Switch Theme:

How 40K has changed and why it doesn't matter...  [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 gb
[DCM]
Hurr! Ogryn Bone 'Ead!






...is the subject of my latest blog post on Warhammer-Tournaments.com

There Will Always be Chainswords

Now I've got back into it, I'll always be a fan of 40K, but I'll pick and choose the bits I like. Currently thats trying to get into the tournament scene. Normally I'd be talking about getting ready for my first GT but I took a break to talk about the state of 40K, how it's changed, and how competitive play is only the most visible part of a much wider hobby. Please have a read.

Ta

I have a blog on the Warhammer Tournaments website:

There Will Always be Chainswords

My painting and modeling blog:

PaddyMick's Chopshop: Converted 40K Vehicles 
   
Made in de
Terrifying Doombull






Nuremberg

Yeah I'd say you're right about all of those changes, and also broadly right about why they don't "matter". I mean, ultimately the hobby is a trivial activity that we all do for fun, so none of it matters much.

On your three major changes, for me two of them are pretty negative.
I really dislike model driven rules, and especially the "no model, no rules" approach, as it limits creativity somewhat. Not a big deal, or a deal breaker, but I'm not a fan of the thinking behind it. Changes the game from a creative hobby to a product in my view, and that view is always a bad change. But as you say, it's easy for me to ignore that. There's a wealth of models to explore, far more than when I was younger, and lots of material for potential conversions if I feel like it. And especially in the wider hobby now, there's an incredible diversity of kits available to work with from various third parties.

The scale increase I have mixed feelings about but mostly negative. I don't mind the big models, they're cool and people like them. I'm not a fan of games involving them on small boards, to me they're more suitable for big battlefields and special scenarios. But I get why they have to be core, because they're expensive and people want to be able to use them, so I'd not take them out of the games. And again, I can play larger scale games on larger battlefields.
But I absolutely hate the change to 32mm bases. GW messing around with the bases is really annoying to those of us with large collections, and also for those of us who want to use our minis in other games, where 25mm is the standard for stuff like inch grids used in roleplaying games and so on. It has also lead to general scale creep, and this annoys me too. My solution is not to buy any scale-crept models, and to rebase stuff onto 25mm. This will of course mean people will complain, so I have to have some adapters if I ever want to play mainstream 40K I guess. But I'd need them for my old collection anyway so I don't care.

And tournaments, yeah. Tournaments are cool. The game being balanced for tournaments is good for tournament players and no skin off the noses of casual or narrative players. So I'm cool with that. I think some of the culture of the tournament scene like standard terrain set ups is a bit weird compared to what I used to prefer, but hardly a big deal.

But ultimately, when I look at the way the game works now, I'm not super enthusiastic about tournament play. I may give it a go, though I'll have to sort out adapters for my army first.

But at the moment I'm much more interested in mini agnostic games like Stargrave or One Page Rules that allow me to use whatever minis I think are cool (which is like 80% GW minis for Sci Fi) and don't mandate certain base sizes. These systems are usually a lot cheaper to buy the rules for too, allow for more creativity in modelling and scenery building. Since I don't have an established group, they are also easier to teach and have a small or negligible entry cost for newbies.

But these games only really exist because 40K created the market for them by being such an absolute powerhouse. So I'm happy that 40K is doing so well, and I'm always keeping an eye on it to see if it's going to be something I would enjoy again. I have the feeling that we're moving in opposite directions, but that doesn't mean I can't have games in the grimdark sci fi future, inspired by the coolest minis and ideas in 40K and ignoring what I don't like.

   
Made in gb
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord






Is this OP a metaphor for modern 40k? As it is devoid of content.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/15 09:52:15




A GW fan walks into a bar, buys the same drink as yesterday but pays more.

""Unite" is a human word, ... join me or die."

If you break apart my or anyone else's posts line by line I will not read them. 
   
Made in gb
[DCM]
Hurr! Ogryn Bone 'Ead!






 Grimtuff wrote:
Is this OP a metaphor for modern 40k? As it is devoid of content.


There's a link to a blog post. Modern 40K has tons of content, amittedly of varying quality.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Da Boss

Thanks for your thoughts. I reckon we are coming at the thing from roughly the same place.

