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.
I hate these posts. All they do is mock other people's concerns. There's not even any counter argument that makes any points or shows why things like the Reaver Titan is not a problem (whilst many have given reasons why it is). It's just out and out mockery without support.
Agreed. People have valid concerns over an aspect of the game, if you're going to insinuate their concerns aren't valid at least have the decency to write a few sentences or possibly even debate the topic. I've heard your show mr. tuttle, you know how to string a few sentences together and you're perfectly capable of doing so.
Vaktathi wrote: To be fair, 40k has never been a spectacularly balanced game or even one well suited to Competitive play in the first place. We've always had "loser" armies (e.g. Sisters now, Necrons and Tau during 5th, IG in 2nd/3rd/4th/first year 5th, etc) and we've always had "Winner" armies (Eldar for 2nd/3rd/part of 4th/now 6th, IG/SW/GK's in 5th, etc). We've also always had different tournament standards as to points level and list legality depending on where you play.
Games Workshop had just stopped maintaining any pretense of competitive gameplay at this point.
But for the most part you had one army fighting another army, generally on a board setup by a third party. Yes, the game has never been well balanced, I just don't see how adding more and more variables helps organized play. All the individuals who were excited about the escalation release now actually have to face the fact that it's pretty scattershot and you're probably better off just playing full on apocalypse, unless you enjoy seeing everyone and their mom running wraithknights as revenant titans.
The hand of Ward moves in mysterious ways its atrocities to perform.
True. Because the atrocities always seem to have "Phil Kelly" printed on the author-page.
This. Kelly is utterly incompetent. Regarding Escalation, well, who needs balance in a set of rules? Sealclubbing is fun and stuff and all those boring balance nazis
just don't "get it".
Fafnir wrote: Oh, I certainly vote with my dollar, but the problem is that that is not enough. The problem with the 'vote with your dollar' response is that it doesn't take into account why we're not buying the product. I want to enjoy 40k enough to buy back in. It was my introduction to traditional games, and there was a time when I enjoyed it very much. I want to buy 40k, but Gamesworkshop is doing their very best to push me away, and simply not buying their product won't tell them that.
Crablezworth wrote: [Yes, the game has never been well balanced, I just don't see how adding more and more variables helps organized play. All the individuals who were excited about the escalation release now actually have to face the fact that it's pretty scattershot and you're probably better off just playing full on apocalypse, unless you enjoy seeing everyone and their mom running wraithknights as revenant titans.
Adding more and more variables doesn't help organized play. Quite the reverse. The more variables there are, especially in a points-buy game, the more likely it is that a dominant strategy emerges.
The problem with a dominant strategy is that a competitive game no longer supports multiple viable strategies. To win, you just use the dominant strategy.
We know GW has always been pretty bad at getting round to playtesting ("hey, the guys in the studio played a couple of games over some beers, using their fluffiest armies, and they didn't spot any probems... surely it's balanced by now?"). The latest round of money-grab expansions has been worse than ever, for that, though, and Escalation worst of the lot.
Be that as it may you do see multiple variant strategies emerging at tournaments; not every army is cookie cutter, there are several top-end builds and even some surprises.
Yes, absolutely. At the moment, there are still multiple viable builds. For me, 6th actually did reasonably well at promoting that (although vehicles are a little underpowered, and fliers/MCs a little overpowered, for their cost, for the most part). But it's hard to tell if that was good luck on GW's part, or actual playtesting. The most recent releases make me think it's the latter, because I do think it's likely we'll see a dominant strategy emerge (even if it's just "buy a specific unit from Escalation").
The blatant, shameless cash grab has been rubbed in everyone's face. They didn't play test this crap.
This release was a copy past of the Apocalypse book, with an aggressive release schedule from the marketing & finance department to sell plastic toys.
It is not wargaming by any stretch of the imagination.
I am seriously considering getting out of 40K; I just can't support this company any longer.
I don't get it.
Most frequent complaint about state of competive 40k is that "Games Workshop should be more like WotC: they have shown they know how to do it with Magic."
Well, this is exactly what MtG is: new expansions coming out at breakneck pace, all featuring crazy powerful new rules and abilities, generally more powerful than in the previous expansion, necessiting you to buy new stuff to stay competive. Meta is thrown up every few months.
So what's the problem? Isn't this what majority of the Internet messageboard gamers have wanted for years??
I think the key difference is that Wizards of the Coast have some sense of what "competitive balance" means.
Ailaros wrote: You know what really bugs me? When my opponent, before they show up at the FLGS smears themselves in peanut butter and then makes blood sacrifices to Ashterai by slitting the throat of three male chickens and then smears the spatter pattern into the peanut butter to engrave sacred symbols into their chest and upper arms.
I have a peanut allergy. It's really inconsiderate.
"Long ago in a distant land, I, M'kar, the shape-shifting Master of Chaos, unleashed an unspeakable evil! But a foolish Grey Knight warrior wielding a magic sword stepped forth to oppose me. Before the final blow was struck, I tore open a portal in space and flung him into the Warp, where my evil is law! Now the fool seeks to return to real-space, and undo the evil that is Chaos!"
PrinceRaven wrote: I think the key difference is that Wizards of the Coast have some sense of what "competitive balance" means.
QFT. 40k isn't designed to be a competitive game, by any standard. You can play it competitively, but it's not going to be anything close to a competitive game.
Yeah, WotC do very heavy playtesting, and have no objection to releasing rules tweaks on a regular basis if something proves to be unbalanced despite the playtests.
Banlists are good, banlists mean the company recognises that sometimes they release things that are too powerful and do something about it to promote a fun and competitive environment. If 40k continues along this trend of making OP units and combinations obsolete only by making even more OP units and combinations it will be neither competitive or fun to play.
Ailaros wrote: You know what really bugs me? When my opponent, before they show up at the FLGS smears themselves in peanut butter and then makes blood sacrifices to Ashterai by slitting the throat of three male chickens and then smears the spatter pattern into the peanut butter to engrave sacred symbols into their chest and upper arms.
I have a peanut allergy. It's really inconsiderate.
"Long ago in a distant land, I, M'kar, the shape-shifting Master of Chaos, unleashed an unspeakable evil! But a foolish Grey Knight warrior wielding a magic sword stepped forth to oppose me. Before the final blow was struck, I tore open a portal in space and flung him into the Warp, where my evil is law! Now the fool seeks to return to real-space, and undo the evil that is Chaos!"
every single game then becomes " kill the lord of war, save the lord of war" it narrows the scope of every single game , it's not so much a balance issue ( bring a pod list with triple raven and you will kill the super heavy ) it makes the game even narrower than it already is .
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2013/12/09 15:12:23
YYMV. I like the addition of Victory Points for stripping wounds or hull points off Super Heavies, the bonus to Siezing the Initiative is nice, and the Warlord Traits are designed to help you fight the Lords of War even better. And I love the mission "Defiant to the End" as it pits 1k of one person's army against a lone Lord of War and victory is determined by if or when the Lord of War falls.
I think it balances fine as long as both players get into the game expecting the same thing and know if they plan on using Escalation rles in their game or not. It balances fine casually, with the normal social contract stipulations, but less so when people try to sneak things onto the table without warning you just so they can get their jollies by grinding your army in a bloody paste.
I guess those are valid points, but I just can't shake the feeling that it feels so terribly lazy. Putting the onus on the player to self balance games beforehand is pretty weak rules writing, even for an alleged 'beer and pretzels' game. Especially considering the cost of the game compared to other games that are far more finished and balanced.
I don't know, I guess I can still have fun and all that, but it'd be more because of the people I'd play with then the game itself.
Ah well, different strokes and all that.
But every single game then becomes " kill the lord of war, save the lord of war" it narrows the scope of every single game , it's not so much a balance issue ( bring a pod list with triple raven and you will kill the super heavy ) it makes the game even narrower than it already is .
Only if you choose to play with/against Lord of War.
Honestly I love how the assumption is that you have to play with Escalation. Turning down a game against a Stompa is no different than turning down a game against Triptide. No one is being forced to play with/against anything in this game.
Is Escalation a powerful addition to the game? Yes. But it's also optional. GW didn't make Lords of War a requirement in your army afterall.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
PrinceRaven wrote: I think the key difference is that Wizards of the Coast have some sense of what "competitive balance" means.
Only because they built their game around a tournament system. GW built theirs around a narrative one and doesn't need the same approach to be playable.
Could it always be better? Any game can always be "better", but it doesn't make 40k bad just because they dodn't do the same exact think MtG did.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/12/09 15:17:29
YYMV. I like the addition of Victory Points for stripping wounds or hull points off Super Heavies, the bonus to Siezing the Initiative is nice, and the Warlord Traits are designed to help you fight the Lords of War even better. And I love the mission "Defiant to the End" as it pits 1k of one person's army against a lone Lord of War and victory is determined by if or when the Lord of War falls.
I think it balances fine as long as both players get into the game expecting the same thing and know if they plan on using Escalation rles in their game or not. It balances fine casually, with the normal social contract stipulations, but less so when people try to sneak things onto the table without warning you just so they can get their jollies by grinding your army in a bloody paste.
I guess those are valid points, but I just can't shake the feeling that it feels so terribly lazy. Putting the onus on the player to self balance games beforehand is pretty weak rules writing, even for an alleged 'beer and pretzels' game. Especially considering the cost of the game compared to other games that are far more finished and balanced.
I don't know, I guess I can still have fun and all that, but it'd be more because of the people I'd play with then the game itself.
Ah well, different strokes and all that.
But every single game then becomes " kill the lord of war, save the lord of war" it narrows the scope of every single game , it's not so much a balance issue ( bring a pod list with triple raven and you will kill the super heavy ) it makes the game even narrower than it already is .
Only if you choose to play with/against Lord of War.
Honestly I love how the assumption is that you have to play with Escalation. Turning down a game against a Stompa is no different than turning down a game against Triptide. No one is being forced to play with/against anything in this game.
Is Escalation a powerful addition to the game? Yes. But it's also optional. GW didn't make Lords of War a requirement in your army afterall.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
PrinceRaven wrote: I think the key difference is that Wizards of the Coast have some sense of what "competitive balance" means.
Only because they built their game around a tournament system. GW built theirs around a narrative one and doesn't need the same approach to be playable.
Could it always be better? Any game can always be "better", but it doesn't make 40k bad just because they dodn't do the same exact think MtG did.
In tournament play, you have two choices: play your opponent or forfeit the game. Part of the strong backlash comes from the fact that people don't want to see this in tournaments.
I disagree with you on the reasoning for Escalation. IMO it has nothing to do with narrative. It has to do with poor business decisions: GW makes models that nobody wants or needs (i.e., fortifications, Lord of Skulls, etc., at the expense of failing to create the models that people actually want, like new Berzerkers or IG infantry) and when they don't sell, they have to recoup their cost by designing game breaking rules to get people to buy the thing.
That's not "beer and pretzels" or "narrative." It's an artificially designed arms race created to compensate for poor business practice and foresight.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/12/09 15:25:58
If you dont want to see this in tournaments: Tell the TOs that the reason you are not attending is because of it, and if enough people express disatisfaction - and actually do something, instead of just turning up anyway - then tournaments generally listen.
I know we've already talked about it, and essentially its the return of 40k comp, essentially. Hiatus of a few editions, but I dont see a way round it - the old "no spam" doesnt get rid of the more unfun armies anymore.
I would disagree nobody "wants" or "needs" fortifications, and most of the lords of war - there is as much a "need" for a stompa or warhound as there is for a variant broadside, or "relic" whirlwind. Meaning there is no need, but a preference, for all of these. Bezerkers could really do with a new set of models, however they also desperately need a new set of rules to make them vaguely useful.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/12/09 15:39:15
Everyone keeps saying that 40k doesn't balance because it's a narrative/beer and pretzels/fun game, but think back to the last time you had a massive mismatch of a game, and it was just a complete one-sided stompfest that lasted all of 3 turns. Did you have fun? Did your opponent have fun? The ability for both sides to stand a chance and actually participate in a game is by far the most important thing when it comes to making a versus game fun. The key is that imbalance in the system has to be small and subtle, not absolutely massive and overpowering.
Spoiler:
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/12/09 15:38:34
Ailaros wrote: You know what really bugs me? When my opponent, before they show up at the FLGS smears themselves in peanut butter and then makes blood sacrifices to Ashterai by slitting the throat of three male chickens and then smears the spatter pattern into the peanut butter to engrave sacred symbols into their chest and upper arms.
I have a peanut allergy. It's really inconsiderate.
"Long ago in a distant land, I, M'kar, the shape-shifting Master of Chaos, unleashed an unspeakable evil! But a foolish Grey Knight warrior wielding a magic sword stepped forth to oppose me. Before the final blow was struck, I tore open a portal in space and flung him into the Warp, where my evil is law! Now the fool seeks to return to real-space, and undo the evil that is Chaos!"
Can someone please explain this "Forging the Narrative" thing to me? Cause I think I've been doing this wrong. I've been using the little models as part of a table top game using dice. Am I supposed to be putting on a play or something? If so then how many, if any, musical numbers am I supposed to perform?
I'm expecting an Imperial Knights supplement dedicated to GW's loyalist apologetics. Codex: White Knights "In the grim dark future, everything is fine."
"The argument is that we have to do this or we will, bit by bit,
lose everything that we hold dear, everything that keeps the business going. Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky."
-Tom Kirby
Savageconvoy wrote: Can someone please explain this "Forging the Narrative" thing to me? Cause I think I've been doing this wrong. I've been using the little models as part of a table top game using dice. Am I supposed to be putting on a play or something? If so then how many, if any, musical numbers am I supposed to perform?
You mean you don't re-enact The Lion King when playing 40k? Well, to each their own I guess.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/12/09 15:40:10
Ailaros wrote: You know what really bugs me? When my opponent, before they show up at the FLGS smears themselves in peanut butter and then makes blood sacrifices to Ashterai by slitting the throat of three male chickens and then smears the spatter pattern into the peanut butter to engrave sacred symbols into their chest and upper arms.
I have a peanut allergy. It's really inconsiderate.
"Long ago in a distant land, I, M'kar, the shape-shifting Master of Chaos, unleashed an unspeakable evil! But a foolish Grey Knight warrior wielding a magic sword stepped forth to oppose me. Before the final blow was struck, I tore open a portal in space and flung him into the Warp, where my evil is law! Now the fool seeks to return to real-space, and undo the evil that is Chaos!"
Savageconvoy wrote: Can someone please explain this "Forging the Narrative" thing to me? Cause I think I've been doing this wrong. I've been using the little models as part of a table top game using dice. Am I supposed to be putting on a play or something? If so then how many, if any, musical numbers am I supposed to perform?
When you've worked up to Abaddon the Despoiler doing the moonwalk, then you've done enough musical numbers.
And you need to write the script in a furnace, using a hammer.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Actually, thinking about it, I'd quite like to see a WH40k musical (but only if it's a comedy)
...Abaddon doing the moonwalk partway in, and the grand finale could see a whole company of terminators doing backflips!
The White Scars' Legion theme music:
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/12/09 15:57:42
I hate these posts. All they do is mock other people's concerns. There's not even any counter argument that makes any points or shows why things like the Reaver Titan is not a problem (whilst many have given reasons why it is). It's just out and out mockery without support.
Agreed. People have valid concerns over an aspect of the game, if you're going to insinuate their concerns aren't valid at least have the decency to write a few sentences or possibly even debate the topic. I've heard your show mr. tuttle, you know how to string a few sentences together and you're perfectly capable of doing so.
Sometimes that's all that really needs to be said. These threads turn into gong-shows where people catastrophize about the death of 40k and other such nonsense. Pointing out how absurd it isn't necessarily mockery. Throwing up a debate like I am isn't necessary, it is just masochistic when so many people are hysterical like this.
Paradigm wrote: The key to being able to enjoy the game in real life and also be a member of this online community is to know where you draw the line. What someone online on the other side of the world that you've never met says should never deter you from taking a unit for being either weak or OP. The community is a great place to come for tactics advice, and there is a lot of very sound opinions and idea out there, but at the end of the day, play the game how you want to... Don't worry about the hordes of Dakka descending on your gaming club to arrest you for taking one heldrake or not using a screamerstar. Knowing the standard opinion (and that's all it is) on what is good/bad and conforming to that opinion religiously are two entirely separate things.
Forging a narrative, or creating a scenario that you and your opponent play to have a fun time. Narrative story driven games where you use the missions as a base line for creating your own objectives and campaign.
I think that a Super Heavy is a great add to narrative.
Game Type - Modified (The Relic)
Deployment - Hammer and Anvil
Armies - Each force is comprised of a legal 1850 pts list. This list cannot include a Lord of War or Fortification.
Rules: Place a suitable counter in the center of the board to be the 'Relic'. (This relic represents the final piece to the puzzle of a respective Lord of War. It could be the final piece of STC, or the missing Soul Stone of a Revenant, or the final bit o' scrap to make a stompa get back to 'crumpin!)
Victory Conditions - Victory Points - Slay the Warlord, Line Breaker, First Blood - The Relic counts as 2 Victory Points, and whomever controls the Relic at the end of the game can bring a Lord of War to the next game.
Wasn't too tough to put a narrative to that. Remember, Narrative can be a short one-off game, or a series of games. The example above is a series.
Some people just like to make a devastating exploitative list and bring it to a tournament... some don't.
You don't see da eyes of da Daemon, till him come callin' - King Willy - Predator 2
Mechanicus
Ravenwing
Deathwing
You don't see da eyes of da Daemon, till him come callin' 
