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.

The Russ fix was also hamfisted. The general fix should have been flamers/blasts get +1 hit per 5 models in target unit. Not giving the Russ double dice on its main gun. It all cascaded from there, imo.

Martel732 wrote:
The Russ fix was also hamfisted. The general fix should have been flamers/blasts get +1 hit per 5 models in target unit. Not giving the Russ double dice on its main gun. It all cascaded from there, imo.

We could start a whole new thread about the problem with blast mechanics, but yes, the 2d6 Russ is what caused a lot of trouble.

Unfortunately, something else needed to happen, because Russes were fairly atrocious during the index days. (Perhaps just that Grinding Advanced worked on all weapons, not just the turret? Though you'd have to change the Tallarn regimental doctrine to something else, probably... not sure).

Well Russes got quite a few other buffs in their codex. For instance, the ability to overwatch on 5s is rather significant.

They were dramatically overbuffed.

To be fair i would rather see Russes on the table than heavy weapon teams x9, and a ton of artillery vehicles. But russes are too good right now, that punisher is a joke.

That Carnifex that Martel likes to complain about is similar in cost to the Punisher Russ. I mean one of these is not like the other one...

 Marmatag wrote:
Well Russes got quite a few other buffs in their codex. For instance, the ability to overwatch on 5s is rather significant.

They were dramatically overbuffed.

To be fair i would rather see Russes on the table than heavy weapon teams x9, and a ton of artillery vehicles. But russes are too good right now, that punisher is a joke.

That Carnifex that Martel likes to complain about is similar in cost to the Punisher Russ. I mean one of these is not like the other one...

Yes, the Punisher is pretty scary. It's also worth noting that its direct analogue among superheavies, the Stormlord, didn't get more shots or anything like the other Baneblades got.

Can I ask what you mean by overwatch on 5s? Both of the ways I can think of involve opportunity costs that one may not be willing or able to pay.

Just the stratagem, 1CP to hit on 5s. Guard have command points for days. You're probably starting with 12 and you get them back on 5s.

 Marmatag wrote:
Just the stratagem, 1CP to hit on 5s. Guard have command points for days. You're probably starting with 12 and you get them back on 5s.

Oh, yeah, Defensive Gunners is even better on superheavies, though I don't usually get them back on 5s (my warlord is by no means a Grand Strategist, lol. Even my Regimental Commander uses Honoured Duelist, which is still fantastic in some ways... kinda). It is a much nastier stratagem on a Baneblade; tbqh it fairly routinely gets used on Russes too 'round here and hasn't been that impressive. Usually it kills a few things and then they come steaming in and prevent the tank from shooting for the rest of the game.

The point is even without that nonsense shoot twice rule Russes got better. That was just one example as to how.

 Marmatag wrote:
The point is even without that nonsense shoot twice rule Russes got better. That was just one example as to how.

That's a fairly naff buff, I think, It's undeniable they got better (Regimental tactics in general boosted the whole army!) but a single stratagem that can be used once per phase on a single tank and has a cost associated with it and isn't even limited to Leman Russ tanks is hardly the way I'd go about it. The problem isn't that the Russ didn't get buffed (it did) but it's that without grinding advance it'd be truly awful. They needed something more than just "army wide rules are better than index rules" as their buff.

 Marmatag wrote:
I also must challenge the concept of "relaxed casual appropriate army selection." This immediately places a wholly undefined rating onto each list, that neither of the players targeted by your gameplay scenario would be able to identify in the first place.

Fix problems only when they actually exist. If you make an army based on what you think is cool or what you are excited to paint and your opponent does likewise and you play, you'll have a result. Most of the time you'll enjoy yourselves. If something happens, think about it and plan for the next game accordingly. Try a different scenario, adjust the army sizes. It's also hard to evaluate whether or not the problem is real or if a string of bad dice caused the game to go a certain way. Either way it's probably fun to play a wide variety of game sizes and scenarios if you have a bad experience in one of them.

 Chamberlain wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
I also must challenge the concept of "relaxed casual appropriate army selection." This immediately places a wholly undefined rating onto each list, that neither of the players targeted by your gameplay scenario would be able to identify in the first place.

Fix problems only when they actually exist. If you make an army based on what you think is cool or what you are excited to paint and your opponent does likewise and you play, you'll have a result. Most of the time you'll enjoy yourselves. If something happens, think about it and plan for the next game accordingly. Try a different scenario, adjust the army sizes. It's also hard to evaluate whether or not the problem is real or if a string of bad dice caused the game to go a certain way. Either way it's probably fun to play a wide variety of game sizes and scenarios if you have a bad experience in one of them.

And what about matched play / playing to win precludes this process?

I find myself agreeing with chamberlain quite strongly here.

For the record, I have played tournaments to a reasonably high level, and have always enjoyed them, and very much enjoy and value pick-up-games. I also enjoy narrative games immensely.

I don't think competitiveness is ruining 40k at all. I do think that a focus, particularly on the Internet (by dint of attracting the most vocal and hardcore of us) of competitive-at-all-costs, and a focus on, or refusal, in some cases (whether voluntarily or involuntarily) to look beyond 'pick-up-games' and the assumption that this is the one proper way to play does cause some problems in the wider community. I don't know if this is reflective of actual players though across the spectrum, or only in certain spheres.

Gamers tend to be quite conservative in how they game. When a company presents, or when the community interprets a particular format a 'proper way to play', it is quite hard to find people who will willingly deviate. There is a cult of officialdom at play here where we will not deviate from a set of 'standard' missions. To be fair, this has its good points (privateer press' 'organised play' immediately comes to mind) but it can also suffocate experimentation and exploration. I find that gamers can be lazy, or disinterested in putting work into their games, and would rather default. And unfortunately, when there is a game mode viewed as 'default', people usually don't go beyond it. The default mode, as I see it, is the 'pick-up-game'. It's gaming 101. Pragmatism at all costs. And a lot of things get sacrificed on the altar to make this work. And for all that I enjoy, and value pick up games,I personally don't think sacrificing everything on that altar is worth it all of the time.

I think in general, when it comes to broken combos or whatever ruining the game, there is fault at both sides. I see it as two sides of the exact same coin. Yes, gw (or whoever) should have been more careful. But yes we, as a community, seem only too happy to inflict said problems on our peers with a shrug of the shoulders and an appeal to the authority's of 'yeah well, it's legal', (and to be fair, just because something I said legal doesn't make it right) and a hand waiving away of our own personal responsibility. Sometimes you see it transferred onto others and saying it's their fault - the 'git good' school of 'yeah well, you shouldn't have taken a crappy list, bring a proper list instead'. Or the inverse. Or else blaming the developer - and to be fair, there is a grain of truth there, but yet we ourselves happily play the damned broken stuff into each other too. And then try and justify it. At the risk of invoking Godwyn, we don't let war criminals off the hook because 'they were just following orders', we don't let bigots off the hook for their beliefs because it was written 'in a particular book', why should we let ourselves off the hook for inflicting all the problems of the game on each other?

What bothers me more than anything, and this is just my personal stance, is the competitive-at-all-costs mantra of only accepting the worth of the absolute pinnacle of 'what's good' as being relevant. As a sports fan, it's like saying the only game that matters is the UEFA champions league final. Fair enough, it's important, but there is so much more out there. Dozens of leagues in dozens of countries with all levels from grassroots to semi professional, and national leagues of various standings, whether small or large. And yet each has its adherents and rivalries, and great games and great stories.

Chamberlain, From my point of view, the greatest skill in the game is list-building. But not in the way it's commonly presented i.e. 'List-building-for-advantage' and a focus on the absolute efficiency-value and worth. That is a slippery inverse-slope that only leads to the top of the mountain, and there is very little space up there on the peak. It's quite lonely. Maybe half a dozen lists at any one time? For me, I rather place the value on relative value and worth. It doesn't have to be optimum builds at the peak of their factions abilities (but if that's what folks want, fair play to them. They're not wrong), instead just well matched lists across all points of the power curve. For me, list building is not an absolute, it's not a means of an end as often presented as part of the competitive-at-all-costs approach. For me, it's an aspect of game-building, of crafting interesting forces into themed narrative based scenarios with matched forces that aren't necessarily optimum builds, but rather themed builds to reflect the character of the story/scenario- I wouldn't place baneblades on either side of a flashpoint between skirmishers, for example. I often find games far more interesting when neither side has 'that perfect list' and rather, each must make do as best as they can with what hey have to hand. And I've been playing games long enough to know if Folks can build an optimum list, they can also probably build a 'matched' list, regardless,of where they sit on the power curve. 40k has a huge amount of variety, with things ranging from bikers with chains to city stomping Titans and air power. Not everything works everything else, but the right elements combined makes for a good game. And this I said true across other games too I feel. I'm ok with that. I'm generally ok and ambivalent to a certain level of imbalance because I am happy to apply a social shock absorber, and at least an up front discussion of what I like To play and what kind of game I'm after. (And that's the other thing. Communication is key. If you don't want to play my game, that's totally cool. It won't stop be being polite and friendly towards you.) gw could do a lot better at ensuring their game doesn't have jagged edges. But I'm also willing to put a bit of work in at my end as well to ensure the same thing. I guess I'm lucky I play with a group that's on the same page though.

 Marmatag wrote:
And what about matched play / playing to win precludes this process?

In a lot of communities equal points pick up games are a default norm. So you may find it difficult to get someone to agree to an unequal points scenario.

If you have no problem with the implications of competitive list building and playing rigorous tournament style games, then there's simply no problem to solve.

Deadnight wrote:
I find myself agreeing with chamberlain quite strongly here.

For the record, I have played tournaments to a reasonably high level, and have always enjoyed them, and very much enjoy and value pick-up-games. I also enjoy narrative games immensely.

I don't think competitiveness is ruining 40k at all. I do think that a focus, particularly on the Internet (by dint of attracting the most vocal and hardcore of us) of competitive-at-all-costs, and a focus on, or refusal, in some cases (whether voluntarily or involuntarily) to look beyond 'pick-up-games' and the assumption that this is the one proper way to play does cause some problems in the wider community. I don't know if this is reflective of actual players though across the spectrum, or only in certain spheres.

Gamers tend to be quite conservative in how they game. When a company presents, or when the community interprets a particular format a 'proper way to play', it is quite hard to find people who will willingly deviate. There is a cult of officialdom at play here where we will not deviate from a set of 'standard' missions. To be fair, this has its good points (privateer press' 'organised play' immediately comes to mind) but it can also suffocate experimentation and exploration. I find that gamers can be lazy, or disinterested in putting work into their games, and would rather default. And unfortunately, when there is a game mode viewed as 'default', people usually don't go beyond it. The default mode, as I see it, is the 'pick-up-game'. It's gaming 101. Pragmatism at all costs. And a lot of things get sacrificed on the altar to make this work. And for all that I enjoy, and value pick up games,I personally don't think sacrificing everything on that altar is worth it all of the time.

I think in general, when it comes to broken combos or whatever ruining the game, there is fault at both sides. I see it as two sides of the exact same coin. Yes, gw (or whoever) should have been more careful. But yes we, as a community, seem only too happy to inflict said problems on our peers with a shrug of the shoulders and an appeal to the authority's of 'yeah well, it's legal', (and to be fair, just because something I said legal doesn't make it right) and a hand waiving away of our own personal responsibility. Sometimes you see it transferred onto others and saying it's their fault - the 'git good' school of 'yeah well, you shouldn't have taken a crappy list, bring a proper list instead'. Or the inverse. Or else blaming the developer - and to be fair, there is a grain of truth there, but yet we ourselves happily play the damned broken stuff into each other too. And then try and justify it. At the risk of invoking Godwyn, we don't let war criminals off the hook because 'they were just following orders', we don't let bigots off the hook for their beliefs because it was written 'in a particular book', why should we let ourselves off the hook for inflicting all the problems of the game on each other?

What bothers me more than anything, and this is just my personal stance, is the competitive-at-all-costs mantra of only accepting the worth of the absolute pinnacle of 'what's good' as being relevant. As a sports fan, it's like saying the only game that matters is the UEFA champions league final. Fair enough, it's important, but there is so much more out there. Dozens of leagues in dozens of countries with all levels from grassroots to semi professional, and national leagues of various standings, whether small or large. And yet each has its adherents and rivalries, and great games and great stories.

Chamberlain, From my point of view, the greatest skill in the game is list-building. But not in the way it's commonly presented i.e. 'List-building-for-advantage' and a focus on the absolute efficiency-value and worth. That is a slippery inverse-slope that only leads to the top of the mountain, and there is very little space up there on the peak. It's quite lonely. Maybe half a dozen lists at any one time? For me, I rather place the value on relative value and worth. It doesn't have to be optimum builds at the peak of their factions abilities (but if that's what folks want, fair play to them. They're not wrong), instead just well matched lists across all points of the power curve. For me, list building is not an absolute, it's not a means of an end as often presented as part of the competitive-at-all-costs approach. For me, it's an aspect of game-building, of crafting interesting forces into themed narrative based scenarios with matched forces that aren't necessarily optimum builds, but rather themed builds to reflect the character of the story/scenario- I wouldn't place baneblades on either side of a flashpoint between skirmishers, for example. I often find games far more interesting when neither side has 'that perfect list' and rather, each must make do as best as they can with what hey have to hand. And I've been playing games long enough to know if Folks can build an optimum list, they can also probably build a 'matched' list, regardless,of where they sit on the power curve. 40k has a huge amount of variety, with things ranging from bikers with chains to city stomping Titans and air power. Not everything works everything else, but the right elements combined makes for a good game. And this I said true across other games too I feel. I'm ok with that. I'm generally ok and ambivalent to a certain level of imbalance because I am happy to apply a social shock absorber, and at least an up front discussion of what I like To play and what kind of game I'm after. (And that's the other thing. Communication is key. If you don't want to play my game, that's totally cool. It won't stop be being polite and friendly towards you.) gw could do a lot better at ensuring their game doesn't have jagged edges. But I'm also willing to put a bit of work in at my end as well to ensure the same thing. I guess I'm lucky I play with a group that's on the same page though.

Excellent post. There isn't much I disagree with there.

Deadnight wrote:
Chamberlain, From my point of view, the greatest skill in the game is list-building. But not in the way it's commonly presented i.e. 'List-building-for-advantage' and a focus on the absolute efficiency-value and worth. That is a slippery inverse-slope that only leads to the top of the mountain, and there is very little space up there on the peak. It's quite lonely. Maybe half a dozen lists at any one time? For me, I rather place the value on relative value and worth. It doesn't have to be optimum builds at the peak of their factions abilities (but if that's what folks want, fair play to them. They're not wrong), instead just well matched lists across all points of the power curve.

This skill would also allow a player to adjust their power level to meet that of a new player who possibly bought and painted some less than optimal choices as well, wouldn't it? Because it's about understanding what goes into list crafting rather than concentrating on just identifying the tiny minority of best lists and playing one of those.

For me, list building is not an absolute, it's not a means of an end as often presented as part of the competitive-at-all-costs approach. For me, it's an aspect of game-building, of crafting interesting forces into themed narrative based scenarios with matched forces that aren't necessarily optimum builds, but rather themed builds to reflect the character of the story/scenario- I wouldn't place baneblades on either side of a flashpoint between skirmishers, for example. I often find games far more interesting when neither side has 'that perfect list' and rather, each must make do as best as they can with what hey have to hand.

My group is currently starting up an adaptation of Path to Glory for 40k. We're going to have a random assortment of our collections as we play each game. We'll make do with what we get and do our best to carry the day in the scenarios. I think our selection of 40k units to populate those tables will definitely be an application of list building skill. Not to maximize power level but to ensure the game works well regardless of what is rolled.

And I've been playing games long enough to know if Folks can build an optimum list, they can also probably build a 'matched' list, regardless,of where they sit on the power curve. 40k has a huge amount of variety, with things ranging from bikers with chains to city stomping Titans and air power. Not everything works everything else, but the right elements combined makes for a good game. And this I said true across other games too I feel. I'm ok with that.

There are exactly the considerations we need to have when making our tables for our Path to Glory adaptation. Though to be fair, there's no assumption of equal forces in a path to glory campaign where people agree to go random. We just need it to work. To look at the type of things that are on the list and find their 40k equivalents.

I'm generally ok and ambivalent to a certain level of imbalance because I am happy to apply a social shock absorber, and at least an up front discussion of what I like To play and what kind of game I'm after. (And that's the other thing. Communication is key. If you don't want to play my game, that's totally cool. It won't stop be being polite and friendly towards you.)

