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.
macluvin wrote: ... as a chaos space marine player I don’t see a problem with doing away with custom and successor chapters in competitive play, and maintaining that they exist purely for narrative play. Or deleting them altogether. If you want a custom home brew chapter bring a fandex and ask for permission or pick a chapter that most closely resembles your custom chapter’s style. It’s basically what we chaos space marines have to do. Bridge the gap between inner codex balance and bridge the gap between supplements and entire codices...
30 years ago that decision could have been made when the setting and the chapters were not as engrained as they are now. GW could not and will not roll all space marines into one codex, not ever...it would be bad business.
Why not have both? What's to say that chaos marines can not have codex supplements for world eaters, night lords and word bearers with one special unit for each? I'd be much more for that than basically saying: "because my faction doesn't have that right now, marines also should not have it"
I understand chaos players are pissed off right now considering the state of their faction and rightly so, but its still a bad argument.
I never said anything about supplements. I am talking about the custom chapter table. The one that lets you pick and choose two pretty awesome abilities for your chapter trait. Scrap that for competitive. I would concede this point if marks of chaos gave free bonuses and if the list of legion tactics weren’t so god awful. Or if they gave us mechanics to shift elites like chosen or possessed to the troops slot for black legion and word bearers, maybe give night lords raptor troops... something, anything to offset marines having chapter tactics that consist of half the tactic being superior to most chaos space marine legion traits, let alone the other half, or combat doctrines, or access to war gear like heresy era terminators and storm shields, etc. also they got to keep their bike mount hq’s...
So no, this is nowhere near the argument “my faction doesn’t have it so marines should not have it.” I would say that the presence of primaris makes for an awesome foil to chaos innovating with new daemon engines, even if neither are to my particular taste. The issue is that there is a fat list of advantages marines have that chaos has no compensation for, and this was true from 8th editions space marine codex 2.0 to now, and the 9th edition has only widened that gap.
It seems a fairly minor concession that hardly hurts the game to make custom chapter rules a narrative only mechanic. It seems a major boon to the monumental task of trying to maintain some sort of balance. Narrative games aren’t for balance, and neither are the custom chapter traits. Leave them where they belong.
You literally said in your post that you would concede the point if marks of chaos were better or chaos marines got similar free rules. So maybe I misunderstood you, but that sounds exactly like: "marines should not have this because my dudes do not get this or are bad atm"
jaredb wrote: The Black Templar are already a successor chapter, I don't think you can be a successor to them.
We've found the nit, and now that it has been picked, nothing else needs be discussed! So quickly too, damn, you really got me.
HOLD THE NIT ALOFT LIKE ITS A MELEE WEAPON IN AN OLD PIECE OF CODEX COVER ARTWORK! YOU ARE TRIUMPHANT, EVERYTHING IS FINE!!!
I mean, I was going to say the same thing and I didn't think it was a nitpick at all, I mean it was part of your argument as to why it's getting pretty absurd with the layering of rules and it's good to have all your ducks in a row IMHO.
That being said, your original point still stands and is totally valid (maybe that not changing is your definition of a nitpick?) so to address that, yeah I do totally agree with you that it's too much.
You shouldn't have to have a million references to other things in order to figure out exactly what you're doing. IMHO if you're playing an army, all you should need is the rulebook, the main codex, and I guess the specific sub faction supplement if they are going to keep going that route, which to me has both +/-. That should be it. (Points adjustments for balance over time could be fine, but nothing that changes functionality.)
All that being said, I've never been of the mindset that (outside of tournament play) you need to, or even should know everything your opponent can do. Assuming you are playing for fun and not against a metagamer, I've personally always found it fun to discover things on the battlefield, try to adapt on the fly and come back with a better plan next time. I like to know the broad strokes of the armies but not the nitty gritty details.
So to give a final overall answer, to your specific question, no, I don't think having a tonne of sources to reference adds to the experience, however, yes in terms that I like not knowing everything my opponent can do.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/10/06 18:38:52
The point about discovery is a good one, I think that CAN be fun, but it's generally more fun the less effort the game is to set up and understand, and the less devastating the discovery is to your prospects for an interesting game.
Discovering something that damages one unit but leaves it still maybe able to operate is different to discovering something that obliterates several units and leaves you crippled in your ability to respond, and the outcome of the game a forgone conclusion. Maybe that would also be okay if it happened on turn 5, so you got a close game most of the way and then a dramatic finish. The problem with some GW design is that that can happen on turn 2. This isn't a new problem, I had this issue in 8e WFB and I can see that it remains a problem in AoS and 40K. But it does drain my enjoyment. If I know about the risk then I'm more likely to have a fun, close game than get arbitrarily curbstomped on turn 2, and that leads me to be put off by the idea that I need to learn all of these rules (and particularly that all of the rules, which are broadly similar, have minor variations and different names, making the specifics easy to confuse).
It's an odd design choice to me, but I'm aware that these editions are really popular so maybe I'm way off base in my impressions.
macluvin wrote: ... as a chaos space marine player I don’t see a problem with doing away with custom and successor chapters in competitive play, and maintaining that they exist purely for narrative play. Or deleting them altogether. If you want a custom home brew chapter bring a fandex and ask for permission or pick a chapter that most closely resembles your custom chapter’s style. It’s basically what we chaos space marines have to do. Bridge the gap between inner codex balance and bridge the gap between supplements and entire codices...
30 years ago that decision could have been made when the setting and the chapters were not as engrained as they are now. GW could not and will not roll all space marines into one codex, not ever...it would be bad business.
Why not have both? What's to say that chaos marines can not have codex supplements for world eaters, night lords and word bearers with one special unit for each? I'd be much more for that than basically saying: "because my faction doesn't have that right now, marines also should not have it"
I understand chaos players are pissed off right now considering the state of their faction and rightly so, but its still a bad argument.
I never said anything about supplements. I am talking about the custom chapter table. The one that lets you pick and choose two pretty awesome abilities for your chapter trait. Scrap that for competitive. I would concede this point if marks of chaos gave free bonuses and if the list of legion tactics weren’t so god awful. Or if they gave us mechanics to shift elites like chosen or possessed to the troops slot for black legion and word bearers, maybe give night lords raptor troops... something, anything to offset marines having chapter tactics that consist of half the tactic being superior to most chaos space marine legion traits, let alone the other half, or combat doctrines, or access to war gear like heresy era terminators and storm shields, etc. also they got to keep their bike mount hq’s...
So no, this is nowhere near the argument “my faction doesn’t have it so marines should not have it.” I would say that the presence of primaris makes for an awesome foil to chaos innovating with new daemon engines, even if neither are to my particular taste. The issue is that there is a fat list of advantages marines have that chaos has no compensation for, and this was true from 8th editions space marine codex 2.0 to now, and the 9th edition has only widened that gap.
It seems a fairly minor concession that hardly hurts the game to make custom chapter rules a narrative only mechanic. It seems a major boon to the monumental task of trying to maintain some sort of balance. Narrative games aren’t for balance, and neither are the custom chapter traits. Leave them where they belong.
You literally said in your post that you would concede the point if marks of chaos were better or chaos marines got similar free rules. So maybe I misunderstood you, but that sounds exactly like: "marines should not have this because my dudes do not get this or are bad atm"
Hey, just, point of order?
....why is it OK and balanced to give a unique system or bonus like this to one army at a time without giving any kind of compensation to the armies that dont have it?
Does that not seem kind of weird and power-creepy just on the face of it? Like if GW wants to roll out some new system of "Tactical Ploys" or "Command Modules" or whatever that amount to a free power-boost, why are we just cool with everyone else not being given some holdover bonus like, I dont know, "You get an extra 3CP if youre playing against an opponent with this feature and your codex doesnt have one yet."
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nurglitch wrote: Thinking of the rules as tools to help you have fun with a friend instead of as a weapon to use against an opponent helps.
I dont play with people I dont consider my friends. It still takes an absolutely unholy amount of effort to figure out how to play a game as tactically shallow as 40k compared to almost any other wargame system that exists. I've been trying to slowly get a small group up to speed on small games of 9th edition and we have just barely introduced subfaction rules, but I was able to pick up AOS 3rd in like 3 games, starting at full size 2000pt armies. Same deal with Battlegroup, and Titanicus, and Infinity.
When I have a harder time keeping up with the rules for the game that I've literally played for a larger fraction of my life than I've been alive and not playing it than I do keeping up with the rules for a game I'm playing FOR THE FIRST TIME and just jumping in at a full-size game, that's a problem.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/10/06 18:51:13
"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"
"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"
"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"
"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"
macluvin wrote: ... as a chaos space marine player I don’t see a problem with doing away with custom and successor chapters in competitive play, and maintaining that they exist purely for narrative play. Or deleting them altogether. If you want a custom home brew chapter bring a fandex and ask for permission or pick a chapter that most closely resembles your custom chapter’s style. It’s basically what we chaos space marines have to do. Bridge the gap between inner codex balance and bridge the gap between supplements and entire codices...
30 years ago that decision could have been made when the setting and the chapters were not as engrained as they are now. GW could not and will not roll all space marines into one codex, not ever...it would be bad business.
Why not have both? What's to say that chaos marines can not have codex supplements for world eaters, night lords and word bearers with one special unit for each? I'd be much more for that than basically saying: "because my faction doesn't have that right now, marines also should not have it"
I understand chaos players are pissed off right now considering the state of their faction and rightly so, but its still a bad argument.
I never said anything about supplements. I am talking about the custom chapter table. The one that lets you pick and choose two pretty awesome abilities for your chapter trait. Scrap that for competitive. I would concede this point if marks of chaos gave free bonuses and if the list of legion tactics weren’t so god awful. Or if they gave us mechanics to shift elites like chosen or possessed to the troops slot for black legion and word bearers, maybe give night lords raptor troops... something, anything to offset marines having chapter tactics that consist of half the tactic being superior to most chaos space marine legion traits, let alone the other half, or combat doctrines, or access to war gear like heresy era terminators and storm shields, etc. also they got to keep their bike mount hq’s...
So no, this is nowhere near the argument “my faction doesn’t have it so marines should not have it.” I would say that the presence of primaris makes for an awesome foil to chaos innovating with new daemon engines, even if neither are to my particular taste. The issue is that there is a fat list of advantages marines have that chaos has no compensation for, and this was true from 8th editions space marine codex 2.0 to now, and the 9th edition has only widened that gap.
It seems a fairly minor concession that hardly hurts the game to make custom chapter rules a narrative only mechanic. It seems a major boon to the monumental task of trying to maintain some sort of balance. Narrative games aren’t for balance, and neither are the custom chapter traits. Leave them where they belong.
You literally said in your post that you would concede the point if marks of chaos were better or chaos marines got similar free rules. So maybe I misunderstood you, but that sounds exactly like: "marines should not have this because my dudes do not get this or are bad atm"
You have the accuracy of an imperial storm trooper when it comes to hitting my point...
I said the issue is that space marines have a huge list of advantages that are uncompensated in chaos armies. Compare any equivalent unit from space marine 8th edition 2.0 codex to a chaos space marine equivalent unit and you’ll find that they were paying roughly the same price, but the space marine equivalent would be severely more efficient because it had access to 2 list of 2 awesome abilities (relatively) compared to the chaos space marine legion trait equivalent of 1 mediocre at best special ability, with the alpha legion trait being the best and roughly equivalent to a mid to low tier half of a space marine trait.
To reiterate: this isn’t about not having something. This is about not being compensated.
I even gave an example of being roughly compensated for something space marines have that chaos doesn’t; primaris, and chaos gaining more dinobots. That’s compensation, that is sort of arbitrary because it’s not even the selection of units that I am complaining about. It’s about the amount of buffs and how this literally makes space marines a chaos space marine if it cost 1ppm more and got several extra buffs over a chaos space marine that made their units significantly more efficient.
Again, this is about compensation, not that our codices are different. Any further argument that doesn’t address the concept of compensation for having an objectively worse codex because of extra special rules applied across the army is in bad faith because that is my arguing point.
Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. -Kurt Vonnegut
Da Boss wrote: The point about discovery is a good one, I think that CAN be fun, but it's generally more fun the less effort the game is to set up and understand, and the less devastating the discovery is to your prospects for an interesting game.
Discovering something that damages one unit but leaves it still maybe able to operate is different to discovering something that obliterates several units and leaves you crippled in your ability to respond, and the outcome of the game a forgone conclusion. Maybe that would also be okay if it happened on turn 5, so you got a close game most of the way and then a dramatic finish. The problem with some GW design is that that can happen on turn 2. This isn't a new problem, I had this issue in 8e WFB and I can see that it remains a problem in AoS and 40K. But it does drain my enjoyment. If I know about the risk then I'm more likely to have a fun, close game than get arbitrarily curbstomped on turn 2, and that leads me to be put off by the idea that I need to learn all of these rules (and particularly that all of the rules, which are broadly similar, have minor variations and different names, making the specifics easy to confuse).
It's an odd design choice to me, but I'm aware that these editions are really popular so maybe I'm way off base in my impressions.
^Part of the reason miniature games are fun are using the rules to generate unexpected arguments and moments of excitement, but I generally like it better in Necromunda when a zany roll might mean one of your eight fighters falls off a ledge into an acid pool and dies versus 40k where a slight miscalculation of your opponent's 7 layers of armywide rules means that his entire army is able to charge yours, wiping 1/3 of your forces off the table and ending the game in less time than it took to carefully pack your 150 models into their custom-cut foam.
"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"
"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"
"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"
"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"
macluvin wrote: ... as a chaos space marine player I don’t see a problem with doing away with custom and successor chapters in competitive play, and maintaining that they exist purely for narrative play. Or deleting them altogether. If you want a custom home brew chapter bring a fandex and ask for permission or pick a chapter that most closely resembles your custom chapter’s style. It’s basically what we chaos space marines have to do. Bridge the gap between inner codex balance and bridge the gap between supplements and entire codices...
30 years ago that decision could have been made when the setting and the chapters were not as engrained as they are now. GW could not and will not roll all space marines into one codex, not ever...it would be bad business.
Why not have both? What's to say that chaos marines can not have codex supplements for world eaters, night lords and word bearers with one special unit for each? I'd be much more for that than basically saying: "because my faction doesn't have that right now, marines also should not have it"
I understand chaos players are pissed off right now considering the state of their faction and rightly so, but its still a bad argument.
I never said anything about supplements. I am talking about the custom chapter table. The one that lets you pick and choose two pretty awesome abilities for your chapter trait. Scrap that for competitive. I would concede this point if marks of chaos gave free bonuses and if the list of legion tactics weren’t so god awful. Or if they gave us mechanics to shift elites like chosen or possessed to the troops slot for black legion and word bearers, maybe give night lords raptor troops... something, anything to offset marines having chapter tactics that consist of half the tactic being superior to most chaos space marine legion traits, let alone the other half, or combat doctrines, or access to war gear like heresy era terminators and storm shields, etc. also they got to keep their bike mount hq’s...
So no, this is nowhere near the argument “my faction doesn’t have it so marines should not have it.” I would say that the presence of primaris makes for an awesome foil to chaos innovating with new daemon engines, even if neither are to my particular taste. The issue is that there is a fat list of advantages marines have that chaos has no compensation for, and this was true from 8th editions space marine codex 2.0 to now, and the 9th edition has only widened that gap.
It seems a fairly minor concession that hardly hurts the game to make custom chapter rules a narrative only mechanic. It seems a major boon to the monumental task of trying to maintain some sort of balance. Narrative games aren’t for balance, and neither are the custom chapter traits. Leave them where they belong.
You literally said in your post that you would concede the point if marks of chaos were better or chaos marines got similar free rules. So maybe I misunderstood you, but that sounds exactly like: "marines should not have this because my dudes do not get this or are bad atm"
Hey, just, point of order?
....why is it OK and balanced to give a unique system or bonus like this to one army at a time without giving any kind of compensation to the armies that dont have it?
Does that not seem kind of weird and power-creepy just on the face of it? Like if GW wants to roll out some new system of "Tactical Ploys" or "Command Modules" or whatever that amount to a free power-boost, why are we just cool with everyone else not being given some holdover bonus like, I dont know, "You get an extra 3CP if youre playing against an opponent with this feature and your codex doesnt have one yet."
Yes, and I even said so. But the argument of "my dudes don't get the extra stuff or don't have it yet, therefore space marines should not have it at all" is and will always be a bad one. It's just an argument driven by frustration, jealousy and impatience in the case of factions who did not receive an update in 9th and I can sympathize with that...doesnt make it a good argument though.
The argument should be that other factions should get the same treatment space marines get, maybe to a slightly lesser degree since the IP is built on their shoulders and GW will always give the best toys to their cash cow.
The argument should not be that space marines get cramped into one book, because other factions don't have the same kind of subfaction rules.
You have the accuracy of an imperial storm trooper when it comes to hitting my point...
I said the issue is that space marines have a huge list of advantages that are uncompensated in chaos armies. Compare any equivalent unit from space marine 8th edition 2.0 codex to a chaos space marine equivalent unit and you’ll find that they were paying roughly the same price, but the space marine equivalent would be severely more efficient because it had access to 2 list of 2 awesome abilities (relatively) compared to the chaos space marine legion trait equivalent of 1 mediocre at best special ability, with the alpha legion trait being the best and roughly equivalent to a mid to low tier half of a space marine trait.
To reiterate: this isn’t about not having something. This is about not being compensated.
I even gave an example of being roughly compensated for something space marines have that chaos doesn’t; primaris, and chaos gaining more dinobots. That’s compensation, that is sort of arbitrary because it’s not even the selection of units that I am complaining about. It’s about the amount of buffs and how this literally makes space marines a chaos space marine if it cost 1ppm more and got several extra buffs over a chaos space marine that made their units significantly more efficient.
Again, this is about compensation, not that our codices are different. Any further argument that doesn’t address the concept of compensation for having an objectively worse codex because of extra special rules applied across the army is in bad faith because that is my arguing point.
That's a whole lot of words for saying you are salty that marines got stuff earlier than chaos marines, which I understand. But if the chaos marines codex hits next year and you get good rules to assemble your "successor chapter" warband, are black templars and their special rules suddenly not an issue any more? What are we talking about here? The 8th ed chaos codex holds up terribly in 9th and space marines got their toys way earlier, leaving chaos marines at a big disadvantage? Sure, we all know that.
What does GW not being able to errata chaos marines to 2W and maybe giving them a points drop until theit 9th ed codex drop have to do with black templars having special rules and unique units?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/10/06 19:07:23
macluvin wrote: ... as a chaos space marine player I don’t see a problem with doing away with custom and successor chapters in competitive play, and maintaining that they exist purely for narrative play. Or deleting them altogether. If you want a custom home brew chapter bring a fandex and ask for permission or pick a chapter that most closely resembles your custom chapter’s style. It’s basically what we chaos space marines have to do. Bridge the gap between inner codex balance and bridge the gap between supplements and entire codices...
30 years ago that decision could have been made when the setting and the chapters were not as engrained as they are now. GW could not and will not roll all space marines into one codex, not ever...it would be bad business.
Why not have both? What's to say that chaos marines can not have codex supplements for world eaters, night lords and word bearers with one special unit for each? I'd be much more for that than basically saying: "because my faction doesn't have that right now, marines also should not have it"
I understand chaos players are pissed off right now considering the state of their faction and rightly so, but its still a bad argument.
I never said anything about supplements. I am talking about the custom chapter table. The one that lets you pick and choose two pretty awesome abilities for your chapter trait. Scrap that for competitive. I would concede this point if marks of chaos gave free bonuses and if the list of legion tactics weren’t so god awful. Or if they gave us mechanics to shift elites like chosen or possessed to the troops slot for black legion and word bearers, maybe give night lords raptor troops... something, anything to offset marines having chapter tactics that consist of half the tactic being superior to most chaos space marine legion traits, let alone the other half, or combat doctrines, or access to war gear like heresy era terminators and storm shields, etc. also they got to keep their bike mount hq’s...
So no, this is nowhere near the argument “my faction doesn’t have it so marines should not have it.” I would say that the presence of primaris makes for an awesome foil to chaos innovating with new daemon engines, even if neither are to my particular taste. The issue is that there is a fat list of advantages marines have that chaos has no compensation for, and this was true from 8th editions space marine codex 2.0 to now, and the 9th edition has only widened that gap.
It seems a fairly minor concession that hardly hurts the game to make custom chapter rules a narrative only mechanic. It seems a major boon to the monumental task of trying to maintain some sort of balance. Narrative games aren’t for balance, and neither are the custom chapter traits. Leave them where they belong.
You literally said in your post that you would concede the point if marks of chaos were better or chaos marines got similar free rules. So maybe I misunderstood you, but that sounds exactly like: "marines should not have this because my dudes do not get this or are bad atm"
Hey, just, point of order?
....why is it OK and balanced to give a unique system or bonus like this to one army at a time without giving any kind of compensation to the armies that dont have it?
Does that not seem kind of weird and power-creepy just on the face of it? Like if GW wants to roll out some new system of "Tactical Ploys" or "Command Modules" or whatever that amount to a free power-boost, why are we just cool with everyone else not being given some holdover bonus like, I dont know, "You get an extra 3CP if youre playing against an opponent with this feature and your codex doesnt have one yet."
Yes, and I even said so. But the argument of "my dudes don't get the extra stuff or don't have it yet, therefore space marines should not have it at all" is and will always be a bad one. It's just an argument driven by frustration, jealousy and impatience in the case of factions who did not receive an update in 9th and I can sympathize with that...doesnt make it a good argument though.
The argument should be that other factions should get the same treatment space marines get, maybe to a slightly lesser degree since the IP is built on their shoulders and GW will always give the best toys to their cash cow.
The argument should not be that space marines get cramped into one book, because other factions don't have the same kind of subfaction rules.
Alright, for the third time, I never said anything about carving supplements out. I never said “marines get this and chaos doesn’t.” I said marines get this and my faction was uncompensated for it. Compensation. That is my arguing point. I said to take a tiny piece of the space marine main codex, the custom chapter traits, ya know, this tablehttps://storage.googleapis.com/spikeybits-staging-bucket/2020/10/94288f79-successor-chapters-pg-1.jpg And move it to narrative.
Automatically Appended Next Post: This doesn’t even touch supplements that you keep going to...
Automatically Appended Next Post: I’m not even talking about supplements. You are.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/10/06 19:10:49
Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. -Kurt Vonnegut
Weird enough aos battletomes are moving toward what i have been hoping for 40k. Been pleasantly surprised with couple odd exceptions and some points are clearly off. But overall LOT less stuff to remember and lot less stuff outside warscrolls to pull surprise.
For example different "chapters" are now basically one rule or command ability(stratagem). For stormhost 6+ fnp near objective or attack back in melee on death on 4+. For orcs stuff like stratagem to charge at the end of enemy charge phase or 1st turn can't be shot from over 12".
Rerolls gone nearly extinct, lot less auras, more of buff 1 unit,
Hoping theme continues and doesn't change midedition. Would be nice be able to play lumineth vs guy who hasn't faced before without having to explain tons of interactions i can do that would be major feel bad tricks if he doesn't know to prepare for it.
Hoping 10th edition goes toward similar route.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/10/06 19:19:49
macluvin wrote: ... as a chaos space marine player I don’t see a problem with doing away with custom and successor chapters in competitive play, and maintaining that they exist purely for narrative play. Or deleting them altogether. If you want a custom home brew chapter bring a fandex and ask for permission or pick a chapter that most closely resembles your custom chapter’s style. It’s basically what we chaos space marines have to do. Bridge the gap between inner codex balance and bridge the gap between supplements and entire codices...
30 years ago that decision could have been made when the setting and the chapters were not as engrained as they are now. GW could not and will not roll all space marines into one codex, not ever...it would be bad business.
Why not have both? What's to say that chaos marines can not have codex supplements for world eaters, night lords and word bearers with one special unit for each? I'd be much more for that than basically saying: "because my faction doesn't have that right now, marines also should not have it"
I understand chaos players are pissed off right now considering the state of their faction and rightly so, but its still a bad argument.
I never said anything about supplements. I am talking about the custom chapter table. The one that lets you pick and choose two pretty awesome abilities for your chapter trait. Scrap that for competitive. I would concede this point if marks of chaos gave free bonuses and if the list of legion tactics weren’t so god awful. Or if they gave us mechanics to shift elites like chosen or possessed to the troops slot for black legion and word bearers, maybe give night lords raptor troops... something, anything to offset marines having chapter tactics that consist of half the tactic being superior to most chaos space marine legion traits, let alone the other half, or combat doctrines, or access to war gear like heresy era terminators and storm shields, etc. also they got to keep their bike mount hq’s...
So no, this is nowhere near the argument “my faction doesn’t have it so marines should not have it.” I would say that the presence of primaris makes for an awesome foil to chaos innovating with new daemon engines, even if neither are to my particular taste. The issue is that there is a fat list of advantages marines have that chaos has no compensation for, and this was true from 8th editions space marine codex 2.0 to now, and the 9th edition has only widened that gap.
It seems a fairly minor concession that hardly hurts the game to make custom chapter rules a narrative only mechanic. It seems a major boon to the monumental task of trying to maintain some sort of balance. Narrative games aren’t for balance, and neither are the custom chapter traits. Leave them where they belong.
You literally said in your post that you would concede the point if marks of chaos were better or chaos marines got similar free rules. So maybe I misunderstood you, but that sounds exactly like: "marines should not have this because my dudes do not get this or are bad atm"
Hey, just, point of order?
....why is it OK and balanced to give a unique system or bonus like this to one army at a time without giving any kind of compensation to the armies that dont have it?
Does that not seem kind of weird and power-creepy just on the face of it? Like if GW wants to roll out some new system of "Tactical Ploys" or "Command Modules" or whatever that amount to a free power-boost, why are we just cool with everyone else not being given some holdover bonus like, I dont know, "You get an extra 3CP if youre playing against an opponent with this feature and your codex doesnt have one yet."
Yes, and I even said so. But the argument of "my dudes don't get the extra stuff or don't have it yet, therefore space marines should not have it at all" is and will always be a bad one. It's just an argument driven by frustration, jealousy and impatience in the case of factions who did not receive an update in 9th and I can sympathize with that...doesnt make it a good argument though.
The argument should be that other factions should get the same treatment space marines get, maybe to a slightly lesser degree since the IP is built on their shoulders and GW will always give the best toys to their cash cow.
The argument should not be that space marines get cramped into one book, because other factions don't have the same kind of subfaction rules.
You have the accuracy of an imperial storm trooper when it comes to hitting my point...
I said the issue is that space marines have a huge list of advantages that are uncompensated in chaos armies. Compare any equivalent unit from space marine 8th edition 2.0 codex to a chaos space marine equivalent unit and you’ll find that they were paying roughly the same price, but the space marine equivalent would be severely more efficient because it had access to 2 list of 2 awesome abilities (relatively) compared to the chaos space marine legion trait equivalent of 1 mediocre at best special ability, with the alpha legion trait being the best and roughly equivalent to a mid to low tier half of a space marine trait.
To reiterate: this isn’t about not having something. This is about not being compensated.
I even gave an example of being roughly compensated for something space marines have that chaos doesn’t; primaris, and chaos gaining more dinobots. That’s compensation, that is sort of arbitrary because it’s not even the selection of units that I am complaining about. It’s about the amount of buffs and how this literally makes space marines a chaos space marine if it cost 1ppm more and got several extra buffs over a chaos space marine that made their units significantly more efficient.
Again, this is about compensation, not that our codices are different. Any further argument that doesn’t address the concept of compensation for having an objectively worse codex because of extra special rules applied across the army is in bad faith because that is my arguing point.
That's a whole lot of words for saying you are salty that marines got stuff earlier than chaos marines, which I understand. But if the chaos marines codex hits next year and you get good rules to assemble your "successor chapter" warband, are black templars and their special rules suddenly not an issue any more? What are we talking about here? The 8th ed chaos codex holds up terribly in 9th and space marines got their toys way earlier, leaving chaos marines at a big disadvantage? Sure, we all know that.
What does GW not being able to errata chaos marines to 2W and maybe giving them a points drop until theit 9th ed codex drop have to do with black templars having special rules and unique units?
My other point is that the table existed during 8th edition, and still was chaos space marine traits ++. There was a brief moment in time when we were given 11 ppm chaos space marines to the 13 ppm tactical, and that is a form of compensation. However, for a lot of 8th GW had no problem keeping us uncompensated, and before 2w marines hit our compensation was 1ppm which at this scale simply is not enough. Based on previous patterns, my guess is that we will not be adequately compensated for that table and devastation doctrines and a host of other things. It’s also making the game an unholy terror to moderate and balance because of the sheer quantity of wacky rules interactions it introduces. If we do get that sort of customization (incredibly unlikely given the precedent set by GW over the course of 8th and 9th) then awesome. But I am not optimistic about those possibilities. And it only adds to the bloat that has made 9th a mess.
Maybe they will do something cool with the world eaters and EC supplements. It still doesn’t address the chaos space marine codex.
What I am saying is that removing a few of those many layers of rules that the OP was talking about probably wouldn’t be such a bad thing though and scaling back the interactions between combat doctrines, traits and strats isn’t such a bad thing. I don’t even mind playing space marines but crappier, I just want to feel like I have a chance. Compensate the difference between the rules in some meaningful way.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/10/06 19:23:33
Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. -Kurt Vonnegut
tauist wrote: Sounds pretty ridiculous to me. Are both units also 5PL? If so, that's utter madness and just another nail in the coffin against 40K for me. Pray to the Omnissiah such madness never reaches KT21
Yeah, because 1 custodes being able to paste half the factions in the game is so much better.
Considering kill team is one of the only tabletop games out there right now that's balance is WORSE than 40k, I'd be a little bit careful about how many stones get thrown.
Da Boss wrote: The point about discovery is a good one, I think that CAN be fun, but it's generally more fun the less effort the game is to set up and understand, and the less devastating the discovery is to your prospects for an interesting game.
Discovering something that damages one unit but leaves it still maybe able to operate is different to discovering something that obliterates several units and leaves you crippled in your ability to respond, and the outcome of the game a forgone conclusion. Maybe that would also be okay if it happened on turn 5, so you got a close game most of the way and then a dramatic finish. The problem with some GW design is that that can happen on turn 2. This isn't a new problem, I had this issue in 8e WFB and I can see that it remains a problem in AoS and 40K. But it does drain my enjoyment. If I know about the risk then I'm more likely to have a fun, close game than get arbitrarily curbstomped on turn 2, and that leads me to be put off by the idea that I need to learn all of these rules (and particularly that all of the rules, which are broadly similar, have minor variations and different names, making the specifics easy to confuse).
It's an odd design choice to me, but I'm aware that these editions are really popular so maybe I'm way off base in my impressions.
I don't think that you're way off base at all. I had this issue back in... 4th, 5th? I don't actually recall when since I was really casual at the time, but I was playing the OG Necron codex and my opponent had just got the new Blood Angels one, so wherever that puts it in the timeline. Basically, all he put on the table was a gunship, then turn two dropped a bunch of stuff on me, spouting off a mountain of rules that I'd never heard of, wiped out my whole army in one turn.
So yeah, sometimes it can lead to some feel bads, but I think that was more of an issue with metagamer vs casual and not taking that into account than anything else. With a game that has so much stuff to it (regarldess of the exact ammount of that any given person considers bloat) it's not something that will ever go away.
Tiberias wrote: What is this constant babble about burden of knowledge? Just ask your opponent what his unit does before you decide to send your nobz in or not.
Uhm, they will probably only tell you 50% of it's capabilities when it's a pick-up game with strangers.
tauist wrote: Sounds pretty ridiculous to me. Are both units also 5PL? If so, that's utter madness and just another nail in the coffin against 40K for me. Pray to the Omnissiah such madness never reaches KT21
Yeah, because 1 custodes being able to paste half the factions in the game is so much better.
Considering kill team is one of the only tabletop games out there right now that's balance is WORSE than 40k, I'd be a little bit careful about how many stones get thrown.
Aside from Custodes wrecking tournaments, I personally think KT21 is very balanced. I've played about a dozen games so far, all with different factions and only one of them was not very close, and that was IMHO an issue with the design of the specific mission not any of the factions themselves.
How much KT21 have you played that you've experienced so much imbalance from?
Tiberias wrote: What is this constant babble about burden of knowledge? Just ask your opponent what his unit does before you decide to send your nobz in or not.
Uhm, they will probably only tell you 50% of it's capabilities when it's a pick-up game with strangers.
Then don't play with that person again. Yeah it sucks from time to time, but if someone's going to be a dick in a game, there are plenty of other things they could do as well. Don't play with WAAC jerks and that wont' matter. Local communities are only so big, it doesn't take too long to sus out who the fun to play with people are.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/10/06 19:36:59
Tiberias wrote: What is this constant babble about burden of knowledge? Just ask your opponent what his unit does before you decide to send your nobz in or not.
Uhm, they will probably only tell you 50% of it's capabilities when it's a pick-up game with strangers.
What is that even supposed to mean? If I ask the person I'm playing with a straight up queation like: "what special rules does that unit have right now if it charges me?" and they answer along the lines of "well, it might be better now in combat, but you'll never know exactly unless you try...muhahaha" I'd immediately pack my things and leave. What the hell kind of people are you playing with?
Tiberias wrote: What is this constant babble about burden of knowledge? Just ask your opponent what his unit does before you decide to send your nobz in or not.
Uhm, they will probably only tell you 50% of it's capabilities when it's a pick-up game with strangers.
What is that even supposed to mean? If I ask the person I'm playing with a straight up queation like: "what special rules does that unit have right now if it charges me?" and they answer along the lines of "well, it might be better now in combat, but you'll never know exactly unless you try...muhahaha" I'd immediately pack my things and leave. What the hell kind of people are you playing with?
People who you don't know. People who might have shoddy memory or just gotten done with a long day. People who might be confusing one rule with one of the dozens of others applicable to their faction/subfaction. People who may be coming from houserules and not remembering in the moment. People who might genuinely have just misunderstood the rules or have missed an FAQ that changed things. People you may have spent some time and effort to schedule a game with (both in getting the game set up and in showing up and playing however many turns before the question comes up) and who you don't want to just dump due to what might be an honest mistake since this will be the one game you get today/this week/until the end of the month/whatever. Yes, even people looking to take advantage of a stranger/acquaintance. There's a lot of reason to not necessarily trust that your opponent remembers everything even outside of malicious behavior, and that's before we account for the complexity/rarity of some of the interactions.
Also, side note: While it's true that you usually won't need to remember every single strat/doctrine/etc, you may not know that until you've spent the time to look into it. Even if 75% of a given book is not worth remembering due to lack of power or synergy or what-have-you, you a a player need to either read it cover to cover and spend enough time thinking on it to realize that OR hear it from someone else (who may or may not be correct in their assessment).
Tiberias wrote: What is this constant babble about burden of knowledge? Just ask your opponent what his unit does before you decide to send your nobz in or not.
Uhm, they will probably only tell you 50% of it's capabilities when it's a pick-up game with strangers.
What is that even supposed to mean? If I ask the person I'm playing with a straight up queation like: "what special rules does that unit have right now if it charges me?" and they answer along the lines of "well, it might be better now in combat, but you'll never know exactly unless you try...muhahaha" I'd immediately pack my things and leave. What the hell kind of people are you playing with?
People who you don't know. People who might have shoddy memory or just gotten done with a long day. People who might be confusing one rule with one of the dozens of others applicable to their faction/subfaction. People who may be coming from houserules and not remembering in the moment. People who might genuinely have just misunderstood the rules or have missed an FAQ that changed things. People you may have spent some time and effort to schedule a game with (both in getting the game set up and in showing up and playing however many turns before the question comes up) and who you don't want to just dump due to what might be an honest mistake since this will be the one game you get today/this week/until the end of the month/whatever. Yes, even people looking to take advantage of a stranger/acquaintance. There's a lot of reason to not necessarily trust that your opponent remembers everything even outside of malicious behavior, and that's before we account for the complexity/rarity of some of the interactions.
However, in nearly all the cases you list, it wouldn't matter. The comment we took umbrage with is that an opponent would only tell you 50% of what their guys did, but the implication was that they would use that other 50% to their advantage. If it's an honest mistake, or bad memory, or don't know, ect... then it's not going to pop up against you two minutes later when you don't plan your strategy around it. That only happens if someone is intentionally deceitful. All the other cases are simple mistakes that (in general) people won't hold against you.
Tiberias wrote: What is this constant babble about burden of knowledge? Just ask your opponent what his unit does before you decide to send your nobz in or not.
Uhm, they will probably only tell you 50% of it's capabilities when it's a pick-up game with strangers.
What is that even supposed to mean? If I ask the person I'm playing with a straight up queation like: "what special rules does that unit have right now if it charges me?" and they answer along the lines of "well, it might be better now in combat, but you'll never know exactly unless you try...muhahaha" I'd immediately pack my things and leave. What the hell kind of people are you playing with?
People who you don't know. People who might have shoddy memory or just gotten done with a long day. People who might be confusing one rule with one of the dozens of others applicable to their faction/subfaction. People who may be coming from houserules and not remembering in the moment. People who might genuinely have just misunderstood the rules or have missed an FAQ that changed things. People you may have spent some time and effort to schedule a game with (both in getting the game set up and in showing up and playing however many turns before the question comes up) and who you don't want to just dump due to what might be an honest mistake since this will be the one game you get today/this week/until the end of the month/whatever. Yes, even people looking to take advantage of a stranger/acquaintance. There's a lot of reason to not necessarily trust that your opponent remembers everything even outside of malicious behavior, and that's before we account for the complexity/rarity of some of the interactions.
However, in nearly all the cases you list, it wouldn't matter. The comment we took umbrage with is that an opponent would only tell you 50% of what their guys did, but the implication was that they would use that other 50% to their advantage. If it's an honest mistake, or bad memory, or don't know, ect... then it's not going to pop up against you two minutes later when you don't plan your strategy around it. That only happens if someone is intentionally deceitful. All the other cases are simple mistakes that (in general) people won't hold against you.
I recall back in the day that space marines felt very bland and un characterful. Nothing distinguished UM from CF or IF or IH and meanwhile BA and DA and SW a had their own codex and were space marine +1.
I don't think anyone wants to go back to that...
However, There is clearly too many special rules going around right now. The difference between 2 space marines fighting each other should not be this great (in fact it should be practically non existent). Even MF GK got different army traits for themselves now...The bloat is gross.
Tiberias wrote: What is this constant babble about burden of knowledge? Just ask your opponent what his unit does before you decide to send your nobz in or not.
Uhm, they will probably only tell you 50% of it's capabilities when it's a pick-up game with strangers.
What is that even supposed to mean? If I ask the person I'm playing with a straight up queation like: "what special rules does that unit have right now if it charges me?" and they answer along the lines of "well, it might be better now in combat, but you'll never know exactly unless you try...muhahaha" I'd immediately pack my things and leave. What the hell kind of people are you playing with?
People who you don't know. People who might have shoddy memory or just gotten done with a long day. People who might be confusing one rule with one of the dozens of others applicable to their faction/subfaction. People who may be coming from houserules and not remembering in the moment. People who might genuinely have just misunderstood the rules or have missed an FAQ that changed things. People you may have spent some time and effort to schedule a game with (both in getting the game set up and in showing up and playing however many turns before the question comes up) and who you don't want to just dump due to what might be an honest mistake since this will be the one game you get today/this week/until the end of the month/whatever. Yes, even people looking to take advantage of a stranger/acquaintance. There's a lot of reason to not necessarily trust that your opponent remembers everything even outside of malicious behavior, and that's before we account for the complexity/rarity of some of the interactions.
However, in nearly all the cases you list, it wouldn't matter. The comment we took umbrage with is that an opponent would only tell you 50% of what their guys did, but the implication was that they would use that other 50% to their advantage. If it's an honest mistake, or bad memory, or don't know, ect... then it's not going to pop up against you two minutes later when you don't plan your strategy around it. That only happens if someone is intentionally deceitful. All the other cases are simple mistakes that (in general) people won't hold against you.
I'm not sure I agree. Yes, decent players would own up to the mistake if it is realized, and would give you a redo or promise not to use the supercombo since you were playing with incomplete or incorrect information. However, the mistakes happen regardless of whether or not anyone takes or deserves blame for it. If you and I both know the rules for Movement, we're less likely to make any egregious errors since one of us will probably remember the rules well enough go "hang on, are you sure you can ______?". And while it is a lot less likely (based mostly on the decency of the people you play with), there is still a chance for someone to misremember the rule etc in the moment only to realize it later without any malicious intent (ie. they forgot if the unit was S4 or S5 and oh hey I was wrong they do get an extra attack on the charge whoops).
Tiberias wrote: What is this constant babble about burden of knowledge? Just ask your opponent what his unit does before you decide to send your nobz in or not.
Uhm, they will probably only tell you 50% of it's capabilities when it's a pick-up game with strangers.
What is that even supposed to mean? If I ask the person I'm playing with a straight up queation like: "what special rules does that unit have right now if it charges me?" and they answer along the lines of "well, it might be better now in combat, but you'll never know exactly unless you try...muhahaha" I'd immediately pack my things and leave. What the hell kind of people are you playing with?
People who you don't know. People who might have shoddy memory or just gotten done with a long day. People who might be confusing one rule with one of the dozens of others applicable to their faction/subfaction. People who may be coming from houserules and not remembering in the moment. People who might genuinely have just misunderstood the rules or have missed an FAQ that changed things. People you may have spent some time and effort to schedule a game with (both in getting the game set up and in showing up and playing however many turns before the question comes up) and who you don't want to just dump due to what might be an honest mistake since this will be the one game you get today/this week/until the end of the month/whatever. Yes, even people looking to take advantage of a stranger/acquaintance. There's a lot of reason to not necessarily trust that your opponent remembers everything even outside of malicious behavior, and that's before we account for the complexity/rarity of some of the interactions.
However, in nearly all the cases you list, it wouldn't matter. The comment we took umbrage with is that an opponent would only tell you 50% of what their guys did, but the implication was that they would use that other 50% to their advantage. If it's an honest mistake, or bad memory, or don't know, ect... then it's not going to pop up against you two minutes later when you don't plan your strategy around it. That only happens if someone is intentionally deceitful. All the other cases are simple mistakes that (in general) people won't hold against you.
I'm not sure I agree. Yes, decent players would own up to the mistake if it is realized, and would give you a redo or promise not to use the supercombo since you were playing with incomplete or incorrect information. However, the mistakes happen regardless of whether or not anyone takes or deserves blame for it. If you and I both know the rules for Movement, we're less likely to make any egregious errors since one of us will probably remember the rules well enough go "hang on, are you sure you can ______?". And while it is a lot less likely (based mostly on the decency of the people you play with), there is still a chance for someone to misremember the rule etc in the moment only to realize it later without any malicious intent (ie. they forgot if the unit was S4 or S5 and oh hey I was wrong they do get an extra attack on the charge whoops).
If the mistake isn't realized, then it's not realized, no big deal, neither player notices, so no one will have an issue. I don't get why the IF was such a big emphesis?
If it's only a few minutes, it's not that hard to be fair and wind it back for something small. Oh you're actually strength this? I will actually use this defensive stratagem. My point is, decent people that are trying to have fun will work this out and not really be bothered by it. gak happens. A decent player wouldn't supercombo you if (even if they somehow legitimately forgot a really complex interaction that they likely built their army around) they told you five minutes ago that they couldn't supercombo you.
Yes it's easier to keep people honest when you both know the rules, but your example of general movement isn't exactly comparable to specific optional abilities that some faction can (but don't necessarily have to) choose to employ.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2021/10/06 21:42:33
A thought occurred to me when reading the new Black Templars rules previews. Please note, this is not a 'black templars op' thread, just pointing something out regarding how much of a unit's power budget currently resides within rules external to the model itself.
Let's examine a situation: You have an infantry unit. Let's say, a unit of Ork Nobz. And you want to know how concerned you need to be about an enemy unit, a minimum-sized squad of Assault Intercessors if you put your Nobz out in charge range.
Let's say that your opponent is playing Iron Hands, and it's turn 2.
That unit charges you, and they make 16 S4 AP-1 D1 attacks, hitting on 3s, wounding on 5s, saving on 5s, dealing 1 damage for an average of 2.4 - they kill one nob on average, and might wound a second, and morale is not a factor.
Now let's say you're playing against Black Templars, a successor chapter of course because your opponent is competitively minded, Born Heroes and Hungry for Battle, and theyve chosen the "Accept Any Challenge" vow. That unit then makes 16 S4 Ap-2 D1 attacks, hitting on 2s and 6s to hit cause 2 auto-wounds, wounding on 5s, saving on 6s, dealing 1 damage for an average of 7.5 damage - killing 3-4 nobs, with a decent chance to cause the remaining member/members of the squad to flee during the morale phase.
If they choose, then, the Black Templars player might at the end of the phase choose to use the stratagem Honor the Chapter for 2cp, allowing those Assault Intercessors to fight a second time, allowing them to cause 15 wounds, killing 7.5 W2 ork models.
the distinction between this unit causing 18pts of damage, versus causing 135pts of damage, all comes down to you the opponent recalling the following rules distinctions, none of which are present on the model or, since it is a successor chapter, in the paint scheme of the model:
-6s cause an extra hit
-+1 to hit on the charge
-The unit is always in the assault doctrine if in engagement range
-The assault doctrine causes their melee attacks to have an additional AP -They are from a successor chapter of the Black Templars, so their assault doctrine also causes 6s to wound automatically
-This particular unit has a special stratagem enabling them to fight again for 2cp
As an opponent of this particular player, there is a burden of knowledge on me that I need to recall that the offensive power of this particular unit among the 140 datasheets present within codex:Space Marines can augment its offensive power by a factor of more than 7 times from the statline present on the datasheet.
...Does this enhance your gaming experience?
If so, why? What are the positives for a miniatures game for there to be this degree of stat differentiation between what could actually be literally the same exact model fielded by the same opponent in two different sessions of play?
No it does not enhance my gaming experience.
There is something to be said about pondering potential combos in list-building though, and it does help with engagement when not actually playing in a way that has value. But there is too much of it, to the point where it detracts from the on-table experience.
Tiberias wrote: What is this constant babble about burden of knowledge? Just ask your opponent what his unit does before you decide to send your nobz in or not.
Uhm, they will probably only tell you 50% of it's capabilities when it's a pick-up game with strangers.
What is that even supposed to mean? If I ask the person I'm playing with a straight up queation like: "what special rules does that unit have right now if it charges me?" and they answer along the lines of "well, it might be better now in combat, but you'll never know exactly unless you try...muhahaha" I'd immediately pack my things and leave. What the hell kind of people are you playing with?
People who you don't know. People who might have shoddy memory or just gotten done with a long day. People who might be confusing one rule with one of the dozens of others applicable to their faction/subfaction. People who may be coming from houserules and not remembering in the moment. People who might genuinely have just misunderstood the rules or have missed an FAQ that changed things. People you may have spent some time and effort to schedule a game with (both in getting the game set up and in showing up and playing however many turns before the question comes up) and who you don't want to just dump due to what might be an honest mistake since this will be the one game you get today/this week/until the end of the month/whatever. Yes, even people looking to take advantage of a stranger/acquaintance. There's a lot of reason to not necessarily trust that your opponent remembers everything even outside of malicious behavior, and that's before we account for the complexity/rarity of some of the interactions.
However, in nearly all the cases you list, it wouldn't matter. The comment we took umbrage with is that an opponent would only tell you 50% of what their guys did, but the implication was that they would use that other 50% to their advantage. If it's an honest mistake, or bad memory, or don't know, ect... then it's not going to pop up against you two minutes later when you don't plan your strategy around it. That only happens if someone is intentionally deceitful. All the other cases are simple mistakes that (in general) people won't hold against you.
I'm not sure I agree. Yes, decent players would own up to the mistake if it is realized, and would give you a redo or promise not to use the supercombo since you were playing with incomplete or incorrect information. However, the mistakes happen regardless of whether or not anyone takes or deserves blame for it. If you and I both know the rules for Movement, we're less likely to make any egregious errors since one of us will probably remember the rules well enough go "hang on, are you sure you can ______?". And while it is a lot less likely (based mostly on the decency of the people you play with), there is still a chance for someone to misremember the rule etc in the moment only to realize it later without any malicious intent (ie. they forgot if the unit was S4 or S5 and oh hey I was wrong they do get an extra attack on the charge whoops).
If the mistake isn't realized, then it's not realized, no big deal, neither player notices, so no one will have an issue. I don't get why the IF was such a big emphesis?
If it's only a few minutes, it's not that hard to be fair and wind it back for something small. Oh you're actually strength this? I will actually use this defensive stratagem. My point is, decent people that are trying to have fun will work this out and not really be bothered by it. gak happens. A decent player wouldn't supercombo you if (even if they somehow legitimately forgot a really complex interaction that they likely built their army around) they told you five minutes ago that they couldn't supercombo you.
Yes it's easier to keep people honest when you both know the rules, but your example of general movement isn't exactly comparable to specific optional abilities that some faction can (but don't necessarily have to) choose to employ.
I put emphasis on "if" because we won't necessarily realize there was an error (not in time to rewind, anyways). Say you have a strat that gives you "+1 to wound for one round of CC". You misremember it as "automatic wounds on every hit in CC" because there's another strat in your 'dex that does automatic wounds in a different context. I, not knowing your strats, don't move some crucial units to avoid CC and while I might think that seems a bit strong, I trust you know your codex and go along with it. Unsurprisingly, you nuke the core of my army, and win the game. I end up feeling gotcha'd (you might even end up feeling kinda bad about it as well, depending). Even if we never realize the error (and if we don't realize the error within the next turn or so, it may end up being too late to make a difference), it does negatively affect our experience. Plus, if we do realize the error later, then we get the extra negative experience of feeling like the match was...tainted, I guess - you hadn't really earned your victory.
Obviously, this could happen long before 9th was a glimmer in Marketing's sales projections, but the more complexity gets added to the game, the more likely it is that players will end up making these kinds of mistakes.
Also, we should remember - this is 40k. Depending on army composition, actions taken, etc., this might not be two minutes. My choosing not to move during my turn and you dropping the hammer in your Assault Phase could easily be the better part of an hour apart. You're right, if I've only moved two units and then you remember the actual strat, we can just mulligan the affected units, but it might end up being a completely different game state by the time we realize you goofed.
(Also also, I should probably clarify - my position on this is less "all of us must know all the rules so no slimeball can ever pull a fast one" and more "this level of complexity can cause avoidable negative experiences and I'm not sure it adds enough to the game to balance that out".)
the_scotsman wrote: the distinction between this unit causing 18pts of damage, versus causing 135pts of damage, all comes down to you the opponent recalling the following rules distinctions, none of which are present on the model or, since it is a successor chapter, in the paint scheme of the model:
You say that like it's a new thing, and that we haven't had years and editions full of it. Like all those 8th edition characters that cost around 100pts and could out of the blue kneecap a titan if you threw enough cards at them.
There are players that vocally want it and feel that rules bonuses are what make an army and that is not a new thing (i.e. "Night Lords aren't Night Lords with Infiltrate!" - some CSM player circa 2007).
Does it enhance my personal experience? No. But ultimately GW have decided that their target audience is the rules heavy kind - or at least that they make the most money selling a game with lots of supplementary rules sold separately. Can't please everyone.
Part of me wonders whether GW could possibly leverage Open Play into a slightly less useless form than they currently have it.
Make it clear that things like Subfactions, Purity Bonuses, Stratagems, Relics, etc are intended to be used with Matched Play and the points costs printed in Chapter Approved are intended for Matched Play and Tournament Play. Construct a simplified mission set, and balance the points costs as printed in the codexes explicitly for this stripped down version of play.
How about the opposite? The game cannot be balanced with all these layers of often multiplicative bonuses, they should be relegated to narrative play. GW cannot even stop to consider whether the two flamer Stratagems they are printing in the Salamanders supplement will be used together to create an overpowered combo.
If flamers are halfway decent then Salamanders players will use them without getting a bonus for doing it. People that care enough about competitive to spam grav guns on their Salamanders will probably just switch chapters to the one that has the best success with the overpowered weapon of the week anyway, sometimes that will be Salamanders spamming grav because GW messes up. Iyanden's rules support spamming Guardians in the "all our Guardians died against the Tyranids" Craftworld, worse it cannot even be used to replicate those fights very well because the rules make them more likely to survive, not less.
But I do like finding out which units work best with a given dynasty and which dynasties works best with a given unit. List-building would probably be a lot simpler without it or maybe not, dynasty choice can be pretty restrictive. Luckily for Necrons there is a custom dynasty which works for every unit in case you want to have shooting and melee units working together (the horror /sarcasm).
psipso wrote: I think that nowadays you need be a lawyer to be able to play 40K.
It's not that bad, I certainly couldn't be a lawyer, I have a terrible memory and a constant headache. I think I've had two or three disputes in 50 games, had to look up core rules 20 times and my own Stratagems 40 times. You've always had to be a lawyer to play 40k competitively, reading fanmade tournament packets and errata, doing research on the internet for an endless number of rules GW wrote badly and never FAQd. Playing casually with the understanding that neither player wants to win based on a lack of research on the part of their opponent the game can be very fun.
Tiberias wrote: ...the argument of "my dudes don't get the extra stuff or don't have it yet, therefore space marines should not have it at all" is and will always be a bad one. It's just an argument driven by frustration, jealousy and impatience in the case of factions who did not receive an update in 9th and I can sympathize with that...doesnt make it a good argument though.
The argument should be that other factions should get the same treatment space marines get, maybe to a slightly lesser degree since the IP is built on their shoulders and GW will always give the best toys to their cash cow.
It's not just about jealousy, it's about game balance and keeping the narrative cohesive. I was ahead of the curve in 9th in getting faction secondary objectives and I think releasing them piecemeal was wrong, if Tau don't have faction secondaries, Necrons shouldn't either. Faction secondaries should be released all at once when they are all ready and points and missions can be balanced around them, not one faction (or subfaction) at a time to help sell books and factions. If CA21 had included faction secondaries for the first time in 9th, then it'd actually have been an exciting new release that shook up the game rather than a soulless cash-grab that feels bad every time you get a 9th dex vs a bad 8th dex. A Chaos Space Marine getting beaten 10/10 times by a Tactical Marine is bad for narrative cohesion even if CSM as a faction were strong because they had undercosted Daemon engines or they could swarm the board with cheap Chaos Space Marines (another thing that would look odd narratively speaking).
Tiberias wrote: ...the argument of "my dudes don't get the extra stuff or don't have it yet, therefore space marines should not have it at all" is and will always be a bad one. It's just an argument driven by frustration, jealousy and impatience in the case of factions who did not receive an update in 9th and I can sympathize with that...doesnt make it a good argument though.
The argument should be that other factions should get the same treatment space marines get, maybe to a slightly lesser degree since the IP is built on their shoulders and GW will always give the best toys to their cash cow.
It's not just about jealousy, it's about game balance and keeping the narrative cohesive. I was ahead of the curve in 9th in getting faction secondary objectives and I think releasing them piecemeal was wrong, if Tau don't have faction secondaries, Necrons shouldn't either. Faction secondaries should be released all at once when they are all ready and points and missions can be balanced around them, not one faction (or subfaction) at a time to help sell books and factions. If CA21 had included faction secondaries for the first time in 9th, then it'd actually have been an exciting new release that shook up the game rather than a soulless cash-grab that feels bad every time you get a 9th dex vs a bad 8th dex. A Chaos Space Marine getting beaten 10/10 times by a Tactical Marine is bad for narrative cohesion even if CSM as a faction were strong because they had undercosted Daemon engines or they could swarm the board with cheap Chaos Space Marines (another thing that would look odd narratively speaking).
I agree completely. But my point was exacly that: GW has a terrible release schedule, which creates the problems you just listed, which also leads to frustration, impatience and jealousy among the player base towards the factions who got and update early. Black Templars, Blood Angels, Space Wolves and so on having extra rules or special units is therefore not the real problem here as has been indicated by the OP. These discussions are seldomly truly about game design or balance, but rather frequency and quality of faction support across all available factions.
I'll also say again: wanting space marines to be condensed into one book with no special anything is a perfectly valid position to hold, but it will never happen, not ever. Not after the decades of lore and models and how the chapters are engrained into the setting. It would be bad business. But I'll also say again that I believe that GW should put more resources into xenos factions in addition to the love marines get. The necron release has shown they can do it and I'm not primarily talking about the rules here (no dedicated destroyer cult army rules was a big mistake for example), but quality model support. And I hope they continue to do it next year with eldar and chaos, which is very long overdue.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/10/07 10:59:10
Your hopes for chaos are unfounded.
Since 4th edition GW has crippled and watered down chaos identity for what it is supposed to be, taking away any and all tools necessary to represent the far flung slew of chaos in any shape and form
The most recent travesty of that is the completly unnecessary and careless attitude of GW torwards R&H / LatD.
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
Not Online!!! wrote: Your hopes for chaos are unfounded.
Since 4th edition GW has crippled and watered down chaos identity for what it is supposed to be, taking away any and all tools necessary to represent the far flung slew of chaos in any shape and form
The most recent travesty of that is the completly unnecessary and careless attitude of GW torwards R&H / LatD.
Why? Did anyone expect necrons to get such an extensive model release (again, not talking about the rules for necrons...those were lackluster in certain aspects like destroyer cults)?
Past tendencies are in no way a safe or reliable indicator for the quality of future releases. But if we are playing that game, let me offer a counter prediction: considering GWs willingness to go back on it's roots with black templars regarding the rules and the models, which are very closely modeled after 3rd edition artworks, there is a clear possibility that GW is going to do the same with Chaos Space Marines. I'm not claiming my prediction to be true at all, but it's as valid as yours.
Not Online!!! wrote: Your hopes for chaos are unfounded.
Since 4th edition GW has crippled and watered down chaos identity for what it is supposed to be, taking away any and all tools necessary to represent the far flung slew of chaos in any shape and form
The most recent travesty of that is the completly unnecessary and careless attitude of GW torwards R&H / LatD.
Why? Did anyone expect necrons to get such an extensive model release (again, not talking about the rules for necrons...those were lackluster in certain aspects like destroyer cults)?
Past tendencies are in no way a safe or reliable indicator for the quality of future releases. But if we are playing that game, let me offer a counter prediction: considering GWs willingness to go back on it's roots with black templars regarding the rules and the models, which are very closely modeled after 3rd edition artworks, there is a clear possibility that GW is going to do the same with Chaos Space Marines. I'm not claiming my prediction to be true at all, but it's as valid as yours.
See, i don't question your argument, i question it only partially in a specific case.
See f.e. the discussion off the at the time upcoming 7th (or was it 6th) edition chaos marine codex, which granted us wannabee obliterators, dinobots and the warpsmith.
The only Codex the designers at the time talked about as inspiration was 4th, and only that one, which got praised as the be all end all of all chaos dexes.... which anyone remotly familiar with the faction can point out to them was an unmigitated shitshow. There has been nothing impliying that GW has changed in its perception of that factions history and identitiy and indeed it has been the most consistent faction in regards to its history to this date by gw.
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
4965 
3235 
5350 
2936 
2273 
1176 
2675 
1342 
1010 
2000 
960 
1330 
1040 
