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.

Dudeface wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:

If GW were to take another stab at this rule change, I could see them changing it to not work against monsters and vehicles. Get rid of some of the weirdness while still helping against other targets. Not that I love the auto-wound rule in general. Seems like an attempt to reduce dice rolling that mostly just shrinks your to-wound pool.

LOL, this literally is what some of the scrubs in this very thread have been saying FRFSRF should be for lasguns.

No. It should stay exactly as it is.

You probably shouldn't be calling other people in this thread "scrubs" considering you're an avowed PL player.

I'm not sure that using a different army building method determines if someone is a scrub or not. If the art of war guys started playing with PL sometimes would they become scrubs?

Utterly irrelevant to my point about Kan's rank hypocrisy.

Hecaton wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:

If GW were to take another stab at this rule change, I could see them changing it to not work against monsters and vehicles. Get rid of some of the weirdness while still helping against other targets. Not that I love the auto-wound rule in general. Seems like an attempt to reduce dice rolling that mostly just shrinks your to-wound pool.

LOL, this literally is what some of the scrubs in this very thread have been saying FRFSRF should be for lasguns.

No. It should stay exactly as it is.

You probably shouldn't be calling other people in this thread "scrubs" considering you're an avowed PL player.

I'm not sure that using a different army building method determines if someone is a scrub or not. If the art of war guys started playing with PL sometimes would they become scrubs?

Utterly irrelevant to my point about Kan's rank hypocrisy.

Given you chose to attack him for using PL of all things.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
... though I think we're starting to see all the "no, GW's turned over a new leaf!" people starting to realize that they really never did after two editions of the same old crap.

Sadly they've been replaced by the "Wait and see!" crowd.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
... though I think we're starting to see all the "no, GW's turned over a new leaf!" people starting to realize that they really never did after two editions of the same old crap.

Sadly they've been replaced by the "Wait and see!" crowd.

Its a perpetual cycle of these "this codex is OBVIOUSLY balanced against newer codexes so OF COURSE older codexes are weaker".

 Sim-Life wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
... though I think we're starting to see all the "no, GW's turned over a new leaf!" people starting to realize that they really never did after two editions of the same old crap.

Sadly they've been replaced by the "Wait and see!" crowd.

Its a perpetual cycle of these "this codex is OBVIOUSLY balanced against newer codexes so OF COURSE older codexes are weaker".

And the perpetual cycle of people playing 40k for an edition or two and quitting because they realize that GW's whole approach to game design is completely screwed, only to be replaced by a new crop of people insisting that "no, no, we must play 40k for all its flaws because nobody plays anything else!"

Dudeface wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:

If GW were to take another stab at this rule change, I could see them changing it to not work against monsters and vehicles. Get rid of some of the weirdness while still helping against other targets. Not that I love the auto-wound rule in general. Seems like an attempt to reduce dice rolling that mostly just shrinks your to-wound pool.

LOL, this literally is what some of the scrubs in this very thread have been saying FRFSRF should be for lasguns.

No. It should stay exactly as it is.

You probably shouldn't be calling other people in this thread "scrubs" considering you're an avowed PL player.

I'm not sure that using a different army building method determines if someone is a scrub or not. If the art of war guys started playing with PL sometimes would they become scrubs?

Absolutely

Dudeface wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:

If GW were to take another stab at this rule change, I could see them changing it to not work against monsters and vehicles. Get rid of some of the weirdness while still helping against other targets. Not that I love the auto-wound rule in general. Seems like an attempt to reduce dice rolling that mostly just shrinks your to-wound pool.

LOL, this literally is what some of the scrubs in this very thread have been saying FRFSRF should be for lasguns.

No. It should stay exactly as it is.

You probably shouldn't be calling other people in this thread "scrubs" considering you're an avowed PL player.

I'm not sure that using a different army building method determines if someone is a scrub or not. If the art of war guys started playing with PL sometimes would they become scrubs?

Utterly irrelevant to my point about Kan's rank hypocrisy.

Given you chose to attack him for using PL of all things.

Nah see, if someone uses PL? To Hecaton(someone from the official Infinity forums who just so happened to start posting here after I stopped posting there), apparently it means they don't understand how the game works. It totally means that! And I guess I should feel bad for enjoying my time playing games these days rather than worrying about what's "optimal".


It doesn't take number-crunching to make "OMG awesome" lists to know what is good or what is not good in an army. Mathhammer isn't the whole game, list-building isn't a skill, and actually ensuring your opponent has as much fun as you do is more important than a win.

Removed - rule #1 please

EviscerationPlague wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
It 100% works if the Scions are the only <regiment> units in your army.

Does it have to be a PURE Refiment though? I had a force of half Dragons and half Jackals. I'd hate to pick just ONE.

For that particular rule? No, because they're still all from the same <regiment>, which is MILITARUM TEMPESTUS. Since the Dragons and Jackals aren't <Regiment> keywords, you're ok.

But the new Chapter Approved has a thing in the FAQ saying you can't mix different Scion flavors period if you're using the Grand Tournament battlepack:

Note though that if the Militarum Tempestus
units are using the Ordo Tempestus rules from Psychic Awakening:
The Greater Good (which gives them the <Tempestus Regiment>
keyword), then all Militarum Tempestus units from your army
must be from the same Tempestus Regiment.
WAR ZONE NACHMUND

The real hobby can't die.

Is the real Hobby painting? Or making youtube Battle reports? Because that is most assuredly not DEAD. But neither is it the real Hobby.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Is the real Hobby painting? Or making youtube Battle reports? Because that is most assuredly not DEAD. But neither is it the real Hobby.

It's complaining about the GW an the most recent broken/underpeforming thing in multiple forum topics.

Some have said the recent codeces (incl. Nids) make sense in a pre DE/Admech fix test world, and I'm inclined to give that some merit. They need to be fixed and have been to a number of degrees. It's far from ideal, but not all doom and gloom.

Lammia wrote:
The real hobby can't die.

Especially if it's from Scotland.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Lammia wrote:
The real hobby can't die.

Especially if it's from Scotland.

Leave James McWorkshop to me...

Lammia wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Is the real Hobby painting? Or making youtube Battle reports? Because that is most assuredly not DEAD. But neither is it the real Hobby.

It's complaining about the GW an the most recent broken/underpeforming thing in multiple forum topics.

Some have said the recent codeces (incl. Nids) make sense in a pre DE/Admech fix test world, and I'm inclined to give that some merit. They need to be fixed and have been to a number of degrees. It's far from ideal, but not all doom and gloom.

Constantly balancing things against whatever is currently most powerful is how power creep happens and why armies who came earlier like Necrons and SM get left behind. Then when Necrons are balanced to the new power level and start decimating DE and AdMech its the whole same set of problems. Now Necrons are the problem and older codexes in the power creep cycle now need to be stronger and the cycle continues. Drip feeding rules written at different stages of a games lifecycle is not a good design philosophy and there is no reason to ever do it other than financial gain (which is all GW is interested in). GW just cannot understand basic game design and has no interest in doing so as long as people keep buying the minis,

At this point I'm fully expecting Chaos and Imperial Guard to be the next big leaps in power creep, akin to DE and AdMech, so all codexes from that point will be from that level, and everything will just keep escalating (except for Orks) until GW need to reboot the game again, but people will keep making the same excuses like "discuss it with your opponent" or "well it works for MY group" or "at least they're TRYING to fix the game, remember when we'd go years without an FAQ or errata?".

Honestly I think 50% of people on this forum just need to bugger off and leave 40k for people that enjoy the game, wah wah that bad man has nerfed my tournament army, now I can't be a dick to all those casual players.

 Sim-Life wrote:

Lammia wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Is the real Hobby painting? Or making youtube Battle reports? Because that is most assuredly not DEAD. But neither is it the real Hobby.

It's complaining about the GW an the most recent broken/underpeforming thing in multiple forum topics.

Some have said the recent codeces (incl. Nids) make sense in a pre DE/Admech fix test world, and I'm inclined to give that some merit. They need to be fixed and have been to a number of degrees. It's far from ideal, but not all doom and gloom.

Constantly balancing things against whatever is currently most powerful is how power creep happens and why armies who came earlier like Necrons and SM get left behind. Then when Necrons are balanced to the new power level and start decimating DE and AdMech its the whole same set of problems. Now Necrons are the problem and older codexes in the power creep cycle now need to be stronger and the cycle continues. Drip feeding rules written at different stages of a games lifecycle is not a good design philosophy and there is no reason to ever do it other than financial gain (which is all GW is interested in). GW just cannot understand basic game design and has no interest in doing so as long as people keep buying the minis,

Given that they seem to make efforts to avoid it I'd say that they understand it. They also understand that the way they're doing things makes them more $ than if they practiced good game design.

 Rolsheen wrote:
Honestly I think 50% of people on this forum just need to bugger off and leave 40k for people that enjoy the game, wah wah that bad man has nerfed my tournament army, now I can't be a dick to all those casual players.

Imagine people wanting to discuss things they're unhappy with in their hobby. Absolutely disgusting. It's like the 40k community isn't some monolithic hugbox or something.

 Sim-Life wrote:


Constantly balancing things against whatever is currently most powerful is how power creep happens and why armies who came earlier like Necrons and SM get left behind. Then when Necrons are balanced to the new power level and start decimating DE and AdMech its the whole same set of problems. Now Necrons are the problem and older codexes in the power creep cycle now need to be stronger and the cycle continues. Drip feeding rules written at different stages of a games lifecycle is not a good design philosophy and there is no reason to ever do it other than financial gain (which is all GW is interested in). GW just cannot understand basic game design and has no interest in doing so as long as people keep buying the minis,

But SM and necrons were never left behind, they have been and still are solid mid tiers in casual gaming, maybe even strong ones. They just couldn't keep up with the most powerful and spammy builds, those who are constantly corrected and that represent a tiny fraction of the games.

Frequent changes help preventing those kind of oppressive lists to show up outside tournaments. They are actually the reason why armies like SM and Necrons AREN'T left behind.

Consider orks, they did get several nerfs at this point. But how did those nerfs actually affect the vast majority of the ork players? The only unit that really changed significantly was the squigbuggy, now utterly useless. And that's not even a significant problem when the codex has 4 alternative buggies and a very large roster. But not many were playing tons of buggies and/or tons of planes before. For the vast majority of ork players what did work on the codex's launch still works.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ccs wrote:


Given that they seem to make efforts to avoid it I'd say that they understand it. They also understand that the way they're doing things makes them more $ than if they practiced good game design.

Exactly my thoughs. I've accepted that.

 Rolsheen wrote:
Honestly I think 50% of people on this forum just need to bugger off and leave 40k for people that enjoy the game, wah wah that bad man has nerfed my tournament army, now I can't be a dick to all those casual players.

You think the people who don't like this update are just tournament players?

I have seen the opposite, the casual players hate it while the tournament crowed praise it

But I understand that 40k is for everyone but those who don't like how GW tries to fix it
So either you like what GW is doing or leave and play something else....

 kodos wrote:
I have seen the opposite, the casual players hate it while the tournament crowed praise it

But I understand that 40k is for everyone but those who don't like how GW tries to fix it
So either you like what GW is doing or leave and play something else....

I did leave. Doesn't mean I can't have a bitch about it while I'm trapped under a sleeping puppy.

Of course you cannot, because you make those that are still happy about the direction GW is taking sad (as they might realise that it all happened before and we should know what happens next)

 Sim-Life wrote:

Lammia wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Is the real Hobby painting? Or making youtube Battle reports? Because that is most assuredly not DEAD. But neither is it the real Hobby.

It's complaining about the GW an the most recent broken/underpeforming thing in multiple forum topics.

Some have said the recent codeces (incl. Nids) make sense in a pre DE/Admech fix test world, and I'm inclined to give that some merit. They need to be fixed and have been to a number of degrees. It's far from ideal, but not all doom and gloom.

Constantly balancing things against whatever is currently most powerful is how power creep happens and why armies who came earlier like Necrons and SM get left behind. Then when Necrons are balanced to the new power level and start decimating DE and AdMech its the whole same set of problems. Now Necrons are the problem and older codexes in the power creep cycle now need to be stronger and the cycle continues. Drip feeding rules written at different stages of a games lifecycle is not a good design philosophy and there is no reason to ever do it other than financial gain (which is all GW is interested in). GW just cannot understand basic game design and has no interest in doing so as long as people keep buying the minis,

At this point I'm fully expecting Chaos and Imperial Guard to be the next big leaps in power creep, akin to DE and AdMech, so all codexes from that point will be from that level, and everything will just keep escalating (except for Orks) until GW need to reboot the game again, but people will keep making the same excuses like "discuss it with your opponent" or "well it works for MY group" or "at least they're TRYING to fix the game, remember when we'd go years without an FAQ or errata?".

Invest in a chess set then.

Modern game rules a constantly evolving; Stagnation is death. This creates a number of problems with rule balances and production timetables, so we have these patches when things go wrong.

I have to wonder how you'd react to successful modern day war games, or tabletop games in general, having very little power creep, and remaining fairly balanced. Because they exist. 40k doesn't have to have constantly powercrept rules to evolve. More rules for making your army your own would be enough to make people want to get more.

Lammia wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

Lammia wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Is the real Hobby painting? Or making youtube Battle reports? Because that is most assuredly not DEAD. But neither is it the real Hobby.

It's complaining about the GW an the most recent broken/underpeforming thing in multiple forum topics.

Some have said the recent codeces (incl. Nids) make sense in a pre DE/Admech fix test world, and I'm inclined to give that some merit. They need to be fixed and have been to a number of degrees. It's far from ideal, but not all doom and gloom.

Constantly balancing things against whatever is currently most powerful is how power creep happens and why armies who came earlier like Necrons and SM get left behind. Then when Necrons are balanced to the new power level and start decimating DE and AdMech its the whole same set of problems. Now Necrons are the problem and older codexes in the power creep cycle now need to be stronger and the cycle continues. Drip feeding rules written at different stages of a games lifecycle is not a good design philosophy and there is no reason to ever do it other than financial gain (which is all GW is interested in). GW just cannot understand basic game design and has no interest in doing so as long as people keep buying the minis,

At this point I'm fully expecting Chaos and Imperial Guard to be the next big leaps in power creep, akin to DE and AdMech, so all codexes from that point will be from that level, and everything will just keep escalating (except for Orks) until GW need to reboot the game again, but people will keep making the same excuses like "discuss it with your opponent" or "well it works for MY group" or "at least they're TRYING to fix the game, remember when we'd go years without an FAQ or errata?".

Invest in a chess set then.

Modern game rules a constantly evolving; Stagnation is death. This creates a number of problems with rule balances and production timetables, so we have these patches when things go wrong.

This is one of those posts that I try to respond to, but can't because there's too much wrong with it and I don't know where to start.

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
I have to wonder how you'd react to successful modern day war games, or tabletop games in general, having very little power creep, and remaining fairly balanced. Because they exist. 40k doesn't have to have constantly powercrept rules to evolve. More rules for making your army your own would be enough to make people want to get more.

Everytime this comes up I always remember how when Dreadball died the creators said the problem was that it was too balanced which meant that the longer you played the better you'd get and there was no balancing factor to offset that experience difference between players.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
I have to wonder how you'd react to successful modern day war games, or tabletop games in general, having very little power creep, and remaining fairly balanced. Because they exist. 40k doesn't have to have constantly powercrept rules to evolve. More rules for making your army your own would be enough to make people want to get more.

Everytime this comes up I always remember how when Dreadball died the creators said the problem was that it was too balanced which meant that the longer you played the better you'd get and there was no balancing factor to offset that experience difference between players.

Do you mean Guildball? Because I remember the creators blaming the death of that on the community as well, though not in the way you put it. It was much as how people view Warmachine, they claimed the community was too competitively minded, so it was difficult to start because you'd spend your first few years losing every game. Nothing at all to do with "our game is just too well balanced".

That said SFG just aren't that good at writing rules.

 Sim-Life wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
I have to wonder how you'd react to successful modern day war games, or tabletop games in general, having very little power creep, and remaining fairly balanced. Because they exist. 40k doesn't have to have constantly powercrept rules to evolve. More rules for making your army your own would be enough to make people want to get more.

Everytime this comes up I always remember how when Dreadball died the creators said the problem was that it was too balanced which meant that the longer you played the better you'd get and there was no balancing factor to offset that experience difference between players.

Do you mean Guildball? Because I remember the creators blaming the death of that on the community as well, though not in the way you put it. It was much as how people view Warmachine, they claimed the community was too competitively minded, so it was difficult to start because you'd spend your first few years losing every game. Nothing at all to do with "our game is just too well balanced".

That said SFG just aren't that good at writing rules.

Ah, that's the game. It was a few years ago so I got the Blood Bowl clones mixed up.

Found the quote:

Be careful what you wish for. We set out to make the cleanest, most balanced miniatures game you could play at that time. And we achieved this hands down, flat out, nailed it!

Guild Ball truly was a competitive player’s dream. It rewarded player skill and experience, with a very flat probability curve to minimize variance. The competitive scene grew and grew.

But this ended up hurting the lifespan of the game.

Guild Ball became the type of game where you win your first game (demo) and then lose the next 100 games. When matched against a lesser skilled or inexperienced opponent, a better player would simply win the vast majority of games.

As the competitive scene began to dominate, the design space for wilder, more ‘fun’ elements began to shrink. New minis were either ‘OP’ or ‘trash-tier’ the second they were announced. Why take a new model when model XYZ already filled the role?

The style of gameplay changed to low-risk, ultra-conservative play where the ball was often deliberately side-lined.

And I can see that GW has tried to avoid falling into the same trap, but obviously the fact they don't perfectly smooth out their rules has caused some people to chaffe. Other people enjoy that sort of grit because it makes them feel clever when they find ways to mash rules together in ways the devs didn't intend.

So, it was both perfectly balanced, to the point that the better player won the vast majority of the time, but new models were trash or OP? Not only was it so perfectly balanced that it was the competitive player's dream, where the competitive scene just grey and grew, there ended up only really being one way of playing? I need to know more about the game besides the fact that the devs think it was perfect.

Edit: Oh gosh, I used their instead of there. I'm sorry.