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.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The fundamental problem is one of on-the-table decision vs. pregame decisions making the choice.

The goal should be to emphasize on-the-table decisions (such as maneuver) rather than pre-battle decisions (such as unit composition / objective choice).

Randomness is a way to FORCE choice, because it takes things like unit composition or objective choice away from the player. If another solution could be found to de-emphasize pregame decisions in favor of ingame decisions, then use that instead. Randomness isn't really relevant to the discussion save as a possible means to achieve the desired end.

It's worth noting that this can be seen in Tabletop Titans videos, even. Competitive play exists not in making hard choices (those don't come up super often), but rather in identifying the clearly best route to execute.

There usually is a clearly best route. The issue in identifying it lies in the fact that 40k's rules cause all sorts of unintuitive weirdness and it is behind that smokescreen where the discussion lies.

An example lies with the employment of Fiends. If you fight an enemy squad with, say, Daemonettes and Fiends, you can tie up the squad with the Daemonettes to keep them from moving into base-2-base with the fiend. If the fiend stays .75" away from the closest model and more than 1" from other enemy models, only that model can ever hit it, even if the entire rest of the unit is within .5" of said model.

That is the best way to employ fiends. It simply is. Players may not be able to identify all the elements of the rules working together, so the skill comes in parsing the complex interactions of fiddly, tiny rules, but there's clearly ONE BEST OPTION and a whole slew of sub-par options. That's not choice, that's obfuscation.

This is the same for any system you could replace it with. Arguing that there should be more than one OPTIMAL way to play is as stupid as arguing that we really ought to pave roads differently in order to allow for tire options that aren't simply round.

Think of it this way, there are objectively optimal ways to play games as complex as Chess and Go. These are well enough understood that we can teach them to a computer and that computer is able to beat the best players in the world. This fact doesn't make those games any less interesting as they are complex enough that humans can't easily solve them without the aid of machines.

TLDR; Every finite system that works within any kind of logical fabric must by definition be solvable.

He's not saying that, he's saying that the secondary system ought to promote choices on the table, not at the list-building stage, and instead, it does the opposite.

Anything can be solved in theory, but it's a lot easier to solve something at the list-building stage in a system where the objectives are effectively the same on the table in every game, rather than on-the-fly on the table in a system where the objectives vary from game to game in a more dynamic way.

^^^^^

Yes. The other big area of the game where table-play matters is when it comes to the board setup and terrain. Again, this is a pre-game randomizing element that affects both players and which adds a level of complexity. It breaks down the shape of the game and lessens the impact that "optimal" strategies might have.

Again, imagine chess if instead of playing on the same 8x8 board, the board shape and arrangement was randomly generated each time. Sometimes gaps, sometimes chokepoint, some times a grid or hexagon or irregular shapes. In theory there is a perfect solution to each random setup, but no player is ever going to find it out within the span of a single game. Thus, they have to rely on heuristics (i.e. skill) in forecasting what type of moves would work well given certain circumstances, but they can't be completely sure.

40K, in its ideal state in my mind, gives you highly variability in missions/objectives that both players have to account for, you have terrain that matters significantly to the table-level decisions (9th is better than 8th, but it has a ways to go IMHO), and force organization creates a little more homogeneity in list design, so that armies are structurally more similar to each other and there is less room for extremely over- or under-powered lists.

When all that happens, I think the gameplay is more interesting.

Indeed.

I am arguing that I should see the table, the layout, and my opponents models before I am able to optimize. In that way, I am playing the game.

Right now, I can optimize sitting at my computer. I can develop a plan for my army list, a list of secondaries to take, a mechanism to execute each mission, and can do so for each of the possible opposing codexes in the game based on what I know of them.

In the former, actually interacting with the game is the important part. In the latter, executing a preplanned subroutine like a mechanical system is the important part.

In other words, I want a game so complicated that you need a digital system to solve, rather than one so shallow you can solve with a purely mechanical system. If we're being pedantic.

I think a problem with the game is that models are so fast and nimble and the game not caring about outflanking. Even with a lot of terrain quite a few unit types are just too fast due to them mostly ignoring it, JP infantry and fliers the worst offenders, which make the table setup not matter as much for lots of armies. Only vehicles are really punished and for the rest of the units terrain mostly matters in that it blocks line of sight.

The table set up should matter more then it does and encourage various types of units to play around it. But it doesnt. All it does is slow vehicles and stop long range shooting. If 2 melee armies face each other the terrain could most of the time be removed to make movement easier. The actually physical act of moving the models I mean. Especially if they have jump packs or other rules that ignore the difficult ground penalties.

The bonuses and penalties should be higher and affect certain kinds of units more and others less. Like if difficult terrain were more common and harsher penalties for heavy infantry footslogging were introduced then going all out on normal foot marines wouldnt be a good idea. You would probably want some bikes or fast vehicles to go around it without it taking multiple turns. Or JP/fly to move above. And you could make it so a unit with fly cant use it if entering or leaving, still fly over with no penalty, certain terrain without risk. Using JP in a ruin or forest could reintroduce dangerous terrain and kill the model on a 1 etc.

The 23% smaller tables and possibility of all fly armies, BA or Eldar, or infantry with move bonuses kinda removes what should be one of the biggest variables in the game. How you interact with the terrain to gain an advantage.

Balancing the secondaries wont help too much if the core game isnt good enough. List building, terrain or core rules need to change as well.

yukishiro1 wrote:
He's not saying that, he's saying that the secondary system ought to promote choices on the table, not at the list-building stage, and instead, it does the opposite.

Anything can be solved in theory, but it's a lot easier to solve something at the list-building stage in a system where the objectives are effectively the same on the table in every game, rather than on-the-fly on the table in a system where the objectives vary from game to game in a more dynamic way.

Chess uses the same pieces and the same board each game, the players of chess use literal books of known openings, and we don't consider that to be an issue. If Chess can work while being static in setup and solved by computers why must 40k rely on tricks and randomness to create choice on the table?

Also, why are we able to see the best 40k players win games consistently, sometimes even with subpar lists, if play at the table doesn't matter? Conversely, why don't we see unknown players bringing netlists taking high places at these big tournaments?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Indeed.

I am arguing that I should see the table, the layout, and my opponents models before I am able to optimize. In that way, I am playing the game.

Right now, I can optimize sitting at my computer. I can develop a plan for my army list, a list of secondaries to take, a mechanism to execute each mission, and can do so for each of the possible opposing codexes in the game based on what I know of them.

In the former, actually interacting with the game is the important part. In the latter, executing a preplanned subroutine like a mechanical system is the important part.

In other words, I want a game so complicated that you need a digital system to solve, rather than one so shallow you can solve with a purely mechanical system. If we're being pedantic.

You seem to want a game that nobody would ever want to play because the level of complexity would be so high as to be impractical to play at a table with actual plastic men. There are plenty of PC games that can go into this level of depth, perhaps try one of them.

Klickor wrote:
I think a problem with the game is that models are so fast and nimble and the game not caring about outflanking. Even with a lot of terrain quite a few unit types are just too fast due to them mostly ignoring it, JP infantry and fliers the worst offenders, which make the table setup not matter as much for lots of armies. Only vehicles are really punished and for the rest of the units terrain mostly matters in that it blocks line of sight.

The table set up should matter more then it does and encourage various types of units to play around it. But it doesnt. All it does is slow vehicles and stop long range shooting. If 2 melee armies face each other the terrain could most of the time be removed to make movement easier. The actually physical act of moving the models I mean. Especially if they have jump packs or other rules that ignore the difficult ground penalties.

The bonuses and penalties should be higher and affect certain kinds of units more and others less. Like if difficult terrain were more common and harsher penalties for heavy infantry footslogging were introduced then going all out on normal foot marines wouldnt be a good idea. You would probably want some bikes or fast vehicles to go around it without it taking multiple turns. Or JP/fly to move above. And you could make it so a unit with fly cant use it if entering or leaving, still fly over with no penalty, certain terrain without risk. Using JP in a ruin or forest could reintroduce dangerous terrain and kill the model on a 1 etc.

The 23% smaller tables and possibility of all fly armies, BA or Eldar, or infantry with move bonuses kinda removes what should be one of the biggest variables in the game. How you interact with the terrain to gain an advantage.

Balancing the secondaries wont help too much if the core game isnt good enough. List building, terrain or core rules need to change as well.

I read all of this, and I'm like... I need to just keep playing 5th edition (ProHammer), as it does exactly this.

I can't help but think that an awful lot of people got lured into 8th edition, and now 9th, on the promise that the streamlined ruleset would make the game smoother. What this has, apparently, managed to do was make the game just as or more convoluted and clunky as before (there are probably more things to know now - it's just all locked in the codex books), while simultaneously gutting the game of all of the things affecting table-level play that SHOULD be driving the gameplay. Movement, use of terrain, careful positioning, pacing, judging distances, managing risk/reward, order of activations, etc. All that got cut out of of the rules or scaled back in the great streamlining - and we're left with something else entirely.

Canadian 5th, as I recall you've said in the past that you prefer a game where listbuilding is a key element, and that you like the idea of some units being deliberately undercosted or overcosted because learning which units are optimal and which are traps is fun for you.

Suffice to say that I don't think you're going to see eye-to-eye with people who want to reduce the importance of listbuilding and increase the importance of tactical (non-list-driven) decisions.

 Canadian 5th wrote:
You seem to want a game that nobody would ever want to play because the level of complexity would be so high as to be impractical to play at a table with actual plastic men.

Nah, Infinity makes it work fine. Emergent complexity from simple systems makes it much, much harder to solve than 40K while still being playable.

 Canadian 5th wrote:
You seem to want a game that nobody would ever want to play because the level of complexity would be so high as to be impractical to play at a table with actual plastic men. There are plenty of PC games that can go into this level of depth, perhaps try one of them.

there are also a couple tabletop games that are like this. I doubt you could solve any given Team Yankee game with a mechanical computer, even if you could with a digital one. Or Force-on-Force. You asserting that it is far too complicated to play simply because you can't win the game in advance doesn't actually make it too complicated to play.

Even GW's own Lord of the Rings system has a fairly simple rule-set with great depth. It achieves this by not being complicated in rules but rather complex in depth (rules interactions).

I'm reminded of a question at the 2018 NOVA Convention Lord of the Rings preview that made me laugh. I'm paraphrasing, but:
40k player: "When are you going to change the scenarios that require large-scale maneuver and long range shooting so that armies which are all infantry have a chance to win?"
GW LOTR Designer: "Those missions exist to encourage players not to take armies of all infantry. Next question."

It was basically "why isn't there an obvious army I can build that's best at all the missions?" or, in other words, "Why don't you design the game so that I can just hyper optimize my army?" asked as if that was an expected thing.

I haven't read the last 7 pages, so apologies in advance, but this is literally why I stopped playing this year. Custodes are so completely boned by the new system, that unless I turn 2 kill his warlord and also a few tanks, I am behind the rest of the game. This edition is now catered to massed S8+ dakka. It's like no one learned anything from why the Castellan was so bad for the game back in 8th.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Even GW's own Lord of the Rings system has a fairly simple rule-set with great depth. It achieves this by not being complex.

I'm reminded of a question at the 2018 NOVA Convention Lord of the Rings preview that made me laugh. I'm paraphrasing, but:
40k player: "When are you going to change the scenarios that require large-scale maneuver and long range shooting so that armies which are all infantry have a chance to win?"
GW LOTR Designer: "Those missions exist to encourage players not to take armies of all infantry. Next question."

It was basically "why isn't there an obvious army I can build that's best at all the missions?" or, in other words, "Why don't you design the game so that I can just hyper optimize my army?" asked as if that was an expected thing.

That's awesome.

I just bought big Battle for Pelanor fields starter box for xmas. My family paints mini's on occasion and liked the look of what was in the box, and I got the shiny rulebook out of the deal. Pretty impressed with the read though. Reminds me a lot of the system used in Epic as well.

addnid wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
I'm not sure randomness is needed, but something to shake up the extreme degree to which lists are engineered to just do one thing.

That's why I like the idea of having the opponent choose one of the secondaries (obviously with the list reworked so that they aren't keyword-locked). It's not random, but it does mean you can't just engineer a list to within an inch of its life and not have to ever worry about having to do something different.

Another option is making the mission-specific secondary mandatory, but with how terrible GW is at balancing those, I fear that will just end up by total "coincidence" benefitting certain factions *cough cough* over others, just like the core secondary system does.

I must say I don't think these two ideas work (at all):
- having the opponent choose one of the secondaries will result in your opponent giving you an impossible mission (or nearly impossible) so it comes down to the same thing as only having 2 sec objectives total
- mission-specific secondary mandatory: same issue, you are stuck with something tied to the mission structure, so if you list can't do it then too bad for you.

But are these bad things?
Regarding the first, maybe you should be more conservative in your secondary selection.
For #2 maybe you should have a more balanced list.

Or we can just ditch them all together.

In my experience, every.single.ITC player I've played against is someone I have zero interest in playing a second time and i hope the feeling is mutual. So I'm waiting for someone to come along and show me I'm wrong.....still waiting.

As long as there aren't secondaries that are literally unachievable for some armies (eg objectives that require psykers), I am all for mandatory mission-specific secondaries.

Having balanced armies able to complete missions while skew lists have to rely on killing is a great way to even out those matchups. It can still be optimized, but the optimization is more tactical and less spreadsheet-driven. I found the way 9th Ed missions shook up list optimization to be a refreshing change in 9th; having more varieties of mission (rather than all flavors of progressively scored take-and-hold) and a variety of mission secondaries would be a step in the right direction.

 catbarf wrote:
Canadian 5th, as I recall you've said in the past that you prefer a game where listbuilding is a key element, and that you like the idea of some units being deliberately undercosted or overcosted because learning which units are optimal and which are traps is fun for you.

That's not exactly my position. My position is that list building should matter because if it doesn't you might as well give people a couple of prebuilt army templates and play games that way. I also want as much choice as possible in list building, yes even trap choices, because it can be enjoyable to play a suboptimal list either for a campaign or as a handicap against a weaker player.

Nah, Infinity makes it work fine. Emergent complexity from simple systems makes it much, much harder to solve than 40K while still being playable.

Does Infinity not have any list building styles that tend to be weaker than others? Are there skilled players and unskilled players and do those skilled players tend to take specific types of actions that work better than others? If either of these are true the game is as solvable as 40k.

I think you're arguing against a straw-man here. Nobody is saying either (1) list-building shouldn't matter at all, or (2) skill once you get to the table doesn't matter currently.

Instead, people are saying that right now the balance feels too titled towards solving the game at the list-building stage, because there is not enough variation within the game to shake up list-based solutions to the game, and that the secondaries are contributing to this problem rather than helping solve it, which feels like the opposite of what they ought to do.

I don't think a game which is complex enough in terms of objectives that vary from game to game that there isn't an obvious play for almost every situation that you can theorize before the game and that applies to every game is a game too complex for people to want to play. In fact, we can demonstrate this isn't the case, because the vast majority of 40k players who play play the game don't approach it that way anyway. They're casual players more or less flying by the seat of their pants. And they like it.

It really wouldn't take too much to shake up 40k scoring enough that it would be unrealistic to have pre-planned out every scenario, or to shake up list design enough to get people taking more flexible lists that can tackle a wider range of possible objectives, rather than hyper-specialized ones specifically tailored to completing the same secondary objectives in the same way every single game.

Instead, people are saying that right now the balance feels too titled towards solving the game at the list-building stage, because there is not enough variation within the game to shake up list-based solutions to the game, and that the secondaries are contributing to this problem rather than helping solve it, which feels like the opposite of what they ought to do.

Honestly, is that not the eternal struggle of most 40k players - How do we get to a game that doesn't lean quite so heavily on the list? lol

EDIT:

I think a problem with the game is that models are so fast and nimble and the game not caring about outflanking.

I missed this earlier -

It's not so much about the speed of the models - it's the table size. The game suddenly got way better when we moved to the "old" table sizes at anything above 1000 points. It fixed a lot of the problems we had. I say this all the time but so many say "9th is great because movement matters now" and the truth is, it doesn't. At all. Not even a little bit. When you can get to almost everything all the time like you can in 9th, it's a lot LESS about maneuvering and a lot more about timing. On a larger table where a mistake in the movement phase might leave you permanently out of position, movement matters. In a game where it's almost impossible to not be able to get where you need to go, it doesn't. It becomes about timing. Which would be fine in a different system, but it's not a great paradigm for IGOUGO ...

To everyone who thinks they can win at list building stage (because bla bla bla i can choose my secondaries under the current system), please think about what you are implying. You are implying that you can go to a tournament with a netlist and actually win, just like any other player.

But that is not true. You will make mistakes, your plan will be destroyed by the first opponent you will face who will be much better than you at this game.
Since 9th started I have ruined many secondary missions, and used them as bait to induce bad decisions. For example I had an opponent just last game go for my swarmlord to get 8 points (abhor the witch and bring it down), so I could keep my dimachaeron alive. He forgot the dima kills 4 wound targets in one go, so he should have gone for the kill on the dima, regardless of points (it was his third turn, more points was not yet the priority). This sole surviving dimachaeron proceeded to obliterate the alarus who had just killed swarmy, costing him the game. He should not have focused so soon on secondaries, but on giving his very expensive, very lethal alarus the best chance of surviving the turn after they arrived.

Agreed you can’t do much about scramblers (your opponent will score that whatever you do), and some other secondariies. But most of them, you can really do something to make your opponent struggle to get more than 5 points.
But up you need to really think. And not approach the game thinking “I don’t like the current system, f it let’s just play anyway”, then get smashed by a better player than you, and blame it on the system or whatever.

I do agree on the need for an “elite kill” secondary though like gang busters (if I recall correctly) was.

You don’t have to like the system, but don’t say the game is winnable at list building stage, unless you actually have won tournaments (even just a local thing) with the “perfect” lists you built. From experience players who complain a lot about any given edition, often loose most of their games regardless of the edition, even when they only play with their friends. The same people keep winning at top level. Richard Siegler doesn’t win at the list building stage, does he ?

 Canadian 5th wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
He's not saying that, he's saying that the secondary system ought to promote choices on the table, not at the list-building stage, and instead, it does the opposite.

Anything can be solved in theory, but it's a lot easier to solve something at the list-building stage in a system where the objectives are effectively the same on the table in every game, rather than on-the-fly on the table in a system where the objectives vary from game to game in a more dynamic way.

Chess uses the same pieces and the same board each game, the players of chess use literal books of known openings, and we don't consider that to be an issue. If Chess can work while being static in setup and solved by computers why must 40k rely on tricks and randomness to create choice on the table?

Are you serious? Chess is BALANCED. A white pawn and a black pawn are IDENTICAL. One does not get heaps of extra rules and cost half as much as the other. Chess lists cannot forgo pawns and take rooks or knights in their place. That comparison is just silly.

I'm not sure 40k is especially solved at the list building stage right now. Mainly because quite a few factions seemingly have competitive lists. Possibly because going first I think remains the biggest improvement to your victory chances* - and anyone with any list should go first about half the time.

*Except possibly versus Harlequins.

The Primary Objective mean the game isn't just about killing. Movement and board control are essential. I feel as a result 40k today is a far less a "solved game" if you like, than top end ITC in 8th was - where what you played and how you played tended to refined down to the overpowered nub. We see far more lists placing in tournaments than was the case in Pax-Castellan or Marines 2.0 (sorry 8th Eldar - always the bridesmaid, never the name of a meta era.)

Certain factions suck. We can all name them - Tau. Guard. Thousand Sons. There's a lot of crap in the Tyranid Codex etc etc. Secondaries certainly contribute to these issues - but I also think a lot of plane old "you pay too much for what you get" does too. I feel like GW could release CA21 and improve a range of these issues without completely re-inventing the wheel.

I know it sounds weird given 40k is a dice game where luck is intrinsic to everything you do - but I dislike losing games because you drew your cards in the wrong order. That's why I ditched MTG and Hearthstone. Which is I wouldn't want even the improved Maelstrom missions to make a return - or actually, cos I know some loved it, I wouldn't mind, but I wouldn't want it to become the standard for competitive play.

 addnid wrote:
To everyone who thinks they can win at list building stage (because bla bla bla i can choose my secondaries under the current system), please think about what you are implying. You are implying that you can go to a tournament with a netlist and actually win, just like any other player.
...

The same people keep winning at top level. Richard Siegler doesn’t win at the list building stage, does he ?

You're arguing against a straw man too. See my above post. Literally nobody here is saying that player skill at the table is irrelevant and just taking the best net-list will guarantee you wins. They're saying that the current secondary objectives reward specialized list-building too much and, far from varying up the game, in fact encourage people to hyper-specialize and then play the same game every time.

Bringing up Siegler actively refutes the point you're trying to make, though. Siegler dropped his normal faction at the last minute to win the last LVO by taking the most win-at-the-list-building-stage list that ever existed in 8th edition. Ask the man yourself, he'll happily tell you that he did that to win, and that he did win LVO because he took that list. Now many other people also took that list, and they didn't win. It's not that taking a "solved" list will guarantee you a win. But Siegler absolutely could not have won on the table if he didn't also win in the list-building stage with the list he took. He knew that, which is why he did it.

I think its fair to say the 2020 LVO was "Solved" when 5 lists were Marines of two variants and 1 was essentially Marines plus 3 undercosted Ad Mech Disintegrators.

Although really Siegler could have lost in the semi-final if one of Nayden's Spears hadn't bounced, and then an Intercessor Sergeant with either a Thunder Hammer or a Power Fist (I can't quite remember) hadn't proceeded to kill 3 or 4 in return.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
there are also a couple tabletop games that are like this. I doubt you could solve any given Team Yankee game with a mechanical computer, even if you could with a digital one. Or Force-on-Force. You asserting that it is far too complicated to play simply because you can't win the game in advance doesn't actually make it too complicated to play.

You can technically solve those with the right deck of Magic cards and enough time. The thing is that nobody cares enough to devote time to these extremely niche games so they won't be solved even to the degree 40k has been.

40k, in much the same way as MtG and Hearthstone, is a victim of being a big fish in a small and extremely nerdy pond. People obsess over it and find out the nasties combos before LGS Timmy has even painted up the models from the latest box. This will happen as long as it's the biggest game in town and no changes will fix that.

I'm reminded of a question at the 2018 NOVA Convention Lord of the Rings preview that made me laugh. I'm paraphrasing, but:
40k player: "When are you going to change the scenarios that require large-scale maneuver and long range shooting so that armies which are all infantry have a chance to win?"
GW LOTR Designer: "Those missions exist to encourage players not to take armies of all infantry. Next question."

Just imagine if GW came out and said, "Yeah, we want Knights to be crap. They're cool models so we made rles for them but we really don't want to see them being too good because it doesn't fit our vision for the game." Can you picture the wailing and gnashing of teeth on this forum over that?

It was basically "why isn't there an obvious army I can build that's best at all the missions?" or, in other words, "Why don't you design the game so that I can just hyper optimize my army?" asked as if that was an expected thing.

I don't know, the question seemed like it was an honest ask about making all infantry lists viable in certain scenarios. It seems like it ought to be a valid list type given the scale of the game.

yukishiro1 wrote:
I think you're arguing against a straw-man here. Nobody is saying either (1) list-building shouldn't matter at all, or (2) skill once you get to the table doesn't matter currently.

Instead, people are saying that right now the balance feels too titled towards solving the game at the list-building stage, because there is not enough variation within the game to shake up list-based solutions to the game, and that the secondaries are contributing to this problem rather than helping solve it, which feels like the opposite of what they ought to do.

Does anybody have any data to back this up? I can show tournament data and winning lists and point out the high number of different lists and styles of lists that have done well in 9th edition thus far. Orks alone have placed in the top 4 with Buggies, Ghazzy + Skarboyz, and SAG Mekz with Stormboyz and Meganobs in Trukks, how's that for list diversity?

Yes, there are armies languishing in a nearly unplayable state Tau, Eldar, and 1k Suns and others that have it rough but can generally succeed with the help of allies like Chaos SM, Grey Knights, DE, Guard, and Chaos Knights. That's too many weak armies but even among those good with allies lists, we've seen pure DE place top 4 at major tournaments.

It really wouldn't take too much to shake up 40k scoring enough that it would be unrealistic to have pre-planned out every scenario, or to shake up list design enough to get people taking more flexible lists that can tackle a wider range of possible objectives, rather than hyper-specialized ones specifically tailored to completing the same secondary objectives in the same way every single game.

What about the list below makes it tailored and not a 'TRUE TAC LIST' like people here seem to want?



Is anybody honestly going to say that this doesn't seem like a proper fluffy Ork list or is it total powergamer skew because it doesn't run enough Boyz or some gak like that?

 addnid wrote:
To everyone who thinks they can win at list building stage (because bla bla bla i can choose my secondaries under the current system), please think about what you are implying. You are implying that you can go to a tournament with a netlist and actually win, just like any other player.

But that is not true. You will make mistakes, your plan will be destroyed by the first opponent you will face who will be much better than you at this game.

But what are we comparing this to? If I get an army with a strong set of rules and an army like lets say tau. I will of course do better with the good list, and in case of the bad lists, even if I have an in depth knowladge of tau it ain't going to help me as much, specialy vs other players playing armies better then tau, as having a list with a solid rule set. Yes if by some miracle of pairings you end up facing the tournaments winner in round 4, you are going to get destroyed, unless something happens to the dice or there are some placing games being made. But I don't think people claim, that just because a tau players knows a tau list better then a marine list, he played just a few games with or even just and army he played against, playing the tau list is going to somehow give him a better gaming expiriance.

And this gets even worse at an outside of tournament level, where a solid rules base carries a lot harder then in tournaments. Specialy against non optimised list played by people that don't play 6 times a week.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Canadian 5th wrote:


Is anybody honestly going to say that this doesn't seem like a proper fluffy Ork list or is it total powergamer skew because it doesn't run enough Boyz or some gak like that?

There is this slight problem of army rules not being equal. Nothing a harlequin player can build is unfluffy, specialy considering the number of option the army has a whole. But the end result of building a fluffy harli or custodes list is way different from trying to build a fluffy tau list. And the worse of it is that the tau player, if he tries to build an optimised list, is going to be called WAAC, which I assume is used a negative term, even when his army is weaker then the really good armies.

 Canadian 5th wrote:
My position is that list building should matter because if it doesn't you might as well give people a couple of prebuilt army templates and play games that way.

You're discussing this with several people who, from what I've gathered, view listbuilding more as a means to shape their playstyle and offer freedom in collection, and then expect the real, relevant, game-winning choices to be made on the tabletop. Hence my comment about not seeing eye to eye, because if your perspective on listbuilding is that it only matters if it gives you a benefit for doing it 'right', you are approaching the game with a completely different mindset from many others here.

Personally, I think listbuilding should matter only in that it determines what strategy is optimal for your force, not giving one player an advantage before the game even begins. A game where any two 2,000pt armies can be expected to actually be roughly equal in power (if played correctly) is my ideal. 40K isn't there.

 Canadian 5th wrote:
I also want as much choice as possible in list building, yes even trap choices, because it can be enjoyable to play a suboptimal list either for a campaign or as a handicap against a weaker player.

That is by far the weirdest justification I have heard for deliberate imbalance. You can always just use a points handicap. No need to make a particular unit suck for everyone.

 Canadian 5th wrote:
Does Infinity not have any list building styles that tend to be weaker than others? Are there skilled players and unskilled players and do those skilled players tend to take specific types of actions that work better than others?

Infinity has you build your list after the mission is known, so it doesn't have 'tournament lists' the way 40K does. And in my experience, there isn't nearly the sort of conformity in lists that I see in 40K. Your list determines what options you have on the table, not whether you start with a massive advantage or disadvantage. It's very hard to write a 'bad list', and it's much, much harder to netlist.

 catbarf wrote:
You're discussing this with several people who, from what I've gathered, view listbuilding more as a means to shape their playstyle and offer freedom in collection, and then expect the real, relevant, game-winning choices to be made on the tabletop. Hence my comment about not seeing eye to eye, because if your perspective on listbuilding is that it only matters if it gives you a benefit for doing it 'right', you are approaching the game with a completely different mindset from many others here.

Personally, I think listbuilding should matter only in that it determines what strategy is optimal for your force, not giving one player an advantage before the game even begins. A game where any two 2,000pt armies can be expected to actually be roughly equal in power (if played correctly) is my ideal. 40K isn't there.

Yes, because a list of light infantry themed around WWI trench warfare and packing nothing heavier than mortars and heavy bolters should have a 50/50 matchup against a mechanized force that hides their troops in transports and brings a lot of T8 heavy hitters... Those two lists might be equal in power against a theoretical TAC list but the actual power of either list will depend heavily on the meta and what the lists they face bring to the table.

In a game with as broad a list of forces as 40k and nothing like real history to bar certain lists from facing other lists, it's impossible to make list building cease to be a significant factor in the outcome of a game.

That is by far the weirdest justification I have heard for deliberate imbalance. You can always just use a points handicap. No need to make a particular unit suck for everyone.

Please show me how you'd differentiate conscripts/penal legions from normal guardsmen without making one of the options a trap choice. Would the game benefit from removing one of those two units and forcing players to make their themed lists play with counts as units? I don't think it would.

Infinity has you build your list after the mission is known, so it doesn't have 'tournament lists' the way 40K does. And in my experience, there isn't nearly the sort of conformity in lists that I see in 40K. Your list determines what options you have on the table, not whether you start with a massive advantage or disadvantage. It's very hard to write a 'bad list', and it's much, much harder to netlist.

In any game where the outcome of an attack is determined by logically consistent rules, there will be good choices and bad choices. Plus, as I understand it the scope of Infinity starts and ends at human-sized models with nothing heavier than a suit of power armor at the top end of the scale. That makes it much easier to balance than a game that wants to include everything from goblins the size of large dogs to walking tanks the size of an office building.

There is this slight problem of army rules not being equal. Nothing a harlequin player can build is unfluffy, specialy considering the number of option the army has a whole. But the end result of building a fluffy harli or custodes list is way different from trying to build a fluffy tau list. And the worse of it is that the tau player, if he tries to build an optimised list, is going to be called WAAC, which I assume is used a negative term, even when his army is weaker then the really good armies.

Yet people on Dakka are saying that Orks need buffs and are only winning because they skew against the anti-marine meta... They're not trash tier like a few especially bad off books but even saying that DE have made top placings in 9th. When a book that has the negative perception of the DE codex can take a place at top tables that has to say something about the balance of 9th edition and the level to which player skill matters.

Yeah just do what Infinity does.

 BlackoCatto wrote:
Yeah just do what Infinity does.

Not sure if sarcastic or not but would that also include cutting every vehicle, including walkers, and cutting down model counts to around 10 per side?

Canadian 5th wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
Canadian 5th, as I recall you've said in the past that you prefer a game where listbuilding is a key element, and that you like the idea of some units being deliberately undercosted or overcosted because learning which units are optimal and which are traps is fun for you.

That's not exactly my position. My position is that list building should matter because if it doesn't you might as well give people a couple of prebuilt army templates and play games that way. I also want as much choice as possible in list building, yes even trap choices, because it can be enjoyable to play a suboptimal list either for a campaign or as a handicap against a weaker player.

I don't think anybody is arguing that list building should not matter at all. The argument is mostly of scale - ie: should it be 10% of the input for victory? 40%? 80%? To many, it feels it skews to far too high a percentage of victory chance goes to list building, to the detriment of on the board strategy and missions. I haven't played much 9th so I cannot really say what the slider is, but I'm just trying to explain the reasonings people are mentioning on list building.

Canadian 5th wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
You're discussing this with several people who, from what I've gathered, view listbuilding more as a means to shape their playstyle and offer freedom in collection, and then expect the real, relevant, game-winning choices to be made on the tabletop. Hence my comment about not seeing eye to eye, because if your perspective on listbuilding is that it only matters if it gives you a benefit for doing it 'right', you are approaching the game with a completely different mindset from many others here.

Personally, I think listbuilding should matter only in that it determines what strategy is optimal for your force, not giving one player an advantage before the game even begins. A game where any two 2,000pt armies can be expected to actually be roughly equal in power (if played correctly) is my ideal. 40K isn't there.

Yes, because a list of light infantry themed around WWI trench warfare and packing nothing heavier than mortars and heavy bolters should have a 50/50 matchup against a mechanized force that hides their troops in transports and brings a lot of T8 heavy hitters... Those two lists might be equal in power against a theoretical TAC list but the actual power of either list will depend heavily on the meta and what the lists they face bring to the table.

In a game with as broad a list of forces as 40k and nothing like real history to bar certain lists from facing other lists, it's impossible to make list building cease to be a significant factor in the outcome of a game.

Like I said above, few are arguing that list building should have zero impact on winning, the argument is more that you should be able to build a list that doesn't put you at an automatic disadvantage due to trap choices.

In your example, depending on the mission I could easily see the win rate swing one way or another - in a heavily cluttered urban area where the big vehicles cannot really put their power to bear the mechanized list could be at a disadvantage for taking hold of objectives and taking out an entrenched force, meanwhile in a low terrain map with little cover, the mech list could just pick off the infantry list at its leisure and stroll up to objectives to hold them.

Ie: people are arguing that terrain, mission objectives, and your strategy vs your opponent's strategy should count for more than list building.

 Canadian 5th wrote:
Yes, because a list of light infantry themed around WWI trench warfare and packing nothing heavier than mortars and heavy bolters should have a 50/50 matchup against a mechanized force that hides their troops in transports and brings a lot of T8 heavy hitters... Those two lists might be equal in power against a theoretical TAC list but the actual power of either list will depend heavily on the meta and what the lists they face bring to the table.

In a game with as broad a list of forces as 40k and nothing like real history to bar certain lists from facing other lists, it's impossible to make list building cease to be a significant factor in the outcome of a game.

If your scenario design renders those vehicles (and infantry within them) unable to score, while the light infantry with their pioneers and stosstruppen can forward-deploy onto mission-critical objectives, you just might be able to eke a fun and possibly even balanced game out of light infantry desperately using what little they have to stall the advance of armored forces for as long as possible.

Of course that's a total non-starter if mechanized man can decide that his force's objective is to turn the enemy into red mist. Hence the point of this discussion tangent. Player-chosen objectives afford too much power over scenario conditions; turning potentially asymmetrical matchups into one-sided stomps.

 Canadian 5th wrote:
Please show me how you'd differentiate conscripts/penal legions from normal guardsmen without making one of the options a trap choice. Would the game benefit from removing one of those two units and forcing players to make their themed lists play with counts as units? I don't think it would.

Well, if I get in my time machine and pop back to... 4th, if I recall correctly, both Infantry and Conscripts were worth taking. Conscripts were cheaper and came in large units but had no access to heavy weapons and fled easily, while Infantry were more expensive but better combatants taken in smaller units. Conscripts were your 'send in the next wave' meatshield. Infantry were your actual combatants. It was completely viable to build an army out of entirely one or the other.

I struggle to understand why this is your go-to gotcha- it sounds like you're trying to say that it's impossible to balance Guardsmen and Conscripts against one another, so the logical choice is to make Conscripts suck so that they can deliberately be a trap unit or handicap, and that's absurd. There is always a points level that will make any choice equally viable to its peers, whether or not GW can find it.

 Canadian 5th wrote:
Plus, as I understand it the scope of Infinity starts and ends at human-sized models with nothing heavier than a suit of power armor at the top end of the scale. That makes it much easier to balance than a game that wants to include everything from goblins the size of large dogs to walking tanks the size of an office building.

The scope of 40K's mechanics amount to shooting, punching, and the occasional magic power. Infinity has shooting, punching, functional stealth, functional evasion, hacking, overwatch, and a host of other mechanics for which 40K clumsily doles out invulnerable saves or mortal wounds. Size discrepancy is certainly a problem for 40K's balance but it's not the be-all and end-all of design complexity; if you are trying to make the case that Infinity has a narrower scope and is consequently easier to balance, you are very far off the mark.

 kurhanik wrote:
I don't think anybody is arguing that list building should not matter at all. The argument is mostly of scale - ie: should it be 10% of the input for victory? 40%? 80%? To many, it feels it skews to far too high a percentage of victory chance goes to list building, to the detriment of on the board strategy and missions. I haven't played much 9th so I cannot really say what the slider is, but I'm just trying to explain the reasonings people are mentioning on list building.

Nobody has actually shown that list building actually has an outsized impact. If both players bring lists designed for the same style of play, for example, WAAC tournament lists, are the lists doing much heavy lifting at all? There's obviously a level where this breaks and one list is so much better than another list that the list does basically win the game before anything is even on the table, but in that case, do the secondary objectives even matter?

Like I said above, few are arguing that list building should have zero impact on winning, the argument is more that you should be able to build a list that doesn't put you at an automatic disadvantage due to trap choices.

In your example, depending on the mission I could easily see the win rate swing one way or another - in a heavily cluttered urban area where the big vehicles cannot really put their power to bear the mechanized list could be at a disadvantage for taking hold of objectives and taking out an entrenched force, meanwhile in a low terrain map with little cover, the mech list could just pick off the infantry list at its leisure and stroll up to objectives to hold them.

Ie: people are arguing that terrain, mission objectives, and your strategy vs your opponent's strategy should count for more than list building.

You can already do that. Just don't use the trap options and build optimized lists and play against others doing the same.

Your urban example doesn't work in 9th either, objectives will always create open spaces and it would be incredibly bad form to make a board with streets so narrow vehicles can't use them. Given that vehicle facing no longer matters the vehicles would have an easy time poking some part of their hull around a corner and laying waste to the enemy.