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.

As Ailaros stated "Yeah, I think this would be my real gripe here. It's not the imbalance that bothers me per se, so much as the incongruity. I don't hate playing against BA because they're overpowered, I hate playing against them because I feel like I'm playing against someone who is playing a different game than I'm playing. The first time I played against our current BA rules, I really thought the other person was lying to me the entire game every time he said "yes, but blood angels can do that". Turned out he was right..."

I had the same feeling when I played my nids against GK the first few times last edition. Some things just seemed absurd. It felt exactly like we were playing different games. It does have something to do with different author's design philosophy when writing dexes but imbalance is still a part of that. I don't expect the game to be perfectly balanced. With a continuously evolving game like 40k with a few new dexes coming out each year I think it is difficult to balance everything even close to perfect. However, it is not hard to somewhat balance a dex internally and externally, and a company that cares about its product would use the errata/FAQ updates to correct poorly worded/bad rules, bad stat lines, bad weapon stats and adjust point costs if necessary. Certainly after 3-6 months it is pretty clear (if not sooner) what just doesn't work or was screwed up. GW has corrected the odd thing in the past through errata. They are just not consistent across the board. It is just a minimal effort to balance the game and saying it is a 'narrative' game and not meant for 'competitive play' so it doesn't matter is a cop out.

That's always part of the confusion around this issue as well. "Fixing errors" implies that everybody agrees on what is an error. If you think that something is designed wrong, and GW isn't changing things to be what you want them to be, that doesn't mean that GW is being careless or lazy. Your vision of game design probably doesn't match GW's, but it's GW's game, so they don't have to make it in your image. Them deciding to ignore you on principle isn't the same thing as being unable or unwilling to change their rules.

Certainly there are some real errors and questions that pop up (for example, a basilisk has a 36" minimum range when firing barrage, except barrage weapons no longer care about minimum range? That should have at least been FAQed), and it would be nice if things were a little more fluid than a bi-yearly FAQ (although I don't know if I'd want it to be that much more fluid). To say that GW is horribly unbalanced and that they need to redesign things exactly the way you want them to be designed right now and they're terrible people if they don't what's wrong with them...

.. well, nobody is obliged to act on people throwing a tantrum.

Ailaros - nobody is throwing a tantrum (except maybe you). It is called a discussion. And though I agree that we will all not agree on everything we may think needs adjustment (or not) there is a big difference with design philosophy issues and rules that don't work properly or units that are poorly designed resulting in little of them seen in games. The day the nid dex came out the trygon tunnel and pheromone trail were clearly not going to be useful (although it is something you pay for in the point cost), and I doubt GW sold a lot of pyrovores because of its rules and FOC location.

I never said GW had to accept my opinion or that only I had the right idea of how nids or 40K rules should be written. I was giving my opinion of how I viewed issues. You complain that you don't like the fact that the dexes are written by different people so that they do not always mesh well. I could say the same thing about your comments - why should GW care whether you feel like you and your opponent are playing different games? Its their game and they can design it any way they want. The same person could write all the dexes and you still might feel that your playing a different game than your opponent.

The point is that as customers of their product we can discuss what we like and dislike about it and why, as well as comment on what we think might improve it. We are not shills for the company and don't have to salivate over everything GW does.

Such as game mechanics that either don't make sense or are flawed.

Horribly balanced, both between and within codecies? "but it's more cinematic that way"
Poorly thought out random elements that take control away from the player? "but it's more cinematic that way"

adamsouza wrote:When I hear people complaining over 6th edition in tournament setting it mostly boils down to not being able to use the same combinations they were used to.

In CCG's the meta shifts every 6 months, when a new set is released In 40K the meta shifts every Edition, and to a lesser extent whenever a new ocdex is released.

I think the complaining is just a Knee Jerk reaction to "change".

Whatever strategy is dominant is usually blunted in the next edition. When I played the RAW DEAL CCG the best new strategy in each expansion had cards that would deliberately foil it in the next expansion.

When the Meta changes players are forced to come up with new strategies. Players learn to adapt and not just play the same ube combination over and over.

Truthssss

Lets not forget that 40k requires a far large time and effort investment than a CCG (though not necessarily money over the long run...), and you aren't able to play as many games (play a magic game in 10-30 minutes, or play a 40k game in 90-180 minutes).


Sure there's knee-jerk reaction to change, then there are legitimate issues and much of what was broken in 5th remains so in 6th.

Chalking it all up to butthurt tournament players is ridiculous and just betrays angsty "that'll show you!" attitudes, and many of the biggest tournament players couldn't care less, as 6th creates all sorts of new and wondrous ways to break the game.

Vaktathi wrote:
Chalking it all up to butthurt tournament players is ridiculous and just betrays angsty "that'll show you!" attitudes, and many of the biggest tournament players couldn't care less, as 6th creates all sorts of new and wondrous ways to break the game.

All things considered, there's even more potential to break the game.

I was carfeful to use "I" and "mostly" and didn't chalk it all up to anyone.

My personal observation, from what I've read and heard, was that most of the 6E complaints, that observed, boiled down to that players could no longer use their favorite power combination/strategy from 5E.

Short of Snikrot (FOR SHAME!), my favourite units look to only have become more viable, or have retained their level of usefulness. Doesn't change the fact that 6th edition has a lot of problems, is not necessarily an improvement over 5th edition, and is not a direction I would like to see the game move in.

Ventus wrote:Ailaros - nobody is throwing a tantrum (except maybe you). It is called a discussion. And though I agree that we will all not agree on everything we may think needs adjustment (or not) there is a big difference with design philosophy issues and rules that don't work properly or units that are poorly designed resulting in little of them seen in games. The day the nid dex came out the trygon tunnel and pheromone trail were clearly not going to be useful (although it is something you pay for in the point cost), and I doubt GW sold a lot of pyrovores because of its rules and FOC location.

I never said GW had to accept my opinion or that only I had the right idea of how nids or 40K rules should be written. I was giving my opinion of how I viewed issues. You complain that you don't like the fact that the dexes are written by different people so that they do not always mesh well. I could say the same thing about your comments - why should GW care whether you feel like you and your opponent are playing different games? Its their game and they can design it any way they want. The same person could write all the dexes and you still might feel that your playing a different game than your opponent.

The point is that as customers of their product we can discuss what we like and dislike about it and why, as well as comment on what we think might improve it. We are not shills for the company and don't have to salivate over everything GW does.

Spot on.

The smug, superior attitude of certain GW devotees really gets tiresome. Fortunately, those who don't ask "How high?" when GW says "Jump!" can express our opinions regardless of whether or not said GW devotees approve of what we say. As for those who genuinely agree with or like new games every four years, good on you. Just don't expect that view to be universal. And don't think you're somehow superior to those who don't agree.

Fafnir wrote:Such as game mechanics that either don't make sense or are flawed.

Horribly balanced, both between and within codecies? "but it's more cinematic that way"
Poorly thought out random elements that take control away from the player? "but it's more cinematic that way"

Examples please?

Kaldor wrote:

Fafnir wrote:Such as game mechanics that either don't make sense or are flawed.

Horribly balanced, both between and within codecies? "but it's more cinematic that way"
Poorly thought out random elements that take control away from the player? "but it's more cinematic that way"

Examples please?

Terribly random Vehicle damage, your tank can either blow up from the first shot or stay alive indefinitely. Deep strike mishap table where 1/3 chance that your unit dies, just like that. Reserve table where it is pretty likely that your reserve unit never arrives when you need it.

No, wait...sorry...those were 5th edition random stuff.

Never mind!

Ailaros wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:How many games are deicided by unlucky roll? 1 of 100? 1 of 1000?

All of them.

??? Even the article states that it's only decided by luck if the players are closely skilled. I would say that's also not true, even in flawed 40K. You're dismissing the fact that mostly the actions will have predictable outcome so you can plan, move and react to the actions on the board accordingly. That's controlable actions that are most important not dice throws and between closely skilled players no game is identical, there are tons of possible errors, worse and better plans etc. There might be a rare game so close that it is dice that decides it but most of the time it's how you play not how you throw. New random tables and more random moves might at some point break it ofc and make it a total luckfest indeed, that's why 6th takes imo a wrong direction.

Ailaros wrote:

Vaktathi wrote:It's not really putting fluff/lore over competition, it's emphasizing randomness and Michael-Bay-esque "kirpow-fwoosh-BOOM!" moments, "epic" moments if you will

lol. This is really the core of it. GW has made the statement that it wants the rules to be written by micael bay, and for players to play as such.

You have not dissmissed the notion that there is a move to cheap cinematics in 6th with your answer.

Kaldor wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:it has no reason to get sucked into duel and loose time, no circle fight of any kind should happen. Hive Tyrant should be able to ignore chalenges, the rule doesn't fit the fluff.

No.

The Hive Tyrant attempts to ignore the squad leader but every step he takes, the squad leader leaps in front of him, blasting him with his lasgun or bolter. The Tyrant attempts to engage the rest of the sqaud, but they are falling back and adding their covering fire to the combat. Eventually the Tyrant realises that he will have to devote some time and effort to destroying the squad leader.

You might say that the Tyrant is capable of destroying the squad leader, and also engaging the rest of the squad.

But this is not fact, it is your own projection of how you want the combat to go. If the squad in question is not attempting to engage the Tyrant as a cohesive whole, the tyrant will have a problem.

The former is your projection, the latter is mine. Your is against the rules though as the squad that contains a challenger has to be locked in combat to issue a challenge, they can't be failing back and adding covering fire to the combat. Sitting ducks could be acceptable but this interpretation is taken too far, they made the move into cc (charge) but are failing back the same time? Also the squad leader can't leap in front of the Tyrant after recievieng enough wounds to be killed. So either he dies or leaps around while the rest of the squad locked in cc is dying. Keep in mind I'm open to ideas of how the squad leader sucks Hive Tyrant into a duel it does not want to attend, just don't see a valid one.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

adamsouza wrote:I was carfeful to use "I" and "mostly" and didn't chalk it all up to anyone.

My personal observation, from what I've read and heard, was that most of the 6E complaints, that observed, boiled down to that players could no longer use their favorite power combination/strategy from 5E.

My ouflanking genestealers heavy list got nerfed as hell and I don't mind, I like that particular change. I want my enemy to have more possibilities than turtling in the middle and with more terrain on the board that particular change might benefit tactical play. I'm still going to complain on 6th because it's almost clear to me it's flawed, not by much improved and not good enough. It's like finecast vs metal, better here, much worse there, flawed a lot.

Backfire wrote:

Kaldor wrote:

Fafnir wrote:Such as game mechanics that either don't make sense or are flawed.

Horribly balanced, both between and within codecies? "but it's more cinematic that way"
Poorly thought out random elements that take control away from the player? "but it's more cinematic that way"

Examples please?

Terribly random Vehicle damage, your tank can either blow up from the first shot or stay alive indefinitely. Deep strike mishap table where 1/3 chance that your unit dies, just like that. Reserve table where it is pretty likely that your reserve unit never arrives when you need it.

No, wait...sorry...those were 5th edition random stuff.

Never mind!

5th was not much better, if so and 6th has elements you mentioned improved, I don't see anyone denying that. 6th with all the codieces out might even end up better, more tactical, funnier and even by some miracle or accident more balanced with all the craziness counted properly into the system. Hope is the fool's mother they say though and count me the odds of that.

Plumbumbarum wrote: The former is your projection, the latter is main.

No, both scenarios are a projection. An imagination of how the models on the tabletop would be acting in a video recreation of the events created by the game.

Your is against the rules though as the squad that contains a challenger has to be locked in combat to issue a challenge, they can't be failing back and adding covering fire to the combat, sitting ducks could be acceptable but this interpretation is taken too far, they made the move into cc (charge) but are failing back the same time?

They aren't falling back as per the rules, but stepping back. Close Combat in 40K is anything from a hands-around-your neck affair with combatants rolling in the mud, to a short ranged fire-fight where no one actually lays hands on the enemy. It is often described as a moving, sprawling melee, and allows plenty of room for a squad of men to scramble away from a Hive Tyrant while their squad leader stands in front of them.

Also the squad leader can't leap in front of the Tyrant after recievieng enough wounds to be killed. So either he dies or leaps around while the rest of the squad locked in cc is dying.

Bear in mind that the round of combat is quite quick. By the time the Tyrant has finished off the squad leader and closed in on the rest of the squad, we're into the second round already.

Ailaros wrote:.. well, nobody is obliged to act on people throwing a tantrum.

Nobody's throwing a tantrum, so why don't you try addressing the points made, rather than smugly taking refuge behind the mantra of 'cinematic', 'beer and pretzels' and 'hurr durr there's a random element so player skill is entirely irrelevant' (an argument I've already demolished in another thread). Comparisons with Chess, Go, etc. are irrelevant and misleading; they are abstract strategy games, not tactical simulation games, which is how Warhammer 40,000 has always (at least to this point) defined itself (see below). Oh, and you could refrain from patronisingly dismissing any and all discussion of the game that isn't unfettered praise as 'whining', and anybody who wants a tactical challenge (which requires the game to be as fairly balanced as is reasonable possible) as a WAAC jerk too.

"When arranging a battle, players agree on a particular points limit for each side... within this total, the battle will be a fair match, decided by good tactics and a little bit of luck." Warhammer 40,000 5th edition, page ix.

...and indeed...

"...battles are entertaining challenges in which you try to out-think and out-play your opponent, taking advantage of what good luck comes your way, but ultimately relying upon sound tactics to win the day." Warhammer 40,000 2nd edition, page 4.

To reiterate: GW have indeed said they want a more cinematic game, they seem to have decided to realise this by inserting more elements of randomness (single random card draws for psychic powers and single die rolls for warlord traits, charging and exploding terrain) the odds of which can't be managed or predicted, only reacted to, unlike, say those of hitting and wounding a given target with a given (and large) number of attacks and known statistics. You should be unsurprised that those of us who appreciated the element of tactical decision-making in the game are disappointed, and that we're going to point out what we see as flaws (on which, it bears pointing out, there seems to be quite a consensus).

Oh, and we're not asking for 'perfect' game balance, just for designers capable of realising that if a tactical marine costs 16 points, a storm trooper with poorer stats and equipments should not cost the same number, or that when a devastator marine with a lascannon costs 51 points, a long fang with the same weapon and a nifty special rule should not cost 40 (which, by the way, rather gives the lie to your insistence that empirical judgements about balance are impossible to make). Do you really think that fixing errors like those would have taken an unfeasible quantity of the studio's time? Do you really think it would have been impossible for the game's writers to come up with a less time-consuming and dice-heavy mechanic than 'Look out Sir!' or a less-abusable but still-cinematic mechanic for challenges?

Backfire wrote:Terribly random Vehicle damage, your tank can either blow up from the first shot or stay alive indefinitely.

We've now reached the eighth different iteration of 40k's vehicle rules; it seems GW just have a bit of a blind spot when it comes to writing them.

Kaldor wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote: The former is your projection, the latter is main.

No, both scenarios are a projection. An imagination of how the models on the tabletop would be acting in a video recreation of the events created by the game.

That's what I said "Main" should have been "mine", see it now. I have to type fast I'm at work, sorry for bad grammar.

Kaldor wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:Your is against the rules though as the squad that contains a challenger has to be locked in combat to issue a challenge, they can't be failing back and adding covering fire to the combat, sitting ducks could be acceptable but this interpretation is taken too far, they made the move into cc (charge) but are failing back the same time?

They aren't falling back as per the rules, but stepping back. Close Combat in 40K is anything from a hands-around-your neck affair with combatants rolling in the mud, to a short ranged fire-fight where no one actually lays hands on the enemy. It is often described as a moving, sprawling melee, and allows plenty of room for a squad of men to scramble away from a Hive Tyrant while their squad leader stands in front of them.

Normal close combat does not alow scrambling away from attacks, the challenge rule does somehow but assuming the challenge is accepted. I see it that if Hive Tyrant gave enough wounds and is ignoring the challenge, it kills in a standard manner. The image you portray is more of an easily distracted raged bull than a swift intelligent killing machine. Anyway let's agrre to disagree, you can interpret it like you do but it's stretched imo.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

English Assassin wrote:

"When arranging a battle, players agree on a particular points limit for each side... within this total, the battle will be a fair match, decided by good tactics and a little bit of luck." Warhammer 40,000 5th edition, page ix.

...and indeed...

"...battles are entertaining challenges in which you try to out-think and out-play your opponent, taking advantage of what good luck comes your way, but ultimately relying upon sound tactics to win the day." Warhammer 40,000 2nd edition, page 4.

Thank you, will quote that probably to the point of trolling from now on. Missed that somehow in the books probably because I rarely read such explanations, doesn't change the fact that it all seemed obvious from the start.

LordOfTheSloths wrote:

Spot on.

The smug, superior attitude of certain GW devotees really gets tiresome. Fortunately, those who don't ask "How high?" when GW says "Jump!" can express our opinions regardless of whether or not said GW devotees approve of what we say. As for those who genuinely agree with or like new games every four years, good on you. Just don't expect that view to be universal. And don't think you're somehow superior to those who don't agree.

I actually was starting to write up another response, but at this point I no longer think Ailaros in particular is arguing in good faith. I mean, he actually deployed the whole "Well, it's a random dice game, it's pointless to even try to balance it!" gambit. The fact that none of the arguments I presented got a fair response also doesn't help.

Back on topic, though, I do wish that the Chaos Daemons WD update coming in august meant a step in a more dynamic, frequently-revised-and-updated direction aimed at leveling the field a bit more. I'd have nothing but praise for GW if that was the case. But so far it seems they are only doing it because they re-did the model line and want the models to sell (and they won't, if they are utter gak on the tabletop).

Plumbumbarum wrote:

English Assassin wrote:

"When arranging a battle, players agree on a particular points limit for each side... within this total, the battle will be a fair match, decided by good tactics and a little bit of luck." Warhammer 40,000 5th edition, page ix.

...and indeed...

"...battles are entertaining challenges in which you try to out-think and out-play your opponent, taking advantage of what good luck comes your way, but ultimately relying upon sound tactics to win the day." Warhammer 40,000 2nd edition, page 4.

Thank you, will quote that probably to the point of trolling from now on. Missed that somehow in the books probably because I rarely read such explanations, doesn't change the fact that it all seemed obvious from the start.

Glad to be of service! Likewise, I don't believe I had ever read either introduction before, since 40k's nature is so profoundly obvious.

To return for a moment to the disingenuous apples and oranges comparisons with Go, Chess, et al, here are my paraphrases of Board Game Geek's very dry and rambling definitions of strategy games and wargames:

Strategy games generally:
* Are non-thematic;
* Use simple and straightforward mechanics;
* Presume perfect information;
* And contain little to no randomness.

Wargames generally:
* Depict military actions;
* Are strongly thematic and simulationist;
* Are commonly more detailed and complex in rules and game pieces;
* Employ controlled random elements in the form of unit statistics;
* And are won by achieving one of a number of specific victory conditions.

Now which one of those two sounds more like Warhammer 40,000..?

It occurred to me that it was worth further illustrating my refutation of the assertion that randomness is antithetical to meaningful competitive play which I began in another thread. Over on Board Game Geek - a community in which there is a conscious and admitted bias towards abstract games with little or no randomisation (in other words, Eurogames, e.g. Caylus and Brass, to pick two favourites) - what's the number one game? Why it's Twilight Struggle, a strongly thematic card-driven wargame (not, I should clarify a miniatures wargame, but nonetheless a two-player game in which the theme is military and the gameplay highly competitive) about the Cold War. And why, because despite the game being driven by the apparently random mechanic of card draws from a deck, the rules offer the both of the players opportunities to manage, reactively and proactively, the fruits of chance, on both the 'strategic' (by which I mean in this instance the long-term and/or macro-scale) and 'tactical' (the short-term and/or micro-scale) levels.

Despite the BGG community's relative bias away from wargames towards the shuffling of wooden cubes from one place to another while vaguely pretending to model renaissance economics or classical agriculture, there are a good few wargames in their top 100, and - surprise, surprise - every one of them employs some measure of randomisation, and offers the players the in-game tools to manage it.

(It is particularly worthy of note that only two GW games rank in that top 100, Space Hulk and Blood Bowl; it is, I would suggest, no coincidence that they are GW's most mechanically elegant and (at least out of the box, ignoring their dodgy supplements) balanced - though not symmetrical - games.)

I find it's also worth picking on the assertion that Warhammer 40,000 is suddenly a 'beer and pretzels' game - a term which it's worth pointing out I had never heard used in relation to 40k until apologists (who curiously - or not - seem to be the same people who apologise for Finecrap and price rises) began using it to excuse 6th edition. Now, whilst I'm aware that there's no 'official' definition of that term, I believe it would be fair to venture the following (again pillaged from BGG) as the broadly-agreed qualities sought in such a game.

Beer and Pretzels games generally are:
* Accessible by gamers and non-gamers alike;
* Short (definitely under an hour, though typically much shorter);
* Limited rules (typically one page that can be distilled into a 5-minute-or-less explanation);
* Humorous (intentionally or not);
* Highly random;
* And social (usually in the form of reprisals).

How many of those categories do you think Warhammer 40,000 meets? Not one bar the presence of a random element. Munchkin, Fluxx and Kill Doctor Lucky are all archetypal examples of beer and pretzels games, Warhammer 40,000, with its 400 page rulebook, 4-hour playing-time and £200+ minimum investment is not.

Everyone has the same , moans, and complaints with every new edition. I find it funny with so many people denouncing GW and the direction the game goes every time... yet you will still play and buy the models but still wine about it. Its like saying a steak tastes like gak but eating it anyway and demanding a refund. Lets be honest the game is what you make of it and if your not getting what you want out of it then... wait for it.... crazy thought here.... STOP PLAYING!

I am a beer and pretzels/ laid back player, meaning I love the modeling, painting, and gaming side of the game but could care less if I win games or not. Its just a nice pass time that lets me be creative and keeps me out of trouble. If you are different... and not getting what you want then play a different game or change your attitude. It will probably be a lot more constructive use of your time then hoping GW will meet YOUR standard. lol

I personally like 6th so far much better than 5th rules wise. Its has its flaws and its quirks, and yes GW is still a greedy money hungry buisness (and not a very smart one at that ) but really if a new edition ruins the game for you then maybe you are playing for the wrong reasons. IMO

peace

Laughing God wrote:Everyone has the same , moans, and complaints with every new edition. I find it funny with so many people denouncing GW and the direction the game goes every time... yet you will still play and buy the models but still wine about it. Its like saying a steak tastes like gak but eating it anyway and demanding a refund. Lets be honest the game is what you make of it and if your not getting what you want out of it then... wait for it.... crazy thought here.... STOP PLAYING!

personally, I largely have, I got in a good number of games the last few weeks and just no longer find it fun, I haven't bought much from GW in the last year and have started 3 other game systems instead (Infinity, Heavy Gear and Firestorm Armada). That said, I have a ton of GW stuff, I have 2 IG armies, enough CSM stuff to run 2 armies if I felt like it, I have Eldar, Tau and enough Tyranids, GK's and Sisters of Battle to play decent sized games with.

I would like a reason to spend more on GW stuff however as I like the models and like the universe and I like the other 40k players in my area. GW however seems to just keep finding and going after exactly what would dissuade me from doing so between a ruleset more suited to a Michael Bay script than a tabletop wargame, and price increases that mean I can get into 3 other game systems full bore for the cost of a new 40k army.

I am a beer and pretzels/ laid back player, meaning I love the modeling, painting, and gaming side of the game but could care less if I win games or not. Its just a nice pass time that lets me be creative and keeps me out of trouble. If you are different... and not getting what you want then play a different game or change your attitude. It will probably be a lot more constructive use of your time then hoping GW will meet YOUR standard. lol

I personally like 6th so far much better than 5th rules wise. Its has its flaws and its quirks, and yes GW is still a greedy money hungry buisness (and not a very smart one at that ) but really if a new edition ruins the game for you then maybe you are playing for the wrong reasons. IMO

peace

I'll repost my earlier sentiments here: I'm not a hugely competitive player, I rarely attend tournaments anymore, I'm much happier playing a pre-designed fluff scenario or the like, and don't care too much about winning or losing, but I want to feel like it's all starting off from an even footing, that the models I'm playing with are capable of fulfilling their role (and nothing kills a narrative like a unit being bad at what it is supposed to do), that my heavy battle tanks and IFV's are going to just fall apart after their paint job gets scratched a few times (or that there's at least a hope of survival in an assault...) and that the game isn't going to be about what side has the most gimmicks and rules bending abilities, and 6th does not do that by design, and many seem to be cheering this.

Laughing God wrote:Everyone has the same , moans, and complaints with every new edition. I find it funny with so many people denouncing GW and the direction the game goes every time... yet you will still play and buy the models but still wine about it. Its like saying a steak tastes like gak but eating it anyway and demanding a refund. Lets be honest the game is what you make of it and if your not getting what you want out of it then... wait for it.... crazy thought here.... STOP PLAYING!

I am a beer and pretzels/ laid back player, meaning I love the modeling, painting, and gaming side of the game but could care less if I win games or not. Its just a nice pass time that lets me be creative and keeps me out of trouble. If you are different... and not getting what you want then play a different game or change your attitude. It will probably be a lot more constructive use of your time then hoping GW will meet YOUR standard. lol

I personally like 6th so far much better than 5th rules wise. Its has its flaws and its quirks, and yes GW is still a greedy money hungry buisness (and not a very smart one at that ) but really if a new edition ruins the game for you then maybe you are playing for the wrong reasons. IMO

Ah, the "you're having the wrong sort of fun" and the "love the game uncritically or GTFO" arguments. What joy.

Now, if you'd had the courtesy to read the thread before posting, you'd have seen both of them rebutted already.

Since you evidently didn't, however, here we go again. Firstly, you seem to be labouring under a misapprehension, you say you "could (sic) care less if you win games or not"; so, do you move your models randomly? No? Because if you are trying to win the game, you are being competitive. That's what the word means. Enjoyment of the game for a competitive player isn't contingent on winning, it's contingent on endeavouring to win in an evenly-matched contest. Moreover, you're more into painting, well, good on you! I'm interested in the game's meaningful tactical challenge; it doesn't disappoint me to lose because I'm outsmarted by my opponent, it does to lose (and likewise would give me no pleasure to win) because one of us drew a lucky card or made a single lucky roll at the beginning of the game.

That you're not interested in the game's tactical aspects doesn't bother me; how nice it would be if you could show other players the same consideration. I consider painting dozens of Space Marines the same colour a tedious chore, but I don't resent you for not thinking so. Or is your enjoyment of the game so fragile that the notion that others might enjoy it differently threatens you?

Secondly, this is a thread about competitive play, if you are not interested in that, why did you feel the need to post at all? A number of those of us who enjoy the game's competitive elements feel disappointed by 6th edition's jemmying-in of added randomness; are we forbidden from sharing our opinions? You, after all, could go and create a thread about how much you love the new edition, and how you don't care about competition, rather than chiming-in so unnecessarily in this one.

Laughing God wrote:Everyone has the same , moans, and complaints with every new edition. I find it funny with so many people denouncing GW and the direction the game goes every time... yet you will still play and buy the models but still wine about it.

Reasons to stay

- I already have an army
- the fluff is great despite Matt Ward constantly trying to change this fact
- I'm used to it, know the units codieces etc , new wargame is a ton of new abstract knowledge about fluff and units
- the game has it's sparks of brilliance, just it should be much better and actualy improving insted of better here, worse there
- 6th does not break it to unplayable level, just takes imo wrong direction

All that doesn't mean I have to agree with any crap the over-relaxed company drops at me. I have a right to give feedback after all I've spent and GW should be happy to take it, feedback is a positive thing for any company that wants to better itself. I work in quality managment and constructive critique is what I strongly need to improve the product. You find it funny, I find it strange you find it funny.

Besides, I have my way to react. I haven't buy a single finecast model yet and am not going to, it's either converting plastics or buing used metals. Also I had that attitude like "I should buy less but new models from GW to support them" but after reading 6th I've just spent my 70$ equivalent meant for models on used stuff. Not to mention I'm still not sure whether I'm going to play 6th or stay with 5th. I'm also going to stop supporting GW, choose the best set of codieces and write my own rules if the game goes further towards "cinematic fun" with next edition or codieces, just don't have enough time now

I still have faith in them after seeing how the more we went by the 5th edition book, the more balanced matches seemed to become. There was some balance and potential for a great game, that's why it's even worse to see design choices for 6th.

Laughing God wrote:I am a beer and pretzels/ laid back player, meaning I love the modeling, painting, and gaming side of the game but could care less if I win games or not. Its just a nice pass time that lets me be creative and keeps me out of trouble. If you are different... and not getting what you want then play a different game or change your attitude. It will probably be a lot more constructive use of your time then hoping GW will meet YOUR standard. lol

You don't get it imo, it's the matter of quality of the game not being laid back or WAAC or in the middle. We often play games beyond turn 7 to see what happens, space marines player drops potential win to take revenge for his hq and so on. If I win too often with someone, I start to feel bad - I don't handicap myself purposefuly to loose then because that's disrespectful and I wouldn't like someone to do that but it hinders my enjoyment somehow. Same time I want 40k to be more tactical, better balanced, suited for competitiveness game because I like to think/ plan/ strategise, because I want my wins and loses to have meaning and because I want top quality game for a top price.

"My fun is not your fun." I totally get, Lead-dude. I guess the lapse in my understanding is, from my point of view: think/plan/strategize elements can only come from me.

I am the one who makes those decisions regardless of the rules.

Here, let me put it in a way that I can express better.
I like Street Fighter 4. Honda is my favorite character. Honda is not a popular character or a particularly well regarded one. I don't care, I'm going to play the character I like, within the system that may or may not be totally balanced. I have a 75%+ win average with Honda, and am in the top 500 players in the world with him according to my ranked match statistics.

I also like Dee-Jay and Amon. I don't often win with either of them (I think I'm below 40% average there), but you'd better believe I'm trying. Whether or not they're good characters is irrelevant, because I enjoy playing even if I know I will probably lose...there's something in a victory of that uphill fight that just isn't the same in other places.

I also like good competition, I don't like beating up on scrubs or noobs because those matches don't make me better. They don't force me to find alternate methods of attacking and maneuvering; easy wins are often empty ones.

Sometimes the opponent has a better character, sometimes the opponent is a better player, sometimes the biggest opponent is me. The way I think and do things and my inability to change tactics or refocus when I need to can kill that game faster than a BS Seth wall combo. But that's okay, because that's what playing the game is.

No system is ever going to be perfect, or 100% balanced or whatever, but you can make it what you want.

If you want competition, truly want competition then you can't worry about a win or a loss. They won't ever HAVE meaning because they're meaningless. The only metric in competition that can matter is your own progress and how you grow and learn and face that next competitor...protip, it will probably be Ryu, everyone uses him.

tl;dr The magic was inside you all along.

That is a flawed example, RxGhost. SSF4 is far more balanced than WH40k 6th ed, you can control every aspect of the game, your headbutt attack won't send you flying half screen one time, then full screen next, they're all under your control. So losing a game is never due to bad luck but always due to your skill.

You simply cannot control the random warlord trait, random charge distance, random psychic power, random everything. If we're to put it into perspective, this would mean you have to pick random everytime in SSF4, your ultra would obviously be randomed, your move list will also be random, sometimes you will have your headbutt on Honda, other times not. And then after all that randomness, you're expected to have fun and win by "skills". What happen if your opponent randomed his main while you got a character you don't play? Is that still a fair game? Funny enough, that was just what happened last time I played random against my friend, he'd get all the characters he mains, while I kept getting Hakan or Gouken or character I literally have no idea how to play! Were we having fun though? Yes we were, but was that a fair game? Obviously not.

I think people are using "fun" and "cinematic" to ignore balance. They are not mutually exclusive, a game can be balanced and fun to play.

Let's pull another game here, Texas hold'em or poker, you get the random: you don't know what card you'll get, but you have the tactical part, such as folding, bluffing, and using bets to tactically trick your opponents into doing what you want. You also have somewhat an idea of what everyone is holding.

Or let's go for the more nerdy example, MTG. Again, you never know what card you'd draw, but that is somehow controllable by careful deck building.

However, no amount of tactical planning or advanced critical thinking, even if you pose as the thinking man for a week, you still wouldn't have gained any control over the random charge distance, random warlord trait, random psychic power, etc...

What I'm saying here is that a certain amount of randomness will adds to the fun, you can see it in every game, even if we go back to SSF, with the exception of playing IRL, you wouldn't know who you'll be up against. But clearly here that GW has gone overboard with the randomness, and in a very broken manner: Why is it that assault has to deal with all that uncertainties? Why don't we apply the same random for shooting? You don't even have to go far, I've seen many posters here coming up with examples how their super high tech guns could go wrong.

TL;DR version: A good amount of randomness is good, but excessive randomness is bad. It's like drinking and everything!

Baronyu wrote:
However, no amount of tactical planning or advanced critical thinking, even if you pose as the thinking man for a week, you still wouldn't have gained any control over the random charge distance, random warlord trait, random psychic power, etc...

I'm sorry but this is just an absurd analogy. Don't plan a tactic based on having to roll well on a decisive charge, don't build an army which falls apart if you get a wrong Warlord trait or wrong Psychic power. Of course if you're really unlucky, you CAN be undone by those things, but absolutely minimum amount of planning will minimize those factors. Hey, charging through difficult terrain was already random in 5th edition and many a charge failed because of that.

It's just like in MtG where you plan your deck composition so that chances of drawing either too much or not enough land is minimized. Despite that, you can still lose if you draw nothing but land. It's unavoidable and "no amount of advanced critical thinking" will give you control over that.

It's exact same thing.

The problem with much of the randomness in 6th is that it's not so much "did I draw the wrong card", it's "I just drew a blue Counterspell in a mono-white deck, my opponent just played Channel and Emrakul...", especially when it comes to stuff like Warlord abilities (I may have been exaggerating on that draw there, but it gets the point across)

Backfire wrote:

Baronyu wrote:
However, no amount of tactical planning or advanced critical thinking, even if you pose as the thinking man for a week, you still wouldn't have gained any control over the random charge distance, random warlord trait, random psychic power, etc...

I'm sorry but this is just an absurd analogy. Don't plan a tactic based on having to roll well on a decisive charge, don't build an army which falls apart if you get a wrong Warlord trait or wrong Psychic power. Of course if you're really unlucky, you CAN be undone by those things, but absolutely minimum amount of planning will minimize those factors. Hey, charging through difficult terrain was already random in 5th edition and many a charge failed because of that.

It's just like in MtG where you plan your deck composition so that chances of drawing either too much or not enough land is minimized. Despite that, you can still lose if you draw nothing but land. It's unavoidable and "no amount of advanced critical thinking" will give you control over that.

It's exact same thing.

There's a difference between controllable random(MtG deck building) and uncontrollable random(Randomhammer40k). Difficult terrain penalty is acceptable, because we can circumvent that, we could go around it, sacrifice our initiative, shoot instead of assault, etc... But random assault is simply unavoidable, there is no amount of planning that could overcome that. It really isn't as tactical as some people make it out to be, you'll just eventually settle at a distance you feel the safest, whether it's 2", 5" or 7" is up to you, and then it's the same every game. That's not tactical fun, is it? That's no different from remembering that power sword is now AP3...

And yes, that's what I was saying, you can't plan anything around all the new random craps in 6th ed, hence it's not tactical.

Then it's basically what Vaktathi said: More random does not mean better fun/balance, an amount of random in any game is good. I could list more games that are fun, balanced and still have some random factors, but I fear that might derail the thread.

And @Vaktathi, I don't think that's exaggeration: 6th ed, careful planning equate to careful deck building in MtG. Then random warlord traits and stuffs mean you should insert some random cards into your deck to make the game "interesting" and "tactical", you might get the trait/card that you want, or you might not! So, much, fun.

Baronyu wrote:
Difficult terrain penalty is acceptable, because we can circumvent that, we could go around it, sacrifice our initiative, shoot instead of assault, etc...

No you couldn't. Most people played with not nearly enough terrain in 5th, i.e. 25% of the board. As someone who played gunline, I could make damn sure you had to difficult terrain test 90% of the time you charged me. All I need is a single dude behind a rock and wham, difficult terrain. In 6th you have a)a gaurenteed +3 inch pile-in move, meaning you get a hell of a lot more guys in combat, and b) don't lose your charge bonus for being out of range. Those two things easily compensate for 2D6 charge range.

Assualt got the nerf it needed, stop whinging.

Vaktathi wrote:The problem with much of the randomness in 6th is that it's not so much "did I draw the wrong card", it's "I just drew a blue Counterspell in a mono-white deck, my opponent just played Channel and Emrakul...", especially when it comes to stuff like Warlord abilities (I may have been exaggerating on that draw there, but it gets the point across)

No idea what Channel and Emrakul are but I'm going to assume its a kitten covered in spikes and that makes me angry.

The random warlord traits, is rubbish, as are the random mystery terrain (OH LOOK MY TREE IS ACTUALLY A MONSTER. WHAT A TWIST!) and the mysterious objectives is pretty dumb as well.
i think random charges are cool, as it does make the game more realistic, failed charges could be explained in a lit of different ways.

ObliviousBlueCaboose wrote:
i think random charges are cool, as it does make the game more realistic, failed charges could be explained in a lit of different ways.

random dice rolling is HUR HUR GW Y U STOOPID.
But a space marine missing a land raider from 2 foot away? Happens 1/3 of the time