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.

The_Real_Chris wrote:

 kirotheavenger wrote:
But the other problem is that those strategems and traits and stuff are the game.
If you strip those out you're left with the 5 pages of core rules, which is pretty much a straight forward "roll dice, remove enemy models" attack resolution and nothing else.
That's not a good game.

That’s a conscious design choice though. Interestingly it was a total flop with apocalypse even though h the at turned the various design trends up to 11.

Actually pretty much everyone that I've spoken to that's played 40k thought it would be a better 40k ruleset than 40k is.
I remember several discussions, including on Dakka, hoping that many of the mechanics would be brought into 9th edition and I still see some of them mentioned today.
Apocalypse flopped for a lot of reasons; it was an expensive box of nothing but cardboard. Most people just don't have the means to play apocalypse games either. The core rules being bad doesn't appear to be one of the reasons though.

 AnomanderRake wrote:


But the most powerful and oppressive things in 7th were specific rules, so we could find them easily and turn them off.

Unless you played eldar or tau .

You can always avoid 9th powerful combos. Stratagem X makes unit Y overpowered? Play unit Y, don't use stratagem X, broken combinations can easily be avoided. Avoiding the most powerful traits, stratagems, psychic powers it's the same than avoiding units and it's easier than making house rules and convince other players to accept them.

 kirotheavenger wrote:

The_Real_Chris wrote:

 kirotheavenger wrote:
But the other problem is that those strategems and traits and stuff are the game.
If you strip those out you're left with the 5 pages of core rules, which is pretty much a straight forward "roll dice, remove enemy models" attack resolution and nothing else.
That's not a good game.

That’s a conscious design choice though. Interestingly it was a total flop with apocalypse even though h the at turned the various design trends up to 11.

Actually pretty much everyone that I've spoken to that's played 40k thought it would be a better 40k ruleset than 40k is.
I remember several discussions, including on Dakka, hoping that many of the mechanics would be brought into 9th edition and I still see some of them mentioned today.
Apocalypse flopped for a lot of reasons; it was an expensive box of nothing but cardboard. Most people just don't have the means to play apocalypse games either. The core rules being bad doesn't appear to be one of the reasons though.

I've played the new Apocalypse a few times, and every time it took us longer to get models out and put them away than it did to actually play. It's a ruleset for playing Epic, not for the time and effort it takes to collect, build, paint, and transport a full-size Apoc army.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
But the other problem is that those strategems and traits and stuff are the game.
If you strip those out you're left with the 5 pages of core rules, which is pretty much a straight forward "roll dice, remove enemy models" attack resolution and nothing else.
That's not a good game.

Probably. One thing I'm keen to try at one point is a game of 9th where each strat is only useable once per game, just to see if that pushes it more towards decisions on the table being more important than burning through a dozen CPs in a single turn. I suspect it won't improve things much but it's something I'm willing to try.

 Blackie wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:


But the most powerful and oppressive things in 7th were specific rules, so we could find them easily and turn them off.

Unless you played eldar or tau .

You can always avoid 9th powerful combos. Stratagem X makes unit Y overpowered? Play unit Y, don't use stratagem X, broken combinations can easily be avoided. Avoiding the most powerful traits, stratagems, psychic powers it's the same than avoiding units and it's easier than making house rules and convince other players to accept them.

I'm not talking about the tournament people who refuse to consider doing anything other than playing tournament missions with tournament armies. I'm talking about the casual crowd that are happy to try and play softer lists, or accept some house rules, or do a homebrew mission or whatever, and then find that we're still getting in one-sided table wipes anyway because the gulf between good units and bad units in 40k is so vast that weak units from a strong Codex are going to steamroll over strong units from a weak Codex.

In my observation that is usually because of bad movement on one of the player's side and coupled with high lethality of most stuff.

Can you elaborate where you saw these kind of tablings? I'm especially interested in examples between 9th edition armies.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:


But the most powerful and oppressive things in 7th were specific rules, so we could find them easily and turn them off.

Unless you played eldar or tau .

You can always avoid 9th powerful combos. Stratagem X makes unit Y overpowered? Play unit Y, don't use stratagem X, broken combinations can easily be avoided. Avoiding the most powerful traits, stratagems, psychic powers it's the same than avoiding units and it's easier than making house rules and convince other players to accept them.

I'm not talking about the tournament people who refuse to consider doing anything other than playing tournament missions with tournament armies. I'm talking about the casual crowd that are happy to try and play softer lists, or accept some house rules, or do a homebrew mission or whatever, and then find that we're still getting in one-sided table wipes anyway because the gulf between good units and bad units in 40k is so vast that weak units from a strong Codex are going to steamroll over strong units from a weak Codex.

Balance is out of context for this thread about Complexity in 40k, there are balanced complex games and balanced simple games, there are imbalanced complex games and imbalanced simple games. Tau have gone 7/1 at a GTs and Genestealer Cults have gone 4/1 at a GT, that is weak armies taking their best units and going against the best armies. I've won all 4 of my casual games against Tau Empire in 9th edition, but you can make some really quick fixes to help Tau along, like just not allowing people to take faction-objectives against them since Tau lack faction-objectives, you can also just give Tau free points or victory points.

That is true, but everything can be scaled. If lets say tau win 1 event every 3 months, and have a high placing every month or so, then they are not on the same level as an army which has top placings each week and a top 4 or tournament win every 2-3 weeks.

It is just not the same. I remember in 8th some genius dude winning two GT with GK year after year. I was mind blown by it, and how could he have done it. And even more so, when his list was more or less what everyone else was running.

Trends are important just as singular event wins. Of course the really bad things happen, when no one can win a GT with a faction or the faction is just not played.

To be honest I am not sure what is worse, being below 50% on a consistant manner or being something like Crimson Fists, where you practically don't have data on them.

Ok, so if you tweak and tweak 40K after adquiring great knowledge of the system nuances and with a great investment of time, effort and good faith by all the players suddenly you have a sonewhat functional and balanced game.

Seems reasonable. :(

Vatsetis wrote:
Ok, so if you tweak and tweak 40K after adquiring great knowledge of the system nuances and with a great investment of time, effort and good faith by all the players suddenly you have a sonewhat functional and balanced game.

Seems reasonable. :(

Games are rarely balanced, even with angelic intentions it's hard, many games have bad intentions as they try to sell this or that. The only time GW should be criticized is when they are doing obviously stupid stuff like making rules changes without considering the points value change the rule needs to be balanced or more or less randomly changing points for a new edition instead of just testing things out with the old points and seeing what happens. All GW needed to do was say that the points limit for Strike Force games are 1750 if they wanted smaller games, instead of increasing the points costs of 3 point models and 18 point models by 2 points or some random garbo like that, then they could have taken stock after 3 months and seen which way the wind was blowing, come out with beta points and then release a final version after a year, but we still suffer from all the terrible mistakes made in CA2020, it should have just been thrown out.

Vatsetis wrote:
Ok, so if you tweak and tweak 40K after adquiring great knowledge of the system nuances and with a great investment of time, effort and good faith by all the players suddenly you have a sonewhat functional and balanced game.

Seems reasonable. :(

Balance is subjective. To me 40k is already balanced enough that doesn't need a single tweak. But sometimes a player can have a collection of models that really struggles, can't invest more or he doesn't have battle ready models to make changes immediately and then I don't see any issue in playing against him by using some tweaks.

 AnomanderRake wrote:


As to Sigmar I've never played it with people who are serious about it; every time a new edition happens some people at the game store I hang out at get all excited and we all pull our armies out and give it a go, and the shove-minis-into-the-center-then-roll-dice-until-someone-dies gameplay feels a lot like 8e WHFB somehow, and then we all get bored and stop. I'm sure if you're playing at a tournament level and only playing with the most optimal stuff there's a game there, but at a casual level it's really dull. Though you could tell me that it's a great game if I just bought different models, somehow I think I'd laugh my ass off at that.

This is so far removed from what AoS is about, even at a casual level. Sounds like a description of 1st edition AoS mind.

Regarding 40k, it's not complicated but it is a convoluted mess. When 9th dropped, I dropped 40k as a tournament game and play only occasionally and against like-minded opponents I know and trust. Much prefer AoS at the minute... although it does have it's own issues.

 vict0988 wrote:

Vatsetis wrote:
Ok, so if you tweak and tweak 40K after adquiring great knowledge of the system nuances and with a great investment of time, effort and good faith by all the players suddenly you have a sonewhat functional and balanced game.

Seems reasonable. :(

Games are rarely balanced, even with angelic intentions it's hard, many games have bad intentions as they try to sell this or that. The only time GW should be criticized is when they are doing obviously stupid stuff like making rules changes without considering the points value change the rule needs to be balanced or more or less randomly changing points for a new edition instead of just testing things out with the old points and seeing what happens. All GW needed to do was say that the points limit for Strike Force games are 1750 if they wanted smaller games, instead of increasing the points costs of 3 point models and 18 point models by 2 points or some random garbo like that, then they could have taken stock after 3 months and seen which way the wind was blowing, come out with beta points and then release a final version after a year, but we still suffer from all the terrible mistakes made in CA2020, it should have just been thrown out.

But why should GW do things reasonably if so many people endorse their bad practices by playing a garbage game?

If you are corporation and can get rich doing the minimum because your fan base is so deep into the sunken cost fallacy that they almost behave as cult followers and your position on your niche market is so dominant that is almost a monopoly what is the incentive to do things properly?

Is the challenging games those that have to do things in a smart and effective manner.

GW can manage its flagship with the same level of ***** as the F35 jet.

Vatsetis wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

Vatsetis wrote:
Ok, so if you tweak and tweak 40K after adquiring great knowledge of the system nuances and with a great investment of time, effort and good faith by all the players suddenly you have a sonewhat functional and balanced game.

Seems reasonable. :(

Games are rarely balanced, even with angelic intentions it's hard, many games have bad intentions as they try to sell this or that. The only time GW should be criticized is when they are doing obviously stupid stuff like making rules changes without considering the points value change the rule needs to be balanced or more or less randomly changing points for a new edition instead of just testing things out with the old points and seeing what happens. All GW needed to do was say that the points limit for Strike Force games are 1750 if they wanted smaller games, instead of increasing the points costs of 3 point models and 18 point models by 2 points or some random garbo like that, then they could have taken stock after 3 months and seen which way the wind was blowing, come out with beta points and then release a final version after a year, but we still suffer from all the terrible mistakes made in CA2020, it should have just been thrown out.

But why should GW do things reasonably if so many people endorse their bad practices by playing a garbage game?

If you are corporation and can get rich doing the minimum because your fan base is so deep into the sunken cost fallacy that they almost behave as cult followers and your position on your niche market is so dominant that is almost a monopoly what is the incentive to do things properly?

Is the challenging games those that have to do things in a smart and effective manner.

I don't believe fixing the game would cost more money and I think GW would grow faster if they tightened things up.

a_typical_hero wrote:
In my observation that is usually because of bad movement on one of the player's side and coupled with high lethality of most stuff.

Can you elaborate where you saw these kind of tablings? I'm especially interested in examples between 9th edition armies.

When I was a defender during 8th edition I was told the casual meta doesn't matter, because GW doesn't balance the game based on casual games. Please stop using your fluffy wuffy perfect care bear meta where people can bring a list of pyrovore spam and still compete because everyone is just so gosh darn friendly and sporting as representation of the 40k meta. Thank you.

Also the last game I watched was Space Marines vs Druhkari, DE got first turn and the SM player was out of the game on DE turn 2 due to melee charges. He was tabled top of 4 I think? Our meta is also casual btw.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blackie wrote:

Easiest fix for casual 40k has always been to avoid the most powerful and oppressive units, it's much better than changing rules. Works perfectly even in 9th.

What if the units you like the most are the ones that become broken? I've used genestealers in my nids armies for years, even when they were crap I stuck with them, then they became good in 8th. So I should just stop using them? How is that fair? If screamer killer become insanely OP should I just put the 8 I own on the shelf because GW's blindfolded throw of the Dart Of Unintentional Brokeness happened to land on them?

 vict0988 wrote:

Vatsetis wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

Vatsetis wrote:
Ok, so if you tweak and tweak 40K after adquiring great knowledge of the system nuances and with a great investment of time, effort and good faith by all the players suddenly you have a sonewhat functional and balanced game.

Seems reasonable. :(

Games are rarely balanced, even with angelic intentions it's hard, many games have bad intentions as they try to sell this or that. The only time GW should be criticized is when they are doing obviously stupid stuff like making rules changes without considering the points value change the rule needs to be balanced or more or less randomly changing points for a new edition instead of just testing things out with the old points and seeing what happens. All GW needed to do was say that the points limit for Strike Force games are 1750 if they wanted smaller games, instead of increasing the points costs of 3 point models and 18 point models by 2 points or some random garbo like that, then they could have taken stock after 3 months and seen which way the wind was blowing, come out with beta points and then release a final version after a year, but we still suffer from all the terrible mistakes made in CA2020, it should have just been thrown out.

But why should GW do things reasonably if so many people endorse their bad practices by playing a garbage game?

If you are corporation and can get rich doing the minimum because your fan base is so deep into the sunken cost fallacy that they almost behave as cult followers and your position on your niche market is so dominant that is almost a monopoly what is the incentive to do things properly?

Is the challenging games those that have to do things in a smart and effective manner.

I don't believe fixing the game would cost more money and I think GW would grow faster if they tightened things up.

You are probably right... But GW dont have an incentive to do so at the moment because a significant part of the community endorse its bad practices... Therefore they can behave like an abussive husband with impunity.

 Sim-Life wrote:

a_typical_hero wrote:
In my observation that is usually because of bad movement on one of the player's side and coupled with high lethality of most stuff.

Can you elaborate where you saw these kind of tablings? I'm especially interested in examples between 9th edition armies.

When I was a defender during 8th edition I was told the casual meta doesn't matter, because GW doesn't balance the game based on casual games. Please stop using your fluffy wuffy perfect care bear meta where people can bring a list of pyrovore spam and still compete because everyone is just so gosh darn friendly and sporting as representation of the 40k meta. Thank you.

Also the last game I watched was Space Marines vs Druhkari, DE got first turn and the SM player was out of the game on DE turn 2 due to melee charges. He was tabled top of 4 I think? Our meta is also casual btw.

Lol, are you alright mate? What has your incoherent rambling to do with the question I asked a different poster? Do you really have the audacity to dictate me what questions I ask on a forum? What has my local meta to do with this at all? For reasons unknown, you seem to have a little hate boner going on. Chill.

Well a question about tabeling in 9th, seems to be kind of an open question. Why wouldn't anyones expiriance be invalide here?

And you are not going to tell me that when pre nerf DE were a thing, you haven't played or seen games, which on turn 2 looked like this. Either I move on to objectives and he charges and shots you with the entire army. And then you lose on points on turn 4. Or you do not do it, he scores for two turns and the gap is now so big between you and him, that the game is done on turn 2, because there is no coming back from a 40+VPs difference vs an intact good or very good army.

Seeing stuff like that has nothing to do with hate or no hate for w40k. It is just things that happned and will happen in the future. Maybe not all armies have the option to do it. But a lot of players and game testers, say that there is an underlining problem of good armies in 9th playing soliter.And not really being very interactive with the opponent or even requiring to interact with the opponent. You just score max points for doing stuff you would already do, often double or triple dipping on something, or your armies mobility is so high that you ignore stuff like terrain.

There is also a huge problem of faction secondaries which for some armies are a bit too easy to do, while some factions have bad ones or worse, they don't have them at all, because their codex is planed for mid 2022.

I'm not dismissing Sim-Life's experience, I'm asking what

When I was a defender during 8th edition I was told the casual meta doesn't matter, because GW doesn't balance the game based on casual games. Please stop using your fluffy wuffy perfect care bear meta where people can bring a list of pyrovore spam and still compete because everyone is just so gosh darn friendly and sporting as representation of the 40k meta. Thank you.

has to do with me asking about the circumstances of the tabling. I didn't say anything in defense of the game when I asked, did I?

a_typical_hero wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

a_typical_hero wrote:
In my observation that is usually because of bad movement on one of the player's side and coupled with high lethality of most stuff.

Can you elaborate where you saw these kind of tablings? I'm especially interested in examples between 9th edition armies.

When I was a defender during 8th edition I was told the casual meta doesn't matter, because GW doesn't balance the game based on casual games. Please stop using your fluffy wuffy perfect care bear meta where people can bring a list of pyrovore spam and still compete because everyone is just so gosh darn friendly and sporting as representation of the 40k meta. Thank you.

Also the last game I watched was Space Marines vs Druhkari, DE got first turn and the SM player was out of the game on DE turn 2 due to melee charges. He was tabled top of 4 I think? Our meta is also casual btw.

Lol, are you alright mate? What has your incoherent rambling to do with the question I asked a different poster? Do you really have the audacity to dictate me what questions I ask on a forum? What has my local meta to do with this at all? For reasons unknown, you seem to have a little hate boner going on. Chill.

You keep refering to your group and about how casual and friendly it all is. This is not the normal experience people will have with 40k, most people will have to play randoms, not have the choice to play anything but Matched 2k no house rules, opponents won't tone down lists or any combination thereof, therefore your opinions on the game and the meta are of no use to the discussion. It's pretty simple.

 Sim-Life wrote:
You keep refering to your group and about how casual and friendly it all is. This is not the normal experience people will have with 40k, most people will have to play randoms, not have the choice to play anything but Matched 2k no house rules, opponents won't tone down lists or any combination thereof, therefore your opinions on the game and the meta are of no use to the discussion. It's pretty simple.

Maybe you are confusing two threads with each other, but this one here is about how complex the game is. Apart from a sidetrack on internal balance on units in 9th armies, my contribution so far has been that personally, I don't feel it is too complex and I elaborated why and how others could approach the situation to trim down the perceived complexity / bloat of rules to know before and during the game.

And please provide some stats on how many groups are strictly "Matched 2k no house rules, opponents won't tone down lists or any combination thereof" compared to the rest of the playerbase, or stop telling me my opinion doesn't matter, thank you. Be so kind and do it in a PM, as that is off-topic.

Well even if we asume someone only plays casual. Which isn't nothing special, I played in my last even over a year ago, and before that over 2 year ago. You would have play open or some really modified version of narrative, and I mean like really modified, to not run in to serious problems while playing 9th ed. Which I still considered a lot better then 8th by the way. Just play a game of casual csm vs casual DE or AD mecha, and it is automaticly visible. Armies like tau or knights have been designed mechanically to work within the 8th ed rule set, and have problems adjusting to 9th. Specially if someone doesn't go all out for some top tier tournament list. And we assume that the normal state for casual play is all people playing casual and not just people with new or good books, and everything else bringing their GT winning clone lists.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

a_typical_hero 800120 11205701 wrote:And please provide some stats on how many groups are strictly "Matched 2k no house rules, opponents won't tone down lists or any combination thereof" compared to the rest of the playerbase, or stop telling me my opinion doesn't matter, thank you. Be so kind and do it in a PM, as that is off-topic.

In forums all around the world and on YT and Twitch you have people talk more about matched played games then about any other way of playing. If open or narrative was the way majority of how people play, there would be a lot more material about it. And I mean around the world.

 Sim-Life wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:
You know, it just occurred to me that if you don't battleforge your armies, you get one CP per turn, no detachment or army purity rules.

Huh. Paint one dude a different colour and half the problems that everyone's been complaining about... just disappear.

Go figure.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume this is a joke.

I'm not sure why.

Most of the extraneous rules that people have been complaining about are rules that you get when you battleforge your armies.

When you don't battleforge, these rules do not apply.

I understand that the tournament scene doesn't do open play. I realize your local group might not do open play. Neither of these things are directly under GW's control. Whenever one of us points out that there are three ways to play in the core book, we get accused of telling you how to play, but that doesn't change the fact that the BRB includes a version of the game where your CP are limited to 1 per turn, strats are limited to the generic ones and neither subfaction nor army purity rules apply.

You don't need to modify a single printed rule to make it happen. You just have to stop battleforging your armies.

And hell, if you use the open war deck, you don't even need to worry about secondaries!

Now if you know all this already, and the issue is that you can't find anyone who plays that way, maybe there's a reason for that. Maybe the people with whom you are seeking games aren't as unhappy with the Strat/ Subfaction/ Faction rules as you think they are.

My problem is it's not up to me.
Sure, I can stop using a battleforged army. But my opponent isn't going to oblige so I'd just be slitting my own throat before the game has even started.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

As to Sigmar I've never played it with people who are serious about it; every time a new edition happens some people at the game store I hang out at get all excited and we all pull our armies out and give it a go, and the shove-minis-into-the-center-then-roll-dice-until-someone-dies gameplay feels a lot like 8e WHFB somehow, and then we all get bored and stop. I'm sure if you're playing at a tournament level and only playing with the most optimal stuff there's a game there, but at a casual level it's really dull. Though you could tell me that it's a great game if I just bought different models, somehow I think I'd laugh my ass off at that.

Even in the first days of AoS, before it had points and when it had silly rules like pretending to ride a horse to get bonuses to hit, I have never played a game like this. I've played maybe 3 "serious" games of AoS in my life (and even then, that was at a doubles tournament at NOVA against such serious players as the guy who purposefully made his Nagash walk off the board edge and lost the game) and ever since 3.0 came out every game has been Narrative/Open War which have even less objectives than usual and are almost always focused towards killing and even then the game has never had a "shove-minis-into-the-center-then-roll-dice-until-someone-dies gameplay". This experience is just so far removed from what me or anybody else I know has experienced that I can't even really figure out where the disconnect could be, UNLESS by "I've never played with people who are serious about it" means you've only played with people who specifically seek out and perform "shove-minis-into-the-center-then-roll-dice-until-someone-dies gameplay". In which case I'd hardly rate that as a game problem. Like, sure, if all you do is shove-minis-in-the-center-then-roll-dice-until-someone-dies, that's... that's what the game is going to be for you.

I don't even know what models you've bought. I've never met a player who brought the most optimal stuff, except maybe a Khorne player in 2e at the local store who has always been fairly unpleasant to play against in every game system.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

But the most powerful and oppressive things in 7th were specific rules, so we could find them easily and turn them off. The most powerful and oppressive things in 9th are combos, which you need to understand thoroughly to figure out what actually makes it OP and how to fix it. I feel like I'd have to become a tournament player to gain the knowledge and expertise to be able to play 9th casually, which sort of defeats the point of wanting to play casually at all, which is why I keep accusing 9th of being written for the tournament players.

You really don't need to understand thoroughly? I don't see why 9th edition is any different than 7th edition in this regard. Oh, D-weapons feel too strong? Okay, let's use a nerfed version of D-weapons. Did that really require you to have a deep understanding of WHY D-weapons were too strong? Why does "stratagems feel too strong, let's not use them" require any more of a deeper understanding? It feels like there is some sort of mental block going on here where 9th is "too complex to change" for arbitrary reasons and 7th is not even though it's the same concept.

Karol wrote:
...

In forums all around the world and on YT and Twitch you have people talk more about matched played games then about any other way of playing. If open or narrative was the way majority of how people play, there would be a lot more material about it. And I mean around the world.

Go ask in a hardware enthusiast forum about their PC specs. Compare the result with what people are actually using on Steam.

Matched play is neither at odds with a casual approach nor does it automatically mean "2k tournament lists, RAW only". For example threads in the past showed how divided people on Dakka are about handing out 10 VP for a fully painted army. So all of those people who don't use the rule aren't playing "Matched 2k no house rules, opponents won't tone down lists or any combination thereof" already. So the opinion of half (made up number) of all the posters from those threads are irrelevant? Bold

And if we want to take this forum as representitive, don't forget the other thread about point sizes being played. It was far from "2k only".

 vict0988 wrote:

Vatsetis wrote:
Ok, so if you tweak and tweak 40K after adquiring great knowledge of the system nuances and with a great investment of time, effort and good faith by all the players suddenly you have a sonewhat functional and balanced game.

Seems reasonable. :(

Games are rarely balanced, even with angelic intentions it's hard, many games have bad intentions as they try to sell this or that. The only time GW should be criticized is when they are doing obviously stupid stuff like making rules changes without considering the points value change the rule needs to be balanced or more or less randomly changing points for a new edition instead of just testing things out with the old points and seeing what happens. All GW needed to do was say that the points limit for Strike Force games are 1750 if they wanted smaller games, instead of increasing the points costs of 3 point models and 18 point models by 2 points or some random garbo like that, then they could have taken stock after 3 months and seen which way the wind was blowing, come out with beta points and then release a final version after a year, but we still suffer from all the terrible mistakes made in CA2020, it should have just been thrown out.

Gw doesn't set what players play though. Gw says x points, players keep playing.

Also in case you lived under the rock when points changed it wasn't flat increase same for all. If it was you would know 100% sure increases were wrong.

PenitentJake wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:
You know, it just occurred to me that if you don't battleforge your armies, you get one CP per turn, no detachment or army purity rules.

Huh. Paint one dude a different colour and half the problems that everyone's been complaining about... just disappear.

Go figure.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume this is a joke.

I'm not sure why.

Because the implication is that I would be the only one doing it, not my opponent. Meaning that you're putting forward that I should deliberately hobble myself in order to enjoy the game, which makes no sense.

 Sim-Life wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:
You know, it just occurred to me that if you don't battleforge your armies, you get one CP per turn, no detachment or army purity rules.

Huh. Paint one dude a different colour and half the problems that everyone's been complaining about... just disappear.

Go figure.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume this is a joke.

I'm not sure why.

Because the implication is that I would be the only one doing it, not my opponent. Meaning that you're putting forward that I should deliberately hobble myself in order to enjoy the game, which makes no sense.

No. I'm implying that is YOUR responsibility to find someone to play Open play with, if that's the system you prefer. Games Workshop can make a book that contains 3 ways to play and 4 game sizes on top of that for a total of 12 combinations.

They can't reasonably be expected to introduce you to players so that you can play your prefered option.

Monopoly can take up to 5 players: if you personally feel that 4 player games are awesome and that 2 player games are dull, it is up to YOU to find 3 other people to play with, not Milton Bradley.

Some people play chess with turn timers, some do not. If you like timers but nobody you play with likes to use them, that's unfortunate for you, but it doesn't make chess a bad game.

PenitentJake wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:
You know, it just occurred to me that if you don't battleforge your armies, you get one CP per turn, no detachment or army purity rules.

Huh. Paint one dude a different colour and half the problems that everyone's been complaining about... just disappear.

Go figure.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume this is a joke.

I'm not sure why.

Because the implication is that I would be the only one doing it, not my opponent. Meaning that you're putting forward that I should deliberately hobble myself in order to enjoy the game, which makes no sense.

No. I'm implying that is YOUR responsibility to find someone to play Open play with, if that's the system you prefer. Games Workshop can make a book that contains 3 ways to play and 4 game sizes on top of that for a total of 12 combinations.

They can't reasonably be expected to introduce you to players so that you can play your prefered option.

Monopoly can take up to 5 players: if you personally feel that 4 player games are awesome and that 2 player games are dull, it is up to YOU to find 3 other people to play with, not Milton Bradley.

Some people play chess with turn timers, some do not. If you like timers but nobody you play with likes to use them, that's unfortunate for you, but it doesn't make chess a bad game.

This is something you "40k is fine if you just find the right players" guys keep trotting out like we haven't TRIED to do this. You live in constant denial that maybe not everyone has a vibrant and varied community of gamers with easy travel distance. You think Karol hasn't tried to find other players? The fact that he still plays despite living in a WAAC hell hole is a testament to the guy that I don't think people give him enough credit for. The whole reason I quit 40k is because no one wants to play anything except 9th Ed RAW 2k Matched and the next nearest group is a 2 hour round trip to get to (I think, might be 3 hours). Even my CURRENT group is often nearly an hours drive time depending on who is hosting.

Its actually easier to wait out GW fixing their game than find other players.