction/subfaction/thematic-thing-goes-here powers, and the powers should have been varied and take turns as "the best power" - i.e. against this skew like Knights X was the "best" power, or against skew like "hordes" Y was the "best" power. And all of the powers should have been set up for one of the main-ish playstyles.
You're fighting human nature there, not the game system. People focus on "My stuff dies twice as fast as Marines" more than "I have twice as many as Marines".
My skills with english are not precise to show what I am thinking about. I will try to use an example. I know that most people would like to have their faction "lore accurate" which boils down to close to what is "the best". I don't have a problem with that. What I do have problems with, is something like this. A knight player looks at the new 9th ed core rules, with his codex and his collection, and suddenly understand that without infantry (which all other factions have) he is not going to be able to take part in a game of 9th ed w40k without an automatic assumption of losing on both primaris and secondaries.
At the fix to that, should not be, "the removal", of infantry from all other faction. By lets say making the rules extremly skewed in favour of vehicles/monsters/etc
In the case of marines something similar would be something like all marines are meh or bad, save for those that have TWC or Sang Guard, which by some fluke of core rules and army rules interaction make those units (and not even those armies) REALLY GOOD. In that case the fix should be either giving/making other marines good/fun to play too, and not making Sang Guard and TWC real bad.
That goes for all factions. If skimers over perfrom and all other armies underperform, then the fix should be killing of skimers as a valid unit options. etc.
PenitentJake wrote:Now, you're a smart guy, and I agree with almost everything you post, so I think what you mean is that assigning powers to specific models allows DESIGNERS to create powers or suites of powers that allow them to ensure that each psychic unit is well suited to a role without having to worry that every power they create has to be able to work for every unit that has access to the discipline.
That, and because it helps the designers differentiate the units themselves, giving them distinct roles rather than just being platforms to slot spells into.
For example: For the longest time a Maleceptor was basically just a Zoanthrope duct-taped to a Carnifex, a big critter that did big critter things and also had psychic powers. But then GW gave it the Encephalitic Diffusion rule, a unique psychic ability, and now it has a protective capability that no other unit provides. Similarly, Neurothropes are just character Zoanthropes, but have the Spirit Leech ability, allowing them to heal nearby Zoanthropes by inflicting damage. And Zoanthropes get a boosted Smite, making them good for raw damage output. These are unique powers that give the units distinct roles.
Conversely, Astra Militarum had Primaris Psykers and Wyrdvane Psykers. They drew from the same pool of powers. You never saw Wyrdvanes in 8th, because they were strictly worse as psykers. You also never saw Terrifying Visions (wow, -2 to one enemy unit's leadership for one turn) taken when you could choose Psychic Barrier (+1 to save on a friendly unit) instead. The ability to mix-and-match any psyker with any power meant there were a couple of combos that were worth considering and a bunch of combos (and entire units and powers) that were just bad. Ultimately, GW just nixed the Wyrdvanes entirely.
Tying the powers to the units might mean fewer theoretical combinations of powers, but if they can be individually balanced, then they can all be made worth taking. If Terrifying Visions was tied to Wyrdvane Psykers, GW could see that that unit underperforms and balance accordingly, without risking either Terrifying Visions becoming OP when taken by a Primaris Psyker, or Wyrdvanes becoming OP when given a different power. If Wyrdvanes had Terrifying Visions and Primaris Psykers had Psychic Barrier, they'd have distinct roles (offensive vs defensive) that make the choice between the two more significant, rather than the false choice of Good Psyker or Bad Psyker and then good powers or bad ones. Having a number of equally viable, distinct, different options offers more real choice than having dozens of potential combos of which two are worth considering and the remainder are strictly inferior, while also being easier to appropriately balance.
All that said- as mentioned before, I do still think there are units that ought to have a choice rather than being locked into a single power. But I don't mind the concept of tying powers to units, rather than having a universal roster of powers that all your psykers draw from. There's a middle ground.
Never got the obssession with "balance" in games. If you're the type of player who "has to win", then just get whatever is the most powerful army and have fun.
The rest of us can have fun winning or losing playing a side that we find the most fun/interesting/creative. I used to play Halflings in bloodbowl (old school bloodbowl, no idea what the new one is like) just because it was fun trying to achieve anything. Scoring a touchdown was a victory, even if I lost the match 7-1. They were hopeless. And that's what made them fun.
P.S. I do get it for serious tournament play. But I also think that designing complicated games like 40K with serious tournament play foremost in mind is a mistake. It's just not suited to it.
Never got the obssession with "balance" in games. If you're the type of player who "has to win", then just get whatever is the most powerful army and have fun.
The rest of us can have fun winning or losing playing a side that we find the most fun/interesting/creative. I used to play Halflings in bloodbowl (old school bloodbowl, no idea what the new one is like) just because it was fun trying to achieve anything. Scoring a touchdown was a victory, even if I lost the match 7-1. They were hopeless. And that's what made them fun.
P.S. I do get it for serious tournament play. But I also think that designing complicated games like 40K with serious tournament play foremost in mind is a mistake. It's just not suited to it.
I think balance is important for a fun game.
It's certainly not the only thing that goes into a fun game, but if I make a competently-built list and then play a game where I have virtually no chance of winning or no chance of losing because of power imbalance, I won't have a fun time.
Never got the obssession with "balance" in games. If you're the type of player who "has to win", then just get whatever is the most powerful army and have fun.
The rest of us can have fun winning or losing playing a side that we find the most fun/interesting/creative. I used to play Halflings in bloodbowl (old school bloodbowl, no idea what the new one is like) just because it was fun trying to achieve anything. Scoring a touchdown was a victory, even if I lost the match 7-1. They were hopeless. And that's what made them fun.
P.S. I do get it for serious tournament play. But I also think that designing complicated games like 40K with serious tournament play foremost in mind is a mistake. It's just not suited to it.
I think balance is important for a fun game.
It's certainly not the only thing that goes into a fun game, but if I make a competently-built list and then play a game where I have virtually no chance of winning or no chance of losing because of power imbalance, I won't have a fun time.
It's important to a point.
And yes, maybe there is a point in 40K more than some other games.
I play old-school AD&D too and sometimes I hear or read about how this or that is "underpowered". Really? You're complaining that your character is not as good a warrior as that 7-foot tall barbarian? And you're complaining about "balance"? If you don't want to be crap at fighting, don't choose to be a 3-foot tall Halfling. There is no "balance" there.
Similarly, if someone has built an army solely designed to wipe-out heavy armour ... and your army is full of heavy armour ... well guess what? It's just not your day. You can't balance that. You just have to rememeber that while that dude's army might wipe the floor with yours, there's probably some other specialist army that can expose his weaknesses and will wipe the floor with his.
If you try and "balance" that kind of thing out of the game, you just end up with a beige blob of sameness. Nothing is unique or special anymore.
Sure, in 40K, when you have a points system, you kind of expect that you will get an even competition. And I agree with that, but only up to a point. Stuff still needs to be unique and it's mission impossible to try and balance it all.
'Balance' also encompasses things not working as they should. Even if you don't care about the winner or loser of the battle, it was annoying when a Vanquisher (a specialized anti-tank gun lauded in the lore for one-shotting other tanks) wasn't nearly as effective at anti-tank duty as a basic battle cannon.
Even in something like AD&D, if I find that my seven-foot-tall barbarian isn't as good a fighter as the three-foot-tall halfling rogue due to how the rules work, that's frustrating.
Similarly, if someone has built an army solely designed to wipe-out heavy armour ... and your army is full of heavy armour ... well guess what? It's just not your day. You can't balance that.
You can design the game so that lopsided matchups like that either don't occur or aren't one-sided stomps. There is a reason that the 40K style of listbuilding is increasingly rare nowadays, as other games find fun solutions to these imbalances rather than throwing up their hands and saying 'sorry, too bad, live with it'.
And it's never been fun for the apex final battle of a hard-fought campaign to end in one side stomping the other in two turns. No amount of 'I don't actually care who wins' prevents that from being an anticlimactic letdown.
Balance and design and fun aren't mutually exclusive concepts, they're all part of a cohesive whole.
I lament the same things, but honestly being able to make it so the 'haves' and 'have nots' aren't so far apart is not a bad thing. People largely avoided psykers if you weren't GK / TS / Nids. Now having one in other armies is viable and we don't need to have abhor the witch tilting against TS and GK.
Ultimately we need to see the enhancements and other facets to see how technical the psyker factions can get.
This is a reasonable response... There certainly is a lot of Wait and See.
As for folks not taking psykers if they weren't GK, Ksons or Nids... That may have been true, but it doesn't mean that psykers weren't viable in other armies, it just means that they didn't suit competitive min/max meta for those other armies.
As for Abhor, you fix that problem by removing Abhor, not by curb stomping, flanderizing and blandifying psykers.
But again, you're right; there are ways that psychic powers can be made interesting in the context of synergy from other rules, so wait an see is a better approach than shaking my fists at the internet.
People didn't take psykers outside of armies like GK, Ksons, and Nids because if you ran into those armies, they had 0 value because the amount and quality of deny the witch meant it was impossible to get any psychic powers off.
It wasn't a question of 'min/max' it was a question of 'does anything'. It also very explicitly means that psykers WEREN'T viable in other armies unless they were useful INDEPENDENT of the fact that they were a psyker.
catbarf wrote: 'Balance' also encompasses things not working as they should. Even if you don't care about the winner or loser of the battle, it was annoying when a Vanquisher (a specialized anti-tank gun lauded in the lore for one-shotting other tanks) wasn't nearly as effective at anti-tank duty as a basic battle cannon.
Yeah, I can agree with you here. That kind of stuff annoys me too, because it not only interferes with the balance of the game, it also interferes with the believability/imaginative side.
Even in something like AD&D, if I find that my seven-foot-tall barbarian isn't as good a fighter as the three-foot-tall halfling rogue due to how the rules work, that's frustrating.
Well ... it wouldn't be. Because the Halfling would be hopeless. Because the game is not "balanced" that way.
Similarly, if someone has built an army solely designed to wipe-out heavy armour ... and your army is full of heavy armour ... well guess what? It's just not your day. You can't balance that.
You can design the game so that lopsided matchups like that either don't occur or aren't one-sided stomps. There is a reason that the 40K style of listbuilding is increasingly rare nowadays, as other games find fun solutions to these imbalances rather than throwing up their hands and saying 'sorry, too bad, live with it'.
I'm not sure how you could. Going back to your example of the Vanquisher and you wanting it to work as expected in the game mechanics ... if an army that was specifically built to smash heavy armour and nothing else actually had a hard time smashing heavy armour ... that to me would be a far bigger problem. Just like your Vanquisher not being any better at what it's designed to do than a normal cannon.
The "balance" exists in that such an army would also have weaknesses that could be exploited by other armies (or even just a "balanced" jack-of-all trades one). So while it might score an overwhelming lop-sided victory over a force that it was specifically designed to smash, it should struggle against anything else. And actually be smashed itself by an army that it is specifically not designed to combat - a fast moving, lightly-armoured, ambush style army, for example.
But ... in a way I agree with you, because in a way, what *I* am describing is actually "balance". It just not balanced for every single possible combination. And nor should it be.
And it's never been fun for the apex final battle of a hard-fought campaign to end in one side stomping the other in two turns. No amount of 'I don't actually care who wins' prevents that from being an anticlimactic letdown.
I'd argue you just can't manufacture "excitement" ... or if you can, it's not by making every combination perfectly "balanced" against every other combination. Sometimes, just like in sports and all other competition, there's going to be a one-sided match.
You don't care about balance in D&D because there is a Dungeon Master. The guy can and should move stuff behind the curtains so that challenges appear as challenges no matter how balanced the fight actually is.
Spoletta wrote: You don't care about balance in D&D because there is a Dungeon Master. The guy can and should move stuff behind the curtains so that challenges appear as challenges no matter how balanced the fight actually is.
There is no such figure in warhammer.
I am the Dungeon Master.
While it's true there is a smidgen of that going on, I try and keep it to a minimum. In order for it to be exciting and satisfying, there has to be danger and there has to be consequences to bad decisions. If they get themselves into a fight where they're hopelessly outmatched I won't "secretly balance" it for them.
But you are broadly right - it's a different game so maybe a bit off topic.
Never got the obssession with "balance" in games. If you're the type of player who "has to win", then just get whatever is the most powerful army and have fun.
.
I think some factions have the problem of existing in a GW created world, where GW sometimes tries to "balance" some factions. Which almost always means nerfs, "streamlining" of rules and generaly making armies less fun to play. And there are other armies which GW goes hog wild while writing their rules. It is hard to exist in a world, where for 3-6 years you are driving a scooter and people in your playgroup are driving around in tanks.
Plus this get less or more serious the easier it is for players to buy a new army, in case the one their picked is unfun. Buying a new kill team for Killteam is easy, and changing factions is fun. Buying 2000pts of w40k is not easy to some people, which creates local settings where people take the game a lot more serious, then some place else.
catbarf wrote: You can design the game so that lopsided matchups like that either don't occur or aren't one-sided stomps. There is a reason that the 40K style of listbuilding is increasingly rare nowadays, as other games find fun solutions to these imbalances rather than throwing up their hands and saying 'sorry, too bad, live with it'.
I'm not sure how you could.
Sideboard mechanics are a big one, allowing users to change the composition of their army after they know the opponent and the mission. Or recycling destroyed units, so your token anti-tank can be reused and pose a credible threat. Or more restrictive listbuilding so that wild skew isn't an option. Or throw out listbuilding entirely and have units bring in 'reinforcements' in lieu of a fixed list. Or more comprehensive design to avoid the notion of hard counters altogether.
Lots of ways that cat has been skinned. Mostly it's out of a general recognition that creating a fixed list in a vacuum with no idea what the mission or enemy look like is A. not particularly realistic, and B. tends to result in a game that breaks easily, and telling players 'hey, sometimes your battle's just going to suck' is not an ideal outcome.
The Pig-Faced Orc wrote: I'd argue you just can't manufacture "excitement" ... or if you can, it's not by making every combination perfectly "balanced" against every other combination. Sometimes, just like in sports and all other competition, there's going to be a one-sided match.
'Perfect balance' is a phrase I've only ever heard as a straw man. Good enough to have a tense game, or at least one where it's not immediately apparent whether it's the game design or the dice that produced a skewed outcome, is sufficient.
Perfect isn't necessary, it's just that a poorly balanced game is harder to have fun with, even if you never take it to tournaments.
Never got the obssession with "balance" in games. If you're the type of player who "has to win", then just get whatever is the most powerful army and have fun.
The rest of us can have fun winning or losing playing a side that we find the most fun/interesting/creative. I used to play Halflings in bloodbowl (old school bloodbowl, no idea what the new one is like) just because it was fun trying to achieve anything. Scoring a touchdown was a victory, even if I lost the match 7-1. They were hopeless. And that's what made them fun.
P.S. I do get it for serious tournament play. But I also think that designing complicated games like 40K with serious tournament play foremost in mind is a mistake. It's just not suited to it.
I've seen far too many players who have no interest in tournament or any form of full-on competitive play leave the hobby due to bad balance to agree with this. If balance is bad it affects everyone. I'd argue it has a greater effect on more casual players. If you're a cut-throat tournament player, part of that means acquiring and playing the best stuff and using it against other players doing the same. In most cases that's achievable and often there are multiple armies that are good enough to do that with. You don't care if 90% of the units in the game are terrible because you're never going to use them.
More casual players often get into the game by picking armies they like the look of, or styles of play they're interested in. If the GW balance pendulum is against you, you're out of luck. Sure, you can claim you don't mind if you win or lose, but at some point losing every single game with no chance of winning at all gets annoying. With armies taking a lot of time and effort to build and paint and games easily taking 3 hours to play, that's a problem. I witnessed it with a couple of Tau players in 9th, prior to their Codex. They bought all the typical Tau stuff - Firewarriors, Crisis Suits, some Devlifish and Hammerheads, etc, and lost every single game because the army was terrible. They weren't doing anything wrong, the balance was just so bad there wasn't much they could do. I've seen the same pattern with other armies and other game systems over the years.
I've seen it from the other side too. Space Marines were bad in 8th edition. Then they got their second Codex and they went form bad to broken overnight. As a SM player it was absolutely no fun playing the army at that time because it was so vastly overpowered compared to everything else your victories felt unearned. Worse, it was so powerful it was really difficult to tone it down to try to provide a more even match-up. I stopped playing SM pretty quickly after that. Luckily I had other armies to play.
I would have liked to have seen more synergy for "fluffy" list building.
Similar to the old Demi-Company system but not so Monte Haul'ish. In addition to getting some "free" stuff for taking the fluffy 30 Tacs, 10 Assaults, 10 Devs there would also be in-game synergies. Assaults (all varieties: Terminator, Vanguard, Jump Marines, whatever) can jump(Deep Strike) closer than 9" to an enemy if they're also jumping within 9" of a Tac - and similar things for other factions where the "troops" open up scenarios for the "elites" etc. Lictors near Guants and Gants. Increased Accuracy for Biovores near Warriors
Never got the obssession with "balance" in games. If you're the type of player who "has to win", then just get whatever is the most powerful army and have fun.
The rest of us can have fun winning or losing playing a side that we find the most fun/interesting/creative. I used to play Halflings in bloodbowl (old school bloodbowl, no idea what the new one is like) just because it was fun trying to achieve anything. Scoring a touchdown was a victory, even if I lost the match 7-1. They were hopeless. And that's what made them fun.
P.S. I do get it for serious tournament play. But I also think that designing complicated games like 40K with serious tournament play foremost in mind is a mistake. It's just not suited to it.
I've seen far too many players who have no interest in tournament or any form of full-on competitive play leave the hobby due to bad balance to agree with this. If balance is bad it affects everyone. I'd argue it has a greater effect on more casual players. If you're a cut-throat tournament player, part of that means acquiring and playing the best stuff and using it against other players doing the same. In most cases that's achievable and often there are multiple armies that are good enough to do that with. You don't care if 90% of the units in the game are terrible because you're never going to use them.
More casual players often get into the game by picking armies they like the look of, or styles of play they're interested in. If the GW balance pendulum is against you, you're out of luck. Sure, you can claim you don't mind if you win or lose, but at some point losing every single game with no chance of winning at all gets annoying. With armies taking a lot of time and effort to build and paint and games easily taking 3 hours to play, that's a problem. I witnessed it with a couple of Tau players in 9th, prior to their Codex. They bought all the typical Tau stuff - Firewarriors, Crisis Suits, some Devlifish and Hammerheads, etc, and lost every single game because the army was terrible. They weren't doing anything wrong, the balance was just so bad there wasn't much they could do. I've seen the same pattern with other armies and other game systems over the years.
I've seen it from the other side too. Space Marines were bad in 8th edition. Then they got their second Codex and they went form bad to broken overnight. As a SM player it was absolutely no fun playing the army at that time because it was so vastly overpowered compared to everything else your victories felt unearned. Worse, it was so powerful it was really difficult to tone it down to try to provide a more even match-up. I stopped playing SM pretty quickly after that. Luckily I had other armies to play.
I really have to emphasis this. Bad balance can be extremely frustrating, especially to players who are a bit new to wargames but smart enough to see that the point values for similar units don't align. Reading about units that are supposedly the backbone of the army just to find out that they terribly lack in game is just not a great experience.
The same goes for warlord traits. I remember in 8th edition that just by reading the traits it was immediately obvious that some where just duds. Same is true for psychic powers. Choices are nice but in most cases there wasn't an actual choice because 4 out of 6 where just ... Useless. I prefer a well designed unit that works over choices that aren't real choices in the end.
I agree that balance is important as it fosters fun.
We've all had or seen a game where a player does everything right, but the dice betray them and they lose horribly. Image doing everything right, having average dice, and finding that bad balance means you lose horribly. That would be even worst since you can't even blame bad luck.
And before you start saying you can't blame dice, I still remember the game I played way back in 6th where the result of every Penetrating Hit, both mine and my opponent's, was an explosion. It was so unlikely as to be comical.
The same goes for warlord traits. I remember in 8th edition that just by reading the traits it was immediately obvious that some where just duds. Same is true for psychic powers. Choices are nice but in most cases there wasn't an actual choice because 4 out of 6 where just ... Useless. I prefer a well designed unit that works over choices that aren't real choices in the end.
I think it's important to remember that something might look like a dud because it doesn't work for the variation of the game you play. For example, if you play 2k Matched exclusively, you may not recognize the value of something the game includes that really works for the dude who plays 25PL Crusade exclusively, and that player in turn may not understand that something THEY see is a dud is awesome for the 1k Tempest of War player.
I'm not saying this is true in all cases- I absolutely believe that there are dud units/ strats/ WL Traits and Relics. But there are many others I've seen 2k players complain about that were awesome for my tiny army/ alliance based Crusade campaigns.
And don't get me wrong, I believe balance is important too, even for the Crusade campaigner- the problem is when balance comes at the cost of options that narrative players want or need for the sake of telling stories.
The same goes for warlord traits. I remember in 8th edition that just by reading the traits it was immediately obvious that some where just duds. Same is true for psychic powers. Choices are nice but in most cases there wasn't an actual choice because 4 out of 6 where just ... Useless. I prefer a well designed unit that works over choices that aren't real choices in the end.
I think it's important to remember that something might look like a dud because it doesn't work for the variation of the game you play. For example, if you play 2k Matched exclusively, you may not recognize the value of something the game includes that really works for the dude who plays 25PL Crusade exclusively, and that player in turn may not understand that something THEY see is a dud is awesome for the 1k Tempest of War player.
I'm not saying this is true in all cases- I absolutely believe that there are dud units/ strats/ WL Traits and Relics. But there are many others I've seen 2k players complain about that were awesome for my tiny army/ alliance based Crusade campaigns.
And don't get me wrong, I believe balance is important too, even for the Crusade campaigner- the problem is when balance comes at the cost of options that narrative players want or need for the sake of telling stories.
If you're already playing a narrative game why not just add in the relics and rules you feel have been lost? It's a lot easier for you to do that than for GW to attempt to balance even more options than the game already has.
The same goes for warlord traits. I remember in 8th edition that just by reading the traits it was immediately obvious that some where just duds. Same is true for psychic powers. Choices are nice but in most cases there wasn't an actual choice because 4 out of 6 where just ... Useless. I prefer a well designed unit that works over choices that aren't real choices in the end.
I think it's important to remember that something might look like a dud because it doesn't work for the variation of the game you play. For example, if you play 2k Matched exclusively, you may not recognize the value of something the game includes that really works for the dude who plays 25PL Crusade exclusively, and that player in turn may not understand that something THEY see is a dud is awesome for the 1k Tempest of War player.
I'm not saying this is true in all cases- I absolutely believe that there are dud units/ strats/ WL Traits and Relics. But there are many others I've seen 2k players complain about that were awesome for my tiny army/ alliance based Crusade campaigns.
And don't get me wrong, I believe balance is important too, even for the Crusade campaigner- the problem is when balance comes at the cost of options that narrative players want or need for the sake of telling stories.
I think a large part of that is GW loves to recycle. They take a round peg from one army and try and hammer it into the square hole of another army.
catbarf wrote: Perfect isn't necessary, it's just that a poorly balanced game is harder to have fun with, even if you never take it to tournaments.
I'm pretty new and don't know much about 40K, but I do know about general game design, so feel qualified to comment based on that.
I agree with you that if tournaments are unbalanced, there is a problem.
The logic behind that is in theory, tournament play should basically require a flexible, jack-of-all-trades army. So a specialist anti-heavy army might do well against one opponent, but would rarely do well against multiple different combinations because they're too specailised. Which means everyone who wants to win should be fielding an army that can attack/defend "a bit of this and a bit of that" (of course, within the limitations of the faction) instead of all-eggs-one-basked that may create a lop-sided game against one other individual army.
But even then, it's not quite that simple. I have no problem with some armies just being weaker than other armies and requiring greater skill as a "general" than others. That then becomes part of their appeal. If you want to make it easy for yourself, field a different army. If you want bragging rights, this one is a challenge. That's not a bad thing in game design.
Regarding the other parts of your post, I wonder if folks buying a 2000pt army and therefore feeling "I have to play 2000pt game to use my entire army" is part of the problem there. Wouldn't the intention be more to buy some arbituary-points-value army and then use subsets of that army depening on your opponent? You don't need to know the exact make-up of their force. Just "okay, these guys are generally quick" or "these guys are generally very bashy". Whatever. It's actually could be part of the game:
Every battle is won or lost before it is ever fought - Sun Tzu - The Art of War
In the end the problem with balance is the gap between the best and the worse. there should be no 60% win rate armies and there should not be any sub 40% win rate armies. Especialy when both have a real chance to be played vs each other. There is just sales, design time and how fast a company can react to changes or even see the changes at all.
The Pig-Faced Orc wrote: But even then, it's not quite that simple. I have no problem with some armies just being weaker than other armies and requiring greater skill as a "general" than others. That then becomes part of their appeal. If you want to make it easy for yourself, field a different army. If you want bragging rights, this one is a challenge. That's not a bad thing in game design.
Er, excusing bad balance by calling it a 'challenge' is... not generally regarded as good design. That's not a thing I've seen in any successful game, and across 40K's history you'll be hard-pressed to find players who enjoyed playing with notoriously underpowered codices. I think you'll find a lot more players- even the most casual of casual- who get frustrated when their army just sucks on the tabletop, and they have to pull out all the stops and bring their A-game just to have a fighting chance.
Some armies having a higher skill floor than others to be effective is a different matter.
The Pig-Faced Orc wrote: Regarding the other parts of your post, I wonder if folks buying a 2000pt army and therefore feeling "I have to play 2000pt game to use my entire army" is part of the problem there. Wouldn't the intention be more to buy some arbituary-points-value army and then use subsets of that army depening on your opponent? You don't need to know the exact make-up of their force. Just "okay, these guys are generally quick" or "these guys are generally very bashy". Whatever. It's actually could be part of the game:
Yeah, that's a sideboard mechanic. I've suggested in the past that you could have a system where you bring 2000pts and then, after seeing your opponent's 2000pt army, select 1500pts of it to actually deploy. It'd make for quicker games on less cluttered tables and help combat skew, without increasing the model requirement.
But there is definitely a desire to see 2000pt armies on the table, partly for the spectacle and partly because that's the points value where you can really bring everything and the kitchen sink, and have fewer hard choices about what to include.
Balance gripe looking at Death Guard terminators compared to loyalists.
Based on the revealed information for Power Fist Loyalist Terminators using Oaths and Blightlord Terminators using Gifts, the Blightlords should be cheaper. If you load the Blightlords up with 6 combi-weapons, 2 reapers and 2 flails they still should be cheaper. The PF Loyalists are much better in combat than the Blightlords.
Even taking off Oaths the Loyalist Terminators are now 80% damage of the Blightlords rather than 160%.
And this is all ignoring the M4" stat that drops to M2 if someone hits you with a Barbgaunt or Malignant Plaguecaster debuff. And that M2 becomes effectively M0 when charging. You start 11.5" away from the Plaguecaster, you move 2" closer so are now 9.5" away, but your charge is 2d6-2" so you need an 11 to land the charge, which you would have needed if you had stood still without the debuff.
It seems like the solution if Terminators and Blightlords are equivalently costed is you will need a DG character attached to your unit to be "better/cheaper" than an SM character attached to their unit.
I feel this is where GW tie themselves up in knots, they make "free" rules of different strengths then struggle to mentally price the units in different factions because they "look" so similar before the free rules. Obviously a bit early to cry doom, but this seems to be the mistake they consistently made in 9th and I won't be surprised to see DG termies getting points cuts to cheaper than loyalist versions at some point early in 10th.
EightFoldPath wrote: Balance gripe looking at Death Guard terminators compared to loyalists.
Based on the revealed information for Power Fist Loyalist Terminators using Oaths and Blightlord Terminators using Gifts, the Blightlords should be cheaper. If you load the Blightlords up with 6 combi-weapons, 2 reapers and 2 flails they still should be cheaper. The PF Loyalists are much better in combat than the Blightlords.
Even taking off Oaths the Loyalist Terminators are now 80% damage of the Blightlords rather than 160%.
And this is all ignoring the M4" stat that drops to M2 if someone hits you with a Barbgaunt or Malignant Plaguecaster debuff. And that M2 becomes effectively M0 when charging. You start 11.5" away from the Plaguecaster, you move 2" closer so are now 9.5" away, but your charge is 2d6-2" so you need an 11 to land the charge, which you would have needed if you had stood still without the debuff.
It seems like the solution if Terminators and Blightlords are equivalently costed is you will need a DG character attached to your unit to be "better/cheaper" than an SM character attached to their unit.
I feel this is where GW tie themselves up in knots, they make "free" rules of different strengths then struggle to mentally price the units in different factions because they "look" so similar before the free rules. Obviously a bit early to cry doom, but this seems to be the mistake they consistently made in 9th and I won't be surprised to see DG termies getting points cuts to cheaper than loyalist versions at some point early in 10th.
Oh man I just realized that sheet confirms the worst for combis...
I'll do the math in a bit.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Seems like they really screwed the pooch with combis. At least on the libby it was a comparable choice, but it looks like with the rerolls and other rules the BL bolter is better than the combi except when specifically shooting terminators. Being on contagion range doesn't significantly change these figures ( assuming no weird bugs ). Best just to count-as all combi-bolters. :(
The Pig-Faced Orc wrote: But even then, it's not quite that simple. I have no problem with some armies just being weaker than other armies and requiring greater skill as a "general" than others. That then becomes part of their appeal. If you want to make it easy for yourself, field a different army. If you want bragging rights, this one is a challenge. That's not a bad thing in game design.
Er, excusing bad balance by calling it a 'challenge' is... not generally regarded as good design.
My point was that having some forces that are more challenging is a good thing. Forces/teams/armies/RPG characters/whatever that are difficult gives not only bragging rights but a sense of satisfaction and accomplishment to the player.
Games like 40K are poor choices if you're ultra-competitive or want to play serious tournaments. Chess is a good choice. Every player has the exact same "army" and the exact same rules and there is not element of chance (i.e. dice). 40K is a good choice if you're imaginative and can have fun even if you lose.
catbarf wrote: That's not a thing I've seen in any successful game
There are many of them. Many, many.
In fact, this thing where "everything has to be balanced", every character has to be equally as good as the next, every choice or option equally as beneficial or detrimental as any other ... that's a new thing. It's come about (imo) from somewhat entitled video-gamers.
NOW ... having said all that ... and apologies for rambling ... I do get the point that if you've spent a lot of money collecting an army and countless hours painting it, only for GW to change the rules and make them be so different they're not fun ... well that's different. I can understand being frustrated at THAT. But not simply at "every army, option and choice has to be entirely equal to any other". That's not a good thing. It means your choices are meaningless. But it's the only way to force any random army being perfectly balanced with any other random army.
Yeah, that's a sideboard mechanic. I've suggested in the past that you could have a system where you bring 2000pts and then, after seeing your opponent's 2000pt army, select 1500pts of it to actually deploy. It'd make for quicker games on less cluttered tables and help combat skew, without increasing the model requirement.
But there is definitely a desire to see 2000pt armies on the table, partly for the spectacle and partly because that's the points value where you can really bring everything and the kitchen sink, and have fewer hard choices about what to include.
It would demolish elite armies, armies that don't come in 250-500-1000pts brackets or formations, would be bad for armies with low number of unit options and especialy no chaff. Also big hit in the nads for the new player with his 1500-1600pts. Because he will show what he has to his opponent with a box of 3000pts of dudes and 3-4 printed out lists, and then by some miracle of seer like power produce the exact hard counter of 500pts sideboard and then demolish the noob. But where it REALLY gets back is for people that play with a thematic force. 1500pts of Deathwing, 1500pts of demi assault company, CCS playing his grot tank army. There is no side board for those armies, the level of handicap a player would have to face for playing what they want would be astronomical, and it would be on top of army choice, detachment choice etc.
There's nothing wrong with having "bad factions" if GW purposely designed the whole game to make them work.
Lets look at say Bloodbowl. Firstly there's a relatively little money and time buy-in. You can easily play some sort of top-tier elf team and also play halflings on the side. Since a 40k army may be 20~ times as expensive (and entail building/painting 10-20 times the models), this isn't so much of an option.
Secondly, the game is written so there's a massive luck element in it. Sure you can stack the odds in your favour - but every block or dodge has a chance of seeing your guy in the dirt. Its also (imo) best played as a rolling narrative. So players can "forge the narrative" independent of the result. "Remember that time when my halfling killed your star player" can mean more than the fact you got stuffed 5-0. Whereas in typical 40k, the game is all there is. Maybe you will remember that time your Grots killed Guilliman or something - but most likely that's not going to sustain you if you were swiftly tabled.
Thirdly, teams (factions) are also written consistently so players know what they are going to get. Bloodbowl would be a very different game if for 3-6 months say Wood Elves were the best faction in the game - but then they were trash-tier and halflings were the best. But then both became average but Skaven were utterly broken. Then it was the turn of Orcs or whatever. This is how balance goes in 40k and has done for 3 decades.
