Switch Theme:

Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll)  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Poll
Which codex would you remove to trim down the game ? (multiple choice poll)
Astra Militarum
Adepta Sororitas
Adeptus Mechanicus
Chaos Space marines
Chaos Daemons
Eldar
Dark Eldar
Necrons
Orks
T'au
Tyranids
Genestealers cult
Adeptus Custodes
Space Marine chapters standalone codex
Harlequins
Inquisition
Imperial knights/chaos knights
Greyknights
I would keep every standalone codex
Death Guard
Thousand Sons

View results
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 us
Omnipotent Necron Overlord






 Nurglitch wrote:
I think ditching the Knights would be best until they can figure out how to make 500pts of Knight work as a live alternative to 500pts of infantry. I think 2nd edition Epic Space Marine had a system that could work.

So...the game has to be designed to play at a certain points level. Right now it is at 2000 points the game works best. Because that is the target.


If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder 
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







 Xenomancers wrote:
 Nurglitch wrote:
I think ditching the Knights would be best until they can figure out how to make 500pts of Knight work as a live alternative to 500pts of infantry. I think 2nd edition Epic Space Marine had a system that could work.

So...the game has to be designed to play at a certain points level. Right now it is at 2000 points the game works best. Because that is the target.


As a person who plays a lot of different minis wargames and complains a lot about GW I can tell you that one of the key pieces of competitive advantage that Warhammer used to have over any other wargame on the market is the flexibility to play at a wide variety of points levels. Most things have a really narrow window where they work properly (25-75 for Warmachine, ~750-1250 for Bolt Action, ~200-400 for Infinity (and that one's debatable)), and outside that window the game becomes too rock-paper-scissors in small games or too complicated/too spammy in big games. Warhammer has never worked that well by comparison to anything else on the market, but the fact that you had one set of rules that actually kind of worked at 500pts and still kind of worked at 5,000pts in the 3e-7e period was actually kind of amazing. I know GW's design goal for 8th/9th is to make sure it sort of works at 2k and doesn't work at all at any other points level, but I did want to call out the fact that scalability was once an actual feature of the game rules that GW did better than anyone else.

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
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Right behind you.

The most interesting part is that GW actually has a fairly simple way of balancing out Knights and other LoWs, if the points levels really do not function for them:

Battle Size.
We have the Combat Patrol, Incursion, Strike Force, and Onslaught "Battle Size" listings.
500,1000, 2000, and 3000 points respectively.
Disallowing Lords of War at Combat Patrol and Incursion levels shouldn't be super difficult to get people to accept one would think.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/08 19:05:09


 
   
Made in us
VF-1S Valkyrie Squadron Commander





Mississippi

 Void__Dragon wrote:
 Gnarlly wrote:
Adeptus Custodes: The Emperor's personal bodyguard should stay on Terra; why are they now fighting battles across the galaxy? This is an army that should never have been created. A couple models for collectors, sure, but not an entire faction.


To justify the mind-bogglingly insane cost to create and maintain them. Guilliman getting them off their lazy asses and actually doing something beyond standing next to a big chair for ten thousand years is one of the better parts of the new lore and it is laughable to suggest that there is any justifiable reason for them to be glorified garden gnomes in the palace.



But that’s like sending the Secret Service over to Afghanistan to fight terrorists instead of keeping them home to protect the president…

It never ends well 
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Jidmah wrote:


Can you explain this for people who only buy endless spells as conversion bits for 40k terrain?


Yeah, I want the floating slaanesh face on a knight- not sure if it's the right size. Might have to go full on titan, and that's too rich for my wallet.
   
Made in eu
Dakka Veteran




 Stormonu wrote:
 Void__Dragon wrote:
 Gnarlly wrote:
Adeptus Custodes: The Emperor's personal bodyguard should stay on Terra; why are they now fighting battles across the galaxy? This is an army that should never have been created. A couple models for collectors, sure, but not an entire faction.


To justify the mind-bogglingly insane cost to create and maintain them. Guilliman getting them off their lazy asses and actually doing something beyond standing next to a big chair for ten thousand years is one of the better parts of the new lore and it is laughable to suggest that there is any justifiable reason for them to be glorified garden gnomes in the palace.



But that’s like sending the Secret Service over to Afghanistan to fight terrorists instead of keeping them home to protect the president…


Oh how I love these analogies, at least get the lore straight. Even in the 30k novels the custodes were meant to be a lot more than bodyguards or gloryfied sentries. And the new lore definitively clarifies that they have not been doing feth-all for the last ten thousand years. But hey, let's just squat an entire faction that not only sells very well, but is also quite beginner friendly based on lacking knowledge of 40k lore.
   
Made in de
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






 Sim-Life wrote:
Reminds me of a mission from Dawn Of War where a Titan's volcano cannon has been broken off and it keeps firing off in intervals and forms a trench on the map that runs down the centre so you have to time moving units through it to get to the enemy base.


I remember that mission as well, it was awesome.

Earth is not flat
Vaccines work
We've been to the moon
Climate change is real
Chemtrails aren't a thing
Evolution is a fact
Orks are not a melee army
Stand up for science!
 
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







 Jidmah wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
Reminds me of a mission from Dawn Of War where a Titan's volcano cannon has been broken off and it keeps firing off in intervals and forms a trench on the map that runs down the centre so you have to time moving units through it to get to the enemy base.


I remember that mission as well, it was awesome.


Like most of Dark Crusade much more awesome if you're playing Eldar. Very frustrating for slower armies.

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 de
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






 Kanluwen wrote:
The most interesting part is that GW actually has a fairly simple way of balancing out Knights and other LoWs, if the points levels really do not function for them:

Battle Size.
We have the Combat Patrol, Incursion, Strike Force, and Onslaught "Battle Size" listings.
500,1000, 2000, and 3000 points respectively.
Disallowing Lords of War at Combat Patrol and Incursion levels shouldn't be super difficult to get people to accept one would think.



Lords of War are disallowed for combat patrol unless you are playing knights.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
Reminds me of a mission from Dawn Of War where a Titan's volcano cannon has been broken off and it keeps firing off in intervals and forms a trench on the map that runs down the centre so you have to time moving units through it to get to the enemy base.


I remember that mission as well, it was awesome.


Like most of Dark Crusade much more awesome if you're playing Eldar. Very frustrating for slower armies.


I never played anything but orks

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/09 06:30:39


Earth is not flat
Vaccines work
We've been to the moon
Climate change is real
Chemtrails aren't a thing
Evolution is a fact
Orks are not a melee army
Stand up for science!
 
   
Made in de
Contagious Dreadnought of Nurgle




 AnomanderRake wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
 Nurglitch wrote:
I think ditching the Knights would be best until they can figure out how to make 500pts of Knight work as a live alternative to 500pts of infantry. I think 2nd edition Epic Space Marine had a system that could work.

So...the game has to be designed to play at a certain points level. Right now it is at 2000 points the game works best. Because that is the target.


As a person who plays a lot of different minis wargames and complains a lot about GW I can tell you that one of the key pieces of competitive advantage that Warhammer used to have over any other wargame on the market is the flexibility to play at a wide variety of points levels. Most things have a really narrow window where they work properly (25-75 for Warmachine, ~750-1250 for Bolt Action, ~200-400 for Infinity (and that one's debatable)), and outside that window the game becomes too rock-paper-scissors in small games or too complicated/too spammy in big games. Warhammer has never worked that well by comparison to anything else on the market, but the fact that you had one set of rules that actually kind of worked at 500pts and still kind of worked at 5,000pts in the 3e-7e period was actually kind of amazing. I know GW's design goal for 8th/9th is to make sure it sort of works at 2k and doesn't work at all at any other points level, but I did want to call out the fact that scalability was once an actual feature of the game rules that GW did better than anyone else.


Well, that's not true. Due to the vehicle mechanic (and Knights from 6Edition on) as well as bad balance the game didn't really work below 1000 points. I had the first enjoyable 500points games in 9th edition, since there are missions that actually consider that low point value for the first time and not just: well, do the same as with 2000points but play on 4x4 instead of 6x4. And since everything can hurt everything the problem of skew isn't that bad anymore.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




NE Ohio, USA

 Jidmah wrote:
 Kanluwen wrote:
The most interesting part is that GW actually has a fairly simple way of balancing out Knights and other LoWs, if the points levels really do not function for them:

Battle Size.
We have the Combat Patrol, Incursion, Strike Force, and Onslaught "Battle Size" listings.
500,1000, 2000, and 3000 points respectively.
Disallowing Lords of War at Combat Patrol and Incursion levels shouldn't be super difficult to get people to accept one would think.



Lords of War are disallowed for combat patrol unless you are playing knights.


Yea, because that makes a whole bunch of sense. You ca play these LoW (knights) - but not those others (Baneblades, etc).
Yes, yes, I get it. Knights a faction with their own codex & you can't disappoint that portion of customers...
   
Made in de
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






ccs wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
 Kanluwen wrote:
The most interesting part is that GW actually has a fairly simple way of balancing out Knights and other LoWs, if the points levels really do not function for them:

Battle Size.
We have the Combat Patrol, Incursion, Strike Force, and Onslaught "Battle Size" listings.
500,1000, 2000, and 3000 points respectively.
Disallowing Lords of War at Combat Patrol and Incursion levels shouldn't be super difficult to get people to accept one would think.



Lords of War are disallowed for combat patrol unless you are playing knights.


Yea, because that makes a whole bunch of sense. You ca play these LoW (knights) - but not those others (Baneblades, etc).
Yes, yes, I get it. Knights a faction with their own codex & you can't disappoint that portion of customers...


There is a difference between being allowed to put a real army on the board and supporting it with a LoW and allowing a knight player to auto-lose the game

Unless they spam armingers (which are LoW only in name), knights have almost no chance of winning a combat patrol game.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/09 07:35:11


Earth is not flat
Vaccines work
We've been to the moon
Climate change is real
Chemtrails aren't a thing
Evolution is a fact
Orks are not a melee army
Stand up for science!
 
   
Made in au
Regular Dakkanaut




 Unit1126PLL wrote:
wow, what a gakky poll.

This leaves out most of the actual options (like trimming some of the SM chapters down to a single codex to treat them like IG regiments)


OMG yes, this. Do we really need like 12 marine codexes?
   
Made in it
Gargantuan Gargant




Italy

Yes we do, since GW decided that some SM chapters are actual armies with several unique datasheets and several dedicated kits.

Generic IG regiments, drukhari obsessions, ork klans, necron dynasties, etc... don't have anything dedicated barring maybe a single named character or two.

The word "need" is a strong one. For someone we definitely don't need multiple SM books, but for others the game would still be amazing with no SM at all and for them we wouldn't need even ONE SM codex .


 
   
Made in gb
Killer Klaivex




The dark behind the eyes.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
Reminds me of a mission from Dawn Of War where a Titan's volcano cannon has been broken off and it keeps firing off in intervals and forms a trench on the map that runs down the centre so you have to time moving units through it to get to the enemy base.


I remember that mission as well, it was awesome.


Like most of Dark Crusade much more awesome if you're playing Eldar. Very frustrating for slower armies.


Eh, I found it a pain regardless of which faction I was playing because the game had such awful pathing.

Try to send a few tanks across but they instead stop in the middle for what I can only assume to be a mating ritual.

 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.


 Andilus Greatsword wrote:

"Prepare to open fire at that towering Wraithknight!"
"ARE YOU DAFT MAN!?! YOU MIGHT HIT THE MEN WHO COME UP TO ITS ANKLES!!!"


Akiasura wrote:
I hate to sound like a serial killer, but I'll be reaching for my friend occam's razor yet again.


 insaniak wrote:

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.
 
   
Made in us
Exalted Beastlord




 Xenomancers wrote:
 Nurglitch wrote:
I think ditching the Knights would be best until they can figure out how to make 500pts of Knight work as a live alternative to 500pts of infantry. I think 2nd edition Epic Space Marine had a system that could work.

So...the game has to be designed to play at a certain points level. Right now it is at 2000 points the game works best. Because that is the target.



No it isn't. I'll let you in on an open secret that's been true for most editions of both warhammer 40k and Fantasy: The studio generally plays smaller games than the 'community' does. For most of 3rd and later editions 40k, the studio played at 1500 points. The push to 1750, 1850, and 2000 points came from players. Both people who wanted to get more of their toys on the table, and for events.

It's one of the big reasons overpowered unit spam was never addressed. In their 'home' games FOC+ a few choice additions was normal, without another 500 points to blow solely on killer units. The games are designed to be far more low key than they are in the wild, and ivory tower game design kept a lot of problems areas neglected. Meanwhile, players pushed for point sizes that magnified the ignored problems.

Efficiency is the highest virtue. 
   
