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.

As far as people saying negativity means we should quit playing:

I did. I quit playing for six to eight months this edition (I thought I mentioned that already). But I missed it. I enjoy the people and the community, I enjoy the hobby and the narrative, and I missed actually playing. So:

I came back for the Sororitas release, because I have an old metal Sororitas army. It's been fun so far (five or six games in about four weeks). But the problem is I can't stop having flashbacks to when I quit playing months ago, when I was crushed at the top of turn 3 repeatedly even against "casual", non-optimized narrative lists. And I did the same to my opponents if I went first, because I had lots of gun.

Now? It feels the same way. I think sororitas are upper-tier all things considered; not tournament winners but definitely good. And in all the games I've had since returning, they were over by turn 4, with my girls having absolutely trashed the enemy fairly well.

I gave an anecdote of a narrative game for our local campaign that left a very sour, regretful taste in my mouth. I won, but winning isn't the point, and it simply wasn't fun for my opponent. I could have pulled my punches, I suppose, but I don't really know how to do that. I mean deliberately not shooting with a unit would work, or not using Miracle Dice to hit on Overwatch, or pretending I have 5+ armor instead of 3+, but that sort of thing is fairly obvious to my opponent and just feels kind of silly, because such a handicap isn't narratively sensible.

I just want the game to be balanced enough that narrative, casual games aren't so painful - and I don't want to have to do all the balancing myself, because I'm not paid enough to move the mountains required to do so. And I don't mean writing the rules on the page, that could be fine - I mean the community pull, the sense of 'officialness' that makes the rule actually useful for people.

Maybe I'll talk to the GM of my campaign, but they're overworked as it is generating maps and whatnot.

Unit, I don't think you're one of the people who would be impossible to please. 'I want the game to be a bit better balanced' is a completely legitimate request and one that conceivably could be bet. Some people want the whole game to be redesigned from the ground up with completely different mechanics and design principles. Lets say that it is pretty damn unlikely that that is gonna happen.

And I think your approach is completely rational. You didn't have fun, you stopped playing, and now you're having fun and keep playing as long as you do.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
The core rules for 8e 40k reworked the statline to add move rate and remove Initiative, removed separate vehicle statlines and critical tables in favour of using the same system as everyone else, inflated wound counts to add damage stats to weapons, redesigned 'cover', removed characters added to units in favour of the closest-target rule, changed AP to incremental rather than all-or-nothing, introduced uniform pricing for weapons independent of platform, dramatically altered how moving and charging worked, introduced "-1 to hit" as a mechanic, completely reinvented morale, completely reinvented psykers, completely deleted USRs from the rules in favour of putting a paragraph of text in a bunch of weapon statlines and unit entries, and removed blasts and templates in favour of random-ROF weapons. And that's all within the 'core rules', ignoring things like stratagems people will then tell me are optional add-ons. The turn order is mostly the same (melee has been reorganized) but the structure of cards, structure of abilites, and general resolution mechanics have been shredded and rewritten.

Go on, how many of those were actual introductions rather than reintroductIons/remixes?

Because reverting to save mod rather than all-or-nothing penetration was a deal maker for me. Power armour ought to be thankful they're not back to a 4+ T3, as Nottingham intended!

Catulle wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
The core rules for 8e 40k reworked the statline to add move rate and remove Initiative, removed separate vehicle statlines and critical tables in favour of using the same system as everyone else, inflated wound counts to add damage stats to weapons, redesigned 'cover', removed characters added to units in favour of the closest-target rule, changed AP to incremental rather than all-or-nothing, introduced uniform pricing for weapons independent of platform, dramatically altered how moving and charging worked, introduced "-1 to hit" as a mechanic, completely reinvented morale, completely reinvented psykers, completely deleted USRs from the rules in favour of putting a paragraph of text in a bunch of weapon statlines and unit entries, and removed blasts and templates in favour of random-ROF weapons. And that's all within the 'core rules', ignoring things like stratagems people will then tell me are optional add-ons. The turn order is mostly the same (melee has been reorganized) but the structure of cards, structure of abilites, and general resolution mechanics have been shredded and rewritten.

Go on, how many of those were actual introductions rather than reintroductIons/remixes?

In Mk.2 Warmachine when I want to make a basic, unmodified attack I roll 2d6+MAT/RAT/FOC (depending on the type of attack). If the total is equal to or greater than the target's DEF the attack hits. I then roll 2d6+POW and subtract the target's ARM from the total. The result is how much damage I deal.

In Mk.3 Warmachine when I want to make a basic, unmodified attack I roll 2d6+MAT/RAT/FOC (depending on the type of attack). If the total is equal to or greater than the target's DEF the attack hits. I then roll 2d6+POW and subtract the target's ARM from the total. The result is how much damage I deal.

In 7e 40k when I want to make a basic, unmodified attack I roll either 1d6 against my BS or 1d6 against the target number produced by comparing my WS to the target's WS. If I hit I check which type of target I hit. If I hit a vehicle I then roll d6+Str, if the result equals the target's AV it is a glancing hit, if the result is greater it is a penetrating hit, otherwise it fails. If I hit a non-vehicle unit I then roll 1d6 against the target number produced by comparing my S to the target's T. If I achieve a glancing hit, penetrating hit, or successful wound the target then has the opportunity to roll a save. If my AP is equal to or lower than the target's armour save they may not take that save, they may take an Invulnerable save whether or not the AP is anywhere near it. If the save fails a target glanced loses one hull point, a target penetrated loses one hull point and rolls on the vehicle damage table (adding one for AP2 and two for AP1), and a target wounded loses one wound from their total. If the Strength of the attack is 2x the target's Toughness the attack inflicts Instant Death and the target is removed even if they had wounds remaining. Casualties from units of multiple models are removed from the closest point to the attacker.

In 8e 40k when I want to make a basic, unmodified attack I roll 1d6 against BS/WS. If I hit I then roll 1d6 against the target number produced by comparing my S to the target's T. If I wound the target then rolls either an armour save penalized by my weapon's AP, or an Invulnerable save unaffected by my weapon's AP. If the save fails I then determine how much damage the attack deals and remove that many wounds from the target. If the attack inflicts wounds in excess of the target's wound count any excess are lost. Casualties from units of multiple models are removed from wherever the defender feels like removing them from.

8e 40k had basic structural changes to how statlines were written and how attacks were resolved. Warmachine Mk.3 did not.

None of this explains how the IH supplement gets out the door. That's my problem with GW.

Uniting melee and ranged to-hit systems is not regressive. Unlike Lapsang Souchong, the tea of heretics.

Catulle wrote:
Unlike Lapsang Souchong, the tea of heretics.

I thought heretics preferred Nurgle Gray.

Martel732 wrote:
None of this explains how the IH supplement gets out the door. That's my problem with GW.

Not gonna lie, that was pretty baffling.

Catulle wrote:
Uniting melee and ranged to-hit systems is not regressive. Unlike Lapsang Souchong, the tea of heretics.

Back up and read the original post. I'm describing the to-hit systems here because I'm trying to point out that GW changes their game dramatically more between editions than other people (specifically Warmachine in the example), not passing judgement on whether it's a good thing or not. I love having shorter/easier mechanisms to resolve attacks. 7e was unnecessarily complicated in that regard. I'd be happier if 8e had managed to preserve vehicle facings and interesting damage tables while simplifying attacks, but they didn't, so now we have to go back and add it ourselves, but that doesn't mean unifying the damage mechanics was in some way bad or wrong.

(Insult lapsang souchong at your peril, slave of the Corpse-Emperor.)

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Back up and read the original post. I'm describing the to-hit systems here because I'm trying to point out that GW changes their game dramatically more between editions than other people (specifically Warmachine in the example)

You're absolutely correct that this time they did. Last time a shift of similar magnitude happened was when they released the third edition. Edition changes from third to seventh were more like minor updated like in the other games that were mentioned.

 Crimson wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
None of this explains how the IH supplement gets out the door. That's my problem with GW.

Not gonna lie, that was pretty baffling.

I don't mind GW's mistakes that are weird combos. What I mind are things going to print that are obviously out of whack before they hit the table. 3 ppm conscripts? Old flyrants? Come on now.

 Crimson wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Back up and read the original post. I'm describing the to-hit systems here because I'm trying to point out that GW changes their game dramatically more between editions than other people (specifically Warmachine in the example)

You're absolutely correct that this time they did. Last time a shift of similar magnitude happened was when they released the third edition. Edition changes from third to seventh were more like minor updated like in the other games that were mentioned.

3rd->4th and 6th->7th were more like edition changes from a more sensible wargame, but the rejigger to accompany TLOS/pre-measuring and the vehicle revisions in 4th-5th and the introduction of flyers and allies, the rewrite of the psychic phase, and the reintroduction of melee weapon statlines in 5th->6th were pretty extreme.

Martel732 wrote:
None of this explains how the IH supplement gets out the door. That's my problem with GW.

See this is a fair complaint. I played fantasy and remember that pre high elves the power creep was there (WOC) but it wasn't out of control. Then came the BOTWD also known as undead and Deamons sit down. Also most characters and parts of WOC.

One item took a strong book with a few strong tricks and unbalanced it. By contrast the following Lizardmen book was very balanced and so was mostly panned.

GW has to have unbiased reviewers who are game breakers as a editing team they will find the issues. Is this gonna happen? No

The tea analogy is bollocks. We drink coffee here in the USA so make coffee analogies moving forward. Having said that, I like my coffee cold, black, and bitter. Like my heart and non-existent soul.

 redux wrote:
The tea analogy is bollocks. We drink coffee here in the USA so make coffee analogies moving forward. Having said that, I like my coffee cold, black, and bitter. Like my heart and non-existent soul.

Well here in CANADA we insist our analogies be mediocre, homogenous, served with donuts, and named after a famed NHL athlete!!!

 redux wrote:
The tea analogy is bollocks. We drink coffee here in the USA so make coffee analogies moving forward. Having said that, I like my coffee cold, black, and bitter. Like my heart and non-existent soul.

See this is the problem. You can’t balance the tea game if all the feedback is from coffee drinkers. All these tournaments using coffee instead and manipulating the tea meta.

JohnnyHell 783636 10670554 … wrote:

 redux wrote:
The tea analogy is bollocks. We drink coffee here in the USA so make coffee analogies moving forward. Having said that, I like my coffee cold, black, and bitter. Like my heart and non-existent soul.

See this is the problem. You can’t balance the tea game if all the feedback is from coffee drinkers. All these tournaments using coffee instead and manipulating the tea meta.

I just don't see why tea drinkers whine so much about what black coffee drinkers want from the drink: higher caffeine, bitterness, a more robust flavour… that benefits EVERYONE!

catbarf wrote:
I'm kind of tired of people using the social contract / conversation with your opponent concept as an excuse for poor writing.

Folks like me are not excusing poor writing though. Gw could do better, probably. As could every other company. What folks like me are saying is the social contract / conversation, within the context of good friends ans a proactive approach to gaming (which should be something people should take up), goes a lot way towards acting like a shock absorber and helping deal with problems.

catbarf wrote:
No, this is not a panacea for writing problems. Because we can both want a casual, balanced game, and then disagree entirely on what is needed to achieve it ('I have to take an optimized list to make it fair because your faction is better'). Or maybe we disagree on the optimal house rules ('Nah, the default cover rules are fine for my Marines'). Or maybe we just play the game without worrying too much about balance, but then afterwards disagree over whether the outcome was a result of player skill or balancing, and some resentment arises. Or maybe we want to make a narrative scenario, and then two hours later one side has won with no real challenge and it's been a big waste of time for both of us. It is an inherently adversarial conversation, because when an opponent says 'I don't want to play with your house rules', it is actively saying 'I believe your fun will come at the expense of mine'. If you're already friends and have a good interpersonal relationship then you can resolve that amicably. If it's a random dude at the local shop, maybe not.

Maybe the problem is 'playing a random dude at a local shop', which suggest maybe, at least at some level,The uncomromising insistence on pick-up-game culture at the expense of everything else and the view of tournaments as the ultimate expression of the game is something that is in need of change. Sometimes it's the cultures that need to change and adapt. Gaming culture is no different.

Worst case scenario - you present your ideas well, and I'll trust you, and say 'yeah sure, I'll give them a go'. I'm always intrigued by new rules. It might mean you'll very give my ideas a go the next time.

catbarf wrote:
I don't want to win. I just want to pay money for someone else to do the hard work of game design, so that I don't have to, and so that I can reasonably expect other players to be on the same page as me. If I have to write my own rules to make it an enjoyable experience, and then negotiate with an opponent to convince them that my homebrew is the way to play... well, I might as well be using a 100% homebrew system that plays exactly how I want, then.

I don't disagree. And yet for all that, we all want different things. Unless we are all drones, insisting on a universal-at-all-costs approach to the game is just as damaging in the long run. You might want to pay someone else to do the hard work of game design, and that's fair, but no game design will ever be perfect or be capable of accommodating everyone. Thsts why it's ::also important for you to be able to tinker with it yourself and make it more suitable for you and your circumstances.

Yes, absolutely an issue is pickup game culture. But that's not likely to change anytime soon with the dominance of the FLGS over the gaming club in the USA.

Deadnight wrote:
...The uncomromising insistence on pick-up-game culture at the expense of everything else...

If pick-up games don't exist how do you expect introduce people to the hobby? "Yes. Buy this. But know that everything you have ever learned on the Internet is bulls**t because we play our own heavily modified version of the rules nobody else on the Internet is using, if you don't like it you can f*** off and find your own gaming group who agrees with you about what's fun. What's that? You don't have a gaming group? Or a place to play? Well, magic one up, then! I don't have time to play people I don't know according to rules I haven't written myself!"

I really wish gaming clubs were a thing here but alas, flgs random pickup game culture is for many of us reality.

 auticus wrote:
I really wish gaming clubs were a thing here but alas, flgs random pickup game culture is for many of us reality.

Yep, the lack of US gaming clubs is sure a *great* reason to recalibrate the game for that crowd, despite the ongoing and improving profitability of the company despite the committed whiners. Just organise yourselves or get over it! Unionise, fellow nerds!

I guess that would depend on what percentage the whining USA crowd makes up the overall profit margin as to whether the game should be balanced or left to be in clown world where its been for so many years / decades in terms of bad rules and bad balance.

The company being profitable is simply players whining about the bad rules and bad balance but continuing to reward the company anyway by giving them money for more products they deem inferior.

Catulle wrote:

 auticus wrote:
I really wish gaming clubs were a thing here but alas, flgs random pickup game culture is for many of us reality.

Yep, the lack of US gaming clubs is sure a *great* reason to recalibrate the game for that crowd, despite the ongoing and improving profitability of the company despite the committed whiners. Just organise yourselves or get over it! Unionise, fellow nerds!

Because somehow balancing the game will make it worse for the crowd that tries to do GWs job, because they won't have to do it anymore? What point were you trying to make in reality?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Catulle wrote:

 auticus wrote:
I really wish gaming clubs were a thing here but alas, flgs random pickup game culture is for many of us reality.

Yep, the lack of US gaming clubs is sure a *great* reason to recalibrate the game for that crowd, despite the ongoing and improving profitability of the company despite the committed whiners. Just organise yourselves or get over it! Unionise, fellow nerds!

Because somehow balancing the game will make it worse for the crowd that tries to do GWs job, because they won't have to do it anymore? What point were you trying to make in reality?

The point was, why rebalance the game for a group of players that don't exist.

Catulle wrote:

 auticus wrote:
I really wish gaming clubs were a thing here but alas, flgs random pickup game culture is for many of us reality.

Yep, the lack of US gaming clubs is sure a *great* reason to recalibrate the game for that crowd, despite the ongoing and improving profitability of the company despite the committed whiners. Just organise yourselves or get over it! Unionise, fellow nerds!

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Because somehow balancing the game will make it worse for the crowd that tries to do GWs job, because they won't have to do it anymore? What point were you trying to make in reality?

It doesn't necessarily make it worse. But you are deflecting. 'Somehow balancing the game' is a unicorn. The best you will ever get is shades of 'good enough, enough of the time' - there will still be problems and npe's.and like plenty off-the-shelf one-size-fits-all stuff, you will still need to tinker around the edges to make it purpose-fit for you and yours. Also, I've played enough games to see plenty that have built in enough structural features to try to lower the imbalance. While admirable, (and I don't suggest ignoring incorporating them) Every single feature has a cost to pay, its limitations and it's detractors. Multiply that by the size of the 40k community and a subsection of our community's insistence on bludgeoning people with whatever sharp edges they find and things don't change.

AnomanderRake wrote:
If pick-up games don't exist how do you expect introduce people to the hobby? "Yes. Buy this. But know that everything you have ever learned on the Internet is bulls**t because we play our own heavily modified version of the rules nobody else on the Internet is using, if you don't like it you can f*** off and find your own gaming group who agrees with you about what's fun. What's that? You don't have a gaming group? Or a place to play? Well, magic one up, then! I don't have time to play people I don't know according to rules I haven't written myself!"

Well, With less venom and hostility for a start. approaching people with a stinking attitude like that - never cool.

We play at home, and have introduced people to the game. Several have been people I/we worked with, who haven't played otherwise in years (burnout etc), one is a nephew-in-law who was intrigued enough by one players ww2 stuff to just dive in. Others are friends and acquaintances from other clubs or groups.

For us, at least full disclosure is a big thing. If someone is wanting to get involved doing that includes being honest and letting them know what they are in for.

First part is usually along the lines of 'what game/stuff intrigues you' and the stuff that we are interested in (ww2 and historicals, limited sci-fi, some fantasy. Various rules sets) Second is helping with painting/building advice if required and third is incorporating the new stuff into our games. For what it's worth, we are not blind to the internet, tournaments and other gaming groups. We have all done some, or in my case, all of these things too. I would also say these exist, explain the difference in how we play versus the 'officialdon-adhering' clubs do it, some of the price that gets paid for this approach (a lot of your stuff, unless it seems optimal will be seen as a waste, churn and burn is a thing with meta shake up etc. And also, the price we play - more front-loaded work, the 'conversarion' etc) but for what it's worth, I also encourage them to check out the various clubs and tournaments in the area (again, several in the area, I know where they are, have nothing against any of them) and make up their own minds for themselves. It is possible to do both after all, and they may actually enjoy that kind of thing. As has happened if they also find, or know someone who plays on a similar wavelength to us, they are encouraged to bring them back.

I rather build a longer table than higher walls when it comes to investing in my community.

nataliereed1984 wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
Its a mystery to me as to why people keep trying to force something so staunchly not a competitive game into that niche. If GW wanted to make the game Warmachine levels of competitive they easily could but they don't for a reason.

SERIOUSLY.

It couldn't possibly be more clear that 40k is meant to be a fun, narratively-oriented, mostly-casual kind of game about spectacle and cool battles and funny moments and nice memories to enjoy with friends. .

'Narratively-orientated'

The 40K game does not represent the setting in any meaningful manner.

40k's main focus should not be on the competitive side of things.
The main focus should be on the narrative and models with rules that support it.

Competitive play is simply one aspect of 40k. If you don't like what GW do you can play another game.

Most people don't even play with the correct 40k rules, chosing to reduce the entire game to a single mission with unofficial terrain rules (ITC missions) , and then complain.

 blood reaper wrote:

nataliereed1984 wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
Its a mystery to me as to why people keep trying to force something so staunchly not a competitive game into that niche. If GW wanted to make the game Warmachine levels of competitive they easily could but they don't for a reason.

SERIOUSLY.

It couldn't possibly be more clear that 40k is meant to be a fun, narratively-oriented, mostly-casual kind of game about spectacle and cool battles and funny moments and nice memories to enjoy with friends. .

'Narratively-orientated'

The 40K game does not represent the setting in any meaningful manner.

I look forward to your pendantic rant about how an abstract wargame that expects you to use your imagination to fill in the blanks does not represent its setting. Unless you expect people to actual field thousands of guardsmen or gaunts at time? Or for only about 5 space marines to be present at a given battle?