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.
Galas wrote: I don't understand the "but you will kill tanks with knives!"
Just a rule like
Vehicles: Vehicles ignore damage done by weapons with a damage value of: 1 and a rend value of: -
Boom. Problem solved. Tanks can only be damaged by antitank weaponry.
And please, stop masking your personal preferences as rationalized facts.
If you don't understand AoS its your problem, not of the game. You can not like it, thats fine. And its a reality that its in no way the best ruleset out there.
But all this AoS hate vs AoS fanboyism its tiresome. The Old World has been killed 2 years ago guys. Its time to move on.
And I say this as a guy that plays Warhammer Fantasy Battles 1 time at week and that roleplay in the old world 2 times a month.
Except we don't need any of that. At all. The entire point of every model being potentially (regardless of how unlikely) kill any other model on the table in AoS is that you don't end up in that same situation that is all too common in 40k where two thirds of any given TAC army is rendered useless against any given spam list. Anti-armour options will still far and away be the preferred tools for dealing with tanks and the like, but the idea is to not make extremely polarized list building where you're essentially playing a different game from your opponents so heavily rewarded.
I don't know why people are getting so up in arms about this. Polarized list building has been a huge criticism against 40k for ages. Unless you go the grav route, some generalization is going to have to happen.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/03/24 14:47:39
TedNugent wrote: If the armor is rated for that caliber, it is proof against that caliber, no matter how many times you shoot it.
No, that's just not how physics work. Something has to take the force and in doing so will take damage. Damaged protection loses structural integrity. But whatever, you carry your frayed kevlar around, I'll go by the common sense that is used by anyone else where a shot kevlar plate is replaced.
Either way, even if armour was magical and didn't take any damage from stopping bullets, neither system in 40k, the old or the suggested new one, does even a halfway job of representing it, so again, any conversation on how it works in real life is irrelevant to how it works in Warhammer.
Sorry, but two shots on a kelvlar vest dosent magicly turn it into a tshirt either.
tshirt, no. But I never said that. I argued against the point that body armour is a binary risk. The person I was arguing with was saying that it will either stop ALL bullets it's rated against NO MATTER WHAT. Or it will stop NO bullets, because it's not rated against that. And that's simply not true. Even a perfectly new piece of armour can get unlucky and let through a bullet it is rated against for various reasons, but I let that slide because that's highly unlikely and I don't need to go that far when his argument is that binary. A shot vest loses integrity. It doesn't become a tshirt, and I never said it did, so saying I'm arguing that is strawman.
auticus wrote: Also points in a vacuum don't work very well as a 100 point defensive unit may be worth 200-300 points in a scenario that is defensive in nature and may not be worth 50 points if that in a scenario where they have to move and be offensive.
That's not necessarily a bad thing if it is planned. Make sure that certain units are strong at defense and others at offense and you will get some really varied games as your lists will look completely different when you're defending and attacking.
That said, I am fully aware that it isn't that well thought out, and mostly just happens by mistake and as such isn't at all balanced with how everything else works, so instead you just get that one unit in the whole game that is ridiculously overpowered at that one specific job.
Guys, seriously this has nothing to do with our topic.
The variable armour save is a part of the topic and some had problems with that not being "realistic." I'm arguing that it in fact isn't any less realistic than the opposite. For what that's worth.
As such, I disagree that it doesn't have anything to do with the topic.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/03/24 14:50:54
auticus wrote: AOS points did not make AOS balanced. It made it more structured. The points themselves are, like most of GW's attempts at points, very flawed.
Also points in a vacuum don't work very well as a 100 point defensive unit may be worth 200-300 points in a scenario that is defensive in nature and may not be worth 50 points if that in a scenario where they have to move and be offensive. I say that having wrote azyr comp for AOS.
The deathstar thing - I hate deathstars. I hope those go away forever. I'd be ok with a single character being able to join a unit and then being able to target that character but it gets a Look Out Sir. Anything more than that just encourages the death star garbage thats been a staple in 40k (and fantasy) for the past couple of decades.
What, have you problems with Zombie Conga Lines with Banshee and Vampire Lords at the head?
Boy! That was an Excelsior example of a balanced and tactical depht gameplay!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/03/24 14:51:00
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote: Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
auticus wrote: AOS points did not make AOS balanced. It made it more structured. The points themselves are, like most of GW's attempts at points, very flawed.
Also points in a vacuum don't work very well as a 100 point defensive unit may be worth 200-300 points in a scenario that is defensive in nature and may not be worth 50 points if that in a scenario where they have to move and be offensive. I say that having wrote azyr comp for AOS.
The deathstar thing - I hate deathstars. I hope those go away forever. I'd be ok with a single character being able to join a unit and then being able to target that character but it gets a Look Out Sir. Anything more than that just encourages the death star garbage thats been a staple in 40k (and fantasy) for the past couple of decades.
What, have you problems with Zombie Conga Lines with Banshee and Vampire Lords at the head?
Boy! That was an Excelsior example of a balanced and tactical depht gameplay!
Hey, conga lines are love, conga lines are live. Just ask my boyz when they try to allow the bossmen to keep up with them.
Galef wrote: Whatever happens, I really hope they get rid of the "take whatever you want" for structured play. Unbound is fine for that, but structure play should not be Unbound + tax = bonuses.
Something like only 1 CAD or Codex equivalent allowed. Formations are now taken are a "slot" within that detachment, rather than as stand-alone choices.
Only 1 "2nd faction detachment" is allowed. This would be Allied detachments (with 1 Formation slot available) or unique detachments like Assassins and Knights.
If you want to take 3 or more Factions, your army instantly becomes Unbound and loses all command benefits AND Formation bonuses.
That would really cut down on power builds. Want to add a Riptide wing to your Eldar CAD? You need to take an Allied Detahcment with 1 Tau HQ and 1 Troop to "unlock" it.
This is how "structure" or "matched" play should be.
None of that would matter if all units were fairly costed.
auticus wrote: AOS points did not make AOS balanced. It made it more structured. The points themselves are, like most of GW's attempts at points, very flawed.
Come on ... when will that argument die already ?
GW sucks at balance... lol - maybe, but who does any better ?
PP with their "we've got to recost everything all the time because we did it wrong, several times in a row" ?
Seriously... unless you have symmetric factions and/or very limited diversity, balance in a tabletop game is at best very flawed.
auticus wrote: AOS points did not make AOS balanced. It made it more structured. The points themselves are, like most of GW's attempts at points, very flawed.
Come on ... when will that argument die already ?
GW sucks at balance... lol - maybe, but who does any better ?
PP with their "we've got to recost everything all the time because we did it wrong, several times in a row" ?
Seriously... unless you have symmetric factions and/or very limited diversity, balance in a tabletop game is at best very flawed.
Only to people can't do math. At least PP tries.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/03/24 14:54:21
auticus wrote: AOS points did not make AOS balanced. It made it more structured. The points themselves are, like most of GW's attempts at points, very flawed.
Come on ... when will that argument die already ?
GW sucks at balance... lol - maybe, but who does any better ?
PP with their "we've got to recost everything all the time because we did it wrong, several times in a row" ?
Seriously... unless you have symmetric factions and/or very limited diversity, balance in a tabletop game is at best very flawed.
If they stick with online living rules it may not be that big of an issue.
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote: Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
TedNugent wrote: If the armor is rated for that caliber, it is proof against that caliber, no matter how many times you shoot it.
No, that's just not how physics work. Something has to take the force and in doing so will take damage. Damaged protection loses structural integrity. But whatever, you carry your frayed kevlar around, I'll go by the common sense that is used by anyone else where a shot kevlar plate is replaced.
Either way, even if armour was magical and didn't take any damage from stopping bullets, neither system in 40k, the old or the suggested new one, does even a halfway job of representing it, so again, any conversation on how it works in real life is irrelevant to how it works in Warhammer.
Sorry, but two shots on a kelvlar vest dosent magicly turn it into a tshirt either.
tshirt, no. But I never said that. I argued against the point that body armour is a binary risk. The person I was arguing with was saying that it will either stop ALL bullets it's rated against NO MATTER WHAT. Or it will stop NO bullets, because it's not rated against that. And that's simply not true. Even a perfectly new piece of armour can get unlucky and let through a bullet it is rated against for various reasons, but I let that slide because that's highly unlikely and I don't need to go that far when his argument is that binary. A shot vest loses integrity. It doesn't become a tshirt, and I never said it did, so saying I'm arguing that is strawman.
At the end of the day 40k's "armour save" doesn't represent firing a bullet in to a kevlar vest under controlled conditions. If it did, we'd just say X types of armour are completely immune to Y types of weapons.
40k's save represents the chance that a model will survive while wearing armour, compared to another model that isn't wearing armour. It's taking in to account the whole gamut of things that affect whether or not armour will be effective in keeping the model on it's feet in a combat situation. There'll be times when a gun weaker than the armour's rating still gets a penetration, there'll be times when the wearer gets lucky and stops a bullet that is above the armour's rating, and the CHANCE of armour failing increases with the power of the weapon being fired at it, so IMO a save modifier system is BOTH more realistic and also more balanced in game than the current AP system.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vash108 wrote: Guys, seriously this has nothing to do with our topic.
Of course it does, we're discussion the merits of an armour save modifier system compared to an AP system thus we are discussing how armour works and thus what would be more realistic.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/03/24 14:57:10
auticus wrote: AOS points did not make AOS balanced. It made it more structured. The points themselves are, like most of GW's attempts at points, very flawed.
Also points in a vacuum don't work very well as a 100 point defensive unit may be worth 200-300 points in a scenario that is defensive in nature and may not be worth 50 points if that in a scenario where they have to move and be offensive. I say that having wrote azyr comp for AOS.
The deathstar thing - I hate deathstars. I hope those go away forever. I'd be ok with a single character being able to join a unit and then being able to target that character but it gets a Look Out Sir. Anything more than that just encourages the death star garbage thats been a staple in 40k (and fantasy) for the past couple of decades.
There's got to be a better way of dealing with Deathstars. Maybe it's not allowing ICs from separate Codices/supplements into a unit. Maybe it's a 2 meter wide exhaust port. I don't know. But a 1 IC per unit limit really hurts weaker armies, too. Painboy and a Warboss in the same Boyz/Warbiker unit? Bye bye. Priests and Primaris Psykers in IG blobs? Bye bye. It's not particularly elegant of a fix and arguably hurts weaker armies more than stronger armies. Should we undergo a Sigmarization, not all ICs deserve to be stuck out in the open by themselves, especially force multipliers like aforementioned Painboy and Ministorum Priest. Whether super killy ICs are forced to go alone or force multiplier ICs are taken as upgrades to units, not all ICs should get the same treatment under an AoS-style rule set.
TedNugent wrote: If the armor is rated for that caliber, it is proof against that caliber, no matter how many times you shoot it.
No, that's just not how physics work. Something has to take the force and in doing so will take damage. Damaged protection loses structural integrity. But whatever, you carry your frayed kevlar around, I'll go by the common sense that is used by anyone else where a shot kevlar plate is replaced.
Either way, even if armour was magical and didn't take any damage from stopping bullets, neither system in 40k, the old or the suggested new one, does even a halfway job of representing it, so again, any conversation on how it works in real life is irrelevant to how it works in Warhammer.
Sorry, but two shots on a kelvlar vest dosent magicly turn it into a tshirt either.
tshirt, no. But I never said that. I argued against the point that body armour is a binary risk. The person I was arguing with was saying that it will either stop ALL bullets it's rated against NO MATTER WHAT. Or it will stop NO bullets, because it's not rated against that. And that's simply not true. Even a perfectly new piece of armour can get unlucky and let through a bullet it is rated against for various reasons, but I let that slide because that's highly unlikely and I don't need to go that far when his argument is that binary. A shot vest loses integrity. It doesn't become a tshirt, and I never said it did, so saying I'm arguing that is strawman.
Okay fair enough, i must have mÃsunderstood you then. Wouldn't your explanation match quite well with the terminator armor situation with 1's being failure even tho its rated against such "caliber"?
Anywho would be sad to see terminators needing saving on 3's and 4's against general armament in the future. That would not properly represent tactical drednought armor in my oppinion. Or atleast it should ignore -1 and -2 rends like some Lizardmen does in AoS
I just hope they dont implement fixed rolls to hit and to wound in AOS, other then that, they can do whatever they want.
morgoth wrote: GW sucks at balance... lol - maybe, but who does any better ?
Every system I have played since GW has been better. Perfect, no of course not. But LEAGUES better.
Bolt Action, Malifaux, SAGA... Basically everyone does at least better than GW.
I feel the Bloodbowl rules are quite reasonably balanced, but I suppose having a committee of players helping shape the living rulebooks must've helped a lot.
Not in my view, no. A lot of the more far out there things (blocks of 200 Bloodreavers or crap like that) were just that pre-points:
Far out there.
A unit of 200 models could be hurt bad with Battleshock tests, let alone the fact that Sudden Death could be brought to bear against the few character models you might have been able to fit on the board.
A big thing that added a "semblance of balance" is that a lot of the problem players(at least locally for me) tended to cease getting games when people started realizing that their whole goal was to try to show that AoScould be broken with wildly outlandish things that involved dropping a ton of scratch on something that would probably have been just as broken in WHFB.
What did you wind up using to make sure both sides were somewhat even?
It depended on what we were trying to accomplish.
In many cases, it was as simple as playing the asymmetric missions from the main rulebook. The first few Regiments of Renown campaigns ran under AoS used keyword, model count, and warscroll restrictions.
Ex:
Week 1 you could have 3 Warscrolls, one of which had to have the keyword "Hero". Nothing could have Monster, Warmachine, Priest, or Wizard as keywords.
You could have up to 2 of each Warscroll; barring the mandatory Hero(He or she was your leader; there was nothing else like them in the force).
Your force could not exceed 100 models for week one.
Week 2 would let you bring in one Warscroll for a Hero with Priest or Wizard; you couldn't duplicate it. You could also bring in one Warscroll with the keyword "Totem"(Battle Standard Bearers); again with no duplicates. Or alternatively you could use those two new Warscrolls to bring in two new units and duplicate them.
You could not exceed 150 models for week two.
Week 3 would let you bring in one Monster or Warmachine; no Hero keyword on either. Or that Warscroll could go to a new unit.
You could not exceed 200 models for week three.
Week 4 basically let you add three new Warscrolls, with no restrictions beyond "No duplicates on anything with keyword Hero, Wizard, or Priest" and a model count of 300. If you wanted to take multiples of something like that, you had to use up an additional Warscroll.
You want that super killy dude on the dragon, three times over? You give up those last three Warscroll slots.
Also, if you couldn't deploy the required units for a scenario in the space allotted for you? You have to split things down until you fit in the scenarios' allotted deployment.
Brutallica wrote: Okay fair enough, i must have mÃsunderstood you then. Wouldn't your explanation match quite well with the terminator armor situation with 1's being failure even tho its rated against such "caliber"?
We don't really know what terminator is "rated" against though. Maybe it's only rated for an autocannon hit at 200m and anything else is just getting lucky. Real armour isn't an on/off switch where it completely stops what it's rated for and doesn't stop at all what it's not rated for.
Anywho would be sad to see terminators needing saving on 3's and 4's against general armament in the future. That would not properly represent tactical drednought armor in my oppinion. Or atleast it should ignore -1 and -2 rends like some Lizardmen does in AoS
Personally I think Termies should have layered saves, and basic weaponry shouldn't have any modifier. So if we say a Heavy Bolter is -1 to save, Termies would be 2+ minus 1 makes them 3+ armour save, but then layered with a 4+ or 5+ invulnerable that they get to take in addition to their regular save rather than instead of it.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/03/24 15:07:52
KingmanHighborn wrote: I'm going to say probably not as it changes all the stat lines to the 'I'm too stupid to learn rules and charts' version of AoS.
This right here is the exact reaction I was expecting. What you mean, my pretty little snowflake, is the 'I'm smart enough to understand that it works out the same mathematically while being much quicker, and allowing for direct modifiers to the rolls instead of just rerolls which stop the quadratic scaling issues that 40k gets.' version of AoS.
