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.

 Grimgold wrote:
With exceptions like marmatag who thinks the game should only last three turns (or less), I would think most people enjoy competitive games that go the distance as opposed to one sided blowouts,

1. I have said 4 turns is enough for a good game, and that getting to turn 5+ is not a prerequisite for a good game.
2. I have said most games have a clear winner by turn 2, or 3. Doesn't mean the game is over, it just means one person won't be able to generate enough points to come back.
3. Never have I said I enjoy 1 sided blowouts.

If you're going to mention my name, can you at least make an effort not to be a total tool, and represent me with even a modicum of good faith? Thanks

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I don't think tournament players are evil. I just acknowledge they are playing a very different game than I am. I'm not talking about lists - I more or less play the same kinds of lists. I'm talking about victory conditions.

Right and I think everyone should play closer to ITC style than anything. CA missions represent some of that dynamic.

I can't say you're playing the game wrong, but there needs to be some realization that Dawn of War and shoot (not saying you do that) is not a good game state.

We roll for CA missions - the way the rules tell us to. The game ends when there are no models left on the table or when a random dice tells its over - like the rules tell us. For a 2000 point game - we have between 12-15 med/large peices of terrain placed randomly - some block LOS - some are more area terrain. Objectives almost never come into play.

No where in the rulebook does it say the game is over at 2:30 - no where in the rulebook does it say the first level of a building blocks LOS. No where in the rulebook are you rewarded more points for destroying a 20 man unit over a 19 man unit. IMO - I am playing the game the way it's supposed to be played - they are making up rules at tournaments. Those made up rules should not supersede the actual rules from a balance perspective.

And nowhere in the rulebook do the beta rules exist..... so why don't you just keep using the stock rulebook if you don't want to use anything from outside of it?

And there is only one place in the rules that says how to handle rule disputes. That is talk it over or roll a die. So, there's nothing in the rulebook that says to consult a FAQ or errata. I'm sorry but your pure high horse makes it look more like you're on a donkey.

 Xenomancers wrote:


No where in the rulebook does it say the game is over at 2:30 - no where in the rulebook does it say the first level of a building blocks LOS. No where in the rulebook are you rewarded more points for destroying a 20 man unit over a 19 man unit. IMO - I am playing the game the way it's supposed to be played - they are making up rules at tournaments. Those made up rules should not supersede the actual rules from a balance perspective.

Right, but you could finish in 2:30 if you wanted to now, presumably.
A 19 vs 20 man unit is mostly inconsequential as there are plenty of other avenues to get those points and ways you can deny your opponent.

Terrain rules DO leave much to be desired and it's something the community should be more vocal with GW about.

 Marmatag wrote:

 Grimgold wrote:
With exceptions like marmatag who thinks the game should only last three turns (or less), I would think most people enjoy competitive games that go the distance as opposed to one sided blowouts,

1. I have said 4 turns is enough for a good game, and that getting to turn 5+ is not a prerequisite for a good game.
2. I have said most games have a clear winner by turn 2, or 3. Doesn't mean the game is over, it just means one person won't be able to generate enough points to come back.
3. Never have I said I enjoy 1 sided blowouts.

If you're going to mention my name, can you at least make an effort not to be a total tool, and represent me with even a modicum of good faith? Thanks

1.) In a game designed to go six turns, a turn 2 victory is a blow out.
2.) If the game only has one possible outcome it's over from a competitive sense.
3.) you have to do some pretty interesting mental contortions to call a game over at turn two a "Good game".

As for good faith, you'll get some when you display some.

 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?

8th edition supposedly went through extensive playtesting with top players just like him (maybe he was even one of them, I don't know) so by that logic these problems shouldn't have existed in the first place. I'm not gonna spout off about how right or wrong he or anyone else in this thread is, but being a top player doesn't make him any more qualified than anyone else in the community when it comes to the rules.

Well said Grimgold well said.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Purifying Tempest wrote:

 deviantduck wrote:
SoB got nerfed pretty hard by the rule of 3. All 5 of us are upset.

Correction: the 5 sisters players who went out about bought 60 Stormbolter models for the Dominion spam lists just got nerfed.

And maybe the 2 who played the canoness party.

A lot of lists I saw didn't involve 6 Dominion squads, usually in the 2-4 range instead, and that last squad could easily do something else.

I also think Sisters are an army that benefits greatly from allies at higher points because at a certain point value, your lists usually become saturated with things like Dominions... and that simply devalues ALL of them by a little (diminishing returns?) since they're more-or-less balanced.

Armies shouldn't NEED allies.

Armies shouldn't NEED allies. True enough. But the Ministurnum needs them. Imperial Knights need them, otherwise they play with how many ever big knights they can and truncate the rest of the points. Practically all of the Imperium benefits from Guard in this edition. Sisters do not NEED allies. I can make a 2000+ point Sororitas army with only Sororitas models while playing with the rule of 3. So I do not NEED allies.

The point is... some codices are so shallow that after a certain point you're just bringing more of the same stuff. It may be on a unit with a different name (BSS vs Dominions with Stormbolters), but in the end, it is just another model with the same weapon. And any time you spam a weapon, you skew your list towards whatever that weapon favors... and your ability to fight a multitude of threats diminishes. You become much better suited at fighting whatever that weapon is best suited to fighting. Which means you become more vulnerable to deviants.

Two codices with problems of diminishing returns seem (to me) to be:

Gray Knights - no matter how you shake them up... it is just permutations of the Psycannon, Psilencer, and Incinerator.
Sororitas - variations of mid-close weapons, a la Stormbolter, Flamer, and Melta (with their heavy variants)

Both of these codices have always spammed whatever tool in their kit worked at the time. Neither was particularly renown for being tactically flexible. Both also seemed to perform much better when they were able to place the onus of playing against them on the opponent instead of having to play against the opponent.

Allies were a great addition both narrative wise and tactics wise because it allows you to "forge a narrative" while also shoring up some of those weaknesses to change the repetitive theme of some of the less expanded armies. Adding guard to Sororitas isn't something you're required to do... but it can add a little flair and advantage for doing so.

Otherwise, you should spend more time fussing at GW to expand your line instead of fussing at rules because you cannot spam 1 model type to win games.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Orblivion 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?

8th edition supposedly went through extensive playtesting with top players just like him (maybe he was even one of them, I don't know) so by that logic these problems shouldn't have existed in the first place. I'm not gonna spout off about how right or wrong he or anyone else in this thread is, but being a top player doesn't make him any more qualified than anyone else in the community when it comes to the rules.

Pretty sure 8th edition was play tested for mechanics and functionality... not balance and competitiveness. I bet not a single codex was playtested during their extensive testing of the edition that they claimed.

Edit: Clarification - the edition was testing at the index level, not the codex level.

Nick is doing a Q&A on Facebook right now.

https://www.facebook.com/143252259677237/videos/160019664667163/

Asmodios wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I don't think tournament players are evil. I just acknowledge they are playing a very different game than I am. I'm not talking about lists - I more or less play the same kinds of lists. I'm talking about victory conditions.

Right and I think everyone should play closer to ITC style than anything. CA missions represent some of that dynamic.

I can't say you're playing the game wrong, but there needs to be some realization that Dawn of War and shoot (not saying you do that) is not a good game state.

We roll for CA missions - the way the rules tell us to. The game ends when there are no models left on the table or when a random dice tells its over - like the rules tell us. For a 2000 point game - we have between 12-15 med/large peices of terrain placed randomly - some block LOS - some are more area terrain. Objectives almost never come into play.

No where in the rulebook does it say the game is over at 2:30 - no where in the rulebook does it say the first level of a building blocks LOS. No where in the rulebook are you rewarded more points for destroying a 20 man unit over a 19 man unit. IMO - I am playing the game the way it's supposed to be played - they are making up rules at tournaments. Those made up rules should not supersede the actual rules from a balance perspective.

And nowhere in the rulebook do the beta rules exist..... so why don't you just keep using the stock rulebook if you don't want to use anything from outside of it?

Uhhh - all these erratas and FAQ are the literally the rule book. Yes "Beta rules" aren't actually rules yet - but judging by the last beta rules - they will be.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
And there is only one place in the rules that says how to handle rule disputes. That is talk it over or roll a die. So, there's nothing in the rulebook that says to consult a FAQ or errata. I'm sorry but your pure high horse makes it look more like you're on a donkey.

So you manage to try to insult me without even making a point. We aren't talking about rules disputes. We are talking about game balancing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 techsoldaten wrote:
Nick is doing a Q&A on Facebook right now.

https://www.facebook.com/143252259677237/videos/160019664667163/

Ask him how he has a 95% WR in a dice game.

Uhhh - all these erratas and FAQ are the literally the rule book. Yes "Beta rules" aren't actually rules yet - but judging by the last beta rules - they will be.

Judging by the last beta rules things will be adjusted if they're not working - like smite nerf for Grey Knights and Tzeentch.

It's kinda biased. The first pair of 'beta rules' were live in the community before GW put them out as 'beta rules'. Them not making to the official rules would have been very strange.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Ask him how he has a 95% WR in a dice game.

This is the best, because he totally called out dakka for its nonsense lol

Xenomancer- You're the person who is saying he only plays by the book rules (kind of like BaconCatBug). If you are going to be so "pure" then that means you can't really ever play a game. The rules are full of gaps and contradictions and the only mechanism that the book allows for resolution is either both players agree or they roll dice. However, the book does not allow you to consult other sources for those rule clarifications so you must dice off a lot or spend a lot of time disucssing things with your opponent.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
Xenomancer- You're the person who is saying he only plays by the book rules (kind of like BaconCatBug). If you are going to be so "pure" then that means you can't really ever play a game. The rules are full of gaps and contradictions and the only mechanism that the book allows for resolution is either both players agree or they roll dice. However, the book does not allow you to consult other sources for those rule clarifications so you must dice off a lot or spend a lot of time disucssing things with your opponent.

@Leo_the_Rat, it's Xenomancers - plural.

It's important to get his name right if you are going to derail the thread with unconstructive trash talk, otherwise I won't know who to block.

 Orblivion 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?

8th edition supposedly went through extensive playtesting with top players just like him (maybe he was even one of them, I don't know) so by that logic these problems shouldn't have existed in the first place.

This depends on how playtesting worked, how the data was collected and what made it to the final rules

If testing was just the top tournament players brought their favourite lists, played some games and than told the designer what units the feel are too good/cheap and what is bad than it was playtested but design decisions based on such data give you the mess we call 40k.

As this is the first edition for a long time were playtesting was done at all, GW need to learn how to do it and how to make chances based on the collected data.
it doesn't matter who is testing the game if the designer get the wrong information back and/or make the wrong decisions

He made his points, was concise, and explained his reasoning. All without falling into the hyperbole we're seeing here, it was refreshing.

Also, he answered my question! Consider me dazzled.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I don't think tournament players are evil. I just acknowledge they are playing a very different game than I am. I'm not talking about lists - I more or less play the same kinds of lists. I'm talking about victory conditions.

Right and I think everyone should play closer to ITC style than anything. CA missions represent some of that dynamic.

I can't say you're playing the game wrong, but there needs to be some realization that Dawn of War and shoot (not saying you do that) is not a good game state.

We roll for CA missions - the way the rules tell us to. The game ends when there are no models left on the table or when a random dice tells its over - like the rules tell us. For a 2000 point game - we have between 12-15 med/large peices of terrain placed randomly - some block LOS - some are more area terrain. Objectives almost never come into play.

No where in the rulebook does it say the game is over at 2:30 - no where in the rulebook does it say the first level of a building blocks LOS. No where in the rulebook are you rewarded more points for destroying a 20 man unit over a 19 man unit. IMO - I am playing the game the way it's supposed to be played - they are making up rules at tournaments. Those made up rules should not supersede the actual rules from a balance perspective.

And nowhere in the rulebook do the beta rules exist..... so why don't you just keep using the stock rulebook if you don't want to use anything from outside of it?

Uhhh - all these erratas and FAQ are the literally the rule book. Yes "Beta rules" aren't actually rules yet - but judging by the last beta rules - they will be.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
And there is only one place in the rules that says how to handle rule disputes. That is talk it over or roll a die. So, there's nothing in the rulebook that says to consult a FAQ or errata. I'm sorry but your pure high horse makes it look more like you're on a donkey.

So you manage to try to insult me without even making a point. We aren't talking about rules disputes. We are talking about game balancing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 techsoldaten wrote:
Nick is doing a Q&A on Facebook right now.

https://www.facebook.com/143252259677237/videos/160019664667163/

Ask him how he has a 95% WR in a dice game.

You said you don't want to use rules outside the rulebook (tournament packs, special objects, ect) why not just use the physical rulebook. If you and your group don't like a certain FAQ simply don't use it... your not looking to play competitively so whats the difference. If you guys love the regualr non FAQed data sheet and deepstrike rules just use them.

 Captain Joystick wrote:
He made his points, was concise, and explained his reasoning. All without falling into the hyperbole we're seeing here, it was refreshing.

Also, he answered my question! Consider me dazzled.

I disagreed with the points he made about Grey Knights. I did not think the FAQ changes make them top tier, or that MSU smite spam is going to dominate competitions.

Other than that, he made some great points about changes to the meta.

He is just out to make a fast buck.

 Primark G wrote:
He is just out to make a fast buck.

Do you ever have anything of value to share?

 techsoldaten wrote:

 Captain Joystick wrote:
He made his points, was concise, and explained his reasoning. All without falling into the hyperbole we're seeing here, it was refreshing.

Also, he answered my question! Consider me dazzled.

I disagreed with the points he made about Grey Knights. I did not think the FAQ changes make them top tier, or that MSU smite spam is going to dominate competitions.

Other than that, he made some great points about changes to the meta.

Hmm? He called GK out as still being in trouble.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Primark G wrote:
He is just out to make a fast buck.

Sure and his revenue will dry up as soon as he starts being unable to take top tables.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Primark G wrote:
He is just out to make a fast buck.

Sure and his revenue will dry up as soon as he starts being unable to take top tables.

He might be after more than money.

Has anyone checked with law enforcement about homicides occurring during the tournaments he's won?

I'm listening the Q&A now. He says that filled floors being unassaultable is not a big deal because people don't put objectives in upper floors of ruins... I almost always do that and I've seen plenty of other people doing it too. I don't follow his reasoning.

 Crimson wrote:
I'm listening the Q&A now. He says that filled floors being unassaultable is not a big deal because people don't put objectives in upper floors of ruins... I almost always do that and I've seen plenty of other people doing it too. I don't follow his reasoning.

We always play in tournaments in my region (Galicia, Spain) that objetive markers are always put at floor level. I don't know if thats a ETC specification or something. But its just to avoid that. We have been doing it since the beginning of 8th. I know you could use the "Idontremembermodel syndrome" , but it just doesnt not feel right.

 Galas wrote:

We always play in tournaments in my region (Galicia, Spain) that objetive markers are always put at floor level. I don't know if thats a ETC specification or something. But its just to avoid that.

Well, but that's not a rule. I'm not sure "this terrible rule is not a problem because we use this houserule that counteracts it" is terribly solid reasoning in this context.

 Crimson wrote:

 Galas wrote:

We always play in tournaments in my region (Galicia, Spain) that objetive markers are always put at floor level. I don't know if thats a ETC specification or something. But its just to avoid that.

Well, but that's not a rule. I'm not sure "this terrible rule is not a problem because we use this houserule that counteracts it" is terribly solid reasoning in this context.

Well, you could put an objetive on top of a giant chimmey and then put a Vindicare on top of it, outside of the range of most weapons in the table. I have seen that done, and thats the moment we decided for objetives to be always put at floor level.
The problem will be, and has always been the same. I didn't like the "my models aren't in meele but they are in meele because they are theoretically floating in space or climbing this wall and..." it doesnt feel intuitive.

 Galas wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
I'm listening the Q&A now. He says that filled floors being unassaultable is not a big deal because people don't put objectives in upper floors of ruins... I almost always do that and I've seen plenty of other people doing it too. I don't follow his reasoning.

We always play in tournaments in my region (Galicia, Spain) that objetive markers are always put at floor level. I don't know if thats a ETC specification or something. But its just to avoid that. We have been doing it since the beginning of 8th. I know you could use the "Idontremembermodel syndrome" , but it just doesnt not feel right.

IIRC, the ITC missions also specify where objectives go.

Assault armies have suffered a pretty huge nerf with the new deepstrike rules. Consider though the mirror match, before when two melee armies fought each other, it was often a matter of who went first to decide the game. Now, both melee armies have a better chance at a fair reaction against melee armies.
As for gunlines, glass cannon charges are simply no longer viable on their own anymore. Tanker units like the humble rhino are going to increase in importance. You would be shocked how well a line of rhinos can soak up a guard shooting phase. Instead of double swords, melee armies now must consider both their sword (high damage chargers) and their shields (point efficient damage sponges). This is a pretty big shakeup in strategy, but one I think most melee armies have the capacity to deal with.

Rhinos are one of the few durable models in the marine codex.