Switch Theme:

Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  [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 ca
Ancient Venerable Dreadnought






 The Red Hobbit wrote:
Racerguy180 wrote:
Apocalypse is a great game but anything new since it's release doesn't have stats/rules.



Do they do regular updates to incorporate new stuff either digitally or in print?


Nope, pretty much was a one and done.

To many unpainted models to count. 
   
Made in nl
Longtime Dakkanaut





If GW wanted the game to be faster then they once again prove their incompetence.

For the casual player that doesn't know his entire codex by heart the game is slower then its ever been since I started playing in 3e.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





Tampa,FL USA

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I always wanted a 40k scale Dactylis


The Forgeworld Dactylis is one of my favorite 28mm licensed Nid models and you can still find them popping up on eBay every now and then.



Tomato chuckers for the win.

Edit: There's one up right now, actually, though the guy put the arms on backwards.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/01/26 22:28:42


You know you're really doing something when you can make strangers hate you over the Internet. - Mauleed
Just remember folks. Panic. Panic all the time. It's the only way to survive, other than just being mindful, of course-but geez, that's so friggin' boring. - Aegis Grimm
Hallowed is the All Pie
The Before Times: A Place That Celebrates The World That Was 
   
Made in gb
Killer Klaivex




The dark behind the eyes.

 auticus wrote:
Older games were not decided by turn 1 like they were in more recent editons,


Game design over the past 10 years has centered on the experience lasting an hour or so. The generation of gamers from the 1990s and early 2000s were ok with playing games that took most of the afternoon. That was normal.

The generation that came after did not want to spend an entire afternoon on one game. They want to go to a game store and play multiple games in an afternoon.




Well if that's the case then they've completely fething failed.

In the past, I had 2v2 games that went onto turn 5+ in the time it now takes to play a game of 8th/9th to around turn 3.

 the_scotsman wrote:
Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"

 Argive wrote:
GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.


 Andilus Greatsword wrote:

"Prepare to open fire at that towering Wraithknight!"
"ARE YOU DAFT MAN!?! YOU MIGHT HIT THE MEN WHO COME UP TO ITS ANKLES!!!"


Akiasura wrote:
I hate to sound like a serial killer, but I'll be reaching for my friend occam's razor yet again.


 insaniak wrote:

You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.

Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
 
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

PenitentJake wrote:
I have to disagree with the idea that "GW as whole" is targeting tournament players, or that the 9th edition is the "tournament" edition.
You can disagree all you like, but the main thrust 9th has been to adapt a third party tournament mission, objective and scoring system for the most commonly played variant of the game and make that the de facto default for all 40k games. Chapter Approved is now even called a 'Tournament Pack'.

Crusade is a great idea marred by a torturous slow roll-out of rules that has (and will) leave some factions without their Crusade rules for years (something the old-style Chapter Approved could have partially remedied, before it was turned into All Tournaments All The Time).

And, let's be real, Open Play only exists because "Two Ways To Play" sounds stupid and isn't exactly marketable.

PenitentJake wrote:
All three demographics are important to the long term survival of the company for different reasons. All three have different spending profiles and different needs. And GW is simultaneously using multiple strategies to hit ALL of them.
I don't think the Open Play demographic is important at all, assuming it even really exists in any appreciable quantity. I think Crusade would be stronger if it was more centralised (ie. not spread out across multiple books - put the 'Crusade' books into the campaign books, rather then releasing Crusade stuff for each warzone split in two books) and wasn't still being released for various races in a massively slow drip (not completely GW's fault, but, again, the slowness is something they would have fixed in CA back in the day).

Most people play matched play games, and matched play is almost synonymous with 'tournament play'. That's where 40k is right now. That's why 9th, despite introducing Crusade, is 'Tournament Edition 40k'.

 vipoid wrote:
In the past, I had 2v2 games that went onto turn 5+ in the time it now takes to play a game of 8th/9th to around turn 3.
Man... you played a 9th game that made it to turn 3? Must've been a long game.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/01/26 23:28:38


Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut





@HBMC- pretty decent and thoughtful response.

Your points about Crusade are all pretty solid- I think the people most likely to play Crusade are the people whose armies their dexes and therefore, their bespoke content. And that certainly does mean that matched would have a player based edge.

And of course, you know I've always been 100% in agreement with your idea that Campaign books and Crusade mission packs could be combined- and I think you're right that doing so would be another way to increase the Crusade player base.

And I also have come around to agreeing with you on Open in some ways- it's super important as a learn to play option, but many of those who try it will go on to either Matched or Crusade... so while it is important and has a place, there probably isn't much of an ongoing, long term player base for it (though I do know a few on Dakka who swear by it).

Based on all of that, I can certainly concede that for at least the time being it does seem that Matched is the most commonly played format. But I still have trouble labelling the game as the Tournament edition when more actual resources are targeted at Narrative players.

Tournament scoring is used for the most popular mode of play, but the mission support for the less popular mode of play is 5x that of the mission support for Matched. Up until now, GT Mission Packs have always replaced the previous set, where as Crusade Mission Packs have always continued to be valid- it's been years since the Pariah mission pack, but you can still play the Pariah campaign if you wanted to. By contrast, once the GT 2021 MP was released, the 2020 MP did become factually obsolete.

Granted, the wording I've seen in the leaks from GT Nachmund suggests that GW is now linking GT rule sets to campaign settings in the same way they always have with Crusade rules. So from this point forward, people will still be able to say "Hey, want to play a Nachmund GT game instead of a <Insert season two setting> GT game. In practice, it won't happen as often as it would with Crusade- many of the people playing matched ARE tournament players, and for them, current is always going to matter more than which rule set they prefer.

But the garagehammer folks playing Matched, those guys might still choose to switch back to previous GT seasons to mix it up a bit.

That gives me a 5 to 1 lead on mission support as a crusade player. Even if matched is more popular (and yeah, I realize it is, as outlined above) I still can't call it a tournament edition when I have so much more stuff I can do and use than a tourney player does.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







Tbf GW has always had campaign books and narrative supplements.

What they haven't always had are balance updates and Matched Play refinements.
   
Made in dk
Pyro Pilot of a Triach Stalker






 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Tbf GW has always had campaign books and narrative supplements.

What they haven't always had are balance updates and Matched Play refinements.

They haven't always had wargear cost points in 5 pt increments, they haven't always prevented units from being unable to be charged while on top of a ruin, they haven't always had PL, they haven't always had Crusade content in codexes. 9th is the narrative edition, everyone who wants to play narrative does, but it's not for everyone, so some people play matched play. When you want a balanced pick-up game it makes sense to play the most recent tournament mission pack because that's what GW has allegedly balanced points around. If you play a homebrew mission the person in charge of balance suddenly becomes the person suggesting the mission. It is kind of nice to be able to shrug and say "wow GW really messed up balance this season" instead of saying "sorry my homebrew mission ruined our game night".

The game balance has been marred just as much by a slow roll out as the ability for people to have fluffy Crusade rules. Tau and GSC have been trash for a year, where were their 3-8 secondary missions while Space Marines and Necrons each had one amazing one each? I'm not sure all the competitive Tau and GSC players think 9th is the most competitive edition ever. Every faction should have gotten Crusade content at once, every faction should have gotten GT mission faction secondaries at once. No, Crusade was not slighted more than Matched play 40k was.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/27 07:25:11


 
   
Made in tw
Fresh-Faced New User




 The Red Hobbit wrote:



Do they do regular updates to incorporate new stuff either digitally or in print?

no longer in print, huge shame. i play it in 6mm and pretty nice

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/28 02:10:45


 
   
Made in us
Perfect Shot Black Templar Predator Pilot






That's a shame, I always hear great things about Apocalypse but sounds like they didn't have any plans for post release support.
   
Made in us
Clousseau




It was a one and done which is why the vast majority of people I've ever known ignored it regardless of if it was fun or not. Few want to invest in a stillborn game.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Annandale, VA

 vict0988 wrote:
When you want a balanced pick-up game it makes sense to play the most recent tournament mission pack because that's what GW has allegedly balanced points around.


I'll assert that it is not optimal for pick-up games to be using rulesets intended to provide balance at the top tables of LVO.

The number of casual- and really not imbalanced- armies I've seen invalidated by RO3, flyer limits, subfaction restrictions, or other tournament-balance-oriented rules is non-negligible. And the Matched Play missions, optimized as ever for competitive balance, are dull as dishwater.

   
Made in at
Discriminating Warrior





Austria

problem with this is that tournament balance does not care about internal codex balance or if all factions have an equal chance to win

those just care about balance on the table, that a first turn advantage is not too big etc.

if every person who wants to win the event requires the same army list is not a problem for tournaments

its the players fault if he comes naked to gunfight, not the tournaments for not banning guns
but it is GWs fault for giving some factions guns while others have to fight naked, as this is what kills pick up games

GW Marketing tries to advertise that balance is only important for events, while it is actually important for casual pick up games as events don't care and make their own rules anyway


Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise

M41 - Alternative Rules for Battles in the 41st Millennium (40k LRB Project) 
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







 Backspacehacker wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
In practice it's so stripped down that it takes longer to take out/put away minis than it does to actually play. I'm also not a big fan of the stratagem deck.


I feel like the old planetary onslaught named stratagems the best.
Both players got the same number of command points.
Most stratagems usually were best used to counter your opponents stratagems.


I liked original 4e Apocalypse stratagems a lot. They were one-use things that had a major impact on the game that you acquired during list-building by taking specific formations and paying points for them, plus one freebie, and often cost you strategic resources (=victory points) to use. There weren't that many, most of them were common to all armies, you didn't get that many, and they were extra cherry-on-top things rather than core stuff that they balanced units around using.

Balanced Game: Noun. A game in which all options and choices are worth using.
Homebrew oldhammer project: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/790996.page#10896267
Meridian: Necromunda-based 40k skirmish: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/795374.page 
   
Made in it
Waaagh! Ork Warboss




Italy

 kodos wrote:
problem with this is that tournament balance does not care about internal codex balance or if all factions have an equal chance to win



Really? I think internal codexes balance and win rates for the factions are both at their highest level in the history of 40k. They're both not perfect of course but compared to older editions we've already seen way more armies doing great at tournaments and way more units from each faction being viable at competitive levels.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/28 07:48:31


 
   
Made in dk
Pyro Pilot of a Triach Stalker






I don't want to play against Valkyrie spam or Killa Kan spam in casual pick-up games. I've always liked the Nova-style pick-your-own secondaries, I think it's a fun mini-game. I've had plenty of fun games using them. I liked the 7th edition Maelstrom missions a lot for casual games, but they leave a lot up to chance.
 kodos wrote:
problem with this is that tournament balance does not care about internal codex balance or if all factions have an equal chance to win

those just care about balance on the table, that a first turn advantage is not too big etc.

if every person who wants to win the event requires the same army list is not a problem for tournaments

its the players fault if he comes naked to gunfight, not the tournaments for not banning guns
but it is GWs fault for giving some factions guns while others have to fight naked, as this is what kills pick up games

GW Marketing tries to advertise that balance is only important for events, while it is actually important for casual pick up games as events don't care and make their own rules anyway

So you're saying that GW while trying to internally and externally balance Necrons for the Nachmund mission set have accidentally made Necrons more internally and externally balanced in a different mission set? This is not about what tournament players want, it's whether GW are trying to make Necrons balanced for the GT missions or for the Only War mission.

Players whining about playing 3/5 rounds against the same list is a thing and people are generally happy if they've played against a variety of lists in a tournament. Organizers try to adapt missions and terrain to curb OP factions because TOs know that if 50% of attendees bring the same list then the tournament will not grow. Curbing go-first win-rates is also important because tournament go-ers are generally not interested in too much RNG and being 20% more likely to win based on one lucky roll before any models have moved is too much. That does not mean that nothing else matters, sometimes a TO will choose to focus more on external balance or go-first balance over not ruining internal balance, but internal balance is generally so bad in GW publications that no matter what you do as a TO every faction's internal balance will be garbage.
   
Made in at
Discriminating Warrior





Austria

not all people go to an event to win it, but for a lot of people this is a social event or even the only possibility to play the game
for those it is important that they can have a good time with the faction they like and the models they have painted
in this case, balance is important and event orgas want to make it possible that all having the best possible time
so if GW fails to make good enough rules, the orga will try and make changes to ensure balance as best as possible and for the pure competitive game, it does not matter if there is 1 winning list or 20

that GW manages to make something good by accident, well even a broken watch is right twice a day
 Blackie wrote:
 kodos wrote:
problem with this is that tournament balance does not care about internal codex balance or if all factions have an equal chance to win

Really? I think internal codexes balance and win rates for the factions are both at their highest level in the history of 40k. They're both not perfect of course but compared to older editions we've already seen way more armies doing great at tournaments and way more units from each faction being viable at competitive levels.

which is unrelated to my statement
if there is only 1 army list in all of 40k able to enter the top 5 in an event, those that want to win will use it and not care if something else has no chance
it is not important if other armies are not able to do so for the pure competitive gaming, this is only important if you play the army for different reasons or casual games

Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise

M41 - Alternative Rules for Battles in the 41st Millennium (40k LRB Project) 
   
Made in it
Waaagh! Ork Warboss




Italy

 kodos wrote:
not all people go to an event to win it, but for a lot of people this is a social event or even the only possibility to play the game
for those it is important that they can have a good time with the faction they like and the models they have painted
in this case, balance is important and event orgas want to make it possible that all having the best possible time
so if GW fails to make good enough rules, the orga will try and make changes to ensure balance as best as possible and for the pure competitive game, it does not matter if there is 1 winning list or 20

that GW manages to make something good by accident, well even a broken watch is right twice a day
 Blackie wrote:
 kodos wrote:
problem with this is that tournament balance does not care about internal codex balance or if all factions have an equal chance to win

Really? I think internal codexes balance and win rates for the factions are both at their highest level in the history of 40k. They're both not perfect of course but compared to older editions we've already seen way more armies doing great at tournaments and way more units from each faction being viable at competitive levels.

which is unrelated to my statement
if there is only 1 army list in all of 40k able to enter the top 5 in an event, those that want to win will use it and not care if something else has no chance
it is not important if other armies are not able to do so for the pure competitive gaming, this is only important if you play the army for different reasons or casual games


But that's what did happen in older editions of 40k, 9th is the extreme opposite. There are tons of different lists that went in the top 5 at events so far. A lot of armies managed to enter the top 5 with a wide array of units. Never before we had this variety of viable models. So I don't understand where your statement came from and why.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/01/28 09:50:10


 
   
Made in at
Discriminating Warrior





Austria

as a reply to catbarfs comment directly above mine

aka, this balance is not aimed at "competitive play" but casuals entering events

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/28 09:57:37


Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise

M41 - Alternative Rules for Battles in the 41st Millennium (40k LRB Project) 
   
Made in it
Waaagh! Ork Warboss




Italy

The point is most players do pick up games or garage hammer using those tournament rules, which at that point is like playing competitive 40k, so yeah this balance is aimed at both casual and competitive gaming. GW wants to curb some OP lists that show up at events in order to avoid making them common in pick up games. But also at tournaments, since the most competitive people get tired of playing with and against the same stuff over and over again. That's the whole point of balance patches.

And I disagree about pick up games being unbalanced, as we never had this level of internal and external balance in 40k. So pick up games might be unbalanced compared to other games or in a vacuum, but compared to the history of 40k this is basically the golden age of balance.

 
   
Made in at
Discriminating Warrior





Austria

I would avoid calling it "comeptitive games" as I said, for those it does not matter
and those competitive people that are tired of always playing the same are those that demand change for the sake of change with any random adjustment that changes the meta being fine (balance is not the driving point behind this)

pick up games and garage hammer uses the rules for events/matched play so benefit from the balance changes made there

GWs recent point changes would be suited to please the competitive people, as it just changes things without making (for some of those units) balance better
but just that a current list with 1998 points not being legal any more and people need to bring something different for the next tournament

that this also can affect balance for the casual and event players, is a side effect, and a limited one

PS: for my personal experience, pick up games were the best prior 5th, but not because of the game but because event/community rules were used nearly everywhere and he tolerance over house rules etc was higher, while now everything not official is a no go for everyone outside the fixed groups

and also the game takes too long now for me, even if the balance is better, needing 4+ hours to get thru a game with a random person is too much

Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise

M41 - Alternative Rules for Battles in the 41st Millennium (40k LRB Project) 
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba




New Jersey, State of Perfection

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

And, let's be real, Open Play only exists because "Two Ways To Play" sounds stupid and isn't exactly marketable.


It should really be "One Way to Play". I believe firmly that it is possible, with a basic degree of competence and skill, to produce rules which are mechanically tight and complex enough to create an exciting and balanced competitive meta while also being thematic and fluffy enough produce narrative excitement at the same time. All what "three ways to play" accomplishes in my mind is creating a split/partitioning of the player base and the meta in such a manner that muddies the water of discourse in a manner which makes it impossible to meet the needs of any of them. Its bad enough already that the concept of national, regional, and local metas will result in skewed playtest and meta data and player feedback that can vary wildly, but now on top of that you're also layering the differences that arise from what are essentially three different games based on the same core engine. Someones viewpoint on balance based on their experience playing an army in a Crusade format is going to vary wildly from someone who bases their experience playing an army in a competitive format, versus someone who does whatever it is the open play crowd does (I've never seen an "open play" game but in my head I imagine its two or more people showing up to the table with a random collection of minis taken from across 5 different codexes plus at least one unit from AoS or another game or otherwise kitbashed from a 1/35 Tamiya kit with homebrew "its balanced I swear rules" to make them work in 40k, and theres at least a 20% points disparity between the players if they bothered to check, etc.). The resulting feedback and noise is really only useful if you have detailed background data to understand the environment that these players are playing in, something which I'm guessing the average player isn't clever enough to parse themselves based on how these sorts of details are typically ommitted entirely during online discussion.

To some extent the "three ways" bit is a load of BS too. While GW has been providing a lot of support for Narrative players in 9th, I can't say I've seen much for open. Matched still seems to be GWs favorite child... in fact, it seems that GWs balancing decisions are being based entirely and only around the matched play concept as their playtesters are (to my knowledge) 100% competitive meta players and the metawatch articles are of course only concerned with tournament results, thereby excluding narrative/open play from the discussion. This is probably a good thing overall, but it does essentially mean that GWs matched play oriented balance changes and updates are being forced down on narrative and open play gamers.

I don't think the Open Play demographic is important at all, assuming it even really exists in any appreciable quantity.


Agreed.

I think Crusade would be stronger if it was more centralised (ie. not spread out across multiple books - put the 'Crusade' books into the campaign books, rather then releasing Crusade stuff for each warzone split in two books) and wasn't still being released for various races in a massively slow drip (not completely GW's fault, but, again, the slowness is something they would have fixed in CA back in the day).


Agreed here too, but it would be nicer still IMO if the "Crusade" rules were also synonymous with "Matched" rules. What I mean is, the 5-10 pages of rules in each codex that many players will never use, either because they are strictly "matched only" or because (like me) have a local community that is borderline "matched only"/"anti-narrative", were actually usable by people playing matched games in some capacity (including tournaments) and the rules instead incentivized players to field armies that were more grounded in narrative.
Obviously the entire system would need to be overhauled from the ground up and you would need to eliminate the "persistance" aspect of it (you're not going to walk into round 1 of a tournament with a buffed up character or unit because you won a bunch of games last week against your regular playing group, honest guys I swear, right? Nor is it really fair to have you walk into your next game with a leveled up unit because you had a really good first tournament round, but because your opponent lost he got nothing out of it, etc.), but those Crusade rules would (to me). What I envision instead is, a section of rules built around promoting fluffy and thematic armies rooted in narrative - basically Crusade would be an alternative set of army-building rules (i.e. you "Build a Crusade Army") that forgoes the detachment system but instead uses a more restrictive/proscriptive framework designed to promote armies built around fluff and narrative at the expense of raw points efficiency and competitive power, i.e. things like taking multiple maximum sized troops units as the core of your army (as opposed to the competitive alternative of paying the troop tax with MSU), being restricted to the number of certain units you can field (either hard limits of "only 1/2/3 per army" or "only 1 per every 2 troops units" type things), being restricted in terms of which units you can field in combination with one another (oh, you're fielding LRBTs? Well unfortunately you can't also take Basilisks, etc. because your crusade force is being supported by a tank company rather than an SP artillery company, and in order for your infantry to keep up with the armor they all need to be mounted in chimeras - you can't use tauroxes because only motorized guard companies use those, and those don't have access to tank or SP Artillery support, instead they have to rely on sentinels and Hellhounds/Banewolves/Hotdogs), etc.

In exchange for theoretically handicapping yourself in such a manner, the Crusade army comes with a number of perks, such as a more comprehensive "build your own custom character" system that brings back the highly customizable (but prone to abuse) herohammer characters of yore with an expanded wargear and special rule menu to choose from, special "crusade only" strategems, additional crusade only artifacts, additional more thematic/fluffy secondary objective options, providing bonus special rules to certain units, extra wargear and customization options for them that wouldn't otherwise be available (i.e. you can upgrade your squad of guardsmen to be "tank-hunter veterans" with +1BS and +1LD, equipped with melta bombs, and a special rule that gives them a bonus to wound/damage reroll when targeting vehicles, etc.), offer free upgrades/bonus units that would not otherwise be balanced or work within the framework of the freeform detachment system currently being used by matched play players, etc. You could get fancy with this and base it on a "progressive" army building structure (i.e. if your army includes 2-3 maximum sized troops units you get x, 4-5 gets you y, 6+ gets you z), etc.There could even be multiple crusade army options in each book built around a number of different themes, including some designed to promote the use of units which would otherwise probably go unfielded.

I guess in essence I am proposing Warmachine theme forces to an extent, but done in a manner which is more fluff-forward in terms of requiring you to take certain units in certain quantities and sizes, rather than simply restricting you to only taking select units and allowing you to figure out how you can best abuse them. Would probably work better than the existing "Regiment of Renown" system or whatever they are calling it, as the more restrictive nature of the system allows for much more powerful and tailored bonuses to be handed out.

As for the mission aspect, I'm convinced that its possible to make the competitive missions a bit more narratively interesting. To some extent, some of the secondary objectives have pushed competitive play in a slightly more narrative direction in some aspects as it stands, but theres definitely room for improvement.

The number of casual- and really not imbalanced- armies I've seen invalidated by RO3, flyer limits, subfaction restrictions, or other tournament-balance-oriented rules is non-negligible. And the Matched Play missions, optimized as ever for competitive balance, are dull as dishwater.


Agreed. My Militarum Tempestus are now borderline unplayable (I've yet to actually win a game with them in 9th, so even at their best this edition they have been fairly terrible and from what I gather have an even lower winrate than guard as a whole does) as a result of flyer nerfs. The only thing I can conceivably do to have an even remote chance of winning against a 9th edition book is to spam taurox primes. I know a number of others who had to make some big modifications to their armies as a result of the changes, and these were mid/bottom tier competitive guys at best. And yeah, the matched play missions are very bland, I think the secondaries are the only aspect of the missions that I like.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/28 14:43:05


This ain't no pansy GW Armor, son - Digital Sculpting Plog, Now with Heavy Weapon Platforms!
Sympathy for the Devil, or: The Project Log from Hell

Ma55ter_fett wrote:It reads like the ramblings of a Nigerian lobotomized Shakespeare typed into a cellphone with a very aggressive autocomplete function.
 
   
Made in us
Clousseau




There is one very large flaw with basing game balance solely on tournament results.

Tournament metas are not a reflection of the game as a whole. They are a reflection of the most uber and optimized choices that represent roughly 5% of the entire game.

I still don't see them balancing anything period because I just saw a game last week where the game ended in about 30 minutes because the lists were so far apart in power despite being disguised as 2000 points.

But... IF they were hypothetically balancing the game against the tournament meta, thats still a big fat fail to everyone except for the tournament meta chasers or people that have tournament meta chasers build their lists for "for fun casual" games.

My last 40k game was a few years ago but it featured my for fun campaign narrative thousand sons list getting annihilated in two turns by an adepticon knights list (in a narrative for fun campaign event, which adepticon knight player replies "this is how I have fun"), and I was told "the game is fine, tournaments are doing great and the top 5 are pretty diverse, you just don't know how to list build (you should have built the thousand sons meta list of Magnus and Mortarion and the demons that hold objectives in your narrative for fun army where Magnus and Mortarion hate each other but you bring them anyway because they are the 0ptimal, not use actual rubrics in your thousand sons army, everyone knows thats bad list building to include those)".

Those moments right there happen so many times every day and people get sick of it and drop. The only thing is that 40k is so huge that they are replaced right away and the churn and burn of players continues.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/28 15:29:03


 
   
Made in us
Perfect Shot Black Templar Predator Pilot






That's a good point, for every person burned out there's probably two more to replace them. And the burned out player might still collect and paint so overall it's a net growth for GW.

If you do end up playing your Thousand Sons again I run mine without Magnus just Rubrics and Terminators and have a lot of fun with them at 1000pts.
   
Made in mx
Huge Hierodule




Mexico

You cannot balance for a casual meta, because there is no way to account for the issue that casual players can and will bring different degrees of optimized lists.

For casuals, you want to make things easy and understandable, you want to make it easy to pick up the game. And admittedly 9th sucks at this. But game balance is tournament stuff.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/28 16:00:45


 
   
Made in us
Clousseau




I don't agree that you can't balance for a casual meta. You can't achieve perfect balance, and no one is asking for that, but the level of disparity and imbalance can be often found after literally 5 minutes of flipping through an army book.

If in the thousand sons example you cannot take rubrics, the things that make the thousand sons the thousand sons to many people, because they get buried, you look at why that is.

If you find that things like tactical marines, the backbone of the army, are almost never taken because they aren't "optimal" you find out why that is and address it.

If I have an army of five imperial knights evaporating the enemy army in two turns (this was back when they were an adepticon darling a few years back), I'm going to want to look at why that is and tone them down a few notches.

You can't achieve this level of balance without effort, but you can achieve a much better state of the game by many times over than what is given to us today.

I was on the team that wrote the azyr point system for age of sigmar before official points, and while it was not perfect, it did achieve a very sold and respectable flatter bell curve, to the point where its #1 complaint was "AHHH YOU KILLED LISTBUILDING!!!!"

In fact that was the first time in at the time 20 years of game dev and design where I had heard someone actually say that the desired goal of the game was for there to be bad choices so listbuilding could be a thing and that the biggest turnoff of our work was that it didn't matter what list people threw together, it was all the same power wise, which was to them bad.

I've been on enough projects in my career to know that you can achieve a much better experience for non-tournament players than what exists today.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/28 16:24:15


 
   
Made in ca
Ancient Venerable Dreadnought






 auticus wrote:
There is one very large flaw with basing game balance solely on tournament results.

Tournament metas are not a reflection of the game as a whole. They are a reflection of the most uber and optimized choices that represent roughly 5% of the entire game.

This is why I love to play knights because they always end up acting as the meta checker. Everyone makes wombo combo lists that rely on specific units to make buffs work and strats do specific things so they can either do a lot of damage to a lot of units/models or jump around the board.

Meanwhile knights just walk into the field and if you don't have an answer to them they just sorta blow that wombo combo to bits. It's honestly why I think most people hate them, because it's a wrench in the tournament meta, despite the fact knights only have like a 50% win rate.

To many unpainted models to count. 
   
Made in us
Stabbin' Skarboy





Orks also sorta work as that monkey wrench, or at least they used to when you could greentide up the whole board.

"Us Blood Axes hav lernt' a lot from da humies. How best ta kill 'em, fer example."
— Korporal Snagbrat of the Dreadblade Kommandos 
   
Made in us
Huge Hierodule




Mexico

 auticus wrote:
I don't agree that you can't balance for a casual meta. You can't achieve perfect balance, and no one is asking for that, but the level of disparity and imbalance can be often found after literally 5 minutes of flipping through an army book.

If in the thousand sons example you cannot take rubrics, the things that make the thousand sons the thousand sons to many people, because they get buried, you look at why that is.

If you find that things like tactical marines, the backbone of the army, are almost never taken because they aren't "optimal" you find out why that is and address it.

If I have an army of five imperial knights evaporating the enemy army in two turns (this was back when they were an adepticon darling a few years back), I'm going to want to look at why that is and tone them down a few notches.

To be honest, I'm failing to see how that is different from balancing for the tournament meta.
If an Imperial Knight army is evaporating an army in two turns, you will see that reflected in the tournaments.
   
Made in us
Clousseau




On one hand you have armies that only consist of the 5% best things.

On the other hand you have armies that are composed of everything else.

The armies composed of the 5% best things likely won't be evaporated in 2 turns because they have broken or super optimal rules that either mitigate or prevent that from happening (which is how they are the 5% best things and taken in a tournament environment)

The whole thing I was told on that day was "you should have taken mortarion and magnus because they can't die as fast and they can kill knights by themselves". They were a requirement at that point in time. That made for a most unpleasant and unfun play experience.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/28 17:00:58


 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: