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.

If you wanted to play hide and seek, you'd play hide and seek, but if you want to go bowling, you play 40k?

 Arachnofiend wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
You mean he plays the most busted list possible. Is a WAAC player (thats fine - it's a tournament) why does that make his opinion about balance at all useful? Doesn't it benefit him more for the game to be less balanced? So he can have an even greater advantage at his next event?

I don't pretend to speak for Nick, but generally the real top competitors in a competitive game (not the chump at your local store who steals their lists) want the game to be as balanced as possible because the more balanced things are the more player skill and real accomplishment has to do with a victory. I mean, just look at his blog post: his #1 dark reaper list and #2 poxwalker list were both hit hard by the FAQ. If all he cared about was breezing through the ranks by paying for the most OP combos then he'd certainly be a lot less excited about the new rules.

BS - anyone who designs an army from scratch just play at every new event does not want balance. They feed on unbalance. These FAQ rules are effing bad. To defend them just means he know he will have an easier time winning games now. BTW what is his record in ITC this cycle? Doesn't he win something like 95% of his games?

I know Nick Nanavati is a better player than me, and I would bet real money he's a better player than you, Marm. If you're not going to trust someone who's consistently put up results as a top player to understand the fundamentals of the game, who can you trust?

Bharring wrote:
If you wanted to play hide and seek, you'd play hide and seek, but if you want to go bowling, you play 40k?

If you know the battlefeild ahead of time and make houserules on how they are going to play all you do is change what combinations are going to be most powerful. This isn't how 40k is played normally. Normally the battlefield is random - the deployment is random - even the objectives can be random. You know how fcked shooting armies are when the opponent can hide their entire army? You can actually charge through brick walls in this game - but you can't shoot through them.

Read the article, it's nice to see someone taking a more measured approach to evaluating the FAQ. With that said I think he is a little too optimistic on games getting longer, in very competitive venues game length is tightly constrained and I doubt that will change because alpha strike has been blunted.

I suppose he meant that games would be competitive for longer, and I think I can get behind the point. Alpha strikes are meant to snowball you, Drop in kill a quarter of your opponents army, and then he only has 1500 points left to hit you back with. Next turn you lengthen out your lead by killing more, and he can kill even less in return. Your opponent never catches up, and while the game might go on for a few more turns, it was won in a single phase.

 Arachnofiend wrote:
I know Nick Nanavati is a better player than me, and I would bet real money he's a better player than you, Marm. If you're not going to trust someone who's consistently put up results as a top player to understand the fundamentals of the game, who can you trust?

Saying your a better 40k player than somebody is kind of like saying they are better at tick tack toe or checkers.

Like 90% of this boils down to "tournament players might suddenly start playing lists more like everyone else does, and never be aware of the fact that everyone else had to accept a sudden imbalance because of their poor behavior."

Like, yeah, you're gonna see less spam lists and less deep strike abuse and all that. IN TOURNAMENTS. The average player already doesn't do that gak, and instead is just going to have to deal with the fact that CC Deep Strike units got nerfed in comparison to DS shooting units for zero reason, while wondering who the crap was spamming the same unit over and over again anyway.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:
I know Nick Nanavati is a better player than me, and I would bet real money he's a better player than you, Marm. If you're not going to trust someone who's consistently put up results as a top player to understand the fundamentals of the game, who can you trust?

Saying your a better 40k player than somebody is kind of like saying they are better at tick tack toe or checkers.

If you think 40k is as simple as fething tic tac toe, then you really shouldn't be wasting your time on it, Xeno. I know I sure as hell wouldn't be having fun if I felt the game was as brain dead as something that can be solved by a small child.

tneva82 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 rhinoceraids wrote:
People have a tenancy to become drama queens when it comes to any FAQ. While at the same time be unable to create improved rules that are simple.

The sky is not falling. Deep strike is still fine. Im happy they dealt with spam and soup lists.

Ah yes everything is magically right because it\s GAMES WORKSHOP that implemented rule that has numerous times actually failed to create balance and just made it worse.

Think about that a second. Identical rule others have tried numerous time that keeps failing to bring balance and now just because it\s GAMES WORKSHOP who implements it it\s going to work?

Sorry but name Games Workshop doesn't have magical powers in it.

WAT

You realize these FAQ changes aren't invented first time ever here?

That they have been tried before? Especially the 0-3 limit. That's been tried AT LEAST since I started GW games so since 1998.

Every...single...time...it led to worse balance where powerful armies gained compared to weaker ones. Just like now.

And the result is also sooooo easy to predict. I don't understand how people keep trying it. Blanket rules NEVER work as balance method. You need to fix specific problems rather than apply game wide blanket. People have tried that for 20 years MINIMUM(I can't say did people do that pre-1998 since I didnt' play then) without working.

It's...been...tried. It has failed. Now GW implements it with nothing NEW in it. Same format as has been tried. Which has failed. And people think it's now going to work? Yeah right and santa clause visits every home in the world in one night.

But if you disagree please explain how something that has been tried repeatedly for 20 years minimum while failing every single time somehow now with no changes whatsoever would work? Please go ahead. I'm waiting. Not holding my breath though. Would be dead before you could come up with plausible reason.

If you don't understand the difference between the old rules and these...especially within a new edition I don't really know where to start.

 Arachnofiend wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
You mean he plays the most busted list possible. Is a WAAC player (thats fine - it's a tournament) why does that make his opinion about balance at all useful? Doesn't it benefit him more for the game to be less balanced? So he can have an even greater advantage at his next event?

I don't pretend to speak for Nick, but generally the real top competitors in a competitive game (not the chump at your local store who steals their lists) want the game to be as balanced as possible because the more balanced things are the more player skill and real accomplishment has to do with a victory. I mean, just look at his blog post: his #1 dark reaper list and #2 poxwalker list were both hit hard by the FAQ. If all he cared about was breezing through the ranks by paying for the most OP combos then he'd certainly be a lot less excited about the new rules.

The cheating, rule lawyering, gotcha crowd tends to thrive in the mid tables where they can exploit beginners but don't have tricks that work against players that really know the game. Generally competitive players that actually win events just don't want to have to pull their punches. They want to be challenged at least as much as they want to win. It can be really satisfying to do your best and lose, but getting beat is less thrilling if you're not giving it your all when you come up short.

 Arachnofiend wrote:
I know Nick Nanavati is a better player than me, and I would bet real money he's a better player than you, Marm. If you're not going to trust someone who's consistently put up results as a top player to understand the fundamentals of the game, who can you trust?

Sure, there's no maybe about it, he is definitely a better player than me - that doesn't matter, though.

It's way too early to have a definitive statement about how the game will play. If he was gaming around the clock since the release, that's still not that many games in... I recall the Frontline beta testers talking about how strong Blood Angels would be when 8th launched.

I doubt his statement, and I think i have a few good reasons:

1. It's still business as usual after turn 1 ends. If deep-strike was really breaking the game and speeding it up artificially, all we've bought is one turn where there's movement and long range shooting.

2. Deep strike denial was already a thing... going second in some games you were basically DSing within movement distance of your own zone anyway.

3. Outside of a few problematic spam lists, most people have 50% on the board points wise.

For these reasons i don't feel the deep strike change is going to really produce longer games.

So for me it boils down to the impact of the rule of three. And there simply hasn't been enough playtesting to make a conclusion one way or the other. You can still comfortably field 30 dark reapers, for instance, and Guide is still just as good.

A gunline army is still 2000 points worth of full on shooting turn 1, and they don't need to worry as much about screening.

 Xenomancers wrote:
You can actually charge through brick walls in this game - but you can't shoot through them.

That's not exactly true, though. You can target a unit behind a brick wall for a charge. You still have to move around the wall, though.

AnFéasógMór wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
You can actually charge through brick walls in this game - but you can't shoot through them.

That's not exactly true, though. You can target a unit behind a brick wall for a charge. You still have to move around the wall, though.

If the wall is classified as impassable, yes.

<Infantry> can move over and through walls.

And if the model is up against the wall, and you can end your charge move within 1" on the other side of the wall, you don't need to go around, either.

I think the DS is ruined argument is a little dramatic. You just have to wait... until turn 2. I mean, I enjoyed having to fend off 80 blood letters or tzaangors on turn 1. It was especially great when I went second so, even if I fought off the initial alpha strike, I was boxed into my deployment from the get go. I'd still lose as the other guy had some nurglings or cultists scoring objectives for the first 3-4 turns. And before someone says, where are my screens, people who run such alpha strike melee lists have ways to get passed screens.

AnFéasógMór wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
You can actually charge through brick walls in this game - but you can't shoot through them.

That's not exactly true, though. You can target a unit behind a brick wall for a charge. You still have to move around the wall, though.

Ruins (pg 248)
Infantry are assume to be able to scale walls and traverse through windows, doors and portals readily. These models can therefore move through the floors and walls of a ruin without further impediment.

 Arachnofiend wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:
I know Nick Nanavati is a better player than me, and I would bet real money he's a better player than you, Marm. If you're not going to trust someone who's consistently put up results as a top player to understand the fundamentals of the game, who can you trust?

Saying your a better 40k player than somebody is kind of like saying they are better at tick tack toe or checkers.

If you think 40k is as simple as fething tic tac toe, then you really shouldn't be wasting your time on it, Xeno. I know I sure as hell wouldn't be having fun if I felt the game was as brain dead as something that can be solved by a small child.

If I wanted to play an in depth strategy game I would have chosen another game. Games like that actually exist. 40k is about list building and rolling dice. There are no fancy maneuvers. You can shoot someone with your main gun out of the tip of your wheel well. Units can move and charge from deployment zone to deployment zone. These are all facts that people who play this game just understand. Decisions are made for you pre game if you have even the tiniest amount of experience about what your units are capable of doing. You should even have a pretty good idea of exactly what your opponent is going to do also.

Use your brain dude. He is a win at all cost player. Plays a specifically tailored list for every event he goes to. This is they guy you want to take balance advice from? I don't think he'd be able to keep that 95% win rate if he actually had to play a balanced game. So ofc he doesn't want one.

Only if the 'wall' is a 'ruins'. Comes down to terrain, which 8th Ed barely defines.

Usually it comes down to definitions of the table. For a tourny, should be provided with the table. Outside a tourny, should be discussed.

Solid walls I've seen more frequently called impassible than ruins.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
WAAC means more than Wins at any cost within the rules.

Yeah, 40k is fundamentally a beer and bretzel game, and always has been. You can't really make it "balanced and competitive", there are tons of others games however which are.
I would never have taken this kind of people to balance my game if I were GW, but casual players, because it is a casual game.

That's a really odd stance to take Xeno, he is a LVO winner because he knows the rules, knows the meta (eg: how people play), and is creative enough to use that knowledge to craft winning lists. Those attributes would seem to make him a pretty ideal person to take balance advice from.

With so much now dependant on it, I think its necessary for GW to explain in detail and with images exactly how much terrain should be used on your average board.

Their current guidelines are very vague, and the only images they include are 'showcase' style battle scenes with all the terrain neatly arranged around the outside as not to obscure the models. No wonder there are massively varying thoughts and ideas within the community about what a game table should look like.

I played WarmaHordes first (due to a d&d campaign on the SRD-based campaign setting), and enjoyed that game. 40k won be me over hard because it was more casual, kitbash/rule of cool friendly.

I've always seen other TT games as better for competitive events. I don't see any actual value in using the tabletop version in a game of skill outside estimations and manual dexterity. Anything the rulesset can do deterministically, silicon can run better than greymatter.

So it being a beer & pretzels game is a *good* thing.

However, I had to move away from Mechdar because, in late 6E, you couldn't play it without chedder. Even 10 DAs and a Farseer or two in a Serpent were just DAVU - the Serpent outperformed the contents. And Falcons were not only limited to 3, but could only carry 6 guys - so can't do mechdar.

That anecdote is to push the idea that balance is important even for casual gameplay. And, as such, I'd much rather have more balanced rules. But there is a limit. How do you let people model anything and still use True Line Of Site? So do wings hurt you? Bigger bases help you?

There's a tradeoff, and more balance is better. But if you're lookign for a true test of skills, this isn't the right game. May not even be the right genre.

Man, if you guys hate this so much, stop playing. You whine about every change. Play it out, see how it goes, write GW a concise reason why it should be changed or your opinion and move on. Raging on a board is doing nothing.

 Arachnofiend wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
You mean he plays the most busted list possible. Is a WAAC player (thats fine - it's a tournament) why does that make his opinion about balance at all useful? Doesn't it benefit him more for the game to be less balanced? So he can have an even greater advantage at his next event?

I don't pretend to speak for Nick, but generally the real top competitors in a competitive game (not the chump at your local store who steals their lists) want the game to be as balanced as possible because the more balanced things are the more player skill and real accomplishment has to do with a victory. I mean, just look at his blog post: his #1 dark reaper list and #2 poxwalker list were both hit hard by the FAQ. If all he cared about was breezing through the ranks by paying for the most OP combos then he'd certainly be a lot less excited about the new rules.

This is untrue as he always brings armies that are broken and very fringe... he could not make his way out of a wet paper bag with a balanced tactical army. A lot of the big changes are because of people like him.

This is a review of the FAQ that we needed, here of all places. Intelligent, measured and considered. He does a great job of looking at the whole rather than focusing on how a singular army/unit/strategy is going to be better/worse off.

His expectations of the meta shift are realistic and intelligent.

His expectations of the change in value of units based on the FAQ is well thought out and presented.

Great article from an intelligent player. I followed his facebook group off the back of this. Awesome.

The ethos of this article should be followed by everyone - don't whine, cry or argue; adapt and evolve instead. Become the better player because the meta is wide open now.

I gotta be honest I love these changes GW is pushing out. It feels like we're getting a new game.

wow an amazing player who has a cool rational response to the FAQ........... and just like I thought I would see he's getting bashed in the comments lol

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
This is a review of the FAQ that we needed, here of all places. Intelligent, measured and considered. He does a great job of looking at the whole rather than focusing on how a singular army/unit/strategy is going to be better/worse off.

His expectations of the meta shift are realistic and intelligent.

His expectations of the change in value of units based on the FAQ is well thought out and presented.

Great article from an intelligent player. I followed his facebook group off the back of this. Awesome.

The ethos of this article should be followed by everyone - don't whine, cry or argue; adapt and evolve instead. Become the better player because the meta is wide open now.

I gotta be honest I love these changes GW is pushing out. It feels like we're getting a new game.

This is a well thought out. Reasonable. And intelligent response.

Clearly you aren't from around here....

I agree Englishman. Its strange, people say Nick can't win with a balanced tactical army. But isn't part of the tactics in this game to build an army list that will win? His record shows he clearly knows how to play. He only brings broken lists? He isn't the only one and he still manages to come out on top time after time. Seems inconsiderate to deny his successes.

Of course these faq changes are meant to pull in these extreme lists that competitive players typically field. The nature of being competitive is to bring the best chance of success. Overall these changes are beneficial. Lists will need to change and I sympathize with those who are having a hard time.

 Bonachinonin wrote:
I agree Englishman. Its strange, people say Nick can't win with a balanced tactical army. But isn't part of the tactics in this game to build an army list that will win? His record shows he clearly knows how to play. He only brings broken lists? He isn't the only one and he still manages to come out on top time after time. Seems inconsiderate to deny his successes.

Of course these faq changes are meant to pull in these extreme lists that competitive players typically field. The nature of being competitive is to bring the best chance of success. Overall these changes are beneficial. Lists will need to change and I sympathize with those who are having a hard time.

It's more than that, the recent army he took to Adepticon is a great example of a highly tactical army. It was a horde of cultists and poxwalkers, which meant that the entire army functioned on assault tricks - using charges to rapidly advance his units, control the board, and constrict his opponents.

 rhinoceraids wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
This is a review of the FAQ that we needed, here of all places. Intelligent, measured and considered. He does a great job of looking at the whole rather than focusing on how a singular army/unit/strategy is going to be better/worse off.

His expectations of the meta shift are realistic and intelligent.

His expectations of the change in value of units based on the FAQ is well thought out and presented.

Great article from an intelligent player. I followed his facebook group off the back of this. Awesome.

The ethos of this article should be followed by everyone - don't whine, cry or argue; adapt and evolve instead. Become the better player because the meta is wide open now.

I gotta be honest I love these changes GW is pushing out. It feels like we're getting a new game.

This is a well thought out. Reasonable. And intelligent response.

Clearly you aren't from around here....

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!

 Bonachinonin wrote:
I agree Englishman. Its strange, people say Nick can't win with a balanced tactical army. But isn't part of the tactics in this game to build an army list that will win? His record shows he clearly knows how to play. He only brings broken lists? He isn't the only one and he still manages to come out on top time after time. Seems inconsiderate to deny his successes.

Of course these faq changes are meant to pull in these extreme lists that competitive players typically field. The nature of being competitive is to bring the best chance of success. Overall these changes are beneficial. Lists will need to change and I sympathize with those who are having a hard time.

It's so much better. The fact that he's excited kinda proves to me he's a good player. He doesn't want to win with a weird skew list, he wants to win with a well balanced list where actual tactical decisions on the fly matter.

I think this FAQ will help separate the 'men from the boys' in terms of who can build a list and who can actually USE a list.

Why does people throw around the expression WAAC player? Nick is not a WAAC player, he's a highly competetive tournament player.

He also dedicates a blog at helping other people get better at 40k.