Switch Theme:

State of 40k  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Poll
State of 40k
Awesome! Love the updates!
Good. Playing steady.
Still unbalanced but fun enough for occasional games.
Bad. No fun. To much cheese.
Sold all my armies.

View results
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in gb
Worthiest of Warlock Engineers






preston

auticus wrote:Yeah the base rules we have for 40k or AOS now work great fora basic game. But I really really want an advanced system on top of that.

This request gets shouted down quite often and leads to bannings from forums lol.

Thats actually very unsurprising as GW are of the mindset that "if it talks against my product it is verbotten, my game is perfect".

thekingofkings wrote:
 auticus wrote:
Yeah the base rules we have for 40k or AOS now work great fora basic game. But I really really want an advanced system on top of that.

This request gets shouted down quite often and leads to bannings from forums lol.


the problem is its so base that we almost dont have a game at all.

Quite literally this. 8th ed is about a step above waving toy soldiers around and making pew-pew noises.

Blacksails wrote:
 auticus wrote:
Yeah the base rules we have for 40k or AOS now work great fora basic game. But I really really want an advanced system on top of that.

This request gets shouted down quite often and leads to bannings from forums lol.


Where are you getting banned for advocating for a more advanced ruleset!? I can only imagine on an official GW group, can't imagine somewhere like here banning for discussing a more advanced ruleset.

Its Gw, they are known for their heavy handed censoring.

Free from GW's tyranny and the hobby is looking better for it
DR:90-S++G+++M++B++I+Pww205++D++A+++/sWD146R++T(T)D+
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut







the problem is its so base that we almost dont have a game at all.

Quite literally this. 8th ed is about a step above waving toy soldiers around and making pew-pew noises.


Have to admit, I do this anyway
   
Made in us
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer




Tampa, FL

 Blacksails wrote:
 auticus wrote:
Yeah the base rules we have for 40k or AOS now work great fora basic game. But I really really want an advanced system on top of that.

This request gets shouted down quite often and leads to bannings from forums lol.


Where are you getting banned for advocating for a more advanced ruleset!? I can only imagine on an official GW group, can't imagine somewhere like here banning for discussing a more advanced ruleset.


Pretty sure he's referring to a certain popular AOS forum that might as well be run by GW since it has a lot of the well known UK people who collaborate with GW and even has GW designers posting there from time to time. They don't take lightly to criticism of AOS there, not even when it's backed up by math and from someone who developed their own comp system before GW did, and if GW had been US based might have been the inspiration for the General's Handbook instead of SCGT.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/12/12 00:57:47


- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame 
   
Made in fi
Courageous Space Marine Captain






bouncingboredom wrote:

Being a grumbly old 2nd edition player, from what I've seen the biggest issue is terrain, which is not really a fault of the game unless we include the guidance/rules in the rulebook for how much terrain to put on the board. There was a video batrep posted on here the other day, Knights vs AM, and the amount of terrain being used was frankly laughable. If you go back to the 2nd ed campaign supplement (battle for Armageddon) that came with the boxed game, inside it had layouts (using the cardboard ruins that came in the box) for each of the battles. I'd be amazed in those set ups if you could even draw a line between any two points that was more than 20" long. The standard set up for a 40k game at that time was that you shouldn't really be able to see much of the opponents army (if any) from your own deployment zone.

Grumble, grumble, in my day....

It is at least partly fault of the game because the terrain rules are really lacklustre. It is completely absurd that intervening terrain does nothing. There can be shitton of terrain between the target and the shooter, but as long as the target is not on the terrain, and the shooter can draw a LOS through a window or a hole in the wall, the terrain might as well not be there.

   
Made in us
Scarred Ultramarine Tyrannic War Veteran




McCragge

It seems like the vocal minority are the ones complaining looking at the results of the poll. Also it is annoying to me when people casually suggest UGIG like it is super easy to implement right after the release of a new edition.

Bow down to Guilliman for he is our new God Emperor!

Martel - "Custodes are terrible in 8th. Good luck with them. They take all the problems of marines and multiply them."

"Lol, classic martel. 'I know it was strong enough to podium in the biggest tournament in the world but I refuse to acknowledge space marines are good because I can't win with them and it can't possibly be ME'."

DakkaDakka is really the place where you need anti-tank guns to kill basic dudes, because anything less isn't durable enough. 
   
Made in us
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer




Tampa, FL

 Crimson wrote:
bouncingboredom wrote:

Being a grumbly old 2nd edition player, from what I've seen the biggest issue is terrain, which is not really a fault of the game unless we include the guidance/rules in the rulebook for how much terrain to put on the board. There was a video batrep posted on here the other day, Knights vs AM, and the amount of terrain being used was frankly laughable. If you go back to the 2nd ed campaign supplement (battle for Armageddon) that came with the boxed game, inside it had layouts (using the cardboard ruins that came in the box) for each of the battles. I'd be amazed in those set ups if you could even draw a line between any two points that was more than 20" long. The standard set up for a 40k game at that time was that you shouldn't really be able to see much of the opponents army (if any) from your own deployment zone.

Grumble, grumble, in my day....

It is at least partly fault of the game because the terrain rules are really lacklustre. It is completely absurd that intervening terrain does nothing. There can be shitton of terrain between the target and the shooter, but as long as the target is not on the terrain, and the shooter can draw a LOS through a window or a hole in the wall, the terrain might as well not be there.


That is a big problem. It's like.. the entire game feels fake. You can have a ton of terrain on the board, and like 95% of it will do absolutely nothing and might as well not be there at all.

- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Primark G wrote:
It seems like the vocal minority are the ones complaining looking at the results of the poll. Also it is annoying to me when people casually suggest UGIG like it is super easy to implement right after the release of a new edition.


the results of the poll and reading the comments show that while even the ones with positive leanings still generally are not without complaint, primarily on terrain rules. on a pro-gw board 53% positive is still not stellar by any means.
   
Made in ca
Lord of the Fleet






Halifornia, Nova Scotia

Wayniac wrote:
 Blacksails wrote:
 auticus wrote:
Yeah the base rules we have for 40k or AOS now work great fora basic game. But I really really want an advanced system on top of that.

This request gets shouted down quite often and leads to bannings from forums lol.


Where are you getting banned for advocating for a more advanced ruleset!? I can only imagine on an official GW group, can't imagine somewhere like here banning for discussing a more advanced ruleset.


Pretty sure he's referring to a certain popular AOS forum that might as well be run by GW since it has a lot of the well known UK people who collaborate with GW and even has GW designers posting there from time to time. They don't take lightly to criticism of AOS there, not even when it's backed up by math and from someone who developed their own comp system before GW did, and if GW had been US based might have been the inspiration for the General's Handbook instead of SCGT.


Couldn't possibly have reasoned criticism, could we now eh?

As much as I'd love BFG to come back for new (plastic!) models, and the bonus that a 'living' game has in finding other players, I'm quite enjoying the excellent fan-made balance, tweaks, and expansions to the ruleset. I doubt GW could do better than the handful of individuals who have effectively fixed and improved upon a solid base game.

Still, plastic spaceships makes me happy in ways I probably shouldn't speak out loud.

Mordian Iron Guard - Major Overhaul in Progress

+Spaceship Gaming Enthusiast+

Live near Halifax, NS? Ask me about our group, the Ordo Haligonias! 
   
Made in us
Clousseau




 Blacksails wrote:
 auticus wrote:
Yeah the base rules we have for 40k or AOS now work great fora basic game. But I really really want an advanced system on top of that.

This request gets shouted down quite often and leads to bannings from forums lol.


Where are you getting banned for advocating for a more advanced ruleset!? I can only imagine on an official GW group, can't imagine somewhere like here banning for discussing a more advanced ruleset.


I was banned from the TGA AOS forum for overly criticizing AOS' rules. I don't have this all set in stone so take with a grain of salt but after le banning a couple guys hit me up on twitter and we talked and the popular guess based on the fact that they all hang out over there and I'm over here in the USA so don't actually get any real facetime with them is not so much GW doesn't want to hear criticism, but rather the guys that love AOS how it is don't want criticism or asking for an advanced optional ruleset to be seriously considered because they don't feel its necessary or wanted and that complaining about the rules may bring about some change that they wouldn't like.

The rule over there is very much you cannot criticize the game. That is an actual rule that can get you banned. My particular instance came after responding in a thread that was started by someone else to discuss flaws with the game (i assume that anyone that posted negatively in that thread was warned or banned). I was struck with a warning for criticizing the game, so told the moderator if its a bannable offense to discuss the flaws in the game, particularly in a thread about that topic created by someone else, to just go ahead and ban me, which he did. There was no nasty language or anything from either me or the mod or anything dramatic.

That forum also does indeed have a few rules developers that post there, to include a couple of new developers that were hired on recently after creating fan content for the game and promoting it on that forum.

I'm getting back into the LOTR game now for my fantasy as I've always liked the system.

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2017/12/12 01:39:36


 
   
Made in us
Wicked Warp Spider





 Primark G wrote:
It seems like the vocal minority are the ones complaining looking at the results of the poll. Also it is annoying to me when people casually suggest UGIG like it is super easy to implement right after the release of a new edition.

