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. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/01/19 18:34:10
Subject: The "Problem" with 40K today or, "Did GW Break 40K?"
|
 |
Huge Hierodule
The centre of a massive brood chamber, heaving and pulsating.
|
I look at 40K, and indeed any tabletop game the same way I look at a PC game: If I don't like something, I mod it. 40K is really best with custom scenarios, special rules, custom units/wargear and slight modifications anyway. Same with Skyrim; kinda crappy vanilla, huge fun with mods.
|
Squigsquasher, resident ban magnet, White Knight, and general fethwit.
buddha wrote:I've decided that these GW is dead/dying threads that pop up every-week must be followers and cultists of nurgle perpetuating the need for decay. I therefore declare that that such threads are heresy and subject to exterminatus. So says the Inquisition! |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/01/19 18:34:24
Subject: The "Problem" with 40K today or, "Did GW Break 40K?"
|
 |
Pragmatic Primus Commanding Cult Forces
|
Zothos wrote:Indeed. However what they are promoting is silly. If more people recognized and rejected such idiocy out of hand, we would not have these issues.
Allies and escalation are blatant money grabs. I dont mind a money grab from a company, but allies are an abomination to the game.
I do hope people start seeing how bad for they are for the game as a whole soon...
You are wrong. The allies mechanic is not the problem, the problem is that the different codices are not properly balanced.
|
Error 404: Interesting signature not found
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/01/19 18:34:36
Subject: The "Problem" with 40K today or, "Did GW Break 40K?"
|
 |
[ADMIN]
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Makumba wrote:
Am not saying that the new codex are not stupid , they are . But making them illegal is a dangerous game . If escalation or stronghold is removed , then what will stop people from saying that this or that codex isn't legal too.
'illegal' and 'legal' are concepts entirely created by competitive players and not something GW recognizes in the least. They simply make rules, and they expect players to use or not use them as they see fit.
To be fair, GW used to go out of their way to say rules were 'trial' or 'official' but that is long since gone. People mistake the 40k or Apoc 'stamps' in the recent FW books as a call back to the old 'official' stamp, but that's not what they are...they're just stamps that say whether the unit is used in either standard 40k or apoc.
At this point, every rule GW makes is 'official' from their standpoint (except for perhaps the 'experimental' FW rules PDFs)...but they are just unwilling or unable to grasp the concept that a fairly large continent of players would like to have certain rules flagged as being 'standard' 40k and others as clearly being 'optional', but GW doesn't want that distinction anymore. They just want players to play with the rules they like, tournaments be damned.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/01/19 18:39:36
Subject: The "Problem" with 40K today or, "Did GW Break 40K?"
|
 |
Numberless Necron Warrior
|
Makumba wrote:Zothos wrote:Indeed. However what they are promoting is silly. If more people recognized and rejected such idiocy out of hand, we would not have these issues.
Allies and escalation are blatant money grabs. I dont mind a money grab from a company, but allies are an abomination to the game.
I do hope people start seeing how bad for they are for the game as a whole soon...
Am not saying that the new codex are not stupid , they are . But making them illegal is a dangerous game . If escalation or stronghold is removed , then what will stop people from saying that this or that codex isn't legal too.
Slippery slope arguments exist in any discussion such as this. The simple answer in this case is " then dont play them".
I realize in a game store or such environment, that this is not as easy as it sounds. That said, if someone starts trying to say you cannot use whats in your actual Codex, they are usually trying to be spiteful or breaking Wheatons Law in some way, shape or form.
Keep in mind that I am only speaking for myself and my immediate group. The no allies rule we all agreed on unanimously, with no lobbying or argument. The second escalation came out we all immediately said " no friggin way".
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/01/19 18:41:44
Subject: The "Problem" with 40K today or, "Did GW Break 40K?"
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
West Midlands (UK)
|
yakface wrote:..but they are just unwilling or unable to grasp the concept that a fairly large continent of players would like to have certain rules flagged as being 'standard' 40k and others as clearly being 'optional', but GW doesn't want that distinction anymore. They just want players to play with the rules they like, tournaments be damned.
Which seems the least problematic. Tournaments have a tournament-document where they (can) outline what they want to use and don't want to use anyhow.
A hard-coded distinction into "standard" and "optional" has no impact on tournaments either way. However, such distinctions (in the past) did facilitate a sort of "tournament-mentality" in non-tournament-games, where people thought that everything labeled as "standard" is always appropriate in all circumstances, no matter what.
Anything that help fight that perception is a good thing. Perhaps one of the few remaining good things GW does.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/01/19 18:45:34
Subject: The "Problem" with 40K today or, "Did GW Break 40K?"
|
 |
Numberless Necron Warrior
|
Iron_Captain wrote:Zothos wrote:Indeed. However what they are promoting is silly. If more people recognized and rejected such idiocy out of hand, we would not have these issues.
Allies and escalation are blatant money grabs. I dont mind a money grab from a company, but allies are an abomination to the game.
I do hope people start seeing how bad for they are for the game as a whole soon...
You are wrong. The allies mechanic is not the problem, the problem is that the different codices are not properly balanced.
Lol, I assure you I am not wrong.
No game with this many game rules will ever be perfectly balanced. I do think it is something they should strive for, but its not truly attainable.
So if we are in a place where we know a single codex is not truly balanced, how can we then say letting them use a second not truly balanced rule source will not make it exponentially worse?
Which is EXACTLY what has happened. And just to rub salt in the wound, they decided that one army shouldnt even get that??
How anybody except Games workshop executives ever thought allies were a "good idea" is beyond reasoning.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/01/19 18:46:23
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/01/19 18:48:57
Subject: Re:The "Problem" with 40K today or, "Did GW Break 40K?"
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
The simple answer in this case is " then dont play them".
The only time I have seen someone say I won't play you , was when a guy who lived a long time in London tried to play his FW army in a FLGS . At all other times people just won't ask people they don't like and you won't even find people supporting two different factions in the same store , because you would have fights outside of it all the time .
'illegal' and 'legal' are concepts entirely created by competitive players and not something GW recognizes in the least. They simply make rules, and they expect players to use or not use them as they see fit.
Not here . Here if it is a codex or core rule book it is legal . No one will even think about saying no to someone taking X or Y . We opposed escalation and strongholds for time , till the actual books were here and they didn't have supplement in it , like CoD or flyer one , but codex . And now everyone is looking for the cheapest way to get D weapons and fortifications . This how it always worked here . People that never play in tournaments , play the game that way too . So it isn't linked to tournaments in any way .
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/01/19 18:49:54
Subject: The "Problem" with 40K today or, "Did GW Break 40K?"
|
 |
[ADMIN]
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Zweischneid wrote:
Which seems the least problematic. Tournaments have a tournament-document where they (can) outline what they want to use and don't want to use anyhow.
A hard-coded distinction into "standard" and "optional" has no impact on tournaments either way. However, such distinctions (in the past) did facilitate a sort of "tournament-mentality" in non-tournament-games, where people thought that everything labeled as "standard" is always appropriate in all circumstances, no matter what.
Anything that help fight that perception is a good thing. Perhaps one of the few remaining good things GW does.
I totally agree to a degree (I rhymed!). People get waaaay to hung up on what is 'official' or part of the 'core' 40k and what is supposedly not, and that's why they just won't let it go even when GW has stopped classifying their rules like that years ago and they hang onto even the slightest hint of 'opponent's permission' talk in the rules to label it as being not part of the 'true' 40K (like many people see FW).
But with that said, there is/was something very comforting knowing you could just take a 1,850 point army to a store and get a random pick-up game with a stranger and have a reasonably good time.
Now, you can totally have one player showing up with an Escalation list and another guy showing up with just a standard list and the two of them can't really play each other.
So yeah, breaking down the barriers and just accepting that 'everything' is 'legal' is a nice way to broaden players' gaming horizons, it also tends to torpedo the ease at which you used to be able to play a random stranger a fun game of 40K.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/01/19 18:52:47
Subject: The "Problem" with 40K today or, "Did GW Break 40K?"
|
 |
Fireknife Shas'el
|
Allies is a good idea though. It allows the slow build up of a secondary army and adds a bit of flavor.
However the key thing lacking in the current allies set up is moderation. To me allies should have been limited to something like the Tau Firebase dataslate (though a lot less... everything wrong with that). Basically if they had a specific detachment available and a list of what armies could purchase it.
It's not perfect, but it's a big step away from being able to cherry pick the best units and avoiding any of the downfall.
|
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 |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/01/19 18:53:07
Subject: Re:The "Problem" with 40K today or, "Did GW Break 40K?"
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
West Midlands (UK)
|
Makumba wrote:
Not here . Here if it is a codex or core rule book it is legal . No one will even think about saying no to someone taking X or Y . We opposed escalation and strongholds for time , till the actual books were here and they didn't have supplement in it , like CoD or flyer one , but codex . And now everyone is looking for the cheapest way to get D weapons and fortifications . This how it always worked here . People that never play in tournaments , play the game that way too . So it isn't linked to tournaments in any way .
Well, but that is not truly GW's fault if you cannot say "no" to something.
It's like sitting in a Hotel, complaining the buffet is too large, because you "must" take something from everything, so the Hotel should make a smaller buffet. Well, just don't. Take a healthy meal from the selections that appeal to you most.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/01/19 18:54:02
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/01/19 18:54:21
Subject: Re:The "Problem" with 40K today or, "Did GW Break 40K?"
|
 |
[ADMIN]
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Makumba wrote:
Not here . Here if it is a codex or core rule book it is legal . No one will even think about saying no to someone taking X or Y . We opposed escalation and strongholds for time , till the actual books were here and they didn't have supplement in it , like CoD or flyer one , but codex . And now everyone is looking for the cheapest way to get D weapons and fortifications . This how it always worked here . People that never play in tournaments , play the game that way too . So it isn't linked to tournaments in any way .
I said competitive players, not tournaments.
And that is my whole point. You guys have applied 'legal' and 'illegal' to certain rules while GW has no such distinction. An 'expansion' is an expansion to the rules. A 'supplement' is a supplement to the rules. Players can (and do) try to define why one term should mean it is more or less 'legal' but you won't find ANYTHING like that from GW (since their 'trial' rules back in the day)...it's all 'official' to them.
So yeah, your shop should feel free to use or not use whatever rules you want, but if you think there is some 'official' line in the sand that GW actually supports, you're fooling yourselves.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/01/19 18:54:31
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/01/19 18:56:54
Subject: The "Problem" with 40K today or, "Did GW Break 40K?"
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
West Midlands (UK)
|
yakface wrote:
But with that said, there is/was something very comforting knowing you could just take a 1,850 point army to a store and get a random pick-up game with a stranger and have a reasonably good time.
Now, you can totally have one player showing up with an Escalation list and another guy showing up with just a standard list and the two of them can't really play each other.
So yeah, breaking down the barriers and just accepting that 'everything' is 'legal' is a nice way to broaden players' gaming horizons, it also tends to torpedo the ease at which you used to be able to play a random stranger a fun game of 40K.
Probably true.
Ultimately, I don't think they had a mission to "break down barriers". They had a mission to make money, and the way allies or Escalation (in theory.) make them more money seems obvious.
Injecting a bit more ... civility ... into the non-competitive gaming-scene is possibly only a "collateral upside"? Of course, the "perfect world" would be one where you have both the easy access of a "standard game" and (!) respectful, civil players, that are always open to amends of "standard rules" if it benefits the mutual experience of both players.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/01/19 18:57:04
Subject: Re:The "Problem" with 40K today or, "Did GW Break 40K?"
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
Temple Prime
|
Zweischneid wrote:Makumba wrote:]
Not here . Here if it is a codex or core rule book it is legal . No one will even think about saying no to someone taking X or Y . We opposed escalation and strongholds for time , till the actual books were here and they didn't have supplement in it , like CoD or flyer one , but codex . And now everyone is looking for the cheapest way to get D weapons and fortifications . This how it always worked here . People that never play in tournaments , play the game that way too . So it isn't linked to tournaments in any way .
Well, but that is not truly GW's fault if you cannot say "no" to something.
It's like sitting in a Hotel, complaining the buffet is too large, because you "must" take something from everything, so the Hotel should make a smaller buffet. Well, just don't. Take a healthy meal from the selections that appeal to you most.
You are taking to someone who cares for nothing but the competitive aspect of the game and recommends people stop playing armies that he sees as noncompetitive. His priorities are a bit different, they're not wrong but they are different.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/01/19 19:00:56
Midnightdeathblade wrote:Think of a daemon incursion like a fart you don't quite trust... you could either toot a little puff of air, bellow a great effluvium, or utterly sh*t your pants and cry as it floods down your leg.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/01/19 19:01:57
Subject: Re:The "Problem" with 40K today or, "Did GW Break 40K?"
|
 |
Tzeentch Aspiring Sorcerer Riding a Disc
|
This was a self inflicted injury.
Stopping independent stores from using their images, to promote their product. Very stupid as it hampered sales.
Stopping instore gaming, and tournament support freed people from needing 100% GW models.
Playing at independent shops exposed them to other aftermarket parts, and alternative games.
Alienating the customer by raising the prices, codex creep, basing the core rules on the need to sell bigger more expensive models.
The sun not setting on the union jack, was a sign of the British empire.
That’s no longer true.
Anywhere you go you can get a game of warhammer. That was a sign of GW’s empire.
That’s no longer true as well.
|
Its hard to be awesome, when your playing with little plastic men.
Welcome to Fantasy 40k
If you think your important, in the great scheme of things. Do the water test.
Put your hands in a bucket of warm water,
then pull them out fast. The size of the hole shows how important you are.
I think we should roll some dice, to see if we should roll some dice, To decide if all this dice rolling is good for the game.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/01/19 19:03:52
Subject: Re:The "Problem" with 40K today or, "Did GW Break 40K?"
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
Temple Prime
|
loki old fart wrote:This was a self inflicted injury.
Stopping independent stores from using their images, to promote their product. Very stupid as it hampered sales.
Stopping instore gaming, and tournament support freed people from needing 100% GW models.
Playing at independent shops exposed them to other aftermarket parts, and alternative games.
Alienating the customer by raising the prices, codex creep, basing the core rules on the need to sell bigger more expensive models.
The sun not setting on the union jack, was a sign of the British empire.
That’s no longer true.
Anywhere you go you can get a game of warhammer. That was a sign of GW’s empire.
That’s no longer true as well.
This is why I'm fully in support of Hasbro taking Warhammer away from GW. They're a highly (perhaps even ruthlessly) competent gigantic corporation that knows how to deal with a fanbase while still expanding it.
|
Midnightdeathblade wrote:Think of a daemon incursion like a fart you don't quite trust... you could either toot a little puff of air, bellow a great effluvium, or utterly sh*t your pants and cry as it floods down your leg.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/01/19 19:07:37
Subject: The "Problem" with 40K today or, "Did GW Break 40K?"
|
 |
Courageous Space Marine Captain
|
Savageconvoy wrote:Allies is a good idea though. It allows the slow build up of a secondary army and adds a bit of flavor.
However the key thing lacking in the current allies set up is moderation. To me allies should have been limited to something like the Tau Firebase dataslate (though a lot less... everything wrong with that). Basically if they had a specific detachment available and a list of what armies could purchase it.
It's not perfect, but it's a big step away from being able to cherry pick the best units and avoiding any of the downfall.
No, that's not good, people should be able to use models they like, not just one specific combination on a dataslate.
This was already discussed in other thread, but most problems with allies would vanish, if allies of convenience would be the bets ally level available. Allies themselves is not the problem, it is the battle-brothers creating ungodly buff combinations that is the problem.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/01/19 19:13:55
Subject: Re:The "Problem" with 40K today or, "Did GW Break 40K?"
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
West Midlands (UK)
|
The funny thing is, the way allies (as a money-maker) would work best, is if GW had one (or more) skirmish-type games to coax people into getting a few miniatures for different armies.
One way I used allies was to add a Blood Angels HQ and 10 Assault Marines to go with my Space Hulk Blood Angels Terminators. Perfect use of cool models I already had, without needing to go for a "full" Blood Angels army.
If they had the a "draw" for people to build small "Kill Team"-sized units for different armies (though Kill Team itself is a bit ... bare), and allies-rules (even without Battle Brothers) in the main rules, it would have precisely the effect of "people getting sucked into muli-army-collections" that was presumably the goal.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/01/19 19:15:13
Subject: The "Problem" with 40K today or, "Did GW Break 40K?"
|
 |
Numberless Necron Warrior
|
Crimson wrote: Savageconvoy wrote:Allies is a good idea though. It allows the slow build up of a secondary army and adds a bit of flavor.
However the key thing lacking in the current allies set up is moderation. To me allies should have been limited to something like the Tau Firebase dataslate (though a lot less... everything wrong with that). Basically if they had a specific detachment available and a list of what armies could purchase it.
It's not perfect, but it's a big step away from being able to cherry pick the best units and avoiding any of the downfall.
No, that's not good, people should be able to use models they like, not just one specific combination on a dataslate.
This was already discussed in other thread, but most problems with allies would vanish, if allies of convenience would be the bets ally level available. Allies themselves is not the problem, it is the battle-brothers creating ungodly buff combinations that is the problem.
No. Allies ARE the problem.
They are fine in a special scenario or something of the like. But in general use they are silly beyond reason.
Armies should have strengths and weaknesses. Not strengths and strengths.
I disagree that people should be able to bring what they want. Unlimited choice is not a good thing. It is the limitations which force hard choices and hence, better gaming.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/01/19 19:16:23
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/01/19 19:16:59
Subject: Re:The "Problem" with 40K today or, "Did GW Break 40K?"
|
 |
Land Raider Pilot on Cruise Control
|
If the 40k tourney scene is such a big deal why not have GW produce a digital download / dataslate that sets the rules for a particular tournament season?
This is in this other thing is out ect ect?
|
Ruthlessness is the kindness of the wise.
>Raptors Lead the Way < |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/01/19 19:29:26
Subject: Re:The "Problem" with 40K today or, "Did GW Break 40K?"
|
 |
Hooded Inquisitorial Interrogator
|
Zakiriel wrote:If the 40k tourney scene is such a big deal why not have GW produce a digital download / dataslate that sets the rules for a particular tournament season?
This is in this other thing is out ect ect?
Because those that run tourneys would scream their heads off that who is GW to tell them how to use their game.....
They might have to allow things in that that they personally do not like... perish the thought..
|
If I was vain I would list stuff to make me sound good here. I decline. It's just a game after all.
House Rule -A common use of the term is to signify a deviation of game play from the official rules.
Do you allow Forgeworld 40k approved models and armies? |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/01/19 19:31:12
Subject: Re:The "Problem" with 40K today or, "Did GW Break 40K?"
|
 |
Land Raider Pilot on Cruise Control
|
Yes yes oh the calamity oh the gnashing of teeth!
|
Ruthlessness is the kindness of the wise.
>Raptors Lead the Way < |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/01/19 19:44:30
Subject: Re:The "Problem" with 40K today or, "Did GW Break 40K?"
|
 |
[DCM]
.
|
Zweischneid wrote:The funny thing is, the way allies (as a money-maker) would work best, is if GW had one (or more) skirmish-type games to coax people into getting a few miniatures for different armies.
One way I used allies was to add a Blood Angels HQ and 10 Assault Marines to go with my Space Hulk Blood Angels Terminators. Perfect use of cool models I already had, without needing to go for a "full" Blood Angels army.
If they had the a "draw" for people to build small "Kill Team"-sized units for different armies (though Kill Team itself is a bit ... bare), and allies-rules (even without Battle Brothers) in the main rules, it would have precisely the effect of "people getting sucked into muli-army-collections" that was presumably the goal.
Now you're finally making sense!
And all kidding aside, it would be a good and a smart thing for them to do.
Witness the excitement a while back over the total ghost that was Inquisition Skirmish 40K or whatever we thought it was going to be called...
It will be interesting to see just how everything works out for GW in the next 6 months.
As of right now, their current way of doing business doesn't seem to be working too well - but the next half year will really show this, or not!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/01/19 20:52:24
Subject: The "Problem" with 40K today or, "Did GW Break 40K?"
|
 |
The Daemon Possessing Fulgrim's Body
|
Sadly, even making the rather large assumption that GW does finally decide that 'fixing' 40K is one of the steps it needs to take in the road to redemption, I strongly suspect that it will be rushed and poorly executed, the habit of short termism won't die easily, and probably won't achieve what we would hope for it.
They've actually had some pretty good ideas recently, but the creation and presentation of those ideas has been flawed (overpriced, limited access, light on content, blatant omissions/oversights, overpowered)
To see the game make such a leap back on to the straight and narrow would be glorious, but I just don't think 'current' GW has the chops to do it.
|
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
Ask me about
Barnstaple Slayers Club |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/01/19 20:52:53
Subject: The "Problem" with 40K today or, "Did GW Break 40K?"
|
 |
Annoyed Blood Angel Devastator
|
Zothos wrote: Crimson wrote: Savageconvoy wrote:Allies is a good idea though. It allows the slow build up of a secondary army and adds a bit of flavor.
However the key thing lacking in the current allies set up is moderation. To me allies should have been limited to something like the Tau Firebase dataslate (though a lot less... everything wrong with that). Basically if they had a specific detachment available and a list of what armies could purchase it.
It's not perfect, but it's a big step away from being able to cherry pick the best units and avoiding any of the downfall.
No, that's not good, people should be able to use models they like, not just one specific combination on a dataslate.
This was already discussed in other thread, but most problems with allies would vanish, if allies of convenience would be the bets ally level available. Allies themselves is not the problem, it is the battle-brothers creating ungodly buff combinations that is the problem.
No. Allies ARE the problem.
They are fine in a special scenario or something of the like. But in general use they are silly beyond reason.
Armies should have strengths and weaknesses. Not strengths and strengths.
I disagree that people should be able to bring what they want. Unlimited choice is not a good thing. It is the limitations which force hard choices and hence, better gaming.
I think what you are overlooking is that the absolutly craptastic external balance between codexes is what necessitates allies, I'd say... about 80% of the time. The other 20% are WAAC type players wanting to double-down on strengths, and people like that will be around with or without allies.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/01/19 20:58:40
Subject: The "Problem" with 40K today or, "Did GW Break 40K?"
|
 |
Numberless Necron Warrior
|
BaalSNAFU wrote:Zothos wrote: Crimson wrote: Savageconvoy wrote:Allies is a good idea though. It allows the slow build up of a secondary army and adds a bit of flavor.
However the key thing lacking in the current allies set up is moderation. To me allies should have been limited to something like the Tau Firebase dataslate (though a lot less... everything wrong with that). Basically if they had a specific detachment available and a list of what armies could purchase it.
It's not perfect, but it's a big step away from being able to cherry pick the best units and avoiding any of the downfall.
No, that's not good, people should be able to use models they like, not just one specific combination on a dataslate.
This was already discussed in other thread, but most problems with allies would vanish, if allies of convenience would be the bets ally level available. Allies themselves is not the problem, it is the battle-brothers creating ungodly buff combinations that is the problem.
No. Allies ARE the problem.
They are fine in a special scenario or something of the like. But in general use they are silly beyond reason.
Armies should have strengths and weaknesses. Not strengths and strengths.
I disagree that people should be able to bring what they want. Unlimited choice is not a good thing. It is the limitations which force hard choices and hence, better gaming.
I think what you are overlooking is that the absolutly craptastic external balance between codexes is what necessitates allies, I'd say... about 80% of the time. The other 20% are WAAC type players wanting to double-down on strengths, and people like that will be around with or without allies.
I am not overlooking that. Nothing makes allies "necessary" except that GW wants more money. My point is that allies do nothing to alleviate the problem and in fact makes that 20%, as you say, even more douchey.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/01/19 21:00:23
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/01/19 21:24:54
Subject: The "Problem" with 40K today or, "Did GW Break 40K?"
|
 |
Tough Tyrant Guard
|
I went from 2nd edition to 6th edition, so I'm thoroughly bemused to see people talking about how allies are a blatant money grab! To me, they are a thing that makes sense and has always been there.
The moral of the story, I think, is that buffs and debuffs are really powerful and need to be carefully managed. The easy way to do that is to make most of them only apply to the same faction - so only Eldar units would benefit from Eldar buffs and debuffs. To my knowledge this is a little bit different to Allies of Convenience, who would benefit from each other's debuffs (e.g. Doom), though I don't have the 6e Eldar codex so I don't know if that's still an issue.
Of course, the downside to it is that it can make allied units a lot less appealing even when they would be thematically appropriate. I think they'd need to handle each buff/debuff on a case by case basis, and would need to keep the possible combinations of buffs/debuffs/allied units in mind.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/01/19 21:27:59
Subject: The "Problem" with 40K today or, "Did GW Break 40K?"
|
 |
Fireknife Shas'el
|
Zothos wrote:
I am not overlooking that. Nothing makes allies "necessary" except that GW wants more money. My point is that allies do nothing to alleviate the problem and in fact makes that 20%, as you say, even more douchey.
Not necessary, but fun and somewhat fluffy. Remember the Battle of Helmsdeep where Elrond sent a squad of the most hated elves to fight besides the humans instead of boarding the rainbow boats to Sunshine Town?
It's hard to label one thing as "THE" problem when the system is bad enough as it is. Adding some flavor, like allowing a single Troop and HQ into an army to provide help seems fine both rule and fluff wise. Things that are super rare or precious, not so much. I'd be fine seeing a Fireblade and firewarriors added to an army, but not a Shas'O and a brand new Riptide straight from the assembly line.
|
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 |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/01/19 21:30:51
Subject: The "Problem" with 40K today or, "Did GW Break 40K?"
|
 |
[DCM]
.
|
HiveFleetPlastic wrote:I went from 2nd edition to 6th edition, so I'm thoroughly bemused to see people talking about how allies are a blatant money grab! To me, they are a thing that makes sense and has always been there.
I got into 40K during 2nd edition too.
Allies were a problem then, and they're a problem now.
For many of the same reasons.
HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
Of course, the downside to it is that it can make allied units a lot less appealing even when they would be thematically appropriate.
GW's allies matrix is helladumb.
When you've got CSMs and Necrons in the same army, you've got problems.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/01/19 21:37:47
Subject: The "Problem" with 40K today or, "Did GW Break 40K?"
|
 |
Numberless Necron Warrior
|
Savageconvoy wrote:Zothos wrote:
I am not overlooking that. Nothing makes allies "necessary" except that GW wants more money. My point is that allies do nothing to alleviate the problem and in fact makes that 20%, as you say, even more douchey.
Not necessary, but fun and somewhat fluffy. Remember the Battle of Helmsdeep where Elrond sent a squad of the most hated elves to fight besides the humans instead of boarding the rainbow boats to Sunshine Town?
It's hard to label one thing as "THE" problem when the system is bad enough as it is. Adding some flavor, like allowing a single Troop and HQ into an army to provide help seems fine both rule and fluff wise. Things that are super rare or precious, not so much. I'd be fine seeing a Fireblade and firewarriors added to an army, but not a Shas'O and a brand new Riptide straight from the assembly line.
Remember when people actually read the Lord of the Rings and knew that elves did not show up at Helms Deep? Oh, you saw the movie!
As I have stated before, allies are fine in a special scenario. They should never have been opened up for anything else.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/01/19 21:38:13
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/01/19 21:37:57
Subject: The "Problem" with 40K today or, "Did GW Break 40K?"
|
 |
Tough Tyrant Guard
|
Alpharius wrote: HiveFleetPlastic wrote:I went from 2nd edition to 6th edition, so I'm thoroughly bemused to see people talking about how allies are a blatant money grab! To me, they are a thing that makes sense and has always been there.
I got into 40K during 2nd edition too.
Allies were a problem then, and they're a problem now.
For many of the same reasons.
Oh, sure. I have no idea how much of a problem they were because I was a little kid at the time and totally clueless! I don't mean to say anything on 2e's balance or lack thereof, just that the idea of them being a cash grab rather than a sensible part of the universe is confounding/entertaining.
Alpharius wrote: HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
Of course, the downside to it is that it can make allied units a lot less appealing even when they would be thematically appropriate.
GW's allies matrix is helladumb.
When you've got CSMs and Necrons in the same army, you've got problems.
On a similar 2e->6e ally-related note I am still confused and enraged that the Genestealer Cult doesn't exist anymore.
|
|
 |
 |
|