The problem with "its a challenge" is that it usually isn't. Its just saying "the odds are against me, I'll need the dice to really skew in my favour to win". Which is the problem with "bad" 40k factions. Being the team that hits on 3s and wounds on 3s gives you a statistical advantage over one with the same number of attacks (due to mis-pointing) that say hits on 4s and wounds on 5s. Its not a surprise when you go "oh, looks like faction 1 has a 60-70% win rate into faction 2".
People typically don't want to play with a big disadvantage just because you are in a bad point of the rules cycle. Which is basically why balance is a concern. If GW could point a spade as a spade - whether its in in the "new Space Marine Codex" - or the "3 year old CSM codex" - there would be less issue. But they don't. (Although I think it has got better, because they do at least react to obvious issues and professional circuit complaining, rather than just ignoring it for years as they slowly submerge the currently broken stuff under new even more broken stuff.)
Although, I must point out that despite all the advantages you listed, I ragequit blood blow twice over some elf perma-killing my high level minotaur with nothing but an impossible string of lucky rolls in a league. And have not picked it up again since.
After reading the core rules, one thing got me thinking is the wound allocation and precision strike rule interaction planned or not. Because the way it is worded right now, it can become very easy to single out characters from units, just by hiting and wounding it prior unloading shots from the rest of the army, because of the model has tank all incoming shots, if it was allocated a hit or was wounded before that.
A cheap unit of snipers could, I think, be used to force the character to then eat all the heavy weapons on the table.
Karol wrote: After reading the core rules, one thing got me thinking is the wound allocation and precision strike rule interaction planned or not. Because the way it is worded right now, it can become very easy to single out characters from units, just by hiting and wounding it prior unloading shots from the rest of the army, because of the model has tank all incoming shots, if it was allocated a hit or was wounded before that.
A cheap unit of snipers could, I think, be used to force the character to then eat all the heavy weapons on the table.
No, the only time you can allocate to a character is with precision.
Karol wrote: After reading the core rules, one thing got me thinking is the wound allocation and precision strike rule interaction planned or not. Because the way it is worded right now, it can become very easy to single out characters from units, just by hiting and wounding it prior unloading shots from the rest of the army, because of the model has tank all incoming shots, if it was allocated a hit or was wounded before that.
A cheap unit of snipers could, I think, be used to force the character to then eat all the heavy weapons on the table.
No, the only time you can allocate to a character is with precision.
The bigger issue with the rule is: If your character has significantly higher toughness than the bodyguard unit, precision still uses the bodyguard unit's toughness for the to wound roll.
Karol wrote: After reading the core rules, one thing got me thinking is the wound allocation and precision strike rule interaction planned or not. Because the way it is worded right now, it can become very easy to single out characters from units, just by hiting and wounding it prior unloading shots from the rest of the army, because of the model has tank all incoming shots, if it was allocated a hit or was wounded before that.
A cheap unit of snipers could, I think, be used to force the character to then eat all the heavy weapons on the table.
No, the only time you can allocate to a character is with precision.
The bigger issue with the rule is: If your character has significantly higher toughness than the bodyguard unit, precision still uses the bodyguard unit's toughness for the to wound roll.
*points to Abaddon's toughness*
I'm fairly sure that problem is know and has been taken care of by not allowing 7th edition style insanity of everyone joining everything for leaders.
This is a good post and you make good points. I agree with most of it.
I have to take your word for it that the armies are "just bad" as-in "impossible to play effectively" as opposed to "difficult". "Impossible" here is not an exaggeration. If it is at all possible to play them well, even if it requires 4D-chess-like thinking, then they're not "bad" they're just "difficult". Which isn't "bad". If you get my drift.
I stand by my point that you can't make every army (not least every combination of options in every army) perfectly balanced with every other combination. If you require that, play chess. Making every combination in 40K perfectly balanced is not only not possible but not desireable, because it would remove the creative aspect and render choices meaningless. A battle between an army tailor-made to destroy heavy armour, and an army that is tailor made to be heavily armoured should not be "balanced". But I agree with your base point that if you've invested a lot of time and money into your hobby and GW change the rules to make them "bad" as in "impossible to play effectively against anyone - they just suck now" then that's not a good thing.
I feel I'm slightly changing the subject here, but it's a reason I've generally stayed away from 40K for so long. GW seem to be sacrificing actually making a good game on the alter of the mighty dollar. 10 Editions of a game over a "short" (relatively) period of time is just a cash grab. From what you are telling me, it's just not allowing enough time for the game to be properly "community tested" and then patched/polished. Instead it's a constant flow of new rules and new models that are not well thought-out.
Mind you, that is mostly the community's fault for putting up with it. We can all complain until we're blue in the face on a nerd forum, but if everyone rushes out and buys (or even pre-orders) the new models and new edition then nothing will ever change.
I've heard on the grapevine that 5th Edition is generally considered "the best". That was 5 editions ago!
Karol wrote: After reading the core rules, one thing got me thinking is the wound allocation and precision strike rule interaction planned or not. Because the way it is worded right now, it can become very easy to single out characters from units, just by hiting and wounding it prior unloading shots from the rest of the army, because of the model has tank all incoming shots, if it was allocated a hit or was wounded before that.
A cheap unit of snipers could, I think, be used to force the character to then eat all the heavy weapons on the table.
No, the only time you can allocate to a character is with precision.
The bigger issue with the rule is: If your character has significantly higher toughness than the bodyguard unit, precision still uses the bodyguard unit's toughness for the to wound roll.
We've already seen that 10th will restrict which characters can join which units, so this can easily be taken into account at that stage. I suspect there'll be very few - if any - instances where there's more than a single point of difference between unit and character Toughness. In almost all cases I'd expect the Toughness values to be the same.
Karol wrote: After reading the core rules, one thing got me thinking is the wound allocation and precision strike rule interaction planned or not. Because the way it is worded right now, it can become very easy to single out characters from units, just by hiting and wounding it prior unloading shots from the rest of the army, because of the model has tank all incoming shots, if it was allocated a hit or was wounded before that.
A cheap unit of snipers could, I think, be used to force the character to then eat all the heavy weapons on the table.
No, the only time you can allocate to a character is with precision.
Yes, but the rules say that if a model from a unit was allocated wounding hits, it has to be the model that gets them allocated for the the rest of the shoting/melee phase. What am worried about is some cheap anti-infantry ranger/scout snipers wounding a librarians or brother captin, and them him being forced to tank lascanons and the like to the face, because he already did that one per turn. If it is not the case, and characters that joined a unit are still separate entities through some esotheric ways of GW rules writing, then I am a very happy person.
Karol wrote: After reading the core rules, one thing got me thinking is the wound allocation and precision strike rule interaction planned or not. Because the way it is worded right now, it can become very easy to single out characters from units, just by hiting and wounding it prior unloading shots from the rest of the army, because of the model has tank all incoming shots, if it was allocated a hit or was wounded before that.
A cheap unit of snipers could, I think, be used to force the character to then eat all the heavy weapons on the table.
No, the only time you can allocate to a character is with precision.
Yes, but the rules say that if a model from a unit was allocated wounding hits, it has to be the model that gets them allocated for the the rest of the shoting/melee phase. What am worried about is some cheap anti-infantry ranger/scout snipers wounding a librarians or brother captin, and them him being forced to tank lascanons and the like to the face, because he already did that one per turn. If it is not the case, and characters that joined a unit are still separate entities through some esotheric ways of GW rules writing, then I am a very happy person.
The rule specifically mention wounded characters don't take wounds in a unit unless you have Precision. So you can't plink one wound off a character with Precision and then basically get the benefit of Precision for all subsequent attacks.
Cool, good thing it isn't as oppresive as I thought. I wonder how the bodyguard units are going to function in 10th. Stuff like the ultramarines guard, hive mini tyrants or paladins.
But even then, it's not quite that simple. I have no problem with some armies just being weaker than other armies and requiring greater skill as a "general" than others. That then becomes part of their appeal. If you want to make it easy for yourself, field a different army. If you want bragging rights, this one is a challenge. That's not a bad thing in game design.
...
I feel like you are kind of conflating two different games: Computer games and War games.
The problem is that challenges in a computer game are wildly different from a challenge in a wargame. In a computer game you can easily switch whatever needs to be switched and you can play it over and over in a relatively short amount of game to master. You are at your home chugging at Tekken or Elden Ring in your own comfort having fun.
However, in 40k you buy into an expensive army that you have to collect and paint over a long period of time, and if you got the army for the rule of cool and not the "challenge" you are going to be bummed out. F.ex. I can't imagine there are a lot of happy Kruleboyz players in AoS right now as they've been bottom rung since the dawn of 3.0. That's before having to find a venue and a partner to play your game. They exist, but they probably did not buy into the army because it was bad(the models are however damn cool).
In my experience is that when people struggle with their army and play casually they eventually leave the hobby disheartened by their little engine that could not. The tournament scene is slightly better and some feed off the challenges thrown at them but that is after the fact but not before. Nobody goes into buying an army because it is the underdog, mainly because people tend to go for the aesthetic first and foremost and it is also expensive to buy a new army.
Karol wrote: Cool, good thing it isn't as oppresive as I thought. I wonder how the bodyguard units are going to function in 10th. Stuff like the ultramarines guard, hive mini tyrants or paladins.
I would guess they trump Precision (probably something like Precision can't be used on characters within X" of this unit) - Bodyguard trumps Precision trumps Leader/Joining/etc
The problem is that challenges in a computer game are wildly different from a challenge in a wargame. In a computer game you can easily switch whatever needs to be switched and you can play it over and over in a relatively short amount of game to master. You are at your home chugging at Tekken or Elden Ring in your own comfort having fun.
However, in 40k you buy into an expensive army that you have to collect and paint over a long period of time, and if you got the army for the rule of cool and not the "challenge" you are going to be bummed out. F.ex. I can't imagine there are a lot of happy Kruleboyz players in AoS right now as they've been bottom rung since the dawn of 3.0. That's before having to find a venue and a partner to play your game. They exist, but they probably did not buy into the army because it was bad(the models are however damn cool).
TBH, I don't feel buckets full of sympathy for anyone that drops huge cash buying an entire army because they "look cool" and then discovers they aren't as "powerful" as they'd like. It seems to me that if they didn't bother to look into how that army actually plays before a huge investment then it's probably not that important to them.
In my experience is that when people struggle with their army and play casually they eventually leave the hobby disheartened by their little engine that could not. The tournament scene is slightly better and some feed off the challenges thrown at them but that is after the fact but not before.
I suppose that could happen. However, even if you are totally unconvinced by my arguments above, there's nothing to be done about it anyway.
It's just not possible nor desireable to create a game that involves a) tailoring your force with creative choices; b) dice and randmoness; AND c) every combination being perfectly balanced against every other combination. It's not desireable because it would mean there's nothing different in the armies bar aesthetics and names. Your choices in wargear/units/strategies would be ultimately meaningless.
To be clear, if a rules change totally alters how an army players and makes them just suck at everything where as they didn't before (when the army was purchased), I'm not saying that's a good thing. That's bad. I think we can all agree on that. But is that what is happening?
EightFoldPath wrote: Balance gripe looking at Death Guard terminators compared to loyalists.
Based on the revealed information for Power Fist Loyalist Terminators using Oaths and Blightlord Terminators using Gifts, the Blightlords should be cheaper. If you load the Blightlords up with 6 combi-weapons, 2 reapers and 2 flails they still should be cheaper. The PF Loyalists are much better in combat than the Blightlords.
Even taking off Oaths the Loyalist Terminators are now 80% damage of the Blightlords rather than 160%.
And this is all ignoring the M4" stat that drops to M2 if someone hits you with a Barbgaunt or Malignant Plaguecaster debuff. And that M2 becomes effectively M0 when charging. You start 11.5" away from the Plaguecaster, you move 2" closer so are now 9.5" away, but your charge is 2d6-2" so you need an 11 to land the charge, which you would have needed if you had stood still without the debuff.
It seems like the solution if Terminators and Blightlords are equivalently costed is you will need a DG character attached to your unit to be "better/cheaper" than an SM character attached to their unit.
I feel this is where GW tie themselves up in knots, they make "free" rules of different strengths then struggle to mentally price the units in different factions because they "look" so similar before the free rules. Obviously a bit early to cry doom, but this seems to be the mistake they consistently made in 9th and I won't be surprised to see DG termies getting points cuts to cheaper than loyalist versions at some point early in 10th.
Exactly this and it's obvious looking at the two data sheets.
Now we don't know the rest of the rules but judging from the past death guard will coast more than regular space marines just like skitarii vanguard will cost more than guard.
I wouldn't even want them to cost less but their stats should be improved to reflect where they exist in the lineup. death guard should be noticeably tougher than space marines and vanguard should be noticeably tougher then guard.
We have seen the data sheets neither is tougher against wepons that are likely to be shot at them.
We don't know everything yet. But I would be willing to say that death guard and mechanicus will be twords the bottom teir when index drop and space matines and eldar will be near the top.
Now we haven't seen all the rules previews yet but from what we have seen to me this looks obvious. Depending on where the rest fall will give us an idea of how these factions will fall.
This is all just speculation and I think it's a little but fun to look into the teasers we have been given and guess who will come out near the top and who will come out near the bottom. Then once we have played a few games we can look back and see who looks the most like Sherlock Holmes.
Yes, and as a counterpoint I'm not at all worried by the Votann "nerfs" because Votann haven't yet been pigeonholed as being the same cost as a Marine. So GW can make them weaker per model but then point cost them appropriately.
The Pig-Faced Orc wrote: TBH, I don't feel buckets full of sympathy for anyone that drops huge cash buying an entire army because they "look cool" and then discovers they aren't as "powerful" as they'd like. It seems to me that if they didn't bother to look into how that army actually plays before a huge investment then it's probably not that important to them....
Damn right! Feth those people who only got an army because they like the models (or even worse: the fluff)! Who do they think they are, just buying what they like without researching first wether or not the unit is viable in the current meta!?
The Pig-Faced Orc wrote: To be clear, if a rules change totally alters how an army players and makes them just suck at everything where as they didn't before (when the army was purchased), I'm not saying that's a good thing. That's bad. I think we can all agree on that. But is that what is happening?
GW constantly releasing/adjusting rules that shake up the internal an external balance of each faction is exactly what is happening for the past 20 years.
The problem is that challenges in a computer game are wildly different from a challenge in a wargame. In a computer game you can easily switch whatever needs to be switched and you can play it over and over in a relatively short amount of game to master. You are at your home chugging at Tekken or Elden Ring in your own comfort having fun.
However, in 40k you buy into an expensive army that you have to collect and paint over a long period of time, and if you got the army for the rule of cool and not the "challenge" you are going to be bummed out. F.ex. I can't imagine there are a lot of happy Kruleboyz players in AoS right now as they've been bottom rung since the dawn of 3.0. That's before having to find a venue and a partner to play your game. They exist, but they probably did not buy into the army because it was bad(the models are however damn cool).
TBH, I don't feel buckets full of sympathy for anyone that drops huge cash buying an entire army because they "look cool" and then discovers they aren't as "powerful" as they'd like. It seems to me that if they didn't bother to look into how that army actually plays before a huge investment then it's probably not that important to them.
So which is it? Should people buy an army because it looks cool and not care about balance at all, leading to them constantly losing, sometimes for the duration of an edition? Or should they only invest in the most powerful armies regardless of whether they actually want to collect them?
Maybe the designers should strive to make all armies viable at least. Then, if we're very lucky they can try to make each unit viable within the right build. You're also ignoring the fact that for beginners it can be very difficult to determine what's good and what isn't, even with the internet. Eldar are a good example. They're often towards the top of the meta in most editions, but usually with some really esoteric build that doesn't match what a "traditional" army would look like. So if you want to collect Eldar you'll find plenty of info telling you they're good, then find you're constantly losing because you've dared to buy Guardians, Falcons and Rangers.
I feel I'm slightly changing the subject here, but it's a reason I've generally stayed away from 40K for so long. GW seem to be sacrificing actually making a good game on the alter of the mighty dollar. 10 Editions of a game over a "short" (relatively) period of time is just a cash grab.
Ah yes, that "short" period of time known as (checks notes/memory) - 36 years.
Granted, here in the past 10 years or so the edition change has sped up a bit, but still....
The Pig-Faced Orc wrote: Mind you, that is mostly the community's fault for putting up with it. We can all complain until we're blue in the face on a nerd forum, but if everyone rushes out and buys (or even pre-orders) the new models and new edition then nothing will ever change.
Says the hypocrite whos' painting up a Primaris squad/force while pondering switching to a Chaos project....
I have to take your word for it that the armies are "just bad" as-in "impossible to play effectively" as opposed to "difficult". "Impossible" here is not an exaggeration. If it is at all possible to play them well, even if it requires 4D-chess-like thinking, then they're not "bad" they're just "difficult". Which isn't "bad". If you get my drift.
I stand by my point that you can't make every army (not least every combination of options in every army) perfectly balanced with every other combination. If you require that, play chess. Making every combination in 40K perfectly balanced is not only not possible but not desireable, because it would remove the creative aspect and render choices meaningless. A battle between an army tailor-made to destroy heavy armour, and an army that is tailor made to be heavily armoured should not be "balanced". But I agree with your base point that if you've invested a lot of time and money into your hobby and GW change the rules to make them "bad" as in "impossible to play effectively against anyone - they just suck now" then that's not a good thing.
I feel I'm slightly changing the subject here, but it's a reason I've generally stayed away from 40K for so long. GW seem to be sacrificing actually making a good game on the alter of the mighty dollar. 10 Editions of a game over a "short" (relatively) period of time is just a cash grab. From what you are telling me, it's just not allowing enough time for the game to be properly "community tested" and then patched/polished. Instead it's a constant flow of new rules and new models that are not well thought-out.
Mind you, that is mostly the community's fault for putting up with it. We can all complain until we're blue in the face on a nerd forum, but if everyone rushes out and buys (or even pre-orders) the new models and new edition then nothing will ever change.
I've heard on the grapevine that 5th Edition is generally considered "the best". That was 5 editions ago!
..
3rd edition was the best when I played 3rd. Then 5th was the best when I played 5th. 6th and 7th were a chore. 8th was exciting, but not as good as my memories of 3rd and 5th. 9th surpassed every other edition for me, but again became really difficult to manage. 10th appears to contain what I enjoy about ninth in a more controlled fashion.
When someone says 5th was the best - it's not that 5th was the best balanced. There were so many issues. But people tend to be more willing to absolve GW of their sins that occurred during their nostalgia period than they are for those happening now. Some people just like the mechanics of 5th better along with the more simplified armies. I enjoy those mechanics, but I like what we have now more.
With the only data I have available to me I can look and see that last weekend the tournament wins were from : Sisters, Craftworld, Daemons x2, Custodes, Iron Hands, and Knights. The week before was Votann x2, Knights, Daemons, Space Wolves, Drukhari, Tyranids, Iron Hands x3, Craftworld, and Orks.
Is it perfect? Absolutely not. Is it close enough? Yes, and the transition into 10th SHOULD help them make it better. Whether or not it will remains to be seen. I don't expect the launch to be smooth at all, but GW has pretty clearly demonstrated that they're learning - at least to my eyes.
You keep using this phrase and it's purely a straw man. Nobody's asking for 'perfect' balance.
There is a vast gulf between 'you can take literally any mishmash of units and upgrades and expect a 50% win rate against any other army' (which is nonsense, nobody wants that, stop saying it) and 'oh, you chose Dark Eldar? Enjoy losing 90% of your games, it's a challenge' (which is bs).
Somewhere in between those extremes is a game state where every faction has the potential to be viable on the tabletop with at least a couple of build archetypes, where your choice of army or ability to min-max doesn't make the actual game a foregone conclusion, and balance-adjacent mechanics like sideboards, scenarios, and objectives can counteract skew matchups. That's what competent designers push for.
This isn't a videogame where an underpowered joke character is fun to play every once in a while, and then go back to what you were doing. This is a tabletop wargame where people put major investment into their armies, and an army can go from powerful to '''challenge''' overnight at the whims of GW. Furthermore, if you're expecting players to research the (current) competitive meta to ascertain the relative power of a faction they're interested in and then construct a list to maximize its power, you're not the casual player you think you are.
The Pig-Faced Orc wrote: It's just not possible nor desireable to create a game that involves a) tailoring your force with creative choices; b) dice and randmoness; AND c) every combination being perfectly balanced against every other combination.
It's entirely possible if you drop the 'perfectly balanced' shtick and pay attention to what people actually want, rather than presenting this false dichotomy where either you reduce the game to chess-like symmetry or you deliberately make some factions worse than others.
I mean, other games have managed this just fine. 9th is pretty damn close too.
I feel I'm slightly changing the subject here, but it's a reason I've generally stayed away from 40K for so long. GW seem to be sacrificing actually making a good game on the alter of the mighty dollar. 10 Editions of a game over a "short" (relatively) period of time is just a cash grab.
Ah yes, that "short" period of time known as (checks notes/memory) - 36 years.
Granted, here in the past 10 years or so the edition change has sped up a bit, but still....
In a far longer period, D&D has gone through half that number of editions. And many people think it peaked at 2nd Edition anyway. And yes, the past 10 years the edition change has sped up. A lot. If you really believe this is not at least partly for $$$ then I dunno what to tell you.
Says the hypocrite whos' painting up a Primaris squad/force while pondering switching to a Chaos project....
Take it easy. I said "we". As in, including me. To whatever extent that applies because I'm not painting any Primaris marines. I'm painting a regular tactical squad and it's the first one I've ever bought, so you're wrong anyway.
Slipspace wrote: So which is it? Should people buy an army because it looks cool and not care about balance at all, leading to them constantly losing, sometimes for the duration of an edition? Or should they only invest in the most powerful armies regardless of whether they actually want to collect them?
I guess it depends what's most important to them. Collecting cool miniatures or winning games of Warhammer 40K. As a side-note, while I accept that some sides are "unbalanced", I am skeptical that there is any side that is "constantly losing" all the time.
Slipspace wrote: You're also ignoring the fact that for beginners it can be very difficult to determine what's good and what isn't, even with the internet. Eldar are a good example. They're often towards the top of the meta in most editions, but usually with some really esoteric build that doesn't match what a "traditional" army would look like. So if you want to collect Eldar you'll find plenty of info telling you they're good, then find you're constantly losing because you've dared to buy Guardians, Falcons and Rangers.
"Beginners can't win with the more complex and strategic armies that aren't 'traditional'". I care not. It's not a good argument. Note: I am a beginner.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
a_typical_hero wrote: Damn right! Feth those people who only got an army because they like the models (or even worse: the fluff)! Who do they think they are, just buying what they like without researching first wether or not the unit is viable in the current meta!?
I never said there was anything wrong with that. In fact, I think the opposite. I think it's really cool. I just think it's a bit rich to buy an army for the models/fluff and then complain that they're not simple and easy to win with on the table just because you personally like how the models look.
You keep using this phrase and it's purely a straw man. Nobody's asking for 'perfect' balance.
It's not really a strawman, because it's my entire point! I also made the case that it can be fun to play with an "team" that is more complex and difficult to master because it can be rewarding.
These are not strawman arguments because they're the point I started with originally. You are arguing against my assertion, not the other way around.
Somewhere in between those extremes is a game state where every faction has the potential to be viable on the tabletop with at least a couple of build archetypes, where your choice of army or ability to min-max doesn't make the actual game a foregone conclusion, and balance-adjacent mechanics like sideboards, scenarios, and objectives can counteract skew matchups. That's what competent designers push for.
I agree with that. The strawman is pretending that I'm saying "some armies should be not viable on the tabletop with any build archetype" or "you should be able to min-max and make games a forgone conclusion". Of course I am not saying that. That's silly.
I'm just saying perfect balance isn't going to happen and nor should it. That's my point. Not a strawman. If you agree, then great.
catbarf wrote: 'oh, you chose Dark Eldar? Enjoy losing 90% of your games, it's a challenge
Do Dark Eldar really lose 90% of their games, even in the hands of a player who has mastered their tactics? They're just so un-balanced that no matter how good a "General" you are, you will only win 1-in-10 games? (assumedly through pure luck)?
If this is really the case, then I agree with you. That sucks.
3rd edition was the best when I played 3rd. Then 5th was the best when I played 5th. 6th and 7th were a chore. 8th was exciting, but not as good as my memories of 3rd and 5th. 9th surpassed every other edition for me, but again became really difficult to manage. 10th appears to contain what I enjoy about ninth in a more controlled fashion.
When someone says 5th was the best - it's not that 5th was the best balanced. There were so many issues. But people tend to be more willing to absolve GW of their sins that occurred during their nostalgia period than they are for those happening now. Some people just like the mechanics of 5th better along with the more simplified armies. I enjoy those mechanics, but I like what we have now more.
With the only data I have available to me I can look and see that last weekend the tournament wins were from : Sisters, Craftworld, Daemons x2, Custodes, Iron Hands, and Knights. The week before was Votann x2, Knights, Daemons, Space Wolves, Drukhari, Tyranids, Iron Hands x3, Craftworld, and Orks.
Is it perfect? Absolutely not. Is it close enough? Yes, and the transition into 10th SHOULD help them make it better. Whether or not it will remains to be seen. I don't expect the launch to be smooth at all, but GW has pretty clearly demonstrated that they're learning - at least to my eyes.
The Pig-Faced Orc wrote: TBH, I don't feel buckets full of sympathy for anyone that drops huge cash buying an entire army because they "look cool" and then discovers they aren't as "powerful" as they'd like. It seems to me that if they didn't bother to look into how that army actually plays before a huge investment then it's probably not that important to them....
Damn right! Feth those people who only got an army because they like the models (or even worse: the fluff)! Who do they think they are, just buying what they like without researching first wether or not the unit is viable in the current meta!?
The Pig-Faced Orc wrote: To be clear, if a rules change totally alters how an army players and makes them just suck at everything where as they didn't before (when the army was purchased), I'm not saying that's a good thing. That's bad. I think we can all agree on that. But is that what is happening?
GW constantly releasing/adjusting rules that shake up the internal an external balance of each faction is exactly what is happening for the past 20 years.
As seems to be the days theme, that's strawmanning his argument.
He's not saying 'feth anyone who doesn't research before they buy' he's saying 'people who buy A LOT without researching likely are more invested in how much they LIKE the army, rather than it's 'meta power level' and will likely have fun with the army even if it's only 'okay' on the tabletop.
As seems to be the days theme, that's strawmanning his argument.
He's not saying 'feth anyone who doesn't research before they buy' he's saying 'people who buy A LOT without researching likely are more invested in how much they LIKE the army, rather than it's 'meta power level' and will likely have fun with the army even if it's only 'okay' on the tabletop.
The thing is, the only army in w40k that is always at worse okey, are eldar. If you pick the wrong army, and it is bad, then it is going to be real bad. On top of that it gets progresivly bad the more armies are okey or good. Playing a 30% win rate army in to a 50-60% win rate army just isn't fun. You practicaly don't get to play at all, because the otherside will just over power you with more powerful rules, cost efficiency of units etc.
I have my doubts that the number of people who bought their army knowing it was bad, is larger then new players waking up to a mid edition world of marines being bad. And new players really do like marines and want to play them.
Daedalus81 wrote: This guy is apparently saying knights reroll ALL hits and wounds of 1. Pretty terrible if true. I'm not sure why you'd ever choose the other option.
There is a vast gulf between 'you can take literally any mishmash of units and upgrades and expect a 50% win rate against any other army' (which is nonsense, nobody wants that, stop saying it)
Well wants or expects? Maybe not ANY mishmash, but most reasonably fluffy thematic mishmashes yeah. The 10 Smash Captain Mishmash should probably fail more often, but the (Ravenguard or otherwise) Spearhead AOR? I "want" each faction to have at least a couple if not more generic theme builds. Infantry, Tank, Mechanized Infantry for Guard, Demi/Company and Spear of Macragge for UM, Various solo/combo wings for DA? Jump/Terminator/Speeder for Blood Angesl? Bikes and Mech Infantry for White Scars, Psychics and Black Guardians for Ulthwe, Pirates and/or Wraithbone for Iyanden? and so on. I expect each faction will be lucky to get the first effective list, let alone a second that isn't a meta/FAQ/Update -corrected deviation from the first.
As seems to be the days theme, that's strawmanning his argument.
He's not saying 'feth anyone who doesn't research before they buy' he's saying 'people who buy A LOT without researching likely are more invested in how much they LIKE the army, rather than it's 'meta power level' and will likely have fun with the army even if it's only 'okay' on the tabletop.
The thing is, the only army in w40k that is always at worse okey, are eldar. If you pick the wrong army, and it is bad, then it is going to be real bad. On top of that it gets progresivly bad the more armies are okey or good. Playing a 30% win rate army in to a 50-60% win rate army just isn't fun. You practicaly don't get to play at all, because the otherside will just over power you with more powerful rules, cost efficiency of units etc.
I have my doubts that the number of people who bought their army knowing it was bad, is larger then new players waking up to a mid edition world of marines being bad. And new players really do like marines and want to play them.
The "picking the wrong" army bit is irrelevant in my book. You have to be able to pick a bad army - without that option, you can't pick a good one either. So if we remove that "if you build them wrong" bit, you're basically saying that "Eldar are only okay" and "marines are easier to play". I'm okay with that.
I'm old-school, but waaay back in the day I remember people complaing that Wood Elves sucked in Bloodbowl. They couldn't block to create holes so you needed to three of them to gang up just to take down one orc and their nimble/athletic abilities were underpowered and didn't compensate for their squishiness. Then people figured out how to actually play them. They started making their moves in the right order, don't "gang up" to make blocks - avoid blocks! - players started dodging their remaining linesmen out of base-contact with the opposition at the end of their turn. Suddenly they were over-powered. "How can I win against Wood Elves when I have a bashy team and they leave me no opportunity to block on my turn? That's all my team can do! It's unfair!
In fact, I remember one dude making - just for fun - an entire team full of zombies. No big guys, no star players, no special abilities. Just an entire roster full of pleb zombies. And he kicked butt too. Just because he'd really mastered the order of his blocks, and his players' positions to maximise the percentages on each turn. Then people started complaining that zombies are over-powered. lolz.
Fast forward a few decades: "wow these Eldar models are cool ... I've never played a game before, but I'm going to buy an entire army and I already have a plan for them, they're going to be called The Tyranid Headbutters! My strategy is for them to stand firm in melee and headbutt Tyranids in the mouth! ... ... aww this army sucks. I never win! With such cool models they should kick ass more! GW need to balance the rules!"
(P.S. I'm joking. That's intentionally exaggerated to be funny).
Daedalus81 wrote: This guy is apparently saying knights reroll ALL hits and wounds of 1. Pretty terrible if true. I'm not sure why you'd ever choose the other option.
That was in the article.
The other option is +1 to Move, Advance, and Charge.
The point is that the rule does not allow all rerolls of 1, but just a sigle reroll of 1 the way it is written. But it isn't clear at all so there is quite the debate going on.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Daedalus81 wrote: This guy is apparently saying knights reroll ALL hits and wounds of 1. Pretty terrible if true. I'm not sure why you'd ever choose the other option.
If the re-roooll all/each thing is true. Then Rex is going to be in every knight army, will tank shock all the time for 0CP, and do a gazilion of wounds to vehicles, monsters and units.
Karol wrote: If the re-roooll all/each thing is true. Then Rex is going to be in every knight army, will tank shock all the time for 0CP, and do a gazilion of wounds to vehicles, monsters and units.
There might be edge cases where this matters, but the majority of units will be turned to paste by freedom's hand without spending a CP.
As seems to be the days theme, that's strawmanning his argument.
He's not saying 'feth anyone who doesn't research before they buy' he's saying 'people who buy A LOT without researching likely are more invested in how much they LIKE the army, rather than it's 'meta power level' and will likely have fun with the army even if it's only 'okay' on the tabletop.
The thing is, the only army in w40k that is always at worse okey, are eldar. If you pick the wrong army, and it is bad, then it is going to be real bad. On top of that it gets progresivly bad the more armies are okey or good. Playing a 30% win rate army in to a 50-60% win rate army just isn't fun. You practicaly don't get to play at all, because the otherside will just over power you with more powerful rules, cost efficiency of units etc.
I have my doubts that the number of people who bought their army knowing it was bad, is larger then new players waking up to a mid edition world of marines being bad. And new players really do like marines and want to play them.
The "picking the wrong" army bit is irrelevant in my book. You have to be able to pick a bad army - without that option, you can't pick a good one either. So if we remove that "if you build them wrong" bit, you're basically saying that "Eldar are only okay" and "marines are easier to play". I'm okay with that.
[spoiler]I'm old-school, but waaay back in the day I remember people complaing that Wood Elves sucked in Bloodbowl. They couldn't block to create holes so you needed to three of them to gang up just to take down one orc and their nimble/athletic abilities were underpowered and didn't compensate for their squishiness. Then people figured out how to actually play them. They started making their moves in the right order, don't "gang up" to make blocks - avoid blocks! - players started dodging their remaining linesmen out of base-contact with the opposition at the end of their turn. Suddenly they were over-powered. "How can I win against Wood Elves when I have a bashy team and they leave me no opportunity to block on my turn? That's all my team can do! It's unfair!
In fact, I remember one dude making - just for fun - an entire team full of zombies. No big guys, no star players, no special abilities. Just an entire roster full of pleb zombies. And he kicked butt too. Just because he'd really mastered the order of his blocks, and his players' positions to maximise the percentages on each turn. Then people started complaining that zombies are over-powered. lolz.
The fact that some people are bad at the game does not make it less true that there are options that are truly overcosted for no good reason because GW makes mistakes. With a global competitive community it doesn't take more than a year to find out that Wood Elves are bad is a myth as one guy in Australia wins a slew of events and tells people the steps to win with them on his Youtube channel. Staying in the dark can be fun, I really enjoyed the start of 8th despite its rocky balance because my group decided not to log in to the global Warhammer hivemind and none of us were committed enough to do any mathhammer either so we just kind of stumbled around and tried things out, but despite that we quickly realised that Monoliths were awful, there was no secret tech to be found, it was just a bad unit because it was terribly overcosted.
Fast forward a few decades: "wow these Eldar models are cool ... I've never played a game before, but I'm going to buy an entire army and I already have a plan for them, they're going to be called The Tyranid Headbutters! My strategy is for them to stand firm in melee and headbutt Tyranids in the mouth! ... ... aww this army sucks. I never win! With such cool models they should kick ass more! GW need to balance the rules!"
(P.S. I'm joking. That's intentionally exaggerated to be funny).
You say you're not straw-manning but this is the exact gak you've been called out on already, why don't you stop? Nobody is asking for Fire Dragons to be good against a swarm of Termagants, but it'd be nice if the flamer upgrade for the Exarch made them more pts-efficient vs Termagants. If the flamer on the Exarch is too expensive then taking a flamer might be strictly better against Termagants, but it'd still be a terrible inclusion in any army because the unit would be less pts-efficient against everything by taking the flamer. Nobody is going to prevent you from building intentionally bad lists, do whatever you want.
Fast forward a few decades: "wow these Eldar models are cool ... I've never played a game before, but I'm going to buy an entire army and I already have a plan for them, they're going to be called The Tyranid Headbutters! My strategy is for them to stand firm in melee and headbutt Tyranids in the mouth! ... ... aww this army sucks. I never win! With such cool models they should kick ass more! GW need to balance the rules!"
(P.S. I'm joking. That's intentionally exaggerated to be funny).
You say you're not straw-manning but this is the exact gak you've been called out on already, why don't you stop? Nobody is asking for Fire Dragons to be good against a swarm of Termagants, but it'd be nice if the flamer upgrade for the Exarch made them more pts-efficient vs Termagants. If the flamer on the Exarch is too expensive then taking a flamer might be strictly better against Termagants, but it'd still be a terrible inclusion in any army because the unit would be less pts-efficient against everything by taking the flamer. Nobody is going to prevent you from building intentionally bad lists, do whatever you want.
In this case, you've obviously replied before reading the whole post. The last sentence in particular.
vict0988 wrote: The fact that some people are bad at the game does not make it less true that there are options that are truly overcosted for no good reason because GW makes mistakes. With a global competitive community it doesn't take more than a year to find out that Wood Elves are bad is a myth as one guy in Australia wins a slew of events and tells people the steps to win with them on his Youtube channel. Staying in the dark can be fun, I really enjoyed the start of 8th despite its rocky balance because my group decided not to log in to the global Warhammer hivemind and none of us were committed enough to do any mathhammer either so we just kind of stumbled around and tried things out, but despite that we quickly realised that Monoliths were awful, there was no secret tech to be found, it was just a bad unit because it was terribly overcosted.
I'm not saying that GW doesn't make mistakes or that it's not true that units are "over-costed". That is a strawman.
The example with the BloodBowl Wood Elves was to point out that the argument, "beginners buys an entire army because models are cool, loses a lot of games, ergo GW needs to 'balance' things" is not necessarily true. And some folk actually did suggest that hypothetical.
I think the issue is that "wow I never knew that" was common in a pre-internet era, where whole experiences of gaming might be just 20 people.
Today Power is usually identified once codexes are leaked. There are still arguments, but they tend to be "this is broken and far too good"/"I don't think its that powerful." Its more or less unheard of for a unit to be seen as terrible then become good without GW changing the game.
Tyel wrote: I think the issue is that "wow I never knew that" was common in a pre-internet era, where whole experiences of gaming might be just 20 people.
Today Power is usually identified once codexes are leaked. There are still arguments, but they tend to be "this is broken and far too good"/"I don't think its that powerful." Its more or less unheard of for a unit to be seen as terrible then become good without GW changing the game.
Yeah that's a fair point.
Although I'd be remiss not to point out that if people are arguing as to whether it's too powerful or not, then it's probably not "super obviously broken bad". That would leave no room for argument.
It would be interesting to see tournament statistics. That is (I assume) the best players playing thier most ideal armies with the best strategies. Simply which army won wouldn't be good enough, it would need to be a ratio of played:won for every faction; if one faction only wins 10% of tournaments but is actually only even entered 5% of the time, that would make it twice as good as one should expect.
I'm skeptical that, in the hands of a skillful and experienced player, any one army is going to almost always lose because their rules are just so handicapped. Maybe though. (?). I also think it's telling that folk are so concerned that their armies are "not powerful enough". Nobody seems concerned that their army is "too powerful" and needs "balancing" in the opposite direction.
I guess the whole argument has been about "just how much fluctuation are your prepared to accept between armies"? I suspect for me that is slightly higher than for some others for reasons discussed.
Tyel wrote: I think the issue is that "wow I never knew that" was common in a pre-internet era, where whole experiences of gaming might be just 20 people.
Today Power is usually identified once codexes are leaked. There are still arguments, but they tend to be "this is broken and far too good"/"I don't think its that powerful." Its more or less unheard of for a unit to be seen as terrible then become good without GW changing the game.
Yeah that's a fair point.
Although I'd be remiss not to point out that if people are arguing as to whether it's too powerful or not, then it's probably not "super obviously broken bad". That would leave no room for argument.
It would be interesting to see tournament statistics. That is (I assume) the best players playing thier most ideal armies with the best strategies. Simply which army won wouldn't be good enough, it would need to be a ratio of played:won for every faction; if one faction only wins 10% of tournaments but is actually only even entered 5% of the time, that would make it twice as good as one should expect.
The problem you have with that is the inherent selection bias in tournaments. Good players gravitate to the good armies and leave the bad armies at home. Combine that with the sheer number of armies in the game now, and it's really difficult to pick out the lucky outliers from the indicators of some hidden power that hasn't been picked up on yet. In some ways, tracking the rise and fall of a given army's popularity in tournaments might be a better indicator of their actual strength.
I'm skeptical that, in the hands of a skillful and experienced player, any one army is going to almost always lose because their rules are just so handicapped. Maybe though. (?). I also think it's telling that folk are so concerned that their armies are "not powerful enough". Nobody seems concerned that their army is "too powerful" and needs "balancing" in the opposite direction.
The first part happened at the recent end-of-season GW grand tournament involving the top 8 players from their tournament circuit. Richard Siegler - generally accepted as one of the best 40k players - took Crimson Fists - generally accepted as among the worst armies in the game - and lost every game without so much as a chance of victory. GW's balance is so bad there are always armies that are just unable to compete, often because they're either overpriced or their rules are so bad as to be non-functional.
Plenty of people point out how good the best armies are, including those that play them. During the Dark Eldar or Tyranid dominance in 9th I think the vast majority of people playing those armies would have accepted they were overpowered. There may be specific disagreements over what exactly needs fixing and how, but on the whole there's usually broad agreement.
would suggest the mark of a reasonably balanced game is that a player skilled in the art of playing it is fething good at winning with any of the games factions
accepting if you try to build a bad list you can generally succeed regardless
and ask yourself this with 40k, how often have you seen your army, seen the enemies army and said to yourself "I know how this one is going" and been right? (good or bad result), the game shouldn't be won in the list building phase but it appears is often is
Fast forward a few decades: "wow these Eldar models are cool ... I've never played a game before, but I'm going to buy an entire army and I already have a plan for them, they're going to be called The Tyranid Headbutters! My strategy is for them to stand firm in melee and headbutt Tyranids in the mouth! ... ... aww this army sucks. I never win! With such cool models they should kick ass more! GW need to balance the rules!"
(P.S. I'm joking. That's intentionally exaggerated to be funny).
You say you're not straw-manning but this is the exact gak you've been called out on already, why don't you stop? Nobody is asking for Fire Dragons to be good against a swarm of Termagants, but it'd be nice if the flamer upgrade for the Exarch made them more pts-efficient vs Termagants. If the flamer on the Exarch is too expensive then taking a flamer might be strictly better against Termagants, but it'd still be a terrible inclusion in any army because the unit would be less pts-efficient against everything by taking the flamer. Nobody is going to prevent you from building intentionally bad lists, do whatever you want.
In this case, you've obviously replied before reading the whole post. The last sentence in particular.
You are satirising wargamers complaining about the rules being imbalanced, I got that, it is based on a misconception that gamers want perfect balance and your silly belief that "the game is actually never that imbalanced you just have to git gud by playing them how they are designed to be played instead of going oops all Monoliths when you're really supposed to only take one and use it to support your infantry and then Necrons are actually really good and armies without Monoliths are actually worse than the ones with it, but you silly banana thought you could win with only Monoliths, that's like trying to use Dark Reapers as a melee unit haha what a dummy."
vict0988 wrote: The fact that some people are bad at the game does not make it less true that there are options that are truly overcosted for no good reason because GW makes mistakes. With a global competitive community it doesn't take more than a year to find out that Wood Elves are bad is a myth as one guy in Australia wins a slew of events and tells people the steps to win with them on his Youtube channel. Staying in the dark can be fun, I really enjoyed the start of 8th despite its rocky balance because my group decided not to log in to the global Warhammer hivemind and none of us were committed enough to do any mathhammer either so we just kind of stumbled around and tried things out, but despite that we quickly realised that Monoliths were awful, there was no secret tech to be found, it was just a bad unit because it was terribly overcosted.
I'm not saying that GW doesn't make mistakes or that it's not true that units are "over-costed". That is a strawman.
The example with the BloodBowl Wood Elves was to point out that the argument, "beginners buys an entire army because models are cool, loses a lot of games, ergo GW needs to 'balance' things" is not necessarily true. And some folk actually did suggest that hypothetical.
...
The point is sometimes there isn't a single viable strategy in which Monoliths can be included, sometimes a whole codex is filled with units that cannot be included in a viable strategy. Monoliths being unviable in a list without units they're meant to support is fine, no complaints, a noob might accidentally buy such an army, it is what it is. A noob buys a Monolith, various units that it's supposed to be good with that Monolith and a few other units and gets told Necrons are trash actually and they have one viable build which is 2 or 3 Tesseract Vaults supported by Doomsday Arks, so the only units you can use is your Troops, but don't take more than the minimum required and then one of your 3 Characters to fill a minimum slot. This is what people are complaining about and you keep getting lost in people trying to melee with their Dark Reapers or forgetting to get a transport for their Screaming Banshees.
The "picking the wrong" army bit is irrelevant in my book. You have to be able to pick a bad army - without that option, you can't pick a good one either. So if we remove that "if you build them wrong" bit, you're basically saying that "Eldar are only okay" and "marines are easier to play". I'm okay with that.
That is not true. 9th starts. Two guys pick up harlequins and GK. No codex for 9th for a long time, for both. One buys troups, skimers and characters and the other buys troops, tanks and HQs sold by GW. One will end up with an army close to what was considered to be the meta list till DE came out, and the other better bought strikes and not terminators for his infantry otherwise his fun will be in the negatives.
Same thing with a new BA player. Loads up on the poster units for the faction and somehow through luck this ends up being the way to get a good marine army in 9th ed. If his friend at the same time starts Imperial Fists, then he is not going to have a fun time vs any army. And marines are not an easy army to play most of the time, unless the ease somehow comes from the fact that most of them are getting farmed by non marine armies. The investment in to a functioning list is also very diffferent. A marine player in 8th had to rebuy his army in 9th, if he wanted to army to function. Meanwhile a GK player, especialy one that bought the good options (power armoured units) is playing the same strikes+interceptors+NDK army he has been playing since 8th, and potentialy also 7th edition.
The point is sometimes there isn't a single viable strategy in which Monoliths can be included, sometimes a whole codex is filled with units that cannot be included in a viable strategy. Monoliths being unviable in a list without units they're meant to support is fine, no complaints, a noob might accidentally buy such an army, it is what it is. A noob buys a Monolith, various units that it's supposed to be good with that Monolith and a few other units and gets told Necrons are trash actually and they have one viable build which is 2 or 3 Tesseract Vaults supported by Doomsday Arks, so the only units you can use is your Troops, but don't take more than the minimum required and then one of your 3 Characters to fill a minimum slot. This is what people are complaining about and you keep getting lost in people trying to melee with their Dark Reapers or forgetting to get a transport for their Screaming Banshees.
It is not even that. Everyone can buy bad models or have models made bad. It shouldn't happen, but it does. And it is true that with GW, and how much it costs, doing research is VERY much advised. And if a noob doesn't know it, then the community should really explain it to him. Maybe not what units he should buy, but the over all mechanics how the game works outside of the actual game, at the list building/collecting level. What should never happen is stuff like, and models in your patrol/start collecting box are bad, you do not want to buy them. Something like the DG patrol box, should not exist. A marine players should not start to think how to take minimal troops and avoid that what should be his army core. An ork or tyranids player shouldn't look at 2000 different HQs and then know that he is ever going to take 2 of them , or in the case of tyranids a flyrants and nothing else ever.
Or to make it really simple. Models that you buy with real life cash , ones you like, should not make you feel bad about the game and you shouldn't suddenly look for love of painting or writing stories about your army, to somehow compensate for the lack of fun in game.
leopard wrote: ask yourself this with 40k, how often have you seen your army, seen the enemies army and said to yourself "I know how this one is going" and been right? (good or bad result), the game shouldn't be won in the list building phase but it appears is often is
I disagree with this. I think it should. Before you roll your eyes to the back of your head, let me explain.
I don't think you should see their army and be like "Ah ... orcs. And I have tau (whatever) ... well I'm definitely going to lose this, orcs beat tau like rock beats scissors". That's not good, and if that happens, then imo there needs to be some balancing of the rules. Is that what you're talking about? If yes, then I agree. Is no, then read on.
If you're talking about actual specific army lists, then I don't agree. For example, you've built an army the specializes in one thing, and it happens your opponents army specializes in oblitering that thing, then I think it's fair enough. "Ah gak, my all-tank army is going to struggle against his anti-tank patrol ... I know how this is going to go" ... and it goes that way. The problem is, that if that doesn't happen, it means the game is so "balanced" that no choices you make really matter. Anti-tank weapons? Why bother? A squad of plebs with flashlights will do exactly the same job as long as they "cost" the same amount of points. It removes all creative choice and personal style from the game and reduces it to "how many points did you spend? Doesn't matter on what, they all do the same gak in the end". I don't think that's the type of game anyone wants.
One solution to this problem is to build an army list that is versatile. Not one based on "cool models" (for example, I'm not sure if that's a point you made personally, but others have).
Or to make it really simple. Models that you buy with real life cash , ones you like, should not make you feel bad about the game and you shouldn't suddenly look for love of painting or writing stories about your army, to somehow compensate for the lack of fun in game.
I kind of agree. I just don't think that "you bought the model with real life cash" is relevant. Buying a model makes you entitled to own that bit of plastic and nothing else.
But I do think if some model or unit is hopeless broken ... like you bought an anti-tank unit ... but it can't destroy tanks ... then that should be fixed. But I think that should be fixed whether you bought the model or not.
Losing in the list building phase is more to do with a given army having consistently poor units/rules compared to an army that has consistently good units/rules and is just a different way of saying one person has lost before the game has even begun. It's not a problem with "Cool vs Good" or meta lists but rather an army being much better as just a basic force.
40k also has a model bloat problem. It's one of the pink elephants in the room, especially with Space Marine players.
I have found AoS to be a more forgiving game when it comes to building your force as many armies just don't have a plethora of models to choose from so overall balance and overlapping is less. The factions that do have a plethora(Stormcast f.ex.) of units has a ton of rotten units no one picks.
and ask yourself this with 40k, how often have you seen your army, seen the enemies army and said to yourself "I know how this one is going" and been right? (good or bad result), the game shouldn't be won in the list building phase but it appears is often is
A few times. And mostly in my favor.
For ex:
For most of last year I ran a Grot Tank force (grot tanks, grot Mega-Tanks, Kanz, every thing else with the gretchin ky, 1 ork warboss, a Wazbomb, & a few trucks full of grots).
Any time I faced a Knight player? I was positive that I'd completely dominate & wreck him. I was wrong twice. Once it came down to how the mission objectives were placed. The other time the dice just weren't rolling in my favor at all (one of those games where you can't hit/wound/damage or save - makes winning real hard no matter what you're facing....)
But then my Grot Tank force is a perfect example of the paper to a low model count big vehicle list (like knights!) rock.
Virtually everything I field sports high str/good ap/multi-shot anti-tank weapons. And I can field A LOT of this stuff....
But that's my specific army. It's only 1 of many ways you could build Orks. I'm just the weirdo who opted for 99% grot stuff.
I don't look at Codex: Orks vs Knights & say I know how the match will go, I look at my Grot Tank list vs Knights & think that.
leopard wrote: ask yourself this with 40k, how often have you seen your army, seen the enemies army and said to yourself "I know how this one is going" and been right? (good or bad result), the game shouldn't be won in the list building phase but it appears is often is
I disagree with this. I think it should. Before you roll your eyes to the back of your head, let me explain.
I don't think you should see their army and be like "Ah ... orcs. And I have tau (whatever) ... well I'm definitely going to lose this, orcs beat tau like rock beats scissors". That's not good, and if that happens, then imo there needs to be some balancing of the rules. Is that what you're talking about? If yes, then I agree. Is no, then read on.
If you're talking about actual specific army lists, then I don't agree. For example, you've built an army the specializes in one thing, and it happens your opponents army specializes in oblitering that thing, then I think it's fair enough. "Ah gak, my all-tank army is going to struggle against his anti-tank patrol ... I know how this is going to go" ... and it goes that way. The problem is, that if that doesn't happen, it means the game is so "balanced" that no choices you make really matter. Anti-tank weapons? Why bother? A squad of plebs with flashlights will do exactly the same job as long as they "cost" the same amount of points. It removes all creative choice and personal style from the game and reduces it to "how many points did you spend? Doesn't matter on what, they all do the same gak in the end". I don't think that's the type of game anyone wants.
One solution to this problem is to build an army list that is versatile. Not one based on "cool models" (for example, I'm not sure if that's a point you made personally, but others have).
Or to make it really simple. Models that you buy with real life cash , ones you like, should not make you feel bad about the game and you shouldn't suddenly look for love of painting or writing stories about your army, to somehow compensate for the lack of fun in game.
I kind of agree. I just don't think that "you bought the model with real life cash" is relevant. Buying a model makes you entitled to own that bit of plastic and nothing else.
But I do think if some model or unit is hopeless broken ... like you bought an anti-tank unit ... but it can't destroy tanks ... then that should be fixed. But I think that should be fixed whether you bought the model or not.
Apple is in the business of selling smart phones. A smart phone can go on the internet, make calls and send texts. If the phone on release is broken, Apple has failed to deliver on the agreed delivery of a working smart phone, you weren't agreeing to pay for a hunk of metal and glass, but a smart phone. When Apple decided to slow down old smart phones, they were fined.
When you buy a Warhammer miniature you are buying a game piece, not just a hunk of plastic, Games Workshop cannot deliver a faulty product and they cannot ruin the product you bought later on by deliberately or through gross negligence giving it an unfairly high pts cost.
What you are doing is wrong, by protecting the bad practices GW engages in and trying to obfuscate the issues GW have had with game balance and playing it off as player mistakes instead of the often obvious mistakes GW have made. Stuff like increasing the pts cost of units that cost 3-4 to 5, 5 to 6, 6 to 8, 7 to 9 and 8 to 11 and increasing the pts cost of everything else by 25% instead of looking at what units were actually worth with the new missions at the start of 9th was not okay. GW fethed up and supporting that kind of practice is hurting yourself and fellow consumers.
You know that Wood Elves are better than Goblins in Blood Bowl, it's not down to players playing Goblins wrong the Goblins just aren't good enough, but how much better do they need to be? I'd say a 55% win rate for Wood Elves and 45% win rate for Goblins would be enough to ensure that competitive players are rewarded for skillful play with their Wood Elves and not encouraged to rely too much on luck by playing Goblins. If that difference is 60% vs 35% then something is way off base and GW should fix it and saying that Goblins just need to never take 2 of their 5 player options and instead rely on some kind of Star Player for a 40% win rate is white knighting that I don't know why you'd engage in.
I can not help but realize acutely that The Pig-Faced Orc is a self described new player because their arguments make little sense in the history of 40k. I've been playing since 3rd, not the oldest of grognards but been around a bit, and I can tell you with absolute honesty that there have been times in 40ks history where you could tell what the outcome of a game was going to be based on the armies independent of the list.
7th Orcs vs 7th Space marines is one of the more jarring examples I can remember. Space Marines could get hundreds of free points worth of stuff and Orcs...didn't even get a formation until they got a supplement and even then it was god awful. 9th edition is less extreme than that but I know an Imperial Fist player and generally I can tell how his game is going to go purely based on what army he is facing off against. I fully agree that 9th edition is far more balanced than the game has been in the past but it is by no means even close to balanced.
Nurgle Daemons are my personal little pet peeve with the editions balance. Nurgle Daemons are never going to have a strong showing because they suck pretty hard. The best Nurgle list is just throwing as many GUO's and Soulgrinders into a list that you can possibly fit and out existing your enemy, which is no fun. With the advent of so many weapons dealing insane amounts of damage all of a sudden that list became less and less viable. I love my Nurgle Daemons, I can have fun with them and even win matches but only because I play them against people that I know are not playing competitive list. If I bring Nurgle Daemons to a tournament I am going to have middling success at best and get rolled by the top table armies.
G