Although I am interested in alternate rules (and definatley use third party models) my rough idea for the future is to go back and tweak 1st ed, for a GM'd campaign, and maybe try and host a 2nd ed tourney too. So staying within 40K, but persuading people to play the editions that were most fun for me. That could be just nostalgia on my part nothing wrong with inulging that if it's fun. I may even give 5th ed a go, I heard it's the best of the rest.

Didn't realise that about the inch grids and 25mm.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/15 11:02:12


I have a blog on the Warhammer Tournaments website:

There Will Always be Chainswords

My painting and modeling blog:

PaddyMick's Chopshop: Converted 40K Vehicles 
   
Made in de
Terrifying Doombull






Nuremberg

My impression is that I'm in the vast minority about the 32mm bases to be fair!

   
Made in gb
Lord of the Fleet






London

I agree with your first point on the overall lack of imagination in the army-building stage and how the creativity has been sacrificed in favour of simplicity.

Take an Archon; you have a fellow of incalculable age with some pretty unimaginable tech and tricks up his sleeve.
His options? Oh he can replace his sword for a different sword, and his Splinter Pistol for a Blast Pistol. Don't worry though as he can take his personal bodyguard, the Trueborn...who are just regular Kabalites with a BS boost...

Overall the increasing emphasis on simplicity is something I'm not happy with as a whole, and Mortal Wounds are up there as my main grief. It's boring and unimaginative. The huge variety of psychic powers, Relics and environmental effects have just been lazily rehashed as "if this happens, do a Mortal Wound". Right now a Guardsman is more vulnerable to a Sentinel exploding than the Volcano Cannon which just destroyed it. It makes no sense and is an overused, lazy and terribly boring mechanic.

Size creep I'm not too fussed about as it does seem a bit inevitable given the advances in design and manufacturing. The tables scaling down however is a bugger. I've seen quite a few reports where one player is easily able to bog down the opponent with T1 charges. Even if the charging unit is pretty crap, the opponent is still forced to huddle up as small as possible in a corner to avoid being shut down instantly.

Tournaments I'm not too fused about given I don't do tournaments; tried one once and the overall experience was awful. While I do read the occasional competitive batrep I phase out quickly. Lists are often copy/pasted units and the same predictable tactics.
Same with the maths side; I cannot be arsed to discuss with someone the merits of taking a unit because *Clarkson's adenoid voice* "ooh it does 3.65 wounds to MEQ compare to 3.29..."

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/15 11:17:50


   
Made in de
Contagious Dreadnought of Nurgle




Part of the problem about no models no rules is also the development towards overly detailed weapon rules and bespoken weapons for single infantry models. Why does the beast Snagga Boss need his own power klaw no other Ork has? Why do Plague Marines need 17 weapon options with their own Manual to tell you how many you can use of each? Let's go further, why is there a difference between a power Sword and a power axe in the first place, when there are titans in this game? And why do loyalists have 20 kinds of bolters?
But why did my sorcerer forget to ride a Bike or a Palanquin of Nurgle?
This really bugs me as someone who otherwize likes the current rules. That being said, OP is right and I have a gaming group where I can still use my Palanquin and my Nurgle Lord with a jump Pack.
   
Made in it
Gargantuan Gargant




Italy

I disagree about simplicity, in fact I think old codex were simpler. It's the single datasheets that are simpler but roster are may more complex or bloated with countless choices.

I mean an ork warboss can choose from very few options compared to previous codexes but there are several independent alternatives to that unit and each weapon has several amost identical alternatives. Buggies have 5 different profiles, planes have 4 different profiles, even battlewagons have 3 different profiles (4 if we include the FW one, which is in fact just a regular BW with a resin added cannon), etc... even regular bolters from SM armies have several varitations.

So overall, army wise, we have way more options than before and that's not even considering the chapters/klans/obsessions/etc bonuses.

In fact what I miss about older codexes is the lack of countless options. Less units/datasheets and weapons to chose from but maybe more options to customize a single datasheet.

I love the current rules, both generic core and army specific ones. I definitely prefer to customize my army by switching a few klan related rules, and thereforce the list's style of playing, rather than having the possibility of equipping my dudes with whatever I like. But I can't stand having 100+ datasheets and a thousand weapons, with tons of stuff that do the exact same thing but has tiny and insignificant variations to remember. Is this an emphasis on simplicity? It looks like the opposite.


 
   
Made in be
Regular Dakkanaut




 Da Boss wrote:
My impression is that I'm in the vast minority about the 32mm bases to be fair!


28.35mm Banshee bases.

Noooope.
   
Made in gb
Lord of the Fleet






London

 Blackie wrote:
I disagree about simplicity, in fact I think old codex were simpler. It's the single datasheets that are simpler but roster are may more complex or bloated with countless choices.

I mean an ork warboss can choose from very few options compared to previous codexes but there are several independent alternatives to that unit and each weapon has several amost identical alternatives. Buggies have 5 different profiles, planes have 4 different profiles, even battlewagons have 3 different profiles (4 if we include the FW one, which is in fact just a regular BW with a resin added cannon), etc... even regular bolters from SM armies have several varitations.

So overall, army wise, we have way more options than before and that's not even considering the chapters/klans/obsessions/etc bonuses.

In fact what I miss about older codexes is the lack of countless options. Less units/datasheets and weapons to chose from but maybe more options to customize a single datasheet.

I love the current rules, both generic core and army specific ones. I definitely prefer to customize my army by switching a few klan related rules, and thereforce the list's style of playing, rather than having the possibility of equipping my dudes with whatever I like. But I can't stand having 100+ datasheets and a thousand weapons, with tons of stuff that do the exact same thing but has tiny and insignificant variations to remember. Is this an emphasis on simplicity? It looks like the opposite.


I meant more simple in terms of choices rather than the actual datasheet. I agree with you however that it's just banal much the variety has slimmed down in some cases. I posted in another thread not so long ago how much you could upgrade your IG commander:

I had 3 ranks of Company Commander to choose from, I could then add:
- Power Sword
- Plasma Pistol
- Let's make the Power Sword Mastercrafted
- Chuck some Bionics on (6+ FNP) as well as Carapace Armour
- He's very strategic so we'll give him the Medallion Crimson and the Macharian Cross
- Because he's the best of the best in my force, let's give him the Honorifica Imperalis
- To finish him off, why not give him a Trademark Item

The upgrades themselves aren't groundbreaking, but they added flavour to the character. Now it's:

- Power Sword
- Plasma Pistol


   
Made in it
Gargantuan Gargant




Italy

Yes, you're right about that specific model but not all HQs have actually lost options. Take SM captains: there are countless versions of them now even if they're split into multiple datasheets. So overall possible combinations are in fact much higher than before.

Same with ork warbosses. They lost a few minor options but gained other things, and the split into multiple datasheets (warboss, warboss in megarmour, warboss on bike, beast boss) gave them more special rules to choose from as well.

Relics are also additional items to customize the HQs and they didn't exist in 3rd-5th.


 
   
Made in gb
Lord of the Fleet






London

 Blackie wrote:
Yes, you're right about that specific model but not all HQs have actually lost options. Take SM captains: there are countless versions of them now even if they're split into multiple datasheets. So overall possible combinations are in fact much higher than before.

Same with ork warbosses. They lost a few minor options but gained other things, and the split into multiple datasheets (warboss, warboss in megarmour, warboss on bike, beast boss) gave them more special rules to choose from as well.

Relics are also additional items to customize the HQs and they didn't exist in 3rd-5th.


Relics did exist in some books back in 4th. SM Captains could still take Bikes, Terminator Armour and Jump Packs back then.

   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







 Blackie wrote:
Yes, you're right about that specific model but not all HQs have actually lost options. Take SM captains: there are countless versions of them now even if they're split into multiple datasheets. So overall possible combinations are in fact much higher than before.

Same with ork warbosses. They lost a few minor options but gained other things, and the split into multiple datasheets (warboss, warboss in megarmour, warboss on bike, beast boss) gave them more special rules to choose from as well.

Relics are also additional items to customize the HQs and they didn't exist in 3rd-5th.


So if we take all the optional boltgun types and distill them down to "boltgun"*, how many new SM captain options are there relative to, say, the 4th edition codex?

*I am unconcerned with the difference between an Auto Bolt Stubber, a Bolt Auto Stubber, a Heavy Stubber Bolt Auto, a Fragstorm Bolt Auto Stubber, a Icarus-Pattern AutoStubber Bolter, or a StubberStalker Bolt Stalk Auto Rifle

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/15 13:28:28


 
   
Made in gb
Lit By the Flames of Prospero






Terminator Captain, Bike Captain, Power Armour Captain, Gravis Captain, Primaris Captain. If you want to distill it further then Firstborn Captain and Primaris Captain. Barring the random double profile for the Gravis Captain, I think that having each larger wargear option (i.e. Terminator/Bike) as a separate profile is better. It might inflate the options but it's much clearer when it comes to Keywords and Abilities.
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut





It's interesting to me that in any discussion of customization options, people focus excessively on equipment options and tend to ignore other options.

I think it's because equipment options are visible on the table-top, and the add a fun element to modelling. So I get it... I just tend to consider all options when I talk about customizability.

It's been long enough since I played 3rd-5th, but if I recall, in those editions, it didn't make a difference whether you were Black Heart or Poisoned Tongue.

Profiles existed for both Archons and Dracons, so while there was no option to be a Master Archon, there was an equivalent mechanism for demonstrating rank.

I forget the options that were available as Warlord traits in previous editions, but they are numerous now, and because they come from different sources, which one you pick says more about your character than just giving it an ability. Did you pick the WL Trait associated with your Master upgrade? That would mean your character is focused on their role as a leader (regardless of what the power actually is). Did you pick your Kabal's bespoke WL trait? That means it is important to the character to be perceived as an exemplar of their Kabal. Did you pick a generic trait? That would mean your character has an interest in developing a particular skill.

That might actually tell me more about a character than whether they are equipped with an autopistol or a laspistol (although not necessarily).

And then you have requisition strats. Those available for the DE aren't particularly flavourful, though they do allow non-warlords to participate in the Warlord trait customization game, and they unlock relics for characters who might otherwise not have them.

Don't get me wrong: I too would prefer to have lost equipment options back. Very important to say this. They did add something to the game, and I do want back the thing they added, so I don't disagree with the point... I just don't regard what I've lost without also considering what I've gained.

And of course, the place where options REALLY pile on for me is Crusade. By now, I'm sure Dakka is sick of me turning every complaint thread into a discussion about Crusade, so I will spare you all the argument- you've all heard it before anyway.

I'll just say that choosing an Ascendant Lord for a DE force totally changes the game, making 40k feel more like Necromunda. It's freakin awesome.

As to OP's blog post, I would add bespoke rules as a real game changer post 8th. What I mean by that is that Space Marines are the only army that's had bespoke Chapter content since 2nd ed. It is true that in other editions, SOME factions have received this treatment. There were noticeable rules differences for Tallarns and Vostrians or Saim-Hann and Biel Tan Eldar in SOME editions.

But marines have been the only faction to get that treatment in ALL editions (with the possible exception of Rogue Trader).

Unlike some, whose solution to the problem would be to balance out entitlement by TAKING THIS AWAY from Marines, my solution would always be to extend the same courtesy to every other faction. And that's what 8th did, and 9th continued. It's why they are my two favourite editions.

No more will the choice to be a Space Wolf or a Blood Angel mean more than the choice to be Argent Shroud or Bloody Rose, as it did from 2nd to 7th. And for me, that is HUGE. I could never go back now. So I'd add that to OP's list of HUGE changes.

A final note: sometimes a situation has different ways of looking at it- talking here specifically about no model, no rules. These are the words most often used to describe the current state of GW's rules and range policy.

But it's also true to describe the policy by saying "Now there actually are models for every datacard."

Both are ways the situation can be described, but you'll note the differences in tone. The former puts a negative spin on the policy, while the latter puts a positive spin on it. But both statements are basically true. I say basically, because people will point out (correctly) that the policy isn't universally applied to all ranges, and that the negative statement feels more appropriate when you're talking about faction (like DE) who have lost datacards as a result of the policy rather than gaining them.

While I agree with these caveats to the point, I still think the point has some validity.

Just my two cents- your mileage may vary.
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 Blackie wrote:
Yes, you're right about that specific model but not all HQs have actually lost options. Take SM captains: there are countless versions of them now even if they're split into multiple datasheets. So overall possible combinations are in fact much higher than before.

Same with ork warbosses. They lost a few minor options but gained other things, and the split into multiple datasheets (warboss, warboss in megarmour, warboss on bike, beast boss) gave them more special rules to choose from as well.

Relics are also additional items to customize the HQs and they didn't exist in 3rd-5th.


So if we take all the optional boltgun types and distill them down to "boltgun"*, how many new SM captain options are there relative to, say, the 4th edition codex?

*I am unconcerned with the difference between an Auto Bolt Stubber, a Bolt Auto Stubber, a Heavy Stubber Bolt Auto, a Fragstorm Bolt Auto Stubber, a Icarus-Pattern AutoStubber Bolter, or a StubberStalker Bolt Stalk Auto Rifle


Um... a fething gak ton. Like you've basically got everything that you had before (bolt pistol/plasma pistol/thunder hammer/lightning claws/power weapon (now 3, but I assume we're discounting that for the same reason we dont care about different bolters) combiweapon/powerfist/relic blade, plus Terminator Armor/Power Armor/Jump pack/bike, but now you also have

-effectively Scout Armor captain, which unlocks a sniper rifle weapon
-new Tough Fat Boy armor captain with a powerfist+power sword or Heavy Bolter
-hand flamer, melta pistol, grav weaponry
-deathwatch get a special invuln-ignoring power sword
-space wolves get a captain on a wolf



Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Gert wrote:
Terminator Captain, Bike Captain, Power Armour Captain, Gravis Captain, Primaris Captain. If you want to distill it further then Firstborn Captain and Primaris Captain. Barring the random double profile for the Gravis Captain, I think that having each larger wargear option (i.e. Terminator/Bike) as a separate profile is better. It might inflate the options but it's much clearer when it comes to Keywords and Abilities.


^and it avoids what were always dumb, dumb combos in previous editions, like being able to give an autarch a heavy rocket launcher AND ALSO have him driving around on a bike.

I am glad for 'heavy weapons guy commander' and 'fast biker guy commander' to have separate datasheets.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/15 13:47:38


"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 us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







 the_scotsman wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 Blackie wrote:
Yes, you're right about that specific model but not all HQs have actually lost options. Take SM captains: there are countless versions of them now even if they're split into multiple datasheets. So overall possible combinations are in fact much higher than before.

Same with ork warbosses. They lost a few minor options but gained other things, and the split into multiple datasheets (warboss, warboss in megarmour, warboss on bike, beast boss) gave them more special rules to choose from as well.

Relics are also additional items to customize the HQs and they didn't exist in 3rd-5th.


So if we take all the optional boltgun types and distill them down to "boltgun"*, how many new SM captain options are there relative to, say, the 4th edition codex?

*I am unconcerned with the difference between an Auto Bolt Stubber, a Bolt Auto Stubber, a Heavy Stubber Bolt Auto, a Fragstorm Bolt Auto Stubber, a Icarus-Pattern AutoStubber Bolter, or a StubberStalker Bolt Stalk Auto Rifle


Um... a fething gak ton. Like you've basically got everything that you had before (bolt pistol/plasma pistol/thunder hammer/lightning claws/power weapon (now 3, but I assume we're discounting that for the same reason we dont care about different bolters) combiweapon/powerfist/relic blade, plus Terminator Armor/Power Armor/Jump pack/bike, but now you also have

-effectively Scout Armor captain, which unlocks a sniper rifle weapon
-new Tough Fat Boy armor captain with a powerfist+power sword or Heavy Bolter
-hand flamer, melta pistol, grav weaponry
-deathwatch get a special invuln-ignoring power sword
-space wolves get a captain on a wolf

So the actual new ones are:
Captain in scout armor
Terminator with heavy bolter in addition to other weapons
some stuff for the special snowflake chapters

nice. So if I went back to 4th and put "Heavy Bolter (Captain in Terminator Armor only)" and "Scout Armor" on the Armory list. I'd've captured everything new that's available.

Oh, and backport Grav Weapons from 5th and open up hand flamers and inferno pistols from just Blood Angels to everyone, because you can't have flanderization without Flanders.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/15 13:52:09


 
   
Made in gb
[DCM]
Hurr! Ogryn Bone 'Ead!






Good points Valkyrie, now you mention it, mortal wounds are a bit lame. I'm taking the Warded chapter tactic for my custom chapter 'cos it fits their fluff to be resistant to psykers, not exploding tanks.

I was tempted to point out here that the reason we have 20 types of bolt gun is that it's models before rules. Surely no-one writing the rules for a game would make so many weapons profiles unless they felt they had to 'cos thats what the models guns looked different to the last lot? Then I realised that back in the day we made do with one profile, even though a marine's bolter looked different to an ork's bolter which was different again to a chaos bolter.

It's a game design choice then, and I can understand why people think it's a bad one given how much looking up different profiles slows the game down. I used to play whole games of 2nd ed without ever referring to a rulebook, which is handy since only 1 in 10 people at my games club seemed to own one (you had to buy a whole box of crap minis and cardboard terrain to get the ruleset).



I have a blog on the Warhammer Tournaments website:

There Will Always be Chainswords

My painting and modeling blog:

PaddyMick's Chopshop: Converted 40K Vehicles 
   
Made in gb
Lit By the Flames of Prospero






 Unit1126PLL wrote:

So the actual new ones are:
Captain in scout armor
Terminator with heavy bolter in addition to other weapons
some stuff for the special snowflake chapters


nice. So if I went back to 4th and put "Heavy Bolter (Captain in Terminator Armor only)" and "Scout Armor" on the Armory list. I'd've captured everything new that's available.

If you want to simplify it to nonsense then yes. In reality, it isn't the case. Phobos isn't Scout Armour, Gravis isn't Terminator armour. They both fill different roles. Same with Intercessors and Tactical Marines, neither do the other's job because they aren't the same unit.


Oh, and backport Grav Weapons from 5th and open up hand flamers and inferno pistols from just Blood Angels to everyone, because you can't have flanderization without Flanders.

I keep seeing this brought up and I really don't think people are using it correctly. The trope is taking one trait about a Character (in the namesake's case their religious nature) and turning the entire Character into that trait. Can you explain why you think this process has been applied to Space Marines?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/15 14:10:25


 
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

"Gravis Captain with Master Crafted Heavy Bolt Rifle" shouldn't be a separate unit entry.

Gravis Captain as a separate option (rather than a Wargear choice for a Primaris Captain), ok fine, if we must, and from there he can choose different weapons.

But having that single guy as a whole separate data sheet is daft.

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

 
   
Made in gb
[DCM]
Hurr! Ogryn Bone 'Ead!






@PenitentJake
thanks man that's a lot of food for thought. Not having been through all the editions myself, it's good to get that perspective. I've not really given Crusade a chance but I am one step closer to being persuaded.

I have a blog on the Warhammer Tournaments website:

There Will Always be Chainswords

My painting and modeling blog:

PaddyMick's Chopshop: Converted 40K Vehicles 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Annandale, VA

 Da Boss wrote:
The game being balanced for tournaments is good for tournament players and no skin off the noses of casual or narrative players.


As time goes on, I become much less convinced of this. It certainly was a kick in the teeth for casual play when Genestealers got a points hike, because tournament players were successfully using them as Kraken plus the Swarmlord's double-movement ability to make turn 1 charges. Their points cost was adjusted around a very specific combo that showed up in tournament play but couldn't be done if you weren't playing a specific subfaction and taking a specific special character.

Or take Tau, which got balanced in 8th around the tournament success of triple Riptides and a sea of shield drones, with the result being a completely dysfunctional army for casual play.

Tournament players look at a codex with 80% brokenly bad units and 20% that can be exploited via specific combos to punch above their weight and give it the thumbs-up. That's not particularly satisfying for casual players. There are different expectations and different goals for balance between the two groups.

I like the direction GW has been moving with rebalancing armies in 9th, but it feels to me like a more holistic approach than just balancing for tournament results.

   
Made in us
Veteran Knight Baron in a Crusader





 catbarf wrote:
 Da Boss wrote:
The game being balanced for tournaments is good for tournament players and no skin off the noses of casual or narrative players.


As time goes on, I become much less convinced of this. It certainly was a kick in the teeth for casual play when Genestealers got a points hike, because tournament players were successfully using them as Kraken plus the Swarmlord's double-movement ability to make turn 1 charges. Their points cost was adjusted around a very specific combo that showed up in tournament play but couldn't be done if you weren't playing a specific subfaction and taking a specific special character.

Or take Tau, which got balanced in 8th around the tournament success of triple Riptides and a sea of shield drones, with the result being a completely dysfunctional army for casual play.

Tournament players look at a codex with 80% brokenly bad units and 20% that can be exploited via specific combos to punch above their weight and give it the thumbs-up. That's not particularly satisfying for casual players. There are different expectations and different goals for balance between the two groups.

I like the direction GW has been moving with rebalancing armies in 9th, but it feels to me like a more holistic approach than just balancing for tournament results.


Judging by how many online games are doing PvE vs PvP versions of items, skills, etc. I do have a feeling that Catbarf's right to be unconvinced/less convinced.

Granted, the comparison isn't super apt, as 40k is "always" PvP and both PvE and PvP can be seen as competitive in MMOs, but in general I think it would be totally fine to have Matched Play/Grand Tournament specific version of datasheets, artefacts, stratagems, points costs (I guess this is *technically* always the case) that are overtuned for tournaments in specific combos but not a problem outside of those specific combos.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







 Gert wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:

So the actual new ones are:
Captain in scout armor
Terminator with heavy bolter in addition to other weapons
some stuff for the special snowflake chapters


nice. So if I went back to 4th and put "Heavy Bolter (Captain in Terminator Armor only)" and "Scout Armor" on the Armory list. I'd've captured everything new that's available.

If you want to simplify it to nonsense then yes. In reality, it isn't the case. Phobos isn't Scout Armour, Gravis isn't Terminator armour. They both fill different roles. Same with Intercessors and Tactical Marines, neither do the other's job because they aren't the same unit.


Right right yes, I forgot. Just like how the Armored Fist squads of the Armageddon Steel Legion (in heavy coats and gas masks) and the Shock Troop squads of the Cadian Imperial Guard (with heavy flak plate armor with no mask) fill totally different roles and therefore couldn't possibly be the same unit entr-

Oops.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/15 16:24:08


 
   
Made in gb
Lit By the Flames of Prospero






 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Right right yes, I forgot. Just like how the Armored Fist squads of the Armageddon Steel Legion (in heavy coats and gas masks) and the Shock Troop squads of the Cadian Imperial Guard (with heavy flak plate armor with no mask) fill totally different roles and therefore couldn't possibly be the same unit entr-

Oops.

I mean a Cadian Squad in a Chimera and a Steel Legion Squad in a Chimer are the same thing since they both use the Guardsmen and Chimera unit profiles. A Captain with Scout or Terminator Armour is different to a Primaris Captain in Phobos or Gravis Armour. It's OK you can just say you hate Primaris and this discussion can be over.
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







 Gert wrote:
...A Captain with Scout or Terminator Armour is different to a Primaris Captain in Phobos or Gravis Armour...


Why?

No, seriously. Why? Mk.II-VIII power armour all has identical stats, why does Mk.X power armour need different stats? Ultima boltguns and Phobos boltguns are the same, Mars-pattern and Deimos-pattern Rhinos are the same, what would you lose by making Gravis armour "a pattern of Terminator armour" other than arbitrary stat numbers? Do they fill different roles in the army somehow?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/15 17:37:05


Balanced Game: Noun. A game in which all options and choices are worth using.
Homebrew oldhammer project: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/790996.page#10896267
Meridian: Necromunda-based 40k skirmish: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/795374.page 
   
Made in us
Did Fulgrim Just Behead Ferrus?




Noctis Labyrinthus

 catbarf wrote:

Tournament players look at a codex with 80% brokenly bad units and 20% that can be exploited via specific combos to punch above their weight and give it the thumbs-up.


No they don't, pretty much any competitive-minded article will laud a codex that manages to be strong while having a variety of viable options while bemoaning one that is technically viable but only due to specific skew lists. Goonhammer's article on Grey Knights acknowledged that yeah, the army will probably be viable competitively even in the top tables because of how efficient the power armoured infantry and dreadknights are but still gave the codex heavy criticism for how poor the other options really were and how for a psyker army its ability to actually reliably get their powers off was bizarrely lacking.

Competitive players will use these skew lists in competitive games because ultimately the goal is to win but it is completely disingenuous to argue being a tournament players mean you only care about the ability to compete in the top tables and don't give a gak about internal balance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 AnomanderRake wrote:

Why?

No, seriously. Why? Mk.II-VIII power armour all has identical stats, why does Mk.X power armour need different stats? Ultima boltguns and Phobos boltguns are the same, Mars-pattern and Deimos-pattern Rhinos are the same, what would you lose by making Gravis armour "a pattern of Terminator armour" other than arbitrary stat numbers? Do they fill different roles in the army somehow?


If you want to complain about how you're big mad about change bad feel free to do so, but you thinking that these profiles shouldn't be different doesn't change the fact that they are which is Gert's actual point.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/15 17:54:29


 
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







 Void__Dragon wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:

Why?

No, seriously. Why? Mk.II-VIII power armour all has identical stats, why does Mk.X power armour need different stats? Ultima boltguns and Phobos boltguns are the same, Mars-pattern and Deimos-pattern Rhinos are the same, what would you lose by making Gravis armour "a pattern of Terminator armour" other than arbitrary stat numbers? Do they fill different roles in the army somehow?


If you want to complain about how you're big mad about change bad feel free to do so, but you thinking that these profiles shouldn't be different doesn't change the fact that they are which is Gert's actual point.


"The units currently have different datasheets" is a pretty trivial point. I'm not particularly "big mad" about anything, I'm just mildly irritated by the tautological suggestion that what GW does is correct because that's the way GW did it.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/09/15 18:03:05


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







 Gert wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Right right yes, I forgot. Just like how the Armored Fist squads of the Armageddon Steel Legion (in heavy coats and gas masks) and the Shock Troop squads of the Cadian Imperial Guard (with heavy flak plate armor with no mask) fill totally different roles and therefore couldn't possibly be the same unit entr-

Oops.

I mean a Cadian Squad in a Chimera and a Steel Legion Squad in a Chimer are the same thing since they both use the Guardsmen and Chimera unit profiles. A Captain with Scout or Terminator Armour is different to a Primaris Captain in Phobos or Gravis Armour. It's OK you can just say you hate Primaris and this discussion can be over.


This is circular logic.

"The rules are different because they have different roles, and they have different roles because the rules are different!"

The Steel Legion squad is as, if not more, visually distinct from Cadians as the Gravis Captain is from the Terminator Captain. Yet they use the same unit entry. Clearly "Being visually distinct" isn't enough of a reason to make units have different roles and different entries. Nor is having a different name in the fluff ("Shock Troops vs Armored Fist").

Why is Phobos different than Scout Armor? Why is Gravis different from Terminator armor? Why do they get to play by different rules than Cadians and Steel Legion?
   
Made in gb
Lit By the Flames of Prospero






 AnomanderRake wrote:
Why?

No, seriously. Why? Mk.II-VIII power armour all has identical stats, why does Mk.X power armour need different stats? Ultima boltguns and Phobos boltguns are the same, Mars-pattern and Deimos-pattern Rhinos are the same, what would you lose by making Gravis armour "a pattern of Terminator armour" other than arbitrary stat numbers? Do they fill different roles in the army somehow?

Because it's different? Gravis is Power Armour, Terminator Armour is Terminator Armour. Gravis gives a Toughness and Wound buff but is still a 3+ save. Terminator Armour gives a 2+ Armour Save, a 5+ Invlun
Why does Carapace Armour need different stats to Flak Armour, it all looks the same. How about Dreadnoughts? They all look the same and use the same chassis, so why does there need to be 3 profiles? Could it be that despite similar appearances they do different things and have different rules?

Also, you do realise that in 40k it was only in 9th Edition that different patterns of Terminator Armour stopped giving different benefits right? And that it's still a thing in 30k?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
This is circular logic.

"The rules are different because they have different roles, and they have different roles because the rules are different!"

The Steel Legion squad is as, if not more, visually distinct from Cadians as the Gravis Captain is from the Terminator Captain. Yet they use the same unit entry. Clearly "Being visually distinct" isn't enough of a reason to make units have different roles and different entries. Nor is having a different name in the fluff ("Shock Troops vs Armored Fist").

Why is Phobos different than Scout Armor? Why is Gravis different from Terminator armor? Why do they get to play by different rules than Cadians and Steel Legion?

Because Phobos Armour isn't Scout Armour, it's Power Armour, just like Gravis is Power Armour and not Terminator Armour.
Mk.X Power Armour is a modular piece of equipment and each suit can be modified into Tacticus, Phobos or Gravis depending on the situation. At the same time, it is compatible with certain parts of previous armour Marks. The whole point of Mk.X is that it takes the idea of 8 iterations of Power Armour and puts it into one package. Does the mission require stealth? Those Iron Hands in clunky Mk.2/3 aren't going to be useful but Mk.X can be fitted as Phobos.

I get loads of you still get angry when you see a Primaris but honestly its just sad at this point.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/09/15 18:11:54


 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: