Switch Theme:

40k is missing synergies  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Dakka Veteran





Yes yet another person posting their "I know best and know how to fix 40k" ramblings.

But I really feel the army building side off 40k is stagnant. Every discussion boils down to the same one netlist for each army. Essentially take min troops no upgrade and fill the rest of the points with copies of whatever the current "only not worthless" model is. Part of that is mathhammering never taking into account positioning and context, part is the tournament scene being so chalk full of cheese it's basically a joke with zero competition or tactics being used, but I think a big part is the lack of synergies.

Look at something like warmachine. Each army hasn't many different combos and synergies, often a single mod will have different combos with many other models and various interactions, any of which are useful. Since units don't boil down to only what can case the most damage in a vacuum turn 1, you're building combos instead of copy pasting one flavor of the month unit over and over.

Or look at something like MtG. There I see no "best card" and you win by taking a deck of 40 copies of that card. No card will win alone, you have to take in the context of your deck or 'army.' You have to use combos and interactions, of which there are countless. Then back to 40k you have most of your units having absolutely no interactions with your other units, and even with enemy units it's basically just straight damage 99% of the time.

40k does have some buff auras but almost all of them are "reroll 1s to hit." So very rarely do units interact with each other in other ways.

This I think leads to stagnation and a lack of tactics.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/03/27 21:20:57


 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran





Danny slag wrote:
Yes yet another person posting their "I know best and know how to fix 40k" ramblings.

But I really feel the army building side off 40k is stagnant. Every discussion boils down to the same one netlist for each army. Essentially take min troops no upgrade and fill the rest of the points with copies of whatever the current "only not worthless" model is. Part of that is mathhammering never taking into account positioning and context, part is the tournament scene being so chalk full of cheese it's basically a joke with zero competition or tactics being used, but I think a big part is the lack of synergies.



But that isn't the case at all. I play a competitive chaos soup list that is almost all troop choices. I don't think the rest of the argument can be valid if you've argued from a flawed premise. I don't disagree that individual books could do with better internal balance so that other troops/units are more viable. That said current competitive 40k isn't a min troop, max other good units for all armies.
   
Made in us
Legendary Master of the Chapter






Ehh while you can do plenty of different combos at least in the tourny sense i could of sworn they just net listed the combos anyway.

something about griffins and no fun circle jerks.

IIRC the most ridiculous synergy iv seen was the bloodbound with blood something something army in aos.

I figure the fill the rest of the points with copies of whatever the current only not worthless models would fill that requirement farseer

im going to assume no Chaos space "marines" had been taken lately.

or potentially some of the cult troops.

cultists are a really good troop choice.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/03/27 21:25:19


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 Scott-S6 wrote:
And yet another thread is hijacked for Unit to ask for the same advice, receive the same answers and make the same excuses.

Oh my god I'm becoming martel.
Send help!

 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran





 Desubot wrote:
Ehh while you can do plenty of different combos at least in the tourny sense i could of sworn they just net listed the combos anyway.

something about griffins and no fun circle jerks.

IIRC the most ridiculous synergy iv seen was the bloodbound with blood something something army in aos.



You know someone has to originate those netlists right?
   
Made in us
Legendary Master of the Chapter






 Farseer_V2 wrote:
 Desubot wrote:
Ehh while you can do plenty of different combos at least in the tourny sense i could of sworn they just net listed the combos anyway.

something about griffins and no fun circle jerks.

IIRC the most ridiculous synergy iv seen was the bloodbound with blood something something army in aos.



You know someone has to originate those netlists right?


And? all net lists had to start somewhere.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 Scott-S6 wrote:
And yet another thread is hijacked for Unit to ask for the same advice, receive the same answers and make the same excuses.

Oh my god I'm becoming martel.
Send help!

 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran





 Farseer_V2 wrote:
Danny slag wrote:
Yes yet another person posting their "I know best and know how to fix 40k" ramblings.

But I really feel the army building side off 40k is stagnant. Every discussion boils down to the same one netlist for each army. Essentially take min troops no upgrade and fill the rest of the points with copies of whatever the current "only not worthless" model is. Part of that is mathhammering never taking into account positioning and context, part is the tournament scene being so chalk full of cheese it's basically a joke with zero competition or tactics being used, but I think a big part is the lack of synergies.



But that isn't the case at all. I play a competitive chaos soup list that is almost all troop choices. I don't think the rest of the argument can be valid if you've argued from a flawed premise. I don't disagree that individual books could do with better internal balance so that other troops/units are more viable. That said current competitive 40k isn't a min troop, max other good units for all armies.


Well considering that was not the premise of my statement, but was merely a piece of supporting evidence, sorry but even if that point isn't 100% correct for every list that wouldn't discount my conclusion.

And the competitive scene, which shouldn't even be called that because those are the least competitive games that exist, is largely netlist spamhammer. Sure there are a few other forms of cheese, but they are the minority.


My point being there are very few interesting or varied interactions in 40k leaving no creativity or reason to use different options in list building. Even when GW tries to have some interactions they tend to be lazy, the only one for the entire army, so once again shoehorning down a single path.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/03/27 21:30:11


 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran





Danny slag wrote:


Well considering that was not the premise of my statement, but was merely a piece of supporting evidence, sorry but even if that point isn't 100% correct for every list that wouldn't discount my conclusion.

And the competitive scene, which shouldn't even be called that because those are the least competitive games that exist, is largely netlist spamhammer. Sure there are a few other forms of cheese, but they are the minority.


My point being there are very few interesting or varied interactions in 40k leaving no creativity or reason to use different options in list building. Even when GW tries to have some interactions they tend to be lazy, the only one for the entire army, so once again shoehorning down a single path.


So I'm curious about a few things. The first regarding the idea of netlist spamhammer, someone originates those ideas right? Ultimately they tend to spawn from the top end and trickle down. And granted we saw at Adepticon this weekend a massive spam list win the overall with 7 Flyrants. I won't disagree that spam occurs but it isn't the only viable build out there. Some Eldar and Chaos lists as well as some Imperial lists tend to favor a wider variety of units - it just depends on the internal balance of the books available.

Second question - what would be a varied or interesting interaction to you, that exists in the framework of the current rules? I provide that caveat because without it I think you're looking for more of a rules re-write as opposed to changes in list building structure. Personally I feel like I have lots of interesting interactions in my list - I have several units that I need to choose from for available buffs (auras, stratagems, and psychic powers) which to me is an interesting option, I have different layers of support I can provide to different units and making those choices is a key element of my army.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/03/27 21:38:50


 
   
Made in us
Willing Inquisitorial Excruciator




Danny slag wrote:
Yes yet another person posting their "I know best and know how to fix 40k" ramblings.

But I really feel the army building side off 40k is stagnant. Every discussion boils down to the same one netlist for each army. Essentially take min troops no upgrade and fill the rest of the points with copies of whatever the current "only not worthless" model is. Part of that is mathhammering never taking into account positioning and context, part is the tournament scene being so chalk full of cheese it's basically a joke with zero competition or tactics being used, but I think a big part is the lack of synergies.

Look at something like warmachine. Each army hasn't many different combos and synergies, often a single mod will have different combos with many other models and various interactions, any of which are useful. Since units don't boil down to only what can case the most damage in a vacuum turn 1, you're building combos instead of copy pasting one flavor of the month unit over and over.

Or look at something like MtG. There I see no "best card" and you win by taking a deck of 40 copies of that card. No card will win alone, you have to take in the context of your deck or 'army.' You have to use combos and interactions, of which there are countless. Then back to 40k you have most of your units having absolutely no interactions with your other units, and even with enemy units it's basically just straight damage 99% of the time.

40k does have some buff auras but almost all of them are "reroll 1s to hit." So very rarely do units interact with each other in other ways.

This I think leads to stagnation and a lack of tactics.


Former MTG player here. There have been many, many times where if I could take a very large number of a certain card, I would. Could you imagine if I could have run 40 Goblin Guides as a legal deck? I'd do that in a heartbeat. The difference is that MTG has a rule where no matter how good a card is, you can only take 4 of it.

This doesn't directly translate to 40k, because 40k is a very different type of game. Armies have drastically different options available to them: Space Marines have well over 60 different units to pick from, while Harlequins have 8! And running 6 Firesight Marksmen is entirely different than running 6 Hive Tyrants.

Also, I wouldn't exactly call MTG a nirvana where there's no netlists that dominate the metagame. MTG's actually quite the opposite of that, the longer a format's been out the more likely it will develop into a number of netlists that have strong or weak matchups against each other.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/03/27 21:50:55


 
   
Made in gb
Dakka Veteran





Looking at my Blood Angels Codex I can see a fair few ways different units interact with each other. A big blob of Death Company dropping in with a Sanguinary Priest, Ancient, Chaplain, Captain and Lieutenant to support them are gonna hurt.

Take a look at what I've been painting and modelling: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/725222.page 
   
Made in us
Loyal Necron Lychguard





The Poxwalker farm is built on synergies stacked on synergies. Ironically it's one of the least fun lists in the meta.
   
Made in us
Heroic Senior Officer





Western Kentucky

Danny slag wrote:
Yes yet another person posting their "I know best and know how to fix 40k" ramblings.

But I really feel the army building side off 40k is stagnant. Every discussion boils down to the same one netlist for each army. Essentially take min troops no upgrade and fill the rest of the points with copies of whatever the current "only not worthless" model is. Part of that is mathhammering never taking into account positioning and context, part is the tournament scene being so chalk full of cheese it's basically a joke with zero competition or tactics being used, but I think a big part is the lack of synergies.

Look at something like warmachine. Each army hasn't many different combos and synergies, often a single mod will have different combos with many other models and various interactions, any of which are useful. Since units don't boil down to only what can case the most damage in a vacuum turn 1, you're building combos instead of copy pasting one flavor of the month unit over and over.

Or look at something like MtG. There I see no "best card" and you win by taking a deck of 40 copies of that card. No card will win alone, you have to take in the context of your deck or 'army.' You have to use combos and interactions, of which there are countless. Then back to 40k you have most of your units having absolutely no interactions with your other units, and even with enemy units it's basically just straight damage 99% of the time.

40k does have some buff auras but almost all of them are "reroll 1s to hit." So very rarely do units interact with each other in other ways.

This I think leads to stagnation and a lack of tactics.

Except this objectively wrong. Most of the top tier lists involve heavy synergy between units with buffs, strategems, screens, pyskers, army special rules, chapter tactics, etc. . It's not always as cut and dry as something like warmachine, but to say this game doesn't heavily reward synergy and combos is to pretty much wilfully ignore what is doing well in the tournament scene. Even the most simplistic of gunline armies still use basic synergy between buff characters and screens to keep the firepower online.

Is it on the level of Big Blue chess or something? Probably not, but it's hardly just show up, plop list down, ?????, Profit. Even something as braindead simple as the guilleman murderball took at least some brains to win anything other than a basic kill points mission.


'I've played Guard for years, and the best piece of advice is to always utilize the Guard's best special rule: "we roll more dice than you" ' - stormleader

"Sector Imperialis: 25mm and 40mm Round Bases (40+20) 26€ (Including 32 skulls for basing) " GW design philosophy in a nutshell  
   
Made in ca
Renegade Inquisitor with a Bound Daemon





Tied and gagged in the back of your car

Armies in 40k don't get win conditions. You don't spend time countering moves back and forth until a climax occurs. Instead, you mostly just stack aura buffs and shoot your opponent off the table before they get a chance to do otherwise. Because of this, and because GW does not know how to design good counterplay or counter mechanisms (no, just having a high number of shots does not make an anti-horde gun), most tools available to a faction end up being distilled down to linear numerical evaluations that leave little room for creativity.
   
Made in de
Sister Vastly Superior




Germany - Bodensee/Ravensburg area

You might want to start playing Tau then?

It would probably take me a minimum of 10 minutes typing fast just to list all the synergies and various buff auras in my competitive 1500 point lists.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/03/27 23:01:28


Dark it was, and dire of form
the beast that laid them low
Hrothgar's sharpened frost-forged blade
to deal a fatal blow
he stalked and hunted day and night
and came upon it's lair
With sword and shield Hrothgar fought
and earned the name of slayer


- The saga of Hrothgar the Beastslayer 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran





 Fafnir wrote:
Armies in 40k don't get win conditions. You don't spend time countering moves back and forth until a climax occurs. Instead, you mostly just stack aura buffs and shoot your opponent off the table before they get a chance to do otherwise. Because of this, and because GW does not know how to design good counterplay or counter mechanisms (no, just having a high number of shots does not make an anti-horde gun), most tools available to a faction end up being distilled down to linear numerical evaluations that leave little room for creativity.


This is funny to me because one of the first things you should learn to do in 8th is find ways to shut down shooting early to counter play heavy shooting lists.
   
Made in gb
Sadistic Inquisitorial Excruciator




 meleti wrote:
Danny slag wrote:
Yes yet another person posting their "I know best and know how to fix 40k" ramblings.

But I really feel the army building side off 40k is stagnant. Every discussion boils down to the same one netlist for each army. Essentially take min troops no upgrade and fill the rest of the points with copies of whatever the current "only not worthless" model is. Part of that is mathhammering never taking into account positioning and context, part is the tournament scene being so chalk full of cheese it's basically a joke with zero competition or tactics being used, but I think a big part is the lack of synergies.

Look at something like warmachine. Each army hasn't many different combos and synergies, often a single mod will have different combos with many other models and various interactions, any of which are useful. Since units don't boil down to only what can case the most damage in a vacuum turn 1, you're building combos instead of copy pasting one flavor of the month unit over and over.

Or look at something like MtG. There I see no "best card" and you win by taking a deck of 40 copies of that card. No card will win alone, you have to take in the context of your deck or 'army.' You have to use combos and interactions, of which there are countless. Then back to 40k you have most of your units having absolutely no interactions with your other units, and even with enemy units it's basically just straight damage 99% of the time.

40k does have some buff auras but almost all of them are "reroll 1s to hit." So very rarely do units interact with each other in other ways.

This I think leads to stagnation and a lack of tactics.



Former MTG player here. There have been many, many times where if I could take a very large number of a certain card, I would. Could you imagine if I could have run 40 Goblin Guides as a legal deck? I'd do that in a heartbeat. The difference is that MTG has a rule where no matter how good a card is, you can only take 4 of it.

This doesn't directly translate to 40k, because 40k is a very different type of game. Armies have drastically different options available to them: Space Marines have well over 60 different units to pick from, while Harlequins have 8! And running 6 Firesight Marksmen is entirely different than running 6 Hive Tyrants.

Also, I wouldn't exactly call MTG a nirvana where there's no netlists that dominate the metagame. MTG's actually quite the opposite of that, the longer a format's been out the more likely it will develop into a number of netlists that have strong or weak matchups against each other.


I, uh, play magic competitively.

I don't know what kind of level you played at, but 40 Goblin guides would be an utterly awful deck. 40 Lightning bolts would be a much better stab at a 'Spam deck', which would likely win T4, but would have several very easy counters, which could easily be sideboarded in.

40k is missing sideboards. Badly.

And sure, Magic is Netdecky, but less so than 40k, there are new decks popping up every protour, that's how the meta changes, and it's only about 4 months between releases, which also shakes up the scene again. 40k doesn't manage, and couldn't manage that, it would be like re-releasing half the codexes every year.

Disclaimer - I am a Games Workshop Shareholder. 
   
Made in us
Irked Necron Immortal




Sentient Void

At least 7th had fluff at the core of its synergies. I predict that by the time 8th is done it will be looked on with far more contempt than 7th. Let's stick a pin in that one and revisit later...

I have less of a problem with synergies than a host of other things I hate about 8th (100% from my perspective):
-Power Levels because it makes for stuck on stupid lists
-Number-of-books-needed-to-play creep makes referencing a nightmare.
-Command Points are a fiddly mechanic that slows the game down and can cause thought paralysis, especially with new players... and yet more accounting.
-Lack of tactical depth even for a GW game.
-GW using a release and errata system to attempt balance rather than producing good rules.
-People who try to argue with me about any of the above because I have a right to hold my own opinions. I am fine with someone having a different perspective but that does not mean anyone needs to be converted.

Paradigm for a happy relationship with Games Workshop: Burn the books and take the models to a different game. 
   
Made in us
Monster-Slaying Daemonhunter





Danny slag wrote:
Yes yet another person posting their "I know best and know how to fix 40k" ramblings.

But I really feel the army building side off 40k is stagnant. Every discussion boils down to the same one netlist for each army. Essentially take min troops no upgrade and fill the rest of the points with copies of whatever the current "only not worthless" model is. Part of that is mathhammering never taking into account positioning and context, part is the tournament scene being so chalk full of cheese it's basically a joke with zero competition or tactics being used, but I think a big part is the lack of synergies.

Look at something like warmachine. Each army hasn't many different combos and synergies, often a single mod will have different combos with many other models and various interactions, any of which are useful. Since units don't boil down to only what can case the most damage in a vacuum turn 1, you're building combos instead of copy pasting one flavor of the month unit over and over.

Or look at something like MtG. There I see no "best card" and you win by taking a deck of 40 copies of that card. No card will win alone, you have to take in the context of your deck or 'army.' You have to use combos and interactions, of which there are countless. Then back to 40k you have most of your units having absolutely no interactions with your other units, and even with enemy units it's basically just straight damage 99% of the time.

40k does have some buff auras but almost all of them are "reroll 1s to hit." So very rarely do units interact with each other in other ways.

This I think leads to stagnation and a lack of tactics.



Huh. This isn't true.

After all, you need tanks to back up your guardsmen. Guardsmen+Scout Sentinels+Artillery have very good synergy that makes a very powerful list.

Guardsmen, hear me! Cadia may lie in ruin, but her proud people do not! For each brother and sister who gave their lives to Him as martyrs, we will reap a vengeance fiftyfold! Cadia may be no more, but will never be forgotten; our foes shall tremble in fear at the name, for their doom shall come from the barrels of Cadian guns, fired by Cadian hands! Forward, for vengeance and retribution, in His name and the names of our fallen comrades! 
   
Made in ca
Renegade Inquisitor with a Bound Daemon





Tied and gagged in the back of your car

 Farseer_V2 wrote:
 Fafnir wrote:
Armies in 40k don't get win conditions. You don't spend time countering moves back and forth until a climax occurs. Instead, you mostly just stack aura buffs and shoot your opponent off the table before they get a chance to do otherwise. Because of this, and because GW does not know how to design good counterplay or counter mechanisms (no, just having a high number of shots does not make an anti-horde gun), most tools available to a faction end up being distilled down to linear numerical evaluations that leave little room for creativity.


This is funny to me because one of the first things you should learn to do in 8th is find ways to shut down shooting early to counter play heavy shooting lists.


Usually by shooting first.

I mean, I'll throw in an assassin or two or Celestine to tie things up, but it's the frontloaded firepower that does all the real heavy lifting.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/03/28 00:04:13


 
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






 Tokhuah wrote:

-People who try to argue with me about any of the above because I have a right to hold my own opinions. I am fine with someone having a different perspective but that does not mean anyone needs to be converted.


This reminds me of a Dilbert comic where in an employee review, the boss says "Your biggest problem is that you argue with people who are smarter than you".

"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"

"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"

"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"

"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"  
   
Made in us
Willing Inquisitorial Excruciator




AdmiralHalsey wrote:
 meleti wrote:
Danny slag wrote:
Yes yet another person posting their "I know best and know how to fix 40k" ramblings.

But I really feel the army building side off 40k is stagnant. Every discussion boils down to the same one netlist for each army. Essentially take min troops no upgrade and fill the rest of the points with copies of whatever the current "only not worthless" model is. Part of that is mathhammering never taking into account positioning and context, part is the tournament scene being so chalk full of cheese it's basically a joke with zero competition or tactics being used, but I think a big part is the lack of synergies.

Look at something like warmachine. Each army hasn't many different combos and synergies, often a single mod will have different combos with many other models and various interactions, any of which are useful. Since units don't boil down to only what can case the most damage in a vacuum turn 1, you're building combos instead of copy pasting one flavor of the month unit over and over.

Or look at something like MtG. There I see no "best card" and you win by taking a deck of 40 copies of that card. No card will win alone, you have to take in the context of your deck or 'army.' You have to use combos and interactions, of which there are countless. Then back to 40k you have most of your units having absolutely no interactions with your other units, and even with enemy units it's basically just straight damage 99% of the time.

40k does have some buff auras but almost all of them are "reroll 1s to hit." So very rarely do units interact with each other in other ways.

This I think leads to stagnation and a lack of tactics.



Former MTG player here. There have been many, many times where if I could take a very large number of a certain card, I would. Could you imagine if I could have run 40 Goblin Guides as a legal deck? I'd do that in a heartbeat. The difference is that MTG has a rule where no matter how good a card is, you can only take 4 of it.

This doesn't directly translate to 40k, because 40k is a very different type of game. Armies have drastically different options available to them: Space Marines have well over 60 different units to pick from, while Harlequins have 8! And running 6 Firesight Marksmen is entirely different than running 6 Hive Tyrants.

Also, I wouldn't exactly call MTG a nirvana where there's no netlists that dominate the metagame. MTG's actually quite the opposite of that, the longer a format's been out the more likely it will develop into a number of netlists that have strong or weak matchups against each other.


I, uh, play magic competitively.

I don't know what kind of level you played at, but 40 Goblin guides would be an utterly awful deck. 40 Lightning bolts would be a much better stab at a 'Spam deck', which would likely win T4, but would have several very easy counters, which could easily be sideboarded in.

40k is missing sideboards. Badly.

And sure, Magic is Netdecky, but less so than 40k, there are new decks popping up every protour, that's how the meta changes, and it's only about 4 months between releases, which also shakes up the scene again. 40k doesn't manage, and couldn't manage that, it would be like re-releasing half the codexes every year.


I don't play anymore. No idea what you'd consider competitive, I was a grinder but not on the pro tour.

But yeah, I figure 40 Goblin Guides would have been pretty good when that card was in standard. I don't know if you played, but a lot of decks were midrangey Jund gak and slower Jace gak and if you could take tons of Goblin Guides that would have been pretty good against (and in) those Jund decks and pretty great against Jace decks. And that's just a random example, I'm sure you get the point. 40 of a card is a whole lot but there are certainly cards you'd play well in excess of 4 of if the rules allowed it. Because some cards are always better than others, and some cards are a whole lot better than others. Goblin Guide probably isn't even an extreme example of that, just something that would be decent enough if you had 40.

I wouldn't say 40k or Magic is less netlist-focused. In MTG, formats change and metas evolve because of new set releases. In 40k, the meta evolves because of new edition/codex/supplement releases and new/different tournament rules sets (see Flyrants at LVO vs Adepticon or ETC).. Same deal really.
   
Made in us
Potent Possessed Daemonvessel





While I agree with those that say your magic analogy is flawed because the rules prevent spam (you might not play 40 of the same card, but 10? Absolutely there would be times you would if you could I think your premise that different synergies would create more variety is solid right now too many synergies effect all units, rather than only improving some units or unit types.
   
Made in us
Trustworthy Shas'vre





Cobleskill

AdmiralHalsey wrote:
 meleti wrote:
Danny slag wrote:
Yes yet another person posting their "I know best and know how to fix 40k" ramblings.

But I really feel the army building side off 40k is stagnant. Every discussion boils down to the same one netlist for each army. Essentially take min troops no upgrade and fill the rest of the points with copies of whatever the current "only not worthless" model is. Part of that is mathhammering never taking into account positioning and context, part is the tournament scene being so chalk full of cheese it's basically a joke with zero competition or tactics being used, but I think a big part is the lack of synergies.

Look at something like warmachine. Each army hasn't many different combos and synergies, often a single mod will have different combos with many other models and various interactions, any of which are useful. Since units don't boil down to only what can case the most damage in a vacuum turn 1, you're building combos instead of copy pasting one flavor of the month unit over and over.


Or look at something like MtG. There I see no "best card" and you win by taking a deck of 40 copies of that card. No card will win alone, you have to take in the context of your deck or 'army.' You have to use combos and interactions, of which there are countless. Then back to 40k you have most of your units having absolutely no interactions with your other units, and even with enemy units it's basically just straight damage 99% of the time.

40k does have some buff auras but almost all of them are "reroll 1s to hit." So very rarely do units interact with each other in other ways.

This I think leads to stagnation and a lack of tactics.



Former MTG player here. There have been many, many times where if I could take a very large number of a certain card, I would. Could you imagine if I could have run 40 Goblin Guides as a legal deck? I'd do that in a heartbeat. The difference is that MTG has a rule where no matter how good a card is, you can only take 4 of it.

This doesn't directly translate to 40k, because 40k is a very different type of game. Armies have drastically different options available to them: Space Marines have well over 60 different units to pick from, while Harlequins have 8! And running 6 Firesight Marksmen is entirely different than running 6 Hive Tyrants.

Also, I wouldn't exactly call MTG a nirvana where there's no netlists that dominate the metagame. MTG's actually quite the opposite of that, the longer a format's been out the more likely it will develop into a number of netlists that have strong or weak matchups against each other.


I, uh, play magic competitively.

I don't know what kind of level you played at, but 40 Goblin guides would be an utterly awful deck. 40 Lightning bolts would be a much better stab at a 'Spam deck', which would likely win T4, but would have several very easy counters, which could easily be sideboarded in.

40k is missing sideboards. Badly.

And sure, Magic is Netdecky, but less so than 40k, there are new decks popping up every protour, that's how the meta changes, and it's only about 4 months between releases, which also shakes up the scene again. 40k doesn't manage, and couldn't manage that, it would be like re-releasing half the codexes every year.


Actually, 30 lightning bolts is why WoTC instituted the 4 card maximum. in a 40 card deck, which they then increased to 60. There are currently 2 cards that can be spammed in such a manner with rumors that there is about to be a third ( and which make Balthor edh decks horrible to play, btw).

Actually, I think that 40k suffers from a certain amount of skornergy, to borrow a WM\H term, in that combo pieces can be removed easier than some people think. I am reminded of how battle can be dictated by terrain;
'we can get to the enemy quicker if we can use that bridge,' from a young commander.
'What bridge?' from an old sergeant.
They watch the enemy destroy the bridge.
'Oh'

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/03/28 06:57:06


'No plan survives contact with the enemy. Who are we?'
'THE ENEMY!!!'
Racerguy180 wrote:
rules come and go, models are forever...like herpes.
 
   
Made in us
On a Canoptek Spyder's Waiting List




AdmiralHalsey wrote:
40k is missing sideboards. Badly.


I still don't understand why GW doesn't have sideboards.

Raises skill cap.
Counters spam lists.
Makes people buy more stuff.

You'd think it hits every point that GW wants.
   
Made in ca
Commander of the Mysterious 2nd Legion





Xachariah wrote:
AdmiralHalsey wrote:
40k is missing sideboards. Badly.


I still don't understand why GW doesn't have sideboards.

Raises skill cap.
Counters spam lists.
Makes people buy more stuff.

You'd think it hits every point that GW wants.


side boards are a pretty easy thing to add in. do we really need GW to tell us it's ok?

Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two 
   
Made in us
Potent Possessed Daemonvessel





You can never really have sideboards in the same way as magic, instead you would do better with a “multiple” list format li warmachine or multiple sideboards at least. Swapping in individual units etc is a nightmare. It would be better to say in a game you can have 3 detachments in your army, one of these not to exceed x amount of points can be a side board detachment, it can be swapped out for your other sideboard detachment of equal points. Beyond that you would need to go multiple lists points just make things wonky otherwise.
   
Made in us
Trustworthy Shas'vre





Cobleskill

Breng77 wrote:
You can never really have sideboards in the same way as magic, instead you would do better with a “multiple” list format li warmachine or multiple sideboards at least. Swapping in individual units etc is a nightmare. It would be better to say in a game you can have 3 detachments in your army, one of these not to exceed x amount of points can be a side board detachment, it can be swapped out for your other sideboard detachment of equal points. Beyond that you would need to go multiple lists points just make things wonky otherwise.


Warmachine has 2 solutions that can be stolen\borrowed.
1. The 2 list format
2. 'Specialists' or a percentage of lists that can be swapped out between games.

'No plan survives contact with the enemy. Who are we?'
'THE ENEMY!!!'
Racerguy180 wrote:
rules come and go, models are forever...like herpes.
 
   
Made in gb
Lord of the Fleet






Danny slag wrote:
part is the tournament scene being so chalk full of cheese it's basically a joke with zero competition or tactics being used

This leads me to think that you don't know what you're talking about. If, as you suggest, an army spamming one good unit is all that's required for tournament success then why haven't you won any national-level events? Why do the same group of people consistently do well when anyone can take a spam army to the event?
   
Made in gb
Sadistic Inquisitorial Excruciator




 Scott-S6 wrote:
Danny slag wrote:
part is the tournament scene being so chalk full of cheese it's basically a joke with zero competition or tactics being used

This leads me to think that you don't know what you're talking about. If, as you suggest, an army spamming one good unit is all that's required for tournament success then why haven't you won any national-level events? Why do the same group of people consistently do well when anyone can take a spam army to the event?


Potentially because those people are wealthy enough to afford the constantly changing "Best List", also wealthy enough to be able to afford to travel and participate in those events, geographically located well enough to do so, and perhaps more importantly are interested enough in the penis mesuring contest that is competative 40k to want to do all the above at no small expense?

We're not a huge hobby. We're an expensive hobby. And matched play is a smaller part of the whole hobby, and competiting at high level matched play is an even smaller part.

I mean, our biggest torny ever is a whole 500 people.

It's not too suprising the top 32 to are relatively consistant.

Disclaimer - I am a Games Workshop Shareholder. 
   
Made in ca
Monstrously Massive Big Mutant






I think using MTG as a baseline is a HORRIBLE idea. MTG is constantly creating new mechanics, and pumps out new cards every freakin' quarter of a year. In Warhammer, you will see maybe a dozen models in a YEAR, spread out over every faction (but mostly in Space Marines.)

MTG is so fluid in its meta because of the fact there is literally thousands upon thousands of unique cards, something Warhammer could never come close to.
   
Made in us
Douglas Bader






No, 40k does not need more CCG-style synergies. The problem with 40k is that it is a CCG with cards you have to paint yourself, not a wargame. To fix the game GW needs to push it back in a direction towards things like movement and positioning being important, not add more "I cast tactical marine and buff it with chapter master and plasma gun and I deal 40,000 damage to you, I win" mechanics.

There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: