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.
PenitentJake wrote: It muddies the water a bit, and I would say THIS update seems to affect other modes of play more than the other updates we've seen so far.
Yup. The local Crusade league immediately adopted it in the middle of their league.
As did the one I'm in.
Slightly annoying to my Gretchin crewed Lobbas. AoC though? It'll save a few wounds, but it's not going to be enough to save them vs all my other assorted Gunz & Grot Tanks.
2022/04/18 06:43:51
Subject: Re:Annd Time of death for 9th is 4/14/2022
Back to the Infantry Squad with Lasguns vs Marine with Lascannon shooting at a tank... that isn't a fair comparison.
Because the Lascannon is not good at killing tanks.
A Grav-cannon (which is 5 points cheaper each) is actually better at killing everything (regardless of toughness) as long as it has a 3+ base save or better (and/or doesn't have -1 damage). Granted, -1 damage seems to be more common. Same AP at -3. Is 18" extra range worth +5 points? Maybe, but that is up to you.
Sure, the Grav-cannon only wounds on 5+ for T6-8, but double the shots and that averages the same number of wounds as the Lascannon. Grav-Cannon only does 2 damage compared to 3.5 average on the Lascannon... but again, double the shots (to 4 now, which the Grav-Cannon has) and you are comparing 3.5 to 4.
Against T8 2+ (w/AoC)
Grav-cannon: 4 shots at (2/3 accuracy) x (1/3 wound) x (1/2 save) x (2 damage) = 0.89 damage
vs
Lascannon: 1 shot at (2/3) accuracy x (2/3 wound) x (1/2 save) x (3.5 damage) = .78 damage
Narrative is about telling your own stories. Crusade is just a tool to allow you to show growth and give you narrative goals to pursue in doing so.
And yes, to respond to AnonmanderRake: it's not perfectly balanced. That was the whole point about doing things beyond just slapping equivalently pointed forces on the table and rolling dice. Narrative play is a system that requires effort to get good stories out of and approaching it like matched play is a mistake.
Specifically, how do you do this? Because this sounds like a handwave of a solution, and the upthread comment about "how many times can we tell the story of being tabled in 2 turns" becomes very relevant.
Did you ignore my entire post about crafting different scenarios? Taking points handicaps? Giving free units back to weaker army?
And it's not like you can't come up with story reasons for one side to be out numbered, or for the weaker army to be reinforced. That's easy stuff off the top of my head as examples.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/04/18 06:49:55
2022/04/18 07:08:18
Subject: Re:Annd Time of death for 9th is 4/14/2022
Kaied wrote: Because the Lascannon is not good at killing tanks.
You're saying that like it's not a problem.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ClockworkZion wrote: Did you ignore my entire post about crafting different scenarios?
And do you playtest said scenarios for balance ahead of time? Do you have any of these scenarios written up that you could show me? Because in my Crusade league the TO made "narrative" scenarios that were horribly unbalanced and noninteractive.
ClockworkZion wrote: Taking points handicaps? Giving free units back to weaker army?
"Ah, looks like I killed your army on turn 2. Just respawn them, I want to kill them again."
Specifically what are solutions? How many points did you give players extra? When did you decide this? How did you decide how many points to give? (How much testing/how did you do it?)
ClockworkZion wrote: And it's not like you can't come up with story reasons for one side to be out numbered, or for the weaker army to be reinforced. That's easy stuff off the top of my head as examples.
Never said anything of the sort. Like I said, I'm asking for specifics.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/04/18 07:11:59
Narrative is about telling your own stories. Crusade is just a tool to allow you to show growth and give you narrative goals to pursue in doing so.
And yes, to respond to AnonmanderRake: it's not perfectly balanced. That was the whole point about doing things beyond just slapping equivalently pointed forces on the table and rolling dice. Narrative play is a system that requires effort to get good stories out of and approaching it like matched play is a mistake.
Specifically, how do you do this? Because this sounds like a handwave of a solution, and the upthread comment about "how many times can we tell the story of being tabled in 2 turns" becomes very relevant.
Warning: What I'm about to say may sound quite radical to some of you....
1st, & most importantly, you discuss it with the people you're playing with. It's NOT a tourney. Changes can be made.
2nd: I would recommend playing your 1st Crusade as printed. This is so everyone can get practical experience with how it's supposed to work mechanics wise.
Make it small - say start at 25pl rosters & only play until you reach the 50pl point. Take notes during this initial Crusade. What works, what doesn't, things you liked/didn't, ideas....
3rd: Then run a 2nd, bigger, Crusade. Start by having a group discussion. Do you have things that need changing? Added? Deleted? Want more campaign structure? etc etc etc. Might be that you have to do some horse trading & compromising.
Ex: In our current Crusade? I was more than happy to vote for the CSM player to have 2w for his marines - in exchange for being able to make Makari &/or The Red Gobbo on squig my Warlord (I'm playing a Grot list. And by Ork Crusade rules named characters cannot be the warlord. Well, there's no generic Grot character....)
Warning: What I'm about to say may sound quite radical to some of you....
1st, & most importantly, you discuss it with the people you're playing with. It's NOT a tourney.
You misunderstand what I'm asking. I'm asking for a specific implementation of how that went. How many extra points/PL did the weaker player get? How did your reinforcement rules work, etc?
Because you say it's not perfectly balanced, and that's fine. But how is it that both players are unsure if they can complete their objectives or not in an approximately fair way?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/04/18 07:46:25
Tyran wrote: There is a point that a game being too balanced starts hurting the game's income, as experienced players lose any desire to buy more models. 40k isn't even close to that point, but theoretically you want (as a company) to have a dynamic imbalance that forces even experience players to constantly buy new miniatures while still being balanced enough to avoid a player exodus.
You do see this in online shooters though, where a static gamestate grows stale and only the next release shakes things up again.
GW embracing intentional "perfect imbalance" isn't wrong, the problem is their business model still being tied to physical books makes it impossible to really keep the game up to speed in a timely manner.
Successful online shooters don't keep things fresh by deliberately rotating imbalance; they keep things fresh by adding content and fixing existing imbalances to open new viable options.
A static, tired game state is the result of no new content and sufficient imbalance that there are right and wrong choices and, thus, only a few ways to 'actually' play.
I mean what they often do is release a new game with different gear. Or at least that's the CoD/Battlefield model.
I'm not saying they can't make the game work without a shifting meta, but when leaning into competitive trying to keep the game from being solve and staying solved is important to keep the game from being too stale, which seems to be why GW has taken the design approach they have. It's not one that works without a living digital ruleset, but it's what they've adopted.
Now that I'm home I want to talk a little more about how tabletop gaming compares to videogames in terms of keeping things fresh. This isn't really meant to be argumentative, more an observation.
Back in the day, up until the mid-2000s, you had multiplayer shooters where all the content was available from the outset. Doom, Unreal Tournament, Quake, Counter-Strike, Halo, all the classic franchises worked the same way: A server can run any map, you can play any game type, you can use any weapon, all the content is available to you right from the outset. It gets stale when you're so used to all the weapons and all the maps that it becomes a dull and same-y experience, unless you really enjoy that experience in which case you become one of the die-hards. Sometimes these games got expansion packs that added new content, or patches that address balance, but sometimes not.
Similarly I think it's safe to say that most wargames are/were designed as cohesive, one-off experiences. Historical miniature wargames are generally intended to be complete from the outset; the sorts of games Warlord or TooFatLardies produce are intended to be 'final', with changes made either to improve balance or add content, but not 'living' wargames. The game gives you rules, you assemble the forces needed to play those rules, and off you go. It becomes stale when you stop supplying new forces to try, stop playing new scenarios, and stop making new terrain or playing with new people. Honestly, compared to classic shooters, I'd say wargames have a lot more going for them in terms of keeping things fresh.
In the mid-2000s PC gaming started to adopt player progression, particularly the Call of Duty and Battlefield franchises. Now you didn't just have a variety of maps and scenarios; you also were drip-fed new weapons and equipment as you played. In theory these didn't give you an advantage over other players, just sidegrade options, but that wasn't always the case- and people complained bitterly when high-level gear was flat-out superior. But the idea was that the starting gear would give you a curated, simple way to play, and then as you got more familiar with the game you were given all these whizz-bang accessories to try out and 'grow into'.
I think GW's tried to apply a similar model to 40K, though for marketing reasons in addition to longevity. 40K has more support than ever for starting with a single squad (Kill Team), expanding to a small force (Combat Patrol), and ultimately progressing up to the very expensive 2000pt army. They also have Crusade, which more directly applies a progression system to your army. Just as CoD4 used that experience bar and drip-feed of New Stuff to drive you to keep playing, Crusade offers the promise of new battle honors to keep you coming back even if you and your friends are using the exact same set of models as last time.
Now the current trend is seasons, where games rotate in large amounts of new content on a timed basis. Progression mechanisms are used to access some of it, enticing players who have burned out to return and start grinding to get the new stuff, while continuing players get new carrots on the end of the stick to keep playing. Throughout all this, there's ongoing balance improvement. The common practice is not churn for the sake of churn, but adjustment as new content affects the balance of existing content, or just general improvement to legacy content. The important thing from a business standpoint is that there is heavy use of monetization, particularly of cosmetics, so that the constant drip of New Stuff is associated with a constant drip of continued revenue from existing players.
Is GW doing this? Absolutely. Books like Vigilus and Psychic Awakening are a perfect example. They add new content for existing factions and/or new scenarios to try, and you pay for the privilege. PA in particular added novel mechanics to existing factions, and was tied into adding new models as well, so there was that drive to get New Stuff for your particular faction. Buy the new Chapter Approved to get the new balance updates and missions. Buy the New Stuff to keep playing.
At no point in here is there any concept of a game being 'too balanced', needing deliberate imbalance to keep things fresh. Some companies actually put a lot of time and effort into making their games as balanced as possible- Valve, for example, playtested the hell out of Team Fortress 2 to make every class feel equally useful on launch. But once developers start adding new content, then balance tweaks and even major gameplay changes are needed to make it all fit, as well as improve on things that were deemed acceptable for release but not as fun or interesting as they could be. And problems start to crop up. Ostensibly positive gameplay changes hurt balance. New content renders old content obsolete, or interacts with it in unanticipated ways. The game starts to bloat out of control, and its old virtues of simplicity and balance are usurped by the financial drive to add more New Stuff, despite the best efforts of the developers. Eventually active development ends, the game state is frozen, and they move on to another project- leaving behind a half-broken game and dissatisfied fans. But if it's not a total trainwreck by the end, they'll probably buy the sequel.
Put bluntly: I don't think there's any credibility to the idea that GW deliberately rotates the meta to make people buy things, or that they don't want balance because people would be bored. I am much more inclined to attribute the pendulum swings to a design team struggling to tread water while under the pressure of a business decision to constantly release more, more more New Stuff because that's what makes them more money. Then there's the stupid print media release schedule hanging like an albatross around their necks, to say nothing of the difficulty of gathering reliable data or playtesting a game that may not actually look or play the same in consumers' homes as it does in the studio (see: terrain, and how little of it players tend to use). The question of whether they seek balance or deliberate slight imbalance is ultimately irrelevant, as they can't manage to achieve either under these conditions (though before anyone jumps down my throat about it- yes, they could be doing a lot better than they are). And we're never going to see a balanced state of 9th Ed, because this ends the same way it does for games: A new edition will be released, legacy content will be purged, and the cycle will begin again.
So if we want balance to be sufficiently achievable that 'deliberate imbalance' is even worth discussion, then getting away from the codex creep and the constant cycle of one-upmanship is a basic requirement. The moving target of balance in a changing game state where by the time you get any useful data it's too late to change the next codex is just not reasonable. I think it is possible to simultaneously work towards balance and release New Stuff to keep people excited and keep the game fresh, but that New Stuff has to be primarily additive content- rules for new theaters of war, new campaigns, new Crusade content, new (optional, with opponent's permission) armies of renown, new mission packs, new tournament packs, stuff that you can choose to add on to your game rather than something that forcibly changes your play experience (unless you outright reject the concept of New Stuff altogether). As long as there's a relatively static 'core' game, that's something that can be iterated upon without constantly having to catch up with changes to the game state. That said, if you add new units (let alone factions) mid-edition that's going to shake things up; but at least it would be more controlled and manageable than the current approach of a whole faction's worth of upset every few months plus all the other content.
Why isn't there an eye roll orkmoji?
In case you weren't aware of this, GW has been operating under this exact formulae since beforeFPS games were a thing. Rogue Trader came out & they promptly set about releasing more & more content be it in dedicated 40k books or the pages of WD, changing how the game worked, adding new stuff, and occasionally some errata & FAQs. Some good, some bad, some.... And before RT? They were already doing it with WHFB 1st & 2nd edition. They did not adopt any of this from the video game industry.
catbarf wrote: Of course, as long as people keep buying stuff under the current model, there's no incentive to change.
Oh this again....
{shrugs} Look, as long as they keep making new models that I want & I find the price acceptable they'll keep getting $ from me. However they interpret "Got x$ from CCS."? Not my concern.
I'm sure I'm not alone in this stance.
Here's why it's a problem, even if it's not YOUR problem.
If GWs practices are too consumer-unfriendly, it drives people away to other products or pastimes, ultimately hurting the 40k community. If you're all good to play in isolation, good for you. But driving customers away still hurts other people who, like you, might still enjoy the product, because their local community will be less vibrant. I've seen it happen a number of times. It's in everybody's interest to have 40k be enjoyable for a large segment of would-be fans. So even if you're totally fine with the way things are going, you should still lend an ear to to those who are being driven away.
Case in point: I don't play many armies, but I definitely want the fans and players of other armies to be actively engaged locally, because it makes the community better and gives me a wider variety of opponents. When I don't see Ork armies with lots of boys, it's dissapointing for me even though I don't play orks. When Eldar players don't show up because they're annoyed at how little damage their Dire Avengers do to Space Marines, that takes something away from the community as well.
Let me think about that for a moment. Hmmm.... Yeah, I'll pass.
Why? Because I've played for years under such/similar restrictions in previous editions. Grew bored of that long ago. The 8e+ detachment system is wonderful. If I WANT to go troop heavy I can. And I do with some of my forces. Other times? If I have an idea/theme/just want to switch it up? All I have to do is spend the CP.
And some things just aren't possible if the Troops slot must be filled. Go ahead, tell me 1) how I'd field a pure Necron Destroyer cult (there are no Destroyer units in the troops section), 2) WHY I shouldn't be able to do this? And BTW? My Destroyers can hold objectives just fine. Even without ObSec.
Hell, even GW figured out that the 3e-7e FoC limitations couldn't accommodate various thematic armies. Such as Deathwing, Ravenwing, bike heavy White Scars, Iyanden, tank companies.... And so they set about making al kinds of exceptions to the force chart by swapping what slots things were in.
I think the issue with this line of thinking is that many themed armies, by their very nature, end up being extreme skew armies that are rarely fun to play against (especially on a regular basis).
For example, a Leman Russ tank company is a themed army but, by it's very nature, is all but immune to small arms fire. Even if the opponent ultimately wins, it's unlikely to feel rewarding because having most of your units sit around, twiddling their thumbs, just isn't fun. Whereas, if the IG player had to include a set amount of troops, then he could still run an armoured company (putting said troops in Chimeras or Tauroxes), but now his opponent actually has some potential targets for his anti-infantry weapons.
To me at least, it would seem wiser if some of the more skew-y theme lists were reserved for narrative/open play games. Indeed, this would seem to be the point of such games - to open the possibility of unconventional armies that aren't really suitable for matched play but which might be fun to experiment with every now and again (and when both players know exactly what they're in for).
That said, I also agree with you that some theme lists should be viable. Where I disagree is that the 'anything goes' approach to detachments and list-building is the best way to accomplish this. Instead, I think it would be wiser to take an approach similar to that of AoS - wherein taking the relevant HQ for that theme as your Warlord makes one of your themed units Troops. To take your Destroyer Cult example, taking a Lokhust Lord or Skorpekh Lord as your Warlord could make Ophydian Destroyers count as troop choices.
Obviously each theme would have to be looked at on an individual basis but the overall idea would be to find a balance between permitting as many of them as possible, whilst also discounting the few that are liable to cause issues with skew.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/04/18 11:09:14
blood reaper wrote: I will respect human rights and trans people but I will never under any circumstances use the phrase 'folks' or 'ya'll'. I would rather be killed by firing squad.
the_scotsman wrote: Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"
Argive wrote: GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.
You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.
Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
Narrative is only as screwed as the rest if you treat it like a strict system and not a toolset and take a step outside of the pee corner.
You know what? I give up. Enjoy your wallowing in your pee sand. I can't convince you, just like I can't convince anyone who has decided that GW's ruleset is an ironclad law on how to play rather than a framework meant to be worked with while you craft the experience to make both players happy instead of just mashing armies into each other to see whose brain is the most wrinkled in the list writing stage.
Okey. I but still the assumption that people will just waste their own money, just so other can have fun, while they can just play vs armies that are more or less on the same power level in the same time, is a bit hopeful to say the least. It it stops working the moment people stop being the best of best friends, and just act normal.
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
2022/04/18 13:19:17
Subject: Re:Annd Time of death for 9th is 4/14/2022
I think the issue with this line of thinking is that many themed armies, by their very nature, end up being extreme skew armies that are rarely fun to play against (especially on a regular basis).
My personal issue with the FOC is that it worked in 3rd, when armies had 30 datasheets including multiple troops and no more than 3-4 different elite, FA and HS. A "complete" collection of models could never break the FOC once. Now he have armies with dozens of datasheets but a handful of troops and "complete" collections of models are would be hard to play with such restrictions. Not to mention the imbalance between troop choices and tools to bypass the FOC such as squadrons.
Something like the old FOC would work under WHFB types of rosters, in which pretty much every infantry barred the really armoured ones and the bikes are troops. With the current codexes many armies would need 20ish datasheets under the troop section. For orks, for example, at least units such as warbikes, burnaboyz, kommandos, lootas, tankbustas, squig riders, stormboyz should be troops. Probably nobz, meganobz, koptas, flash gtiz too. Leaving characters for elites and large vehicles for FA and HS.
Or maybe just re-shape the old FOC into something closer to what we have, with 0-5 or 0-6 Elites, FA, HS.
But overall I'm with ccs, I love the current system and I think it works great. I would have wanted it in 5th, 7th and 8th (didn't play 6th). Of all the issues of 9th edition I don't think there's even one that involves the detachment system. Even most of the OP skew lists of 9th wouldn't actually break the old FOC. When squigbuggies were OP people could still field 9, same with the current and the old detachment system.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/04/18 13:21:10
2022/04/18 13:32:50
Subject: Re:Annd Time of death for 9th is 4/14/2022
Even most of the OP skew lists of 9th wouldn't actually break the old FOC.
With the way squadrons work. The eldar/harli lists would look identical to the way they look right now. But for my army with 3 elites and 2 HQ slots, I wouldn't be able to play half the support characters I run. It all boils down to if an army has or doesn't have squadrons and if it has good troops. Marines for example run minimal troops and max out elits and FA, with just 3 slots for each and a limit to 2 HQ they wouldn't be able to run their armies at all. And they are hardly the OP skew lists in 9th.
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
Insectum7 wrote: If GWs practices are too consumer-unfriendly, it drives people away to other products or pastimes, ultimately hurting the 40k community. If you're all good to play in isolation, good for you. But driving customers away still hurts other people who, like you, might still enjoy the product, because their local community will be less vibrant. I've seen it happen a number of times. It's in everybody's interest to have 40k be enjoyable for a large segment of would-be fans. So even if you're totally fine with the way things are going, you should still lend an ear to to those who are being driven away.
I agree and I've seen it. In 98' and so one for a while GW dictated to shops what they must order to have an account. This was the case and the local game shop that became my home away from home simply refused to order or participate with GW. Other games which were more affordable and honestly more interesting took over. We played a lot of Warzone and Chronopia. They didn't get into GW products until after 2000 or 2001. The lack of GW had no downside for them that I ever heard about and they were usually packed on the week ends with MGT and role playing games so use table top wargames struggled to get a table.
The rewards of tolerance are treachery and betrayal.
Remember kids, Games Workshop needs you more than you need them.
Narrative is only as screwed as the rest if you treat it like a strict system and not a toolset and take a step outside of the pee corner.
You know what? I give up. Enjoy your wallowing in your pee sand. I can't convince you, just like I can't convince anyone who has decided that GW's ruleset is an ironclad law on how to play rather than a framework meant to be worked with while you craft the experience to make both players happy instead of just mashing armies into each other to see whose brain is the most wrinkled in the list writing stage.
Okey. I but still the assumption that people will just waste their own money, just so other can have fun, while they can just play vs armies that are more or less on the same power level in the same time, is a bit hopeful to say the least. It it stops working the moment people stop being the best of best friends, and just act normal.
No one is saying matched play shouldn't be better, but with it being the corner of the sandbox all the local cats have peed in right now my point is that if you want to have fun, it probably ain't going to be there. Now if it's better in the future, great, but GW has adopted the churn of a game like League of Legends to try and keep competitive balanced and interesting with little thought how the rest of the community has to play with it (and maybe this is a knock on effect of the management seeking to support competitive more directly because they see it as profitable).
I'm not saying everyone has to play narrative either, I'm just saying that if you do, there are options beyond playing it completely as presented to you out of the core rulebook. Just because GW hasn't handed us a narrative toolbox (like say a mission generator, or tips on asymmetrical missions) doesn't mean we're forbidden from ever stepping outside of the realms of "2,000 point GT Missions" that the community seems so fond of defaulting to despite often complaining about how stale or frustrating that is.
ccs wrote:Why isn't there an eye roll orkmoji?
In case you weren't aware of this, GW has been operating under this exact formulae since beforeFPS games were a thing. Rogue Trader came out & they promptly set about releasing more & more content be it in dedicated 40k books or the pages of WD, changing how the game worked, adding new stuff, and occasionally some errata & FAQs. Some good, some bad, some.... And before RT? They were already doing it with WHFB 1st & 2nd edition. They did not adopt any of this from the video game industry.
I apologize if I gave the impression that I was arguing GW is slavishly following the videogame industry, that was not my intent. Although if you don't think there's any cross-pollination between tabletop and digital, you really ought to check out GDC sometime.
But yes, GW has always added new content to the game. They've always had this rolling release cycle of codices, and they've always added new (though typically optional or FAQ-oriented) stuff in WD.
What they haven't historically done is release codices this rapidly, while also changing the rules every three months, while also changing points at least yearly, while releasing new tournament rules that fundamentally shape the tournament scene, while also releasing spin-off expansions like Psychic Awakening that become part of core rules. The game is also a lot more complex, with more factions and more units, than it was twenty or even ten years ago.
I'm not complaining that GW is being more proactive about balance, but the rapidity of this release cycle and focus on selling you content besides your codex are relatively new things, and make it increasingly different to target any stable state of the game. That's just how it is.
ClockworkZion wrote:I won't dictate how others can have their fun but this refusal to step one foot outside of the strict framework of matched play and try open play or even narrative and make the game fun by giving up a slavish devotion to what is clearly a broken format is a bit baffling to me. It's like getting a whole sandbox to play on but insisting on only playing in the sand that smells like pee.
I like narrative games! But it takes a lot of work to actually balance two forces, particularly if you're using atypical battlefield conditions to shake up the gameplay. The benefit of good balance to begin with is that it's much easier to set up atypical or narrative scenarios and have a decent idea of how it should go. I also find it's very common to have two players with different ideas of the state of the game and what balance looks like, so you get disagreements over what actually needs to be done to balance a game, and that can lead to hurt feelings.
So I really don't blame anyone who would rather not assume the mantle of game designer/playtester and would prefer to just play the rules as written or find another game. Especially if their play experience is primarily pick-up games, so building narrative scenarios has an extra social hurdle of finding someone interested in playing it.
ClockworkZion wrote:I won't dictate how others can have their fun but this refusal to step one foot outside of the strict framework of matched play and try open play or even narrative and make the game fun by giving up a slavish devotion to what is clearly a broken format is a bit baffling to me. It's like getting a whole sandbox to play on but insisting on only playing in the sand that smells like pee.
I like narrative games! But it takes a lot of work to actually balance two forces, particularly if you're using atypical battlefield conditions to shake up the gameplay. The benefit of good balance to begin with is that it's much easier to set up atypical or narrative scenarios and have a decent idea of how it should go. I also find it's very common to have two players with different ideas of the state of the game and what balance looks like, so you get disagreements over what actually needs to be done to balance a game, and that can lead to hurt feelings.
So I really don't blame anyone who would rather not assume the mantle of game designer/playtester and would prefer to just play the rules as written or find another game. Especially if their play experience is primarily pick-up games, so building narrative scenarios has an extra social hurdle of finding someone interested in playing it.
Yeah, I won't pretend it's easy but I see it as a small price to pay to ensure everyone gets to have fun over chasing how many wins I can get.
And by god I wish it was a better system and had more tools in it, but I'm at the point that I'd rather make the effort to find a way to have a good game over taking the trash fire that is matched play and assuming that the game will be fair if you drop 2k of Guard against 2k of literally anything else at this point.
ClockworkZion wrote:I won't dictate how others can have their fun but this refusal to step one foot outside of the strict framework of matched play and try open play or even narrative and make the game fun by giving up a slavish devotion to what is clearly a broken format is a bit baffling to me. It's like getting a whole sandbox to play on but insisting on only playing in the sand that smells like pee.
I like narrative games! But it takes a lot of work to actually balance two forces, particularly if you're using atypical battlefield conditions to shake up the gameplay. The benefit of good balance to begin with is that it's much easier to set up atypical or narrative scenarios and have a decent idea of how it should go. I also find it's very common to have two players with different ideas of the state of the game and what balance looks like, so you get disagreements over what actually needs to be done to balance a game, and that can lead to hurt feelings.
So I really don't blame anyone who would rather not assume the mantle of game designer/playtester and would prefer to just play the rules as written or find another game. Especially if their play experience is primarily pick-up games, so building narrative scenarios has an extra social hurdle of finding someone interested in playing it.
Yeah, I won't pretend it's easy but I see it as a small price to pay to ensure everyone gets to have fun over chasing how many wins I can get.
And by god I wish it was a better system and had more tools in it, but I'm at the point that I'd rather make the effort to find a way to have a good game over taking the trash fire that is matched play and assuming that the game will be fair if you drop 2k of Guard against 2k of literally anything else at this point.
I saw this argument over and over again during those years and it's hard to not think that maybe, just maybe, there is an inherent sociological problem to pick-up culture? The one of treating the opponent as an NPC not worthy of any accommodation to ensure their fun? From what many people report, pick-up culture in many places, especially those overly competitive ones and in times of the greatest impact of "list building as a skill" games of "matched, 2000pts, current GT" sound more like two people playing solitaires on the same table being angry at each other, that the other one is taking up their table space. If I were to start my 40k adventure right now, introduced to the game by one of the more competitive posters on this forum, I would run the hell away from not only the game, but most importantly, the straight up toxic community, because from reading dakka reports, 40k almost never sounds like a fun game and an enjoyable pass time activity. Instead it is described as an utterly miserable, self degrading addiction.
BlackoCatto wrote: Jeez, Guard get a little help in a bad edition for them and the forums catch on fire.
The forum likes to catch fire a lot.
I won't claim that the change for guard is "thematic" but god damn did they need something to stop being the worst army in the game. Now they'll tie with the second worst army with the game.
Insectum7 wrote: I genuinely wonder if a better fix would have been simply "Reduce the AP of ALL weapons by 1."
No, because then it would screw up stats of balanced ones like most of SM guns (yes, I know it's difficult concept for xeno players, but not everyone's book is a factory of Gorgonzola, you know) and would do nothing to bring up the durability of factions that were supposed to have better, all encompassing armour than mooks with slightly thicker t-shirt who also now get 3+ save for some inane non-reason now. GW managed to hit two issues with one strike, kudos for that.
Insectum7 wrote: Maybe you can explain why a squad of Guardsmen with Lasguns are better at tank killing than a squad of DEVASTATORS WITH LASCANNONS and why that's good for the game.
I like how you cherrypicked really bad unit and act like IG being now better than crap is the problem, not SMDevs being terrible.
Let's compare IG squad to usual Harlequin/DE/Eldar infantry cheese or Tau crisis suits, never mind commanders, equivalent points THEN tell me with a straight face it's IG that are the problematic unit. I am waiting.
yukishiro1 wrote: The -1AP thing is a perfect example of how much of a mess the game is. You put far too much AP in the game...so now you're compensating by giving certain factions something that reduces AP. Instead of just attacking the actual problem and getting rid of the excessive AP. Compensate for bad design with more bloat, rather than just fixing the bad design directly.
But then the amount of saltworks explosion from xenos players their utterly broken cheese was reigned in and is now "just" very good instead of 'I win on list building stage LOL' OP would probably create new Eye of Terror, and GW probably doesn't want that problem. Yes, it's their fault but that was probably least problematic thing they could have done - and funnily enough, it also slightly reined in things like orkstodes or saves inflation on xeno models (why eldar street sweepers and juvenile gangsters went from hitting on 4+ and 5+ save to better stats than elites of other factions, again?) so it's pretty elegant solution all told.
Also, I like how people supposedly caring about ""verisimilitude"" now complain faction that is described as literal walking tanks shrugging off shoots that kill mere mortals is no longer less durable than T3 mooks and can actually now save a few more shots. Oh no, muh ""verisimilitude"" was all good when they less durable than orks, not when they actually resemble fluff SM a bit more, eh?
catbarf wrote: Guardsmen getting auto wound on 6s is the dumbest, least internally consistent, least fluff-based balance decision I've seen this edition. Maybe that sounds dramatic, but when someone decides that Guardsmen with lasguns should be better at killing tanks than Intercessors, it's very clear that the guys writing the rules are trying to balance tournament win rates without regard for the verisimilitude or even just matching the fluff.
So, army famous for weight of fire getting a few shots through bits of armor already weakened by previous damage somehow ""breaks verisimilitude"" even though that's literally how they deal with every single well armored foe in every single bit of IG fluff, but orkstodes, all the OP gak taudar do including laughable nonsense that is their most busted weapons capable of killing literal gods with ease (Emperor was stupid chasing webway, he should have initiated Railgun project instead to kill Chaos real dead, hurr durr), and chaffiest tyranids all lugging heavy bolters (not to mention other insane stuff that breaks the fluff to bits Tyranids now have) does not?
*slow clap*
I especially like xenos players crying what used to be glass hammers is no longer straight upgrade in durability over SM and that tiny buff SM got somehow makes them OP when in reality SM will probably go from 30% winrate to 35% while broken xeno gak goes from 70-80% to 65-75%. Oh no, the world is ending, SM no longer are removed from table like orks (except they still are to usual taudar AT spam, but SHHH on that inconvenient truth)
Two Infantry Squads rapid firing with FRFSRF can just about bracket a Leman Russ. What the feth?
Let's see, ignoring usual theoryhammer issue of said squads somehow teleporting within 9 inches of Russ while Russ player sits there for 5 rounds doing nothing while they crawl into range, they can do 74 shots, do 12 wounds through guaranteed hits (plus ~3 from the rest of shooting) for a grand total of 2.5 wounds that will get through 2+ save, assuming Russ isn't in cover.
That privilege costs you 120 pts in squads and 35 for a commander. Should I point out what 155 points Tau tank can do to Russ? Or any other 155 points of utterly broken gak xenos now bring? Comparing 2.5 wounds to that is, well, I have no words
And the crying over lasguns doing anything is especially comical after months of blatant xeno smug lies how railguns are totes balanced and harmless because they don't technically """killl""" a knight, ignoring knight on last 2 wounds is as good as dead anyway and in any case, unit worth 1/3 to 1/4 of knight points effectively removing it in a single shooting phase is a complete and utter travesty of balance. But no, railguns are not a problem (insert usual other liexcuse "we have so much more far more broken stuff in Tau book railguns are totes bad bro and totally not 5x better unit than anything found in Imperial books, git gud"), it's 2.5 las wounds that are now the BIGGEST PROBLEM EVER
ClockworkZion wrote:I won't dictate how others can have their fun but this refusal to step one foot outside of the strict framework of matched play and try open play or even narrative and make the game fun by giving up a slavish devotion to what is clearly a broken format is a bit baffling to me. It's like getting a whole sandbox to play on but insisting on only playing in the sand that smells like pee.
I like narrative games! But it takes a lot of work to actually balance two forces, particularly if you're using atypical battlefield conditions to shake up the gameplay. The benefit of good balance to begin with is that it's much easier to set up atypical or narrative scenarios and have a decent idea of how it should go. I also find it's very common to have two players with different ideas of the state of the game and what balance looks like, so you get disagreements over what actually needs to be done to balance a game, and that can lead to hurt feelings.
So I really don't blame anyone who would rather not assume the mantle of game designer/playtester and would prefer to just play the rules as written or find another game. Especially if their play experience is primarily pick-up games, so building narrative scenarios has an extra social hurdle of finding someone interested in playing it.
Yeah, I won't pretend it's easy but I see it as a small price to pay to ensure everyone gets to have fun over chasing how many wins I can get.
And by god I wish it was a better system and had more tools in it, but I'm at the point that I'd rather make the effort to find a way to have a good game over taking the trash fire that is matched play and assuming that the game will be fair if you drop 2k of Guard against 2k of literally anything else at this point.
I saw this argument over and over again during those years and it's hard to not think that maybe, just maybe, there is an inherent sociological problem to pick-up culture? The one of treating the opponent as an NPC not worthy of any accommodation to ensure their fun? From what many people report, pick-up culture in many places, especially those overly competitive ones and in times of the greatest impact of "list building as a skill" games of "matched, 2000pts, current GT" sound more like two people playing solitaires on the same table being angry at each other, that the other one is taking up their table space. If I were to start my 40k adventure right now, introduced to the game by one of the more competitive posters on this forum, I would run the hell away from not only the game, but most importantly, the straight up toxic community, because from reading dakka reports, 40k almost never sounds like a fun game and an enjoyable pass time activity. Instead it is described as an utterly miserable, self degrading addiction.
Sounds like you're reading too many internet horror stories.
What you're describing matches no one in my own experience. I've met some crappy TFGs, but nothing like the nightmare land you describe.
ClockworkZion wrote: Did you ignore my entire post about crafting different scenarios? Taking points handicaps? Giving free units back to weaker army?
And it's not like you can't come up with story reasons for one side to be out numbered, or for the weaker army to be reinforced. That's easy stuff off the top of my head as examples.
No real need for that, narrative isn't balanced by any means, but it's fun and losing isn't a bit deal since you still make progress. I mean, half the narrative games I've played in AoS/40k I don't even try to win, the difference in progress between winning and losing is pretty minor. WAAC is going to suck no matter the format.
"In relating the circumstances which have led to my confinement in this refuge for the demented, I am aware that my present position will create a natural doubt of the authenticity of my narrative."
I think the problem is that some people think like you, and I happen to think like that too, while others claim that the difference between the casual and the WAAC army is vast.
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
BlackoCatto wrote: Jeez, Guard get a little help in a bad edition for them and the forums catch on fire.
The forum likes to catch fire a lot.
I won't claim that the change for guard is "thematic" but god damn did they need something to stop being the worst army in the game. Now they'll tie with the second worst army with the game.
It's not Guard getting some help I mind. It's Guard getting that help from non-sense rules & exceptions.
Sure, if we ignore the fact that a heavy bolter has range 36" over the fleshborer 18", 3 shots instead of 1 and damage 2 instead of 1. And also assuming it is a fleshborer unit and not a devourer or spinefist one.
Using that that logic a battle cannon and a missile launcher are the same thing, or a plasma gun and a Riptide's ion accelerator, because apparently strength and AP are the only things that matter.
(not to mention other insane stuff that breaks the fluff to bits Tyranids now have) does not?
Such as? I'm not sure you are particularly knowledgeable about Tyranid fluff.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/04/18 15:59:10
Sounds like you're reading too many internet horror stories.
What you're describing matches no one in my own experience. I've met some crappy TFGs, but nothing like the nightmare land you describe.
Try playing a noob IF army, when your two friends decided to pick up tau, because they like mecha suits, and custodes, because of the gilding and byzantine character. And the opposit can be just as bad, 4 friends, first three pick csm, IG and some sort of marines, and then the last one likes the sleak look of eldar. There is not going to be much enjoyment in either group, if they started in 9th ed.
There is a lot of talk about play what you want when you start w40k, even pick stuff based on what to paint, before even knowing the rules or playing any games. But then when it comes to actually playing the game, there is suddenly a whole list of 101 things you and your opponent have to do in order to make a non tournament game be fun. Also a game shouldn't require you to really like reading books, painting and assembling the models to make it worthwhile. And funny enough GW does make games like that. With AoS you can litterally ignore the lore, never read a book and you can still enjoy a game of AoS with your Lumineth Lords.
Sure, if we ignore the fact that a heavy bolter has range 36" over the fleshborer 18", 3 shots instead of 1 and damage 2 instead of 1. And also assuming it is a fleshborer unit and not a devourer or spinefist one.
How much do 3 guants with the fleshborers cost? Also ranges in w40k, specially on fast moving stuff only matter if you have a weapon with a 12 or lower range.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/04/18 16:03:49
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
BTW a heavy weapons team is cheaper, and have way better damage output because damage 2.
I still do not understand why Space Marines players are losing their mind over fleshborers. 1 Bs4+ S5 ap-1 D1 shot for 7 points is not particularly impressive.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/04/18 16:20:20
BTW a heavy weapons team is cheaper, and have way better damage output because damage 2.
I still do not understand why Space Marines players are losing their mind over fleshborers. 1 Bs4+ S5 ap-1 D1 shot for 7 points is not particularly impressive.
many space marine players on here want movie marines. A single marine should be able to solo the swarmlord or ghaz , while a captain should be able to take on both at once without taking a wound. The NPC factions are not allowed to have nice things because it might hurt the marine player feelings and thus sales.
as a reminder they freaked out with 20+ page posts about how OP ork boyz were going to be at T5 and with a (now useless against them due to their whining) -1ap choppa. nevermind that ork boyz were useless outside one sigble small squad with a 1 per detachment restriction.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/04/18 16:30:06
ClockworkZion wrote: ...I won't dictate how others can have their fun but this refusal to step one foot outside of the strict framework of matched play and try open play or even narrative and make the game fun by giving up a slavish devotion to what is clearly a broken format is a bit baffling to me. It's like getting a whole sandbox to play on but insisting on only playing in the sand that smells like pee.
The fundamental problem with open/narrative play is that they're still using the same Codexes as matched play (stats, special rules, points costs, PL costs, etc., etc.), which means you're subject to the same endless parade of bloat, power creep, and general mess that makes matched play horrible, but then you get told "oh, no, this is narrative, as long as you can make up a good story about why you got tabled in two turns it's all fine!"
Hell, if Narrative play had a genuine attempt at story telling I'd love to try it.
Sadly "crusades" is the most bland pile of crap I've ever seen. LMAO, one tesla rifle in a squad gets +1 to hit against air units? Feth off.
Narrative is about telling your own stories. Crusade is just a tool to allow you to show growth and give you narrative goals to pursue in doing so.
And yes, to respond to AnonmanderRake: it's not perfectly balanced. That was the whole point about doing things beyond just slapping equivalently pointed forces on the table and rolling dice. Narrative play is a system that requires effort to get good stories out of and approaching it like matched play is a mistake.
You knew I'd show up eventually if people talked enough $#!+ about Crusade... It's like saying Candyman in the mirror. LOL
And look, I know I can't make anyone like something that they've either tried and genuinely not liked, or used their superpowers of projection to determine in advance that they wouldn't like it even if they tried it- I also won't bother trying to figure out which of you fall into each of those camps. But let's go down this rabbit hole now that you've opened the door.
First, to address Rake: The most important fundamental difference between Crusade and other forms of 40k is that through Agendas, Crusade provides goals that are not linked to victory conditions. This makes enjoyment of the game less dependent upon winning, which in turn diminishes somewhat the importance of imbalance. Crusade also provides somewhere in the neighbourhood of 3x as many missions as matched, and many of them are asymmetrical. Missions like this are a great way to help a weaker army in its performance against a broken one.
And note: I'm not saying that balance isn't important; I'm not saying the elements of Crusade I've just spoken about are a perfect fix. What I am saying is that these two key components of the Crusade system, which do not appear in other game modes somewhat offset the negativity that many of you see in matched play. I'd also like to point out that some of the sledge-hammer fixes that many have complained about recently, like limitations on aircraft for everybody, or the prohibition against bringing more than one subfaction to battle, do not exist in Crusade, which allows more freedom to build an army that you might like. Combining subfactions is really good material for a narrative- why are the factions agreeing to ally? Who reached out to whom, and how did they do it?
And losses ARE a part of your story. If my sisters got tabled in a game, I'd bring back a number of units as Repentia in the subsequent battle, because that's fluffy AF and fun. If my DE got tabled? That begins the vendetta- my units would develop grudges against specific enemy units- I think it's the second Charadon mission pack that has the grudge rules, but even without rules, there are ways to enact a grudge on the table... But again, it involves not giving a damn about the win, but instead focusing all of your attention on the target of your grudge.
All of these things sound like a more fun way to deal with a loss- or even a series of them- than bitching about it for days in every online echo chamber of game-hate that I can find, but again, you do you bro.
As for Eonfuzz: if all you talk about is the +1 to hit Aircraft, then yes, I suppose it's fair to say that isn't a story, but you can't deny that there are narrative elements that you are ignoring in order to prove the point. Minimally, the unit that receives the upgrade has to do something to earn it. That's the bare minimum established by the rules of the game. It's also fair to say that any battlefield success achieved as a result of that upgrade becomes part of the story. So minimally, just according the bare rules of the game, you've got: "Thanks to their discovery of the ariel targetting array at Bunker Gamma III on the Deathworld Faustus Sigma IX, squad Nero VI was able to thwart the psychic terror of the Hemlock Wraithfighter in its attempt to destroy our holy Techno Magos Deridian Alpha with vile Xenos witchery."
Now when I Crusade, we pick our upgrades so that we can tell better stories. So for me, I'd only go for an anti-aircraft upgrade if the unit in question had a particular game established grudge against aircraft- like maybe they were wiped out once upon a time in a bombing run. Also, I would connect the Agendas that the squad uses to achieve the necessary experience to the tech in question- so if it's the salvage component of Admech Crusade rules that pays for the upgrade, I'd make sure that at least some of the salvaged vehicles were aircraft. Finally, once I have the upgrade, we would fight our way back to the army that included the bomber that set the whole damn story in motion and send it to hell.
But sure, if you prefer to be a blaise hipster and call it nothing more than +1 to hit vs. aircraft so that you can "win" an argument on the internet, that's your prerogative, but it shouldn't come as any surprise which of us has more fun playing the game.
And Rake, for the 25000 dollar bonus question, exactly how many games would I have to win to tell that story? For those of you playing along at home, if you guessed Zero, you're a winner. I could tell that entire storyline while getting soundly curbstomped by harlequins for months. I'm still going to do a dance of joy when squad Nero IV pisses on the flaming wreckage of that bomber so they can salvage it for parts which will become a chapter in the next story.
Finally Clockwork- I checked the thread on another tab, and there's been a whole page of responses that went up after I started this response. I haven't read them yet, but I've done this dance often enough to know how this ends: if you say anything remotely positive about 40k on Dakka, even if you hedge it with qualifiers to demonstrate empathy with those who have a negative opinion and even if you agree with and validate some of their anger, they won't be content with that and allow for the possibility that you can still enjoy the game. Eventually you and I, after trying our hardest to offer a different perspective in the hopes that we can improve the play experience for others, will fall silent under the chorus of people who won't be happy until everyone agrees that this is the worst edition ever. Until the next edition, when they won't be happy until we all say that's the worst edition.
But for now, we can take Bunker Gamma III on the Deathworld of Fautus Sigma Nine and see what's inside. Because just like 40k, we don't have to win in order to amuse ourselves on Dakka. And it's a good thing, because right now Those Who Play Only 2k Matched Yet Hate the Whole Game are overpowered, and the People Who Find a Way could use a balance update.
Platuan4th wrote: Oh look, a thread proclaiming the death of 40K. Must be a day from the past 20+ years ending in y.
Every time an individual player personally gets fed up and decides to quit for the first time they feel like their outrage is more justified than the outrage of all the players who came before, and figure that because they're outraged that must mean there's something sufficiently wrong with the game for lots of people to quit. Let them hang around for a few edition cycles and watch the newbies dismiss them as frustrated old farts who don't know what they're talking about because GW has changed and everything's going to be fine now, and they'll be grouchy and jaded too.
Nice try, but that was more a comment about how people have been doomsaying the imminent death of 40K for nigh on 30 years and continue to be so epicly WRONG.
Well there have been a couple periods over those years where they've hemorrhaged players and their stock price plummeted. The game wasn't dead but it wasn't the most played/bought tabletop wargame for the first time in its existence. I remember Xwing and WMH outselling 40k at all my local stores for a couple years. GW got rid of Kirby and his team and got back on track for awhile. Now we have 9th which is probably the worst state the game has ever been in in terms of balance and rules bloat. Coincidentally, my local store is now having an Infinity night for the first time since the pandemic started. I'm seeing the same trends now as I was the last time around, 40k tournament attendance plummets (my FLGS has a monthly 40k tournament, they used to have 32 players, the next one was reduced to 14 spots because of lack of demand), other games start becoming popular (everyone is playing Bloodbowl or Infinity now), stock price dropping, websites heavily sponsored by GW become openly critical... The game isn't dead and it won't die any time soon but GW will do a lot worse financially unless they fix it.
- but using it in response to one of catbarf's posts would be an error in judgement.
7000 
