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.

 Pyriel- wrote:

I don't understand why full reserve armies are not allowed. What is the point in giving full reserve armies an auto lose at the end of turn 1? It should be at the end of Turn 2 or after that you lose if you are tabled so you can use Flyers, Deep Strikers, and other dynamic parts of the game properly. It sucks the flavor out of my armies if I have to hide a unit or two on the board during deployment just so I can run the rest of my army the way I want. It's not like full reserve armies were top tier anyway, I just played it that way for fun... now I just lose at the end of Turn 1.

I agree. That idiotic rule removes most of the fun for me as my favorite play style is to DS everything without having to stuff the whole army into pods.

I have never houseruled 40k through the many editions and army books but I will be after this BS. I've never seen it where you can build an army within the rules of the codex, deploy it using the rules from the rulebook (including flyer reserve rules), and then automatically lose because of a tacked on rule. I don't mind adapting to new books and editions, but I just don't understand the no models on the table = lose rule. I thought our 40k battes were supposed to represent a piece of a larger battle... silliness.

 BladeWalker wrote:
I don't understand why full reserve armies are not allowed.

I think they wanted real reserve armies buffed (Daemons, Drop pods), so they made reserve rolls easier. However, that would have encouraged the tactics of "normal" armies leaving everything in reserve, so they banned it. Not the most elegant way, admittably, but there is a reasoning behind it.

 Micky wrote:
Yeah, faq clearly states that LoS! rolls have to be performed before saves are attempted, so big wound pools can be shenaniganed even less now than before.

Well, that I already knew. The actual rule for how it is supposed to be done hasn't changed, they just got rid of the ability to LoS! after armor saves now which is what I wanted to verify.

Backfire wrote:

 Nagashek wrote:


And yet PP just comes out with new casters, new units, and new models without doing so at the expense of everything that came before. Builds change and shift based on meta, and the balance of power does shift within lists, but the factions are still balanced against each other. "Dumb Companies" break things for fun and force change. "Smart companies" entice you with new fun and invite change. Forced change loses players who become fed up with getting jerked around. Invited change keeps players excited. For those who continue to play, both make money, but one has a diminishing player base, the other an increasing one. "WotC" is a smart company. They made Magic: the Gathering. That stuff never goes obsolete, and with two tournament types and super low cost, it likely never will. (Yes, I know that some cards aren't allowed in tournament play anymore, but those are primarily first editions. Most other first edition cards are still in play and with the same rules. How many Rogue Trader units can say the same?)

I have dozens of Magic cards which are totally obsolete - either they can't be played at all under current rules (all the Ante cards), they are banned (Channel etc), core rules have changed so that the cards are almost totally useless (Plague Rats), they have non-functioning rules (Banding) or WotC have released new, better versions of the card making the old cards useless (lots of cards, particularly creatures).

"Super low cost"? Ok...whatever...

On the other hand, you claim that nerf to assault makes assault units "obsolete" (ie. unplayable). Your definition of "obsolete" seems to be pretty flexible.

Magic isn't really comparable as it comes out with roughly 15 sets per edition of 40k released. The initial buy in is very low compared to 40k, but during the same 5 year span the overall cost becomes much higher. Competitive balance is significantly better in magic, but they're wholly different games and scenes and not very comparable.

Even though these FAQ's hurt my nobz I am glad that GW is releasing them as fast as they are. I really hope that the codex release schedule will be as fast as they have said. I will still run nobz on bikes with deff koptas and piles of strom boyz and lootaz. I love my blood axes and find a fluff based force is the only way to play. As to the min/max folks they will just find the new broken combos and continue to piss me off in tourneys. With the allies rules the combos for brokenness are just in the hundreds. I can only hope that this will make it harder for people to find those one or two lists that just roll the table.

No, the scenes are not comparable. MtG is a tournament game now, which is why I walked out. It may be better suited for competive play now, but it is much less fun.

For those who want to see how a game system works without getting proper erratta as well as not publishing truely new editions so as not to invalidate prior books, feel free to check out the mess that is the Rifts RPG from Palladium Books. I'm actually pleased that GW is apparently regularly lurking on message boards trying to find at least some of the problems in order to address them. They might not be doing so in the best manner every time but its at least an effort and a vast improvement on letting questions languish because someone in Nottingham thinks its only a beer and pretzels game played by first and second degree relatives and lifelong friends/partners.

Backfire wrote:
No, the scenes are not comparable. MtG is a tournament game now, which is why I walked out. It may be better suited for competive play now, but it is much less fun.

It's had roughly the same league and invitational structure since the late 90s. It was there during third edition 40k, so I'm not really sure what has changed so far as magic "becoming a competitive game". It's never been anything else. It started off as a competitive gambling game, and it doesn't get much more cutthroat than that.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Nothing GW can do will ever satisfy the playerbase. GW could hand out free hundred dollar bills, and puppies with every copy of the main rulebook and players would still complain.

I think that the current FAQ schedule is great and a great sign. I'd rather have a FAQ'd system than a broken system.

 pretre wrote:
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Nothing GW can do will ever satisfy the playerbase. GW could hand out free hundred dollar bills, puppies and hummers with every copy of the main rulebook and players would still complain.

I think that the current FAQ schedule is great and a great sign. I'd rather have a FAQ'd system than a broken system.

(in an effort to avoid being relentlessly negative!)

Why are you ok with a FAQd broken system? Why don't you just want a not broken system in the first place? I find it very strange that people can be simultaneously thankful for the FAQs, but defend the system that needed them through poor editing and poorly thought out design. There is a cognitive dissonance there.

 ShumaGorath wrote:

 pretre wrote:
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Nothing GW can do will ever satisfy the playerbase. GW could hand out free hundred dollar bills, puppies and hummers with every copy of the main rulebook and players would still complain.

I think that the current FAQ schedule is great and a great sign. I'd rather have a FAQ'd system than a broken system.

(in an effort to avoid being relentlessly negative!)

Why are you ok with a FAQd broken system? Why don't you just want a not broken system in the first place? I find it very strange that people can be simultaneously thankful for the FAQs, but defend the system that needed them through poor editing and poorly thought out design. There is a cognitive dissonance there.

6th edition (whether broken or not..haven't had enough experience with it to come out with my definitive personal opinion) is here to stay for the next 4-5 years and will only get minor changes overall via the FAQs. The choice isn't between getting a perfect system or a broken one but rather one that is tweaked in response to fan feedback after release or one that is not. If you think that underlying system is broken (your opinion), should they just leave it as is to sink or attempt to plug the leaks in the boat with some patches?

 warboss wrote:
6th edition (whether broken or not..haven't had enough experience with it to come out with my definitive personal opinion) is here to stay for the next 4-5 years and will only get minor changes overall via the FAQs. The choice isn't between getting a perfect system or a broken one but rather one that is tweaked in response to fan feedback after release or one that is not. If you think that underlying system is broken (your opinion), should they just leave it as is to sink or attempt to plug the leaks in the boat with some patches?

Has there ever been any gaming system that was perfect and didn't have errata/frequently asked questions/rules disputes?

 pretre wrote:

 warboss wrote:
6th edition (whether broken or not..haven't had enough experience with it to come out with my definitive personal opinion) is here to stay for the next 4-5 years and will only get minor changes overall via the FAQs. The choice isn't between getting a perfect system or a broken one but rather one that is tweaked in response to fan feedback after release or one that is not. If you think that underlying system is broken (your opinion), should they just leave it as is to sink or attempt to plug the leaks in the boat with some patches?

Has there ever been any gaming system that was perfect and didn't have errata/frequently asked questions/rules disputes?

Not that I know of but Shuma seems to think its out there just out of reach... and that he'd have it if it wasn't for those meddling kids at GW Design!

 warboss wrote:
Has there ever been any gaming system that was perfect and didn't have errata/frequently asked questions/rules disputes?

Not that I know of but Shuma seems to think its out there just out of reach...

Ahh, well there's your problem. That particular problem doesn't show up in my thread views anymore.

As for the perfect system? I can't think of one either and I would much rather have an updated ruleset where the designers listen to the fanbase and make changes as needed. Will it be perfect that way? Nope. Will it be pretty darn good? Yep.

GW has already put forth a better effort since 6th launched than they have in quite a long time. I look forward to seeing how 6th continues to develop.

 warboss wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

 pretre wrote:
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Nothing GW can do will ever satisfy the playerbase. GW could hand out free hundred dollar bills, puppies and hummers with every copy of the main rulebook and players would still complain.

I think that the current FAQ schedule is great and a great sign. I'd rather have a FAQ'd system than a broken system.

(in an effort to avoid being relentlessly negative!)

Why are you ok with a FAQd broken system? Why don't you just want a not broken system in the first place? I find it very strange that people can be simultaneously thankful for the FAQs, but defend the system that needed them through poor editing and poorly thought out design. There is a cognitive dissonance there.

6th edition (whether broken or not..haven't had enough experience with it to come out with my definitive personal opinion) is here to stay for the next 4-5 years and will only get minor changes overall via the FAQs. The choice isn't between getting a perfect system or a broken one but rather one that is tweaked in response to fan feedback after release or one that is not. If you think that underlying system is broken (your opinion), should they just leave it as is to sink or attempt to plug the leaks in the boat with some patches?

I think patching the system is a perfectly fine thing. I encourage it. I think that when Pretre scolded GWs playerbase for "never being pleased" despite their best efforts at up keeping the system to make it balanced it playable me as a bit haughty. Many people here, myself included, see nothing wrong with occasional FAQs and errata (especially for the codexes), but when such things are required so much so early it indicates something that shouldn't be applauded. It's not a good thing that they had to clarify how line of sight works, that was a plain miss in playtesting. It's not a good thing that they had to FAQ character units, that was a plain miss in playtesting. It's not a good thing that there still aren't clear rules about how transported units react when their vehicle is destroyed. That's not even a playtesting issue, that is simply poor editing and careless design.

FAQs are better than letting issues lie unresolved, but they are a bandage. Too many bandages too fast and you start looking like a movie monster. It causes havoc in playgroups when people can't know their own or opponents armies without lengthy and regular checking of FAQs. It makes it so that people in pick up games never really know if they're actually playing the same 40k. The constant defense and thankfulness of the playerbase for it simply encourages a bad and lazy design philosophy at GW HQ.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 pretre wrote:

 warboss wrote:
Has there ever been any gaming system that was perfect and didn't have errata/frequently asked questions/rules disputes?

Not that I know of but Shuma seems to think its out there just out of reach...

Ahh, well there's your problem. That particular problem doesn't show up in my thread views anymore.

As for the perfect system? I can't think of one either and I would much rather have an updated ruleset where the designers listen to the fanbase and make changes as needed. Will it be perfect that way? Nope. Will it be pretty darn good? Yep.

GW has already put forth a better effort since 6th launched than they have in quite a long time. I look forward to seeing how 6th continues to develop.

Yes, we know you basically just listen to yourself talk and ignore everyone who disagrees. It's one of the classic traits of a sycophant.

ShumaGorath wrote:It's not a good thing that there still aren't clear rules about how transported units react when their vehicle is destroyed.

Actually we do:

GW FAQ wrote:Q: If a unit disembarks from a destroyed vehicle during the enemy
turn, can it Charge in the Assault phase of its own turn? (p80)
A: No, unless the vehicle in question was an Assault Vehicle.

That takes care of both "wrecked" and "exploded" results as both result in the vehicle being destroyed.

I'm more surprised by the fact that GW would issue a stealthy 1.0a FAQ file so quick after the big wave of FAQs, which apparently is so new the ink is barely dry.

I wonder what FAQ question/mail/forum lurking prompted this rapid response.

 Fafnir wrote:

 Kaldor wrote:

 Stoffer wrote:
The paladins are a great example; They made all of them characters and a lot of people picked up on it to an extent where GW felt they had to regulate it.

The Paladins are a great example, because they were something that wasn't broken, that very few people were complaining about, and something that worked well and easily under the existing rules. Compared to the abuses that Purifiers and Inquisitorial Henchmen were capable of, they were an insignificant problem. Yet GW nerfed the hell out of them, and did nothing to address the actual problems with the codex.

The fact that we actually agree whole-heartedly on this issue makes me feel kind of dirty.

As much as I hate to keep this can of worms open;

Whether or not it was broken in a balance sense you'll probably never get everyone to agree with. I ran a Draigowing and thought it had some great strengths but also some fairly glaring weaknesses. The people I played regularly thought they were terribly broken, so that's a fairly subjective evaluation.

I suspect that the reason they changed them is that it conflicted with their design goals. With the way the new wound system works, they open up some interesting tactical choices; for someone running a squad, model positioning suddenly becomes extremely important and for the opposing players, suddenly flanking becomes a viable tactic. Entire units of characters kind of broke with this principle and created some unintentional loopholes to that design change. From that angle, changing it makes complete sense. Flanking, model positioning becomes stronger while LoS! becomes an actual mechanic where "important" characters can shrug off wounds.

Again, sorry for derailing.

Yeah, also surprised they didn't fix the Nid faq boo-boo.

Keep it on-topic, folks; no need to specifically address another user just to be snarky.>

 wyomingfox wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:It's not a good thing that there still aren't clear rules about how transported units react when their vehicle is destroyed.

Actually we do:

GW FAQ wrote:Q: If a unit disembarks from a destroyed vehicle during the enemy
turn, can it Charge in the Assault phase of its own turn? (p80)
A: No, unless the vehicle in question was an Assault Vehicle.

That takes care of both "wrecked" and "exploded" results as both result in the vehicle being destroyed.

Doesn't the same FAQ say to place models instead of disembarking when it explodes? So you can assault if it explodes, but not if it is destroyed..? That's not clear. Even with a FAQ that isn't lengthy and contradictory it still wouldn't be clear because the rule doesn't flow logically and the results appear arbitrary. If they FAQ'd the result from an explode result to also preclude assault I apologize for adding it to my original statement.

 ShumaGorath wrote:

Backfire wrote:
No, the scenes are not comparable. MtG is a tournament game now, which is why I walked out. It may be better suited for competive play now, but it is much less fun.

It's had roughly the same league and invitational structure since the late 90s. It was there during third edition 40k, so I'm not really sure what has changed so far as magic "becoming a competitive game". It's never been anything else. It started off as a competitive gambling game, and it doesn't get much more cutthroat than that.

Uh, no. "Gambling" aspect was for fun, precisely as the designers could not envision that the Ante cards could actually get so valuable that the players would be unwilling to bet them. Magic was designed for limited environment, but people began to buy ungodly amount of cards and made the game unlimited environment, which caused nearly all balance problems. MtG works best in booster draft/sealed deck type tournaments.

I bailed out before "late '90s"...

Uh, no. "Gambling" aspect was for fun, precisely as the designers could not envision that the Ante cards could actually get so valuable that the players would be unwilling to bet them.

There is no multiplayer game with property gambling that isn't competitive. I stand to lose material goods if you win. That is either a competitive or predatory environment by default.

Magic was designed for limited environment, but people began to buy ungodly amount of cards and made the game unlimited environment, which caused nearly all balance problems. MtG works best in booster draft/sealed deck type tournaments.

It sounds like you and your friends had a specific way to play the game. Did you give back the ante cards that you won? Would you play ante with people who weren't your friends or didn't live nearby? Also, I'm not sure the competitive environment "caused" the balance problems. Lotus Channel Fireball was in alpha and the game didn't start out with card restrictions.

Shuma, didn't you say you were going to lay off this thread yesterday? You have more than made your point...

 MajorTom11 wrote:
Shuma, didn't you say you were going to lay off this thread yesterday? You have more than made your point...

This is the new, non hostile Shuma! I came in when Pyriel responded to me, but you're right, I did say I was gone. I will lurk.

 ShumaGorath wrote:

Uh, no. "Gambling" aspect was for fun, precisely as the designers could not envision that the Ante cards could actually get so valuable that the players would be unwilling to bet them.

There is no multiplayer game with property gambling that isn't competitive. I stand to lose material goods if you win. That is either a competitive or predatory environment by default.

That is stretching definition to unreasonable.

It sounds like you and your friends had a specific way to play the game. Did you give back the ante cards that you won?

No. We gave up the Antes though after people stopped playing their best cards out of fear they would lose them.

Designers of the game had no idea it would pan out like it did. They did not mind that some cards were clearly more powerful, they thought that their rarity would balance them out. They did not envision people buying so many cards that they could, for example, have a deck with no land, just Mox artifacts and Sol Rings etc. Or nothing but Lotuses, Channels and Disintegrates. That is why Green was often perceived weak colour in early years - Green had lot of Common cards (particularly Creatures) which were quite good, but uncompetive with Uncommon/Rare cards of other colours. This made Green very attractive in limited environment, but pretty pointless in unlimited where rarity meant nothing.

Let's get back on topic please -

Ninja'd by MajorTom

 BladeWalker wrote:
I've never seen it where you can build an army within the rules of the codex, deploy it using the rules from the rulebook (including flyer reserve rules), and then automatically lose because of a tacked on rule.

It's not entirely a new thing. It was possible last edition as well, the only difference was that you didn't lose for not being on the table, just for not being able to move on...

I thought our 40k battes were supposed to represent a piece of a larger battle...

Sure... and when you no longer have any units on the table, this particular part of that larger battle is over. The battle has moved to another area.

 ShumaGorath wrote:

 pretre wrote:
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Nothing GW can do will ever satisfy the playerbase. GW could hand out free hundred dollar bills, puppies and hummers with every copy of the main rulebook and players would still complain.

I think that the current FAQ schedule is great and a great sign. I'd rather have a FAQ'd system than a broken system.

(in an effort to avoid being relentlessly negative!)

Why are you ok with a FAQd broken system? Why don't you just want a not broken system in the first place? I find it very strange that people can be simultaneously thankful for the FAQs, but defend the system that needed them through poor editing and poorly thought out design. There is a cognitive dissonance there.

I appreciate your effort, there. It's a legit question. I think he does want a not-broken system. I recognize that 6th ed has some really sad, silly, and seemingly basic editorial errors, holes and problems. In some ways it's less clear and functional than 5th was. Which is annoying and disappointing to me, as (IMO) every edition prior to it has been progressively better-written, clearer, and better balanced. That being said, I still find it a fun and enjoyable game, and found most of the holes it had on release to be pretty easy to work around, even in the rather competitive circles I usually play in. I still think it's a fun and good game; 6th is certainly better than 4th, IMO, and at least close to 5th, even if I'm not sure whether it's AS good. Of course I loved the hell out of 5th and played it like a fiend.