People at the end still love and play the game, or at last try to.
Myself, I put an intermediate score but I cannot say people are wrong with their criticism.
Concerning the game, some idea is absolutely excellent, some execution less stellar, but the overall trend is dumbing down, fake-smart combos and tabletop-sues.
You cannot deny that.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/12/12 01:38:39


Generic characters disappearing? Elite units of your army losing options and customizations? No longer finding that motivation to convert?
Your army could suffer Post-Chapterhouse Stress Disorder (PCSD)! If you think that your army is suffering one or more of the aforementioned symptoms, call us at 789-666-1982 for a quick diagnosis! 
   
Made in ca
Lord of the Fleet






Halifornia, Nova Scotia

 auticus wrote:


I was banned from the TGA AOS forum for overly criticizing AOS' rules. I don't have this all set in stone so take with a grain of salt but after le banning a couple guys hit me up on twitter and we talked and the popular guess based on the fact that they all hang out over there and I'm over here in the USA so don't actually get any real facetime with them is not so much GW doesn't want to hear criticism, but rather the guys that love AOS how it is don't want criticism or asking for an advanced optional ruleset to be seriously considered because they don't feel its necessary or wanted and that complaining about the rules may bring about some change that they wouldn't like.

The rule over there is very much you cannot criticize the game. That is an actual rule that can get you banned. My particular instance came after responding in a thread that was started by someone else to discuss flaws with the game (i assume that anyone that posted negatively in that thread was warned or banned). I was struck with a warning for criticizing the game, so told the moderator if its a bannable offense to discuss the flaws in the game, particularly in a thread about that topic created by someone else, to just go ahead and ban me, which he did. There was no nasty language or anything from either me or the mod or anything dramatic.

That forum also does indeed have a few rules developers that post there, to include a couple of new developers that were hired on recently after creating fan content for the game and promoting it on that forum.


feth, wow, that's some next level gak. Up there with the ridiculousness of r/warhammer with one of their mods. Not a place worth spending much time at unless there was another pull to the community, like a great painting/modelling section.

Its one thing to ban unreasonable discussions and gak posting, but level headed discussions and criticisms of the product? That's not gonna keep me there long.

Mordian Iron Guard - Major Overhaul in Progress

+Spaceship Gaming Enthusiast+

Live near Halifax, NS? Ask me about our group, the Ordo Haligonias! 
   
Made in us
Clousseau




They want to keep it "positive".

It was a pretty cool forum for discussing narrative and they had a decent painting section as well as a great fan content file repository.
   
Made in au
Irradiated Baal Scavanger





 auticus wrote:
 Blacksails wrote:
 auticus wrote:
Yeah the base rules we have for 40k or AOS now work great fora basic game. But I really really want an advanced system on top of that.

This request gets shouted down quite often and leads to bannings from forums lol.


Where are you getting banned for advocating for a more advanced ruleset!? I can only imagine on an official GW group, can't imagine somewhere like here banning for discussing a more advanced ruleset.


I was banned from the TGA AOS forum for overly criticizing AOS' rules. I don't have this all set in stone so take with a grain of salt but after le banning a couple guys hit me up on twitter and we talked and the popular guess based on the fact that they all hang out over there and I'm over here in the USA so don't actually get any real facetime with them is not so much GW doesn't want to hear criticism, but rather the guys that love AOS how it is don't want criticism or asking for an advanced optional ruleset to be seriously considered because they don't feel its necessary or wanted and that complaining about the rules may bring about some change that they wouldn't like.

The rule over there is very much you cannot criticize the game. That is an actual rule that can get you banned. My particular instance came after responding in a thread that was started by someone else to discuss flaws with the game (i assume that anyone that posted negatively in that thread was warned or banned). I was struck with a warning for criticizing the game, so told the moderator if its a bannable offense to discuss the flaws in the game, particularly in a thread about that topic created by someone else, to just go ahead and ban me, which he did. There was no nasty language or anything from either me or the mod or anything dramatic.

That forum also does indeed have a few rules developers that post there, to include a couple of new developers that were hired on recently after creating fan content for the game and promoting it on that forum.

I'm getting back into the LOTR game now for my fantasy as I've always liked the system.


That forum was basically created due to the fact that when AOS first came out you couldnt discuss it anywhere without being dragged down due to negativity around the old warhammer setting being destroyed.

I think I prefer it haveing a goal of positivity rather than negativity.

Constant complaints about the same thing, which is not always something anyone but they can fix, is tiresome, and often not really a discussion.
   
Made in us
Clousseau




I can understand that. Those weren't the complaints I had though (the setting). And after the owner stated a board wide warning to criticism I largely stopped, until that post came up and I replied in it (the post about discussing the flaws of the game)

Which for me are largely the same as my thoughts on the flaws for 40k.

The rules are very basic, need another layer on top of them such as actual terrain rules, and they could run optional so that if you liked the very basic rules you can still use those.

The irony here is that i was banned from warseer by Darnok for defending AOS as that was considered "trolling" the inflamed WHFB vets.

I think the world has gotten far too sensitive.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/12/12 01:53:40


 
   
Made in au
Irradiated Baal Scavanger





 auticus wrote:
I can understand that. Those weren't the complaints I had though (the setting). And after the owner stated a board wide warning to criticism I largely stopped, until that post came up and I replied in it (the post about discussing the flaws of the game)

Which for me are largely the same as my thoughts on the flaws for 40k.

The rules are very basic, need another layer on top of them such as actual terrain rules, and they could run optional so that if you liked the very basic rules you can still use those.


I don't personally find them to be to basic, and the terrain rules are decent I mean within the framework you can create "official" rules to cover most things, since im aware house rules are not accepted by your play group.

Im not trying to have a go at you or anything just wanted to offer a different persepctive to yourself and wayniacs.
   
Made in es
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain




Vigo. Spain.

TGA is like the safe zone between misions in Left 4 Dead 2, you know? Is a nice place to stay for some time, regain energies with other people, etc... but is not a place to stay all the time.

The real deal is out there, with the zombies, the guns, the action, the discussion, the heated arguments ,etc... but that at the end of the day comes with a mental toll for everyone involved. So is nice to have different places. I have many critizism agaisn't AoS. I post them in other forums, not in TGA.

 Crimson Devil wrote:

Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.

ERJAK wrote:
Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.

 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 kurdan wrote:
 auticus wrote:
I can understand that. Those weren't the complaints I had though (the setting). And after the owner stated a board wide warning to criticism I largely stopped, until that post came up and I replied in it (the post about discussing the flaws of the game)

Which for me are largely the same as my thoughts on the flaws for 40k.

The rules are very basic, need another layer on top of them such as actual terrain rules, and they could run optional so that if you liked the very basic rules you can still use those.


I don't personally find them to be to basic, and the terrain rules are decent I mean within the framework you can create "official" rules to cover most things, since im aware house rules are not accepted by your play group.

Im not trying to have a go at you or anything just wanted to offer a different persepctive to yourself and wayniacs.


The problem with houseruling is that you shouldnt have to. the cost of the game and its reputation as a whole means it should be good enough as is. IT is a problem that neither AoS nor 40k 8th are good enough out of the box. they went for as basic (Imo lazy) as they could to churn profit.
   
Made in us
Clousseau




Let me put it this way.

I got into wargaming to play a game that resembled a war. A battle. Intuitively. Like I read about and watch in film. Thats what excited me about tabletop wargaming.

Wargames up until the past three or four years pretty much tried to do this at some level. Starting with Warmachine back in the early 00s, games have slowly eroded that and have moved more toward gamey elements as opposed to intuitive battle experiences.

An intuitive battle features maneuver and battlefield management.

Over the editions, beginning in whfb in 2010 and 6th edition 40k in 2012, these elements began to leave, and now with 40k and AOS these elements largely do not exist at all.

Both games are designed as primarily a deckbuilding game, only we use models instead of cards.

Both games feature a fast experience, where you start off and can get engaged in combat in turn 1. Indeed 40k is all about massive alpha strikes and largely ending the game in turn 2 or 3.

AOS is very similar.

Both games really appeal to people that love gamey games and who don't care about the intuitive battle part that drew a lot of us other guys in. However, a game where you can alpha puke all over your opponent every game and not really have to maneuver at all other than pick your target and deploy your models next to your target anywhere on the table does not resemble a game that requires some solid maneuver.

Now there is really nothing like that left on the market. Its all gamey games that don't resemble battles anymore so much as model versions of magic the gathering where you are popping card power combos off and rolling a lot of dice.

That can be fun and I'm not arguing that, but thats not tabletop wargaming to me. Thats just another board game in a sea of skirmish games and other board games or games that resemble board games more than they do a tabletop wargame that features maneuver and battlefield management.

Now I will emphasize the "to me" part because I believe in this thread there was an ultimate keyboard warrior that leapt on me and tried to net-singe me with his rage over my opinion on what a tabletop wargame is, and will emphasize this is my opinion.

Optional more advanced rules such as forests that block line of sight, rivers and water features that impede movement, etc... would be very small... and go a very long way.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/12/12 02:46:52


 
   
Made in es
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain




Vigo. Spain.

 auticus wrote:
Let me put it this way.

I got into wargaming to play a game that resembled a war. A battle. Intuitively. Like I read about and watch in film. Thats what excited me about tabletop wargaming.

Wargames up until the past three or four years pretty much tried to do this at some level. Starting with Warmachine back in the early 00s, games have slowly eroded that and have moved more toward gamey elements as opposed to intuitive battle experiences.

An intuitive battle features maneuver and battlefield management.

Over the editions, beginning in whfb in 2010 and 6th edition 40k in 2012, these elements began to leave, and now with 40k and AOS these elements largely do not exist at all.

Both games are designed as primarily a deckbuilding game, only we use models instead of cards.

Both games feature a fast experience, where you start off and can get engaged in combat in turn 1. Indeed 40k is all about massive alpha strikes and largely ending the game in turn 2 or 3.

AOS is very similar.

Both games really appeal to people that love gamey games and who don't care about the intuitive battle part that drew a lot of us other guys in.

Now there is really nothing like that left on the market. Its all gamey games that don't resemble battles anymore so much as model versions of magic the gathering where you are popping card power combos off and rolling a lot of dice.

That can be fun and I'm not arguing that, but thats not tabletop wargaming to me. Thats just another board game in a sea of skirmish games and other board games or games that resemble board games more than they do a tabletop wargame that features maneuver and battlefield management.

Now I will emphasize the "to me" part because I believe in this thread there was an ultimate keyboard warrior that leapt on me and tried to net-singe me with his rage over my opinion on what a tabletop wargame is, and will emphasize this is my opinion.


To be honest I think you have experienced with wargaming the same thing many people has experienced with videogames. As the bigger fish on the industry try to catter to the more broad and "casual" (Not in a offensive manner) population, that is the bigger and as a result gives them the more money, the more "old" or "hardcore" fans look for things that retain the old-school feeling.
In videogames, you have that on Indie games, or videogames that small studios do. For example games like Battle Brothers, Thea: The Awakening or even Undertale, are pseudo-indie/indie games with a style of gameplay that you don't find anymore in the big AAA productions. Wargaming is the same. If you like for a more "proper" wargaming old-school experience, you need to go to more obscure and small games.
The problem? Indie games are normally single player. Wargames can't be single player, normally, and they need a much bigger investment to play than just dowloading a game and playing. So if the mainstream market doesn't have a place for proper old-school wargames, I can totally understand the frustration of not finding people to play that kind of more niche style of games.

Personall, with my group we use expanded terrain rules (That are really very simple, like as you said, forests covering line of sight, etc...), so I have find no problem with terrain don't being relevant in our games.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/12/12 02:47:00


 Crimson Devil wrote:

Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.

ERJAK wrote:
Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.

 
   
Made in us
Clousseau




That is very accurate! You have to dig up obscure rulesets or do what I do and write your own.

The problem is that no matter the quality of the ruleset... be them great or bad, indie rulesets in the wargaming stratosphere are largely something you have to play solo.

I am working on adapting my 28mm ruleset to work more with 10mm scale now actually. The advantage is I can get some models easily for this scale since detail is not really that high and I can port it over onto the PC fairly easy.

I'm also embracing solo play more and more.
   
Made in au
Irradiated Baal Scavanger





 thekingofkings wrote:
 kurdan wrote:
 auticus wrote:
I can understand that. Those weren't the complaints I had though (the setting). And after the owner stated a board wide warning to criticism I largely stopped, until that post came up and I replied in it (the post about discussing the flaws of the game)

Which for me are largely the same as my thoughts on the flaws for 40k.

The rules are very basic, need another layer on top of them such as actual terrain rules, and they could run optional so that if you liked the very basic rules you can still use those.


I don't personally find them to be to basic, and the terrain rules are decent I mean within the framework you can create "official" rules to cover most things, since im aware house rules are not accepted by your play group.

Im not trying to have a go at you or anything just wanted to offer a different persepctive to yourself and wayniacs.


The problem with houseruling is that you shouldnt have to. the cost of the game and its reputation as a whole means it should be good enough as is. IT is a problem that neither AoS nor 40k 8th are good enough out of the box. they went for as basic (Imo lazy) as they could to churn profit.


But thats purely subjective, for many people it is good enough out of the box, so its just a matter of taste at that point.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 auticus wrote:
Let me put it this way.

I got into wargaming to play a game that resembled a war. A battle. Intuitively. Like I read about and watch in film. Thats what excited me about tabletop wargaming.

Wargames up until the past three or four years pretty much tried to do this at some level. Starting with Warmachine back in the early 00s, games have slowly eroded that and have moved more toward gamey elements as opposed to intuitive battle experiences.

An intuitive battle features maneuver and battlefield management.

Over the editions, beginning in whfb in 2010 and 6th edition 40k in 2012, these elements began to leave, and now with 40k and AOS these elements largely do not exist at all.

Both games are designed as primarily a deckbuilding game, only we use models instead of cards.

Both games feature a fast experience, where you start off and can get engaged in combat in turn 1. Indeed 40k is all about massive alpha strikes and largely ending the game in turn 2 or 3.

AOS is very similar.

Both games really appeal to people that love gamey games and who don't care about the intuitive battle part that drew a lot of us other guys in. However, a game where you can alpha puke all over your opponent every game and not really have to maneuver at all other than pick your target and deploy your models next to your target anywhere on the table does not resemble a game that requires some solid maneuver.

Now there is really nothing like that left on the market. Its all gamey games that don't resemble battles anymore so much as model versions of magic the gathering where you are popping card power combos off and rolling a lot of dice.

That can be fun and I'm not arguing that, but thats not tabletop wargaming to me. Thats just another board game in a sea of skirmish games and other board games or games that resemble board games more than they do a tabletop wargame that features maneuver and battlefield management.

Now I will emphasize the "to me" part because I believe in this thread there was an ultimate keyboard warrior that leapt on me and tried to net-singe me with his rage over my opinion on what a tabletop wargame is, and will emphasize this is my opinion.

Optional more advanced rules such as forests that block line of sight, rivers and water features that impede movement, etc... would be very small... and go a very long way.

really want to recommend to you LOTR, Wrath of Kings, and Confrontation to take a look at. LOTR is lMO the most "battle" like with shield walls, massed archery , cavalry etc...
   
Made in us
Clousseau




Yeah I'm getting back into LOTR> pre ordered the battle companies book. Looking forward to painting some mordor forces.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 auticus wrote:
Yeah I'm getting back into LOTR> pre ordered the battle companies book. Looking forward to painting some mordor forces.


same here (got nearly all the models for it ) but on the point of 40k, I see what you are saying. I miss terrain mattering.
   
Made in ca
Grumpy Longbeard





Canada

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
Other than that I agree with your post. 40K is simply too large to be balanced. But I think GW is at least trying to adjust the outliers steadily now, which is a vast improvement to prior editions. The best way to balance the game is to talk to your opponent before the game.

bs. Infinity and Malifaux have a huge number of options and those games don't have serious balance issues. GW's (esp. new) style with stacking buffs and exciting and powerful abilities and units make balancing harder, but GW does far worse than the have excuses for. I've given up on telling myself they care about it; which is one of the reasons I don't think GW intend to make games well suited to competition.

auticus wrote:The rumor back in the day before whfb died was that whfb 9th edition was going to use LOTR rules and I was very excited for that.

Now I wish they'd give us something a little more crunchy for AOS.

And 40k is ... well... it needs something too.

That would have been nice. Less crunchy games seem to be what GW prefer and what makes money for them.
Spoiler:

auticus wrote:
I was banned from the TGA AOS forum for overly criticizing AOS' rules. I don't have this all set in stone so take with a grain of salt but after le banning a couple guys hit me up on twitter and we talked and the popular guess based on the fact that they all hang out over there and I'm over here in the USA so don't actually get any real facetime with them is not so much GW doesn't want to hear criticism, but rather the guys that love AOS how it is don't want criticism or asking for an advanced optional ruleset to be seriously considered because they don't feel its necessary or wanted and that complaining about the rules may bring about some change that they wouldn't like.

The rule over there is very much you cannot criticize the game. That is an actual rule that can get you banned. My particular instance came after responding in a thread that was started by someone else to discuss flaws with the game (i assume that anyone that posted negatively in that thread was warned or banned). I was struck with a warning for criticizing the game, so told the moderator if its a bannable offense to discuss the flaws in the game, particularly in a thread about that topic created by someone else, to just go ahead and ban me, which he did. There was no nasty language or anything from either me or the mod or anything dramatic.

That forum also does indeed have a few rules developers that post there, to include a couple of new developers that were hired on recently after creating fan content for the game and promoting it on that forum.

I'm getting back into the LOTR game now for my fantasy as I've always liked the system.

It's important to note that TGA was meant to be a place where AoS players can discuss their game without getting shat on for just saying they enjoy it. So removing people who criticize the AoS is in line with what they are (or were) trying to achieve. Whether that is a good fit or worth taking part in is another matter.

auticus wrote:Let me put it this way.

I got into wargaming to play a game that resembled a war. A battle. Intuitively. Like I read about and watch in film. Thats what excited me about tabletop wargaming.

Wargames up until the past three or four years pretty much tried to do this at some level. Starting with Warmachine back in the early 00s, games have slowly eroded that and have moved more toward gamey elements as opposed to intuitive battle experiences.

An intuitive battle features maneuver and battlefield management.

Sadly, this seems to be less popular and profitable.


Now there is really nothing like that left on the market. Its all gamey games that don't resemble battles anymore so much as model versions of magic the gathering where you are popping card power combos off and rolling a lot of dice.

How hard are you looking? Infinity, Kings of War (depending on your taste and definition) and most historical games have what you are looking for.

Both games are designed as primarily a deckbuilding game, only we use models instead of cards. That can be fun and I'm not arguing that, but thats not tabletop wargaming to me.

Thats just another board game in a sea of skirmish games and other board games or games that resemble board games more than they do a tabletop wargame that features maneuver and battlefield management.

Now I will emphasize the "to me" part because I believe in this thread there was an ultimate keyboard warrior that leapt on me and tried to net-singe me with his rage over my opinion on what a tabletop wargame is, and will emphasize this is my opinion.

Here's my issue with your posts: You take you subjective opinion, exaggerate it to make what you are "criticizing" sound ridiculous (i.e. make a strawman) and then try to pass it off as true. You also demean things that other people enjoy while you're at it, like skirmish games (it's a different style of wargame you don't even seem to be familiar with).
E.g. Reliance on list building is similar to deck building; therefore 40k actually a card game, which means:
Both games are designed as primarily a deckbuilding game, only we use models instead of cards.

You don't know that, on what actual evidence did you assign that intention to other people?

It's bad way to reason and it's misleading. Calling you out on it does not make one:
an ultimate keyboard warrior that leapt on me and tried to net-singe me with his rage

That exaggerated and you have no idea what my state of mind is.

Nightstalkers Dwarfs
GASLANDS!
Holy Roman Empire  
   
Made in us
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer




Tampa, FL

Historical gaming is where that stuff still exists. The problem with that is A) It's an acquired taste, and B) It's like finding a rooster's teeth to find an old-timey gaming club that does historical gaming, because most of them are like secret societies that you have to know somebody who knows somebody. But those games still maintain that kind of feel.

I agree though. Tabletop games now have become incredibly gamey; it's part of why I could never really "get" Warmachine despite jumping into it and loving the core rules mechanics, but everything else felt like it was a game about metagaming the rules. Losing because you moved a single model a fraction of an inch too far forward or too far to the left may be incredible depth, but IMHO it doesn't belong in a tabletop game. 40k's IMHO only redeeming factor is the backstory (AOS has a good backstory I think, but has the stigma of not being WHFB), yet you constantly see people talk about "competitive' 40k lists designed to alpha strike or exploit rules, and again it feels like it's entirely metagaming the game instead of having an actual experience and telling a story through the models. it's like playing D&D where there's no roleplaying whatsoever, just metagaming.

- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame 
   
Made in us
Clousseau




I'm very familiar with skirmish games. You're taking offense when no offense was given. I certainly never demeaned skirmish games or wrote anything negative about skirmish games. I wrote I prefer battle games over skirmish games. I play a solid half dozen skirmish games on a regular basis. I'd like for not all my games to be skirmish based and I'm irked that the last bastions that I had are now gone and that everything has to be skirmish scale now it seems.

A deckbuilding game is a game where you have elements and you build a force from those elements where combinations are key. There are dozens of examples of deckbuilding games. They typically involve cards (hence the nomenclature "deckbuilding".

40k and AOS are deckbuilding games. You can replace the models with cards, and you approach the game the same as you would with any other deckbuilding game. They even removed most of the maneuver out of it.

The evidence is reading the rules and seeing how it is played.
The evidence is reading their developer's posts on forums, especially the newer devs that weren't devs a few months ago but are now and seeing them discuss game design. I am also a games designer and have designed deckbuilding games.

Explain and counter argue how exactly 40k and AOS are NOT like other deckbuilding games (other than saying... well they use miniatures instead of cards so they can't be deckbuilding games) and we can have a discussion. Because right now AOS and 40k do not in any circumstance resemble any battle that would be fought both in the real world, in film, or in fantasy literature. It has divorced itself from resembling a battle and in its stead we have a game (that can be fun which is the point of games) where you deckbuild a force and optimize its combos and then deploy it. One could design a game that uses the same basic mechanics, alter movement to strip it out entirely and replace it with a deck of game cards and dice and get the exact same experience out of it.

What would that look like?

On my turn I play my hand. I deploy my 5 death company cards and pick your targets. I roll dice. That gives me the outcome. Then whats left of your deck can retaliate. That is the same as alpha strikiing my entire 40k collection on you that is legally allowed and then using my strategems to deploy next to you with whats left and then charge. Same basic experience to me and to a lot of people.

That exaggerated and you have no idea what my state of mind is.


Your language was inflammatory and overtly and hyperly aggressive. I don't need to know what your state of mind was to read your remarks and find them beyond the realm of proper discussion and into the realm of aggressive attacking and posturing, which have no place in a discussion.

"Calliing people out" on their opinion on game design and plastic men is also largely useless and does nothing except spark return aggressive remarks. Thats not how you have a discussion or a debate. Thats trying to "win an internet argument", which is a totally different experience and not something I"m interested in pursuing.

Now onto other areas of discussion, from my own research as a game designer whose retirement fund is fueled completely by the games I help design and sell, gamey games DO make more money because the general populace is in general NOT interested in traditional wargames because of their complexity and their degree of difficulty in mastering and understanding. You're going to sell a lot more units of a game that resembles other popular games (which in this era are the deckbuilding games that derived from Magic). I attended a design conference last fall about this very topic. Game designers that continue down the complicated and complex game path do so at their own peril if making money is their goal.

Historicals do exactly what I want them to do minus the fact that they have no fantastical elements largely, but you have to play those solo often because people just aren't interested in games like that, or dont' want to play and invest in a system that few others do.

This is one reason 40k has still been successful DESPITE its rules, which I'm betting the majority of the 40k gaming populace would agree are fairly bad. It succeeds despite general consensus of bad rules BECAUSE you can always find a game. It is a snowball rolling down the hill. It feeds itself. You can write the best game system ever seen, and still have no players because players don't want to play a system that has few other players.

I am just now starting to embrace solo play because it will be how I get any use out of my huge miniatures investment. I am also working on adapting a 28mm system I wrote into 10mm because 3d printing and modeling allows me to make 10mm guys pretty easily (as you don't need a lot of detail).

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/12/12 12:54:49


 
   
Made in us
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer




Tampa, FL

What I do find interesting, auticus, is that you mention people not being interested in traditional wargames due to their complexity and degree of difficulty in mastering and understanding, yet it's been my experience that other than Warhammer most other "gamey" games have vast complexity and difficulty in mastering and understanding. Warmahordes is the big example of this one IMHO and the one I have experience with. The rules themselves are simple to learn, but there is a vast depth of complexity regarding unit interactions and positioning and everything else that goes into the game and a huge learning curve, yet it's basically (discounting X-Wing which isn't really a "wargame") the second most popular tabletop game besides Warhammer. Certainly the depth of mastery and complexity in Warmahordes seems well above the handful of historical rules that I've looked at.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/12/12 12:57:03


- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame 
   
Made in us
Clousseau




I haven't looked at warmahordes in many years, but when I was playing its complexity was on par with whfb at the time.

Games like warmarhordes are also losing a lot of favor and ground, both from my own experience where I live (it is almost non existent now here) to what I read commonly on forums and fb groups. I'd also consiider Hail Caesar (the historical i'm most familiar with) to be a bit more than warmachine was back ini the day that I played it.

Games like xwing became HUGE and xwing is definitely not a wargame, and I am seeing a lot of developers try to copy its basic formula which is simplicity at its root and very gamey elements.

Simple rules. Small number of pieces to have to manage (skirmish scale). Quick game times. This is the new mantra of tabletop design today and if you attend game design conferences you'll see a lot of and hear a lot about.

The only thing 40k doesn't have on that list is small number of pieces to manage.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/12/12 12:59:54


 
   
Made in us
Potent Possessed Daemonvessel





 DarkBlack wrote:
Sgt. Cortez wrote:
Other than that I agree with your post. 40K is simply too large to be balanced. But I think GW is at least trying to adjust the outliers steadily now, which is a vast improvement to prior editions. The best way to balance the game is to talk to your opponent before the game.

bs. Infinity and Malifaux have a huge number of options and those games don't have serious balance issues. GW's (esp. new) style with stacking buffs and exciting and powerful abilities and units make balancing harder, but GW does far worse than the have excuses for. I've given up on telling myself they care about it; which is one of the reasons I don't think GW intend to make games well suited to competition.



I'm not as familiar with Infinity, but Malifaux pales in comparison to GW when it comes to number of options. They are perhaps getting closer with number of units, but those units have few to no options. GWs style of giving options at the unit level has always been difficult to balance, and you are right that including buffs, especially auras makes this very difficult to balance.
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: