Switch Theme:

GW desperately need to rethink their OTT secrecy about 40k release schedules  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Rogue Daemonhunter fueled by Chaos






Toledo, OH

 Argive wrote:
So yeah im not going to give them money for other stuff if the army im invested in is not getting support/design limelight.. ill spend elsewhere and keep working on what I have.


Here's the buried lede in virtually all "I'm not giving GW any more money" type posts:

 Argive wrote:
ill spend elsewhere and keep working on what I have.


 Argive wrote:
keep working on what I have.


You still have plenty to work on! You're like a guy that still has half a steak on his plate when the waiter offers dessert, and then gets mad that they don't have what you want. Finish your steak, my man!
   
Made in au
[MOD]
Making Stuff






Under the couch

Hecaton wrote:

I really disagree with that. They're making a game that's "good enough" to allow them a certain amount of market dominance with all of the advantages they enjoy. I really do think that GW can't make a balanced, enjoyable watgame that rewards skill. Most people actually enjoy this more (as long ad the skill floor isn't too low). However, GW's games don't reward skill but rather army choice and purchases.


Whether or not they can is kind of irrelevant when they clearly have no real interest in doing so. Which shouldn't come to anybody as a revelation by this point, since it's been their modus operandi for 30 years now, but certainly the point where they added super heavy vehicles into the core game should have been the final proof for anybody who still needed it.

I don't think the aim is to 'reward purchases' though. As discussed earlier, that would only make sense as a strategy if every new release was overpowered. What GW (or at least the guys in the studio) have always been about is just having fun throwing dice around. The fact that some units are more powerful than others is only a factor if you are deliberately trying to build armies based on how powerful individual units are, which has never been their army design philosophy. White Dwarf battle reports rarely feature armies that are in any way optimised, even when they're not just using studio armies comprised of whatever happens to be painted in the cabinet.

And, funnily enough, once you remove optimised army design as a factor, suddenly the game starts rewarding skill again. Sure, you'll sometimes accidentally get unbalanced match-ups... but it's up to you whether you approach that as a flaw in the game, or simply as a challenge.

 
   
Made in gb
Walking Dead Wraithlord






 Polonius wrote:
 Argive wrote:
So yeah im not going to give them money for other stuff if the army im invested in is not getting support/design limelight.. ill spend elsewhere and keep working on what I have.


Here's the buried lede in virtually all "I'm not giving GW any more money" type posts:

 Argive wrote:
ill spend elsewhere and keep working on what I have.


 Argive wrote:
keep working on what I have.


You still have plenty to work on! You're like a guy that still has half a steak on his plate when the waiter offers dessert, and then gets mad that they don't have what you want. Finish your steak, my man!


You sound like that guy who orders a 3 course meal, then rather than leave a bit of the main dish you end up forcing it all down and then forcing the desert down and then feeling physcialy ill coz you ate too much.. then you go and tell everyone how awesome you are because in your awesomeness you ate so much you were feeling unwell and they should do it too or they are a wuss and your way of eating is the only true way of eating..

This is a fun game.

I would put it to you that sometimes you can never have enough of a good thing. I enjoy spending time on making a light/photo box or terrain and switching to a different project mid way if I feel so inclined which does not have to be a GW project...and doing something completely different the next day if I want to.

Its my sandbox and I will run it how I like, if that's ok with you of course??

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/09/16 21:51:17


https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/772746.page#10378083 - My progress/failblog painting blog thingy

Eldar- 4436 pts


AngryAngel80 wrote:
I don't know, when I see awesome rules, I'm like " Baby, your rules looking so fine. Maybe I gotta add you to my first strike battalion eh ? "


 Eonfuzz wrote:


I would much rather everyone have a half ass than no ass.


"A warrior does not seek fame and honour. They come to him as he humbly follows his path"  
   
Made in us
Quick-fingered Warlord Moderatus




Non Drukhari players can usually appreciate how it sucks that they lost so many HQ options, or that Orks (temporarly) lost their warboss on bike.


Indeed. As a non-Drukhari player myself I am often waving the flag of Drukhari only having lost units since 5th ...


I don't think the aim is to 'reward purchases' though. As discussed earlier, that would only make sense as a strategy if every new release was overpowered. What GW (or at least the guys in the studio) have always been about is just having fun throwing dice around. The fact that some units are more powerful than others is only a factor if you are deliberately trying to build armies based on how powerful individual units are, which has never been their army design philosophy. White Dwarf battle reports rarely feature armies that are in any way optimised, even when they're not just using studio armies comprised of whatever happens to be painted in the cabinet.


Agree with this 100%. I think, with the possible exception of IH, when we get a unit that is oddly over-powered, it's an unintended side-effect of the GW "process" for rules writing. For every broken release one can point to, I can pick out 2 or 3 that were mediocre to bad (although admittedly Primaris marines are skewing that a bit atm).

This is especially obvious if you look at the 6th and 7th edition WD battle reports. I hated them because they made no attempt what-so-ever to produce a coherent army. Not only that, but when they included the new stuff they were hyping, they did literally nothing to set it up well within the list. Each report was "New Chaos and Tau out this week so Bob brought one of everything Tau and Steve brought one of everything Chaos. We were playing to 1500pts but Bob's list came out to 1850 and Steve's was 1900 so close enough. Also, neither list is strictly "legal" as Bob's list has 19 HQ choices and Steve's is almost exclusively heavy support. OH! And there's a squad of Inquisitorial Henchmen played by Karen because reasons. Enjoy the new models folks!"

Edit: I just googled ablutions and apparently it does not including dropping a duece. I should have looked it up early sorry for any confusion. - Baldsmug

Psiensis on the "good old days":
"Kids these days...
... I invented the 6th Ed meta back in 3rd ed.
Wait, what were we talking about again? Did I ever tell you about the time I gave you five bees for a quarter? That's what you'd say in those days, "give me five bees for a quarter", is what you'd say in those days. And you'd go down to the D&D shop, with an onion in your belt, 'cause that was the style of the time. So there I was in the D&D shop..." 
   
Made in fr
Hallowed Canoness





 Polonius wrote:
Most people feel bad for people who's army loses rules, but at some point, you gotta let it go.

No they shouldn't. They should bugger GW until GW gives them rules again.

 ArbitorIan wrote:
Faction loyalty in a toy soldier game is just stupid.

I don't play Eldar or Tau. If GW choose to spend months releasing Eldar and Tau models, fine. I don't have to be annoyed that there's nothing 'for me'. It'll roll around eventually. You don't have to declare loyalty to a faction and be annoyed if other factions get more than you.

The idea that the OP has to 'stomach' other factions getting updates first is just silly.

Ok, even without any faction loyalty, I'm annoyed that space marines have that many things while other armies that I don't play and don't have any loyalty toward have so few. I'd like a more balanced pool of opponents.

"Our fantasy settings are grim and dark, but that is not a reflection of who we are or how we feel the real world should be. [...] We will continue to diversify the cast of characters we portray [...] so everyone can find representation and heroes they can relate to. [...] If [you don't feel the same way], you will not be missed"
https://twitter.com/WarComTeam/status/1268665798467432449/photo/1 
   
Made in us
Rogue Daemonhunter fueled by Chaos






Toledo, OH

 Argive wrote:
You sound like that guy who orders a 3 course meal, then rather than leave a bit of the main dish you end up forcing it all down and then forcing the desert down and then feeling physcialy ill coz you ate too much.. then you go and tell everyone how awesome you are because in your awesomeness you ate so much you were feeling unwell and they should do it too or they are a wuss and your way of eating is the only true way of eating..

This is a fun game.

I would put it to you that sometimes you can never have enough of a good thing. I enjoy spending time on making a light/photo box or terrain and switching to a different project mid way if I feel so inclined which does not have to be a GW project...and doing something completely different the next day if I want to.

Its my sandbox and I will run it how I like, if that's ok with you of course??


I had written a more extended metaphore, and it got eaten, so I wrote a quicker one, and I think my point got lost. I'm not saying your way is wrong, but that it's silly to expect a restaurant to have exactly the dessert a person would want.

If you have a complete army, and are having fun tinkering with it, I'm sure there are ways GW could get a few more bucks out of you. They have to look at all the things they could release, and decide which of those nibbles it wants to chase.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
 Polonius wrote:
Most people feel bad for people who's army loses rules, but at some point, you gotta let it go.

No they shouldn't. They should bugger GW until GW gives them rules again.


I have to respect this level of insane moral clarity about the least important thing ever.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/09/16 22:02:10


 
   
Made in fr
Hallowed Canoness





 Polonius wrote:
I have to respect this level of insane moral clarity about the least important thing ever.

Thank you for your respect sir *gesture a military salute*.

"Our fantasy settings are grim and dark, but that is not a reflection of who we are or how we feel the real world should be. [...] We will continue to diversify the cast of characters we portray [...] so everyone can find representation and heroes they can relate to. [...] If [you don't feel the same way], you will not be missed"
https://twitter.com/WarComTeam/status/1268665798467432449/photo/1 
   
Made in us
Ancient Venerable Dreadnought




San Jose, CA

insaniak wrote:
Hecaton wrote:

I really disagree with that. They're making a game that's "good enough" to allow them a certain amount of market dominance with all of the advantages they enjoy. I really do think that GW can't make a balanced, enjoyable watgame that rewards skill. Most people actually enjoy this more (as long ad the skill floor isn't too low). However, GW's games don't reward skill but rather army choice and purchases.


Whether or not they can is kind of irrelevant when they clearly have no real interest in doing so. Which shouldn't come to anybody as a revelation by this point, since it's been their modus operandi for 30 years now, but certainly the point where they added super heavy vehicles into the core game should have been the final proof for anybody who still needed it.

I don't think the aim is to 'reward purchases' though. As discussed earlier, that would only make sense as a strategy if every new release was overpowered. What GW (or at least the guys in the studio) have always been about is just having fun throwing dice around. The fact that some units are more powerful than others is only a factor if you are deliberately trying to build armies based on how powerful individual units are, which has never been their army design philosophy. White Dwarf battle reports rarely feature armies that are in any way optimised, even when they're not just using studio armies comprised of whatever happens to be painted in the cabinet.

And, funnily enough, once you remove optimised army design as a factor, suddenly the game starts rewarding skill again. Sure, you'll sometimes accidentally get unbalanced match-ups... but it's up to you whether you approach that as a flaw in the game, or simply as a challenge.


this sums it up pretty well. if you stop being a powergamer who feeds off of bs, the game is actually really fun.


unfortunately for some, they only like "fair" fights & dont like actually being challenged.
   
Made in au
[MOD]
Making Stuff






Under the couch

That's not being particularly fair. For some people, the challenge lies in creating the most powerful list that they can. For others, the challenge lies in besting their opponent, rather than beating their list, or getting lucky on dice rolls.

And neither of those approaches are wrong, so long their opponents are expecting the same thing. And so long as they accept that they aren't the people GW is making their game for.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/09/16 22:32:19


 
   
Made in us
Ancient Venerable Dreadnought




San Jose, CA

but the powergaming aspect goes directly against how GW(the maker of game) envision it. It only breaks down when you actively play in a manner in which the entire game is NOT based upon. It's more trying to make something that it is, which it is not.
Hell, if they havent changed it by now, it should be obvious which type of play the game is entirely designed around.

Like playing basketball with a football(usa type) while not using your hands, kinda defeats the purpose.
   
Made in au
[MOD]
Making Stuff






Under the couch

The point is that being a powergamer, or enjoying that style of play isn't wrong. It's a game, play it however you and your opponent agree to play.

Powergaming isn't inherently a problem. How you choose to play any game doesn't have to align with how the creator envisaged it. Expecting GW to write the rules in a way to keep the game balanced for that style of play, however, is an exercise in futility.


 
   
Made in us
Terrifying Doombull




Racerguy180 wrote:
but the powergaming aspect goes directly against how GW(the maker of game) envision it. It only breaks down when you actively play in a manner in which the entire game is NOT based upon. It's more trying to make something that it is, which it is not.
Hell, if they havent changed it by now, it should be obvious which type of play the game is entirely designed around.

... the powergaming type, right? Because they keep the designing the ruleset with powergaming exploits that function just fine?

Maybe its just me, but I've played every edition except 7th (because I wasn't going to pay for a few pages of errata), and the game functions fine either way, and turns 'unfun' when the other player goes too far in _any_ direction (be it powergaming, fluff is god, 'only as the writer's intended' (which is unknowable, so any claim of that is an outright lie in my experience), Forge the Narrative, etc, etc)

Efficiency is the highest virtue. 
   
Made in de
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






 Polonius wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
Most people neither have the time nor the money to support more than one or two factions. Some more people want to play the faction they like, which might not be multiple factions.


I guess if that's true, than how much of the new stuff for their own faction are they going to buy?

I'm just baffled at the idea of these people who only like one faction, feel like they have nothing more to buy for it, but would 100% buy a ton of what they actually want.

If you don't' have the time or money to start a new faction, than GW has basically tapped you out. Why cater to people that won't spend a lot of money. OKay, so they release a new, amazing guardian box set. Guys that only play Eldar, but haven't bought anything new in years, all magically go buy new boxes? I don't get it.


Your argument would make sense if it weren't for the fact that there is a massive difference in price and effort between starting a new army and adding 4-5 kits to your existing one.
My main reason for not just starting a marine army despite the conquest magazine being available in my country is that I don't have time to build, paint or play it.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/09/17 06:52:55


7 Ork facts people always get wrong:
Ragnar did not win against Thrakka, but suffered two crushing defeats within a few days of each other.
A lasgun is powerful enough to sever an ork's appendage or head in a single, well aimed shot.
Orks meks have a better understanding of electrics and mechanics than most Tech Priests.
Orks do not think that purple makes them harder to see. They do think that camouflage does however, without knowing why.
Gharkull Blackfang did not even come close to killing the emperor.
Orks can be corrupted by chaos, but few of them have any interest in what chaos offers.
Orks do not have the power of believe. 
   
Made in us
Ancient Venerable Dreadnought




San Jose, CA

I would love it if Conquest was available in the US, easy way to add to my nephews Star Dragons.

but yes, I'm looking at adding to my recently started Flawless Host so it's easier to add to than start fresh.
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka




NE Ohio, USA

Karol wrote:

At some point of a companies size they become too big to fail, specialy if they are a monopoly. People may want to play different games, but if the store only runs and supports GW stuff, or just w40k and AoS, then at least in my part of the world the chances to play something else then a GW game aren't very high. And not everyone is willing to struggle to play a game.


1) GW isn't a monopoly. There's plenty of other games to be played.

2) It may look like GWs games are near the only games in town. Especially if that's what the local stores all focus on. But they aren't.
Because those interested in games not sold/supported locally? They just order them on-line. And they only (maybe) stop in to local shops for things like paint/brushes/glue/etc.
Not every game is played in shops or as tourneys.
There's all sorts of groups playing non-GW games. You're just not a member of them so you don't see it.
   
Made in ch
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





 Polonius wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
i'd dispute that, especially over here , where GW once was the one and only, nowadays you are just as likely to find BA, malifaux, mantic or any other game really.
It has severly erroded and remains no where near as dominant as it once was.


Hey, we've got an anecdote here!

sure, GW has reached its highest revenues ever, and events are more common and larger than ever before, but dammit, they aren't playing it down at my store, so I'm pretty sure GW is going bankrupt.


You seem to have some real issues with me, but alas, i just stated what i saw and know.
Fact is, that one of the few hobby stores which could live off GW alone, nearly went tits up and now has only a fringe of it's former mainstay and seller product left, if you regard this as an anecdote, fine. Except , it is THE store for TG gaming in switzerland, so not even that is accurate. And GW never entered the swiss market personally themselves.

I also never claimed to be off the opinion that GW goes bankrupt, but that would've also required you to read what i said.

But you seem more interested in baselesss accusations, complaining about posters and missrepresentation.


This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/09/17 07:46:43


https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page
A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units."
Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?"
Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?"
GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!"
Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.  
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 insaniak wrote:
As discussed earlier, that would only make sense as a strategy if every new release was overpowered. What GW (or at least the guys in the studio) have always been about is just having fun throwing dice around. The fact that some units are more powerful than others is only a factor if you are deliberately trying to build armies based on how powerful individual units are, which has never been their army design philosophy. White Dwarf battle reports rarely feature armies that are in any way optimised, even when they're not just using studio armies comprised of whatever happens to be painted in the cabinet.


I really disagree. They've made editions that are so unbalanced that it precludes having fun throwing dice around. Kirby didn't even like the "game" aspect of what they made; he wanted to de-emphasize that side of things dramatically.

And they definitely do change rules to make certain models sell (Carnifex/Tervigon for example, and probably cultists/CSM in 9th, for example). They don't do it with every single datasheet, it's true, but they do it often enough that it's observable.

The push for "casualness" I see less as a gaming philosophy and more as a cynical evasion of responsibility for actively bad balance. GW wants to sell an incomplete and unbalanced game that lets them guide purchases with unbalanced rules, but they don't want to take responsibility for that, so they hide behind "casualness." So then they can get players to blame each other for taking "cheesy" lists, instead of players getting mad at GW for making crap rules.
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka




NE Ohio, USA

 harlokin wrote:

Playing a game with mediocre rules if you don't care about the setting is "just stupid".


Oh, OK.
Seems to work just fine for me though. Once upon a time I cared about the 40k setting. But that hasn't been the case for many years now. (I think I stopped caring somewhere in 5th)
I DO generally enjoy the game & the models though. And of course the company of the people I play with.

 harlokin wrote:
Many people play 40K because they are invested in the lore, it's not just about turning up with the flavour of the month army.


Eh. I'll run my existing armies as they are. As they fit my preferences, not the herd mentality many suffer from. I seriously doubt I'll ever be accused of running FotM.... And if I add new models/units to a force it's because I like the models (I don't even need to see the rules to determine if something's being added/excluded).
   
Made in gb
Regular Dakkanaut




Hecaton wrote:
 insaniak wrote:
As discussed earlier, that would only make sense as a strategy if every new release was overpowered. What GW (or at least the guys in the studio) have always been about is just having fun throwing dice around. The fact that some units are more powerful than others is only a factor if you are deliberately trying to build armies based on how powerful individual units are, which has never been their army design philosophy. White Dwarf battle reports rarely feature armies that are in any way optimised, even when they're not just using studio armies comprised of whatever happens to be painted in the cabinet.


I really disagree. They've made editions that are so unbalanced that it precludes having fun throwing dice around. Kirby didn't even like the "game" aspect of what they made; he wanted to de-emphasize that side of things dramatically.

And they definitely do change rules to make certain models sell (Carnifex/Tervigon for example, and probably cultists/CSM in 9th, for example). They don't do it with every single datasheet, it's true, but they do it often enough that it's observable.

The push for "casualness" I see less as a gaming philosophy and more as a cynical evasion of responsibility for actively bad balance. GW wants to sell an incomplete and unbalanced game that lets them guide purchases with unbalanced rules, but they don't want to take responsibility for that, so they hide behind "casualness." So then they can get players to blame each other for taking "cheesy" lists, instead of players getting mad at GW for making crap rules.


This push for casualness is where? They've been more explicitly focusing on matched play and competitive gaming in recent years than I've ever seen....
   
Made in gb
Slaanesh Chosen Marine Riding a Fiend





Port Carmine

ccs wrote:
 harlokin wrote:

Playing a game with mediocre rules if you don't care about the setting is "just stupid".


Oh, OK.
Seems to work just fine for me though. Once upon a time I cared about the 40k setting. But that hasn't been the case for many years now. (I think I stopped caring somewhere in 5th)
I DO generally enjoy the game & the models though. And of course the company of the people I play with.

 harlokin wrote:
Many people play 40K because they are invested in the lore, it's not just about turning up with the flavour of the month army.


Eh. I'll run my existing armies as they are. As they fit my preferences, not the herd mentality many suffer from. I seriously doubt I'll ever be accused of running FotM.... And if I add new models/units to a force it's because I like the models (I don't even need to see the rules to determine if something's being added/excluded).


I don't disagree. If you go to my original post you can see that I'm responding to, and was needlessly triggered by, someone saying that it is "stupid" to complain about the amount of attention any faction gets, when you can simply switch to something else.

VAIROSEAN LIVES! 
   
Made in au
[MOD]
Making Stuff






Under the couch

Hecaton wrote:
So then they can get players to blame each other for taking "cheesy" lists, instead of players getting mad at GW for making crap rules.

I feel like if that was actually the strategy, they would have noticed at some point in the past 30 years that it wasn't working.


 
   
Made in ch
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





 insaniak wrote:
Hecaton wrote:
So then they can get players to blame each other for taking "cheesy" lists, instead of players getting mad at GW for making crap rules.

I feel like if that was actually the strategy, they would have noticed at some point in the past 30 years that it wasn't working.



It doesn't`?

how often do we hear "Git Gud" arguments then. Because that is allways one of the first arguments to show up in any thread that takes issues with GW's handling of the rules.
Well that and "wait and see".

It also doesn't need to work allways, it's good enough when a sizeable enough chunk of you custommerbase adheres to it, in order to keep the "reviews" at mostly positive.
Now the other side of the coin also exists, no debate about that.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page
A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units."
Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?"
Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?"
GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!"
Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.  
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




UK

Play better isn't always an argument though. If someone is beating you in any game then the first port of call should be player skill not army.


That said wargamers are really good at giving tips and guides and videos on how to build models; how to base them, paint them, convert them.

We are on the whole shockingly bad at game advice though. Seriously we get sidetracked into army balance and lists so fast because the actual game side we are really bad at communicating about.
From good terrain/table design to deployment, to how to manoeuvre and what to move and how to make tactical choices. We might sometimes say "screen with chaff" or "play to the objectives" as buzz-phrases but few will back that up with specific details on how to achieve either.



I'd also say that a lot of the time the whole "net list/powergamer VS casual" issue is often far more "good player VS not so good player" issues. It's not the game that makes certain lists more powerful its that there are fundamentals of army design and sometimes people are ignorant (sometimes willfully so).

Of course there are imbalances when there's one or two army compositions that result in far more power than normal and basically make other options not worth taking army power wise etc...




A Blog in Miniature

3D Printing, hobbying and model fun! 
   
Made in ch
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





 Overread wrote:
Play better isn't always an argument though. If someone is beating you in any game then the first port of call should be player skill not army.


That said wargamers are really good at giving tips and guides and videos on how to build models; how to base them, paint them, convert them.

We are on the whole shockingly bad at game advice though. Seriously we get sidetracked into army balance and lists so fast because the actual game side we are really bad at communicating about.
From good terrain/table design to deployment, to how to manoeuvre and what to move and how to make tactical choices. We might sometimes say "screen with chaff" or "play to the objectives" as buzz-phrases but few will back that up with specific details on how to achieve either.



I'd also say that a lot of the time the whole "net list/powergamer VS casual" issue is often far more "good player VS not so good player" issues. It's not the game that makes certain lists more powerful its that there are fundamentals of army design and sometimes people are ignorant (sometimes willfully so).

Of course there are imbalances when there's one or two army compositions that result in far more power than normal and basically make other options not worth taking army power wise etc...



Gw base-rules are not nearly as divergent from faction balance torwards power then a whole slew of better more indepth systems which rely on a more indepth system in general torwards terrain, core game mechanics and unit status.

Take the ubiquos stratagem system and watch how whole armies are designed around them in competitive for certain factions regardless of table or knowledge of an opponent.


https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page
A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units."
Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?"
Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?"
GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!"
Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.  
   
Made in us
Assassin with Black Lotus Poison





Bristol

 Overread wrote:

We are on the whole shockingly bad at game advice though. Seriously we get sidetracked into army balance and lists so fast because the actual game side we are really bad at communicating about.
From good terrain/table design to deployment, to how to manoeuvre and what to move and how to make tactical choices. We might sometimes say "screen with chaff" or "play to the objectives" as buzz-phrases but few will back that up with specific details on how to achieve either.


I'd argue that this is due to the tactical and strategic choices in 40K being as shallow as a puddle. You can't discuss tactics and strategy in depth if the rules of the game provides no room for tactical and strategic play beyond the most cookie-cutter and generic of "do the stuff which gets you points" and "kill the stuff which is scary", the latter of which is almost entirely dependent on the army lists.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/09/17 10:10:56


The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.

Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
 
   
Made in pl
Fixture of Dakka




 Polonius wrote:

I have to respect this level of insane moral clarity about the least important thing ever.

You would be suprised how many people don't care that much about the lore GW writes, how the models look or painting. While puting a big importance on the thing they do the most, which is gaming.

And I also think that if GW doesn't hear people talk about how unhappy they are, they do not change a thing about what they do. If you keep quit and look at painted models your rules never get better, and if we look at WFB then at some point GW may decide that there won't be any rules for your army at all.

If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. 
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




UK

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
 Overread wrote:

We are on the whole shockingly bad at game advice though. Seriously we get sidetracked into army balance and lists so fast because the actual game side we are really bad at communicating about.
From good terrain/table design to deployment, to how to manoeuvre and what to move and how to make tactical choices. We might sometimes say "screen with chaff" or "play to the objectives" as buzz-phrases but few will back that up with specific details on how to achieve either.


I'd argue that this is due to the tactical and strategic choices in 40K being as shallow as a puddle. You can't discuss tactics and strategy in depth if the rules of the game provides no room for tactical and strategic play beyond the most cookie-cutter and generic of "do the stuff which gets you points" and "kill the stuff which is scary", the latter of which is almost entirely dependent on the army lists.


There are vast books written on the tactics of chess and the rules of that are simpler than 40K. Heck there are books on drafts!

The point is there are tactical choices, but we don't talk about them enough. It creates a situation where those who are smart enough to know tactics well say that "there are not tactics" from the point of view of not tactics they like or even more depth than they'd like; meanwhile those who know nothing of tactics also say "there's no tactics" from a position of not having a clue.

Combine the two together and there's no tactical discourse and development. The knowledgeable are doing tactical stuff, it might be simple, but its not something they think about and teach to others enough. So we end up with a huge gap in the knowledge base which in turn hinders player development and might even hinder game development (loads of emails saying "there's no tactics" doesn't really give much for consumer feedback)

A Blog in Miniature

3D Printing, hobbying and model fun! 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Annandale, VA

 Overread wrote:
 A Town Called Malus wrote:
 Overread wrote:

We are on the whole shockingly bad at game advice though. Seriously we get sidetracked into army balance and lists so fast because the actual game side we are really bad at communicating about.
From good terrain/table design to deployment, to how to manoeuvre and what to move and how to make tactical choices. We might sometimes say "screen with chaff" or "play to the objectives" as buzz-phrases but few will back that up with specific details on how to achieve either.


I'd argue that this is due to the tactical and strategic choices in 40K being as shallow as a puddle. You can't discuss tactics and strategy in depth if the rules of the game provides no room for tactical and strategic play beyond the most cookie-cutter and generic of "do the stuff which gets you points" and "kill the stuff which is scary", the latter of which is almost entirely dependent on the army lists.


There are vast books written on the tactics of chess and the rules of that are simpler than 40K. Heck there are books on drafts!


Emphasis mine. Simple does not mean shallow. Complex does not mean deep. Chess has simple rules with high emergent complexity from their interactions. 40K is a simple engine that derives depth from complex army-specific rules.

I agree that people focus on lists to the detriment of tactics. But there's not that much there that isn't army-specific, and it's more '40K 101' than something top players debate. If you understand screening, tri-pointing, and target priority, you've got most of it. And while there have been essays written on how to protect your king in chess, most of screening in 40K amounts to 'don't have gaps bigger than nine inches, and keep screens at least four inches away from valuable things'. It's not nothing, and bad players with the hottest netlist will still lose if they don't understand the fundamentals, but it's not a lot- and discussion of how to implement it immediately launches into what faction you're playing and your army composition, because those are the drivers of the relevant decisions.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/09/17 14:36:30


   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 insaniak wrote:
Hecaton wrote:
So then they can get players to blame each other for taking "cheesy" lists, instead of players getting mad at GW for making crap rules.

I feel like if that was actually the strategy, they would have noticed at some point in the past 30 years that it wasn't working.



It works pretty well. You've got people on this website who basically think it's their opponent's responsbility to provide them a balanced game, not GW's.
   
Made in au
[MOD]
Making Stuff






Under the couch

You also have a whole bunch of other people mad at GW for writing crap rules.

Hence, if their strategy is to make people blame each other instead of GW for the state of the rules, it's clearly not working.

 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: