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 finally got around to playing a game of Shadow Wars: Armageddon today. In principle, the idea was appealing to me. It's a kill-team sized game based, by and large, around basic infantry models. No psychic powers. No tanks. No super heavies. No shenanigans. Right?

So, hey, I give it a shot.

I decide to play CSM. I make a kill team:

Sarge with bolt pistol, inferno bolts and a power sword.
3 CSM with boltguns, telescope sights and inferno bolts.
Cultist with autogun.

All marine models with Mark of Tzeentch.

A decent loadout, I think to myself. This is an infantry based game. Boltguns should be decent. The telescopic sights will give me range. And, of course, I need not worry about my opponents taking armor saves, since All Is Dust!

Yeah...

Here's how this went down.

In my first game, I was treated to Eldar guardians who didn't actually need line of sight for anything, since their LoS was drawn from their mobile weapons platforms, not from them. And, of course, I rarely had LoS to them, and even when I did, I never hit anything, since their weapons platforms fething gave them 50% or more obscurity.

[And while we're on the topic. What kind of sadist writes a fething rule that makes me try to judge how much 50% on a humanoid or quasi-humanoid figure is? Oh, there were arguments about this during the games I played. "It's obviously obscured 50% or more." "No, it's not. No, I can't see the legs or the back, but I can see the entire torso!" Again: "He is plainly visible to me! He's barely even obscured." "No, no, you don't understand. He's turned to the side like this. So, from your point of view, he's actually obscured OVER 50%!" I HATE variations of the 50% rule. I hope the 50 percent rule for vehicles dies in 8th edition. Feth you, 50% rule. It's a stupid rule. What am I fething supposed to do, start doing geometrical calculations and measurements? It's a stupid rule for vehicles, and it's even MORE fething stupid for models that aren't in basic, simple geometrical shapes.]

Of course, this never effected my opponent. Since in addition to Eldar weapons platform having the ridiculous, OP mechanics that they do (don't require line of sight FROM the user, but do OBSCURE line of sight TO the user), they also fired a ridiculous number of shots per phase.

Oh, my opponent needed a 5 or a 6? That's fine. He was getting an average of 4 shots anyway.

Even so, my armor protected me?

Doesn't matter. Because in this game, you don't actually have to take a wound for your model to be taken out of commission. Simply succeeding with a single "to hit" roll is enough to knock a model off of its feet and render him perfectly useless for at least a turn.

And the eldar have plenty of dice to roll. Each of their basic infantry get d3 hits with their basic guns.

Because why the feth, not, right?

And eldar models still have battle focus.

Overwatch is perfectly useless against the eldar. You know why? Because the overwatch rule says "during the opponent's movement phase." It doesn't say a thing about movements outside of the movement phase.

Suffice to say, I was eager to do an automatic retreat as soon as I could simply so that the game could end.

So my opponent uses tyrranid warriors next.

The frustration only increases.

Can't be pinned with anything less than S7. Three wounds a piece. High rate of fire at close range (not that they even needed to inflict wounds in the shooting phase: hooray for that broken mechanic: pinning).

And for the entire game, once again, I was only able to hit on 5s and 6s. 6s more often than 5s.

And here's the kicker. If you play a campaign in this game, you get penalized for losing. You can lose models over the course of a game. You can actually be at a significant points disadvantage later in the game.

Because that's fething GREAT game design, right?

Ultimately, I found this game, not a refreshing "break" from 7th. No, everything about 7th that I hate is fully present in this game:

Bolters are completely useless. Power armor is completely useless. Eldar is completely OP and broken. And basically any other option is better than a space marine, whether Chaos or not.

Ultimately, the way to win games is by picking the models with the most OP special rules and the weapons with the best mid-strength RoF.

This game was torture (and GW should probably be sanctioned by the UN for releasing it to the public). There is nothing about this game that was fun, nothing inspired me to want to play more of it. If anything, it just made me hate GW just that much more.

It was an exercise in frustration and futility.

Is there something that I'm missing here?

I honestly don't understand it.

Why do other people like this game?

Well first of all.. your starting list is bad

Telescopic sights on a boltgun are a waste of points and the MoT isn't that great

I also do believe your CSM duders can test to escape pinning at the start of each turn, so it isn't as bad as others..

Your Eldar opponent seems to be a bit of a dick, LOS is by the model not implied stance

You did go up against 2 of the toughest lots in the game.. Eldar with their OP move and shoot platform.. and Tyranids who also have a move and shoot heavy.. but are also very quick and relatively pinning immune.

Another thing is always use more terrain.. set the table up.. and if you have to think is that enough.. the answer is always no

A decent loadout, I think to myself. This is an infantry based game. Boltguns should be decent. The telescopic sights will give me range. And, of course, I need not worry about my opponents taking armor saves, since All Is Dust!

I can tell you right now you don't have a very decent loadout. Take the old Ork saying to heart, "Boyz Before Toyz". You want things like Heavy Weapons with their good range and good output, you want to fill out numbers so you can help overrun. You went too much into trusting the infantry weapon.

Eldar are a pain, Tyranids are possibly the strongest in the beginning.

Please never change, Traditio.

wow just realised you shelled out for Infernal Bolts for all your guys..

Infernal bolts are only useful against other CSM and Grey Knights.... on anything else they are a waste of points

GodDamUser wrote:
Telescopic sights on a boltgun are a waste of points and the MoT isn't that great

I mean, on paper, it at least makes sense, doesn't it?

Telescopic sights increased the range to 36 inches, and inferno bolts strip 4+ armor or better.

Given the fact that most opponents will be T3 and T4, I figured that it should be more or less effective.

But nope.

Because apparently, if you can't fire seven million shots in a turn, you can't hit anything.

I also do believe your CSM duders can test to escape pinning at the start of each turn, so it isn't as bad as others.

Nope.

Your Eldar opponent seems to be a bit of a dick, LOS is by the model not implied stance

My opponent made the claim that LoS is drawn from the weapons platform, not from the guardian which is manning the weapons platform.

Another thing is always use more terrain.. set the table up.. and if you have to think is that enough.. the answer is always no

The table was apparently covered in terrain. I think I maybe had ONE clear shot on my opponent for the games I played, and even then, I still had negative penalties for to hit roll because he was charging and I was firing overwatch.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

GodDamUser wrote:
wow just realised you shelled out for Infernal Bolts for all your guys..

Infernal bolts are only useful against other CSM and Grey Knights.... on anything else they are a waste of points

I wanted to run them as Thousand Sons.

 Traditio wrote:
I wanted to run them as Thousand Sons.

Do you want to Fluff?! OR DO YOU WANT TO WIN!

((Disclaimer, I don't play this game))

 Traditio wrote:

I mean, on paper, it at least makes sense, doesn't it?

Telescopic sights increased the range to 36 inches, and inferno bolts strip 4+ armor or better.

Yeah no.. when you are playing on heavy cover and moving around a 4' table, it isn't a bonus

 Traditio wrote:


My opponent made the claim that LoS is drawn from the weapons platform, not from the guardian which is manning the weapons platform.

I was talking about the general thing.. Eldar legit can shoot from the platform, the gunner need no LOS at all.. he can hid behind a wall safe all game and pop off shots

 Traditio wrote:

The table was apparently covered in terrain. I think I maybe had ONE clear shot on my opponent for the games I played, and even then, I still had negative penalties for to hit roll because he was charging and I was firing overwatch.

Overwatch tactic is only really good if you have the numbers which you did not

 Traditio wrote:

I wanted to run them as Thousand Sons.

No one says you have to equip them all with infernal bolts though for the theme.. that's a whole other marine right there


Automatically Appended Next Post:
You can also win a game, but still cop a massive negative if a model or two dies..

For example.. Tyranids, you have basically 3 models as a starting gang on average.. if you win a game, but 1 happens to die that is 1/3 of your force gone, and if it was the Gun beast, that is at least 2 rounds before you can get him back to where he was as they are pricey

 Talamare wrote:

 Traditio wrote:
I wanted to run them as Thousand Sons.

Do you want to Fluff?! OR DO YOU WANT TO WIN!

((Disclaimer, I don't play this game))

I don't recommend it.

As I said in the OP:

The UN should sanction GW. This game probably counts as torture under international law.

the game is awesome fun..

Just because you are bad at it doesn't mean the game is bad

ZebioLizard2 wrote:I can tell you right now you don't have a very decent loadout. Take the old Ork saying to heart, "Boyz Before Toyz". You want things like Heavy Weapons with their good range and good output, you want to fill out numbers so you can help overrun. You went too much into trusting the infantry weapon.

Eldar are a pain, Tyranids are possibly the strongest in the beginning.

This is part of what I don't like about 40k in general and GW:

My loadout probably wasn't very good, but I'm sure you can understand why I would think it makes sense.

And GW punishes you for doing it.

They punish you for taking options that it should make sense for you to take.

36 inch range bolters with rend - 3 should be amazing in an infantry-based game.

But they're terrible.

Bolters are terrible.

Basically any weapon that fires less than d3 shots per turn is basically useless.

Meanwhile, boltguns and autoguns are exactly the weapons that you would think it would be common sense to put on your basic troops.

But nope!

GW punishes you for doing things that make sense.

Because they don't bother play-testing their games, and they apparently don't bother doing basic math.

But the OP isn't just a rant post:

Have you guys had a similar experience?

Do you actually like this game?

What do you find so fun about it?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

GodDamUser wrote:
the game is awesome fun..

What's so fun about it?

What in particular do you like about the game?

Just because you are bad at it doesn't mean the game is bad

What faction do you use? And what does your list/load-out look like at 1000 points?

Also worth pointing out the exact wording for the Eldar:

If your kill team contains one or more Guardian Defender Gunners, you may purchase a single Heavy Weapon Platform...

(Emphasis mine)
Single. One. Uno. Less than two. No plurals.

Yes, it caught me out at first reading too.

 Traditio wrote:

This is part of what I don't like about 40k in general and GW:

My loadout probably wasn't very good, but I'm sure you can understand why I would think it makes sense.

And GW punishes you for doing it.

They punish you for taking options that it should make sense for you to take.

GodDamUser wrote:
the game is awesome fun..

What's so fun about it?

What in particular do you like about the game?

Just because you are bad at it doesn't mean the game is bad

What faction do you use? And what does your list/load-out look like at 1000 points?

Well see the first thing here is that you obviously never played the older versions of this game.. I.e. Necromunda, Gorkamorka, Mordenhiem (Gangs of Comeragh to a lesser extent)

You appear to have come into the game with a 40k mindset, while it is a 40k setting it isn't 40k

My main two lists I have been playing with are,

Genestealer Cult, that had 9 models at creation, using just the minis from Overkill..
So 7 Duders with Autoguns including the leader, 1 Mining Laser, 1 Grenade Launcher (if I was to optimal build, it could be Leader with BP and chainsword, duders with a mix of auto and lasgun, youths with autopistols, 2 Nade launchers)

And my Hard Mode Tyranids that are pure CC (using lictors for the models for fun)
optimal build, Leader and Warrior with Deathspitter, Gunbeast with Venomcannon, with adrenal glands on leader and warrior

What I like about the game is the progression, while not as in depth as Necromunda does have a set end point and can in theory with a small group get a campaign done over a weekend. I also do enjoy the challenge of after taking a heavy loss, working my way back up to the top

GodDamUser wrote:What I like about the game is the progression, while not as in depth as Necromunda does have a set end point and can in theory with a small group get a campaign done over a weekend. I also do enjoy the challenge of after taking a heavy loss, working my way back up to the top

How is that good game design or even remotely "balanced"?

It's a game that quite literally kicks you when you're down.

It's perfectly possible to play a game in which there is a massive points disparity between the players.

And not even by ordinary GW standards, where there is simply a de facto points disparity, because units and upgrade options are inappropriately priced.

No. It's a literal points disparity.

 Traditio wrote:

GodDamUser wrote:What I like about the game is the progression, while not as in depth as Necromunda does have a set end point and can in theory with a small group get a campaign done over a weekend. I also do enjoy the challenge of after taking a heavy loss, working my way back up to the top

How is that good game design or even remotely "balanced"?

It's a game that quite literally kicks you when you're down.

It's perfectly possible to play a game in which there is a massive points disparity between the players.

And not even by ordinary GW standards, where there is simply a de facto points disparity, because units and upgrade options are inappropriately priced.

No. It's a literal points disparity.

Welcome to gw games? I'm not sure what else there is to say.

 Traditio wrote:

GodDamUser wrote:What I like about the game is the progression, while not as in depth as Necromunda does have a set end point and can in theory with a small group get a campaign done over a weekend. I also do enjoy the challenge of after taking a heavy loss, working my way back up to the top

How is that good game design or even remotely "balanced"?

It's a game that quite literally kicks you when you're down.

It's perfectly possible to play a game in which there is a massive points disparity between the players.

And not even by ordinary GW standards, where there is simply a de facto points disparity, because units and upgrade options are inappropriately priced.

No. It's a literal points disparity.

Welcome to world of campaigns that aren't one off games. Blood bowl, necromunda, mordheim. Basically ANY game that has any form of campaign.

But you know it is actually possible to come back and while I don't know how shadow wars does it in other games at least underdogs usually get help in catching up.

I'm a fan of the game, but it is NOT meant to be competitive. Even with well built teams there is still a lot of random chance. "The monster" from the scavenger mission might eat a dude with a bunch of sweet gear, you can be significantly ahead and then your opponent rolls up that he is the attacker in the ambush mission and kills/captures a dude or two, and makes others miss the next battle.

Any game that has single die rolls here and there is going to be more "random" than a larger scale game like 40k, where there are enough dice thrown to bring out averages. Nah the first couple missions of an SW campaign are like starting a hard mode xcom game. Dudes will straight up miss with +2 short range pistols, tyranid warriors will triple fumble and have a cultist one round KO them, heavy bolter dudes will bring one single bullet to the battle...

Even if you do try to cheese your way to victory, one bad random mission or a couple bad severe injuries and you could find yourself back on even footing with the guy you were just stomping for the last few missions. In fact, we've discovered that that actually TENDS to happen during a full campaign. I got rekt mission 1, my vet scout straight up died to the first shot that came his way in full cover, my snipers both ran out of ammo on the first shot, and my opponent saved literally every roll. I made a trooper a new leader, had tough times the next couple missions, and than bam, I'm the attacker on the raid mission, and I proceed to tear his team apart while they're sentries, so bad that he was willing to drop a promethium just to voluntarily bottle out. He lost both heavy weapon guys, 1 dead and 1 captured, and had 3 other guys out for a mission. He then failed the rescue mission giving me more promethium and extra points, and I had started rolling up some badass skills like a heavy bolter scout with marksman, and a power sword dude getting "you can't outnumber me" along with +1 move, and dive, which made him awesome at closing in.

I ended up winning with my 15 to his 12 promethium after that horrendously bad start. Several of the missions are designed so that you can gut punch your opponent's team and bring the teams back into balance range of each other, you just have to wait for a chance to show up. It works in one v one campaigns, but is even more relevant in group campaigns. One or two missions and the guy in the lead can be the bottom feeder and vice versa.

For team building, you want at least 5 dudes so that one can drop and not force you into tests. Heavy weapons, despite their high price tag, tend to be amazing. Other than that, your starting team isn't all that important. By the time someone is staring at the final game with 15p saved up, you probably will have a full or almost full team with every relevant upgrade. Hell I was close to getting that done on our most recent campaign after game 6. Rolled up a scavenger-medic early and I kept winning missions that had extra points attached. I was up to 9 dudes, 0 recruits, 2 of them heavy bolters, 4 fully loaded toxic snipers, 2 chainsword/bp, and sarge with power sword/plasma pistol, and everyone had like, all the relevant wargear they could want.
And a couple games later I still lost a couple in a row from evil mission setups and some bad rolls.

Do not play shadow war if you are a "must win every game" person. Do not play shadow war if your opponent is one of those people. Be prepared for your guys to suck and die when they shouldn't, and occasionally pull off something awesome.

I like someone said it isn't a competitive game because it's random. Anything with dice is random.

Yeah, Shadow War sounds very "swingy", and meant more for fun than truly balanced, competitive play.

 Traditio wrote:

ZebioLizard2 wrote:I can tell you right now you don't have a very decent loadout. Take the old Ork saying to heart, "Boyz Before Toyz". You want things like Heavy Weapons with their good range and good output, you want to fill out numbers so you can help overrun. You went too much into trusting the infantry weapon.

Eldar are a pain, Tyranids are possibly the strongest in the beginning.

This is part of what I don't like about 40k in general and GW:

My loadout probably wasn't very good, but I'm sure you can understand why I would think it makes sense.

And GW punishes you for doing it.

They punish you for taking options that it should make sense for you to take.

36 inch range bolters with rend - 3 should be amazing in an infantry-based game.

But they're terrible.

Bolters are terrible.

Basically any weapon that fires less than d3 shots per turn is basically useless.

Meanwhile, boltguns and autoguns are exactly the weapons that you would think it would be common sense to put on your basic troops.

But nope!

GW punishes you for doing things that make sense.

Because they don't bother play-testing their games, and they apparently don't bother doing basic math.

But the OP isn't just a rant post:

Have you guys had a similar experience?

Do you actually like this game?

What do you find so fun about it?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

GodDamUser wrote:
the game is awesome fun..

What's so fun about it?

What in particular do you like about the game?

Just because you are bad at it doesn't mean the game is bad

What faction do you use? And what does your list/load-out look like at 1000 points?

>Doesn't use good loadout
>Doesn't understand why they're punished
I tell you what, nobody should question themselves if their AM platoons don't do well in melee even if they bought a bunch of power weapons. If you make a bunch of bad decisions on loadout you NEED to be punished. You get better from learning. You refuse to learn.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I like someone said it isn't a competitive game because it's random. Anything with dice is random.

I believe they were pointing out it's single dice, low numbers (so high variance).

I find it remarkable that so many people posting in here don't seem to understand basic probability theory.

I've not tried the game but this thread has the best title I've seen in a long time.

Sorry you don't like it. We have about twenty-five players at our store that love it though.

Admittedly I don't think SWA is a great game (it's really just a pale shadow of Mordheim/Necromunda to me) so I can understand Traditio's frustrations.

SWA suffers, mainly, from taking Necromunda mechanics which were designed around poorly equipped and hapless gangers...and is then applied to high-quality combat units from the 40K universe. I didn't find this combination worked well. While Necromunda games are far quicker than a normal 40K game they normally let you get stuck in. SWA games can be over in the first turn. This is fine as long as you're okay with that. The game is super duper violent. My first game, my Exarch chopped through four of my buddy's Guardsman who got a little too close. Fluffy? Sure, but not particularly fun. The Exarch has better stats and weapons than a Necromunda Gang Leader who had played 20+ games, etc.

I can understand people who haven't played Necromunda finding SWA amazeballs and a big change from the dumpster fire of 7th ed. 40K, but to me it didn't fully scratch that same itch. A little too fast, too violent (if there is such a thing).

My only genuine comment though...if you're playing a game with somebody who genuinely wants to argue over line-of-sight, you're playing with the wrong people. It's a game of toy soldiers. That should at the very worst be a 5 second "we'll roll a dice, 4+ he's fully obscured..." decision. It sounds like you're playing with jerks (and you may well be that jerk) or trying to be too competitive in a simple game. In SWA you need to be ready to win/lose a game in the first turn or two, then re-set and go onto the next game.

You remind me of our local 'That Guy' Traditio. The difference is he's actually good at these games and still bitches about how broken everything is while he wins.

I'll echo the chorus, the games good. Our group had a weekend devoted too it and even though TFG won and was as always miserable to play against, everyone had a ton of fun.

The highlight being a GSC named after G.I. Joes and skilled up to match their names.

I don't understand the 50% issues. Measure the height of the model, divide it by two, measure the height of the terrain. Is it less or more than half the model height?

...profit!

It really sounds like an issue with your opponents and expectations than anything wrong with the game itself. Oh, and your list. A terribad list, that one.

lonestarr777 wrote:
You remind me of our local 'That Guy' Traditio. The difference is he's actually good at these games and still bitches about how broken everything is while he wins.

I'll echo the chorus, the games good. Our group had a weekend devoted too it and even though TFG won and was as always miserable to play against, everyone had a ton of fun.

The highlight being a GSC named after G.I. Joes and skilled up to match their names.

Do you know how hard I would play a game with quality 28mm based on proper 1980-90's GI Joes...man...(and yes I know there are some "not" GI Joe figures out there...but damn)

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
I don't understand the 50% issues. Measure the height of the model, divide it by two, measure the height of the terrain. Is it less or more than half the model height?

...profit!

It really sounds like an issue with your opponents and expectations than anything wrong with the game itself. Oh, and your list. A terribad list, that one.

That doesn't work when you're trying to peer around the edge of a wall rather than over it.

GodDamUser wrote:
the game is awesome fun..

Just because you are bad at it doesn't mean the game is bad

He has some valid points, he is new to the game, but the rules prevent him from playing an army he likes to play (Thousand sons.)

I am also in the camp of "I don't get it" since the game is taking crap mechanics to a unit(s) scaled game.....

Blood bowl is immensely better....

CSM in general get punked in GWs idea of a skirmish game. (I play death guard.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Traditio wrote:

ZebioLizard2 wrote:I can tell you right now you don't have a very decent loadout. Take the old Ork saying to heart, "Boyz Before Toyz". You want things like Heavy Weapons with their good range and good output, you want to fill out numbers so you can help overrun. You went too much into trusting the infantry weapon.

Eldar are a pain, Tyranids are possibly the strongest in the beginning.

This is part of what I don't like about 40k in general and GW:

My loadout probably wasn't very good, but I'm sure you can understand why I would think it makes sense.

And GW punishes you for doing it.

They punish you for taking options that it should make sense for you to take.

36 inch range bolters with rend - 3 should be amazing in an infantry-based game.

But they're terrible.

Bolters are terrible.

Basically any weapon that fires less than d3 shots per turn is basically useless.

Meanwhile, boltguns and autoguns are exactly the weapons that you would think it would be common sense to put on your basic troops.

But nope!

GW punishes you for doing things that make sense.

Because they don't bother play-testing their games, and they apparently don't bother doing basic math.

But the OP isn't just a rant post:

Have you guys had a similar experience?

Do you actually like this game?

What do you find so fun about it?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

GodDamUser wrote:
the game is awesome fun..

What's so fun about it?

What in particular do you like about the game?

Just because you are bad at it doesn't mean the game is bad

What faction do you use? And what does your list/load-out look like at 1000 points?

>Doesn't use good loadout
>Doesn't understand why they're punished
I tell you what, nobody should question themselves if their AM platoons don't do well in melee even if they bought a bunch of power weapons. If you make a bunch of bad decisions on loadout you NEED to be punished. You get better from learning. You refuse to learn.

How are thousand sons with inferno bolts a "bad decision" form a fluff standpoint.

This is how we got 5th ed and 7th ed, GW ignoring the fluff and trying to sell models by buffing non-sense and nerfing stuff that should be the "stock" option for an army. See heldrakes for CSM, Jetbikes for eldar, Riptides for tau, grav guns and bikes for marines, flying monsters with dakka guns for nids, etc...

"Just take X" in a game that should be easily balanced is not an excuse for poor game design.

SW:A is Necromunda with 40k models, so direct your complaints to Rick Priestly and Andy Chambers circa 1995.