AoS is, at the moment, the better game. Period. the more 40k can get from AoS the better.
If by better game you mean dice rolling experience with no tactical depth sure.
Now if you mean game that offers tactical choices and battle of wit...Nope. Not even a close.
AoS' tactical depth is leagues better than 40k, which is often just won at the list building phase, with armies pretty much playing themselves past that point. Sure, you'll roll a lot of dice and go through a million phases, but most of that is just going through the motions of dice for dice' sake.
There's so much more that you can do with the movement of AoS than you ever could with 40k, it's made charging and piling in much more tactical than the bloody mash that is 40k.
This is going to be the most excited I've been in 6 years to touch 40k again, as the game in its current state is an unplayable mess of countless rules that still manages to be devoid of much real thought despite its bloat.
AlTthe past tournament that just happen a month or so ago (LVO I believe) the guy that won had DS or 2 mini DS's... Well the Pod cost of the winner talking about his army at least from what he was saying.
So yeah tell me again how AoS is more thinking when you just run a few DS's and stomp everyone.
For those that dont know, he has tough units with good and Re-rolling savings.
LVO's winner didn't bring ANY deepstriking units. In fact, his list was considered atypical since it didn't bring any skyborne slayers or warrior brotherhood (this was prior to said formation being removed), instead using Wardens of the Realmgate and a Vexilior, both of which are area/character dependant and needed to be fielded on the table. Also, LVO was a very casual tournament.
Nice strawmans, btw. Apparently mortal wounds and rend don't exist in AoS.
Deathstar not Deep Strike.
Neither did they bring them.
You mean the 2 units of 5 Liberators that Reroll 1's to save?
Or about about the Castellant that grants a +1 save to the units?
So.... thats not a what he did? The list from Frontline Gaming and the pod cast about him are wrong?
Galas wrote: How can you play Deathstars in a game where Heroes can't join units and are easy to snip off the table?
Its not a true DS, it is 9" 12" bubbles that gives unit better saves, where those units already have re-rolls to saves.
They act just like DS tho.
Please tell me what units he used that gave him "reroll saves". If you mean Liberators with shield then they reroll saves of 1 only and their damage output is lackluster.
Please tell me what 9" and 12" bubbles you are talking about. If you are talking about the lord celestant then that is a 9" bubble of +1 to hit, not +1 armor. If you are talking about the Castellant then that is 1 unit within 12" to give +1 to their save rolls.
Also I hate to break it to you but a 2 units of 5 liberators or 1 unit of 10 is not even close to competitive considering you would need 200 points of characters to buff both of them if you used 2. It is a solid start to ANY Stormcast list, Also they move 5" a turn, man that's some deathstar with its 17" threat range 2% of the time.
Please at least play the game you are talking about before you act like an expert commentator.
Also Rend exists for a reason, so your buffed 3+ rerolling 1s unit goes to 4+ rerolling 1s or 5+ rerolling 1s, wow so good. Damage 2 or more means that each failed save is more punishing as well. Also mortal wounds ignore saves so.....
Basically stop looking at one tournament result in a vacuum with no knowledge of the game and drawing conclusions.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/03/24 15:21:22
I don't see how to better deal with deathstars other than to not let them exist in the first place.
The whole concept of the deathstar is to create a structure that powerful characters can reside in that offers them near immunity to damage. That by itself is bad IMO. That you can stuff multiple characters into said deathstar is basically a mathematical insurance policy that your super powerful characters can't be hurt getting to their target.
The only real counter is to have one yourself. I used to think playing scenarios that required multiple objectives was the answer but its not really since the deathstar just splits up when it needs to to camp objectives at the end of the game after it destroyed the non-death star units of the enemies.
As such I'd prefer it if you just couldn't do it at all though I'm not averse to letting a single character receive a defensive boost to saves by being in proximity of a friendly unit.
As to the myth that all games are not balanced and GW should be excused, as others have pointed out, most other game companies simply do it better or care more about the cost of the units.
It is correct to say no game can be perfectly balanced. However, GW rules and points often reside in the far unbalanced spectrum.
Living rules are useful and good IF the points get updated regularly to reflect holes, exploits etc. Points that are adjusted once a year are not good enough to me because thats a year of TFG exploiting the game and making the game a super chore without writing comp packets which has the community up in arms for deviating from RAW.
As to the myth that all games are not balanced and GW should be excused, as others have pointed out, most other game companies simply do it better or care more about the cost of the units.
What other game companies?
The only one that is even remotely similar to GW products AND has any kind of player base is probably WMH and they're constantly fixing all the imbalance they're putting in it.
The wheel does spin a good deal faster, but it doesn'd seem more balanced to me.
I totally agree that 40k is far from being balanced, but I haven't seen anyone offer any comparable game which is clearly more balanced while being as diverse - or even offering a better balance/diversity compromise.
Well off hand we have Warmachine of course, and XWing, and Kings of War, and Warpath, and Infinity. These are all games popular in my area that utilize points and have various factions.
None of those are perfect, and I'm not a fan of any of them myself, but their points are miles ahead of GWs attempts.
40k's balance issues are so glaring that it would take little time to cut the gregarious offenders out. Its the extreme busted builds that cause the most issues as opposed to the minor issues.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/03/24 15:28:04
Galef wrote: Whatever happens, I really hope they get rid of the "take whatever you want" for structured play. Unbound is fine for that, but structure play should not be Unbound + tax = bonuses.
Something like only 1 CAD or Codex equivalent allowed. Formations are now taken are a "slot" within that detachment, rather than as stand-alone choices. Only 1 "2nd faction detachment" is allowed. This would be Allied detachments (with 1 Formation slot available) or unique detachments like Assassins and Knights. If you want to take 3 or more Factions, your army instantly becomes Unbound and loses all command benefits AND Formation bonuses.
That would really cut down on power builds. Want to add a Riptide wing to your Eldar CAD? You need to take an Allied Detahcment with 1 Tau HQ and 1 Troop to "unlock" it. This is how "structure" or "matched" play should be.
None of that would matter if all units were fairly costed.
I am not worried about it fixing balance, I just miss the days of knowing what to expect from an opponent. When you can take units from 3+ Factions and unlimited detachments, "traditional" weaknesses are hard to exploit. I can no longer say "Oh you're playing X army, I know exactly how that plays" because no one play X army anymore. They play XYZ armies. Armies should have strengths and weaknesses and you shouldn't be able to take just the strengths of a different faction to plug the holes in others. Plus, structured play like this would encourage more thematic armies, instead of cherry picking what is good from multiple armies.
-
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/03/24 15:29:54
Malifaux, SAGA, Infinity, Bolt Action, Kings of War... the list just goes and goes.
But in my opinion, diversity its antagonist to proper balance.
If two rulesets are writted by the same guy with a good quality of rules desing, the one with less diversity will be more balanced. That is just a fact.
But as I play GW games more from a narrative mindset, I prefer more diversity than just pure gameplay balance.
And I'll repeat. One game can have more diversity and be more balanced that other game, but because its a better written game.
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote: Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
Galef wrote: Armies should have strengths and weaknesses and you shouldn't be able to take just the strengths of a different faction to plug the holes in others.
I agree, though I think most people still playing 40k probably like the infinite possibility rather than having structure with specific factions having specific strengths and weaknesses.
auticus wrote: Well off hand we have Warmachine of course, and XWing, and Kings of War, and Warpath, and Infinity. These are all games popular in my area that utilize points and have various factions.
None of those are perfect, and I'm not a fan of any of them myself, but their points are miles ahead of GWs attempts.
40k's balance issues are so glaring that it would take little time to cut the gregarious offenders out. Its the extreme busted builds that cause the most issues as opposed to the minor issues.
For Warmachine, I think that PP's constant rebalancing speaks tons to how imbalanced the game really is - even though they're doing something about it, which is great - but not more balanced at any point in time really.
There's like 3 people in the world who play KoW, Warpath or Infinity, and even less competition - that's clearly not enough to cause the level of net-listing 40k is largely a victim of.
And X-Wing is of course not comparable, with vastly less everything than 40K has.
It's not on the same level of complexity, anyone can pick it up in an hour, which is a great thing, but doesn't put it in the category of games like 40K.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Galas wrote: Malifaux, SAGA, Infinity, Bolt Action, Kings of War... the list just goes and goes.
You're comparing skirmish and obscure games with 40K ?
Hell, until recently I hadn't even heard of SAGA, and comparing Bolt Action or Infinity to 40K is just dishonest.
No, what I'm asking for, is an example of a wargame with a standard game having about 50 to 200 models, vehicles, planes, titans, little dudes, skimmers, a wide variety of weapons and rules.
If you can name even two such games that have seen enough competition to reveal their imbalance and yet have less imbalance than 40K, then your argument may hold some ground.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/03/24 15:37:54
auticus wrote: Well off hand we have Warmachine of course, and XWing, and Kings of War, and Warpath, and Infinity. These are all games popular in my area that utilize points and have various factions.
None of those are perfect, and I'm not a fan of any of them myself, but their points are miles ahead of GWs attempts.
40k's balance issues are so glaring that it would take little time to cut the gregarious offenders out. Its the extreme busted builds that cause the most issues as opposed to the minor issues.
For Warmachine, I think that PP's constant rebalancing speaks tons to how imbalanced the game really is - even though they're doing something about it, which is great - but not more balanced at any point in time really.
There's like 3 people in the world who play KoW, Warpath or Infinity, and even less competition - that's clearly not enough to cause the level of net-listing 40k is largely a victim of.
And X-Wing is of course not comparable, with vastly less everything than 40K has.
It's not on the same level of complexity, anyone can pick it up in an hour, which is a great thing, but doesn't put it in the category of games like 40K.
When I picked up the Cult Mechanicus book at release, I could - with a cursory glance - tell that Kataphrons were going to be very very good and Electro-priests were going to be absolutely a 100% pointless waste of points. I have not played any game system where the balance has been so glaringly tilted that I could at a glance disregard certain units completely. This long after the release, I have yet to find anyone that thinks Electro-priests useful in any regard that can't be vastly outdone by one or several other units.
I also prefer diversity in my games. I also prefer not being able to memorize every army and knowing exactly what I'd be facing in every game. Because I did that for a decade of tournament play and it burned me out to the point I almost got out of this hobby permanently because of it.
If you can name even two such games that have seen enough competition to reveal their imbalance and yet have less imbalance than 40K, then your argument may hold some ground.
Warmaster and Epic.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/03/24 15:45:44
When I picked up the Cult Mechanicus book at release, I could - with a cursory glance - tell that Kataphrons were going to be very very good and Electro-priests were going to be absolutely a 100% pointless waste of points. I have not played any game system where the balance has been so glaringly tilted that I could at a glance disregard certain units completely. This long after the release, I have yet to find anyone that thinks Electro-priests useful in any regard that can't be vastly outdone by one or several other units.
Very good, but was any of those game systems actually comparable to 40k in breadth and diversity?
Galas wrote: Malifaux, SAGA, Infinity, Bolt Action, Kings of War... the list just goes and goes.
You're comparing skirmish and obscure games with 40K ?
Hell, until recently I hadn't even heard of SAGA, and comparing Bolt Action or Infinity to 40K is just dishonest.
No, what I'm asking for, is an example of a wargame with a standard game having about 50 to 200 models, vehicles, planes, titans, little dudes, skimmers, a wide variety of weapons and rules.
If you can name even two such games that have seen enough competition to reveal their imbalance and yet have less imbalance than 40K, then your argument may hold some ground.
After you assertion:
There's like 3 people in the world who play KoW, Warpath or Infinity, and even less competition - that's clearly not enough to cause the level of net-listing 40k is largely a victim of
I think this isn't going anywhere.
Maybe, you know, the worst fault of 40k is that it is a game that don't know what it want to be? A game where Titans kill infantry platoons in the droves but then you have different weapon profiles for the weapons your squad leader of that same infantry platoon its wearing.
Maybe thats the reason no other game with the "scale" of 40k exist, and thats why 40k its so unbalanced. Because other people know that this is a path with no good ending.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/03/24 15:48:05
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote: Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
6000 World Eaters/Khorne 
