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.
2020/10/21 20:26:15
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
Someone toning down their list would be seen as insult in my experience. It's clearly not your experience.
Hehe. Ex-Martel's meta is like the American version of Karol's Polish meta.
I've played in three for four groups now that were all basically this. Some less, some more. But everyone wants to win. Everyone will read every rule in their own favor. I've ran into more people who think list tailoring is fine than those who buy into the narrative paradigm.
As far as I can tell, it's always been this way. A few weeks after the Tyranid dex dropped in 2nd, I ran into the 120 hormagaunt list. In a game where you had to shoot the closest thing. So I spent the whole game shooting hormagaunts while the genestealers got closer and closer. That's fluffy, but it was almost a sure loss for 2nd ed marines.
Lol, 120 Hormagaunts is commitment for 2nd ed.
That'd be a fight and a half.
And someone figured that out within a few WEEKS of it dropping. With no netlisting. Just simple gamesmanship of how to abuse the "shoot closest thing" rule. GW could have limited hormagaunts. They didn't. Therefore, 120 must be just fine.
Well I once ran 40 discs of Tzeentch at some point, so I'm not too surprised somebody tried some ridiculous nid spamming. I can't imagine they actually bought the models for that though.
THey worked at the store, and as such got a discount.
2020/10/21 20:38:04
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
Someone toning down their list would be seen as insult in my experience. It's clearly not your experience.
Hehe. Ex-Martel's meta is like the American version of Karol's Polish meta.
I've played in three for four groups now that were all basically this. Some less, some more. But everyone wants to win. Everyone will read every rule in their own favor. I've ran into more people who think list tailoring is fine than those who buy into the narrative paradigm.
As far as I can tell, it's always been this way. A few weeks after the Tyranid dex dropped in 2nd, I ran into the 120 hormagaunt list. In a game where you had to shoot the closest thing. So I spent the whole game shooting hormagaunts while the genestealers got closer and closer. That's fluffy, but it was almost a sure loss for 2nd ed marines.
Lol, 120 Hormagaunts is commitment for 2nd ed.
That'd be a fight and a half.
And someone figured that out within a few WEEKS of it dropping. With no netlisting. Just simple gamesmanship of how to abuse the "shoot closest thing" rule. GW could have limited hormagaunts. They didn't. Therefore, 120 must be just fine.
Well I once ran 40 discs of Tzeentch at some point, so I'm not too surprised somebody tried some ridiculous nid spamming. I can't imagine they actually bought the models for that though.
THey worked at the store, and as such got a discount.
Bonkers.
It'd be fun to figure out how to handle that list.
I'd start with lots of plasma missiles and plasma grenades, they block LOS, movement and can expand to murder huge expanses of gaunts.
Edit2: and a batch of Rhinos to drive through them and set up barricades.
Edit3: Oh hell yeah. Hormagaunts can't hurt Rhinos at all. I'd load up troops in Rhinos and just drive through them, running as many of them over as I can, while firing flamers and throwing grenades out the hatches. Six models could fire from the hatches. Then I'd roll through the Hormagaunts, right up to the Genestealers and hit them with everything I had.
Long live 2nd ed.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2020/10/21 20:52:20
Unit1126PLL wrote: The problem with being a "hands off company" is that they charge $50 for hands-off rules.
If I wanted to pay $50 to have to do someone else's work for them, I'd ... well, I wouldn't like it very much. If the rules were free? or like $5? Sure, whatever, go ham, I'll change what I need just like putting sugar in the coffee. But I can't even get the 40k rules I need to play for $50, let alone 5. At least not legally.
Um, firstly, people buy them... Gw charge that much and people still pay. Put yourself in their shoes. This is something people want. You run a business, it makes sense to chase the easy money and cater. Books are cheap to print. Ultimately you pay gw for their products, after the fact, they don't give a guardsman's cuss what you do with them. personslly I enjoy a codex for stuff other than the rules as well, so for me what I pay is worth it to me (I don't pay gw for their rules 'ahem', quality, I pay them for the cool models and the amazing IP. Rules I'll bodge thank you)
And this might surprise you - you can play the game however you want. you don't need to 'chase the rules dragon' if you don't want to. I played a game of 4th ed a while back. It was fun. Gw won't break down the door if you house rule a few things.
I just don't want to pay for bad rules. The fact that other people pay for bad rules just makes me wonder how much $$ GW is missing out on - imagine if the rules were GOOD!!
Deadnight wrote: There's nothing wrong with it so don't assume it's some declaration of failure. Some people actively enjoy tinkering with a system. We did it with an osprey set of rules a while back (dux bellorum. I don't think we played the rules the same way for more than three or four games.always tinkering and enjoying ourselves).take home message: Everyone wants something different. People like me are just happier to try to accommodate rather than blindly adhering to the rules which cannot be questioned, or deviated from under any circumstances.
I don't mind tinkering. I do mind rewriting wholesale. I wrote the narrative primer for my group's 30k event and included a lot of tinkers. But none of them were balance fixes - I don't have the leisure time to add cool tinkered stuff AND THEN (RE)WRITE THE REST OF THE GAME IN THE PROCESS.
But that's okay. It should be okay for one person to show up as a cutthroat competitive player and one person to show up as narrative. If the game is balanced, then the cutthroat competitive player can display his skill, and it has nothing to do with the army. .
I'm pretty sure this game is a unicorn and like unicorns, doesnt actually exist.
Simply because perfection is unattainable doesn't mean we shouldn't try to be better.
Deadnight wrote: In the meantime we are left with the actual reality that ttg's are crude, limited systems and simply can't hold up to the pressure generated by anything even remotely resembling 'competitive' gaming.
Not all TTGs, my man. I play many that are good fun and much better at simulating warfare than 40k. I've also played some that are way worse than 40k. The fact that 40k could be better is undeniable, and all I want is to apply pressure to improve it.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/10/21 20:50:28
2020/10/21 20:53:13
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
Someone toning down their list would be seen as insult in my experience. It's clearly not your experience.
Hehe. Ex-Martel's meta is like the American version of Karol's Polish meta.
I've played in three for four groups now that were all basically this. Some less, some more. But everyone wants to win. Everyone will read every rule in their own favor. I've ran into more people who think list tailoring is fine than those who buy into the narrative paradigm.
As far as I can tell, it's always been this way. A few weeks after the Tyranid dex dropped in 2nd, I ran into the 120 hormagaunt list. In a game where you had to shoot the closest thing. So I spent the whole game shooting hormagaunts while the genestealers got closer and closer. That's fluffy, but it was almost a sure loss for 2nd ed marines.
Lol, 120 Hormagaunts is commitment for 2nd ed.
That'd be a fight and a half.
And someone figured that out within a few WEEKS of it dropping. With no netlisting. Just simple gamesmanship of how to abuse the "shoot closest thing" rule. GW could have limited hormagaunts. They didn't. Therefore, 120 must be just fine.
Well I once ran 40 discs of Tzeentch at some point, so I'm not too surprised somebody tried some ridiculous nid spamming. I can't imagine they actually bought the models for that though.
THey worked at the store, and as such got a discount.
Bonkers.
It'd be fun to figure out how to handle that list.
I'd start with lots of plasma missiles and plasma grenades, they block LOS, movement and can expand to murder huge expanses of gaunts.
Edit2: and a batch of Rhinos to drive through them and set up barricades.
Edit3: Oh hell yeah. Hormagaunts can't hurt Rhinos at all. I'd load up troops in Rhinos and just drive through them, running as many of them over as I can, while firing flamers and throwing grenades out the hatches. Six models could fire from the hatches. Then I'd roll through the Hormagaunts, right up to the Genestealers and hit them with everything I had.
Long live 2nd ed.
Such list tailoring was frowned on even then. It was really hard , ie impossible, for marines to build for Nids, Eldar and CSM in 2nd. At least, that's my view on it. Transports were typically avoided because of the "rocks fall and everyone dies" result.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/10/21 21:00:31
2020/10/21 20:54:03
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
Wow...the complete lack of understanding regarding the death company on full display LOL.
Enlighten me
Death company are Blood Angels who have completely given themselves over to the black rage. They are basically uncontrollable monsters at this point. There is very little in the way of "control" that a commander has over them at this point. Back when I played them Years ago, there was actually a rule where they had to roll every turn to see if they just randomly bumrushed the enemy.
So in a close combat engagement, the death company wouldn't just stand there boxing in an opponent, they would literally throw down their bolt pistols in order to tear the throats from the enemy. Tactics/strategy go out the window at that point. Hence tri-pointing makes no damn sense for them.
They're described as reliving the siege of terra, they fight against what they precieve to be the warmasters forces, throwing aside any regard for their own survival. That doesn't mean they're blind berserkers, that comes after with the red thirst.
I'm sure they'd rather not let the unit of fire warriors casually walk away from them rather than surround a foe and butcher them.
Brotherjanus wrote:I like that they have started to make 2 sets of rules, one for matched and another for narrative/casual. The hard part is keeping it fair for matched play.
this is the best thing to happen to 40k in a very long time. I dont give a flying feth about tourney balance but I care that fluff/rules are more integrated between what's fluffy and what works on the tabletop.
They should be separated and the power gamers/waac/donkey-caves should stick to their fethed up variation of the game and we will stick to just having fun.
Except your gak balance is worse for casual play so...
And you missed the point - in a narrative casual group playing for fluff, they work around the balance issues generally.
That's fantastic, doing GW's work for them! Oh and then what happens when one army's fluffy list like Imperial Guard is just significantly better than another army's fluffy list like Dark Eldar? What are you doing to account for that balance issue?
I don't know that it is, but the dark eldar pkayer simply says "I'm struggling with x unit, can we try swapping it out for something or maybe change unit Y do I don't have 2 big problems please?"
Not hard, its not about GWs job for them, its about creating a positive experience for both players.
Good idea. I'm having trouble with your Infantry squads and Russes, two of your core units that are key to faction identity! Can you swap them for...oh wait.
You still haven't figured it out and it's hilarious. One army's fluff list is already a competitive one whereas the other one struggles even being optimized. So what's supposed to happen with your narrative, sport?
Take fewer russes? There are other units in the codex, likewise dark eldar do have ravagers, their flyers are good, talos are good, conveniently each of those are from kabals, cults and covens.
More importantly you're hardly a big casual/narrative fan, so why does it bother you?
But why is it the Guard player's responsibility to build and paint new models instead of the Dark Eldar player? Why should someone really be screwed over by choosing the wrong army, whether it be for casual OR tournament? That garbage rule writing that keeps happening is defended by those casual and narrative players and stops the game from reaching its potential. It isn't even the excuse of "It's good enough" that you're using.
The guard player could take fewer points worth, they could give the dark eldar player extra cp, he'll if that bad give them a round of shooting before turn 1. There are other ways that don't involve "go buy stuff". If you buy, build and paint 1 list and never have spares or options, every chapter approved must be a tough time.
The rules could be better balanced, you're right,it would be better, you're right. So what do you expect people to do in the mean time?
That's breaking the game itself to give a bunch of additives. That's not balance whether that comes from you or GW themselves (Gladius y'all). So in the meantime don't give GW money for what you admit is a bad job.
So don't play, or do you want to break forum rules and promote piracy?
You shouldn't be paying to play with rules that basically ask you to make more rules for a functioning game. Whether you pirate or not is up to you but it isn't like these new codices are high quality to begin with.
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
2020/10/21 20:57:03
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
SecondTime wrote: "nothing says you have to try to not kill your enemy."
Battleshock rules say you do.
Also, the point of telling people that they can't use their models because they are too good for the narrative scenario seems really crappy still.
Nobody is telling anyone anything, two people can have a discourse about how to balance a game out. There is no dictator here.
I'll sum this up and call it a night for me with:
Why can't people just be human beings and discuss solutions to their problems if it bothers you so much. It doesn't matter if GW did a bad job, you're both there to have fun. Find a way to do that if the default isn't fun for you both.
That is the underlying message in a casual/narrative group. Not who should win. It's making sure everyone has fun.
Because I can have fun with my friends by making pew-pew noises and playing toy soldiers without rules, or with ad-hoc rules we make ourselves.
As I think Unit said earlier-if GW rules were free and you just paid for models, or if they charged something like $5 for a digital subscription to get all the rules for a year, then yeah, okay. It's okay if it ain't a premium ruleset-they aren't charging premium prices for it.
But they DO charge out the butt for it. So it doesn't seem at all unreasonable to expect higher quality.
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
2020/10/21 21:07:08
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
Wow...the complete lack of understanding regarding the death company on full display LOL.
Enlighten me
Death company are Blood Angels who have completely given themselves over to the black rage. They are basically uncontrollable monsters at this point. There is very little in the way of "control" that a commander has over them at this point. Back when I played them Years ago, there was actually a rule where they had to roll every turn to see if they just randomly bumrushed the enemy.
So in a close combat engagement, the death company wouldn't just stand there boxing in an opponent, they would literally throw down their bolt pistols in order to tear the throats from the enemy. Tactics/strategy go out the window at that point. Hence tri-pointing makes no damn sense for them.
They're described as reliving the siege of terra, they fight against what they precieve to be the warmasters forces, throwing aside any regard for their own survival. That doesn't mean they're blind berserkers, that comes after with the red thirst.
I'm sure they'd rather not let the unit of fire warriors casually walk away from them rather than surround a foe and butcher them.
No, they are described as battle crazed monsters incapable of following orders/tactics. This is from the warhammer wiki
"Soon enough, the afflicted Blood Angel is lost to all reason, needing to be restrained in his frothing blood-madness, and living only to kill the enemies of the Emperor. No longer will he train and serve with his former squad. He is surrendered into the care of the Reclusiam, bound to take to the battlefield in ritually blackened armour.
From that day forward, he fights as one of the Death Company. Death in battle inevitably follows; with no ability to follow tactics or heed the intricacies of a commander's battle plan, the warriors of the Death Company charge in a howling tide, bound -- even if only temporarily -- by the inspiring wrath-chants of their Chaplains. As in so many matters of Adeptus Astartes spirituality, it is the Chaplains that play a key role. "
Wow...the complete lack of understanding regarding the death company on full display LOL.
Enlighten me
Death company are Blood Angels who have completely given themselves over to the black rage. They are basically uncontrollable monsters at this point. There is very little in the way of "control" that a commander has over them at this point. Back when I played them Years ago, there was actually a rule where they had to roll every turn to see if they just randomly bumrushed the enemy.
So in a close combat engagement, the death company wouldn't just stand there boxing in an opponent, they would literally throw down their bolt pistols in order to tear the throats from the enemy. Tactics/strategy go out the window at that point. Hence tri-pointing makes no damn sense for them.
They're described as reliving the siege of terra, they fight against what they precieve to be the warmasters forces, throwing aside any regard for their own survival. That doesn't mean they're blind berserkers, that comes after with the red thirst.
I'm sure they'd rather not let the unit of fire warriors casually walk away from them rather than surround a foe and butcher them.
No, they are described as battle crazed monsters incapable of following orders/tactics. This is from the warhammer wiki
"Soon enough, the afflicted Blood Angel is lost to all reason, needing to be restrained in his frothing blood-madness, and living only to kill the enemies of the Emperor. No longer will he train and serve with his former squad. He is surrendered into the care of the Reclusiam, bound to take to the battlefield in ritually blackened armour.
From that day forward, he fights as one of the Death Company. Death in battle inevitably follows; with no ability to follow tactics or heed the intricacies of a commander's battle plan, the warriors of the Death Company charge in a howling tide, bound -- even if only temporarily -- by the inspiring wrath-chants of their Chaplains. As in so many matters of Adeptus Astartes spirituality, it is the Chaplains that play a key role. "
So again, no.
Given the way red thirst is described, I'm not sure if its really appropriate for ANY BA unit to use the "charge and put one model within engagement range" trick.
2020/10/21 21:18:50
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
Such list tailoring was frowned on even then. It was really hard , ie impossible, for marines to build for Nids, Eldar and CSM in 2nd. At least, that's my view on it. Transports were typically avoided because of the "rocks fall and everyone dies" result.
If my meta required that I build to face 150 nids, I'm going to build to face 150 nids. As long as I use the same army against everyone else, it's not tailoring. My general belief is that in 2nd, there's pretty much always a solution.
There were probably a couple psychic powers that would really help in that scenario, too.
Such list tailoring was frowned on even then. It was really hard , ie impossible, for marines to build for Nids, Eldar and CSM in 2nd. At least, that's my view on it. Transports were typically avoided because of the "rocks fall and everyone dies" result.
If my meta required that I build to face 150 nids, I'm going to build to face 150 nids. As long as I use the same army against everyone else, it's not tailoring. My general belief is that in 2nd, there's pretty much always a solution.
There were probably a couple psychic powers that would really help in that scenario, too.
I feel that's more true now, but modern 40K is about weapon profiles as much as anything. Remember 120 hormagaunt guy was only one player. Unfortunately, 2W marine guy is a ton of players now.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/10/21 21:26:37
2020/10/21 21:32:57
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
Such list tailoring was frowned on even then. It was really hard , ie impossible, for marines to build for Nids, Eldar and CSM in 2nd. At least, that's my view on it. Transports were typically avoided because of the "rocks fall and everyone dies" result.
If my meta required that I build to face 150 nids, I'm going to build to face 150 nids. As long as I use the same army against everyone else, it's not tailoring. My general belief is that in 2nd, there's pretty much always a solution.
There were probably a couple psychic powers that would really help in that scenario, too.
I feel that's more true now, but modern 40K is about weapon profiles as much as anything. Remember 120 hormagaunt guy was only one player. Unfortunately, 2W marine guy is a ton of players now.
I'm far more excited by the challenge than I am threatened by it. I'm already certain that an extreme build would hard counter that list, so all that's left to do is figure out how to balance out my options vs. the other common lists I'd be facing. Sounds like a total blast, honestly.
I just don't want to pay for bad rules. The fact that other people pay for bad rules just makes me wonder how much $$ GW is missing out on - imagine if the rules were GOOD!!
Probably less, to be fair. As it is, people are wanting the next book to 'fix' the issues with the current book. Churn drives sales. Meta chasers will buy to keep on top. Collectors like me buy for other reasons.
In any case, there isn't really an incentive to be honest the effort (man hours, productivity wages etc) requires to makes rules 'GOOD' very quickly becomes a game of diminishing terms. 'Good' is nebulous, I genuinely doubt any ttgs will ever, or can ever be as 'GOOD' as the competitive players require for the game they want to play.
I don't pay for rules, like I said. I pay for the other stuff In the codex/rulebook that I actually value. The rules are the least important thing.
I don't mind tinkering. I do mind rewriting wholesale. I wrote the narrative primer for my group's 30k event and included a lot of tinkers. But none of them were balance fixes - I don't have the leisure time to add cool tinkered stuff AND THEN (RE)WRITE THE REST OF THE GAME IN THE PROCESS.
.
Fair. A mate of mine did it back home in Ireland and filled out a few 80 page copy books with fixes for 40k games.
Our approach is to basically play what's in front of us rather than the entirety of the game in one go.That's an impossibility.
Simply because perfection is unattainable doesn't mean we shouldn't try to be better.
True, but also pointless.
Simply put, how much 'better' is good enough? How much imbalance is acceptable? How many problems are ok? How 'broken' can a game be for it to still be 'better'?
The sad truth is ttgs will never be good enough to accommodate what the competitives want. Any other load bearing structures I've seen that can help (multiple lists, sideboards, multiple win conditions, competitive formats like steamroller or it, limited scale/scope, homogenisation) often have costs associated with them that cause just as much rage to be vented into the internet.
Not all TTGs, my man. I play many that are good fun and much better at simulating warfare than 40k. I've also played some that are way worse than 40k. The fact that 40k could be better is undeniable, and all I want is to apply pressure to improve it.
To be fair, I don't expect 40k to simulate warfare. 40k is an over the top 80s action movie crossed with an 80s heavy metal album cover from someone like Dio.its silly and goofy and I'm alright with that.
And I'm the Same here, actually. I've played a lot of historicals, fantasy and sci-fi. Lots of systems. Casually and competitively. Some, like WMH, infinity and flames ofwar, more than others. Best I've come across is 'good enough, at least some of the time'. There's not a single game I've come across that didn't have issues, or that in that hands of the 40k community wouldn't be broken and abused to the chaos gods and back again, and all the issues magnified to the level of apoplectic rage. Thing is, 'fun' is subjective. Best wargame I've ever played I still probably infinity. I'd argue it's also probably the most technically brilliant one on the market. It also gives me a massive bloody headache these days. Too much information overload for me. I don't actually want to play it, though as I mentioned above, intellectually I recognise how good it is.
On the one hand, 40k could be better, undoubtedly. But I don't need gw to improve it for me. We play the games we want to play as it is. Lucky, I suppose. On the other hand, But I also think players could be better as well. Both sides of the same coin, really.
2020/10/21 21:40:59
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
It's gotten considerably less goofy as time as gone on. The more they play it straight, the more balance and realism will play a role. GW is buying into its own hype about marines a little too much I think. Or a lot too much.
Such list tailoring was frowned on even then. It was really hard , ie impossible, for marines to build for Nids, Eldar and CSM in 2nd. At least, that's my view on it. Transports were typically avoided because of the "rocks fall and everyone dies" result.
If my meta required that I build to face 150 nids, I'm going to build to face 150 nids. As long as I use the same army against everyone else, it's not tailoring. My general belief is that in 2nd, there's pretty much always a solution.
There were probably a couple psychic powers that would really help in that scenario, too.
I feel that's more true now, but modern 40K is about weapon profiles as much as anything. Remember 120 hormagaunt guy was only one player. Unfortunately, 2W marine guy is a ton of players now.
I'm far more excited by the challenge than I am threatened by it. I'm already certain that an extreme build would hard counter that list, so all that's left to do is figure out how to balance out my options vs. the other common lists I'd be facing. Sounds like a total blast, honestly.
We also had multiple pulsa rokkit spammers. For what 2nd charged for marines, it was beyond a challenge, imo.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/10/21 21:43:39
2020/10/21 22:06:56
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
We also had multiple pulsa rokkit spammers. For what 2nd charged for marines, it was beyond a challenge, imo.
Techmarines on Bikes with Flamers. Shoot forward and burn the Rokkit crew before they can fire, then follow up with a Plasma Missile barrage against the main Ork line. That might work.
Wow...the complete lack of understanding regarding the death company on full display LOL.
Enlighten me
Death company are Blood Angels who have completely given themselves over to the black rage. They are basically uncontrollable monsters at this point. There is very little in the way of "control" that a commander has over them at this point. Back when I played them Years ago, there was actually a rule where they had to roll every turn to see if they just randomly bumrushed the enemy.
So in a close combat engagement, the death company wouldn't just stand there boxing in an opponent, they would literally throw down their bolt pistols in order to tear the throats from the enemy. Tactics/strategy go out the window at that point. Hence tri-pointing makes no damn sense for them.
They're described as reliving the siege of terra, they fight against what they precieve to be the warmasters forces, throwing aside any regard for their own survival. That doesn't mean they're blind berserkers, that comes after with the red thirst.
I'm sure they'd rather not let the unit of fire warriors casually walk away from them rather than surround a foe and butcher them.
No, they are described as battle crazed monsters incapable of following orders/tactics. This is from the warhammer wiki
"Soon enough, the afflicted Blood Angel is lost to all reason, needing to be restrained in his frothing blood-madness, and living only to kill the enemies of the Emperor. No longer will he train and serve with his former squad. He is surrendered into the care of the Reclusiam, bound to take to the battlefield in ritually blackened armour.
From that day forward, he fights as one of the Death Company. Death in battle inevitably follows; with no ability to follow tactics or heed the intricacies of a commander's battle plan, the warriors of the Death Company charge in a howling tide, bound -- even if only temporarily -- by the inspiring wrath-chants of their Chaplains. As in so many matters of Adeptus Astartes spirituality, it is the Chaplains that play a key role. "
So again, no.
Given the way red thirst is described, I'm not sure if its really appropriate for ANY BA unit to use the "charge and put one model within engagement range" trick.
Death company are suffering from the black rage, not the red thirst as per the current codex, they're not frothing loonatics who want blood.
I'd trust the codex entry over a community edited site, so I'd say you're both wrong there.
Spoiler:
Regards price and perceived quality or value, there isn't a right or wrong answer, the rules can definitely be better and would benefit everyone but at what price etc will be a unique opinion to everyone.
2020/10/22 08:11:31
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
Voss wrote: Well, the implied 'I'm having trouble with your list so _you_ need to buy other stuff to make it more fair' really bothers me.
Well to be fair, if you're not trying to achieve the same thing, the dude spamming all the most powerful units from his codex and trying to table you before turn 4 is non verbally communicating that you should buy new stuff if you want to have fun against him.
In both cases, if both players aren't on the same page regarding what kind of 40K they are going to have today, someone isn't going to have a great time.
I have troubles with the statements that a more balanced game would fix that. It isn't something tied to 40K or the state of the balance in whatever game. Most competitive activities are like that, sports, video games, wargames, whatever. Some people want to be "the best" (even if it just means they've beaten 5 other dudes at pushing plastic soldiers in the back of a shop) and some just enjoy something else (like insisting to tell you about his captain's long list of heroic achievement you don't care about), winning being secondary. And usually, competitive games try to fix this issue with different game modes and/or leagues. Not balance.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/10/22 08:12:21
2020/10/22 08:28:22
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
dhallnet wrote: Well to be fair, if you're not trying to achieve the same thing, the dude spamming all the most powerful units from his codex and trying to table you before turn 4 is non verbally communicating that you should buy new stuff if you want to have fun against him.
In both cases, if both players aren't on the same page regarding what kind of 40K they are going to have today, someone isn't going to have a great time.
Mmmm, the problem is that it doesn't take the same amount of effort to make a competitive list in different codices - some armies can be decent just by filling out detachments, if they have good troops that synergize well. Others have to tweak things to make it work, by maxing some particular unit that isn't core to the faction identity to the detriment of all else. So what that means is, if one player makes an army that "feels" right, they will trounce the player with the weaker codex. In order to have a game with an even chance of winning, the feel of the armies has to be bastardized. Players deserve better.
What I'm saying is that the dude spamming the most powerful units from his codex isn't necessarily communicating that at all, you're wrong. GW is, however.
dhallnet wrote: I have troubles with the statements that a more balanced game would fix that. It isn't something tied to 40K or the state of the balance in whatever game. Most competitive activities are like that, sports, video games, wargames, whatever. Some people want to be "the best" (even if it just means they've beaten 5 other dudes at pushing plastic soldiers in the back of a shop) and some just enjoy something else (like insisting to tell you about his captain's long list of heroic achievement you don't care about), winning being secondary. And usually, competitive games try to fix this issue with different game modes and/or leagues. Not balance.
Balance actually does fix this. GW's chronically unbalanced rules create an environment of poor sportsmanship and cheating. But it also creates an environment of "buy the best units to win games," so it gives GW what they want.
2020/10/22 09:19:37
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
Mmmm, the problem is that it doesn't take the same amount of effort to make a competitive list in different codices - some armies can be decent just by filling out detachments, if they have good troops that synergize well. Others have to tweak things to make it work, by maxing some particular unit that isn't core to the faction identity to the detriment of all else. So what that means is, if one player makes an army that "feels" right, they will trounce the player with the weaker codex. In order to have a game with an even chance of winning, the feel of the armies has to be bastardized. Players deserve better.
What I'm saying is that the dude spamming the most powerful units from his codex isn't necessarily communicating that at all, you're wrong. GW is, however.
A player spamming broken stuff to win and another creating a decent list out of stuff you're expected to pick anyway, is extremely different. Borderline obvious. And one is actually quite clearly stating he's not here to fool around.
But yes, some balance is required, of course. If one's most powerful build is simply middle of the road for another faction, we have issues. What I was underlining though is that the issue of player "wants to win" vs player "wants to play with his dudes" will always happen whatever the state of said balance is and will more often than not be unbalanced, unless you believe perfect balance exist, in which case yes you're absolutely right but you'll also be forever disappointed.
Balance actually does fix this. GW's chronically unbalanced rules create an environment of poor sportsmanship and cheating. But it also creates an environment of "buy the best units to win games," so it gives GW what they want.
Again unless you believe you can achieve a state of balance where there is no build more powerful than others, no it doesn't fix anything. I also fail to understand how bad balance justify cheating or bad sportsmanship (but wanting to win above all doesn't, strangely) but whatever. Yes, more balance is something to look after but the mindset of the players will always be important too (and seems to be the issue in what you just listed here btw : no reason to cheat or always buy the next hot stuff if you're the kind of guy playing to tell the praise of your captain).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/10/22 09:20:53
2020/10/22 13:00:17
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
I think players who don't want to win are incredibly rare, and I say this as a narrative player.
There's not putting winning first (so you might reduce your chances to win to make an epic challenge with your hero or by making list concessions for fluff), but that doesn't mean the same as actively not wanting to win.
Furthermore, which of the following situations would satisfy me as a narrative player:
1) My hero makes an epic charge (say, a Lieutenant against a Keeper of Secrets) and lays some hurt on the fiend before being laid low.
2) My army flails ineffectually against the enemy army, accomplishing very little before folding like a house of cards in a hurricane.
Answer: The first one I am much more fine with, obviously. It was a choice I made in the name of fluff, and "Lieutenant Dan lost both his legs to a Keeper of Secrets in a heroic stand" is a cool narrative.
The second one is awful feelbads, firstly because I had little interaction or say in the outcome but also secondly because it doesn't have to be that way. In a balanced game, a conceptually coherent list (so something more coherent than, say, "2000 points of cultists WAAAAAAAH") should be on a sufficiently even playing field with all other conceptually-coherent lists. That's all we're asking for with balance, at least from my narrative perspective.
2020/10/22 13:07:44
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
winning is secondary, first comes the fun of a match depending upon circumstances that can mean comp or casual or narrative, what is however more relevant some of the fun comes from the fact that there is a fighting chance involved.
And there are and were matchups that felt less like both players had a fair shot at winning and more as an allready predetermined result just going through the motions.
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.
2020/10/22 13:09:42
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
it does. Especially in a casual setting it leads rather fast to some real annoyment, especially if you have an instance of massive underpowering or overpowering capabilties in armies and GW is no stranger to that.
Take a devoted IH player that get's his supplement and now has in order to even get a decent experience or a match at all curb a gakton of his choices just because they became too good.
Take a GK player before the PA update beeing forced to pick a predetermined loadout and list set that he may or may not own.
Etc etc. those extremes are in many ways the worst case scenario but also the groups most likely to become burnt out from the hobby.
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.
2020/10/22 13:41:03
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
Unit1126PLL wrote: I guess my earlier point about balance being better for narrative got ignored, so I'll say it again:
As someone who makes narrative events for my local club, it is much much better for me to spend my time making cool stories, setting up excellent set-piece terrain setups, and writing narrative rules. It is a chore for me to rebalance 40k in the process.
Plus, if I saw a Salamanders player rock up with 18 Eradicators, who am I to tell him he is wrong? Eradicators are the perfect nuSalamander, since melta is their shtick after all. Like Ultramarines showing up with Blade Guard. Am I to say "sorry, you brought too much fire with you, Salamanders. Have you considered taking something more iron-handsy, like a tank?"
Because that's fluffier.
As the person designing the scenarios it's not your job to police the players, that's up to them.
Bringing the latest competitive net list will happen regardless of how well balanced the base game is, but by having a narrative event the story should be more important than the score sheet.
Will Jimmy with his loving converted kroot merc army where each character has a story and battle record, who plays to the theme by picking secondaries and relics in line with their narrative despite being sub optimal, really want a narrative story driven game against "this list won 3 tourneys last month, I figured its pretty good, thats why I brought it".
It's really frustrating to me how often I see these same points go around in circles.
Jimmy is going to have a bad time with his Kroot Mercs against Eradicator meta spam. That's the point. In an ideal world there wouldn't be any difference between fluffy narrative lists and what's competitive. In a realistic world we can still do a lot better than this.
The point is that bad balance isn't just a competitive hindrance, it actively detracts from narrative games as well. 'But you can talk it through with your opponent...' Great! Now you're expecting two NARRATIVE players to have a complete (and identical!) understanding of the state of COMPETITIVE balance so that they can properly balance their NARRATIVE game. If they don't have that complete understanding of the state of COMPETITIVE balance, they don't know something is wrong until after their NARRATIVE game is spoiled by a one-sided conclusion.
I apologize for the all-caps but I really want to reinforce how missing-the-point it is to suggest that narrative gamers don't have to deal with competitive balance issues so long as they have a thorough understanding of competitive balance issues. Narrative gamers shouldn't have to be aficionados of a meta they don't really participate in just to build scenarios that work. And moving away from narrative and into casual pick-up games, not everyone wants to have this kind of social contract negotiation of scenario conditions before a game (this is exactly what people hated about AoS's lack of points system and 'just figure out a scenario together' approach on launch), especially when they can't guarantee that the other player (remember we're talking casual players) won't have some bonkers idea of what the state of play looks like and which things are actually unbalanced. Good luck persuading the dude who's convinced that his Ultramarines are bottom of the food chain and 18 Eradicators are what he needs to be on a level playing field that his list is a bit overboard, and if you do, get ready for some resentment if you win because obviously you're a powergamer that forced him to make his list terrible so you could steamroll him. That gak gets old real fast.
I can summarize this entire back and forth because it happens so often:
A: 'Bad balance hurts casual players too'
B: 'But you can balance out the armies before the game'
A: 'Yes but I don't want to take on that additional burden just to play a game'
B: 'Well things aren't always perfect, this is part of the hobby'
A: 'Yes but many games don't have this problem and when I pay $100 for books I expect better than this'
B: 'Well things are what they are, either fix it yourself or stop buying it'
You notice how (A)'s original point is that there is an issue that could stand be improved, while (B) starts by denying that it's a real issue, and then seamlessly shifts to pragmatic solutions without ever acknowledging that the point was valid? That's what I find really tiring about this topic. Whenever someone complains that balance is impacting their local, casual group, we know that we can fix it ourselves. Most groups come up with houserules to patch over problematic aspects of the game. We just don't want to have to do that, let alone take on the Herculean task of re-writing and re-balancing the game from the ground up, let alone try to find common consensus rather than having a central source of authority, all to make an expensive luxury product with an ostensibly professional design team work as intended.
I'd just like to, for once, see some acknowledgment that that's a reasonable expectation, that most games don't have this issue to the same degree, and that it's a real legitimate problem for narrative, casual, and competitive players, and then we can talk about what can practically be done about it.
Nobody talking about whether marines should have two wounds ever again. This thread became a balance discussion.
"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
2020/10/22 14:09:09
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
Unit1126PLL wrote: I guess my earlier point about balance being better for narrative got ignored, so I'll say it again:
As someone who makes narrative events for my local club, it is much much better for me to spend my time making cool stories, setting up excellent set-piece terrain setups, and writing narrative rules. It is a chore for me to rebalance 40k in the process.
Plus, if I saw a Salamanders player rock up with 18 Eradicators, who am I to tell him he is wrong? Eradicators are the perfect nuSalamander, since melta is their shtick after all. Like Ultramarines showing up with Blade Guard. Am I to say "sorry, you brought too much fire with you, Salamanders. Have you considered taking something more iron-handsy, like a tank?"
Because that's fluffier.
As the person designing the scenarios it's not your job to police the players, that's up to them.
Bringing the latest competitive net list will happen regardless of how well balanced the base game is, but by having a narrative event the story should be more important than the score sheet.
Will Jimmy with his loving converted kroot merc army where each character has a story and battle record, who plays to the theme by picking secondaries and relics in line with their narrative despite being sub optimal, really want a narrative story driven game against "this list won 3 tourneys last month, I figured its pretty good, thats why I brought it".
It's really frustrating to me how often I see these same points go around in circles.
Jimmy is going to have a bad time with his Kroot Mercs against Eradicator meta spam. That's the point. In an ideal world there wouldn't be any difference between fluffy narrative lists and what's competitive. In a realistic world we can still do a lot better than this.
The point is that bad balance isn't just a competitive hindrance, it actively detracts from narrative games as well. 'But you can talk it through with your opponent...' Great! Now you're expecting two NARRATIVE players to have a complete (and identical!) understanding of the state of COMPETITIVE balance so that they can properly balance their NARRATIVE game. If they don't have that complete understanding of the state of COMPETITIVE balance, they don't know something is wrong until after their NARRATIVE game is spoiled by a one-sided conclusion.
I apologize for the all-caps but I really want to reinforce how missing-the-point it is to suggest that narrative gamers don't have to deal with competitive balance issues so long as they have a thorough understanding of competitive balance issues. Narrative gamers shouldn't have to be aficionados of a meta they don't really participate in just to build scenarios that work. And moving away from narrative and into casual pick-up games, not everyone wants to have this kind of social contract negotiation of scenario conditions before a game (this is exactly what people hated about AoS's lack of points system and 'just figure out a scenario together' approach on launch), especially when they can't guarantee that the other player (remember we're talking casual players) won't have some bonkers idea of what the state of play looks like and which things are actually unbalanced. Good luck persuading the dude who's convinced that his Ultramarines are bottom of the food chain and 18 Eradicators are what he needs to be on a level playing field that his list is a bit overboard, and if you do, get ready for some resentment if you win because obviously you're a powergamer that forced him to make his list terrible so you could steamroll him. That gak gets old real fast.
I can summarize this entire back and forth because it happens so often:
A: 'Bad balance hurts casual players too'
B: 'But you can balance out the armies before the game'
A: 'Yes but I don't want to take on that additional burden just to play a game'
B: 'Well things aren't always perfect, this is part of the hobby'
A: 'Yes but many games don't have this problem and when I pay $100 for books I expect better than this'
B: 'Well things are what they are, either fix it yourself or stop buying it'
You notice how (A)'s original point is that there is an issue that could stand be improved, while (B) starts by denying that it's a real issue, and then seamlessly shifts to pragmatic solutions without ever acknowledging that the point was valid? That's what I find really tiring about this topic. Whenever someone complains that balance is impacting their local, casual group, we know that we can fix it ourselves. Most groups come up with houserules to patch over problematic aspects of the game. We just don't want to have to do that, let alone take on the Herculean task of re-writing and re-balancing the game from the ground up, let alone try to find common consensus rather than having a central source of authority, all to make an expensive luxury product with an ostensibly professional design team work as intended.
I'd just like to, for once, see some acknowledgment that that's a reasonable expectation, that most games don't have this issue to the same degree, and that it's a real legitimate problem for narrative, casual, and competitive players, and then we can talk about what can practically be done about it.
Yup seems fair, if you allow for the fact that perfect balance isn't rational or attainable so there will always be a "top list" even in a very well balanced game. Getting better game balance is better for everyone, no disputes there.
So your conversation is now truncated to:
B: 'Well things are what they are, either fix it yourself or stop buying it'
What's next now we acknowledge the game needs better balance for both narrative and casual?
I don't think we need to discuss this any further.
I agree, clearly the fluff in your mind is different to their most recently published book. Unless you're telling me GW wrote their own fluff wrong somehow of course.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/10/22 14:12:00
2020/10/22 14:12:28
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Nobody talking about whether marines should have two wounds ever again. This thread became a balance discussion.
2W marines are balance issue, so that makes sense.
"I agree, clearly the fluff in your mind is different to their most recently published book. Unless you're telling me GW wrote their own fluff wrong somehow of course."
Does someone want to clue him in? Because I kind of don't.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/10/22 14:13:54
2020/10/22 14:13:47
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Nobody talking about whether marines should have two wounds ever again. This thread became a balance discussion.
Report to mod for the thread being off topic and having run its course in that case, it has evolved away from the initial point naturally, but agree it isn't what it started as.
2020/10/22 14:13:48
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
No, that's just one of several possible ways to approach the question.
"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
