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.
20 narrative play books 9 matched play books. It's the casual edition, a half-hearted annual points and mission update with "Tournament" printed on the cover does not change that.
Sim-Life wrote: Well you did spend like half that thread calling people stupid for wanting less convoluted rules. It was a pretty bad look.
Fair point. Though I stand by my statement that most people whining about 40k being too hard to understand either aren't even trying or want-to-win-always types that are too lazy to invest time.
True, I don't want to have to try to study, I want studying to be an elective to become top tier rather than a necessity to avoid gotcha feelsiebadsies.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/09/14 07:55:58
vict0988 wrote: Yes, can you try making your point in another way?
I thought I was quite clear, but I will endeavour to help you if you so desire.
vict0988 wrote: I think your point was "I want make your own Land Raider version rules and temporary Relics, you want points and missions, you got what you wanted, I didn't get what I wanted, therefore you are privileged".
I never said anything even remotely related to that, so I'll just ignore this nonsense...
vict0988 wrote: My point is that, unless the points and missions are balanced then they are not fit for competitive play. Nobody got what they wanted in CA20/CA21, stop saying that competitive players are privileged.
I never said competitive players are privileged (and that's literally the first time I've typed that word in this thread). In fact, going back over the entire thread, I can't find a single instance of that word being used until you said it. Hell I even searched for the word 'entitled' (and derivations thereof) and couldn't find that either. So, I have to ask, who exactly are you arguing against? 'Cause it sure as feth ain't me...
But to answer your original request - try making your point in another way - I will say this:
Chapter Approved used to be about adding things to the game, for all types of game plays. It had FAQs and erratas, it had experimental rules, trail rules, fun additions, new scenarios, campaign ideas, fancy units - hell, even whole army lists! Now, in 9th Ed, we have people (with a straight face) arguing that this isn't Tournament Edition 40k, when Chapter Approved has literally become a paid-for-patch combined with a book called "Grand Tournament".
Statements such as "unless the points and missions are balanced then they are not fit for competitive play" and "[n]obody got what they wanted in CA20/CA21" don't really address the point as just because GW are bad at it, doesn't mean they aren't doing it (or trying to).
kodos wrote: Just because GW tries to sell it as "Tournament" Edition does not man it is one
This goes to my point above: It is one because they say it is. If it fails at being a Tournament Edition of 40k, that doesn't matter. That just means it's a terrible tournament game.
It's still how GW has constructed this edition from its conception. They brought on tournament style missions, objectives and scoring methods. They brought in tournament players to play test it. Their updates have had all creative, experimental and narrative aspects excised to leave a clearly tournament-focused style of update (and they've relegated everything else to very expensive DLC books).
So you can say things like "but this does not make the rules better or more focused on tournaments than the previous version" all you want, but the first point is irrelevant (never said it was better at being a tournament - it's GW, they're terrible at rules regardless of their focus or intended purpose!), and the latter point is demonstrably false.
Sim-Life wrote: Well you did spend like half that thread calling people stupid for wanting less convoluted rules. It was a pretty bad look.
And he's doing it again. Straight to the insults. It's like step one on the one-point list of "How to interact with others at Dakka" for him. Anyway, to be less rude by not talking about him and instead addressing him directly:
Jid, my man, I'm not butthurt about anything you've said. What I am is amused more than anything else, because in a thread about the over-complexity/complicated nature of 40k, your argument against such complexity was "This army only has 49 strats in 7 broad categories!". Again, this was your argument ****against**** the complexity. It was incredible. Never fails to bring a smile to my face.
I suggest you go read that post you run your mouth about at least once.
You clearly haven't. Not even half of it.
The TL;DR of that post was that you need to know less than 20 stratagems to be ready for every possible gotcha both DGand orks could possible throw at you. The reason why that post got that long was because I explained in detail why I thought that way. Responding to that with flat a one-line completely misrepresenting what's in that post is just as impolite as me calling you a donkey. So even if you don't give a gak, for god's sake stop spreading false information.
People intentionally spreading misinformation (and you do that A LOT) deserve to be insulted every single time the do.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
vict0988 wrote: True, I don't want to have to try to study, I want studying to be an elective to become top tier rather than a necessity to avoid gotcha feelsiebadsies.
Plenty solutions for that problem have been discussed.
This message was edited 9 times. Last update was at 2021/09/14 08:18:54
7 Ork facts people always get wrong: Ragnar did not win against Thrakka, but suffered two crushing defeats within a few days of each other. A lasgun is powerful enough to sever an ork's appendage or head in a single, well aimed shot. Orks meks have a better understanding of electrics and mechanics than most Tech Priests. Orks do not think that purple makes them harder to see. They do think that camouflage does however, without knowing why. Gharkull Blackfang did not even come close to killing the emperor. Orks can be corrupted by chaos, but few of them have any interest in what chaos offers. Orks do not have the power of believe.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Chapter Approved used to be about adding things to the game, for all types of game plays. It had FAQs and erratas, it had experimental rules, trail rules, fun additions, new scenarios, campaign ideas, fancy units - hell, even whole army lists! Now, in 9th Ed, we have people (with a straight face) arguing that this isn't Tournament Edition 40k, when Chapter Approved has literally become a paid-for-patch combined with a book called "Grand Tournament".
Competitive players are privileged in the competitive edition, therefore, you are saying that competitive players are privileged in 9th. GW marketing one product to tournament players does not make the entire edition tournament focussed and it really is just marketing as you seem to agree to since you haven't made any defense of the GT mission pack in terms of it being a great product for competitive players. There are three crusade mission packs, so by your metric 9th has to be the crusade edition, although I think that is flawed. The best way to determine what the game is for is what it does well and it does casual play well IMO, it does narrative play well according to some people and it doesn't do competitive play well unless you have a lot of money burning a hole in your pocket and a couple hours a month where you have nothing better to do (like playing or painting) than studying new Stratagems and reviewing old ones for Errata.
kodos wrote: Just because GW tries to sell it as "Tournament" Edition does not man it is one
This goes to my point above: It is one because they say it is. If it fails at being a Tournament Edition of 40k, that doesn't matter. That just means it's a terrible tournament game.
It's still how GW has constructed this edition from its conception. They brought on tournament style missions, objectives and scoring methods. They brought in tournament players to play test it. Their updates have had all creative, experimental and narrative aspects excised to leave a clearly tournament-focused style of update (and they've relegated everything else to very expensive DLC books).
GW has constructed this edition around casual play from its conception. They brought in new ways to play. They ignored competitive players during playtesting and rushed out the points update while updating PLs, leaving pts as imbalanced as PL. CA21, the tournament-focused update, was half-assed while they focussed their time and energy on narrative DLC books and writing narrative rules for new codexes instead.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/14 08:59:23
Chapter Approved used to be about adding things to the game, for all types of game plays. It had FAQs and erratas, it had experimental rules, trail rules, fun additions, new scenarios, campaign ideas, fancy units
Yep my sexy 3rd ed chapter approved book had the imperial guard armored company rules as well as the rules for shaffer's last chancers...good stuff!
People intentionally spreading misinformation (and you do that A LOT) deserve to be insulted every single time the do.
I think purposely insulting people on these forums simply because you disagree with them is kind of against RULE #1 rather you think they deserve it or not.
GAMES-DUST1947/infinity/B5 wars/epic 40K/5th ed 40K/victory at sea/warmachine/battle tactics/monpoc/battletech/battlefleet gothic/castles in the sky,/heavy gear
vict0988 wrote: Competitive players are privileged in the competitive edition, therefore, you are saying that competitive players are privileged in 9th.
Ok. You seem intent on arguing against some imaginary fellow who is talking about "privileged" players or whatever. That's cool. You do you.
I on the other hand am done with this, as from where I'm standing you are talking absolute bollocks.
Jidmah wrote: The TL;DR of that post was that you need to know less than 20 stratagems to be ready for every possible gotcha both DGand orks could possible throw at you.
I know damn well what the point of the post was - it's just an irrelevant point. It's splitting hairs. It's saying "Oh but you don't need half the rules that are there!", and what? The half you're ignoring are still there, and if you don't need them, why are they there? It's just bloat.
Jidmah wrote: Responding to that with flat a one-line completely misrepresenting what's in that post is just as impolite as me calling you a donkey.
I haven't misrepresented anything. It's called brevity. 40k is a top-heavy and unwieldy nightmare of rules upon rules upon rules. Just because it's better than previous editions - something you're always very keen to point out - doesn't make that problem go away.
Jidmah wrote: People intentionally spreading misinformation (and you do that A LOT) deserve to be insulted every single time the do.
I do wish you'd go away though...
aphyon wrote: I think purposely insulting people on these forums simply because you disagree with them is kind of against RULE #1 rather you think they deserve it or not.
And if you're going to do it, at least try to be classy about it. To wit:
Hey aphyon: feth you!
See. Much classier.
(That was a joke, kids, aphyon knows I'm not attaking him)
And if you're going to do it, at least try to be classy about it. To wit:
Hey aphyon: feth you!
See. Much classier.
(That was a joke, kids, aphyon knows I'm not attaking him)
Well it isn't like you called me a dirty eldar player...(as he eye's his epic 40K iyanden army)
GAMES-DUST1947/infinity/B5 wars/epic 40K/5th ed 40K/victory at sea/warmachine/battle tactics/monpoc/battletech/battlefleet gothic/castles in the sky,/heavy gear
I think a lot of rule bloat would disappear if stratagems were less bespoke to a specific unit or that bespoke stratagem was a unit ability on their sheet(that may or may not cost a CP). A stratagem only Retributors can use is technically just a unit ability that costs CP. It's also kind of how they approach "stratagems" in AoS: They are unit command abilities that cost CP.
Regarding CA having all kinds of stuff it feels like GW has made CA a Matched Play book(I personally like it as it keeps the book small and concise) and all the narrative stuff is in the campaign books. Only thing I don't like is that they release campaign books and Crusade books separate when the two could easily be combined.
Not even really sure what people are arguing about anymore.
At the fundamental level, people just disagree. This is why we have threads to the tune of "40k is too complicated, you basically need a university degree to play the game, new players will struggle to cope with more than one space marine squad"... and equally threads saying "40k is too simple and boring. My dog can identify the best list/deployment/move/target/stratagems."
I think when people say its a tournament edition they mean "its a game edition". There's a very clear definition of winners and losers, and this status is determined by doing things that are intrinsically "gamey". Its not a simulation. You are not looking to see "what happens" if a load of Leman Russ ran into a load of Gaunts or something. You don't need lots of rules to try and identify how that scenario would play out.
Moreover, and in contrast to how we played 3rd as teenagers, you are seemingly discouraged from throwing your models on the table and rolling some dice until the last one standing wins. I mean you can do that - but I feel the rules are more explicit in stating that's not how the game is meant to be played. (And I continue to find people who think 40k still operates this way in other places.)
Its a bit like saying "isn't AoS still that game with no obvious rules that just descends into a giant moshpit in the middle of the table?" To which you are left going "no, not really, its a fairly tightly defined *game* these days, which people play as *a game* to win according to *the rules*."
Which then leads into a fight over whether this is a good thing or not. I think these days however pure simulations are definitely out.
I feel for instance Bolt Action is *a game* - which you play according to the game's rules. Its not meant to serve as a realistically simulation of what would happen if some American soldiers and a Sherman ran into some German soldiers and a Panther or whatever. I think its quite a fun game, especially as a novelty from just playing 40k. But equally I'm not sure there's that much depth because its relatively limited. Eventually you will be left with "the dice will decide". Which I guess isn't so different to 40k - but the bloat provides more potential scenarios to play through before you get there.
I play 40K, because I find those other systems kind of bland. I play WW2 games for the setting and not really for the stats. I don't give a gak about bonuses there as long as a Tiger feels like what a Tiger should feel like. It makes some sense for rifles and LMGs to be the same stat, because getting hit is going to kill you or wound you severely. Not so with a lasgun or heavy bolter hitting a marine. But, I don't need to memorize bolt gun stat lines. My opponent tells me the AP and the damage and that's all I need.
And despite the absolute visual sins that I delight in inflicting on my opponent's eyeballs when I put my armies down on the table, 40k is feeling increasingly bland and flat to play simply because the 'spectacle' factor of armies on the table only lasts like 5 seconds before you shovel everything back off and put it back in your bag, and everything can be so thoroughly pre-planned that you feel more like youre just punching a whole series of digits into a calculator and adding them up for four hours more so than you are playing a game and making decisions about it.
All my lists, at this point, are almost entirely 'solved' in the strategy phase. All my units have a plan, and they perform according to that plan allllllllmost all the time - I'd say generally I have about one unit that gets a cheeky unexpected use per game. This last game, it was a succubus - my last model on the table, top of turn 4 - who unexpectedly killed all of the unit she was fighting in my opponent's turn and got to make a run at an Onager to score 2 more bring it down points and finish out the game. often it's 1-2 models from a unit that survive and just, go hide on an objective the rest of the turns they're alive, or they have something they can run up and move block.
but generally, I end up pre-planning about 3/4 of what I do in your average game of 40k, and it doesnt really change based on mission, opposing army (what, am I gonna run into an opponent that's hard for me to kill?? HAHAHA no I can fling wyches at tanks and MEQs now and murder them no problem)
The fundamental issue at this point is even if I come up with a satisfying concept for my army (to use an example: an army setup with 3 different wych cult patrols with Lelith Hesperax competing with two rival succubi competing to see who can be the most deadly) it just utterly fails to play out, at all, in the game because everything just evaporates - turn 2, all 3 succubi and wych escorts hop out of their transports, hyper-predictably kill exactly 1 thing each, and then die, instantly, to the very first thing that tries to target them. One of them survives on one wound and hyper-predictably kills a second thing on turn 3, so I guess...she won then. Cool. Great. Forged that narrative.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tyel wrote: You are not looking to see "what happens" if a load of Leman Russ ran into a load of Gaunts or something. You don't need lots of rules to try and identify how that scenario would play out.
Moreover, and in contrast to how we played 3rd as teenagers, you are seemingly discouraged from throwing your models on the table and rolling some dice until the last one standing wins. I mean you can do that - but I feel the rules are more explicit in stating that's not how the game is meant to be played. (And I continue to find people who think 40k still operates this way in other places.)
An activity that some ancient grognards might call "Wargaming"
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/09/14 12:02:00
"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"
"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"
"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"
"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"
TangoTwoBravo wrote: For me, 9th Ed is an improved 8th Ed. Regarding Winters' SEO's video, Matched Play is indeed tighter than 8th Ed. The rules are worded in a more "tight" manner to reduce arguments. The "book" missions are meaningful instead of the meaningless missions of the previous editions.
I agree with Winters that 8th Ed was more accessible, but I wouldn't say that it is a huge decrease in accessibility. Yes, if a player takes Ad Mech to a tourney for their first game ever they are in for brain melt. You don't have to do that. When I have played a "first game of 9th" for other players I suggest we play 500 to 1000 points with just the datasheet rules and Only War for the mission. Essentially Open Play with the core rules and the datasheets. If my opponent has studied their Codex and want to try some of it out I will say sure - lets use your Faction rules but park Strats for the first game. Then you build.
9th is much more accessible than the editions before 8th (I played 2nd through 6th). I understand that some have a love for older editions and I trust that people have fun playing the editions that they find fun!
I simply can't agree with 9th being more accessible then previous editions.
Back in y old days your units had a stat and weapon profile and so did your opponents units with maybe 1 universal special rule that was in the rulebook for everyone to see. Any unit you never met before was quickly explained and absorbed by simply listing its stat and weapon profile. Now there is an aura in play, faction traits, subfaction traits and statagems.
9th basic bare minimal rules are a little simpler then previous editions but not even by much. Once you move beyond the basic rulebook accessibility goes down the toilet as layers upon layers get added in quick succession.
I just pulled my 4th Ed rulebook from the trunk. It has something like 76 pages of dense rules that a new player has to penetrate to get their first game in. 9th Edition core rules has 44 pages with a lower word count per page. That is better accessibility. If a new player tries to play their first game at a tourney then yes, they are in for a rough time. Just like every other edition. 9th Ed is easier to access as a new player than previous editions with the exception of 8th - and that is due to writing rules to mitigate the rules-lawyers.
page count is your definition for accessibility now?
I have a 5th edition rulebook nearby (god knows where my 3e and 4th are) Yes it has more pages. Those pages are also full of pictures and diagrams to help visualize the rules.
Lots of basic rules have not changes that much in all those years. Some things are a little easier now (no templates or vehicle facings) others are harder now (all the lists of what abilities terrain has and what it does, detachments, CP).
And I did mention 9th's basic rules might be considered slightly easier. But you aren't playing a game without a codex and then accessibility goes out the window fast
aura's faction traits, sub faction traits, relics, warlord traits and stategems are not 'a tournament thing'. They are part of the standard rules of the game.
Ordana wrote: Back in y old days your units had a stat and weapon profile and so did your opponents units with maybe 1 universal special rule that was in the rulebook for everyone to see.
How far could an Eldar jetbike move?
5th edition rulebook page 53 'unit types'.
Jetbikes move as bikes so 12" and Elder jetbikes get to move an extra 6" in the assault phase.
Right there in the rulebook for everyone to read on a lazy sunday afternoon.
Was your point that it was harder to know then compared to now where I can show you their profile but then you don't see that they have a special rule to always advance 6" and who knows what stratagem shenanigans?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/14 12:17:11
IMHO the problem is and always has been that 40k is trying to be a company level game with huge army level assets. It's trying to appeal to everyone and not being able to specialize.
They really should have kept 40k as company level and then have Epic (or Apocalypse but Epic had smaller scale so it fit better) for actual large battles where you had huge superheavies and flyers and stuff. It would have been worlds better.
yukishiro1 wrote: 9th edition is quite a bit less accessible than 8th. There's no real arguing with this. The payoff is a better ruleset overall, but there's definitely a cost, particularly when it comes to parsing out the frankly ridiculous levels of rules you can now have. Base rules + single faction rules + single subfaction rules for some factions + extra supplement rules - we're back to 7th edition at this point in terms of needing to spend $200 and spend many hours learning just to get your rules the legal way.
This is the only stupid part for me - too many books and too many places to look for things. Act 1 is still on sale on the website so here's hoping it's there because enough people didn't buy into it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jidmah wrote: I suggest you go read that post you run your mouth about at least once.
You clearly haven't. Not even half of it.
The TL;DR of that post was that you need to know less than 20 stratagems to be ready for every possible gotcha both DGand orks could possible throw at you. The reason why that post got that long was because I explained in detail why I thought that way. Responding to that with flat a one-line completely misrepresenting what's in that post is just as impolite as me calling you a donkey.
So even if you don't give a gak, for god's sake stop spreading false information.
People intentionally spreading misinformation (and you do that A LOT) deserve to be insulted every single time the do.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
vict0988 wrote: True, I don't want to have to try to study, I want studying to be an elective to become top tier rather than a necessity to avoid gotcha feelsiebadsies.
Plenty solutions for that problem have been discussed.
I feel your stress - I've deleted several responses throughout various threads recently. The best we can do is just state our case and let it ride. Don't let it get to you if you can.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/14 12:39:05
H.B.M.C. wrote: You choosing to play Crusade exclusively doesn't change the fact that this edition was designed around tournament play. It took elements from existing tournaments and just made them part of the core rules.
You can split hairs and say "Oh, but that's just matched play!" all you want, but in the end that's how most people interface with this game.
This is Tournament Edition 40k.
What parts of the core rules were designed for tournament play? Be specific here.
H.B.M.C. wrote: You choosing to play Crusade exclusively doesn't change the fact that this edition was designed around tournament play. It took elements from existing tournaments and just made them part of the core rules.
You can split hairs and say "Oh, but that's just matched play!" all you want, but in the end that's how most people interface with this game.
This is Tournament Edition 40k.
What parts of the core rules were designed for tournament play? Be specific here.
Secondaries are totally lifted from the ITC secondary objectives. I believe some of the terrain rules as well. They basically took the ITC stuff and adopted it for matched play.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/14 12:47:43
I play 40K, because I find those other systems kind of bland. I play WW2 games for the setting and not really for the stats. I don't give a gak about bonuses there as long as a Tiger feels like what a Tiger should feel like. It makes some sense for rifles and LMGs to be the same stat, because getting hit is going to kill you or wound you severely. Not so with a lasgun or heavy bolter hitting a marine. But, I don't need to memorize bolt gun stat lines. My opponent tells me the AP and the damage and that's all I need.
And despite the absolute visual sins that I delight in inflicting on my opponent's eyeballs when I put my armies down on the table, 40k is feeling increasingly bland and flat to play simply because the 'spectacle' factor of armies on the table only lasts like 5 seconds before you shovel everything back off and put it back in your bag, and everything can be so thoroughly pre-planned that you feel more like youre just punching a whole series of digits into a calculator and adding them up for four hours more so than you are playing a game and making decisions about it.
All my lists, at this point, are almost entirely 'solved' in the strategy phase. All my units have a plan, and they perform according to that plan allllllllmost all the time - I'd say generally I have about one unit that gets a cheeky unexpected use per game. This last game, it was a succubus - my last model on the table, top of turn 4 - who unexpectedly killed all of the unit she was fighting in my opponent's turn and got to make a run at an Onager to score 2 more bring it down points and finish out the game. often it's 1-2 models from a unit that survive and just, go hide on an objective the rest of the turns they're alive, or they have something they can run up and move block.
but generally, I end up pre-planning about 3/4 of what I do in your average game of 40k, and it doesnt really change based on mission, opposing army (what, am I gonna run into an opponent that's hard for me to kill?? HAHAHA no I can fling wyches at tanks and MEQs now and murder them no problem)
The fundamental issue at this point is even if I come up with a satisfying concept for my army (to use an example: an army setup with 3 different wych cult patrols with Lelith Hesperax competing with two rival succubi competing to see who can be the most deadly) it just utterly fails to play out, at all, in the game because everything just evaporates - turn 2, all 3 succubi and wych escorts hop out of their transports, hyper-predictably kill exactly 1 thing each, and then die, instantly, to the very first thing that tries to target them. One of them survives on one wound and hyper-predictably kills a second thing on turn 3, so I guess...she won then. Cool. Great. Forged that narrative.
I would say your experience is isolated to your army. It's too easy to play and that gets boring. GW very clearly needs to do something about DE. I don't know what that next step should be, but I'd love to hear your thoughts, because DE sticking to the top is getting tiresome. I haven't had the luxury of playing DE with TS and I'm unsure what GK is capable of in that regard either ( and not enough data yet ).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wayniac wrote: Secondaries are totally lifted from the ITC secondary objectives. I believe some of the terrain rules as well. They basically took the ITC stuff and adopted it for matched play.
We've had secondaries in the past through maelstrom - they're just not random now. And good terrain is useful for all types of play.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/14 12:56:56
I just pulled my 4th Ed rulebook from the trunk. It has something like 76 pages of dense rules that a new player has to penetrate to get their first game in. 9th Edition core rules has 44 pages with a lower word count per page. That is better accessibility.
I don't think page count is the only measure of accessibility, nor even the most important one. The major advantage of the structure of the rules pre-8th edition (or maybe pre-7th formations) was that all the rules you were likely to need regularly were in the basic rulebook. A player could read that and have a good understanding of the basic game and how an opponent's army worked because so much less of the rules were hidden away in strats and faction bonuses and sub-faction rules. In 5th I could look at a unit I'd never seen before, check the USRs and its statline and have a good idea of what to expect in the game. There were also generally fewer special rules specific to each unit or army. It also meant figuring out your own army was generally pretty simple once you got the Codex.
I wouldn't exactly say old Maelstrom were secondary objectives.
Previously secondary objectives were First Blood, Slay the Warlord, and Linebreaker, which were consistent across all missions.
I remember back then getting first turn didn't guarantee First Blood! Oh how the lethality has increased since then!
I find Secondaries as they are now are great for tournament play - it gives you plenty to sink your teeth into and leverage.
But terrible for casual players - if you don't want to get that deep into the game it's a lot to have to deal with.
Terrain is similar. My local store has lots of awesome custom terrain, so using the keywords Gw assigned to their products doesn't work, because they helpfully refuse the acknowledge the existence of anything outside of their own webstore.
But also no one can be bothered with a lengthy negotiation about what keywords terrain should have, let alone trying to remember it all. The result of this is 90% of terrain is all just Obscuring Light cover.
So again, these new terrain rules are mostly a waste.
A better solution would be to establish ~3 very broad categories of terrain (eg hard, soft, and area) and let players decide.
But that would be tacitly acknowledging other wargaming products exist and GW can't be having that!
That sort of hits another point; what are core rules?
GW says the core rules are the ~8 pages that tell you how to move and shoot and pretty much nothing more.
That's pretty ridiculous as games consist of many more rules than that.
IMO, Matched Play rules are core rules. They're a huge part of the games that most players play by, my own groups even apply Matched rules to their Crusade games because stuff like strategem use limits are pretty crucial to the balance of the game.
And people keep telling you that Matched Play is overwhelminingly the prefered method of organising games. It doesn't matter how much of a boner YOU PERSONALLY have for Crusade, it doesn't apply to most people. Even a lot of people who DO play Crusade use a Matched play framework to organise their games.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/14 13:22:26
kirotheavenger wrote: I wouldn't exactly say old Maelstrom were secondary objectives.
Previously secondary objectives were First Blood, Slay the Warlord, and Linebreaker, which were consistent across all missions.
I remember back then getting first turn didn't guarantee First Blood! Oh how the lethality has increased since then!
Funny you should say that, because you'd have a real hard time getting first blood now, too.
A better solution would be to establish ~3 very broad categories of terrain (eg hard, soft, and area) and let players decide.
But that would be tacitly acknowledging other wargaming products exist and GW can't be having that!
That's pretty much what you have now ( as I define it, anyway ) - dense, obscuring, and obstacles. Most of the rules just improve the way specific models interact with terrain e.g. Can't stand here / Can climb over or through / no cover.
And it's really quite intuitive. If you're behind crates - cover. Standing on top? You're exposed - no cover. You can move through walls, but blowing a hole through a stack of crates isn't as easy. Hopping over something or the ground looks rough? That's difficult.
GW rules encompass any terrain. Do you think they would make bespoke rules for your local terrain? No, they gave a system that can be applied in whatever way you want.
Am I the only one who wishes GW would just bring back the old force org rules (1-2 HQ, 0-3 Elites, 2-6 Troops, 0-3 Fast Attack, 0-3 Heavy Support) and do away with the detachment system? Points are never going to be effective at balancing the game if you basically have no constraints for them to shape list-building to. The introduction of the "rule of 3" (which now goes to rule of 4 at certain points levels I guess) was necessitated by the lack of limitation on ones ability to spam (typically non-troop) units and the inability of repeat points adjustments to curtail the balance issues resulting from it. Easier to just cut out the middleman and do away with the entire listbuilding concept as it currently exists, you wouldn't need the rule of 3 if armies were capped at only being able to take 3 of any one slot type. I, for one, also miss the mandatory troop tax - in general I would like to see lists with more troops in them, not less.
CoALabaer wrote: Wargamers hate two things: the state of the game and change.
chaos0xomega wrote: Am I the only one who wishes GW would just bring back the old force org rules (1-2 HQ, 0-3 Elites, 2-6 Troops, 0-3 Fast Attack, 0-3 Heavy Support) and do away with the detachment system? Points are never going to be effective at balancing the game if you basically have no constraints for them to shape list-building to. The introduction of the "rule of 3" (which now goes to rule of 4 at certain points levels I guess) was necessitated by the lack of limitation on ones ability to spam (typically non-troop) units and the inability of repeat points adjustments to curtail the balance issues resulting from it. Easier to just cut out the middleman and do away with the entire listbuilding concept as it currently exists, you wouldn't need the rule of 3 if armies were capped at only being able to take 3 of any one slot type. I, for one, also miss the mandatory troop tax - in general I would like to see lists with more troops in them, not less.
Disagree. Not all armies are functionally the same. There were plenty of bespoke rules for armies to circumvent the old force orgs. The new rules address all that and provide a tax on flexibility. To say there are no constraints is false.
chaos0xomega wrote: Am I the only one who wishes GW would just bring back the old force org rules (1-2 HQ, 0-3 Elites, 2-6 Troops, 0-3 Fast Attack, 0-3 Heavy Support) and do away with the detachment system? Points are never going to be effective at balancing the game if you basically have no constraints for them to shape list-building to. The introduction of the "rule of 3" (which now goes to rule of 4 at certain points levels I guess) was necessitated by the lack of limitation on ones ability to spam (typically non-troop) units and the inability of repeat points adjustments to curtail the balance issues resulting from it. Easier to just cut out the middleman and do away with the entire listbuilding concept as it currently exists, you wouldn't need the rule of 3 if armies were capped at only being able to take 3 of any one slot type. I, for one, also miss the mandatory troop tax - in general I would like to see lists with more troops in them, not less.
I think that would be a very good starting place to help balance things out a bit, yes. There's a huge lack of genuine decision-making when it comes to building armies right now. Previously you had to make some pretty tough decisions about which units/characters to bring.
What constraints exist are inadequate. Points are not a balancing mechanic, they are a shaping mechanic. In an asymmetric game where you have considerations such as faction identity and playstyle,100 points of x is not equal to 100 point of y. Points exist to incentivize the use of certain items (units, weapons, etc.) over others in order to enable a certain flavor and playstyle, they can only successfully achieve this within the context of external restrictions which place additional limitations on how those points can be allocated and spent, otherwise a points system boils down to essentially spamming the most point-efficient options available in order to maximize capability. As it currently stands the constraints, aside from the rule of three, are too open-ended to adequately constrain points allocation away from selection of "most optimal" options available. Force Org constraints forced players to select less optimal options by heavily restricting numbers/types of options available when making selections, as well as forcing players to make choices as to what secondary considerations (beyond pure points efficiency) to prioritize for each slot/category available to them.
What bespoke rules existed in the past to cricumvent force org restrictions were limited and flavorful and rewarded playing to a certain playstyle. Giving faction x access to a 4th heavy support slot or faction y the ability to field an elites choice as a troops choice given investment into a specific special character was hardly an issue, as it was easy to design and balance around those specific allowances, whereas the current more open-ended approach effectively prevents you from doing the same.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/14 13:54:14
CoALabaer wrote: Wargamers hate two things: the state of the game and change.
And people keep telling you that Matched Play is overwhelminingly the prefered method of organising games. It doesn't matter how much of a boner YOU PERSONALLY have for Crusade, it doesn't apply to most people. Even a lot of people who DO play Crusade use a Matched play framework to organise their games.
But in what universe does that mean that the edition as a whole was designed for tournament players?
This is what I am disputing.
I am not disputing that Matched play was designed for tournament play with input from tournament players.
I am not disputing that matched play is the most popular mode of play among Dakkanauts. Heck, I won't even bother disputing that Matched play is the most popular method of play among the entire player base; I could- there's zero evidence to support the statement, but I won't bother, because it is irrelevant.
I'm really not sure why so many people are being so obtuse. We all agree that Matched was designed for tournament play. We all agree that Matched play is most popular among Dakkanauts and I'm even willing to compromise and meet everyone half way and say that it may be the most popular way to play period- despite a profound lack of evidence to prove that point.
NONE OF THAT MEANS THE EDITION AS A WHOLE WAS DESIGNED FOR TOURNAMENT PLAY. PERIOD.
In order for the edition as a whole to be classified as being designed for tournament play, you have to prove that either a) specific pieces of Open and Crusade were designed for tournament play or b) that you can't choose to play only Open or Crusade. Neither of these things can be proven. Therefore the edition as a whole was not designed for tournament play.
That's it. No value judgement. No pissing contest about right or wrong. Simple semantics. It's how language works.
chaos0xomega wrote: What constraints exist are inadequate. Points are not a balancing mechanic, they are a shaping mechanic. In an asymmetric game where you have considerations such as faction identity and playstyle,100 points of x is not equal to 100 point of y. Points exist to incentivize the use of certain items (units, weapons, etc.) over others in order to enable a certain flavor and playstyle, they can only successfully achieve this within the context of external restrictions which place additional limitations on how those points can be allocated and spent, otherwise a points system boils down to essentially spamming the most point-efficient options available in order to maximize capability. As it currently stands the constraints, aside from the rule of three, are too open-ended to adequately constrain points allocation away from selection of "most optimal" options available. Force Org constraints forced players to select less optimal options by heavily restricting numbers/types of options available when making selections, as well as forcing players to make choices as to what secondary considerations (beyond pure points efficiency) to prioritize for each slot/category available to them.
What bespoke rules existed in the past to cricumvent force org restrictions were limited and flavorful and rewarded playing to a certain playstyle. Giving faction x access to a 4th heavy support slot or faction y the ability to field an elites choice as a troops choice given investment into a specific special character was hardly an issue, as it was easy to design and balance around those specific allowances, whereas the current more open-ended approach effectively prevents you from doing the same.
That's not how it works out. You still have to play objectives. But let's see what lists fit into the old force org:
This is 3 HQ, 6 Troops, 2 Elite, 2 Fast, and 3 Heavy. Do you really thing that extra HQ is breaking it wide open?
Skorpius Disintegrator [8 PL, 145pts]: Belleros Energy Cannon
Skorpius Disintegrator [8 PL, 145pts]: Belleros Energy Cannon
Skorpius Disintegrator [8 PL, 145pts]: Belleros Energy Cannon
2 No Org, 4 HQ, 4 Troops, 3 Elites, 2 Fast, 1 Heavy, 5 Transport
That Court and HQ starts to bust things up a bit, but remember how certain HQs could take retinues? Same deal. So perhaps there's a value with DE, but do you remember the Baron? He made all Hellions Troops.
Scourges [5 PL, 80pts]
. Scourge with Special / Heavy weapon [17pts]: Plasma Grenades, Shredder [5pts]
. Scourge with Special / Heavy weapon [17pts]: Plasma Grenades, Shredder [5pts]
. Scourge with Special / Heavy weapon [17pts]: Plasma Grenades, Shredder [5pts]
. Scourge with Special / Heavy weapon [17pts]: Plasma Grenades, Shredder [5pts]
. Solarite [12pts]: Plasma Grenades, Shardcarbine
Scourges [5 PL, 80pts]
. Scourge with Special / Heavy weapon [17pts]: Plasma Grenades, Shredder [5pts]
. Scourge with Special / Heavy weapon [17pts]: Plasma Grenades, Shredder [5pts]
. Scourge with Special / Heavy weapon [17pts]: Plasma Grenades, Shredder [5pts]
. Scourge with Special / Heavy weapon [17pts]: Plasma Grenades, Shredder [5pts]
. Solarite [12pts]: Plasma Grenades, Shardcarbine