I think communication is actually the most important thing. When people have these negative experiences with competitive players, it's often a result of expectations not matching up and certainly something that can be dealt after it happens with through polite conversation about future games.

People who approach teaching games with a competitive attitude are "that guy" kinds of people, and they're not always going to tournaments or playing outside of narrative, anyway. This attitude transcends how you approach the game.

Instructional games, where one player has a lot more knowledge of the game, will never be competitive, but they're not about playing 40k in its truest sense as they are helping someone learn the rules of the game. Seeing rules applied in real time help more than reading them on the page, right?

And we really are conflating two things here:

1. Competitive mindset
2. Matched play

Regardless of whether or not you have a competitive mindset, matched play is probably right for you. John Q Random, starting 40k for the first time, is best served with matched play rules.

Unless you can make a case that the game is somehow more approachable without any restrictions on psychic powers, or the ability to bring detachments with every race, and a ton of random sized squads. I would consider this the antithesis of a learning experience in 40k.

Like consider this.

Two players are starting 40k. One guy bought Eldrad, because, cool, he's like the leader of the army or whatever. Then he casts smite! Neat! got it with a 5. D3 mortal wounds. Oh, now he gets +1 to cast. He rolls a 7. Cool! it goes off again. D3 mortal wounds. Now he gets +2. Casts smite again, getting a 6 and a 2. He uses runes of the Farseer to reroll the 2, getting a 3. Neat! D6 mortal wounds. In one psychic phase this model did 2D3 + D6 mortal wounds. Let's just say he does 8 mortal wounds. What happens next game? Don't use Eldrad? Come to the forums and complain Eldrad is OP?

 Marmatag wrote:


And we really are conflating two things here:

1. Competitive mindset
2. Matched play

Yea I feel like we need a venn diagram to point out what specific thing we're talking about each time.

 Marmatag wrote:
Regardless of whether or not you have a competitive mindset, matched play is probably right for you. John Q Random, starting 40k for the first time, is best served with matched play rules.

I think Open Play is the best for the new player.

Unless you can make a case that the game is somehow more approachable without any restrictions on psychic powers, or the ability to bring detachments with every race, and a ton of random sized squads. I would consider this the antithesis of a learning experience in 40k.

I think this is a caricature of open and narrative gaming. The real new player open play experience is playing a game with a start collecting box and maybe another thing or two. If you're intentionally pushing on the points where Open Play has less restrictions than Matched Play then you have a mindset problem.

Two players are starting 40k. One guy bought Eldrad, because, cool, he's like the leader of the army or whatever. Then he casts smite! Neat! got it with a 5. D3 mortal wounds. Oh, now he gets +1 to cast. He rolls a 7. Cool! it goes off again. D3 mortal wounds. Now he gets +2. Casts smite again, getting a 6 and a 2. He uses runes of the Farseer to reroll the 2, getting a 3. Neat! D6 mortal wounds. In one psychic phase this model did 2D3 + D6 mortal wounds. Let's just say he does 8 mortal wounds. What happens next game? Don't use Eldrad? Come to the forums and complain Eldrad is OP?

I guess it sort of depends on the context of a larger game. The last smaller game with a new player we had they took eldrad and a genestealer patriarch ate him. He did crazy things during the psychic phase, but one even reasonable cult ambush roll and another player picked him off.

Personally I'd encourage the new player with Eldrad to try as many different powers as possible to see what he likes. The mindset that says "this is the best way to do as much damage as possible with Eldrad given the freedom of Open Play rules!" is really the problem you identified as being conflated with matched play. Now you're conflating it with the other two ways to play.

Wayniac wrote:
That's my other issue; it stagnates discussion because everyone assumes you are talking about hypothetical "GT top table competition" with everyone online, so you get advice that may/may not work, but pointing out something like "I've found unit x to be really good" gets dismissed as being useless because "everyone" says unit x sucks in tournaments.

There should be a way to discuss merit of units without always assuming that you mean the top tables of LVO or whatnot. Only talking competitively invalidates huge swathes of options in a game that prides itself on being about options.

I raised this in the Tactica Mechanicus thread we both post on (you more frequently and valuably than I) and was shouted down. Not by you, I might add.

Just because, for example, Kataphron Breachers are not statistically top tier does not mean all discussion of them should be squashed flat. You might use them and find they are the unit your opponent becomes completely terrified of and has to shut down at the expense of their tactical sense. You might admire their large base size, good save and multiple wounds as a barrier unit. Whatever it is, the Dakka Tactics threads can definitely be anti-discussion at the expense of the competitive hive mind.

My opening experience with 8th edition 40k (I came from Age of Sigmar) was opinionated experts telling everyone which units in the codex weren't even worth talking about. Every post on a facebook group would get the same couple of people commenting again and again about how X or Y was so bad or whatever. People stopped posting lists and I left the group.

 Chamberlain wrote:
My opening experience with 8th edition 40k (I came from Age of Sigmar) was opinionated experts telling everyone which units in the codex weren't even worth talking about. Every post on a facebook group would get the same couple of people commenting again and again about how X or Y was so bad or whatever. People stopped posting lists and I left the group.

I've found Facebook is the absolute worst place to discuss anything 40k related. The neckbearding that goes on there is absurd. I remember watching someone get chewed out for posting a list that wasn't competitive, and the neckbeards were jumping down his throat. It was then that i decided that 40k facebook is best for your FLGS groups to arrange games.

In open play, what's stopping a GSC player from null-deploying everything into ambush? Nothing says "fun" like having nothing to do on your first turn because everything is waiting to slaughter you turn 2. The 50% on the board rule is so important for game balance it's not even funny.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Silentz wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
That's my other issue; it stagnates discussion because everyone assumes you are talking about hypothetical "GT top table competition" with everyone online, so you get advice that may/may not work, but pointing out something like "I've found unit x to be really good" gets dismissed as being useless because "everyone" says unit x sucks in tournaments.

There should be a way to discuss merit of units without always assuming that you mean the top tables of LVO or whatnot. Only talking competitively invalidates huge swathes of options in a game that prides itself on being about options.

I raised this in the Tactica Mechanicus thread we both post on (you more frequently and valuably than I) and was shouted down. Not by you, I might add.

Just because, for example, Kataphron Breachers are not statistically top tier does not mean all discussion of them should be squashed flat. You might use them and find they are the unit your opponent becomes completely terrified of and has to shut down at the expense of their tactical sense. You might admire their large base size, good save and multiple wounds as a barrier unit. Whatever it is, the Dakka Tactics threads can definitely be anti-discussion at the expense of the competitive hive mind.

I haven't found this to be true. The Tyranids tactica thread has mostly good people and good discussions happening. I've wandered into the Eldar tactica thread and only one guy was a neckbeard. Being a jerk on the internet doesn't go hand in hand with being a competitive player. Outside of tactics threads, most of the people here on dakka are talking about stuff they have never even faced, just reading tournament results and assuming that <X> is true or <Y> is true.

Marmatag wrote:I've found Facebook is the absolute worst place to discuss anything 40k related. The neckbearding that goes on there is absurd. I remember watching someone get chewed out for posting a list that wasn't competitive, and the neckbeards were jumping down his throat. It was then that i decided that 40k facebook is best for your FLGS groups to arrange games.

Good advice for sure.

In open play, what's stopping a GSC player from null-deploying everything into ambush? Nothing says "fun" like having nothing to do on your first turn because everything is waiting to slaughter you turn 2. The 50% on the board rule is so important for game balance it's not even funny.

We actually really enjoy it when the GSC player does that. It definitely gives a "just another bug hunt" slant to the game. Like you need to accomplish what you came to do but you don't know where the enemy is or where they will show up. It can be very tense. So you go after any objectives as best you can. The GSC has to show up or they'll lose.

Similarly it's actually awesome when all the grey knights teleport in and try to cut your army's key units in a single turn. As is an all drop pod assault by space marines. We've had no real issues with it.

Most of these open/narrative bogey men scenarios can actually be pretty fun. We had an endless daemon horde scenario a while back. I'm sure many matched play regulars would have gak their pants at the prospect of summoning daemons without paying points for them. The game was great despite it centering around one of the big fears people have about non-matched play with daemons.

It seems like you're having a singular experience and trying to draw general conclusions from that.

 Marmatag wrote:
It seems like you're having a singular experience and trying to draw general conclusions from that.

Nah, I think it's far more likely that the typical new player doing open play has an experience like mine. Just think of a new customer recruited at a GW store that gets some sort of starter set and starts playing through the rulebook. They're simply not going to have the problems you fear in open and narrative play until they come up against someone who is intentionally trying to break the game on those points of difference. It's going to take "that guy" who actually does the things you are afraid of to cause a problem.

I get the desire to justify your concerns by minimizing the validity of my experience. I think it's better though to consider the possibility that your concerns about the way open play might break down are really about feeling like you need to be protected from what some bad other player might do to you. Just think about what some theoretical horrible person might do without the matched play restrictions!! It'll be awful!

You're the one who made the distinction between the mindset and the way to play, remember?

Your way of play leads to horribly imbalanced game scenarios, both on purpose, and by accident. Just because you have not encountered them yet does not mean they don't exist.

You are arguing for a demonstrably less balanced game, with ad-hoc and feelings based rules/balance.

The best place to start playing is a fair and balanced field, to lessen the impact of choice that so heavily can determine the outcome of games from the get-go. Some start collecting boxes are flat out better than others, and this is absolutely made worse by ditching matched play rulesets.

On the "learning in a GW store," i've found that people coming out of GW stores have an incredibly poor command of the rules. Not just matched play rules, but core rules that you should know if you're actually learning the game. Like, how to pile in, how to consolidate - they don't know this stuff. Because open play de-emphasizes the importance of rules. (And the GW clerk said, "Yeah you'd pile in and consolidate. But just slide your models in. let's get to the fighting! also buy this box of <models>")

If the goal is never to learn the game and never to play a matched play game - go nuts do whatever. But you shouldn't really have any stake in a game balance discussion. And you're so far removed from balanced 40k that changes to the tournament meta, and points values, probably don't even impact you at all ANYWAY, as you're probably playing PL in the first place. How is your group affected by the potential change with Guardsmen going from 4ppm -> 5ppm? Probably not at all. Hugely significant to the rest of us.

 Marmatag wrote:
Your way of play leads to horribly imbalanced game scenarios, both on purpose, and by accident. Just because you have not encountered them yet does not mean they don't exist.

Oh noes! My gaming is going to spontaneously combust. it's inevitables!

The best place to start playing is a fair and balanced field, to lessen the impact of choice that so heavily can determine the outcome of games from the get-go. Some start collecting boxes are flat out better than others, and this is absolutely made worse by ditching matched play rulesets.

About a month ago we had a couple of new players and we had a three player game where they each played their start collecting boxes against my start collecting nurgle daemons. And they were both teamed up against me. But since we were playing Death Or Glory if I could have just held on one more turn, I would have won.

On the "learning in a GW store," i've found that people coming out of GW stores have an incredibly poor command of the rules. Not just matched play rules, but core rules that you should know if you're actually learning the game. Like, how to pile in, how to consolidate - they don't know this stuff. Because open play de-emphasizes the importance of rules.

Wow you are conflating things. Now people don't know the rules because open play says the rules aren't important? That's hilarious.

But you shouldn't really have any stake in a game balance discussion. And you're so far removed from 40k that changes to the tournament meta, and points values, probably don't even impact you at all ANYWAY, as you're probably playing PL in the first place.

Here it is. The smug "you're not really even playing real 40k" attitude. I thought that might show up.

I currently feeling pretty gutted by 40k ive been playing in a group for quite a few years now and its been fun somtimes

it started in 6th with tau suit spam abusing the look out sir rolls and i left after being steam rolled time after time .i join again and his new army was eldar the same thing happened. Hornets warp hunters wraith knight and scatter spam.

We played in teams so it wasnt as bad when i was on his team however i felt bad for the other players

so i got an eldar army and things where more balanced and one sided so didnt help over all

8th came and all of a sudden the host was no longer auto wining things where looking good i played a game with my new raptor and it was really good so next week i brought a diffrent list and it all seemed more fun

Then dark reapers happened so im now facing 20 of them in 2 wave serpents and 2 fireprism with linked fire and the host has houseruled use as many physics powers as you have physics so now all the dark reapers are rerolling and 5+ fnp

i honestly dont think that he understands that the game can be really unblanced and when i bring it up i think he thinks im just a sore loser.

Its gutting because i have 4 fully painted and converted armys ive invested 100s of hours into

I just dont see the point in playing a game where i can tell whos going to win before the game has started, this is in an enviroment where its been played as game rather than an rpg

Sorry for the rant just need to get it off my chest

 Chamberlain wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Your way of play leads to horribly imbalanced game scenarios, both on purpose, and by accident. Just because you have not encountered them yet does not mean they don't exist.

Oh noes! My gaming is going to spontaneously combust. it's inevitables!

The point stands.

 Chamberlain wrote:

The best place to start playing is a fair and balanced field, to lessen the impact of choice that so heavily can determine the outcome of games from the get-go. Some start collecting boxes are flat out better than others, and this is absolutely made worse by ditching matched play rulesets.

About a month ago we had a couple of new players and we had a three player game where they each played their start collecting boxes against my start collecting nurgle daemons. And they were both teamed up against me. But since we were playing Death Or Glory if I could have just held on one more turn, I would have won.

Nice anecdote. This is not the experience of everyone. I have played start collecting vs start collecting games and they were horribly imbalanced and one sided. Because one army had a twin lascannon, and the other didn't have anything to match the range. But again, a balanced environment doesn't matter if you don't mind blowing someone off the table. Personally i prefer closer games.

 Chamberlain wrote:

On the "learning in a GW store," i've found that people coming out of GW stores have an incredibly poor command of the rules. Not just matched play rules, but core rules that you should know if you're actually learning the game. Like, how to pile in, how to consolidate - they don't know this stuff. Because open play de-emphasizes the importance of rules.

Wow you are conflating things. Now people don't know the rules because open play says the rules aren't important? That's hilarious.

It wholly does. Rules matter more when you care about the outcome of the game. I doubt anyone in your group will have a monster piling into a solid wall and fighting something it can't see on the other side which is technically within 1".

 Chamberlain wrote:

But you shouldn't really have any stake in a game balance discussion. And you're so far removed from 40k that changes to the tournament meta, and points values, probably don't even impact you at all ANYWAY, as you're probably playing PL in the first place.

Here it is. The smug "you're not really even playing real 40k" attitude. I thought that might show up.

Not really, explain why game balance matters to you, please. So far you've done a good job arguing that it doesn't. If balance doesn't matter to you, rules adjustments and points adjustments shouldn't either. So if competitive 40k is ruining 40k for you, at this point you need to explain exactly how, because it doesn't seem like you give a care in regards to any semblance of balance. You are able to create your own fun and balanced games, so why does the competitive nature of players matter even in the slightest?

Shortening this post. Removing salt.

Arnt you missing the point that open play is an rpg style the fun is in the events of the game not the winning

Competive play the fun is winning and for some people thats all that matters i think the trouble happens when people lack empathy for others and keep chasing the high of winning

ian wrote:
I currently feeling pretty gutted by 40k ive been playing in a group for quite a few years now and its been fun somtimes

it started in 6th with tau suit spam abusing the look out sir rolls and i left after being steam rolled time after time .i join again and his new army was eldar the same thing happened. Hornets warp hunters wraith knight and scatter spam.

We played in teams so it wasnt as bad when i was on his team however i felt bad for the other players

so i got an eldar army and things where more balanced and one sided so didnt help over all

8th came and all of a sudden the host was no longer auto wining things where looking good i played a game with my new raptor and it was really good so next week i brought a diffrent list and it all seemed more fun

Then dark reapers happened so im now facing 20 of them in 2 wave serpents and 2 fireprism with linked fire and the host has houseruled use as many physics powers as you have physics so now all the dark reapers are rerolling and 5+ fnp

i honestly dont think that he understands that the game can be really unblanced and when i bring it up i think he thinks im just a sore loser.

Its gutting because i have 4 fully painted and converted armys ive invested 100s of hours into

I just dont see the point in playing a game where i can tell whos going to win before the game has started, this is in an enviroment where its been played as game rather than an rpg

Sorry for the rant just need to get it off my chest

EDIT - i missed this piece in bold. This is a byproduct of open play. Your games would be far more balanced without this "house rule." You should insist on matched play restrictions, this would go away.

It would have been far worse had he discovered the Yncarne. Faaaar far worse.

I've done the facebook thing. I've advocated against the heldrake often, but I follow it up with why you might use it and what I think the shortcomings are. I still think it's valuable, but you need to list build with certain things in mind when doing so.