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.
So, I like a well-balanced game. I like a game where player skill at the table is the main determinant of victory and defeat. 40k... Is not that. And will probably never be that. GW just doesn't care enough to make a balanced game.
But! I also like customization. I like being able to tweak and modify models and lists and all that. And GWused to be good about that. Nowadays... Not so much.
Look at Dark Eldar. Stonkingly powerful! Really flipping boring.
I feel like, if GW isn't going to do more than cursory balance, they should at least make it so you can customize the ever-loving hell out of your guys. But that's going away, and it sucks.
Agree? Disagree? Am I a moron, or do you feel similarly?
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
I mean yes, i 100% agree.
I think the best thing you can do, and players like us, is basically fall back to older editions.
My group of friends basically play HH, or 7th (Which is honestly just the same thing) And because 7th is "dead" you have a lot more flexibility to alter rules and house rule things.
Modern GW and 40k, is 100% designed to be plated in a vacuum that is the tournament table top. Its very sanitary, and every game is basically a clean room scenario. Standard table, standard terrain set up, standard LoS blocking terrain and objectives ect ect, there is no more room for thematic or interesting outcomes. Every "casual game" in local stores i find is just getting ready for the next tournament.
The room to make "Your dudes" in the idea of customization and kitting out is very much by the wayside, because there is no room for errors in modern 40k else you get stomped.
Best thing like i said, fall back to older editions, and play the games that are more fun and interesting and have a few wild cards rather then the cookie cutter table/ matches we have now.
9th is just very unthematic, and thats why I and a lot of people i play with, got into 40k, we like the thematics of it all, like swooping in from behind on a heavy tank, massive blasts taking out buildings, vehicles getting flipped into squads, crazy psyker powers going off.
Mildly disagree to strongly disagree -- depending certain factors.
Art of War battle reports ( at least those with Siegler and Lennon ) do a superb job explaining their thought process during a game. Sometimes the other guy just rolls hot and you're on the back foot, but you still have choices even against DE.
Players with less experience will think it's more about the list or that you have no agency and to a small degree it has been depending on the period, but as books roll out that window narrows.
9th is better than 8th in this regard where lists wound up pretty much the same...
Now lists are hardly ever the same. Someone at LVO went 5-1 with 40+ DA terminators. The top four Drukhari all had different lists and three of them did not share a concept at all. An Ork player went 6-0 with ( gasp ) 3x10 Snaggas. Something that the forum is certain are useless. Likewise the top Thousand Sons ( 5-1 ) player had 14 Tzaangors, because we all know they're useless, too.
Old books ( nids ) or books with limited options ( GK ) will see more parity, but as things get tweaked it will be hard for people to come to the same conclusion.
And the more varied the lists are the less you can come to the tables and say you solved the meta, which means you actually need to be good. This is made possible in large part due to the missions, which only became more interactive than they've ever been.
Problems still exist. If the new books roll out hot we have lots of repair to do to get back to a suitable position. So here's hoping 6 month points and 3 month slates keep things from going off the rails.
To my mind "balance" as in "player skill is the main determining factor in victory" is a distraction. The main thing I expect of balance in a minis game is that "I can use models I like and have a good time," so I tend to frame "balance" in the discussion about what 40k should be as "there should be a good reason to use every Codex, every model, and every option" rather than "all Codexes, models, and options must have equal value in all circumstances," because it's less likely to lead us down the rabbit hole of arguing about whether all things in the game should be the same and wouldn't I be happier just playing chess, which I wouldn't, I don't like chess.
I'm also often less concerned with the top of the roster than the bottom; it's great that there's a tournament netlist for every Codex these days, yay, woo, but there's still a huge pile of models that are utterly worthless even in casual games because of decisions GW made without considering the consequences, and I think telling people "stop whining about your models being crap, there is a netlist you could play in your Codex if you bought entirely different models you may or may not like" is just as bad as telling people "stop whining about your Codex being crap, if you bought a different Codex you could play."
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/02/05 18:09:33
I assume though that with the idea of "I can use models i like and have a good time" We still operate under the guise of you still need to bring the right tool to the job.
Like, if i love running hordes of cheap gaunts and what not, if my oponent runs things that are specifically designed to gun down hordes like taht because they are the models he likes, then thats kosher.
Your not speaking in terms of balance like, 400 points of rubrics should be able to reasonably stand up to 400 points of a knight that has MEQ clearing weapons?
Or you should bring anti armor weapons to deal with armor, things like that.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/02/05 18:11:12
Backspacehacker wrote: 9th is just very unthematic, and thats why I and a lot of people i play with, got into 40k, we like the thematics of it all, like swooping in from behind on a heavy tank, massive blasts taking out buildings, vehicles getting flipped into squads, crazy psyker powers going off.
HH has a LOT more of that.
This is where I'm at. I don't feel any thematic engagement with 9th, its just two armies standing opposite each other and rolling dice to see what order you pack away models, but with a bunch of extra steps and book keeping.
Thats why i say its super sterile now, its got not flavor or life, its very robotic.
To me it reminds me of card games, yeah you can build your deck that has crazy wombo combos, but ultimately, your left up to the deck playing the game and hopfully the cards you need are stacked better then your opponents. for the most part you are just along for the ride.
8th and 9th feels like im just along for the ride of a game.
Maybe people should try this mission. If you show up and the only thing you're doing is rolling dice to remove models...and I don't mean this in an insulting manner at all...you're doing it wrong.
Maybe we don't agree on what terrain should look like, but 40K absolutely offers a engaging game when facing a good opponent.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/02/05 19:07:57
Daedalus81 wrote: Mildly disagree to strongly disagree -- depending certain factors.
Art of War battle reports ( at least those with Siegler and Lennon ) do a superb job explaining their thought process during a game. Sometimes the other guy just rolls hot and you're on the back foot, but you still have choices even against DE.
Players with less experience will think it's more about the list or that you have no agency and to a small degree it has been depending on the period, but as books roll out that window narrows.
9th is better than 8th in this regard where lists wound up pretty much the same...
Now lists are hardly ever the same. Someone at LVO went 5-1 with 40+ DA terminators. The top four Drukhari all had different lists and three of them did not share a concept at all. An Ork player went 6-0 with ( gasp ) 3x10 Snaggas. Something that the forum is certain are useless. Likewise the top Thousand Sons ( 5-1 ) player had 14 Tzaangors, because we all know they're useless, too.
Old books ( nids ) or books with limited options ( GK ) will see more parity, but as things get tweaked it will be hard for people to come to the same conclusion.
And the more varied the lists are the less you can come to the tables and say you solved the meta, which means you actually need to be good. This is made possible in large part due to the missions, which only became more interactive than they've ever been.
Problems still exist. If the new books roll out hot we have lots of repair to do to get back to a suitable position. So here's hoping 6 month points and 3 month slates keep things from going off the rails.
I do agree with you, and I do feel a lot of people tend to look at the top players in certain regions and see nothing but doom and gloom when they are in fact looking at top players. A bit like an amateur golfer looking at the top players in the world and thinking: "I don't have a chance. I shouldn't bother." Have a friend who is a really good player in AoS, but then he saw the top lists in the beginning of 3.0 meta and just thought "I can't be bothered with this" and left to play MCP non-stop. He had at best one game in 3.0 and every other opinion was formed from watching online coverage, even if no one where I live was going to be close to performing at those levels.
Now, that is not to say that there aren't issues and problems. GW, for one, needs a much more hands on and frequent updates for the game, and the points should just be free at this point. Yet, overall the scene is exciting despite the over performing aspects. Even despite the hammer to the knees GW gave my Death Guard I am still excited about the overall scene and currently working on new lists. Yet I fear that GW will resist what needs to be done to sell more books.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/02/05 19:33:04
I'm a little in between, because on the one hand I think 8th/9th edition basic rules are the best 40K has ever had, they're straightforward and got rid of a lot of bloat. Refinements of points and rules are also okay and I feel for the first time Codizes really seem to be pretty coherent in Design. Crusade is also great.
On the other hand abominations like the Plague Marine datasheet, Grots and Squigs being reduced to mere tokens, a pretty uninspired, samey mission design, 9th being far too soon and yet far too slow in bringing 8th Edition Codizes in line really drives me away towards 1page40k or made me decide that, unless 10th finally brings some alternating activations it'll be the last edition to buy for now.
I also have to add that due to Corona and interest in other games like Oathmark and Stargrave there have been few actual 9th edition games (about 12 I think) so far.
I feel like there's been a concerted effort in 40k to remove important unplanned events[such as an important squad failing a morale test and fleeing] from the game.
Don't like it, as is I feel a game is currently about two players pitting plans against each other, but relatively little happening in the game to force players to readjust on the fly to win. Understandable for tournament players, but boring for me.
Just my thoughts though, given 40k is more popular than ever in my area, I don't think many would agree with me, and that's fine.
Backspacehacker wrote: I mean yes, i 100% agree.
I think the best thing you can do, and players like us, is basically fall back to older editions.
My group of friends basically play HH, or 7th (Which is honestly just the same thing) And because 7th is "dead" you have a lot more flexibility to alter rules and house rule things.
[...]
The room to make "Your dudes" in the idea of customization and kitting out is very much by the wayside, because there is no room for errors in modern 40k else you get stomped.
Best thing like i said, fall back to older editions, and play the games that are more fun and interesting and have a few wild cards rather then the cookie cutter table/ matches we have now.
The best thing about falling back to old edition is that since you are already stepping out of "the meta" and "only official and most current rules" attitude, all sorts of gentleman agreements and experiments are possible. My group stayed with 7th, we had it heavily houseruled already when 8th hit, but then we just went crazy with throwing ideas for further customisation and in the end we now play an AA, d12 spinoff.
And while having "your dudes" is great, having "your dudes in the game you own" is even greater. But it hinges on having actual hobby friends instead of hobby acquiantances, so I understand that it is not an avenue everyone can take.
Daedalus81 wrote: Maybe people should try this mission. If you show up and the only thing you're doing is rolling dice to remove models...and I don't mean this in an insulting manner at all...you're doing it wrong.
Maybe we don't agree on what terrain should look like, but 40K absolutely offers a engaging game when facing a good opponent.
Okay, putting aside the usual "blame the player/you're playing wrong" crap, lets just pretend we argued about that for a few pages already. Though that you went STRAIGHT to that without really understanding what I said or mention the lethality of the game speaks volumes.
When I say "it feels like you're rolling dice to put models away" I don't mean things die too quickly. I mean when I play tyranids I don't feel like I'm playing an endless swarm of utterly alien creatures trying to consume everything. When I play necrons I don't feel like I'm playing an impossibly advanced race that has been asleep for countless millenia that imprisons literal gods. I feel like I'm playing slight variations of the same armies with guns that cap out at around S10 and do d6 damage with a smattering of rerolls and +/-1 rerolls thrown in. I never feel like I've pulled off clever movement shenanigans or lured enemies into a trap or really engaged with the game beside prefunctory "move, shoot, maybe charge" actions.
Sim-Life wrote: When I say "it feels like you're rolling dice to put models away" I don't mean things die too quickly. I mean when I play tyranids I don't feel like I'm playing an endless swarm of utterly alien creatures trying to consume everything. When I play necrons I don't feel like I'm playing an impossibly advanced race that has been asleep for countless millenia that imprisons literal gods. I feel like I'm playing slight variations of the same armies with guns that cap out at around S10 and do d6 damage with a smattering of rerolls and +/-1 rerolls thrown in. I never feel like I've pulled off clever movement shenanigans or lured enemies into a trap or really engaged with the game beside prefunctory "move, shoot, maybe charge" actions.
Last I knew you still hadn't played in 9th? Has that changed?
I absolutely feel like I am piloting automatons with piles of sorcerers. GSC absolutely feels like the lore. Crusher Stampede absolutely feels like it should and is just disconnected, because the codex should have been out by now, but the new synapse rules encompass what that should feel like. Necrons stand back up like bosses and C'Tan can absolutely murder. Custodes feel like an army unto each model.
GW has done a fantastic job of defining armies beyond 'this army has super cheap bugs'.
There's tons of positional play and you can see it all the time on bat reps where the players talk through their moves.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jeff white wrote: Agreed. Backspace said it best, above … deck aka list building is the game.
Imho, the word “build” does not belong in a 40k related sentence, unless it is followed by the word “model”…
Oh and edit cuz nou makes a great point too…
There's a real easy way to determine if this is true by just proxying a winning list and playing several games and see if you can win five games in a row against an experienced opponent by simply having a "better" list.
If it were true we'd see more replication of lists that were surefire winners, but we don't. Even the heavily meme'd Thicc City isn't the defacto list for DE.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/02/05 22:53:20
The issue with the game at large is the same with any other game that can be made into a competition: WAAC meta chasers will always exist.
As long as the game is designed to have a winner and a loser at the end of it, there will always be the people that hyper-tune their lists, which forces others to tend towards the same in order to stay relevant.
The game will never be perfectly balanced, and there will always be something better then everything else, even if only slightly.
I feel like part of the point of my OP was missed-40k is badly balanced, by pretty much any reasonable definition of balance.
But, while I'd like it to be otherwise, I'm fully capable of realizing that it will probably never be balanced.
However, what I'd like if that's the case is customization-Dark Eldar, again, are strong. But there's very minimal customization options.
Necrons-they're weak. And they have minimal customization.
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
Daedalus81 wrote: Mildly disagree to strongly disagree -- depending certain factors.
Art of War battle reports ( at least those with Siegler and Lennon ) do a superb job explaining their thought process during a game. Sometimes the other guy just rolls hot and you're on the back foot, but you still have choices even against DE.
Players with less experience will think it's more about the list or that you have no agency and to a small degree it has been depending on the period, but as books roll out that window narrows.
9th is better than 8th in this regard where lists wound up pretty much the same...
Now lists are hardly ever the same. Someone at LVO went 5-1 with 40+ DA terminators. The top four Drukhari all had different lists and three of them did not share a concept at all. An Ork player went 6-0 with ( gasp ) 3x10 Snaggas. Something that the forum is certain are useless. Likewise the top Thousand Sons ( 5-1 ) player had 14 Tzaangors, because we all know they're useless, too.
Old books ( nids ) or books with limited options ( GK ) will see more parity, but as things get tweaked it will be hard for people to come to the same conclusion.
And the more varied the lists are the less you can come to the tables and say you solved the meta, which means you actually need to be good. This is made possible in large part due to the missions, which only became more interactive than they've ever been.
Problems still exist. If the new books roll out hot we have lots of repair to do to get back to a suitable position. So here's hoping 6 month points and 3 month slates keep things from going off the rails.
I wish I could exalt you twice.
The diversity of lists I'm seeing in my local group is higher than I've ever seen before. Stuff the internet says is awful, I'm seeing on tables nearly every week. I have only played since the very end of 6th. So my experience is not that long compared with others, but I've never seen this much list diversity.
JNAProductions wrote: So, I like a well-balanced game. I like a game where player skill at the table is the main determinant of victory and defeat. 40k... Is not that. And will probably never be that. GW just doesn't care enough to make a balanced game.
But! I also like customization. I like being able to tweak and modify models and lists and all that. And GWused to be good about that. Nowadays... Not so much.
Look at Dark Eldar. Stonkingly powerful! Really flipping boring.
I feel like, if GW isn't going to do more than cursory balance, they should at least make it so you can customize the ever-loving hell out of your guys. But that's going away, and it sucks.
Agree? Disagree? Am I a moron, or do you feel similarly?
Completely agree.
I think one of the biggest draws of 40k has always been the 'your dudes' aspect, where you can customise your figures and still have them represented.
I think it's a tremendous shame that this has all but fallen by the wayside, with more and more wargear options being consolidated, turned into stratagems or just removed outright.
For those less familiar with Dark Eldar, I have a couple of visual examples to illustrate this.
In 5th, the Archon's wargear options looked like this:
In 9th, it looks like this:
In 5th, the Haemonculus' wargear options looked like this:
In 9th, it looks like this:
It's rather disheartening when 1000-year-old mad scientists who perform all manner of perverted experiments (including on themselves) and utilise a vast array of exotic wargear and arcane artefacts . . . yet appear to have rolled right off an assembly line.
blood reaper wrote: I will respect human rights and trans people but I will never under any circumstances use the phrase 'folks' or 'ya'll'. I would rather be killed by firing squad.
the_scotsman wrote: Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"
Argive wrote: GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.
You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.
Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
Daedalus81 wrote: Maybe people should try this mission. If you show up and the only thing you're doing is rolling dice to remove models...and I don't mean this in an insulting manner at all...you're doing it wrong.
Maybe we don't agree on what terrain should look like, but 40K absolutely offers a engaging game when facing a good opponent.
The missions are the problem. Bland, soulless, favoring specific types of armies and rewarding specific types of play. And your comment about needing a good opponent (read as good opponent = good player) for the game to be enjoyable comes off as insulting.
Mike Brandt = The new Matt Ward.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Mark my words. GW pandering so heavily to competitive play will not end well for any of us.
The LVO and Nova have fractured the W40K community, split it into two camps… and their toxic tendrils have crept too far in. The disease of competitive play needs cut out lest the whole organism die.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/02/06 01:41:59
JNAProductions wrote: So, I like a well-balanced game. I like a game where player skill at the table is the main determinant of victory and defeat. 40k... Is not that. And will probably never be that. GW just doesn't care enough to make a balanced game.
But! I also like customization. I like being able to tweak and modify models and lists and all that. And GWused to be good about that. Nowadays... Not so much.
Look at Dark Eldar. Stonkingly powerful! Really flipping boring.
I feel like, if GW isn't going to do more than cursory balance, they should at least make it so you can customize the ever-loving hell out of your guys. But that's going away, and it sucks.
Agree? Disagree? Am I a moron, or do you feel similarly?
Completely agree.
I think one of the biggest draws of 40k has always been the 'your dudes' aspect, where you can customise your figures and still have them represented.
I think it's a tremendous shame that this has all but fallen by the wayside, with more and more wargear options being consolidated, turned into stratagems or just removed outright.
For those less familiar with Dark Eldar, I have a couple of visual examples to illustrate this.
In 5th, the Archon's wargear options looked like this:
In 9th, it looks like this:
In 5th, the Haemonculus' wargear options looked like this:
In 9th, it looks like this:
It's rather disheartening when 1000-year-old mad scientists who perform all manner of perverted experiments (including on themselves) and utilise a vast array of exotic wargear and arcane artefacts . . . yet appear to have rolled right off an assembly line.
That's rather misleading.
An Archon comes with a Shadowfield and can take:
Agoniser - ( used to be poison, no armor ) - still poison and removes most armor
Huskblade - ( instant death ) - a dead concept
Venom Blade - ( poison 2+ ) - still the same
Blast Pistol
He can also take:
Animus Vitae - MW grenade and temp PfP buff
Djinn Blade - +2A; 1s hit bearer
Helm of Spite - deny
Parasite's Kiss - healing pistol
Soul-Seeker - sniper pistol
Writ of the Living Muse - reroll wounds of 1 aura
The Obsidian Veil - 4++
Armor of Misery - 3+ save and -1 to be hit in melee
The old stuff did:
Ghostplate - 4+/6++
Soul-trap - double S if you kill a character
Djin Blade - +2A and doubles hit weilder
Clone Field - Ignore D3 attacks
Shadow Field - exactly the same as it is now
Webway Portal - put units into portal, which is a strat now
If anything the options have more variety and interaction. And THEN on top of that you have WL traits, which include rerolls, healing when killing, fight last, +1S to weapons, +1S/+1A, FNP and ignore attrition, and steal CP.
If paying points is the only thing that makes you think you have choice I'm not sure what to tell you.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/02/06 02:13:59
Daedalus81 wrote: [spoiler]
If paying points is the only thing that makes you think you have choice I'm not sure what to tell you.
Points are the balancing factor in the fething game, is the problem. GW deciding that all character customization options all need to cost the same (i.e., free, Relics/Warlord traits) means that there IS actually no choice, because you do actually have basically 95% of those options being non-options
The archon CAN take
-Roll 1d6 for each stratagem your opponent uses, on a 6 gain a CP -+1S +1A
-+1S to non-relic weapons
-5+FNP vs Mortals and allies within 6" ignore attrition modifiers
-+1A and regain 1 wound for each model killed within 3"
but he will never do that. Why? because all those things compete with, and cost THE SAME AS
-reroll all failed to-hit and to-wound rolls.
Just, mathematically, you can INSTANTLY rule out ever taking 50% of the warlord traits available to the archon, because RR hits and RR wounds is ALWAYS superior to ALL of them.
So sure. Options, in theory, do still exist for characters. but they don't actually...do anything, because GW has completely 100% abdicated the responsibility to balance any of them, at all.
"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"
"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"
"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"
"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"
Daedalus81 wrote: Maybe people should try this mission. If you show up and the only thing you're doing is rolling dice to remove models...and I don't mean this in an insulting manner at all...you're doing it wrong.
Maybe we don't agree on what terrain should look like, but 40K absolutely offers a engaging game when facing a good opponent.
For me, the idea of the new missions providing a radically different play experience falls flat when I look closely and find that it's the exact same progressive scoring multiple-objective take-and-hold (feat. ITC secondaries) as all the other 9th Ed missions, just with different side objectives on top.
You could rename 'Prime Explosives' to 'Nail Up Flyers For Your Lost Dog' and it wouldn't make an iota of difference, because all the objective does is give you bonus VP at the end. And despite the intro blurb describing it as a 'decisive strike', both players have the exact same objectives.
Remember when missions had attackers and defenders? Or could take place at night? Or involved sentries? Or were about retreating from a superior foe, or holding out to the last man? Those are the kind of missions I miss; where the mission shaped the gameplay (and narrative!) in a fundamental way rather than just providing side objectives.
AnomanderRake wrote: To my mind "balance" as in "player skill is the main determining factor in victory" is a distraction. The main thing I expect of balance in a minis game is that "I can use models I like and have a good time," so I tend to frame "balance" in the discussion about what 40k should be as "there should be a good reason to use every Codex, every model, and every option" rather than "all Codexes, models, and options must have equal value in all circumstances," because it's less likely to lead us down the rabbit hole of arguing about whether all things in the game should be the same and wouldn't I be happier just playing chess, which I wouldn't, I don't like chess.
I share the same sentiment. Except for the Chess part, I like Chess quite a bit.
Daedalus81 wrote: [spoiler]
If paying points is the only thing that makes you think you have choice I'm not sure what to tell you.
Points are the balancing factor in the fething game, is the problem. GW deciding that all character customization options all need to cost the same (i.e., free, Relics/Warlord traits) means that there IS actually no choice, because you do actually have basically 95% of those options being non-options
The archon CAN take
-Roll 1d6 for each stratagem your opponent uses, on a 6 gain a CP -+1S +1A
-+1S to non-relic weapons
-5+FNP vs Mortals and allies within 6" ignore attrition modifiers
-+1A and regain 1 wound for each model killed within 3"
but he will never do that. Why? because all those things compete with, and cost THE SAME AS
-reroll all failed to-hit and to-wound rolls.
Just, mathematically, you can INSTANTLY rule out ever taking 50% of the warlord traits available to the archon, because RR hits and RR wounds is ALWAYS superior to ALL of them.
So sure. Options, in theory, do still exist for characters. but they don't actually...do anything, because GW has completely 100% abdicated the responsibility to balance any of them, at all.
Also, maybe even more important, you only get one relic by default. You can pick one character to do one thing, or spend CP to have a second character also do one thing.
Meanwhile in Horus Heresy I can choose to give one Tech-Priest Dominus an Abeyant and Machinator array to make him into something like a quadrupedal robot-fixing Doctor Octopus with an inferno pistol up his sleeve, and another Dominus an Eradication Ray, Power Axe, and... whatever the scanner array is called, and have him be a combat assistant to the close combat robots. The amount of wargear you have to remember is complex, no doubt, but it allows me to personalize my characters in a way 9th Ed really doesn't.
Even just the Doctrine names say you get an army of hive-conscripts mounted in transports, who are accompanied by elite warriors, aren't afraid to fight alongside abhumans, and kick Ork ass.
"industrial efficiency" - vehicles ignore an AP of -1, and infantry rapid fire at 18".
This tells me that my men prefer to fight on foot at medium range, and my vehicles have thicker armor but only against AP -1 I guess. ????
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/02/06 04:40:21
Daedalus81 wrote: [spoiler]
If paying points is the only thing that makes you think you have choice I'm not sure what to tell you.
Points are the balancing factor in the fething game, is the problem. GW deciding that all character customization options all need to cost the same (i.e., free, Relics/Warlord traits) means that there IS actually no choice, because you do actually have basically 95% of those options being non-options
The archon CAN take
-Roll 1d6 for each stratagem your opponent uses, on a 6 gain a CP -+1S +1A
-+1S to non-relic weapons
-5+FNP vs Mortals and allies within 6" ignore attrition modifiers
-+1A and regain 1 wound for each model killed within 3"
but he will never do that. Why? because all those things compete with, and cost THE SAME AS
-reroll all failed to-hit and to-wound rolls.
Just, mathematically, you can INSTANTLY rule out ever taking 50% of the warlord traits available to the archon, because RR hits and RR wounds is ALWAYS superior to ALL of them.
So sure. Options, in theory, do still exist for characters. but they don't actually...do anything, because GW has completely 100% abdicated the responsibility to balance any of them, at all.
Fair point, but if they're dropping the idea of things being balance then they can pick whatever they like the most, really.
I don't think you'd pick much of the old stuff, either. There's plenty of false choice there.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
catbarf wrote: For me, the idea of the new missions providing a radically different play experience falls flat when I look closely and find that it's the exact same progressive scoring multiple-objective take-and-hold (feat. ITC secondaries) as all the other 9th Ed missions, just with different side objectives on top.
You could rename 'Prime Explosives' to 'Nail Up Flyers For Your Lost Dog' and it wouldn't make an iota of difference, because all the objective does is give you bonus VP at the end. And despite the intro blurb describing it as a 'decisive strike', both players have the exact same objectives.
Remember when missions had attackers and defenders? Or could take place at night? Or involved sentries? Or were about retreating from a superior foe, or holding out to the last man? Those are the kind of missions I miss; where the mission shaped the gameplay (and narrative!) in a fundamental way rather than just providing side objectives.
The dynamic I am most interested in personally is where I interact with the other player and their decisions.
The asymmetric sort of stuff is valuable to people and I enjoyed them, but they're not really what I like these days - and I think it fits better in Crusade anyway ( like below ). GW put out beta Maelstrom and the community really dropped the ball. The people who valued that mode should have been pushing hard to get GW to tweak and make that part of the release schedule.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/02/06 05:35:24
