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.

I dunno why you guys are arguing with Bob. Its pretty clear he just posts so he can argue with people and be as caustic as he can while doing so. The inconsistency of NMNR has be shown multiple times but the dude is still arguing on behalf of GW despite not liking them. He's not going to back down.

Hecaton wrote:

What do you do when one player insists that the reason he's winning is his superior skill, and the other says it's because the factions are unbalanced?

Ah, those who believe they are great master tacticians. I don't think they're that common outside overly competitive gaming, thankfully.

Hecaton wrote:

And what do you do when you both know the codexes are unbalanced but it would take hours of work to rebalance things?

I don't know what you mean, in my experience we always could pre-arrange a reasonably balanced game like Orks vs Eldar of 7th edition in 10 minutes. Like: max 6 scat bikes and no D weapons. Most of the times that was already enough. For SM? No free stuff. Done. Now it's definitely easier since things aren't as unbalanced as they were in 7th.

It's not the rating of the codexes that matter when you play the game, it's the lists. A non fully optimized list from a top codex is easily on par with an optimized one from a mid tier codex.

Not Online!!! 806046 11401401 wrote:

as for the power thing, I think the issue is, considering the recent powerspikes, that the fact that it doesn't "break the game" is an sign that it will be outperformed very soonish.
The same could be said at the time for the GSC dex, which was fairly well balanced but between Tau and Custodes didn't have much to say.

The power thing isn't just a now problem. It is mostly a future problem. Factions have to wait years to get book updates, so what ever you get now you will have to use 12-24 months down the line. And if the codex is bad or a copy past of a prior bad codex, this can turn in to years of a faction not being fun. It is also the main reason why so many people last only one edition. If someone gets a codex that is unfun to play with, within the edition it came out, then the chance it will get better next edition is rather low. Tau had the shield drone farm codex in 8th. Not a fun book to play against, and one would really have to like drones to like playing with it. When 9th dropped and shield drones stopped to work, they stopped even having that "OP" tournament list.
IG in 8th would cram other armies inside theirs and it worked okey. then 9th came and IG became borderline unfun. Knight had the uber castellan, all it took to take the army out of the game is to change the rules in a such a way that they get shot from behind terrain without the ability to shot back.

The fall off for "balanced" armies is just bigger, and that is all. Of course if someone owns 6-9 armies each with 6k+pts it maybe a bit different. But when the investment in to an army is a substential thing, spread over months if not years, then gettting a balanced book is a problem. Some people don't even get to play with the unablanced rules, because how long it takes sometimes, to get obscure models. getting 15 assault centurions was a real thing, but I have seen people switch from RG or other marines to IH or WS,just because to have fun with those, they didn't need to buy any extra models.

 Sim-Life wrote:
I dunno why you guys are arguing with Bob. Its pretty clear he just posts so he can argue with people and be as caustic as he can while doing so. The inconsistency of NMNR has be shown multiple times but the dude is still arguing on behalf of GW despite not liking them. He's not going to back down.

No, that would be you being a toxic donkey-cave and having some weird vendetta instead of reading what I actually wrote. NMNR is a stupid policy but it's clearly the reason jump pack HQs were removed. Nowhere in there am I arguing "on behalf of GW".

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
I dunno why you guys are arguing with Bob. Its pretty clear he just posts so he can argue with people and be as caustic as he can while doing so. The inconsistency of NMNR has be shown multiple times but the dude is still arguing on behalf of GW despite not liking them. He's not going to back down.

No, that would be you being a toxic donkey-cave and having some weird vendetta instead of reading what I actually wrote. NMNR is a stupid policy but it's clearly the reason jump pack HQs were removed. Nowhere in there am I arguing "on behalf of GW".

Again though, IF it were then as Gad has pointed out half the book would need more curbing.

AS it stands it's not even explainable by NMNR, the only really reasonable answer is , last minute phoned in garbage with no QA .


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
Also, removing and merging stuff is not always a bad thing, generally speaking (I'm not saying this about the CSM stuff in particular). But it's actually what legions of players are asking to reduce the bloat.

But they haven't done that. Removing Jump Packs, Lightning Claws and Combi-Weapons as general options doesn't decrease bloat, it just decreases options. If they wanted to decrease bloat then they wouldn't have written a book with ninety-seven stratagems.

Meanwhile, streamlining all various forms of power weapons into a single profile yet at the same time putting kit-based restrictions on power fists, chain fists and combi-weapons does nothing but confuse matters, as with one hand you're attempting to simplify things, and with the other hand needlessly complicating matters.

i don't mind the power weapon streamlining that much, it was indicative that something fishy was going on at the time, what i take issue with though is the chosen power fist is also a accursed weapon.

NVM, it is hillarious that the CSM book alone has that much stratagems, but somehow we can't have a lord with a jumppack, or a sorcerer, or a bike for a MoP, or for the aspiring.
Or lord forbid an way to run an all mortal chaos army.
Or make our own warband...
I'd gladly trade 90 stratagems to get such customizablity...

still... 97 stratagems...

Im not so bothered about squads of models but non customability of characters is slowly ruining a big part of this game/hobby/company for me.

 Blackie wrote:


Ah, those who believe they are great master tacticians. I don't think they're that common outside overly competitive gaming, thankfully.

So you will make no attempt to account for that situation and will pretend it doesn't exist? Good to know that your method of play is actually unworkable.

 Blackie wrote:


I don't know what you mean, in my experience we always could pre-arrange a reasonably balanced game like Orks vs Eldar of 7th edition in 10 minutes. Like: max 6 scat bikes and no D weapons. Most of the times that was already enough. For SM? No free stuff. Done. Now it's definitely easier since things aren't as unbalanced as they were in 7th.

It's not the rating of the codexes that matter when you play the game, it's the lists. A non fully optimized list from a top codex is easily on par with an optimized one from a mid tier codex.

Uh huh. How were you doing it with release Tyranids in 9e?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dai wrote:
Im not so bothered about squads of models but non customability of characters is slowly ruining a big part of this game/hobby/company for me.

Customizability of non-Astartes characters is a NPE for GE. They want all of them to be disposable, interchangeable punching bags for Astartes to beat.

Hecaton wrote:

So you will make no attempt to account for that situation and will pretend it doesn't exist? Good to know that your method of play is actually unworkable.

I was talking about friendly games, not random pick up games between players who desire to prove each other. I honestly don't care about balancing pick up games, as I believe those should be only intended for competitive gaming and competitive gaming is already reasonably (for the standards of 40k at least) balanced. So no, I don't think that situation exists.

Hecaton wrote:

Uh huh. How were you doing it with release Tyranids in 9e?

I played with and against tyranids multiple times in this edition. Never had a problem. Again, just avoid the flavour of the month and field "highlinder-ish" style forces. I had much more problems in 8th. Check a few of the most popular youtube channels that release battle reports, you'll find plenty of balanced games involving tyranids.

Getting exact 50/50 games is not the goal here, a balanced game means that if I play against the tyranid player, out of 10 games, at least 7-8 of them end up pretty close, regardless of the outcome.

Not Online!!! wrote:

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
I dunno why you guys are arguing with Bob. Its pretty clear he just posts so he can argue with people and be as caustic as he can while doing so. The inconsistency of NMNR has be shown multiple times but the dude is still arguing on behalf of GW despite not liking them. He's not going to back down.

No, that would be you being a toxic donkey-cave and having some weird vendetta instead of reading what I actually wrote. NMNR is a stupid policy but it's clearly the reason jump pack HQs were removed. Nowhere in there am I arguing "on behalf of GW".

Again though, IF it were then as Gad has pointed out half the book would need more curbing.

AS it stands it's not even explainable by NMNR, the only really reasonable answer is , last minute phoned in garbage with no QA .

Spoiler:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
Also, removing and merging stuff is not always a bad thing, generally speaking (I'm not saying this about the CSM stuff in particular). But it's actually what legions of players are asking to reduce the bloat.

But they haven't done that. Removing Jump Packs, Lightning Claws and Combi-Weapons as general options doesn't decrease bloat, it just decreases options. If they wanted to decrease bloat then they wouldn't have written a book with ninety-seven stratagems.

Meanwhile, streamlining all various forms of power weapons into a single profile yet at the same time putting kit-based restrictions on power fists, chain fists and combi-weapons does nothing but confuse matters, as with one hand you're attempting to simplify things, and with the other hand needlessly complicating matters.

i don't mind the power weapon streamlining that much, it was indicative that something fishy was going on at the time, what i take issue with though is the chosen power fist is also a accursed weapon.

NVM, it is hillarious that the CSM book alone has that much stratagems, but somehow we can't have a lord with a jumppack, or a sorcerer, or a bike for a MoP, or for the aspiring.
Or lord forbid an way to run an all mortal chaos army.
Or make our own warband...
I'd gladly trade 90 stratagems to get such customizablity...

still... 97 stratagems...

I disagree, a phoned in lazy last minute book would be a copy paste of entries and wargear from the last book. They actively altered some entries, which suggests they took more time on them than is likely reasonable.

The QA part is interesting, what's the acceptance criteria for the book? Because a QA could have done a stellar job if their purpose was basically male sure the book is laid out as expected, contains the expected entries and is easy to use in isolation. What you're discussing is more of a product team decision ove rthe jump packs, a QA likely will be told "we took them out, make sure they're not there" and lo and behold they did a good job in that regard.

Genuinely curious though what the acceptance threshold or criteria for a GW book is internally and how it gets past QA.

My main inclination as to why i assume we didn't have any QA testing involved is the fact of the absurd state of possessed, marks and Icons.
Aswell as the further existence of a double shooting and Votwl stratagem.

Good QA testing would've caught both, one as very wierd and the other as an unfun mechanic.

Not Online!!! wrote:
My main inclination as to why i assume we didn't have any QA testing involved is the fact of the absurd state of possessed, marks and Icons.
Aswell as the further existence of a double shooting and Votwl stratagem.

Good QA testing would've caught both, one as very wierd and the other as an unfun mechanic.

They would unless they were told that was intentional, they might have simply been overruled.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
If they wanted to decrease bloat then they wouldn't have written a book with ninety-seven stratagems

Holy hell I knew it was bad but had no idea it was that bad

What, every model now gets it's own???

how many chaos legions are there 7 or 8, plus corsairs, plus renegades even if each got only 5 specific stratagems we would be looking at 40-50, then the obligatory extra relic, extra warlord trait, smoke for rhinos etc and getting to 70 is not that hard.

ccs wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
If they wanted to decrease bloat then they wouldn't have written a book with ninety-seven stratagems

Holy hell I knew it was bad but had no idea it was that bad

What, every model now gets it's own???

It's preferable to the 70-odd + 8 supplements though.

 Blackie wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

So you will make no attempt to account for that situation and will pretend it doesn't exist? Good to know that your method of play is actually unworkable.

I was talking about friendly games, not random pick up games between players who desire to prove each other. I honestly don't care about balancing pick up games, as I believe those should be only intended for competitive gaming and competitive gaming is already reasonably (for the standards of 40k at least) balanced. So no, I don't think that situation exists.

Then I don't think you're using any of the terminology the same way anyone else is.

Lack of common terms is often a big problem in threads here. For me a friendly game is any game played outside of tournament, maybe even noob store events, where not everyone has optimised lists. For Blacky, I think, a friendly game is one where you can change the rules, scenarios, stats or even army compositions on the spot on a game per game basis, And if you can't do it, then the game ain't friendly.

 Sim-Life wrote:
I dunno why you guys are arguing with Bob. Its pretty clear he just posts so he can argue with people and be as caustic as he can while doing so. The inconsistency of NMNR has be shown multiple times but the dude is still arguing on behalf of GW despite not liking them. He's not going to back down.

Bob's response (in OT) to the JWST space images:
It isn't possible to have a good faith discussion with someone who has abandoned evidence-based thinking, just ignore and move on. This thread has seen a lot of interesting and nuanced discussion so far, I'd hate for it to get derailed in the same manner as so many others.

Dudeface wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
My main inclination as to why i assume we didn't have any QA testing involved is the fact of the absurd state of possessed, marks and Icons.
Aswell as the further existence of a double shooting and Votwl stratagem.

Good QA testing would've caught both, one as very wierd and the other as an unfun mechanic.

They would unless they were told that was intentional, they might have simply been overruled.

but at that stage, wouldn't you agree, that you may aswell don't have a QA at all?

For the record , i am not blaming QA, if it exists, i blame the multimillion dollar international company not getting its gak together in its processes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karol wrote:
Lack of common terms is often a big problem in threads here. For me a friendly game is any game played outside of tournament, maybe even noob store events, where not everyone has optimised lists. For Blacky, I think, a friendly game is one where you can change the rules, scenarios, stats or even army compositions on the spot on a game per game basis, And if you can't do it, then the game ain't friendly.

one isn't that far off the other Karol, and neither are they mutualy exclusive, at the end its a hobby that is supposed to make fun. Since 2 parties are in general involved that requires a tad of negotiating always, atleast to settle down what the game shall be.

after all many a homebrew campaign has started as just outside games with unoptimised lists.

Not Online!!! wrote:


Not just Jumppacks, but also the removal of double shooting and Votwl aswell as not restricting CSM squads loadouts aswell as not removing the specialisation options via combiweapons for either Chosen and terminators.
Further the avoidance of the hairbrained restrictions of Icons and marks and finaly added customizability to the minor HQ as to make them integrate far easier into differing armies, especially for the aspiring champion,

And yeah, it certainly wouldn't have required a scientist to achieve that.

VotLW is still in the dex (although nerfed)


Are you really saying that double shooting + votlw shouldve stayed in the dex? it was most of the reason why the 8th ed codex was gak to play

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:


Not just Jumppacks, but also the removal of double shooting and Votwl aswell as not restricting CSM squads loadouts aswell as not removing the specialisation options via combiweapons for either Chosen and terminators.
Further the avoidance of the hairbrained restrictions of Icons and marks and finaly added customizability to the minor HQ as to make them integrate far easier into differing armies, especially for the aspiring champion,

And yeah, it certainly wouldn't have required a scientist to achieve that.

VotLW is still in the dex (although nerfed)


Are you really saying that double shooting + votlw shouldve stayed in the dex? it was most of the reason why the 8th ed codex was gak to play

No i am saying that they should^ve been removed, there's still a double shooting for csm if i am not mistaken no?

--------------------------

So i played three games with the new NL yesterday. Felt fething terrible, anything NL-specific felt much worst than in the 8th editon codex + PA and my trait wasn't active except against things that i didnt need it to be (woohoo, wounding skitariis on 2+ with my WarpTalons that already wipe the squad anyway)

The datasheet are stronger, the marks do something now but the fluff feels like gak.

Played a game with creations of bile and it felt more like NL than the actual NL rules.

@Gadzilla at least i started planting the seeds about trying HH 2.0 with a few players so i got that going for me



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Not Online!!! wrote:

No i am saying that they should^ve been removed, there's still a double shooting for csm if i am not mistaken no?

oh ok, missed what you meant.

The double shooting is only for legionnaires now, so at best you're double shooting 2 different Heavy/special weapons and 8 boltguns

Doesn't matter, it's still a double shooting, it shouldn't exist, period, and i am half willing someone realised that 8 boltguns and 2 reaper chaincannons may be an issue if they got on demand doubled and curbed the specialisation.

Yeah so it's not going to get used.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Doesn't matter, it's still a double shooting, it shouldn't exist, period, and i am half willing someone realised that 8 boltguns and 2 reaper chaincannons may be an issue if they got on demand doubled and curbed the specialisation.

you can't have 2 chaincannons but yeah, its dumb that its still there but at least being restricted to legionnaires means the rest of the codex isnt priced assuming its gonna be double shooting all game

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Doesn't matter, it's still a double shooting, it shouldn't exist, period, and i am half willing someone realised that 8 boltguns and 2 reaper chaincannons may be an issue if they got on demand doubled and curbed the specialisation.

you can't have 2 chaincannons but yeah, its dumb that its still there but at least being restricted to legionnaires means the rest of the codex isnt priced assuming its gonna be double shooting all game

No i think they realised that it is bad enough on legionaires and that is the reason why we are prohibited to have double heavies and specials.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
--------------------------

So i played three games with the new NL yesterday. Felt fething terrible, anything NL-specific felt much worst than in the 8th editon codex + PA and my trait wasn't active except against things that i didnt need it to be (woohoo, wounding skitariis on 2+ with my WarpTalons that already wipe the squad anyway)

The datasheet are stronger, the marks do something now but the fluff feels like gak.

Played a game with creations of bile and it felt more like NL than the actual NL rules.

@Gadzilla at least i started planting the seeds about trying HH 2.0 with a few players so i got that going for me



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Not Online!!! wrote:

No i am saying that they should^ve been removed, there's still a double shooting for csm if i am not mistaken no?

oh ok, missed what you meant.

The double shooting is only for legionnaires now, so at best you're double shooting 2 different Heavy/special weapons and 8 boltguns

I'm sorry to hear about your experience with the codex Vlad, but glad to hear you're working on getting some HH games in. I think you'll enjoy the Core rules more than 40k's as well, and not just the NL rules. Good luck in getting that done.

Interesting that you consider CoB more like Night Lords than the actual Night Lords rules. For my part, I think that the Alpha Legion rules are far closer to what Night Lords were in 3.5 than the actual Night Lords rules, myself.

I think you've missed Not Online's point again, however. What he's getting at is that many people are theorizing that at least one of the reasons for Legionaries being unable to double up on any one special/heavy weapon is the double shoot/fight strategem. Basically, it was seen as too strong with things like ×2 chaincannons/plasma guns, so instead of removing the strategem, they just removed the ability to double up on specials/heavies.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Interesting that you consider CoB more like Night Lords than the actual Night Lords rules. For my part, I think that the Alpha Legion rules are far closer to what Night Lords were in 3.5 than the actual Night Lords rules, myself.

well i started playing 40k with 8th so i never got to experience the mythical 3.5e dex. For me night lords are all about striking fast from the unseen. PA had buffs for charges which made our deepstrike charges more reliable. Now that these are gone, CoB's +1 movement and Advance+charge strat means that i can kinda do the same thing (raptors/warp talons moving 13"+D6 before charging kinda feels like striking from the unseen). And the +1S effectively acts like the +1 to wound against factions for which it matters (Loyalists) where our trait wouldnt actually activate.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:


I think you've missed Not Online's point again, however. What he's getting at is that many people are theorizing that at least one of the reasons for Legionaries being unable to double up on any one special/heavy weapon is the double shoot/fight strategem. Basically, it was seen as too strong with things like ×2 chaincannons/plasma guns, so instead of removing the strategem, they just removed the ability to double up on specials/heavies.

gotcha. yeah, the wargear restrictions feel terrible in the book (and the icon/marks while more interesting than before having more restrictions as to who can use them is dumb as feth)

GW's NMNR Policy is filled with exceptions of many sorts. Figuring it out would be like decipher ancient text and even then you would find many exceptions. A few things I've seemed to notice out of late are:

Troops Squads - What's in the Box and built using the assembly rules is what you can build with a few exceptions like:

constructed kit cross-compatibility: AS Battle can use the Power Maul and Multi-Melta from the Retibutor Box

Chaos Legionaries: There are two models that can have special/heavy weapons (an a third the can have a flamer) but they decided 2 that are not the same rather than give truly stupid limits (one model can have a meltagun, missile launcher, or chain cannon; another model can have Plasma gun or a heavy Bolter; another model can have a flamer)

Elite/Fast Attack/Heavy Support Squads - These tend to come in minimum squad boxes that can be doubled up to make a full squad. They also often have 1 of each extra weapon. They therefore allow you to have up two 4 of the same weapon. Not universally true:

Havoks are in a max squad box but don't have enough weapons to actually take the maximum allowed.

Retributors need 2 boxes to maximize the number of a single weapon option, which is allowed, but has no bolters included to actually build a max squad from two boxes. You have to mix and match models with a Battle Sister Box to get a full legal unit.

Old Kits - When old modular kits are still available, you tend to get the full range of options, like Chaos Bikers who were modular with the older CSM and Havok kits not to mention loyalist marine kits.

HQs - Tend to keep their options until they have a new kit available with all the options. Since the only Chaos Lord is a mono-build kit, you get to keep using your OG Chaos Lords. Same for SM Captains. Except for the Chaos Champion - He only gets the new model options (aka none).

So as always, GW is consistently inconsistent in how they apply rules.

Not Online!!! 806046 1140175 wrote:one isn't that far off the other Karol, and neither are they mutualy exclusive, at the end its a hobby that is supposed to make fun. Since 2 parties are in general involved that requires a tad of negotiating always, atleast to settle down what the game shall be.

after all many a homebrew campaign has started as just outside games with unoptimised lists.

For the few years I have been online I have learned that most arguments very fast devolved to such esoteric levels of understanding of terms and language, combined with 100% assumption the other side defines them the same, that one would have to start with a few pages of explaining of such terms as I, We, do, not do etc.

"fun" as a goal or main entice of a game is a hard thing to both use as a measurable term. Too many variables, too many moments where a person can just think or voice a no. Enjoyment of a thing, in this case an army, with in an existing game system is, in my opinion a much better thing. But the system has to be stable. It can't change from game to game, and it can't be dependent on the other person saying yes. Now on top of that one can build anything. Plus the rule set isn't just one. Just like a school bout isn't the same as a world champs, a narrative game doesn't have to be a matched played one etc.

On top of that there is a financial aspect, and I think a generational one too and I hope it is called that way in english too. 100% unoptimised, as in pick what ever models you like, happens only if someone has the financial strenght to do it. A new player who can get 2000pts army, who has to paint the army, and wants to play with it, may not afford a 2000$ top shelf OP, but he is not going to buy an army made out of scouts either. All in all most arguments seem to be very academical and based on personal dislikes of other armies, people or games etc.

Good to learn new words, not so much if one really expects to convince the other side of anything.

I think the only thing where real progress happens is talk about general mechanics, and I mean like above even the IGYG thing. Stuff like can one make a game with skirmish and RPG style rules, which works, but at the same time uses a battle game number of models. Or how to balance to enjoyment between having a fully paid army, and a new player needing months or years to paint an army to full.

for me its a failure due to removal of options and being ... dull, it just feels boring, not sure if its the codex or if its down to something else.