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.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

No one was recommending Infinity earlier when they listed games I should be trying.

Ah yes, because of course I was not using Infinity as an example but instead posting a complete list of games with free access to their rules.

But since you mention it, here's a couple other wargames with free rules:
Warmachine/Hordes
Beyond the Gates of Antares has free rules resources here

I'm sure others can chime in with some more

https://freewargamesrules.fandom.com/wiki/Freewargamesrules_Wiki

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Emphasis mine. On what authority was it decided what definition of "game" we were using? Yours, in all your l33t gam3r gl0ry?
I think not.

Ohh no.. you didn't do your homework!

The original post is about warhamme r40K discussion on the Voxcast.

VoxCast – the official Warhammer 40,000 Podcast.

Warhammer 40,000 is a miniature wargame produced by Games Workshop.

A wargame is a game type.

So naturally it should follow the established mean of game no?

 auticus wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 auticus wrote:

And yet I've seen plenty of people who like it who are both casual and competetive players because they plan for being double turned.

Hence the part of my post where I said for every person that I see that likes it, I know of another person that hates it.

I feel like a lot of that comes from not planning to deal with a double turn. Plus a lot of the feel bads of losing units to a double turn (or even an alpha strike) would be mitigated if casualties were taken at the end of the game turn like Apoc since you'd be able to use that unit for at least your half the game turn before potentially losing it.

There have been many threads on this topic. Needless to say, it has a lot to do with a lot of issues that have nothing to do with someone not planning on dealing with it. That is kind of the equivalent of saying "git gud", which doesn't really negate the negative play experience.

Its standing there for two whole turns doing nothing for up to an hour or more while your opponent removes your models and you can't respond.

Its being forced to have screens to mitigate alpha striking (which is essentially what the double turn is emulating) and if you don't have screens, don't bother. Really screens are the only way to mitigate double turn melee units because in AOS things can literally cross the table and charge in one turn, so you can't even distance yourself properly in a lot of cases and terrain is largely irrelevant in managing movements like it would be on an actual battlefield.

Against shooty heavy lists its just taking models off the table twice.

IGO UGO is a negative by itself. Double turn takes that to the next level. For a lot of people, its a game killer and it has nothing to do with not being prepared for the double turn, because after you have played the game four or five times, you know it can be coming. Not being prepared for the double turn is valid for brand new players.

If two player turns from the same person take an hour, there is an issue greater than just the double turn at play there. And I presented a second factor that would mitigate the shooting casualty issue: saves and removal at the end of the game turn, meaning that you don't lose anything before you've had a chance to use it that game turn. Or are we skipping that point just to keep telling me that double turns can't work?

And I thought 40k already pushed screens. Did we just abandon those and I didn't get the memo? I mean I don't play the tournament circuit so I could have missed that, but I thought screening was very much still a major part of the game.

I never said double turns "can't work". I said they are a negative play experience for a great many people for several reasons beyond them all not liking it because they didn't prepare properly for it.

Double turn makes screens 100% vital and required. No double turn makes screens very useful but not required since not every army can alpha strike.

Or are we skipping that point just to keep telling me that double turns can't work?

You suggested a house rule to alleviate the double turn, which I did not respond to because its not relevant to AOS anymore than my alternate activation houserules are relevant to the conversation.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Ah yes, because of course I was not using Infinity as an example but instead posting a complete list of games with free access to their rules.

No, it's because in the list of "better games you should try" that wasn't listed, which made me question bringing it up.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
But since you mention it, here's a couple other wargames with free rules:
Warmachine/Hordes
Beyond the Gates of Antares has free rules resources here

As I commented before, I have WMH a try in 2nd edition and found that its rules were more like a technical manual than a game. It was a barrier to entry I couldn't get past to get comfortable with the game or its mechanics and to me that's not good game design, regardless how balanced the end result is. With my store picking up 3rd ed for streaming on its channel (among other things they're streaming), I'll likely give the 3rd ed a fair shake but let's not pretend I didn't mention WMH several times already and that I had an issue with the rules density.

Never heard of the second one you mentioned there, so let me give it a peek as I write this reply...."Accessing Imtel"...So yeah, first impression: I'm not really into the models.

So why the hell do I need to go through checkout just to download a free PDF? I don't want to fill out billing information just to get a free download that could (and should) be a download on the website proper. That was a stupid and cumbersome process just to look at the rules. Already got to say it's sad when GW does it better.

So actual rules: the need to keep units at least 1" apart probably exists to keep similar units from being easily mixed up, and I can applaud that. The use of D10s isn't bad either since it means there is more room in the basic statline. That said the free basic rules don't really let me play a pick up game like 40k's (and the order dice mean I need to make chits or something to fill in if I want to walk through the free PDF's scenario to get a feel for the game) and honestly I feel like it's one of those games I'd need to play a few times to really get comfortable with, especially since I haven't even seen the statlines or rules for the units.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 auticus wrote:
I never said double turns "can't work". I said they are a negative play experience for a great many people for several reasons beyond them all not liking it because they didn't prepare properly for it.

Double turn makes screens 100% vital and required. No double turn makes screens very useful but not required since not every army can alpha strike.

Or are we skipping that point just to keep telling me that double turns can't work?

You suggested a house rule to alleviate the double turn, which I did not respond to because its not relevant to AOS anymore than my alternate activation houserules are relevant to the conversation.

It's not a house rule, it's an Apoc rule that I said 40k would be better with in my list that the double turn was cherry picked out of.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Magic also generally doesn't allow one to take anything in whatever combination or quantity one wants. There are various formats with relatively strict rules on what can be included in a deck, and in what numbers, Wizards actively and intentionally shapes their metagame. 40k does almost none of this.

Yes they do.It's called undercosting their new OP unit.

That does not always happen to be honest. Think about the Ork Buggies. I don't know anymore.

The magic excuse for "New thing comes out, isn't broken" is almost always "Ohhhhhh but they KNEW those would sell, so they didn't need to make them OP!"

Take a realistic look at the last few things that have come out, and you'll see that - shockingly, the competitive crowd uses about 33% of the units in the game in their tournament lists, and about 33% of what GW puts out is suitable for the tournament crowd.

New Primaris:

-Invictus Warsuit - Good
-Infiltrator primaris troops - Good
-Phobos Librarian - Bad
-Phobos Lieutenants - Bad
-Phobos Captain - Bad
-Suppressors - Bad
-Eliminators - Mixed? I dunno haven't heard much about these.
-New flying brickboxtank - Good
-New Repulsor - Bad

Well that's weird, you'd think either the new space marines would be a sure-fire investment GW wouldn't have to push or they'd make the new stuff all OP?

Ok, how about new GSC stuff then?

Nexos - Good
Kelermorph - Good
Biophagus - Bad
Locus - Bad
Abominant - Bad
Aberrants - Good
Jackals - Bad
Jackal Alphus - Bad
Achilles - Bad

The "Gw is a bad evil conspiracy just trying to make all new things OP to push their plastic crack" crowd has never actually cared about truth, just about what feels true. The new thing comes out, they lost to it, darn you evil GW!

Forget all the times some super old cruddy kit (COUGH COUGH IMPERIAL fething GUARDSMEN ANYONE) dominates a whole edition...that's because GW...had old stock they needed to clear out? Oh wait, sometimes when that happens like with Dark Reapers, Grotesques, Talos, Ravagers, etc the thing just goes instantly out of stock and stays that way for months.

That's...huh. How does that fit into the conspiracy....maybe...they're trying to create...artificial scarcity to make people think the...minis are more valuable?

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

No one was recommending Infinity earlier when they listed games I should be trying.

Ah yes, because of course I was not using Infinity as an example but instead posting a complete list of games with free access to their rules.

But since you mention it, here's a couple other wargames with free rules:
Warmachine/Hordes
Beyond the Gates of Antares has free rules resources here

I'm sure others can chime in with some more

https://freewargamesrules.fandom.com/wiki/Freewargamesrules_Wiki

Okay, now how many of those are actually -good-?

Sorry for going this technical perhaps but if you take an official rule for another version of the game of or another system used with the same models, you are houseruling anyway. You are not using something written for that system. Just copying a rule someone else used instead of making it up completely.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

No one was recommending Infinity earlier when they listed games I should be trying.

Ah yes, because of course I was not using Infinity as an example but instead posting a complete list of games with free access to their rules.

But since you mention it, here's a couple other wargames with free rules:
Warmachine/Hordes
Beyond the Gates of Antares has free rules resources here

I'm sure others can chime in with some more

https://freewargamesrules.fandom.com/wiki/Freewargamesrules_Wiki

Okay, now how many of those are actually -good-?

As in better than 40K? I'd say 75%.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:
Sorry for going this technical perhaps but if you take an official rule for another version of the game of or another system used with the same models, you are houseruling anyway. You are not using something written for that system. Just copying a rule someone else used instead of making it up completely.

It was a list of things I feel the game either does poorly or things it should implement to make it better. FFS now you're just making up bs to try and argue.

It's not a house rule, it's an Apoc rule that I said 40k would be better with in my list that the double turn was cherry picked out of.

Sorry. I was speaking in the context of AOS.

In 40k it would be a houserule until it got moved into 40k out of apocalypse. Anything not an actual rule of the game and a rule of an expansion ported over into the main game is still technically a houserule.

I'm sure we can split hairs on that forever and tomorrow, but if you are argumentative on that, simply post a poll and see how the community feels.

Regardless, I see it as houseruling and houseruling works in the context of the group the houserule is running under. It may help the double turn, but if its not an official rule, it doesn't really exist for the rest of us unless we adopt that rules alteration into our own game. Which is why I did not respond to it at all as a fix, since it is a houserule fix currently.

Reemule wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

No one was recommending Infinity earlier when they listed games I should be trying.

Ah yes, because of course I was not using Infinity as an example but instead posting a complete list of games with free access to their rules.

But since you mention it, here's a couple other wargames with free rules:
Warmachine/Hordes
Beyond the Gates of Antares has free rules resources here

I'm sure others can chime in with some more

https://freewargamesrules.fandom.com/wiki/Freewargamesrules_Wiki

Okay, now how many of those are actually -good-?

As in better than 40K? I'd say 75%.

Okay, let's narrow it down to my interests then, how many that are sci fi or fantasy themed are better than 40k (and aren't just 9th Age or 40k homebrews) and worth looking into?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 auticus wrote:

It's not a house rule, it's an Apoc rule that I said 40k would be better with in my list that the double turn was cherry picked out of.

Sorry. I was speaking in the context of AOS.

In 40k it would be a houserule until it got moved into 40k out of apocalypse. Anything not an actual rule of the game and a rule of an expansion ported over into the main game is still technically a houserule.

I'm sure we can split hairs on that forever and tomorrow, but if you are argumentative on that, simply post a poll and see how the community feels.

Regardless, I see it as houseruling and houseruling works in the context of the group the houserule is running under. It may help the double turn, but if its not an official rule, it doesn't really exist for the rest of us unless we adopt that rules alteration into our own game.

In the context of the discussion both the double turn and the end of turn wound mechanic were presented as things I think 40k should adopt to make the game better, unless they adopt them officially they'd both be houserules, but I wasn't arguing about using them as houserules I was presenting a list of things I feel the game falls short on since people keep trying to strawman my position into "40k is perfect".

FFS Dakka, if you're going to cherry pick my arguements at least read the entire post they come from so you can get the context right.

How about you use the wiki, it's perfectly sorted?

Not Online!!! wrote:
How about you use the wiki, it's perfectly sorted?

I'm not wasting my time in the deep end of the pool just to try and sort through a couple thousand rulesets just to find something worth looking into. You want to make some recommendations I'll bite, but my time is finite and I don't want to spend it trawling through page after page of games just to try and find something that might pique my interests.

Reemule wrote:
The original post is about warhamme r40K discussion on the Voxcast.

The issue is that the designers (as per the vox-cast) feel that the game is at a good place in terms of competitive scene.

While we defer that perfect balance is unattainable, the current power scale of min-maxed lists we see at major tournament scene are obscenely powerful - and these lists repeated feature common units that have indisputably become "auto-takes" (or pseudo-auto-takes), leaving much of the available model range (if not an entire army) we own on the shelves if we want to play competitively.

More often than not, we (the ones being called "narrative players") are toning down on the optimization to make the game more enjoyable for both players.

The nerf to castellan was a good move - what we need is more of this.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
How about you use the wiki, it's perfectly sorted?

I'm not wasting my time in the deep end of the pool just to try and sort through a couple thousand rulesets just to find something worth looking into. You want to make some recommendations I'll bite, but my time is finite and I don't want to spend it trawling through page after page of games just to try and find something that might pique my interests.

The fact you outright said you wouldn't look at redone 40k or 9th says a lot about how bad you want to move those goalposts.

 skchsan wrote:

Reemule wrote:
The original post is about warhamme r40K discussion on the Voxcast.

The issue is that the designers (as per the vox-cast) feel that the game is at a good place in terms of competitive scene.

While we defer that perfect balance is unattainable, the current power scale of min-maxed lists we see at major tournament scene are obscenely powerful - and these lists repeated feature common units that have indisputably become "auto-takes" (or pseudo-auto-takes), leaving much of the available model range (if not an entire army) we own on the shelves if we want to play competitively.

More often than not, we (the ones being called "narrative players") are toning down on the optimization to make the game more enjoyable for both players.

The nerf to castellan was a good move - what we need is more of this.

GW seems to be trying to apply the nerfs in small steps, possibly to not outright ruin the playability of models for people. I agree we need more, but more than nerfs we need a lot more stuff made viable. There are a lot of options that just don't outweigh their counterparts competitively leading to Scouts over Tacticals being a common sight, much less Cultists over Chaos Marines. It feels like they're getting a better handle how to handle elite versus horde builds but we're obviously not where the game needs to be and that's a problem I think everyone can agree needs addressing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
How about you use the wiki, it's perfectly sorted?

I'm not wasting my time in the deep end of the pool just to try and sort through a couple thousand rulesets just to find something worth looking into. You want to make some recommendations I'll bite, but my time is finite and I don't want to spend it trawling through page after page of games just to try and find something that might pique my interests.

The fact you outright said you wouldn't look at redone 40k or 9th says a lot about how bad you want to move those goalposts.

If the point is to look at games outside of GW's works, then looking at homebrewed 40k or a dying version of WFB (a game I played in 7th and 8th) is pointless. It's just a retooled version of an existing thing and still has to fall into the same design constraints the original did to appeal to people who played the original version.

If you want to point out better games I'm all for it, but I'm not rehashing GW's greatest hits covered by the Kids Bop when the point was that I look outside of GW's realm and look at better original IP.

Reemule wrote:At minimum, if you haven't set a point limit, created a list, played the games using all relevant rules to the criteria your playing, finished the match, and have a winner, I don't believe your competent to express opinions on balance in the game.

Clear Sarge?

This is single handedly the most ridiculous statement I've ever heard and that's sayin somethin.

Would you like some keys to go along with that gate?

Reemule wrote:Ohh no.. you didn't do your homework!

The original post is about warhamme r40K discussion on the Voxcast.

VoxCast – the official Warhammer 40,000 Podcast.

Warhammer 40,000 is a miniature wargame produced by Games Workshop.

A wargame is a game type.

So naturally it should follow the established mean of game no?

Agreed with all of the above. No quarrel there.

What you're missing is that a wargame can be played exactly as described earlier - a relaxed, casually rolling social affair, with the core objective being enjoyment over tactical superiority. That's still just as much playing a game as meticulously moving units, striving to win and achieve victory. (Note that both are fine, and I'm not meaning to elevate one's validity over the other - both are equally valid ways to play the game).

So, heavy handed condescension aside, I ask again - why are we using your definition of what a "game" is to determine who is, or is not, a gamer?

 skchsan wrote:

Reemule wrote:
The original post is about warhamme r40K discussion on the Voxcast.

The issue is that the designers (as per the vox-cast) feel that the game is at a good place in terms of competitive scene.

While we defer that perfect balance is unattainable, the current power scale of min-maxed lists we see at major tournament scene are obscenely powerful - and these lists repeated feature common units that have indisputably become "auto-takes" (or pseudo-auto-takes), leaving much of the available model range (if not an entire army) we own on the shelves if we want to play competitively.

More often than not, we (the ones being called "narrative players") are toning down on the optimization to make the game more enjoyable for both players.

The nerf to castellan was a good move - what we need is more of this.

I think this is a great example of why we need to be more clear on our bias.

You think the nerf to the Castellan was good. Maybe it was to the Narrative players. I don't know of stats or information on narrative play to judge this.

It wasn't "good" for competitive play. We know this because it dropped it from nearly every list, to virtually no lists. Talking knights, currently we have (ignoring FW) 8 knight sheets, Gallant, Preceptor, Warden, Crusader, Errant, Paladin, Valiant and Castellan. Good balance between them would be if you get to some silly high number of lists with knights, they would even out to where each of the 8 designs appears about 12.5% of the time.

A Good nerf would have moved things in the direction of the 12.5%. It didn't. A better nerf would have been to the Raven Strat, and to mass CP in knights. Mass CP in knights was nerfed to an extent, (why you now see Krast over Raven) And something where you hopefully saw more equal numbers of different knights on the table. All this nerf did was move people to Krast Crusaders. Congrats?

Reemule wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

Reemule wrote:
The original post is about warhamme r40K discussion on the Voxcast.

The issue is that the designers (as per the vox-cast) feel that the game is at a good place in terms of competitive scene.

While we defer that perfect balance is unattainable, the current power scale of min-maxed lists we see at major tournament scene are obscenely powerful - and these lists repeated feature common units that have indisputably become "auto-takes" (or pseudo-auto-takes), leaving much of the available model range (if not an entire army) we own on the shelves if we want to play competitively.

More often than not, we (the ones being called "narrative players") are toning down on the optimization to make the game more enjoyable for both players.

The nerf to castellan was a good move - what we need is more of this.

I think this is a great example of why we need to be more clear on our bias.

You think the nerf to the Castellan was good. Maybe it was to the Narrative players. I don't know of stats or information on narrative play to judge this.

It wasn't "good" for competitive play. We know this because it dropped it from nearly every list, to virtually no lists. Talking knights, currently we have (ignoring FW) 8 knight sheets, Gallant, Preceptor, Warden, Crusader, Errant, Paladin, Valiant and Castellan. Good balance between them would be if you get to some silly high number of lists with knights, they would even out to where each of the 8 designs appears about 12.5% of the time.

A Good nerf would have moved things in the direction of the 12.5%. It didn't. A better nerf would have been to the Raven Strat, and to mass CP in knights. Mass CP in knights was nerfed to an extent, (why you now see Krast over Raven) And something where you hopefully saw more equal numbers of different knights on the table. All this nerf did was move people to Krast Crusaders. Congrats?

In defense of the nerf we need to remember that competetive 40k doesn't operate at what is the most balanced part of the rules but on those edge cases that push the win percentages up by even an additional 1%. The lists are largely worked out by a few big names and then trickle down to a lot of imitators as well who don't try to find their own playstyle and combos that work best for them.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Reemule wrote:Ohh no.. you didn't do your homework!

The original post is about warhamme r40K discussion on the Voxcast.

VoxCast – the official Warhammer 40,000 Podcast.

Warhammer 40,000 is a miniature wargame produced by Games Workshop.

A wargame is a game type.

So naturally it should follow the established mean of game no?

Agreed with all of the above. No quarrel there.

What you're missing is that a wargame can be played exactly as described earlier - a relaxed, casually rolling social affair, with the core objective being enjoyment over tactical superiority. That's still just as much playing a game as meticulously moving units, striving to win and achieve victory. (Note that both are fine, and I'm not meaning to elevate one's validity over the other - both are equally valid ways to play the game).

So, heavy handed condescension aside, I ask again - why are we using your definition of what a "game" is to determine who is, or is not, a gamer?

What criteria would you use? What is the preferred method of when narrative play Jim jumps in and says something stupid on Competitive play Tim's thread about how he lost to X at a Tournament?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Reemule wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

Reemule wrote:
The original post is about warhamme r40K discussion on the Voxcast.

The issue is that the designers (as per the vox-cast) feel that the game is at a good place in terms of competitive scene.

While we defer that perfect balance is unattainable, the current power scale of min-maxed lists we see at major tournament scene are obscenely powerful - and these lists repeated feature common units that have indisputably become "auto-takes" (or pseudo-auto-takes), leaving much of the available model range (if not an entire army) we own on the shelves if we want to play competitively.

More often than not, we (the ones being called "narrative players") are toning down on the optimization to make the game more enjoyable for both players.

The nerf to castellan was a good move - what we need is more of this.

I think this is a great example of why we need to be more clear on our bias.

You think the nerf to the Castellan was good. Maybe it was to the Narrative players. I don't know of stats or information on narrative play to judge this.

It wasn't "good" for competitive play. We know this because it dropped it from nearly every list, to virtually no lists. Talking knights, currently we have (ignoring FW) 8 knight sheets, Gallant, Preceptor, Warden, Crusader, Errant, Paladin, Valiant and Castellan. Good balance between them would be if you get to some silly high number of lists with knights, they would even out to where each of the 8 designs appears about 12.5% of the time.

A Good nerf would have moved things in the direction of the 12.5%. It didn't. A better nerf would have been to the Raven Strat, and to mass CP in knights. Mass CP in knights was nerfed to an extent, (why you now see Krast over Raven) And something where you hopefully saw more equal numbers of different knights on the table. All this nerf did was move people to Krast Crusaders. Congrats?

In defense of the nerf we need to remember that competetive 40k doesn't operate at what is the most balanced part of the rules but on those edge cases that push the win percentages up by even an additional 1%. The lists are largely worked out by a few big names and then trickle down to a lot of imitators as well who don't try to find their own playstyle and combos that work best for them.

And see your bias of not knowing anything of the Tournament scene, or players is now super clear.

Reemule wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Reemule wrote:Ohh no.. you didn't do your homework!

The original post is about warhamme r40K discussion on the Voxcast.

VoxCast – the official Warhammer 40,000 Podcast.

Warhammer 40,000 is a miniature wargame produced by Games Workshop.

A wargame is a game type.

So naturally it should follow the established mean of game no?

Agreed with all of the above. No quarrel there.

What you're missing is that a wargame can be played exactly as described earlier - a relaxed, casually rolling social affair, with the core objective being enjoyment over tactical superiority. That's still just as much playing a game as meticulously moving units, striving to win and achieve victory. (Note that both are fine, and I'm not meaning to elevate one's validity over the other - both are equally valid ways to play the game).

So, heavy handed condescension aside, I ask again - why are we using your definition of what a "game" is to determine who is, or is not, a gamer?

What criteria would you use? What is the preferred method of when narrative play Jim jumps in and says something stupid on Competitive play Tim's thread about how he lost to X at a Tournament?

Considering this thread isn't about that but started as a discussion of the studio's perspective of the rules and how they can be used by players I fail to see how trying to gatekeep the term "gamer" to be topical when the discussion is regarding all levels of play.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Reemule wrote:
And see your bias of not knowing anything of the Tournament scene, or players is now super clear.

I've played enough RTs and looked into enough big tournaments over the years to know that generally speaking that competitive play revolves around chasing the most powerful combos and that usually means shelving anything that is reasonably balanced in favor for anything they can squeeze even a single extra point on the win condition with. It also revolves around building around mission packs that you don't see in more casual games.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Reemule wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:


https://freewargamesrules.fandom.com/wiki/Freewargamesrules_Wiki

Okay, now how many of those are actually -good-?

As in better than 40K? I'd say 75%.

Okay, let's narrow it down to my interests then, how many that are sci fi or fantasy themed are better than 40k (and aren't just 9th Age or 40k homebrews) and worth looking into?

Haven't played most of them, but I can definitely say that Konflikt '47 (Bolt Action variant, weird WWII with mechs and Nazi super-biotech, has models), Warmachine (large skirmish, wizards and robots, has models), Godslayer (large skirmish, strange high-fantasy setting, has models), and Infinity (small cyberpunk skirmish, has models) off that list are better than 40k/Sigmar and have no direct connection to GW.

Reemule wrote:What criteria would you use?

Are they playing a game? If yes, then they're a gamer. Simple.

What is the preferred method of when narrative play Jim jumps in and says something stupid on Competitive play Tim's thread about how he lost to X at a Tournament?

I don't know what this has to do with this thread, or your comment, seeing as Narrative Play Jim isn't turning round to Competitive Play Tim and calling him a fake gamer just because he plays the game in a different way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Reemule wrote:
...when you can't resist saying something in competitive play threads...

Mate, ClockworkZion STARTED this thread. You can't exactly complain at him for "commenting in a competive play thread" when he created it.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Reemule wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:


https://freewargamesrules.fandom.com/wiki/Freewargamesrules_Wiki

Okay, now how many of those are actually -good-?

As in better than 40K? I'd say 75%.

Okay, let's narrow it down to my interests then, how many that are sci fi or fantasy themed are better than 40k (and aren't just 9th Age or 40k homebrews) and worth looking into?

Haven't played most of them, but I can definitely say that Konflikt '47 (Bolt Action variant, weird WWII with mechs and Nazi super-biotech, has models), Warmachine (large skirmish, wizards and robots, has models), Godslayer (large skirmish, strange high-fantasy setting, has models), and Infinity (small cyberpunk skirmish, has models) off that list are better than 40k/Sigmar and have no direct connection to GW.

Warmachine keeps getting brought up and I'll say the same thing I said before: I was not a fan of the brick that they ask you to try and eat to get the rules down just to play the game. Maybe 3rd is better. I haven't looked yet, but 2nd had too many moving parts in its USRs and that kept me from really getting into it. My FLGS is slowly getting back into WHM though so I'll likely at least give it a look in the future.

Konflikt and Godslayer I'll take a look at, though I'm not much for Infinity. As much as I like GiTS and cyberpunk in general I can't seem to buy into the game. Don't know why.

Reemule wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

Reemule wrote:
The original post is about warhamme r40K discussion on the Voxcast.

The issue is that the designers (as per the vox-cast) feel that the game is at a good place in terms of competitive scene.

While we defer that perfect balance is unattainable, the current power scale of min-maxed lists we see at major tournament scene are obscenely powerful - and these lists repeated feature common units that have indisputably become "auto-takes" (or pseudo-auto-takes), leaving much of the available model range (if not an entire army) we own on the shelves if we want to play competitively.

More often than not, we (the ones being called "narrative players") are toning down on the optimization to make the game more enjoyable for both players.

The nerf to castellan was a good move - what we need is more of this.

I think this is a great example of why we need to be more clear on our bias.

You think the nerf to the Castellan was good. Maybe it was to the Narrative players. I don't know of stats or information on narrative play to judge this.

It wasn't "good" for competitive play. We know this because it dropped it from nearly every list, to virtually no lists. Talking knights, currently we have (ignoring FW) 8 knight sheets, Gallant, Preceptor, Warden, Crusader, Errant, Paladin, Valiant and Castellan. Good balance between them would be if you get to some silly high number of lists with knights, they would even out to where each of the 8 designs appears about 12.5% of the time.

A Good nerf would have moved things in the direction of the 12.5%. It didn't. A better nerf would have been to the Raven Strat, and to mass CP in knights. Mass CP in knights was nerfed to an extent, (why you now see Krast over Raven) And something where you hopefully saw more equal numbers of different knights on the table. All this nerf did was move people to Krast Crusaders. Congrats?

Exactly. There's nothing "competitive" about competitive (i.e. major tournaments) 40k. It's all about finding the most broken units and exploiting it. There is no contest of skills or luck, but only how much money you've spent on matching up to the "competitive" meta.

To you, competition = exploitation. Many of us don't see eye to eye on that stance.

And please don't rebut with "but it wasn't knights that were broken, it's soup and CP batteries" argument.

 skchsan wrote:

Reemule wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

Reemule wrote:
The original post is about warhamme r40K discussion on the Voxcast.

The issue is that the designers (as per the vox-cast) feel that the game is at a good place in terms of competitive scene.

While we defer that perfect balance is unattainable, the current power scale of min-maxed lists we see at major tournament scene are obscenely powerful - and these lists repeated feature common units that have indisputably become "auto-takes" (or pseudo-auto-takes), leaving much of the available model range (if not an entire army) we own on the shelves if we want to play competitively.

More often than not, we (the ones being called "narrative players") are toning down on the optimization to make the game more enjoyable for both players.

The nerf to castellan was a good move - what we need is more of this.

I think this is a great example of why we need to be more clear on our bias.

You think the nerf to the Castellan was good. Maybe it was to the Narrative players. I don't know of stats or information on narrative play to judge this.

It wasn't "good" for competitive play. We know this because it dropped it from nearly every list, to virtually no lists. Talking knights, currently we have (ignoring FW) 8 knight sheets, Gallant, Preceptor, Warden, Crusader, Errant, Paladin, Valiant and Castellan. Good balance between them would be if you get to some silly high number of lists with knights, they would even out to where each of the 8 designs appears about 12.5% of the time.

A Good nerf would have moved things in the direction of the 12.5%. It didn't. A better nerf would have been to the Raven Strat, and to mass CP in knights. Mass CP in knights was nerfed to an extent, (why you now see Krast over Raven) And something where you hopefully saw more equal numbers of different knights on the table. All this nerf did was move people to Krast Crusaders. Congrats?

Exactly. There's nothing "competitive" about competitive (i.e. major tournaments) 40k. It's all about finding the most broken units and exploiting it. There is no contest of skills or luck, but only how much money you've spent on matching up to the "competitive" meta.

To you, competitive = exploitative. And please don't rebut with "but it wasn't knights that were broken, it's soup and CP batteries" argument.

Many of us don't see eye to eye on that stance.

So the only people who are any good in america at "exploitative play" are the same 20 odd people that keep ending up at the top tables? Year after year? No one else is good at it?

 skchsan wrote:
Exactly. There's nothing "competitive" about competitive (i.e. major tournaments) 40k. It's all about finding the most broken units and exploiting it. There is no contest of skills or luck, but only how much money you've spent on matching up to the "competitive" meta.

To you, competitive = exploitative. And please don't rebut with "but it wasn't knights that were broken, it's soup and CP batteries" argument.

Many of us don't see eye to eye on that stance.

CP batteries are why I say AoS does CP better. Generating it on a turn by turn basis (with some small bonuses for fluffy builds that cost bonus points for extra rules) is a better mechanic in my book than building it in the list building phase. Then again I had a similar mechanic with C:WH and Faith Points and wasn't really into it then either.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Reemule wrote:
So the only people who are any good in america at "exploitative play" are the same 20 odd people that keep ending up at the top tables? Year after year? No one else is good at it?

Not everyone can play at that level, or approach the game with the right mindset to come up with things like 0" charges, the loyal 32, ect, ect. These things are generally pioneered by a small percentage of players and copied by the rest.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Reemule wrote:What criteria would you use?

Are they playing a game? If yes, then they're a gamer. Simple.

What is the preferred method of when narrative play Jim jumps in and says something stupid on Competitive play Tim's thread about how he lost to X at a Tournament?

I don't know what this has to do with this thread, or your comment, seeing as Narrative Play Jim isn't turning round to Competitive Play Tim and calling him a fake gamer just because he plays the game in a different way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Reemule wrote:
...when you can't resist saying something in competitive play threads...

Mate, ClockworkZion STARTED this thread. You can't exactly complain at him for "commenting in a competive play thread" when he created it.

You might have missed the context. Reread? I'm aware he started the thread.