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.

 Ishagu wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
I do, and I rarely find any of my games decided as early as turn 3. Some are, of course.

If you are getting defeated early, or are winning early, in casual gaming all the time, then you haven't balanced the game with your opponent.

It's not a contract negotiation. It's a competitive game with a winner and loser. Opponents aren't looking for balance. They are looking for competitive advantages. If there is a way for my foes to stomp me turn 1, they will.

What's the fun in that? This whole competitive stuff really feths with people's heads. This game is supposed to be FUN. I've been in gentler mosh pits than some of you people's local metas.

People need maturity to realise that the hobby is about many things. Lore, Collecting, Modelling, Building, Painting, Playing, Displaying, Narrative, etc etc etc
The problem with many competitive players is that they put competitive play ahead of every other hobby aspects ALL THE TIME. There is nothing wrong with wanting to play at a high level, but you must know that not everyone around you wants that all the time. Context is everything.

It's very easy to poison a local community. After 23 years in the hobby I have seen this happen time and again.

So how much of a handicap would you give mono-Slaanesh daemons at 2000 pts vs your Ultramarines? In a casual setting, I mean. Or do you think that, non-competitively, mono-Daemons is even with Ultramarines?

Martel732 wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
I do, and I rarely find any of my games decided as early as turn 3. Some are, of course.

If you are getting defeated early, or are winning early, in casual gaming all the time, then you haven't balanced the game with your opponent.

It's not a contract negotiation. It's a competitive game with a winner and loser. Opponents aren't looking for balance. They are looking for competitive advantages. If there is a way for my foes to stomp me turn 1, they will.

Sports are competitive games and even them have leagues and handicaps.
What does it means for our play pretend miniature game ? Probably that you should talk with your opponent about what kind of list you both are bringing and make sure you both have the same understanding of the rules.
I play mainly with close friends who've been playing as long as I do, and even there I don't play the same kind of stuff with each of them, just so we can both have fun. I dunno, there is no point wasting your time playing a disappointing game.
So, in tournaments without additional rules the implicit contract is that you're going to bring the meanest lists you can think of and you're on the same rules knowledge than your opponent. Thus why the most competitive players don't moan all day about their army not being the greatest, they just play what is effective and if they don't, they do it knowingly.

My play time has steadily decreased over 8th, so i completely agree. Im really sick of the assault rules and fallback in 8th in particular.

I am glad Games Workshop are trying to address the issues anyway. It will never be a perfect solution, there may not be one to balance everything.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
It is a much bigger nerf than you imagine.

Games that make it to the last turns, have groups of units here and there holding points, and a couple of killers trying to remove as many as possible before the end of the game. Movement is key in those turns, and removing the "Move and shoot" of IH from those turns hurts a lot.

The game is already decided by T3 basically, and that's part of the problem with the Assault Doctrine.

That happens only when 2 ultra aggressive lists face each other. Half the lists are gone before the start of turn 3.

It's only one kind of a matchup though, not the norm.

You mean the way the game is played? Shocker!
The meta is not fiddle farting around to see what happens. ALL lists that win are ultra aggressive basically. Anything outside that is NOT a norm.

Ultra alpha strike "Please let me get first turn" lists are definitely NOT the only lists you find around.

Does excluding the centurions solve a problem with raven guard?

A problem, yes

 lifeafter wrote:
Does excluding the centurions solve a problem with raven guard?

Yes, it was one of their most powerful combos, and one of the strongest combos in the whole codex.

 lifeafter wrote:
Does excluding the centurions solve a problem with raven guard?

[Quietly swaps Assault Centurions for Aggressors]
"Sure does, totally toned down my capability for stupidly effective alpha strikes with units pointed around their limited speed and weapon reach."

The Newman wrote:

 lifeafter wrote:
Does excluding the centurions solve a problem with raven guard?

[Quietly swaps Assault Centurions for Aggressors]
"Sure does, totally toned down my capability for stupidly effective alpha strikes with units pointed around their limited speed and weapon reach."

*Tinfoil hat mode*

Another ploy from GW to push Primaris...

 Ishagu wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
I do, and I rarely find any of my games decided as early as turn 3. Some are, of course.

If you are getting defeated early, or are winning early, in casual gaming all the time, then you haven't balanced the game with your opponent.

It's not a contract negotiation. It's a competitive game with a winner and loser. Opponents aren't looking for balance. They are looking for competitive advantages. If there is a way for my foes to stomp me turn 1, they will.

What's the fun in that? This whole competitive stuff really feths with people's heads. This game is supposed to be FUN. I've been in gentler mosh pits than some of you people's local metas.

People need maturity to realise that the hobby is about many things. Lore, Collecting, Modelling, Building, Painting, Playing, Displaying, Narrative, etc etc etc
The problem with many competitive players is that they put competitive play ahead of every other hobby aspects ALL THE TIME. There is nothing wrong with wanting to play at a high level, but you must know that not everyone around you wants that all the time. Context is everything.

It's very easy to poison a local community. After 23 years in the hobby I have seen this happen time and again.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ERJAK wrote:
The problem is CA missions. If everyone just stopped using CA missions, then marines would be the weakest army in the game.

Bad troll lol

And then you actually look at the tournament armies. I'm betting 100$ those armies are actually modeled and painted a lot better than yours too. With that said, all those things you listed are completely separate and have no bearing on gameplay. All you're doing is making excuses on GWs behalf for their terrible writing.

The Newman wrote:

 lifeafter wrote:
Does excluding the centurions solve a problem with raven guard?

[Quietly swaps Assault Centurions for Aggressors]
"Sure does, totally toned down my capability for stupidly effective alpha strikes with units pointed around their limited speed and weapon reach."

Fething gw.

This just changes the black tide of IH tournament domination into a fruity fething rainbow of SM bs.

Whoopdee fething doo.

 Ishagu wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
40k is a social contract. You can discuss a lot more than the format of the game before you play.

It's part of being a mature adult in the hobby.

Except we've been talking about competitive games on this thread, so no , there is no social contract when playing competitively, winning is what matters. For all the comlpaining about marines being Op and stuff. ive never actually gone against the top lists at my lgs because we just dont play that way. Another store close to my place does play ITC only so there you gotta go all-in.

Yes, and I'm saying that if games are all ending early there is a disparity between the player lists and ability.

Not really seeing GW intended for games to end up early. To speed up game despite all the rerolls etc added to the game only way you can keep games going fast is have armies so lethal they get vaporized in very quick order. No surprise majority of buffs are offense ones...

It's not disparity. It's game being what GW wanted to. Less turns with meaningful armies so even though individual turn is slower than ever games end up in about same as before or only slightly slower


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ERJAK wrote:
The problem is CA missions. If everyone just stopped using CA missions, then marines would be the weakest army in the game.

And do what? ITC? The one that gives nearly 10% boost to marine win rate...

Lol.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:
This just changes the black tide of IH tournament domination into a fruity fething rainbow of SM bs.

Whoopdee fething doo.

Well seeing colours were irrelevant they were still rainbow tide.

But at least now other chapters gets more light and hey ultramarines don't have winrate beginning with 6 or bigger so if outliers go pulled toward UM level things are improving.

@Slayer-Fan

What a strange assumption to make about my armies. I can tell you now they are painted to a very high standard.

Martel732 wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
I do, and I rarely find any of my games decided as early as turn 3. Some are, of course.

If you are getting defeated early, or are winning early, in casual gaming all the time, then you haven't balanced the game with your opponent.

It's not a contract negotiation. It's a competitive game with a winner and loser. Opponents aren't looking for balance. They are looking for competitive advantages. If there is a way for my foes to stomp me turn 1, they will.

Nah any system can be played, whether that's game rules or corporate law or fantasy football or tax avoidance. There is some onus on players not to game it to the extent they do as well as on GW to do the best they can to close this stuff up.

Unless they are happy with they way things are of course.

Good changes, generally. As UM I'm plenty comfortable with the Doctrine changes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 fraser1191 wrote:
Wow. Thanks iron hands. Guess my ultramarines will sit on the shelf for another 2 years

Imo UM are barely affected.

 Ishagu wrote:
I feel bad if you think that two adults can't discuss what sort of game they want to play before hand...

Is it so hard to imagine someone might want to wander into a game store to find a stranger to play a pick-up game with without needing to spend time arguing about the precise details of how the rules of the game work, what units are OP, what units aren't OP, and how they're supposed to adjust their list when "get better" frequently translates as "throw all your models out and buy a different army"?

 fraser1191 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 fraser1191 wrote:
Wow. Thanks iron hands. Guess my ultramarines will sit on the shelf for another 2 years

UM still have at least two methods of getting units into Tactical Doctrine (warlord trait, and a UM specific stratagem).

As a UM player, I'm not really fussed. I didn't really like Doctrines anyways, so I'm unaffected by this.

I'm not broken up over the doctrines my marines never live past turn 2 but I needed the dreadnought support. I needed that to keep mine from getting trashed turn 1

There was nothing wrong with the dread stratagem. In classic fashion GW quadruple nerfs things when 1 or 2 nerfs woulda been fine. Dev doctrine change / Ironstone not stacking / No vehicals for intercessors bodygaurd....Like...-1 damage is still pretty good but half damage was fine. You can always just shoot other things than shooting at the half damage dread.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
I feel bad if you think that two adults can't discuss what sort of game they want to play before hand...

Is it so hard to imagine someone might want to wander into a game store to find a stranger to play a pick-up game with without needing to spend time arguing about the precise details of how the rules of the game work, what units are OP, what units aren't OP, and how they're supposed to adjust their list when "get better" frequently translates as "throw all your models out and buy a different army"?

If you wander into a gaming Arcade and challenge a random person to a bout of Tekken on an arcade cabinet, and then get destroyed, do you have grounds for complaint? I don't think so

If you are making the effort to travel to a game store to play a game that requires hours of your time and dozens of models to transport, models that you had to build and paint no less, it is not difficult to organise said game in advance.

Games between top players can be decided in the last turn, same applies to equally skilled players and lists at lower levels of play. If you make no effort to try and match opponents don't complain when the game is out of reach for one player or another.

No one here is saying that every unit is balance with another, or anything stupid like that. The rules aren't perfect. Guess what? Laws aren't perfect either, and they were planned and studied in far greater detail than tabletop wargaming rules.Chess isn't perfectly balanced and that has two identical sides on a flat, empty board.

Make an effort and reap the reward.

I disagree. The leviathans existence made the nerf necessary. Id rather ban the leviathan or jack its price but gw gonna gw.

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:
This just changes the black tide of IH tournament domination into a fruity fething rainbow of SM bs.

Whoopdee fething doo.

Well now - you will get the opportunity to see I have been right all along now. Ultramarines barely got touched by this. They aren't suddenly going to take Ironhands place. Tau and eldar will take their place. Maybe even some chaos soup.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
I disagree. The leviathans existence made the nerf necessary. Id rather ban the leviathan or jack its price but gw gonna gw.

Yeah the levi with 20 storm cannon shots is silly. They should really just drop it's shots down to 16. That is all that is needed for it.

I also only pay a dollar to play Tekken, not pay 10× that amount for sometimes HALF a unit. So no you're not allowed to complain?

Normally im not for nerfing things... but i don't feel bothered by this in the slightest.

Hrm, the half damage nerf was definitely a good change. Halving damage made using actual AT weapons against such targets largely pointless, particularly in conjunction with other damage mitigation abilities and the fact that so many of these weapons are so variable in the first place.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I also only pay a dollar to play Tekken, not pay 10× that amount for sometimes HALF a unit. So no you're not allowed to complain?

Are you a narrative player or a competitive player?

You can't be competitive because you clearly refuse to put the effort to actually chase the meta. The true competitive players don't complain, they move from one faction to the next as the meta shifts. This puts you in a strange category of casual/narrative player who refuses to try to arrange games against opponents and lists that might be a good match.

I have multiple vast armies, I own multiples of every unit in those armies. I prefer narrative play but I enjoy competitive and am willing to chase the meta as/when required. You can be both, like I am, but it required dedications, effort and money.

My only concern is Dev doctrine based armies have gone from the obvious best choice to the obvious worst choice. Plus Ultras went from the obvious worst choice to the obvious best. Every power combo was removed and IH and IF made entirely irrelevant due to only get 1 turn of their super doctrine. That was the wrong way to handle it. Entirely wrong. They should have just changed dev doctrine if it was the obvious problem - not just give you 1 turn of it. Alas though. GW continues their over nerfing of things. I feel bad for IF and IH players. OFC the inevitable nerf Ultramarines crowd will be up in arms as they always are. Even when they have a sub 50% WR in competitive play.

As a Raven Guard player I welcome these changes. IH were becoming ridiculous and Centurion bomb was the opposing thing a Master of Ambush should be hovering around. Aggressor bomb is still decent but taken down a notch or two. I think doctrines should be an add on and not something your entire army should swing about. When I want to nerf myself I just put a Vindicare and a Callidus in my army and get rid of doctrines altogether

 Xenomancers wrote:

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:
This just changes the black tide of IH tournament domination into a fruity fething rainbow of SM bs.

Whoopdee fething doo.

Well now - you will get the opportunity to see I have been right all along now. Ultramarines barely got touched by this. They aren't suddenly going to take Ironhands place. Tau and eldar will take their place. Maybe even some chaos soup.

With these nerfs plus the buffs Tau got in their PA book, I would say Tau have the advantage in that match up again IMO.

 Ishagu wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
I feel bad if you think that two adults can't discuss what sort of game they want to play before hand...

Is it so hard to imagine someone might want to wander into a game store to find a stranger to play a pick-up game with without needing to spend time arguing about the precise details of how the rules of the game work, what units are OP, what units aren't OP, and how they're supposed to adjust their list when "get better" frequently translates as "throw all your models out and buy a different army"?

If you wander into a gaming Arcade and challenge a random person to a bout of Tekken on an arcade cabinet, and then get destroyed, do you have grounds for complaint? I don't think so

If you are making the effort to travel to a game store to play a game that requires hours and dozens of models to transport, it is not difficult to organise said game in advance.

Games between top players can be decided in the last turn, same applies to equally skilled players ad lists at lower levels of play. If you make no effort to try and match opponents don't complain when the game is out of reach for one player or another.

No one here is saying that every unit is balance with another, or anything stupid like that. The rules aren't perfect. Guess what? Laws aren't perfect either, and they were planned and studied in far greater detail than tabletop wargaming rules.

Do you have to negotiate the rules of Tekken in advance? Or does the game work consistently the same way every time?

My confusion about the "rules aren't perfect, deal with it" argument is that the rules are set up to create bad experiences. The fact that something as simple as "how does line of sight work?" is subject to confusion, disagreement, and negotiation makes for a barrier to finding new people to play with, the fact that you need to negotiate ahead of time which models you are and aren't allowed to use means you need to buy an incredibly large army/multiple factions to be resistant to whatever power creep/nerfs/rules changes come along, and the game is full of "no, that Codex/unit is gak, don't buy it" for new people who then get to either buy the models they like and then discover that they're gak, or discover the models they like are gak and not play the game.

The only people I know who like 8e are either brand-new and haven't had an entire army nerfed into unplayability yet, tournament people who somehow don't mind needing to buy and paint a new army every six months, and people who have been playing for thirty years and have a hundred thousand points of stuff from eight armies (hyperbole) so they've got the flexibility to hop forces in response to rules changes. And none of them have ever played any other miniatures games so they don't have an example of something well-designed to compare it to.

It's a ludicrous mess that isn't good for anybody, and whether or not it's possible to mitigate the mess on an individual basis has nothing to do with the fact that it's a badly-designed mess. Nobody is asking for perfection. Nobody is asking for a hyperbolic absolutely perfect game of everything being exactly balanced against everything else. I, personally, want to be able to ask "how do I not get steamrolled?" and get an answer other than "throw out all your stuff and spend five hundred dollars on a netlist". I want to not have to tell newbies who are enthusiastic about whatever model they like on the shelf "don't buy that, it's terrible and the rules writers don't like it so you'll lose every game and then the devs will delete it next edition." And yet somehow that means I want the platonic ideal of unachievable perfection and I should just shut up and accept that it's impossible for GW to not be gak and I should either enjoy the shitness or quit playing minis games.