PDA

View Full Version : Edition Cycles and Thoughts



Beppo1234
15-01-2014, 17:42
So I was going through my codexs today and was thinking. Never a good thing really, but it occurred to me to ask Warseer: should we be expecting 2 year Edition cycles? This question came to mind when I looked how many current supported armies there are. Exactly 22. I GW is releasing stuff now on a monthly basis, excluding the Christmas season(s), then the numbers match up nicely.

Also, as the sunk cost of plastification of most of their model lines, GW doesn't really have to do any massive plastic overhauls of the core armies, at least not for a long time. Which to me, means smaller releases, but more often.

so 22 supported armies coupled with smaller future releases, could we expect to see a 2 year edition cycle, where 1 army gets a new kit/unit(s) and army book update per month?

IcedCrow
15-01-2014, 17:45
Its never happened in the past so I would say no, that the 2 year release cycle is mainly fueled by people that hate 6th edition and are wishful thinking hoping to return to a more competitive tournament friendly edition like 4th and 5th were. At least, the people I see championing this idea are mostly also people that complain incessantly about how they hate 6th edition so that's why I draw that conclusion.

What I think is likely is an updated rulebook with the errata / faq, but it will still be "6th edition".

Beppo1234
15-01-2014, 18:20
I read the rumors about the BRB update a year from now, but it would seem to me, that by that point, the only codexs left to be updated will be the late 5th edition stragglers. If it's just an errata and faq update to the BRB, and all the codexs are pretty much updated, where does the game go from there? Do the existing 22 just continually expand, or will they add more armies?

IcedCrow
15-01-2014, 18:22
Time will tell.

ForgottenLore
15-01-2014, 18:29
22? I come up with 14-15 current armies for each of the 2 core games.

nosebiter
15-01-2014, 18:37
If by edition cycle you mean.

The army books stay the same for the forseable future, but they tweak the base rules every two years or so.

Then ill be fine with it i guess, as long as it would be possible to buy a book that is rules only, and not a massive tome.

Langdon
15-01-2014, 18:53
there are 30 warhammer armies (WHFB/40K), hobbit stuff, escalation type product and double month..

say 40 things, that's 40 months and a smattering of dud months where its just books or paints released..

4 year cycles.

Beppo1234
15-01-2014, 19:26
22? I come up with 14-15 current armies for each of the 2 core games.

you're right, my count is off, it's 16 army books + supplements now.

but it begs the question, how many factions is optimal? I'd like to see more for variety's sake. But too many can jumble everything up.

IcedCrow
15-01-2014, 19:29
For me the more the happier I am. I get burnt out on facing the same handful of builds time after time.

Spiney Norman
15-01-2014, 19:30
Its never happened in the past so I would say no, that the 2 year release cycle is mainly fueled by people that hate 6th edition and are wishful thinking hoping to return to a more competitive tournament friendly edition like 4th and 5th were. At least, the people I see championing this idea are mostly also people that complain incessantly about how they hate 6th edition so that's why I draw that conclusion.

What I think is likely is an updated rulebook with the errata / faq, but it will still be "6th edition".

No, it really isn't, its based on fairly solid rumours from a reliable source (40K radio), now backed up by Darnok, there are a good number of people who received this news with joy, but there is no sense in which it is the basis of the rumour, when 40K radio broke the news on this one it was pretty unexpected by everyone.

I very much doubt they will go to a standard two year cycle with 40K rules, whatever the reasoning behind cutting 6th Ed short I sincerely hope it won't become a regular feature. I think its also fair to say that the current chaos of the 40K metagame cannot possibly be the cause of the new edition, if it is out this summer it must have begun a year ago, i.e. before the 'problem' codexes and escalation were released, if GW took the decision on those grounds it means they knew how broken tau and eldar would be before they released them (or even finished writing them), and even I am not prepared to believe they are that conniving.

IcedCrow
15-01-2014, 19:33
Of course there are a good number of people that received this news with joy - they want tournament edition back.

I've been in the hobby too long and have seen too many "reliable solid rumors" pan out like a bad fart to get behind any rumors these days. If it happens it happens, but I sincerely doubt it will happen.

Sgt John Keel
15-01-2014, 19:42
For me the more the happier I am. I get burnt out on facing the same handful of builds time after time.

On the other hand, perhaps there would be more variety within the armies if they were fewer, on the theory that it would be easier to balance. And then we could perhaps have more sculpts of the same troop type, so if you didn't like one set of models, perhaps try the other? I know there are units I don't want to field (at least not without significant conversion) because they're ugly.

skorczeny
15-01-2014, 19:50
I don't think we should be expecting 2 year cycles. I think the update coming next year - be it 7th edition or 6.5 or whatever - will be the exception to the rule.

With the explosion of content, I suspect 7th edition will see no core rule changes outside of cleaning up allies matrix, fortifications, lords of war, formations, supplements, etc. It will be a 'back-office' update, so that the BRB covers all of this new content that has come following the release of 6th edition.

IcedCrow
15-01-2014, 20:08
On the other hand, perhaps there would be more variety within the armies if they were fewer, on the theory that it would be easier to balance. And then we could perhaps have more sculpts of the same troop type, so if you didn't like one set of models, perhaps try the other? I know there are units I don't want to field (at least not without significant conversion) because they're ugly.

I played warmachine back when it first started out and back then there were four factions and a mercenary faction. Pretty much everyone and their brother played Khador with a smattering of cryx. You once in a while saw the other two. The builds were also largely the same. I think, based on past experience that fewer armies = the same level of variety you get now (little).

Sgt John Keel
15-01-2014, 20:26
I played warmachine back when it first started out and back then there were four factions and a mercenary faction. Pretty much everyone and their brother played Khador with a smattering of cryx. You once in a while saw the other two. The builds were also largely the same. I think, based on past experience that fewer armies = the same level of variety you get now (little).

No, I agree, I don't think it would be a sure thing at all. I've no clue about Warmachine as a game, why would everyone play Khador? (The few Warmachine minis I like are Khador, but unless everyone ran Widowmakers I've no idea.)

I think it would be neat, however, if all the armies could get Forge World Imperial Guard (and lately Space Marine) levels of variation in the model range.

Torga_DW
15-01-2014, 20:26
Its never happened in the past so I would say no, that the 2 year release cycle is mainly fueled by people that hate 6th edition and are wishful thinking hoping to return to a more competitive tournament friendly edition like 4th and 5th were. At least, the people I see championing this idea are mostly also people that complain incessantly about how they hate 6th edition so that's why I draw that conclusion.

What I think is likely is an updated rulebook with the errata / faq, but it will still be "6th edition".

Agree with this, but i'd go back further and say people who wanted 4th and 5th hated the 2nd and 3rd ruleset that were all about big heroes and special fiddly rules. I think a few updates with some good erratas / faq are all people really wanted from the beginning. That and a bit of balance. But circle of life (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjsVRIqOhGA), right?

IcedCrow
15-01-2014, 20:27
No, I agree, I don't think it would be a sure thing at all. I've no clue about Warmachine as a game, why would everyone play Khador? (The few Warmachine minis I like are Khador, but unless everyone ran Widowmakers I've no idea.)

I think it would be neat, however, if all the armies could get Forge World Imperial Guard (and lately Space Marine) levels of variation in the model range.

Back then everyone played Khador because of a certain build that was very powerful. The cryx build that was 2nd most common was also very powerful. There were a lot of mirror matches back then.

InstantKarma
15-01-2014, 20:40
With the new Weekly White Dwarf, I am also wondering if we'll see a more dispersed release schedule rather than front loading everything into the 1st-2nd week of each month?

I personally hope there won't be a 2 year cycle. It's hard enough keeping track of everything that happened last year, let alone this '7th ED 40k in 2014' nonsense. I know GW needs to make their $$$ to keep us paying/playing but I am feeling some burnout just by the ferocity that they have been cranking the updates/new kits out. And pretty much all I did last year was get New Tau Dex and a Riptide!

Ssilmath
15-01-2014, 20:49
Back then everyone played Khador because of a certain build that was very powerful. The cryx build that was 2nd most common was also very powerful. There were a lot of mirror matches back then.

I stopped playing a couple years ago, and this was still the case. Cryx and Legion more or less dominated tournies, and as I understand it Cygnar has joined that crowd due to Colossals. The builds weren't even that varied, especially amongst Cryx where "MOAR BANES" was the rallying cry. I stopped playing as I felt that the recent releases narrowed viable options even further (as I was a very competitive player of that game.

Spiney Norman
15-01-2014, 21:14
Of course there are a good number of people that received this news with joy - they want tournament edition back.

I've been in the hobby too long and have seen too many "reliable solid rumors" pan out like a bad fart to get behind any rumors these days. If it happens it happens, but I sincerely doubt it will happen.

In all fairness I don't really see what is so bad about a "tournament edition", a well balanced set of rules that is designed for tournament play caters for pretty much everyone, or are you saying that an unbalanced game is preferable to play casual games with?

Ssilmath
15-01-2014, 21:18
In all fairness I don't really see what is so bad about a "tournament edition", a well balanced set of rules that is designed for tournament play caters for pretty much everyone, or are you saying that an unbalanced game is preferable to play casual games with?

Actually, a loose ruleset is better for narrative/casual gaming, as it gives more wriggle room for changing things. For the extremes, compare the rigid rules of Chess and the open rules of DnD. That's not to say some rules can't be worded better, but a loose rules system is actually better for casual gaming.

Gungo
15-01-2014, 21:26
I expect at least 4+ year cycle on 6th edition. An updated rulebook with more fleshed out rules for supplements, dataslates, allies, formations, etc. I expect all the codexs to be updated this edition and maybe 1-2 codexs with a 6.5 edition as needed. (Its happened before). I expect alot of digital only products such as dataslate and formations and maybe a few more supplements. This is the easiest way to repackage and push more model sales. If FW becomes fully integrated i expect additional codex/supplements releases produced by forgeworld such as ad mech guard armies that pull from GW and FW models and further push model sales.

Spiney Norman
15-01-2014, 21:28
Actually, a loose ruleset is better for narrative/casual gaming, as it gives more wriggle room for changing things. For the extremes, compare the rigid rules of Chess and the open rules of DnD. That's not to say some rules can't be worded better, but a loose rules system is actually better for casual gaming.

DnD is a whole different ball game because it has a GM rather than two players competing for the win, I've genuinely never seen anyone playing a 40K game with a 3rd person acting as GM to keep the whole thing fair.

I don't really see how a well balanced rules set really prevents your from changing anything, best of all it works well without any changes, which is great for people who don't like doing that kind of thing.

InstantKarma
15-01-2014, 21:33
Actually, a loose ruleset is better for narrative/casual gaming, as it gives more wriggle room for changing things. For the extremes, compare the rigid rules of Chess and the open rules of DnD. That's not to say some rules can't be worded better, but a loose rules system is actually better for casual gaming.

To piggy back on this, let us take the much bemoaned/loved Allies Matrix. It seems to be that this might best typify what players love/hate in 6th edition. From the persepctive of fluff it means for many armies, they can now be built to better reflect the variety of armies that in the previous edition could only be achieved via a new supplemental codex, a Chapter Approved write up, or house rules. Now that mixed Imperial Army can be created, played legally, and even competitive (some might even say 'broken'?), or that Traitor IG supported by CSMs. Hell, the 'evil' Taudar is even fluffy if you go back an look into the 3rd and 5th ED Tau Dexes and see how the two races viewed each other, but under those editions it was impossible to represent this aside from having two players bring two armies. Now, they apparently dominate the 'tournament scene'.

Where the Allies Matrix seems to fail is that what it has also allowed armies to do is cover their steroptypical weaknesses. Your Space Marines need some cheap bodies and big artillery? Ally in some IG! Your Tau lack Psychic defense and you need some HtH support or even more accurate shooting to make the assault phase disappear? Eldar or Space Marines! From a competetive perspective while this matrix has opened the door for many wild combonations, it has also taken away one of the distinctives of these armies; that they have something they AREN"T good at. When you can ally in another Codex to cover your short falls, you my friend are gold.

In the end, looking back from when I started in 2nd Edition playing Eldar, I like the wide range and flexibility of 6th compared to 3-5. It does have its problems, and I think Escalation & Stronghold only created more that need to be seriously reconciled, but I think overall this isn't as unfriendly to narrative or competitive gaming. This has been the biggest change for 40k since 3rd edition broke, with 4 & 5 pretty much just running like updated verision of 3rd, getting more detailed.

I think thats why I am not convinced on the 7th ED rumors. It just seems to soon, as much as I think there are things to be fixed, to drop a new ruleset on us after on 2 years with 6th. Let all the armies get a nice Hardback Codex, and then lets talk new BRB.

Torga_DW
15-01-2014, 21:34
Actually, a loose ruleset is better for narrative/casual gaming, as it gives more wriggle room for changing things. For the extremes, compare the rigid rules of Chess and the open rules of DnD. That's not to say some rules can't be worded better, but a loose rules system is actually better for casual gaming.

I disagree here. In casual games, you can decide with your friends/opponents to ignore or change the rules very easily. The rules of chess are no more rigid than anything else, they're just as easily modified with friends/casuals as 40k.

edit: @ spiney:
there are times i've wished for a gm to oversee the entire game. Some of the worst games i've played have been 'casual' games.

Ssilmath
15-01-2014, 21:36
DnD is a whole different ball game because it has a GM rather than two players competing for the win, I've genuinely never seen anyone playing a 40K game with a 3rd person acting as GM to keep the whole thing fair.

I don't really see how a well balanced rules set really prevents your from changing anything, best of all it works well without any changes, which is great for people who don't like doing that kind of thing.

Heh, clearly you've never had a killer GM who thought it was his job to win against the players. And you don't need a GM to keep things fair if both players approach the game with the interest of making the game enjoyable for both people.

Well balanced rules on the other hand are different, and honestly are an impossibility. Quite importantly, the definition of balance changes depending on lots of factors. People who play with a higher density of LOS blocking terrain report that there is less imbalance among armies. Since the rules are more open, they have that option, just like people have the option to play on more open terrain. (I can think of some interesting scenarios for that).

And most importantly, who does the tighter ruleset work for? For the tournament crowd? I doubt it would work for the casual crowd at all, as you're only going to get better balance by restricting things, removing rules and removing options.

InstantKarma
15-01-2014, 21:36
DnD is a whole different ball game because it has a GM rather than two players competing for the win, I've genuinely never seen anyone playing a 40K game with a 3rd person acting as GM to keep the whole thing fair.

I don't really see how a well balanced rules set really prevents your from changing anything, best of all it works well without any changes, which is great for people who don't like doing that kind of thing.

I believe WD #400 had a Tau vs. Nids Bat Rep (deja'vu!) that had a GM (ala Jervis having an article right before the Bat Rep) and the GM played a small Space Marine force with an Inquisitor (counts as Deathwatch IIRC) and also helped settle some rules discrepancies, as well as being a pain for both armies attempting to grab the Relic. The way it read, it was one of the few recent Bat Reps I enjoyed and I don't see any reason why a GM for a game of 40k would be a bad thing most of the time.

Torga_DW
15-01-2014, 21:39
Heh, clearly you've never had a killer GM who thought it was his job to win against the players. And you don't need a GM to keep things fair if both players approach the game with the interest of making the game enjoyable for both people.

I think the problem there is the pickup game environment, which is a different beast to casual/competitive entirely. In which case, tight rules help (to some extent).


Well balanced rules on the other hand are different, and honestly are an impossibility. Quite importantly, the definition of balance changes depending on lots of factors. People who play with a higher density of LOS blocking terrain report that there is less imbalance among armies. Since the rules are more open, they have that option, just like people have the option to play on more open terrain. (I can think of some interesting scenarios for that).

They said that about that dam in china. Those foolish chinese built it anyways, despite the impossibility of building it. ;)


And most importantly, who does the tighter ruleset work for? For the tournament crowd? I doubt it would work for the casual crowd at all, as you're only going to get better balance by restricting things, removing rules and removing options.

Lets assume it does only help the 'tournament' crowd - why is that bad? If its not hurting the 'casual' players, why is catering to all styles of play a bad thing?

Scribe of Khorne
15-01-2014, 21:56
A tighter, less 'random' core rule set would not discourage casual play. Just throw all the 'mysterious' 'narrative' stuff into a section in the back of the rule book and let people use it if they want.

Spiney Norman
15-01-2014, 21:56
Heh, clearly you've never had a killer GM who thought it was his job to win against the players. And you don't need a GM to keep things fair if both players approach the game with the interest of making the game enjoyable for both people.

Well balanced rules on the other hand are different, and honestly are an impossibility. Quite importantly, the definition of balance changes depending on lots of factors. People who play with a higher density of LOS blocking terrain report that there is less imbalance among armies. Since the rules are more open, they have that option, just like people have the option to play on more open terrain. (I can think of some interesting scenarios for that).

And most importantly, who does the tighter ruleset work for? For the tournament crowd? I doubt it would work for the casual crowd at all, as you're only going to get better balance by restricting things, removing rules and removing options.

Perfection is impossible to achieve, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try as hard as possible to make the game as fair and even-handed as possible, just giving up on the whole thing is like saying "we're never going to stop all deaths in road traffic accidents, lets just throw in the towel, remove all speed limits on our roads, abandon the Highway Code and hand out driving licences for free".

Ssilmath
15-01-2014, 21:58
Lets assume it does only help the 'tournament' crowd - why is that bad? If its not hurting the 'casual' players, why is catering to all styles of play a bad thing?

If you can make it in a way that only helps the tournament crowd and doesn't hinder the casual players, why not? I'm just pretty much convinced that it will hurt the casual way.

Let's take that and flip it around though. If the game can be modified to balance tournament play while leaving the casual players alone, why not do that? And who better to modify it than the people running the tournaments? Because there are differing ideas of what constitutes tournament balance as well. But since tourney organizers can't even manage to make enough terrain to provide that balancing element, I doubt they'll make the changes and just call GW lazy.

Langdon
15-01-2014, 21:59
I figure the earliest we will get an edition update is next summer. It will be the earliest an update has happened sure, but the current rate of books and updates will mean they will either have to stop what they are doing for a few months or change the ruleset to a more balanced one.

They especially need to flesh out the formations and Escalation books into the BRB and they wont do it this summer as that is too soon for the sakes of those two books. I mean they have to bring out a Form/Esc combined minidex first.

Spiney Norman
15-01-2014, 22:06
If you can make it in a way that only helps the tournament crowd and doesn't hinder the casual players, why not? I'm just pretty much convinced that it will hurt the casual way.

Let's take that and flip it around though. If the game can be modified to balance tournament play while leaving the casual players alone, why not do that? And who better to modify it than the people running the tournaments? Because there are differing ideas of what constitutes tournament balance as well. But since tourney organizers can't even manage to make enough terrain to provide that balancing element, I doubt they'll make the changes and just call GW lazy.

Could you maybe explain why casual gamers like rule sets that are wildly unbalanced and favour one army over another like the current rules, because I am a casual gamer and that is exactly what doesn't work for me about the current edition. We've even had an entire thread where you've said how you have to mod the rules with your opponent much before every game, if the game worked properly we wouldn't have to do that.

Ssilmath
15-01-2014, 23:54
Well, for one I don't find the game to be wildly unbalanced.

For another, I don't see how the rules favor one army over another. Please provide an example that is objective and not easily solved (Just because people refuse to even consider blocking line of sight doesn't mean that it's not an easy solution)

Finally, I don't mod the rules at all, never even suggested I do. In said other thread, I suggested players find an amicable balance of forces that satisfies narrative, desire to utilize models and an even playing field. Even if that involves both players min maxing out their armies, that's fine as long as both players want that.

Torga_DW
16-01-2014, 03:28
I may be missing it, i just can't see how having clear and working rules would cause problems. It may make the balance discrepancies of the armies more noticeable, but thats a separate issue.

As for examples, will need to narrow the field a bit. pre-arranged vs pickup? Friends vs strangers? fluffy vs power? casual vs competitive? pre-made lists vs tailored lists? This edition or any of the 3.+ editions? etc. The first obvious problem is when mixes of aforementioned players start gaming against each other. Having a small group of friends that you can include/exclude from gaming is a giant meta change. When other people are involved (with all the potential differences that may bring), solid rules should be the common ground when playing a game. Fair enough, errors and oversights happen, but acknowledge resolve and move on. The ogre kingdoms faq is just a classic example of how gw goes about 'fixing' these problems (if they go about it at all).

I've said it before and i'll say it again: wtf is that? :wtf:

edit: added in a vs.

Sgt John Keel
16-01-2014, 04:20
One thing I don't understand in this 'cinematic' edition is all the randomness. Sure, the Chaos Gods are fickle and Orks are silly sometimes, but why does my Commander switch specialities every battle? Why is my Librarian suddenly very labile when it comes to which way he's been trained to use his powers? Why is my army totally unaware of what objectives they are actually fighting over? Does my army have the spirit of the Nazis from Raiders of the Lost Ark?

I really don't see how it makes the game more fun. I think it actively hurts any attempt of storytelling. Is it balanced? In the long run, sure, it'll cancel out. But that is the wrong kind of balance, in my opinion. I want every game to be reasonably balanced. And sure, Warlord Traits are mostly inconsequential and hardly game breaking. It seems like they are there for flavour. So, why, then, do they need to be random? Why not try to make all psychic powers equally useful so that I can choose what is to my taste without disadvantaging my opponent who chose something else?

Losing Command
16-01-2014, 04:59
I don't really see the point behind getting psychic powers randomly either. If certain combinations are better than others there's little difference if you got the powers through a roll or just chose them together. Some battle outcomes are decided on the roll for psychic powers when one (or both) of the armies depend a lot on certain powers to be able to do their thing.
Personally I'm very much against single die rolls that will decide if the game is a win or loss with close to 90% certainity, you might as well do a coinflip to decide the outcome that way.
Random terrain can be fun, if optional. Random objective effects don't bother anybody I know anymore, and hardly anybody seems to worry about not rolling that warlord trait he needs.

back on topic : 2 year edition cycles sounds like madness. Not everybody is used to new rules in a month, and getting comftable with the new main rules and codex can take even longer. And looking at how fleshed out some armies already are, I would dread the things they'd come up with to make new models for. It would likely end up like Pokémon, with random items in proximity being turned into ... things :eek:

omegoku
16-01-2014, 10:36
I am hoping that once they get all the codex out, even the SoB maybe? they will focus on data slates and models.
Want to release a new Daemon Engine for Chaos? No need to wait til 7th Edition Codex. Release a Data Slate, and the model some week.
If they are nice, they will put the rules into the weekly WD the same week and put the dataslate on BL the same day.
That way if you really want a physical copy, you buy it alongside the model on release day. If you missed out, the rules are still easy to get online. (hopefully for no more than a pot of paint! I can't see them being given out free like they would have in days gone by (BA WD codex appearing online)
If they want to release a 6.5 edition that has all the escalation, stronghold, etc rules included. All the FAQ and updates included too, then they can go for it.
Main problem is that they will either have the 2 rule books out of sync, or they will have to re-release the Box set to include the new book. I can't see them updating the models so soon after release.
A brand new edition, 2 years later? I don't think they will do it. People will see it as a cash grab and it will breed more ill will than anything. Why buy an expensive rulebook when you know it is being replaced in 2 years?

IcedCrow
16-01-2014, 13:30
The random doesnt bother me for a few reasons.

1) the level of random is not that much greater than before. Random charges - 8th ed fantasy already did that and I actually prefer it because it adds a level of back up planning you have to account for that you never had to before. Random powers - fantasy has been doing this forever. While I personally would design a game with set powers (i'd actually just assign a list of powers), the random works better for me because quite simply you only ever see a scant small handful of powers used when you get to pick. GW might as well not even bother making multiple powers and just put three powers in the core book and call it a day because those three or so are the only powers that will get used. They won't design a perfectly min/max proof psyker list because in the ivory tower its not an issue.

Random mysterious terrain? That's listed as optional already.
Random warlord traits? Goes back to powers. If you could always pick, the same two or three powers game-wide would be used and the rest might as well not even exist.

So ultimately of those things that got random, charges is something I really like because you can't always have absolute tactics anymore (which bores me) and random powers is not my favorite but I live with it because I'll take random powers over everyone spamming the same power all day every day all edition.

The rest is really the same game we've been playing for a while now - so the level of random did not suddenly exponentiate itself to turn the game into who flips a coin and wins that wins the game.

Inquisitor Kallus
16-01-2014, 14:16
One thing I don't understand in this 'cinematic' edition is all the randomness. Sure, the Chaos Gods are fickle and Orks are silly sometimes, but why does my Commander switch specialities every battle? Why is my Librarian suddenly very labile when it comes to which way he's been trained to use his powers? Why is my army totally unaware of what objectives they are actually fighting over? Does my army have the spirit of the Nazis from Raiders of the Lost Ark?



Because you are playing one-off battles and not part of a campaign..........?

Inquisitor Kallus
16-01-2014, 14:18
The random doesnt bother me for a few reasons.

1) the level of random is not that much greater than before. Random charges - 8th ed fantasy already did that and I actually prefer it because it adds a level of back up planning you have to account for that you never had to before. Random powers - fantasy has been doing this forever. While I personally would design a game with set powers (i'd actually just assign a list of powers), the random works better for me because quite simply you only ever see a scant small handful of powers used when you get to pick. GW might as well not even bother making multiple powers and just put three powers in the core book and call it a day because those three or so are the only powers that will get used. They won't design a perfectly min/max proof psyker list because in the ivory tower its not an issue.

Random mysterious terrain? That's listed as optional already.
Random warlord traits? Goes back to powers. If you could always pick, the same two or three powers game-wide would be used and the rest might as well not even exist.

So ultimately of those things that got random, charges is something I really like because you can't always have absolute tactics anymore (which bores me) and random powers is not my favorite but I live with it because I'll take random powers over everyone spamming the same power all day every day all edition.

The rest is really the same game we've been playing for a while now - so the level of random did not suddenly exponentiate itself to turn the game into who flips a coin and wins that wins the game.

Spot on. Also, psychic powers were random in 2nd edition, though I don't remember about 1st

InstantKarma
16-01-2014, 14:19
I don't really see the point behind getting psychic powers randomly either. If certain combinations are better than others there's little difference if you got the powers through a roll or just chose them together. Some battle outcomes are decided on the roll for psychic powers when one (or both) of the armies depend a lot on certain powers to be able to do their thing.
Personally I'm very much against single die rolls that will decide if the game is a win or loss with close to 90% certainity, you might as well do a coinflip to decide the outcome that way.
Random terrain can be fun, if optional. Random objective effects don't bother anybody I know anymore, and hardly anybody seems to worry about not rolling that warlord trait he needs.

back on topic : 2 year edition cycles sounds like madness. Not everybody is used to new rules in a month, and getting comftable with the new main rules and codex can take even longer. And looking at how fleshed out some armies already are, I would dread the things they'd come up with to make new models for. It would likely end up like Pokémon, with random items in proximity being turned into ... things :eek:

Well I think theres 1 clear reason for why psychic powers are randomly generated. Preventing people only using X power in every game. It's the same as Fantasy, only at least in Fantasy if you were to take a single Lv4 Wizard and a single Lv 2 of the same Lore, you'd have your spread covered for that Lore (excluding signature spells), while as in 40k, you could in theory spam the same psychic power for whatever number of Psykers you have (thus Diviniation Spaming for Prescience). By making it random it at least mitigates and makes it more of a gamble regarding taking a Psyker, though I think Divination is a case where they did it backwards, as the Primaris Power is probably the equivalent to Wyssan's Wildform in Fantasy; so above average power that you take the lore almost soley to grab the Signature Spell/Primaris Power.

Again with Warlord traits I'm sure it's the same reason. Once people play enough they find the table that works best for them, stick with it, and become acustomed to certain results. I pretty much always roll on Strategic nowadays with my play style.

Edit: Ah, I see we already established why these are random:D

Mandragola
16-01-2014, 14:19
I would like to see the whole idea of editions entirely done away with, in favour of organic rules development.

The issue with the release of editions and codexes every few editions is that they cannot ever be balanced. Not everyone cares about that but I do. It leads to plain mistakes, like having rerollable 2++ saves or D weapons. Rather than waiting ~5 years for a new codex or edition - which will only have its own mistakes in it (siren - lash - baledrake etc.) it would be far better to just fix the problems with existing books.

I also think it would work fine financially for GW. People don't buy warp talons and other "useless" units. They would if the rules were changed to make them worthwhile. The game as a whole would be better if there was more viable variety, and a better game could only be good for GW.

Then also, rather than massive splash releases for an army they could do gradual stuff. In any given month they might release 1 unit for 4 armies, rather than 4 units for 1 army. It would keep people interested.

InstantKarma
16-01-2014, 14:30
I would like to see the whole idea of editions entirely done away with, in favour of organic rules development.

The issue with the release of editions and codexes every few editions is that they cannot ever be balanced. Not everyone cares about that but I do. It leads to plain mistakes, like having rerollable 2++ saves or D weapons. Rather than waiting ~5 years for a new codex or edition - which will only have its own mistakes in it (siren - lash - baledrake etc.) it would be far better to just fix the problems with existing books.

I also think it would work fine financially for GW. People don't buy warp talons and other "useless" units. They would if the rules were changed to make them worthwhile. The game as a whole would be better if there was more viable variety, and a better game could only be good for GW.

Then also, rather than massive splash releases for an army they could do gradual stuff. In any given month they might release 1 unit for 4 armies, rather than 4 units for 1 army. It would keep people interested.

I wouldn't be surprsied to see this with tablets and digital books becoming more common. I'd actually say GW would love this as it would most likely lower their operating costs substantially (IIRC most of their digital books cost LESS than the paper editions & have some extra goodies in them to boot?). The problem of course would be all of us who do not yet have a tablet of some kind to take advantage of such updates, who still pack up a library whenever we go to our LGS for a game, who pour through page after page and shout with glee when we find the obscure rule we were looking for clarification on.

Beppo1234
16-01-2014, 15:06
I hoped the thing with the digital media, was that GW could constantly be adjusting point costs of units given their performances. Editing rules, errata and correction in publications, those to me were always secondary things that the digital media provided. As far as I'm concerned, GW shouldn't be editing the published rules (because then you run into inconsistencies with the print versions of the same book). The primary power it gives GW is to edit the point cost of everything in the game. Not only would the balance potentially be returned, but it would also give GW a hands on, instantaneous marketing tool. Hell, I think it'd be great if each year, GW posted an adjusted point cost menu for all units in the game, relative to game performance (to balance the game) and secondly relative to sales (to sell what needs to be sold). That way you wouldn't need actually edit the books, just have the most up to date menu with appropriate point costs.

All that being said, I still feel the digital media should be nothing more than additional supplemental aids. I'm still of the opinion, that the FULL game should require no electricity, but cool that the option does exists.

Spiney Norman
16-01-2014, 15:51
I would like to see the whole idea of editions entirely done away with, in favour of organic rules development.

The issue with the release of editions and codexes every few editions is that they cannot ever be balanced. Not everyone cares about that but I do. It leads to plain mistakes, like having rerollable 2++ saves or D weapons. Rather than waiting ~5 years for a new codex or edition - which will only have its own mistakes in it (siren - lash - baledrake etc.) it would be far better to just fix the problems with existing books.

I also think it would work fine financially for GW. People don't buy warp talons and other "useless" units. They would if the rules were changed to make them worthwhile. The game as a whole would be better if there was more viable variety, and a better game could only be good for GW.

Then also, rather than massive splash releases for an army they could do gradual stuff. In any given month they might release 1 unit for 4 armies, rather than 4 units for 1 army. It would keep people interested.

'Organic rules development' is what GW do when they no longer want to be bothered with a game, give it a living rulebook and drop in in the black hole reserved for specialist games. We're not at that stage with 40K yet, its still well worth their while to produce fancy-looking expensive rule books because people will buy them and they can rake in the unreasonably large profits. I think we'll see fantasy going down this route long before 40K follows it into the abyss sadly.


I wouldn't be surprsied to see this with tablets and digital books becoming more common. I'd actually say GW would love this as it would most likely lower their operating costs substantially (IIRC most of their digital books cost LESS than the paper editions & have some extra goodies in them to boot?). The problem of course would be all of us who do not yet have a tablet of some kind to take advantage of such updates, who still pack up a library whenever we go to our LGS for a game, who pour through page after page and shout with glee when we find the obscure rule we were looking for clarification on.

Digital books clearly have an advantage, their material and distribution costs are zero so the only real cost associated with them is the staff who wrote the book and whoever coded it up, once that is done there are no ongoing costs at all, so after a while digital books effectively just print money. Having said that the hard copy books still create a huge profit when they can sell them for such absurd prices, and a fair number of people will only be sold a hard copy, they wouldn't get a digital copy if the hard copy wasn't available, though I suspect as digital technology continues to improve, and more and more people have digital devices anyway the number of people in this category will shrink.

Based on their business model I cannot ever see them moving to a proper 'living rulebook' system, only because it will lose them money in the long term, they'd go from forcing everyone to buy a new book/ebook every 4 years if they wanted to keep playing the game, to being committed to providing updates for a book that everyone buys once, which means even of they charge a bit more for it in the first instance they're still going to start losing money on it eventually. They've even been pretty lax with their FAQs for the last 6 months or so, basically once you have bought the product and left the shop, GW doesn't know you exist until the next time you walk into the shop to buy something else.

InstantKarma
16-01-2014, 16:32
Digital books clearly have an advantage, their material and distribution costs are zero so the only real cost associated with them is the staff who wrote the book and whoever coded it up, once that is done there are no ongoing costs at all, so after a while digital books effectively just print money. Having said that the hard copy books still create a huge profit when they can sell them for such absurd prices, and a fair number of people will only be sold a hard copy, they wouldn't get a digital copy if the hard copy wasn't available, though I suspect as digital technology continues to improve, and more and more people have digital devices anyway the number of people in this category will shrink.

Based on their business model I cannot ever see them moving to a proper 'living rulebook' system, only because it will lose them money in the long term, they'd go from forcing everyone to buy a new book/ebook every 4 years if they wanted to keep playing the game, to being committed to providing updates for a book that everyone buys once, which means even of they charge a bit more for it in the first instance they're still going to start losing money on it eventually. They've even been pretty lax with their FAQs for the last 6 months or so, basically once you have bought the product and left the shop, GW doesn't know you exist until the next time you walk into the shop to buy something else.

But it's GW, so expect them to charge for updates to make up for less nice shiney hardbacks:D

I do confess I have a love for books and a weird suspicion of tablets/e-readers (perhaps this is why I am gravitating towards Dwarfs for my first Fantasy army) and if we were to see even more of a shift towards digital, it might actually be the thing that would push me to pick up a tablet or reader.

Of course the OTHER reason GW would no doubt want more digital 'items' is just like for WoW or Farmville; subscriptions bring in solid predictable revenue, but little 'bonuses' can quickly catch people on an impulse buy and before any buyers remorse can hit them, they're pretty much stuck with the item, and thus, more moola for GW. I learned this lesson the hard way with League of Legends and will not play that game again precisely because of the money I blew on 'characters' and 'skins'.

I think we're seeing this with the 'Dataslates' and digital SC releases of last year. No doubt this was a combination of a genuine desire from GW to expand it's digital foot print, and bring back some old fan favorites (Cypher and Bel'a'kor) as well as give players new toys. But I feel safe in asserting this was probably also a test to see if they could catch some customers with an 'OHHHHH Shiney!' buy.

Regarding communicating with customers, we have had rumors for sometime of a new GW/FW website. If this turns out to be true, I'd like to see them imitate Blizzard. A large general website (ala Battle.net) with 'sub' websites for each of their major games, along with forums and other avenues where players can congregate and give/recieve feedback directly from GW. Might force them to improve on customer service a bit! This wouldn't replace sites like Warseer, as such sites provide their own unique services away from the 'official' source (say the WoW website and then WoWhead for example).

MiyamatoMusashi
16-01-2014, 17:11
Well I think theres 1 clear reason for why psychic powers are randomly generated. Preventing people only using X power in every game.

So you'd also be in favour of giving Devastator squads random heavy weapons? I mean, it could completely change their role (do they get Lascannons or Heavy Bolters?) but at least people would be prevented from bringing X weapon every game!

(I think there is a potentially good justification for random power selection, in that psychics have always been portrayed in the fluff as unpredictable; but that's completely different from discouraging people taking the same thing every game. They can plan around having Lascannons for anti-tank; why shouldn't they be able to plan around having, I dunno, a Chain Lightning psychic power for dealing with light infantry, or whatever?)

InstantKarma
16-01-2014, 17:30
So you'd also be in favour of giving Devastator squads random heavy weapons? I mean, it could completely change their role (do they get Lascannons or Heavy Bolters?) but at least people would be prevented from bringing X weapon every game!

(I think there is a potentially good justification for random power selection, in that psychics have always been portrayed in the fluff as unpredictable; but that's completely different from discouraging people taking the same thing every game. They can plan around having Lascannons for anti-tank; why shouldn't they be able to plan around having, I dunno, a Chain Lightning psychic power for dealing with light infantry, or whatever?)

Except always bringing 4 Lascannons is different than always bringing 'Re-roll all shooting and Close Combat Attacks for X unit until your next turn'. Apples and oranges. You're describing a particular weapon, with a limited role which becomes less effective outside of that role vs. a buff which improves all the weapons/attacks of a whole unit for an entire game turn which never stops benefiting you (just to use my pervious example of the 'Prescience' power from the Divination Discipline). Apples and Oranges my friend.

If nothing else (assuming we aren't talking about two different types of 'fruit')we've seen what happens when people can simply purchase psychic powers, like back in 4th-5th edition; they always took the same ones. My Furioso Lib Dreadnought always took Wings of Sanguinius and Might of Heroes because a Jump Pack Dreadnought getting between 5-7 Str 10 No Save attacks in CC made people cry. Space Wolves Rune Priests always take that Jaw/Maw of the World Eater thing, whatever it's called, that simply removes units from the game. It becomes a no brainer rather than a calculated risk. You purchasing that Dev squad with 4 lascannons is a calculated risk, because if your opponent doesn't bring too many heavy tanks, but doubles up on hordes of infantry, then those Lascannons ain't gonna be so useful.

In other words, I'd ague that making the selection of psychic powers less predictable brings them more in line with this hypothetical Dev squad than if you were to be able to purchase psychic powers as in previous editions.

You also partially answer the question from the fluff perspective regarding the inherent instability of the Warp/Psykers.

If we want an even simpler explanation then here it is; Fantasy has you roll for Spells, 6th ED made 40k more like Fantasy (they were written by the same people) so ergo, we have to roll for Psychic Powers.

IcedCrow
16-01-2014, 17:49
So you'd also be in favour of giving Devastator squads random heavy weapons? I mean, it could completely change their role (do they get Lascannons or Heavy Bolters?) but at least people would be prevented from bringing X weapon every game!

I like this counter argument, its so fuzzy and adorable. Like how you should have random units in your game or even better random armies with random units and then rolling which random game you're playing.

It never gets old!

Inquisitor Kallus
16-01-2014, 18:20
So you'd also be in favour of giving Devastator squads random heavy weapons? I mean, it could completely change their role (do they get Lascannons or Heavy Bolters?) but at least people would be prevented from bringing X weapon every game!


Right *slow clap*

Inquisitor Kallus
16-01-2014, 18:42
Sorry. Double post

Sgt John Keel
16-01-2014, 19:42
The random doesnt bother me for a few reasons.

1) the level of random is not that much greater than before. Random charges - 8th ed fantasy already did that and I actually prefer it because it adds a level of back up planning you have to account for that you never had to before. Random powers - fantasy has been doing this forever. While I personally would design a game with set powers (i'd actually just assign a list of powers), the random works better for me because quite simply you only ever see a scant small handful of powers used when you get to pick. GW might as well not even bother making multiple powers and just put three powers in the core book and call it a day because those three or so are the only powers that will get used. They won't design a perfectly min/max proof psyker list because in the ivory tower its not an issue.

I don't like random charges, but it's not relevant to this argument since it doesn't impact the 'meta' storytelling. And yes, Fantasy has been doing random powers forever*. If they can't make more than three decent powers, then don't (in this case, decent means fun, not all-powerful). Who is it fun for when I get all useless powers?

*I think it works somewhat better in Fantasy (or at least it used to in 6th ed), since the powers in a given list (especially the rulebook ones) usually had some kind of thematic connection in their in-game effects. The current 40k lists are very strange, one battle my Librarian is very much in favour of hanging back with my Devastators, but in the next he's suddenly very eager to smash the enemy in the face? Sadly, I forgot to give him a jump pack for contingency, so I'm now effectively playing a 100 points down. (That is, I don't think there's any wonder that the psychic disciplines with a good Primaris Power are favoured.)

Honestly, I think psychic powers are somewhat problematic, especially the Witchfire ones. Look, he's got a gun! But it's psychic! How fun. :rolleyes:


Random mysterious terrain? That's listed as optional already.
Random warlord traits? Goes back to powers. If you could always pick, the same two or three powers game-wide would be used and the rest might as well not even exist.

In this case, I really think optional is a cop out. On the warlords thing, what are you arguing? Random rolls are bad for storytelling, and bad for power gaming and also for balanced gaming, since sometimes you'll get something perfect and your opponent something useless. What is it good for? (Since the benefits from the Warlord Traits are really tiny, in most cases you're probably better off ignoring it altogether if you don't get something that slots into your battle plan. Which happens to me in 90% of my games. Fun!)

Does GW really not care about game balance, but they also prefer to balance the game by random?


The rest is really the same game we've been playing for a while now - so the level of random did not suddenly exponentiate itself to turn the game into who flips a coin and wins that wins the game.

Didn't say it did. In fact, the balance argument was only secondary to the argument about randomness of things being actively detrimental to the ostensible goal of this edition, cinematic storytelling.


Because you are playing one-off battles and not part of a campaign..........?

I really don't see how that is relevant. I am fairly sure there are quite a few players who have written identities for their characters, named their vehicles and so on. Special Characters have set Warlord Traits, because they continue on being the same person in every battle. Why isn't the Blood Angels 8th Company Captain?

IcedCrow
16-01-2014, 19:54
On the warlords thing, what are you arguing? Random rolls are bad for storytelling, and bad for power gaming and also for balanced gaming, since sometimes you'll get something perfect and your opponent something useless.

I'm not arguing anything really, I'm stating that my preference between random powers and powers you get to pick are that I don't mind random as much if it means not having to face the same powers all of the time.

InstantKarma
16-01-2014, 20:21
In this case, I really think optional is a cop out. On the warlords thing, what are you arguing? Random rolls are bad for storytelling, and bad for power gaming and also for balanced gaming, since sometimes you'll get something perfect and your opponent something useless. What is it good for? (Since the benefits from the Warlord Traits are really tiny, in most cases you're probably better off ignoring it altogether if you don't get something that slots into your battle plan. Which happens to me in 90% of my games. Fun!)

Does GW really not care about game balance, but they also prefer to balance the game by random?

I really don't see how that is relevant. I am fairly sure there are quite a few players who have written identities for their characters, named their vehicles and so on. Special Characters have set Warlord Traits, because they continue on being the same person in every battle. Why isn't the Blood Angels 8th Company Captain?

I don't think saying a thing is optional is a cop out. I think at that point we're demanding too much of human beings to create a system that is so well balanced that even the terrain will always do exactly what we want it to do. Shoot, 40k has that too with many of the terrain features not even counting the ones that we roll on! Optional means exactly that.

Regarding Warlord traits I can sympathize and agree with you, as well as disagree. As I stated early I pretty much stick to Strategic Traits. I think I usually find 4 of them to be pretty useful in most of my games so I get more than just a tiny benefit. Could just be how I play. I did have plenty of games where I got no benefit from a Warlord table trait, but looking back I wonder if that was less the table and more of me not being creative in finding a way to make it work, or simply picking from a table with traits that better suit what I want to do. When the Tau codex came out, I initially used those traits EVERY game, until I realized that what I wanted to do would be better benefited with the Strategic traits.

Regarding their randomness however, as my general does have a name and little backstory, I would very much prefer to have a set trait for him that I could select pre-game. That being said though, as I mentioned above, I'm making the traits as they exist work for me at the moment.

Torga_DW
16-01-2014, 21:22
One thing I don't understand in this 'cinematic' edition is all the randomness. Sure, the Chaos Gods are fickle and Orks are silly sometimes, but why does my Commander switch specialities every battle? Why is my Librarian suddenly very labile when it comes to which way he's been trained to use his powers? Why is my army totally unaware of what objectives they are actually fighting over? Does my army have the spirit of the Nazis from Raiders of the Lost Ark?

I really don't see how it makes the game more fun. I think it actively hurts any attempt of storytelling. Is it balanced? In the long run, sure, it'll cancel out. But that is the wrong kind of balance, in my opinion. I want every game to be reasonably balanced. And sure, Warlord Traits are mostly inconsequential and hardly game breaking. It seems like they are there for flavour. So, why, then, do they need to be random? Why not try to make all psychic powers equally useful so that I can choose what is to my taste without disadvantaging my opponent who chose something else?

This is the interesting scenario where the game stops being 'fluffy' 'cinematic' and 'narrative' and suddenly "its a game and balance is important" takes over. Weird huh? All these broken units and abilities are okay and balance isn't important because its about the fluff and the story, then you get a character (who you get told is supposed to be you on the battlefield) and suddenly he's random because its a game first and balance is important. Strange place to draw the line imo.

@instantkarma:
gw doesn't change the game much with each new edition. They're not working an unpaid job curing cancer. For the prices they charge i think too little is being demanded of them, not too much.

Inquisitor Kallus
16-01-2014, 21:30
I really don't see how that is relevant. I am fairly sure there are quite a few players who have written identities for their characters, named their vehicles and so on. Special Characters have set Warlord Traits, because they continue on being the same person in every battle. Why isn't the Blood Angels 8th Company Captain?

Of course its relevant, its how you decide to play.

MiyamatoMusashi
17-01-2014, 18:05
Except always bringing 4 Lascannons is different than always bringing 'Re-roll all shooting and Close Combat Attacks for X unit until your next turn'. Apples and oranges. You're describing a particular weapon, with a limited role which becomes less effective outside of that role vs. a buff which improves all the weapons/attacks of a whole unit for an entire game turn which never stops benefiting you (just to use my pervious example of the 'Prescience' power from the Divination Discipline).

No... I'm not. I'm describing only whether psychic powers should be chosen randomly or selected. I made no comment on what those psychic powers should be, or what effect they should have. That came entirely from you, as did the fruit obsession.

In addition, if the psychic powers aren't reasonably balanced, then yes of course people will select the same ones all the time. The problem isn't the selection... it's the balance between the options.

Look at it another way. Pretend for a moment (indulge me) that every psychic power was a Psychic Shooting Attack. Now... what is the difference between rolling/selecting psychic powers, and rolling/selecting weapons? Nothing. At this point it becomes apparent that the choice of rolling for, or selecting, psychic powers isn't something inherent to psychic powers - as long as the psychic powers in question are reasonably well balanced. Which, I grant, is a lot more difficult to do when they might be buffs or debuffs, not just shooting attacks... but not insurmountable.

Throw as much fruit as you like, of whatever variety, at the strawman you built; but it was not one that even remotely represented the argument I put forward.

InstantKarma
17-01-2014, 18:21
No... I'm not. I'm describing only whether psychic powers should be chosen randomly or selected. I made no comment on what those psychic powers should be, or what effect they should have. That came entirely from you, as did the fruit obsession.

In addition, if the psychic powers aren't reasonably balanced, then yes of course people will select the same ones all the time. The problem isn't the selection... it's the balance between the options.

Look at it another way. Pretend for a moment (indulge me) that every psychic power was a Psychic Shooting Attack. Now... what is the difference between rolling/selecting psychic powers, and rolling/selecting weapons? Nothing. At this point it becomes apparent that the choice of rolling for, or selecting, psychic powers isn't something inherent to psychic powers - as long as the psychic powers in question are reasonably well balanced. Which, I grant, is a lot more difficult to do when they might be buffs or debuffs, not just shooting attacks... but not insurmountable.

Throw as much fruit as you like, of whatever variety, at the strawman you built; but it was not one that even remotely represented the argument I put forward.

I'm not sure how this is a strawman if I am describing how your comparsion would play out in game. You cannot seperate what the thing itself does from your decision to choose that thing in the first place, otherwise WHY did you make that selection? The in-game effects of psychic powers vs. Devestor Weapon options are different things (why else would you take both?), which is why I created my hypothetical Devestator Squad and compared it to a psychic power that was not a shooting attack. Even if I were comparing it to your hypothetical scenario of all psychic powers being only shooting attacks, we still are dealing with something different. One look at the Tzeentch Psychic disciplines in the Codex CSM, and their additional effects (a lot of which are not USRs in the BRB even) would show you are dealing with two things that, while related, maybe AT TIMES equivalent, are not identical. The fact that many psychic powers ARE NOT simply shooting attacks makes this indulgence even more problematic.

Torga_DW
17-01-2014, 21:13
You cannot seperate what the thing itself does from your decision to choose that thing in the first place, otherwise WHY did you make that selection?

I think thats his whole point though - units (like librarirans) that you choose for one reason but cannot separate out what it will *actually* do on the tabletop.



The in-game effects of psychic powers vs. Devestor Weapon options are different things (why else would you take both?), which is why I created my hypothetical Devestator Squad and compared it to a psychic power that was not a shooting attack. Even if I were comparing it to your hypothetical scenario of all psychic powers being only shooting attacks, we still are dealing with something different.

The main difference here being that you can choose what weapons you take on your devastators, you can't choose what psychic power will be randomly chosen.



One look at the Tzeentch Psychic disciplines in the Codex CSM, and their additional effects (a lot of which are not USRs in the BRB even) would show you are dealing with two things that, while related, maybe AT TIMES equivalent, are not identical. The fact that many psychic powers ARE NOT simply shooting attacks makes this indulgence even more problematic.

Marine assault cannons? Necron tesla weapons? Ork Kustom Force Fields? Marine storm shields? Anyone care to digup a bigger list of the non-usr shooting weapons? Necrons and dark eldar alone have a fair few. I believe the fact that many psychic powers are not simply shooting attacks is why he added in the hypothetical - imagine if they only were shooting attacks? It removes some of that problematic and makes the situation easier to view.

InstantKarma
17-01-2014, 21:55
I think thats his whole point though - units (like librarirans) that you choose for one reason but cannot separate out what it will *actually* do on the tabletop.


The main difference here being that you can choose what weapons you take on your devastators, you can't choose what psychic power will be randomly chosen.


Marine assault cannons? Necron tesla weapons? Ork Kustom Force Fields? Marine storm shields? Anyone care to digup a bigger list of the non-usr shooting weapons? Necrons and dark eldar alone have a fair few. I believe the fact that many psychic powers are not simply shooting attacks is why he added in the hypothetical - imagine if they only were shooting attacks? It removes some of that problematic and makes the situation easier to view.

1) But you can. You have Mastery Levels, you have a D6 to roll, which gives some predictability, you can select which Discipline you like. Ignoring wargear options for your psyker, thats a fair amount of tailoring and control.

2)If you're Mastery Level 3 and you are rolling a d6, you have a 1/2 chance to guess correctly what powers you will land, and one of those can always be swapped out for the Primaris. Hardly as unpredictable as you guys are marking it seem.

3)Fair enough on weapons with funky non USR rules (aside from the Assault Cannon; it's simply rending which is a USR). I still think this 'only shooting attacks' doesn't work for our comparision though simply because you have Maledictions/Blessings, which cannot be accounted for with shooting, and also can give beneift/reductions to your shooting/movement/cc/saves etc. They function in ways that are force multipliers/reducers in a way that cannot be mirrored by our hypothetical Dev squad's weapon selection.

Ssilmath
17-01-2014, 22:00
There's a very easy explanation. Psychic powers are random because GW want them to be random and unpredictable compared to other aspects of the game. I don't know why people are digging for a deeper answer than that.

Inquisitor Kallus
17-01-2014, 22:19
There's a very easy explanation. Psychic powers are random because GW want them to be random and unpredictable compared to other aspects of the game. I don't know why people are digging for a deeper answer than that.

Indeed. Psychic powers have always been unpredictable and potentially dangerous even to the user. Just have a look at Dark Heresy and the like. A psyker should never be 100% reliable. It also makes them feel different to the rest of the force in a good way, otherwise you might as well just buy more guns or whatever. A lot of people don't like not having full control. Thats a shame. I really like the unpredictable nature of Psykers, theres a risk vs reward thing with them. Its a big part of their background, something I love so much about this game otherwise it wouldnt be nearly half as much fun

Torga_DW
17-01-2014, 22:38
There's a very easy explanation. Psychic powers are random because GW want them to be random and unpredictable compared to other aspects of the game. I don't know why people are digging for a deeper answer than that.

I know, its the way it is because its the way it is. They're probably digging deeper because they're unsatisfied with the way it is and are hoping to find some meaningful answer that explains it.

@inquisitor kallus: i remember, but going back to 1st *everything* was a random table. There's a big difference between not having full control and the army playing the player - some people don't like playing games where they're not making the decisions for their unit/team/character. Do psykers in dark heresy have to roll for their psychic powers at the start of every new campaign? Genuinely curious as i haven't seen any of the 40k rpg rules.

edit:
@instant karma:
Yes, i know you can pay more points to have a greater chance of getting the 1 spell you want/need to fit with the wargear you purchased for your librarian, but that strikes me as a symptom and workaround of the issue, not the issue itself. Psychic powers are dangerous in fluff so thats how they are in the game, okay thats fine. But wargear (like devastator weapons) are rare and/or ancient in the game, i don't think it would go over well if devastators had to roll for their weapons at the start of each game. To me (personal opinion) the lines on what are fluff critical and what are balance critical are badly drawn, because as i said before in the case of units like librarians gw goes out of their way to point out that this sort of character will represent you on the tabletop - which is where the randomness becomes an immediate disconnect.

Ssilmath
17-01-2014, 22:44
I know, its the way it is because its the way it is. They're probably digging deeper because they're unsatisfied with the way it is and are hoping to find some meaningful answer that explains it.

With GW, the most likely answer is also the simplest one. Because they thought it would be cool, or they thought it represented the world/unit/concept best.

Torga_DW
17-01-2014, 23:01
With GW, the most likely answer is also the simplest one. Because they thought it would be cool, or they thought it represented the world/unit/concept best.

I'd like to say true and agree with this, but i don't know what sort of freedoms/restrictions the actual designers have. The sky fell over in gw general yesterday (did 'we' win? certainly doesn't feel like it) and i don't have that much faith in gw as a games company. But anyhoo just pointing out why i think the question keeps getting asked (by non-grognards like myself, that is). :)

Fear Ghoul
18-01-2014, 00:27
Indeed. Psychic powers have always been unpredictable and potentially dangerous even to the user. Just have a look at Dark Heresy and the like. A psyker should never be 100% reliable. It also makes them feel different to the rest of the force in a good way, otherwise you might as well just buy more guns or whatever. A lot of people don't like not having full control. Thats a shame. I really like the unpredictable nature of Psykers, theres a risk vs reward thing with them. Its a big part of their background, something I love so much about this game otherwise it wouldnt be nearly half as much fun

The ability of a human psyker to cast spells without repercussion has always been unpredictable, but not the spells they know at any point in time. That would be an absurd proposition, and has no background or logical support.

ForgottenLore
18-01-2014, 00:44
On the randomness issue, I have always felt that the player should have the same basic information going into the game as the army commander would have before the battle. Randomness during the game is OK, randomness during game prep such as list building and unit function, is not.

Bubble Ghost
18-01-2014, 03:04
I think the idea is that that commander does not have the luxury of reequipping his psyker with different abilities just by having a chat with his logistics people. The psyker knows what he knows. This, plus the fact there is now more than lip service paid to the concept of psychic rules, is important to the back story of the setting for me.

Thing is, I always hated the fact that you could cherry pick psychic powers, and not only because you only ever saw the same ones. I thought it made psykers into bland special rule caddies no different from other characters, and that doesn't do that element of the fiction justice. With generated powers, the powers are not the weapons - the psyker is. You ask "do I want another Warlock?" rather than "do I want another Destructor?", and I think that's important. It places emphasis on the character rather than just his awesome buffX0rz. Leave that to Warmachine.

I also love warlord traits. If you could choose them or buy them, there'd be absolutely no point to their existence, you could just incorporate whatever you needed them to do into wargear lists. What they, and other allegedly awful randomness, do is establish context around the game which works precisely because it's beyond your control - it's a little sprinkling of what a GM does for a roleplaying game, creating a world for you to take part in, which is a completely different experience to having creative control over everything. It just goes a little, little way towards simulating a campaign like experience in a one off game without needing planning and effort. Don't tell me that's wrong, because I love it.

insectum7
18-01-2014, 21:12
^That's funny, because I've started gravitating towards lists with special character captains (fixed Warlord Traits) and no psykers just to remove the variables. Not sure how long it will last, but that's my current stance.

Inquisitor Kallus
18-01-2014, 21:56
I think the idea is that that commander does not have the luxury of reequipping his psyker with different abilities just by having a chat with his logistics people. The psyker knows what he knows. This, plus the fact there is now more than lip service paid to the concept of psychic rules, is important to the back story of the setting for me.

Thing is, I always hated the fact that you could cherry pick psychic powers, and not only because you only ever saw the same ones. I thought it made psykers into bland special rule caddies no different from other characters, and that doesn't do that element of the fiction justice. With generated powers, the powers are not the weapons - the psyker is. You ask "do I want another Warlock?" rather than "do I want another Destructor?", and I think that's important. It places emphasis on the character rather than just his awesome buffX0rz. Leave that to Warmachine.

I also love warlord traits. If you could choose them or buy them, there'd be absolutely no point to their existence, you could just incorporate whatever you needed them to do into wargear lists. What they, and other allegedly awful randomness, do is establish context around the game which works precisely because it's beyond your control - it's a little sprinkling of what a GM does for a roleplaying game, creating a world for you to take part in, which is a completely different experience to having creative control over everything. It just goes a little, little way towards simulating a campaign like experience in a one off game without needing planning and effort. Don't tell me that's wrong, because I love it.

Couldn't have said it better myself Bubble Ghost.

Bubble Ghost
18-01-2014, 22:30
^That's funny, because I've started gravitating towards lists with special character captains (fixed Warlord Traits) and no psykers just to remove the variables. Not sure how long it will last, but that's my current stance.

If you'd rather have total control over everything, that's fine too (although you'd probably be happier playing Warmachine than any version of 40K). I'm just explaining what those elements add to the game for players like me, because there seems to be a belief in some quarters that random elements like this are somehow objectively flawed or (my favourite) "lazy" - when in fact they're enhancements to a particular way of playing, even if they might be a detriment to others, and also result in fewer ways to pick the gimmick army lists everyone claims to hate (which is another way they help, a little, with that dirty n-word. No, the other one).

Torga_DW
18-01-2014, 23:07
I think the idea is that that commander does not have the luxury of reequipping his psyker with different abilities just by having a chat with his logistics people. The psyker knows what he knows. This, plus the fact there is now more than lip service paid to the concept of psychic rules, is important to the back story of the setting for me.

Thats kind of the problem though, isn't it? You have 1 hq in your army, a librarian, and he doesn't know what he knows. The commander doesn't have time to get a new psyker for the detachment between missions, so how does that fit?



Thing is, I always hated the fact that you could cherry pick psychic powers, and not only because you only ever saw the same ones. I thought it made psykers into bland special rule caddies no different from other characters, and that doesn't do that element of the fiction justice. With generated powers, the powers are not the weapons - the psyker is. You ask "do I want another Warlock?" rather than "do I want another Destructor?", and I think that's important. It places emphasis on the character rather than just his awesome buffX0rz. Leave that to Warmachine.

Cherry picking is a symptom of having radically different quality options available for comparable prices. Thats not an issue restricted to psychic powers. I rather think that makes the powers more the weapons than the psyker. This battle i'm fielding a model with destructor, next battle in an hour's time i'm fielding the same model i want to keep away from combat and hope nobody notices him because he probably won't be able to contribute other than as a costly target. The emphasis becomes more on his buffs than the character, because the character remains the same in every battle its the buffs that change. The question becomes: do i want to field a warlock and kit him out for destructor (or power x) and hope he rolls it? Or do i want a unit where i have more certainty that he'll perform as i want/expect him to. Otherwise if its about outside influences for fluff reasons, the entire army should be created randomly (as they were the resources available when the detachment was created by command).

Ironically i see warmachine as more fluffy because of the named characters - these are the people leading the armies, and heres what they can do. Here's this guy at the start of his career, and here he is 10 years down the track. I just don't get how 'make a character to represent you' is fluffy or narrative if its got such random (and potentially important) aspects to the game.


I also love warlord traits. If you could choose them or buy them, there'd be absolutely no point to their existence, you could just incorporate whatever you needed them to do into wargear lists. What they, and other allegedly awful randomness, do is establish context around the game which works precisely because it's beyond your control - it's a little sprinkling of what a GM does for a roleplaying game, creating a world for you to take part in, which is a completely different experience to having creative control over everything. It just goes a little, little way towards simulating a campaign like experience in a one off game without needing planning and effort. Don't tell me that's wrong, because I love it.

Thats part of writing an army list though - you're trying to take the units you want for the roles you want them to perform. Having things beyond your control is fair enough, its where you draw that line that creates problems. GMs may use random tables, but they also use their own discretion because they're running the campaign. I'm fine with gw running the game, but then they need to write tighter rules if so.

Bubble Ghost
18-01-2014, 23:21
I refer you to the post immediately above yours, which may not have been there when you started that one.

Fear Ghoul
18-01-2014, 23:26
I think the idea is that that commander does not have the luxury of reequipping his psyker with different abilities just by having a chat with his logistics people. The psyker knows what he knows.

Except he clearly doesn't, because what he knows is random. If I play a campaign game using Blood Angels Epistolary Gorey McBloodBlood then he knows one power, but in the next campaign game he probably knows a completely different power. How does that make any sense? It is the exact opposite of narrative gaming. You can see the exact same logical problem with Warlord Traits. My own characters with custom background can't ever have a defined Warlord Trait like, but special characters get to circumvent the randomness. How is that narrative? And people wonder why special characters are taken so frequently....

Torga_DW
18-01-2014, 23:29
I'm not sure why it has to be total control or no control? But as you said, personal opinions/value, can't argue with that.

edit: i don't see how the things that 'i' see as flaws and 'you' see as enhancements help encourage playing in a particular style though. There have been complaints as long as i remember for people playing within the rules - netlists, minmax, spamming units, etc. If the rules as they are now (lets say 6th edition) discourage that, why do the complaints still exist?

Ssilmath
18-01-2014, 23:56
If you're doing a narrative campaign, there's absolutely nothing stopping people from rolling up Warlord traits and Psychic powers at the very beginning, before even equipping their characters or writing their lists. Neither is there anything stopping you from choosing them, based on discussion with the players and GM.

In pickup games and one offs, there are any number of reasons for things like random warlord charts, such as characters being issued different intel and preparing for it, to your SM Captain is studying the Codex Astartes and read a particular passage which is now foremost in his mind and influencing things. Just comes down to how you choose to view it.

insectum7
19-01-2014, 00:12
If you'd rather have total control over everything, that's fine too (although you'd probably be happier playing Warmachine than any version of 40K).

Hah! Can I field 60 Marines in a Warmachine game? No? Not interested. :) I literally have zero interest in picking up a different game now.

I'm ok with randomness in the game, and I'm ok with rolling for psychic powers. My current army just specifically sidesteps some of it.

Bubble Ghost
19-01-2014, 00:16
I'm not sure why it has to be total control or no control?

It doesn't, and I never suggested it did! "No" control in 40K? You have loads of control. There are a few random elements - nowhere near as many as you'd think, to look at the complaints - and they're all random for good reasons (reasons which people are obviously free to dislike - it only represents one style of game, after all, as does any set of rules).



I'm not sure why it has to be total control or no control? But as you said, personal opinions/value, can't argue with that.

edit: i don't see how the things that 'i' see as flaws and 'you' see as enhancements help encourage playing in a particular style though. There have been complaints as long as i remember for people playing within the rules - netlists, minmax, spamming units, etc. If the rules as they are now (lets say 6th edition) discourage that, why do the complaints still exist?

That's another false dilemma. If psychic powers or warlord traits were selectable, that would be yet more things around which to build exploitative gimmick lists which don't fit the background, but that doesn't mean there aren't a ton of them already. And neither does the fact that there are a ton of them already mean it's OK to turn everything into one.

Like I tried to explain, I just feel that these elements as they are (rolling for psychic powers instead of selecting them, rolling for instead of buying warlord traits, etc) are flavour enhancers. They add texture that helps make the game seem part of a living game world, however silly they may seem if you only look at things in a vacuum ("my psyker keeps forgetting his powers", etc).




If I play a campaign game using Blood Angels Epistolary Gorey McBloodBlood then he knows one power, but in the next campaign game he probably knows a completely different power

But whose fault is that, if you're playing in a campaign? This is why I said I like that these elements create a little campaign-like texture for one-off games. If you're actually playing in a campaign, you can do whatever you think is appropriate with them. I love what these rules do for one-off games, but I'm in the middle of creating some campaign rules to use at my club in which you do keep warlord traits from game to game, unless you spend upkeep currency to generate a new one, while similarly you can spend some to let a psyker retain a power from the previous game for the next one.

bhusus
19-01-2014, 01:58
If you're doing a narrative campaign, there's absolutely nothing stopping people from rolling up Warlord traits and Psychic powers at the very beginning, before even equipping their characters or writing their lists. Neither is there anything stopping you from choosing them, based on discussion with the players and GM.

This is exactly what we started doing for our narrative campaigns - this way we preserve randomness and prevent cherry picking, but are able to accommodate the powers/traits rolled into the lists we've created.

Fear Ghoul
19-01-2014, 15:36
If you're doing a narrative campaign, there's absolutely nothing stopping people from rolling up Warlord traits and Psychic powers at the very beginning, before even equipping their characters or writing their lists. Neither is there anything stopping you from choosing them, based on discussion with the players and GM.

In pickup games and one offs, there are any number of reasons for things like random warlord charts, such as characters being issued different intel and preparing for it, to your SM Captain is studying the Codex Astartes and read a particular passage which is now foremost in his mind and influencing things. Just comes down to how you choose to view it.


But whose fault is that, if you're playing in a campaign? This is why I said I like that these elements create a little campaign-like texture for one-off games. If you're actually playing in a campaign, you can do whatever you think is appropriate with them. I love what these rules do for one-off games, but I'm in the middle of creating some campaign rules to use at my club in which you do keep warlord traits from game to game, unless you spend upkeep currency to generate a new one, while similarly you can spend some to let a psyker retain a power from the previous game for the next one.

Is 40k designed for narrative gaming or is it designed for one-off tournament games? Decide which and then design the game as such. And that still doesn't answer the question of why special characters get to keep their warlord traits and psychic powers but player-designed characters don't. I can't go into a GW store and tell an opponent "I don't have to roll my psychic powers, because my Librarian has a well-established background." I'd get told to stick it where the sun don't shine, because that's not what the rules say -> not narrative gaming.

IcedCrow
19-01-2014, 16:23
Is 40k designed for narrative gaming or is it designed for one-off tournament games?

The answer you receive will depend on the person answering it and what they like more :)

Inquisitor Kallus
19-01-2014, 16:27
The answer you receive will depend on the person answering it and what they like more :)

Winner winner..............chicken dinner.

Bubble Ghost
19-01-2014, 17:05
Is 40k designed for narrative gaming or is it designed for one-off tournament games? Decide which and then design the game as such.

There's no reason it has to be one or the other. There are shades of grey here, it is not and should not be a binary choice. What they've gone for (and I'm not pretending the execution is particularly brilliant) is a game that can accomodate roughly equal games between strangers but without abandoning flavour and texture for meticulous sterility. You don't have to like where they've stuck their flag in that scale, but there is a scale.

Anyway. You're saying that it's silly that a commander wouldn't know what skills his psyker had, and that is true. But the point is that if you were certain in the way that commander might be in-storyline, you could then gimmick your army selection around a metafictional quirk of how a particular power happens to work - and that always felt wrong to me. It gave psykers no presence as psykers, it evoked nothing. Randomised powers fixes it for me. It's a possibly less realistic trope in isolation, but nonetheless leads to a more representative feel for how psykers fit into armies. I can only imagine that this is deliberate on the part of the authors, but even if it isn't, that's the effect it has, and it's a positive one unless you desperately want to play as Epistolary Privateer of the Imperial Warcasters - you have an army supported by a psyker, not an "Invisibility Build". And that is good. For ME. I'm not telling you it has to be for you.

InstantKarma
19-01-2014, 17:31
edit:@instant karma:
Yes, i know you can pay more points to have a greater chance of getting the 1 spell you want/need to fit with the wargear you purchased for your librarian, but that strikes me as a symptom and workaround of the issue, not the issue itself. Psychic powers are dangerous in fluff so thats how they are in the game, okay thats fine. But wargear (like devastator weapons) are rare and/or ancient in the game, i don't think it would go over well if devastators had to roll for their weapons at the start of each game. To me (personal opinion) the lines on what are fluff critical and what are balance critical are badly drawn, because as i said before in the case of units like librarians gw goes out of their way to point out that this sort of character will represent you on the tabletop - which is where the randomness becomes an immediate disconnect.

What is this statement of 'randomized weapons'? I never stated that, nor would I like that. As for fluff, not all weapons are 'ancient/rare' and if nothing else this fluff has been strained recently for Imperial Armies, with the sudden influx of 'ancient/rare weapons' that are brand new to the game. I'm pretty sure this is fluff being written after the fact, and it works, but it isn't a good explanation.

It also isn't that random, as random implies unpredictable, which it is not. There are odds of getting a certain result on a roll of a dice vs. another result, and you can always plan around for these events. If nothing else a good player would know that ahead of time. I usually can do a rough calc of averages before any of my units shoot, but I also know before I've rolled that it is just that, an average. It is the most likely result for rolling that set number of 6 sides dice, it doesn't mean I will always get that. Sometimes it will be above, sometimes it will be bellow average, but I will know that the most common result will be a certain number of hits/wound/failed saves etc.

Furthermore, I could also argue the fact that the Warlord Tables or Psychic Disciplines are not rolled for themselves, just their related powers. These aren't random, you select the table/discipline in the first place, knowing full well what potential results you can get.

Same with charge results/LD tests/rolling to hit! Anything involving dice is going to have these sorts of variables. And you know what, it forces you to be creative, to sometimes go out on a limb and try something different...even if you didn't have the most direct say possible over it. Which going to be apart of a game attempting to describe a war zone.

Spiney Norman
19-01-2014, 17:37
Is 40k designed for narrative gaming or is it designed for one-off tournament games?


The answer you receive will depend on the person answering it and what they like more :)

An irrelevent answer in many ways, the actual answer to the question is neither, 40k is designed for the sole purpose of making money for GW, they don't care one jot what you do with it when you leave the store, all they care about is that you have left carrying the absolute maximum amount of product their sales rep could convince you to pay for.

In a sense it would be better if 40k was designed to function well in a standardised 'pick-up' games way, because that is probably the format with the least scope for self-modifying the rules (I mean who really wants to argue out house rules and limiting overpowered units for half an hour before a game with someone you have only just met), but the reality is that the designers don't really care what we want and we just have to make the best out of whatever they throw at us, or find a different game system.


What they've gone for (and I'm not pretending the execution is particularly brilliant) is a game that can accomodate roughly equal games between strangers but without abandoning flavour and texture for meticulous sterility. You don't have to like where they've stuck their flag in that scale, but there is a scale.

If that is true (and I have no way of proving or disproving that statement) then they have failed at it utterly, there is no sense in which I can get out my sisters of battle and have a 'roughly equal' game with a player that puts down three riptides, a wraithknight and a jet-council.

Lets not exaggerate the problem, the odds are not so stacked against me that I have no chance of a win, but neither should we pretend that the problem does not exist, the odds are heavily stacked in favour of certain armies, and certain builds, from the outset.

insectum7
19-01-2014, 18:27
An irrelevent answer in many ways, the actual answer to the question is neither, 40k is designed for the sole purpose of making money for GW, they don't care one jot what you do with it when you leave the store, all they care about is that you have left carrying the absolute maximum amount of product their sales rep could convince you to pay for.
. . .
the reality is that the designers don't really care what we want and we just have to make the best out of whatever they throw at us, or find a different game system.


Cynicism and hogwash.

Companies like GW aren't so monolithic and homogenous that different voices cannot be pressing the product in different ways. Every designer and marketer and whomever probably has their own version and bias as to what direction the game design should go, for the hobby for the story for the players or the dollar. The notion that they don't care what players think is ridiculous.

But an overwhelming majority may just not care what YOU think. :P

Bubble Ghost
19-01-2014, 19:13
If that is true (and I have no way of proving or disproving that statement) then they have failed at it utterly, there is no sense in which I can get out my sisters of battle and have a 'roughly equal' game with a player that puts down three riptides, a wraithknight and a jet-council.

Oh, granted, and I acknowledged that even in the part you quoted. That changes nothing about anything I said though - that part of my post was just in response to Fear Ghoul's suggestion that building the game is a binary choice between the extreme ends of narrative style and tournament style, which it isn't.

ForgottenLore
19-01-2014, 20:01
Every designer and marketer and whomever probably has their own version and bias as to what direction the game design should go,

If every designer etc... has their own vision and their work is pushing the game in that direction, regardless of what all the others are doing, that is a very badly managed company. Someone (a lead designer, line editor, someone) should be making a decision as to what kind of game it is supposed to be and everyone else should be consciously working toward that. The very first thing that should be decided when designing a rules set is who is it for and what is it supposed to accomplish. Anyone involved in the game from that point on who can't work toward that goal should be fired.

Torga_DW
19-01-2014, 20:54
Oh, granted, and I acknowledged that even in the part you quoted. That changes nothing about anything I said though - that part of my post was just in response to Fear Ghoul's suggestion that building the game is a binary choice between the extreme ends of narrative style and tournament style, which it isn't.

Thats the fundamental misnomer though: the game doesn't have to be polarized between narrative and 'tournament'. People just seem to assume/insist it must be this way. Having rules that are well written and easy to understand must be bad for a story/narrative, they just must be.



What is this statement of 'randomized weapons'? I never stated that, nor would I like that. As for fluff, not all weapons are 'ancient/rare' and if nothing else this fluff has been strained recently for Imperial Armies, with the sudden influx of 'ancient/rare weapons' that are brand new to the game. I'm pretty sure this is fluff being written after the fact, and it works, but it isn't a good explanation.


It came from the discussion you were having with MiyamatoMusashi on psychic powers and devastator weapons, and you've finally answered his question - if devastators had to select their primary ability (heavy weapons) randomly the way psykers do, you wouldn't like it. Marine power armour itself is ancient/rare and thats not new.



It also isn't that random, as random implies unpredictable, which it is not. There are odds of getting a certain result on a roll of a dice vs. another result, and you can always plan around for these events. If nothing else a good player would know that ahead of time. I usually can do a rough calc of averages before any of my units shoot, but I also know before I've rolled that it is just that, an average. It is the most likely result for rolling that set number of 6 sides dice, it doesn't mean I will always get that. Sometimes it will be above, sometimes it will be bellow average, but I will know that the most common result will be a certain number of hits/wound/failed saves etc.


Everything is predictable if you have the right models and variables and it scales down from there. And yes, only having 6 results means most people can see that the one ability they want (warlord/psychic/etc) and the odds of success to get it. Planning for this randomness is why many people simply avoid those units, or go for units (like special characters) with fixed results.



Furthermore, I could also argue the fact that the Warlord Tables or Psychic Disciplines are not rolled for themselves, just their related powers. These aren't random, you select the table/discipline in the first place, knowing full well what potential results you can get.


If it ends with rolling a dice to determine which skill/power you're getting, its random.



Same with charge results/LD tests/rolling to hit! Anything involving dice is going to have these sorts of variables. And you know what, it forces you to be creative, to sometimes go out on a limb and try something different...even if you didn't have the most direct say possible over it. Which going to be apart of a game attempting to describe a war zone.

Professional gamblers work by knowing the odds and working to mitigate randomness. The same concept applies here, the result is netlists, minmaxing and spamming of units.





Cynicism and hogwash.

Companies like GW aren't so monolithic and homogenous that different voices cannot be pressing the product in different ways. Every designer and marketer and whomever probably has their own version and bias as to what direction the game design should go, for the hobby for the story for the players or the dollar. The notion that they don't care what players think is ridiculous.

But an overwhelming majority may just not care what YOU think. :P

Actually, thats exactly what gw is - monolithic and homogenous. As borne out by the annual reports, public statements and internal reviews of their own staff. You should have a look, because if you're calling yourself a player of their games then you may find you're not their target customer either.

Ssilmath
19-01-2014, 20:59
Torga, you're going off of the assumption that the rules are somehow unworkable, poorly written and hard to understand. I don't find this to be the case, especially in the light that a significant number of complaints are easily addressed with easy fixes on the part of the players and shouldn't need to be mandated (Terrain, not acting like a jerk, talking before a game).

Dervos
19-01-2014, 21:02
So I was going through my codexs today and was thinking. Never a good thing really, but it occurred to me to ask Warseer: should we be expecting 2 year Edition cycles? This question came to mind when I looked how many current supported armies there are. Exactly 22. I GW is releasing stuff now on a monthly basis, excluding the Christmas season(s), then the numbers match up nicely.

Also, as the sunk cost of plastification of most of their model lines, GW doesn't really have to do any massive plastic overhauls of the core armies, at least not for a long time. Which to me, means smaller releases, but more often.

so 22 supported armies coupled with smaller future releases, could we expect to see a 2 year edition cycle, where 1 army gets a new kit/unit(s) and army book update per month?

A 2 year edition cycles would be incredibly fast, and now that we are getting "supplements/codexes" are they going to update these with every edition now or will they just drop them when a edition changes and release new ones?

Will there be so many supplements that they will have to actually start spreading them out so they can attempt to update them all in a timely manner if that's what they even want? Last year was really fast but I don't see them sustaining that release schedule but that's just me.

If anything I feel like this edition cycle will be longer outside some exceptional circumstance

insectum7
19-01-2014, 21:16
If every designer etc... has their own vision and their work is pushing the game in that direction, regardless of what all the others are doing, that is a very badly managed company. Someone (a lead designer, line editor, someone) should be making a decision as to what kind of game it is supposed to be and everyone else should be consciously working toward that. The very first thing that should be decided when designing a rules set is who is it for and what is it supposed to accomplish. Anyone involved in the game from that point on who can't work toward that goal should be fired.



Actually, thats exactly what gw is - monolithic and homogenous. As borne out by the annual reports, public statements and internal reviews of their own staff. You should have a look, because if you're calling yourself a player of their games then you may find you're not their target customer either.

There will, no doubt, be overarching directives. I am not claiming otherwise, actually. But even within overarching parameters individuals on creative projects will bring their own backgrounds and biases and interpretations. Any group of people, company or not will have varying levels of cohesion. Stanley Kubrick is known for being extremely controlling as a director, but Jim Henson was great at gathering many people under one creative direction, and getting them all to bring their personalities into the mix. Similarly, orchestral music tends to be top-down, while Jazz is a lot of individual voices within structure. EA Games is notoriously hierarchical, while a major claim of Valve is that it has a flat heirarchy, and people often choose what they work on. Likewise, tabletop game design can be highly controlled from the top down, or it can be more organic while developing along basic guidelines. There is a tremendous scope of methodologies and cultures which can all make a solid product. It's probably redundant to mention that a companies external claims don't always match the details of their interior workings either.

Folks on the forums have a tendency to call out individual codex authors by name, which would really only seem relevant if individuals within the company were able to have some sort of influence on content, don't you think?

Bubble Ghost
19-01-2014, 21:27
Thats the fundamental misnomer though: the game doesn't have to be polarized between narrative and 'tournament'. People just seem to assume/insist it must be this way. Having rules that are well written and easy to understand must be bad for a story/narrative, they just must be.

Holy tangent Batman. I agree with you there, but I thought we were talking about random elements, not how well written the rules are...?

Spiney Norman
19-01-2014, 22:22
Folks on the forums have a tendency to call out individual codex authors by name, which would really only seem relevant if individuals within the company were able to have some sort of influence on content, don't you think?

Well, now that you mention it I can think of codexes where every member of the design team has been called out online, Phil Kelly ruined chaos marines, Robin Cruddace screwed up Sisters of battle (twice), Jeremy Vetock gave us the current Tau abomination and Mat Ward gave us Grey Knights and Necrons. It generally happens that people moan about whoever's name is on the most recent codex that they don't like.

There has been more moaning about Tyranids than any other codex release I remember and according to the inside cover the entire design team is implicated there. When you stack the codexes alongside each other it is rather difficult to reconcile the fact that they are designed for the same game, let alone intended to be roughly balanced against each other.

People come up with ingenious theories about why the balance between armies is such an unholy mess, with suggestions that they gradually creep the stats to sell more of the newest models or one I heard recently that codexes are 'balanced in threes', like that even makes sense. The plain fact of the matter is they don't care about balance, they don't care particularly about playability, all they really care about is flogging their overpriced products to the fans.

insectum7
19-01-2014, 22:27
There has been more moaning about Tyranids than any other codex release I remember and according to the inside cover the entire design team is implicated there. When you stack the codexes alongside each other it is rather difficult to reconcile the fact that they are designed for the same game, let alone intended to be roughly balanced against each other.

Really? Because I could swear that there was much more moaning about the Chaos codex. Are you certain that you don't have a short memory?

And personally, I think the Tyranid Codex is pretty reasonable, I just don't think people want to use it the way it's intended to be used.

Edit:
And I wouldn't be surprised if they started listing the entire design team on each codex just to combat the nerd-rage against certain authors.

Spiney Norman
19-01-2014, 22:34
Really? Because I could swear that there was much more moaning about the Chaos codex. Are you certain that you don't have a short memory?

And personally, I think the Tyranid Codex is pretty reasonable, I just don't think people want to use it the way it's intended to be used.

Edit:
And I wouldn't be surprised if they started listing the entire design team on each codex just to combat the nerd-rage against certain authors.

Give it time, I remember the chaos codex right enough, its funny how it all died down when everyone realised that the helldrake was a great big I-win button. Tyranids problem is they don't see to have one of those, quite the reverse in fact, they have a very, very large I-lose button which is available for any opponent to push at will, its called synapse.

I've no doubt that things will settle down eventually with Nids, if it really is as bad as everyone is complaining then people will gradually just chuck their models back in a box and shelve them until next edition.

Vet.Sister
19-01-2014, 23:26
Also, as the sunk cost of plastification of most of their model lines, GW doesn't really have to do any massive plastic overhauls of the core armies, at least not for a long time. Which to me, means smaller releases, but more often.


Adepta Sororitas aren't a core army... well ofc they aren't! What could I have possibly been thinking since the WitchHunters codex... :rolleyes:

Fear Ghoul
20-01-2014, 01:08
Give it time, I remember the chaos codex right enough, its funny how it all died down when everyone realised that the helldrake was a great big I-win button. Tyranids problem is they don't see to have one of those, quite the reverse in fact, they have a very, very large I-lose button which is available for any opponent to push at will, its called synapse.

The furore over Chaos didn't die down. Huge arguments over 50+ page threads were still being had months later. It was much worse than Tyranids.

AngryAngel
20-01-2014, 01:20
Torga, you're going off of the assumption that the rules are somehow unworkable, poorly written and hard to understand. I don't find this to be the case, especially in the light that a significant number of complaints are easily addressed with easy fixes on the part of the players and shouldn't need to be mandated (Terrain, not acting like a jerk, talking before a game).

If the rules weren't poorly written, then so many claimed casual players wouldn't need to enforce comp and other rules to try and wrangle the system back into line so everyone feels they can have fun. Nor would you need to have so many discussions as to what should or shouldn't be allowed in games you play that are legal items.

The system is workable, but I don't think you should need to put so much outside the box work on something they claim to be a premium product.

IcedCrow
20-01-2014, 01:53
Pretty much every game ive played has had some comp on it, to include the much vaunted flames of war, warmachine, and even xwing (campaign limiting named pilots)

I dont think there are perfect rules for everyone.

AngryAngel
20-01-2014, 03:52
Just because you can't play a game without comp, you yourself not you as in the public at large, doesn't mean there aren't other much more balanced and well put together games that can function perfectly well out of box. Your choice to comp is personal wish, not a need, which it is a need in 40k which you've said many times.

As well saying perfection is unattainable is a huge cop out, no one is asking for perfect but much better yes that can be done. It honestly doesn't take much with 40k to improve as they set their bar so low already.

IcedCrow
20-01-2014, 03:58
The word 'need' will always be subjective to the person using it.

AngryAngel
20-01-2014, 04:01
Well as you've said that " Need " before it must be your need.

Ssilmath
20-01-2014, 04:01
40k doesn't 'need' comp, not any more than any of the others. It has certain 'levels' of being played, and as long as both players understand the intended level of play comp isn't needed. Beyond that, the game can be modified to taste as desired. Done it with Warmachine, done it with Battletech (This one especially needs comp, discussion and agreement), so on and so forth.

AngryAngel
20-01-2014, 04:04
Well I'm glad you'd say such, as I find comp in 40k needless as well. Though some do find it necessary it seems. Saying it otherwise leaves the game unplayable.

Spiney Norman
20-01-2014, 12:07
40k doesn't 'need' comp, not any more than any of the others. It has certain 'levels' of being played, and as long as both players understand the intended level of play comp isn't needed. Beyond that, the game can be modified to taste as desired. Done it with Warmachine, done it with Battletech (This one especially needs comp, discussion and agreement), so on and so forth.

In my view 'levels of play' is usually just an excuse by people who can't work out why they keep losing. If you get beaten, you review the game, try to figure out what went wrong (apart from random luck) and tweak your list to better deal with it next time.

For me that is a far more logical response than getting beaten and adapting your personal comp rules to rule out the build that beat you because it is "OP" and therefore at a 'level' which you refuse to play again.

IcedCrow
20-01-2014, 13:05
Well as you've said that " Need " before it must be your need.

that need before it must be my need? Ok.

Ssilmath
20-01-2014, 17:55
In my view 'levels of play' is usually just an excuse by people who can't work out why they keep losing. If you get beaten, you review the game, try to figure out what went wrong (apart from random luck) and tweak your list to better deal with it next time.

For me that is a far more logical response than getting beaten and adapting your personal comp rules to rule out the build that beat you because it is "OP" and therefore at a 'level' which you refuse to play again.

You think I don't know how to make a strong and/or broken list? That I can't figure out why I lose games? Seriously?

There's no need to be insulting, bro.

I know there are top units in a codex, that if spammed are likely to give me a victory or at least give an even battle against a similarly designed list. I just don't enjoy playing games like that. I'd much rather play a game where Vanguard Veterans go toe to toe with Thousand Sons, or where Nobs butcher their way through monstrous creatures, or where Tau play in teams of Fire Warriors supported by Crisis Suits that go forth and take objectives. That is far more enjoyable to me than 4 Heldrakes facing off against 5 Riptides. Some people like playing that way, and more power to them.

And before you talk about how GW should just balance things, I implore you to look at Warmachine, held to be the gold standard of balance by some people on here. I played Protectorate of Menoth competitively for years (One loss in three years of tournaments across several states, about a 90% win rate in local games). There were only about 3 or 4 warcasters, maybe 4 or 5 jacks and as many units that were worth taking. To make things more even for other players, I gimped my lists and generally had a fun time. In tournies, I broke out the top 10% of the army and steamrolled everybody. Most games weren't even close.

So that is what I mean by different levels of play.

Spiney Norman
20-01-2014, 18:05
You think I don't know how to make a strong and/or broken list? That I can't figure out why I lose games? Seriously?

There's no need to be insulting, bro.

I know there are top units in a codex, that if spammed are likely to give me a victory or at least give an even battle against a similarly designed list. I just don't enjoy playing games like that. I'd much rather play a game where Vanguard Veterans go toe to toe with Thousand Sons, or where Nobs butcher their way through monstrous creatures, or where Tau play in teams of Fire Warriors supported by Crisis Suits that go forth and take objectives. That is far more enjoyable to me than 4 Heldrakes facing off against 5 Riptides. Some people like playing that way, and more power to them.

And before you talk about how GW should just balance things, I implore you to look at Warmachine, held to be the gold standard of balance by some people on here. I played Protectorate of Menoth competitively for years (One loss in three years of tournaments across several states, about a 90% win rate in local games). There were only about 3 or 4 warcasters, maybe 4 or 5 jacks and as many units that were worth taking. To make things more even for other players, I gimped my lists and generally had a fun time. In tournies, I broke out the top 10% of the army and steamrolled everybody. Most games weren't even close.

So that is what I mean by different levels of play.

My comments were slightly hyperbolic I agree, but I still haven't received a satisfactory answer to why people think they know better than the rules of the game to the point where they have to impose OTT comp restrictions on their opponents. In my view 'personal preference' is an extremely weak excuse, because all it really does it make it easier for you to beat your opponent.

I know a few guys who play warmachine, I've never really been attracted to it because I'm mainly about painting rather than gaming and the PP models just don't float my boat. Holding up warmachine as 'balanced' is, as I understand it, more to do with the inter-faction balance rather than the internal balance of any given faction.

IcedCrow
20-01-2014, 18:12
Fortunately we don't need to validate our likes or dislikes to strangers on the internet :D Praise dog.

Ssilmath
20-01-2014, 18:14
My comments were slightly hyperbolic I agree, but I still haven't received a satisfactory answer to why people think they know better than the rules of the game to the point where they have to impose OTT comp restrictions on their opponents. In my view 'personal preference' is an extremely weak excuse, because all it really does it make it easier for you to beat your opponent.

I don't see how it's a bad thing to have a game go from "walking into bullets and wiped on turn 3" and become "close fought game where either could have won." It's not imposing OTT comp, it's looking for a game that is comparable. Maybe next time I'll bring one of my strongest lists and you can play your hardcore list as well. It's all about both players having a fun game. If somebody isn't going to have fun unless both players are playing hardcore lists, I honestly don't want to play them. It has nothing to do with how easy it is for me to win, and everything to do with the attitude of the player. Hell, some of the funnest games I've ever played were losses on my part.

For me, the game is the point. Not the result.


I know a few guys who play warmachine, I've never really been attracted to it because I'm mainly about painting rather than gaming and the PP models just don't float my boat. Holding up warmachine as 'balanced' is, as I understand it, more to do with the inter-faction balance rather than the internal balance of any given faction.

That's a joke as well, there are definitely some factions that are better than others. In Mk 1, it was Cryx and Khador. When I played, it was Cryx and Everblight. As I understand it, with the release of Colossals Cygnar has moved up as well. There are some people who are just good enough that they can win with any faction, but for your average gamer there are certainly factions that stand over the others.

AngryAngel
20-01-2014, 18:36
My comments were slightly hyperbolic I agree, but I still haven't received a satisfactory answer to why people think they know better than the rules of the game to the point where they have to impose OTT comp restrictions on their opponents. In my view 'personal preference' is an extremely weak excuse, because all it really does it make it easier for you to beat your opponent.

I know a few guys who play warmachine, I've never really been attracted to it because I'm mainly about painting rather than gaming and the PP models just don't float my boat. Holding up warmachine as 'balanced' is, as I understand it, more to do with the inter-faction balance rather than the internal balance of any given faction.

I'm not sure if your keeping track, but you won't ever get an acceptable reason. Notice the trend, one of them says something, gets rebuffed and then the other jumps in. Often, up to this point saying perhaps conflicting statements to comments spoken a week before. While also not really responding with anything other then some double speak.

It comes down to, for some it seems, I don't want to ever push myself. I'll never take a weak list vs a strong list, as I most likely will lose and loss makes things not fun forever. I'll never take a strong list, as doing such even once in awhile is oh so boring. The game system is a mess, and in need or fixing to play but also is no need of fixing at the same time, from the same people. Feel free to keep up the good fight as I will but it is just so much troll coming back at you.

IcedCrow
20-01-2014, 18:48
All of this chest beating - you guys need to start a professional circuit!

AngryAngel
20-01-2014, 18:51
Brah, I already am on one.

IcedCrow
20-01-2014, 18:53
What's the channel? I hope its not on during Monday Night RAW...

Ssilmath
20-01-2014, 18:57
Seriously guys, please stop. It doesn't add anything to the debate.

Torga_DW
20-01-2014, 20:22
Holy tangent Batman. I agree with you there, but I thought we were talking about random elements, not how well written the rules are...?

We were, but:


Is 40k designed for narrative gaming or is it designed for one-off tournament games? Decide which and then design the game as such.


There's no reason it has to be one or the other. There are shades of grey here, it is not and should not be a binary choice. What they've gone for (and I'm not pretending the execution is particularly brilliant) is a game that can accomodate roughly equal games between strangers but without abandoning flavour and texture for meticulous sterility. You don't have to like where they've stuck their flag in that scale, but there is a scale.

Anyway. You're saying that it's silly that a commander wouldn't know what skills his psyker had, and that is true. But the point is that if you were certain in the way that commander might be in-storyline, you could then gimmick your army selection around a metafictional quirk of how a particular power happens to work - and that always felt wrong to me. It gave psykers no presence as psykers, it evoked nothing. Randomised powers fixes it for me. It's a possibly less realistic trope in isolation, but nonetheless leads to a more representative feel for how psykers fit into armies. I can only imagine that this is deliberate on the part of the authors, but even if it isn't, that's the effect it has, and it's a positive one unless you desperately want to play as Epistolary Privateer of the Imperial Warcasters - you have an army supported by a psyker, not an "Invisibility Build". And that is good. For ME. I'm not telling you it has to be for you.

the conversation has moved on. And as i said, its a misnomer that 'narrative' is one end of the spectrum and 'tournament' is at the other. You can have games with a bad narrative component and bad ruleset component. The shades of grey is between good and bad execution, not one theme or another.




that need before it must be my need? Ok.

You've often talked about how you have a circle of gamers with strict requirements (must not play in certain styles) and how you avoid most public events these days and only attend specific ones to your liking. Not a sign of someone who is 'happy' with the vanilla rules.



Fortunately we don't need to validate our likes or dislikes to strangers on the internet file:///C:\Users\GATTAT\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01 \clip_image002.gifPraise dog.

No you don't. But if you're trying to present your point of view and refuse to validate them, it doesn't help people understand or be able to consider your position.



Seriously guys, please stop. It doesn't add anything to the debate.

I'm not sure what this is. Debates usually involve assertions and supporting evidence (at least in my day), i'm seeing the "it works because i feel it works" card been played a fair bit. Which may be fair enough (its relevant in some situations), but that leads to the "how is the business performing" question which lies in the dark side of gw general. Time for me to bow out i think.

edit: formatting

IcedCrow
20-01-2014, 20:28
No you don't. But if you're trying to present your point of view and refuse to validate them, it doesn't help people understand or be able to consider your position.

I've discussed ad naseum my point of view and have 'validated it'. It has fallen back to again comp vs no comp.


Not a sign of someone who is 'happy' with the vanilla rules.

Ah but I've never claimed to be happy with the vanilla rules either.

Bubble Ghost
20-01-2014, 21:17
We were, but:





the conversation has moved on. And as i said, its a misnomer that 'narrative' is one end of the spectrum and 'tournament' is at the other. You can have games with a bad narrative component and bad ruleset component. The shades of grey is between good and bad execution, not one theme or another.

The conversation didn't move on, you're just making an assumption that this narrative vs. tournament dichotomy Fear Ghoul brought up can only be referring to "execution". But there is far more to it than that. A tournament game needs to facilitate the establishment of a hierarchy of players over a very short span of games, and therefore needs to minimise elements of blind luck. A more narrative game does not have that time pressure, and so can afford to reward skill on a slower burn, allowing luck to influence one-off games as long as it evens out in the longer term - meaning it can use random elements to create texture and uncertainty, when those things would be inappropriate in a tournament. So, a well-designed tournament game actually precludes certain narrative gaming devices, meaning that you are potentially holding back a narrative game by designing it to a tournament standard, and potentially polluting a tournament game by designing it to a narrative standard. And there are many, many points in between. There is far more to this than just "execution."

The misconception here is actually the often-stated belief that a tournament standard game is good for everybody, tournament and narrative gaming alike. This is not true.

AngryAngel
21-01-2014, 00:32
@Torga_DW Once more I agree with you and find your words well received.

Spiney Norman
21-01-2014, 07:08
Fortunately we don't need to validate our likes or dislikes to strangers on the internet :D Praise dog.

Though if you are going to advocate a position it helps to be able a to back it up on some level, rather than just shouting 'because I wanna!'



I'm not sure what this is. Debates usually involve assertions and supporting evidence (at least in my day), i'm seeing the "it works because i feel it works" card been played a fair bit. Which may be fair enough (its relevant in some situations), but that leads to the "how is the business performing" question which lies in the dark side of gw general. Time for me to bow out i think.

edit: formatting

I think he was referring to Iced Crow's sarcastic asides about 'chest beating', not any presented arguments, I could be wrong however.

IcedCrow
21-01-2014, 13:51
Though if you are going to advocate a position it helps to be able a to back it up on some level, rather than just shouting 'because I wanna!'



I think he was referring to Iced Crow's sarcastic asides about 'chest beating', not any presented arguments, I could be wrong however.

I've validated it with about 50 full paragraphs explaining in detail why over the past month thanks. That's about right on par with the other dozen things you've twisted around though ;)

Such as "I'd rather not play against 3 riptides" turned into "i don't allow riptides" and "I don't like to do escalation I prefer super heavies in apoc" became "super heavies make me miserable and I refuse to play against them"

Good show

InstantKarma
21-01-2014, 14:10
It came from the discussion you were having with MiyamatoMusashi on psychic powers and devastator weapons, and you've finally answered his question - if devastators had to select their primary ability (heavy weapons) randomly the way psykers do, you wouldn't like it. Marine power armour itself is ancient/rare and thats not new.

I didn't need to answer his question because it wasn't a valid comparision and it also wasn't a question in the first place, which I have been stating from the beginning. It was a wild assertion on his part that 'Since I had no problem with 'randomized psychic powers' I must also not mind 'randomized weapon loadouts for Dev Squads''. Inquistor Kallus and I think 1 or 2 others noted this from the moment he posted it.



Everything is predictable if you have the right models and variables and it scales down from there. And yes, only having 6 results means most people can see that the one ability they want (warlord/psychic/etc) and the odds of success to get it. Planning for this randomness is why many people simply avoid those units, or go for units (like special characters) with fixed results.

Thats a strange assertion, given the popularity of psykers. Perhaps it's just my area, but whenever I get a game in, most of the people I play against usually bring alnog a psyker as their 2nd HQ slot. I still see people bringing CC units and getting charges off despite having to roll a 2D6. I still see players rolling on Warlord Tables, or rolling to 'Seize the Initiative'.

Also why are we assuming there is only 1 power that people are gunning for? Too much 'wisdom of the internetz' I think, and self fulfilling prophecy going on. You also usually pay a points premium (not as bad as in 4ht-5th Ed) for those Special Characters, so thats something you gamble on there; that the points I'm spending for the SC instead of a generic HQ will earn it's points value back, instead of me taking those points and spending them on something else. You may have mitigated a few other 'random' elements, but you've probably done less mitigating and simply shifted more risk onto one model instead of 2, or a vehicle, or a wargear upgrade.


Professional gamblers work by knowing the odds and working to mitigate randomness. The same concept applies here, the result is netlists, minmaxing and spamming of units.

Well then I must be a bad gambler. Only unit that is 'spammed' in my list is Fire Warriors and Pathfinders, and if I run a Mech list, my Devilfish. I do try to maximize points, but when you gotta squeeze things in, you want it to be effective. Having better odds is great, but it will always be that, odds.

Spiney Norman
21-01-2014, 14:15
I've validated it with about 50 full paragraphs explaining in detail why over the past month thanks. That's about right on par with the other dozen things you've twisted around though ;)

Such as "I'd rather not play against 3 riptides" turned into "i don't allow riptides" and "I don't like to do escalation I prefer super heavies in apoc" became "super heavies make me miserable and I refuse to play against them"

Good show

Maybe we should take this debate back to the other thread, there's no real grounds for contaminating this one too.

IcedCrow
21-01-2014, 14:18
I don't think I've twisted any words no. If you could show me where I've done so I'd be happy to clear that up. I have explained in depth why I use comp. You've been on full troll mode for a month now, purposely ignoring those explanations. I know from reading your posts that you are not stupid, so its not that you can't read. :) And I know you remember the lengthy post I made on the subject where I discussed why no comp games bore me because you commented directly on it. Either that or you suffer from a form of dementia and just cannot remember but as it was only a few days ago I'm doubting that's the case.

Its gone from me being a sociopath (lol that one is one of my favorites) for not wanting to play uncomped, to now its twisting the rules to my advantage for wanting to not play against min/max lists.

AngryAngel
22-01-2014, 01:09
Kind of like the black hole calling the pot black. You've spent more then your share of time trolling the un happy tyranid players for seemingly no good reason other then to instigate them with short quips over and over. Was that perhaps all just helpful wisdom being shared just twisted around ?

IcedCrow
22-01-2014, 02:15
Kind of like the black hole calling the pot black. You've spent more then your share of time trolling the un happy tyranid players for seemingly no good reason other then to instigate them with short quips over and over. Was that perhaps all just helpful wisdom being shared just twisted around ?

Citation and quotes of my trolling people please. Or do you mean because I said we should wait a few weeks before raging that that is somehow trolling them. Or the person that claimed that people "in the know" have proven unequivocally that the codex is horribly weak and broken whom I said I'll wait a few weeks first who went back and forth?

Is that also trolling?

lol

AngryAngel
22-01-2014, 02:20
Anyone who viewed those threads can find it all there for themselves, they'd hardly need my help to find it. Considering you can't prove one way or another with about a weeks time out where the power lies who is to say the claims of it being weak are not as valid as the ones saying it is fine ? One line zingers against them because they have the utter wickedness to dislike it, is trolling at worst, instigating at best.

Ssilmath
22-01-2014, 02:24
One line zingers against them because they have the utter wickedness to dislike it, is trolling at worst, instigating at best.

And yet you follow him from thread to thread, attacking with little one liners and attacking every statement, often taking him completely out of context. Do you claim moral superiority?

AngryAngel
22-01-2014, 02:32
You ask me that question, yet I doubt you need my answer. As you've traveled to all the same posts, and read all the same responses, so why not tell me.

Langdon
22-01-2014, 03:26
You ask me that question, yet I doubt you need my answer. As you've traveled to all the same posts, and read all the same responses, so why not tell me.
considering you are the one in the wrong, and have been called on it, i think you should either stop harassing Iced, or provide the "proof" that he has been trolling people.

The "I said it, it must be true" is a form of proof only the media invokes when they have jack **** in their back pocket. Others would call it a smear campaign.

So please point out to me, Iced and Ssil where Iced has been trolling, in this thread and others.. otherwise **** off

AngryAngel
22-01-2014, 05:33
I've been called on giving differing points of view from someone else. Note as well Ssilmath didn't deny he was trolling, just asked if I claimed moral superiority to bring it up, which of course I don't. Neither will your hostile comments somehow force me to do as you ask, sorry.

I also, pointed such out as he was calling someone else out for such and living in the glass house, I didn't find it very proper. Note, I didn't start such, simply commented.

Though if I spent the time to go and search them out, would it even make a difference ? Somehow, I'd doubt that. Now lets stop being off topic, shall we ?

Beppo1234
24-01-2014, 16:50
with the hot debate about superheavies in regular games subsiding a bit now. I'd like to just wander in my mind slightly about the evolution of the game. I remember back in the early 90s, getting started off. How much I wished that 40k incorporate all those units in Epic and Titans, just budget wouldn't allow for. Who doesn't remember playing 40k back in 2nd edition, looking at the artwork, and thinking: it'd be awesome to see that many minis in one place, let alone play a game with them. 40k has come a long way since then, and GW has done, I'd say a great job in bringing that childhood dream alive, through rules, and models. Now I know the debate about flyers, and then lords of war in regular 40k games are about, but I just wanted to say this in regards to the long term story: GW has finally gotten the economies of scale to produce epic, at 40k scale, and I for one am happy about it. I'm sure the rules still need a ton of tweaking, but I likes it anyways. All I need is some good plastic 40k style movement trays from GW proper (though I have) and epic is playable at a far more interesting scale!