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.

I wasn't there, but what I suspect happened around the end of 7th was that GW realized it was becoming unsustainable from a business perspective to simply increase the scope of their Warhammer settings forever. In order to continue growing, something about their business had to change. Nuking WFB was one answer. Rebooting 40k with a focus on gameplay and accessibility was another. Both answers have clearly worked out for them, but not without losing a lot of people along the way unfortunately.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Idk the setting feels pretty wide open to me. There is so little fluff for the non-marines that you can do almost anything. Just like old 40k.

Definitely no Xenos tho

'IDK the setting's pretty wide open to me. there's so little fluff for Non-Kingdoms of Men characters that you can do almost anything.

Definitely no Hobbits, Orcs, Elves, Wizards, Ents, Goblins, or Easterlings though.'

 Wyzilla wrote:

artific3r wrote:
I would love to get into historicals someday. As I understand it, 40k is not really a wargame in the traditional sense. 30k leans that direction but I'd assume there are still plenty of differences.

They're so cheap you can literally just get two armies for the price of a single 40k one, or even less, and forcibly loop some unfortunate friend or family member into the hobby.

Nowadays it's more Like 4 depending upon system and size.

Just go take a look at perry miniatures (incidentally also sculpted for gw some of the best old kits)

It's absurd really.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Idk the setting feels pretty wide open to me. There is so little fluff for the non-marines that you can do almost anything. Just like old 40k.

Definitely no Xenos tho

According to my vast experience browsing the internet, the inclusion of xenos in a GW product will completely make or break the game for a huge percentage of 40k fans.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Idk the setting feels pretty wide open to me. There is so little fluff for the non-marines that you can do almost anything. Just like old 40k.

Definitely no Xenos tho

Depends upon the Players creativity, miltia, solar aux and mechanicum make for good rules for xenos if one puts his mind to it. Even some of the really obscure ones.

It's just really hard for me to relate emotionally to anything short of a hideously grotesque alien monstrosity, if you know what I mean.

Yeah you can fake it till you make it but there's genuinely no Xenos in 30k officially.

That said, there are two army lists that explicitly tell you to use any models (even outside GW iirc) so...

artific3r wrote:
It's just really hard for me to relate emotionally to anything short of a hideously grotesque alien monstrosity, if you know what I mean.

Howabout just some Eldar?

Is the argument here that I'm somehow wrong to want non-human players in my galactic-wide sci fi setting? I don't get it.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yeah you can fake it till you make it but there's genuinely no Xenos in 30k officially.

That said, there are two army lists that explicitly tell you to use any models (even outside GW iirc) so...

I mean, if I don't want to play 10th edition, but I wanted to use models that I already own for a setting I enjoy. . . I can play earlier editions or alternative rule sets. The solution is very simple.

The ultimate point here is that moving to HH is not a particularly good solution for many of those who aren't keen on 10th. I'm sure GW would love it if I threw money at a different system they also happen to publish, but I'll pass.

 Insectum7 wrote:

artific3r wrote:
It's just really hard for me to relate emotionally to anything short of a hideously grotesque alien monstrosity, if you know what I mean.

Howabout just some Eldar?

Is the argument here that I'm somehow wrong to want non-human players in my galactic-wide sci fi setting? I don't get it.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yeah you can fake it till you make it but there's genuinely no Xenos in 30k officially.

That said, there are two army lists that explicitly tell you to use any models (even outside GW iirc) so...

I mean, if I don't want to play 10th edition, but I wanted to use models that I already own for a setting I enjoy. . . I can play earlier editions or alternative rule sets. The solution is very simple.

The ultimate point here is that moving to HH is not a particularly good solution for many of those who aren't keen on 10th. I'm sure GW would love it if I threw money at a different system they also happen to publish, but I'll pass.

Yeah, roger that on not being perfect for everyone. Though if it really took off, I think they wouldn't hesitate to add in Xenos- maybe the first by 2030.

Teasing aside, I know it isn't perfect, but it has the soul of 40k missing from 10th, and has some improvements over the older editions conceptually... but honestly, it has some flaws too (still too many USRs for example).

 Insectum7 wrote:

artific3r wrote:
It's just really hard for me to relate emotionally to anything short of a hideously grotesque alien monstrosity, if you know what I mean.

Howabout just some Eldar?

Is the argument here that I'm somehow wrong to want non-human players in my galactic-wide sci fi setting? I don't get it.

I'm just poking fun at people like us who prefer alien monsters over humans. My main armies are eldar and daemons. I don't play space marines. I get it.

My dream setting would be 30k marines mixed with 40k xenos. Which I suppose is Great Crusade. But I also like Chaos so hopefully they can find some way to work that in there when they get around to it.

Even playing older editions isn't as viable for xenos players as pretty much all xenos factions have gotten considerable expansions of their unit rosters.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

artific3r wrote:
I wonder how many people here have played 10th extensively. Speaking from a purely competitive standpoint, the internal balance for many factions is the best I've ever seen. I can't believe how much emphasis there is on movement and utility compared to raw damage. I've never played an edition where so much of my collection was playable. List building has been a lot of fun. Stratagems are largely excellent and impactful. Morale matters, and in some cases a lot -- it frequently results in big points swings if you know what you're doing.

Yes, we lost a lot of flavor and customization. I'm more of a narrative player/hobbyist myself to be honest. But in terms of pure abstract gameplay, as someone who prefers narrative but can also find enjoyment in solving a well-designed puzzle, things have been pretty great.

I have not played 10th, and I won't discount your experience, but for me 10th opened up by sending a hefty number of my units to Legends.

legends are still legal to play with tbh, unless you're spamming tournaments but i don't think its your kind of playstyle considering the contents of your posts

Legal and Plausible are not the same thing. Its legal to own an F-16 Fighter Jet. But its not very plausible.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:

artific3r wrote:
It's just really hard for me to relate emotionally to anything short of a hideously grotesque alien monstrosity, if you know what I mean.

Howabout just some Eldar?

Is the argument here that I'm somehow wrong to want non-human players in my galactic-wide sci fi setting? I don't get it.

I'm pretty open minded, but I'm not sure how feasible playing with a non-human player would work. I mean I can see someone already making the Chess With A Pigeon meme using a 40K table. Maybe AI could learn how to play.

Now that I've entertained myself with semantics, I think what I'd do is take 10th Points, and whatever edition I was looking to play, and try and figure out what the multiplier(s) is/are. There are still a bunch of units from even as far back as 2E - If I had a playing group looking to do this, I'd sit down with them, pick as many examples as I could and compare then/now points with a short Plus/Minus rules change list i.e. changes to Embarkation for Land Raiders - changes to how many guns can fire for that really really sucky vehicle edition if that's where you're aiming... grab Calgar, Ahriman, Chaos Legionaires, Chosen, Tac Marines, Guardians, Guardsman squads, yadda yadda. See what % differential these staples have, hit the "new" units with that modifier - then compare these new units to the staples/examples from before to see if they're looking right. Most of them will probably be pretty close.

 Tyran wrote:
Even playing older editions isn't as viable for xenos players as pretty much all xenos factions have gotten considerable expansions of their unit rosters.

This ties into what I was saying earlier. A game with limitless creative opportunities requires scope, and scope requires money. By the end of 7th it seems like GW had exhausted their ability to continuously increase scope while maintaining sales. Something had to change about the fundamental design of the game, which I imagine was fairly convoluted and impenetrable by that point, catering only to the most hardcore players. Hence the 8e reboot, followed by 9th and 10th.

artific3r wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
Even playing older editions isn't as viable for xenos players as pretty much all xenos factions have gotten considerable expansions of their unit rosters.

This ties into what I was saying earlier. A game with limitless creative opportunities requires scope, and scope requires money. By the end of 7th it seems like GW had exhausted their ability to continuously increase scope while maintaining sales. Something had to change about the fundamental design of the game, which I imagine was fairly convoluted and impenetrable by that point, catering only to the most hardcore players. Hence the 8e reboot, followed by 9th and 10th.

I had a similar impression, but more localized/specialized. Its my guess that they did the Primaris Range shift because Space Marine Players had all the stuff they wanted. With them being in almost every starter set and many of the special run sets, sales for Space Marines had to be cratering. Thus the range refresh and Squat Smackdown.

 Insectum7 wrote:
What sucks about HH is that there's no Xenos. It just can't be a replacement for 40k. 40k is where the fun, creativity, and personality should be. Not in some fluff-spank "pseudo-historical".

Honestly, everything I hear about 30k makes me think GW took completely the wrong route with 8th edition 40k.

Even adding Orks and Eldar to HH would be good.

 Rihgu wrote:
I remember saying this here on Dakkadakka a few years ago and Mike Brandt himself came online to tell me I was wrong and picking table sides is not a skill.

How is he the guy running GW's events?

Wayniac wrote:
My issue is still with how they equate "balanced faction" with "tournament win rate", when IMHO if the faction does well in tournaments but with one single "meta" build, that actually means the (inter-faction) balance is awful and isn't something that should be lauded.

That's my chief criticism of GW's insistence on reporting "win rates": They're meaningless in a vacuum and without any context. Yet they talk about them like they understand them completely, and then go and make knee-jerk blanket changes to the game based upon these results which they so clearly don't understand.

Dudeface wrote:
I mention this as consolidation of options has come up a lot.

And in the same book there are units that can't have the weapons that are actually in the kit, so that doesn't really prove anything.

Remember: The only consistent thing about GW is their inconsistency.

artific3r wrote:
]

This highlights another subset of 40k fans that's been getting neglected lately. Those who really enjoy the wide-open, highly-personalized, highly creative, expressive aspects of the setting will not be satisfied by 30k. There might be some overlap between this group and the historicals group, but they are not quite the same. If GW was smart they would find a way to build a product for this group. But I think that's hard, because you cannot match the sheer size and scope of mainline 40k without a lot of money coming in, and it's precisely that scope that makes 40k great for the really creative fans.

I think folks who love the openness of 40k but are frustrated with 40k rules/ system/prices/whatever, may be the sort that gravitate toward Grimdark where -in addition to its other virtues- one can explore the faction of their choice without concern for the current meta or release schedule.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

I don't know what moron came up with the notion that tables at tournament games must be set and perfectly uniform, but I really want to punch them.

This.

The tournament crowd seems to believe it improves balance, reality is that it increases the advantages of going first. In previous editions where you had to choose whether to deploy first or go first, you were in actuality making a decision about whether you wanted to maximize your defense by deploying into the most advantageous terrain possible or if you wanted to maximize your offense by making opening moves and potentially taking first blood.

With symmetrical terrain, you completely neutralize the advantage of being able to select your deployment zone to maximize its benefit to you, and consequently allow your opponent more freedom with regards to how they manage their opening turn.

Rihgu wrote:

I remember saying this here on Dakkadakka a few years ago and Mike Brandt himself came online to tell me I was wrong and picking table sides is not a skill.

That's an embarrassing hot take for Mike Brandt. It's not necessarily a skill you want to build your game around (and part of the reason why so many games in the past were decided by a players deployment), but it is in fact a skill, and one which was in my view a lesser evil than the alternative (which is what we have now) - your games are still decided by your deployment, you just have less feelsbad about it because you can't blame the gakky terrain on your side of the table for disadvantaging you vs your opponent anymore instead of taking responsibility for your own poor decisions to pick that side.

I have been flamed for suggesting terrain should be asymmetrical so that it becomes a choice which side you pick. That's not to say one side should be completely open but each side should have different pieces of terrain so each side offers it's own advantages and the side you pick becomes a tactical decision.

I was told with a straight face by tournament players that such a thing would be unbalanced because not all terrain is equal, and blocking LOS is the most important thing so you "need" both sides to have identical terrain, and not having identical terrain would make certain armies auto lose.

The fact this indicates a huge flaw with the rules was completely ignored and basically shrugged as not the problem, the problem was not having identical terrain on each side.

The most perplexing thing about that attitude is just how recent it is. This whole symmetrical terrain thing is borne of one or two US tournaments... and somehow it metastasised and now consumes everything, even the parent company.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
The most perplexing thing about that attitude is just how recent it is. This whole symmetrical terrain thing is borne of one or two US tournaments... and somehow it metastasised and now consumes everything, even the parent company.

I blame the fact they got people like Brandt and Reecius to "guide" them with competitive play so it turned into boring trash.

Well that explains why the game is paint by numbers now. Imagine planning your army around static terrain layouts as opposed to way back in the day trying to make a TAC list that can react to different battlefields. I said right from the start and I want to repeat it: The only way this game currently functions at all is because of the oppressive LOS blocking everywhere. Funnily enough in an edition where melee is horse poop bad (except against T3 Sv5+ W1 hordes). I don't understand who would want an <18" range shooty meta?

H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Gibblets wrote:

Spoiler:

For me it has. I can't even set up my gaming table photo realistically anymore like SS82 or MWG style as these comp simps in my area follow the BS terrain layouts GW made. ... Can't play with my beautifully painted models on beautiful tables. Just infinite fighting over the exact same destroyed buildings, snooze fest.

And this is why symmetrical tables have always been and always will be utter cancer.

I don't know what moron came up with the notion that tables at tournament games must be set and perfectly uniform, but I really want to punch them.
That's all???? You're far, far too nice...

Spoiler:

 vipoid wrote:
A lot of tournament lists are incredibly boring to play against and look no more fun to play.

I mean let's have a look at GW's most recent Dunning Kruger Comedy Fest Metawatch article:

[spoiler]

Does that look like fun? To make Sisters work you've got to bring not one, not two, but three special characters? Makes me wonder when does it stop being "Your guys" and become "Their guys" if your list contains multiple special characters. I imagine that if Marines didn't have the Chapter distinction, we'd be seeing lists with multi-chapter Special Characters as well. Also, near as I can tell, the Death Cult Assassins are there just to fulfil the Dedicated Transport requirement.

The World Eater one ain't much better?

Spoiler:

Now in WE's defence, they only have half a Codex, but again, we've got a list using 2 of their 3 special character (and given how many WE lists I've seen with Kharn, I'm genuinely surprised he's not there as well). Also cool WE list with its single unit of Berzerkers and loads of... spawn...

But I guess it's all fine as long as the mighty win rates are on track.
[/spoiler]

Rihgu wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:


I don't know what moron came up with the notion that tables at tournament games must be set and perfectly uniform, but I really want to punch them.

Asymmetry is a super important part of setting up tables for Infinity and picking a side based on the matchup is an important skill to develop.

Infinity tables are automatically nicer looking than 40k tables.

I remember saying this here on Dakkadakka a few years ago and Mike Brandt himself came online to tell me I was wrong and picking table sides is not a skill.

Yeah, like quadruple feth that guy. I try really hard to ignore their "contributions" to 40k, unfortunately, 9&10th are shitshows. So if that's their contribution to the game....they can go feth something else up instead.

The only rational argument I've heard for symmetrical terrain is that they are good for balance in RTS games.

My counterpoint to that is that 40k is not an RTS and the fact it's turn based has a significant impact on the impact terrain has on gameplay

 Gibblets wrote:
Imagine planning your army around static terrain layouts as opposed to way back in the day trying to make a TAC list that can react to different battlefields.

Something I've consistently observed is that most competitive players don't want to have to prepare for multiple possibilities and apply their skills as a general to adapt; they want known objectives and a predictable battlefield layout so that they can hone and then execute a pre-planned, list-driven strategy for an ideal chance of winning.

The players who are actually good at 40K can react on the fly and succeed at the gameplay stage rather than just the listbuilding stage. They are vastly outnumbered by netlisters and number-crunchers who, whenever the game has had enough objective variety to need a diverse set of capabilities rather than min-maxing to a single mission type, will min-max anyways and then unironically bitch that the RNG of mission selection is what made them lose.

So here we are- bland symmetrical tables, bland symmetrical missions, and a widespread, obnoxious, pernicious attitude that anything deviating from the zen-like perfection of smashing armies into abstract hold-for-5VP objective markers plopped between pairs of L-shaped ruins is destructive to the game.

^So then the question I have in response is: Is pandering to that crowd necessary to run successful events?

Like, if I were running things, I'd increase the options for lists, run events with a wide variety in tables, and try to emphasize the messy fun of it, with the understanding that the winner will require a good list, a flexible skillset, and some amount of luck as to not get screwed by some gnarly matchup brought about by the increased variety.

Slight counterpoint, as Long as gw designs the terrain rules and interactions so lackluster, so Long changeing it that one can choose a side is still rather.... I want to say redundant but not entirely.

It's an issue in HH 2.0 aswell, terrain and cover is lackluster, gw circumvented that by making artillery and a lot of ranged weaponry far less deadly, for PA units.
My chosen point of going about the arty dominance in HH would've been to make cover more relevant with a dual system and high cover saves whilest maintaining lethality. Which finally would've also allowed to establish a need for anti-cover weapons like flamers, nadelaunchers etc.

That beeing said a wargame that requires actual playerskill and therefore adaptability and not just Target priority and force building to achieve that, has to have more dynamic challanges, like assymetric tables, attack/defense type missions, deployment choice.

One shudders to imagine the battle of grandson with symetrical terrain...

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
I mention this as consolidation of options has come up a lot.

And in the same book there are units that can't have the weapons that are actually in the kit, so that doesn't really prove anything.

Remember: The only consistent thing about GW is their inconsistency.

I wasn't trying to prove anything other than a genuine example of someone saying "I couldn't build this from the box so why did they give me options", since people never seem to see that side of it. Which I understand because to most of us we're from the time that a hand swap or a bits hunt was reasonably normal and part of the wider hobby.

What I find most funny is when warmachine was popular, you know an actual competitive game designed for that purpose, the terrain guidelines for comp play specifically said to NOT make it symmetrical but have different types of terrain on either side because choosing what side was supposed to be a tactic.

What bothers the feth out of me is the vehemence from the competitive crowd that the game literally does not function without boring trash L-shaped ruins as the only major terrain pieces, that it doesn't function without objective based gameplay (especially those terrible secondary objectives), that it doesn't function without house ruling the bottom floor of those boring L-shaped ruins to completely block LOS. They will say this with a straight face and see nothing wrong with it. Not that there's some imbalance which is bad for competitive play (that I would at least understand) but that the game is literally UNPLAYABLE AT ALL to where some factions automatically lose if any one of those (terrain especially) is not present.

If that were actually true the fact they're okay with it just always being a thing rather than condemning the game for being so terrible that those things are required (yet not by gw) is mind boggling.

People want symmetrical terrain and missions because they get one game per week where they're having to travel 30 mins to an hour to get to their LGS, after a full day of work by the way, and they don't want to get saddled with a crap board where they got shot off the table in turn 1 because all of the cover was on the Tau players half. They want everything to be fair and symmetrical because it's a random PUG with someone they may have never played before and so the less variables that have to be discussed or argued down about can be reduced. Besides, I thought 40k was meant to be some casual beer and pretzels game? Why subject a random casual player to an incredibly unfair lopsided board and mission if they've brought an army that isn't suited for either of those things? feth all that about being "a better general" they just wanna roll some dice and have a fun, full game.

All the weird thought experiments dakka likes to do about this kind of gak is always a nightmare to read because none of you play events or have any real experience of the tournament scene. Most of you always haven't played in general since 7th or earlier.

And I remember playing games with randoms in older editions on gakky boards down at the local GW. It was this mix of getting shot off the board turn 1 because 40k has always been hyper lethal if there hasn't been enough LOS blocking terrain, getting weird whacky terribly unbalanced missions that caused arguments and bad experiences, or people just houseruled said feth it and played "pitched battle dawn of war deployment whoever kills more points wins" because that was the only way to avoid drama and give people the appearance of fairness.

The GW mission system is designed for the actual modern reality of wargaming which is not a very small circle of friends who all know each other very well and who have ample space in their own homes to set up their tables and play missions that they themselves have designed. But the thing is you can still happily do that if that is the circle/community of people you have around you.