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.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Im hoping they split the game into different scales with 8E, instead of trying to cram 3 or 4 differet scsles into one game. Alas, it will probably just take what 7E did even further or go a very AoS route.

I think while this would be the best route, it would also take the most work/effort/playtesting and run the most risk of pissing off the people who buy all the big stuff and splurge on ForgeWorld, so it's also the least likely approach that they'll do. I would like to see more specific guidelines/organization for smaller and larger scale battles though, but again it's super doubtful that we'll get something like "Apocalypse" style battles using a more abstract (but same core) set of rules to the regular game.

At the very least I'm hoping for something similar to AOS in the sense of free, streamlined rules and unit information (Dataslates?), with keywords in place so you can at least impose some limits on the big ridiculous things (e.g. nothing with the "SUPER-HEAVY" keyword allowed in this event) and like the whole "three styles of play" from AOS. However to be honest I question if they can do that this edition; they've put out so many codexes, supplements, campaign books with datasheets and other updates that they would invalidate a huge swathe of that stuff. Let's take Genestealer Cults as an example; if 8th came out and was very different from 7th, that book is all of a sudden worthless. While GW is known for doing this before, I think they'd be more cautious about just telling everyone all these expensive books you've bought are now invalid; even if the new rules were freely available online and/or via an app, I think there'd be riots.

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Im hoping they split the game into different scales with 8E, instead of trying to cram 3 or 4 differet scsles into one game. Alas, it will probably just take what 7E did even further or go a very AoS route.

GW doesn't have the design talent to do much any more. Also saddled with massive legacy issues.

Which is why they need to do a full reboot a la 3rd ed.

Rakar wrote:Reading theough all these is a bit depressing for someone who just got back into 40K. Does 30K function much better? Are there any other tabletop games that are truly well done and balanced??

Tomorrow's War/Force on Force, Chain of Command, Bolt Action, Beyond the Gates of Antares, A Song of Blades and Heroes, Frostgrave, I Ain't Been Shot Mum, SAGA... the list goes on (and on).

Ruin wrote:

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Im hoping they split the game into different scales with 8E, instead of trying to cram 3 or 4 differet scsles into one game. Alas, it will probably just take what 7E did even further or go a very AoS route.

GW doesn't have the design talent to do much any more. Also saddled with massive legacy issues.

Which is why they need to do a full reboot a la 3rd ed.

I agree. A complete rewrite from the ground up. But it won't happen.

Ideally we'd have:

Kill Team/40K in 40 Minutes - 200-750pt armies with their own set of force selection restrictions.

Standard 40K - 750-3,000 point armies using some form of Force Org Chart and the return of 0-X unit restrictions.

Apocalypse - Formations, superheavies, etc, all that crazy madness.

That way you can have your cake and eat it... and if they do it right they get to sell three seperate sets of rules!

Tomorrow's War/Force on Force, Chain of Command, Bolt Action, Beyond the Gates of Antares, A Song of Blades and Heroes, Frostgrave, I Ain't Been Shot Mum, SAGA... the list goes on (and on).

I think I'll find it too difficult to quit 40k outright, but it's great to have options and people here have given me a ton--thanks to you all.

On the topic of revamping rules, I really like the suggested idea of splitting games into 3 or so size categories. I don't want things Sigmared to the point where there are 4 pages of rules with 12 dudes brawling, on the flip side, I don't want to face an army of super-heavies (unless my army is the same. Different scales of battle would be the best of all 3 world (skirmish, battle, apoc). On a side note, I'm positive this has been brought up (but I don't have time right now to re-read everything) formations should cost points. Some the bonuses are way outta wack for free.

Expensive.

The problem with splitting the game is that you go back to the old 5th edition way of doing things where there are lots of models that are a waste of money because you'll never get to use them. Spent $100 on a Baneblade? Too bad, maybe if you're lucky you'll get to use it once a year for an Apocalypse game (and because Apocalypse is not fun probably not even that often). If GW is going to sell something then it really needs to be allowed in the standard 1-2000 point games that most people play. At most there should be a 30k-style percentage cap on LoW costs so that people don't bring a titan to a 750 point game, but there should not be any single models (short of extreme outliers like the Warlord or Manta) that can't be taken in a normal game.

It needn't necessarily be so if the different scales are all treated as their own games rather than as optional once-in-a-while expansions. Re-write 40k to center the rules around entire units rather than having all the rules be model centric and it makes it much easier to integrate weeny infantry and superheavies into a single ruleset and still play with the big units, while more traditional sized games can retain their model centric detail without the scale running away on them.

 Vaktathi wrote:
It needn't necessarily be so if the different scales are all treated as their own games rather than as optional once-in-a-while expansions. Re-write 40k to center the rules around entire units rather than having all the rules be model centric and it makes it much easier to integrate weeny infantry and superheavies into a single ruleset and still play with the big units, while more traditional sized games can retain their model centric detail without the scale running away on them.

Making the games separate just makes the problem worse. At least with Apocalypse it was the same rules as normal 40k so the only barrier to entry was getting people to commit a whole day to playing a massive game. If playing with the big stuff (or the very small stuff) means learning a whole new game then it's even less likely that anyone is going to want to do it. The only way a rules split would work is if each of the different games develops its own independent community, and I don't think the current 40k community is big enough to support this. Splitting it in half (or into thirds, with a small-scale game) would likely result in three people standing around hoping for an opponent, shortly followed by nobody bothering to show up on 40k night anymore.

Really if they clean up a lot of there game design they shouldn't need to separate the game that massively.

They just need to think about how different army will play the game.
Something simple like, at 750 points you cannot have more than 25% of the army in a single unit. and 20% up to 1850 and 15% higher. And even that should not be needed if they clean up the rules.
Its really about if an army can realistically deal with what others can put on the field.
Cleaning up the rules and getting a reliable balance into the game, This includes Rules. Function of army and what they can bring, as well as cleaning up some of the fluff so we are.

Every army can be unique, but they should also be following a function of play that evens out each naturally.

Things like flyers should be in each army naturally, as well as there counters and should be within a reasonable reach. As with anything it takes a bit of work, but it should make the game better as a whole if they give it the time.
The goal should be that as the points rise the players have more choices in army, and should find they need to counter more things.
Right now i think only 40k fails at this :(
(at least from the games i play. )
And i think a lot of it has come from a failure at design, and the rules falling apart from under it.

Sorry if the English is not so good :(

GW needs to focus on game balance

GW will never do this. They might try. But history tells that they will fail.

We need to live with it.

Or use better rules!

 Peregrine wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
It needn't necessarily be so if the different scales are all treated as their own games rather than as optional once-in-a-while expansions. Re-write 40k to center the rules around entire units rather than having all the rules be model centric and it makes it much easier to integrate weeny infantry and superheavies into a single ruleset and still play with the big units, while more traditional sized games can retain their model centric detail without the scale running away on them.

Making the games separate just makes the problem worse. At least with Apocalypse it was the same rules as normal 40k so the only barrier to entry was getting people to commit a whole day to playing a massive game. If playing with the big stuff (or the very small stuff) means learning a whole new game then it's even less likely that anyone is going to want to do it. The only way a rules split would work is if each of the different games develops its own independent community, and I don't think the current 40k community is big enough to support this. Splitting it in half (or into thirds, with a small-scale game) would likely result in three people standing around hoping for an opponent, shortly followed by nobody bothering to show up on 40k night anymore.

Oh yes, that horrible age of 5th where I could accurately communicate what kind of game I was interested in playing "did you wanna play apocalypse this weekend?" "No, I'd rather play 40k".... the horror .... the horror...

I have currently lost interest in all the new releases. The bloat is apocalyptic as it stands now.

I can only hope for a full reboot that makes all the crap they did recently get invalidated

They need to hire a mathematician that would balance everything based on probabilities. Make an engine for the developpers to build all the rules set in a concise and balanced pattern.

They need to get back to a simple and consistent rule set, with single codex armies. Thats it, nothing more. To hell with allies and formations and free special rules and what not.

So, the current state you ask? Total mess!

Well, we will not see any balancing of armies anytime soon.

I think this problem is NP hard. That means it is possible to verify if a system is balanced in polynomial time, but the design of a balanced system is not computable in polynomial time. Here we would need a (mathematical) notion of balance and such a notion doesnt exist.
NP hardness in practice would mean that 40k can hardly balanced since the 40k system (rules+units) is too large.

Have a look at one of the Millennium problems.

So employing a mathematician wouldnt work.

 Crablezworth wrote:
Oh yes, that horrible age of 5th where I could accurately communicate what kind of game I was interested in playing "did you wanna play apocalypse this weekend?" "No, I'd rather play 40k".... the horror .... the horror...

Yes, 5th was simple to communicate, but the end result that there was exactly one game: 1-2000 point "normal" games. Want to play Apocalypse with your Baneblade? Forget it, maybe once a year if you're lucky. It only "worked" because the models that didn't fit into normal games weren't very common. It sucked if you were one of the dedicated collectors who bought a FW flyer and wanted to use it for anything but a display piece, but there weren't many of us. Now that GW has made those former-Apocalypse models common there's no going back. There are just too many people who want to use their toys, and Apocalypse (as in actual Apocalypse, not "witty" labels for normal 1-2000 point games in 7th) is still an exercise in masochism that nobody wants to do. Flyers/LoW/etc aren't going anywhere.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 paqman wrote:
They need to hire a mathematician that would balance everything based on probabilities. Make an engine for the developpers to build all the rules set in a concise and balanced pattern.

No. This is a superficially appealing idea but in reality it sucks. Balance in a game like 40k is not done by calculating the perfect system, it's done by making rough guesses at rules (including point costs) and then refining them through iterative playtesting. By the time you come up with a theoretical model of your game that can account for all of the necessary factors you've spent vastly more time than it would take to get the same level of balance through the traditional approach. And if you try to get the model design time down to something even approaching reasonable levels you end up removing way too much detail and get answers that aren't any better than having an experienced player look at a new unit concept and say "X points looks about right". The only reason the mathematical system is appealing is the unreasonably high standard of "perfect balance", with indisputable math proofs to support the claim that the game is balanced. But in reality you don't need that. A game that is balanced 95% of the way to perfection is going to give essentially the same player experience as the mathematically perfect one, and that lower level of balance is achievable with the traditional approach.

The reason we don't have balance is that GW's attitude about playtesting is "we don't pay you to play with your toys, do that on your free time", while successful game companies like WOTC use paid playtesters and treat it as a full-time job. GW needs to hire playtesters and experienced game designers, not a mathematician.

I'm at nearly a complete loss what to do that would improve the current situation. At the moment 40K is like a 6mm scale game being played in with 28mm miniatures and skirmish rules. It's like trying to play Battletech in 28mm with a infantry squad based rule-set.

All I can think of is a hard reboot that redesigns the game from scratch adding more granularity to the system.

Other suggestions like removing all of the 6mm scale units from the game would lead to a massive player revolt in my opinion. That genie is out of the bottle.

I think GW have backed themselves into a nasty corner with modern 40K. A hard reboot would invalidate a huge and expensive collection of printed material. Scaling the game back is even worse - it invalidates potentially thousands of Euro worth of players miniatures and models.

One thing is for sure though. Something fairly extreme needs to happen with a new 8th edition to make a standard game playable in reasonable time, make it balanced and make every unit choice fairy worthwhile. A rehashed 7th where even more gak is added to a creaking, out-dated and awkward twenty year old skirmish system simply will not cut the mustard with many fans at this stage.

niall78 wrote:
I'm at nearly a complete loss what to do that would improve the current situation. At the moment 40K is like a 6mm scale game being played in with 28mm miniatures and skirmish rules. It's like trying to play Battletech in 28mm with a infantry squad based rule-set.

All I can think of is a hard reboot that redesigns the game from scratch adding more granularity to the system.

Other suggestions like removing all of the 6mm scale units from the game would lead to a massive player revolt in my opinion. That genie is out of the bottle.

I think GW have backed themselves into a nasty corner with modern 40K. A hard reboot would invalidate a huge and expensive collection of printed material. Scaling the game back is even worse - it invalidates potentially thousands of Euro worth of players miniatures and models.

One thing is for sure though. Something fairly extreme needs to happen with a new 8th edition to make a standard game playable in reasonable time, make it balanced and make every unit choice fairy worthwhile. A rehashed 7th where even more gak is added to a creaking, out-dated and awkward twenty year old skirmish system simply will not cut the mustard with many fans at this stage.

A few sweeping changes that could be made would be
1. Limiting the number of ICs joining a unit outside of a special formation (that usally takes away IC status).
2. Sweeping change to how psychic powers work and what each power does. Certain blessings are way too strong *cough* Invisibility *cough* Vale of Time/Fortune *cough* *cough*. Also there is the issue of an army with 1 psyche being basically useless when the other player is playing Eldar, Daemons, or Grey Knights and have 4x the number of dice to deny with.
3. Rerollable saves need a cap on the reroll value so you don't get the mathematical nightmare that is 2+ rerollable saves. Also its probably a good idea to limit FNP to being at best a 4+ save at best.
4. Rework the vehicle damage table so combat vehicles aren't useless when shot at. Currently vehicles that work are Super Heavies or Transports who don't care if they are snap shooting because their only purpose is to go fast between point A and point B. Vehicle armor saves could be a huge help but it would require substantial testing to get it figured out.
5. Add in and rework some of the way armor saves work so there is more modifiers and less "all or nothing" saves. Maybe have certain weapons (power swords or maces) or Smash reduce armor saves instead of just being a flat AP values or sets a cap on how strong a save can be made (say 4+ armor being the best armor save possible against this weapon). Would probably need a more codex to codex rework of weapons to add in the fantasy style armor reduction (rending is what I think its called in WHF).
6. Charge Ignore Cover to reduce the value of the save or set a hard limit to what value save can be taken (lets say 5+ cover save being the max). Certain weapons will still prevent cover saves from being taken such as flame template weapons.

Some sweeping changes can go a long way to helping tone down some of the gak despite the fast and lose codex writing that GW has done in the past. Beyond that its going to require some codex level fixing but laying the foundation for a better game.

Part of the overall problem is that the big superheavy stuff doesn't belong in 40k (that's why there was Epic), but now that it's been let into the normal game, you can't just remove it or people will riot that their big expensive FW stuff can't be used now. They are kind of screwed no matter what, because for the good of the game the epic-level stuff needs to IMHO be removed but will cause no end of teeth gnashing from folks who spent money and want to use it, but NOT doing that is going to bleed the game out as things get more and more bloated and unbalanced. They waited too long to fix the core issues and their desire to push sales above everything else has basically made it so either way will kill them. They essentially have the choice between surgery that has a solid chance to kill them but would cure them if successful, or slowly dying from the disease at some point in the future.

However, GW also keeps adding more and more bloat, so who knows how they will fix it, if they even will. I mean, 8th can't exactly be a 3rd edition style reboot when they've just come out with Deathwatch and Genestealers and who knows what else on the horizon. As long as they keep adding more crap to the pile, it will be impossible to actually fix the game and solve the problems that make it a big mess.

I think different point ranges could work if the threshold at which access to superheavies/massive things was a bit lower than previously - starting at 1500 and representing 25-30% of the force. Games below that can have greater restrictions that keep the rock-paper-scissors elements out.

 Accolade wrote:
I think different point ranges could work if the threshold at which access to superheavies/massive things was a bit lower than previously - starting at 1500 and representing 25-30% of the force. Games below that can have greater restrictions that keep the rock-paper-scissors elements out.

I highly doubt it is ever worthwhile having super heavies or massive units in a 28mm game. Maybe as a narrative centrepiece or an objective.

To take 6mm Battletech a 100 ton assault mech or tank in points costs more than 30 infantry platoons of 30 men each. That means in points cost those Battlemechs or tanks cost more than an infantry battalion with all it's associated troop transports and heavy weapons. One single mech or super heavy tank is valued higher than 800-900 infantry plus supporting assets. Titans and super heavies in 40K are much more powerful and better protected than even the heaviest Battletech mech or tank. How can they ever be represented in a 28mm skirmish system? The scale is off the wall. Even with proper points costings introducing such units to 28mm game is head on pants silly.

Titans and super heavies should have their own game with detailed damage charts and complex crew actions to bring out the flavour and power of such units. Shoe-horning them into modern 40K does them a great disservice and makes balance impossible. Of course like I said in a post above the genie is out of the bottle already so such a solution seems impossible at this stage without massive blow back from players that have spent hundreds if not thousands of Euro on such units.

niall78 wrote:

 Accolade wrote:
I think different point ranges could work if the threshold at which access to superheavies/massive things was a bit lower than previously - starting at 1500 and representing 25-30% of the force. Games below that can have greater restrictions that keep the rock-paper-scissors elements out.

I highly doubt it is ever worthwhile having super heavies or massive units in a 28mm game. Maybe as a narrative centrepiece or an objective.

To take 6mm Battletech a 100 ton assault mech or tank in points costs more than 30 infantry platoons of 30 men each. That means in points cost those Battlemechs or tanks cost more than an infantry battalion with all it's associated troop transports and heavy weapons. One single mech or super heavy tank is valued higher than 800-900 infantry plus supporting assets. Titans and super heavies in 40K are much more powerful and better protected than even the heaviest Battletech mech or tank. How can they ever be represented in a 28mm skirmish system? The scale is off the wall. Even with proper points costings introducing such units to 28mm game is head on pants silly.

Titans and super heavies should have their own game with detailed damage charts and complex crew actions to bring out the flavour and power of such units. Shoe-horning them into modern 40K does them a great disservice and makes balance impossible. Of course like I said in a post above the genie is out of the bottle already so such a solution seems impossible at this stage without massive blow back from players that have spent hundreds if not thousands of Euro on such units.

Exactly, and do you know what? There used to be a 6mm version of 40K specifically for those stupidly big super heavy units. It was called Epic. But GW in its infinite wisdom decided that Epic scale units belonged in regular 40K, as did Epic scale battles. And so did 40K end up in the mess it is in today.
I like battletech for reasons.

 master of ordinance wrote:

niall78 wrote:

 Accolade wrote:
I think different point ranges could work if the threshold at which access to superheavies/massive things was a bit lower than previously - starting at 1500 and representing 25-30% of the force. Games below that can have greater restrictions that keep the rock-paper-scissors elements out.

I highly doubt it is ever worthwhile having super heavies or massive units in a 28mm game. Maybe as a narrative centrepiece or an objective.

To take 6mm Battletech a 100 ton assault mech or tank in points costs more than 30 infantry platoons of 30 men each. That means in points cost those Battlemechs or tanks cost more than an infantry battalion with all it's associated troop transports and heavy weapons. One single mech or super heavy tank is valued higher than 800-900 infantry plus supporting assets. Titans and super heavies in 40K are much more powerful and better protected than even the heaviest Battletech mech or tank. How can they ever be represented in a 28mm skirmish system? The scale is off the wall. Even with proper points costings introducing such units to 28mm game is head on pants silly.

Titans and super heavies should have their own game with detailed damage charts and complex crew actions to bring out the flavour and power of such units. Shoe-horning them into modern 40K does them a great disservice and makes balance impossible. Of course like I said in a post above the genie is out of the bottle already so such a solution seems impossible at this stage without massive blow back from players that have spent hundreds if not thousands of Euro on such units.

Exactly, and do you know what? There used to be a 6mm version of 40K specifically for those stupidly big super heavy units. It was called Epic. But GW in its infinite wisdom decided that Epic scale units belonged in regular 40K, as did Epic scale battles. And so did 40K end up in the mess it is in today.
I like battletech for reasons.

I know I played Adeptus Titanicus - GW's answer at the time to the highly popular Battletech which I also played and still play - and Space Marine. I was then heavily invested in 2nd edition Epic with a group of cousins and friends - what a good game! Never had much time for 3rd edition. I think it is tragic that GW cancelled its great 6mm games and then tried to shoehorn their mega units into a 28mm skirmish game leading to the situation we now find ourselves in.

niall78 wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:

niall78 wrote:

 Accolade wrote:
I think different point ranges could work if the threshold at which access to superheavies/massive things was a bit lower than previously - starting at 1500 and representing 25-30% of the force. Games below that can have greater restrictions that keep the rock-paper-scissors elements out.

I highly doubt it is ever worthwhile having super heavies or massive units in a 28mm game. Maybe as a narrative centrepiece or an objective.

To take 6mm Battletech a 100 ton assault mech or tank in points costs more than 30 infantry platoons of 30 men each. That means in points cost those Battlemechs or tanks cost more than an infantry battalion with all it's associated troop transports and heavy weapons. One single mech or super heavy tank is valued higher than 800-900 infantry plus supporting assets. Titans and super heavies in 40K are much more powerful and better protected than even the heaviest Battletech mech or tank. How can they ever be represented in a 28mm skirmish system? The scale is off the wall. Even with proper points costings introducing such units to 28mm game is head on pants silly.

Titans and super heavies should have their own game with detailed damage charts and complex crew actions to bring out the flavour and power of such units. Shoe-horning them into modern 40K does them a great disservice and makes balance impossible. Of course like I said in a post above the genie is out of the bottle already so such a solution seems impossible at this stage without massive blow back from players that have spent hundreds if not thousands of Euro on such units.

Exactly, and do you know what? There used to be a 6mm version of 40K specifically for those stupidly big super heavy units. It was called Epic. But GW in its infinite wisdom decided that Epic scale units belonged in regular 40K, as did Epic scale battles. And so did 40K end up in the mess it is in today.
I like battletech for reasons.

I know I played Adeptus Titanicus - GW's answer at the time to the highly popular Battletech which I also played and still play - and Space Marine. I was then heavily invested in 2nd edition Epic with a group of cousins and friends - what a good game! Never had much time for 3rd edition. I think it is tragic that GW cancelled its great 6mm games and then tried to shoehorn their mega units into a 28mm skirmish game leading to the situation we now find ourselves in.

What's worse is that nowadays they can't just get rid of that stuff, or you'll have people whining "But muh expensive Forgeworld gak! I can't use it anymore now!" because you know, the health of the game is less important than someone with more money than sense buying super expensive toys.

Wayniac wrote:
What's worse is that nowadays they can't just get rid of that stuff, or you'll have people whining "But muh expensive Forgeworld gak! I can't use it anymore now!" because you know, the health of the game is less important than someone with more money than sense buying super expensive toys.

Yeah, how dare people actually want to use the stuff they bought. What horrible people we all are.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

niall78 wrote:
To take 6mm Battletech a 100 ton assault mech or tank in points costs more than 30 infantry platoons of 30 men each. That means in points cost those Battlemechs or tanks cost more than an infantry battalion with all it's associated troop transports and heavy weapons. One single mech or super heavy tank is valued higher than 800-900 infantry plus supporting assets. Titans and super heavies in 40K are much more powerful and better protected than even the heaviest Battletech mech or tank. How can they ever be represented in a 28mm skirmish system? The scale is off the wall. Even with proper points costings introducing such units to 28mm game is head on pants silly.

You can disagree with it for aesthetic reasons, but it can work fine from a rules/balance point of view. A Baneblade in a 2000 point game works just fine. A Malcador is usually worse than its points in LRBTs. The problem is with specific LoW (D-spam titans, Wraithknights, etc) that are way too cheap for what they do and specific armies (knights, formations) that give you the ability to take multiple LoW, or even an army of nothing but LoW. Balance those specific units and most of the LoW problem disappears.

The big issue is that most of the newer SH/GC units tend to be spammable and much more points efficient than the old Baneblade, and the bigger we get the more skewed stuff gets. A Baneblade isn't doing anything that a trio of Russ tanks isn't. But when we get into entire armies of Knights, multiple sub 300pt Wraithknights, Warhound Scout Titans, etc, they tend to dramatically skew the scale and function of the game such that most units become pointless trying to deal with them.

As some one who owns more than a few superheavies, I wouldn't be sad at all to see them removed to a different game ruleset or dramatically restricted in normal games, as the core rules really just do not handle these units particularly well at all.

That said, they're not the only units that have these issues. Multi-wound units with invul saves and wound allocation gimmicking ability such as Necron Wraiths and TWC's have much the same issues, being absurdly resilient against both quantity and quality of firepower and making basic infantry units largely pointless aside from simple board control.

Wayniac wrote:

niall78 wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:

niall78 wrote:

 Accolade wrote:
I think different point ranges could work if the threshold at which access to superheavies/massive things was a bit lower than previously - starting at 1500 and representing 25-30% of the force. Games below that can have greater restrictions that keep the rock-paper-scissors elements out.

I highly doubt it is ever worthwhile having super heavies or massive units in a 28mm game. Maybe as a narrative centrepiece or an objective.

To take 6mm Battletech a 100 ton assault mech or tank in points costs more than 30 infantry platoons of 30 men each. That means in points cost those Battlemechs or tanks cost more than an infantry battalion with all it's associated troop transports and heavy weapons. One single mech or super heavy tank is valued higher than 800-900 infantry plus supporting assets. Titans and super heavies in 40K are much more powerful and better protected than even the heaviest Battletech mech or tank. How can they ever be represented in a 28mm skirmish system? The scale is off the wall. Even with proper points costings introducing such units to 28mm game is head on pants silly.

Titans and super heavies should have their own game with detailed damage charts and complex crew actions to bring out the flavour and power of such units. Shoe-horning them into modern 40K does them a great disservice and makes balance impossible. Of course like I said in a post above the genie is out of the bottle already so such a solution seems impossible at this stage without massive blow back from players that have spent hundreds if not thousands of Euro on such units.

Exactly, and do you know what? There used to be a 6mm version of 40K specifically for those stupidly big super heavy units. It was called Epic. But GW in its infinite wisdom decided that Epic scale units belonged in regular 40K, as did Epic scale battles. And so did 40K end up in the mess it is in today.
I like battletech for reasons.

I know I played Adeptus Titanicus - GW's answer at the time to the highly popular Battletech which I also played and still play - and Space Marine. I was then heavily invested in 2nd edition Epic with a group of cousins and friends - what a good game! Never had much time for 3rd edition. I think it is tragic that GW cancelled its great 6mm games and then tried to shoehorn their mega units into a 28mm skirmish game leading to the situation we now find ourselves in.

What's worse is that nowadays they can't just get rid of that stuff, or you'll have people whining "But muh expensive Forgeworld gak! I can't use it anymore now!" because you know, the health of the game is less important than someone with more money than sense buying super expensive toys.

Well, we could bring back Apocalypse.....

Peregrine wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
What's worse is that nowadays they can't just get rid of that stuff, or you'll have people whining "But muh expensive Forgeworld gak! I can't use it anymore now!" because you know, the health of the game is less important than someone with more money than sense buying super expensive toys.

Yeah, how dare people actually want to use the stuff they bought. What horrible people we all are.

The problem is, oh mighty bird, that said big and expensive toys are heinously broken and incredibly unbalanced in many cases. Some of them are okayish, but for the most part they are just another symbol of the power creep that is slowly taking over 40K and making basic troops less and less relevant.

You can disagree with it for aesthetic reasons, but it can work fine from a rules/balance point of view. A Baneblade in a 2000 point game works just fine. A Malcador is usually worse than its points in LRBTs. The problem is with specific LoW (D-spam titans, Wraithknights, etc) that are way too cheap for what they do and specific armies (knights, formations) that give you the ability to take multiple LoW, or even an army of nothing but LoW. Balance those specific units and most of the LoW problem disappears.

Well, the problem here is the power creep. A 50 man blob of guard costs more than a Wraithknight and will be unable to hurt it, whereas the Wraithknight will walk all over it. The same with an Imperial Knight. These units are big and, with a few notable exceptions, really powerful. They can walk all over entire armies, and many have weapons that delete entire platoons in a single shot (looking at you Stormsword) without allowing any cover saves at all. They are extremely poweful and extremely tough and having even one can seriously shift the balance in your favour (taking said Stormsword against non DP/DS Marines for instance) whilst an ill-prepared opponent will struggle to deal with a Baneblade or Knight (hell, even a prepared one can struggle, I have seen Knights shrug off 'D' hits like they where nothing) and this can really ruin the balance of the game.

Furthermore, these large units are just another aspect of the stupid power bloat that has been toxifying 40K. Remember the days when a SH was limited to Apocalypse only, unless your opponent agreed to its use? Remember when even a single one was a massive threat, and seeing one caused the whole store to focus on the battle? When seeing two or more on the same side was the sole preserve of major Apoc games (IE, store organised day+ long ones)? Well, I do. What happened? When did bringing a SH unit become a commonplace thing? How did it happen?
Because it shouldnt have. It should never have happened and it should never have continued.

In something of an ironic twist, I've probably brought out my superheavies less since 7E came about than when they were Apoc only units, if for no other reason than nobody actually wants to play actual Apoc sized battles anymore (when they can just bring everything in normal games, also the 2013 Apoc book is...well...awful) and I don't like taking them in normal games as "normal" units.

 master of ordinance wrote:

Furthermore, these large units are just another aspect of the stupid power bloat that has been toxifying 40K. Remember the days when a SH was limited to Apocalypse only, unless your opponent agreed to its use? Remember when even a single one was a massive threat, and seeing one caused the whole store to focus on the battle? When seeing two or more on the same side was the sole preserve of major Apoc games (IE, store organised day+ long ones)? Well, I do. What happened? When did bringing a SH unit become a commonplace thing? How did it happen?
Because it shouldnt have. It should never have happened and it should never have continued.

It's not the fact it's in the game that bothers me too much. Personally I find it a bit silly to have such units in a 28mm game. I don't see how they can effectively scaled in a 28mm rule-set and as game pieces I'd find storing and transporting them a nightmare. What gets on my wick is that the rules have never evolved to even try and really support such units. Let GW bring the massive units if they want but at least write a rule-set that tries to shoehorn them into the game properly. How? I've not a clue. But they should have tried and not stuck with an outdated, cumbersome, tactically weak twenty year old D6 skirmish rule-set while bloating the game with 6-10mm scale units.


Here's an interesting factoid thanks to 4Chan :-

"In this system (Epic)the majority of models were 1/350 scale, while large vehicles were 1/700 scale to keep them affordable."

Anyone know if this is true? I find it deliciously ironic.

 master of ordinance wrote:
Well, we could bring back Apocalypse.....

Hardly anyone played Apocalypse, and for good reasons.

The problem is, oh mighty bird, that said big and expensive toys are heinously broken and incredibly unbalanced in many cases. Some of them are okayish, but for the most part they are just another symbol of the power creep that is slowly taking over 40K and making basic troops less and less relevant.

Like I said, this is a problem with individual unit rules. The solution is to nerf Wraithknights, limit LoW to a 0-1 option (yes, including knights), etc, not to take those units out of the game entirely.

Well, the problem here is the power creep. A 50 man blob of guard costs more than a Wraithknight and will be unable to hurt it, whereas the Wraithknight will walk all over it. The same with an Imperial Knight.

So what? Why does the 50-man IG blob matter? An IG blob (without heavy/special weapons, since if it has those it can hurt LoW) is a tough scoring and meatshield unit with a primary role of taking up space on the table and a secondary role of killing infantry through volume of fire. Of course it's going to be disappointing when you treat it as an anti-tank unit and ask it to deal with tanks and MCs. If anything we'd have a significant balance problem if the 50-man blob could deal with those LoW effectively, as there would be little reason to take any other units.

These units are big and, with a few notable exceptions, really powerful. They can walk all over entire armies, and many have weapons that delete entire platoons in a single shot (looking at you Stormsword) without allowing any cover saves at all. They are extremely poweful and extremely tough and having even one can seriously shift the balance in your favour (taking said Stormsword against non DP/DS Marines for instance) whilst an ill-prepared opponent will struggle to deal with a Baneblade or Knight (hell, even a prepared one can struggle, I have seen Knights shrug off 'D' hits like they where nothing) and this can really ruin the balance of the game.

Sure, of course LoW are going to beat an unprepared opponent. But at this point you have to ask why people are not prepared for LoW. They're part of the game, so you should expect to be able to deal with a single Baneblade or knight.

And a Stormsword isn't going to be deleting a whole platoon with one shot unless you bunch your models up into perfect template formation. Proper use of 2" spacing can significantly reduce the number of hits you take. And yeah, marines are going to feel some pain, but that should be expected when you're talking about a 450+ point unit designed to kill elite infantry.

Furthermore, these large units are just another aspect of the stupid power bloat that has been toxifying 40K. Remember the days when a SH was limited to Apocalypse only, unless your opponent agreed to its use? Remember when even a single one was a massive threat, and seeing one caused the whole store to focus on the battle? When seeing two or more on the same side was the sole preserve of major Apoc games (IE, store organised day+ long ones)? Well, I do. What happened? When did bringing a SH unit become a commonplace thing? How did it happen?
Because it shouldnt have. It should never have happened and it should never have continued.

It happened because "Apocalypse only" sucked. Apocalypse sucks, it's barely a game and almost never fun. So you either put everything into the standard game, or you don't make those things at all. Now that GW has made superheavies/flyers/etc those things are part of the game and they're not going anywhere.

 Peregrine wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:
Well, we could bring back Apocalypse.....

Hardly anyone played Apocalypse, and for good reasons.

Pretty much all of which apply now to the normal game, and we're seeing players dropping off as a result. At least I am.

So what? Why does the 50-man IG blob matter? An IG blob (without heavy/special weapons, since if it has those it can hurt LoW) is a tough scoring and meatshield unit with a primary role of taking up space on the table and a secondary role of killing infantry through volume of fire. Of course it's going to be disappointing when you treat it as an anti-tank unit and ask it to deal with tanks and MCs. If anything we'd have a significant balance problem if the 50-man blob could deal with those LoW effectively, as there would be little reason to take any other units.

The issue is that it actually does nothing particularly well except board presence because of the power bloat. There are superheavies that can clear such a unit off the table, even in cover, with relative ease, and such blobs really aren't that great at doing much of anything anymore, especially when the heavier units are more and more commonplace giving those blobs less and less to do.

More to the point, when we're talking about 50 man blobs and superheavies, and the fact that the superheavy and blob are only a fraction of either army generally, we're getting beyond what a 28mm game on a 6'x4' table with model centric rules is really capable of portraying with acceptable functionality, and things break down massively when we're not playing scenarios and tables designed specifically around such a thing (which GW doesn't do squat to provide).

Again, I own more than my fair share of superheavy units, flyers, and forgeworld models, but I think it's time to split back into separate realms of scale, even if it's just the rules. The issue then is on GW to support and market these adequately, not just one and leave the rest to rot as they've done in the past.