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.
2017/12/05 21:08:39
Subject: Chapter Approved: Tears of joy, sadness and rage.
8th ed seems to be this mythical "just wait for X" from get-go. It's always "wait for X to fix things". Well actually screw 8th. It's been always in 40k. Never happened, never will. 40k won't be even near balanced even with codexes are all out. What's going to be next "just wait for X. It's going to make all the difference?"
Yeah, I'm regretting jumping into 8e with both feet, that's for sure
So while this thread is mostly to do with people being annoyed by the points adjustments, has anyone looked at the new matched play missions? They are really cool. I really like the Scorched Earth and Accession missions. I played Scorched Earth the other day and it was really fun, and made for a compelling game.
on the points issue, it is annoying that the still have not listed the aspiring sorcerer with a points cost in CSM. At this point I am just assuming that is intentional and he is a free unit champ upgrade like everyone else gets (I think Exarch in the Eldar, yes Eldar, book are free right?).
2017/12/05 22:32:46
Subject: Chapter Approved: Tears of joy, sadness and rage.
Every exarch except for the Shadow Specter exarch is a free upgrade to a squad of aspect warriors. They just replace a normal warrior at no additional cost. I imagine you'd do the same for your aspiring sorcerer then.
2017/12/05 22:41:53
Subject: Chapter Approved: Tears of joy, sadness and rage.
Lemondish wrote: I'm not quite sure I understand the FW issue here. A lot of these units screamed Apocalypse, and now they're tailor made for it (since iirc the rules suggest using power level, not points, and those didn't change much for those units). Seems like a rousing success to me.
They only scream apocalypse because they are made from less profitable(for GW) resin. GW plastic super heavies are however just fine as GW wants you to buy lots of them! Resin however they aren't that interested in selling lots. One for collector. Gamers they want you to invest that money into plastic for more profits for GW.
It has 0% to do with balance or "apoc unit" or whatever. It's all about directing gamers to buy GW plastic which gives higher profits than resin.
2024 painted/bought: 109/109
2017/12/05 22:53:48
Subject: Chapter Approved: Tears of joy, sadness and rage.
Fafnir wrote: Every exarch except for the Shadow Specter exarch is a free upgrade to a squad of aspect warriors. They just replace a normal warrior at no additional cost. I imagine you'd do the same for your aspiring sorcerer then.
The weirdness comes from the fact that the Rubric Aspiring Sorcerer used to specifically cost extra in the Index. That's no longer the case in the CSM Codex. But the Scarab Occult Sorcerer (the same thing but for the terminators) it still uses the Index cost because they're not in the CSM codex, so you still have to pay a premium for the SOS.
2017/12/05 22:57:07
Subject: Chapter Approved: Tears of joy, sadness and rage.
So I've read all 22 pages of this chapter approved thread and there have only been a couple of mentions of the new missions and no discussion at all of the apocalypse, planet strike, stronghold assault and VDR stuff. This book has been dismissed as a lazy effort by many here. Is this just about the points or is the other stuff considered to be bad as well?
If so, why is this content bad?
I could understand that the land raider VDR is very limited but by ignoring it, you ensure that GW never expands it in the future. (this was pitched as a pilot programme)
Does noone play open or narrative?
If you do only play matched, what is wrong with the new missions? Are they not well designed or do people simply not want different ways to play the game?
I have read and listened to and read a few 'reviews' but they have all just been summaries of the content and a lot of batching about the points.
Even with regards to the points, I have seen lots of complaints that gw's points are wrong but no-one stating what they think the points should be.
Why not do a poll to pick the top ten over and underpointed units, agree some changes and submit the whole thing to GW as the official dakka opinion about points?
2017/12/05 23:23:23
Subject: Chapter Approved: Tears of joy, sadness and rage.
Fafnir wrote: Every exarch except for the Shadow Specter exarch is a free upgrade to a squad of aspect warriors. They just replace a normal warrior at no additional cost. I imagine you'd do the same for your aspiring sorcerer then.
The weirdness comes from the fact that the Rubric Aspiring Sorcerer used to specifically cost extra in the Index. That's no longer the case in the CSM Codex. But the Scarab Occult Sorcerer (the same thing but for the terminators) it still uses the Index cost because they're not in the CSM codex, so you still have to pay a premium for the SOS.
Yea I still pay for the scarab sorcerer. It stinks because while I think we have the best terminators, all terminators are pretty over priced and then adding another like 20 points for one more attack and mini-smite stinks. Hopefully they will reduce the cost or eliminate it in the codex for the scarab sorcerer (pretty sure they are not reducing points for any terminator units at this point).
2017/12/06 00:04:49
Subject: Chapter Approved: Tears of joy, sadness and rage.
Chikout wrote: So I've read all 22 pages of this chapter approved thread and there have only been a couple of mentions of the new missions and no discussion at all of the apocalypse, planet strike, stronghold assault and VDR stuff. This book has been dismissed as a lazy effort by many here. Is this just about the points or is the other stuff considered to be bad as well?
If so, why is this content bad?
I could understand that the land raider VDR is very limited but by ignoring it, you ensure that GW never expands it in the future. (this was pitched as a pilot programme)
Does noone play open or narrative?
If you do only play matched, what is wrong with the new missions? Are they not well designed or do people simply not want different ways to play the game?
I have read and listened to and read a few 'reviews' but they have all just been summaries of the content and a lot of batching about the points.
Even with regards to the points, I have seen lots of complaints that gw's points are wrong but no-one stating what they think the points should be.
Why not do a poll to pick the top ten over and underpointed units, agree some changes and submit the whole thing to GW as the official dakka opinion about points?
I would love to build some custom land raiders. I would love to support the VDR. Unfortunately noone in my meta has ever been able to get a game of open play in, so it wouldn't get anywhere. It's probably one of the more frustrating aspects - taht and Land raiders are only available for SM related factions
The apoc players seem to like the changes but there are mostly just common sense ones, nothing ground breaking. It really could have been a white dwarf article and would have been just as good. I liked the idea of bidding on deployment time in the first mission.
It's not that the content is bad, but it is all stuff that is pretty situational. I think 90% of players could skip everything but the point changes and the little half page to matched play changes. It definitely felt like it didn't meet GW's hype they sold me on.
Bender wrote:* Realise that despite the way people talk, this is not a professional sport played by demi gods, but rather a game of toy soldiers played by tired, inebriated human beings.
Indeed the vast swathe of players that play 40k are not interested in anything but matched play.
Remove the matched play components from Chapter Approved and you have a book that wouldn't move at all.
Just like the AOS books didn't move until the Generals Handbook brought in matched play.
Because the playerbase is by a great degree matched-play-or-nothing. Narrative games are a tiny tiny niche that don't have any financial viability in terms of commercial success barring a fluke or crazy miracle.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/12/06 00:09:58
2017/12/06 00:13:39
Subject: Chapter Approved: Tears of joy, sadness and rage.
Which is why they would have been better off releasing a campaign book for those that want some narrative options built for them, and then wait on a book that could be built around matched play until they had enough freaking content to justify it. And maybe by then, someone would have 20 minutes to take a second look at the point adjustments too.
2017/12/06 00:28:50
Subject: Chapter Approved: Tears of joy, sadness and rage.
Daedalus81 wrote: Because a lot of those super heavies needed that sort of cost increase. The math proves it out - at least into the realm of reason.
In a lot of cases it really, really doesn’t. Take for example the four Space Marine superheavies- the Typhon, Fellblade, Falchion and (I think) Cerberus. Each one was overcosted to begin with, and each one got smacked with a 200pt increase. These aren’t Titans that get brought out once every two years for a bit Apoc game, these are the Marines’ direct equivalent of the Baneblade chassis. I did a comparison of the maths for 3 of those tanks in a similar thread:
Spoiler:
kombatwombat wrote: The first thing I want to point out is that if any weapons are part of a unit’s base cost (such as the primary weapon of the tanks we’re considering), you cannot simply say a 25% increase in durability should translate to a 25% increase in cost. Rather, a 25% in cost would require a 25% increase in both durability and firepower. Even then, it still shouldn’t be worth 25% more as stacking more durability on a single model and more firepower on a single weapon is less efficient due to the possibility of overkill and the common existence of Mortal Wounds which subvert durability completely. Overall I think a model with a single weapon with 100% durability and 100% more firepower on the main weapon should be something like 95% more expensive to make it justifiable over just taking two of the cheaper model and splitting your risk. I think your reasoning shows you have somewhat similar thinking, but I think you go quite deep into an apples to oranges comparison.
A far better comparison IMO would be to compare the Typhon to the Hellhammer. Their statlines and main weapons are very similar, much moreso than a Knight or Baneblade’s.
For these comparisons, I’ll only consider the base costs. The tanks have different auxiliary weapon options, but for vehicles this large capable of firing all weapons to full effect, I think it’s fair to say the difference between a Typhon’s Lascannon and a Hellhammer’s Lascannon is built into the cost of the weapon. Well, not quite, if a BS4 weapon is 20 points a BS3 weapon should be 26-27 not 25, but near enough.
The Dreadhammer cannon has a range of 48” if stationary, 24” if mobile, while the Hellhammer cannon has a fixed 36”. That’s probably a fair trade. They have the same Strength and Damage. The Dreadhammer has AP-5 to the Hellhammer’s -4 with Ignores Cover. The only time this will matter is against a 2+ armour model, with no Invulnerable save, not in cover - a rare case that oddly enough seems most common in heavy Space Marine tanks. In this edge case it is 20% more efficient. The Hellhammer averages 5.25 hits to the Dreadhammer’s 4.67. So one is 12% more efficient at all times, but the other is 11% more efficient in a certain uncommon circumstance (20% more effective but 12.5% less shots). Overall, I’d think it’s fair to say a BS3 Dreadhammer vs a BS4 Hellhammer cannon is a wash.
The Hellhammer has 26 wounds to the Typhon’s 22, an 18% increase. The Typhon has a 2+ save. Against anti-tank weapons - generally AP -3 and -4 - the Typhon is 25% and 20% tougher respectively (4/6 shots going through vs 5/6 and 5/6 vs 6/6). Against heavy armour penetrating weapons - AP-5, the sorts of weapons designed to kill these things - the Typhon is no tougher at all. So the Typhon is generally 25%, 20% or 0% tougher due to its save, but the Hellhammer is 18% tougher due to wound count. This is pretty close, though the Typhon edges it by a few percent.
The Typhon is Toughness 9 to the Hellhammer’s 8. This is irrelevant against most weaponry (Strengths 1-7, 10-15, 18+). Against S8 and 9, the most common anti-tank weaponry, it is 50% and 33% more durable (3/6 successful wounds vs 2/6, and 4/6 vs 3/6). Against heavy anti-tank weaponry - S10-15 - it is 0% tougher. Against super-heavy anti-tank weaponry -S16 - it is 25% tougher (5/6 vs 4/6 successful wounds). So variously 0%, 25%, 33% and 50% tougher. I think it’d be fair to use the 33% value.
There are also two smaller incidental differences that will rarely have a big effect: the Hellhammer is better in close combat, and the Typhon’s 2+ save helps against small arms. The Hellhammer has access to better Stratagems, but the Typhon has easier acces to rerolls. I’d say the net tradeoff here is insignificant. However, the Hellhammer has Regimental Traits.
So we’ve got that the two have effectively the same firepower (remember, only talking about the main gun included in the base cost), some slight incidental advantages and disadvantages, the Typhon’s 2+ save is slightly better than the Hellhammer’s extra wounds but the Hellhammer gets Regimental Traits. All of that really comes to a wash, so the only noteable difference is the Typhon’s extra 33% toughness due to T9. Now, you can’t just say the Typhon should therefore be 33% more expensive for the reasons at the top of this post. As a guess that half of the tank’s points value is in its profile and half in its weapon, you could say that the Typhon should be 17-ish % more expensive. You can debate the accuracy of that last bit but let’s just say it’s in the ballpark of say 20%. If the Hellhammer’s base cost is 410, that puts the Typhon in the upper 400s. Its Index cost was 520, so it needed a drop of something like 25-50 points. Instead, it got a raise by 200.
Fellblade vs Baneblade:
Similar, but the Fellblade catches up to the Baneblade’s close combat ability, which levels off the Regimental Traits advantage the Hellhammer showed over the Typhon. It also has the full 26 wounds, so the 20% durability increase of the 2+ is no longer offset by wound count. So far, the Fellblade has a 20% durability advantage over the Baneblade due to the 2+ Sv, and the same 33% due to T9 that the Typhon showed over the Hellhammer. A net 60% durability advantage to the Fellblade.
For firepower, there are two firing modes for the Fellblade - AE and HE. HE is simple - it averages 7 shots at BS3 for 4.67 hits, to the Baneblade’s 10.5 at BS4 for 5.25 - so 12.5% more firepower for the Baneblade. The extra damage point on the Baneblade also gives it an additional 100% efficiency boost against 3 wound targets by only needing one shot, and advantage the Fellblade can’t replicate on 2 wound models since the Baneblade also kills those in one shot. So for small targets, the Baneblade is 12.5% more efficient, and sometimes 125% more.
For the AE shell, vs:
T6 4+ Sv - 2 x 2/3 x 5/6 x 6/6 x 6 = 6.67 wounds for the Fellblade vs 10.5 x 3/6 x 4/6 x 6/6 x 3 = 10.5 for the Baneblade, a 57.5% advantage.
T7 or T8 3+ Sv - 2 x 2/3 x 4/6 x 6/6 x 6 = 5.33 vs 10.5 x 3/6 x 4/6 x 5/6 x 3 = 8.75, a 64.1% advantage
T8 2+ Sv - 2 x 2/3 x 4/6 x 5/6 x 6 = 4.44 vs 10.5 x 3/6 x 4/6 x 4/6 x 3 = 7, a 57.5% advantage
T9 2+ Sv - 2 x 2/3 x 4/6 x 5/6 x 6 = 4.44 vs 10.5 x 3/6 x 3/6 x 4/6 x 3 = 5.25, an 18.1% advantage
So the Baneblade is something like 55% more effective than the AE shell, and 12.5% or occasionally 125% better than the HE shell. Call that something like 25% better overall.
So the Fellblade is 60% tougher but it’s main weapon is 25% less efficient than the Baneblade’s. Using the same system as above, the Fellblade should have dropped by 10-15% but increased by 30ish %, a net of say 20% increase over the Baneblade. Compared to the Baneblade’s 390 base cost, the Fellblade should end up somewhere a bit under 500 points base. Its Index base cost was 540, so it needed something like a 25-50 point drop too, and it also got a 200pt increase.
Falchion vs Shadowsword:
Easy, same 60% durability advantage as the Fellblade has, and same profile gun. The Falchion averages 4.67 hits to the Shadowsword’s 3, a 56% increase. So the Falchion is something like 58% ‘better’ by this metric, so it should be something like 50% more expensive than the Shadowsword’s 390 - landing around 600 points. It’s index cost was 640 base, so it also needed a 25-50 point drop but got a 200pt increase. Seeing a pattern yet?
You’re welcome to fiddle around with my figures there, but I’m interested to see you come up with something that challenges the conclusion that, based on the costs of their most direct competitors, the SM superheavies should have dropped a bit or stayed the same, not raised by 200.
I’m also vehemently against the idea of ‘just blow their points out to oblivion, people can just use power level if they want to take a Typhon’. Some of us - I dare say a lot of us - like using points rather than power level in bigger games. If my opponent and I agreed to a 4000pt game, and I turned up saying ‘well I got to 4000 points but I really really wanted to take another quad-las Predator as well but I didn’t want to sacrifice anything else in my list to fit it in so I just took it on top kthx’, my opponent would be well within their rights to tell me to cram that Predator where the sun don’t shine. And a fully kitted Predator actually fits in Power Level’s margin of error.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/12/06 00:40:34
2017/12/06 00:39:54
Subject: Chapter Approved: Tears of joy, sadness and rage.
auticus wrote: Indeed the vast swathe of players that play 40k are not interested in anything but matched play.
Remove the matched play components from Chapter Approved and you have a book that wouldn't move at all.
Just like the AOS books didn't move until the Generals Handbook brought in matched play.
Because the playerbase is by a great degree matched-play-or-nothing. Narrative games are a tiny tiny niche that don't have any financial viability in terms of commercial success barring a fluke or crazy miracle.
I must admit I find this baffling. I understand that matched play is very popular, but as many have said there are other games by other companies that do fair, competitive games much better.
For me the area in which GW games have always excelled is the narrative side. GW games take place in unique expansive settings with a great deal of detail which creates great story telling opportunities.
Unbalanced sides (so long as you know which side is weaker before playing) only add to the possibilities of the game.
Straight up,kill the other guy, matched play has always been the most boring aspect of the game for me.
It is clear that I am an outlier but I really don't understand why that is.
2017/12/06 00:55:59
Subject: Chapter Approved: Tears of joy, sadness and rage.
auticus wrote: Indeed the vast swathe of players that play 40k are not interested in anything but matched play.
Remove the matched play components from Chapter Approved and you have a book that wouldn't move at all.
Just like the AOS books didn't move until the Generals Handbook brought in matched play.
Because the playerbase is by a great degree matched-play-or-nothing. Narrative games are a tiny tiny niche that don't have any financial viability in terms of commercial success barring a fluke or crazy miracle.
I must admit I find this baffling. I understand that matched play is very popular, but as many have said there are other games by other companies that do fair, competitive games much better.
For me the area in which GW games have always excelled is the narrative side. GW games take place in unique expansive settings with a great deal of detail which creates great story telling opportunities.
Unbalanced sides (so long as you know which side is weaker before playing) only add to the possibilities of the game.
Straight up,kill the other guy, matched play has always been the most boring aspect of the game for me.
It is clear that I am an outlier but I really don't understand why that is.
Matched play isn't just about killing the other person anymore though. You can get slaughtered and win on objective.
That said I just don't find games that aren't competitive to a degree fun. I don't bring cheesey net lists or anything but I do try to optimise my lists and I play to win.
2017/12/06 01:01:03
Subject: Chapter Approved: Tears of joy, sadness and rage.
auticus wrote: Indeed the vast swathe of players that play 40k are not interested in anything but matched play.
Remove the matched play components from Chapter Approved and you have a book that wouldn't move at all.
Just like the AOS books didn't move until the Generals Handbook brought in matched play.
Because the playerbase is by a great degree matched-play-or-nothing. Narrative games are a tiny tiny niche that don't have any financial viability in terms of commercial success barring a fluke or crazy miracle.
I must admit I find this baffling. I understand that matched play is very popular, but as many have said there are other games by other companies that do fair, competitive games much better.
For me the area in which GW games have always excelled is the narrative side. GW games take place in unique expansive settings with a great deal of detail which creates great story telling opportunities.
Unbalanced sides (so long as you know which side is weaker before playing) only add to the possibilities of the game.
Straight up,kill the other guy, matched play has always been the most boring aspect of the game for me.
It is clear that I am an outlier but I really don't understand why that is.
The area that GW excels above all other games is it's player base. If you want to play a miniatures game 40k is far and away the easiest one to find games for. I love malifaux as a competitive game, there are maybe 3 players within an hour of me that play on any regular basis, I can go to 3 stores within 20 mins of me and find 3 players playing 40k on any given day. I might be able to find Some privateer press games at one of those stores but even that is less common these days. As someone with kids and a job I don't find that I really have the time to spend growing a community from scratch these days, and I would rather spend my time playing games than running demos all over the place. As such 40k is the easy choice despite the fact that other games with better competitive balance may exist.
2017/12/06 02:00:49
Subject: Chapter Approved: Tears of joy, sadness and rage.
auticus wrote: Indeed the vast swathe of players that play 40k are not interested in anything but matched play.
Remove the matched play components from Chapter Approved and you have a book that wouldn't move at all.
Just like the AOS books didn't move until the Generals Handbook brought in matched play.
Because the playerbase is by a great degree matched-play-or-nothing. Narrative games are a tiny tiny niche that don't have any financial viability in terms of commercial success barring a fluke or crazy miracle.
I must admit I find this baffling. I understand that matched play is very popular, but as many have said there are other games by other companies that do fair, competitive games much better.
For me the area in which GW games have always excelled is the narrative side. GW games take place in unique expansive settings with a great deal of detail which creates great story telling opportunities.
Unbalanced sides (so long as you know which side is weaker before playing) only add to the possibilities of the game.
Straight up,kill the other guy, matched play has always been the most boring aspect of the game for me.
It is clear that I am an outlier but I really don't understand why that is.
The area that GW excels above all other games is it's player base. If you want to play a miniatures game 40k is far and away the easiest one to find games for. I love malifaux as a competitive game, there are maybe 3 players within an hour of me that play on any regular basis, I can go to 3 stores within 20 mins of me and find 3 players playing 40k on any given day. I might be able to find Some privateer press games at one of those stores but even that is less common these days. As someone with kids and a job I don't find that I really have the time to spend growing a community from scratch these days, and I would rather spend my time playing games than running demos all over the place. As such 40k is the easy choice despite the fact that other games with better competitive balance may exist.
That is regional though, you would be driving 30 minutes to find a store around here that has 40k and that is the broom closet GW, whereas you can go anywhere except the GW and play either xwing or IK any day of the week.
2017/12/06 02:07:29
Subject: Chapter Approved: Tears of joy, sadness and rage.
The area that GW excels above all other games is it's player base. If you want to play a miniatures game 40k is far and away the easiest one to find games for. I love malifaux as a competitive game, there are maybe 3 players within an hour of me that play on any regular basis, I can go to 3 stores within 20 mins of me and find 3 players playing 40k on any given day. I might be able to find Some privateer press games at one of those stores but even that is less common these days. As someone with kids and a job I don't find that I really have the time to spend growing a community from scratch these days, and I would rather spend my time playing games than running demos all over the place. As such 40k is the easy choice despite the fact that other games with better competitive balance may exist.
This is the biggest reason I picked it up again.
M.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/12/06 04:39:22
IK? X-wing is the other game that tends to be easy to find, but that game is as close to MTG as it seems is to most other minis games. Event size and forum usage suggest that you are wrong on a general scale. I hike regionally some games may flourish if I were to move finding GW games would most be often than not be able easier.
2017/12/06 02:20:25
Subject: Chapter Approved: Tears of joy, sadness and rage.
auticus wrote: Indeed the vast swathe of players that play 40k are not interested in anything but matched play.
Remove the matched play components from Chapter Approved and you have a book that wouldn't move at all.
Just like the AOS books didn't move until the Generals Handbook brought in matched play.
Because the playerbase is by a great degree matched-play-or-nothing. Narrative games are a tiny tiny niche that don't have any financial viability in terms of commercial success barring a fluke or crazy miracle.
I must admit I find this baffling. I understand that matched play is very popular, but as many have said there are other games by other companies that do fair, competitive games much better.
For me the area in which GW games have always excelled is the narrative side. GW games take place in unique expansive settings with a great deal of detail which creates great story telling opportunities.
Unbalanced sides (so long as you know which side is weaker before playing) only add to the possibilities of the game.
Straight up,kill the other guy, matched play has always been the most boring aspect of the game for me.
It is clear that I am an outlier but I really don't understand why that is.
It's mostly because GW equates narrative with a lack of balance or at least a low priority. People don't usually play games for fun like that. Look at most RPGs out there. They either have a crunchy system where balance is cooked in or rely on a GM to supply the necessary ingredients. Would you waste your time playing a DnD campaign designed for level 20 characters with level 2s? As someone who actually really enjoys "narrative" tabletop games and scenarios, it's actually really hard to do well with GWs systems. The better balanced the base rules the easier it is to create your own stories, especially since there's no GM here. Just my 2c.
2017/12/06 02:41:36
Subject: Chapter Approved: Tears of joy, sadness and rage.
Breng77 wrote: IK? X-wing is the other game that tends to be easy to find, but that game is as close to MTG as it seems is to most other minis games. Event size and forum usage suggest that you are wrong on a general scale. I hike regionally some games may flourish if I were to move finding GW games would most be often than not be able easier.
Ik is just warmahordes and CoI, forum usage is meaningless and event size? so what on that, we regularly see 50+ people at one of our flgs for Btech again in an area where noone plays gw.
auticus wrote: Indeed the vast swathe of players that play 40k are not interested in anything but matched play.
Remove the matched play components from Chapter Approved and you have a book that wouldn't move at all.
Just like the AOS books didn't move until the Generals Handbook brought in matched play.
Because the playerbase is by a great degree matched-play-or-nothing. Narrative games are a tiny tiny niche that don't have any financial viability in terms of commercial success barring a fluke or crazy miracle.
I must admit I find this baffling. I understand that matched play is very popular, but as many have said there are other games by other companies that do fair, competitive games much better.
For me the area in which GW games have always excelled is the narrative side. GW games take place in unique expansive settings with a great deal of detail which creates great story telling opportunities.
Unbalanced sides (so long as you know which side is weaker before playing) only add to the possibilities of the game.
Straight up,kill the other guy, matched play has always been the most boring aspect of the game for me.
It is clear that I am an outlier but I really don't understand why that is.
It's mostly because GW equates narrative with a lack of balance or at least a low priority. People don't usually play games for fun like that. Look at most RPGs out there. They either have a crunchy system where balance is cooked in or rely on a GM to supply the necessary ingredients. Would you waste your time playing a DnD campaign designed for level 20 characters with level 2s? As someone who actually really enjoys "narrative" tabletop games and scenarios, it's actually really hard to do well with GWs systems. The better balanced the base rules the easier it is to create your own stories, especially since there's no GM here. Just my 2c.
I dont think GW knows what "narrative" is or if they do, they just suck badly at it. about the only game that I consider truly capable of narrative is malifaux.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/12/06 02:42:19
2017/12/06 03:13:01
Subject: Chapter Approved: Tears of joy, sadness and rage.
In a lot of cases it really, really doesn’t. Take for example the four Space Marine superheavies- the Typhon, Fellblade, Falchion and (I think) Cerberus. Each one was overcosted to begin with, and each one got smacked with a 200pt increase. These aren’t Titans that get brought out once every two years for a bit Apoc game, these are the Marines’ direct equivalent of the Baneblade chassis. I did a comparison of the maths for 3 of those tanks in a similar thread:
You again! Well, straight away I’m going to attack the basis of your comparison again - you’re still comparing the Baneblade to the Typhon, when a much more apples to apples comparison would be between the Typhon and the Hellhammer. Would you be willing to run the last two simulations again supplanting the Hellhammer for the Baneblade?
2017/12/06 07:50:48
Subject: Re:Chapter Approved: Tears of joy, sadness and rage.
I really dislike that the fortifications that are _mandatory_ for Planet Strike and Stronghold Assault don't have points values.
Fine, I get it. You _really_ really really want me to user power level. I don't. Would it have been so hard to assign half a dozen points values to the datasheets included? Likewise with the Landraider VDR. Would it really have been that hard to give them some points values?
[The VR rules are a joke too! Get Landraider. Stick guns on it. Depending on guns, it now has a transport capacity. Ta Da. Now you have a landraider. What? Points? Power Level? No, you've got your landraider now, what more do you want? I don't need five pages to tell me that if I stick 7 lascannons on a landraider, it would be reasonable to lower it's transport capacity.]
Disclaimer - I am a Games Workshop Shareholder.
2017/12/06 08:51:36
Subject: Chapter Approved: Tears of joy, sadness and rage.
I don't think so tbh, those recosts are completely crazy, most of the Titans should probably be cheaper now rather than more expensive, given how much they lost.
The thing is GW just acted like this: we can't deal with this now, so it's off-limits when playing points, we'll balance FW stuff later when the core game seems stable and until then, you can still play all of that with PL.
I love Apoc, and that change by GW has finally convinced me that PL is the way to go for Apoc.
I really like the idea of less min/maxing and more rough estimates of value in that context.
I feel that overall, it's tying those awesome models with PL, which is intended for less competition and more enjoying miniatures, which makes perfect sense since none of that FW stuff ever won a GT anyway.
We might even see a day where people who don't care for competition all play PL and there's less misunderstandings between fluff bunnies and competitive gamers because they were offered game types that suit them.
I'm talking the intermediaries that you can still take in a normal game. The things they set cost to 2,000 points they clearly wanted out. So, yes, 2000 isn't likely the "right" price, but it isn't likely to matter much right now either, because they'll still wind up being almost the only model on the table in a 2K game.
That's all the same bag: don't want to bother with optimizing a thousand seldom played FW models, so they move them out of matched play temporarily.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AdmiralHalsey wrote: I really dislike that the fortifications that are _mandatory_ for Planet Strike and Stronghold Assault don't have points values.
Fine, I get it. You _really_ really really want me to user power level. I don't. Would it have been so hard to assign half a dozen points values to the datasheets included? Likewise with the Landraider VDR. Would it really have been that hard to give them some points values?
[The VR rules are a joke too! Get Landraider. Stick guns on it. Depending on guns, it now has a transport capacity. Ta Da. Now you have a landraider. What? Points? Power Level? No, you've got your landraider now, what more do you want? I don't need five pages to tell me that if I stick 7 lascannons on a landraider, it would be reasonable to lower it's transport capacity.]
I don't get this mindset.
On the one hand, people claim they want balance.
On the other, they absolutely hate on every attempt to improve balance by decreasing the number of permutations to take into account.
If you want balance with all existing models plus the LR variants, it's going to take ages, so it's probably better to accept that, cryofreeze yourself, and come back in a thousand years when it's done .... or gone.
The fact of the matter is that PL is perfect when people are not trying hard to write the most competitive list, which means people who already think like that would see benefits from switching over to PL - not that you can't optimize for PLs, but the lack of granularity dulls a lot of the optimization.
It makes total sense that GW would move all new fun&fluffy additions, like BYOLR, to the fun&fluffy game mode.
Either way, it will take ages for people to forget about the past, give it a try and finally understand which game mode suits them better - might be points, but I'd wager the vast majority of players have a tendency towards PL.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/12/06 09:03:11
2017/12/06 09:29:29
Subject: Chapter Approved: Tears of joy, sadness and rage.
I don't think so tbh, those recosts are completely crazy, most of the Titans should probably be cheaper now rather than more expensive, given how much they lost.
The thing is GW just acted like this: we can't deal with this now, so it's off-limits when playing points, we'll balance FW stuff later when the core game seems stable and until then, you can still play all of that with PL.
I love Apoc, and that change by GW has finally convinced me that PL is the way to go for Apoc.
I really like the idea of less min/maxing and more rough estimates of value in that context.
I feel that overall, it's tying those awesome models with PL, which is intended for less competition and more enjoying miniatures, which makes perfect sense since none of that FW stuff ever won a GT anyway.
We might even see a day where people who don't care for competition all play PL and there's less misunderstandings between fluff bunnies and competitive gamers because they were offered game types that suit them.
I'm talking the intermediaries that you can still take in a normal game. The things they set cost to 2,000 points they clearly wanted out. So, yes, 2000 isn't likely the "right" price, but it isn't likely to matter much right now either, because they'll still wind up being almost the only model on the table in a 2K game.
That's all the same bag: don't want to bother with optimizing a thousand seldom played FW models, so they move them out of matched play temporarily.
Which would be a hell of a lot more digestable if they came out and actually said that.
2017/12/06 10:53:02
Subject: Chapter Approved: Tears of joy, sadness and rage.
Breng77 wrote: IK? X-wing is the other game that tends to be easy to find, but that game is as close to MTG as it seems is to most other minis games. Event size and forum usage suggest that you are wrong on a general scale. I hike regionally some games may flourish if I were to move finding GW games would most be often than not be able easier.
Ik is just warmahordes and CoI, forum usage is meaningless and event size? so what on that, we regularly see 50+ people at one of our flgs for Btech again in an area where noone plays gw.
.
I'm not suggesting areas like yours don't exist, however given that 40k has a larger internet presence than any other game (and it isn't very close), and all the largest wargaming events in the world have 40k as the largest or one of the largest aspects, suggests that it has the largest player base (which makes sense since GW is the oldest company in this space) and so in general you are more likely to be able to find players for 40k than for other miniatures games, whose following tends to be more regional. IN certain regions those other games may outnumber 40k but that is atypical.
IT is like saying if you want to play a CCGMTG is going to be the easiest to find games for. There may be areas where Pokemon is huge, and it is easier to find games for that system, but that isn't the norm.
2017/12/06 10:59:13
Subject: Chapter Approved: Tears of joy, sadness and rage.
Daedalus81 wrote: Because a lot of those super heavies needed that sort of cost increase. The math proves it out - at least into the realm of reason.
In a lot of cases it really, really doesn’t. Take for example the four Space Marine superheavies- the Typhon, Fellblade, Falchion and (I think) Cerberus. Each one was overcosted to begin with, and each one got smacked with a 200pt increase. These aren’t Titans that get brought out once every two years for a bit Apoc game, these are the Marines’ direct equivalent of the Baneblade chassis. I did a comparison of the maths for 3 of those tanks in a similar thread:
Spoiler:
kombatwombat wrote: The first thing I want to point out is that if any weapons are part of a unit’s base cost (such as the primary weapon of the tanks we’re considering), you cannot simply say a 25% increase in durability should translate to a 25% increase in cost. Rather, a 25% in cost would require a 25% increase in both durability and firepower. Even then, it still shouldn’t be worth 25% more as stacking more durability on a single model and more firepower on a single weapon is less efficient due to the possibility of overkill and the common existence of Mortal Wounds which subvert durability completely. Overall I think a model with a single weapon with 100% durability and 100% more firepower on the main weapon should be something like 95% more expensive to make it justifiable over just taking two of the cheaper model and splitting your risk. I think your reasoning shows you have somewhat similar thinking, but I think you go quite deep into an apples to oranges comparison.
A far better comparison IMO would be to compare the Typhon to the Hellhammer. Their statlines and main weapons are very similar, much moreso than a Knight or Baneblade’s.
For these comparisons, I’ll only consider the base costs. The tanks have different auxiliary weapon options, but for vehicles this large capable of firing all weapons to full effect, I think it’s fair to say the difference between a Typhon’s Lascannon and a Hellhammer’s Lascannon is built into the cost of the weapon. Well, not quite, if a BS4 weapon is 20 points a BS3 weapon should be 26-27 not 25, but near enough.
The Dreadhammer cannon has a range of 48” if stationary, 24” if mobile, while the Hellhammer cannon has a fixed 36”. That’s probably a fair trade. They have the same Strength and Damage. The Dreadhammer has AP-5 to the Hellhammer’s -4 with Ignores Cover. The only time this will matter is against a 2+ armour model, with no Invulnerable save, not in cover - a rare case that oddly enough seems most common in heavy Space Marine tanks. In this edge case it is 20% more efficient. The Hellhammer averages 5.25 hits to the Dreadhammer’s 4.67. So one is 12% more efficient at all times, but the other is 11% more efficient in a certain uncommon circumstance (20% more effective but 12.5% less shots). Overall, I’d think it’s fair to say a BS3 Dreadhammer vs a BS4 Hellhammer cannon is a wash.
The Hellhammer has 26 wounds to the Typhon’s 22, an 18% increase. The Typhon has a 2+ save. Against anti-tank weapons - generally AP -3 and -4 - the Typhon is 25% and 20% tougher respectively (4/6 shots going through vs 5/6 and 5/6 vs 6/6). Against heavy armour penetrating weapons - AP-5, the sorts of weapons designed to kill these things - the Typhon is no tougher at all. So the Typhon is generally 25%, 20% or 0% tougher due to its save, but the Hellhammer is 18% tougher due to wound count. This is pretty close, though the Typhon edges it by a few percent.
The Typhon is Toughness 9 to the Hellhammer’s 8. This is irrelevant against most weaponry (Strengths 1-7, 10-15, 18+). Against S8 and 9, the most common anti-tank weaponry, it is 50% and 33% more durable (3/6 successful wounds vs 2/6, and 4/6 vs 3/6). Against heavy anti-tank weaponry - S10-15 - it is 0% tougher. Against super-heavy anti-tank weaponry -S16 - it is 25% tougher (5/6 vs 4/6 successful wounds). So variously 0%, 25%, 33% and 50% tougher. I think it’d be fair to use the 33% value.
There are also two smaller incidental differences that will rarely have a big effect: the Hellhammer is better in close combat, and the Typhon’s 2+ save helps against small arms. The Hellhammer has access to better Stratagems, but the Typhon has easier acces to rerolls. I’d say the net tradeoff here is insignificant. However, the Hellhammer has Regimental Traits.
So we’ve got that the two have effectively the same firepower (remember, only talking about the main gun included in the base cost), some slight incidental advantages and disadvantages, the Typhon’s 2+ save is slightly better than the Hellhammer’s extra wounds but the Hellhammer gets Regimental Traits. All of that really comes to a wash, so the only noteable difference is the Typhon’s extra 33% toughness due to T9. Now, you can’t just say the Typhon should therefore be 33% more expensive for the reasons at the top of this post. As a guess that half of the tank’s points value is in its profile and half in its weapon, you could say that the Typhon should be 17-ish % more expensive. You can debate the accuracy of that last bit but let’s just say it’s in the ballpark of say 20%. If the Hellhammer’s base cost is 410, that puts the Typhon in the upper 400s. Its Index cost was 520, so it needed a drop of something like 25-50 points. Instead, it got a raise by 200.
Fellblade vs Baneblade:
Similar, but the Fellblade catches up to the Baneblade’s close combat ability, which levels off the Regimental Traits advantage the Hellhammer showed over the Typhon. It also has the full 26 wounds, so the 20% durability increase of the 2+ is no longer offset by wound count. So far, the Fellblade has a 20% durability advantage over the Baneblade due to the 2+ Sv, and the same 33% due to T9 that the Typhon showed over the Hellhammer. A net 60% durability advantage to the Fellblade.
For firepower, there are two firing modes for the Fellblade - AE and HE. HE is simple - it averages 7 shots at BS3 for 4.67 hits, to the Baneblade’s 10.5 at BS4 for 5.25 - so 12.5% more firepower for the Baneblade. The extra damage point on the Baneblade also gives it an additional 100% efficiency boost against 3 wound targets by only needing one shot, and advantage the Fellblade can’t replicate on 2 wound models since the Baneblade also kills those in one shot. So for small targets, the Baneblade is 12.5% more efficient, and sometimes 125% more.
For the AE shell, vs:
T6 4+ Sv - 2 x 2/3 x 5/6 x 6/6 x 6 = 6.67 wounds for the Fellblade vs 10.5 x 3/6 x 4/6 x 6/6 x 3 = 10.5 for the Baneblade, a 57.5% advantage.
T7 or T8 3+ Sv - 2 x 2/3 x 4/6 x 6/6 x 6 = 5.33 vs 10.5 x 3/6 x 4/6 x 5/6 x 3 = 8.75, a 64.1% advantage
T8 2+ Sv - 2 x 2/3 x 4/6 x 5/6 x 6 = 4.44 vs 10.5 x 3/6 x 4/6 x 4/6 x 3 = 7, a 57.5% advantage
T9 2+ Sv - 2 x 2/3 x 4/6 x 5/6 x 6 = 4.44 vs 10.5 x 3/6 x 3/6 x 4/6 x 3 = 5.25, an 18.1% advantage
So the Baneblade is something like 55% more effective than the AE shell, and 12.5% or occasionally 125% better than the HE shell. Call that something like 25% better overall.
So the Fellblade is 60% tougher but it’s main weapon is 25% less efficient than the Baneblade’s. Using the same system as above, the Fellblade should have dropped by 10-15% but increased by 30ish %, a net of say 20% increase over the Baneblade. Compared to the Baneblade’s 390 base cost, the Fellblade should end up somewhere a bit under 500 points base. Its Index base cost was 540, so it needed something like a 25-50 point drop too, and it also got a 200pt increase.
Falchion vs Shadowsword:
Easy, same 60% durability advantage as the Fellblade has, and same profile gun. The Falchion averages 4.67 hits to the Shadowsword’s 3, a 56% increase. So the Falchion is something like 58% ‘better’ by this metric, so it should be something like 50% more expensive than the Shadowsword’s 390 - landing around 600 points. It’s index cost was 640 base, so it also needed a 25-50 point drop but got a 200pt increase. Seeing a pattern yet?
You’re welcome to fiddle around with my figures there, but I’m interested to see you come up with something that challenges the conclusion that, based on the costs of their most direct competitors, the SM superheavies should have dropped a bit or stayed the same, not raised by 200.
I’m also vehemently against the idea of ‘just blow their points out to oblivion, people can just use power level if they want to take a Typhon’. Some of us - I dare say a lot of us - like using points rather than power level in bigger games. If my opponent and I agreed to a 4000pt game, and I turned up saying ‘well I got to 4000 points but I really really wanted to take another quad-las Predator as well but I didn’t want to sacrifice anything else in my list to fit it in so I just took it on top kthx’, my opponent would be well within their rights to tell me to cram that Predator where the sun don’t shine. And a fully kitted Predator actually fits in Power Level’s margin of error.
Honestly at 4000 points if you want an extra pred to be at 4200 points I'm not sure I care because it isn't going to swing the game, and if I'm playing 4k points I'm not interested in being super competitive. Even before the APOC rules came out I would never have wanted to use points for super big games, those games were always terrible for competition, PL keeps you in a ballpark for balance that is largely good enough for APOC.
2017/12/06 12:02:08
Subject: Chapter Approved: Tears of joy, sadness and rage.
Overall, the book was a disappointment for me. I bought it mostly for the Land Raider, Apocalypse and Points changes (and faction rules, to help my friends out who dont have codexes yet).
Land Raiders were an absolute joke if you were playing Chaos. You have maybe 1/3rd of the options Imperium does, and those options are barely even worth taking. Additionally, open play is played so infrequently, it's not even worth it to build a custom raider for it. May as well just counts as all that custom stuff.
Apocalypse was good, I like the rules for it this edition.
Points were...Okay? It reduced a lot of stuff across the board, and increased stuff in weird ways. Stuff like the M-Lord from Forgeworld was just bogus, there was NO reason to bump it up a whooping 50 points, and stuff like the Gulliman points hike was too small to really make anybody care about it.
Overall, this book wasn't worth the money. Im just glad I put it towards a Store Anniversery for those extra rewards.
2017/12/06 13:31:33
Subject: Chapter Approved: Tears of joy, sadness and rage.
Land Raiders were an absolute joke if you were playing Chaos. You have maybe 1/3rd of the options Imperium does, and those options are barely even worth taking. Additionally, open play is played so infrequently, it's not even worth it to build a custom raider for it. May as well just counts as all that custom stuff.
