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.

nkelsch wrote:

 Kirasu wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:

 Tomb King wrote:
This just in... WARHAMMER 40k is now Magic the Gathering!

Nah, Magic is balanced

and tested.. and without yearly price increases.. and cheap to get into and simple to play but hard to master.

Imagine if all our units became obsolete every 2 years and required us to repurchase totally new and different units?

The nice thing is if a combo is 'broke', it will fall out of the game eventually... And they also ban cards when needed.

With how fast the meta changes due to the release cycle I can't tell if you're making fun of MTG or being sarcastic about 40k :p Buying the new hot unit is how 6th ed is played nowadays since next month it might be obsolete!

Well, as I said earlier, the MTG analogy only goes so far. There is a big difference between buying a card or pack of random cards for a deck that can then be sold or traded for face value and buying a model that you spend hours to assemble, and paint and has low resale value.

A table top miniatures wargame simply could not support the level of turnover that MTG can.

 InventionThirteen wrote:

 Sasori wrote:

 InventionThirteen wrote:
I've had no end to terrible once sided battles since the start of sixth and the rise of some seriously rubbish rules writing. (6th ed works but the codexes are getting beyond help). These new escalation rules are the icing on the cake for me. This game needs some serious attention and someone needs to throw out the game design team bar Phil kelly and a few select others. Matt ward not included. He can go.

This post has got to be a joke. Phil Kelly is responsible for two of top three books right, including the hideously broken Seer Council and Screamerstar, but you're advocating keeping him? Seriously? 6th edition was pretty balanced until Phil Kelly started pumping out books for armies he likes.

Well what I was referring to (though my bad that I didn't make it clear) was older editions.
I'm sure Phil has been forced to adapt to the other riddonk codexes and the only real response is to add just as much crazy.

He broke 4th edition with Tri-falcon Eldar and he created Space Wolves for 5th edition. He's just as bad as Ward (who really only wrote one arguably OP 40k Codex anyway, as opposed to Kelly's 4).

Also, since I seem to have been ignored last time I pointed it out: The Daemons won the battle report in the OP with a list that wasn't designed specificly to take out Titans.

 Kolath wrote:
Well, as I said earlier, the MTG analogy only goes so far. There is a big difference between buying a card or pack of random cards for a deck that can then be sold or traded for face value and buying a model that you spend hours to assemble, and paint and has low resale value.

A table top miniatures wargame simply could not support the level of turnover that MTG can.

>_>

<_<

I can't believe I'm going to defend them, but WizKids is doing this with HeroClix. It is a tabletop miniatures wargame that can and does support the level of turnover that Magic can. You are losing out in the quality department with the miniature sculpts and paint jobs (but you can repaint them), but they are blind packs of figures that can be sold or traded at face value or higher.

I feel like people always jump to saying the game is "broken" every time GW releases a book. Realistically, I can see escalation and especially stronghold assault adding fun to small gaming groups who regularly play together and want to try something different. For tournament players, I see super-heavies as more of a a spoiler, in that they will wipe out a lot of lists/armies and suffer against others. I expect to see a lot of drop pods filled with meltas.

I don't know why we keep comparing 40k to Magic. I think Starcraft 2 is a much better comparison.

When a particular unit is way over the top or a timing attack is easy to execute but almost impossible to hold, Blizzard steps in and generally corrects the issue with a scalpel. I could give some examples but I'm not sure how much they would mean if you guys aren't too familiar with SC2.

Blizzard really keeps an eye on top level play. If they see Pro A does this every game and wins 90% of the time, even if Pro B sees what Pro A is doing and does what Blizzard intended to be the counter to what Pro A is doing but still loses 90% of the time, they will step in and either buff the counter to Pro A's strategy or reduce its effectiveness in any number of ways. This is the level of FAQ that GW should be putting out. A simple banlist won't cut it, sometimes you need to errata things.

 RobPro wrote:
I don't know why we keep comparing 40k to Magic. I think Starcraft 2 is a much better comparison.

They are the top games in their respective fields in volume of sale and popularity, which means that most people have probably heard of these games, and most people probably have a decent understanding of how each game works.

Magic is a game in which a hyper competitive tournament scene co-exists pretty gracefully with the casual kitchen table gamer. 40k is marketed as a 'beer and pretzels game', but there is a large and flourishing tournament scene (so similar play scenes). Both games require people to occasionally update their 'armies' based on new things that come out to stay in the modern organized play scene (Standard in Magic, and 40k 6th edition). And both feature regular updates to their sets (one is more often than the other). Where they start to differ is in balance and tightness of rules. Many people will say Magic is horribly balanced, but like people have stated. Magic has a banlist, card rulings, and official errata. 40k has 'official errata' that is almost never updated. When a rule question comes up in Magic, it's generally a 2 sentence answer and things go on from there because Wizards has gone to great lengths to make sure that their rules are as clear as humanly possible. When 40k has a rule question, it lasts forever because not even an FAQ/Errata tends to clear up the issue. The core rules are generally fuzzy and open to interpretation, which is why we have arguments about RAW, RAI, and HYWPI.

Unlike Starcraft, not every player has the same access to the same units because with Starcraft you buy the game and you're down. With Magic and 40k, you buy the cards, you buy the models. You build the deck, you build the army. You update the deck for new releases, you update the army for new releases. Sometimes your choices are built around a theme, sometimes they are built around a specific event, but for competitive gaming, you're not adding more money into the pot. The biggest complaint that people have is that they're spending this much money on a game and are not getting a quality product to match the money they're spending.

It's not complicated, and almost doesn't require comparison to other games. A more balanced and reasonable game is better and easier to play anywhere for *everyone* ... a less balanced game is only better for those who have a set play group they can establish internal "comp" via social pressures with ... or power gamers who are more than happy to invest enormous time and money into exploiting the most imbalanced components.

I don't want to sound like a broken record (too late!) but it is honestly surprising there isn't more outcry to adding even more variable and imbalanced units to the game.

MVBrandt wrote:
... a less balanced game is only better for those who have a set play group they can establish internal "comp" via social pressures with ... or power gamers who are more than happy to invest enormous time and money into exploiting the most imbalanced components.

Again, really agreed here.

MVBrandt wrote:
I don't want to sound like a broken record (too late!) but it is honestly surprising there isn't more outcry to adding even more variable and imbalanced units to the game.

I think you're seeing a bit of that outcry now. Until recently, folks were pretty set on people playing "uncomped" 40k. But it's looking like dataslates, escalation (granting D-weaponry in regular games of 40k ) are finally tipping the scales to make folks upset and want some sort of regulation imposed by TOs, since GW refuses to put in much of any.

Haha I've used titans before, they simply don't belong in 40k. It's a sad day when your removing storm shield terminators by the handful due to D weapons in a game of under 2000 points. This is one of GW's larger screw ups...

You know, it's funny, because I could have sworn that a while ago people were wanting Super Heavies in 40k. I recall reading that quite often.

I don't really see all the out rage. This is an optional supplement. Like Planet strike, Spearhead, and cities of death. This might just be my meta, but I have personally never seen anyone play them, been forced to play them nor have I played them myself.

If you don't want to play against a titan just say "sorry man, I don't have the fire power to take that down, can we just play a normal game?"

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
You know, it's funny, because I could have sworn that a while ago people were wanting Super Heavies in 40k. I recall reading that quite often.

Do you have any source forr this? I don't think I've ever seen someone say that...

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
If you don't want to play against a titan just say "sorry man, I don't have the fire power to take that down, can we just play a normal game?"

This thread is in the tournament section, and in tournies people don't have the option to refuse to play something... unless the TO does it for them!

Now I can clutch my 2001 Overall Champion Rogue Trader trophy close to my bosom and boast that I was winning 40K tournaments before the game was broken.

 Oaka wrote:
Now I can clutch my 2001 Overall Champion Rogue Trader trophy close to my bosom and boast that I was winning 40K tournaments before the game was broken.

40k has always been broken. (Of course, that's part of the appeal.) It is just more broken now.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
You know, it's funny, because I could have sworn that a while ago people were wanting Super Heavies in 40k. I recall reading that quite often.

I don't really see all the out rage. This is an optional supplement. Like Planet strike, Spearhead, and cities of death. This might just be my meta, but I have personally never seen anyone play them, been forced to play them nor have I played them myself.

If you don't want to play against a titan just say "sorry man, I don't have the fire power to take that down, can we just play a normal game?"

That's rubbish! Anyone who ever said that obviously never gave any real thought to the notion. And no, no it's not optional that's the issue...

 RiTides wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
You know, it's funny, because I could have sworn that a while ago people were wanting Super Heavies in 40k. I recall reading that quite often.

Do you have any source at all for this? I have never seen anyone say that...

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
If you don't want to play against a titan just say "sorry man, I don't have the fire power to take that down, can we just play a normal game?"

This thread is in the tournament section, for when people don't have the option to refuse to play something unless the TO does it for them

Ai, but it was more in response to all this doom saying stuff. Such as "The game is Officially Busted"

Hold on, what is this thread even doing in the tournament section? It looks to me to be more of a "this game is boned 2 - Electric Boogaloo" thread than being about tournaments.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

BaconUprising wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
You know, it's funny, because I could have sworn that a while ago people were wanting Super Heavies in 40k. I recall reading that quite often.

I don't really see all the out rage. This is an optional supplement. Like Planet strike, Spearhead, and cities of death. This might just be my meta, but I have personally never seen anyone play them, been forced to play them nor have I played them myself.

If you don't want to play against a titan just say "sorry man, I don't have the fire power to take that down, can we just play a normal game?"

That's rubbish! Anyone who ever said that obviously never gave any real thought to the notion. And no, no it's not optional that's the issue...

Really? Show me where it says in the Escalation book "these rules must be used at all times"

In fact, under Carry on As Normal, it more or less states that Escalation is not a normal game. If it is not a normal game, then it must be optional, much like how Planetstrike, etc etc are not normal games, and are also completely optional.

I am so glad that everyone is taking the chance to playtest this and not make knee-jerk reactions and cry the sky is falling.

It's not like we went through this exact scenario just over a year ago with fliers or anything.

The 2++ re-rollable stuff isn't so much a symptom of a 'broken' codex, but rather the core mechanics being half-arsed in the first place.

GW wants 40k to have a small number of 'psychic/magic' heavy armies - notably Daemons, Eldar and almost certainly Tyranids, just like how Fantasy has its staple 'magic heavy' armies in Elves & Undead. The problem is that Augments are utterly broken right now by virtue of being 100% impossible to counter outside of one or two specific options. (both of which are older, 5th edition rules)
The only way to 'balance' Augments right now would be to basically make them suck and not worth wasting time even casting them! Until we get a proper Psychic Phase, or else go backwards to Psykers playing just a bare minimal support roll, they'll continue to be highly unbalanced vs. the majority of armies.

Honestly, if those Augments could be countered/dispelled ala Fantasy Magic Phase, no one would whine about 2++ re-rollable because it wouldn't be worth the effort to set it up, as it would almost certainly be countered more than it would work.


As for the new supplement, it's a supplement. I highly doubt any tournament will allow D weapons or super-heavies.

Now if when 7th edition drops in a few more years and suddenly D weapons are a part of 'regular 40k', alongside 'free' formation bonuses et all, then sure, GW is just laughing at us and blaitantly pushing a 'pay-to-win' style of system.
Until then, even in regular pick-up games it's not something to worry about, unless every single person who frequents your LGS is a complete power-gaming donkey-cave who'll refuse to play properly and insist on running D weapons/formations/ally shenanigans in order to just curbstomp you.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
You know, it's funny, because I could have sworn that a while ago people were wanting Super Heavies in 40k. I recall reading that quite often.

That was when people thought GW would use common sense in writing Escalation.

We knew the units would be called Lords of War. Given that the Horus Heresy rules also have Lords of War, but cap them at 25% of your total points allowance, it was generally expected that this would also be the case for Escalation. This meant most of the usual superheavies would not make an appearance in anything less than 2000+ games. It was also believed that there would be no D-weapons available, or that they would be reduced in power. These two things, combined, would make most superheavies fairly viable in "normal" 40K.

GW did not, however, use common sense in writing Escalation.

At least GW did a good job with Stronghold Assault. I like that book.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
You know, it's funny, because I could have sworn that a while ago people were wanting Super Heavies in 40k. I recall reading that quite often.

That was when people thought GW would use common sense in writing Escalation.

We knew the units would be called Lords of War. Given that the Horus Heresy rules also have Lords of War, but cap them at 25% of your total points allowance, it was generally believed that this would also be the case for Escalation. This meant most of the usual superheavies would not make an appearance in anything less than 2000+ games. It was also believe that there would be no D-weapons available, or that they would be reduced in power. These two things, combined, would make most superheavies fairly viable in "normal" 40K.

GW did not, however, use common sense in writing Escalation.

At least GW did a good job with Stronghold Assault. I like that book.

Heh, fair enough. My memory is going back further than that, but yes, I could see why the change in D weapons would alter people's perception of common SHVs.

Oh yes, Stronghold Assault was great.

 fishy bob wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Is escalation a supplement, or approved new rules?

Is it said anywhere in the new books that they are non-consensual additional rules, or are they, like Planetstrike and Cityfight were in 5th, supplements to be played with mutual player approval, as a clip on addition to the rules?

Aren't supplements approved new rules? Or do I need my opponents permission to play my Black Legion, Farsight Enclave or Iron Hands too? I thought Cities of Death and Planetstrike were expansions, rather than supplements?

Games Workshop need to be clear on these things.

Warhammer 40,000: Escalation contains full rules for adding super-heavy vehicles and gargantuan creatures to every Warhammer 40,000 army. This means you can now use these massive models in games of Warhammer 40,000 as well as games of Apocalypse.

From the website. So my take is that Escalation is the new 40K.


Edit: Fixed the quote from the GW site

The word "can" does not mean "must", so "Escalation" is not the new 40K.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 fishy bob wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Is escalation a supplement, or approved new rules?

Is it said anywhere in the new books that they are non-consensual additional rules, or are they, like Planetstrike and Cityfight were in 5th, supplements to be played with mutual player approval, as a clip on addition to the rules?

Aren't supplements approved new rules? Or do I need my opponents permission to play my Black Legion, Farsight Enclave or Iron Hands too? I thought Cities of Death and Planetstrike were expansions, rather than supplements?

Games Workshop need to be clear on these things.

Warhammer 40,000: Escalation contains full rules for adding super-heavy vehicles and gargantuan creatures to every Warhammer 40,000 army. This means you can now use these massive models in games of Warhammer 40,000 as well as games of Apocalypse.

From the website. So my take is that Escalation is the new 40K.


Edit: Fixed the quote from the GW site

The word "can" does not mean "must", so "Escalation" is not the new 40K.

You can take a heavy support choice, doesnt mean must. Its not your opponent who decides if you get heavy support or fast attack, its up to you to choose. I think thats what the GW quote means. Everything is a can in the codex (except compulsory) so i see where he is coming from.

It's pretty crazy with D Weapons, and we haven't even tried Gargantuan Creatures, yet. I honestly think those might be worse!

But, it's all good. Just don't use D weapons and the Super Heavies aren't so bad, they're actually quite fun. They still don't belong in a tournament, IMO (not yet, anyway, we need to try them out further).

But the game will go on and be fine so long as we decide to play with what we want to play with =)

Im just upset Tau dont have D-weapons.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Im just upset Tau dont have D-weapons.

Yet. They have D-Weapons in FW books which should be putting out a PDF before too long.

Gargants aren't so bad.

Reece, next week - necrons + c'tan vs eldar + revenant.

 kronk wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Im just upset Tau dont have D-weapons.

Yet. They have D-Weapons in FW books which should be putting out a PDF before too long.

YAY,

Or I could bring my bugs + harridan.

Either way, let's do it! I want to try the Gargantauns! I think, honestly, the Haridan is more powerful than the Revenant after reading the rules further. That thing is bananas.

@Thread

And fellas, I freaked out too as we have so much at stake, but I'm over it already. I think so long as we all agree what rules we want to use, it will be fine.

We have lots of choices:

Different types of tournaments
Rules modifications
Omitting some rules from tournaments, etc.

We don't have to use the Dirty D's if we don't want to!

I know it's been said again and again, but GW doesn't want a tournament game. This is a beer and pretzels hobby to them and they don't want balance. They want FoTM, they want imbalance, and they want broken. Broken SELLS MODELS!!! Local groups playing games and painters painting minis is what they think their game is all about.

I bought Escalation, I love the book, and I'm going to ask the wife to buy a Baneblade for Xmas. Then, I'm going to bring that big bastard to my local friends and wreck face for all of about 2 weeks until my buddy paints his Revenant Titan. Then I'll buy a Thunderhawk. I'm their target, I have cash, and I spend 4-5k a year on this crap. I am an addict and Games Workshop depends on me and I oblige.