Switch Theme:

September FAQ is here  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
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 us
Courageous Space Marine Captain




On the Internet

See, that's where you still get it wrong Karol. You're still talking solely in maximizing mechanical efficiency in your list and ignoring people who would build to themes or lore. Not all builds have to be based around trying to be the most mechanically efficient for people to want to play them or even have fun with them.
   
Made in ch
Revered Rogue Psyker






No you roll to hit, if it hits then it is instead X hits. So 1/2 way auto.


Seems too weak.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page

A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
_______________________________

Who would win:
10'000 + years of veterancy, or some raidy Boys?
Trick Question, of course it's the loyalists!

(Not Online in regards to the new Red Corsair battalion CP boost and 8th edition.) 
   
Made in ca
Anointed Dark Priest of Chaos





British Columbia

 ClockworkZion wrote:
See, that's where you still get it wrong Karol. You're still talking solely in maximizing mechanical efficiency in your list and ignoring people who would build to themes or lore. Not all builds have to be based around trying to be the most mechanically efficient for people to want to play them or even have fun with them.

Might be anecdotal but I've never encountered this mythical narrative or lore based play in 26 years of wargaming. It has always been take the obviously best choices and try to win. At best the most brutally unbalanced choices aligned with someone's interests. Ie. existing Saim Hann players just before the 6th/7th nonsense or the Iron Hands players who didn't start in the last two weeks.

 Crimson Devil wrote:
That's what 7th edition is about. Yelling "Forge the Narrative Pussy!" while kicking your opponent in the dick.
 BlaxicanX wrote:
A young business man named Tom Kirby, who was a pupil of mine until he turned greedy, helped the capitalists hunt down and destroy the wargamers. He betrayed and murdered Games Workshop.


 
   
Made in us
Courageous Space Marine Captain




On the Internet

 Eldarain wrote:
 ClockworkZion wrote:
See, that's where you still get it wrong Karol. You're still talking solely in maximizing mechanical efficiency in your list and ignoring people who would build to themes or lore. Not all builds have to be based around trying to be the most mechanically efficient for people to want to play them or even have fun with them.

Might be anecdotal but I've never encountered this mythical narrative or lore based play in 26 years of wargaming. It has always been take the obviously best choices and try to win. At best the most brutally unbalanced choices aligned with someone's interests. Ie. existing Saim Hann players just before the 6th/7th nonsense or the Iron Hands players who didn't start in the last two weeks.

There is a narrative gaming community away from Dakka, but it's not as developed as the AoS one is, at least online.
   
Made in gb
Regular Dakkanaut




Karol wrote:
 ClockworkZion wrote:


Assuming everyone, or even most people, care about tournament builds is a serious fallacy.

And your experiances aren't even close to universal since you live in Seal Clubbing Land.


It has little to do with carrying about tournaments. See I got to sports school, and when have to pick their specialisation, more often then not they watch how the matchs look like. Noobs, if they are smart, know they are noobs and the best way to avoid spending 700$ on something that is really bad, is looking at what is played in tournaments all across the globe. Doesn't even matter, what they play, how the events are played, if they team events or not, is ITC or somethings else etc.



Or if they are wise they buy just exactly the models which get them excited to paint and play - and then play with their like-minded friends. If nobody is engaging in seal-clubbing then it all works out great and everyone has a good time.

I tried to get one of my oldest friends to go to a tournament or two with me but he is sticking to playing with a few friends in front rooms. So it really does not matter that he is not going to go out and buy 12 smasha gunz for his Orks does it?
   
Made in de
Waaagh! Ork Warboss on Warbike





Not Online!!! wrote:

No you roll to hit, if it hits then it is instead X hits. So 1/2 way auto.


Seems too weak.


I think somehow making blasts work like the pie plates were by just using dice is pretty difficult as we expect them to do a lot of things at once:
- If you target large units it should generate many hits
- If you target small units it should not generate more hits than models
- Should not be good at sniping characters
- Should be good at destroying vehicles and monsters
- Should consider ballistic skill
- Models with low ballistic skill should still do okay with blast weapons
- Model spacing should not matter
- Should not have complicated rule-baggage attached that makes shooting those weapons a chore (7th edition multi-barrage)

Most of the suggestions here are pretty close to that, but always fail at one or two of those points. I don't have a great solution myself, maybe there simply isn't one.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
SemperMortis wrote:
Yes, because everyone lines up on the deployment line when facing off against orkz, especially when said orkz are fielding 3 Bonebreakers...which rely exclusively on getting into CC to inflict any kind of actual harm. All of your arguments rely upon your opponent being a brain dead muppet who just lets you maul him.


Yea...that's called board control.
 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




 ClockworkZion wrote:
See, that's where you still get it wrong Karol. You're still talking solely in maximizing mechanical efficiency in your list and ignoring people who would build to themes or lore. Not all builds have to be based around trying to be the most mechanically efficient for people to want to play them or even have fun with them.

Except even bad "lore friendly" armies will still stomp Grey Knights. So how wrong is Karol, really?

CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
Made in de
Waaagh! Ork Warboss on Warbike





Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 ClockworkZion wrote:
See, that's where you still get it wrong Karol. You're still talking solely in maximizing mechanical efficiency in your list and ignoring people who would build to themes or lore. Not all builds have to be based around trying to be the most mechanically efficient for people to want to play them or even have fun with them.

Except even bad "lore friendly" armies will still stomp Grey Knights. So how wrong is Karol, really?

As long as your argument is nothing but "it's better than the worst army in the game", basically any conclusion you draw from that is irrelevant.
Compared to the Jupiter, every city on earth is nearby.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
SemperMortis wrote:
Yes, because everyone lines up on the deployment line when facing off against orkz, especially when said orkz are fielding 3 Bonebreakers...which rely exclusively on getting into CC to inflict any kind of actual harm. All of your arguments rely upon your opponent being a brain dead muppet who just lets you maul him.


Yea...that's called board control.
 
   
Made in fr
Trazyn's Museum Curator





on the forum. Obviously

 Jidmah wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:

No you roll to hit, if it hits then it is instead X hits. So 1/2 way auto.


Seems too weak.


I think somehow making blasts work like the pie plates were by just using dice is pretty difficult as we expect them to do a lot of things at once:
- If you target large units it should generate many hits
- If you target small units it should not generate more hits than models
- Should not be good at sniping characters
- Should be good at destroying vehicles and monsters
- Should consider ballistic skill
- Models with low ballistic skill should still do okay with blast weapons
- Model spacing should not matter
- Should not have complicated rule-baggage attached that makes shooting those weapons a chore (7th edition multi-barrage)

Most of the suggestions here are pretty close to that, but always fail at one or two of those points. I don't have a great solution myself, maybe there simply isn't one.


What if it worked like the following -

Roll to hit
if hit roll XDX number of hits, depending on the weapon.
Roll to wound
Await saves
Roll damage
If target is X number of models, monster, possesses >=X number of wounds or vehicle, add 1 to hit roll.
If target is > X number of models and NOT a monster or vehicle, or is a single model that possesses <= wounds, subtract 1 from hit roll.

The problem with the "cannot hit more models than that are in the unit" clause is that it conflicts with the "good at destroying vehicles and monster" clause as whilst they are a single model, they have enough wounds as 10 models.
As such, you can't have a weapon that is both good against many models and good against single models with many wounds, unless you introduce some ridiculous weapon that deals 10 damage per hit.

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2019/10/03 11:38:05


What I have
~4100
~1660
: LM

Westwood lives in death!
Peace through power!

A longbeard when it comes to Necrons and WHFB. Grumble Grumble

 
   
Made in ch
Revered Rogue Psyker





Why subtract from hit roll if the target is Infantry?
That makes not much sense imo but your suggestion is decent imo

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page

A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
_______________________________

Who would win:
10'000 + years of veterancy, or some raidy Boys?
Trick Question, of course it's the loyalists!

(Not Online in regards to the new Red Corsair battalion CP boost and 8th edition.) 
   
Made in fr
Trazyn's Museum Curator





on the forum. Obviously

Not Online!!! wrote:
Why subtract from hit roll if the target is Infantry?
That makes not much sense imo but your suggestion is decent imo


Its to represent the increased likelihood of an artillery shell missing a small target.
The X in this case refers to something like 1-3 models ideally. Its so you don't just nuke MSUs off the table, giving armies like Custodes a chance.

Hard values tend to get a little tricky when making proposed rules, imo, so I prefer to leave it open.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/10/03 11:39:00


What I have
~4100
~1660
: LM

Westwood lives in death!
Peace through power!

A longbeard when it comes to Necrons and WHFB. Grumble Grumble

 
   
Made in ch
Revered Rogue Psyker





 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
Why subtract from hit roll if the target is Infantry?
That makes not much sense imo but your suggestion is decent imo


Its to represent the increased likelihood of an artillery shell missing a small target.
The X in this case refers to something like 1-3 models ideally.

Hard values tend to get a little tricky when making proposed rules, imo, so I prefer to leave it open.


Ahh, imo subtract on small targets but add hits if the squad is bigger, like 1/5 etc might fix the issue. Not sure though

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page

A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
_______________________________

Who would win:
10'000 + years of veterancy, or some raidy Boys?
Trick Question, of course it's the loyalists!

(Not Online in regards to the new Red Corsair battalion CP boost and 8th edition.) 
   
Made in pl
Longtime Dakkanaut




happy_inquisitor 780785 10588211 wrote:
Or if they are wise they buy just exactly the models which get them excited to paint and play - and then play with their like-minded friends. If nobody is engaging in seal-clubbing then it all works out great and everyone has a good time.

I tried to get one of my oldest friends to go to a tournament or two with me but he is sticking to playing with a few friends in front rooms. So it really does not matter that he is not going to go out and buy 12 smasha gunz for his Orks does it?


But what does like minded even mean? I started with 5 people from my school, as my most regular opponents. Two brothers played eldar soups, of different kinds, there was one person who had BAs, one person had marines which he played as different armies and one guy started with an IG army, and later on moved on to IG+castellan. Out of the 5 people only the brothers played tournaments. I have played in one store even in my entire life, stoped even trying to enlist for others as I couldn't fullfil half the comp limitations. eg stuff like no HQs over 9W, no +2 sv on models etc I live in a not so big town, no one here sits downs and thinks, that they have to spend 900$ for an army to win the euro champinships. If anything we miss a lot of stuff that seems to be normal in other countries. I have not seen an eldar army with 7-8 flyers for example, I have seen ones with 4-5 though. we don't use FW, so the leviathan problem or tau suit X breaking something for X months doesn't exist here.


As long as your argument is nothing but "it's better than the worst army in the game", basically any conclusion you draw from that is irrelevant.

But you can say it not just about GK, any bad codex will get stomped by a good one, specially in a non tournament setting. Because in a tournament setting both player will at least try to bring the best units possible. If DA player decides he likes Death Wing and his opponents play any of the new space marines, he won't be a happy player either. How fun is it to play Word Bearers right now, or Inari? And it is not like GW warns people from investing or playing those armies, or makes them cheaper to buy. So it is not like a WB army costs 150$, while the real chaos lists costs the proper 700$ or more and you have to pick between good pricy and bad, but cheap.


See, that's where you still get it wrong Karol. You're still talking solely in maximizing mechanical efficiency in your list and ignoring people who would build to themes or lore. Not all builds have to be based around trying to be the most mechanically efficient for people to want to play them or even have fun with them.

okey, what do you think if 4 people start an army with 700$, and two pick their armies out of books with good rules and two pick their armies from bad books, who do you think will have the most fun playing the game? The person who picked power choices from a good book, the person who picked units from a good book not based on unit power, the person who picked good choices only out of a bad book, or the person who picked the stuff they wanted from a bad book. Because am telling you, if you made enough of those 4 players groups, you would see that the people who picked the stuff they want from a bad book, have the least fun. Specially if they get to play against people with good books, and it doesn't even matter if the people with good books went for power choices. I lost games to primaris only space marine armies, pre vigilus, pre supplement and pre codex 2.0. And back then primaris were considered costing too much, and bad unless they were hellblasters in DAs or something like that.



   
Made in us
Courageous Space Marine Captain




On the Internet

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 ClockworkZion wrote:
See, that's where you still get it wrong Karol. You're still talking solely in maximizing mechanical efficiency in your list and ignoring people who would build to themes or lore. Not all builds have to be based around trying to be the most mechanically efficient for people to want to play them or even have fun with them.

Except even bad "lore friendly" armies will still stomp Grey Knights. So how wrong is Karol, really?

Which, again, is an exception, not a rule. Using the crappiness of the Grey Knights as a defense of anything doesn't work.
   
Made in de
Pestilent Plague Marine with Blight Grenade




 Eldarain wrote:
 ClockworkZion wrote:
See, that's where you still get it wrong Karol. You're still talking solely in maximizing mechanical efficiency in your list and ignoring people who would build to themes or lore. Not all builds have to be based around trying to be the most mechanically efficient for people to want to play them or even have fun with them.

Might be anecdotal but I've never encountered this mythical narrative or lore based play in 26 years of wargaming. It has always been take the obviously best choices and try to win. At best the most brutally unbalanced choices aligned with someone's interests. Ie. existing Saim Hann players just before the 6th/7th nonsense or the Iron Hands players who didn't start in the last two weeks.


Might be anecdotal as well but in real life I've never encountered the pure mathhammering that seems to be going on in the internet and especially dakka. I don't even know how people find the time to build and paint flavor of the month armies if they do have a job. And if they don't have a job I don't know how they have the money to buy those armies... Obviousely people here have very different playgroups.
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





Karol wrote:
happy_inquisitor 780785 10588211 wrote:
Or if they are wise they buy just exactly the models which get them excited to paint and play - and then play with their like-minded friends. If nobody is engaging in seal-clubbing then it all works out great and everyone has a good time.

I tried to get one of my oldest friends to go to a tournament or two with me but he is sticking to playing with a few friends in front rooms. So it really does not matter that he is not going to go out and buy 12 smasha gunz for his Orks does it?


But what does like minded even mean? I started with 5 people from my school, as my most regular opponents. Two brothers played eldar soups, of different kinds, there was one person who had BAs, one person had marines which he played as different armies and one guy started with an IG army, and later on moved on to IG+castellan. Out of the 5 people only the brothers played tournaments. I have played in one store even in my entire life, stoped even trying to enlist for others as I couldn't fullfil half the comp limitations. eg stuff like no HQs over 9W, no +2 sv on models etc I live in a not so big town, no one here sits downs and thinks, that they have to spend 900$ for an army to win the euro champinships. If anything we miss a lot of stuff that seems to be normal in other countries. I have not seen an eldar army with 7-8 flyers for example, I have seen ones with 4-5 though. we don't use FW, so the leviathan problem or tau suit X breaking something for X months doesn't exist here.


As long as your argument is nothing but "it's better than the worst army in the game", basically any conclusion you draw from that is irrelevant.

But you can say it not just about GK, any bad codex will get stomped by a good one, specially in a non tournament setting. Because in a tournament setting both player will at least try to bring the best units possible. If DA player decides he likes Death Wing and his opponents play any of the new space marines, he won't be a happy player either. How fun is it to play Word Bearers right now, or Inari? And it is not like GW warns people from investing or playing those armies, or makes them cheaper to buy. So it is not like a WB army costs 150$, while the real chaos lists costs the proper 700$ or more and you have to pick between good pricy and bad, but cheap.


See, that's where you still get it wrong Karol. You're still talking solely in maximizing mechanical efficiency in your list and ignoring people who would build to themes or lore. Not all builds have to be based around trying to be the most mechanically efficient for people to want to play them or even have fun with them.

okey, what do you think if 4 people start an army with 700$, and two pick their armies out of books with good rules and two pick their armies from bad books, who do you think will have the most fun playing the game? The person who picked power choices from a good book, the person who picked units from a good book not based on unit power, the person who picked good choices only out of a bad book, or the person who picked the stuff they wanted from a bad book. Because am telling you, if you made enough of those 4 players groups, you would see that the people who picked the stuff they want from a bad book, have the least fun. Specially if they get to play against people with good books, and it doesn't even matter if the people with good books went for power choices. I lost games to primaris only space marine armies, pre vigilus, pre supplement and pre codex 2.0. And back then primaris were considered costing too much, and bad unless they were hellblasters in DAs or something like that.




Perhaps you picked the wrong game?

40k is a terrible hobby for chasing mechanical competence. It's shallow, more driven by narrative than balance, predicated on "anything can happen" randomness, and a massive investment in build coupled with extreme rebuild costs. There are some games that are great personal challenges, great ways to measure onesself. They tend to either be very stable mechanically (Chess), or highly optimized for competition (DOTA). 40k is great, but is not one of them.

The rules are deep, but the gameplay is shallow. For instance, while the exact "math" of what a "-1D aura" or "doubletap" is worth is very complex, the effect on gameplay is simple. "My guys won't die" or "I'll kill lots of stuff". There is some depth - target priority, ranges, utilizing CC, etc - but not nearly as much as the rules would have you believe. Chess, for example, has very shallow rules; I knew them all in 2nd grade. But the gameplay - I could spend a lifetime and not it's depth.

The tradeoffs between narrative and balance aren't optimized for competition. For instance, GW added a crapton of bloat in the form of Chapter Tactics and the SM supplements, ostensibly to expand the narrative and drive fluff. They're clearly making it hard to balance things, and GW decided that was a worthwhile trade for the increased "fluffyness". (IMO they got it wrong in both directions - the bloat hurt fluff. But that's not relevant. Chess, on the other hand, has no narrative bloat to concern itself. And games like DOTA and StarCraft only have narrative to support the game rules - never the other way around.

Chess has no random chance. Poker has some randomness, but in a very controlled manner. Things like CounterStrike have very little true randomness, even if it can feel that way. 40k, on the other hand, wants everything to change on a die roll. The same action leading to a different result is minimized in something like Counterstrike, and is impossible in Chess - but in 40k it's maximized. You charge X with your Y, and maybe you slaughter, maybe you whiff, maybe you get slaughtered. What's most likely might be obvious, but the odds of it going horribly sideways are never that low.

And then we get to mechanics and stability. In StarCraft or DOTA, you can alter your "build" - either the army you take or how you leverage it - for "free" between each game. To anything else in the game. This means that, if you wanted to try a Protoss Zealot Rush, you can; and then do Zerg Flyers next game. No switching costs. So, if you think one strategy is good, then later decide another strategy is better - no problem, just change. In 40k, you're talking hundreds of dollars of kit and hundreds of hours of time. And that's just builds within an army. Going from Serpent Spam to SM Obsec Spam, for instance, is not a simple change. So 40k is just a bad game for freely chasing the army style you want between games. It heavily pushes players to play whatever units they've always played, with a little variation over time.

To make matters worse, the mechanics are not stable. What's OP today is not OP tomorrow. Over the last two years, there have been probably a dozen or more entirely different "top lists" that don't even share an army. So, whatever's best today won't be best tomorrow. So even if you're God's gift to wargamming, and pick up exactly what's OP right now, in 6 months or less you'll need a different army. In a game where an army costs more than 6 months of disposable income (for most people), and takes more than 6 months of hobby time to prepare, there's simply no way for most people to do that.

With all these problems, 40k is a terrible game to play for technical mastery. It's a great game for getting into the hobby or social construct or lore. But not crunch. At best, you'll spend most of your time and energy arguing or complaining on the boards about why your one or three armies need to be buffed (or everyone else nerfed). At worst, you'll spend all your time and money on a hobby you don't enjoy, hate everything you're doing, and drive no value out of what should be the best times of your life. If you like the hobby, chasing the competitive scene can be a lot of fun. Or trying to do the best you can with what you have. But if you only care about crunch, there's nothing worthwhile here for you.
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





Sgt. Cortez wrote:
 Eldarain wrote:
 ClockworkZion wrote:
See, that's where you still get it wrong Karol. You're still talking solely in maximizing mechanical efficiency in your list and ignoring people who would build to themes or lore. Not all builds have to be based around trying to be the most mechanically efficient for people to want to play them or even have fun with them.

Might be anecdotal but I've never encountered this mythical narrative or lore based play in 26 years of wargaming. It has always been take the obviously best choices and try to win. At best the most brutally unbalanced choices aligned with someone's interests. Ie. existing Saim Hann players just before the 6th/7th nonsense or the Iron Hands players who didn't start in the last two weeks.


Might be anecdotal as well but in real life I've never encountered the pure mathhammering that seems to be going on in the internet and especially dakka. I don't even know how people find the time to build and paint flavor of the month armies if they do have a job. And if they don't have a job I don't know how they have the money to buy those armies... Obviousely people here have very different playgroups.


it's fairly common to borrow armies. Some people are flush and get them painted for them.

   
Made in us
Wing Commander





Seriously. 40k is a game where a squad of 10 guys with flashlights is more dangerous to a Demi-god than a squad of 2 guys with an anti-tank laser.
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Seriously. 40k is a game where a squad of 10 guys with flashlights is more dangerous to a Demi-god than a squad of 2 guys with an anti-tank laser.


Which isn't true.

1 * .5 * .666 * .5 * 3.5 * .666 = 0.39

9 * .5 * .167 * .333 * .666 = .17 ; .34 double tap

The problem is that you mentally take stock in getting a strong shot through and when it fails it feels bad. When you shoot lasguns at something big you don't do it with any real expectation so when they succeed it feels great.


   
Made in de
Hellacious Havoc




Forsaken wastes of Brandenburg

Bharring wrote:
Spoiler:

Perhaps you picked the wrong game?

40k is a terrible hobby for chasing mechanical competence. It's shallow, more driven by narrative than balance, predicated on "anything can happen" randomness, and a massive investment in build coupled with extreme rebuild costs. There are some games that are great personal challenges, great ways to measure onesself. They tend to either be very stable mechanically (Chess), or highly optimized for competition (DOTA). 40k is great, but is not one of them.

The rules are deep, but the gameplay is shallow. For instance, while the exact "math" of what a "-1D aura" or "doubletap" is worth is very complex, the effect on gameplay is simple. "My guys won't die" or "I'll kill lots of stuff". There is some depth - target priority, ranges, utilizing CC, etc - but not nearly as much as the rules would have you believe. Chess, for example, has very shallow rules; I knew them all in 2nd grade. But the gameplay - I could spend a lifetime and not it's depth.

The tradeoffs between narrative and balance aren't optimized for competition. For instance, GW added a crapton of bloat in the form of Chapter Tactics and the SM supplements, ostensibly to expand the narrative and drive fluff. They're clearly making it hard to balance things, and GW decided that was a worthwhile trade for the increased "fluffyness". (IMO they got it wrong in both directions - the bloat hurt fluff. But that's not relevant. Chess, on the other hand, has no narrative bloat to concern itself. And games like DOTA and StarCraft only have narrative to support the game rules - never the other way around.

Chess has no random chance. Poker has some randomness, but in a very controlled manner. Things like CounterStrike have very little true randomness, even if it can feel that way. 40k, on the other hand, wants everything to change on a die roll. The same action leading to a different result is minimized in something like Counterstrike, and is impossible in Chess - but in 40k it's maximized. You charge X with your Y, and maybe you slaughter, maybe you whiff, maybe you get slaughtered. What's most likely might be obvious, but the odds of it going horribly sideways are never that low.

And then we get to mechanics and stability. In StarCraft or DOTA, you can alter your "build" - either the army you take or how you leverage it - for "free" between each game. To anything else in the game. This means that, if you wanted to try a Protoss Zealot Rush, you can; and then do Zerg Flyers next game. No switching costs. So, if you think one strategy is good, then later decide another strategy is better - no problem, just change. In 40k, you're talking hundreds of dollars of kit and hundreds of hours of time. And that's just builds within an army. Going from Serpent Spam to SM Obsec Spam, for instance, is not a simple change. So 40k is just a bad game for freely chasing the army style you want between games. It heavily pushes players to play whatever units they've always played, with a little variation over time.

To make matters worse, the mechanics are not stable. What's OP today is not OP tomorrow. Over the last two years, there have been probably a dozen or more entirely different "top lists" that don't even share an army. So, whatever's best today won't be best tomorrow. So even if you're God's gift to wargamming, and pick up exactly what's OP right now, in 6 months or less you'll need a different army. In a game where an army costs more than 6 months of disposable income (for most people), and takes more than 6 months of hobby time to prepare, there's simply no way for most people to do that.

With all these problems, 40k is a terrible game to play for technical mastery. It's a great game for getting into the hobby or social construct or lore. But not crunch. At best, you'll spend most of your time and energy arguing or complaining on the boards about why your one or three armies need to be buffed (or everyone else nerfed). At worst, you'll spend all your time and money on a hobby you don't enjoy, hate everything you're doing, and drive no value out of what should be the best times of your life. If you like the hobby, chasing the competitive scene can be a lot of fun. Or trying to do the best you can with what you have. But if you only care about crunch, there's nothing worthwhile here for you.


Well done! A fantastically cogent post, and fully devoid of 'rant', too. GW should put this in the 40k rulebook as the first part of the introduction

DR:70+S+G++MB-IPw40k94#-D++A++/cWD143R++T(D)DM+
~11,000 pts painted

Bharring wrote:
At worst, you'll spend all your time and money on a hobby you don't enjoy, hate everything you're doing, and drive no value out of what should be the best times of your life.
 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




Annandale, VA

 Jidmah wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:

No you roll to hit, if it hits then it is instead X hits. So 1/2 way auto.


Seems too weak.


I think somehow making blasts work like the pie plates were by just using dice is pretty difficult as we expect them to do a lot of things at once:
- If you target large units it should generate many hits
- If you target small units it should not generate more hits than models
- Should not be good at sniping characters
- Should be good at destroying vehicles and monsters
- Should consider ballistic skill
- Models with low ballistic skill should still do okay with blast weapons
- Model spacing should not matter
- Should not have complicated rule-baggage attached that makes shooting those weapons a chore (7th edition multi-barrage)

Most of the suggestions here are pretty close to that, but always fail at one or two of those points. I don't have a great solution myself, maybe there simply isn't one.


I feel like giving blast weapons a bunch of shots along with a rule like 'this weapon can't inflict more hits than the target unit has models' would suffice with a minimum of headache. They would be poor at sniping characters or killing vehicles, but effectiveness would be directly constrained by the size of the target unit. BS would matter, with high-BS models more effective, but also likely to reach their hard limit than low-BS models.

Then you could bump Flamers up to, say, Assault 2D6 and have them be a lot scarier against hordes without being totally broken.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




Except they wouldn't be because of the AP system.

You'd have to have a rule affecting T3 and below basically. That covers the hordes outside Orks, and since they aren't durable to begin with it wouldn't affect them.

CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




Annandale, VA

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Except they wouldn't be because of the AP system.

You'd have to have a rule affecting T3 and below basically. That covers the hordes outside Orks, and since they aren't durable to begin with it wouldn't affect them.


Not sure I follow. A 2D6 flamer would be averaging 3.1 kills on Guardsmen or 2.9 on Orks. That seems plenty sufficient for a cheap special weapon. Where does AP come into it?
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




 catbarf wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Except they wouldn't be because of the AP system.

You'd have to have a rule affecting T3 and below basically. That covers the hordes outside Orks, and since they aren't durable to begin with it wouldn't affect them.


Not sure I follow. A 2D6 flamer would be averaging 3.1 kills on Guardsmen or 2.9 on Orks. That seems plenty sufficient for a cheap special weapon. Where does AP come into it?

This has to do with horde units being on equal or better durability compared to more elite units because of the way the weapon AP rules work. Flamers, assuming you ever got to use them because templates outside Torrents weren't exactly good, worked against horde units not just because of hitting multiple models but also ignoring their save.

CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
Made in us
Esteemed Veteran Space Marine




San Jose, CA

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
Spoiler:
 Eldarain wrote:
 ClockworkZion wrote:
See, that's where you still get it wrong Karol. You're still talking solely in maximizing mechanical efficiency in your list and ignoring people who would build to themes or lore. Not all builds have to be based around trying to be the most mechanically efficient for people to want to play them or even have fun with them.

Might be anecdotal but I've never encountered this mythical narrative or lore based play in 26 years of wargaming. It has always been take the obviously best choices and try to win. At best the most brutally unbalanced choices aligned with someone's interests. Ie. existing Saim Hann players just before the 6th/7th nonsense or the Iron Hands players who didn't start in the last two weeks.


Might be anecdotal as well but in real life I've never encountered the pure mathhammering that seems to be going on in the internet and especially dakka. I don't even know how people find the time to build and paint flavor of the month armies if they do have a job. And if they don't have a job I don't know how they have the money to buy those armies... Obviousely people here have very different playgroups.



Cash Rules Everything Around Me.

If you have the $€£¥ it dont matter
   
Made in nl
Longtime Dakkanaut





Sgt. Cortez wrote:
 Eldarain wrote:
 ClockworkZion wrote:
See, that's where you still get it wrong Karol. You're still talking solely in maximizing mechanical efficiency in your list and ignoring people who would build to themes or lore. Not all builds have to be based around trying to be the most mechanically efficient for people to want to play them or even have fun with them.

Might be anecdotal but I've never encountered this mythical narrative or lore based play in 26 years of wargaming. It has always been take the obviously best choices and try to win. At best the most brutally unbalanced choices aligned with someone's interests. Ie. existing Saim Hann players just before the 6th/7th nonsense or the Iron Hands players who didn't start in the last two weeks.


Might be anecdotal as well but in real life I've never encountered the pure mathhammering that seems to be going on in the internet and especially dakka. I don't even know how people find the time to build and paint flavor of the month armies if they do have a job. And if they don't have a job I don't know how they have the money to buy those armies... Obviousely people here have very different playgroups.
How do you think the people offering painting services stay in business?
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: