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.

Tittliewinks22 wrote:
Tournament mindset is not a problem for 40k as a hobby. It is a problem for 40k as a narrative/role play/reenactment game.

Bob and Tim want to play a narrative game vs the Teal brothers. Bob and Tim bring are narrative players, their armies are converted, painted very nice and they are easy going chaps not out there to win at all costs. Bob has a wild ridder army and Tim has a harlequin army. The Teal brothers are narrative players too both play marines, DW and IF. Now in order for their team game to be fun. All have to have a huge model collection, and the brothers have to bring tournament style lists to the narrative game, because if they don't Bob and Tim can forget about playing two fast moving mounted forces. OR they can spend the next few weeks writing extra rules for the game, preferably how they change on a turn by turn basis. Which at some point ends up with neither playing the game, but more like writing a script for a movie.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Karol wrote:
Funny thing about different systems is that it doesn't matter if you are playing a Dire Foes special mission, or recreating the attack of guerillas on KGB strong point or try to recreated the multi battle of Pskow, the forces maybe "historical" locked in etc, but the rule set generaly stays the same. minus some special rules like "it was raining day one" or missed shot can decompress the bulkhead etc With GW systems, whole extra books have to be writen and "social" aspects of gaming have to be used for the game to end up not very enjoyable anyway.
And out of all GW games w40k is the most striking example of that happening.

yeah, because 40k's core rules are anemic.

Well GW could of course make a dynamic system with rules doing something more or different then +1Damage or +1 to Inv etc. But then in order for the system to not end up a mosh pit in the middle, games would have to be played with 40-50 models for horde armies and like 10-30 for everyone else. I don't think GW wants someone to finish an army by buying a starter set and 2-3 boxes. Even if in the past, as I have been told, it was a thing.

Karol wrote:

Well GW could of course make a dynamic system with rules doing something more or different then +1Damage or +1 to Inv etc. But then in order for the system to not end up a mosh pit in the middle, games would have to be played with 40-50 models for horde armies and like 10-30 for everyone else. I don't think GW wants someone to finish an army by buying a starter set and 2-3 boxes. Even if in the past, as I have been told, it was a thing.

no? Other games have better rules and fully support true horde armies. Heck, other games BY GW can manage it...

 Daedalus81 wrote:
FLG still uses player placed terrain and it's absolutely horrible for providing a consistent experience.

That's an argument against player placed terrain, not an argument in favour of symmetrical terrain.

Tyel wrote:


Space Wolves
A Captain and Chaplain on bikes. 2 units of Infiltrators. 2 units of aggressors, a Judicar, 3 units of scouts and a unit of jump pack wolf guard. 3 units of Skyclaws, 3 units of Long fangs and 2 Land Speeder Storms.

Is this fluffy? Well in a world where you need a tactical squad for every other unit no - but it doesn't seem out of whack to me. Unless you take the view that if you aren't maxing out on Thunder Wolves you aren't a true Space Wolf list.

Here's the especially fun part of Space Wolves: Each Great Company has a "specialization" and preference of the types of units they field based on the preferences of the Wolf Lord that rules it. Maxing out Thunderwolves and Fenrisian Wolves? That's something Harald Deathwolf and his Deathwolves Great Company is known for. Pretty much for every theme, you can dig into the Great Companies and find one that "justifies" that theme.

Honestly, just Ressurect Bligh to lead his team from a golden throne and have them make Horus heresy 1.0 but it’s every faction. The refined narrative player’s game, far away from the competitive rabble

Wayniac wrote:
The issues people who think that the mirrored terrain is the only balanced way so insist on doing it all the time and because there's enough misinformation that keeps peddling the horsegak that competitive is better for everyone because "muh balance" means that it stays a constant thing whether or not it should be, for casual and competitive alike.

Any time I bring up how sides should matter, not be irrelevant by having them identical like a MOBA (instead each side should have similar but not identical advantages. Eg. One side should have more cover but the other has more woods etc), it gets shouted down by cries that would ruin the game and let whoever picks the "better" side automatically win, with not one person thinking that being a thing illustrates critical flaws with the game design rather than being perfectly fine just requiring mirrored terrain.

League of Legends isn't identical, that's played in Esports with tonnes of money and prestige on the line and it's totally random which side each player gets. I actually think League of Legends is a good model for how terrain should be, both teams get two jungles with the red monster group on one side and the blue monster group on the other side, but for one team they have easy access to the neutral dragon boss and the blue monster jungle is close to the two-man both lane, while the other team gets easier access to the shellfish boss and the blue monster jungle is close to the one-man lane. With 40k you have an additional downside to the player who gets the best side of the table, I think there are an infinite number of bad ways to set up a board but there is still tonnes of great ways to set up different assymetrical fun boards to play on, especially if you take both lists into account. To me, the terrain is where you want to balance the game in casual games, because changing lists is a hassle and sometimes you get into a scissors vs paper match.

Starcraft doesn't need mirrored maps, but it's such a tightly balanced game that it'd require tonnes of effort to get things as right again if a map gives an advantage to 1/3 factions if they start in the better position, which might be perfectly balanced for 2/3 factions. 40k is such a huge sprawling game that the idea of getting every faction to a 45-55% win rate not just in aggregate but against each individual faction is ludicrous in the first place, so there is nothing to lose by having terrain that isn't mirrored. Video games also have the fact of needing to remember everything, with 40k you can just look, you've got plenty of time, you don't have to take an action every other second to keep up with your opponent.

Nerfing AP is a good first step to getting damage under control, them removing all the other silly buffs we got in 9th and we'll be back to the more reasonable index 8th level armies.

 Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:
I personally think that 40k should first appeal to just having direct, mostly balanced fun. Stuff like the old rules for the shokk attack gun is basically impossible to balance but it has that type of fun to it that really gives 40k its flavor. Taking that away just makes it a kinda average gun. 40k can benefit from balance but it benefits greater from interesting rules like special issue ammo on deathwatch, which was basically removed due to worry about perfect balance.

I don't see how it is impossible to balance wacky rules. Make them 95% as good in aggregate, better than normal 30% of the time, and worse than normal 35% of the time.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

fair enough on them all being shooters. And yes Starcraft has symmetrical maps but can't you spawn in spots that aren't mirrored? (Been a whiiiiile i played it)

Typically there are 4 locations and they will never spawn in the adjacent locations it will be one of the two locations across the map.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
FLG still uses player placed terrain and it's absolutely horrible for providing a consistent experience.

That's an argument against player placed terrain, not an argument in favour of symmetrical terrain.

Sort of - it allows people to create non-symmetrical terrain that benefits the strength of their army.

Competitive games that are non-symmetrical usually either have a complicated pick/ban system, swap sides in a Bo3, or both. There are gonna be logistic issues with emulating this method in a tournament setting for a game that runs as long as 2k points 40k.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
40k's main problem is its ridiculous lethality, if basic units *could* survive a round of shooting, players wouldnt feel like they need the most even board with a density higher than New Dehli just to have a semi-enjoyable game.

I totally agree with this, but I also think that lethality is a big part of what makes 40k, 40k. I feel like the problem would be better addressed by leaning into it with some kind of respawn mechanic to keep feeding meat to the grinder.

 LunarSol wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
40k's main problem is its ridiculous lethality, if basic units *could* survive a round of shooting, players wouldnt feel like they need the most even board with a density higher than New Dehli just to have a semi-enjoyable game.

I totally agree with this, but I also think that lethality is a big part of what makes 40k, 40k. I feel like the problem would be better addressed by leaning into it with some kind of respawn mechanic to keep feeding meat to the grinder.

Not a bad idea, spend CP to bring models back to a unit providing the unit still exists. The apothecary can bring a model back without CP spend. A chapter apothercary could then bring back 2 one from two units or somehting along those lines.

Like you say a way to keep feeding the meatgrinder for both players

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Sort of - it allows people to create non-symmetrical terrain that benefits the strength of their army.

Which is an argument against player-placed terrain... which I already said.

Players shouldn't be placing terrain at tournaments anyway.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Sort of - it allows people to create non-symmetrical terrain that benefits the strength of their army.

Which is an argument against player-placed terrain... which I already said.

Players shouldn't be placing terrain at tournaments anyway.

Different method - same outcome. Non-symmetrical terrain will provide an advantage to one person over the other.

You could have deployment zone terrain be similar and mid-board be random-ish and that could be fine, but it really comes down to what they decided to use for rules this time.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Sort of - it allows people to create non-symmetrical terrain that benefits the strength of their army.

