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.
If you try playing 9e with statlines only and no stratagems, WTs, etc., etc., you'll find that GW couldn't do the math when they were writing the statlines in the Indexes, and there are a lot of really basic things about the statlines (wound counts/damage counts, the to-wound table, how saves and AP are allocated, where stats cap out, what has an Invulnerable save, the relationship between ranges and move stats...) that are pretty badly broken from day zero. There are bits of subsequent bloat (the Blast rule, damage reduction) that exist only to avoid having to fix some of the bad math on the statlines. On top of that once you strip out the combo-game you're just playing Sigmar; you don't need to maneuver to get all your attacks off, everything's pretty uniformly effective against all targets, so we put our models down on the table and roll dice until someone dies.
I don't like the combo-play game in 9th, but it's also holding the game together at a pretty fundamental level. Quickly stripping off some of the bloat off of 7th makes it better, quickly stripping the bloat off of 9th just makes it worse.
...I'm suddenly wondering if the issue isn't that 9th is more complex than earlier editions but that the complexity is way less optional than it was before.
I think it's quite the opposite with the math on units so far in 9th.
Remember how everyone was "melta, melta, melta" early on? Now there's barely any.
You could play without strats. The game just wouldn't be as engaging, in my opinion.
And the units outside the curve aren't setting the game on fire.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/08/25 16:29:14
Plus, there is no reason Matched Play should be painful to play.
GW can improve their game, even the aspects that people choose to ignore. They should be pushed to improve the game, imo, and that comes in the form of critique.
I could play Crusade all day everyday and be super enjoying it and it would still be okay to me to say "Matched Play can be improved, because it is lacking in these ways".
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".
We had the same mini's meet in the middle and fight experience. If we wanted that would have played an ancients game and had neat blocks of troops...
I think the mistake was still using the same terrain set ups as fantasy battle, we thought it might be good if the terrain went to skirmish level density as then manoeuvre would be more important. For a while Kings of War took over, then things faded away until the new ranges brought in new players, but there are 1-2 games every few weeks now, not the half dozen 40k or even specialist games/alternative games (song of ice and fire, naval, etc.) that take place every week.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sim-Life wrote: 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.
Agreed. Even if 40k standardised at 1000 points for tournies it would be a massive improvement, at least then if a game wasn't going well it would be over relatively quickly...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/08/25 16:49:04
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".
I'm with you here. Matched, 2kplay without legends and only on min sized tables only is something I only expect from tournaments, but outside of these I don't think it's the norm. Yes, I only have my personal experience where I don't know anyone who plays that assumed "tournament standard", but I'm pretty sure my group can't be the only one. I do get that this style of play gets the most focus when discussing balance or tactics, because then everybody assumes the same basis from which to compare units. It doesn't mean that it's the most common way to play though. I mean, noone in their right mind would actually "shelf" units because GW provides their rules for free instead of in an expensive book (legends). People play what they have painted or what fits their theme or the narrative, or what was in their starterbox and yes, they might also consider what's strong, but that's just one of many boxes to tick.
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.
Unless you seriously believe the only way the majority play 40k is the tournament scene, you're full of crap on this.
kirotheavenger wrote: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.
I think the real question is, why are you playing them?
No one is forcing you to play anyone. If you don't have a permissive group, that sucks. But does it suck more than playing against donkey-caves, you make that determination.
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.
I'm not in denial; I'm just saying it's not GW's fault, nor is it 40k's fault. I feel for you. It bums me out that you can't have fun with this game. Your problem is real, and I'm not in denial at all. But it doesn't make 40k a bad game.
I used to play Magic and my favourite format was emperor style- two teams of 3 players; each team has a leader and a right hand general and a left hand general. You had to take out one of the generals before you could get to the leader, and knocking out the enemy leader was the only way to win. Very few of the people I played with preferred this style of play, and it was never easy to get six players. So most of the time, I played their way. But every so often, we'd get to play my way- one out of every 5-8 games. It was enough.
It would never have crossed my mind to suggest mangling the other versions of the game that other people liked just because it was hard to set up an emperor game. Nor did I blame the game or its designers.
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.
I've actually made similar comments myself. I've seen folks on Dakka go at Karol pretty hard sometimes, and it amazes me that he just seems to take it in stride; the kid is tough as nails. I enjoy reading his posts, even though he and I seldom agree on anything. And I'll be the first one in line to give him props for sticking it out.
But I don't blame GW or 40k for the jerks he has to play with. On a side note, I'm not sure Open play would be a solution for Karol, even if he could find people to play with- his issues with the game aren't the same as yours or Unit's and he seldom proposes the same solutions that you guys do. He doesn't seem to complain that strategems, faction rules and army purity rules exist- merely that those for his faction don't match the tools available to his opponents. I don't think I've ever seen him say he thinks the game would be better without them, though I could be wrong; I like the guy, but I don't take notes every time he posts.
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.
Do you ever get to host? And when you do, does that give you an opportunity to suggest something different for that one, single games night? Have the people that refuse to play open with you ever tried it?
You say you've stopped playing 40k, but you're still in a group, so it's not like 2k Matched is all they play; if they're willing to play Dust, or WMH or whatever you're currently playing, they are willing to play other things. Seems odd that you can talk them into playing a whole other system, but you can't talk them into playing a different version of 40k.
I'm not doubting you- I believe you. I'm just saying it seems weird to me.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Plus, there is no reason Matched Play should be painful to play.
The issue is that for a lot of other people, it ISN'T as painful as it is for you. If it was, 2k Matched wouldn't be their preferred style of play. They obviously like it enough as it is. For you to suggest changes to the version they prefer to play when you have a different version which I assume is a better fit for your needs based on the fact that it contains far fewer of the things you cite as problems... It just seems like you're fighting a battle that you don't need to fight.
GW can improve their game, even the aspects that people choose to ignore. They should be pushed to improve the game, imo, and that comes in the form of critique.
Sure, and you can propose whatever changes you like. But when you propose nuking all but the BRB strats, nuking army purity and subfaction rules and you suggest that secondaries are somewhat problematic, you shouldn't be surprised that people suggest a system that appears right in the BRB you already own that already takes all of those suggestions.
It would be like me complaining that the problem with Matched is that it doesn't include a progression system and being shocked and surprised when people suggest I try Crusade.
Why should people who like matched play accept the validity of suggestions that would make matched more like open or crusade when open and crusade already exist? I mean, if they're civil folks interested in debate, they may respond to some of your suggestions with varying degrees of approval or disapproval, but that tends to happen when suggestions are more subtle than removing all strats.
I could play Crusade all day everyday and be super enjoying it and it would still be okay to me to say "Matched Play can be improved, because it is lacking in these ways".
Again, you could. Of course it's your right to express your opinion, but why would you bother?
To me, posting and reading consistently negative negative content is exhausting. It's nowhere near as fun as posting negative things.
I'm also I guy who prefers to look at solutions that I have available to me, rather than putting the onus on someone else to fix the problem. If I had a choice between ranting and raving about what the company can do to make me happy, or just play a different version of the game which already exists that would make me happy, I'd definitely go with the second option.
If the issue was that I couldn't find opponents to play my prefered version, every single time a thread came up that was full of people bitching about a different version, I would join the chorus of people telling complainers that my preferred version has none of the problems they mention rather than joining the discussion about changes that need to be made to the other version. It just makes more sense.
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.
Open Play does not have primary objectives on the table nor secondary objectives you have to choose, both things I want.
An Unbound Army does not generate CP unless both players agree and they can agree to any amount of CP :clown face: yay AOS V1 do whatever you like, make fart noises at each other to see who wins. That means no Stratagems, I think Stratagems are super neat, I just think there shouldn't be more than 200.
I don't want to play against a hodgepodge of different armies, if my opponent uses allies I want them to pay a price for it since I cannot get them while playing Necrons and I want my opponent to include Eradicators in his Astra Militarum army not because "duhhh they're better than the anti-tank I have in my codex" but because they genuinely like the models and/or rules.
Finally, I want balanced games and I hate PL. Open Play does not seem like the right thing for me.
tneva82 wrote: 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.
Scouts, Tacs, Intercessors, Immortals, Kabalite Warriors, Wracks and Wyches all went up 3 points, some units didn't get hit the same way, but you can see a tonne of changes that were made based on an algorithm that didn't take rules changes into account, then a smattering of changes were made where even GW noticed the algorithm produced awful results. https://www.goonhammer.com/the-9th-edition-munitorum-field-manual-points-review/ this article goes into a lot of the changes CA2020 made and how it seems to have been made. Is there evidence of nerfs to vehicles and buffs to flyers or much of anything that 9th made better or worse? Does there seem to have been taken account of which units were undercosted or overcosted in 8th? CA2020 was garbage and it CA19 was better. CA2021 pretty much only made improvements on CA2020 so it's hard to criticize as much, even if there are still huge balance holes.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/08/25 18:17:31
Designer's Note: Hardened Veterans can be represented by any Imperial Guard models, but we've really included them to allow players to practise their skills at making a really unique and individual unit. Because of this we won't be making models to represent many of the options allowed to a Veteran squad - it's up to you to convert the models. (Imperial Guard, 3rd Edition)
Sim-Life wrote: This confuses me. You seem to think its not GWs job to keep us happy.
It is. But that doesn't mean you have to sit idle and wait for it to happen.
I'm not, I'm criticising GW publically and adding my voice to those unsatisfied with 9th and have stopped buying their products in the hopes that they'll fix their game if we become loud enough.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/08/25 20:00:56
Sim-Life wrote: I'm not, I'm criticising GW publically and adding my voice to those unsatisfied with 9th and have stopped buying their products in the hopes that they'll fix their game if we become loud enough.
I honestly think if you would write them emails more often, your voice might be heard by the right person instead of posting on a board that GW might or might not even read. That's the point of PenitentJake, at least I believe it is.
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.
I'm not resentful at all, but I hope the irony is not lost on you that you tell me my opinion is useless to the discussion because I'm playing 40k in a specific way when you quit playing it altogether. ^_~ No hard feelings.
Designer's Note: Hardened Veterans can be represented by any Imperial Guard models, but we've really included them to allow players to practise their skills at making a really unique and individual unit. Because of this we won't be making models to represent many of the options allowed to a Veteran squad - it's up to you to convert the models. (Imperial Guard, 3rd Edition)
I really doubt that direct e mails will change anything... GW produces the 40K ruleset they want to deliver... Its not an accident its very intentional.
Anyway I think the design team is putting some real effort to create interesting codexes for 9th edition... But their power is limited.
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.
Unless you seriously believe the only way the majority play 40k is the tournament scene, you're full of crap on this.
1.5k to 2k matched play is by far and away what i see at almost any gameshop I have ever been to or played at.
Everything otherwise has been in a campaign setting that requires a lot more coordination, commitment and leadership.
Most people are not toning down lists and forming impromptu rules in their games with strangers during pick up games.
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.
Unless you seriously believe the only way the majority play 40k is the tournament scene, you're full of crap on this.
1.5k to 2k matched play is by far and away what i see at almost any gameshop I have ever been to or played at.
Everything otherwise has been in a campaign setting that requires a lot more coordination, commitment and leadership.
Most people are not toning down lists and forming impromptu rules in their games with strangers during pick up games.
You are correct - 95% of all 40k is actually played in the tournament setting. Yet - most of those games are considered casual...
Sim-Life wrote: I'm not, I'm criticising GW publically and adding my voice to those unsatisfied with 9th and have stopped buying their products in the hopes that they'll fix their game if we become loud enough.
I honestly think if you would write them emails more often, your voice might be heard by the right person instead of posting on a board that GW might or might not even read. That's the point of PenitentJake, at least I believe it is.
Yes, corporations often pay heed to the random emails of anonymous strangers. But I'm quite happy on my soapbox in the public forum, thanks.
I'm not resentful at all, but I hope the irony is not lost on you that you tell me my opinion is useless to the discussion because I'm playing 40k in a specific way when you quit playing it altogether. ^_~ No hard feelings.
I've mostly been facetious about that. Like I said, when I defended 8th I was told frequently that casual play doesn't matter for whatever argument was being made because there is no sort of statistical data like there is for tournament play. Its just fun to be on the other side.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/08/25 20:33:17
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.
Unless you seriously believe the only way the majority play 40k is the tournament scene, you're full of crap on this.
1.5k to 2k matched play is by far and away what i see at almost any gameshop I have ever been to or played at.
Everything otherwise has been in a campaign setting that requires a lot more coordination, commitment and leadership.
Most people are not toning down lists and forming impromptu rules in their games with strangers during pick up games.
You are correct - 95% of all 40k is actually played in the tournament setting. Yet - most of those games are considered casual...
But where do you get that number from? I'll take your 95% and raise my guestimation of 70% of players not caring about tournament play and the according "standard" at all. I made that number up exactly as much as you did.
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.
Unless you seriously believe the only way the majority play 40k is the tournament scene, you're full of crap on this.
1.5k to 2k matched play is by far and away what i see at almost any gameshop I have ever been to or played at.
Everything otherwise has been in a campaign setting that requires a lot more coordination, commitment and leadership.
Most people are not toning down lists and forming impromptu rules in their games with strangers during pick up games.
You are correct - 95% of all 40k is actually played in the tournament setting. Yet - most of those games are considered casual...
But where do you get that number from? I'll take your 95% and raise my guestimation of 70% of players not caring about tournament play and the according "standard" at all. I made that number up exactly as much as you did.
He means like tournaments, most casual games use the most recent scenarios, rukes and points and are usually Matched 2k.
Back in 4th edition, we didn't have 3 ways to play, didn't have an app, didn't have super easy ways to organize games ahead of time.
You know what we did have?
Narrative campaigns, Tournaments, casual organized play, and Pick Up Games.
The only reason to split the game into 3 ways to play is to ... I don't know, but that shouldn't be necessary. I honestly can't think of why it is better to split the player base this way.
I shouldn't have to say "I want to play my crusade army" and have the response be "ok, 2k points matched" and then do some algorithm to figure out how many more CP they get (Crusade Points / 2, round up) or whatever. (And then end up playing a regular mission anyways because the Crusade missions aren't balanced enough for the 2k Matched player).
The game used to be playable in ALL ways to play using a single format. The fact that it is NOT like that now is a problem that should be rectified, not a strength that needs reinforcing.
EDIT:
And yes I know balance was never super good so sometimes narrative armies were trounced by tournament armies in 4th, but I am not talking about balance. I am talking about Three Ways To Play and why that should be unnecessary. Balance is a tangential conversation (40k can fail to be balanced or succeed to be balanced whether there is one way to play, three ways to play, or eighty one ways to play).
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2021/08/25 21:09:47
You could make an argument that GW only has to provide the Matched Play rules. Free-spirited groups will do what they want anyway, and those so-called Narrative players will narrate away.
I think Open Play was a way to have slimmed down Core Rules were you could bust out the Free PDF and datasheets and have a game. Crusade offered a progressive ladder system with a bit of structure. Time will tell if that truly catches on. My experience, admittedly limited to a tiny corner of the meta, is that Matched Play is the most common way that people have a game in the FLGS, and that is even with COVID requirements of all games being pre-arranged for contact tracing.
I think we are miles away from complexity.
Anything can be taken too far, but I like having variety. I like having some chrome on my game. I enjoy having choices in my list design, even if some would say that they are false choices. I like thinking ahead on what Stratagems to employ, making sacrifices between pre-game buffs and situational boosts/panic buttons.
I also get that other people won't like those things, or would prefer some things that I don't. I guess the invisible hand of the market has a part to play, albeit in an imperfect way given the nature of the tabletop wargaming market.
All you have to do is fire three rounds a minute, and stand
TangoTwoBravo wrote: Anything can be taken too far, but I like having variety. I like having some chrome on my game. I enjoy having choices in my list design, even if some would say that they are false choices. I like thinking ahead on what Stratagems to employ, making sacrifices between pre-game buffs and situational boosts/panic buttons.
Had an interesting chat with Jervis many years ago where he talked about chrome. In essence it boiled down to having to add that to engage players, while some of the game design he would like to do would have stripped a lot more of it out.
Sledgehammer wrote: 1.5k to 2k matched play is by far and away what i see at almost any gameshop I have ever been to or played at.
Everything otherwise has been in a campaign setting that requires a lot more coordination, commitment and leadership.
Most people are not toning down lists and forming impromptu rules in their games with strangers during pick up games.
I totally believe this is true for pickup games. I don't think it applies to gaming clubs where the same people play each other regularely and consider their opponents something friend-like.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Back in 4th edition, we didn't have 3 ways to play, didn't have an app, didn't have super easy ways to organize games ahead of time.
You know what we did have?
Narrative campaigns, Tournaments, casual organized play, and Pick Up Games.
The only reason to split the game into 3 ways to play is to ... I don't know, but that shouldn't be necessary. I honestly can't think of why it is better to split the player base this way.
I shouldn't have to say "I want to play my crusade army" and have the response be "ok, 2k points matched" and then do some algorithm to figure out how many more CP they get (Crusade Points / 2, round up) or whatever. (And then end up playing a regular mission anyways because the Crusade missions aren't balanced enough for the 2k Matched player).
The game used to be playable in ALL ways to play using a single format. The fact that it is NOT like that now is a problem that should be rectified, not a strength that needs reinforcing.
Wasn't it in 4th edition where "crusade light" was introduced, even? Or was that in 3rd edition already? It was a small system where units could gain XP and veteran skills iirc. It vanished afterwards again with the next edition.
I have to say the introduction of an official Crusade system is taking alot of work off of my shoulders in regards to making a narrative campaign. You don't have to make up ALL the rules, even if it isn't a full campaign system out of the box.
My only two complaints about it are:
- Not everybody got their own Crusade rules, yet.
- There isn't enough Crusade content in the books.
Designer's Note: Hardened Veterans can be represented by any Imperial Guard models, but we've really included them to allow players to practise their skills at making a really unique and individual unit. Because of this we won't be making models to represent many of the options allowed to a Veteran squad - it's up to you to convert the models. (Imperial Guard, 3rd Edition)
TangoTwoBravo wrote: Anything can be taken too far, but I like having variety. I like having some chrome on my game. I enjoy having choices in my list design, even if some would say that they are false choices. I like thinking ahead on what Stratagems to employ, making sacrifices between pre-game buffs and situational boosts/panic buttons.
Had an interesting chat with Jervis many years ago where he talked about chrome. In essence it boiled down to having to add that to engage players, while some of the game design he would like to do would have stripped a lot more of it out.
An example of that line of thinking was 1997 Epic and see how that turned out. As tasty as a bowl of sand. Heaven forbid we engage players!
To be clear, I have a ton of respect for Jervis!
All you have to do is fire three rounds a minute, and stand
Back in 4th edition, we didn't have 3 ways to play, didn't have an app, didn't have super easy ways to organize games ahead of time.
You know what we did have?
Narrative campaigns, Tournaments, casual organized play, and Pick Up Games.
Yep, we did. We had one set of rules that was made for casual, organized play and we forced it to do all the other things by house ruling, engaging in conversation and compromise. Oh, every once in a while, GW would throw us something- the combat patrol and kill team mini-games, things like Planet Strike and City Fight. It was enough to whet our appetites, and explore the potential of playing the game in different ways, but it was always an extra, or a substitute.
You'd almost think they were watching what we did- which extra bits we played, what we liked and what we didn't- to figure out what they might give us next time.
The only reason to split the game into 3 ways to play is to ... I don't know, but that shouldn't be necessary. I honestly can't think of why it is better to split the player base this way.
Hey, remember a sentence ago where you said this: You know what we did have? Narrative campaigns, Tournaments, casual organized play, and Pick Up Games?
Kinda implies that the community was already divided into three ways to play, right? So GW publishing three ways to play in 8th didn't really split the player base at all. It's kinda like they saw the player base was already divided and tried to give each part of that player base some attention, right out of the BRB
I shouldn't have to say "I want to play my crusade army" and have the response be "ok, 2k points matched" and then do some algorithm to figure out how many more CP they get (Crusade Points / 2, round up) or whatever. (And then end up playing a regular mission anyways because the Crusade missions aren't balanced enough for the 2k Matched player).
I can agree with you here; I don't think that GW's solution to a mixed mode game is particularly elegant either. I haven't been in the situation yet, but what I'd do is just play my army without any of its Crusade perks, using secondaries, but I'd track all of my non-agenda tallies, I'd still claim an RP for playing, I'd still mark a unit for greatness and I'd give XP to the units that achieved the secondary.
Matched player gets exactly what they want, and I get enough of what I want that I don't feel like wasted my time by indulging someone who didn't know what they were missing or was nervous about stepping out of their comfort zone.
The game used to be playable in ALL ways to play using a single format. The fact that it is NOT like that now is a problem that should be rectified, not a strength that needs reinforcing.
Did it really though?
Because if it had, would the ITC secondaries that 9th is based on even exist?
I know I've read posts about the quick and simple house rules you made for campaign play, so how well did the base game serve your purpose if you had to do that?
H.B.M.C. wrote: I still don't understand the purpose of "Open Play".
To tacitly acknowledge that they need a separate "this is where you can just put your models on the table and have fun!" zone because you can't just put your models on the table and have fun in any of the other zones?
Back in 4th edition, we didn't have 3 ways to play, didn't have an app, didn't have super easy ways to organize games ahead of time.
You know what we did have?
Narrative campaigns, Tournaments, casual organized play, and Pick Up Games.
Yep, we did. We had one set of rules that was made for casual, organized play and we forced it to do all the other things by house ruling, engaging in conversation and compromise.
You mean like we have now? Or are all these pregame conversations and group-finding and houseruling solutions that have been proposed in this very thread something different somehow?
PenitentJake wrote: Because if it had, would the ITC secondaries that 9th is based on even exist?
You mean the thing developed in 7th while I was talking about 4th? Yeah, totally... (????)
PenitentJake wrote: I know I've read posts about the quick and simple house rules you made for campaign play, so how well did the base game serve your purpose if you had to do that?
Quite well, given that I didn't HAVE to do that (but rather chose to). In fact, better than 9th, because I could just throw a special rule down ("you get Preferred Enemy (X) but your opponent gets Feel No Pain and Stubborn")
