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.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

Fixing the typos indicates an improvement in something, be it playtesting, proofreading, or taking care in the first place.

And what's wrong with challenging the blinkered hegemony of 2k-Matched-Play-most-recent-tournament-pack games? Note that Blndmage - and at least do them the courtesy of spelling their username correctly - isn't saying that people shouldn't be playing larger games, merely suggesting that people consider trying smaller games as well.

Yeah, pointing out that small games are an option is fine, the thing is most people who have tried them immediately noticed their flaws. An IGOUGO system with such high lethality does not work in smaller point level. At these levels you'll usually have 1-2 heavy hitters, so if your opponent manages to pop it on turn one, its a non-game.

Then you've made a poor list and will (hopefully) learn to make better choices for future games of this size.

ccs wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

Fixing the typos indicates an improvement in something, be it playtesting, proofreading, or taking care in the first place.

And what's wrong with challenging the blinkered hegemony of 2k-Matched-Play-most-recent-tournament-pack games? Note that Blndmage - and at least do them the courtesy of spelling their username correctly - isn't saying that people shouldn't be playing larger games, merely suggesting that people consider trying smaller games as well.

Yeah, pointing out that small games are an option is fine, the thing is most people who have tried them immediately noticed their flaws. An IGOUGO system with such high lethality does not work in smaller point level. At these levels you'll usually have 1-2 heavy hitters, so if your opponent manages to pop it on turn one, its a non-game.

Then you've made a poor list and will (hopefully) learn to make better choices for future games of this size.

Playing CSM:

Dark Apostle
5 khorne legionnaire
5 Tzeentch legionnaire (autocannon)
1 quadlas predator


Thats 500 pts and seems pretty fine but what happens if i play against fast melta units and they pop my predator on turn 1?

or i could just run 60 cultists and RoF-check my opponent

 Dysartes wrote:
And what's wrong with challenging the blinkered hegemony of 2k-Matched-Play-most-recent-tournament-pack games? Note that Blndmage - and at least do them the courtesy of spelling their username correctly - isn't saying that people shouldn't be playing larger games, merely suggesting that people consider trying smaller games as well.

There's nothing wrong with challenging it once and then accepting the answer. It gets kind of absurd when the challenge is posted monthly just in case maybe this time she gets a different answer, especially when the attempts are presented as "just asking questions" instead of the validation seeking they actually are. And she keeps talking about stuff like "Micro 40k" or "the incursion circuit" as if they're real things to make it look like there's support for the ideas that doesn't exist in the real world. But I suppose we'll do this thread, and then a month or two from now GW will issue a minor FAQ on some tiny detail of the 1000 point missions and MAYBE NOW WILL BE THE TIME.

ccs wrote:
Then you've made a poor list and will (hopefully) learn to make better choices for future games of this size.

How exactly do you suggest making a better list at a point level where you can only afford to have a handful of units on the table? How do you prepare for both green tide and a knight at 500 points? The reality is that there isn't enough room for redundancy in such a small game and a skew list can often kill the 1-2 major threats and shrug off the rest of the list while mopping up.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wayniac wrote:
Maybe because they SHOULD be "a thing"?

They really shouldn't. Small games are fine in a casual environment where people avoid the overpowered stuff and if something becomes a problem they're fine with changing their list to make things fair and fun. They don't work in a competitive environment as BlindMage is suggesting (complete with praising their e-sport potential!) because if your goal is to win you're always going to take a minimal-interactivity skew list that creates a miserable experience for anyone who isn't a hardcore e-sport player. Who enjoys a game where on turn 1 you kill your opponent's one anti-tank threat and the rest of the game is mopping up while your all-tank list is effectively immune to return fire? Or where you have so many orks/conscripts/etc on the table that your opponent literally can't kill all of them before the game ends and you win on primary VP? These "games" might as well end after the first turn since everyone knows the winner by that point and the rest of the game is a mere formality.

ccs 806431 11416079 wrote:

Then you've made a poor list and will (hopefully) learn to make better choices for future games of this size.

Puting both the knight factions aside, there are factions which don't work at 1000 or 1500, because of how point costs got assigned in their books. There are armies that can trim to 1000-1500pts, but not all. So a better choice for those people would have to include buying a different army.

And what's wrong with challenging the blinkered hegemony of 2k-Matched-Play-most-recent-tournament-pack games? Note that Blndmage - and at least do them the courtesy of spelling their username correctly - isn't saying that people shouldn't be playing larger games, merely suggesting that people consider trying smaller games as well.

Because GW is already wasting design and test time on stuff like crusade and open, and already have a hit and miss rules wise. You don't change the rules of basket ball, so more 1.65m dudes get included more often.

Karol wrote:


And what's wrong with challenging the blinkered hegemony of 2k-Matched-Play-most-recent-tournament-pack games? Note that Blndmage - and at least do them the courtesy of spelling their username correctly - isn't saying that people shouldn't be playing larger games, merely suggesting that people consider trying smaller games as well.

Because GW is already wasting design and test time on stuff like crusade and open, and already have a hit and miss rules wise. You don't change the rules of basket ball, so more 1.65m dudes get included more often.

Why? From all I learned from 8th and 9th ed and how people act, is that everyone is selfish, focused on the factions their or their friends play and how they play. If it is okey for some people to say that the core and most important element of a table top game is painting of the models, then I think I am fully allowed to think that GW focusing on stuff other then matched play is not something that should be done. And when someone doesn't like the dominance of match played, then my advice would mirror the advice of those paint focused people to what people that don't like painting can do.

Karol,

Why do you see time spent on non-Matched Play content as wasted?

Karol wrote:
[
Because GW is already wasting design and test time on stuff like crusade and open

That may be the worst take I've ever seen on Dakka!

Just because you're not personally interested in a particular part of the game does not make it a waste of time for them to provide it for those that are.

Karol wrote:
Why?

Because prople are not a hive mind.

Karol wrote:
From all I learned from 8th and 9th ed and how people act, is that everyone is selfish, focused on the factions their or their friends play and how they play. .

Which has nothing to do with what I said.you need to work on your reading comprehension.

Karol wrote:
Why? If it is okey for some people to say that the core and most important element of a table top game is painting of the models, then I think I am fully allowed to think that GW focusing on stuff other then matched play is not something that should be done.

And like them you'll be told it's a foolish position to take.

Karol wrote:
. And when someone doesn't like the dominance of match played, then my advice would mirror the advice of those paint focused people to what people that don't like painting can do.

So play with like minded people that are interested in what you are interested in? Hmm its almost like it's a good idea to have variable formats and game styles to appeal to them...

Deadnight wrote:
So play with like minded people that are interested in what you are interested in? Hmm its almost like it's a good idea to have variable formats and game styles to appeal to them...

How many formats do we need? We have normal matched play (the format the majority of players use), we have matched play with an additional buff table (GW's lame excuse for a narrative system which is a decent minority of players), and we have matched play with official permission to change the rules (which sees no use at all). And then we have matched play but with a different mission pack, matched play with a different different mission pack, etc. We'd be much better off if GW would put 100% of their effort into making the best possible standard matched play format instead of throwing out a bunch of slightly different variant formats that see very little use outside of GW HQ.

Bob?

PenitentJake wrote:
Bob?

Shas'O