Which is an argument against player-placed terrain... which I already said.

Players shouldn't be placing terrain at tournaments anyway.

But randumb dice rolls should, or clearly favorable terrains for one side with planet bowling bowl on the other?

I'm fine with asymmetrical terrain but only to an extent. I'd argue symmetrical terrain creates a more interesting game in terms of which player can take advantage of it best, which leads to actual tactical play vs "haha I got more cover than you, good luck".

 SeanDavid1991 wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
40k's main problem is its ridiculous lethality, if basic units *could* survive a round of shooting, players wouldnt feel like they need the most even board with a density higher than New Dehli just to have a semi-enjoyable game.

I totally agree with this, but I also think that lethality is a big part of what makes 40k, 40k. I feel like the problem would be better addressed by leaning into it with some kind of respawn mechanic to keep feeding meat to the grinder.

Not a bad idea, spend CP to bring models back to a unit providing the unit still exists. The apothecary can bring a model back without CP spend. A chapter apothercary could then bring back 2 one from two units or somehting along those lines.

See Aga of Sigmars Heroic Action "Rally".

ccs wrote:

 SeanDavid1991 wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
40k's main problem is its ridiculous lethality, if basic units *could* survive a round of shooting, players wouldnt feel like they need the most even board with a density higher than New Dehli just to have a semi-enjoyable game.

I totally agree with this, but I also think that lethality is a big part of what makes 40k, 40k. I feel like the problem would be better addressed by leaning into it with some kind of respawn mechanic to keep feeding meat to the grinder.

Not a bad idea, spend CP to bring models back to a unit providing the unit still exists. The apothecary can bring a model back without CP spend. A chapter apothercary could then bring back 2 one from two units or somehting along those lines.

See Aga of Sigmars Heroic Action "Rally".

There's some really neat directions you can take something like this. Like instead of putting units in drop pods they could act as a CP free respawn or something similar to that.

You can also limit it to non-character/hero stuff so there's still a sense of progress when you take out major models.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
FLG still uses player placed terrain and it's absolutely horrible for providing a consistent experience. Both players being able to experience the same conditions is integral to determining where issues occur. Just giving a more gun-line army wider lanes of shooting both reduces the tactical movement and planning as well as the conditions under which going first is an advantage or not.

Every single eSport uses mirrored ( or damn near ) environments. This isn't to say that 40K should be an eSport, but that mirroring is important to a balanced game.

If GW were to say 'we're only going to balance the game for mirrored tournament-layout battlefields' it would be a pretty tacit admission that they're really only designing for the competitive crowd. Narrative/casual players aren't laying out mirrored terrain, and there are ways to balance for that in design rather than throwing up your hands and saying 'sorry, can't be done, perfect symmetry or game don't work'.

Besides, e-sports are subject to mechanical limitations that tabletop games are not, plus the underlying RTS structure of starting from zero is completely different from 40K's pre-built lists, so it's not much more of an apples to apples comparison than looking at shooters (where asymmetric layouts are extremely common).

There are practical reasons why competitive RTSes generally use mirrored layouts for tournaments, but even outside of tournament play competitive-oriented games still design towards a fair experience (AKA balance) on asymmetric layouts. You gave Company of Heroes as an example, and while many of its maps are broadly symmetrical, they're usually not perfectly mirrored and some maps are outright asymmetrical.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
But randumb dice rolls should, or clearly favorable terrains for one side with planet bowling bowl on the other?

Why is it that the only alternative to perfect mirror matches you can think of is a tournament organizer putting all the cover on one side of the board and saying 'okay let's roll off to see who wins'?

Even with a perfectly symmetrical layout you're still depending on the organizer to make a balanced setup that isn't planet bowling ball or all dense terrain, which will obviously affect the matchup. You can't get away from different terrain layouts interfering with balance.

You could straight up have RTS-esque fixed layouts, perfectly symmetrical and curated, and competitive players would still bitch and moan that the randomly-chosen map they got doesn't have quite enough cover and unfairly penalizes their army, how randumb.

Maybe a mechanic that gives players some agency over how their army interacts with varying terrain layouts would be better than balancing around this impossible idea that the terrain should have no impact on the relative power of two armies.

I definitely think that lethality is a big issue too. Part of why terrain is "so important" is because without lots of LOS blocking, one side basically wipes out the other in one round.

I honestly do feel part of the issue too is 2k points. It's too unwieldy. There's a reason 1500 was the standard for over a decade or more, and 2k is really relatively new thing.

I think the real danger of competitive is how it’s pushed and how it affects local scenes, especially the new influx of players into them. Try and just walk up to someone and propose a house rule or custom scenario and you’re met with confusion a lot of the time now. Gw is kinda using the competitive angle to turn their way of play into the perceived only way to play.

Wayniac wrote:
I definitely think that lethality is a big issue too. Part of why terrain is "so important" is because without lots of LOS blocking, one side basically wipes out the other in one round.

I honestly do feel part of the issue too is 2k points. It's too unwieldy. There's a reason 1500 was the standard for over a decade or more, and 2k is really relatively new thing.

2k has been around over a decade at this point, primarily both in and due to the US scene. The want to "bring all the toys" so there aren't intentional gaps in lists or to add "tech" choices to the basic core lists rather than sacrifice things lead to 1999+1 games.

 LunarSol wrote:

ccs wrote:

 SeanDavid1991 wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
40k's main problem is its ridiculous lethality, if basic units *could* survive a round of shooting, players wouldnt feel like they need the most even board with a density higher than New Dehli just to have a semi-enjoyable game.

I totally agree with this, but I also think that lethality is a big part of what makes 40k, 40k. I feel like the problem would be better addressed by leaning into it with some kind of respawn mechanic to keep feeding meat to the grinder.

Not a bad idea, spend CP to bring models back to a unit providing the unit still exists. The apothecary can bring a model back without CP spend. A chapter apothercary could then bring back 2 one from two units or somehting along those lines.

See Aga of Sigmars Heroic Action "Rally".

There's some really neat directions you can take something like this. Like instead of putting units in drop pods they could act as a CP free respawn or something similar to that.

Hmm, no. That would not be a really neat direction to go in.

Dudeface wrote:
2k has been around over a decade at this point, primarily both in and due to the US scene. The want to "bring all the toys" so there aren't intentional gaps in lists or to add "tech" choices to the basic core lists rather than sacrifice things lead to 1999+1 games.

Not entirely sure why, but 1850 was the standard in 7th edition.

9th's lethality is a problem for players who just want to run their armies into each other and see what happens. Because the game ends in turn 2.
GW's aim in 10th is to roll that damage output back. Whether this works remains to be seen.

Tend to be a fan of mirrored terrain just because you know where you stand. In theory a prepared board of X terrain and Y terrain which offers differing advantages and issues could work - but I feel that's often not the case. And for store with 10+ tables - never mind major tournaments - I feel mirrored terrain beats "you get whatever we can find in the cupboard, oh this isn't fair at all but we've run out of stuff."

 SeanDavid1991 wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
40k's main problem is its ridiculous lethality, if basic units *could* survive a round of shooting, players wouldnt feel like they need the most even board with a density higher than New Dehli just to have a semi-enjoyable game.

I totally agree with this, but I also think that lethality is a big part of what makes 40k, 40k. I feel like the problem would be better addressed by leaning into it with some kind of respawn mechanic to keep feeding meat to the grinder.

Not a bad idea, spend CP to bring models back to a unit providing the unit still exists. The apothecary can bring a model back without CP spend. A chapter apothercary could then bring back 2 one from two units or somehting along those lines.

Like you say a way to keep feeding the meatgrinder for both players

Not a fan - you know its going to be that Op unit that you spent two turns killing and they kept enough CP to bring them back :(

Tyel wrote:
I feel mirrored terrain beats "you get whatever we can find in the cupboard, oh this isn't fair at all but we've run out of stuff."

You still get that same problem with mirrored terrain all the time. I've been to multiple events where the tables were barely a step removed from planet bowling ball, and go figure the gunline armies had a great time and the melee ones didn't. Or the terrain was lots of small pieces, making it hard to maneuver larger vehicles. Or the terrain was full of holes and didn't block LOS. These are going to affect different armies to different degrees, so just because it's symmetrical doesn't mean it's equally fair for both players.

I feel like mirrored vs non-mirrored terrain is a smokescreen for the actual underlying issue: Terrain layouts have a major impact on balance, but aren't regulated by the game, so you're just hoping the whims of the TO and random table assignment don't put you at a disadvantage. The bigger tournaments have come up with standardized layouts with standard terrain setups, but if you're willing to do the work to test whether a given layout is balanced for all armies, you can also design and test asymmetric layouts anyways.

If you really want a balanced and consistent experience, either you need specific, prescriptive, same-y terrain setups (like how you have specific, prescriptive, same-y missions and objective layouts), or you need battlefield layout to be a gameplay mechanic that players have some degree of control over.

Would be cool if they had specific, prescriptive HALF table setups, and each player picked what terrain type they were attacking from/defending in.

So a player that wants a lot of obscuring terrain might pick city ruins, and a player who wants to bunker down in cover would pick swampy forest, so the overall table would be a swampy forest on the edge of a ruined city.

Mechanically, of course, the terrain pieces would just have specific sizes, keywords, and placements so they could be physically represented by whatever.

Takes the best qualities of player placed terrain while keeping the limitations of "realistic" (mechanically speaking) terrain.

 Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:
I think the real danger of competitive is how it’s pushed and how it affects local scenes, especially the new influx of players into them. Try and just walk up to someone and propose a house rule or custom scenario and you’re met with confusion a lot of the time now. Gw is kinda using the competitive angle to turn their way of play into the perceived only way to play.

It's not a confused look, it's one of revulsion. Anything that's not "current meta" is discarded immediately out of hand.

 Mr Morden wrote:

 SeanDavid1991 wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
40k's main problem is its ridiculous lethality, if basic units *could* survive a round of shooting, players wouldnt feel like they need the most even board with a density higher than New Dehli just to have a semi-enjoyable game.

I totally agree with this, but I also think that lethality is a big part of what makes 40k, 40k. I feel like the problem would be better addressed by leaning into it with some kind of respawn mechanic to keep feeding meat to the grinder.

Not a bad idea, spend CP to bring models back to a unit providing the unit still exists. The apothecary can bring a model back without CP spend. A chapter apothercary could then bring back 2 one from two units or somehting along those lines.

Like you say a way to keep feeding the meatgrinder for both players

Not a fan - you know its going to be that Op unit that you spent two turns killing and they kept enough CP to bring them back :(

I don't think spending CP is the ideal way to go about it. Games that are generally less lethal are often more about pushing or moving models out of a space to claim an objective and score enough points to win. I think 40k could accomplish something similar with a more automatic respawn system. You get to replace X amount of stuff every round as part of the game. You "push" stuff off of objectives by killing them and making your opponent respawn them. It dials back the problem with attrition based gameplay without taking the way the endless waves of death feeling that defines the setting..

 Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:
Gw is kinda using the competitive angle to turn their way of play into the perceived only way to play.

GW is not.

GW produces Open War Cards, Matched Cards, and GW produces more support material for Crusade than matched.

YOUR STORE might insist on matched 2k from the latest GT mission pack.

THE PEOPLE WHO PLAY AT YOUR STORE might insist on matched 2k from the latest GT mission pack.

But GW is in charge of neither your store, nor the people who play at your store.

You severly underestimate the cult of oficialdom in the hobby penitent.

Racerguy180 wrote:

 Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:
I think the real danger of competitive is how it’s pushed and how it affects local scenes, especially the new influx of players into them. Try and just walk up to someone and propose a house rule or custom scenario and you’re met with confusion a lot of the time now. Gw is kinda using the competitive angle to turn their way of play into the perceived only way to play.

It's not a confused look, it's one of revulsion. Anything that's not "current meta" is discarded immediately out of hand.

How many times in the last two editions did you try set up a Pick up game with a relative stranger, and of those instances, how many times did you suggest a custom scenario? Either of you? Did you even try?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Not Online!!! wrote:
You severly underestimate the cult of oficialdom in the hobby penitent.

Maybe your custom rules are just doggak? That's always an option. In fact, it's the most PROBABLE option.

What has that to so with custom rules? It's merely an aspect of it. And afaik i never created custom rules either beyond attempting to port r&h into 8th in a workable fashion.

Fact is that once upon a time you saw far more conversions with no official model, nowadays you basically See nada.

Same with rules, campaigns with spins were more common, nowadays tournament derived rulessets are far more normative.
And even narrative has become standardised in a fashion that is more ehhh than positive with crusade.

Also rule 1 refresher would be something you would do well with.