PDA

View Full Version : Why the GW force feed? (Rant)



Pages : [1] 2 3

Ananiel
24-02-2014, 00:15
Why does GW seem insistent on forcing all these odd-ball units? Datalates, Knights, Inquisition out of the FOC?? Some of us prefer the way 40k has been, and changing it radically to boost profits might work for you but not for us.(local gaming group) Go ahead and change editions and change the FOC to boost profits, it won't happen here. We have pretty much decided if that's the way it's going to come down from GW, then at THIS club, it will be 6th edition codex units only.

We prefer a game, not a money grab with no sense of balance.

Ananiel

IcedCrow
24-02-2014, 00:20
Because a lot of other people have been asking for this for quite some time now. So while it may not work for you, it works for others.

Everyone is free to play how they wish. Putting optional options in the game does not hurt anyone. Forcing people to play the same way is as constraining to those of us that like having the options to choose from.

Options are not "force feeding"

Navar
24-02-2014, 00:25
Putting optional options in the game does not hurt anyone. Forcing people to play the same way is as constraining to those of us that like having the options to choose from.

Pretty much this.


Options are not "force feeding"

But 1,000 times this.

How are you any better than GW if you start restricting what people can play?

I would argue that you are worse from a philosophical standpoint.

I have loved playing my servants of decay for years against fluffy and casual lists. Who are you to say "Hey because your preferred army list comes from a Forge World publication then our club won't accept you"?

Spiney Norman
24-02-2014, 00:28
I do kind of agree with the OP, the FOC is the only real remaining mechanic of balancing the game by limiting unit spam and the number of ways of circumventing it is truly breath-taking, its got to the point where almost every game of 40k is now as crazy as apoc, you can take a superheavy (still mercifully limited to 1 if you ignore the new knight), but you can wedge in any number of dataslates, formations, inquisitorial detachments, any pretense of balance or pretense that the points system actually means something flew out the window long ago.

Hopefully the new edition rumoured in the next few months with bring some kind of order to the chaos, the army-selection-rules-out-the-window way of playing 40k is wearing increasingly thin.

The problem is the game is now becoming increasingly unviable as any kind of tactical exercise, its just become a complete game of Rock-Paper-Scissors where you only have the room to build one of them into your list. In any given game you have to be prepared to deal with superheavy vehicles, including the possibility of multiple StrD weapons, networks of fortifications including void shield generators, up to 4 riptides and an allied wraithknight, flyers in numbers running into double figures (necron scythes) as well as all the 'usual stuff'.

There's just no way to build a balanced, "take-all-comers" list any more, which was part of the fun for me, I used to thrive on tactical play, but the direction the game has gone in the last year or so there are no tactics left that work when the breadth of what you end up facing is so monumentally huge.

Navar
24-02-2014, 00:33
I do kind of agree with the OP, the FOC is the only real remaining mechanic of balancing the game by limiting unit spam and the number of ways of circumventing it is truly breath-taking, its got to the point where almost every game of 40k is now as crazy as apoc, you can take a superheavy (still mercifully limited to 1 if you ignore the new knight), but you can wedge in any number of dataslates, formations, inquisitorial detachments, any pretense of balance or pretense that the points system actually means something flew out the window long ago.

Hopefully the new edition rumoured in the next few months with bring some kind of order to the chaos, the army-selection-rules-out-the-window way of playing 40k is wearing increasingly thin.

I think this is only the case when you play WAAC rude players. I have TONS of fun fluffy/casual/pickup games at my local club/game store.

I am SUPER excited for Knights, not because they will add a ton of power to my Iron Hands, but because they are going to be super fun to play with my Iron hands. Same with Stronghold Assault or even the few games in which I have fielded my Thunderhawk.

Spiney Norman
24-02-2014, 00:38
I think this is only the case when you play WAAC rude players. I have TONS of fun fluffy/casual/pickup games at my local club/game store.

I am SUPER excited for Knights, not because they will add a ton of power to my Iron Hands, but because they are going to be super fun to play with my Iron hands. Same with Stronghold Assault or even the few games in which I have fielded my Thunderhawk.

I'm excited for knights as well believe it or not, its not super-broken or anything like that, and it'll look great alongside my sisters of battle (assuming they can take one, they're keeping the allies matrix pretty close to their chest ATM). They're just another symptom of this unstructured, anything-goes 'sandbox' mode which 40k seems to be in at the moment.

IcedCrow
24-02-2014, 00:39
Keep sandbox mode for as long as possible. :-)

Spiney Norman
24-02-2014, 00:45
Keep sandbox mode for as long as possible. :-)

Yeah great, let's dump the tactical play that used to make 40k such a great and emersive game for the last 25 years and have a fun afternoon of rolling dice for a result that was really decided when one of you chose to fill your roster with units that your opponent couldn't deal with.

Never before 6th edition have I turned up to a game of 40k and realised that playing the game was a waste of my time because I had nothing that could damage about half of my opponents army.

No Skyfire units and you're facing an army of 11 night scythes... Yeah, that's going to be a fun game...

Navar
24-02-2014, 00:47
To be fair maybe it is because I play a Forge World army, but I find it very offensive when people start to say things like "BRB and CODEX ONLY."

One problem with this is that by all account there is going to be Codex: Imperial Knights.

So it creates this odd scenario where an army of super heavies is okay at Ananiel's club, but my Servants of Decay are banned.

And "Sandbox mode" goes both ways. When you see your opponent want to play Sisters of Battle (or Codex:AS or whatever) you should have a responsibility to make the sandbox fun.

rocdocta
24-02-2014, 00:54
Yeah great, let's dump the tactical play that used to make 40k such a great and emersive game for the last 25 years and have a fun afternoon of rolling dice for a result that was really decided when one of you chose to fill your roster with units that your opponent couldn't deal with.

Never before 6th edition have I turned up to a game of 40k and realised that playing the game was a waste of my time because I had nothing that could damage about half of my opponents army.

No Skyfire units and you're facing an army of 11 night scythes... Yeah, that's going to be a fun game...

it will be for the necron player lol. Actually no it wouldn't be.

In all seriousness...

The current situation is a test bed for a new marketing strategy.

1. sell an expensive main book ($83 in Australia)
2. sell expensive 2 page supplements to make the book viable ($15 in Australia)

Now you have sold the rules that allow players to buy your expensive models for AU $128 where previously it was about $40 for the whole thing.

3. In 3 years repeat.

Previously 40k was about armies, but now its just about getting as many random models on the board as possible. It has no feel of structure to it. Compare this to fantasy. One has 2 armies facing off and the other has a bunch of models and feels like it. Apoc should have stayed in Apoc and not be let out.

IcedCrow
24-02-2014, 01:00
The 40k that is still being played still involves armies and not random models.

Spiney Norman
24-02-2014, 01:04
The 40k that is still being played still involves armies and not random models.

No it doesn't, what you see is a tau "army" with an allied Farseer, Jetbike squad and wraithknight, some crisis suits as troops, an Astartes stormwing and 3 riptides. If that is an 'army' to you then our definitions are supremely at odds.

The game is getting to the point where you can almost dump whatever models you want on the table and call them an 'army'.

MasterDecoy
24-02-2014, 01:24
No it doesn't, what you see is a tau "army" with an allied Farseer, Jetbike squad and wraithknight, some crisis suits as troops, an Astartes stormwing and 3 riptides. If that is an 'army' to you then our definitions are supremely at odds.

The game is getting to the point where you can almost dump whatever models you want on the table and call them an 'army'.
Can't say I've ever seen am army like that in real life outside of Internet speculation.

Sent from my GT-I9507 using Tapatalk

Losing Command
24-02-2014, 01:25
No it doesn't, what you see is a tau "army" with an allied Farseer, Jetbike squad and wraithknight, some crisis suits as troops, an Astartes stormwing and 3 riptides. If that is an 'army' to you then our definitions are supremely at odds.

The game is getting to the point where you can almost dump whatever models you want on the table and call them an 'army'.

Thought (or actually fear) the same thing :shifty: Though it would probably be 'any models BUT Tyranids' For some reason that seems to be the only codex that still has to do things the good ol' way.

Spiney Norman
24-02-2014, 01:31
Can't say I've ever seen am army like that in real life outside of Internet speculation.

Sent from my GT-I9507 using Tapatalk

I've seen almost that (only difference was one riptide and one FW Rvarna instead of triple-tide), the rest was as-described, it pops up quite regularly at our local club.

Some of the guys are now talking about inquisition/Knight alliances as an army which ignores the regular FOC entirely. Using ranged henchmen squads to bunker down inside AA fortifications while the inquisitors run around presciencing the scoring knights that just walk around blowing everything off the table.

Valkyrie Sky
24-02-2014, 01:32
Can't say I've ever seen am army like that in real life outside of Internet speculation.

Sent from my GT-I9507 using Tapatalk
Really. Do you play with close circle of friends only or have weekly games with strangers in GW stores as well?
If its friends only, sure I can understand no one wants to be that waac guy, but really? in stores such mannerism is none existent lol...


I've seen almost that (only difference was one riptide and one FW Rvarna instead of triple-tide), the rest was as-described, it pops up quite regularly at our local club.

Some of the guys are now talking about inquisition/Knight alliances as an army which ignores the regular FOC entirely. Using ranged henchmen squads to bunker down inside AA fortifications while the inquisitors run around presciencing the scoring knights the just walk around blowing everything off the table.

Feels like arms race doesn't it. For a few months people dealt with Xeno super units like WKnights and Riptides, now GW shall reap $$$ off the vengeance of IOM players that wants delicious revenge.

I say GW is doing a decent job knowing how to make these cash grabs in denser intervals now.

MasterDecoy
24-02-2014, 01:36
I've seen almost that (only difference was one riptide and one FW Rvarna instead of triple-tide), the rest was as-described, it pops up quite regularly at our local club.

Some of the guys are now talking about inquisition/Knight alliances as an army which ignores the regular FOC entirely. Using ranged henchmen squads to bunker down inside AA fortifications while the inquisitors run around presciencing the scoring knights that just walk around blowing everything off the table.

You know, you could just avoid paying those guys, or discussing pre match about your game expectations.

Sent from my GT-I9507 using Tapatalk

Valkyrie Sky
24-02-2014, 01:41
You know, you could just avoid paying those guys, or discussing pre match about your game expectations.

Sent from my GT-I9507 using Tapatalk
How do you discuss it? such units are all legit codex units, and who is to judge what is considered OP?
You cant. No one wants to give up sweet units they like ESPECIALLY SPENDING SO MUCH MONEY ON.

MasterDecoy
24-02-2014, 01:45
How do you discuss it? such units are all legit codex units, and who is to judge what is considered OP?
You cant. No one wants to give up sweet units they like ESPECIALLY SPENDING SO MUCH MONEY ON.

Something like this, "yeah those last 3 games we played where you brought those hodge podge of dataslate units wasn't very much fun for me, do you mind if we just play with the regular Codex units for this game? Or at least until I get some more stuff to make that match more intresting"

If the answer is no. The game doesn't proceed.

Sent from my GT-I9507 using Tapatalk

Ssilmath
24-02-2014, 01:47
How do you discuss it? such units are all legit codex units, and who is to judge what is considered OP?
You cant. No one wants to give up sweet units they like ESPECIALLY SPENDING SO MUCH MONEY ON.

"Hey man, I don't really have a way of dealing with (INSERT UNIT HERE) with this army. Do you mind swapping it out for something else?"
"Well, I really want to play (INSERT UNIT HERE) today."
"Steve plays (INSERT ARMY HERE) which is a good matchup for you. I couldn't really give you a good game with what I brought."
"Okay, I'll go play Steve. Want to play next time? I'll leave (INSERT UNIT HERE) at home for that game."
"Sure, see you then."

IcedCrow
24-02-2014, 01:47
How do you discuss it? such units are all legit codex units, and who is to judge what is considered OP?
You cant. No one wants to give up sweet units they like ESPECIALLY SPENDING SO MUCH MONEY ON.

Easy: You say "I dont' mind playing a match vs you but can we not use allies, or have you play taudar?"

Its pretty easy. I've yet to meet anyone in real life get butt-hurt over the question either. There are guys that play taudar, and they are all 100% open to playing non taudar if requested.

If there ever was a dispute, those two people simply don't play each other.

Where I'm from, walking into a group and proclaiming that if its legal it should be able to be used has you having a hard time finding opponents. In an open tournament or event where those are the rules, thats fine since those participating all know that they may run into it.

Valkyrie Sky
24-02-2014, 01:53
Something like this, "yeah those last 3 games we played where you brought those hodge podge of dataslate units wasn't very much fun for me, do you mind if we just play with the regular Codex units for this game? Or at least until I get some more stuff to make that match more intresting"

If the answer is no. The game doesn't proceed.

Sent from my GT-I9507 using Tapatalk
The place where I play at is way different player base than yours.
It usually falls under 2 types.
Type A where the army never changes, the guy is chill, but have the same units for 8 years... A rarity.
Type B the majority. Ones that can pretty much afford fotm armies on average as powerful as they are new.
Because they are new, the list and points are tailored around those same units you wish to not fight against.
In other words, they cant get rid of it.

Im willing to acknowledge that different stores, different player base will determine whats up for discussion, so be mutually respective and see the difference at mine.

MasterDecoy
24-02-2014, 01:59
The place where I play at is way different player base than yours.
It usually falls under 2 types.
Type A where the army never changes, the guy is chill, but have the same units for 8 years... A rarity.
Type B the majority. Ones that can pretty much afford fotm armies on average as powerful as they are new.
Because they are new, the list and points are tailored around those same units you wish to not fight against.
In other words, they cant get rid of it.

Im willing to acknowledge that different stores, different player base will determine whats up for discussion, so be mutually respective and see the difference at mine.

I acknowledge such places exist. I don't belive that they are in the majority.

You also don't sound like you like it there either, so I don't know. You might want to try starting/finding a better (read:more in tune with your desired playstyle) Club.

Sent from my GT-I9507 using Tapatalk

Valkyrie Sky
24-02-2014, 02:02
I acknowledge such places exist. I don't belive that they are in the majority.

You also don't sound like you like it there either, so I don't know. You might want to try starting/finding a better (read:more in tune with your desired playstyle) Club.

Sent from my GT-I9507 using Tapatalk
My bad, I left out the key point of my post, I play at a GW store... the only store. So now you might start to see why it really is the majority.
The intake of new players and armies is incredible and many.
And to help illustrate my point, ever seen those Army list threads in the tactics section?
Most of them are asking whats the most powerful unit in their army.
Its a fact.

MasterDecoy
24-02-2014, 02:06
My bad, I left out the key point of my post, I play at a GW store... the only store. So now you might start to see why it really is the majority.
The intake of new players is incredible and many.

I've played at several gw stores and they tend be as similar to each other as indie stores and clubs.

The change starts with you.

Sent from my GT-I9507 using Tapatalk

IcedCrow
24-02-2014, 02:34
My gw store is 95% chill cool guys playing a multitude of styles.

Valkyrie Sky
24-02-2014, 02:35
My gw store is 95% chill cool guys playing a multitude of styles.

Which one is that?

IcedCrow
24-02-2014, 02:37
Which store? Louisvilles store

Valkyrie Sky
24-02-2014, 02:38
Which store? Louisvilles store
Lucky you .

IcedCrow
24-02-2014, 02:39
The other gw stores ive been to have been like that as well though. There are always going to be the "that guy" though in any store

Importman
24-02-2014, 02:40
Basically I never use these snazzy new units with the "-knight" attached to them, you name it dread knights, wraith knights, and the new large whatever knights.

They might be the new cool but will not be using them in a regular game. Anyone else is free to use them though I guess it is a personal preference.

Sent from my GT-N7105 using Tapatalk 2

Ssilmath
24-02-2014, 02:41
I've played for years and never set foot inside a GW. The clubs I have played in have all been different in temperament and playstyle. But even in the most competitive place I played at, people were willing to talk with each other and play more laid back games. Sure, there were the people who played the most powerful things they could and those who would strive for the win no matter what. And I could play head to head with them, but had to keep a sharp eye on them (One SM player managed to move a Land Raider about 18 inches by the move, take back, move again method.) If you don't want a killer, bleeding edge spam all the newest toys, just ask. Talk to somebody who you are friends with, arrange a game, let them know that no bragging rights are on the line and give it a try.

Importman
24-02-2014, 02:43
My bad, I left out the key point of my post, I play at a GW store... the only store. So now you might start to see why it really is the majority.
The intake of new players and armies is incredible and many.
And to help illustrate my point, ever seen those Army list threads in the tactics section?
Most of them are asking whats the most powerful unit in their army.
Its a fact.

The local game store here are made up of 90% slow, competitive gamers. Needless to say I have pretty much given up the gaming side of GW since I moved over here.

Sent from my GT-N7105 using Tapatalk 2

Valkyrie Sky
24-02-2014, 02:45
The other gw stores ive been to have been like that as well though. There are always going to be the "that guy" though in any store
I would say more, but I strongly believe you arent the type to believe anything I say about it.

Let me just remind you, "birds a feather flock together". If you think"that guy" is singular you are mad mistaken. Anyways, what I said is done, short of start naming names
with video tape evidence. You either accept it or you don't.

Also, don't forget the most basic fact. If WAAC players are rich enough to purchase all the fotm armies and units,
you bet it doesnt matter how they behave, because an actual GW store needs their patronage.

Its how real life goes, unless you want the store to go belly up.

Ssilmath
24-02-2014, 03:06
I would say more, but I strongly believe you arent the type to believe anything I say about it.

Let me just remind you, "birds a feather flock together". If you think"that guy" is singular you are mad mistaken. Anyways, what I said is done, short of start naming names
with video tape evidence. You either accept it or you don't.

Also, don't forget the most basic fact. If WAAC players are rich enough to purchase all the fotm armies and units,
you bet it doesnt matter how they behave, because an actual GW store needs their patronage.

Its how real life goes, unless you want the store to go belly up.

And you're unable to seek out individuals who don't want to do that? Are there no other clubs in your area? I didn't find out about the one I attend now for almost a year. Is there nobody between those two extremes who plays?

sturguard
24-02-2014, 03:12
Spiney Norman, I agree with you 100%. Let me preface by saying, I love the 40k/Fantasy hobby and have been involved for over 20 years. In fact I have really had a good time reading through all the HH novels of late. I do enjoy playing 40k and Fantasy, unfortunately my time to actually play is extremely limited, wife, kids, work, after school activities, you get the idea, getting in a game of 40k is way down the list. I used to be able to play at a club 30 minutes away a 2-3 Tuesdays a month. Just enough to get an idea of what all the codexes could do, as my two armies over the years have consisted of SW and Eldar (I'm sure that qualifies me as a WAAC player in some way to some). As the rules change every few years, I usually have enough time in that span to understand what all the units in the different codexes can do, before everything changes. I generally play with units I like to model and paint, but like you, I try and create a list that can compete (notice I didnt say win) with the big boys as all the guys at the club I play at are very competitive. Don't get me wrong, they are a bunch of older guys like me and it is fun hanging out, but none of them write fluffy lists. Generally how I get a game is by posting I am looking for a game on x night, does anyone want to play. As, I am the outsider coming into this group who has been playing together for years and years, I am not going to dictate what anyone plays, otherwise I might be the guy who doesn't get any responses. Yeah, its easy to tell someone to change the culture of their club or gaming group, but the reality is, maybe people like who they are, maybe they don't want to change as the majority of the club players like things the way they are. I don't have time in life to try and change a culture at a gaming store. I don't have time in life to drive an hour to another gaming group, especially when these guys are cool. However, being the guy who isn't going to buy the data slates, who isn't going to buy the extra formations, or the other books, there are too many combinations to prepare for and in all certainty Ill get my rear end handed to me more times than I will "compete". Does that bother me, yeah, I like to compete. I don't need to win all the times, in fact when I go to a rare tourney, my goal is one win, one tie, and a loss. In my opinion, writing a balanced list that can compete is not possible as like you say, you never know what you are going to play and most armies can't account for half the stuff out there. It is all just an exercise in target priority now, but many times you don't have the guns or units to remove the greatest threats on the board unless you are extremely lucky. I do appreciate GW releasing more models, I just wish they were condensed into existing codexes so I would have some chance of keeping up with everything. The problem I had with many of the card games such as Magic was the amount of cards exploded and unless you invested alot of your life getting all the new cards and keeping up the combinations, you were going to get beat, 40k is becoming like that too. Sure if you are playing basement games, you can always take to your friends and have them change their lists, but realistically, unless you are a major player in a club that has existed for a long time, no one cares what you want and if you sit on your high horses about what people should use or shouldnt use, you will find no one wants to play you because you become "that guy". I just think alot of people dismiss all these notions while they sledgehammer their points across.

IcedCrow
24-02-2014, 03:19
The waac guys do flock together. Find non waac guys and flock with them.

deathrain-commander
24-02-2014, 03:23
A lot of these issues are pretty easily fixed.

Issues with the Imperial Knights or Super Heavies? Then don't play Escalation (am I missing a place where Super Heavies can be brought in a normal game that isn't Escalation?) Allies? Request no Allies, I've seen everything from tournaments to just normal play restrict or even forbid allies. And if there is one guy at your group who plays like...well a jerk, odds are he's going to become unpopular pretty quickly. A Necron player at my group is pretty overly reliant on Wraiths (he's refused to play at 2500 because he wants to field 36 Wraiths at that level and doesn't own that many) and he's been having trouble finding people to play with him. You have to decide to play them, don't play with people who act like 'That guy.'

NerZuhl
24-02-2014, 03:24
And you're unable to seek out individuals who don't want to do that? Are there no other clubs in your area? I didn't find out about the one I attend now for almost a year. Is there nobody between those two extremes who plays?

At a certain point, people need to accept that some don't have the same opportunities in opponent selection. Just as these same people have to accept that every where isn't the same. Finding like minded people is the ideal solution, but not always one that is available or viable.

As a player who must travel (internationally) to find a pick up game, when I approach building an army I have to be very careful. Local metas are so extremely diverse now that I can't reasonably expect uniformity. In 5th edition I didn't really have to concern myself beyond building a fun list. I knew I could go to any shop and pretty much know what to expect. The only difference was the types of lists. Now, I have no idea if I will be facing off against titans, fortifications, dataslates, or what now. And from my perspective, I can't look all these cool expansions because I have no idea if these will be accepted.

That is the part that concerns me the most about all this added content. The community is starting to become far more isolated than it was previously. Each gaming group is its own microcosm of rules. Which will intern make mixing of players far rarer and lead to fewer choices in players.

Ssilmath
24-02-2014, 03:35
I'm not the one claiming that my meta is representative of the majority, NerZuhl.

And while I agree that not everybody has the same opportunities in opponent selection, I do not believe that people are forced to play one way just because a portion of their local meta does. And while I know not everybody is capable of starting their own group, I was able to start up a 40k club in my workshop on an airbase in Iraq. All it took was buying some models to paint, showing them to some friends and telling them about it, persuading one to try a game and then going from there. We played every Sunday, and we had about half a dozen people playing by the time the contract was up and I had to leave.

NerZuhl
24-02-2014, 03:48
I'm not the one claiming that my meta is representative of the majority, NerZuhl.

And while I agree that not everybody has the same opportunities in opponent selection, I do not believe that people are forced to play one way just because a portion of their local meta does. And while I know not everybody is capable of starting their own group, I was able to start up a 40k club in my workshop on an airbase in Iraq. All it took was buying some models to paint, showing them to some friends and telling them about it, persuading one to try a game and then going from there. We played every Sunday, and we had about half a dozen people playing by the time the contract was up and I had to leave.
I was speaking to everyone about the generalizations. My word choice wasn't correct, I meant to point to the people saying they can't find opponents.

Yes, a person can choose to simply not play. That is always an option, a depressing option at that. Quite depressing when I arrive in my home state, go to a FLGS and turn down my once a year opportunity to play. I am glad to hear you have had success building a local group. Wish my attempts over the past 5 years had been as successful. I don't pretend my extreme circumstances as being applicable to others.

There is a large benefit to a game not requiring local mediation to be playable by the common player. This is a problem that is fairly unique to 40k currently. Even fantasy doesn't have this problem as of yet. It isn't a matter of competitive vs casual lists, it is what models are accepted. These are standalone expansions like they used to be, these are inclusive rules that are being nailed to the core game.

IcedCrow
24-02-2014, 04:03
Im still not seeing the problem. These are options being used. Options.

Options keep the game interesting.

I dont see that destroying the hobby. If it makes finding a "standard game" difficult then i can accept that. That is because standard games bore me, as do comfort zones.

Thats why i like all of the options.

Voss
24-02-2014, 04:05
Yeah great, let's dump the tactical play that used to make 40k such a great and emersive game for the last 25 years and have a fun afternoon of rolling dice for a result that was really decided when one of you chose to fill your roster with units that your opponent couldn't deal with.

Never before 6th edition have I turned up to a game of 40k and realised that playing the game was a waste of my time because I had nothing that could damage about half of my opponents army.

No Skyfire units and you're facing an army of 11 night scythes... Yeah, that's going to be a fun game...
Those... aren't related to anything goes sandbox style games. Which were the basis of 40K right from the start, that continued through 2nd edition as well. The 'You Must Play As Directed' thing didn't happen until 3rd, and it was really a minority point of view until the internet happened.

And even then... eh. I can't get all that up in arms about it, because I can talk to the people I play against, and have a reasonable discussion.

ntw3001
24-02-2014, 04:07
You know, you could just avoid paying those guys, or discussing pre match about your game expectations.

Sent from my GT-I9507 using Tapatalk

Given that the people attached to playing out fluffy scenarios are presumably already having these discussions and establishing what they want, why is it that every pick-up game also has to be preceded by this? I don't fancy holding a pre-meeting to discuss expectations and hammer out a compromise between two players' sets of demands (I want no superheavies, no dataslates, allied units accounted for within the main detachment's FOC; he wants superheavies, no Riptide spam, no FW, battle brothers reduced to allies of convenience. We compromise by playing Warmachine). I would like to bring a legal army to a club and play (disclaimer: I haven't played 40k since 3rd).

What baffles me is when people tell others that all the rules are there to be broken, but that it's simultaneously of paramount importance that their own games should be enshrined by those same rules (although it wasn't necessary prior to the release of dataslates et al). Why? One side has lost something, the other has gained nothing, so what's behind this opposition to a state where everyone gets what they want from the game?

Ssilmath
24-02-2014, 04:13
so what's behind this opposition to a state where everyone gets what they want from the game?

There is no opposition to it. If person A wants a hardcore, spam broken units game then they need to state that. If person B doesn't, then they either don't play and find another person who wants the same kind of game (As neither player will likely have much fun) or they take five minutes and compromise like reasonable adults until they find a way to play where both are satisfied.

ntw3001
24-02-2014, 04:18
Edit: tapatalk problems please ignore

IcedCrow
24-02-2014, 04:24
Given that the people attached to playing out fluffy scenarios are presumably already having these discussions and establishing what they want, why is it that every pick-up game also has to be preceded by this? I don't fancy holding a pre-meeting to discuss expectations and hammer out a compromise between two players' sets of demands (I want no superheavies, no dataslates, allied units accounted for within. I would like to bring a legal army to a club and play (disclaimer: I haven't played 40k since 3rd).

What baffles me is when people tell others that all the rules are there to be broken, but that it's simultaneously of paramount importance that their own games should be enshrined by those same rules (although it wasn't necessary prior to the release of dataslates et al). Why? One side has lost something, the other has gained nothing, so what's behind this opposition to a state where everyone gets what they want from the game?

I guess this may need broken out into more detail.

It keeps getting brought up that there needs to be some hour long summit to discuss a 40k game. The reality is its less than 30 seconds.

One side has lost something: yes as I see it, "standard 40k" was lost.
Other side gained nothing? Gained a lot actually. Now you can play with just standard FOC, with allies or no allies, with FW or no FW, with dataslates or no dataslates, with super heavies or no super heavies, etc...

So many different ways to play 40k now.

If you want to play standard just plain old Force Org, the conversation takes about 15 seconds:

Player 1: I have my army. 1750 points. Can we just go by the standard force org? Nothing extra?
Player 2: Sounds good, give me a second to get a list put together.

That's what happens 99.9% of the time, at least where I am and the people I'm around in.

Here's an example from today's GW store

Ork player: I just finished painting the stompa I bought. You up for a game against it?
Player 2: Hell yeah, I have my army in the car, let's do it

What is being presented otherwise is that there is some kind of eternal conflict from people complaining or whining or whatever. I'm not going to say that that doesn't happen - because it does. But that complaining also happened two years ago:

Player 1 (5th edition) hey want to play a game of planetstrike?
player 2: sorry no. Planetstrike is not standard 40k and i'm not interested in playing non-standard 40k.

Player 1: hey want to play a game of cityfight?
player 2: sorry no, city fight rapes my gunline and is not standard 40k. I'm not interested in playing anything other than non-standard 40k.

Player 1: hey can I use my Forge world list?
Player 2: sorry no, forge world is not standard 40k, and i'm not interested in playing anything other than non-standard 40k.

These are actual debates I saw a lot of a couple of years ago and longer. Not everyone was getting what they wanted from the game.

I've seen the same debate on terrain

Player 1: can we set up the terrain to look like that diorama from White Dwarf?
Player 2: sorry no. That diorama from White Dwarf rapes my gun line and is not standard 40k. Standard 40k is a couple hills and a forest I can see over and a building like tournaments use. That's standard 40k and i'm not willing to use anything other than that for terrain because my gunline can't operate as effectively with more terrain on the table and my gunline is standard 40k.

I see more people today getting what they want from the game than I did two years ago, because the options have blown the doors off of what is "standard 40k" and that pigeon box that "standard 40k" brought with it. There are infinitely more types of games being played at most of the shops in town now, other than roll standard out of the book and play standard scenarios.

This has also brought a lot of new people back as well as new people that have joined.

Options are good. The more options the better. IMO.

With the vast majority of people, asking what type of game one wants is usually constructive and lasts 30 seconds or less. There is no long summit meeting to decide what type of game you are playing.

Yes there will be players that don't want any options at all and will stoutly enforce their will over the group. I get that. That is everywhere. Sometimes forming your own group isn't possible. I don't really accept that but... I will say ok that may happen as well since I don't know every locale... but given the choice between being able to form your own group as I have done or pushing for the little shoebox standard that was the way things were the past decade, I'll stick with the options.

What I'm seeing a lot is the players that only want standard-40k are miffed that standard-40k got flushed and that there are options that other people want to use that are now more acceptable, and they don't like that because that's not standard-40k (because as of today and as of the past few months there really is no longer a standard 40k)

Last: what happens when player 1 and player 2 want two totally different things out of the game.
* one or the other compromises
* neither compromise and they find someone else to play against that wants similar things
* neither compromise and they log in to warseer to complain that the game is broken

AngryAngel
24-02-2014, 04:26
For many its not a matter of want it is a matter of scene. If they are legal units, at least for me I won't hold a person to fault for using them. Then, we don't see most of the utterly abused builds so forcing opponents to force comp hasn't really ever been a thing that has needed to happen for us. The more they add in, the more many seemingly are going to need to try and deny and disallow.

Imperial knights don't need escalation to be used and honestly. I'd wager by the time 7th ed drops ( either this summer or later if the rumors don't pan out ) I doubt escalation will be an issue. Super heavy will just be a new type of vehicle usable in standard games, same as Imperial knights are already allowable in regular games right out of the gate. It is just the way it seems to be going. Nothing wrong with people not liking it. Nothing really wrong for GW for following that path if it works out.

However there is very little difference in the guy who demands you play against all his broken units ( which is up for debate usually on which units are ) and the guy who refuses to play any way but the way he wants, or with the rules from the standard games he wishes to use. Both are seeking to push the game the way they want it to be and both are limiting. I'm sure there are plenty willing and able to disagree, and that is fine. Such is why I don't limit however, if someone isn't fun to play against it usually is because of the person in question and not the list they brought to the table. If they end up bringing all the cheese with a fun list on my end, next time I'll be sure and bring something harder, get my win in and be fine.

I just don't see whats so hard about the live and let live policy. I don't wish to constrain peoples lists, and don't wish mine to be so constrained. If the person is enjoyable to play with/against then it'll be fine. IF they aren't fun to play with/against, it won't really matter what list they play either.

Edit: Allies and Forts are also standard FoC for this 6th Ed. Also, those same discussions still can take place with all of our rules bloat. If your choosing to ignore standard rules and standard parts of 40k, it is not different at all from the arguments against city fight, or planet strike, etc. The difference is just in the word of standard, or expansion, but when you start not using standard rules, your already making it not Standard 40k.

Player one " Hey want to play a 1750 pt game ? "
Player two " Sure, but don't take allies or more then one flyer "

Player one " Why ? It's standard 40k rules "
Player two " I don't like allies and have no AA "

It is the exact same argument, but now your having people not even use standard FoC or units, how is that better then making them optional, and then they are still there to be taken by people who want out of the comfort zone. Then super heavies become standard and it adds another level of things to deny, as Knights I'm sure will be. So I suppose I just don't see how everyone is getting all they ever wanted more then using these over the top rules as expansions and not needing to conclude a pre game War Council to discuss what will be considered standard. If anything with that way of doing it, all the rules are just expansions at that point.

As for logging on to say the game is broken, it is which many have already easily concluded.

ntw3001
24-02-2014, 04:33
I think there have been some decent ideas in terms of bringing in variety, but not necessarily well-implemented. Allies is a good example; it's nice to be able to represent the kind of alliances that appear in the fluff. That could have happened without the weird synergies of Battle Brothers or the extra FOC slots.

As for super heavies, I don't see the benefit. As a permission-only thing they can be interesting and fluffy without it being an issue whether they're frustrating in standard games. That's a fine situation, and one of the most repeated arguments seems to be that it's good not to require permission to use these units because people should be obtaining permission to use them. It doesn't make sense. Should players expect to OK their lists with the opponent or not? If so, then what's wrong with a permission-only clause?

As for general balance between standard codices, I fully agree with you on that count. People expecting a game that's balanced out of the box are in the wrong game. 40k has been an excuse to roll dice since at least 3rd.

IcedCrow
24-02-2014, 04:37
I just don't see whats so hard about the live and let live policy. I don't wish to constrain peoples lists, and don't wish mine to be so constrained. If the person is enjoyable to play with/against then it'll be fine. IF they aren't fun to play with/against, it won't really matter what list they play either.

That's true and the live / let live policy should be what is used, and I find is what is used the vast majority of the time.

Ssilmath
24-02-2014, 04:39
There isn't 'permission only' because the whole game is permission only.

rocdocta
24-02-2014, 04:51
"Hey man, I don't really have a way of dealing with (INSERT UNIT HERE) with this army. Do you mind swapping it out for something else?"
"Well, I really want to play (INSERT UNIT HERE) today."
"Steve plays (INSERT ARMY HERE) which is a good matchup for you. I couldn't really give you a good game with what I brought."
"Okay, I'll go play Steve. Want to play next time? I'll leave (INSERT UNIT HERE) at home for that game."
"Sure, see you then."

This is exactly what I used to do with new players. Rather than bring my big hard tourney list I would ask them what they wanted to get better at. What kind of game did they want or what units did they want to see in action. No point rolling over people. If they didn't have much AA I left my scythe wing at home.

rocdocta
24-02-2014, 04:54
And you're unable to seek out individuals who don't want to do that? Are there no other clubs in your area? I didn't find out about the one I attend now for almost a year. Is there nobody between those two extremes who plays?

In Perth where I live there are 3 clubs within 100km. These clubs have not many players (say 10 consistent 40k players each). Generally theres not enough people to pick and choose. I do make it know that I wont play esc/fort assault or dataslates.

ntw3001
24-02-2014, 04:55
There isn't 'permission only' because the whole game is permission only.

That's my point. Why are people who advocate obtaining permission to field everything now saying that requiring permission is a negative thing?

If you treat everything as permission-only then things like the change to FW legality are neither here nor there. So why is the change so crucial? What's the difference? Some people clearly do note a difference between permission-only and not. Why is that opinion forbidden?

Ssilmath
24-02-2014, 05:01
Because people will lord it over others and say "The rules say it's optional, so I won't." Now that excuse is gone. Because everything is legal, if you don't feel like playing something you can't hide behind legality but can still refuse the game. If I show up with my Thousand Sons and somebody brings three Riptides, I'm not going to play against it. It won't be fun. Nobody can make anybody play anything, and nobody can point at a rule to deny anything. Talk with your opponent, play what you like.

For example, I have a Knight on preorder. When I finish painting it, I'm going to take it to the local club with my IG. I'm also going to have a Knights worth of other models in case my opponent doesn't want to tangle with a Knight. If I really want to play it, I can ask around for an opponent who wants to play against it. Either way, everybody involved can have a good time.

ntw3001
24-02-2014, 05:13
So that approach is forbidden because you don't think people who want to use it should be allowed. Honestly, I was hoping for a less ironic reason.

Sent from my GT-I8190N using Tapatalk

AngryAngel
24-02-2014, 05:19
If you only play what you want it doesn't matter how legal it is. If all the rules are optional, legality means very little in acceptance.

Ssilmath
24-02-2014, 05:21
Dude, I have no idea what you are arguing anymore. I'm not forbidding anything, just saying that nobody should feel compelled to play against something that they don't think will be fun. Likewise if somebody brings something to the table that their opponent doesn't want to face, they should look for somebody who does want to face it or compromise so that both players are going to have a good time. Find a middle ground.

MasterDecoy
24-02-2014, 05:56
Given that the people attached to playing out fluffy scenarios are presumably already having these discussions and establishing what they want, why is it that every pick-up game also has to be preceded by this? I don't fancy holding a pre-meeting to discuss expectations and hammer out a compromise between two players' sets of demands (I want no superheavies, no dataslates, allied units accounted for within the main detachment's FOC; he wants superheavies, no Riptide spam, no FW, battle brothers reduced to allies of convenience. We compromise by playing Warmachine). I would like to bring a legal army to a club and play (disclaimer: I haven't played 40k since 3rd).

What baffles me is when people tell others that all the rules are there to be broken, but that it's simultaneously of paramount importance that their own games should be enshrined by those same rules (although it wasn't necessary prior to the release of dataslates et al). Why? One side has lost something, the other has gained nothing, so what's behind this opposition to a state where everyone gets what they want from the game?

Can't quite tell whether you're agreeing with me or not, but I should clarify

I AM NOT TELLING ANYBODY HOW TO PLAY

I am however offering suggestions for people who seem dissatisfied with their gaming experience.

Especially when it's something as simple as talking to your opponent before the game or chucking more terrain on the table.

Sent from my GT-I9507 using Tapatalk

wanderingblade
24-02-2014, 07:10
The reality is that this is all fine if your group has a friendly social contract where you work together to make it fun and it's not if you don't - and there's not a lot that can be done about that.

The problem is exacerbated by the balance on some of the newer additions being a little wonky. But then, it's not just the new stuff, it's pretty much everything coming out this edition (and for several editions prior...)

Mandragola
24-02-2014, 07:18
I think the problem is that a lot of these things make the game less interesting to play, in a number of ways as follows:

- games where the outcome is obvious at the start.
- games where many models have no combat role, only functioning as scoring units but unable to influence the fight.
- games between very few effective models, such as with super heavies on both sides, where the options available to both sides are very limited and the first guy to fire his Ds wins.

All of this stuff reduces the amount players do once they put their armies down on the board. The GAME is not really a contest between two armies, rather it's an arms race with ever-more-apocalyptic weapons fielded.

Many people, me among them, feel that there are now units in 40k that are just way off the power scale and shouldn't be there. I'm not talking about data slates and formations that let you being normal units in unusual numbers, I mean stuff like titans costing 50%+ of the army's price in one D-spitting engine of brokenness that can only be combatted by fielding another of the same thing, and having first turn. I can't see a battle between two revenant titans being anything other than a dice fest, at which point you may as well play snakes and ladders.

Spiney Norman
24-02-2014, 07:18
A lot of these issues are pretty easily fixed.

Issues with the Imperial Knights or Super Heavies? Then don't play Escalation (am I missing a place where Super Heavies can be brought in a normal game that isn't Escalation?) Allies? Request no Allies, I've seen everything from tournaments to just normal play restrict or even forbid allies. And if there is one guy at your group who plays like...well a jerk, odds are he's going to become unpopular pretty quickly. A Necron player at my group is pretty overly reliant on Wraiths (he's refused to play at 2500 because he wants to field 36 Wraiths at that level and doesn't own that many) and he's been having trouble finding people to play with him. You have to decide to play them, don't play with people who act like 'That guy.'

I actually prefer not to go into that much detail in advance, if you know what your opponent is bringing to the game then you're not playing 40k anyway, you're playing 'list hammer' where you just bring the counters to his list. Either way there are no actual ingame tactics involved. I miss the old 3rd ed way of playing where you could arrange a game, then show up, not knowing what you would be facing and still expect the army you'd put together could rasonably handle it if you were smart.

It seems now that you either plan the game in such detail that you can actually write your opponents list for him, or you play the chance game of not knowing anything, neither alternative really rewards player skill on the field at all.


There isn't 'permission only' because the whole game is permission only.

In the sense that if your opponent doesn't agree to your terms you can always throw a hissy fit and walk from the game? Sure.

Avatar_exADV
24-02-2014, 08:26
Spiney inadvertently gets to the heart of the issue.

Previously there was a fairly widespread norm that you played with the army list you brought against any and all comers. Some armies did very well in this meta, as they could field extremely strong take-all-comers lists that could handle pretty much any "normal" threat (not necessarily every oddball build, but the oddball was then expected to deal with everyone else with the same tool kit, so in practice oddball builds were not a good solution). Some players got used to having an environment where they could expect to win most of their games and anyone who didn't want to take their whupping was obviously a wimp.

That's just out the window now. Not every army is good and not every build is good, but there's simply no more take-all-comers list you can bring that's going to win the majority of games. You just don't have all the tools in the toolbox to deal with lots of fliers, super-heavy vehicles, horde infantry, horde marine infantry, triple Riptide, triple Helldrake, 2++ rerollable gimmick lists, etc... at least not when "deal with" is equated to "can scythe off the board in a single turn of shooting so they don't pose a threat to my pwecious army".

(To be perfectly fair, not all armies have all those tools in their toolbox even if they are listing specifically for those things.)

But what this has done is discount the idea that you need to show up with a list and then play it against any list that someone shows up with. And this is a huge problem if you're a cheesemonger that's relying on social opprobrium to get you games where you get to shoot up a target army; if your opponents start saying "that's a bit more cheese than I wanted to deal with", where does that leave them? Sitting around not playing games slanted heavily in their favor from the get-go? Horrors! Why, they might need to actually dip a toe into the fluff and build a list that's more than "find the three best units in the best codex and spam them until I'm out of points"...

This game is for two players. The idea is that both people have fun! One guy will win and one guy will lose (probably, ties are pretty rare these days), but both of them ought to enjoy it. If someone is looking at the match-up and saying "yeah, I'm not going to enjoy that, so let's just not", they're not doing anything wrong. They're not being wimps, they're not unmanly, they're not being butt-hurt. They don't have any obligation to sacrifice their fun afternoon so you can chest-thump that your list is BEST LIST and that makes you GOD OF WARHAMS. To the contrary, you yourself have failed in the obligation to provide your opponent with a good time.

All the recent dataslate-Escalation-allies-BRING THE D mess has done is hang a lampshade on this, and now people are recognizing that playing casual games as if they were pro-level tournaments is dumb. It was dumb before, but now it's REALLY dumb. It's reached the point where your casual accusations of wimpitude are no longer enough to keep people from doing what they should have done from the beginning and saying "you know, I play this game for fun."

Mandragola
24-02-2014, 08:37
It is true that it's never been reasonable to use a tournament list in a pick up game. The issue is now there are just way more variables you have to work on, where previously it would be relatively easy to decide what constituted a cheesy list. Are you spamming, are you using stuff like 2++ rerollables? Ok then that's cheesy stuff and uncool in a casual environment.

On the other hand, tournaments exist for people who want to play competitively and go all out, where the other guy is doing the same and both people enjoy building and playing the most effective army they can.

But GW has introduced a bunch of stuff that is never ok in any environment. There is simply no situation in which D weapons make sense, or indeed the 2++ rerollable nonsense that only D can defeat. These things just don't seem like they work as they should at all.

Snake Eyes
24-02-2014, 09:44
Why are things never ok in any environment? Some people will probably quite happily disagree with you. As Iced and others have pointed out, they are options. Some of them are a little silly in my opinion and perhaps shouldn't have been added into regular 40k, but if someone wants to use them and can find like minded people who are happy to play against it then why not?

I saw 2 people at my local club last week have a brilliant game using a lot of the Strong Hold Assault buildings and Void Shields against an Eldar army running a Revenant Titan. Lots of things died and it was brutal beyond belief, but they both had a blast and seemed to really enjoy it.

Options are great.

baransiege
24-02-2014, 10:42
40k's designers have always been quite clear that they design the game on the basis that players agree to confirm to some kind of expected experience beforehand and there's been broken, cheesy combos since Rogue Trader.

I don't think I'll ever play a game against a Titan, just doesn't appeal to me at the 28mm scale as they just sit there pumping out rounds. Knights on the other hand are right up my alley as they fill that sweet spot of being huge and awesome while still being appropriate for the scale involved with regards their role in the Epic games. The Warhound - a scout titan, doesn't do a whole lot of movement in 40k, but a Knight would look awesome cool fighting it out in an urban city fight board , running down streets to a an open square and mowing down the buildings. For me it's an exciting new option, offering an experience that I couldn't have had before.

Can the Allies system be abused? Yes. But finally it again makes it easy to play the kinds of battles we read about all the time in the backstory without having to go to great lengths to justify it with your opponent.

Lost and Damned = yes with Imperial Guard with Chaos allies
The Eldar rapidly deploying out of a Webway to aid the Imperium due to a Farseer's predictions = yes now possible.

If somebody is using these things to break the game, would they really be the person you would have enjoyed playing anyway? Or would they have always been a little generous on measuring their movement, rules lawyered twisting them away for RaI every opportunity they got, taken whatever uber cheese list was winning the tourney scene, and maybe brought stacked dice?

Fear Ghoul
24-02-2014, 10:57
Most of the problems wouldn't exist if 40k used percentages rather than a stupid slot-based system.

Tae
24-02-2014, 12:33
Personally I prefer not to use data sheets, escalation, stronghold, allies etc but I don't mind the odd game if it now and then as I appreciate some other people do like it.

What I do dislike is how every random pick up game requires a 20 minutes discussion to establish what is/isn't being used and why and to argue about it back and forth.

IcedCrow
24-02-2014, 12:50
Still not seen any discussion go beyond 30 seconds over what type of game to have.

If one constantly has 20 minute arguments over the type of game being played, i would look at the common denominator and see why it is that that common denominator insists on 20 minute arguments.

Russell's teapot
24-02-2014, 13:13
My take on all the additions, and dataslates, and new codicies, and forge-world is that it's now impossible, without having a detailed discussion beforehand, to have a matched battle.

In 5th ed I would take 2 lists to a FLGS to play a pick up match. The question was "Fluffy or Competitive?"

Now I'd need to write multiple lists for all eventualities, or thrash out what we're playing then write a list. Even where it was agreed beforehand, the inability to make a "take all comers" army is so diminished under 6th, that it's effectively a game of rock-paper-scissors.

That takes frelling hours to play.

Thanks, but no thanks.

Fear Ghoul
24-02-2014, 13:19
40k has been a rock-paper-scissors game since 3rd edition, and has therefore suffered a severe drop in real tactical choices over that time period. I suspect anyone who thinks this is a recent phenomenon is suffering from a severe case of Rose-Tinted Glasses Syndrome.

IcedCrow
24-02-2014, 13:21
Its always been a game of rock paper scissors.

Fear Ghoul beat me to it. :-)

Horus38
24-02-2014, 13:24
Some of us prefer the way 40k has been... We have pretty much decided if that's the way it's going to come down from GW, then at THIS club, it will be 6th edition codex units only. We prefer a game, not a money grab with no sense of balance.

Good thing the GW Studio approves, nah, encourages such thinking! They want you to have fun, so play the game how you/your group wants.

Mandragola
24-02-2014, 13:29
40k has been a rock-paper-scissors game since 3rd edition, and has therefore suffered a severe drop in real tactical choices over that time period. I suspect anyone who thinks this is a recent phenomenon is suffering from a severe case of Rose-Tinted Glasses Syndrome.

No, when it works properly 40k is not a game of rock paper scissors. It can be a good came in a competitive environment, and many people enjoy playing it as such. There are many good games that go right down to the wire. You may not like it, but yours is not the only opinion that matters. Seriously, who would enjoy playing this game if every match was determined by army selection? It is a myth. Yes, some armies are more effective than others. Yes, some armies will usually beat some others. But that is absolutely not true of all match ups. If your army can't beat your opponent's, go back to the drawing board and come up with something that can.

However, it is certainly getting harder and harder to do this as the number of options expands. It is certainly the case that more pre-game discussion is required now than previously. Actually this is one of the good things about tournaments: the TOs will produce a rules pack detailing exactly what is allowed and what isn't, and often a FAQ to iron out some of the weirdness.

I've got nothing against these options in theory. In practice I think some have been badly implemented. I do think that D weapons are simply far too powerful, especially on the various platforms that spit out multiple 5" blasts a turn. And then some of the other stuff that exists, like say screamer/jetbike councils or the Transcendent C'tan, are all but invincible to non-D but get insta-gibbed if D does show up. Part of the reason we have to have these discussions is that the rules have been written badly. If units and rules were balanced it wouldn't matter if somebody fielded 6 wave serpents, because they wouldn't be so much better than equal points spent on something else.

IcedCrow
24-02-2014, 13:31
If units and rules were balanced it wouldn't matter if somebody fielded 6 wave serpents, because they wouldn't be so much better than equal points spent on something else.

While this is true, this debate has existed since 3rd edition. All of my 3rd and 4th edition tournament armies were the very definition of rock/paper/scissors.


We prefer a game, not a money grab with no sense of balance.

Kind of like when the codex unit: Riptide came out? Or codex unit: Wave Serpent? Or codex unit: wraith knight?

Those are codex units, and they could be argued to be a "blatant money grab".

Codex units only is fine if that's how you want to roll, but pretending that codex units only is some kind of pinnacle of balance and fair play or is somehow MORE balanced than a knight being fielded or forge world being fielded is consciously deluding yourself.

Fear Ghoul
24-02-2014, 14:00
No, when it works properly 40k is not a game of rock paper scissors. It can be a good came in a competitive environment, and many people enjoy playing it as such. There are many good games that go right down to the wire. You may not like it, but yours is not the only opinion that matters. Seriously, who would enjoy playing this game if every match was determined by army selection? It is a myth. Yes, some armies are more effective than others. Yes, some armies will usually beat some others. But that is absolutely not true of all match ups. If your army can't beat your opponent's, go back to the drawing board and come up with something that can.

However, it is certainly getting harder and harder to do this as the number of options expands. It is certainly the case that more pre-game discussion is required now than previously. Actually this is one of the good things about tournaments: the TOs will produce a rules pack detailing exactly what is allowed and what isn't, and often a FAQ to iron out some of the weirdness.

I've got nothing against these options in theory. In practice I think some have been badly implemented. I do think that D weapons are simply far too powerful, especially on the various platforms that spit out multiple 5" blasts a turn. And then some of the other stuff that exists, like say screamer/jetbike councils or the Transcendent C'tan, are all but invincible to non-D but get insta-gibbed if D does show up. Part of the reason we have to have these discussions is that the rules have been written badly. If units and rules were balanced it wouldn't matter if somebody fielded 6 wave serpents, because they wouldn't be so much better than equal points spent on something else.

You are demonstrably incorrect. Any system which possesses an all-or-nothing AP system is intrinsically rock-paper-scissors. There is a reason people invented the all-comers list for competitive 40k, and it is precisely because if you don't have elements in your army tailored to fight against the opponent then you will probably lose. The fact that you suggest people redevelop their army list if they lose rather than improve tactics with their current list is the best damning indictment of 40k I can muster, because it illustrates perfectly which element of the game you think is most important.

Spiney Norman
24-02-2014, 14:13
Its always been a game of rock paper scissors.

Fear Ghoul beat me to it. :-)

While that's true, it has changed over the course of 6th edition, it used to be that units in the codex were either rocks, scissors or paper and to build an army what you had to do was bring a few rocks, two pairs of scissors and a pad of paper to create a balanced army. Now the game is more like rock, paper, Scissors, chair, table, car, tree, hat, scarf, gloves, kitchen sink, there is just too much going on to cover every base in the same army which means the game has become all about what you bring instead of how you use what you bring, which is the real problem with it now.

Polaria
24-02-2014, 14:17
There is a reason people invented the all-comers list for competitive 40k, and it is precisely because if you don't have elements in your army tailored to fight against the opponent then you will probably lose. The fact that you suggest people redevelop their army list if they lose rather than improve tactics with their current list is the best damning indictment of 40k I can muster, because it illustrates perfectly which element of the game you think is most important.

Treat 40K as a "competitive game" and you are living in some sort of fantasy hallucination. It was never intended to be "competitive" it never was "competitive" and, according to several statements by GW designers and the current trend, will never be "competitive". Think anything else and you are only lying to yourself.

IcedCrow
24-02-2014, 14:22
which means the game has become all about what you bring instead of how you use what you bring, which is the real problem with it now.

Army lists have always had a lot of say in the game though.

My eldar starcannon list played itself. It was in fact all about me bringing 14 starcannons in a 1500 point list. Using it was never really a question. Pick marine unit you need to die. Shoot at it and erase it. Move on to next marine unit.

My necrons were the same way.

As was my chaos army in the 3.5 days.

What is that much different today than was two years ago?

Allies? - those are codex units for the most part. You have a basic anti-infantry approach you need or an anti-tank approach you need. Allies doesn't change that, you just can't predict what your opponent will bring as easily.

Fortifications? - these have been around since planetstrike came out. They are for the most part bunkers with guns. Stationary vehicles that everyone can take.

Formations? - these are basically codex units with special rules if you take X of the models. Of any of it, I dont like these because they let you bypass FOC, but that's a simple matter of saying "hey can we not use formations?"

Data slates - add on rules. I have on my book shelf four "Chapter Approved" books which are white dwarf articles put into a compilation of all the additional rules we could take back in 3rd ed and 4th ed. Back then no one batted an eye at the white dwarf articles adding rules - in fact people have been clamboring for that to come back for a long time.

Escalation - the idea of using super heavies in normal games - maybe not one's cup of tea but its a special type of game. Will it be brought in as part of the "core"? Probably. But then people have been clamboring for lower model count games so this caters to that. I'm not a fan of having super heavies in normal games either but meh.

Knights - super heavy walkers more powerful than normal walkers, less powerful than titans. Anyone can take. They are essentially walkers. You deal with them like any vehicle.

So while there are more options in the game, the way you play really hasn't changed - what has changed is the predictability of what your opponent is goipng to bring.

Two years ago you could guarantee one of the big three flavors would be sitting at your store and you could tailor for that. "All comers" is really a word that doesn't mean what it means because "all comers" lists are usually lists tailored to take on the big three flavors of the month, and now those flavors are getting less predictable.

Vipoid
24-02-2014, 14:23
Treat 40K as a "competitive game" and you are living in some sort of fantasy hallucination. It was never intended to be "competitive" it never was "competitive" and, according to several statements by GW designers and the current trend, will never be "competitive". Think anything else and you are only lying to yourself.

So, why do they even bother with points? If it's not meant to be competitive, then surely it's a lot easier to just omit them entirely and just say 'take what feels right' or any such nonsense; rather than making up point values for every unit and upgrade?

Mandragola
24-02-2014, 14:31
You are demonstrably incorrect. Any system which possesses an all-or-nothing AP system is intrinsically rock-paper-scissors. There is a reason people invented the all-comers list for competitive 40k, and it is precisely because if you don't have elements in your army tailored to fight against the opponent then you will probably lose. The fact that you suggest people redevelop their army list if they lose rather than improve tactics with their current list is the best damning indictment of 40k I can muster, because it illustrates perfectly which element of the game you think is most important.

Army list selection is important, of course, but I'm talking about selecting a take all comers army so that you do get to play a game, and so it is not a case of rock paper scissors. You do of course need the tools to succeed, as well as the skill. There's nothing strange about that. Even if units were balanced it would still be necessary to pick the right ones, and it would be more interesting and fun to do so if the choices were a bit harder.

It is of course true that a strong TAC list will faceroll weak lists but it's irrelevant to my point, which is about tournament play. Rock paper scissors armies do not win tournaments because they inevitably meet something they can't handle. Building a good TAC list is a more difficult thing to do, and you don't get so many free wins, but nor do you get automatic losses. Icedcrow can back me up on this I think, as his rock paper scissors armies in 3rd and 4th didn't result in any tournament wins, while I've won large competitions in every edition since 3rd, starting with best general at the 1999 40k GT.

Icedcrow is right to point out that there's no fundamental difference in the "balancedness" of units inside and outside of codexes. There are hideously broken units in codexes, and perfectly reasonable (or even useless) things in escalation, FW and so on. So the new knights really do seem totally fine and I can't see a need to restrict them, except that it opens the flood gates to other superheavies and D weapons which drastically alter the game. I agree with imposing limitations but it's difficult to pick which ones to use when the brokenness is something that runs through the whole game, not just one area of it. It's hard to know where to start, or where to stop, without looking at each unit individually - as GW are paid to do!

Fear Ghoul
24-02-2014, 14:33
Most of the unbalanced units are in the main codexes anyway, so limiting players to just one codex wouldn't really change much. I think we can all agree that the Battle Brothers rules could use tweaking, but apart from that most of the list abuses come from the force organization chart itself which encourages spamming of powerful units. Switch to a percentage based system where only 25% is allowed to be Heavy Support and watch the number of Riptides/Wraithknights/Night Scythes in a 1500pts army drop drastically,

quantumcollider
24-02-2014, 14:35
How do you discuss it? such units are all legit codex units, and who is to judge what is considered OP?
You cant. No one wants to give up sweet units they like ESPECIALLY SPENDING SO MUCH MONEY ON.

I really do not understand this.

Playing a game of WH40K is not a obligation or a right. It is a mutual agreement between reasonably intelligent en empathic people to have a good game.

The rules are are only a set of guidelines. Sure, if you do not make any agreements on exactly how the two of you want to play a game, assume that both play according to the rules in the rulebook and relevant codices. But the sky is the limit if you and your opponent can agree on it. Leave stuff out, put stuff in, whatever. Heck, GW's latest supplements are filled with sentences like 'if you and you opponent agree'. Actually, I think it has been quite some time since GW's very own White Dwarf magazine contained a battle that was in any way 'regular'.

And no-one can force you to play a game you do not want to. Don't like that your potential opponent brings an 'overpowered' unit along? You can ask him to leave it out, where it is good form to explain why that particular unit will ruin the gaming experience for you. Likewise, you can explain why you decline any such requests if you think your potential opponents is asking something unreasonable. Perhaps your opponent will agree. If not, apparently your ideas of a fun battle do not match and the two of you can (respectfully!) decline. Or you can meet somewhere in the middle.

If after a battle you lament anything else but the roll of the dice, your own poor tactical choices or the fact that you are out of drinks and/or food, it probably wasn't a game you should have played in the first place.

frikandel speciaal
24-02-2014, 14:39
Yeah great, let's dump the tactical play that used to make 40k such a great and emersive game for the last 25 years and have a fun afternoon of rolling dice for a result that was really decided when one of you chose to fill your roster with units that your opponent couldn't deal with.

Never before 6th edition have I turned up to a game of 40k and realised that playing the game was a waste of my time because I had nothing that could damage about half of my opponents army.

No Skyfire units and you're facing an army of 11 night scythes... Yeah, that's going to be a fun game...

You are 100% right. I wouldn't even call it a game no more. It's a huge out of control collection of miniatures with a set of rules. I hate it.

Spiney Norman
24-02-2014, 14:40
Army lists have always had a lot of say in the game though.

My eldar starcannon list played itself. It was in fact all about me bringing 14 starcannons in a 1500 point list. Using it was never really a question. Pick marine unit you need to die. Shoot at it and erase it. Move on to next marine unit.


That may be true, but I never played the game like that, I've always tried to build an army that looks like an army, plenty of infantry, maybe some transports, a few vehicles. But that just doesn't work any more, the game has become all about tailoring your list to the other persons list, or if you don't know it, tailoring to what you think he will bring because you simply cannot outplay someone if you have brought the wrong units.

I turn up for a game and find that 75% of my opponents points consists of A14 bunker networks with Lascannons on top protected by void shielding, my choice is to go into the game knowing that my balanced force doesn't stand any chance of denting it whatsoever because only 6 guns in my army can cause damage to A14, or I could walk from a game I had been looking forward to (and is probably my only chance to play this month).

Fear Ghoul
24-02-2014, 14:43
Army list selection is important, of course, but I'm talking about selecting a take all comers army so that you do get to play a game, and so it is not a case of rock paper scissors. You do of course need the tools to succeed, as well as the skill. There's nothing strange about that. Even if units were balanced it would still be necessary to pick the right ones, and it would be more interesting and fun to do so if the choices were a bit harder.

It is of course true that a strong TAC list will faceroll weak lists but it's irrelevant to my point, which is about tournament play. Rock paper scissors armies do not win tournaments because they inevitably meet something they can't handle. Building a good TAC list is a more difficult thing to do, and you don't get so many free wins, but nor do you get automatic losses. Icedcrow can back me up on this I think, as his rock paper scissors armies in 3rd and 4th didn't result in any tournament wins, while I've won large competitions in every edition since 3rd, starting with best general at the 1999 40k GT.

Are you taking about casual or competitive games? You seem to drift from one to the other.

Again, rock-paper-scissors armies demonstrably win tournaments, as exemplified by Blood Angel Rhino Rush, Eldar Skimmer spam, Imperial Guard Leafblower, Necron Croissantwing, Daemon Flying Circus, Daemon Screamerstar, etc. These lists all exemplify the concept of taking one really hard to counter element of an army and spamming, and all were very successful in their time (indeed some still are).

Vipoid
24-02-2014, 14:45
Sorry, but what is a TAC list?

IcedCrow
24-02-2014, 14:47
s. Icedcrow can back me up on this I think, as his rock paper scissors armies in 3rd and 4th didn't result in any tournament wins, while I've won large competitions in every edition since 3rd, starting with best general at the 1999 40k GT.

This depends on the tourny and your luck.

I won my first 20-man RTT 9 months into the hobby because of my eldar list. That day there were roughly 16 marine armies (mostly blood angels due to their super charged rhinos and the rhino rush being one of the go to tactics of the day), an ork, two tyranids, and me as the sole eldar. I learned this list because five months into the hobby I played my first RTT ever and got tabled by the same eldar list - and dude running it claimed only advanced players could possibly understand how to use such an advanced army as the eldar :shifty: so I took him up on the challenge

I won because I played four rounds against four marine players and tabled all four. Had I gone up against the ork or tyranid players I wouldn't have won the tournament.

This is why I don't like the current tournament structure. I prefer tournaments where if you win you advance, and if you lose you are out (or double elimination tournaments). That way at the end of the day the person that wins truly was the best player that day.

I never won a GT, but I placed high in a handful because of luck of the draw (and I got smacked around at a couple of GTs because I drew mostly the armies that were best able to defeat me). My vampire counts came a roll from placing 5th in chicago (I needed to kill a remaining unit of grail knights, I had 13 attacks needing 3s... missed all my attacks) and my VC won two leagues and several RTTs and local tournaments from luck of the draw (my VC hard counter were armies that were immune to fear as my "tactic" was shoving my bus forward into your most expensive unit and watching you break off the table due to auto break if I won combat (and nothing in the game was stopping four vampires in one unit from winning combat). Against armies immune to fear I was ground down or would win but not table my opponent and thus lose points.

It always came down to luck of the draw, but you'd create a list that you thought could stack the deck in its favor on the meta side. For my eldar, few played them despite the 14 starcannon configuration being so grossly broken (if 1998 had been today, I guarantee you that the starcannon list would be a tournament "thing" unlike then when there was no internet widely used to spread its glorious power) and my Vampire army rarely encountered armies immune to fear (mostly demons or other undead).


Sorry, but what is a TAC list? "Take All Comers"

Polaria
24-02-2014, 14:50
So, why do they even bother with points? If it's not meant to be competitive, then surely it's a lot easier to just omit them entirely and just say 'take what feels right' or any such nonsense; rather than making up point values for every unit and upgrade?

Way back in time there was no points. Then some one figured out that the "points" would be a cool way of figuring out who killed most stuff during the mission. In those days the "mission" was always something story-related and "winning" or "losing" was quite unrevelant as the results of the mission were just indication on how the story would go forward. Then someone figured out that if you don't have time for cool story-arc you can play pick-up games where the mission is simply "kill more points than your opponent does". As soon as someone brought out the words "victory points", people started to pretend that there was some sort of game balance and the "points" were some sort of indication of what was balanced and what not. Still, thats all it is. Make-believe. Pretending. The very fact that the "overpoweredness" of units are argued by saying that they "are too powerfull for their points" means the points are no indicator of anything doing with any sort of competitive environment.

IcedCrow
24-02-2014, 14:52
Historicals (wherein 40k and fantasy are based off of) didn't use points. You fought a battle and a narrator or GM would push the lists you could use and you'd bring that. Meaning if you were fighting the Battle of Whatever, at the Battle of Whatever you could field a list that had 5 units of this, 3 units of this, and this artillery as that was what was present at the battle.

That's where I started.

Jervis actually wrote an article years ago about where points came from, and it wasn't to make the game a competitive game, it was so people could have a kind of framework for creating forces that were roughly equivalent. He also pointed out that the points system would never be perfect since the scenarios would make one unit more valuable in one scenario than it would be in another.

Vipoid
24-02-2014, 14:54
"Take All Comers"

Ah, thank you.

Mandragola
24-02-2014, 14:57
Are you taking about casual or competitive games? You seem to drift from one to the other.

Again, rock-paper-scissors armies demonstrably win tournaments, as exemplified by Blood Angel Rhino Rush, Eldar Skimmer spam, Imperial Guard Leafblower, Necron Croissantwing, Daemon Flying Circus, Daemon Screamerstar, etc. These lists all exemplify the concept of taking one really hard to counter element of an army and spamming, and all were very successful in their time (indeed some still are).

I'm clearly talking about competitive play, as I have been since you said that 40k was a rock paper scissors game and always had been. It is that point that I disagree with.

A Take All Comers list is a list that can beat anyone else's army. It may well fit within one or other "type" of list itself. The two things are not mutually exclusive and I certainly don't think that the best armies are those with one of each unit from a codex. Wave serpent spam is effective as a TAC list because wave serpents are amazing against almost everything, and the gaps in their capability can be filled in fairly easily with other selections from the codex and/or allies. However, armies like this stop being TAC if something appears that they auto-lose to, so for instance flyer spam had its moment in the sun before Tau turned up and shot it down. The meta shifts. It always has, but in 6th it has shifted very quickly, first to chaos, then to Tau and now to Eldar. Escalation totally flips the meta around, since death stars become worthless, but there's a problem in that very few armies can take down a titan in games of under 2000 points before it wrecks their armies.

AngryAngel
24-02-2014, 14:59
So, why do they even bother with points? If it's not meant to be competitive, then surely it's a lot easier to just omit them entirely and just say 'take what feels right' or any such nonsense; rather than making up point values for every unit and upgrade?

This, why even have the illusion of balance if it was and is never meant to be so. If the points matter, it should be at least marginally balanced. If they don't matter, why even bother including them and just give rules for the units and say take what you please to make an enjoyable game ?

Edit: Ah the impossible to remotely balance answer coming from GW, so the cop out defense. Still doesn't answer why even use it if it means so little or next to nothing. It's like competitive gaming in denial, or narrative war gaming that wants to act competitive.

Spiney Norman
24-02-2014, 14:59
So, why do they even bother with points? If it's not meant to be competitive, then surely it's a lot easier to just omit them entirely and just say 'take what feels right' or any such nonsense; rather than making up point values for every unit and upgrade?

Points are designed to make the two sides of a game roughly equal, but its been a while since that was even close to being true for a GW game. Its got to the point where just throwing models down on a table is about as good a way to create two evenly matched armies than bothering to add up your unit points.

Mandragola
24-02-2014, 15:18
This depends on the tourny and your luck.

I won my first 20-man RTT 9 months into the hobby because of my eldar list. That day there were roughly 16 marine armies (mostly blood angels due to their super charged rhinos and the rhino rush being one of the go to tactics of the day), an ork, two tyranids, and me as the sole eldar. I learned this list because five months into the hobby I played my first RTT ever and got tabled by the same eldar list - and dude running it claimed only advanced players could possibly understand how to use such an advanced army as the eldar :shifty: so I took him up on the challenge

I won because I played four rounds against four marine players and tabled all four. Had I gone up against the ork or tyranid players I wouldn't have won the tournament.

This is why I don't like the current tournament structure. I prefer tournaments where if you win you advance, and if you lose you are out (or double elimination tournaments). That way at the end of the day the person that wins truly was the best player that day.

I never won a GT, but I placed high in a handful because of luck of the draw (and I got smacked around at a couple of GTs because I drew mostly the armies that were best able to defeat me). My vampire counts came a roll from placing 5th in chicago (I needed to kill a remaining unit of grail knights, I had 13 attacks needing 3s... missed all my attacks) and my VC won two leagues and several RTTs and local tournaments from luck of the draw (my VC hard counter were armies that were immune to fear as my "tactic" was shoving my bus forward into your most expensive unit and watching you break off the table due to auto break if I won combat (and nothing in the game was stopping four vampires in one unit from winning combat). Against armies immune to fear I was ground down or would win but not table my opponent and thus lose points.

It always came down to luck of the draw, but you'd create a list that you thought could stack the deck in its favor on the meta side. For my eldar, few played them despite the 14 starcannon configuration being so grossly broken (if 1998 had been today, I guarantee you that the starcannon list would be a tournament "thing" unlike then when there was no internet widely used to spread its glorious power) and my Vampire army rarely encountered armies immune to fear (mostly demons or other undead).

Lots of truth here. We had a different approach to list building though. Where you fielded 14 starcannons in 3rd, I fielded none, precisely for the reasons I've been describing, and still never failed to get a massacre (back then a win by >1200vps in 1500 point games) against marines. Back then Eldar would slaughter marines regardless, so there was no need to take special anti-marine guns unless you wanted to table them in turn 2. However my army was able to play against anyone, and in my last game I tabled an ork player with >200 models in his army (90 of which were gretchin, to be fair!).

There are various ways to set up pairings for tournaments, of which random draws are the worst. You want the people at the top to be playing each other, and the people at the bottom to still have fun. Most European tournaments use Swiss pairings, so people on the same points play each other (1st vs 2nd, 3rd vs 4th and so on) at all times through the tournament. That seems to generate both better games, and more "legitimate" winners, as to win an event you have to play against most of the best people there. I've been to several events at GW now where multiple people have won all their games but never played each other, so it becomes pretty hard to choose between them.

It's a shame that the UKGT is no more. There used to be 3 heats of ~150 players each, and a third of us would get into the final. 450 player events were cool. Throne of skulls is a pale imitation.

DoctorTom
24-02-2014, 17:40
Why does GW seem insistent on forcing all these odd-ball units? Datalates, Knights, Inquisition out of the FOC??

$$$$$$$$$$

Russell's teapot
24-02-2014, 17:49
Now the game is more like rock, paper, Scissors, chair, table, car, tree, hat, scarf, gloves, kitchen sink, there is just too much going on to cover every base in the same army which means the game has become all about what you bring instead of how you use what you bring, which is the real problem with it now.

I agree.

It used to be possible to compete with *almost* any army. Now it depends almost entirely on the lists.

I say that as a 4th/5th ed mech vet player, and a DeathWing player.

yabbadabba
24-02-2014, 17:56
The game is getting to the point where you can almost dump whatever models you want on the table and call them an 'army'. That is true, what hasn't changed is your chances of getting a game if you act like a Nob(k).

Choice is good, communication is better. If you and your potential opponent cannot agree on a middle ground, then chances are its a good thing you don't play together. The game should not be seen as a list of things you cannot do but a list of potential things to do.

Talk first. Always.

yabbadabba
24-02-2014, 17:59
We prefer a game, not a money grab with no sense of balance.
Ananiel A touch naive I feel. First, GW games have never really had a sense of balance. Second all business is about money grabbing, especially more than your competitors, its more about how you do it. Finally, GW have never said there is only one way to do your hobby, and if you don't do it they will send the hobby police around.

So, alll in all, this should have absolutely zero impact on you negatively, and should in fact possibly stir your positive creative juices.

gitburna
24-02-2014, 19:16
If someone's going to rock up with say, a bunch of flyers, an army of superheavies or whatever and its clear that one army is vastly outgunned or whatever, why don't you just agree to play a particular scenario that might even things up a little instead of a standard mission. Or ask a neutral 3rd party (a staffer?) for an idea to even things up

Sent from my Nokia 920 using Tapatalk

Menthak
24-02-2014, 19:36
Play it how you want.

Saunders
24-02-2014, 19:51
Let me pop in to the conversation with my perspective as an Eldar (Iyanden) player since earlier 3rd edition. IcedCrow had a good point about the tournament situation then, but I feel that there are some gaps that should be filled in regarding its evolution over the years.

With the revamp of 3rd edition, starcannons on everything and 5-man guardian starcannon teams with stacked wraithlords became synonymous with 'cheese.' In an effort to give eldar players a more fluffy and flavorful alternative to the guardian-centric codex force org, GW released the Craftworld Eldar codex, which was both praised and reviled. It offered 5 alternative lists focusing on the 5 major craftworlds, and if released as a codex supplement in today's day would be a textbook example of how to break balance. Balance for most of these FOCs revolved around rotating units in to different sections, whilst simultaneously offering free perks. The Biel-Tan list became a template for spam as all the aspect warrior entries were moved to the troop section, and ridiculous builds such as fielding 30 dark reapers (a popular one for aspiring listhammer players that eclipsed starcannon spam in notoriety) were usually the result of that. Alaitoc pathfinders had a disruption table to roll on, depending upon how many squads you took. That had the potential to even remove squads from your opponent's list before the game began. The Ulthwe list gave free BS/WS upgrades to two guardian squads, and the potential for a virtually unlimited seer council-single unit-death star with ablative warlocks (warlocks and farseers used to come with a pistol/CCW stock for significant pt savings).

The Craftworld Eldar dex carried the army through Eye of Terror (along with the Ulthwe Strike Force list, a variant of the previous Ulthwe entries) and in to 4th edition. 4th edition saw the release of the new Eldar codex, addressing the ubiquitous starcannon spam by reducing its number of shots and increasing its cost (effectively neutering the option until next codex--yes, it was that heavily abused) and effectively retiring the craftworld lists; the problem was that the next unbalanced eldar build had already arrived from another direction:
http://www.ninjabread.co.uk/images/cheese-falcon-10.jpg
Falcons with holo-fields were made nigh invincible. That lasted until 5th edition as the dejure for eldar tourney players, but the edition change plugged that hole. During 5th edition, the eldar codex showed signs of aging versus newer codicies. It was the era of mechanized parking lots, and eldar transports were expensive. At this time, a new play style evolved that was no more exciting to play against; with the changes to scoring and objectives, eldar became an objectives army at the tournament tier. Competing boiled down to taking minimum squads of jetbikes or dire avengers in falcons or wave serpents, and proceeding to avoid fighting until the final turn rolled about and to play for an objectives grab. That gave rise to such gems as the all reserves list, where the eldar player would opt to go second and deploy nothing on the table.

That foolishness brought us in to 6th edition. Eldar struggled against air power for the first year, but the current codex put an end to that with the omnipotent scatter laser wave serpent. Thusly, we arrive to the present.

Everything comes in cycles, it seems. Codex supplements and special formations are nothing new, as evidenced from the craftworld dex back in 3rd. The current landscape reminds me in no small measure of the wild frontier that was late 3rd edition. As my experiences can attest, this kind of stuff has been going on for as long as I have played. Arguably, it goes even further back. I hear stories from a buddy of mine about his experiences as an eldar player in 2nd edition. Apparently, the game was about as heavily-oriented in a 'rock, paper, scissors' situation back then as it ever will be.

The real difference between 'then' and 'now' is the accessability of the internet.

Navar
24-02-2014, 20:01
A lot of these issues are pretty easily fixed.

Issues with the Imperial Knights or Super Heavies? Then don't play Escalation (am I missing a place where Super Heavies can be brought in a normal game that isn't Escalation?)

I am surprised that no one else pointed this out.

Codex: Knights is a thing, and it should contain all of the rules to play a Knight army.

So YES, you are missing this. This is straight from the latest White Dwarf.

This is one of the most frustrating things about reading posts like the OP.

They are in effect creating an environment where Minotaurs using their Chapter Tactic are banned, but an entire army of Super-Heavy Walkers are allowed.

I am sorry but WTF???


Allies? Request no Allies, I've seen everything from tournaments to just normal play restrict or even forbid allies. And if there is one guy at your group who plays like...well a jerk, odds are he's going to become unpopular pretty quickly. A Necron player at my group is pretty overly reliant on Wraiths (he's refused to play at 2500 because he wants to field 36 Wraiths at that level and doesn't own that many) and he's been having trouble finding people to play with him. You have to decide to play them, don't play with people who act like 'That guy.'

I agree with the rest of this, but it should be taken on a case by case basis (IMHO.) I have said before I have never had a problem finding a fun pick up game with my Forge World army.

I LOVE playing with my Servants of Decay and often that mean losing with my Servants of Decay. In fact I have actually been told before (on these forums) that I shouldn't bother trying to play a Forge World army because Servants of Decay give up too much power over straight Codex: Imperial Guard anyway. I should just use my Traitor Guardsmen and create my list using Codex: IG. Thus (They claim) it would be easier for me to find games, AND my lists would be stronger.

Despite this "fantastic" advise I still have yet to have problems finding games, and having fun playing.

Muad'Dib
24-02-2014, 20:25
A touch naive I feel. First, GW games have never really had a sense of balance.
6th edition fantasy was pretty close to it. While internal balance was bad (elite infantry was a laughable choice, many 'specialist' heroes were useless etc.), external balance was pretty good. There were clear tier 1 lists; but they weren't head and shoulders above tier 2 armies/lists. You had a sense that they were keeping things sane - like not giving basic troops loads of attacks, keeping power of heroes and magic on a leash etc.
Then 7th edition came and they seemed to have changed direction totally - like giving Vampires twice as much allowance of magic items/powers, 2/3+ unconditional ward save to Dark Elves and a literal Abomination to Skavens.....


Edit: Ah the impossible to remotely balance answer coming from GW, so the cop out defense. Still doesn't answer why even use it if it means so little or next to nothing. It's like competitive gaming in denial, or narrative war gaming that wants to act competitive.
Yeah, 40k (and WFB to lesser extent) seem to be weird hybrids with little sensible direction. In a nutshell, the rules development seems to be fully directed by needs of marketing, which isn't good for the game itself.

One clear advantage of perpetually unbalanced point system is that it allows them to selectively make some units over- or underpowered. For example note how the Dreadknight, Wraithknight and Riptide all got top tier rules (I dunno if Trygon and Baledrake were part of this trend?). Same for WFB monstrous cavalry, Imperial Space Marine codices (barring 4th edition Dark Angels), all three Vampire Counts books etc.

One thing it does is that it increases sales - for example by forcing players to update their armies (like when Carnifexes got nerfed to ground in 5th edition). The perpetual imbalance also seems to have created this "WAAC/powergamer vs casual/fluffy players" divide (at least if Warseer is indicative of it?), that might actually be 'good' for the community on some level - Magic the Gathering designers were constantly promoting similar 'typing' of players (the Spike vs Timmy vs Johnny thing), so there must/might be something to it.

Abaraxas
24-02-2014, 20:27
Play it how you want.

This.
I'm not overly keen on the way GW has taken the Warhammer universes and miniatures but credit where credit is due they have always gone out of their way to stipulate that you are free to do what you want with the game and their rules are basically a guideline.

I have always loved 2nd edition 40K, so that's what I play- there is no festering wound of what GW has done to me this week (not directed at the OP or anyone in particular)...as mentioned the game is best played where you have a mutual understanding with your opponent and play with their enjoyment in mind as much as your own.

Like yabadaba alluded to, if I go to play a game of 2nd ed and bring the often maligned 20 strong unit of Wolfguard Terminators with assault cannons and cyclone launchers in my list I'm frankly a D&^#* and I wouldn't expect the other guy to ever want to play a cheesemonger like myself again...a lose lose situation IMO.

AngryAngel
24-02-2014, 22:12
GW is a tricky beast and I can see it causing such conflicting reports for awhile yet to come.

Spiney Norman
25-02-2014, 00:23
This.
I'm not overly keen on the way GW has taken the Warhammer universes and miniatures but credit where credit is due they have always gone out of their way to stipulate that you are free to do what you want with the game and their rules are basically a guideline.

I have always loved 2nd edition 40K, so that's what I play- there is no festering wound of what GW has done to me this week (not directed at the OP or anyone in particular)...as mentioned the game is best played where you have a mutual understanding with your opponent and play with their enjoyment in mind as much as your own.

Like yabadaba alluded to, if I go to play a game of 2nd ed and bring the often maligned 20 strong unit of Wolfguard Terminators with assault cannons and cyclone launchers in my list I'm frankly a D&^#* and I wouldn't expect the other guy to ever want to play a cheesemonger like myself again...a lose lose situation IMO.

Well yeah, as long as you can find some mug to play the game how you want to, or you might just have to compromise slightly and play a little bit of how they want to. Not every gamer out there exists to service your preferences you know.

This is how we wind up with folks who claim they just refuse any game where their opponents doesn't basically just bend over and take whatever abuse you want to send their way.

Abaraxas
25-02-2014, 00:29
Fair enough, I didn't realise it was people like me that have caused things to end up that way...my humble apologies :D

Ssilmath
25-02-2014, 00:33
This is how we wind up with folks who claim they just refuse any game where their opponents doesn't basically just bend over and take whatever abuse you want to send their way.

I haven't seen any of those around, but they seem like real jerks. Let me know when you find one.

IcedCrow
25-02-2014, 00:36
I agree.

It used to be possible to compete with *almost* any army. Now it depends almost entirely on the lists.

I say that as a 4th/5th ed mech vet player, and a DeathWing player.

There has never been such a time where anything could beat anything. The game has always been dominated by 2-3 armies.

baransiege
25-02-2014, 00:37
One clear advantage of perpetually unbalanced point system is that it allows them to selectively make some units over- or underpowered. For example note how the Dreadknight, Wraithknight and Riptide all got top tier rules (I dunno if Trygon and Baledrake were part of this trend?). Same for WFB monstrous cavalry, Imperial Space Marine codices (barring 4th edition Dark Angels), all three Vampire Counts books etc.

There's more than enough examples demonstrating the opposite however - as you mention there's the Dark Angels flyers (and I've also seen some decry the new Knights), Hellbrute, Warp Talons, Mutalex Beast, Ushabti with Great Bows, Sepulchral Stalkers, Ghorgon/Cygor, Seeker Chariots, Hellstriders and more - all new units with fancy new models that came out with comparatively underpowered rules within their books and many internet commentators claiming to be useless.

I think GW have released at least as many toned down new models as they have overpowered ones.

baransiege
25-02-2014, 00:41
Well yeah, as long as you can find some mug to play the game how you want to, or you might just have to compromise slightly and play a little bit of how they want to. Not every gamer out there exists to service your preferences you know.

This is how we wind up with folks who claim they just refuse any game where their opponents doesn't basically just bend over and take whatever abuse you want to send their way.

Yikes all he said was that he liked playing 2nd edition and that a game is there to ensure both players have fun!

If someone plays like a WAAC player with their friends the game will never be balanced - there will always been a more optimal build, a flat out statistically superior list. It's impossible for any system to be a completely level playing field. Self policing behaviour to ensure the enjoyment of your friends is not being detrimental to the hobby.

Abaraxas
25-02-2014, 00:55
Substitute 2nd for 3rd or hey even 5th...what I was getting at is (addressing the GW "force feed") that I think a lot of the arms race is fuelled by the players...once again I'm not looking down my nose or saying WAAC or whatever
is wrong but if like the OP
you are fed up with the cycle/arms race lay down your guns and focus on something you and your group enjoy.

Plenty of people are actually just playing older editions, I'm not talking out my bum here...honest

AngryAngel
25-02-2014, 01:00
At highest level of list designing, sure there were only a few armies that would be there. For the most part my whole time spent playing the game, without start of game peace talks, I've been able to bring what I like and still compete, have a close game and not feel completely hopeless unless I just rolled that bad. Then again I'm not adverse to running some power units from time to time as well in my casual lists.

Ananiel
25-02-2014, 02:22
The problem with 'negotiations' at the FLGS when I am not with my friends (once a month) is space is at a premium. If you spend too much time looking for or negotiating for a game, the table space will be gone. If you don't discuss and then choose to end the game before it starts, whose table is it to look for another opponent? I currently do not play in tournaments, but other organized campaigns and things become difficult when different rules sets are used between participants.

Part of my anger and my post, has to do with the seemingly likely release of another edition in some form shortly. Currently its fairly easy to exclude the elements of the game I would rather do without. But if GW re-releases the BRB w/ Escalation + incorporated, it becomes more difficult to disentangle. It would seem a driving force for this is to achieve just this situation. Rest assured I will make the required effort to do so, but its just a pain and seems vindictive on GW's part.


Ananiel

AngryAngel
25-02-2014, 02:35
I don't think its vindictive. I just don't think the imbalances matter to GW so long as it sells models. As for their games, they'll engage in seemingly hopeless battles without concern, so I guess they figure people don't mind deeply uphill battles. I mean if a game isn't competitive its all about the narrative, some days your the good and other days the bad. I can understand that feeling, but on some level even those who don't think GW is competitive want a competitive game so it makes such things hard to enjoy.

Sir Didymus
25-02-2014, 05:39
The problem with 'negotiations' at the FLGS when I am not with my friends (once a month) is space is at a premium. If you spend too much time looking for or negotiating for a game, the table space will be gone. If you don't discuss and then choose to end the game before it starts, whose table is it to look for another opponent? I currently do not play in tournaments, but other organized campaigns and things become difficult when different rules sets are used between participants.

Part of my anger and my post, has to do with the seemingly likely release of another edition in some form shortly. Currently its fairly easy to exclude the elements of the game I would rather do without. But if GW re-releases the BRB w/ Escalation + incorporated, it becomes more difficult to disentangle. It would seem a driving force for this is to achieve just this situation. Rest assured I will make the required effort to do so, but its just a pain and seems vindictive on GW's part.


Ananiel


Isn't your problem simple to solve? Go make your own gaming table - its not that bard :)

rocdocta
25-02-2014, 07:25
Let me pop in to the conversation with my perspective as an Eldar (Iyanden) player since earlier 3rd edition. IcedCrow had a good point about the tournament situation then, but I feel that there are some gaps that should be filled in regarding its evolution over the years.

With the revamp of 3rd edition, starcannons on everything and 5-man guardian starcannon teams with stacked wraithlords became synonymous with 'cheese.' In an effort to give eldar players a more fluffy and flavorful alternative to the guardian-centric codex force org, GW released the Craftworld Eldar codex, which was both praised and reviled. It offered 5 alternative lists focusing on the 5 major craftworlds, and if released as a codex supplement in today's day would be a textbook example of how to break balance. Balance for most of these FOCs revolved around rotating units in to different sections, whilst simultaneously offering free perks. The Biel-Tan list became a template for spam as all the aspect warrior entries were moved to the troop section, and ridiculous builds such as fielding 30 dark reapers (a popular one for aspiring listhammer players that eclipsed starcannon spam in notoriety) were usually the result of that. Alaitoc pathfinders had a disruption table to roll on, depending upon how many squads you took. That had the potential to even remove squads from your opponent's list before the game began. The Ulthwe list gave free BS/WS upgrades to two guardian squads, and the potential for a virtually unlimited seer council-single unit-death star with ablative warlocks (warlocks and farseers used to come with a pistol/CCW stock for significant pt savings).

The Craftworld Eldar dex carried the army through Eye of Terror (along with the Ulthwe Strike Force list, a variant of the previous Ulthwe entries) and in to 4th edition. 4th edition saw the release of the new Eldar codex, addressing the ubiquitous starcannon spam by reducing its number of shots and increasing its cost (effectively neutering the option until next codex--yes, it was that heavily abused) and effectively retiring the craftworld lists; the problem was that the next unbalanced eldar build had already arrived from another direction:
http://www.ninjabread.co.uk/images/cheese-falcon-10.jpg
Falcons with holo-fields were made nigh invincible. That lasted until 5th edition as the dejure for eldar tourney players, but the edition change plugged that hole. During 5th edition, the eldar codex showed signs of aging versus newer codicies. It was the era of mechanized parking lots, and eldar transports were expensive. At this time, a new play style evolved that was no more exciting to play against; with the changes to scoring and objectives, eldar became an objectives army at the tournament tier. Competing boiled down to taking minimum squads of jetbikes or dire avengers in falcons or wave serpents, and proceeding to avoid fighting until the final turn rolled about and to play for an objectives grab. That gave rise to such gems as the all reserves list, where the eldar player would opt to go second and deploy nothing on the table.

That foolishness brought us in to 6th edition. Eldar struggled against air power for the first year, but the current codex put an end to that with the omnipotent scatter laser wave serpent. Thusly, we arrive to the present.

Everything comes in cycles, it seems. Codex supplements and special formations are nothing new, as evidenced from the craftworld dex back in 3rd. The current landscape reminds me in no small measure of the wild frontier that was late 3rd edition. As my experiences can attest, this kind of stuff has been going on for as long as I have played. Arguably, it goes even further back. I hear stories from a buddy of mine about his experiences as an eldar player in 2nd edition. Apparently, the game was about as heavily-oriented in a 'rock, paper, scissors' situation back then as it ever will be.

The real difference between 'then' and 'now' is the accessability of the internet.

As another old time player (since 94) I agree with this excellent post.

Spiney Norman
25-02-2014, 07:52
Isn't your problem simple to solve? Go make your own gaming table - its not that bard :)

Yeah, and you could turn to vat-growing your own custom opponents who will agree to play whatever kind of game you want, you're somewhat missing the point I think.

Muad'Dib
25-02-2014, 09:40
There's more than enough examples demonstrating the opposite however - as you mention there's the Dark Angels flyers (and I've also seen some decry the new Knights), Hellbrute, Warp Talons, Mutalex Beast, Ushabti with Great Bows, Sepulchral Stalkers, Ghorgon/Cygor, Seeker Chariots, Hellstriders and more - all new units with fancy new models that came out with comparatively underpowered rules within their books and many internet commentators claiming to be useless.

I think GW have released at least as many toned down new models as they have overpowered ones.
Ya, I noted this but didn't give examples/elaborate cause of lack of time. Indeed, GW seems to also have a priority of putting some models into borderline useless level (let's call it tier 4). The WFB Slaaneshi Daemonic Chariots were what made me realized this - all three are gorgeous, new models with mind-numbingly bad rules (chariots with S4 at this cost?) Another clear case was Daemon Prince in 7th edition WFB Daemons - he was decent/average in 6th and lost terror, flying, Marks abilities, Gifts allowance, magic levels; without any cost reduction. Most recent is Dark Elf Black Ark Fleetmaster. A honorable mentions goes to 40k Burning Chariot of Tzeentch - a fast moving fragile vehicle that can't fire when it moves.

One reason why they might be doing this is to effectively scam some people - someone buys the Slaanesh Chariots, finds out how weak they are, and buys other units in order to fill the points. I saw the phrase "my unit ended up sitting on the shelf after the new edition/book" quite often on Warseer. This is done in Magic the Gathering - every new set of cards has several obviously useless cards - even at the rare and mythic rarity levels - so that in order to have a strong or even workable deck, people have to buy more boosters/boxes.

The tier 4 units might also exist in order to appeal to some - imaginary or real - subset of "uber casuals/fluff bunnies" ; or they might exist as part of a strategy to set the power of each book at an intended level.
I wouldn't be surprised if the initial write-ups of GW army books/codices are actually pretty balanced - like tier 2-3. Then they do a development phase of selectively buffing and nerfing some units to tiers 1 and 4. A similar thing is done in Magic the Gathering design. They have a separate team of designers and developers; design team puts forth ideas and initial rules, while development sets the power level. (and other things, like making sure the metagame will be 'healthy')

Mandragola
25-02-2014, 11:37
I find the conspiracy theory stuff kind of hilarious to be honest.

GW does not deliberately mess up its own game. They do it by mistake because they are bad at their job and their play testing is woeful.

One theory I've heard for why this is the case is that play testers have to use their own models, meaning that new stuff inevitably gets tested less and certainly not tested when spammed. I don't know if this is true, as GW is incredibly secretive about how it tests rules, but it would sort of explain why new stuff is so often so imbalanced - in either direction. Of course, it doesn't explain how wave serpent spam got through.

OuroborosTriumphant
25-02-2014, 11:38
Never attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence.

My take? GW is just not very good at estimating how many points something is worth. Things like Wraithguard or Predators or Imperial Guard infantry tend to be pretty balanced in terms of price because they've had several codexes to wobble between "too expensive" and "too cheap" and end up somewhere sensible. The Carnifex is a recent-ish example of this. In 4th, they were far too cheap. In 5th, the pendulum swung the other way and they were far too pricey. Now in 6th, there are a pretty reasonable price; neither so dear nobody takes them nor so cheap that filling all your HS slots with them is compulsory.

New units tend to be far too good (Helldrake) or far too weak (Nephilim) because they haven't had three or four codexes to wobble back and forth to the right price. In 7th ed CSM, the Helldrake will probably be nerfed hard and in 7th ed DA the Nephilim will probably get a really solid buff. In at least one case, I expect them to overshoot and end up too far the other way. They'll then wobble back and forth over a couple of codexes and settle down in the kind of nicely-balanced-but-not-too-good place where Tactical Squads and Leman Russ Battle Tanks sit.

Poseidal
25-02-2014, 12:04
What people really want:

They want to be able to turn up with their army, and play a game that they can participate in with the opponent.

It's not *really* about balance or tournament balance in the end.

"Balance" really comes in when they want their selection of models to be able to be played and do as well (for their points) as another. This is probably where a lot of the Chaos complaints are in, and where the Eldar army list excels, as apart from a few things that are 'too good' (e.g. Wave Serpents) and some bad entries, the majority of that list work really well, and the choice between Dark Reapers, Tanks, Wraithlords, Wraithknights, Support Batteries and War Walkers in the HS section of that list is a very real one, with each having very asymmetric strengths but none being super-efficient or inefficient (there are always some preferable or higher tier ones, but not so much that the others are invalid).

While communication beforehand is great, it sometimes isn't possible and other people may not even get the option from their local environment; especially someone newer who hasn't been there a while to read the mood.

In light of this, taking something too unexpected, especially an army which invalidates (as in, significant parts of a 'balanced' force just don't participate in) parts of an army is kind of rude.

What is maybe needed is a 'polite' system which is a 'limited' format.

Voss
25-02-2014, 13:02
I find the conspiracy theory stuff kind of hilarious to be honest.

GW does not deliberately mess up its own game. They do it by mistake because they are bad at their job and their play testing is woeful.

One theory I've heard for why this is the case is that play testers have to use their own models, meaning that new stuff inevitably gets tested less and certainly not tested when spammed. I don't know if this is true, as GW is incredibly secretive about how it tests rules, but it would sort of explain why new stuff is so often so imbalanced - in either direction. Of course, it doesn't explain how wave serpent spam got through.

I think we can safely file 'play testers are blithering idiots who don't know the word 'proxy'' under outlandish conspiracy theories. Especially since, on balance lately, new stuff has been far less problematic and mostly pretty average.

IcedCrow
25-02-2014, 13:22
Its also that they playtest in the ivory tower. When playing games in a narrative sense the game works great. They don't playtest in the tournament hall where people are trying to break the game. As such - their play testing is great if you are a narrative gamer that plays in a narrative group where people are not actively trying to bust the game.

If you are playing in an environment where players are actively trying to bust the game - their playtesting is horrible. This has been true since the forever ago though. This is the primary reason I stopped playing in environments where we tried to bust the game... its too easy to do.

duffybear1988
25-02-2014, 13:45
There has never been such a time where anything could beat anything. The game has always been dominated by 2-3 armies.

Try 5th edition around the time the IG codex came out. I was on top form and slaughtering everything that came my way, whilst using the outdated and expensive 3rd edition Space Wolves codex to do it. I was regularly racking up wins against nob bikerz, leafblower IG, lash CSM and all the other OP lists in tournament environments. Plus I was using what had to be one of the fluffiest and weakest lists I have ever created.

Admittedly 5th edition still required some player skill. 6th edition is all dumb luck and list building.

Sotek
25-02-2014, 13:45
I find that I'm not enjoying 40k at the moment. Fluff is fine, RPGs are Fine, computer games but TT is a bit 'fleh' due to winning/loosing being primarily determined by your army list and not how good you are.

IcedCrow
25-02-2014, 14:01
I got out of 40k at the beginning of 5th ed and came back at the end, so I cannot comment with full certainty on 5th edition requiring player skill. In the beginning of 5th and the end of 5th I know that list building was still king.

When I came back I saw the monstrosity that was Codex Grey Knights and the legion of Lulz that followed it and almost went back into retirement lol. The tournament hall at the end of 5th edition was a celebration of the color grey: Space Wolves Grey, Grey Knights Grey, and Necrons Grey.


I find that I'm not enjoying 40k at the moment. Fluff is fine, RPGs are Fine, computer games but TT is a bit 'fleh' due to winning/loosing being primarily determined by your army list and not how good you are.

I would be in the same boat with you (and was in the same boat as you) which is why I jumped entirely into narrative play. More specifically - non tournament style playing where the lists aren't ridiculous and you can have some fun close games with a multitude of lists, not just the ones that are tweaked to full optimization.

Otherwise I'd box the game back up and find something else as well.

Navar
25-02-2014, 14:06
I find that I'm not enjoying 40k at the moment. Fluff is fine, RPGs are Fine, computer games but TT is a bit 'fleh' due to winning/loosing being primarily determined by your army list and not how good you are.

It is funny how various metas influence "fun" and the perception of how you win/lose. I have had more fun with 40k since stronghold assault came out (pickup games that is) than I ever did before.

It helps that I REALLY love my 2 main forces (Iron Hands and Servants of Decay) and that Forge World is becoming more and more integrated, but lately the game has just been amazing.

Nkari
25-02-2014, 14:18
Basicly, ive given up of ever finding GW to be balanced.. so nowdays.. I dont really care what you bring as long as it is fluffy.. ie Chaos marines with daemons without using the allies chart or a squad of sisters, a squad of marines, in a otherwise guard army fine.. dont really care.. as long as it makes it a fun game. NEVER will I attend a 40 or fantasy tournament with a serious mind again (not that I have for years but anyways). Thus, dataslates, etc are fun ideas.. the Knights are an AWSOME model rules are a bit ok I guess, would not have minded them costing 25-50 pts more.. but again I dont really care not enough to rage.

But OP you are entiteled to your opinion ofc, but as long as I dont force you to play the way I want, and you dont force me to play the way you want, we can get along.. :P

Spiney Norman
25-02-2014, 14:26
I find that I'm not enjoying 40k at the moment. Fluff is fine, RPGs are Fine, computer games but TT is a bit 'fleh' due to winning/loosing being primarily determined by your army list and not how good you are.

As someone who gets their fun out of the tactical game play I have to agree, close fought games just don't exist currently and almost every game is won or lost in the list building phase, most of the game I play are either a walk in the park and I run my opponent over, or a pointless struggle where I can't even scratch my opponents force and I am destroyed in short order.

Everything has a counter, but there are too many things to include counters for them all in a single list, if you get lucky and build in the right elements you win by a lot, otherwise you don't stand a chance.

williamsond
25-02-2014, 14:31
I really do belive there is a place for dataslates, escalation, fortifications spaming large walkers and deathstar units ... It was called apocolypes.

Fear Ghoul
25-02-2014, 14:57
I'm clearly talking about competitive play, as I have been since you said that 40k was a rock paper scissors game and always had been. It is that point that I disagree with.

And yet you haven't provided any evidence to the contrary. Please explain how the AP system is not the embodiment of rock-paper-scissors?


A Take All Comers list is a list that can beat anyone else's army. It may well fit within one or other "type" of list itself. The two things are not mutually exclusive and I certainly don't think that the best armies are those with one of each unit from a codex. Wave serpent spam is effective as a TAC list because wave serpents are amazing against almost everything, and the gaps in their capability can be filled in fairly easily with other selections from the codex and/or allies. However, armies like this stop being TAC if something appears that they auto-lose to, so for instance flyer spam had its moment in the sun before Tau turned up and shot it down. The meta shifts. It always has, but in 6th it has shifted very quickly, first to chaos, then to Tau and now to Eldar. Escalation totally flips the meta around, since death stars become worthless, but there's a problem in that very few armies can take down a titan in games of under 2000 points before it wrecks their armies.

You clearly don't understand what rock-paper-scissors actually means if you are making statements like the above. Wave Serpent spam and Flyer spam are both examples of the rock-paper-scissors meta in action. There would be no such concept of auto-lose or hard-counter in 40k if the game wasn't predicated on rock-paper-scissors game mechanics.


I agree.

It used to be possible to compete with *almost* any army. Now it depends almost entirely on the lists.

I say that as a 4th/5th ed mech vet player, and a DeathWing player.

No, it has never been possible to compete at the top level with almost any army. If that were the case, then people would know about it and change their lists/armies. the reason they don't is because only half a dozen lists have ever stood any real chance of winning hardcore competitions in 40k at any particular time.


Try 5th edition around the time the IG codex came out. I was on top form and slaughtering everything that came my way, whilst using the outdated and expensive 3rd edition Space Wolves codex to do it. I was regularly racking up wins against nob bikerz, leafblower IG, lash CSM and all the other OP lists in tournament environments. Plus I was using what had to be one of the fluffiest and weakest lists I have ever created.

Admittedly 5th edition still required some player skill. 6th edition is all dumb luck and list building.

The fact that you claim to win against the most WAAC netlists in 5th edition using a codex which was sub-par at release makes me think you're either exaggerating or your opponents were sleeping. I'd like to see how your small army of 3+ guys survived several turns of pie plates from a Leafblower list.


As someone who gets their fun out of the tactical game play I have to agree, close fought games just don't exist currently and almost every game is won or lost in the list building phase, most of the game I play are either a walk in the park and I run my opponent over, or a pointless struggle where I can't even scratch my opponents force and I am destroyed in short order.

Why is this any different from 5th Leafblower?

duffybear1988
25-02-2014, 16:02
The fact that you claim to win against the most WAAC netlists in 5th edition using a codex which was sub-par at release makes me think you're either exaggerating or your opponents were sleeping. I'd like to see how your small army of 3+ guys survived several turns of pie plates from a Leafblower list.

It's not a huge tournament (about 40 players) but I took 3rd place at Cardiff Carnage 2009 with 3rd edition Space Wolves.

I beat 2 IG leafblower lists, an ork nob biker army and a TH/SS bubble wrap space marine army. I lost against the nob biker player who won overall. I would have come second if I had a few more points for painting and conversions. About 3/4 of the armies there were IG leafblower, ork nob bikers and CSM dual lash armies.

It ended up ranked like this -

1) Ork nob biker spam list.
2) CSM lash list.
3) SW balanced list - me.

As for how I survived, there are these things called tactics that I like to make use of every now and then. I also knew the rules for my army, the other armies and the edition like the back of my hand.


My list was something like this -

1 rune priest, 1 wolf guard battle leader, 1 wolf lord, 1 squad of grey hunters, 2 squads of blood claws in rhinos, 1 squad of blood claws in a drop pod, 2 land speeders, 1 whirlwind, a few wolf guard squad leaders, 1 dreadnought, 1 tri-las predator!

As you can see it's totally built for fun.

Inquisitor Engel
25-02-2014, 16:29
I'm a big fan of the digital editions, data slates, mini-codexes and whatnot. Does it unbalance the game? Sometimes, sure, but I think GW is trying to take their games away from being uber competitive and making them more about story and narrative. Tournaments can always have extra restrictions imposed to make them "competitive" but it's way easier to add rules than to take them away for the sake of two buddies having some fun.

Mandragola
25-02-2014, 17:07
And yet you haven't provided any evidence to the contrary. Please explain how the AP system is not the embodiment of rock-paper-scissors?

You clearly don't understand what rock-paper-scissors actually means if you are making statements like the above. Wave Serpent spam and Flyer spam are both examples of the rock-paper-scissors meta in action. There would be no such concept of auto-lose or hard-counter in 40k if the game wasn't predicated on rock-paper-scissors game mechanics.

No, it has never been possible to compete at the top level with almost any army. If that were the case, then people would know about it and change their lists/armies. the reason they don't is because only half a dozen lists have ever stood any real chance of winning hardcore competitions in 40k at any particular time.
Duffybear, you need to understand that your so called "real world" experience is of no value compared to Fear Ghoul's internet wisdom. Why would you think that your experience at a tournament would have any relevance to a discussion of tournament play? As he explains, the only possible way you could record wins against obviously better armies is if your opponents were asleep on the ground - or of course you could be a liar and invented the whole thing. Perhaps you should seek some kind of psychiatric help if you continue to experience these obviously false memories. Please in future learn to repeat standard platitudes parrot fashion about the state of the game.[/sarcasm]

Now let's address some of these points:

I don't understand what you mean by the AP system being the embodiment of rock paper scissors. I thought that stood for armour penetration, which is a rules mechanic that just seems like a pretty normal part of the game.

I do understand what rock paper scissors means. In fact, I can even play the game of rock paper scissors. I see a RPS army as one that will tend to beat some opponents and struggle against others, as oppose to an army that stands an equal chance against everyone. It's possible you mean something different, to do with power levels or "WAAC" play or something, but I don't think a WAAC army is the same thing as an RPS army - indeed I think that a RPS army is a bad way to play. Icedcrow's 14 starcannon army is a perfect example of RPS play, since it's an army that auto-wins against marines but seriously struggles against hordes.

Wave serpent spam is not RPS, because it works fine against all opponents. It's like showing up to a game of rock paper scissors with a chainsaw and cutting everyone else's hand off at the wrist. Played well, it beats everything. Flyer spam is actually more RPS now, since the release of the Tau codex, and so it has gone out of favour.

The point is, a TAC army is not a RPS army. They are designed with a different philosophy. TAC armies don't usually get the easy wins that RPS armies sometimes do, but also don't get "impossible" draws either. The objective of writing a TAC army list is to always give yourself a chance in every game. This also tends to result in having more enjoyable games to play, as you do actually influence the result after you've arrived at the table.

As for competing with different armies, well you sort of can but there's no point pretending all armies are equal, but a good player can get stuff out of them. Towards the end of 3rd edition I wanted to start a new army after playing my Alaitoc for a couple of years, so I got some Tau. This was back during the rhino rush era, with stuff like BA supercharged turn one assault, so Tau weren't thought of as a very good army. I started them as a casual army so I'd have something to use in club games, but actually I found I got pretty good performances out of them. I got a 4th place finish wiht them once at a GT right at the height of the ulthwe and iron warrior silliness at the time. I remember being on table 3 or 4, playing against iron warriors with two IW players on my left and two ulthwe players on my right. Actually that kind of was RPS play on my part, as I'd designed a tau army very specifically to beat IW and ulthwe, since they were so dominant on the scene at the time. Of course, Tau are now one of the top tier lists, after 10 years as underdogs, and other armies are in their position. Still, using a "minority" army and unusual tactics can throw people, especially those who have built very one-dimensional armies.

yabbadabba
25-02-2014, 17:09
Yeah, and you could turn to vat-growing your own custom opponents who will agree to play whatever kind of game you want, you're somewhat missing the point I think. Not really he has a valid point.

Muad'Dib
25-02-2014, 18:26
I find the conspiracy theory stuff kind of hilarious to be honest.

GW does not deliberately mess up its own game. They do it by mistake because they are bad at their job and their play testing is woeful.
How do you explain the nerfs to 7th edition Daemon Prince I described, then? In 6th edition it was a practically never used choice in Hordes of Chaos book; and a mediocre (very good vs armored units) choice in the Storm of Chaos Daemonic Legion list. Then it got hit with 5 nerfs at once; for a long time it was the only lord choice that had less than 100 points to spend on items/Gifts; it's the only entry ever to have no direct benefit from being Marked; they also took it's flying away, despite all models being winged. At the same time the other lord choices - Greater Daemons - got price drops, buffs and customization options.
I just can't reasonably think that this wasn't intentional - why would anyone nerf a non-overpowered unit? This is not being 'bad at their job'...it's someone taking an average unit in army list and mangling it with nerfs until it's sub-par.


One theory I've heard for why this is the case is that play testers have to use their own models, meaning that new stuff inevitably gets tested less and certainly not tested when spammed.
At the level that GW has problems, you really don't need playtesting. Tier 1 and tier 4 choices are just obvious; you don't need playtesting to see most Tyranid bio-artifacts are overcosted Nor you need to playtest a very resilient flier with AP3 flamer to see that it's undercosted.


Never attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence...
In GW's case it's not mere incompetence - it's straight up idiocy/retardation. The crux of my argument are not units that maybe are over- or undercosted by 10-20 %...but those that miss the mark by completely - like Kheradruakh (the Mandrake special character), Burning Chariot of Tzeentch, Pendant of Khaeleth (effectively 2+ or 3+ unconditional ward save that was cheaper than 4+ ward saves of other armies), Pyrovores, most monstrous cavalry in WFB. How do you explain those things?

Remember those rules are written by people who are at experianced in the hobby and who have it as their job. Much of the fluff and rules is even recycled from edition to edition - so how can you believe that they have so little time (or smth) that stuff like Pyrovores or Baledrakes slips through? They had over a decade since the 3rd edition, and they still can't understand that a walking heavy flamers is not worth that much? I have never played or seen a game of 40k and I know it :S.

Mandragola
25-02-2014, 18:40
I have to agree that the mistakes they make are often hard to comprehend. "How could they be so stupid?!" is a phrase that often comes to mind when looking at something like the helldrake. I also agree that you shouldn't really even need to test some of these things to see how badly designed they are - but I still think it demonstrates an awful testing process if they are able to pass through unchanged.

The thing is, there's just no reason for them to do it on purpose. Making units too good, I could understand, if they wanted to sell their new models. That wouldn't be cool but it would make sense. But I honestly cannot see a motivation for a company that sells models to produce rules making those models awful in the game. Surely it means people aren't going to buy them, which is surely bad for GW.

So a conspiracy theory doesn't fit the facts, at least as I understand them. The cock up/conspiracy debate nearly always turns out to be a cock up. To believe in the cock up theory you just need to be able to believe that GW codex writers are so bad at their jobs that they consistently produce rules that are obviously bad, the first time you see them, like say a 140 point 2hp armour 10 vehicle that blows itself up. It's a stretch, but more believable than the idea they are shooting themselves in the foot on purpose.

Slayer-Fan123
25-02-2014, 19:04
I'm not sure how any of this is force feeding. I'm not forced to buy Knights, and I'm not forced to buy Inquisitors. I'm also not forced to buy the Legion Of The Damned Codex coming out, but I plan to do so anyway.

Why? Because it interests me. And clearly the other things and Dataslates interest other people. I don't have an e-reader and never plan to have one, but I think it's a great way to give armies a little boost here and there, or something to take a ridiculously cool unit.
Now all they need to do is release a Necron dataslate dammit.

RanaldLoec
25-02-2014, 19:22
As someone who gets their fun out of the tactical game play I have to agree, close fought games just don't exist currently and almost every game is won or lost in the list building phase, most of the game I play are either a walk in the park and I run my opponent over, or a pointless struggle where I can't even scratch my opponents force and I am destroyed in short order.

Everything has a counter, but there are too many things to include counters for them all in a single list, if you get lucky and build in the right elements you win by a lot, otherwise you don't stand a chance.


So if you find most games are won at the list building stage and a game is either a easy win or a no hope loss.

And you find the game unbalanced in competitive play.

I have a simply question, are you having fun?

To be clear I'm just curious that's all in fact I agree with most of your post.

AngryAngel
25-02-2014, 20:51
Personally speaking, I end up teaching new people a lot of the game, ushering in the new generations of warhammer players. I have a lot of fun, going through it for the first time with them, teaching them the nuances. Helping show the things you need to know and not rose tinting it, or lamenting it. GW games are not a holy grail of fun, but they are still for me enjoyable. They can be as tactical, as you make them. Deep, fun and thrilling. Or as dull, as you allow them to become.

I wish there was a balance, eventually. I wish people were more content to let everyone play their game. I'm blessed enough to have a good group, where we don't comp, feel the need for too much alteration ( aside from your standard poorly written and never faqed rules ) . Somehow I still have the tactical games I used to, for the most part, you always have your blow outs though, such is the curse of dice.

I myself, always have fun however even against a power gamed list, that's how I know I still love warhammer, in spite of its many flaws.

MasterDecoy
25-02-2014, 22:54
Duffybear, you need to understand that your so called "real world" experience is of no value compared to Fear Ghoul's internet wisdom. Why would you think that your experience at a tournament would have any relevance to a discussion of tournament play? As he explains, the only possible way you could record wins against obviously better armies is if your opponents were asleep on the ground - or of course you could be a liar and invented the whole thing. Perhaps you should seek some kind of psychiatric help if you continue to experience these obviously false memories. Please in future learn to repeat standard platitudes parrot fashion about the state of the game.[/sarcasm]

Now let's address some of these points:

I don't understand what you mean by the AP system being the embodiment of rock paper scissors. I thought that stood for armour penetration, which is a rules mechanic that just seems like a pretty normal part of the game.

I do understand what rock paper scissors means. In fact, I can even play the game of rock paper scissors. I see a RPS army as one that will tend to beat some opponents and struggle against others, as oppose to an army that stands an equal chance against everyone. It's possible you mean something different, to do with power levels or "WAAC" play or something, but I don't think a WAAC army is the same thing as an RPS army - indeed I think that a RPS army is a bad way to play. Icedcrow's 14 starcannon army is a perfect example of RPS play, since it's an army that auto-wins against marines but seriously struggles against hordes.

Wave serpent spam is not RPS, because it works fine against all opponents. It's like showing up to a game of rock paper scissors with a chainsaw and cutting everyone else's hand off at the wrist. Played well, it beats everything. Flyer spam is actually more RPS now, since the release of the Tau codex, and so it has gone out of favour.

The point is, a TAC army is not a RPS army. They are designed with a different philosophy. TAC armies don't usually get the easy wins that RPS armies sometimes do, but also don't get "impossible" draws either. The objective of writing a TAC army list is to always give yourself a chance in every game. This also tends to result in having more enjoyable games to play, as you do actually influence the result after you've arrived at the table.

As for competing with different armies, well you sort of can but there's no point pretending all armies are equal, but a good player can get stuff out of them. Towards the end of 3rd edition I wanted to start a new army after playing my Alaitoc for a couple of years, so I got some Tau. This was back during the rhino rush era, with stuff like BA supercharged turn one assault, so Tau weren't thought of as a very good army. I started them as a casual army so I'd have something to use in club games, but actually I found I got pretty good performances out of them. I got a 4th place finish wiht them once at a GT right at the height of the ulthwe and iron warrior silliness at the time. I remember being on table 3 or 4, playing against iron warriors with two IW players on my left and two ulthwe players on my right. Actually that kind of was RPS play on my part, as I'd designed a tau army very specifically to beat IW and ulthwe, since they were so dominant on the scene at the time. Of course, Tau are now one of the top tier lists, after 10 years as underdogs, and other armies are in their position. Still, using a "minority" army and unusual tactics can throw people, especially those who have built very one-dimensional armies.

The ap system is the pure embodiment of rock paper scissors by the shear fact that:

Rock: ap1/2/3 low volume shots beats
Scissors: elite expensive 2+/3+sv with good anti hoard capabilites beats
Paper: high volume low quality troops which beats
Rock: ap1/2/3 low volume shots beats


Wave serpent spam is good because it is both scissors and almost immune to rock.

Sent from my GT-I9507 using Tapatalk

Wesser
25-02-2014, 23:17
How are you any better than GW if you start restricting what people can play?

I would argue that you are worse from a philosophical standpoint.

I have loved playing my servants of decay for years against fluffy and casual lists. Who are you to say "Hey because your preferred army list comes from a Forge World publication then our club won't accept you"?

Leaving aside opinions of what should be released (I'd rather see Chaos Legions, Feral Orks and such get a treatment) there's:

A) All of this stuff that doesn't belong in the context of a Codex is pretty unlikely to be updated to fit new editions. This Means that come 7th edition this stuff will likely be incompatible, broken or useless and they'll stay that way.

B) Restrictions help makes coherent forces and establishes context. Just piling new stuff on Means there are more units, abilities and such you have to take into account (assuming you can remember what iteration of their rules is current) and it just serves to increase complexity more than anything else.

Also there are two sides of the table. Maybe you love that you can build armies almost free from restrictions, but consider what you force may look like to your opponent. The looser restrictions are the less meaningful an army becomes. Combined with the current Allies rules it Means that knowing that you face for instance an "Eldar army" isn't even a piece of information anymore, because it no longer tells you even roughly what you'll be facing. And when the concept of what an enemy's army is then it's no longer a representation of an army but just random pieces of plastic.

In other Words: Restrictions are there to force people to think and keep the game from being boring.....

MasterDecoy
25-02-2014, 23:27
Leaving aside opinions of what should be released (I'd rather see Chaos Legions, Feral Orks and such get a treatment) there's:

A) All of this stuff that doesn't belong in the context of a Codex is pretty unlikely to be updated to fit new editions. This Means that come 7th edition this stuff will likely be incompatible, broken or useless and they'll stay that way.

B) Restrictions help makes coherent forces and establishes context. Just piling new stuff on Means there are more units, abilities and such you have to take into account (assuming you can remember what iteration of their rules is current) and it just serves to increase complexity more than anything else.

Also there are two sides of the table. Maybe you love that you can build armies almost free from restrictions, but consider what you force may look like to your opponent. The looser restrictions are the less meaningful an army becomes. Combined with the current Allies rules it Means that knowing that you face for instance an "Eldar army" isn't even a piece of information anymore, because it no longer tells you even roughly what you'll be facing. And when the concept of what an enemy's army is then it's no longer a representation of an army but just random pieces of plastic.

In other Words: Restrictions are there to force people to think and keep the game from being boring.....

Really just boils down to don't be a dick doesn't it?

Sent from my GT-I9507 using Tapatalk

yabbadabba
25-02-2014, 23:27
In other Words: Restrictions are there to force people to think and keep the game from being boring..... Yes and no. What makes it work is knowing you have the freedoms, but choosing to be restricted, especially by an external factor beyond your direct control. That's what makes restrictions being a good tool to be used on occasion to make games less boring.

Grndhog89
26-02-2014, 00:59
Sorry to break up the band here Iced and Ssil but I can't agree with you on this issue.

I think that escalation, data slates, and allies have absolutely ruined the game. Any semblance of order or an actual game has been lost. GW is literally advocating you mash arbitrary models together and call that an "army." The fact that I can have Eldar and Dark Eldar allies and then a Tau firebase just because.

That isn't a narrative to me. That is "I blindfolded myself and arbitrarily picked minis out of a box until I was told to stop."

In fact this recent trend with 40k has made me afraid to start Warhammer Fantasy. I am fairly confident these trends will spill over into that gaming system and ruin a rather tight system using the same methods that have made 40k devolve into a mash of random models.

MasterDecoy
26-02-2014, 01:04
Sorry to break up the band here Iced and Ssil but I can't agree with you on this issue.

I think that escalation, data slates, and allies have absolutely ruined the game. Any semblance of order or an actual game has been lost. GW is literally advocating you mash arbitrary models together and call that an "army." The fact that I can have Eldar and Dark Eldar allies and then a Tau firebase just because.

That isn't a narrative to me. That is "I blindfolded myself and arbitrarily picked minis out of a box until I was told to stop."

I didn't realize that gw came around to people's houses and pointed a gun to their head until they built an army that makes no sense.

Oh, that's probably because they didn't. Silly me.

Sent from my GT-I9507 using Tapatalk

Grndhog89
26-02-2014, 01:13
I didn't realize that gw came around to people's houses and pointed a gun to their head until they built an army that makes no sense.

Oh, that's probably because they didn't. Silly me.

Sent from my GT-I9507 using Tapatalk

Nice reductio ad absurdum. Despite your attempt to de-legitimize what I said my point still stands. The boundaries of army composition have become non-existent pretty much. This allows for people to put together an "army" that makes little no sense that would be in line with the established fluff.

Grocklock
26-02-2014, 01:24
To the OP. Options are good it is much easyer to keep more people happy when there is a lot of options. For a group as a whole is more willing to choose to disregard a GW rule then create one of there own, and to clarify I mean making up rules for units and assigning them points.

Play the game the way you want to but accept that other people might want to play it differently.
Beings as GW has the ability to provide different ways of playing the game don't belittle them for doing so.

Splen
26-02-2014, 01:27
I was over the moon when they brought back allies into 40k. I remember scouring the 3rd ed rule book in disbelief looking for the allies rules to no avail!
i don't pretend the present rules haven't brought up some pretty stupid combinations (which I won't enumerate here as we all know who the main offenders are), but I think the game is, in general, more healthy for the increased flexibility.

Formerly Wu
26-02-2014, 01:40
Nice reductio ad absurdum. Despite your attempt to de-legitimize what I said my point still stands.
It's not a very good point, though. You're the one making the army list, so it's ultimately your responsibility if you think the result is silly.

If you're trying to police what other people have in their army lists, then good luck, because the intersection of sensible, background-adherent, competitive armies has nearly always been a null set.

MasterDecoy
26-02-2014, 01:47
To the OP. Options are good it is much easyer to keep more people happy when there is a lot of options. For a group as a whole is more willing to choose to disregard a GW rule then create one of there own, and to clarify I mean making up rules for units and assigning them points.

Play the game the way you want to but accept that other people might want to play it differently.
Beings as GW has the ability to provide different ways of playing the game don't belittle them for doing so.

Which is what I said.

Except most of the complaints boil down to either:

we don't use enough terrain and the shooting Armys are op

Or

I/(The people I play with) are dicks with little/no self control and make bizarre army combos/(spam op units) and the game is decided in the last building phase

Which be solved with more terrain or talking to your opponent pre game.

Oddly enough people seem very resistant to doing either of these simple things.

Sent from my GT-I9507 using Tapatalk

IcedCrow
26-02-2014, 03:25
I think that escalation, data slates, and allies have absolutely ruined the game. Any semblance of order or an actual game has been lost. GW is literally advocating you mash arbitrary models together and call that an "army." The fact that I can have Eldar and Dark Eldar allies and then a Tau firebase just because.

Yes, it became a game of little plastic men where you play with whatever plastic men you want using a variety of rules that you may or may not want to use and can choose what to use or not to use. Its a veritable sandbox mode now.

I have no problem with this because I play in a narrative sense where the players I play with make armies that still make narrative sense so I have not come across anything hideous. Nothing more hideous than I used to field when I was a tournament powergamer anyway.

baransiege
26-02-2014, 08:35
In fact this recent trend with 40k has made me afraid to start Warhammer Fantasy. I am fairly confident these trends will spill over into that gaming system and ruin a rather tight system using the same methods that have made 40k devolve into a mash of random models.

From a background perspective, there's not a lot of alliances in Fantasy that can't be justified. Storm of Magic and Triumph and Treachery already allowed you to take components from other armies and there hasn't been a huge uproar about that.

Spiney Norman
26-02-2014, 08:46
Not really he has a valid point.

Not really, as if access to a physical table is the only requirement for a game? Doesn't everyone have access to a kitchen table? It doesn't get around the problem of your time availability vs your opponents availability which is always the biggest concern to me. If you look at the post Sir Did was glibly replying to he was talking about only having the time availability to get to a club once a month to get a game against someone he doesn't know very well. That doesn't sound like the kind of situation where you could invite those people round to your house any time of the week because a.) he doesn't have the time and b.) he doesn't know the opponent well enough.

Saying 'make your own table and all your troubles will be over' is kind of oversimplifying things wouldn't you say? I have my own gaming table, I also attend a club with about 50 members, but of those 50 I'd say there are maybe 5-6 I know well enough (or would want) to invite to my house, then there is stuff like age-appropriateness to consider, a 40 yr old inviting an unrelated 12 yr old round to his house for a game of warhammer is going to look a little suspicious to most people.

Wayshuba
26-02-2014, 09:10
Yes, it became a game of little plastic men where you play with whatever plastic men you want using a variety of rules that you may or may not want to use and can choose what to use or not to use. Its a veritable sandbox mode now.

I have no problem with this because I play in a narrative sense where the players I play with make armies that still make narrative sense so I have not come across anything hideous. Nothing more hideous than I used to field when I was a tournament powergamer anyway.

This works if you are a casual group among regular players (as in RPGs, where the GM decides the common rules used and the regular party players use those rules). The problem is, outside of the tournament scene, most people who play the game casually do so at their local FLGS or gaming club where multiple players may be playing with completely different sets of rules.

Consider this example. You have a Saturday afternoon free where you go to your local FLGS to get in a game of 40k. You meet another gamer there who is up for it. You don't like the Escalation rules. The first thing he takes out of his Eldar army box is a Titan, as he does like the rules. Now what? You can refuse to play but there are not other 40k players around at the time or he can redesign his army to include another 900 pts. or non-Escalation units - but then tells you he didn't bring enough for that. Alternatively, he did bring enough for that an promptly puts down an Iyanden Ghost Warriors army, to which you say that is not allowed in the Eldar Codex, but he shows you the Iyanden Digital Supplement (which for sake of this example, you don't own) and shows you it is.

So, while I agree that the "options" are good among a regular group of casual players - that is not how most people actually play 40k, and thus why the current format is terrible. This format works for RPGs - it is a lousy format for tabletop wargames. Not to mention how haphazardly it is being down now. Some have official printed supplements, we also have digital dataslates and codex supplements, yet further we have rules from White Dwarf (as with the Imperial Knights). Rules are coming from everywhere now and the system is bogging down under its own weight.

On a related point I will also say this. I do not find it coincidental that since December of last year, the sheer volume of these supplements and dataslates has gone into very high gear right as they are announcing a dramatic decline in sales. Increasingly, as with the Stronghold Assault and Escalation supplements, it is very obvious these things are rushed and strictly meant to sell the more obscure (and expensive) models in the GW line. GW's customer base is retreating fast, as the last financials show. What they are doing is trying to milk more cash from their dwindling base fast while, in my opinion, beginning to actually cause a lot of harm to the game which will produce the opposite effect.

Russell's teapot
26-02-2014, 09:12
I think that escalation, data slates, and allies have absolutely ruined the game. Any semblance of order or an actual game has been lost. GW is literally advocating you mash arbitrary models together and call that an "army." The fact that I can have Eldar and Dark Eldar allies and then a Tau firebase just because.

That isn't a narrative to me. That is "I blindfolded myself and arbitrarily picked minis out of a box until I was told to stop."

I think that the ideas behind allies/dataslates/etc rule are very good. You say it means people can pick unfluffy armies. I say it means people can pick fluffy armies, such as Inquisition armies (IG/=][=/dash of SM or GK), eldar raider armies (E/DE), dark alliance armies (CSM/CD/IG) and so on. So in theory I like the changes.

Unfortunately they don't appear to be released as part of a combined approach rules system. I imagine that the 6th ed rulebook wasn't designed to cope with these things (and as a competent games system it can't in my opinion), and these additions do not seem to be properly playtested (if at all), but are rather pushed out by GW with an eye of their cashflows.

The net effect of all this is that many people are playing different games under the banner of 6th. Under every previous edition, very little "houseruling" was required, the rules (while not particularly tight, nor well written) were servicable enought that any player could walk into any FLGS find an opponent and play a game of 40k. Now there are different "houserules" between different regions, FLGS, informal groups, and even players. This is leading to a break up of 40k such that there are many different sub-games all under the banner of 40k, and without fore-knowledge of which "type" of game is being played in any gaming group, a simple pick up game of 40k is no longer possible.

This is to the detriment of everyone in the game, as the larger a pool of players playing your game, the more inclined you are to play it. Many people who I used to play 40k with from previous additions simpley can't be bothered going through the ritual of working out what houserules can/should/would be implemented, because everyone has different ideas and disagreements over toy soldiers is an unedifying experience which noone walks away from with any dignity.

So people who used to play 40k now play other gaming systems where you can simpley make a list, turn up somewhere & play a game against anyone you like. This appears to be happening not just in my region, but across the world - you see the same thing in thread after thread & forum after forum, and GW's woeful results over the last 12 months have shown this in action.

As I've previously said, as gamers, we want a game where you can rock up anywhere with an army & play the game where you can compete (and note that my interpretation of compete =/= auto-win or ROFLstomp as others appear to have interpreted my comments, but have a game where you have a shot at winning even against odds which look difficult, and often lead to games which are a better experience to learn from or remember). 6th ed as it stands does not provide that experience.


EDIT: hmm, Wayshuba, well said

Pawn of Decay
26-02-2014, 09:25
Why doesn't it? The game has options now, but at the end of the day that is all they are. Design your army how you want to play. Factor in which ever of the cool rules you want to use, and then go play. Does it really matter if your opposition brings something like a Titan? Enjoy the game. That is what it is after all. Do everything in your power to take the bugger down.

If the game doesn't last long and wasn't a lot of fun for you then chat to the bloke afterwards. Maybe arrange a game for the next week where he doesn't bring the cool Titan. Maybe he didn't like you using Void Shields, or a certain data slate because it sucked some of the fun from the game for him. The situation isn't all one sided. What you decide to take, others may not like or may feel that it takes some of the fun away.

At the end of the day you can take what ever army list you want and have a great game against what ever they take. There is so much choice at the moment that you can play any style of game you want. It is down to the players on how the game pans out.

I am a tournament player. I like the top end lists and broken style of gaming. I like the options to take some dirty army that has the ability to crush things in a tournament scene and gives me the best chance of winning. But I also understand that not everyone is like that. If I end up in a situation where someone comes down to our club and wants a game of 40k and I am the only one not playing, I will happily give him a game. If i only have my tournament army with me I will play the game differently and make sure we each enjoy it. That is the main principle of the game.

Russell's teapot
26-02-2014, 09:30
If the game doesn't last long and wasn't a lot of fun for you then chat to the bloke afterwards.

I think that this sums up my problem with the game as it stands for pick up games.

Pawn of Decay
26-02-2014, 09:39
I think that this sums up my problem with the game as it stands for pick up games.

Why is that an issue? It is no different to 5th edition or 4th edition. If you turned up to the store and the bloke took out his Purifier Spam army and tabled you in 2 turns I would suggest the same thing. If you didn't enjoy it then have a chat to him afterwards and arrange a game that maybe you both will enjoy.

Being tabled or tabling someone quickly isn't fun for either side. Just because boring.

Wesser
26-02-2014, 09:40
From a background perspective, there's not a lot of alliances in Fantasy that can't be justified. Storm of Magic and Triumph and Treachery already allowed you to take components from other armies and there hasn't been a huge uproar about that.

Well, ONE alliance can make for a narrative for a single battle if you wish to try something different. It is when it comes up in each and every game that all narrative and identity is lost. You could have the most beatifully painted miniatures, but if you faced me in a tournament I'd tell anyone hogwashing different armies or strange add-on units (Plague Zombies manning uad guns for instance) together that their army looks like raw undiluted crap.


As for the Fantasy examples you mention. They are already forgotten at least in my area. The shop keeps the books in the storage, presumable to throw them at county politicians passing by. There was no uproar because noone wanted to play it

Wesser
26-02-2014, 09:41
This works if you are a casual group among regular players (as in RPGs, where the GM decides the common rules used and the regular party players use those rules). The problem is, outside of the tournament scene, most people who play the game casually do so at their local FLGS or gaming club where multiple players may be playing with completely different sets of rules.

Consider this example. You have a Saturday afternoon free where you go to your local FLGS to get in a game of 40k. You meet another gamer there who is up for it. You don't like the Escalation rules. The first thing he takes out of his Eldar army box is a Titan, as he does like the rules. Now what? You can refuse to play but there are not other 40k players around at the time or he can redesign his army to include another 900 pts. or non-Escalation units - but then tells you he didn't bring enough for that. Alternatively, he did bring enough for that an promptly puts down an Iyanden Ghost Warriors army, to which you say that is not allowed in the Eldar Codex, but he shows you the Iyanden Digital Supplement (which for sake of this example, you don't own) and shows you it is.

So, while I agree that the "options" are good among a regular group of casual players - that is not how most people actually play 40k, and thus why the current format is terrible. This format works for RPGs - it is a lousy format for tabletop wargames. Not to mention how haphazardly it is being down now. Some have official printed supplements, we also have digital dataslates and codex supplements, yet further we have rules from White Dwarf (as with the Imperial Knights). Rules are coming from everywhere now and the system is bogging down under its own weight.

On a related point I will also say this. I do not find it coincidental that since December of last year, the sheer volume of these supplements and dataslates has gone into very high gear right as they are announcing a dramatic decline in sales. Increasingly, as with the Stronghold Assault and Escalation supplements, it is very obvious these things are rushed and strictly meant to sell the more obscure (and expensive) models in the GW line. GW's customer base is retreating fast, as the last financials show. What they are doing is trying to milk more cash from their dwindling base fast while, in my opinion, beginning to actually cause a lot of harm to the game which will produce the opposite effect.

Also this. He said it better than I did....

Pawn of Decay
26-02-2014, 09:42
Well, ONE alliance can make for a narrative for a single battle if you wish to try something different. It is when it comes up in each and every game that all narrative and identity is lost. You could have the most beatifully painted miniatures, but if you faced me in a tournament I'd tell anyone hogwashing different armies or strange add-on units (Plague Zombies manning uad guns for instance) together that their army looks like raw undiluted crap.


As for the Fantasy examples you mention. They are already forgotten at least in my area. The shop keeps the books in the storage, presumable to throw them at county politicians passing by. There was no uproar because noone wanted to play it


So because of how someone wants to play in a tournament using the best options they have, if it doesn't fit with your idea of the 40k universe you will tell them their army looks like raw undiluted crap? Regardless of how many hours they have spent making it look nice?

Says a lot more about you than about your opposition.

Russell's teapot
26-02-2014, 09:54
Why is that an issue? It is no different to 5th edition or 4th edition. If you turned up to the store and the bloke took out his Purifier Spam army and tabled you in 2 turns I would suggest the same thing. If you didn't enjoy it then have a chat to him afterwards and arrange a game that maybe you both will enjoy.

Being tabled or tabling someone quickly isn't fun for either side. Just because boring.

Beause before agreeing to a game under 4th or 5th you asked "fluffy or competitive". A simple question with a simple decision of whether to play that person or not & save yourself an hour and a half of a mismatch.

Now you need to run through a checklist...

Pawn of Decay
26-02-2014, 09:57
Beause before agreeing to a game under 4th or 5th you asked "fluffy or competitive". A simple question with a simple decision of whether to play that person or not & save yourself an hour and a half of a mismatch.

Now you need to run through a checklist...

Not really. If you don't want to always play Escalation then the question becomes Escalation or Not? If you don't want to use Data Slates it is Data Slates or not? The question may change slightly but the principle is the same. If your opposition is someone who uses Escalation, Stronghold Assault, Primary Detachment, Allies and a Formation in every game then it might be a bit different, but hardly likely for the majority of people.

You are also talking about pick up games at a shop. If someone has taken their tournament list down because they would like to use and practice, the question of competitive or fluffy becomes as null and void as the escalation argument. If they have only bought down the models for that list you are stuck with the same problem. Either don't play or do something you might not have wanted to do?

This certainly isn't something new.

Russell's teapot
26-02-2014, 10:08
Not really. If you don't want to always play Escalation then the question becomes Escalation or Not? If you don't want to use Data Slates it is Data Slates or not? The question may change slightly but the principle is the same. If your opposition is someone who uses Escalation, Stronghold Assault, Primary Detachment, Allies and a Formation in every game then it might be a bit different, but hardly likely for the majority of people.

You are also talking about pick up games at a shop.

Yes, I am, and I point to you my previous post.
http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?390336-Why-the-GW-force-feed-(Rant)&p=7084114&viewfull=1#post7084114


If someone has taken their tournament list down because they would like to use and practice, the question of competitive or fluffy becomes as null and void as the escalation argument. If they have only bought down the models for that list you are stuck with the same problem. Either don't play or do something you might not have wanted to do?

Wouldn't you have already arranged that game, or be in an environment where people undertand that's what you're doing? So yeah, I don't see an issue here. I too used to be a competitive 40k player. Under 4th or 5th if I was wanting to playtest a tourney army I would arrange it beforehand, or if there was only a pick up game available with somone who wanted a non-balls-out game, I would pull out the non-hardcore list I had with me that used primarily the same models.


This certainly isn't something new.

No it isn't, but it is far more complex an arrangement. Which is entirely my point.

Pawn of Decay
26-02-2014, 10:54
That may be your point. I am just not agreeing with you. Why is it any different to if you want to use Escalation arrange that the week before? Same as in the old edition if you want to use a Tournament list to test it arrange that the week before?

That was your point surely? If in the previous edition I wanted to test out my tournament style army I would surely have arranged that game previously. Well in this edition if I want to use Escalation, or don't want to fight against Escalation why can't the same thing happen? Just arrange it the week before. I can't see how that is any more difficult now than it was previously?

If you end up with a pick up game it isn't always as straight forward as my Competitive Tournament Army uses the majority of the same models as my none beardy competitive army. If I haven't bought the rest of my models down the pick up game would have had to have been using the tournament army or not playing?

Crimson Reaver
26-02-2014, 12:07
As it stands, I don't see the difference between being tabled by someone using a variety of Dataslate units and other oddball stuff that wasn't part of 40K previously, and getting tabled by someone who brought a powerlist to a game in 4th or 5th Edition. I'd actually prefer the former, because I know if I played that opponent again I have a bigger toolbox myself to go to and come up with some ideas to counter the Titan/Superheavy/etc with. There were some matchups in previous editions which were just pointless, given the power disparity, or very samey in terms of how they played. For my sins, I've used Rhino Rush and Eldar Skimmer objective denial at various points. I won a fair few games, but there wasn't much my opponent could do and it sucked the fun out of the game. This tended to repeat itself whenever we played, because my opponent couldn't suddenly hunt for a different unit from outside of the original Codex to change the gameplan.

Which isn't to say that 6th Edition is perfect (far from it) or that it couldn't do with a cleanup for 7th Edition this year (I'd be happy to see that) but I don't think that the situation now is more extreme than we've seen previously, things are just out of kilter in a fashion we're not used to as Allies have been out of the game for 15+ years.

Out of interest (and this is in no way intended to be a criticism), I'm surprised that a "competitive" and a "fluffy" army can be built mostly out of the same models. I've found that making that shift required wholesale replacement/re-jigging of models and units, so coming along to a venue prepared to go either way required around 1.5 times as many things as I've normally have if playing a focused list. My Salamanders made a massive jump in power when I used to add the Land Raider, Hammernators and Librarian with Terminator Armour and a Storm Shield, paid for by skimping on everything else and leaving 30+ Tactical Marines on the shelf.

Overall, I'm cautiously optimistic, having more choice and cool models is great, but GW have never been great at balance and I don't expect them to start any time soon.

Oakenshield
26-02-2014, 13:20
Scared by a lack of balance in a game of Warhammer 40,000?

I've...seen things you wouldn't believe.

I've seen Tyranid Warriors armed with Vortex Grenades and Power Fists.

Harlequin Land Raiders on fire on the fields of Stalinvast.

I watched Macro Cannons wipe out powerboard riding Space Marines.

I've seen armies destroyed by single virulent grenades because of a lack of filters written on a scrap of paper.

All these...gaming events...will be lost in time, like a frother's tears.

Time to die.

Or go to the pub for a drink with your opponent.

Horus38
26-02-2014, 13:34
Scared by a lack of balance in a game of Warhammer 40,000?

I've...seen things you wouldn't believe.

I've seen Tyranid Warriors armed with Vortex Grenades and Power Fists.

Harlequin Land Raiders on fire on the fields of Stalinvast.

I watched Macro Cannons wipe out powerboard riding Space Marines.

I've seen armies destroyed by single virulent grenades because of a lack of filters written on a scrap of paper.

All these...gaming events...will be lost in time, like a frother's tears.

Time to die.

Or go to the pub for a drink with your opponent.

Oakenshield be winning this thread now :D

IcedCrow
26-02-2014, 13:40
This works if you are a casual group among regular players (as in RPGs, where the GM decides the common rules used and the regular party players use those rules). The problem is, outside of the tournament scene, most people who play the game casually do so at their local FLGS or gaming club where multiple players may be playing with completely different sets of rules.

Consider this example. You have a Saturday afternoon free where you go to your local FLGS to get in a game of 40k. You meet another gamer there who is up for it. You don't like the Escalation rules. The first thing he takes out of his Eldar army box is a Titan, as he does like the rules. Now what? You can refuse to play but there are not other 40k players around at the time or he can redesign his army to include another 900 pts. or non-Escalation units - but then tells you he didn't bring enough for that. Alternatively, he did bring enough for that an promptly puts down an Iyanden Ghost Warriors army, to which you say that is not allowed in the Eldar Codex, but he shows you the Iyanden Digital Supplement (which for sake of this example, you don't own) and shows you it is.

So, while I agree that the "options" are good among a regular group of casual players - that is not how most people actually play 40k, and thus why the current format is terrible. This format works for RPGs - it is a lousy format for tabletop wargames. Not to mention how haphazardly it is being down now. Some have official printed supplements, we also have digital dataslates and codex supplements, yet further we have rules from White Dwarf (as with the Imperial Knights). Rules are coming from everywhere now and the system is bogging down under its own weight.

On a related point I will also say this. I do not find it coincidental that since December of last year, the sheer volume of these supplements and dataslates has gone into very high gear right as they are announcing a dramatic decline in sales. Increasingly, as with the Stronghold Assault and Escalation supplements, it is very obvious these things are rushed and strictly meant to sell the more obscure (and expensive) models in the GW line. GW's customer base is retreating fast, as the last financials show. What they are doing is trying to milk more cash from their dwindling base fast while, in my opinion, beginning to actually cause a lot of harm to the game which will produce the opposite effect.

We have five different groups that play in five different stores where I am, to include a GW store. None of the groups play like you have described. The GW store has a lot of people that don't know each other either so they aren't close friends or regulars (there are regulars there as well but I'm saying that there are a lot of people that don't know each other)

So when we say that that is not how most pepole actually play 40k, I am hesitant to accept that as face value because in my experience, how I stated it is exactly how most people are playing 40k.

What is being proposed on the internet is that everyone is rigid and unbending and that they show up to a store with one army roster and then they force that roster on people. That's simply not the case.

I've seen the eldar army come in with the titan. The player said "I have an eldar army can I get in a game? I can do escalation, I can do a standard game, I can do whatever." And then another guy said "sure let's do this" and then they played. They didn't know each other. That was a couple weeks ago. No giant check list to go through. no 30 minute summit meeting to discuss the rules. The internet makes things way more difficult than reality.


Alternatively, he did bring enough for that an promptly puts down an Iyanden Ghost Warriors army, to which you say that is not allowed in the Eldar Codex, but he shows you the Iyanden Digital Supplement (which for sake of this example, you don't own) and shows you it is.

I am emphasizing this because it seems that your standard is no supplements, and that supplements bother you and that if its not out of the core rulebook or core codex then that brings about negative feelings of somekind (I'm not saying huge negative feelings or rage or anything like that, just your wording indicates that the presence of outside of the core rulebook bothers you)

In your scenario if dude shows up with an Iyanden supplement army and you don't want to play against it, you simply don't play against it. If dude shows up with a titan and you don't want to play against it you don't play against it. 90% of the players I'm seeing walk into the GW store here have several lists.

This sounds to me based off of my limited info like hating on options because you don't like options and you don't like the fact that someone may show up to the store wanting to play with them.

Also, vast arrays of options were common in 3rd and some of 4th. White Dwarf pumped out optional rules all the time which were condensed into an annual "Chapter Approved" book. I have four of them on my bookshelf. They stopped doing this around 4th edition and have now resumed. To this I say - awesome.

I don't care about the GW financials. People have been talking about the death of GW since I started playing in the 90s. I don't care that they are pushing things out to make money. That's what companies do. I dont buy games based on the business practice of the publishers, I buy into games based on if I enjoy them or not.

IcedCrow
26-02-2014, 13:42
Beause before agreeing to a game under 4th or 5th you asked "fluffy or competitive". A simple question with a simple decision of whether to play that person or not & save yourself an hour and a half of a mismatch.

Now you need to run through a checklist...

Its still a fairly simple question:

"Casual - can we not use any supplements?" - 5 seconds

People make things much more difficult than they really are.

Talk about how the options unbalance the game?

Come on guys really? lol really? There has since the dawn of 40k been codex units that shatter the game's balance. I've seen very little from the options provided that shatter the game's balance as much as certain codex units.

duffybear1988
26-02-2014, 14:14
Also, vast arrays of options were common in 3rd and some of 4th. White Dwarf pumped out optional rules all the time which were condensed into an annual "Chapter Approved" book. I have four of them on my bookshelf. They stopped doing this around 4th edition and have now resumed. To this I say - awesome.

Ah yes the problem now is that there is no condensed book containing all the new rules for that year. if there was I probably wouldn't moan as much as I do! Instead we are left paying 5+ for a few digital pages of rules and fluff each time. Personally I would much rather have a condensed yearly hard copy book for under 20 as we used to have. Also they sometimes used to listen to players and make adjustments - we don't see any of that these days.

IcedCrow
26-02-2014, 14:18
That's what I believe the "7th edition" is going to be. The return of Chapter Approved.

Pawn of Decay
26-02-2014, 14:34
Ah yes the problem now is that there is no condensed book containing all the new rules for that year. if there was I probably wouldn't moan as much as I do! Instead we are left paying 5+ for a few digital pages of rules and fluff each time. Personally I would much rather have a condensed yearly hard copy book for under 20 as we used to have. Also they sometimes used to listen to players and make adjustments - we don't see any of that these days.

We may certainly end up with this. Would make a lot of sense on GW's part. It is also something that will very probably sell. I know I would buy it. The cost of it may not be under 20, but the principle may well be the same.

williamsond
26-02-2014, 14:59
yup that would be a great idea, the old chapter approved "annuals" of the late 80's early 90's were a great product and I for one would buy something like this.

Wesser
26-02-2014, 15:00
So because of how someone wants to play in a tournament using the best options they have, if it doesn't fit with your idea of the 40k universe you will tell them their army looks like raw undiluted crap? Regardless of how many hours they have spent making it look nice?

Says a lot more about you than about your opposition.

Shrug, I'll admit it's my opinion and naught more.

Armies with Allies can't look good. The feel will be off. And it feels like compensating.

It sucks to play against and can really drain any joy from me just to look at it. Why shouldn't I come Down hard on something that kills my gaming experience?

Pawn of Decay
26-02-2014, 15:05
Shrug, I'll admit it's my opinion and naught more.

Armies with Allies can't look good. The feel will be off. And it feels like compensating.

It sucks to play against and can really drain any joy from me just to look at it. Why shouldn't I come Down hard on something that kills my gaming experience?

Why shouldn't you come down hard on something that kills your gaming experience in a tournament environment you mean? It is a whole different thing to not want to play against that kind of thing on a day to day basis, and you can talk and agree with your opposition about it. However if you are going to a tournament what gives you the right to come down hard on someone else for playing within the rules of the event?

Maybe them being able to field something like is fun for them. Armies with allies can look amazing. A Chaos Space marines army allied to a contingent of Renegade Guardsmen. How does that no look good. Why does that seem off? It is exactly the sort of thing you would expect. Would fit within the Background of 40k quite nicely.

Having a blanket statement like that is just idiotic. If you don't want the possibilty of facing off against an army which will optomise his choices and take what he would like to field then don't attend events like that. If you chose to attend the event anyway you don't have any right to come down hard and make someone field bad for what they have taken.

Mandragola
26-02-2014, 15:06
Well maybe they will do a one-click collection...

I've got nothing at all against variety. My problem is with the implementation in this case. More good rules would be good, but more bad rules are bad.

The new knights are a good example of this. I think they are really cool, and individually they should be fine in-game, but 4 of them as a 1500 point army is weird. I'm forced to wonder if they ever actually tried it out, and what happened when they did.

duffybear1988
26-02-2014, 15:44
Well maybe they will do a one-click collection...

I've got nothing at all against variety. My problem is with the implementation in this case. More good rules would be good, but more bad rules are bad.

The new knights are a good example of this. I think they are really cool, and individually they should be fine in-game, but 4 of them as a 1500 point army is weird. I'm forced to wonder if they ever actually tried it out, and what happened when they did.

I can just imagine them playing 4 knights vs a horde of termagaunts with no chance of damaging them and calling it a 'good fun' game. They live in a different world...

As for a one click deal - could you imagine the price if they combined all the dataslates and ebooks for the last 12 months!? The cost would be 100+ in hardback.

Ssilmath
26-02-2014, 16:08
I can just imagine them playing 4 knights vs a horde of termagaunts with no chance of damaging them and calling it a 'good fun' game. They live in a different world...

As for a one click deal - could you imagine the price if they combined all the dataslates and ebooks for the last 12 months!? The cost would be 100+ in hardback.

What is this, Pokemon? Once two gamers lock eyes, they must play? If I've got an army of Hormagaunts and somebody wants to play 4 Knights against them...I say no.

duffybear1988
26-02-2014, 16:16
What is this, Pokemon? Once two gamers lock eyes, they must play? If I've got an army of Hormagaunts and somebody wants to play 4 Knights against them...I say no.

Say what now?

I'm referring to the crazy thought processes of the GW design team. They have this ability to equate fun with any old randomness. They often come up with these crackpot schemes and battles where one side has little or no real chance of winning and do it because it's fun. To me that isn't fun.

As for it being like Pokemon, well it can be! We used to have a league table and if you were one of the top players you got challenged 2 or 3 times a week and couldn't refuse a game. Everyone was involved in the league and even the fun gamers were doing their fair share of challenging. Some people like that style of game - not necessarily hyper competitive with cheesy netlists, but not the so laid back you're horizontal lot either.

Ssilmath
26-02-2014, 16:18
Say what now?

I'm referring to the crazy thought processes of the GW design team. They have this ability to equate fun with any old randomness. They often come up with these crackpot schemes and battles where one side has little or no real chance of winning and do it because it's fun. To me that isn't fun.

Why in the world would they expect somebody running mostly Gaunts to play against somebody with 4 Knights? If one side doesn't really have a chance of winning, don't play. It's really very simple. Go find somebody who'll be able to have a fun game against 4 Knights, and play them.

Wayshuba
26-02-2014, 17:24
I am emphasizing this because it seems that your standard is no supplements, and that supplements bother you and that if its not out of the core rulebook or core codex then that brings about negative feelings of somekind (I'm not saying huge negative feelings or rage or anything like that, just your wording indicates that the presence of outside of the core rulebook bothers you)

I don't mind the supplements, but your example also shows the issue. It's bad enough for some people (especially new players) to get a base army ready. Never mind walking around with 12 variants "just in case"... So we have Stronghold Assault, a plethora of dataslates, digital codex supplements, and White Dwarf rules. So most are going to be walking around with multiple lists, just in case.

The Chapter Approved (and like minded Warhammer Chronicles) were good supplements, but it wasn't quite the same as what is happening now. While they presented options, or rules amendments/advancements) it wasn't the barrage it is now. Then you had something once a month come out and then usually collected into an annual later. Now we have things coming out every other day. Big difference.

Again, I am not against options, but the way those options are being delivered now is a complete mess that seems to have no strategic direction behind it at all.


I don't care about the GW financials. People have been talking about the death of GW since I started playing in the 90s. I don't care that they are pushing things out to make money. That's what companies do. I dont buy games based on the business practice of the publishers, I buy into games based on if I enjoy them or not.

I've been involved in GW games since the 80s, in their very early years. I have not witnessed mass discussion about the death of GW until the last few years (outside of rants about cheese and whatnot). I was also around when today's discussions about GW mimic those being discussed about TSR during Second Edition AD&D days. People then were saying they would always be around - they are the market leader - they have the D&D brand, they have been around since the 70s, etc. etc. Two years after that... WoTC purchased them because they were in dire straights. Luckily, Peter Adkinson, then CEO of WoTC, loved D&D because the financials made TSR very unattractive. Why I bring this point up is a double-digit drop in sales, combined with a drastically increased product release schedule, and a hefty reduction in cash on hand is actually a very troubling sign. One that could escalate downward very quickly.

IcedCrow
26-02-2014, 17:30
Perhaps you've been fortunate then? The GW is going to die any day due to price gouging arguments happened to me on day 1 of entering the hobby. I picked up a box of the new 20 plastic skeletons for $20 and a guy ranted about how ridiculous GW had gotten with their prices and that people wouldn't be playing their game pretty soon because no one could afford it.

It has been a steady stream of that since then for me.

I just don't see what you are advocating being a part of what is going on in the scene. At least in my region of a handful of cities where we intermingle. There are some guys that complain on facebook about it but in practice all of our games, from events, campaigns, to random pick ups, run very smoothly.

Navar
26-02-2014, 17:31
[W]e have things coming out every other day.

What came out in the last 2 days? I missed it would would like to know where I can buy it (if it is something that interests me.)

insectum7
26-02-2014, 17:36
I can just imagine them playing 4 knights vs a horde of termagaunts with no chance of damaging them and calling it a 'good fun' game. They live in a different world...


The problem here is that a horde of termagaunts only costs the points of one or two knights. What does the Tyranid player do with the last 1000 points?

AngryAngel
26-02-2014, 18:19
Well maybe they will do a one-click collection...

I've got nothing at all against variety. My problem is with the implementation in this case. More good rules would be good, but more bad rules are bad.

The new knights are a good example of this. I think they are really cool, and individually they should be fine in-game, but 4 of them as a 1500 point army is weird. I'm forced to wonder if they ever actually tried it out, and what happened when they did.

I would find it odd if they tried anything before they print it. In a game with no balance why would you ever worry of play testing ? Points mean little, FoC means increasingly little. Army weaknesses with allies yet again can mean little. Which would lead me to believe the play testing is as light as possible, as loose as possible, or not at all. I mean for a casual game does gross power matter to them with a broken unit or combo ? No, as people should just choose not to take the over the top units and combos yes ?

duffybear1988
26-02-2014, 21:03
The problem here is that a horde of termagaunts only costs the points of one or two knights. What does the Tyranid player do with the last 1000 points?

This is GW games designers playing... they don't use points or anything like that, just what looks cool.

Wesser
26-02-2014, 21:34
Why shouldn't you come down hard on something that kills your gaming experience in a tournament environment you mean? It is a whole different thing to not want to play against that kind of thing on a day to day basis, and you can talk and agree with your opposition about it. However if you are going to a tournament what gives you the right to come down hard on someone else for playing within the rules of the event?

Maybe them being able to field something like is fun for them. Armies with allies can look amazing. A Chaos Space marines army allied to a contingent of Renegade Guardsmen. How does that no look good. Why does that seem off? It is exactly the sort of thing you would expect. Would fit within the Background of 40k quite nicely.

Having a blanket statement like that is just idiotic. If you don't want the possibilty of facing off against an army which will optomise his choices and take what he would like to field then don't attend events like that. If you chose to attend the event anyway you don't have any right to come down hard and make someone field bad for what they have taken.

Which takes me back to the point.

I only go to comped Tournaments for this very reason, but I'd prefer comps didnt have to be so extensive cuz of the ****** rules.

Right now "variety" Means that 40k is 50% listbuilding and 20% about who wins the roll for deciding to deploy first/gets 1st turn. Is that supposed to be good?

Lord Damocles
26-02-2014, 22:08
I can just imagine them playing 4 knights vs a horde of termagaunts with no chance of damaging them and calling it a 'good fun' game. They live in a different world...
Who brings an army with no way of dealing with AV13?

Even ignoring Knights, most Codexes can make lists functionally immune to a hoard of Termagants.

IcedCrow
26-02-2014, 23:19
This is GW games designers playing... they don't use points or anything like that, just what looks cool.

This is quite true.

dangerboyjim
26-02-2014, 23:30
Who brings an army with no way of dealing with AV13?

Even ignoring Knights, most Codexes can make lists functionally immune to a hoard of Termagants.

Even if fully half of your army can take on AV13, you're still only effectively fighting with half your army.

Great.

Wayshuba
27-02-2014, 08:59
Because people will lord it over others and say "The rules say it's optional, so I won't." Now that excuse is gone. Because everything is legal, if you don't feel like playing something you can't hide behind legality but can still refuse the game. If I show up with my Thousand Sons and somebody brings three Riptides, I'm not going to play against it. It won't be fun. Nobody can make anybody play anything, and nobody can point at a rule to deny anything. Talk with your opponent, play what you like.

And therein shows the big crux of the problem - options are great, but the majority of options being presented are no longer balanced, nor fun for many 40k players.

When Rick Priestly commented about game design becoming a promotions department for a toy company, that is what 6th is quickly evolving too.

I remember when certain units had limits of 0-1 or 0-2 in a codex (or Warhammer Army Book) because too many would unbalance a game. That is what we have with Riptides, WriathKnights, etc. Too bring balance (and fit with the fluff better), they should have had limits in the Codex.

Allies in some circumstances make sense (mainly on the Imperial side) but the way they were now implemented has thrown fluff and balance right out the window. They way they are done is so "anti-fluff" it doesn't even make any sense.

Flyers are another example. Transport ships make sense, strike fighters do not. Not in a 28mm tabletop game.

Lords of War could have been so much more. Rather than being standard units to an arm list, there could have been special scenarios that made sense for a super heavy to be included.

Terrain as part of an army list is silly. This should have been incorporated into table setup rules instead.

Look, I will admit, I love the "options" presented in 6th edition 40k. What I don't like, personally, is how each successive wave of options continues to break the balance and fluff of the game more and more. It seems 40k in general, has no cohesive design strategy at all (or that Mat Ward laid out the design brief for 6th edition).

There was a time when you could build an army around the typical point limit played by the club (usually 1750-2000) and know you could get a game with that army most of the time. Now we have this scenario:

1.) Army list built straight from codex.
2.) Army list with dataslate options
3.) Army list with allies.
4.) Army list with dataslate and allies.
5.) Army list with flyer.
6.) Army list with flyers and allies.
7.) Army list with dataslate, flyers and allies.
8.) Army list with Lord of War.
9.) Army list with Lord of War and dataslate.
10.) Army list with Lord of War and allies.
11.) Army List with Lord of War, allies, and dataslate.
12.) and so on.

The issue we have, even to those that support the multitude of options, is what rules are we agreeing to before we even start the game. Then it's pull out an army to fit those rules. So now you crate around your army, plus three other armies worth of models just to fit "what 40k are we playing".

Grocklock
27-02-2014, 09:11
This is GW games designers playing... they don't use points or anything like that, just what looks cool.

But what's the matter with this

Pawn of Decay
27-02-2014, 09:34
Which takes me back to the point.

I only go to comped Tournaments for this very reason, but I'd prefer comps didnt have to be so extensive cuz of the ****** rules.

Right now "variety" Means that 40k is 50% listbuilding and 20% about who wins the roll for deciding to deploy first/gets 1st turn. Is that supposed to be good?


You are just being frustratingly obtuse. 40k has always been in the situation where listbuilding gave you a good % of whether you win the game or not. If you decided you wanted to field an all infantry army running lots of flamers, you wont beat the guy who bought leafblower Guard. That aspect hasn't changed.

Comp'd tournaments are fine to a degree if that is what you want to attend. I go to a few myself in a year. However, not a single one I have been to or seen advertised has comp'd the game to any extreme more than things have been in the passed. In fact the majority of them seem more relaxed.

The latest one I have been looking at is quite straight forward.

- No units that use any rules for Super Heavy Vehicles or Gargantuant Creatures (removes lords of war and the new Knights).
- All allies which are classified as Battle Brothers are now allies of Conveniance.
- No Digital only products.

Nice and straight forward and removes 99% of issues everyone has with the game. Personally I quite like all of the options and it is good to see the new variety of armies when I attend events.

NerZuhl
27-02-2014, 09:48
But what's the matter with this
Why charge money for anything but the models?

Wolf Lord Balrog
27-02-2014, 10:04
Why charge money for anything but the models?

I've actually seriously suggested this on several occasions. Let them sell models, and maybe some pretty fluff/picture books, but the rules themselves should be available as free downloads on GW's website. Not that I expect them to actually do any such thing, waay too hard for them to comprehend ...

Spiney Norman
27-02-2014, 10:37
What is this, Pokemon? Once two gamers lock eyes, they must play? If I've got an army of Hormagaunts and somebody wants to play 4 Knights against them...I say no.

That's obviously an extreme example, but it does highlight a potential difficulty in the social exchange of war gaming. At what point do you bail on a game? When do you hold up your hands and say "this just isn't worth my time". How 'up against it' do you need to be? If that became a common practice in a gaming club it would be a pretty dysfunctional club no?

I don't think you are necessarily locked into playing any given game, but if I arrange to play a game with someone that's because I actually want a game, not because I want to throw a hissy fit at my opponent in public, and I'd be pretty disappointed if I didn't get that game. I guess the point is that throwing a game because my opponent has come up with a douchy army doesn't feel like a victory to me, it would have to be a really crappy match up before I'd consider it a worse alternative than not playing a game.


Why charge money for anything but the models?

Perhaps because someone has to develop and play test the rules, when you're redesigning a set of rules as complex as 40k that is going to take a lot of time, and someone has to pay the wages of the team that do that. Also books cost money to print and distribute, that won't be a large portion of the cost of the rules books, but it is a reason why they can't be free. The idea that it costs GW nothing to come up with a new edition is utter fantasy.

Poseidal
27-02-2014, 10:43
What is this, Pokemon? Once two gamers lock eyes, they must play? If I've got an army of Hormagaunts and somebody wants to play 4 Knights against them...I say no.

Yep, and if you lose, you faint and wake up at the last GW store you visited and a lighter wallet.

Wolf Lord Balrog
27-02-2014, 10:49
Perhaps because someone has to develop and play test the rules, when you're redesigning a set of rules as complex as 40k that is going to take a lot of time, and someone has to pay the wages of the team that do that. Also books cost money to print and distribute, that won't be a large portion of the cost of the rules books, but it is a reason why they can't be free. The idea that it costs GW nothing to come up with a new edition is utter fantasy.

Other miniatures companies presumably have to pay somebody to develop their rules too, and yet several of them do in fact give away both the core rules and faction rules. You don't have much in the way of publishing costs if your rules are just a pdf on your website. And what expenses you incur in rules development can be easily recouped by the profit margin on the miniatures themselves. To say nothing of the goodwill you accumulate with your customers by not gouging them on a secondary item like rulebooks.

Pawn of Decay
27-02-2014, 10:52
But what successful table top games give the rules away for free? Generally Curious, I don't play or see many games outside of Warhammer being played.

Spiney Norman
27-02-2014, 10:58
But what successful table top games give the rules away for free? Generally Curious, I don't play or see many games outside of Warhammer being played.

Yeah, the only games companies I am aware of that actually gives rules away for free are collect able card games like mtg, and with the minuscule changes they make to each core edition rules aren't really worth charging for, its mostly about the cards anyway.

If anything rather than moving to a model that produces a new edition every couple of years GW should be looking to produce a lasting rules set that rarely needs changing and focus on making models.

Vipoid
27-02-2014, 11:06
Perhaps because someone has to develop and play test the rules, when you're redesigning a set of rules as complex as 40k that is going to take a lot of time, and someone has to pay the wages of the team that do that. Also books cost money to print and distribute, that won't be a large portion of the cost of the rules books, but it is a reason why they can't be free. The idea that it costs GW nothing to come up with a new edition is utter fantasy.

Well, for a start, who said anything about giving books away for free? Having the rules available for download as pdfs on their site would alleviate such publishing costs.

Also, the point wasn't that GW rules are free to produce - the point is that they would make a loss on their rules, but use them to attract more customers (who might otherwise be put off by the excessive costs).


Yeah, the only games companies I am aware of that actually gives rules away for free are collect able card games like mtg, and with the minuscule changes they make to each core edition rules aren't really worth charging for, its mostly about the cards anyway.

Doesn't Warmachine effectively give away its rules for free - since every model comes with them? I think they do charge for the core rules, but they also have a simplified version of them that can be downloaded from their site.

Wolf Lord Balrog
27-02-2014, 11:07
But what successful table top games give the rules away for free? Generally Curious, I don't play or see many games outside of Warhammer being played.

The prime example is Mantic Games (http://www.manticgames.com/mantic-shop/gaming.html). Hawk Wargames (http://www.hawkwargames.com/) used to give away the rules for Dropzone Commander, but apparently they are now selling a full color (full of pictures) combined core rulebook/compendium of all factions, though at the bargain price of of around $25 US. I'm pretty sure there are others, but my memory and Google-fu are both failing me just now.

Pawn of Decay
27-02-2014, 11:13
The prime example is Mantic Games (http://www.manticgames.com/mantic-shop/gaming.html). Hawk Wargames (http://www.hawkwargames.com/) used to give away the rules for Dropzone Commander, but apparently they are now selling a full color (full of pictures) combined core rulebook/compendium of all factions, though at the bargain price of of around $25 US. I'm pretty sure there are others, but my memory and Google-fu are both failing me just now.

$25 is reasonable and Dropzone Commander is something that has tempted me. But neither Mantic or Dropzone are anywhere on the level of GW. Whilst a free rule set that is downloadable as a pdf might be a reasonable way of doing things for those companies, GW probably make quite a lot of their profit from the books and rule sets.

I have their fully interactive e-codex for Chaos bought from iBooks and I have the same book in beautiful hard Back and full colour. I know which I would rather have. The books themselves are nice to have and I certainly don't mind paying a bit extra to get them. Using ebay etc. you can get the small copy of the rule book for GW for the bargain price of around 10. Or buy their starter set and get a load of cool models as well.

I don't think the core rules really is that expensive to obtain. If you want the nice full on Hardback rule set with a lot of background etc. in it you have the option to buy it. But there are alternatives that GW provide.

I actually think having to download the rules and either print them or take a tablet device of some kind with me for the rules would annoy me and put me off.

Darnok
27-02-2014, 11:15
But what successful table top games give the rules away for free? Generally Curious, I don't play or see many games outside of Warhammer being played.

The full Infinity rules are available for free, as are quickstart rules for both Warmachine and Hordes. Those are the biggest fish in the pond apart from WHF/40K. Many other companies sell their rules for much less than GW though.


I don't think the core rules really is that expensive to obtain. If you want the nice full on Hardback rule set with a lot of background etc. in it you have the option to buy it. But there are alternatives that GW provide.

If the latest rumour about 40K ("7th Ed rulebook in May. This is a new ruleset, not an update/consolidation. Rulebook will be 50. Plan is a new edition every 2 years." ... see HERE (http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?389783-40K-Radio-release-schedule-gt-June&p=7085306&viewfull=1#post7085306)) turns out to be true, you might change your mind. And the GW core rules are the most expensive I know of; no other company wants that amount of money on a regular basis.

Wolf Lord Balrog
27-02-2014, 11:22
$25 is reasonable and Dropzone Commander is something that has tempted me. But neither Mantic or Dropzone are anywhere on the level of GW. Whilst a free rule set that is downloadable as a pdf might be a reasonable way of doing things for those companies, GW probably make quite a lot of their profit from the books and rule sets.

Nobody is on the same level as GW in the miniatures business. That doesn't mean the idea wouldn't work for GW as well. And actually they don't make very much at all from printed books, nobody does anymore, hence the push to e-books.


I don't think the core rules really is that expensive to obtain. If you want the nice full on Hardback rule set with a lot of background etc. in it you have the option to buy it. But there are alternatives that GW provide.

I actually think having to download the rules and either print them or take a tablet device of some kind with me for the rules would annoy me and put me off.

Ok, so the choices are: an $80+ rulebook, a $100+ starter box that may not have any models you want depending on what you collect, or e-books which you object to because you think using a tablet or e-reader is too onerous? There don't seem to be any good options then.

Pawn of Decay
27-02-2014, 11:36
But maybe someone you know who collects Chaos or Dark Angels wants to buy 1 or 2 sets of Dark Vengeance. I certainly know multiple people who did. I ended up with the small rulebook for 5. I did also buy the Large Rule book, but that is something that I wanted.

The small rulebook goes on ebay and is really easy to get hold of. The fact that GW don't sell it alone outside the core set doesn't mean the ability to get hold of it doesn't exist. 45 for a fully coloured A4 hard back rule set with the amount of pages it has in it is not a bad price. They even released a version at 30 with just the rules in it. I know you can't please everyone, but the cost of the rule set in this case is a bit of a hard thing to push. Especially when each rule set have been going for 5 years or there about.

Now if the rumours are true and we end up with a new rule set every 2 years costing the same or more than it does now, I may well agree with you. But as it is now, the rules set costing is fine.

GW to still make a decent profit off of Hard back books. A lot of people in their market either can't afford to run around with a tablet or like myself just don't want to. But the move towards eBooks is because it is almost pure profit easy money. That doesn't mean that Physical books don't make money for them. It is getting easier to provide and people to get hold of eBooks etc now. Certainly wasn't the case a couple of years ago.

Warmachine Rule books etc are just as expensive as the Gamesworkshop Ones. Certainly seem to be when I have a look in the local gaming shops. The fact that they provide a quick play set for free is quite cool, but not something I have come across.

wanderingblade
27-02-2014, 11:46
Nobody is on the same level as GW in the miniatures business. That doesn't mean the idea wouldn't work for GW as well. And actually they don't make very much at all from printed books, nobody does anymore, hence the push to e-books.


Moreover, if willing to look outside the wargaming industry, there are far, far bigger companies that GW using loss-leader items. The example provided on wikipedia of video game consoles being sold at a loss to make more money on royalties from games is, I'd suggest, pretty similar to the idea of selling rulebooks cheap/free to sell more models.

Smaller companies do it - bigger companies do similar things - I'd suggest the balance of probability is that GW could release rules for free/very cheap if they wanted to.

edit: And may well would be wise to.

Ananiel
27-02-2014, 13:21
Wow, if GW actually started charging $75 every two years for another rule book, I actually think I would be so cross, that I would copy the rules. Money is not the issue, but I won't sit idly by and be gouged because Ebay broke their business model. We are debating many different items, but I firmly believe all this is in response to saturation of their models in the world. You no longer need to pay GW prices for models when you can get a great majority of it off Ebay or at a minimum at 20% off new. GW has finally realized diminishing returns on their direct order stuff, and has decided to FORCE players to accept their new offerings. My jaded eyes see this in almost everything they have done in this edition, from the allies chart, to fortifications and flyers, to Escalation (and you don't have to ask permission!), to the breaking of fantasy by mega-nerfing cavalry and blocks of 40 infantry needed. And now the knights.......

My current stand is without prior discussion (and I only bring 1 build with me to the store) is 'BRB, print Codex, no battle brothers'. So GW sees players like me, (as it pertains to Escalation for example) and says fine, we will change the rules so you don't have a choice. Wrong, I will just edit the rules, or just play an older edition. I am not losing the game I love or be gouged because GW has had their head up their ass for the past 15 years with the Internet.

Ananiel

IcedCrow
27-02-2014, 13:43
And this is why I'm anti-rumor. We're all treating the rumor that there will be another giant mandatory book coming out as fact and none of us have seen it. Its creating bitter, angry feelings that are just fueling the "we hate GW" mantra without any actual proof of it existing.

yabbadabba
27-02-2014, 16:34
The whole free rules thing is not really a debating point at all. There is some mileage in a free, downloadable quick play, incredibly basic rule set, but why give something away for free which you know people will pay silly money for?

I think part of the problem with most of the things discussed on here is that people are allowing themselves to be lead through the nose (and wallet) instead of taking control of their hobby. If your hobby consists of playing once a month in a LGS then you have no choice but to work within the limitations of what that environment brings - that is your choice. There are better ways of enjoying this hobby, but it requires slightly more effort than the above - but not much more.

All GW needs to do is make money - they do that and they are happy. The connection between their goals and yours can be as adeep or as superficial as you choose. In the end GW does not make you do anything outside of their own properties.

IcedCrow
27-02-2014, 16:39
The whole free rules thing is not really a debating point at all. There is some mileage in a free, downloadable quick play, incredibly basic rule set, but why give something away for free which you know people will pay silly money for?

I think part of the problem with most of the things discussed on here is that people are allowing themselves to be lead through the nose (and wallet) instead of taking control of their hobby. If your hobby consists of playing once a month in a LGS then you have no choice but to work within the limitations of what that environment brings - that is your choice. There are better ways of enjoying this hobby, but it requires slightly more effort than the above - but not much more.

All GW needs to do is make money - they do that and they are happy. The connection between their goals and yours can be as adeep or as superficial as you choose. In the end GW does not make you do anything outside of their own properties.

Exactly. This is exactly correct.

insectum7
27-02-2014, 16:52
Who brings an army with no way of dealing with AV13?

Even ignoring Knights, most Codexes can make lists functionally immune to a hoard of Termagants.


Even if fully half of your army can take on AV13, you're still only effectively fighting with half your army.

Great.

Even if they can't hurt the Knights, lots of gaunts can bog them down and stop them from doing anything else for a while. Your'e still fighting it, and rather effectively IMO.

For the cost of a single Knight you can get nearly a hundred gaunts. There's a crapload of points left over to get your monsters in, who will actually do damage.

Or, flip it against the Knights. . . How do Knights deal with flyers? They don't.

Spiney Norman
27-02-2014, 17:42
The whole free rules thing is not really a debating point at all. There is some mileage in a free, downloadable quick play, incredibly basic rule set, but why give something away for free which you know people will pay silly money for?

I think part of the problem with most of the things discussed on here is that people are allowing themselves to be lead through the nose (and wallet) instead of taking control of their hobby. If your hobby consists of playing once a month in a LGS then you have no choice but to work within the limitations of what that environment brings - that is your choice. There are better ways of enjoying this hobby, but it requires slightly more effort than the above - but not much more.

All GW needs to do is make money - they do that and they are happy. The connection between their goals and yours can be as adeep or as superficial as you choose. In the end GW does not make you do anything outside of their own properties.

When we invent a way of not needing an opponent we will be able to take control of the hobby ourselves, but until then we pretty much have to follow the rules GW lays down or somehow force your opponent to adopt your rules, which in my experience is always messy and leads to loss of friends.

Ssilmath
27-02-2014, 17:44
When we invent a way of not needing an opponent we will be able to take control of the hobby ourselves, but until then we pretty much have to follow the rules GW lays down or somehow force your opponent to adopt your rules, which in my experience is always messy and leads to loss of friends.

Why are you so focused on forcing people to bend to your will? That's not what is being said in the least.

Spiney Norman
27-02-2014, 17:57
Why are you so focused on forcing people to bend to your will? That's not what is being said in the least.

I think you misunderstood me, that is exactly what I try to avoid in my games which is why I always play by the most up to date published game rules, its the only independent adjudicator there is for 40k.

I'm not entirely sure what abba was getting at with his rather cryptic allusions to not having to pay for the rule books, but I assume it had something to do with making up your own rules or playing with a defunct edition so you don't have to pay for GWs.

I have played with old editions before, but its not a sustainable system because eventually you get someone who wants to use a new unit that didn't exist in the old edition and then you have no choice but to update.

Ssilmath
27-02-2014, 18:00
I think you misunderstood me, that is exactly what I try to avoid in my games which is why I always play by the published game rules, its the only independent adjudicator there is for 40k.

No, I mean you keep characterizing anybody who wants to play in a way different from the pure rulebooks as acting like a tyrant who forces people to do what they want.

Arnizipal
27-02-2014, 19:02
Had to nip a potential flamewar in the bud here and delete a page worth of posts.
Please keep it civil from now on or I'll have to start handing out Warnings.

Arnizipal,

++ The Warseer Moderation Team ++

yabbadabba
27-02-2014, 19:10
When we invent a way of not needing an opponent we will be able to take control of the hobby ourselves, but until then we pretty much have to follow the rules GW lays down or somehow force your opponent to adopt your rules, which in my experience is always messy and leads to loss of friends. I disagree. My entire gaming life, from its DnD roots, has been about constant compromise, negotiation and agreement. You do it everytime you play, though you might not recognise it, and yet you still get to play games comfortably and happily. If your idea of your hobby is being spoonfed, then complaining about what you are being spoonfed, then you have to question the hobby you are in and especially with GW.

Playing a wargame is a social contract, one the requires a degree of compromise, of take and give. Once you recognise this. taking it further including forming a social group for gaming, creating a bespoke gaming environment physically, culturally and socially, becomes far less of a hassle and far more of a preferred experience than the "convenience" of the LGS and moaning about what you do not like happening to your hobby. As it is in so much of life, by taking control (and I do not mean tyrannically and obsessively), you can be so much more positive about the directions you take.

Oh, and btw there are no cryptic allusions. Trying asking a question if you do not understand, to help clarify the situation.

AngryAngel
27-02-2014, 19:23
And this is why I'm anti-rumor. We're all treating the rumor that there will be another giant mandatory book coming out as fact and none of us have seen it. Its creating bitter, angry feelings that are just fueling the "we hate GW" mantra without any actual proof of it existing.

You say rumor as if it is the most wicked of things. Having knowledge of what may come down the road I consider a good thing. It is like having spys in a war situation, some people valued them very highly in military matters. Obviously, it should be taken with some measure of skepticism and to act on rumors alone is folly. Some sources are more reliable then others and can offer a good indication of what will happen. So completely disregarding them is choosing simply to not have any indication of what may lie down the road. That is each persons choice but rumors are hardly a bad thing, unless someone makes them such.

That said, what if the rumors are totally true ? Are you saying some people shouldn't be upset if they switch to a much quicker core book release schedule ? If rumors prove to be truth then that anger is more justified, me personally, I'd wait for it to happen before getting up in arms. I myself won't actually be angry if it proves to be true, which I think it will. Though the anger then will make any initial flames of displeasure surge to startling new heights.

IcedCrow
27-02-2014, 19:31
Im saying that there is a lot of anger and hate being spread based on a rumor being treated as a fact.

If its true then great, lets cross that bridge at that time.

AngryAngel
27-02-2014, 19:37
I agree, be moaning rumors is a poor call, plenty of time to hate what happens, once it has happened.

azza88
27-02-2014, 21:51
Am i the only one that doesn't have a problem with all the new GW releases? Theres always at atmosphere of hate on the internet to everything games workshop do, if you have such a problem with it please just stop playing or at least stop constantly telling everyone about it.

From the 2 local clubs and weekend store gaming I attend on a weekly basis i can honestly say the variation in peoples lists now is 10x better than the 5th edition razorback/chimera spam i was used to. I have even attended a few tournaments with "lords of war" and while strong have loved fighting them as its something i'm not used to.

people need to get over the stigma of new units and changed to the game being bad, its a fact of life that things change and something you bought 4 years ago isn't going to be worth the same/work in the same way it did when you bought it.

Inquisitor Engel
27-02-2014, 22:16
Am i the only one that doesn't have a problem with all the new GW releases? Theres always at atmosphere of hate on the internet to everything games workshop do, if you have such a problem with it please just stop playing or at least stop constantly telling everyone about it.

From the 2 local clubs and weekend store gaming I attend on a weekly basis i can honestly say the variation in peoples lists now is 10x better than the 5th edition razorback/chimera spam i was used to. I have even attended a few tournaments with "lords of war" and while strong have loved fighting them as its something i'm not used to.

people need to get over the stigma of new units and changed to the game being bad, its a fact of life that things change and something you bought 4 years ago isn't going to be worth the same/work in the same way it did when you bought it.

I concur. While I'm not THRILLED how much more it costs me to buy some models, I just do so more slowly, spend more time painting and modeling. The other benefits of the changes have been huge.

Navar
27-02-2014, 22:26
Am i the only one that doesn't have a problem with all the new GW releases? Theres always at atmosphere of hate on the internet to everything games workshop do, if you have such a problem with it please just stop playing or at least stop constantly telling everyone about it.

From the 2 local clubs and weekend store gaming I attend on a weekly basis i can honestly say the variation in peoples lists now is 10x better than the 5th edition razorback/chimera spam i was used to. I have even attended a few tournaments with "lords of war" and while strong have loved fighting them as its something i'm not used to.

people need to get over the stigma of new units and changed to the game being bad, its a fact of life that things change and something you bought 4 years ago isn't going to be worth the same/work in the same way it did when you bought it.


I concur. While I'm not THRILLED how much more it costs me to buy some models, I just do so more slowly, spend more time painting and modeling. The other benefits of the changes have been huge.

No you are not the only person. I am also super excited for the releases. I already have a Knight incoming.

wanderingblade
28-02-2014, 06:19
The whole free rules thing is not really a debating point at all. There is some mileage in a free, downloadable quick play, incredibly basic rule set, but why give something away for free which you know people will pay silly money for?


Because they might make more money if it was free/sold cheaper. I daresay they've got their financial analysts, more educated than me, and they've done their thinking on this - but there's enough examples out there to suggest the current high price doesn't have to be so.

yabbadabba
28-02-2014, 06:33
Because they might make more money if it was free/sold cheaper. I daresay they've got their financial analysts, more educated than me, and they've done their thinking on this - but there's enough examples out there to suggest the current high price doesn't have to be so. might is the key word. Not will, might.

Surgency
28-02-2014, 07:39
Am i the only one that doesn't have a problem with all the new GW releases?

Your not. But the people who enjoy it are off having fun with all the new stuff, while the people who don't are coming to forums and complaining, so it appears to be disproportionately ill received

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

rocdocta
28-02-2014, 08:54
or maybe there is no silent majority that like what GW are doing and you are in the minority. Not a flame etc just devils advocate.

Pawn of Decay
28-02-2014, 09:08
or maybe there is no silent majority that like what GW are doing and you are in the minority. Not a flame etc just devils advocate.

Perhaps. But in my local gaming area at least the majority are loving all the new releases and having a blast.

Inquisitor Shego
28-02-2014, 09:08
On the plus, GW are churning out amazing releases at an amazing rate, adding a gargantuan depth to the hobby. Things like the Knight would have made my draw drop 18 years ago, and now still I am freaking awed. Amazed! The possibilities of this hobby in the future seem almost limitless (for imperial players *cough*). PDFs are breaking the norm of buying a codex and that's your lot for 6 years.

On the downside, they couldn't balance core codices to save their lives, so throwing a ton of chaff at the mechanics side isn't helping in the slightest. Then I look at the prices. Cost for the SOB codex, the Inquisition Codex, that damned advent calendar, and then the contents of some of those PDFs and things like the main supplements, eg Black Legion are so laughable it makes me tinkle myself until my urethra burns.

Honestly, I'm done caring. I just play at as a casual now, building my own bits and bobs. The key thing here is to remember back in the day I, and a lot of folk were collectors of every codex. Even the stuff we didn't play, we bought for fluff and lore. With the sheer number of black library books, and supplements, and the cost of a codex now being 30 quid, even when digitally released, all I can say is it's just not worth it. As a secondary hobby though, sharing time with World of Tanks, RP, Flames of War, Heroclix, X-Wing, Battletech, and Infinity, I find this game still does the job.

If you play tournaments though, it's probably a different kettle of fish. For the most part, I have ignored GW's attempts to hook me in with expensive side projects. Now you've got your allies, your detatchments, your fortifications, your lords of war. When I was last in warhammer world I saw a bloke playing a revenant titan. It took all my resolve and 3 pints of bugman's ale to not look him in the eyes and say "See you next tuesday". Well that and he was about 4 inches taller and 100lbs heavier. Yeah I sure showed him ,

My post has no worth or value and adds nothing. I'm merely repeating that the expansions are there. Take them or leave them. Some have been amazing, and some have been so shameful you need to give trading standards a phone call. As I said before, when my friend's Damnos book arrived it was so thin I tried to give it a sandwich.

azza88
28-02-2014, 13:12
On the plus, GW are churning out amazing releases at an amazing rate, adding a gargantuan depth to the hobby. Things like the Knight would have made my draw drop 18 years ago, and now still I am freaking awed. Amazed! The possibilities of this hobby in the future seem almost limitless (for imperial players *cough*). PDFs are breaking the norm of buying a codex and that's your lot for 6 years.

On the downside, they couldn't balance core codices to save their lives, so throwing a ton of chaff at the mechanics side isn't helping in the slightest. Then I look at the prices. Cost for the SOB codex, the Inquisition Codex, that damned advent calendar, and then the contents of some of those PDFs and things like the main supplements, eg Black Legion are so laughable it makes me tinkle myself until my urethra burns.

Honestly, I'm done caring. I just play at as a casual now, building my own bits and bobs. The key thing here is to remember back in the day I, and a lot of folk were collectors of every codex. Even the stuff we didn't play, we bought for fluff and lore. With the sheer number of black library books, and supplements, and the cost of a codex now being 30 quid, even when digitally released, all I can say is it's just not worth it. As a secondary hobby though, sharing time with World of Tanks, RP, Flames of War, Heroclix, X-Wing, Battletech, and Infinity, I find this game still does the job.

If you play tournaments though, it's probably a different kettle of fish. For the most part, I have ignored GW's attempts to hook me in with expensive side projects. Now you've got your allies, your detatchments, your fortifications, your lords of war. When I was last in warhammer world I saw a bloke playing a revenant titan. It took all my resolve and 3 pints of bugman's ale to not look him in the eyes and say "See you next tuesday". Well that and he was about 4 inches taller and 100lbs heavier. Yeah I sure showed him ,

My post has no worth or value and adds nothing. I'm merely repeating that the expansions are there. Take them or leave them. Some have been amazing, and some have been so shameful you need to give trading standards a phone call. As I said before, when my friend's Damnos book arrived it was so thin I tried to give it a sandwich.

I completely agree with your comments on their digital releases as well as codex supplements, I personally believe they hold very little value for money at theit current price point. If they 1/2 the price and removed content with keeping the rules and some fluff I believe it would be much more appealing for someone to buy. Digital releases on the other hand... I have purchased a few myself and have felt completely "roped off" they seem to have had little time spent compiling them with some rule a and unit entries spread across multiple pages and large portions of blank white background due to the poor editing of the document. This doesn't appear to be the case on the up ad versions but only on the .epub format they sell it in for android and other eReaders

Harwammer
28-02-2014, 17:55
Its got to the point where just throwing models down on a table is about as good a way to create two evenly matched armies than bothering to add up your unit points.

This actually works pretty well. Kinda like how sometimes you and your opponent throw down terrain pieces until it 'seems right' you can do it with units too.

IcedCrow
28-02-2014, 18:02
That's also how historicals work (plopping units down until they look right)

Surgency
28-02-2014, 18:06
or maybe there is no silent majority that like what GW are doing and you are in the minority. Not a flame etc just devils advocate.

While it is technically possible that is true. I believe that would make this the first ever demographic without a silent majority

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

Telemachus
28-02-2014, 18:35
While it is technically possible that is true. I believe that would make this the first ever demographic without a silent majority

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk
Or it could be that most people don't bother going on the tinternet to vent their frustrations at a game that they think they own because they've bought a couple of rulebooks and miniatures for :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Vipoid
28-02-2014, 18:55
Or it could be that most people don't bother going on the tinternet to vent their frustrations at a game that they think they own because they've bought a couple of rulebooks and miniatures for :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Especially when they know some other sod will come along and insult them for it with smug, insufferable self-righteousness.

Inquisitor Engel
28-02-2014, 19:01
While it is technically possible that is true. I believe that would make this the first ever demographic without a silent majority


Indeed. Companies that go out of business tend to do so quietly and without the gnashing and wailing of teeth. People simply stop shopping.

Telemachus
28-02-2014, 19:49
No. Insulting everyone who expresses dislike at GW's policies is smug, insufferable self-righteousness.
Ah,

So actually not disliking GW is '...smug, insufferable self-righteousness'?

Personal jibes aside, please tell me which one of the following statements is wrong -


...GW don't force feed anyone.

You make a choice as to what and when you buy and whether or not you can afford it.

The rules allow anyone to make a choice as to how they play the game.

People make a decision as to whether or not they want to play the game.

There is no force feeding.

Vipoid
28-02-2014, 19:50
So, expressing an opinion that doesn't conform to the internet 'We hates GW cause we'ze got a keyboard' is smug, insufferable self-righteousness?


No, the smug, insufferable self-righteousness referred to how you phrased your post.

What I took issue with is that you chose to insult anyone who disagreed with you and dared voice their dislike against GW policies.


GW don't force feed anyone.

You make a choice as to what and when you buy and whether or not you can afford it.

The rules allow anyone to make a choice as to how they play the game.

People make a decision as to whether or not they want to play the game.

There is no force feeding.

See, why couldn't you have written that in your previous post?

EDIT: Just saw you responded to the post I deleted 5 seconds after posting it. :s


So actually not disliking GW is '...smug, insufferable self-righteousness'?

No, that view is fine. The problem is when you phrase that view so as to insult anyone who disagrees with you.

Telemachus
28-02-2014, 19:52
...See, why couldn't you have written that in your previous post?
I did, you chose to ignore it.

Lostanddamned
28-02-2014, 19:52
So.

This is how I see it.

Any interaction between two human beings requires negotiation, this is an irrefutable fact. Even something as simple as passing someone on the street requires non-verbal cues and posture to show which way you intend to turn. Something as complex and the result of as much invested time as a 40k game is going to have a lot more prejudices, presumptions, preferences, preconceptions and preprandial drinks involved. Something like that requires informed, enthusiastic consent before you start.

Personally, I've been an on-and-off marine player since 3rd edition. I like rhino variant tanks, tactical squads, Epistolarys with smite and terminator squads. I think centurions, Storm Ravens and some battle brother Tau is bloody silly. So my army lists reflects that. (More often than not they are also formed around 10 marines and a Land Speeder because that's what comes in the box as far as I'm concerned). I keep up to date, I pick up the newest codices as they are released, I see new and interesting models and update and upgrade my army. But looking at it, you can see its very much a 3rd edition style army. I still have fun games, and do that by find opponents willing to maybe cut out a flyer or drop an allied attachment and spend those points elsewhere.

What makes a good game is the combined spirit of collaboration and communication, this is two people with an intense passion for their respective force. The idea that you can simply come in with your army, your image of what 40k should be and steamroller them is laughable. Compromise and communication improve your life in general. If you think an opponent is going to clear you out in turn two with his dataslates, unupdated chapter approved (Kroot Mercenaries maybe?) allies and superheavies say "This isn't going to be fun for me, do you have a different list". Anyone who isn't happy to adapt to your needs in a game is probably not a person you need to spend an hour or two in the company of anyway.

And to finish up with a quote;
If you don't like the life you live, change it now it's yours
Nothing has effects if you don't recognise the cause
If the programme's not the one you want, get up, turn off the set

Vipoid
28-02-2014, 19:55
I did, you chose to ignore it.

Eh?

Your previous post was:
Or it could be that most people don't bother going on the tinternet to vent their frustrations at a game that they think they own because they've bought a couple of rulebooks and miniatures for :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Nothing else.

Telemachus
28-02-2014, 20:06
Eh?

Your previous post was:

Nothing else.

Eh?

Grammar, which should have been better - my post; previous to the one you made your statement in; did indeed say what I said.

However, if you really want to get pedantic, your post should have said -


Or it could be that most people don't bother going on the tinternet to vent their frustrations at a game that they think they own because they've bought a couple of rulebooks and miniatures for :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Which I notice you did do after you edited :shifty:

underscore
28-02-2014, 20:12
So.
If you think an opponent is going to clear you out in turn two with his dataslates, unupdated chapter approved (Kroot Mercenaries maybe?) allies and superheavies say "This isn't going to be fun for me, do you have a different list". Anyone who isn't happy to adapt to your needs in a game is probably not a person you need to spend an hour or two in the company of anyway.

Unfortunately this is also a game that requires enough effort to get a game as it is, making that more bothersome is hardly praise-worthy. It's not like there aren't other, similar, ways to spend your time that don't require as much faffing about to get a good game.

Lostanddamned
28-02-2014, 20:16
Unfortunately this is also a game that requires enough effort to get a game as it is, making that more bothersome is hardly praise-worthy. It's not like there aren't other, similar, ways to spend your time that don't require as much faffing about to get a good game.

I'm sorry? You'd rather have a rubbish miserable time getting bullied than not play a game at all? Personally I find that my free time is worth enough that I don't have to do things I don't enjoy during it.

underscore
28-02-2014, 20:26
I'm sorry? You'd rather have a rubbish miserable time getting bullied than not play a game at all?
Sorry, I have no idea what you're referring to there.

I mean, why bother playing a system that requires so much effort to set up a game - on top of finding a place to play, an opponent, a way to get there and transport your army you have to also negotiate what kind of game you want to play AND then run the risk of it all falling apart at the last moment. Generally I find that most people giving up the game (myself included) are doing so with a resigned sigh than a massive internet rage quit.