Matched Play has the least amount of non-game effort. Or put differently; people generally want to play the game, not show up and spend a third of their time talking about how they are going to play it. It also follows that when matched play is sufficiently imbalanced such that players feel they are no longer really playing that naturally causes issues.
This is the first thread I've been in since like 5th edition where people've said "nah, the pregame conversation isn't necessary, 40k is playable straight out of the box." Still, I generally talk games over by default at this point so I confess I haven't tried that.
Apart from general pleasantries and "how many points/power are we playing", I've never had a conversation at a pick-up game be "are we playing matched/narrative/open play?". You can have the conversation but it's not required. That might be me just making a broad assumption but even when AoS trialed the 3 ways to play system, nobody I ever played against assumed it was anything but matched play at our FLGS.
Gert wrote: Apart from general pleasantries and "how many points/power are we playing", I've never had a conversation at a pick-up game be "are we playing matched/narrative/open play?". You can have the conversation but it's not required. That might be me just making a broad assumption but even when AoS trialed the 3 ways to play system, nobody I ever played against assumed it was anything but matched play at our FLGS.
I don't mean within the 3 ways to play system. I guess things really have changed though if no one talks about tournament lists vs casual lists within matched play. *shrug* I'm fortunate to have a group where we arrange ahead of time.
Unit1126PLL wrote: This is the first thread I've been in since like 5th edition where people've said "nah, the pregame conversation isn't necessary, 40k is playable straight out of the box." Still, I generally talk games over by default at this point so I confess I haven't tried that.
If I am arranging a game through social media (which is the only way right now due to COVID restrictions), then we will talk about the game a little : "Do you want a prep game for the tourney next month? I have Dark Angels and Astra Militarum ready to go - do you have a preference? etc etc." If its a player I don't know I will ask them if they are new to 40K etc and modify the game accordingly. Before COVID on a Saturday afternoon you just went to the FLGS with a 2000 point army assuming Matched Play and got on with it. So you can totally play it "out of the box" if Matched Play is your expectation.
Do you know what's NEVER a discussion I've had to have with any other game?
"Hey do you want to play casual/narrative/competitive?" You have to have that discussion with 40k because some people don't take it seriously (casual players), some people do take it seriously from a narrative perspective (narrative players), and others take it seriously from a gamesmanship standpoint (competition and competitive players),
and the game is insufficiently well-put-together to reconcile those three playstyles without prior discussion.
The conclusion that I draw from the premise, based on my own personal experience and preferences is that 40k is the better game precisely BECAUSE it can be played in those three ways. Reconciling them (from my perspective) would actually ruin 40k; it might make a version of 40K that is the best competitive game ever... But that would suck for the 2/3 of us that don't want that. It might make a version of 40k that is the best narrative game ever... But that would suck for the 2/3 of us that don't want that.
Same argument holds for the number of factions and units per faction: more options are better because you can always choose to not buy or play that which you do not like. It's true that you don't get to limit YOUR OPPONENT's choices, which is often what people who suggest removing options actually want to achieve; it's literally a case of "These options that other people like shouldn't exist because it unbalances the game for the options that I like," which is just another way of saying "There are so many options that it's hard for me to win, so if there are fewer options maybe I can win MOAR."
The ONLY time a discussion about balance is clearly NOT about "I want to win MOAR" is when you're arguing to nerf the army you yourself play, or limit the options that you yourself prefer. For the record, I have seen Dakkanaughts do that, so there are some who are GENUINELY suggesting things that they think will improve the game for the greatest number of players, but those posts are few and far between, which means there's a strong chance that MANY (if not MOST) of the people who make these arguments are doing so in order to try and create the game THEY want without worrying about the consequences to people who don't feel the same way.
And for the record Unit, the fact that I quoted you to make this point does NOT mean that I think you are one of the selfish folks who wants to win MOAR. Arguing to limit other peoples options and nerf other people's army is never PROOF that a person is a selfish WAAC player; it's just that arguing against self interest IS proof that you're NOT.
Gert wrote: Apart from general pleasantries and "how many points/power are we playing", I've never had a conversation at a pick-up game be "are we playing matched/narrative/open play?". You can have the conversation but it's not required. That might be me just making a broad assumption but even when AoS trialed the 3 ways to play system, nobody I ever played against assumed it was anything but matched play at our FLGS.
This has been my experience aswell. Normally, it's just "how many points you wanna play?" and maybe "what mission?". Only pre-game stuff we talk about once we have lists ready is how we would treat certain terrain (LoS blocking, Dense etc).
Used to be in 8th edition I had to tell people about my 3 Baneblades (to warn them ahead of time) or clarify whether we're doing cutthroat tournament lists or just fooling around, or whatever - even within the normal Matched Play structure.
I guess that's not a thing anymore. Good thing, because that was a common problem with 40k - tournament-purpose lists would just stomp all over more casual lists without much issue. It still seems like that would be the case, but I haven't had the misfortune of matching up like that to confirm.
Ah, see, that I would expect a conversation about. A pick-up game against 3 Baneblades would be something I would likely not agree to play but I think most people don't rock up to a pick-up game with that kind of army, no offense intended.
Gert wrote: Ah, see, that I would expect a conversation about. A pick-up game against 3 Baneblades would be something I would likely not agree to play but I think most people don't rock up to a pick-up game with that kind of army, no offense intended.
Why not? It's a perfectly legal list within Matched Play rules, it involves big, fun models, and isn't even particularly good currently.
There can always be feels-bad moments if you have a new or returning player who shows up with a random collection of miniatures against someone who is practicing for LVO. I find, though, that those are outliers. Could be different with different groups - I play in two "metas" and one is a little more competitive on average than the other.
I assume that my opponent might bring three Knights or three Keepers of Secrets and Shalaxi. When we had pick-up games on Saturdays I was indeed ready to tone-down if my opponent said that they were new. With 9th Ed I will bring a different list if my pre-arranged opponent is new to the game.
Pre-game communication can certainly enhance the experience, but my assumption is Matched Play.
It's not quite the "2 troops and an HQ" formula that I would expect from a pick-up game. I have no idea how good or bad a Baneblade is but it's still a super-heavy tank that was originally designed for Apocalypse. I have had something similar where someone showed up for a gaming club day with a Tesseract vault and rinsed the enemy team in a 2v2 game because they had literally nothing that could harm it. That event started an arms race only the people with loads of disposable income could compete with and it ruined about a solid month of games until we had to bring in rules to stop it from happening. It was 100% legal but when everyone else is running 1-2k lists with 30+ models expecting something similar and then someone drops an Apocalypse grade unit, it's hardly fair to say "there's nothing wrong with that". Matched Play doesn't automatically mean "tournament winning lists expected" either, it just means that certain rules and restrictions are applied to the game being played.
Gert wrote: It's not quite the "2 troops and an HQ" formula that I would expect from a pick-up game. I have no idea how good or bad a Baneblade is but it's still a super-heavy tank that was originally designed for Apocalypse. I have had something similar where someone showed up for a gaming club day with a Tesseract vault and rinsed the enemy team in a 2v2 game because they had literally nothing that could harm it. That event started an arms race only the people with loads of disposable income could compete with and it ruined about a solid month of games until we had to bring in rules to stop it from happening. It was 100% legal but when everyone else is running 1-2k lists with 30+ models expecting something similar and then someone drops an Apocalypse grade unit, it's hardly fair to say "there's nothing wrong with that".
And THIS is why "Matched Play" isn't the only conversation that needs to be had.
One example doesn't prove something. That situation was an outlier in what was roughly 7 years of weekly Saturday gatherings from 6th to 8th edition. When new people would show up they weren't beaten to a pulp with WAACFOTM lists because that wasn't what the culture of the club was. If players wanted to test tournament lists against each other then they talked about it and went ahead. If someone did happen to regularly bring an insanely strong list that nobody could beat then we would discuss it after. If your community isn't like that then that is a real shame for you IMO.
Gert wrote: If your community isn't like that then that is a real shame for you IMO.
That's... while I appreciate the sentiment, that's not a helpful answer. Instead, maybe we can normalize having a discussion beforehand, like civilized folk, and if you don't have to do so, enjoy your privilege? It's not something everyone gets to have.
It might be the difference between the UK and US gaming scenes but I've very rarely had a consistently bad experience with pick-up games. TBH if it works to have the discussion before the game then that's cool, I hope you get some good games post-Covid, God knows I could use some .
Gert wrote: It's not quite the "2 troops and an HQ" formula that I would expect from a pick-up game. I have no idea how good or bad a Baneblade is but it's still a super-heavy tank that was originally designed for Apocalypse.
there are enough people that currently play who don't know that at all
for those 3 Baneblades is as fine to be taken as 2 Troops+HQ is for you
and I have to say the worst stuff happening was with pick up games were people came with lists they thought were cool and fluffy but not knowing how strong they really are
TBF I didn't say it was a tournament list, rather it was just a big difference from what my experience of a pick-up game list usually was. And, yes the pre-game discussion did happen but it was very rare, such as the case of a super-heavy-heavy(?) list. That being said, I think nowadays I would probably take a 3 Baneblade list on as a challenge for my Cultist horde.
And 3 Baneblades isn't even a hardcore tournament list.
I think we are conflating two discussions here: what type of game (Matched vs Narrative) vs how hard are you trying. My experience is that the underlying assumption is Matched Play - you don't need to discuss that. You should, however, discuss that if you are expecting something else like a re-fight of your favorite Badab War story (whatever a Badab is?). You could show up to a 40K night at an FLGS with a 1500 to 2000 point Battle-Forged list and get a Matched Play game without having to negotiate the terms. This would not be true if you wanted a specific narrative scenario. This was also true with Flames of War in my experience.
You can still benefit from a discussion of how competitive you are looking to be (or your experience level/tourney prep vs looking to throw some dice etc). I am more than happy to tone a list down, but my assumption is that I could face tourney-lists. In fact, when a stranger says they are bringing a "fluffy" list my spider senses start tingling. I had a guy tell me in 2019 that was bringing a "fluffy" list. He then plunked down two Leviathans. OK...Fluffy as a steel ball-bearing.
Gert wrote: It's not quite the "2 troops and an HQ" formula that I would expect from a pick-up game. I have no idea how good or bad a Baneblade is but it's still a super-heavy tank that was originally designed for Apocalypse. I have had something similar where someone showed up for a gaming club day with a Tesseract vault and rinsed the enemy team in a 2v2 game because they had literally nothing that could harm it. That event started an arms race only the people with loads of disposable income could compete with and it ruined about a solid month of games until we had to bring in rules to stop it from happening. It was 100% legal but when everyone else is running 1-2k lists with 30+ models expecting something similar and then someone drops an Apocalypse grade unit, it's hardly fair to say "there's nothing wrong with that". Matched Play doesn't automatically mean "tournament winning lists expected" either, it just means that certain rules and restrictions are applied to the game being played.
Originally designed several editions ago. It's now been redesigned several times across several editions. It should be perfectly suitable for 40k Matched Play considering it has points for that, and Apocalypse is now a completely different ruleset where it has different rules entirely.
I would expect an entirely similar experience if say, a local group is playing nothing but assault marines with chain swords vs gretchin and ork shoota boys vs tau firewarriors and kroot, when some day the marines player shows up with a Predator. Now there's an arms race! Would you say it's hardly fair to say "there's nothing wrong with that" to somebody bringing a Predator? or even a dreadnought? Just because it disrupts the local meta.
Considering that the 5th and 6th edition starter sets both came with Dreadnoughts, as did the Space Marine, Space Wolves, Orks, and Craftworlds Start Collecting/Combat Patrol boxes, I would say comparing a Dreadnought to a Baneblade in terms of power in an arms race is a bad comparison. They are very common models to find in starter armies.
Most Dreadnoughts/equivalents have about 8 wounds (excluding Leviathans/Redemptors/Invictor Warsuits) whereas a Baneblade has 26 wounds. Likewise a Dread will usually have 3 weapons (main weapon, combat weapon, "small arms" mount on combat weapon) whereas a Baneblade can have up to 11 weapons, many of which are twin-linked and its primary armament is a big cannon. Going from (Tactical Marines and a Captain vs Ork Boyz and a Warboss) to (Tactical Marines and a Captain vs a Stompa) is not what I would call most people's next steps in building an army, nor is it likely to be common in a pick-up game.
If the players were increasing the points of a game from say 1k to 1.5-2k then a Predator or Dreadnought would not be a surprising addition, as they are about 100-150pts each. A Baneblade with a set of sponsons i.e. a basic loadout is 550pts. A Stompa is 900pts.
Again, it is simply my experience within my group that players didn't show up to pick-up games with lists of super-heavies and on the rare occasion that was the case and it made the experience unenjoyable, a discussion was had post-game. I'm not saying super-heavies should be banned or that they are OP, I'm saying in my experience players don't go from 1k point games with SC/CP/Starter Boxes to bringing Lords of War to pick up games.
Back before everyone locked down, I did see people asking about ITC, but that was mostly because that's how the local tournaments were configured. But then I wonder how many are just going in expecting to play by those standards, even for pick up games, even after a year of no games (LGS are starting to open up without reservations lately).
Just to clarify, do most games in the US get played with whatever ITC is? I assume it's some kind of tournament packet that makes rules changes or something?
Also, I've rarely had a time where I've had to book a slot to go play games at an FLGS unless there is an event on. Only times have been to go to Warhammer World (which is expected cos, y'know, it's WHW) and when a new manager at my local showed up and killed the gaming scene for about 3 months when he introduced a booking system for the casual drop-in days. Is booking to game a common thing everywhere but where I live?
@Gert
It's my personal experience that when people find out that they can jump from 1000-1500 or 1500-2000 buying, building and painting a single awesome looking model, they go for that over buying another couple of boxes or another start collecting box or what have you.
Also, outside of Redemptor Dreadnoughts and Plagueburst Crawlers, the only vehicles I see in most of my games are Knights or Baneblade chassis. Sometimes I'll see an Ork trukk/battlewagon list. So not exactly the models you'll find in starter sets and whatnot, or whatever you just called "common" to find in games.
Again, you're talking about 5th and 6th edition. It is now 9th edition, and the game has seen some redesigns. Baneblades and ESPECIALLY Knights are as common as or more common than lesser vehicles (besides Redemptors, I suppose). Did any vehicles even come in Indomitus? If they did, I certainly haven't seen them, even from players playing with units from the Indomitus box.
Gert wrote: Just to clarify, do most games in the US get played with whatever ITC is? I assume it's some kind of tournament packet that makes rules changes or something?
Also, I've rarely had a time where I've had to book a slot to go play games at an FLGS unless there is an event on. Only times have been to go to Warhammer World (which is expected cos, y'know, it's WHW) and when a new manager at my local showed up and killed the gaming scene for about 3 months when he introduced a booking system for the casual drop-in days. Is booking to game a common thing everywhere but where I live?
My gaming community has tourneys every quarter (40 players pre-COVID), but we do not participate in the ITC standings. In 8th Ed I played ITC conditions a couple of times when my opponent was practicing for an ITC tourney at another city. Before COVID we had 40k Saturday’s where you show up around 1230 hrs and we pair up. We also used a social media page to pre-arrange games outside on other days.
With COVID we have to book though the store for contact tracing, using our social media page to get organized. Such is life.
@Gert
It's my personal experience that when people find out that they can jump from 1000-1500 or 1500-2000 buying, building and painting a single awesome looking model, they go for that over buying another couple of boxes or another start collecting box or what have you.
Also, outside of Redemptor Dreadnoughts and Plagueburst Crawlers, the only vehicles I see in most of my games are Knights or Baneblade chassis. Sometimes I'll see an Ork trukk/battlewagon list. So not exactly the models you'll find in starter sets and whatnot, or whatever you just called "common" to find in games.
Again, you're talking about 5th and 6th edition. It is now 9th edition, and the game has seen some redesigns. Baneblades and ESPECIALLY Knights are as common as or more common than lesser vehicles (besides Redemptors, I suppose). Did any vehicles even come in Indomitus? If they did, I certainly haven't seen them, even from players playing with units from the Indomitus box.
I was talking about the 5th and 6th edition starter sets, you know where most people start 40k. Indomitus might not have come with vehicles but it came with units for both forces that are vehicle killers in the form of Eradicators and the Tripod with the Deathray for the Necrons. Of the SC/CP boxes, 14 come with either a vehicle or monster unit, so based on that alone I would say that non-super-heavy vehicles must be common for players with what I would consider pick-up armies. There have also been many Battleboxes over the years which often serve as army starters, most of which included a vehicle of some sort. As for super-heavies in 9th edition, it's a 3 command point sink to even include one in a list and it gains no detachment benefits unless it's a Knight army. If your group has loads of players with super-heavies then maybe try dropping the tier of games down to Combat Patrol (500pts) or Incursion (1000pts) games.
Gert wrote: Just to clarify, do most games in the US get played with whatever ITC is? I assume it's some kind of tournament packet that makes rules changes or something?
A while back, a store set up a tournament packet with adjustments to make things more "balanced" between the armies and just settled a lot of funny rules questions so the referee's time wasn't needed as much. They made it available online, so a lot of other stores used the same packet for their local tournaments.
Convention tournaments were largely doing the same thing. This became a standard practice, and one stood out more in my local area, and was well known here, ITC. I largely dropped the 40K scene in 7th, but I follow the local Facebook page to keep up on what people were saying, and ITC was still a thing as of a few months before everyone locked down. I haven't heard as much of it since, but that could just be because no one was meeting up, much less going to tournaments. That may change as I see feelers being put out for a tournament or two over the next month or so.
At its height, one could probably find a 40K tournament somewhere in the metropolis every Saturday (there are quite a few stores in this Valley), and most ran ITC, if another convention or fun-style tournament wasn't being run.
There were other ones, though, such as the Las Vegas Open (not local, but close enough to drive to for a long weekend) had their own packet, so sometimes I heard people using that as a goal. Again, that was before the lockdown.
Gert wrote: Also, I've rarely had a time where I've had to book a slot to go play games at an FLGS unless there is an event on. Only times have been to go to Warhammer World (which is expected cos, y'know, it's WHW) and when a new manager at my local showed up and killed the gaming scene for about 3 months when he introduced a booking system for the casual drop-in days. Is booking to game a common thing everywhere but where I live?
This was a recent thing. Stores weren't open to do ANY game time due to the lockdown response. When they were cleared to open up more, some required reservations to account for cleaning up the tables and terrain, with some even charging for it. It's only been in the last week or so where the most tight stores (and generally bigger) eased those restrictions. Still, there have been people having games in their own home, and a few newer (and smaller) shops where they allow the players to only take the precautions they feel they need.
Yea no. I love BA but essentially getting other people to play it tends to be like pulling teeth. What makes it harder in setting up a community is the ability to demo. That means having enough for another person to play, especially if they are on the fence with playing the game. So just creating a community is rather hard when you are the only one pushing for the game.
Gert wrote: It's not quite the "2 troops and an HQ" formula that I would expect from a pick-up game. I have no idea how good or bad a Baneblade is but it's still a super-heavy tank that was originally designed for Apocalypse.
Not true at all since Apocalypse wasn't a thing when the FW model & rules came out (early 3e).
Gert wrote: It's not quite the "2 troops and an HQ" formula that I would expect from a pick-up game. I have no idea how good or bad a Baneblade is but it's still a super-heavy tank that was originally designed for Apocalypse.
Not true at all since Apocalypse wasn't a thing when the FW model & rules came out (early 3e).
The 3rd ed rules were so convoluted and ridiculous that it required your opponents permission to field it. The Baneblade was intended as something special in terms of gameplay and the FW model was more a display piece. Special scenarios or missions or far, far larger games in general. Apocalypse created a natural environment for these special Super Heavy and Gargantuan creatures and managed to simplify their rules down bit by bit. It wasn't til 6th edition that Super Heavies started to become 'normalised' in the game with the advent of Knights and the Escalation supplement.
DarkStarSabre wrote: It wasn't til 6th edition that Super Heavies started to become 'normalised' in the game with the advent of Knights and the Escalation supplement.
I'd argue that it really started with 5th Ed turning flyers like the Valkyrie into skimmers. That's when the game started to lose sight of what scale it wants to operate at. Once actual aircraft were hanging around in an ostensibly company-sized engagement, superheavies were inevitable.
Also I don't recall the rules being especially complicated. Something about mass points, that IIRC worked similarly to how hull points would later be added? It didn't require your opponent's permission because the rules were convoluted; it required permission because it was so far beyond the normal scale of the rules that it would break a pick-up 2K game completely.
Gert wrote: It's not quite the "2 troops and an HQ" formula that I would expect from a pick-up game. I have no idea how good or bad a Baneblade is but it's still a super-heavy tank that was originally designed for Apocalypse.
Not true at all since Apocalypse wasn't a thing when the FW model & rules came out (early 3e).
The 3rd ed rules were so convoluted and ridiculous that it required your opponents permission to field it.
Removed - rule #1 please
It was because all Super Heavies had this requirement as it was felt that not everyone was familiar with such things. That you should be given the chance to plan for such things. (you know, bring more AT weapons or such).
It was very much a formalized style of the discussions we have today about telling someone you're bringing a Knight etc.
And the 'Blade was very much designed to be played. 3 of them fit quite nicely into 2k pts.
DarkStarSabre wrote: Special scenarios or missions or far, far larger games in general. Apocalypse created a natural environment for these special Super Heavy and Gargantuan creatures and managed to simplify their rules down bit by bit.
LoL. No. APoc was GW seeing if they could sell yet another $50 book (+expensive templates) for people to play what we already could & were. And the rubes gobbled it up....
DarkStarSabre wrote: It wasn't til 6th edition that Super Heavies started to become 'normalised' in the game with the advent of Knights and the Escalation supplement.
Yes, because the previous APoc experiment was successful.
At least I needn't ask permission to use my resin toys anymore. Well, unless they also be "Legends". But that's a different debate.
PenitentJake wrote: ...The conclusion that I draw from the premise, based on my own personal experience and preferences is that 40k is the better game precisely BECAUSE it can be played in those three ways. Reconciling them (from my perspective) would actually ruin 40k; it might make a version of 40K that is the best competitive game ever... But that would suck for the 2/3 of us that don't want that. It might make a version of 40k that is the best narrative game ever... But that would suck for the 2/3 of us that don't want that...
That's kind of already happened. 40kclaims to be written to be all things to all people, and I know you're going to give me the GW Crusade marketing spiel in response to this post, but it's very much a tournament-player's game right now. In my community the casual players have gotten fed up with the amount of bookkeeping/optimization they need to participate in 40k and have splintered off to push minis around with each other, the narrative players have all quit because they're fed up with being shoved into a tournament-meta box, and the tournament players are having a grand old time. The 40k rules have shattered my community better than game stores closing ever did, simply by writing a game for a third of the community and (figuratively) telling the 2/3rds of us that don't want to play a tournament game to go jump in a lake.
Look at Dakka. Proposed Rules is pretty dead, because the people who used to post there have gotten the message that 40k is no longer a space to be creative. 40k General is either long threads complaining about the game, or the occasional newbie asking if they have any freedom to use parts that aren't in the box on their minis, because they're worried about the tournament-legality of their stuff. People who like 9e try and hold up 7e as a boogeyman to scare us all, do we really want to go back to the days of Decurion detachments and invisible deathstars and D-weapons, and I say yes. Absolutely. Give me the Decurions and invisible deathstars and D-weapons, because those came with a community where we could all talk to each other, there was some freedom to be creative, and you could easily eyeball a soft list to play a casual game with someone who wasn't interested in the tournament meta. Sure, you could tell me I'm just being nostalgic here, but I honestly prefer the mad rules to the kind of vitriol and hostility I see in the community today.
DarkStarSabre wrote: It wasn't til 6th edition that Super Heavies started to become 'normalised' in the game with the advent of Knights and the Escalation supplement.
I'd argue that it really started with 5th Ed turning flyers like the Valkyrie into skimmers. That's when the game started to lose sight of what scale it wants to operate at. Once actual aircraft were hanging around in an ostensibly company-sized engagement, superheavies were inevitable.
Also I don't recall the rules being especially complicated. Something about mass points, that IIRC worked similarly to how hull points would later be added? It didn't require your opponent's permission because the rules were convoluted; it required permission because it was so far beyond the normal scale of the rules that it would break a pick-up 2K game completely.
The 'Mass Points' was originally a concept in the Vehicle Design rules released during 3rd and 4th ed, which included rules for building Superheavies as well as Void Shields and even rules for making gargantuan Tyranid creatures.
As for Superheated history . . . Well I played against them on occasion in 2nd Ed. Lol. I might even have the old White Dwarf with the templates for building a cardboard Baneblade in the Rogue Trader era.
I have found the weird prevalence of "metagaming" over the last few years to be incredibly destructive to the hobby. Terms like "trash" and "viable" used to describe what is essentially an arts and crafts endeavor for many, is incredibly toxic. You have these endless debates online of meta adjustments from all the usual suspects and they talk about rules and army changes like you are switching options in a computer game. The desperate clamour for more rules and more and adjustments and screams from incredibly vocal aspects of the meta gaming community (I do wonder how many actual real-world games are played by these people using fully painted armies representing all of their different list options) all lead to burn-out. In the last 4 years, between Codex, Campaign books & supplements GW has released over 50, that's 50! books containing rules and that doesn't take into account all of the FAQ ERRATA etc the rules have been reduced to theory-crafting and churn.
So yeah anyways 40k Matched Play doesn't even work as a 'lingua franca' of gaming very well because it still has heaps of discussion and "pre-game gentlemanly conversation" that actually can make it rather difficult to play.
I haven't had this problem in other games (except WMH )
PenitentJake wrote: ...The conclusion that I draw from the premise, based on my own personal experience and preferences is that 40k is the better game precisely BECAUSE it can be played in those three ways. Reconciling them (from my perspective) would actually ruin 40k; it might make a version of 40K that is the best competitive game ever... But that would suck for the 2/3 of us that don't want that. It might make a version of 40k that is the best narrative game ever... But that would suck for the 2/3 of us that don't want that...
That's kind of already happened. 40kclaims to be written to be all things to all people, and I know you're going to give me the GW Crusade marketing spiel in response to this post, but it's very much a tournament-player's game right now. In my community the casual players have gotten fed up with the amount of bookkeeping/optimization they need to participate in 40k and have splintered off to push minis around with each other, the narrative players have all quit because they're fed up with being shoved into a tournament-meta box, and the tournament players are having a grand old time. The 40k rules have shattered my community better than game stores closing ever did, simply by writing a game for a third of the community and (figuratively) telling the 2/3rds of us that don't want to play a tournament game to go jump in a lake.
Look at Dakka. Proposed Rules is pretty dead, because the people who used to post there have gotten the message that 40k is no longer a space to be creative. 40k General is either long threads complaining about the game, or the occasional newbie asking if they have any freedom to use parts that aren't in the box on their minis, because they're worried about the tournament-legality of their stuff. People who like 9e try and hold up 7e as a boogeyman to scare us all, do we really want to go back to the days of Decurion detachments and invisible deathstars and D-weapons, and I say yes. Absolutely. Give me the Decurions and invisible deathstars and D-weapons, because those came with a community where we could all talk to each other, there was some freedom to be creative, and you could easily eyeball a soft list to play a casual game with someone who wasn't interested in the tournament meta. Sure, you could tell me I'm just being nostalgic here, but I honestly prefer the mad rules to the kind of vitriol and hostility I see in the community today.
That can be your experience, and that's fine. My experience is pretty much the opposite - removing the army construction 'mini games' from 7th made my community freer and less competitive in general, and the more intricate mission and terrain rules in 9th are a fantastic thing for me to glom onto as someone who loves custom rules content and designing fun, interesting tables to play on (I paint more terrain than models these days, because painted models just get jammed into my packed shelves of tons and tons of painted models, while terrain I get to bring to a store and someone is playing with it basically every week) 9th beats 7th and 8th for me by far. I have fond memories of 5th, but unlike games of 2nd which are always crazy silly fun every time I've gone back to fifth I get reminded of the color of the glasses I view it through - I find it to be a really frustrating game experience with ultra-bland missions and ultra-bad unit imbalance that's immediately clear the second you sit down to play it.
Gert wrote: If your group has loads of players with super-heavies then maybe try dropping the tier of games down to Combat Patrol (500pts) or Incursion (1000pts) games.
Alternatively, since I don't find a problem with is, I could just not do those things and continue playing the way we do. Could you imagine the conversation?
"Hey guys, I know you all really like your super heavies, which honestly aren't super good, but let's try playing games where you don't use those! Well, yes, they're a part of the core game, included in your codex with completely valid ways to field them but... I played back in 5th edition, when they were for Apocalypse. So, you know, by 5th edition rules you shouldn't even be able to use them. Yes, we are playing 9th. But by 5th edition rules..."
Unit1126PLL wrote: So yeah anyways 40k Matched Play doesn't even work as a 'lingua franca' of gaming very well because it still has heaps of discussion and "pre-game gentlemanly conversation" that actually can make it rather difficult to play.
I haven't had this problem in other games (except WMH )
I don't think we can honestly blame 40k 9th Edition for that. Even in this thread, it looks like it's from a lot of people who played older editions of the game and have hangups, like "Baneblades belong in Apocalypse, because of 4th edition". In my group when you ask for a 40k game, that's it. That term is shorthand for "40k 9th edition Matched Play using the GT2020 Tournament Pack". The only pregame discussion beyond that is the points level, usually.
I am not blaming 9th. 40k has always been like that.
My point isn't "older 40k" is better. It's that "other games offer a refreshing change from the 40k way of doing things, including all the *side stuff* like having to chat about what kind of game you want."
With an added "you wouldn't have to have this discussion if the game were better balanced - and that is clearly not impossible because other games do it."
Unit1126PLL wrote: So yeah anyways 40k Matched Play doesn't even work as a 'lingua franca' of gaming very well because it still has heaps of discussion and "pre-game gentlemanly conversation" that actually can make it rather difficult to play.
I haven't had this problem in other games (except WMH )
People on Dakka not liking the direction that 40K has taken does not detract from 40K Matched Play being a lingua franca. A wargamer can put together a Battle Forged list of 1500 to 2000 points and go to any FLGS/club night and have a successful game without prior coordination if they build to Matched Play. There are edge cases with certain builds in terms of power and player skill of course can make a difference in the quality of the experience. That two players still talk about the game beforehand does not take away from the "common tongue" aspect of Matched Play. That some players are very competitive than others is not restricted to 40K - it was certainly a problem with Flames of War.
I think every major city with a tabletop gaming community has a 40K gaming ecosystem. I move around and travel a lot. I can find 40K wherever I go (well, not right now so much). Matched Play as a name is new, but the concept goes back to 2nd Ed. Two equal points armies meeting up with a generic mission meant to fair to both. This differs from some other miniatures games I have played where you have scenarios etc with fixed orders of battle etc. Those take an enormous amount of prior coordination. Same if you want to have "narrative" 40K with a particular scenario.
Since coming back to 40K in 2017 I just have to say "Matched Play, 2000 points?" to an prospective opponent and we are off. Now I add in "Matched Play, GT2020 Mission Pack,2000 points?" Done. Can you add more? Sure: "This is my first game since 3rd Edition" or "I am practicing for a tourney next month." This is different from "I would like to recreate a battle from a magazine article I read about the Red Corsairs fighting Astra Militarum on a low-gravity world blah blah blah."
Right, which is why I said I'm not talking about Narrative vs. Matched vs. Open.
I'm talking about even within matched - 3 Baneblades is apparently a thing that requires coordination, despite fitting smoothly into 2000 points, GT2020 Pack, Matched Play. And that's just one random example thrown out in this thread that spawned at least a page of discussion about whether it's "normal" or conforms to the "2 troops 1 HQ" thing or whatever.
Clearly there are more standards and discussions that have to happen than "2000 points, GT2020 pack, Matched Play" even when those 3 things have been decided on already.
I will say I played FOW up until the release of the 4th edition book and never really had a problem bringing any old army that I chose to a 'matched play' game, whether 3 Koenigstigers, 15 IS-2s, or an entire platoon of American paratroopers. I've had far more problems bringing Baneblades to 40k than King Tigers to FOW in terms of how comfortable the playgroup is with it.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Right, which is why I said I'm not talking about Narrative vs. Matched vs. Open.
I'm talking about even within matched - 3 Baneblades is apparently a thing that requires coordination, despite fitting smoothly into 2000 points, GT2020 Pack, Matched Play. And that's just one random example thrown out in this thread that spawned at least a page of discussion about whether it's "normal" or conforms to the "2 troops 1 HQ" thing or whatever.
Clearly there are more standards and discussions that have to happen than "2000 points, GT2020 pack, Matched Play" even when those 3 things have been decided on already.
I will say I played FOW up until the release of the 4th edition book and never really had a problem bringing any old army that I chose to a 'matched play' game, whether 3 Koenigstigers, 15 IS-2s, or an entire platoon of American paratroopers. I've had far more problems bringing Baneblades to 40k than King Tigers to FOW in terms of how comfortable the playgroup is with it.
How many games of 9th have you had, and how many games of 8th for that matter? While some tourneys/events have extra restrictions to establish themes, I can honestly say since rejoining the 40K scene in 2017 after a break from 2014 I have not seen an issue with someone bringing Lords of War/Titanic to a game on Saturday at the FLGS. I think your Baneblade issue is a hang-up from darker times. I occasionally bring a Baneblade or Shadowsword and I never even think of warning an opponent ahead of time. In all honesty, if you can't handle three Baneblades that's on you. Because you could face three Knights or three Keepers of Secrets which would be much tougher!
In 3rd Ed FOW you could face an all-US Tank Destroyer list that could alpha-strike you off the map, or one of the armies with universal Spearhead that could be all over you in Turn 1 before you had a chance to do anything. Or a Blood Guts and Glory Patton list with all the wombo-combos.
I have had loads of games of 9th, and it depends on the player attitude really. The superheavy tanks haven't been a problem like they were in 8th.
I will say with FOW I never encountered any of the things you list except US TDs, which you could still kill the little jeeps to prevent the platoon from deploying (or rather force it to deploy in a bad spot). But that's neither here nor there.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I have had loads of games of 9th, and it depends on the player attitude really. The superheavy tanks haven't been a problem like they were in 8th.
I will say with FOW I never encountered any of the things you list except US TDs, which you could still kill the little jeeps to prevent the platoon from deploying (or rather force it to deploy in a bad spot). But that's neither here nor there.
You just reminded me how utterly ahistorical fow army construction rules are and I'm sad. Units of clumped together scout cars all fielded together as an anti-infantry shooting unit, artillery sitting on the board firing at ultra-close range because gotta sell them models, motorized infantry being the same as on-foot infantry because battlefront doesnt make truck models, whole armies of stuff like King Tigers being commonplace...
Unit1126PLL wrote: I have had loads of games of 9th, and it depends on the player attitude really. The superheavy tanks haven't been a problem like they were in 8th.
I will say with FOW I never encountered any of the things you list except US TDs, which you could still kill the little jeeps to prevent the platoon from deploying (or rather force it to deploy in a bad spot). But that's neither here nor there.
You just reminded me how utterly ahistorical fow army construction rules are and I'm sad. Units of clumped together scout cars all fielded together as an anti-infantry shooting unit, artillery sitting on the board firing at ultra-close range because gotta sell them models, motorized infantry being the same as on-foot infantry because battlefront doesnt make truck models, whole armies of stuff like King Tigers being commonplace...
Yep. That's why I dropped out and swapped to Chain of Command. The Army Building rules are unlike 40k entirely (whilst FOW is basically 40k) and make more historical play imo.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I have had loads of games of 9th, and it depends on the player attitude really. The superheavy tanks haven't been a problem like they were in 8th.
I will say with FOW I never encountered any of the things you list except US TDs, which you could still kill the little jeeps to prevent the platoon from deploying (or rather force it to deploy in a bad spot). But that's neither here nor there.
So then there isn't a problem with your Baneblades. Good to go - no need for the pregame discussion.
Hollow wrote:I have found the weird prevalence of "metagaming" over the last few years to be incredibly destructive to the hobby. Terms like "trash" and "viable" used to describe what is essentially an arts and crafts endeavor for many, is incredibly toxic. You have these endless debates online of meta adjustments from all the usual suspects and they talk about rules and army changes like you are switching options in a computer game. The desperate clamour for more rules and more and adjustments and screams from incredibly vocal aspects of the meta gaming community (I do wonder how many actual real-world games are played by these people using fully painted armies representing all of their different list options) all lead to burn-out. In the last 4 years, between Codex, Campaign books & supplements GW has released over 50, that's 50! books containing rules and that doesn't take into account all of the FAQ ERRATA etc the rules have been reduced to theory-crafting and churn.
The funny thing is that is nothing new. A lot of that is the reason why GW shut down their forums. It was so bad that one couldn't make a post on the weather without someone putting a lot of metagaming trash talk about how bad the balance was in the games.
So I guess the only difference is the people doing it have rotated out to another group doing the same thing.
Unit1126PLL wrote:So yeah anyways 40k Matched Play doesn't even work as a 'lingua franca' of gaming very well because it still has heaps of discussion and "pre-game gentlemanly conversation" that actually can make it rather difficult to play.
I haven't had this problem in other games (except WMH )
Even then, most of the time (much like WMH, actually) going outside the Matched Play concept is what needs to be brought up to do anything else from what I've seen locally. Power Level is rarely used, it's almost always listed in points. It could be because of inertia, or it could also be that the point system is perceived to be more finely tuned than Power Level is.
Unit1126PLL wrote:I will say I played FOW up until the release of the 4th edition book and never really had a problem bringing any old army that I chose to a 'matched play' game, whether 3 Koenigstigers, 15 IS-2s, or an entire platoon of American paratroopers. I've had far more problems bringing Baneblades to 40k than King Tigers to FOW in terms of how comfortable the playgroup is with it.
You can take most 3rd-5th 40K armies and easily put them in to the current structure. Most often, you'd even have room to add things to them as pricing for a lot of things have gone down (like Grenades). I would have included 6th and 7th armies, too, but Formations can throw that concept out the window in many cases, but a few could still fit.
Also, I think it's not like FoW is going to be adding a whole lot of new units created out of thin air, like Primaris, but rely on verified units. If anything, it is more about going farther back in time (Early War vs first-released Late War) or adding in the units from lesser-known armies as opposed to adding M60s in to the mix.
Unit1126PLL wrote:Yep. That's why I dropped out and swapped to Chain of Command. The Army Building rules are unlike 40k entirely (whilst FOW is basically 40k) and make more historical play imo.
Interesting. I've only glanced at FoW's army organization and it looked more organized than what you're saying. But that's one of the issues about not doing research. While most of the LGS carry FoW, the player-base isn't that high when compared to Games Workshop.
The dissonance in this thread is astounding. A page ago there was a discussion (similar to a pregame one) about whether or not 3 Baneblades was okay, and people are now saying "there is no need" when there was a need expressed in this very thread.
That said, I agree that things have improved on that front dramatically since 8th.
Unit1126PLL wrote: The dissonance in this thread is astounding. A page ago there was a discussion (similar to a pregame one) about whether or not 3 Baneblades was okay, and people are now saying "there is no need" when there was a need expressed in this very thread.
That said, I agree that things have improved on that front dramatically since 8th.
I think that one person said you should discuss your three Baneblades - hardly dissonance.
There is also a huge difference between a Baneblade of 3rd-7th Edition where there are points where small arms cannot harm Vehicles, and 8th/9th where anything can harm Vehicles.
Now, I'm not arguing how quickly any small arm could kill a Baneblade, just the difference in possibilities.
Insectum7 wrote: I'm just jealous of the three Baneblade models. I mean, I'd build them as Shadowswords because they look the nutz, but still.
Well tbf I'd try to magnetize them up so I could run all the variants.
The way the plastic kit's organized you can get Stormlord, Baneblade, Hellhammer, and one other magnetizing them. The main guns share parts for all other variants.
Insectum7 wrote: I'm just jealous of the three Baneblade models. I mean, I'd build them as Shadowswords because they look the nutz, but still.
Well tbf I'd try to magnetize them up so I could run all the variants.
The way the plastic kit's organized you can get Stormlord, Baneblade, Hellhammer, and one other magnetizing them. The main guns share parts for all other variants.
Hmm, good to know. I think that still works for me as the two variants I really like are the Shadowsword and the Stormlord. I do't have an IG army so I haven't commited. The Shadowsword just looks so great.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Right, which is why I said I'm not talking about Narrative vs. Matched vs. Open.
I'm talking about even within matched - 3 Baneblades is apparently a thing that requires coordination, despite fitting smoothly into 2000 points, GT2020 Pack, Matched Play. And that's just one random example thrown out in this thread that spawned at least a page of discussion about whether it's "normal" or conforms to the "2 troops 1 HQ" thing or whatever.
Clearly there are more standards and discussions that have to happen than "2000 points, GT2020 pack, Matched Play" even when those 3 things have been decided on already.
I will say I played FOW up until the release of the 4th edition book and never really had a problem bringing any old army that I chose to a 'matched play' game, whether 3 Koenigstigers, 15 IS-2s, or an entire platoon of American paratroopers. I've had far more problems bringing Baneblades to 40k than King Tigers to FOW in terms of how comfortable the playgroup is with it.
How many games of 9th have you had, and how many games of 8th for that matter? While some tourneys/events have extra restrictions to establish themes, I can honestly say since rejoining the 40K scene in 2017 after a break from 2014 I have not seen an issue with someone bringing Lords of War/Titanic to a game on Saturday at the FLGS. I think your Baneblade issue is a hang-up from darker times. I occasionally bring a Baneblade or Shadowsword and I never even think of warning an opponent ahead of time. In all honesty, if you can't handle three Baneblades that's on you. Because you could face three Knights or three Keepers of Secrets which would be much tougher!
In 3rd Ed FOW you could face an all-US Tank Destroyer list that could alpha-strike you off the map, or one of the armies with universal Spearhead that could be all over you in Turn 1 before you had a chance to do anything. Or a Blood Guts and Glory Patton list with all the wombo-combos.
I believe there is a thread buried somewhere in 8th edition from Unit complaining about how his local players are not happy if he shows up with 3 baneblades as an army unannounced.
Its a situation for 1 specific poster, and not something the rest of the wider gaming community cares about or has to deal with.
Ordana wrote: I believe there is a thread buried somewhere in 8th edition from Unit complaining about how his local players are not happy if he shows up with 3 baneblades as an army announced.
Its a situation for 1 specific poster, and not something the rest of the wider gaming community cares about or has to deal with.
To be fair, that might be a function of the local meta. If everyone's doing cutthroat tourney lists, triple Baneblades likely won't be an issue, but if most people are doing more generic TAC/fluff/narrative lists, they may not have enough AT to effectively deal with that. Dropping that kind of heavy skew list without warning could certainly result in some badfeels in that sort of environment.
Also there might be residual PTSD from 7e/8e Knights in play.
NinthMusketeer wrote: As long as the baneblades are stacked on top of each other like a clown tower I don't see what the problem is.
the fact that GW has never added rules allowing you to Human Centipede baneblades together as a +500 point upgrade that gives you another 24 wounds and another set of main cannon and sponsons is a sad indicator of the lack of creativity in GW's modern game design.
.
)