Made in us
Twisted Trueborn with Blaster




I have no interest in "narrowing/trimming" the game in this way. I'd rather see a wider range of opponents.
   
Made in pl
Fixture of Dakka




Voss 798865 11144580 wrote:

No it isn't. I'll let you in on an open secret that's been true for most editions of both warhammer 40k and Fantasy: The studio generally plays smaller games than the 'community' does. For most of 3rd and later editions 40k, the studio played at 1500 points. The push to 1750, 1850, and 2000 points came from players. Both people who wanted to get more of their toys on the table, and for events.

It's one of the big reasons overpowered unit spam was never addressed. In their 'home' games FOC+ a few choice additions was normal, without another 500 points to blow solely on killer units. The games are designed to be far more low key than they are in the wild, and ivory tower game design kept a lot of problems areas neglected. Meanwhile, players pushed for point sizes that magnified the ignored problems.


I played in two editions, and out of the things it tought me, one is that the Studio has no idea about how, why and by whom the game is played. The fact that GW designers after 20+ years of working at the studio dare to say that they weren't expecting players to do something, shows that perfectly.

It is like some companies that sell industrial spirtus at gas stations pretending that they do not know for what it is used, and I can tell you that it ain't a lot of removing of paint from windows.


Go tell a player, whose basic army compotents cost around 1700pts, that the game should be played at 1000 or 1500.

If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. 
   
Made in gb
Bloodthirsty Bloodletter





Karol wrote:
Voss 798865 11144580 wrote:

No it isn't. I'll let you in on an open secret that's been true for most editions of both warhammer 40k and Fantasy: The studio generally plays smaller games than the 'community' does. For most of 3rd and later editions 40k, the studio played at 1500 points. The push to 1750, 1850, and 2000 points came from players. Both people who wanted to get more of their toys on the table, and for events.

It's one of the big reasons overpowered unit spam was never addressed. In their 'home' games FOC+ a few choice additions was normal, without another 500 points to blow solely on killer units. The games are designed to be far more low key than they are in the wild, and ivory tower game design kept a lot of problems areas neglected. Meanwhile, players pushed for point sizes that magnified the ignored problems.


I played in two editions, and out of the things it tought me, one is that the Studio has no idea about how, why and by whom the game is played. The fact that GW designers after 20+ years of working at the studio dare to say that they weren't expecting players to do something, shows that perfectly.

It is like some companies that sell industrial spirtus at gas stations pretending that they do not know for what it is used, and I can tell you that it ain't a lot of removing of paint from windows.


Go tell a player, whose basic army compotents cost around 1700pts, that the game should be played at 1000 or 1500.


What army has a basic component that demands 1700pts invested into it outside of (maybe) Knights running 3 big boys?

 
   
Made in us
Trustworthy Shas'vre





Cobleskill

 vipoid wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
Reminds me of a mission from Dawn Of War where a Titan's volcano cannon has been broken off and it keeps firing off in intervals and forms a trench on the map that runs down the centre so you have to time moving units through it to get to the enemy base.


I remember that mission as well, it was awesome.


Like most of Dark Crusade much more awesome if you're playing Eldar. Very frustrating for slower armies.


Eh, I found it a pain regardless of which faction I was playing because the game had such awful pathing.

Try to send a few tanks across but they instead stop in the middle for what I can only assume to be a mating ritual.


This just means that people never played as Tau. My entire force bypassed that trench with their jump packs.

'No plan survives contact with the enemy. Who are we?'
'THE ENEMY!!!' 
   
Made in us
Kabalite Conscript





I'm really surprised at the amount of people who don't believe Harlequins should have their own book.
From a lore and gameplay perspective it makes a lot of sense to differentiate them from Drukhari and Craftworld. Even aesthetically, they look completely different.
Compared to space marines who pretty much take identical stuff with a different paint scheme at least.

Inquisition is something I wish they would expand more on, kind of like it was in 5th and 6th edition when they were part of the Grey Knight's codex but as suggested before, they should change GK, Deathwatch, and Sisters into the three ordos.
   
Made in us
Hardened Veteran Guardsman





 Blackie wrote:
Yes we do, since GW decided that some SM chapters are actual armies with several unique datasheets and several dedicated kits.

Generic IG regiments, drukhari obsessions, ork klans, necron dynasties, etc... don't have anything dedicated barring maybe a single named character or two.

The word "need" is a strong one. For someone we definitely don't need multiple SM books, but for others the game would still be amazing with no SM at all and for them we wouldn't need even ONE SM codex .

Those datasheets and kits could be folded into the main SM codex with little effort, though.

As for other factions having that, that is
a) not true (thinking of IG: see Death Korps, Elysians, Tallarn (special Death Riders), Tempestus Scions (currently folded back into the main 'dex, if haphazardly))
b) entirely the result of GW choosing to make things that way. As gets brought up in every Space Marine thread, GW did not need to give SM extra goodies that they don't give to other faction. You'd need to come up with a solid argument as to why that is justified and should be continued before "Well, it's the way GW does things" becomes a valid point.
   
Made in au
Ork-Hunting Inquisitorial Xenokiller




Didn't bother reading all, cause is irrelevant...


Remove none...why would you dilute the diversity?


Arguments will be like focus more time, can be better other factions, more resources devoted, faction not played much etc etc... fuk that, they need all and will consolidate what have and expand apon... (not to mention they have a lot of models can redo for a faction for money...though I collect all inquistor models...I'm not biased at all)

Bloody insane to remove factions or races...You all complain to much and need to open a tissue factory it seems...

Any negative energy devoted to diminish the game needs to be expunded...

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/09 16:20:02


14k Generic Space Marine Chapters
20k Deathwatch
10k Sisters of Battle
3k Inquisition
4k Grey Knights
5k Imperial Guard
4k Harlequins
4k Tau



 
   
Made in us
Omnipotent Necron Overlord






 AnomanderRake wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
 Nurglitch wrote:
I think ditching the Knights would be best until they can figure out how to make 500pts of Knight work as a live alternative to 500pts of infantry. I think 2nd edition Epic Space Marine had a system that could work.

So...the game has to be designed to play at a certain points level. Right now it is at 2000 points the game works best. Because that is the target.


As a person who plays a lot of different minis wargames and complains a lot about GW I can tell you that one of the key pieces of competitive advantage that Warhammer used to have over any other wargame on the market is the flexibility to play at a wide variety of points levels. Most things have a really narrow window where they work properly (25-75 for Warmachine, ~750-1250 for Bolt Action, ~200-400 for Infinity (and that one's debatable)), and outside that window the game becomes too rock-paper-scissors in small games or too complicated/too spammy in big games. Warhammer has never worked that well by comparison to anything else on the market, but the fact that you had one set of rules that actually kind of worked at 500pts and still kind of worked at 5,000pts in the 3e-7e period was actually kind of amazing. I know GW's design goal for 8th/9th is to make sure it sort of works at 2k and doesn't work at all at any other points level, but I did want to call out the fact that scalability was once an actual feature of the game rules that GW did better than anyone else.

Well - you certainly can play the game at any point level you want. You are drastically going to change the effectiveness of armies as points decrease/increase.

Auras in general make a huge scale problem. Some armies don't have cheap hq's. Some are armies are limited to like 2 units at 500 points.

Just saying the game is designed to work at 2000 points.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 SiLKY wrote:
I'm really surprised at the amount of people who don't believe Harlequins should have their own book.
From a lore and gameplay perspective it makes a lot of sense to differentiate them from Drukhari and Craftworld. Even aesthetically, they look completely different.
Compared to space marines who pretty much take identical stuff with a different paint scheme at least.

Inquisition is something I wish they would expand more on, kind of like it was in 5th and 6th edition when they were part of the Grey Knight's codex but as suggested before, they should change GK, Deathwatch, and Sisters into the three ordos.

How are they any different aesthetically from dire avengers / striking scorpions/ and fire dragons? Who deliberately have different aesthetics. Quinn's getting their own book 6-7 years ago hey literally just made up a story and units to make it happen...could equally have done the same with "Dire Avenger shrines" codex and it would have made equal sense.

I agree with the marines. There should only be 1 space marine codex. The only space marine force that is somewhat worthy of their own book would be GK - but that should just be a combined book with all inquisition.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/09 16:28:22


If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder 
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







 Xenomancers wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
 Nurglitch wrote:
I think ditching the Knights would be best until they can figure out how to make 500pts of Knight work as a live alternative to 500pts of infantry. I think 2nd edition Epic Space Marine had a system that could work.

So...the game has to be designed to play at a certain points level. Right now it is at 2000 points the game works best. Because that is the target.


As a person who plays a lot of different minis wargames and complains a lot about GW I can tell you that one of the key pieces of competitive advantage that Warhammer used to have over any other wargame on the market is the flexibility to play at a wide variety of points levels. Most things have a really narrow window where they work properly (25-75 for Warmachine, ~750-1250 for Bolt Action, ~200-400 for Infinity (and that one's debatable)), and outside that window the game becomes too rock-paper-scissors in small games or too complicated/too spammy in big games. Warhammer has never worked that well by comparison to anything else on the market, but the fact that you had one set of rules that actually kind of worked at 500pts and still kind of worked at 5,000pts in the 3e-7e period was actually kind of amazing. I know GW's design goal for 8th/9th is to make sure it sort of works at 2k and doesn't work at all at any other points level, but I did want to call out the fact that scalability was once an actual feature of the game rules that GW did better than anyone else.

Well - you certainly can play the game at any point level you want. You are drastically going to change the effectiveness of armies as points decrease/increase.

Auras in general make a huge scale problem. Some armies don't have cheap hq's. Some are armies are limited to like 2 units at 500 points.

Just saying the game is designed to work at 2000 points...


Exactly. That's the point. NOW the game is designed to only work at 2,000pts. Go back to 3rd-7th and it used to be a lot more scalable.

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
Krazy Grot Kutta Driva





I'll get back to the poll question and say none of the books should be removed. The game points scaling is not the problem. The size of GW total company is the problem. We don't have enough people, enough manufacturing capabilities, or money to set the first up. It's time GW steps up and starts being the premier company at what they do. Their should be a major manufacturing and distribution center in the USA. They should also be a major manufacturing and distribution center in Australia. That should help stop the crazy pricing in South East Asia. Once done GW could put out multiple codexes every month and it would take pressure of English and Chinese production.

 
   
Made in us
Kabalite Conscript





 Xenomancers wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
 Nurglitch wrote:
I think ditching the Knights would be best until they can figure out how to make 500pts of Knight work as a live alternative to 500pts of infantry. I think 2nd edition Epic Space Marine had a system that could work.

So...the game has to be designed to play at a certain points level. Right now it is at 2000 points the game works best. Because that is the target.


As a person who plays a lot of different minis wargames and complains a lot about GW I can tell you that one of the key pieces of competitive advantage that Warhammer used to have over any other wargame on the market is the flexibility to play at a wide variety of points levels. Most things have a really narrow window where they work properly (25-75 for Warmachine, ~750-1250 for Bolt Action, ~200-400 for Infinity (and that one's debatable)), and outside that window the game becomes too rock-paper-scissors in small games or too complicated/too spammy in big games. Warhammer has never worked that well by comparison to anything else on the market, but the fact that you had one set of rules that actually kind of worked at 500pts and still kind of worked at 5,000pts in the 3e-7e period was actually kind of amazing. I know GW's design goal for 8th/9th is to make sure it sort of works at 2k and doesn't work at all at any other points level, but I did want to call out the fact that scalability was once an actual feature of the game rules that GW did better than anyone else.

Well - you certainly can play the game at any point level you want. You are drastically going to change the effectiveness of armies as points decrease/increase.

Auras in general make a huge scale problem. Some armies don't have cheap hq's. Some are armies are limited to like 2 units at 500 points.

Just saying the game is designed to work at 2000 points.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 SiLKY wrote:
I'm really surprised at the amount of people who don't believe Harlequins should have their own book.
From a lore and gameplay perspective it makes a lot of sense to differentiate them from Drukhari and Craftworld. Even aesthetically, they look completely different.
Compared to space marines who pretty much take identical stuff with a different paint scheme at least.

Inquisition is something I wish they would expand more on, kind of like it was in 5th and 6th edition when they were part of the Grey Knight's codex but as suggested before, they should change GK, Deathwatch, and Sisters into the three ordos.

How are they any different aesthetically from dire avengers / striking scorpions/ and fire dragons? Who deliberately have different aesthetics. Quinn's getting their own book 6-7 years ago hey literally just made up a story and units to make it happen...could equally have done the same with "Dire Avenger shrines" codex and it would have made equal sense.

I agree with the marines. There should only be 1 space marine codex. The only space marine force that is somewhat worthy of their own book would be GK - but that should just be a combined book with all inquisition.



Dire avengers, striking scorpions and fire dragons are all part of the Craftworlds is the biggest reason for starters, secondly those three share very big similarities to each other than they do to Harlequins. The armor designs of the three playable aeldari factions have very distinct silhouettes, Drukhari have sharper edges and tighter armor, Craftworld are sleek and rounded, and Harlequins sit in between. GW has also been fiddling with the idea of Harlequins having it's own faction since 3rd edition but for whatever reason didn't come into fruition until 7th.
   
Made in pl
Rampaging Carnifex





Voted for SM Chapters, Knights/Chaos Knights, Harlequins, Deathguard, ATS and Inquisition.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/09 18:51:12


 
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut





 AnomanderRake wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
 Nurglitch wrote:
I think ditching the Knights would be best until they can figure out how to make 500pts of Knight work as a live alternative to 500pts of infantry. I think 2nd edition Epic Space Marine had a system that could work.

So...the game has to be designed to play at a certain points level. Right now it is at 2000 points the game works best. Because that is the target.


As a person who plays a lot of different minis wargames and complains a lot about GW I can tell you that one of the key pieces of competitive advantage that Warhammer used to have over any other wargame on the market is the flexibility to play at a wide variety of points levels. Most things have a really narrow window where they work properly (25-75 for Warmachine, ~750-1250 for Bolt Action, ~200-400 for Infinity (and that one's debatable)), and outside that window the game becomes too rock-paper-scissors in small games or too complicated/too spammy in big games. Warhammer has never worked that well by comparison to anything else on the market, but the fact that you had one set of rules that actually kind of worked at 500pts and still kind of worked at 5,000pts in the 3e-7e period was actually kind of amazing. I know GW's design goal for 8th/9th is to make sure it sort of works at 2k and doesn't work at all at any other points level, but I did want to call out the fact that scalability was once an actual feature of the game rules that GW did better than anyone else.

Well - you certainly can play the game at any point level you want. You are drastically going to change the effectiveness of armies as points decrease/increase.

Auras in general make a huge scale problem. Some armies don't have cheap hq's. Some are armies are limited to like 2 units at 500 points.

Just saying the game is designed to work at 2000 points...


Exactly. That's the point. NOW the game is designed to only work at 2,000pts. Go back to 3rd-7th and it used to be a lot more scalable.


Could someone please direct me to the 500 point missions in any BRB than 9th? How about the 3000 point missions? Were there supplements for any of those editions that included missions and rules for 500 point games? Could you tell me which rules in any edition other than 9th differentiate play at 500 points, or 1k, or 2k or 3k? I can't speak intelligently about 6th or 7th because for those editions my two favourite factions we in cold storage, but in every other edition, I'm pretty sure that there were no variations written into the rules to accommodate game size.

While it is true that some armies have a hard time at low point value, the people who want to play at those point values aren't choosing those armies when they do. And THAT isn't an issue of game design- it's a matter of some forces not being appropriate for some battles from both a fluff and mechanics point of view. Would a House of Knights be sent to squash 30 Cultists, 10 Chaos Marines and a Lord?

In order for you to say a game is DESIGNED to work at different sizes, you have to be able to point to the rules that indicate what should be done differently at different game sizes. A range so limited that all units fall in the same general power scale isn't a feature of the games design- it is a limitation imposed upon the model range because the designers know their game can't work with models of vastly different power levels point values.

If a game DOES include rules that indicate what should be done differently at different game sizes, you can't say it wasn't designed to work at different sizes. You can argue that from your point of view it doesn't work as well is it is supposed to; you could even argue that a ruleset which includes zero design features created specifically to accommodate battles of different sizes can be made to do so based on inherent characteristics, or limitations of the model range. But none of that is the same as talking about what the game was DESIGNED to do.

A matched player may not SEE the design features of 9th which encourage games of all sizes, because the Mission pack designed to be used by matched players doesn't include as many of those features- the GT mission pack pack includes missions for only 2/4 game sizes, and has no built-in support for escalation. That is not GW's fault. It is not 40K's fault. In fact, I don't think it's anyone's fault- people who like pick up games and like playing in such a way that victory is the primary purpose of the game are going to gravitate to the style of play that supports that. I'm not blaming anyone for preferring competitive play- it is a valid choice, those who make that choice are as important to the community and the long term survival of the game as anyone else.

But to deny that there is a way of playing the game where you by two books (BRB + Codex) plus one box of models (CP Box) and put it on the table against an opponent who did the exact same thing, with mechanics written specifically to facilitate that army's growth a unit or two at a time until it reaches EPIC size is just factually incorrect. Whether YOU choose to play that way, for whatever valid reasons you might have is a separate issue.

Similarly, to pretend that such a way to play existed in previous editions when it explicitly did not is also factually incorrect, whether or not YOU were able to make it work.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/06/09 20:24:31


 
   
Made in us
Omnipotent Necron Overlord






Pointer5 wrote:
I'll get back to the poll question and say none of the books should be removed. The game points scaling is not the problem. The size of GW total company is the problem. We don't have enough people, enough manufacturing capabilities, or money to set the first up. It's time GW steps up and starts being the premier company at what they do. Their should be a major manufacturing and distribution center in the USA. They should also be a major manufacturing and distribution center in Australia. That should help stop the crazy pricing in South East Asia. Once done GW could put out multiple codexes every month and it would take pressure of English and Chinese production.

You are correct but I believe GW believes it is in their best interst to keep the game more exclusive. I feel they fear (and rightly so) the US interest in the game would end up with them losing control of their game (their baby).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 SiLKY wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
 Nurglitch wrote:
I think ditching the Knights would be best until they can figure out how to make 500pts of Knight work as a live alternative to 500pts of infantry. I think 2nd edition Epic Space Marine had a system that could work.

So...the game has to be designed to play at a certain points level. Right now it is at 2000 points the game works best. Because that is the target.


As a person who plays a lot of different minis wargames and complains a lot about GW I can tell you that one of the key pieces of competitive advantage that Warhammer used to have over any other wargame on the market is the flexibility to play at a wide variety of points levels. Most things have a really narrow window where they work properly (25-75 for Warmachine, ~750-1250 for Bolt Action, ~200-400 for Infinity (and that one's debatable)), and outside that window the game becomes too rock-paper-scissors in small games or too complicated/too spammy in big games. Warhammer has never worked that well by comparison to anything else on the market, but the fact that you had one set of rules that actually kind of worked at 500pts and still kind of worked at 5,000pts in the 3e-7e period was actually kind of amazing. I know GW's design goal for 8th/9th is to make sure it sort of works at 2k and doesn't work at all at any other points level, but I did want to call out the fact that scalability was once an actual feature of the game rules that GW did better than anyone else.

Well - you certainly can play the game at any point level you want. You are drastically going to change the effectiveness of armies as points decrease/increase.

Auras in general make a huge scale problem. Some armies don't have cheap hq's. Some are armies are limited to like 2 units at 500 points.

Just saying the game is designed to work at 2000 points.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 SiLKY wrote:
I'm really surprised at the amount of people who don't believe Harlequins should have their own book.
From a lore and gameplay perspective it makes a lot of sense to differentiate them from Drukhari and Craftworld. Even aesthetically, they look completely different.
Compared to space marines who pretty much take identical stuff with a different paint scheme at least.

Inquisition is something I wish they would expand more on, kind of like it was in 5th and 6th edition when they were part of the Grey Knight's codex but as suggested before, they should change GK, Deathwatch, and Sisters into the three ordos.

How are they any different aesthetically from dire avengers / striking scorpions/ and fire dragons? Who deliberately have different aesthetics. Quinn's getting their own book 6-7 years ago hey literally just made up a story and units to make it happen...could equally have done the same with "Dire Avenger shrines" codex and it would have made equal sense.

I agree with the marines. There should only be 1 space marine codex. The only space marine force that is somewhat worthy of their own book would be GK - but that should just be a combined book with all inquisition.



Dire avengers, striking scorpions and fire dragons are all part of the Craftworlds is the biggest reason for starters, secondly those three share very big similarities to each other than they do to Harlequins. The armor designs of the three playable aeldari factions have very distinct silhouettes, Drukhari have sharper edges and tighter armor, Craftworld are sleek and rounded, and Harlequins sit in between. GW has also been fiddling with the idea of Harlequins having it's own faction since 3rd edition but for whatever reason didn't come into fruition until 7th.

Are you aware that harlequins used to be part of craftworlds as well?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/09 20:26:46


If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: