Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Platuan4th wrote: From the guy's local tourney runner and one of the rules judges at Clutch:
can confirm. It was Brian. Saw this and hit him up and Jerry already im contact with him about it. He saw people running it at lvo and copied it.
I played against him in a practice match before the tourney and never knew any better. Hard to know every little nuance about each army.
This is a niche FW unit for an already niche army, not surprised people can be caught out not knowing a single interaction.
They're not niche, they always pop up in lists.
Even if they are 'niche', if someone brings 1800 points of a niche unit and proceeds to table your army by exploiting a specific interaction with them, asking to have a quick look-up of that rule is not 'WAAC' or bad sportsmanship in my opinion.
Platuan4th wrote: From the guy's local tourney runner and one of the rules judges at Clutch:
can confirm. It was Brian. Saw this and hit him up and Jerry already im contact with him about it. He saw people running it at lvo and copied it.
I played against him in a practice match before the tourney and never knew any better. Hard to know every little nuance about each army.
This is a niche FW unit for an already niche army, not surprised people can be caught out not knowing a single interaction.
They're not niche, they always pop up in lists.
They're not the most common army and a lot of people won't want to use FW units or have access to them to that degree. It's understandable a fair few people wouldn't have run into it to find out.
Platuan4th wrote: From the guy's local tourney runner and one of the rules judges at Clutch:
can confirm. It was Brian. Saw this and hit him up and Jerry already im contact with him about it. He saw people running it at lvo and copied it.
I played against him in a practice match before the tourney and never knew any better. Hard to know every little nuance about each army.
This is a niche FW unit for an already niche army, not surprised people can be caught out not knowing a single interaction.
They're not niche, they always pop up in lists.
Even if they are 'niche', if someone brings 1800 points of a niche unit and proceeds to table your army by exploiting a specific interaction with them, asking to have a quick look-up of that rule is not 'WAAC' or bad sportsmanship in my opinion.
Ya, definitely not bad sportsmanship to do some double-checking.
But also I'm sorta shocked that a list like that could get so far without more scrutiny. If he's just copying from other players who are already using the interaction at a big event like LVO, that means there's been some exposure.
Also, ffs, if your whole strategy is going to rely on something, double-triple-quadruple check that s***.
Going back to Unit's argument, it'd be a lot easier to catch if there was any reason why the ka’tah only applied to auric weapons, why would the superhuman marksmanship of Custodes only apply to certain weapons? If it was an auric weapon relic or if the name had something to do with auricness there'd be some connection. Arbitrary rules are probably harder to learn.
Can't say I'd have called this. I don't play Custodes and frankly didn't even realise "auric weapons" were a thing.
On GSC being busted, I'm not sure on the argument they are hard to nerf without making them dumpster tier. If the secondaries are too easy to score (and evidence based on results suggests they are) the solution is clearly to make them a bit harder to score.
Apple fox wrote: Seems to be a GW issue honestly, if units could be out a little wider it’s less a issue probably as well.
The issue has always been the players.
Yes it's the players' fault that Scatterbikes was a thing, and not the fact GW threw Scatterlasers in for each bike in the kit and said all three could take it. It's also the players' fault GW doesn't point things correctly.
How do you beer and pretzels a situation where GW makes Cultists 10 points a model?
Did you read the rest of Tittliewinks' post, or just fly off the handle at the first sentence?
Nothing within the post is valid the moment you blame the players for the gak rules
I could have been a littler more clear, the context is not putting blame on players for bad rules writing, but players for the shift to more competitive elitism which has happend across near every hobby I enjoyed the past 25 years. In the context of templates and scatter dice I never found any issues of angle-shooting meta chasers arguing over 1 extra hit, but then again, the groups I play with tend to not sweat the little things. I no longer can go to a shop and do a pick up game of any of my hobbies now without some netdeck/netlist. The internet broke any game that has a puzzle/build aspect to it and that's undeniable, unfortunetly.
I apologize for not understanding you weren't really blaming the players.
Tyel wrote: Can't say I'd have called this. I don't play Custodes and frankly didn't even realise "auric weapons" were a thing.
On GSC being busted, I'm not sure on the argument they are hard to nerf without making them dumpster tier. If the secondaries are too easy to score (and evidence based on results suggests they are) the solution is clearly to make them a bit harder to score.
See, the thing is that is how they score points much at all. They’re like Eldar but without the innate movement buffs or incredibly hard hitting weaponry. Pretty much everything but abberants and Characters die to a stiff breeze, so while they can play the objective game holding it past the initial ambush is difficult. Hence why you have to play the Secondary game to make up the difference in VP.
Tyel wrote: Can't say I'd have called this. I don't play Custodes and frankly didn't even realise "auric weapons" were a thing.
On GSC being busted, I'm not sure on the argument they are hard to nerf without making them dumpster tier. If the secondaries are too easy to score (and evidence based on results suggests they are) the solution is clearly to make them a bit harder to score.
Okay, go take a look at the GSC secondaries. Tell me then, what do you make harder without making it worthless? GSC at this point seem to be a very all or nothing army. You either win big or lose big and without many people playing them one person doing very well drastically changes the win rate, as opposed to say Marines which have more players that most every other army combined so your good and bad players kind of balance each other out.
vict0988 wrote: Going back to Unit's argument, it'd be a lot easier to catch if there was any reason why the ka’tah only applied to auric weapons, why would the superhuman marksmanship of Custodes only apply to certain weapons? If it was an auric weapon relic or if the name had something to do with auricness there'd be some connection. Arbitrary rules are probably harder to learn.
Right. 40k right now is more like a sport than a wargame, in that the rules are totally arbitrary and divorced from anything real.
"Take this fore-arm sized petard to the enemy castle wall and attach it" is extremely different from "American football" even if the objective of "carry small thing that needs to be protected to a specific place" is the same concept.
It's why people say 40k is a war-themed game and not a wargame. The rules make no sense when looked at from a "trying to simulate war" perspective.
It's just the minis and the names of the rules that make it tangentially related to warfare; if you gave the minis megaphones and changed the rule names to different propaganda styles and types you could easily theme it as two political groups shouting each other until the other guy leaves the protest lol
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/03/12 01:14:15
Having never played in a tournament, it's hard to guess, but honestly, if you flat up said to me, this is my Purple Space Marine list, and they have a strat that lets them shoot twice on death, I wouldn't even question it these days. It's not worth the time to question every stupid rule. Plus I lean heavily on "would GW really make that a thing"? and for that I answer The new Super Primaris Rocket Launcher units. So yeah, I don't even bother asking to "see the rule" anymore. I just choose to play my army and not assume my opponent is a prick.
Karol wrote: The best lore in the world is not going to make someone want to play with their 27% win rate army, if the wait to fix it can be years or even entire editions.
That's what it was like for YEARS, even up to a decade for some armies
Multiple editions with the same codex, no updates, no idea if there will be any FAQ/erattas once per edition.
This is why you play the army you love, regardless or how bad the rules might be. If it's the army that makes you happy, then that's all that matters.
It may have been like that in places where people didn't care much for investment in to an army. Buying and paints 3-4 squads a vehicle and 1-2 heroes is not the same you have to do today to get even an elite army to the table. Plus the life time of armies, thanks to rules changes, is a slipery thing. One day something can be nice and fun to play, and the next day it is not worth bringing to the table. The reverse can happen too, vide necron or GSC , but the number of times factions get hard nerfed and what faction it hits the most affects more people. To end game tournament players it is a meh, but their goal is always to play with the best of the best, so they will adapt. But for a new player the way w40k is run has the same effect as big changes in video games. If someone spends 6-12 months building and painting an army "their own way", and when they finish it they suddenly realise it was bad build and is now unfunto play they just quit. Same way a dude who plays PoE on the weekends and finds out he builds his character wrong and now he has to invest a ton of time , he probably doesn't have, to relevel a new one. So what does the new player do? He checks the forums, the tournament results, he checks the win rates, and he picks the army and units accordingly to his budget. Now can there exist people who don't care, and can just buy 1000$+ armies every two months? Sure, but I am not sure if they are the core audiance that buys GW models.
Love is conditional and if a thing doesn't make you happy, you need some extra conditions to stay playing. And all of them are ones outside of gaming or having fun with playing the game. And all of the things I just wrote about get exponentially stronger any place the avarge salary is not that of UK or US. Because I can tell you that. When you live in a place where the avarge salary of an adult is half what an avarge army for w40k costs, people very much keep track of what they buy and how efficient it is.
Right. 40k right now is more like a sport than a wargame, in that the rules are totally arbitrary and divorced from anything real.
"Take this fore-arm sized petard to the enemy castle wall and attach it" is extremely different from "American football" even if the objective of "carry small thing that needs to be protected to a specific place" is the same concept.
It's why people say 40k is a war-themed game and not a wargame. The rules make no sense when looked at from a "trying to simulate war" perspective.
It's just the minis and the names of the rules that make it tangentially related to warfare; if you gave the minis megaphones and changed the rule names to different propaganda styles and types you could easily theme it as two political groups shouting each other until the other guy leaves the protest lol
If w40k was to simulate how w40k functions in its lore. Then 50 marines should be facing around 10000 guardsman. 30 custodes terminators should be able to crush a 300 elite csm warband. GK should melt demons by the sole virtue of being on the battlefield. and the Eldar avatar would have to be given a special rule that it explodes, if it ever comes in to base to base contact with a character belonging of the opposit player.
The job of w40k is not to simulate game or lore. Its job is to be a game, which has a predictible outcome, clear rules that people can learn and understand, and mechanics that weren't created in order for people to change armies, change games, buy more stuff and find it doesn't work next seson etc.
Same way wrestling isn't there to simulate a life a death unarmed combat. Football isn't war. And stuff like foil or kendo are not actual fencing in combat situations.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/03/12 11:02:59
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
So there are two responses to your two separate points:
1) Why is the lore this insane these days? Used to be:
- 50 Marines would pull of a heroic last stand against 10,000 guardsmen (Well, GEQ) in a highly contrived situation; not routinely defeat them. A GK force was once defeated by an army of about 10,000 with medieval weapons in a novel.
- Custodes never fought and weren't a tabletop army, so their power wasn't ever really measurable. They talked a good game, but one was never sure if they were living on past glories like the rest of the imperium, with their actual capabilities being a pale shadow of a glorious past, like the rest of the imperium.
- GK didn't melt daemons just by being on the same planet. Their capabilities levelled the playing field between hapless mortals and Daemons. The First Armageddon War ended in defeat of Chaos only at extreme cost to the Imperium and the GK.
- The Avatar did pretty much used to do that. It was a joke in the game as badly as it was in the lore.
2) What is the point in playing 40k if not to simulate battles in the 41st (or 42nd) Millennium? If all you want from a game is predictability, rules that can be learned and understood, and mechanics that weren't created for sales purposes, there are FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR (etc.) better rules out there for it.
I daresay Chess, for example, meets all those criteria. Or Chutes and Ladders. Or Simon Says.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/03/12 16:36:41
40k has never been particularly good at simulating real warfare. Weapon ranges are too short and the interactions between melee and ranged warfare always have been very gamey.
I would rather say that 40k used to try to mislead the player into making them think that it was simulating a battle, but in truth it was always above all else a game.
It isn't particularly different from say videogames. Do you believe that FPS like CoD of Halo or RTS like AoE or StarCraft are actually simulations of warfare? They aren't, they are games above all else. But they tricked the player into making them believe they were simulations.
The difference with 9th Ed is that it doesn't even try to trick the player about it, it is very blatantly gamey.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/03/12 16:55:51
Unit1126PLL wrote: So there are two responses to your two separate points:
1) Why is the lore this insane these days?
It doesn't matter how insane you decide it is, and therefore you don't like it. That's what the lore is now, and you not approving of it doesn't negate its existence.
Tyran wrote: 40k has never been particularly good at simulating real warfare. Weapon ranges are too short and the interactions between melee and ranged warfare always have been very gamey.
I would rather say that 40k used to try to mislead the player into making them think that it was simulating a battle, but in truth it was always above all else a game.
It isn't particularly different from say videogames. Do you believe that FPS like CoD of Halo or RTS like AoE or StarCraft are actually simulations of warfare? They aren't, they are games above all else. But they tricked the player into making them believe they were simulations.
The difference with 9th Ed is that it doesn't even try to trick the player about it, it is very blatantly gamey.
All games have abstraction and compromise. Saying "abstractions exist, therefore it's not even worth trying" is a bit silly (and insults the actual professional wargamers that use wargames as genuine military analysis).
All games have abstraction and compromise. Saying "abstractions exist, therefore it's not even worth trying" is a bit silly (and insults the actual professional wargamers that use wargames as genuine military analysis).
Actual military wargaming is a different beast altogether. I wouldn't compare it with 40k, regardless of edition.
Unit1126PLL wrote: So there are two responses to your two separate points:
1) Why is the lore this insane these days?
It doesn't matter how insane you decide it is, and therefore you don't like it. That's what the lore is now, and you not approving of it doesn't negate its existence.
The problem is that the lore, or interpretation of it, can have an effect on the game. It warps the experience. "Bolter porn brain rot."
We've got a thread asking about how to pump a Space Marine Captain up above 9 wounds . . .
Unit1126PLL wrote: So there are two responses to your two separate points:
1) Why is the lore this insane these days?
It doesn't matter how insane you decide it is, and therefore you don't like it. That's what the lore is now, and you not approving of it doesn't negate its existence.
The problem is that the lore, or interpretation of it, can have an effect on the game. It warps the experience. "Bolter porn brain rot."
We've got a thread asking about how to pump a Space Marine Captain up above 9 wounds . . .
I see that as more pushing the game to its limits rather than anything else. I was intrigued by the thread for that alone, and how a size stat would've made more sense for core rules.
All games have abstraction and compromise. Saying "abstractions exist, therefore it's not even worth trying" is a bit silly (and insults the actual professional wargamers that use wargames as genuine military analysis).
Actual military wargaming is a different beast altogether. I wouldn't compare it with 40k, regardless of edition.
That doesn't really address my point - because I am not comparing it to an edition exactly.
I am saying "past editions were better, this one is worse" and you are saying "well because those editions didn't do a great job, that doesn't matter."
Which isn't a sound argument, because the implication is "it is impossible to do better" which is countered by with "nations around the world disagree"
Unit1126PLL wrote: So there are two responses to your two separate points:
1) Why is the lore this insane these days?
It doesn't matter how insane you decide it is, and therefore you don't like it. That's what the lore is now, and you not approving of it doesn't negate its existence.
The problem is that the lore, or interpretation of it, can have an effect on the game. It warps the experience. "Bolter porn brain rot."
We've got a thread asking about how to pump a Space Marine Captain up above 9 wounds . . .
I see that as more pushing the game to its limits rather than anything else. I was intrigued by the thread for that alone, and how a size stat would've made more sense for core rules.
Limits of what? Stupidity? Sure, a Space Marine just straight up tanking a Lascannon even after passing through his force field. Hey, no problem!
Tyran wrote: 40k has never been particularly good at simulating real warfare. Weapon ranges are too short and the interactions between melee and ranged warfare always have been very gamey.
I would rather say that 40k used to try to mislead the player into making them think that it was simulating a battle, but in truth it was always above all else a game.
It isn't particularly different from say videogames. Do you believe that FPS like CoD of Halo or RTS like AoE or StarCraft are actually simulations of warfare? They aren't, they are games above all else. But they tricked the player into making them believe they were simulations.
The difference with 9th Ed is that it doesn't even try to trick the player about it, it is very blatantly gamey.
40K isn't trying to simulate real warfare, but it is trying to convey a stylized over-the-top setting as defined by decades of lore and art and games and other artistic works. It doesn't need to be realistic to be learnable, it just needs to match the background, be reasonably intuitive to someone with a modicum of wargame experience, and work consistently across factions.
3rd Ed made melee a decisive gameplay element, where breaking units in melee was more devastating than just shooting them. That might not have been realistic in a future with energy weapons and spaceships, but it was a pretty straightforward part of the game. You knew that failing a morale check in melee was Very Bad, and any army could exploit this as a force-multiplier to either to do lots of damage with melee specialists or allow generalists to punch above their weight.
Meanwhile in 9th Ed, catching the enemy in a crossfire is something that only one faction benefits from, and virtually all of the force-multipliers are army-specific special trap card abilities that take new players quite a while to memorize for their own army, let alone anyone else's. You can look at a unit and have no idea what its capabilities are because they aren't based on its wargear, appearance, or even description; they're buried in rules that aren't even on the datasheet.
It's not about whether it's 'realistic' or not. It's that even being intimately familiar with the background to 40K in no way informs you as to which units have access to fight-twice abilities and which ones don't. The fluff doesn't tell you that Marines get bonus armor penetration for a rotating roster of weapons as the battle goes on, that Guardsmen can outrun jet aircraft if an officer yells at them loudly enough, or that charging the enemy from outside the range of their weapons prevents them from shooting as you close in. These are things you just have to learn.
Since you mentioned Halo, that's actually a good comparison: One of the criticisms of the original Halo was that the pistol behaved like a rifle, and the rifle behaved like a submachine gun. This was unintuitive and didn't fit the background, so for the sequels the developers redesigned the pistol into a pistol, the rifle into a rifle, and added a submachine gun. They recognized that the way the guns worked in the game didn't match what people expected or the background they had written, so they changed it. Someone could say 'but Halo isn't a simulation, it doesn't have to be realistic' and it's both true and missing the point.
Being a game first and foremost rather than a simulation isn't a bad thing. But the more disconnected a game's rules are from the background knowledge and preconceptions a player comes in with, the more one-off exceptions and arbitrary capabilities they need to learn and memorize, the harder it is to play and the more it rewards game knowledge memorization over generalized tactics.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/03/12 23:45:32
Unit1126PLL wrote: So there are two responses to your two separate points:
1) Why is the lore this insane these days?
It doesn't matter how insane you decide it is, and therefore you don't like it. That's what the lore is now, and you not approving of it doesn't negate its existence.
The problem is that the lore, or interpretation of it, can have an effect on the game. It warps the experience. "Bolter porn brain rot."
We've got a thread asking about how to pump a Space Marine Captain up above 9 wounds . . .
I see that as more pushing the game to its limits rather than anything else. I was intrigued by the thread for that alone, and how a size stat would've made more sense for core rules.
Limits of what? Stupidity? Sure, a Space Marine just straight up tanking a Lascannon even after passing through his force field. Hey, no problem!
Which would match up with the bolter por......I mean "lore" that many people want represented on the table. Personally, I preferred it when the lore took inspiration from the game, instead of vice versa.
vict0988 wrote: Is 25% top 4s and 25% top 1s statistically significant for a 20% play rate faction across 8 events? I'm doing a course on this and if people are interested in statistical significances I can try and figure it out, but it seems to me that it isn't worth mentioning.
Yes, it is in fact statistically significant because again you tend to have newer (Crappier) players showing up to these events running Marine factions and even then you still have them with a very good win rate regardless of the newer players pulling them down, as well as making a rather large appearance in the top half of the event. I grabbed some stats on the Dicehammer Open, 75 players, I believe 17 were Marines (Including Grey Knights). Marines finished 1st, 3rd, 5th, 6th, 12th, 13th, 17th, 20th, 29th, 33rd, 37th, 40th, 43rd, 57th, 61st, 71st and 73rd.
On one end of the spectrum you had the first place Marine player go undefeated and 4 others only have 1 loss , on the other end of the spectrum you had the bottom 5 players pulling in a grand total of 5 wins Combine the two and you have a W/L Ratio of 54.16% (One Marine player dropped after day 1). So on paper it looks good, 54% ratio is just about perfect, but once you dive in a little bit further you realize its the newbies pulling down the W/L ratio and if you remove the bottom 5 players, 3 of which won 1 game and 1 lost all 5, the W/L ratio for Marines is 67.5%
I haven't analyzed any other events like this yet but I wouldn't be surprised if that is the norm or close to it rather than the exception but i'll happily admit I haven't done the analytical leg work yet.
40k Lore is dumb, whattttt? You mean when Lorgar fought Ghaz, literally gets decapitated, and survives? Or that time The Emperor smacked Mortarion so hard he sent him back into Nurgle's garden, thru Bobby G's body? Yeah, GW lore is summed up in one saying.
vict0988 wrote: Is 25% top 4s and 25% top 1s statistically significant for a 20% play rate faction across 8 events? I'm doing a course on this and if people are interested in statistical significances I can try and figure it out, but it seems to me that it isn't worth mentioning.
Spoiler:
Yes, it is in fact statistically significant because again you tend to have newer (Crappier) players showing up to these events running Marine factions and even then you still have them with a very good win rate regardless of the newer players pulling them down, as well as making a rather large appearance in the top half of the event. I grabbed some stats on the Dicehammer Open, 75 players, I believe 17 were Marines (Including Grey Knights). Marines finished 1st, 3rd, 5th, 6th, 12th, 13th, 17th, 20th, 29th, 33rd, 37th, 40th, 43rd, 57th, 61st, 71st and 73rd.
On one end of the spectrum you had the first place Marine player go undefeated and 4 others only have 1 loss , on the other end of the spectrum you had the bottom 5 players pulling in a grand total of 5 wins Combine the two and you have a W/L Ratio of 54.16% (One Marine player dropped after day 1). So on paper it looks good, 54% ratio is just about perfect, but once you dive in a little bit further you realize its the newbies pulling down the W/L ratio and if you remove the bottom 5 players, 3 of which won 1 game and 1 lost all 5, the W/L ratio for Marines is 67.5%
I haven't analyzed any other events like this yet but I wouldn't be surprised if that is the norm or close to it rather than the exception but i'll happily admit I haven't done the analytical leg work yet.
"If I remove the data that doesn't agree with my position, the data that's left agrees with my position" is not the good take you seem to think it is, Semper - at best it might indicate you should be in politics.
+ + +
I count 8 new events on the Goonhammer top 4 page - I'll start taking a look at them this evening. Will see if I can get through the smaller events before I start work tomorrow, then the larger two (Southampton GT & FLG Rocky Mountain Open) after that.
Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.
Kanluwen wrote: This is, emphatically, why I will continue suggesting nuking Guard and starting over again. It's a legacy army that needs to be rebooted with a new focal point.
Confirmation of why no-one should listen to Kanluwen when it comes to the IG - he doesn't want the IG, he want's Kan's New Model Army...
tneva82 wrote: You aren't even trying ty pretend for honest arqument. Open bad faith trolling.
- No reason to keep this here, unless people want to use it for something...
"If I remove the data that doesn't agree with my position, the data that's left agrees with my position" is not the good take you seem to think it is, Semper - at best it might indicate you should be in politics.
In the case of Marines in particular it's not necessarily an unviable take. Anecdotally speaking I've seen a lot of s*** Marine players.
"If I remove the data that doesn't agree with my position, the data that's left agrees with my position" is not the good take you seem to think it is, Semper - at best it might indicate you should be in politics.
In the case of Marines in particular it's not necessarily an unviable take. Anecdotally speaking I've seen a lot of s*** Marine players.
But it was proven that GW didn't interpret their own data correctly. Newer Marine players didn't show up enough compared to repeat Marine players to really affect the results.
"If I remove the data that doesn't agree with my position, the data that's left agrees with my position" is not the good take you seem to think it is, Semper - at best it might indicate you should be in politics.
In the case of Marines in particular it's not necessarily an unviable take. Anecdotally speaking I've seen a lot of s*** Marine players.
Nope. Selectively dropping data that doesn't agree with your analysis makes the resulting analysis worthless. Not unless you do the same for all armies.
So a Top Half Win Rate for Marines (including the irrelevant Grey Knight data) is 67.5% versus overall 54.16%. Now run the same numbers, Top Half placing vs All Participating win rates, for the rest of the codexes and we will have something interesting to look at. Until then, we have a garbage statistic.
Plus the game of wins and loses among fist time GT marine players and people who played in multiple was one of the 3 smallest among all armies played. The other two being eldar and GK. So either all marines are bad, but then it doesn't explain how noob BA could get good results and noob IF got bad results. Or just by picking eldar, you become a god of table top.
Or the third option, the impact of skill on playing marine armies is a lot smaller, then rules the armies have. Give marines uninteractive secondaries the way SoB/necron had or ones that GSC have and they will be kings. Or wait DA are actualy doing that right now, and the supposed IH boogy man, who was suppose to blow everyone off the table with their win rates aren't even in top3 armies win rate wise.
Tyran wrote: 40k has never been particularly good at simulating real warfare. Weapon ranges are too short and the interactions between melee and ranged warfare always have been very gamey.
I would rather say that 40k used to try to mislead the player into making them think that it was simulating a battle, but in truth it was always above all else a game.
It isn't particularly different from say videogames. Do you believe that FPS like CoD of Halo or RTS like AoE or StarCraft are actually simulations of warfare? They aren't, they are games above all else. But they tricked the player into making them believe they were simulations.
The difference with 9th Ed is that it doesn't even try to trick the player about it, it is very blatantly gamey.
All games have abstraction and compromise. Saying "abstractions exist, therefore it's not even worth trying" is a bit silly (and insults the actual professional wargamers that use wargames as genuine military analysis).
A company of space marines can subjegate a planet. Most games right now see some marine player field a demi company of models in 2000pts game. If we were to simulate any type of games under the rules and points we have right now, they would be really unfun for non marine players. And something like marine+ armies would be even worse. A group of them should be cleansing marine armies. No idea what they would do to anything lesser.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/03/13 19:28:28
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
