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.
After the lazy implementation of allies GW has gone several steps beyond. The current situation is an insanity and had really made a mess of the game.
Some part of me likes it, but overall I do not think of it as an improvement. I think we have more to come and would not find it surprising if there was a formation for (almost) every army.
There's definitely a lot more possibility for cheese, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. At the end of the day it's only giving more freedom and options to the player and its their choice to do what they will with it. It's still totally possibility to play a fun game without any sharp cheddar
I enjoy being able to field my CSM with actual Daemon units rather than the generic entries in the previous CSM codex. I have a lot more flexibility and it makes for a fun looking/playing army. I won't disagree that it's not a slam dunk implementation, but it keeps armies from stagnating over the next few years as different codexes and supplements hit shelves.
How does this prevent stagnation? If I wanted to face orks, I would not want to see biker nobz with their friends riptides, broadsides and wraithknights. Then the next army would be divination psyker & friends with the usual suspects from above.
I see your point but do not think it works.
Is GW breaking the game to save this edition?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/12/04 22:20:28
Not at all. I like this edition, it doesn't need saving at all. Even my mediocre codex can shine in this edition, so I can't complain about anything, really.
"That time I only loaded the cannon with powder. Next time, I will fill it with jewels and diamonds and they will cut you to shrebbons!" - Nogbad the Bad.
kb305 wrote: it sounds like a convoluted mess to me.
it'll be a good way to scare people off when all the brats start putting down their four kinds of allies or whatever it is.
Or people just don't play people who do that. It's not like tournaments are going to allow Formations anytime soon (too much of a mess there to keep track of).
kb305 wrote: it sounds like a convoluted mess to me.
it'll be a good way to scare people off when all the brats start putting down their four kinds of allies or whatever it is.
Or people just don't play people who do that. It's not like tournaments are going to allow Formations anytime soon (too much of a mess there to keep track of).
it's a pick up game though and GW is allowing them to do that according to their own rules.
in the end they will just scare new people off i think (even more).
kb305 wrote: it sounds like a convoluted mess to me.
it'll be a good way to scare people off when all the brats start putting down their four kinds of allies or whatever it is.
Or people just don't play people who do that. It's not like tournaments are going to allow Formations anytime soon (too much of a mess there to keep track of).
it's a pick up game though and GW is allowing them to do that according to their own rules.
in the end they will just scare new people off i think (even more).
And it's not just your job to follow the rules but to create an enjoyable experience (Spirit of the Game!), so if they can't take a step back and stop trying to hog the fun I won't play them. As a general rule if I don't have fun playing someone I just don't play them. It's not that difficult to find someone else to play or tell them that I won't have fun play what ever they cooked up to table me in a turn and a half.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/12/05 00:14:16
tybg wrote: There's definitely a lot more possibility for cheese, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. At the end of the day it's only giving more freedom and options to the player and its their choice to do what they will with it. It's still totally possibility to play a fun game withoout any sharp cheddar
Yeah, pretty much this. In any system you either have freedom or you have enforced regulation. Part of the draw is that unlike, say, chess, you have a huge degree of freedom to do things in your own way. The only way you can stop players from choosing to do things badly is by taking away everyones choice to do that thing at all.
Freedom requires civil society to function properly. Same in 40k as everything else.
kb305 wrote: it sounds like a convoluted mess to me.
it'll be a good way to scare people off when all the brats start putting down their four kinds of allies or whatever it is.
Or people just don't play people who do that. It's not like tournaments are going to allow Formations anytime soon (too much of a mess there to keep track of).
it's a pick up game though and GW is allowing them to do that according to their own rules.
in the end they will just scare new people off i think (even more).
And it's not just your job to follow the rules but to create an enjoyable experience (Spirit of the Game!), so if they can't take a step back and stop trying to hog the fun I won't play them. As a general rule if I don't have fun playing someone I just don't play them. It's not that difficult to find someone else to play or tell them that I won't have fun play what ever they cooked up to table me in a turn and a half.
well i guess if the game was good and fun on its own merits and not such a convoluted piece of crap all the petty politics and other BS wouldn't be necessary.
just sayin
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/12/05 00:32:21
kb305 wrote: it sounds like a convoluted mess to me.
it'll be a good way to scare people off when all the brats start putting down their four kinds of allies or whatever it is.
Or people just don't play people who do that. It's not like tournaments are going to allow Formations anytime soon (too much of a mess there to keep track of).
it's a pick up game though and GW is allowing them to do that according to their own rules.
in the end they will just scare new people off i think (even more).
And it's not just your job to follow the rules but to create an enjoyable experience (Spirit of the Game!), so if they can't take a step back and stop trying to hog the fun I won't play them. As a general rule if I don't have fun playing someone I just don't play them. It's not that difficult to find someone else to play or tell them that I won't have fun play what ever they cooked up to table me in a turn and a half.
well i guess if the game was good and fun on its own merits and not such a convoluted piece of crap all the petty politics and other BS wouldn't be necessary.
just sayin
*snerk* I really need a "This is Bait" image here I think.
Part of what makes 40k fun is how much it lets you do with the system. Taking that away to make people not act like jerks to their fellow players only punishes people who really want that freedom. Even MtG and Warmachine are lauded for being "more balanced" than 40k and yet there are still power builds in those games.
Let's be honest, the game isn't nearly as much as the overall issue as much as the mentality of some players to put their enjoyment over the enjoyment of all others.
I enjoy the freedom quite a lot. I want a chaos army with traitor guard? Done. I want Sisters of Battle with a planetary defense force? (IG) Done. I want an epic battle where space marines are forced to alley with Tau against Necrons? Done. Can it be abused? Sure, but I refuse to play against cheese players so its a mute point for me.
Also, check out my history blog: Minimum Wage Historian, a fun place to check out history that often falls between the couch cushions.
I actually kind of like the freedom these changes have introduced. As long as you play with people who want everyone to have fun there isn't a problem.
I also like the idea of formations as it does a great job of representing coalition type forces. I am shocked that the first one of these was not an IG formation of some type...this is pretty much how the IG works anyways. I just hope they move to some of the less abused units to give this treatment to. If they had started with berserkers then there would have been much less "the sky is falling!"
ansacs wrote: I actually kind of like the freedom these changes have introduced. As long as you play with people who want everyone to have fun there isn't a problem.
I also like the idea of formations as it does a great job of representing coalition type forces. I am shocked that the first one of these was not an IG formation of some type...this is pretty much how the IG works anyways. I just hope they move to some of the less abused units to give this treatment to. If they had started with berserkers then there would have been much less "the sky is falling!"
True, instead the cry would be "why in the hell are they trying to sell us this junk?"
There are only two kinds of things in 40k according to the internet (as far as I've seen): stupidly broken, or completely useless. There just is no winning. Ever.
kb305 wrote: it sounds like a convoluted mess to me.
it'll be a good way to scare people off when all the brats start putting down their four kinds of allies or whatever it is.
Or people just don't play people who do that. It's not like tournaments are going to allow Formations anytime soon (too much of a mess there to keep track of).
it's a pick up game though and GW is allowing them to do that according to their own rules.
in the end they will just scare new people off i think (even more).
And it's not just your job to follow the rules but to create an enjoyable experience (Spirit of the Game!), so if they can't take a step back and stop trying to hog the fun I won't play them. As a general rule if I don't have fun playing someone I just don't play them. It's not that difficult to find someone else to play or tell them that I won't have fun play what ever they cooked up to table me in a turn and a half.
well i guess if the game was good and fun on its own merits and not such a convoluted piece of crap all the petty politics and other BS wouldn't be necessary.
just sayin
*snerk* I really need a "This is Bait" image here I think.
Part of what makes 40k fun is how much it lets you do with the system. Taking that away to make people not act like jerks to their fellow players only punishes people who really want that freedom. Even MtG and Warmachine are lauded for being "more balanced" than 40k and yet there are still power builds in those games.
Let's be honest, the game isn't nearly as much as the overall issue as much as the mentality of some players to put their enjoyment over the enjoyment of all others.
No, it kind of is the game. You don't really need to buy rulebooks to sit down and have a good time with friends playing with your plastic space men, but you do need them to reliably have fun playing a random stranger without hashing things out for hours beforehand. Good pick up games require that both people be able to have fun in whatever way suits them regardless of what the other guy's doing, within the rules of the game. For a lot of people it's not fun to get stomped just because your opponent brought way more tanks or whatever than you could possibly handle without making your list just as weak against every other unit type. And it's also not fun to be told that no one will play you because the list you like and that the rules say is fine isn't any fun to play against. Flexibility in the system is good, but it doesn't really mean anything if no one can use it for fear of ruining the other person's fun.
If the designer's done his job right, good sportsmanship begins and ends at purely social actions. A jerk might be a jerk, but he can't use the rules to be a jerk. This is an impossible ideal, but even an imperfect yet good job still helps and 40k does a fairly poor job of it.
In my experiance Sam cw, it doesn't matter how good the rules are, gak players are going to be gak players. If you're not being a gak player and not playing against gak players there really isn't an issue with the game in itself.
I will not deny the game can always be better in both wording and overall construction/balance but as it stands (and as all games stand really) the player is a very important factor in the game and if they want to be a gak player then they'll be one even if the rules are designed to try and prevent that.
The real solution isn't to complain about the rules being less than perfect (because no ruleset will ever be perfect), it's instead to not condone, support, and if need be, not play, gak players. That pretty much makes every game better from my experiences.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/12/05 08:12:03
Love the idea of allies - very disappointed in the execution.
Waiting to see what happens with the newer ideas on the fence till had some experience with them
I AM A MARINE PLAYER
"Unimaginably ancient xenos artefact somewhere on the planet, hive fleet poised above our heads, hidden 'stealer broods making an early start....and now a bloody Chaos cult crawling out of the woodwork just in case we were bored. Welcome to my world, Ciaphas."
Inquisitor Amberley Vail, Ordo Xenos
"I will admit that some Primachs like Russ or Horus could have a chance against an unarmed 12 year old novice but, a full Battle Sister??!! One to one? In close combat? Perhaps three Primarchs fighting together... but just one Primarch?" da001
As others have said, and I have said since the beginning of 6th Edition...
I love what allies and flyers bring to the game in principal. I do not like how GW had/has determined to allow these things to be executed.
Farseer Faenyin 7,100 pts Yme-Loc Eldar(Apoc Included) / 5,700 pts (Non-Apoc) Record for 6th Edition- Eldar: 25-4-2
Record for 7th Edition -
Eldar: 0-0-0 (Yes, I feel it is that bad)
Battlefleet Gothic: 2,750 pts of Craftworld Eldar
X-wing(Focusing on Imperials): CR90, 6 TIE Fighters, 4 TIE Interceptors, TIE Bomber, TIE Advanced, 4 X-wings, 3 A-wings, 3 B-wings, Y-wing, Z-95
Battletech: Battlion and Command Lance of 3025 Mechs(painted as 21st Rim Worlds)
One of the things that's kind of strange that happens in threads like this is that they eventually develop some sort of apocalyptic motif. And lo, the people suffered in their slavery of bad governance by GW, which was displeasing in the eyes of the Lord. And in those end times, heavenly game designers of pure perfection were brought in that made the game perfect for all players, and no one ever had any complaints anymore. Matt wards were fired, perfect game balance was introduced, and there was not an unfavorable comparison to other games in the land.
Anyways, on topic, I'm seeing this trend as rather deliberate. For some time now, they've been slowly making 40k an up-scale version of Epic. I mean, we now have a knight titan in the game, and we're about to get superheavies. It wouldn't surprise me if in the not-too distant future 40k becomes what apocalypse is and apocalypse becomes something with an even bigger, more-Epic scope (perhaps we'll start seeing larger titans, for example).
Would people stop calling them Knight Titans? They're Knights. Not Titans. The two terms are mutually exclusive.
Even if Warhounds have shrunk a bit.
Personally, my main problem with things like the Inquisition Bonus to the force org chart is that it's Imperial Only.
Where's Codex: Dark Mechanicus to give the Chaos side of things an equivalent?
"That time I only loaded the cannon with powder. Next time, I will fill it with jewels and diamonds and they will cut you to shrebbons!" - Nogbad the Bad.
Furyou Miko wrote: Where's Codex: Dark Mechanicus to give the Chaos side of things an equivalent?
I don't know where GW's is (likely has to do with models though), but I'm working on one for fun. Thankfully this is a game where people can do things like that.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/12/05 20:09:28
Farseer Faenyin 
7,100 pts Yme-Loc Eldar(Apoc Included) / 5,700 pts (Non-Apoc) 