Switch Theme:

Peak 40K?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in ie
Ruthless Rafkin





Spoletta wrote:
There are a lot of ways to caster kill turn 1. Sure, most of them won't work twice on the same person, but since the topic was "new players", then I can't even count the amount of turn 1 caster kills you can pull off.
Not to mention the 2 "I win by points on turn 1, let's shake hands" feats.

Warmachine had a lot of impossibly broken builds. It all worked just because all factions had access to some and because I've never met someone who actually cared enough for WM lore to influence his list building.


Are you talking about Mk.1? Because one of the best competitve players in the world was in my meta and even when I played him at a mastera tournament in Mk.2 using a low tier caster against him while still somewhat new he didn't pull off a turn 1 win nor did I ever hear about him doing it. I never played Mk.1 but have heard stories about how broken stuff was.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/19 09:45:30



 
   
Made in bh
Longtime Dakkanaut





I'm talking about MK2, and not all lists can do that, so the fact that he didn't doesn't mean that they don't exist.
I have seen many new players at our store get "killed" turn 1 (what actually happened was us stopping them from doing something that would get them killed, we don't like bullying new players).

   
Made in ie
Ruthless Rafkin





Spoletta wrote:
I'm talking about MK2, and not all lists can do that, so the fact that he didn't doesn't mean that they don't exist.
I have seen many new players at our store get "killed" turn 1 (what actually happened was us stopping them from doing something that would get them killed, we don't like bullying new players).



So what you're arguing is that an experienced competitive player with a very specific list designed to take advantage of a novice players ignorance can win turn 1 so WMH Mk.2 was bad? And thats why you think 40k 9th has better internal balance than WMH Mk.2? Because an experienced tournament player can't win turn 1 vs a newbie who has no clue whats going on and the novice can still have a chance to win?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/19 09:59:55



 
   
Made in bh
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Sim-Life wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
I'm talking about MK2, and not all lists can do that, so the fact that he didn't doesn't mean that they don't exist.
I have seen many new players at our store get "killed" turn 1 (what actually happened was us stopping them from doing something that would get them killed, we don't like bullying new players).



So what you're arguing is that an experienced competitive player with a very specific list designed to take advantage of a novice players ignorance can win turn 1 so WMH Mk.2 was bad? And thats why you think 40k 9th has better internal balance than WMH Mk.2? Because an experienced tournament player can't win turn 1 vs a newbie who has no clue whats going on and the novice can still have a chance to win?


No, and I have no idea how you managed to read that from my posts.

I'm saying that WMH had worse internal balance, because it had a worse internal balance. Because it was based on a concept of "Every faction is broken so no one is". The dexes were 10% autoinclude, 30% trap choices, 60% choice that were auto include with a specific caster. I played Everblight and I've never see half the models from my dex on the table in many years. I don't even know how a Scatter Crew model is done!

The fact that MANY lists can actually capitalize on an opponent mistake to caster kill him turn 1, was just an example to show how broken were the combos in that game.
WMH was better than 40K 7th edition, no questions asked there. But in my experience 8th and 9th are leaps and bounds better than what WMH MK2 was.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




Not really adding much, but my experience of WMH MK2 was "you are going to lose your first 10+ games because your opponent will break out "X" which you didn't even know existed." Whether this happened on your opponents first or second turn is somewhat academic. And yeah, learning consisted of "here's the meta, you get 1-2 skew lists, learn them, love them, deviate and you'll basically do nothing but lose." Comparisons with 7th edition come to mind.

The only upside was that if you lost in about 15 minutes (i.e. those first 10 games), nothing's stopping you just playing another game and you've hopefully learned to avoid doing that thing.

The general whinge about 40k is that when the game is 2-3 hours long, that's not possible - and if you get gotcha-ed 90 minutes in (or literally from deployment, which was more common I think in older editions) you still need to play out the rest because its possible your opponent will roll nothing but 1s.
   
Made in it
Gargantuan Gargant




Italy

Tyel wrote:

The general whinge about 40k is that when the game is 2-3 hours long, that's not possible - and if you get gotcha-ed 90 minutes in (or literally from deployment, which was more common I think in older editions) you still need to play out the rest because its possible your opponent will roll nothing but 1s.


If someone thinks the game is really screwed turn 1 conceding is always an option. Then play it again.


 
   
Made in ie
Ruthless Rafkin





Spoletta wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
I'm talking about MK2, and not all lists can do that, so the fact that he didn't doesn't mean that they don't exist.
I have seen many new players at our store get "killed" turn 1 (what actually happened was us stopping them from doing something that would get them killed, we don't like bullying new players).



So what you're arguing is that an experienced competitive player with a very specific list designed to take advantage of a novice players ignorance can win turn 1 so WMH Mk.2 was bad? And thats why you think 40k 9th has better internal balance than WMH Mk.2? Because an experienced tournament player can't win turn 1 vs a newbie who has no clue whats going on and the novice can still have a chance to win?


No, and I have no idea how you managed to read that from my posts.

I'm saying that WMH had worse internal balance, because it had a worse internal balance. Because it was based on a concept of "Every faction is broken so no one is". The dexes were 10% autoinclude, 30% trap choices, 60% choice that were auto include with a specific caster. I played Everblight and I've never see half the models from my dex on the table in many years. I don't even know how a Scatter Crew model is done!

The fact that MANY lists can actually capitalize on an opponent mistake to caster kill him turn 1, was just an example to show how broken were the combos in that game.
WMH was better than 40K 7th edition, no questions asked there. But in my experience 8th and 9th are leaps and bounds better than what WMH MK2 was.


I got to that conclusion by reading the conversation that lead to this discussion. My entire Mk.2 game career was taking Old Witch 1 (considered Khador's worst caster) and making her work, which I did by using a very specific army list tailored to what I wanted it to do (it was also killed by Mk3 themes). I actually placed 6th in a Master tournament using that list (which was the same tournament I played the aforementioned game with one of the best players of the game). I also played Legion with Rhyas1 doing the same thing and playing Vlad3 in theme. I did the same in nearly every faction I played (Khador, Legion, Cyriss, Circle) because I found testing lists and making under-preforming models work for me fun. If a player wins by capitalising on another players mistake that's a player skill problem, not a game problem.

You can't do that in 40k. Your model either works well and if it doesn't you find something that works better from the army list and through enough games people will filter out the crap models and end up taking the better ones, meaning the worse ones don't gets used, which is guess what? Bad internal balance! No one sits contemplating whether or not you should take a pyrovore or a biovore, the choice is obvious. Silent King or a Monolith? Paragon Suit or Repentia? You can't use your whole army of under-achievers to set up one Hail Mary play to win the whole game because you know your army and the order of operations well. All you can really do in 40k is hope you kill enough of the other guy to have enough points at the end to win. In 40k crap models are just crap models.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Blackie wrote:
Tyel wrote:

The general whinge about 40k is that when the game is 2-3 hours long, that's not possible - and if you get gotcha-ed 90 minutes in (or literally from deployment, which was more common I think in older editions) you still need to play out the rest because its possible your opponent will roll nothing but 1s.


If someone thinks the game is really screwed turn 1 conceding is always an option. Then play it again.


But I thought Alpha Strike didn't exist anymore? Or was it that good players know how to hide out of line of sight? Would a new player know to have all his models huddle behind buildings if they're going second to avoid losing turn one?

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/09/19 12:05:05



 
   
Made in bh
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Sim-Life wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
I'm talking about MK2, and not all lists can do that, so the fact that he didn't doesn't mean that they don't exist.
I have seen many new players at our store get "killed" turn 1 (what actually happened was us stopping them from doing something that would get them killed, we don't like bullying new players).



So what you're arguing is that an experienced competitive player with a very specific list designed to take advantage of a novice players ignorance can win turn 1 so WMH Mk.2 was bad? And thats why you think 40k 9th has better internal balance than WMH Mk.2? Because an experienced tournament player can't win turn 1 vs a newbie who has no clue whats going on and the novice can still have a chance to win?


No, and I have no idea how you managed to read that from my posts.

I'm saying that WMH had worse internal balance, because it had a worse internal balance. Because it was based on a concept of "Every faction is broken so no one is". The dexes were 10% autoinclude, 30% trap choices, 60% choice that were auto include with a specific caster. I played Everblight and I've never see half the models from my dex on the table in many years. I don't even know how a Scatter Crew model is done!

The fact that MANY lists can actually capitalize on an opponent mistake to caster kill him turn 1, was just an example to show how broken were the combos in that game.
WMH was better than 40K 7th edition, no questions asked there. But in my experience 8th and 9th are leaps and bounds better than what WMH MK2 was.


I got to that conclusion by reading the conversation that lead to this discussion. My entire Mk.2 game career was taking Old Witch 1 (considered Khador's worst caster) and making her work, which I did by using a very specific army list tailored to what I wanted it to do (it was also killed by Mk3 themes). I actually placed 6th in a Master tournament using that list (which was the same tournament I played the aforementioned game with one of the best players of the game). I also played Legion with Rhyas1 doing the same thing and playing Vlad3 in theme. I did the same in nearly every faction I played (Khador, Legion, Cyriss, Circle) because I found testing lists and making under-preforming models work for me fun. If a player wins by capitalising on another players mistake that's a player skill problem, not a game problem.

You can't do that in 40k. Your model either works well and if it doesn't you find something that works better from the army list and through enough games people will filter out the crap models and end up taking the better ones, meaning the worse ones don't gets used, which is guess what? Bad internal balance! No one sits contemplating whether or not you should take a pyrovore or a biovore, the choice is obvious. Silent King or a Monolith? Paragon Suit or Repentia? You can't use your whole army of under-achievers to set up one Hail Mary play to win the whole game because you know your army and the order of operations well. All you can really do in 40k is hope you kill enough of the other guy to have enough points at the end to win. In 40k crap models are just crap models.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Blackie wrote:
Tyel wrote:

The general whinge about 40k is that when the game is 2-3 hours long, that's not possible - and if you get gotcha-ed 90 minutes in (or literally from deployment, which was more common I think in older editions) you still need to play out the rest because its possible your opponent will roll nothing but 1s.


If someone thinks the game is really screwed turn 1 conceding is always an option. Then play it again.


But I thought Alpha Strike didn't exist anymore? Or was it that good players know how to hide out of line of sight? Would a new player know to have all his models huddle behind buildings if they're going second to avoid losing turn one?


You see? That's why I say that our experiences differ, because what you said that you did in WMH, I do in 40K.
I make lists with subpar models and have them work, because I find it quite fun. Because the difference between a subpar list and a net list isn't that great that I can't win by simply playing better than my opponent. That's because the internal balance isn't as bad as people make it sound. You usually get kilometer long posts to show that in model x is 7% better than model y in all possible situations, so model y is a trap choice. Yes, that is true, it is a trap choice. But is also just 7% worse than the alternative, so if I like that model, the handicap is pretty minimal.
Sure, I won't win any GT like that because at a certain point you meet someone at your level, and then lists start speaking, but that's the same in all games.
   
Made in it
Gargantuan Gargant




Italy

 Sim-Life wrote:


But I thought Alpha Strike didn't exist anymore? Or was it that good players know how to hide out of line of sight? Would a new player know to have all his models huddle behind buildings if they're going second to avoid losing turn one?


I don't know, I haven't had a single game of 9th edition in which someone conceded before top of 3, but I'm in 40k since late 90s and I don't play very often against unexperienced kids. More than a matter of alpha strike I think it can be a matter of poor listbuilding combined with above/below average rolls and poor positioning. Despite what some people think and although 40k isn't an extremely tactical game I do believe that players' skills and decisions have a significant impact on a game.


 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




Spoletta wrote:


Warmachine had a lot of impossibly broken builds. It all worked just because all factions had access to some and because I've never met someone who actually cared enough for WM lore to influence his list building.


Hi, I'm.that guy. Love the wmh lore.

On the topic of t1 assassinations, played wmh since mk1. I was the wrong end of a t1 assassination from.madrak 1 when I fielded vlad3. Advanced too far, never saw it coming.
*shrug* it happens.

Wmh was a solid game but it had a lot of issues. Aa much as I was a 'explore the game' player and basically had 400+ models at one point, wmh had its builds. By the middle of mk2 the game was solved and for all the variety in the fane and ways you could make things work, most people crutched on a handful of builds, obvious solutions and casters. Gaspy 2, Denny 1+2, epic haley for example. You could be creative (I scalped a UK masters winner one in a friendly with strakhov once) but for the most part, obvious was the rule.

Wmh was a very broken game but in a different way to wmh. It had severe match up issues and a lot of silver bullets that would just shut you down completely.

greatest band in the universe: machine supremacy

"Punch your fist in the air and hold your Gameboy aloft like the warrior you are" 
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Sim-Life wrote:
If a player wins by capitalising on another players mistake that's a player skill problem, not a game problem.


I haven't gone back and checked the post -records to see your personal stance on the "Gotcha" trope of "why 40k is the worst game ever" - it's one of the most common complaints about 40k. Personally, I agree with your stance; but I apply it to 40k as much as I do to other games, which is one reason why I never have problems with gotcha; the other is I ask a lot of simple, close-ended questions when I play an army I've never played before, which helps me make good choices without slowing the game down too much.

Granted, I don't play in competitive environments. The parts of your post that name players who have garnered notoriety in the community is an alien way of thinking for me. I find it fascinating that people think of tabletop, and I suppose CCG's this way. Heck, there are D&D youtubers that are similarly famous, though not for competitive reasons. All of this blows my mind- these games were always about playing with a small group of friends semi-regularly for me. I'm not saying your attitude is wrong- far from it: it actually is a side of the game I've never really contemplated.

 Sim-Life wrote:

You can't do that in 40k. Your model either works well and if it doesn't you find something that works better from the army list and through enough games people will filter out the crap models and end up taking the better ones, meaning the worse ones don't gets used, which is guess what? Bad internal balance! No one sits contemplating whether or not you should take a pyrovore or a biovore, the choice is obvious. Silent King or a Monolith? Paragon Suit or Repentia? You can't use your whole army of under-achievers to set up one Hail Mary play to win the whole game because you know your army and the order of operations well. All you can really do in 40k is hope you kill enough of the other guy to have enough points at the end to win. In 40k crap models are just crap models.


Again, totally different points of view and ways of thinking.

I play repentia in battles that occur after a unit has disgraced themselves in a previous game in lieu of the disgraced unit. I've done it since before Crusade- GW is finally catching up to me with actual rules support on this, for which I will be eternally grateful.

Similarly, I play Paragons when I play Morvenn, and I only field her in Onslaught games that include detachments from more than one Order because as an Abbess and a Supreme Commander, that's her job.

Whether I stomp faces or get my face stomped has absolutely zero to do with most of the games I play. I recognize that this point of view is not common, and I am not saying that anyone who plays differently is wrong. I hope they find the way I play as fascinating as I find your points of view regarding the reputations of players in the competitive scene, and that it reminds them of the scope of the game and its player base.


 Sim-Life wrote:

Would a new player know to have all his models huddle behind buildings if they're going second to avoid losing turn one?


I started this post by saying I hadn't gone back to review your post history to see how quick you are to complain about gotcha in 40k, or support others who do, while excusing it in other games.

Turns out, I didn't have to look back in your history at all- you did it in the exact same post where you said this: If a player wins by capitalising on another players mistake that's a player skill problem, not a game problem.

I'll be fair here and cut you some slack, because I think the context here is that you're responding to someone else with your closing statement- ie. using something that they've said in a previous post against them, rather than stating your own personal feelings on the issue... But you do see how that looks like holding different games to different standards based on personal preference, right?

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/09/19 13:42:56


 
   
Made in ie
Ruthless Rafkin





PenitentJake wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
If a player wins by capitalising on another players mistake that's a player skill problem, not a game problem.


I haven't gone back and checked the post -records to see your personal stance on the "Gotcha" trope of "why 40k is the worst game ever" - it's one of the most common complaints about 40k. Personally, I agree with your stance; but I apply it to 40k as much as I do to other games, which is one reason why I never have problems with gotcha; the other is I ask a lot of simple, close-ended questions when I play an army I've never played before, which helps me make good choices without slowing the game down too much.

Granted, I don't play in competitive environments. The parts of your post that name players who have garnered notoriety in the community is an alien way of thinking for me. I find it fascinating that people think of tabletop, and I suppose CCG's this way. Heck, there are D&D youtubers that are similarly famous, though not for competitive reasons. All of this blows my mind- these games were always about playing with a small group of friends semi-regularly for me. I'm not saying your attitude is wrong- far from it: it actually is a side of the game I've never really contemplated.

 Sim-Life wrote:

You can't do that in 40k. Your model either works well and if it doesn't you find something that works better from the army list and through enough games people will filter out the crap models and end up taking the better ones, meaning the worse ones don't gets used, which is guess what? Bad internal balance! No one sits contemplating whether or not you should take a pyrovore or a biovore, the choice is obvious. Silent King or a Monolith? Paragon Suit or Repentia? You can't use your whole army of under-achievers to set up one Hail Mary play to win the whole game because you know your army and the order of operations well. All you can really do in 40k is hope you kill enough of the other guy to have enough points at the end to win. In 40k crap models are just crap models.


Again, totally different points of view and ways of thinking.

I play repentia in battles that occur after a unit has disgraced themselves in a previous game in lieu of the disgraced unit. I've done it since before Crusade- GW is finally catching up to me with actual rules support on this, for which I will be eternally grateful.

Similarly, I play Paragons when I play Morvenn, and I only field her in Onslaught games that include detachments from more than one Order because as an Abbess and a Supreme Commander, that's her job.

Whether I stomp faces or get my face stomped has absolutely zero to do with most of the games I play. I recognize that this point of view is not common, and I am not saying that anyone who plays differently is wrong. I hope they find the way I play as fascinating as I find your points of view regarding the reputations of players in the competitive scene, and that it reminds them of the scope of the game and its player base.


 Sim-Life wrote:

Would a new player know to have all his models huddle behind buildings if they're going second to avoid losing turn one?


I started this post by saying I hadn't gone back to review your post history to see how quick you are to complain about gotcha in 40k, or support others who do, while excusing it in other games.

Turns out, I didn't have to look back in your history at all- you did it in the exact same post where you said this: If a player wins by capitalising on another players mistake that's a player skill problem, not a game problem.

I'll be fair here and cut you some slack, because I think the context here is that you're responding to someone else with your closing statement- ie. using something that they've said in a previous post against them, rather than stating your own personal feelings on the issue... But you do see how that looks like holding different games to different standards based on personal preference, right?


The reason I excuse WMH from "gotcha" moments is because of the approach to both games fostered by both the community and the producers.
WMH is designed from the ground up to be a competitive tournament game and always has been. You're expected to research stuff, learn the meta, know your enemy etc. No one ever started an intro game of WMH with the phrase "this is a really laid back, chill game". Models are even considered a secondary consideration for most players. Terrain is 2D, TOs will often let people play with unpainted, half built models etc. The game could and probably has been played with just pictures printed on bases of the correct size.

40k is the complete opposite. It's made to be a casual game where people have fun with their models. It's not made to be a deep thinking thought exercise. It's made for you to plunk some models down, roll dice and have a good times with friends.

In each game "gotchas" are approached in different ways because the expectations of each game are different. In WMH they're a learning experience, you file it away and know for next time. In 40k they delete a unit, the victim feels crappy and likely will be annoyed about it for the rest of the game. I had a friend whose main list was the Stygian Abyss Coven assassination I mentioned previously. You think the meta was continually "gotcha"'d every time he used it? Especially when he was notorious for using it even if it only worked like 25% of the time? No, they learned to counter it. Then he would make counter-counters, and on and on it went. No one ever got annoyed at him for using it because it was a constant push and pull. People had to get better at the game because that was what was expected of you when you start playing WMH. In 40k the only expectation is a fun time with models. Anything that ruins that fun is bad for the game.

That said people did complain about "gotcha" feats in WMH, but from what I recall it wasn't anything to do with using a specific combination of things in tandem, it more refered to certain feats that made fighting an opponent difficult until they used their feat, like the Menoth caster who knocked everyone down or Haley2. If it makes you happy I quit both games, though for different reasons. Well, some reasons were the same.

Since you're playing internet detective I welcome you to go back to when I defended 8th Ed against the same arguments I'm making now, incidentally. Maybe ask yourself why I had the change of mind on the game?


 
   
Made in de
Terrifying Doombull






Nuremberg

When I played WMH, I was able to run a weird list with just units I liked and none of the "must haves" and find ways to win games through careful play. No GW game has ever really managed the same feat, but it's come close a few times, usually at the start of an edition before the design paradigm got ruined by the poor discipline of the design studio.

Wargaming is heavily about the models and feel of the army for me, even when I play competitively. So I really don't like it if I have to build a certain very specific kind of list to do well. I don't mind obvious stuff like taking some anti-tank weapons and a mix of troop types to solve different problems, you know the traditional HQ, couple of troops, elite, fast attack and heavy structure.

Peak 40K has always been those times when I felt I could do that, and have a fair go at winning games. But no edition has been like that the entire way through, none that I've played anyway. They always shift gears before they finish an edition and change the design parameters, and then you end up with first class and second class books. Even for editions I really loved and have fond memories of that is the case. It's always the army books rather than the core rules that ruin 40K (with the possible exception of 7th edition, where I read it and never even wanted to play it).

By contrast, WMH had simultaneous releases, so you always got new and interesting stuff and got to be included in any design paradigm shifts each time they updated. It turned out to not be sustainable in the end, as it resulted in huge amounts of unit bloat, but while it was working it produced a great game that I had confidence in giving me a good time whenever I played.

40K is not going to provide that, it seems, because they'll always release the factions too slowly, change paradigm before they're finished, and move on to a new edition anyway before people have settled in. I think the Prohammer people probably have the right idea, and it'd be cool to see a Prohammer version for people who prefer the post 8e design paradigm develop as GW moves forward.

   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





Racerguy180 wrote:
Titanicus is their best game & the only one where I actually like the game play rules.


I do like them -- for this model count.

There are issues with the rules though - ( note I haven't read any FAQs so I'm still processing ). Like LOS is drawn by weapon. I magnetize my weapons and torso, which means they can pivot. What's the correct orientation of the model to be fair to my opponent?

And there's a bunch of books out for it, which include from just one book --

– Revised rules for assembling your battlegroups
– Rules for 16 Titan Legions loyal to the Emperor, including Legio traits, Stratagems and wargear
– Rules for 12 Imperial Knight houses
– 18 different maniples to use with your Titans
– Allegiance rules for Loyalist Titan Legion Battlegroups, Questor Imperialis and Questor Mechanicus
– Background and rules for Ordo Sinister Psi-Titans
– 50 Stratagems for use by Loyalist battlegroups
– 11 Loyalist upgrades
– A comprehensive list of weapons available to each Titan, including weapon traits not featured in the core rulebook


So it gets real complicated real fast if you jump outside the base game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Sim-Life wrote:
You're exaggerating. Very few casters can pull off a turn 1 assassination without a lot of lucky dice and opponent ineptitude and even then you should know to hide your caster after your first game.


This argument is quite similar to my perspective on alpha strikes.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/19 15:17:26


   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Blackie wrote:
I don't know, I haven't had a single game of 9th edition in which someone conceded before top of 3, but I'm in 40k since late 90s and I don't play very often against unexperienced kids. More than a matter of alpha strike I think it can be a matter of poor listbuilding combined with above/below average rolls and poor positioning. Despite what some people think and although 40k isn't an extremely tactical game I do believe that players' skills and decisions have a significant impact on a game.


I'm thinking older editions where you might have to move over difficult terrain, and proceed to roll nothing but 1s for 3 turns. So your unit ends up basically stuck out of position the end. (Vehicles can likewise end up immobilised etc).

To which the lesson is *don't go anywhere near difficult terrain* - but then you might not know that to begin with. And units might end up thrown there due to deepstrike mishaps and so on.
   
Made in us
Grumpy Longbeard





washington state USA

 AnomanderRake wrote:
 Gert wrote:
I've played a fair few game systems that weren't 40k although many were GW.
Every single one has the exact same problem, if you aren't playing with people who are like-minded then you will have a bad time.
Necromunda (the new one) - A very narrative-driven game. 2 of our players instead found the gamiest and cheesiest ways to run their gangs and ruined it for everyone else.
MESBG - Same again, despite some players wanting to take lists that were in line with what we see in the films, others didn't care and found broken lists.
Battlefleet Heresy (BFG adapted ruleset) - Cheese lists again. Doesn't matter if you're running an accurate fleet with good ratios of Capitals and Escorts, the 50 Destroyer spam list wins every time.
Bolt Action - Historical accuracy? Thrown out the window in favour of cheese lists.
It doesn't matter what system you're playing, there will always be cheese or broken lists and there will always be people to find and play them.


Yeah. The difference between GW games and non-GW games is that in a GW game if you're playing against the cheese list with a non-cheese list you lose. If you're playing a non-GW game and someone has "the cheese list" and you have a list chosen entirely at random you can still play; you may not win every game, or even win 50% of the time, but you won't lose 100% of the time the way you would if you were trying to do that in a GW game.

(As to Bolt Action it's a) a historical wargame, which makes it more breakable than non-historical wargames, and b) written by ex-GW people, who tend to get tunnel vision on assuming everyone plays like them.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Spoletta wrote:
...It seems that your experience with warmachine has been VERY different that mine. I left that game when I got tired of wanting to play X warlock and getting told "LOL no, you have 2 warlocks that are competitive, don't bother trying to use the other ones." or wanting to use certain units and discovering that after you select your warlock, then 80% of your points are spent in auto include models.

Warmachine had a good external balance, since each faction had at least 2 broken builds, but the internal balance was a couple of order of magnitude worse than what we have now.


Oh, definitely, the "play only the best things" attitude exists in every competitive community, but I've found in non-GW games you can ignore them and still do things. I used to play "bad" things all the time in Warmachine and could still win games, rather than my 40k experience of getting 2-3 turn tabled if I try to play bad things.

Yeah that is my experience with WMH as well. we play in a very casual group where we play what minis we like and build are army around them.

I play khador because of 2 models-the clam jack and the gun carriage. i play Irusk II because he best supports the models i like. Our other active players feel likewise. our circle orbos player has an entire werewolf themed army, we have a cygnar player who does all things trenchers( he said he hears there were other things to play in a cygnar army but he knows it is a lie)

MKIII core rules wise is the best edition of the game. theme lists that give you free stuff for "reasons" are the worst thing about the game outside the toxic "power gamer" player groups.

I play more than 10 different systems, and yes i agree that player group attitude does matter, however some games are just better written than others at the same time.



GAMES-DUST1947/infinity/B5 wars/epic 40K/5th ed 40K/victory at sea/warmachine/battle tactics/monpoc/battletech/battlefleet gothic/castles in the sky,/heavy gear 
   
Made in us
Da Head Honcho Boss Grot




New Jersey, State of Perfection

 Sim-Life wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
 kodos wrote:
my basic experience with WM was also that the WAAC player gave me times on how to play better and how I need to use the units I have (2nd Edition)

while the 40k tournament (not even a WAAC guy) player just said that I have the wrong faction and if I want to win I need to play a different one and if I don't want to buy into a different army, I should just not complain about losing (7th Edition)

and this is a very different experience when you play the "wrong" people


In Warmachine you could get caster killed turn 1 if you didn't know each and every gotcha moments of the enemy list. Some comboes of that game were just ruthless. I still remember the "Oh, you didn't run all your units forward turn 1? Sorry, I activate my caster feat, pass and win. Another game?"


You're exaggerating. Very few casters can pull off a turn 1 assassination without a lot of lucky dice and opponent ineptitude and even then you should know to hide your caster after your first game.

I can only think of one caster who can pull it off and thats the Coven with Cryx in Mk2. Cast Infernal Machine on a bonejack, run it 18" and arc Stygian Abyss through it and fish for crits to get Blind and hope the opponent isn't camping focus and your rolls are lucky.


I suffered a turn 1 caster kill twice (both times after years of playing the game). I made bad mistakes in both cases, and in both cases my opponent was well equipped and positioned to take advantage of those mistakes. The learning curve in Warmachine is pretty steep, something like getting your caster killed in T1 is more about what you did wrong as a player than what your opponent did right - its very difficult (if not impossible) to force a turn 1 caster kill against an opponent, regardless of your skill level. If you're getting a turn 1 caster kill against someone its because that someone essentially handed you the kill on a silver platter by going out of their way to make it possible for you to do so.

Turn 2 caster kills, on the other hand, are actually fairly common and require significantly less error and/or skill to make possible. You'll have a hard time convincing me that being able to end a game on turn 2 is anything other than a bad thing or any better than doing the same on turn 1.

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

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




San Jose, CA

Daedalus81 wrote:
Racerguy180 wrote:
Spoiler:
Titanicus is their best game & the only one where I actually like the game play rules.


I do like them -- for this model count.

There are issues with the rules though - ( note I haven't read any FAQs so I'm still processing ). Like LOS is drawn by weapon. I magnetize my weapons and torso, which means they can pivot. What's the correct orientation of the model to be fair to my opponent?

And there's a bunch of books out for it, which include from just one book --

– Revised rules for assembling your battlegroups
– Rules for 16 Titan Legions loyal to the Emperor, including Legio traits, Stratagems and wargear
– Rules for 12 Imperial Knight houses
– 18 different maniples to use with your Titans
– Allegiance rules for Loyalist Titan Legion Battlegroups, Questor Imperialis and Questor Mechanicus
– Background and rules for Ordo Sinister Psi-Titans
– 50 Stratagems for use by Loyalist battlegroups
– 11 Loyalist upgrades
– A comprehensive list of weapons available to each Titan, including weapon traits not featured in the core rulebook


So it gets real complicated real fast if you jump outside the base game.


I happen to like the complexity and layering. It actually feels like you're a princepts needing to manage the god-engine. Much like a battleship. Firing solutions, damage control, venting, etc... really add to the game. But I also like how the game flows. AA, orders, etc give it a give/take feel, which at this scale works quite well.

The base game is also fun to just throw titans down & chuck dice.

Whereas 40k(currently) doesn't feel like a company level or skirmish game so it sits in a weird limbo. There's simplicity in the core rules and then a myriad of layers to do things to a specific unit. Which the previously mentioned simplicity counters the buff/debuff/removal of randomness. As much as I like the reroll stuff, the game should really be determined by the actual dice being thrown. Not by the modification of that dice.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





Racerguy180 wrote:
Not by the modification of that dice.


AT does a lot of that though - it's the only way terrain really interacts with models by conferring negatives. To your point though - not a lot of rerolls ( that I've seen yet ).

I don't find myself rerolling very much at all these days. 8th? Yes, because you could ball up with units and go to town. In 9th there is little opportunity to do so. Marines get the most rerolls, but they're the elite experts so it makes sense for it to be part of their identity.

   
Made in us
Terminator with Assault Cannon




San Jose, CA

I'm talking about the proliferation of rerolls more than anything else.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/20 01:57:53


 
   
Made in bh
Longtime Dakkanaut





There are actually very few rerolls nowadays.

There are quite a lot of exploding 6's effects, but those are fine since they require less time to be resolved.
   
Made in it
Gargantuan Gargant




Italy

Agree, re-rolls are getting axed with 9th codexes but overall the dice rolling is still massive.


 
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

Are they?

There are still plenty of re-rolls in all the new Codices. They just limited them to Core units (for the most part), and there are fewer "re-roll everything" and "re-roll 1's" is more common.

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

 
   
Made in it
Gargantuan Gargant




Italy

They're getting significantly reduced. Those who had tons of re-rolls now have captains/Lts equivalents capped plus CORE and/or just 1s limitations, those who had a few sources of re-rolls (see orks) now have close to none.


 
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






ccs wrote:
a_typical_hero wrote:
 Blackie wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
Which is largely my problem with current 40k. The people who are having fun with it because they happen to hang with communities of people who all agree with them on exactly what's "the right mindset" then spend a lot of time telling me the game is objectively superior and the fact that I don't happen to have their magical idyllic communities where everyone agrees with each other means they get to point and sneer at how wrong my mindset is.
Yeah, the playing group is the major factor for a game's success.

Having a group with a similar mindset is not a thing that is mandatory to have fun just for current 40k. Former editions getting less or no "balance patches" at all and having a wider gap between playable and trash units made it even more important.

We are still not there were you can take an all Scouts meme list and can expect to reasonable compare against a Dhrukari tournament list. I don't think the game will ever be like that, to be honest. I do think you have better chances now, though, than let's say in 4th edition against an Eldar tourny list with your 10th company.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 kodos wrote:
"9th is a good game, if you have the right gaming group"

is similar to

"What is your opinion of 9th? Changes I would like to see in 10th....."


it both tells you that 9th is not in a very good spot right now and it is only the Community that keeps it going, not the game/rules

Disagree. The perfect game with the wrong group still sucks donkey. And until we have the perfect game, you will always find something to improve for the next iteration.


Agree. The wrong group can ruin even Chess & Go.


Right, Chess and Go, the best games that only non-douchebags who think theyre the smartest person in the room play.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Blackie wrote:
They're getting significantly reduced. Those who had tons of re-rolls now have captains/Lts equivalents capped plus CORE and/or just 1s limitations, those who had a few sources of re-rolls (see orks) now have close to none.


^IIRC orks only had Kaptin Badrukk before, and they still have Kaptin Badrukk, so...no really a fantastic barometer on like, more or less rerolls, the ork codex.

Orks historically have a tendency wehther they get a good codex or bad codex to just...not get to do whatever other armies are currently doing, because I guess "Comedy Army"? We didnt get a super-formation in 7th, or tons of rerolls in 8th, or a Purity Bonus rule in 9th, we just always kinda do our own thing.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/20 11:41:26


"I can't believe all these tryhard WAACs out there just care about winning all the time when it's supposed to be a game for fun!!!!!!! Also here's my 27 page essay on why marines are OP and Orkz should get a bunch of OP rules so I can win more games

-the_scotsman"

-ERJAK 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




 the_scotsman wrote:
^IIRC orks only had Kaptin Badrukk before, and they still have Kaptin Badrukk, so...no really a fantastic barometer on like, more or less rerolls, the ork codex.

Orks historically have a tendency wehther they get a good codex or bad codex to just...not get to do whatever other armies are currently doing, because I guess "Comedy Army"? We didnt get a super-formation in 7th, or tons of rerolls in 8th, or a Purity Bonus rule in 9th, we just always kinda do our own thing.


Not quite sure this is right as Bad Moons and Deathskulls offered plenty of rerolls in 8th. Deathskulls still do, but to a reduced amount. Which I think is the point.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Are they?

There are still plenty of re-rolls in all the new Codices. They just limited them to Core units (for the most part), and there are fewer "re-roll everything" and "re-roll 1's" is more common.


It isn't that you can't get them, but that the shape of the game makes them much harder to use. You can't have a captain and lt bubble on your whole army if you're out grabbing objectives. You have to sacrifice somewhere.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 the_scotsman wrote:


^IIRC orks only had Kaptin Badrukk before, and they still have Kaptin Badrukk, so...no really a fantastic barometer on like, more or less rerolls, the ork codex.

Orks historically have a tendency wehther they get a good codex or bad codex to just...not get to do whatever other armies are currently doing, because I guess "Comedy Army"? We didnt get a super-formation in 7th, or tons of rerolls in 8th, or a Purity Bonus rule in 9th, we just always kinda do our own thing.


A pain point of extra rolling in Orks was with DDD. The overall volume of dice for Orks is ultimately way down since no one will run 120+ boyz any longer.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/20 12:15:32


   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran






First of all, it's worth recognizing that different players have "fun" in different ways. Some people derive enjoyment from being competitive and winning. Others derive from from taking a narrative "let's see what happens!" attitude (irrespective of who wins or loses). There are points in-between. As mentioned, players seeking different things from the game are likely not going to have an optimal time playing each other. The try hard might have felt the game was NOT a true test of their abilities, because there opponent was running some unoptimized fluff list or whatever.

Second - I think comparing balance, and indeed the entire arc of play, across editions can be challenging. I wonder what % of this discussion is purely about list-building balance as opposed to balance "in play" and specifically in consideration of the missions being played. IMHO, the mission design has been a weak link of 40k across editions - and simply doesn't do enough to encourage TAAC-style lists or more balanced non-skew lists.

Last - as I think back across editions, for me it's a question of what edition presents me with interesting choices during the game (not during list construction). Things like having to think carefully about deployment, about what forces to leave in reserve, about how quickly you move onto objectives, whether to advance slowly through cover or quickly through the open, what targets to prioritize for your attacks, etc. In many cases there are obvious answers, but I find older editions create more opportunities for tricky decision points. I think it comes down to the core rules (as opposed to codex-level rules) having more depth built into them and more levers that can be pulled to influence the game.

Want a better 40K?
Check out ProHammer: Classic - An Awesomely Unified Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition 40K... for retro 40k feels!
 
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






 Daedalus81 wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Are they?

There are still plenty of re-rolls in all the new Codices. They just limited them to Core units (for the most part), and there are fewer "re-roll everything" and "re-roll 1's" is more common.


It isn't that you can't get them, but that the shape of the game makes them much harder to use. You can't have a captain and lt bubble on your whole army if you're out grabbing objectives. You have to sacrifice somewhere.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 the_scotsman wrote:


^IIRC orks only had Kaptin Badrukk before, and they still have Kaptin Badrukk, so...no really a fantastic barometer on like, more or less rerolls, the ork codex.

Orks historically have a tendency wehther they get a good codex or bad codex to just...not get to do whatever other armies are currently doing, because I guess "Comedy Army"? We didnt get a super-formation in 7th, or tons of rerolls in 8th, or a Purity Bonus rule in 9th, we just always kinda do our own thing.


A pain point of extra rolling in Orks was with DDD. The overall volume of dice for Orks is ultimately way down since no one will run 120+ boyz any longer.


Sorry, you dropped an extra "0" in there friend, I think you meant "12+ boyz"

"I can't believe all these tryhard WAACs out there just care about winning all the time when it's supposed to be a game for fun!!!!!!! Also here's my 27 page essay on why marines are OP and Orkz should get a bunch of OP rules so I can win more games

-the_scotsman"

-ERJAK 
   
Made in it
Gargantuan Gargant




Italy

 the_scotsman wrote:


^IIRC orks only had Kaptin Badrukk before, and they still have Kaptin Badrukk, so...no really a fantastic barometer on like, more or less rerolls, the ork codex.

Orks historically have a tendency wehther they get a good codex or bad codex to just...not get to do whatever other armies are currently doing, because I guess "Comedy Army"? We didnt get a super-formation in 7th, or tons of rerolls in 8th, or a Purity Bonus rule in 9th, we just always kinda do our own thing.


Yeah, re-rolls were extremely limited in 8th ork codex but off top of my head they had: re-rolling ones for bad moons, re-rolling ones for the specialist grot detachment, re-rolling ones for goffs, full re-rolls against vehicles for tankbustas, triple re-roll for deathskull unit (now just a single re-roll), all removed.


 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: