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.

 Selym wrote:
And of course, codex power levels have absolutely no effect on a player's ability to win.

Clearly you're not forging the narrative hard enough.

Dark Eldar and Eldar are the pinnacle of good balance. Because, as we all know, every single DE player is a tactical genius worthy of Sun Tzu, whilst every Eldar player is mentally handicapped.

So, even though it might look like Eldar is hideously OP and DE aren't fit to combat a blind kitten, it all works out fine. As above, the DE players can simply use their tactical genius to manoeuvre units flawlessly, and use their deep knowledge of probability to roll nothing but 6s. Meanwhile, the Eldar players just stand around drooling or bashing their heads against the nearest wall, their random flails nudging models around the table and knocking dice around.

The only problem comes when a person who isn't the greatest strategist on the planet accidentally picks up Dark Eldar by mistake. Or when someone who isn't mentally handicapped commits the unforgivable crime of buying an Eldar army.

Thus proving, once again, that players are the source of all the game's problems.

 Gangrel767 wrote:
I never really understood why so many GW hater linger and troll the boards just hating all over the game. If you don't like it, don't play it... and let the rest of us enjoy it!

I've never really understood why people seem to be continually surprised that threads asking for people's opinions of something result in people sharing their opinions...


So now that's out of the way, can we get back to discussing the game, rather than complaining that some people don't like something you like?

Well, you can always play 30k. All Marines all day, no filthy xenos to "unbalance" the game.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Well, you can always play 30k. All Marines all day, no filthy xenos to "unbalance" the game.

SJ

Yay! SM v SM- 3+, 4+, 3+ then HTH 4+, 4+, 3+

ZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 Grimtuff wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Well, you can always play 30k. All Marines all day, no filthy xenos to "unbalance" the game.

SJ

Yay! SM v SM- 3+, 4+, 3+ then HTH 4+, 4+, 3+

ZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Have an exalt.

It's an interesting point. My view is that I could get all the variety I needed and more from other games, better and cheaper, with less complication and spoilation of the core of 40K.

But I do appreciate that a lot of people don't want to play other games, and want all their wargaming to be contained in the one ruleset.

 Grumblewartz wrote:
Oh man, all this GW hate is getting so old. We get it - you think the game sucks, so move along people. Don't try to ruin it for other people who enjoy the game. 40k is what it has always been - an amazingly rich, interesting fluff combined with cool models. If you are having a problem with balance, it is because of your gaming community, not the game. It was never meant to be competitive, so if people are trying to max/min units, trying to break the game at every turn, then that is what is going to happen. From the very beginning, GW was interested in making cool models and writing fluff, not produce a tournament game. It is what has always happened with that type of player. It really isn't complex. Just agree what type of game you want to have, then play it. Don't like playing against Gargantuan Monstrous Creatures - cool, just speak up. Someone shows up with all Imperial Knights and you have a Nid swarm list? Then don't play against the person. Done. Blaming GW for the choices made by players is just ludicrous. If you are looking for an internally balanced tournament game, then, seriously, you need to go elsewhere. 40k has never been that way. The core rule book has always favored one style of play over another, which has always either boosted or hurt more specialized armies.

If you are looking to have fun with some friends, then the game has never been better. It has far more options, models, combinations than ever. 7th is my favorite edition since I started playing 20 years ago.

There is some truth to this or I would be unable to have fun playing 40k with my friends.
The part I will most lament / complain / whine is pickup games are extremely difficult to pull off.
Part of the point of playing these games is the social aspect.

<edit for further clarity, dyslexic writing>If it makes things difficult to play strangers, isn't the point of having fun and getting new players into the game being missed? If you need to stick to your exclusive friends to have a good game isn't it only a matter of time for the game to die?

I want more players and not to have the great dissatisfied to stop complaining and move-on... it would be a ghost town in short order.
I have WAY too many GW armies, I feel entitled to the right of "constructive criticism" of how things have turned: walking away is not an option.
Shut-up and put up with it is not an option either, so I play with friends 40k and play other games like X-wing and watch the player base shift away.

As long as they're having fun in their insulated groups they don't care about how the game is for others. I rely on pickup games and I found 40k an exercise in frustration to get a balanced pick up game.

And yes, in a thread asking about opinions im free to give mine.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Well, you can always play 30k. All Marines all day, no filthy xenos to "unbalance" the game.

SJ

Marines vs. Marines. A much more balanced game. This is what we are doing atm.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
All I can say is that most likely your problems with the game are due to your lack of thought in playing it.

SJ

Yep, yep.

I'm a fething moron. Should have realised sooner.

Can't be an informed opinion from a quarter century of wargaming and experience playing other games.

Nope.

 Azreal13 wrote:
Yep, yep.
I'm a fething moron. Should have realised sooner.
Can't be an informed opinion from a quarter century of wargaming and experience playing other games.
Nope.

I dunno, all those years filing and sanding all those lead miniatures have had an impact on the IQ.
Pretty lucky anyone over 35 as a gamer does not drool or wet themselves... but there are adult diapers for that.

The argument I find is that we CAN adapt to these new rule sets, just like in the early years of computers the USER had to adapt to the interface not the other way around.
We are in the age where you question why do "I" have to adapt to "your" laziness?
Make a better user interface! Or get left in the dust, I think this aptly applies to games as well.

I can adapt to the most painful rule sets and complicated interfaces (it could be looked at as an amusing challenge) but there is a point where you reach diminishing returns or payback for those efforts, I think many players have reached that point with 40k.

And that's before you take price into consideration.

 Grumblewartz wrote:
Oh man, all this GW hate is getting so old. We get it - you think the game sucks, so move along people. Don't try to ruin it for other people who enjoy the game.

To be fair, You don't need to actually like, or even play the game to have a valid opinion on 40k though. For some, 40k is the game. For others, it's painting and modelling and gaming is an aspect that happens once in a blue moon- so thry might as well not be classed as gamers. For others, it's the lore that they're into. Basically, you don't need to like, or even play the game (because there are a lot of other ways other than playing the ttg to enjoy 40k), and their opinion is still arguably just as valid (just different) to someone who does.

 Grumblewartz wrote:

40k is what it has always been - an amazingly rich, interesting fluff combined with cool models. If you are having a problem with balance, it is because of your gaming community, not the game.It was never meant to be competitive, so if people are trying to max/min units, trying to break the game at every turn, then that is what is going to happen.

It's fifty/fifty if you ask me. I believe Players are responsible for their own enjoyment and should be more proactive in making things work, whether that means modifying the game/rules, playing different games, and playing different people. But this only goes to a certain point. Because as much as it's nice to just blame tfg players for ruining everyone else's fun, gw are equally to blame. Simply put, If the rules weren't so unbalanced, vague, wooly and loosely written in the first place, would those people you speak of be able to abuse/break or min max the game to the extent that they currently do? Right there is a whole host of problems simply nipped in the bud.

 Grumblewartz wrote:
From the very beginning, GW was interested in making cool models and writing fluff, not produce a tournament game.

And yet, they ran tournaments, and if I remember, fifth was touted as being a more tournament friendly direction.

 Grumblewartz wrote:
It is what has always happened with that type of player. It really isn't complex. Just agree what type of game you want to have, then play it. Don't like playing against Gargantuan Monstrous Creatures - cool, just speak up. Someone shows up with all Imperial Knights and you have a Nid swarm list? Then don't play against the person. Done.

True. But To an extent. This approach can work, but it's far from cast iron. It's all fine with a small group if like minded players, but this approach is very unfriendly to pick up games with potential strangers (or at least, not-friends). And it's not like there is a never ending stream of potential players thst we can sift through and pick at our leisure - often it's getting games against whoever is available. If my choice is play the gargantuan monstrous creature guy, or go else home without a game, I wonder what was the point in coming all the way in in the first place. What goes through my mind is 'fair enough, I'm not gonna bother with a game I'm not going to enjoy', but really, I'm also thinking 'it's a missed opportunity to make this game so potentially user unfriendly and hazardous.' Sometimes, I just want a game, not a negotiation for what's acceptable. And what happens if he plays some breed of tau or eldar and I have blood Angels? 'But don't play against him' is a valid approach some of the time, but it's also akin to sticking your head in the sand not necessarily a solution and it doesn't invalidate criticisms or genuine issues.

This approach also implies the other guy is a gent and is equally willing or able to swap/change to enable you. That you can magically find this 'common ground'. Sometimes it's simply not that simple. Well, for example, what happens when he wants to play gargantuan monstrous creatures or all imperial Knights? He's not necessarily wrong for wanting that either. You are you to say he isn't entitled to it? Because right now, he's going home without a game just like you, and he's not even the villain in the story. He's not some tfg with a broken army. He's probably just a guy with toys that he likes. Which goes back to the point about gw making a game that is more user friendly and doesn't require tedious social contract to fix holes that shouldn't have been there in the first place, which is a formula that very quickly leads to social exclusion and bullying as weapons to define the 'right' way of playing. Which goes back to the point that no, it's not always 'the players fault'. They're not necessarily the bad guys here.

 Grumblewartz wrote:

Blaming GW for the choices made by players is just ludicrous.

Not really. Gw were the ones who wrote the rules that are so open to abuse in the first place. And often, 'abuse' isn't necessarily malicious, but what you end up with is players who picked blood Angels, or whatever the current crap codex is suffering arbitrarily against those that picked tau. Is it tau players fault or blood Angels players 'fault' that gw wrote such appallingly balanced codices? Please, let's not be so dishonest and skewed in our narratives and in our arguments here. Gw shoulders a huge amount of the blame too. You can't just whitewash it I'm afraid.

 Grumblewartz wrote:
If you are looking for an internally balanced tournament game, then, seriously, you need to go elsewhere. 40k has never been that way. The core rule book has always favored one style of play over another, which has always either boosted or hurt more specialized armies.

Agreed. 40k can be a lot of fun, but it really has to be approached with the right attitude and like minded people and it does have to potential to require a huge input of effort to get value out of it. Whether it is worth it or not though is up to each individual.

 Grumblewartz wrote:

If you are looking to have fun with some friends, then the game has never been better. It has far more options, models, combinations than ever. 7th is my favorite edition since I started playing 20 years ago.

Define 'fun with some friends'? I have fun with my friends with games like infinity and warmachine. And home brewed flames of war and historicals. I've not had 'fun with some friends' with 40k in years, so I think the point that the game has 'never been better' is questionable at best. Take for example your above monstrous creature or imperial knight army player that you refuse to play because of reasons. There's two people 'not having fun with friends'. You might indeed have fun with it, and you might be having an absolute blast with it. And for what it's worth - more power to you. But not everyone is. People like different things. Please don't be so arrogant (probably not your intention I'm guessing- Internet and tone and all that) to dismiss other people's probably very real and very legitimate grievances and issues so readily. You do them s disservice. Because they very much may not be having 'fun with some friends' with 40k...

 vipoid wrote:

 Selym wrote:
And of course, codex power levels have absolutely no effect on a player's ability to win.

Clearly you're not forging the narrative hard enough.

Dark Eldar and Eldar are the pinnacle of good balance. Because, as we all know, every single DE player is a tactical genius worthy of Sun Tzu, whilst every Eldar player is mentally handicapped.

So, even though it might look like Eldar is hideously OP and DE aren't fit to combat a blind kitten, it all works out fine. As above, the DE players can simply use their tactical genius to manoeuvre units flawlessly, and use their deep knowledge of probability to roll nothing but 6s. Meanwhile, the Eldar players just stand around drooling or bashing their heads against the nearest wall, their random flails nudging models around the table and knocking dice around.

The only problem comes when a person who isn't the greatest strategist on the planet accidentally picks up Dark Eldar by mistake. Or when someone who isn't mentally handicapped commits the unforgivable crime of buying an Eldar army.

Thus proving, once again, that players are the source of all the game's problems.

Exalted so hard.

Nice to see that the crappy aspects of 7th ed (specifically formations) have only gotten worse in my absence.

My group of friends and I have come up with a way to play the game using g bolt action style turns and it has been excellent.

5 player free for all's are actually an option and work very well.

The only difficulty we have right now is how to make it fit with the whole Tau focused fire thingy.

 Selym wrote:
And of course, codex power levels have absolutely no effect on a player's ability to win.

They don't have much of an effect. CSM and IG are constantly being complained about as the worst codexes, and I've seen them beating Eldar. The difference is not that much.

Typically-Wardian wrote:

 Selym wrote:
And of course, codex power levels have absolutely no effect on a player's ability to win.

They don't have much of an effect. CSM and IG are constantly being complained about as the worst codexes, and I've seen them beating Eldar. The difference is not that much.

I play csm and have had many people tell me I run a very tough and unconventional list for them, but eldar and Necrons are very much an uphill battle.

I can win against them but only if the dice gods are very much on my side.

If you're relying on "dice gods" to win, you're doing it wrong.

Typically-Wardian wrote:
If you're relying on "dice gods" to win, you're doing it wrong.

Then please tell us how the blob is expected to survive against any of the, again, commonly seen, units detailed above.

Typically-Wardian wrote:

 Selym wrote:
And of course, codex power levels have absolutely no effect on a player's ability to win.

They don't have much of an effect. CSM and IG are constantly being complained about as the worst codexes, and I've seen them beating Eldar. The difference is not that much.

I may win the lottery, but the odds aren't in my favour.

The gulf between the top tier codexes and the poor/old ones is huge. Because of the rock/paper/scissors nature of the game, plus the large amount of random in the current incarnation, you'll get the odd clash of lists or plain lucky win, that doesn't make your statement closer to true.

You're effectively saying an armour heavy list (for example) isn't strong because you've seen it lose against a highly mobile, melta heavy list, when that armour heavy list steamrolls nearly every other list archetype available. One specific instance does not disprove a general trend.

CSM has IA13, which helps paper over the cracks, assuming you're in a position to buy the models and an environment where playing them is accepted, but that doesn't mean that taken in its entirety, the whole faction doesn't have real, tangible issues in the context of the wider game.

Typically-Wardian wrote:

 Selym wrote:
And of course, codex power levels have absolutely no effect on a player's ability to win.

They don't have much of an effect. CSM and IG are constantly being complained about as the worst codexes, and I've seen them beating Eldar. The difference is not that much.

Oh, our mistake, CSM and IG must be good Codices then if they managed to win a game!

Don't, just stop. He is a troll:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/669705.page

The talk about Maelstrom:
Aren't the tactical objectives bringing more dynamic to the game which then gives the impression that it's a tactical game because you have to switch between so many objectives?

Other play modes makes you design a rough strategy from start which you more or less have to follow but which could use the dynamics of Maelstrom to add more "life" to the game?

Chaospling wrote:
The talk about Maelstrom:
Aren't the tactical objectives bringing more dynamic to the game which then gives the impression that it's a tactical game because you have to switch between so many objectives?

Other play modes makes you design a rough strategy from start which you more or less have to follow but which could use the dynamics of Maelstrom to add more "life" to the game?

No because the objectives are completely random.

If the overall missions were well designed then you could devise a general strategy and utilise tactics to accomplish your goal. For example lets say your mission for the battle was to hold objectives 2 and 6 but you don't know your opponents mission (like the mission cards in the board game Risk). You are currently holding 2, 3 and 5 and your opponent is holding 1, 4 and 6. You are now faced with some choices. Do you:
1) Pull your units off of 3 and 5 in order to reinforce 2 and assault 6 with overwhelming force.
2) Pull some of your units off 5 to make a feint towards 4, hoping to lure some of the enemy off 6 and so be able to take it with less resistance with some units off 3.
3) Sit tight on your 3 objectives and hope that the opponent needs one of them to complete their own mission, in which case they attack and then you can counter-attack at a point where they are now weaker.

Each of those choices is a viable tactic but also has elements of risk. With the first choice you sacrifice control of objectives 3 and 5, which your opponent might need for their own mission. With number 2 the opponent might take the bait but with a unit off of 4, rather than 6. Their mission might require control of objective 5 in which case you have made it easier for them. With the third choice your opponent might already have the objectives they need for their mission, in which case they are less likely to be lured out.

This would allow you to formulate a strategy and then utilise tactics in order to carry it out, rather than the current system, even with maelstrom, where the main strategy is still basically "kill the other guy" and the "tactical objectives" can be stuff like "use a psychic power" when your army has no access to psychic powers.

What might have been interesting is if maelstrom had random missions, but you only got 3 of them at the beginning of the game (no new ones are drawn) and had the entire game to complete them. Neither player sees his opponent's cards until the end of the game.

Of course, this would also require that the missions have a certain level of difficulty (so 'cast a psychic power' and such are out), are possible (so, no killing a flier your opponent doesn't have), and all of similar difficulty and reward.

Hell, it might work to just give each player 3 cards with different numbers on them - which represent the objectives they have to hold at the end of the game. Neither player sees his opponent's cards, so they don't know what objectives the other needs to win.

Anything like that would, I think, be a lot better.

I think that style is how one of the other skirmish style games work. Off the top of my head I think it's infinity. I remember it working really well, though it did end up giving experienced players a bigger advantage since they were more aware of the different missions and strategies that players would employ to pursue them.

Which is fine. I think experienced players should have a significant advantage in these types of games honestly.

 vipoid wrote:
What might have been interesting is if maelstrom had random missions, but you only got 3 of them at the beginning of the game (no new ones are drawn) and had the entire game to complete them. Neither player sees his opponent's cards until the end of the game.

Sounds a little like Malifaux's stategies and schemes. Revealing the latter at the start of the game is purely optional, though some contain VP bonuses if you do (mainly as certain ones are far easier to complete if kept in secret.).

What about the added dynamics which come from objectives changing through the battle to another which you can't foresee 100 %? Is that a big loss or wouldn't they be missed?

Chaospling wrote:
What about the added dynamics which come from objectives changing through the battle to another which you can't foresee 100 %? Is that a big loss or wouldn't they be missed?

Well, I certainly wouldn't miss it. To me, it doesn't come across as dynamic so much as schizophrenic.