PDA

View Full Version : Still clinging to 6th edition?



Bazzmundo
11-04-2014, 09:37
A mate of mine has a few thoughts...

http://waraltar.blogspot.ie/2014/04/what-happened-gw.html

Dr Zoidberg
11-04-2014, 10:07
Sorry but your mate makes a weak argument. He claims " the train-wreck of rules that is 6th edition" but yet offers not a single piece of evidence as to why this is the case.

Personally, having played 2nd and a bit of 3rd ed, and then nothing until half way through 5th, I'm quite pleased with 6th as a ruleset. Its definitely an improvement on 5th as far as I'm concerned. Now that's my personal anecdote sure, but in this context it holds equal weight with your mate's.

It's not enough to state 6th ed is a train wreck as if it is fact. He needs do demonstrate why he believes 6th to be a wreck. He actually needs to make a case.

MiyamatoMusashi
11-04-2014, 10:11
...and probably do it in the 40K General forum, where there are hundreds of threads just like this.

Daniel36
11-04-2014, 10:47
"Wargamers enjoy thinking about tactics and strategy; they are problem servers, analytical thinkers with broad horizons."

The horizon isn't very broad if you aren't willing to play anything besides ETC regulated tournament play. Not saying that he isn't doing so, but a narrative campaign with self imposed restrictions may be more enjoyable to him.

A little earlier:

"The problem is that 6th edition not only requires you to top up with over-priced models (increasingly poorly executed), but it also requires you to play a ****** game."
It's only ****** if you're not willing to bend rules for your enjoyment. It's been in the books for ages that the rules are merely a framework. Liberate your hobby, play for fun. You really don't NEED to buy new models to enjoy the old ones. You just need an opponent willing to let go of some rules and restrict in other places to turn it into a worthwhile game.

But that's just me.

duffybear1988
11-04-2014, 11:29
You shouldn't need to bend the rules or liberate the hobby. The rule book is 30-50, the codexes and army books are 30, and the ever increasing list of add-ons and supplements are only adding to this. If it's just a guide then lower the prices or give the rules away for free. As it stands playing straight 40k is like buying a PC but when you get home you find that nothing is connected inside the case and some of the leads are missing. That wouldn't be bad if you were buying a dirt cheap machine and weren't expecting too much, but if it's a top of the range product and marketed as such then it should work well.

Coasty
11-04-2014, 11:30
I'm still clinging to 2nd...I'm happier that way. All it takes is a little jiggery-pokery to use the (much better) 3rd Ed. Ork weaponry.

Grocklock
11-04-2014, 11:38
Not anything new in the article, and no real points either. It is equal to footballers chant. It's load and short, but has no real depth other then ***** game.

I think 6th edition is solid I'm not clinging to it, like its life or death. I'm standing firm, digital codex and suppliments in hand, screaming give me more.

Memnos
11-04-2014, 11:46
Not anything new in the article, and no real points either. It is equal to footballers chant. It's load and short, but has no real depth other then ***** game.

I think 6th edition is solid I'm not clinging to it like its life or death. Jam standing firm digital codex and suppliments in hand, screaming give me more.

Yep. I quite like it. I like Hammer of Wrath. I like digital codices. I like warlord traits. In fact, I like quite a lot about it.

Bits I'm not quite so fond of: Flyers and flying monsters. And then only because of individuals, not the game system. People who show up with 6-12 flyers? Dinks. People who show up with 1 flyer? No big deal.

tristessa
11-04-2014, 11:51
Yep. I quite like it. I like Hammer of Wrath. I like digital codices. I like warlord traits. In fact, I like quite a lot about it.

Bits I'm not quite so fond of: Flyers and flying monsters. And then only because of individuals, not the game system. People who show up with 6-12 flyers? Dinks. People who show up with 1 flyer? No big deal.


^this. Players need to start taking some responsibility for what sort of game they're going to play. With so many different ways to build an army with all the datasheets, allies, and supplements there are no excuses for netlisting. Unless of course winning is that important to you. Even then, isn't it more fun to find new ways to win?

I wonder if some of the backlash to sixth is more to do with the whiplash effect of getting so much so quickly. All the options are a little dizzying, but I do rather like it.

Bloodknight
11-04-2014, 12:13
Players need to start taking some responsibility for what sort of game they're going to play.

tbh, the system is so easily breakable that it's plain bad game design. Too much stuff in too short a time with probably hardly any playtesting done before the release (tbh, if you cannot spot overpowered or underpowered stuff that you're writing the rules for, but the players can spot the holes in 3 minutes, you're either bad at your job or being made to fail). Given the quality of the stuff they've been releasing lately, it should have been for free.


With so many different ways to build an army with all the datasheets, allies, and supplements

This is particularly dazzling because it resurfaces every two to three editions in some way or other and it never works. Gamers can and will break a system that is used for competitions (and every game that has a winner and a loser is at its core a competition, even if you're taking it slow) as soon as they find an option to do it. As a game designer, it's your responsibility not to give people the ammunition to use that gun that an open army building system is. A game without proper restrictions does not work, that's why it has rules in the first place instead of people shouting "bang bang, you're dead, no I'm not" at each other. Open systems need one thing to work: balance, internally and externally, so that taking allies of some sort is not a crutch to get away from your weaknesses, but a fluff decision (this would also kill the utility of spam lists being better than varied lists because the spammed unit is just too good). Basically you'd have to have a points formula that counts for all units in the game, so that 1 point of this is as useful as 1 point of that, both within the army and within the context of the game. GW army books and codices are notoriously bad at achieving that. At least that's what my 20 years of GW gaming taught me. Nowadays I only play 40K for ***** and giggles, as a strategy game it's supremely lackluster.

Sephillion
11-04-2014, 14:14
Wow. That is a bad article, sorry.

So if we like 6th edition we’re fanboys? I like it. I like the game. I don’t think it’s perfect, but I certainly hope that doesn’t mean I’m a fanboy – I give GW enough flakk on their pricing or some of their absurd decisions.

What does he so dislike about 6th edition anyway? No idea. Poorly thought, poorly constructed.

ObiWayneKenobi
11-04-2014, 14:23
IMO if you like 6th BECAUSE it's unbalanced, you're a fanboy. If you like 6th because it works for you, then that's fine but you need to understand that 6th is broken at its core based on the rules alone (and your group circumvents the brokenness - good on you!). 6th edition is very poor in my opinion - a lot of changes are just bad or add things that weren't needed or wanted (random tables), and of course the fact that armies are unbalanced to the point where some armies can almost never win and the top armies tend to be variations of the same thing is a joke.

MusingWarboss
11-04-2014, 18:37
Hmm, I don't think 6th 40k is that bad really. I don't think I've ever played a GW game that didn't have parts of it that makes you groan or that you think are duff. Thing is the culture has always been that you just strip out those parts - it's always been there as far as I can remember "house rules". The idea being that you play at home or with friends, it's born from role playing games like D&D which are played in small groups - hell they even started out having a DM! It was never designed for competition, that came from people shoehorning in values from Historical circles, though in those cases the rules were designed for it to allow campaigns to be played out. The big irony of course is that people moan about TOs having to make decisions on what rules are to be allowed or not in their competitions... Which is just house ruling by a different name! It's no different!!

I remember my little group in the 90s decided to try 2nd without the psychology rules as everyone found them a bit annoying - and the game seemed to improve! Of course others out there may have hated that decision but it worked for us.

Likewise I remember the groans when someone plonked down a Predator in an RT game. "Ohh man, thats a ************ tank! It's got two lascannons!!! How are we gonna deal with that!!!!" How is that any different from the cries that came from Escalation? Well, in principle - it isn't! In some way the GW battles games have always been about one-upmanship, even the skirmish games had a touch of that (which is why I hate the Outlanders Supplement for Necromunda - it missed the point of the original game for the sake of adding "fluff" armies). Even BB teams have that element of bad-to-good.

Rules wise there is one thing that is quite irksome and that's the whole adding additional rules to units thing. Where each squad the has additional rules a,b,g,j,v,x and z added. It would be cleaner if these rules were reflected in the profile somehow! Otherwise they may as well just provide one standard profile line and have additional rules up and down values - which is almost where it's going now.

Let's face it, that whole thing needs an overhaul.

People talk of balance but at one time almost everyone had access to the same basic weapons armour and equipment, then they jiggled things about a bit to make armies more unique and balance by diversity took a nose dive.

If there's anything that I think really kills the enthusiasm at the moment it's the prices. Just that. Prices. No-one would care if you needed a cast of thousands to play if each model cost a few pence to buy. They do when they cost many pounds (or dollars, etc) each. Moan about paying 45 for the BRB - indeed! It's expensive, but would those moans be quite so loud if it was 25, or 10 or free?

Are the rules crap? Depends on what you want from them. It's a game and has rules and can be played using those rules, so in that regard, yes, it works fine. The constant bolt-ons may be eroding the ability of the core rules to adapt to things that were never envisioned when they were written but you could say that about any rule set if it has stuff retrofitted in!!

Whenever you look at modern GW all moans come back to the same things, they're too expensive and not really worth the money and a blatant "******* you, buy our stuff!" attitude from GW itself towards its customers.

duffybear1988
11-04-2014, 22:38
I found 4th edition always made the most sense to my gaming group.

Tarax
12-04-2014, 07:47
I'd like to try that out: playing 4th edition (again) with some rules for the new units (ie flyers) added. And also make some restriction in some codexes (eg max number of flyers).

duffybear1988
12-04-2014, 10:59
I'd like to try that out: playing 4th edition (again) with some rules for the new units (ie flyers) added. And also make some restriction in some codexes (eg max number of flyers).

I think it's actually the way forwards. Take the relatively stable 4th edition, add in the best bits of 6th edition and rework some of the rules to get better balance.

Sephillion
12-04-2014, 19:00
IMO if you like 6th BECAUSE it's unbalanced, you're a fanboy. If you like 6th because it works for you, then that's fine but you need to understand that 6th is broken at its core based on the rules alone (and your group circumvents the brokenness - good on you!). 6th edition is very poor in my opinion - a lot of changes are just bad or add things that weren't needed or wanted (random tables), and of course the fact that armies are unbalanced to the point where some armies can almost never win and the top armies tend to be variations of the same thing is a joke.

I can see a lot of things broken with the codexes... but I thinkt he core rules are fine. There are things I would change for sure (I agree with some of the rumoured yet still unlikely changes in the thread about salty 7th ed. rumours for instance) but I think it's a far cry from what I'd call broken.

What they did with the codexes, however... definitely. It's liek they wrote the codexes without looking at the rulebook and the other codexes.

Slayer-Fan123
12-04-2014, 21:01
I think it's actually the way forwards. Take the relatively stable 4th edition, add in the best bits of 6th edition and rework some of the rules to get better balance.
I think there's great elements from 4th and 6th as well, but a bit more of the melee focus that 5th supposedly had would be nice too.

Brother Asmodeus
14-04-2014, 10:49
2nd Ed was great although CC was clunky and a bit of a headache with the different weapons creating all sorts of kerfuffle.

4th Ed was a very clean edition. It was the last edition that was a battle game where power creep and Meta-Gaming had not overwhelmed it. It was also fantastic because it was hte one Pete Haines did a last minute (almost literallly, no BS) that made it an awesome game. GW canned him six - eight months later after him saving their asses. A real shame.

Amnar
15-04-2014, 06:20
40k is an awful ruleset. It needs a drastic reboot.

Abaraxas
15-04-2014, 06:56
While personally I'm still clinging to second edition, the tide of books, supplements and dataslates etc for 6th gives me the feeling a "cleanup" lurks around the corner- like how 2nd edition was a cleanup of Rogue Trader that had become spread out over the main book, astronomicon, chapter approved, vehichle rules, army books, White Dwarf rules etc and had become a bit of a mess.

The cynic in me can't help but think that this eventual "cleanup" will invalidate all these expensive limited edition collector codex army books and what have you.

Of course, that would never happen, would it?...

Spiney Norman
15-04-2014, 07:55
Sorry but your mate makes a weak argument. He claims " the train-wreck of rules that is 6th edition" but yet offers not a single piece of evidence as to why this is the case.

Personally, having played 2nd and a bit of 3rd ed, and then nothing until half way through 5th, I'm quite pleased with 6th as a ruleset. Its definitely an improvement on 5th as far as I'm concerned. Now that's my personal anecdote sure, but in this context it holds equal weight with your mate's.

It's not enough to state 6th ed is a train wreck as if it is fact. He needs do demonstrate why he believes 6th to be a wreck. He actually needs to make a case.

6th edition is a train-wreck, which is a tragedy because the core rules themselves are actually not too awful. The are a few crucial flaws in the core rules, which is mainly about how Skyfire, interceptor and flyers interact with each other and the rest of the game (a little too far towards the rock-paper-scissors end of the spectrum where flyers can be untouchable if you don't bring at least something with Skyfire, but Skyfire units without interceptor are useless against anything non-flyer).

What really knocked 6th edition off the rails was the gradual abandonment of the FOC which has matured over the course of the edition. What started with allied contingeants was fine, but as the edition progressed and the overpowered codexes (Edlar & tau) started hitting the decks and the dataslates brought you even more OP options (read 'more ways to wedge in a riptide') and inquisition/knights let you take special allied detachments as well as your regular allied det the state of the game just got worse and worse, culminating in the advent of superheavies into normal 40k, first with escalation and later with knights.

With the release of the imperial knight codex where we now see armies composed of 4-6 nigh unkillable robots the life has just been sucked right out of the game. Its truly breath-taking how badly they've managed to screw 6th ed up this much in such a short space of time.

Sephillion
15-04-2014, 14:27
6th edition is a train-wreck, which is a tragedy because the core rules themselves are actually not too awful. The are a few crucial flaws in the core rules, which is mainly about how Skyfire, interceptor and flyers interact with each other and the rest of the game (a little too far towards the rock-paper-scissors end of the spectrum where flyers can be untouchable if you don't bring at least something with Skyfire, but Skyfire units without interceptor are useless against anything non-flyer).

What really knocked 6th edition off the rails was the gradual abandonment of the FOC which has matured over the course of the edition. What started with allied contingeants was fine, but as the edition progressed and the overpowered codexes (Edlar & tau) started hitting the decks and the dataslates brought you even more OP options (read 'more ways to wedge in a riptide') and inquisition/knights let you take special allied detachments as well as your regular allied det the state of the game just got worse and worse, culminating in the advent of superheavies into normal 40k, first with escalation and later with knights.

With the release of the imperial knight codex where we now see armies composed of 4-6 nigh unkillable robots the life has just been sucked right out of the game. Its truly breath-taking how badly they've managed to screw 6th ed up this much in such a short space of time.

Your post is already better than the blog article because you give reasons why you think the 6th edition is a train wreck. I also happen to mostly agree with you. I said it before, I’ll say it again, the BRB is fine – there is room for improvement (as you said in your post, notably when it comes to skyfire/interceptor/flyers), but it works. What they did after… erratic flyer power, terrible internal balance, terrible external balance, an actual increase in randomness in some cases…

It’s not too bad since me and my friend (my regular opponent) don’t play Tau, Eldar or use any dataslates, and neither of us use many flyers, if at all. This allows us to avoid some of the issues that came up with the most recent codices.

williamsond
17-04-2014, 09:40
myself I loved 6th when it first came out the only bugbears i had were the allies matrix and the stupid tacked on flyer rules, now its devolved in to a total cluster, i have hopes that when 7th comes out lessons will have been learned but if i'm honest with my self they will probably muck that up just as bad if not worse...

duffybear1988
17-04-2014, 22:23
Good post Spiney. My thoughts exactly.

Poseidal
18-04-2014, 11:54
I think it's pretty clear that dataslates and escalation basically ruin the game.

Commissar_42
18-04-2014, 12:23
6th is only a "train wreck" if you never played any other edition of 40k, and you came to 40k expecting it to be Chess in spess. If you want less variety and choice in your wargame then great, but it just makes you sound childish since you basically want it streamlined by removing things that *you* are not interested in. I'm not interested in Apocolypse or data slates in the slightest, but if other people are then that's cool, I'm not going to rage on the internet because that somehow impedes my enjoyment of killing space marines.


I think it's pretty clear that dataslates and escalation basically ruin the game.
You know that no one can *make* you play either of these, right? If you have an issue with escalation or data slates (which I don't particularly, but neither am I very keen on them) you can simply not play with them. Unless you literally can't get a game without someone using escalation or data slates, which I would have sympathy with. But then it's no different from 5th edition where Grey Knights would show up and crush pretty much anyone. Being crushed by a Super Heavy is no inherantly worse, imo, than being crushed by Grey Knights or Triptide.

lanrak
18-04-2014, 17:07
6th edition 40K is a 'train wreck of a rule set' if you compare it to any other modern battle war game.

40K is still using WHFB skirmish rules , way past the point where they were a barely functional choice.

IF you decided to write a rule set for the current game play of 40k,using modern mechanics and resolution methods.
Then you would cover at least 80% of the game play with intuitive and direct use of the stat line.

This would allow more units to be covered with the core rules.Allowing special rules to be actually special.

Rather than a poor patch work of clumsy fixes, to make the game slightly more playable,BUT a lot more complicated.

For example Epic Armageddon covered all the aspects of the current 40k game and all of its expansions,(and all the army lists.)In just 138 pages.

40k has over 400 pages in the rule book, and fails to tell you clearly how to play the game.And does not include any army lists.

Sotek
18-04-2014, 17:15
I like 6E rules aside from the bent codexes and allies and 'DLC' dataslates

Spiney Norman
18-04-2014, 17:27
6th is only a "train wreck" if you never played any other edition of 40k, and you came to 40k expecting it to be Chess in spess. If you want less variety and choice in your wargame then great, but it just makes you sound childish since you basically want it streamlined by removing things that *you* are not interested in. I'm not interested in Apocolypse or data slates in the slightest, but if other people are then that's cool, I'm not going to rage on the internet because that somehow impedes my enjoyment of killing space marines.

I've played through 3rd, 4th and 5th and none of them got to a worse place than 6th is in now.



You know that no one can *make* you play either of these, right? If you have an issue with escalation or data slates (which I don't particularly, but neither am I very keen on them) you can simply not play with them. Unless you literally can't get a game without someone using escalation or data slates, which I would have sympathy with. But then it's no different from 5th edition where Grey Knights would show up and crush pretty much anyone. Being crushed by a Super Heavy is no inherantly worse, imo, than being crushed by Grey Knights or Triptide.

That's true, but equally I could arrange to play a game which banned the ork codex, all flyers, fast skimmers, or all units with the hit and run rule if I wanted to, but coming on a forum and pretending that was in any way a 'standard' way to play the game would be idiotic.

Anyone is free to create their own fan-made b*-stardisations of the game if they want to, but that is not the game the average gamer plays, nor is it the game we usually discuss on the forum.

baransiege
18-04-2014, 17:41
I've played through 3rd, 4th and 5th and none of them got to a worse place than 6th is in now.


Also played since 3rd and no edition has been as remotely as fun for me as 6th. I love allies, I'm glad shooting received that much needed buff (assault has been op since 3rd imo), I'm so glad a form of overwatch has returned, I love the change to hull points, my friends don't play with titans and we're all having a great time. I was always disappointed when 40k went from 2nd -> 3rd and 6th seems like a great middle ground.

It seems 6th is fantastic for playing with friends, not so good for playing with randoms.

duffybear1988
18-04-2014, 17:45
I've played through 3rd, 4th and 5th and none of them got to a worse place than 6th is in now.




That's true, but equally I could arrange to play a game which banned the ork codex, all flyers, fast skimmers, or all units with the hit and run rule if I wanted to, but coming on a forum and pretending that was in any way a 'standard' way to play the game would be idiotic.

Anyone is free to create their own fan-made b*-stardisations of the game if they want to, but that is not the game the average gamer plays, nor is it the game we usually discuss on the forum.

This. Even against friends I struggle to get much enjoyment out of 6th.

Lord Damocles
18-04-2014, 17:55
4th Ed was a very clean edition. It was the last edition that was a battle game where power creep and Meta-Gaming had not overwhelmed it.
Wait, what?

The edition of invincible Falcons and Rending being the answer to everything..?

baransiege
18-04-2014, 17:58
Indeed I seem to recall serious power creep in 3rd and 4th.

duffybear1988
18-04-2014, 18:59
No worse than now, in fact it's worse now. Flyers and super heavies are far worse to counter than falcon spam and no unit back then put out as much over the top firepower as some of the Tau and Eldar units now. Right now CSM 3.5 is looking like a breeze to beat. Remember when an extra heavy support slot in exchange for 2 fast attack choices was far too powerful? It's laughable how people moaned about that looking back, as things have just got worse. I tried out my old 4th ed list in a 4th ed game the other day and didn't stumble across have the problems 6th ed provides.

MusingWarboss
18-04-2014, 20:07
It seems 6th is fantastic for playing with friends, not so good for playing with randoms.

Remember kids - stranger danger!! ;)

Spiney Norman
18-04-2014, 20:20
Also played since 3rd and no edition has been as remotely as fun for me as 6th. I love allies, I'm glad shooting received that much needed buff (assault has been op since 3rd imo), I'm so glad a form of overwatch has returned, I love the change to hull points, my friends don't play with titans and we're all having a great time. I was always disappointed when 40k went from 2nd -> 3rd and 6th seems like a great middle ground.

It seems 6th is fantastic for playing with friends, not so good for playing with randoms.

It seems 6th is fantastic for people who like to ramp up their overpowered combos and grind your opponent beneath your ironshod boot, but not so good for people who want a vaguely balanced, fun game which isn't decided in the army building phase.

Even when the GK codex came out and sank 5th edition things weren't this bad, now you can flat-out ignore the FOC if you want to and/or combine the most overpowered units from 2-3 armies by using dataslates and inquisition/allied detachments.

And if you really want to you can even field an entire army of superheavy vehicles, that makes 5th ed purifier spam/Draigo wing armies look tame by comparison.

MusingWarboss
18-04-2014, 20:28
It seems 6th 40k is fantastic for people who like to ramp up their overpowered combos and grind your opponent beneath your ironshod boot, but not so good for people who want a vaguely balanced, fun game which isn't decided in the army building phase.

While I agree with you, to be fair that's 40k generally as far as I can ever remember. Hence my edit. Hasn't one-upmanship always been an element in the game? There's only one place for that to occur - in the army building phase.

baransiege
18-04-2014, 20:36
It seems 6th is fantastic for people who like to ramp up their overpowered combos and grind your opponent beneath your ironshod boot, but not so good for people who want a vaguely balanced, fun game which isn't decided in the army building phase.


Like I said - if you play with friends you won't encounter that kind of behaviour, I fail to see how what you have said is any different to the point you quoted.

Rogue
18-04-2014, 23:33
I will admit that I don't have extensive experience with 40K editions prior to the 5th. I have my issues with 6th, as I have my issues with the 5th.(notice that I said have, I will play 5th once again) Likewise there are elements that do keep me playing the game. I do have extensive knowledge of WFB from the 4th edition, and from that experience there is always going to be a bias in the rules that we play from Games Workshop, mainly because Games Workshop wants to SELL NEW ITEMS. How else do you get people who have their armies from 20 years ago, but yet still buy new stuff to be viable other than to change the rules that they play under and skew it toward a way that you are compelled. As far as flyers are concerned, I understand why people hate for them to be spammed, however, I always thought that it was rather odd that flyers were not more prevalent until now. This is Scifi and there were more choices for flying units in some of my WFB armies than what we used to have for many of the armies out there.

I remember talking to a LGS owner a few years back who was very much into historical gaming as well. He believed that the Great War from Warhammer Historical that was sold was a better game than 40K mainly because they are not trying to sell something to go along with it. The Great War is a game that 40K as it should be was the general idea that he wanted to convey. So my suggestion is to do one of three things and still play something. You can keep playing as is or minor changes to your liking. You can play a previous edition which can be done with the right friends. You can play a whole different game like Stargrunts, Dirtside, or a variant of the Great War. As for me, I will proabably still play 40K for at least this edition. If I don't like the next edition, I will still figure out a way to play a previous edition.

Spiney Norman
19-04-2014, 07:42
You can keep playing as is or minor changes to your liking. You can play a previous edition which can be done with the right friends. You can play a whole different game like Stargrunts, Dirtside, or a variant of the Great War. As for me, I will proabably still play 40K for at least this edition. If I don't like the next edition, I will still figure out a way to play a previous edition.

We could I guess, but what has actually happened is most of our gamers have shelved 40k after they turned 6th into a cheese fest, and as a result a lot of folks have started other games. X-wing and Attack wing have both sprung up with a fairly large following almost overnight, warmahordes (not my cup of tea, but quite a few of the guys are playing it now) and wfb are being played more than ever, we've even had a mini-lotr revival (totally didn't see that coming). 40k was our club's most played system and its actually quite cool to see all the games that folks are bringing in to fill that vacuum.

I daresay that if they do a good job of 7th we'll dust off the minis again and 40k will be as strong as ever it was, but the de-restricted, 'bring whatever overpowered crap you want and call it an army' attitude that has characterised 6th edition makes for a very dull game.

yabbadabba
19-04-2014, 08:46
I daresay that if they do a good job of 7th we'll dust off the minis again and 40k will be as strong as ever it was, but the de-restricted, 'bring whatever overpowered crap you want and call it an army' attitude that has characterised 6th edition makes for a very dull game. I think this says more about gaming communities than it does about 6th Ed. The proof is all over Warseer.

Scammel
19-04-2014, 08:56
I agree with Spiney inasmuch that the core rules aren't completely appalling and the game is still playable according to my own personal standards (thought they're definitely the worst set of 40k core rules I've ever encountered), but the nature of the following releases has seen 40k die pretty much completely in my gaming group. I'm not going to attribute that entirely to 6th - some key individuals have moved to pastures new - but there's about 3 folks remaining including me who have stopped playing due to a range of issues with 6th and that's had a knock-on effect.

Coasty
19-04-2014, 08:57
Also played since 3rd and no edition has been as remotely as fun for me as 6th. I love allies, I'm glad shooting received that much needed buff (assault has been op since 3rd imo), I'm so glad a form of overwatch has returned, I love the change to hull points, my friends don't play with titans and we're all having a great time. I was always disappointed when 40k went from 2nd -> 3rd and 6th seems like a great middle ground.

It seems 6th is fantastic for playing with friends, not so good for playing with randoms.

I actually got really excited when I first read through the 6th Ed. rules, as it was easy to see the influence of the Holy Second Edition. It's kind of gone a bit mental since then, though. Not even just the rules, but the company as whole and it just feels wrong now, in an almost Lovecraftian way.
That and the 'dataslates'. I own a tablet, but I'm all about paper books, so half the rules are in a format I don't want to buy, which is quite annoying.

leopard
19-04-2014, 13:38
Think they could do well to take the FoC out of the main rulebook, and put it into the army books - and have the scenarios not various further limits, e.g. a scouting mission banning heavy support, or limiting it to perhaps one slot per 2k points or something.

Then you can have say nids having what amounts to "1HQ for every 2k points or part thereof, then fill your boots" as they are intended to be pretty random, IG having a very rigid structure that can be adapted to suit them nicely, and marines somewhere inbetween.

Nkari
19-04-2014, 17:10
I like the allies, but once you add "slotless" allys to the system and slotless dataslates things go bad very very fast, I like the hullpoints, much needed imho, tho most things should recieve about 1 more hullpoint each. Cant say I like flyers tho, atleast not on the table, they should rather be like they are in flames of war.. they fly in from a table edge, can be shot at by anything that is in range with AA, stops and fires its weapons, then continues of board, where it can be shot at while leaving the board all in one turn, then you start rolling for reserves again to see if more planes comes etc.. and the way flames of war does it, is that you decide wich level of airsupport this battle will have, basicly you buy reserve rolls in 3 stages costing diffrent amount of points, that would have been a much nicer way to handle flyers in a 28mm game. I like the overwatch, even tho its not really that effective would have prefered a 5+hit instead of a 6+ hit to make a bit more of a diffrance, I like that shooting is more important than CC, wich a "modern" war with proper artillery should be about, rather than gung ho charges,.. mind you, those should happen but they should be bloody as hell for BOTH sides, no force should be primarily a CC force unless they do it like daemons, ie popping out of nowhere to assault.

Generally I think 6th is an improvement when you compare it to 3-4-5th.. but id rather they had fleshed out the 2nd edition rules istead of making it semi dumbed down then killing it with a TON of special rules, I would love to convert 40k into the flames of war rulesset, but Im way to lazy to do that.

yabbadabba
19-04-2014, 17:18
Generally I think 6th is an improvement when you compare it to 3-4-5th.. but id rather they had fleshed out the 2nd edition rules istead of making it semi dumbed down then killing it with a TON of special rules, Funny how that rule chages was in response to customer feedback - faster came, quicker broad reference points and less individual stats, larger model counts, more tanks etc.

I would love to convert 40k into the flames of war rulesset, but Im way to lazy to do that. I think it could be an even bigger mess than 40K. Despite all the variances, FoW only has to deal with one species.

MiyamatoMusashi
19-04-2014, 18:24
Agreed re: 2nd vs. 6th. For all the nostalgia I have for 2nd Edition 40K (and 1st Ed come to that), you can resolve an entire game of 6th in the time it used to take to fight one round of combat in 2nd Edition.

Hengist
19-04-2014, 18:29
^this. Players need to start taking some responsibility for what sort of game they're going to play. With so many different ways to build an army with all the datasheets, allies, and supplements there are no excuses for netlisting. Unless of course winning is that important to you.
I see somebody's still clinging to the old straw man of writing off anybody who wants balance or meaningful decisions in their game as "only caring about winning".


It seems 6th is fantastic for playing with friends, not so good for playing with randoms.
Only if you and your friends care nothing for balance, meaningful decisions, etc...

yabbadabba
19-04-2014, 18:53
I see somebody's still clinging to the old straw man of writing off anybody who wants balance or meaningful decisions in their game as "only caring about winning".


Only if you and your friends care nothing for balance, meaningful decisions, etc... And I see someone else who needs the excuse of the rules to provide a social crutch and operating network to control their more anti-social tendancies.

See, anyone can play that game. Can we stop now?

Hengist
19-04-2014, 19:09
And I see someone else who needs the excuse of the rules to provide a social crutch and operating network to control their more anti-social tendancies.
So your response to my pointing out a straw man is to come up with an even more ridiculous one? Good work completely missing the point.

Can you actually not comprehend that some of us expect a tactical challenge from a game, or do you just lack the honesty to admit that?

Spiney Norman
19-04-2014, 20:01
Good work completely missing the point. Can you actually not comprehend that some of us expect a tactical challenge from a game, or do you just lack the honesty to admit that?

Surely that's why we stop playing 40k isn't it?

I mean I'm not totally stupid, 40k has never been particularly tactical, but it has become a lot more min-maxed combo based this edition than ever before. The gap between the good stuff and the poor stuff is simply more massive than ever, and the steady erosion of the FOC means that you're not forced to bring as much, if any of the poor stuff as you once were.

6th edition is a min-max players dream and a casual players nightmare. If I want to take the units I like, rather than just a conglomeration of the units that are strong then I don't stand a chance. I'm really not all about winning all the time, but let's face it, if every game is a foregone conclusion from the start of T1 and you're losing every time that is just as boring whoever you are.

Hengist
19-04-2014, 20:35
Surely that's why we stop playing 40k isn't it?
Well, it's why I stopped. There are plenty enough other systems out there (Malifaux, Deadzone, take your pick of a dozen others) that deliver exciting emergent gameplay (i.e. that "cinematic narrative" everybody's wittering about) without the snakes-and-ladders randomness or the laughable lack of game balance.


I mean I'm not totally stupid, 40k has never been particularly tactical, but it has become a lot more min-maxed combo based this edition than ever before. The gap between the good stuff and the poor stuff is simply more massive than ever, and the steady erosion of the FOC means that you're not forced to bring as much, if any of the poor stuff as you once were.

6th edition is a min-max players dream and a casual players nightmare. If I want to take the units I like, rather than just a conglomeration of the units that are strong then I don't stand a chance. I'm really not all about winning all the time, but let's face it, if every game is a foregone conclusion from the start of T1 and you're losing every time that is just as boring whoever you are.
There's one thing that to add to this, which is the elephant in the room obfuscated by the constant refrain of "only WAAC jerks care about game balance". 6th edition has reached the point that so poor is the balance between (and within) codices/ally combinations/dataslate madness in 40k that any two given "fluffy" armies are likely to be sufficiently ill-matched as to produce a disappointingly (for both players) one-sided game.

Bloodknight
19-04-2014, 21:58
"only WAAC jerks care about game balance"

I believe that casual players benefit more from game balance than waacers. Waacers just don't play army X or unit Y if it sucks and spam the good stuff instead. The ones punished by a bad rule system or out-of-whack points costs are the people who like "fluffy" armies, but don't want to play every game as the doormat.

buddy_revell
19-04-2014, 22:14
Agreed re: 2nd vs. 6th. For all the nostalgia I have for 2nd Edition 40K (and 1st Ed come to that), you can resolve an entire game of 6th in the time it used to take to fight one round of combat in 2nd Edition.
i enjoy using 2ed's combat system to resolve challenges between named characters in 6th ed.

Hengist
19-04-2014, 22:30
I believe that casual players benefit more from game balance than waacers. Waacers just don't play army X or unit Y if it sucks and spam the good stuff instead. The ones punished by a bad rule system or out-of-whack points costs are the people who like "fluffy" armies, but don't want to play every game as the doormat.
You're quite correct. However that hasn't prevented 6th edition's fanboys from greeting every criticism of the game's exponentially decreasing balance (and indeed depth) by bleating about how only nasty competitive players care about such things, and how we should all instead be busy coming up with names for each and every miniature, or rationalising why Marneus Calgar had failed to notice a river of lava until he had waded into it up to his groin (or whatever else "Forging a Narrative" means this week).

MiyamatoMusashi
19-04-2014, 22:31
i enjoy using 2ed's combat system to resolve challenges between named characters in 6th ed.

Oh sure, it's fine for one-on-one fights. Or even skirmish games, like Necromunda.

But go ahead and charge 30 Ork Boyz into two squads of 30 Termagents and resolve it using 2nd Ed rules. Come back when you're done. 7th Ed should be just about released by then... ;) :D

yabbadabba
20-04-2014, 08:25
So your response to my pointing out a straw man is to come up with an even more ridiculous one? Good work completely missing the point.

Can you actually not comprehend that some of us expect a tactical challenge from a game, or do you just lack the honesty to admit that? I am happy to answer this question, but I haven't missed your point, and you may have missed your own. Let's deal with that issue first before we go on to insults and questions about level of preferred balance.

Wayshuba
20-04-2014, 10:54
7th Ed should be just about released by then... ;) :D

Not for my small group. We have decided to get off the GW treadmill. We'll work with house rules to adjust some things in Sixth and kind of hold there. As it is, 6th edition (and the insanity of GW prices) destroyed the 40k community in my neck of the woods (ironically, GW is preparing to open a store in our city now, quite good timing considering they already destroyed the customer base here!) and WHFB long before that. Gw is now selling so badly around here that the owner of the local FLGS has decided to stock the BRBs only once his inventory purges and after that, GW is special order only. This is the second store I am aware of that has done this.

People here have generally moved on completely from GW, and it doesn't seem like there is much interest in going back. I guess it is kind of like a bad addiction, once you recover from it you realize how much you were missing because of it. Same can be said around here for the GW addiction - it is pretty much over here and almost everyone has moved on. There are officially no GW games going on at my local FLGS (which is rather large as well) and GW opening a one man "demo and hard sell" store won't work here either.

ashc
20-04-2014, 11:11
I've found it to be quite fun to teach and play with my little boy, but he is 6.

Sent from my GT-I8190N using Tapatalk

Hengist
20-04-2014, 12:07
I am happy to answer this question, but I haven't missed your point, and you may have missed your own. Let's deal with that issue first before we go on to insults and questions about level of preferred balance.
You had a point? All I read was hurfing and blurfing about ~antisocial tendencies~ in an effort to cloud the issue.

I reiterate: conflating disappointment with a lack of balance and meaningful gameplay decisions into "hurr, only care about winning" is a dumb, disingenuous fallacy, and I'm tired of hearing it.

yabbadabba
20-04-2014, 12:10
You had a point? All I read was hurfing and blurfing about ~antisocial tendencies~ in an effort to cloud the issue.
I reiterate: conflating disappointment with a lack of balance and meaningful gameplay decisions into "hurr, only care about winning" is a dumb, disingenuous fallacy, and I'm tired of hearing it. Well I am not surprised by this response.

Hengist
20-04-2014, 12:43
Well I am not surprised by this response.
Having it pointed out that you've contributed nothing of value to a discussion must indeed be a depressingly familiar experience for you.

buddy_revell
20-04-2014, 12:45
ok, youre both great at arguing. kiss and make up?

yabbadabba
20-04-2014, 13:36
ok, youre both great at arguing. kiss and make up? Now what fun would that be ;). Besides it's not in the best tradition of internet "debates".

buddy_revell
20-04-2014, 14:08
Now what fun would that be ;). Besides it's not in the best tradition of internet "debates".
fair point. carry on, i guess.

Abaraxas
20-04-2014, 15:21
Now what fun would that be ;). Besides it's not in the best tradition of internet "debates".

I've noticed a reoccurring theme of humour in some of your posts mate, in my experience that kind of thing isn't very well received in these parts :D

Scaryscarymushroom
20-04-2014, 15:49
I just wanted to get this in before the mods take drastic action.

YabbaDabba, your stock response of "free your hobby, stop slavishly following the damn book" is two things: immeasurably empowering, and the precise reason that games workshop's control on the market is slipping. They don't deliver a good enough product to meet many people's expectations, regardless of social/antisocial whatever. They can't just look at their customers and say "if you want cheese on your sandwich, put it there yourself. Free your sandwich, stop slavishly following the damn book."

It's a fine attitude for hobbyists, but a terrible attitude for a business that is trying to convince people that its products are the best in the world (and charging prices to match). It invites competition, and gives the company an excuse to deliver dramatically broken rules sets because anyone who doesn't like them can sod off. When you're running a business you can't expect other people to have that attitude, because they will stop giving you their patronage. It's an entrepreneurial attitude. Privateer press and mantic made their own games because they had that attitude.

ashc
20-04-2014, 16:09
Great response, scaryscarymushroom.

Sent from my GT-I8190N using Tapatalk

shelfunit.
20-04-2014, 16:30
Indeed. A system that is as balanced as it can be should be what GW (and all other game companies) are striving for with rules/armies. A well balanced system primarily benefits the "casual" gamer and is the bane of the "WAAC" gamer, as there will be far fewer loopholes to exploit and each and every unit/character/item will be as worth taking as the others.

yabbadabba
20-04-2014, 17:58
I've noticed a reoccurring theme of humour in some of your posts mate, in my experience that kind of thing isn't very well received in these parts :D what humour is that then?


YabbaDabba, your stock response of "free your hobby, stop slavishly following the damn book" is two things: immeasurably empowering, and the precise reason that games workshop's control on the market is slipping. They don't deliver a good enough product to meet many people's expectations, regardless of social/antisocial whatever. They can't just look at their customers and say "if you want cheese on your sandwich, put it there yourself. Free your sandwich, stop slavishly following the damn book."
It's a fine attitude for hobbyists, but a terrible attitude for a business that is trying to convince people that its products are the best in the world (and charging prices to match). It invites competition, and gives the company an excuse to deliver dramatically broken rules sets because anyone who doesn't like them can sod off. When you're running a business you can't expect other people to have that attitude, because they will stop giving you their patronage. It's an entrepreneurial attitude. Privateer press and mantic made their own games because they had that attitude. Oh, I don't disagree and in fact it is something I often argued about when I worked for them. It was obvious for years that the perception of the business and the community at the top levels either did not match, or deliberately ignored, the same perceptions at the grass root level and as such some, and increasingly more, business decisions just seemed to make no sense at ll. I think the problem is now is the same as it was then - very few people actually know what the GW Upper Management want to achieve, and as such we are all left to guess. My last guess was that GW had moved into the toy market, and just didn't want to admit it so as to alienate all the middle aged saddos like me! I haven't seen much to argue against that. In many respects this makes GWs market control irrespective and in one area they still have a greater control than any other wargaming company - recruitment of under 18 year olds, which could be their sole business concern remember.

Also as a hobbyist and if I worked for GW, I would welcome such challenges and developments. Anyone would.

My philosophical position on wargaming has been, and always will be, inspired from a community/role-playing perspective and I know that is not easy for everyone to accept. I grew up in an age where wargaming was harder than now, where everything was not at the click of a switch for you, and therefore you had to take control of your own hobby or you would have no hobby at all. Therefore it is far easier for me to do one of two things when GW produces something I am not happy with or is at a price I do not think is reasonable (GWs real achilles heel here): ignore it or change it, and that applies to rules systems as well. I don't have a need to play tournaments so I have no need to be up to date with every change. And my argument all the way through this has been in the 30 odd years that I have been involved with GWs products in one way or another they have been absolutely consistent on two fronts: prices go up, and their core game design processes, which includes caring less about input from the community - for a variety of legitmate and nonsensical reasons.

So my summary is this. GW consistently screws up, history proves it. Either ride with it and learn how to deal with it, or get out, because without a change at the top, they will not change.

Wayshuba
20-04-2014, 19:27
very few people actually know what the GW Upper Management want to achieve

That's true, even GW Upper Management have no clue what they want to achieve either....


which includes caring less about input from the community - for a variety of legitimate and nonsensical reasons.

No business, none whatsoever, should ever ignore their customer base. If they do, like GW has, might as well engrave the tombstone because the death of the company is coming fast. That is definitely one thing business history seems to have as a repeatable and absolute business case.

MiyamatoMusashi
20-04-2014, 20:22
So my summary is this. GW consistently screws up, history proves it. Either ride with it and learn how to deal with it, or get out, because without a change at the top, they will not change.

That's a summary of pretty much every thread in this forum, TBH. And it's completely true. It's just such a terrible shame that GW's incredible universes and the love that so many people have for them, require such a stark choice. It doesn't need to be this way, but that's nevertheless how it is.

MusingWarboss
20-04-2014, 22:10
Should this thread title not be "Still Clinging to Games Workshop?".

MiyamatoMusashi
20-04-2014, 22:37
It appears that for more and more people*, 40K is GW (and vice versa). Warhammer seems not to get much of a look-in any more. :( But yes, I'm still curious why this isn't in the 40K General forum.

* - maybe even GW themselves!

baransiege
21-04-2014, 11:46
Only if you and your friends care nothing for balance, meaningful decisions, etc...

Not really. My friends, like me, want a game where there is challenging tactics on the battlefield. That means no bringing a list that will blitz the other person off the board turn 1, but bringing something that is fluffy, balanced and with variety as opposed to min maxing, Ally abusing spam lists.

Not taking the most abusive list possible is not the same as not wanting to play a game with meaningful decisions.

If your friends don't care about both you and them having a great time and want to beat you before placing any models on the table, maybe they aren't very good friends.

BFalcon
21-04-2014, 12:01
Not really. My friends, like me, want a game where there is challenging tactics on the battlefield. That means no bringing a list that will blitz the other person off the board turn 1, but bringing something that is fluffy, balanced and with variety as opposed to min maxing, Ally abusing spam lists.

Not taking the most abusive list possible is not the same as not wanting to play a game with meaningful decisions.

If your friends don't care about both you and them having a great time and want to beat you before placing any models on the table, maybe they aren't very good friends.

Well said!!

I don't play (more a collector and in it for the painting - when I can be bothered) and have an entire IG infantry company (mainly) on sprues - not because it's any better or worse, but because (to me) it's more IG to have just the PBI* than a whole bunch of tanks rolling around - tanks can only be in a location if planned for ahead of time, so most IG battles will be done by gruntwork...

My thinking was that it would also be fun to have a massed Ork vs IG battle where armour was a rare feature than making up most of the points.

For those who don't know: PBI = "Poor Bloody Infantry" - a modern slang term, origins unknown (probably pre-WWI).

Hengist
21-04-2014, 12:25
Not really. My friends, like me, want a game where there is challenging tactics on the battlefield. That means no bringing a list that will blitz the other person off the board turn 1, but bringing something that is fluffy, balanced and with variety as opposed to min maxing, Ally abusing spam lists.
Um... from where did you get the impression that I was in favour of min-maxing and spammy lists? My disappointment with 6th edition is that - even compared with its predecessors, which were hardly stellar in this regard - it's increasingly difficult to avoid ending up with two hideously ill-matched armies facing each other. A game written by professionals, published by a market giant like GW should not require its players to balance it: the bloody army lists should be balanced in the first place.

Caveat: List-building inevitably will - and should - be part of any wargame, but should reward the application of sensible tactical doctrine - i.e. combined arms - not spamming Long Fangs/mortars/Helldrakes/whatever.


Not taking the most abusive list possible is not the same as not wanting to play a game with meaningful decisions.
Which was exactly what I said in my first post. My objection to 6th edition lies in its diminution of meaningful decisions on the table by the addition of a plethora of "narrative" random factors, and the decreasing balance between army lists. The problem, as I've pointed out already, isn't one of "those WAAC jerks" bringing an invincible list, it's that any two ostensibly "fair" lists are increasingly unlikely to produce a balanced game.

stroller
21-04-2014, 12:52
No. Not clinging. Beginning to enjoy.

Wargaming for me is "beer & pretzels": chatting around a table over an enjoyable game. I've yet to see a flyer or a superheavy, though I have just bought some ork flyers, because they look like fun. Whether they make it to the table remains to be seen. Sure the games - both of them - have balance issues, but I've yet to come across anything that has made me think - "not playing that anymore....". I LIKE drunk goblins spinning around a metal ball bigger than they are, animosity, the figures and the background. I've no interest in refighting the battle of wherever complete with accurate models, (for example, napoleonic) strategy, tactics and all the rest. The games are fun, the figures are cool, and a fun way to socialise. I dare say the next editions will roll up sometime, and at that point my regular opponents and I will drift across over time playing a mix of old and new. I played fantasy last week with a newish opponent where we decided "let's dump the magic today". The world didn't end. We had a fun game, which came down to the wire. Job done.

MiyamatoMusashi
21-04-2014, 13:19
Would you find it harder to socialise if you were playing a good game?

shelfunit.
21-04-2014, 13:20
Not really. My friends, like me, want a game where there is challenging tactics on the battlefield.

Before Verm1s gets in - then what are you doing playing 40k?... :p


That means no bringing a list that will blitz the other person off the board turn 1, but bringing something that is fluffy, balanced and with variety as opposed to min maxing, Ally abusing spam lists.

Not taking the most abusive list possible is not the same as not wanting to play a game with meaningful decisions.

If your friends don't care about both you and them having a great time and want to beat you before placing any models on the table, maybe they aren't very good friends.

If the game/army lists were balanced then the above would never happen, as with balanced rule/lists the skill of the player would shine through, and if anyone got tabled then they would either be the unluckiest, or worst general irrespective of what their opponents intentions for the game were.

Spiney Norman
21-04-2014, 13:42
Should this thread title not be "Still Clinging to Games Workshop?".

Not at all, 40k is just at a particularly low ebb at the moment. Warhammer fantasy has actually had a remarkably good edition where game balance is concerned, after almost 4 years no one book has been consistently performing well above the curve, and aside from a few isolated units here and there (looking at you daemon prince) there hasn't really been anything game-breaking and 8th edition has remained pretty stable throughout its life. For me this is the biggest counter to Yabbas 'GW games are always badly designed and totally unbalanced, every edition so learn to deal with it' argument, I look at the place wfb is in and wonder why they couldn't do the same thing with 40k.

They have managed to run 40k 6th edition into the ground in less than half that amount of time.

Unfortunately its more than likely that GW would realise this to and come to the conclusion that being a playable balanced game is the very reason why fantasy is being outsold by 40k and the next edition of wfb might end up being the worst yet...

LotR has remained a well balanced and fun game, largely because they don't bother tinkering with it much if at all, unfortunately it's theme is rather niche and it lacks the promo hype that get lavished on the two main systems through WD.

stroller
21-04-2014, 14:14
Would you find it harder to socialise if you were playing a good game?

Not at all. I've played some other good games. I liked star ship troopers - but it died the death. AT-43 seemed to go the same way. I have a ton and a half of Heroclix, pirates and Taliban - and know noone else who plays them. Lots of people tell me Kings of War and Warmachine are good - tried both - didn't like either. Am not saying they're bad - just that I didn't enjoy as much as fantasy and 40K. I'm not keen on PP models - they are GOOD - but I don't like them as much. Flames of War appeals to an extent - but I have a chicken and egg there. Noone I know plays, and I'm not ready to invest in yet another game to sit in the loft like half a dozen others. (Yes I know there are probably local FOW players, but finding them takes effort - with GW, that's already done and dusted.) Lazy? maybe, but I play to relax, not to work hard at something else. That won't be for everyone, but it suits me fine.

MiyamatoMusashi
21-04-2014, 14:36
There you go, then. You'll play whatever game you feel like playing, and it doesn't matter if it's good/balanced/etc or not, because the game isn't really what matters to you. That's fine - perfectly valid viewpoint.

Also a perfectly valid viewpoint is people who want to concentrate more on the game than the beer and pretzels. Making a good game would help them, and wouldn't hurt you at all - so why not let them ask for something they want? To put it another way: what meaning does it have to say "nah, is alright, so long as you don't care about the game you're playing and are there to drink beer"? Some people [I]do care about the game they're playing, and fixing the problems they have with it wouldn't be any kind of negative at all to those who don't mind what the game is.

MiyamatoMusashi
21-04-2014, 14:45
For me this is the biggest counter to Yabbas 'GW games are always badly designed and totally unbalanced, every edition so learn to deal with it' argument, I look at the place wfb is in and wonder why they couldn't do the same thing with 40k.

From my point of view this sounds like an extraordinary claim. Disclaimer: I've not played Warhammer in a good couple of years now, so for all I know, you might even be right! But it sounds terribly unlikely. Why do I say this, you ask? Because I played Warhammer at the start of 8th Ed and every game I played, the winner was determined by something completely ridiculous. My entire Orc army lost to a single unit of Ogre Mournfangs. My entire Dark Elf army lost to a single unit of Ogre Mournfangs. My entire Empire army lost to two units of Ogre Mournfangs. (Seeing a theme yet?) I also both lost, and won, games purely through means of uber-spells, where we might as well not have even deployed our models because a few dice rolls in the magic phase decided everything. It was the most hideously unbalanced, awful wargame I think I've ever played. So I stopped.

Now, since then, there's been a whole bunch of new army books. Maybe they are all miraculously perfectly balanced with each other! Maybe you're right. But since, back then, at the beginning of the edition... the core rules and army book balance was just dreadful... I've really lost all inclination to find out whether or not that's the case. Suffice to say, it doesn't seem likely. The rules haven't changed, after all. Are Mournfangs any less absurdly ridiculously good than they were before? Have the spells got weaker? If not, where has this balance you speak of appeared from? Is it simply that all the new army books (and all the spell lists they contain) have been lifted to the same level? If so, that's gotta really suck for players still waiting for a new book for their army. Out of interest, in this perfectly balanced edition of Warhammer that you describe... how often do you see Bretonnian and Wood Elf armies? I don't really keep track, but from what I gather, they're just never seen. Whither balance then?

Spiney Norman
21-04-2014, 15:28
From my point of view this sounds like an extraordinary claim. Disclaimer: I've not played Warhammer in a good couple of years now, so for all I know, you might even be right! But it sounds terribly unlikely. Why do I say this, you ask? Because I played Warhammer at the start of 8th Ed and every game I played, the winner was determined by something completely ridiculous. My entire Orc army lost to a single unit of Ogre Mournfangs. My entire Dark Elf army lost to a single unit of Ogre Mournfangs. My entire Empire army lost to two units of Ogre Mournfangs. (Seeing a theme yet?) I also both lost, and won, games purely through means of uber-spells, where we might as well not have even deployed our models because a few dice rolls in the magic phase decided everything. It was the most hideously unbalanced, awful wargame I think I've ever played. So I stopped.

Now, since then, there's been a whole bunch of new army books. Maybe they are all miraculously perfectly balanced with each other! Maybe you're right. But since, back then, at the beginning of the edition... the core rules and army book balance was just dreadful... I've really lost all inclination to find out whether or not that's the case. Suffice to say, it doesn't seem likely. The rules haven't changed, after all. Are Mournfangs any less absurdly ridiculously good than they were before? Have the spells got weaker? If not, where has this balance you speak of appeared from? Is it simply that all the new army books (and all the spell lists they contain) have been lifted to the same level? If so, that's gotta really suck for players still waiting for a new book for their army. Out of interest, in this perfectly balanced edition of Warhammer that you describe... how often do you see Bretonnian and Wood Elf armies? I don't really keep track, but from what I gather, they're just never seen. Whither balance then?

I see wood elves in roughly half the games I play (whenever I'm not using my Lizards in fact), Bretonnians much less, but still occasionally. Wood elves have the advantage that everyone thinks they are much worse than they actually are (that's not to say they're not disadvantaged next to more recent armies, they obviously are) but when your oppontent goes into a game overconfident and expecting an easy win based on your army choice it certainly helps your odds.

Monstrous cavalry as a troop type were a new introduction this edition, and they certainly did take some getting used to (think of the way that flyers impacted the 40k meta without the horrible rock/paper/scissors interaction between flyers, Skyfire and ground units).

Once a few armies had them and they were seeing proper table time counter-strategies naturally developed to deal with them as the edition developed. Stegadons, cannons and any form of high strength attack that hits before they do can generally see monstrous cavalry off. For example in a recent game I flanked a unit of Mournfang with my Wardancers led by a highborn with the blades of Loec, my opponent threw his dispel dice to stop a high level amber spear that was about to tear the front rank off a big unit of iron guts which allowed me to get savage beast of Horros off on the Wardancer lord, who proceeded to kill two out of the three Mournefangs his unit was facing before his followers brought down the third.

Verm1s
21-04-2014, 15:34
Before Verm1s gets in

:eek:


I LIKE drunk goblins spinning around a metal ball bigger than they are, animosity, the figures and the background. I've no interest in refighting the battle of wherever complete with accurate models, (for example, napoleonic) strategy, tactics and all the rest.

Don't read too deeply into this, but when I read stuff like that (or worse) I think 'it's not a set of dice you want, it's a set of fireworks (http://www.fiestafrog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/sid.jpg)'.

Scammel
21-04-2014, 17:53
My entire Orc army lost to a single unit of Ogre Mournfangs. My entire Dark Elf army lost to a single unit of Ogre Mournfangs. My entire Empire army lost to two units of Ogre Mournfangs. (Seeing a theme yet?)

I'm seeing a theme whereby you're not taking making use of some of the best answers to Mournfangs that are available - between Empire and O&G you have access to Cannon, Steam Tanks, Doom Divers, Rock Lobbas, Spear Chukkas, Fanatics and Manglers. Empire and DE also pack the lores best suited to giving Mournfangs (and indeed, the entire army) the heebie-jeebies. Fantasy is 90% fine.

MiyamatoMusashi
21-04-2014, 18:14
I'm seeing a theme whereby you're not taking making use of some of the best answers to Mournfangs that are available - between Empire and O&G you have access to Cannon, Steam Tanks, Doom Divers, Rock Lobbas, Spear Chukkas, Fanatics and Manglers. Empire and DE also pack the lores best suited to giving Mournfangs (and indeed, the entire army) the heebie-jeebies. Fantasy is 90% fine.

So, units exist which force every other army to take something to counter that exact unit, just in case you should come up against it... and that's balance in your view?

Wow. We have very different definitions of "balance". Shouldn't it be possible to take a typical, fluffy army and stand a reasonable chance against any other army, with the tabletop tactics dictating who wins? Losing in the army selection phase - simply because I didn't anticipate the likelihood of coming up against one particular vastly overpowered, undercosted unit - is surely the very definition of an unbalanced game!

(Incidentally, I took a cannon for my Empire, it got destroyed before it could fire by his move-and-fire better-than-a-cannon cannon-monster. Yep, nice balance there!)

Scammel
21-04-2014, 19:07
So, units exist which force every other army to take something to counter that exact unit, just in case you should come up against it... and that's balance in your view?


The big flaw here being that there are plenty of potent units out there that are vulnerable to the exact same things. All of the units I listed also do perfectly well against all stripes of monstrous cavalry, monsters, chariots, some warmachines and are alright in a pinch against heavier brands of infantry and cavalry. It's not even as though the list was particularly short, either - it's not a case of 'Take this single, otherwise useless unit or you'll be stomped by this single other unit', it's 'Use a variety of these units that are great against numerous targets'.

The only valid point you made is that yes, the Ironblaster has it going too good compared to other warmcahines and chariots.

Scaryscarymushroom
21-04-2014, 20:05
So, units exist which force every other army to take something to counter that exact unit, just in case you should come up against it... and that's balance in your view?

Wow. We have very different definitions of "balance". Shouldn't it be possible to take a typical, fluffy army and stand a reasonable chance against any other army, with the tabletop tactics dictating who wins? Losing in the army selection phase - simply because I didn't anticipate the likelihood of coming up against one particular vastly overpowered, undercosted unit - is surely the very definition of an unbalanced game!

(Incidentally, I took a cannon for my Empire, it got destroyed before it could fire by his move-and-fire better-than-a-cannon cannon-monster. Yep, nice balance there!)

Rock paper scissors is a very balanced game. Just saying. It's also much faster and much less expensive to play than a game of warhammer.

MiyamatoMusashi
21-04-2014, 20:08
The only valid point you made is that yes, the Ironblaster has it going too good compared to other warmcahines and chariots.

You don't think there's any validity at all in my point that if I take (say) a 2000 point list, and my opponent takes a 2000 point list, we ought (excepting extreme cases, in which one of us deliberately takes a useless list) to have a fair and balanced game in which either of us have a chance to win - and the outcome is decided by what happens on the tabletop, the decisions we make and the tactics we use and the way we manoeuvre our units; not just whether we did or didn't take enough cannons (or whatever the "right" unit is)?

I personally would call that quite a valid point, personally. Me mentioning horribly imbalanced, overpowered units or armies that IME won the game on their own, effectively in the army selection phase; and you saying "you took the wrong list against it"; doesn't make much of an argument for the game being balanced, in my view. Sorry, but there it is.

(Neither is this just sour grapes, about me losing. I won some games, but the games I did win were usually when I rolled a double 6 when casting a mega spell and completely removed one or more of my opponents' units from the table, with nothing he could do to stop it. I didn't find it at all fun... or indeed balanced, when one wizard model and a lucky dice roll decides the entire game).

Anyway. I don't suppose we're going to agree on this. Let's just agree that our views on whether 8th Ed Warhammer is balanced or not differ wildly, possibly because we seem to disagree fundamentally on what "balanced" means.

MiyamatoMusashi
21-04-2014, 20:10
Rock paper scissors is a very balanced game. Just saying. It's also much faster and much less expensive to play than a game of warhammer.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Are you saying it's OK for Warhammer (or whatever other wargame) to be imbalanced, because it only cost hundreds of pounds and hours of preparation, plus a couple of hours to play? I must be a bit dim, because I can't see how that makes it better.

Scammel
21-04-2014, 20:12
Rock paper scissors is a very balanced game. Just saying. It's also much faster and much less expensive to play than a game of warhammer.

It's also considerably less engaging for most.

Scaryscarymushroom
21-04-2014, 21:13
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Are you saying it's OK for Warhammer (or whatever other wargame) to be imbalanced, because it only cost hundreds of pounds and hours of preparation, plus a couple of hours to play? I must be a bit dim, because I can't see how that makes it better.

What I'm trying to say is about balance. Rock paper scissors is perfectly balanced, despite the fact that the game is made up entirely of hard counters. I'm not disagreeing with you that warhammer is imbalanced or that the existence of hard counters makes it a worse war game. But 2000 points of x being perfectly matched against 2000 points of y in every single instance would be as boring as tic tac toe. Once you figured out how to play, you could never lose. But there's got to be some middle ground, because despite Scammel's insistence that warhammer is more engaging than rock paper scissors, I find very little that is engaging about losing or winning a game before you start playing. If you ignore the fluff completely and look only at rules design, rock paper scissors might very well be the more entertaining game, because you don't look at your opponent's deciding play (his choice of what models to field) for two hours. You look at it for all of two seconds, and then you do it again, or not.

EDIT: I suppose not as boring as tic tac toe. Chess and go are also quite evenly balanced, the only substantial difference being the number of plays a person is able to make at any given time. When a game is balanced, variables make it interesting. It's been a while since I've played warhammer, so I'll let other people decide if there could be enough variables to make it interesting, or if it's all just MEQ, anti horde, anti armor, etc. and the stats just obfuscate the fact that there are only really a handful of different roles that a model can play.

MusingWarboss
21-04-2014, 21:52
Rock paper scissors is a very balanced game. Just saying. It's also much faster and much less expensive to play than a game of warhammer.

Indeed. But I've always considered Warhammer FB/40k to be closer to Top Trumps than R.P.S. Incidentally, GW made a not-TT set of game cards at one time. Perhaps they should just start sculpting little discs on the back of models with an image of a rock, sheet of paper or some scissors on, much like those Japanese toys you used to get in the 80s/90s with holographic logs, water or fire on?

That would certainly speed up the close combat phase!! :evilgrin:

Hengist
21-04-2014, 22:08
What I'm trying to say is about balance. Rock paper scissors is perfectly balanced, despite the fact that the game is made up entirely of hard counters.
Being precise, RPS is balanced because it is made up of nothing other than hard counters, all of which are of exactly the same value.


I'm not disagreeing with you that warhammer is imbalanced or that the existence of hard counters makes it a worse war game. But 2000 points of x being perfectly matched against 2000 points of y in every single instance would be as boring as tic tac toe.
That's a bit of a straw man. Nobody's asking that any given match-up of even points values be perfectly even - or at least nobody should be asking for that, since it's basically impossible at a tabletop wargame's level of complexity. What is achievable, however, is that from any two of a given set of army lists, it should be possible to select tactically-balanced forces - and optimal to do so, rather than spamming - that will stand approximately even chances against each other, with the players' decisions on the field the principal drivers of victory or defeat. When this can be achieved by a game like Hail Caesar, whose list-writers and playtesters are volunteers rewarded with plastic models and crates of stout, GW have no excuse for failing to do so.


But there's got to be some middle ground, because despite Scammel's insistence that warhammer is more engaging than rock paper scissors, I find very little that is engaging about losing or winning a game before you start playing. If you ignore the fluff completely and look only at rules design, rock paper scissors might very well be the more entertaining game, because you*don't look*at your opponent's deciding play (his choice of what models to field) for two hours. You look at it for all of two seconds, and then you do it again, or not.
Scammel might be surprised to learn that there are highly-regarded wargames out there like Napoleon's Triumph and Bonaparte at Marengo in which, just like RPS, the only random factor is hidden information. And they've both won more design awards that Warhammer ever has or will.

ehlijen
21-04-2014, 22:13
Rock Paper Scissors works because the game ends once you've made your choice of what to bring.

In Warhammer/40K that's when the game is supposed to start. People correctly desire all that moving models around and rolling dice to have an impact on the outcome.

You can certainly doom your chances to win by making poor choices in the list building or deployment phase. But you shouldn't have an easy time gaining a massive advantage against an enemy who isn't making mistakes. (And simply not taking specific units in the blind expectation that they'll be the hard counter needed is not a mistake.)

MiyamatoMusashi
21-04-2014, 23:08
Rock Paper Scissors works because the game ends once you've made your choice of what to bring.

In Warhammer/40K that's when the game is supposed to start.

Nicely put.


You can certainly doom your chances to win by making poor choices in the list building or deployment phase. But you shouldn't have an easy time gaining a massive advantage against an enemy who isn't making mistakes. (And simply not taking specific units in the blind expectation that they'll be the hard counter needed is not a mistake.)

Agreed.

Now, as I said... I've not played Warhammer in a while, so maybe that's where it is now. But I'm struggling to believe it, because last time I did play, it was almost as far from that place as it was possible to be.

Yowzo
21-04-2014, 23:17
Now, as I said... I've not played Warhammer in a while, so maybe that's where it is now. But I'm struggling to believe it, because last time I did play, it was almost as far from that place as it was possible to be.

Believe or not you're missing out on what's probably the most balanced warhammer edition, ever.

Scaryscarymushroom
21-04-2014, 23:21
That's a bit of a straw man. Nobody's asking that any given match-up of even points values be perfectly even - or at least nobody should be asking for that, since it's basically impossible at a tabletop wargame's level of complexity.

Maybe I'm having a hard time understanding the nature of MiyamotoMusashi's ogre problem then. I could just be mistaken. That happens a lot. ;)

MiyamatoMusashi
21-04-2014, 23:38
Maybe I'm having a hard time understanding the nature off MiyamotoMusashi's ogre problem then. I could just be mistaken. That happens a lot. ;)

I'm not asking for perfect balance, like Rock Paper Scissors, because RPS is dull, as we all know. But Chess has almost perfect balance (the player who gets to be white has a small advantage, though in competitive games this shrinks to almost zero as players swap sides; no Grand Master ever blamed his defeat on his opponent getting to be white 7 times while he was only white 6 times; it is effectively perfectly balanced, to all intents and purposes) and it's dramatically more complex than RPS, and also dramatically more interesting.

If that were the whole story I'd just play Chess, but of course I like playing "proper" wargames, and I like the element of chance in the form of dice rolls (there is player skill involved in balancing probability of success and risk of failure), and I like picking different armies. I accept that it is considerably more difficult to find "perfect" balance with those variables added in - but it still ought to be possible to have very good balance, where I can field a normal army, and my opponent can field a normal army, and there won't be any way to know the winner until the game is played. There is no dichotomy between "perfect balance" and "absolutely no balance at all"; it's a sliding scale, and IMO game designers ought to make an effort to push their game as far to the left as possible - they owe it to their players.

That's what I'm getting at.

[The following was added in an edit]

Now - everyone keeps telling me that Warhammer is there now. I'll just have to take their word for it. But I remember shortly after the Ogre book came out (I don't wish to sound like I'm harping on about Ogres, just trying to be consistent in discussion) there were tournament reports that featured 128 players, 70 Ogre armies, and over 100 Mournfang units between them. You can't tell me that happened by accident, nor that a balanced game would lead to that kind of thing happening. (Similar things happen in 40K, remember how ridiculous Grey Knights were at launch? Apparently Taudar is the modern equivalent). Maybe every army book since has been perfectly equal in power level to Ogre Kingdoms, people certainly keep trying to sell me so. Unfortunately, I lost the will to try again on the off-chance... too many bad experiences.

Ultimately, GW themselves openly say they have no interest in making a balanced game. Jervis wrote in White Dwarf a few weeks ago (I'm trying to find it again, I'll edit if I do) that they're completely unperturbed about the idea of any given army being able to play against any other, and don't have any problem at all with someone turning up to a game and finding themselves completely unable to win. When GW say that, surely it can't be denied?

Scaryscarymushroom
21-04-2014, 23:48
I'm not asking for perfect balance, like Rock Paper Scissors, because RPS is dull, as we all know. But Chess has almost perfect balance (the player who gets to be white has a small advantage, though in competitive games this shrinks to almost zero as players swap sides; no Grand Master ever blamed his defeat on his opponent getting to be white 7 times while he was only white 6 times; it is effectively perfectly balanced, to all intents and purposes) and it's dramatically more complex than RPS, and also dramatically more interesting.

If that were the whole story I'd just play Chess, but of course I like playing "proper" wargames, and I like the element of chance in the form of dice rolls (there is player skill involved in balancing probability of success and risk of failure), and I like picking different armies. I accept that it is considerably more difficult to find "perfect" balance with those variables added in - but it still ought to be possible to have very good balance, where I can field a normal army, and my opponent can field a normal army, and there won't be any way to know the winner until the game is played. There is no dichotomy between "perfect balance" and "absolutely no balance at all"; it's a sliding scale, and IMO game designers ought to make an effort to push their game as far to the left as possible - they owe it to their players.

That's what I'm getting at.

Cheers to that. I am in total agreement on every point.

Scammel
22-04-2014, 08:19
Scammel might be surprised to learn that there are highly-regarded wargames out there like Napoleon's Triumph and Bonaparte at Marengo in which, just like RPS, the only random factor is hidden information. And they've both won more design awards that Warhammer ever has or will.

Scammel was literally talking about the actual rock-paper-scissors games, not the mechanic.


But I remember shortly after the Ogre book came out (I don't wish to sound like I'm harping on about Ogres, just trying to be consistent in discussion) there were tournament reports that featured 128 players, 70 Ogre armies, and over 100 Mournfang units between them. You can't tell me that happened by accident, nor that a balanced game would lead to that kind of thing happening.

Ogre domination lasted for 3 months or so and then fizzled out (or at least, they receded into being merely a valid tourney army). It wasn't due to any new books - in fact I don't think any new book has given them undue problems in 8th - but simply because people stopped fielding the vast infantry deathstars that Ogres just love to trample over and started getting more manoeuvrable. I know it's a line parroted to defend tonnes of legitimately overpowered books, but people adapted to them and typical lists are now considerably more mixed than they were at the start of the edition. Cavalry is now regarded as rather good.

Yowzo
22-04-2014, 08:35
Now - everyone keeps telling me that Warhammer is there now. I'll just have to take their word for it. But I remember shortly after the Ogre book came out (I don't wish to sound like I'm harping on about Ogres, just trying to be consistent in discussion) there were tournament reports that featured 128 players, 70 Ogre armies, and over 100 Mournfang units between them. You can't tell me that happened by accident, nor that a balanced game would lead to that kind of thing happening. (Similar things happen in 40K, remember how ridiculous Grey Knights were at launch? Apparently Taudar is the modern equivalent). Maybe every army book since has been perfectly equal in power level to Ogre Kingdoms, people certainly keep trying to sell me so. Unfortunately, I lost the will to try again on the off-chance... too many bad experiences.


So you had a bad case of new edition shock and rage quit.

It's obviously your choice but, again, this edition at the present point has probably the best armybook win spread ever. There's no autowin armybooks, top tier armies comprise a good third of the available armies, but can be easily challenged by mid-tier armies, and even the lowest rungs of power level (I play mostly TK and O&G, with a bit of elves, vampires and empire on the side) can get good tournament results with a skilled general.

O&G are actually very well equipped to take against OK, when just about every new army bar elves has their own monstrous cavalry you learn how to play them. Complaining after OP mournfang is so 2011.

Herzlos
22-04-2014, 09:03
No, a new army book came out and clearly had an advantage (since 55% of the armies in a large tournament used it. That's a huge ratio for a balanced book), and smashed everyone for a few months until they started tailoring lists to avoid it. That's not balanced; if it was balanced it wouldn't have such a huge uptake* and shouldn't have dominated everything until the local meta changed.

*I get the impression Ogre armies are pretty popular because of favourable the point/$ ratio, so I'd expect them to have a larger share of players than horde armies, but over half of entrants? No way.

Scammel
22-04-2014, 09:29
No, a new army book came out and clearly had an advantage (since 55% of the armies in a large tournament used it. That's a huge ratio for a balanced book), and smashed everyone for a few months until they started tailoring lists to avoid it. That's not balanced; if it was balanced it wouldn't have such a huge uptake* and shouldn't have dominated everything until the local meta changed.

*I get the impression Ogre armies are pretty popular because of favourable the point/$ ratio, so I'd expect them to have a larger share of players than horde armies, but over half of entrants? No way.

Combine that point/ ratio with the fact that the meta was in the worst possible shape for handling such a book and you'll find your answer. Do you honestly not remember the dozen threads on how 'Cavalry is dead'? Furthermore, it didn't take a new book to knock Ogres down a peg - everyone already had the tools to deal with them and simply didn't use them. Don't tell me rock is OP because you never go for paper.

Tarax
22-04-2014, 09:38
- but simply because people stopped fielding the vast infantry deathstars that Ogres just love to trample over and started getting more manoeuvrable. I know it's a line parroted to defend tonnes of legitimately overpowered books, but people adapted to them and typical lists are now considerably more mixed than they were at the start of the edition. Cavalry is now regarded as rather good.

That's just the point. Deathstars shouldn't even exist, because that means that some units are much more powerful than others, ie unbalanced.

I'd like to build my army on a unit by unit basis, where I look at each unit and decide if I like it and how it works on the battlefield. Not so much how vulnerable it is against certain opponents, nor how it interacts with other units. Just based on the unit's abilities, it should be balanced both internally and externally. Eg: I like Wood Elf Archers. Maybe not the best unit, but they look nice (to me), have good abilities, but are rather vulnerable (slightly compensated for their own long range attacks). It shouldn't matter that Dryads are better in combat, nor if an edition is more combat oriented. Wood Elf archers should be a viable option, no matter what.

Scammel
22-04-2014, 10:00
That's just the point. Deathstars shouldn't even exist, because that means that some units are much more powerful than others, ie unbalanced.


No, it means some units are better than others at different things. Try running Savage Orcs as a harassment unit and Wolf Riders as a bunker. Whilst some of the nastier ones are definitely excessive, I don't really thing there's anything inherently wrong with armies revolving around large, powerful bodyguard units; if anything it's much more evocative of the setting.


I'd like to build my army on a unit by unit basis, where I look at each unit and decide if I like it and how it works on the battlefield. Not so much how vulnerable it is against certain opponents, nor how it interacts with other units. Just based on the unit's abilities, it should be balanced both internally and externally.

I'm not understanding you, sorry. You don't think units should be balanced according to how they interact with other units? There's no other way to balance them. That's what a unit's abilities are.


Wood Elf archers should be a viable option, no matter what.

Why don't we wait a few weeks to see?

I freely admit that Fantasy definitely has some issues, but they generally revolve around some easy-to-fix rethinking of individual units. Cannon are a bit too good and magic can be a bit too all-or-nothing, but beyond that I think it's great.

ntw3001
22-04-2014, 10:17
I don't play Fantasy, but is this discussion basically that the game was all about huge infantry deathstars, then Ogres came and squished them, so now people have to use combined arms and it's terrible because an entire army of nothing but Wood Elf archers isn't top tier?

MiyamatoMusashi
22-04-2014, 10:24
So you had a bad case of new edition shock and rage quit.

No, I found that Warhammer had become a game with horribly unbalanced armies and units that was decided in the army selection phase. That's not a game I have any interest in playing. Apparently it's all magically fixed since then. I've moved on to other games, sorry.


No, a new army book came out and clearly had an advantage (since 55% of the armies in a large tournament used it. That's a huge ratio for a balanced book), and smashed everyone for a few months until they started tailoring lists to avoid it. That's not balanced; if it was balanced it wouldn't have such a huge uptake* and shouldn't have dominated everything until the local meta changed.

Exactly this.


I don't play Fantasy, but is this discussion basically that the game was all about huge infantry deathstars, then Ogres came and squished them, so now people have to use combined arms and it's terrible because an entire army of nothing but Wood Elf archers isn't top tier?

No.

tristessa
22-04-2014, 10:29
We had a big game of WHFB on Saturday that harked back to the old ways of playing games from my youth - we put two armies on the table, wrote down what magic items they had and didn't worry about points. Was a cracker! It was quite liberating and will be trying it again in the future.

Yowzo
22-04-2014, 10:48
No, I found that Warhammer had become a game with horribly unbalanced armies and units that was decided in the army selection phase. That's not a game I have any interest in playing. Apparently it's all magically fixed since then. I've moved on to other games, sorry.
.

Check how do ogres stand in the current tournament scene.

You don't want to look back that's OK, but don't harp about whfb being unbalanced because this is not 2011 anymore.

Someone put it very well before. MF was a shock back in the day because it forced people out of their comfort zone. Now it's just one more threat you have to plan for, the tools are there, tactics have evolved.

Scammel
22-04-2014, 14:26
I don't play Fantasy, but is this discussion basically that the game was all about huge infantry deathstars, then Ogres came and squished them, so now people have to use combined arms and it's terrible because an entire army of nothing but Wood Elf archers isn't top tier?

Pretty much. It's funny because all the tools needed to beat Ogres were all already there and were/are still useful against a variety of relevant targets.

MusingWarboss
22-04-2014, 15:17
This discussion is interesting - mostly because it doesn't seem to be about balance and more about how power cycles happen in GW games. It doesn't sound any different from 40k to me. It may be balanced now but clearly wasn't back then but people worked out how to use their stuff effectively against the new models. So, what were saying is GW releases a new book/unit and it becomes the killer thing until other people react to it by utilising their stuff better or an even better thing comes around and this happens until everything is pretty much balanced and then GW release a new version of the game which up skittles things again and the whole cycle repeats.

Nope still not seeing any difference here between FB or 40k. Grey Knights were killer, then things moved on and now they're not. Now people worry about Imperial Knights and Baneblades and Phantom Titans... Well, they will until the power cycle creeps up and they're forgotten about as almost everyone can shoot them down. Then we get a new version of the game.

Scammel
22-04-2014, 15:27
This discussion is interesting - mostly because it doesn't seem to be about balance and more about how power cycles happen in GW games. It doesn't sound any different from 40k to me. It may be balanced now but clearly wasn't back then but people worked out how to use their stuff effectively against the new models. So, what were saying is GW releases a new book/unit and it becomes the killer thing until other people react to it by utilising their stuff better or an even better thing comes around and this happens until everything is pretty much balanced and then GW release a new version of the game which up skittles things again and the whole cycle repeats.

Nope still not seeing any difference here between FB or 40k. Grey Knights were killer, then things moved on and now they're not. Now people worry about Imperial Knights and Baneblades and Phantom Titans... Well, they will until the power cycle creeps up and they're forgotten about as almost everyone can shoot them down. Then we get a new version of the game.

The difference being that Grey Knights were pretty damn objectively overpowered and then got knocked down by new, better books. Ogres got an update that brought them into line with everyone else, did well for a bit and then got knocked down by stuff that already existed.

MusingWarboss
22-04-2014, 15:41
The difference being that Grey Knights were pretty damn objectively overpowered and then got knocked down by new, better books. Ogres got an update that brought them into line with everyone else, did well for a bit and then got knocked down by stuff that already existed.

Which begs the question, why did nobody do that sooner? I mean, given the propensity for list building and number crunching in some parts of the interwebs I can't believe that it took long before someone thought, hey, I could just shoot them in the face with my cannon! Was it just new syndrome and people rushed to buy Ogres and forgot about their existing stuff?

I don't know the chronology of book releases for WHFB 8th but it's sounds like a rulebook issue still, mixed with some power playing in some quarters.

I mean by your own words you say "Ogres got an update that brought them into line with everyone else" which makes me think other books had power cycled up by that point which left the old Ogres book out of balance, then a new one was released and loads of people latched onto it because it was new and found a unit they could spam which worked until sufficient tactics had been brought in to bring them down using existing kit. There's nothing to suggest a new WHFB 8th book wouldn't bring about a similar situation again - which doesn't smack of balance it smacks of power cycling between books designed for a previous version of the game having to compete with books designed for the newer version.

A cleaner approach would be if GW had all army books ready to go for a new edition when that edition releases. Then they could all be in balance with each other.

The current system is designed to sell models and each book release has to both be in line with other released books (often from previous versions) whilst simultaneously bringing stuff for the newer edition. Thus each edition of the game has weaker-stronger releases as the edition progresses. If it didn't there would be no need to ever buy a new army book/codex as the previous one would suffice over several generations (thankfully for my Orks - it has so far).

Scammel
22-04-2014, 15:50
Which begs the question, why did nobody do that sooner? I mean, given the propensity for list building and number crunching in some parts of the interwebs I can't believe that it took long before someone thought, hey, I could just shoot them in the face with my cannon! Was it just new syndrome and people rushed to buy Ogres and forgot about their existing stuff?

Honestly? Pretty much. Ogres were flashy, cheap and did well against existing builds. The internet doesn't twig to the best builds and counters that quickly, either - I remember it took about a month before people realised that the Heldrake was more than average and even longer to discover the Screamerstar (up until then it was all about the MCs).

MiyamatoMusashi
22-04-2014, 16:39
Honestly? Pretty much. Ogres were flashy, cheap and did well against existing builds. The internet doesn't twig to the best builds and counters that quickly, either - I remember it took about a month before people realised that the Heldrake was more than average and even longer to discover the Screamerstar (up until then it was all about the MCs).

That's fine if you are - or closely follow lists from - "the internet".

I tend to just roll with a list that feels right to me, that looks cool, that is fluffy and representative of the army in question, in my imagination and according to the background. Such lists IME struggle horribly about one third of the time, are overwhelming winners about one third of the time (assuming my opponent is taking the same approach, ie. this is his time to struggle horribly), and lead to a satisfying game the remaining third of the time. A 1/3 chance of a good game isn't much.

I think I agree with MusingWarboss (edit - not Scammel!), if I understand what he's saying right. Scouring the internet for the latest internet wisdom to defeat the latest netlist isn't "balance". Someone shouldn't need to follow internet wisdom on how to defeat the latest flavour of the month, because a typical, balanced, fluffy force should be capable (with good decisions made during the game) of taking on any force of the same points value. That's what balance means to me. The fact that it is possible to build a force capable of defeating the latest "undefeatable army" (and thus it's not really undefeatable) doesn't make the game balanced according to my definition of balance, it simply means that the meta gets pushed and shoved back and forth depending on what the latest release is.

To try to state it clearly - if player A takes a fairly representative list for his army, then in a balanced game, the winner should come down to who plays better, him or player B. Not "player A should have taken more cannons / AP3 / D weapons / 2++ saves / Ignores Cover / level 4 wizards / whatever, to deal with what player B brought", even if that would work, because that's not a balanced game; even if it's a "balanced meta". And now that I type that, I think that that's the difference between what we're talking about. The meta may be balanced, and that's great if you subscribe to the internet to know what the meta is. The game can still be unbalanced, even with a balanced meta, and a balanced meta isn't enough in that case, because if you bring something outside the meta, you suffer.

Scammel
22-04-2014, 17:04
Someone shouldn't need to follow internet wisdom on how to defeat the latest flavour of the month, because a typical, balanced, fluffy force should be capable (with good decisions made during the game) of taking on any force of the same points value.

It's funny you should say this because it's pretty much exactly those kinds of lists that are popular right now. Your lack of experience with the game at the moment shows.


"player A should have taken more cannons / AP3 / D weapons / 2++ saves / Ignores Cover / level 4 wizards / whatever, to deal with what player B brought"

What exactly is wrong with this? Certain armies will struggle against others if they don't have particular tools. Rock up with all-cav and all-infantry will grind you down, which in turn will get pounded by a force like Ogres. Mixed arms will have lesser vulnerability yet lesser effectiveness in certain match-ups. You don't need internet access to be able to adapt your list to face particular targets. The difference between Fantasy and 40k is that not all 40k books are capable of ever changing enough to face particular power builds and that it tends to look god-awful when you do so.

Scaryscarymushroom
22-04-2014, 17:31
"player A should have taken more cannons / AP3 / D weapons / 2++ saves / Ignores Cover / level 4 wizards / whatever, to deal with what player B brought"

What exactly is wrong with this? Certain armies will struggle against others if they don't have particular tools. Rock up with all-cav and all-infantry will grind you down, which in turn will get pounded by a force like Ogres. Mixed arms will have lesser vulnerability yet lesser effectiveness in certain match-ups. You don't need internet access to be able to adapt your list to face particular targets. The difference between Fantasy and 40k is that not all 40k books are capable of ever changing enough to face particular power builds and that it tends to look god-awful when you do so.

IMO what is wrong with this is that it's Ogres>Cav+inf>Mixed arms>Ogres. List tailoring is basically just rock paper scissors.

To illustrate your point with 40K, when GW made Codex Witch Hunters and they designed them without a way to deal with close combat infantry in fast open-topped skimmers with anti-tank weapons, the result was that in Dark Eldar vs. Witch Hunters match ups, Dark Eldar won 99% of the time.

There was only one way that I ever beat my DE friend: by immensely creative list tailoring (1000 pts, cheapest troops and HQs that points could buy even though I would never EVER take them otherwise, exactly one heavy bolter in all six of my 5-man non-troop squads, no veteran upgrades, minimal faith points, no fast attack, no wargear, no other special weapons. Wooooo... so much fun... let me tell you...). And then it was like shooting fish in a barrel. Of course, that was no more fun than losing every game.

And the game stayed like that for about eight years.

Scammel
22-04-2014, 17:44
To illustrate your point with 40K, when GW made Codex Witch Hunters and they designed them without a way to deal with close combat infantry in fast open-topped skimmers with anti-tank weapons, the result was that in Dark Eldar vs. Witch Hunters match ups, Dark Eldar won 99% of the time.


That's not really illustrating my point at all, because I can't think of any Fantasy book bar perhaps Beastmen and Wood Elves that categorically cannot deal with any particular builds. You don't have to do any 'immensely creative list tailoring' either, by my reckoning. Fantasy is RPSLS. 40k is RPSLS where certain armies only have three or four of those options.

Scaryscarymushroom
22-04-2014, 18:08
That's not really illustrating my point at all, because I can't think of any Fantasy book bar perhaps Beastmen and Wood Elves that categorically cannot deal with any particular builds. You don't have to do any 'immensely creative list tailoring' either, by my reckoning. Fantasy is RPSLS. 40k is RPSLS where certain armies only have three or four of those options.

I meant your point about 40k armies having trouble against power builds, categorically. This:


not all 40k books are capable of ever changing enough to face particular power builds and that it tends to look god-awful when you do so.

Scammel
22-04-2014, 18:10
I meant your point about 40k armies having trouble against power builds, categorically. This:

Apologies, I gotcha.

Yowzo
22-04-2014, 19:08
IMO what is wrong with this is that it's Ogres>Cav+inf>Mixed arms>Ogres. List tailoring is basically just rock paper scissors.


But it's not just that. A marginally better general will beat their opponent even if it's a bad matchup except on extreme counters like botwd death star vs daemons or all-monster WoC vs twin cannon - twin stank - helblaster empire.

You seem to be convinced that whfb is won on the list building phase when deployment and movement are far more important to the outcome.

Scaryscarymushroom
22-04-2014, 20:30
You seem to be convinced that whfb is won on the list building phase when deployment and movement are far more important to the outcome.

I'm certainly convinced that it's true of 40k... But I don't know much about WHFB. I know it used to be that way. With Matt Ward's Daemons at the very least.

Frankly, the prices are so high and the model count looks so intimidating that I'm not interested in even trying. To me, the prospect of getting a WHFB army table-ready is more daunting than exciting.

Scammel
22-04-2014, 20:58
I'm certainly convinced that it's true of 40k... But I don't know much about WHFB. I know it used to be that way. With Matt Ward's Daemons at the very least.

Frankly, the prices are so high and the model count looks so intimidating that I'm not interested in even trying. To me, the prospect of getting a WHFB army table-ready is more daunting than exciting.

The days of Ward's Daemons are utterly, utterly dead and very well buried (and thank the lord for that) but I whole-heartedly agree that Fantasy's issue is now accessibility as opposed to quality.

Spiney Norman
22-04-2014, 23:15
You don't think there's any validity at all in my point that if I take (say) a 2000 point list, and my opponent takes a 2000 point list, we ought (excepting extreme cases, in which one of us deliberately takes a useless list) to have a fair and balanced game in which either of us have a chance to win - and the outcome is decided by what happens on the tabletop, the decisions we make and the tactics we use and the way we manoeuvre our units; not just whether we did or didn't take enough cannons (or whatever the "right" unit is)?

No offense, but fair and balanced games between armies have been the norm for me and my group for most of WH 8th edition


I personally would call that quite a valid point, personally. Me mentioning horribly imbalanced, overpowered units or armies that IME won the game on their own, effectively in the army selection phase; and you saying "you took the wrong list against it"; doesn't make much of an argument for the game being balanced, in my view. Sorry, but there it is

I just don't see this in the game currently at all, about the only army that can edge out the others is chaos warriors with the tricked out daemon prince and the stupid world dragon banner when taken against daemons, everything else is very well balanced for a GW game and certainly works well enough to provide an enjoyable gaming experience. Its certainly light-years ahead of the current edition of 40k in the balance stakes, but I suppose they will probably toss all that out of the window with 9th edition with an allies system as badly designed as the one that eventually destroyed 6th ed 40k.

Tarax
23-04-2014, 10:28
I'm not understanding you, sorry. You don't think units should be balanced according to how they interact with other units? There's no other way to balance them. That's what a unit's abilities are.

Sometimes unit x on its own is sub-par, but if you include unit p, it suddenly becomes very powerful. So it's not worth taking unit x unless you also take unit p.
Your tactical and aesthetical preference should decide which units you field, because the units you choose can stand up on their own.
Note that synergy effect is more: + plus + = +++, than the aforementioned: - plus + = +++ (if you catch my drift).


I don't play Fantasy, but is this discussion basically that the game was all about huge infantry deathstars, then Ogres came and squished them, so now people have to use combined arms and it's terrible because an entire army of nothing but Wood Elf archers isn't top tier?

Deathstars are IMO a good example of imbalance. But if a new army comes along that can easily squash a Deathstar, that doesn't mean that balance comes from new tactics; it means that the new army is unbalanced. Also because, as said, you could easily defeat that new army with your new tactics, so the new army is suddenly handicapped.

Scammel
23-04-2014, 11:00
Sometimes unit x on its own is sub-par, but if you include unit p, it suddenly becomes very powerful. So it's not worth taking unit x unless you also take unit p.

Why don't you want certain units in your army to interact with each other to make something better than the sum of their parts? Armies composed of nothing but completely stand-alone units should suck, it's what gives this game depth. It's why characters like the general and BSB are important (and they should be).


Deathstars are IMO a good example of imbalance. But if a new army comes along that can easily squash a Deathstar, that doesn't mean that balance comes from new tactics; it means that the new army is unbalanced. Also because, as said, you could easily defeat that new army with your new tactics, so the new army is suddenly handicapped.

Well, A: you still haven't explained how Deathstar-ing in Fantasy is a sign of imbalance. Particular units are really good at providing a durable, powerful bunker but suck in other, very relevant roles and B: A new army that comes along and squashes that deathstar but is handled relatively well by units that are already available to everyone is fine as you're also limiting yourself against the stuff you used to beat fairly easily - the key is finding the balanced, take-all comers list that does really well these days. Your massive Halberdier block will get stomped by my Mournfangs which will get shot by your cannon which will get eaten by my Sabretusk which will get pinged by your Huntsmen which will get murdered by my Maneaters which will get speared by your Knights...

Tarax
23-04-2014, 12:28
It isn't all about interacting.


Your massive Halberdier block will get stomped by my Mournfangs which will get shot by your cannon which will get eaten by my Sabretusk which will get pinged by your Huntsmen which will get murdered by my Maneaters which will gets speared by your Knights...

Your examples just show the imbalance. Each unit should in itself be able to withstand any other unit. A Cannon must be able to shoot (and kill) a unit before it's engaged in close combat.
However, some units are only support units and should inherently be weaker. Cannon and Huntsmen and lone monsters should be weak against well-formed blocks of infantry and/or cavalry. But a unit of ranked infantry should be able to withstand any unit even without support.

Yowzo
23-04-2014, 12:46
It isn't all about interacting.

Your examples just show the imbalance. Each unit should in itself be able to withstand any other unit. A Cannon must be able to shoot (and kill) a unit before it's engaged in close combat.

Sure. Why bother with different army books with unique stats and abilities.

Let's play fields of glory where it's all generic infantry with x experience level, y equipment and z formation.

Scammel
23-04-2014, 12:48
Your examples just show the imbalance. Each unit should in itself be able to withstand any other unit. A Cannon must be able to shoot (and kill) a unit before it's engaged in close combat.
However, some units are only support units and should inherently be weaker. Cannon and Huntsmen and lone monsters should be weak against well-formed blocks of infantry and/or cavalry. But a unit of ranked infantry should be able to withstand any unit even without support.

:confused: Just how much can you contradict yourself in a single post? All units should have 50/50 odds against all others... but some shouldn't? And if infantry are king, why should anyone field anything but? Nothing should be able to handle everything without support.

jtrowell
23-04-2014, 13:28
I've found it to be quite fun to teach and play with my little boy, but he is 6.

If you start saving now, you might be able to buy him Warhammer or 40k 19th edition and a starter army in time for his 18th birthday ... or you might buy Norway for the same price. :angel:

Poseidal
23-04-2014, 13:40
If you start saving now, you might be able to buy him Warhammer or 40k 19th edition and a starter army in time for his 18th birthday ... or you might buy Norway for the same price. :angel:

I guess if you are one of the four richest kings of Europe (GW's target audience) then that's an obvious possibility.

MusingWarboss
23-04-2014, 15:56
I guess if you are one of the four richest kings of Europe (GW's target audience) then that's an obvious possibility.

Don't they have real armies though.

Verm1s
23-04-2014, 17:32
Let's play fields of glory where it's all generic infantry with x experience level, y equipment and z formation.

On one hand, FoG isn't a great comparison because it just deals with humans, a few horses, and the occasional camel and elephant.

On the other hand, it's arguably a better game for that and other features - like most non-warhammer, 'generic', streamlined mass battle games - than bogging and breaking the game down with a zillion tedious, gratuitous exceptions and hold-ups, even for the lowliest pissant things like skavenslaves.

So yeah, good question. Why bother with different army books? For rules, at least. Other games do perfectly fine without them.

Scammel
23-04-2014, 18:34
On one hand, FoG isn't a great comparison because it just deals with humans, a few horses, and the occasional camel and elephant.

On the other hand, it's arguably a better game for that and other features - like most non-warhammer, 'generic', streamlined mass battle games - than bogging and breaking the game down with a zillion tedious, gratuitous exceptions and hold-ups, even for the lowliest pissant things like skavenslaves.

So yeah, good question. Why bother with different army books? For rules, at least. Other games do perfectly fine without them.

I'd seriously question how much anyone would engage with and invest in any particular faction if they're little more than appendices (and I'd also wager that's a significant part of Warhammer's past successes). I know you've always been sceptical, but people tend to like armies/units with meaty background and rules that reflect it. That is, of course, not to say that there aren't too many special rules in Fantasy at the moment - the recent doubling-up on all breeds of Elf is about as superfluous as it gets.

RealMikeBob
23-04-2014, 18:56
Don't they have real armies though.

They keep them up their sleevies ;)

Yowzo
23-04-2014, 21:17
So yeah, good question. Why bother with different army books? For rules, at least. Other games do perfectly fine without them.

Because it would be boring. The whole point of having a fantasy environment is to field crazy stuff like monsters, magic and a zillion unique races.

What would the point of playing elves or dwarves be if they were just generic humanoids with generic abilities?. I'd rather play Romans vs Carthaginians or War of the Roses instead.... Which I also do play, but with a completely different mindset.

Tarax
24-04-2014, 09:09
Because it would be boring. The whole point of having a fantasy environment is to field crazy stuff like monsters, magic and a zillion unique races.

I started playing Fantasy, not because of the monsters, magic and unique races, but because it was the only game around I knew people played. I'd much rather have played Romans, Carthaginians, Macedonians, French Napoleonic, Confederates, etc, but there just was no playing field for that.


What would the point of playing elves or dwarves be if they were just generic humanoids with generic abilities?

Aren't they? :eek: Whatever system you use, Elves, Dwarves, Humans, Orcs and all the rest have stats that reflect generic abilities. Some races include special rules that can not be reflected in stats, like Animosity. The diversity that creates doesn't make the game boring. As long as there is a good set of rules which reflects the common uses by races and units, diversity can be created through stats, special rules, weaponry, unit availability etc.

Tarax
24-04-2014, 09:19
:confused: Just how much can you contradict yourself in a single post?

I knew when I was typing my response I would get this reaction. And I knew I would sound contradictory. Yet, that doesn't change my opinion that while interacting units should still be a viable option without the support of other units. Like I said: a poor unit shouldn't become powerful all of a sudden, just because it is joined (interacts) with another unit.

Yowzo
24-04-2014, 09:28
I started playing Fantasy, not because of the monsters, magic and unique races, but because it was the only game around I knew people played. I'd much rather have played Romans, Carthaginians, Macedonians, French Napoleonic, Confederates, etc, but there just was no playing field for that.

Then why do you keep playing warhammer? Surely you can find like minded players you can play whatever historical ruleset you fancy. Me and my group alone have tried a good two dozen over the last 20 or so years.


Aren't they? :eek: Whatever system you use, Elves, Dwarves, Humans, Orcs and all the rest have stats that reflect generic abilities. So me races include special rules that can not be reflected in stats, like Animosity. The diversity that creates doesn't make the game boring. As long as there is a good set of rules which reflects the common uses by races and units, diversity can be created through stats, special rules, weaponry, unit availability etc.

I did not say you can't have a fun game with just generic humans/abilities what I meant is that the whole array of different races, abilities and unit types is what makes warhammer unique. There are many rulesets there waiting for you if you don't like the concept.

GW could not be happier if you adapted some historical or generic fantasy ruleset and played it with warhammer minis. It's your hobby, do whatever you want of it.

Tarax
24-04-2014, 12:24
Who said I still play Warhammer? I stopped playing Fantasy almost 4 years ago, when I played a couple of games with the new edition and hated it.
I only occasionally play 40K, but am inclined to stop with that too. A campaign has kept me from quitting. But now it's nearing the end, so am I.
Unless I can find like-minded people who like to play in the same style as I do, I'm out of the game. It will be only historical for me (Saga and Flames of War for now).

Yowzo
24-04-2014, 21:40
Who said I still play Warhammer? I stopped playing Fantasy almost 4 years ago, when I played a couple of games with the new edition and hated it.
I only occasionally play 40K, but am inclined to stop with that too. A campaign has kept me from quitting. But now it's nearing the end, so am I.
Unless I can find like-minded people who like to play in the same style as I do, I'm out of the game. It will be only historical for me (Saga and Flames of War for now).

So you've moved on but still feel like telling current warhammer players the way their game should be played?

yabbadabba
24-04-2014, 21:45
So you've moved on but still feel like telling current warhammer players the way their game should be played? This is the internet after all. As well as a geek haven.

Grocklock
24-04-2014, 22:20
This is the internet after all. As well as a geek haven.

Nope it's warseer, the jar of honey that attracts all the people who don't like GW to discuss GW.

The amount of times I have read people say "GW is rubbish, there rules ate terrible. Even though I have not picked up dice to play the game in 4 years. I know what I'm talking about".

itcamefromthedeep
24-04-2014, 22:39
I stick with 6e because... well...

actually these days I do a lot more painting and modeling than I do actual playing.

---

When 8e started up, a lot of balanced armies were getting smashed by huge deathstar horde units... so people started running lots of huge deathstar horde units. It's not that they were actually all that amazing, but in the early days it certainly looked like it.

8e super-spells are *amazeballs* against those units, and incidentally so are Mournfangs. I'm absolutely convinced that the super-spells are there *just* to stop people from running nothing but hordes all day.

Eventually, people clued in that maybe all-horde all the time was a bad idea, because you just lost so many games to super-spells and Mournfangs and the like. The meta shifted, and now you see a whole lot of armies that look pretty balanced. If anything, these days people tend toward fast cavalry in my area.

Now, Fantasy had one of the few mid-edition amendments for power that I've seen, and that was the nerfing of the power scroll. That nerfing was healthy, because some super-spells were a little too reliable and didn't cost you quite enough while the scroll was around.

40k went through much the same thing with the Nob Bikerz debacle. Everyone thought they were amazing for a long time... until suddenly they weren't. Some people adapted their army lists, while others adapted their tactics.

---

If you'd like an itemized list of poor mechanics in 6e (in terms of the craft of rules writing) I might draw one up. That might be cathartic.

Verm1s
24-04-2014, 22:40
Nope it's warseer, the jar of honey that attracts all the people who don't like GW to discuss GW.

Think of it as providing alms to the poor lepers.

IJW
24-04-2014, 23:27
40k went through much the same thing with the Nob Bikerz debacle. Everyone thought they were amazing for a long time... until suddenly they weren't. Some people adapted their army lists, while others adapted their tactics.

I think it would be more accurate to say that Nob Bikers stayed amazing until 6th edition turned up and changed wound allocation. There wasn't much noticeable change during 5th edition.

itcamefromthedeep
24-04-2014, 23:39
I was there, Gandalf. I was there the day the strength of Orks failed...

Part of the change was that people started meching up, and that vastly cut down on the ability to kill valuable models through assault. Other solutions included staying on the second floor, and effectively delivering the minis that caused Instant Death. It was a change in armies and tactics, not editions and army books (later armies books sure did a number on them, but the fad was over well before the sky started falling in the wake of I6 power weapons).

MiyamatoMusashi
25-04-2014, 07:43
The amount of times I have read people say "GW is rubbish, there rules ate terrible. Even though I have not picked up dice to play the game in 4 years. I know what I'm talking about".

Yeah, it's just like all those people who say "you know, I've never had leprosy but it doesn't look like much fun". How can they speak with any authority on the subject? They have to try it to be able to comment at all.

Tarax
25-04-2014, 11:39
So you've moved on but still feel like telling current warhammer players the way their game should be played?

Not really. I still like and want to play, but only if it's a game I like and want to play. Therefore I comment on rules that I feel don't appeal to me (or they do), trying to be a voice of reason or being critical. But I never have tried to convince others to not play the game. If people like the way the game is now, then they should play it. Just don't expect me to play along.

BFalcon
25-04-2014, 12:30
Not really. I still like and want to play, but only if it's a game I like and want to play. Therefore I comment on rules that I feel don't appeal to me (or they do), trying to be a voice of reason or being critical. But I never have tried to convince others to not play the game. If people like the way the game is now, then they should play it. Just don't expect me to play along.

This is why a lot of people comment and feel able to. Just because someone hasn't played in a while, doesn't negate their opinions, just means you need to remember where they're coming from and consider that when looking at the topic at hand.

Reasons why someone doesn't play are just as valid as the opinions of those who do currently play - for one thing, someone who's not playing the current ruleset hasn't bought into the revenue stream and GW would be wise to consider the reasons why - perhaps they can find a more useful (and profitable) middle-ground.

My main reasons for not playing aren't relevant - lack of opponents and space, coupled with a current lack of funds for the latest rulesets being prime among them (and being too lazy to actually finish a unit, instead suffering from "model butterfly syndrome"...).

Now, if they brought back epic or blood bowl, I could eliminate one of those issues, but hey...

BFalcon
25-04-2014, 12:51
(double post)

Herzlos
25-04-2014, 13:15
I started playing Fantasy, not because of the monsters, magic and unique races, but because it was the only game around I knew people played. I'd much rather have played Romans, Carthaginians, Macedonians, French Napoleonic, Confederates, etc, but there just was no playing field for that.

That's largely why I've still got a 40K army (though I haven't updated the book yet); it's more or less the go-to game here. Though Malifaux is starting to take over in that respect, which is awesome. I could sell my Guard army and buy pretty much everything currently available for Malifaux, which is tempting.

Scammel
25-04-2014, 13:18
This is why a lot of people comment and feel able to. Just because someone hasn't played in a while, doesn't negate their opinions, just means you need to remember where they're coming from and consider that when looking at the topic at hand.

Reasons why someone doesn't play are just as valid as the opinions of those who do currently play - for one thing, someone who's not playing the current ruleset hasn't bought into the revenue stream and GW would be wise to consider the reasons why - perhaps they can find a more useful (and profitable) middle-ground.

My main reasons for not playing aren't relevant - lack of opponents and space, coupled with a current lack of funds for the latest rulesets being prime among them (and being too lazy to actually finish a unit, instead suffering from "model butterfly syndrome"...).

Not wanting to play is absolutely fine, but I think one's opinion of the state of said game might be little suspect if they haven't played it in 4 years and are trying to refute the arguments of regular players.

MiyamatoMusashi
25-04-2014, 13:25
Depends how you look at it. If you're playing other games instead, you might be better placed to see the flaws in the game you don't play.

For example: I'm increasingly of the opinion that IGOUGO is dead, or at least should be. While I was exclusively playing WHFB, 40K and even WAB, I never really thought about it... I just assumed that being bored while your opponent took his turn was the way of wargaming. It doesn't need to be like that, and I've only consciously realised the difference since playing other games.

Yowzo
25-04-2014, 13:27
Yeah, it's just like all those people who say "you know, I've never had leprosy but it doesn't look like much fun". How can they speak with any authority on the subject? They have to try it to be able to comment at all.

More like "you know I haven't played with toy soldiers since I was 10, but it doesn't look much fun, go grow up".

Yowzo
25-04-2014, 13:31
Not really. I still like and want to play, but only if it's a game I like and want to play. Therefore I comment on rules that I feel don't appeal to me (or they do), trying to be a voice of reason or being critical. But I never have tried to convince others to not play the game. If people like the way the game is now, then they should play it. Just don't expect me to play along.

So you don't want to play. There are dozens of rule sets waiting for you out there that have exactly the kind of rules you look for.

On most of them you can even use warhammer minis if that's what keeps you so attached to GW (my first bolt action games were imperial guard minis standing as Brits vs chaos cultists subbing in for Germans).

Yowzo
25-04-2014, 13:39
Depends how you look at it. If you're playing other games instead, you might be better placed to see the flaws in the game you don't play.

That depends on their reasoning. Saying 8th ed WHFB is boring because of mournfang cavalry is not something to be taken seriously.


example: I'm increasingly of the opinion that IGOUGO is dead, or at least should be. While I was exclusively playing WHFB, 40K and even WAB, I never really thought about it... I just assumed that being bored while your opponent took his turn was the way of wargaming. It doesn't need to be like that, and I've only consciously realised the difference since playing other games.

I do play not-IGOUGO games and struggle to see how a game in the scale of WHFB (above skirmish but below full-sized battles) would work on the, say, Bolt Action principle.

Try the counters in the bag thing on a WHFB game (we did) and you will see why.

duffybear1988
25-04-2014, 13:56
Not wanting to play is absolutely fine, but I think one's opinion of the state of said game might be little suspect if they haven't played it in 4 years and are trying to refute the arguments of regular players.

Not necessarily. I don't play much 40k at all now compared to a few years ago. However, I still visit the local gaming store and play other games, talk to my friends and watch their 40k games. I can easily say why I detest 6th edition and think it should be replaced as soon as possible based purely on the time I spend watching the game being played, without even playing a game myself. The flaws are obvious to someone like me, who doesn't necessarily equate randomness with fun and skill, but prefers a tighter rule set (fair play to you if you love 6th).

If we follow your analogy football commentators shouldn't be commenting on the sport because they no longer play it themselves.


That depends on their reasoning. Saying 8th ed WHFB is boring because of mournfang cavalry is not something to be taken seriously.

6th edition is boring because in my area (and looking at comments, in a lot of areas) people spam riptides, helldrakes, wave serpents and inquisitors. Denying something doesn't make it a lie.

Bloodknight
25-04-2014, 13:59
Dunno, WFB basically has a dozen models per army (no matter how many dudes there are in that block, it's only one thing to activate).
Personally, I like the "I move one, you move one" method. I never really liked that you could lose half your army without having even moved it in 40K or WFB due to the full IGOUGO system they still have ( tbh, that went out of fashion even before 40K went into its 2nd edition).

Herzlos
25-04-2014, 14:00
That depends on their reasoning. Saying 8th ed WHFB is boring because of mournfang cavalry is not something to be taken seriously.



I do play not-IGOUGO games and struggle to see how a game in the scale of WHFB (above skirmish but below full-sized battles) would work on the, say, Bolt Action principle.

Try the counters in the bag thing on a WHFB game (we did) and you will see why.

Why doesn't it work, beyond the large amount of counters needed?

I have heard that Bolt Action gets quite bogged down after about 20 order dice or so, but I don't know the specifics.

I've played games on an alternating activation basis with more mini's than Fantasy units though and it works fine if you've got a way of tracking what's activated already.

BFalcon
25-04-2014, 14:07
Not wanting to play is absolutely fine, but I think one's opinion of the state of said game might be little suspect if they haven't played it in 4 years and are trying to refute the arguments of regular players.

Just because they don't play, doesn't mean they haven't watched others play or read the stats - I agree that it's far from ideal (which is why you almost never see me arguing games mechanics, just more abstract balance views or on the models themselves) but it doesn't invalidate his arguments...

As for IGOUGO, I agree that unit-based activation is far better, as is random initiative, since it keeps tactics on the more general level than on any games mechanics - you find yourself planning more for contingencies than knowing that "this unit is in cover now, I can move it out next turn no matter what" and, instead need to worry more about whether a hostile unit can "double march" in the time it takes you to move it again and set up an overwatch on that area. VOID used such a system and it kept you more engaged in the battle than wanting to go get a coffee while your opponent moves his entire army. It also keeps you more on your toes about things like support artillery - do you use it now, or risk having your forces too close to the enemy. What about if you do use it now, will your opponent get the chance to attack a unit you've not yet moved to cover or had to leave between cover? These are things that turn-based games tend not to have crop up (just because I haven't played WHFB or 40k in a while, I have played other games). While I'm not a fan of the whole "random unit selection" idea, I do like unit-activated where you get to choose which to activate and when... not least because combat isn't reliable, but you do (as a commander) get to influence it a bit - if you do double-march a unit through winning initiative, I like the idea, since it represents a unit having been moving the whole time before finding more cover... in combat, you tend not to move the whole time, but move in bursts.

I urge people to try a 40k game with random initiative (even if it's just "who rolls higher on a d6" or if they do a Ld test on their commander) and then unit-based activation and see how differently it plays... you'll find yourself a lot more involved with the battle. Use counters like glass beads to mark which units have gone already and use a different colour for the last 2 or 3 units moved if you want to avoid the "double march" scenario. You might be pleasantly surprised and the result may better reflect the chaotic nature of battle, than the more regimented march you often see at the moment. If nothing else, you wasted an evening and, as Scammel points out, can comment better on the comparison between the two systems. If you don't try unit-based at least once, then you're probably less able to comment than someone who's only looked at a WH rulebook in the past 4 years and not played.

I would hope that GW, if they continue down this "must have larger armies" road, make the move to unit-based, if only because it stops boredom from creeping in.

BFalcon
25-04-2014, 14:10
Why doesn't it work, beyond the large amount of counters needed?

I have heard that Bolt Action gets quite bogged down after about 20 order dice or so, but I don't know the specifics.

I've played games on an alternating activation basis with more mini's than Fantasy units though and it works fine if you've got a way of tracking what's activated already.

I assume that Bolt Action uses a counter per unit for activation rather than you choosing, going by your comments? I'm unfamiliar with the system...

I used to play VOID where you chose which to activate (but then, being sci-fi, more control is a bit more realistic in a way).

BFalcon
25-04-2014, 14:13
Ugh - sorry guys - another one (got an error and didn't think to check).

MiyamatoMusashi
25-04-2014, 15:03
More like "you know I haven't played with toy soldiers since I was 10, but it doesn't look much fun, go grow up".

Who is telling who to grow up!? :confused: We're all playing with toy soldiers... they're just not all GW(TM)(R) branded.


That depends on their reasoning. Saying 8th ed WHFB is boring because of mournfang cavalry is not something to be taken seriously.

Again... nobody said "WHFB is boring because of mournfang cavalry". Mournfangs were given as ONE example of ONE thing that WAS unbalanced at ONE time, because an example was asked for, and were never for a moment intended to be taken as THE ONLY reason. But I'm starting to see the way you're approaching this debate... ie. not in a constructive way that actually engages in discussion, merely making snide remarks picking out individual details in what people are saying and focussing on them to the exclusion of the more fundamental point they're actually making.

Scammel
25-04-2014, 15:50
Again... nobody said "WHFB is boring because of mournfang cavalry". Mournfangs were given as ONE example of ONE thing that WAS unbalanced at ONE time, because an example was asked for, and were never for a moment intended to be taken as THE ONLY reason. But I'm starting to see the way you're approaching this debate... ie. not in a constructive way that actually engages in discussion, merely making snide remarks picking out individual details in what people are saying and focussing on them to the exclusion of the more fundamental point they're actually making.

That one thing that was(nt) unbalanced at one time is actually about half the reason you told everyone you stopped. If you have more of an argument to present then present it, but your initial post bemoaned Mournfangs repeatedly at the apparent expense of much else.


Because I played Warhammer at the start of 8th Ed and every game I played, the winner was determined by something completely ridiculous. My entire Orc army lost to a single unit of Ogre Mournfangs. My entire Dark Elf army lost to a single unit of Ogre Mournfangs. My entire Empire army lost to two units of Ogre Mournfangs. (Seeing a theme yet?) I also both lost, and won, games purely through means of uber-spells, where we might as well not have even deployed our models because a few dice rolls in the magic phase decided everything. It was the most hideously unbalanced, awful wargame I think I've ever played. So I stopped.

Herzlos
25-04-2014, 16:42
I assume that Bolt Action uses a counter per unit for activation rather than you choosing, going by your comments? I'm unfamiliar with the system...

I used to play VOID where you chose which to activate (but then, being sci-fi, more control is a bit more realistic in a way).

In Bolt Action you get sets of coloured orders dice, 1 die per unit, 1 colour per side/player. All go into a bag and are drawn at random. Whatever colour comes out indicates who gets to move a unit next, they choose an order, make an appropriate action and then leave the dice showing the action by the unit (so you can remember if they ran, hid, shot, whatever). When a unit is wiped out you lose a die.

So the activation order is random, with 1 activation per unit. It makes things a bit less predictable.

Yowzo
25-04-2014, 16:42
Why doesn't it work, beyond the large amount of counters needed?
.
I can't write the whole lot of reasons on the cell but the counter system actually uses less dice than bolt action because you usually have 8 to 10 units max. It would be totally unpractical to do it on a mini by mini basis.

It doesn't work because it does not interact well with close combat being the main phase.

Especially the way you integrate the charge-combat-overrun system that's the key in whfb.

Tried several approaches (one action is enough to charge, fight and overrun in case you break an enemy, charge + combat in a single activation but no overrun and all three actions requiring an activation). None of them worked right.




Enviado desde mi Nexus 5 mediante Tapatalk

Verm1s
25-04-2014, 17:00
Nice post BFalcon, particularly this:


If you don't try unit-based at least once, then you're probably less able to comment than someone who's only looked at a WH rulebook in the past 4 years and not played.

Now, I have to offer a nod to the original '4 years' comment, because IMO there's very little like first hand experience. But I still think those of us who haven't played in a few years can have a say because Warhammer has not fundamentally changed in years either. You'll get cycles of herohammer, tweaks that lessen the effect of cavalry or whatever and make something else uberkilly, but it doesn't alter the basic mechanics and themes.


Dunno, WFB basically has a dozen models per army (no matter how many dudes there are in that block, it's only one thing to activate).

Yarp.


I do play not-IGOUGO games and struggle to see how a game in the scale of WHFB (above skirmish but below full-sized battles) would work on the, say, Bolt Action principle.

Try the counters in the bag thing on a WHFB game (we did) and you will see why.

A counter per unit doesn't sound terribly bloated on the face of it, (do they each stand for a specific order or something?*) but random counters (or card decks) aren't the only activation method. From the rulesets I've looked at and played:
In Malifaux and Dystopian Wars you simply activate a model or squadron of your choosing and then hand over to your opponent. Not much different to 'activate a block of your choosing', as Bloodknight says.
Epic: Armageddon and Victory Decision: Future Combat have an initiative roll for each unit or formation, with better initiative stats affecting the outcome.
Warmaster has it's order system, adapted for Hail Caesar, Pike & Shotte, and Black Powder (any of those latter three rivals or surpasses a big WHFB game for number of 28mm minis on a table!), based on present heroes, officers and generals issuing orders directly. Blunder an order or two at any point and any amount of your army can stand around fidgeting until the next turn.
HoTT (and I assume the rest of the DBX family), Mayhem and Battlegroup Kursk (freshly bought) involve orders or action points, allocated from a pool generated at the start of a turn. HoTT is entirely random, based on a single D6. Mayhem and BGK are influenced, in a vaguely WM-like way, by the numbers of heroes or officers present on the table.

Also on my bookshelf is Kings of War. That got bumped off my top 'fantasy battle game of choice' spot partly because it didn't have some kind of order, initiative or alternate activation system.

*Edit: oh, they do. Hmm... still not seeing why combat shouldn't work right with that. What specifically went wrong?

BFalcon
25-04-2014, 18:42
In Bolt Action you get sets of coloured orders dice, 1 die per unit, 1 colour per side/player. All go into a bag and are drawn at random. Whatever colour comes out indicates who gets to move a unit next, they choose an order, make an appropriate action and then leave the dice showing the action by the unit (so you can remember if they ran, hid, shot, whatever). When a unit is wiped out you lose a die.

So the activation order is random, with 1 activation per unit. It makes things a bit less predictable.

Thanks - not so sure I like the "completely random" system, since it removes the tactical element even more, but certainly an interesting concept - wouldn't mind trying that...

Herzlos
26-04-2014, 08:20
Thanks - not so sure I like the "completely random" system, since it removes the tactical element even more, but certainly an interesting concept - wouldn't mind trying that...

I feel it adds a new tactical element - you need to think more carefully about support and try to avoid doing things that are too risky.

It's the same sort of thing with Hail Caesar and actions; you issue actions to a unit (or section) and roll to see how well it's taken. They may do what you asked, might ignore you, might only partially do it or may go overboard, so it leaves you thinking about risk more.

You do get a fair amount of that risk with a straight alternating activation though since you may need to leave units exposed until you can move in support.

Spiney Norman
26-04-2014, 09:45
Why doesn't it work, beyond the large amount of counters needed?

I have heard that Bolt Action gets quite bogged down after about 20 order dice or so, but I don't know the specifics.

I've played games on an alternating activation basis with more mini's than Fantasy units though and it works fine if you've got a way of tracking what's activated already.

What gets me about most random-order-initiative systems is the lengthy procedure at the start of each turn to establish priority, there's no real satisfactory way to do it when both players have upwards of 10 units on the table. Plus if there is one thing wfb does not need to be, it is even more random.

There are two ways of doing unit activation that I have seen work well, the 'Man O' war method' where the controlling player choose which unit to activate alternately until all your units are done, and the 'x-wing' method where each ship has a stat (pilot skill) which is factored into the cost of the unit and permanently determines the initiative order. Something similar could be done with unit champions perhaps?

Another alternative to IGOUGO which I quite like is the lotr method of phase-based 'army activation', basically you each roll a single dice at the start of the turn to establish priority for that turn, the player with priority take first action in each phase of the game, followed immediately by the other player. So in the movement phase the priority player moves their entire army, then the second player moves there's, etc.

yabbadabba
26-04-2014, 10:18
Another method I have seen is a card based activation, with each card having an "offensive" and "defensive" rating. Offensive moves are taken in order, and where they are present defensive counter moves may be played against an offensive moove, again in order. Cards are randomly chosen from a deck, but the player can choose which units to activate, how and when.

infamousme
26-04-2014, 22:25
I could play infinity, but i don't like the small skirmish sized games.
I could play bolt action, but i want a sci fi setting.
I could play warmachine, but i hate the models.
My point bding that there are alternative games, but none in the same style, scope and quallity of miniatures. I don't really play often and more so just paint so I'm sure my opinion doesn't count for much :D

Sent from my LG-L38C using Tapatalk 2

Spiney Norman
26-04-2014, 23:23
I could play infinity, but i don't like the small skirmish sized games.
I could play bolt action, but i want a sci fi setting.
I could play warmachine, but i hate the models.
My point bding that there are alternative games, but none in the same style, scope and quallity of miniatures. I don't really play often and more so just paint so I'm sure my opinion doesn't count for much :D

Sent from my LG-L38C using Tapatalk 2

That's pretty much the same objection I have to all those games, unfortunately 40k where it is now is just a terrible game which is a chore to play most of the time.

I've found Star Trek attack wing is pretty entertaining to play and is keeping me busy while I'm waiting for GW to clear up the train-wreck that 40k has become and get it back on the rails. I fully intend on breaking out my 40k armies again when they've sorted out the mess they've made of 6th edition.

Tarax
27-04-2014, 08:10
I have heard that Bolt Action gets quite bogged down after about 20 order dice or so, but I don't know the specifics.

I don't think Bolt Action was intended to be played with that many units. But it may have been stung with the GW-bug (the one I mentioned in my 'GW-effect'-thread). HQ, 3-4 squads and 1-2 support weapons, I think would have been what the game was intended for. After all, it's just a skirmish game.


There are two ways of doing unit activation that I have seen work well, the 'Man O' war method' where the controlling player choose which unit to activate alternately until all your units are done, and the 'x-wing' method where each ship has a stat (pilot skill) which is factored into the cost of the unit and permanently determines the initiative order. Something similar could be done with unit champions perhaps?

Another alternative to IGOUGO which I quite like is the lotr method of phase-based 'army activation', basically you each roll a single dice at the start of the turn to establish priority for that turn, the player with priority take first action in each phase of the game, followed immediately by the other player. So in the movement phase the priority player moves their entire army, then the second player moves there's, etc.

Nice summing up of some alternatives. I have been thinking about a system where both layers give each unit an order and a number before doing anything. Therefore it is determined beforehand what each unit will do (the order) and in what order (the number). But I'd guess that is too complicated and would take too long to be executed.
The LotR (or WotR) method looks good. I also liked the Axis & Allies Miniatures method, where you roll each turn, get a modifier based on you commanders initiative, and you also move and shoot in order, ie player 1 moves -> player 2 moves -> player 1 shoots -> player 2 shoots.

The thing to note is that each system has to adjust to the size of the game. Too many units, where each unit (or even model) is activated at the time, will take too long. Can you only do 1 thing (shoot, move, cower, overwatch, etc) or do you have different phases (movement phase, shooting phase, etc) will also affect the preferred system.

Verm1s
27-04-2014, 13:00
I could play bolt action, but i want a sci fi setting.

So do what the fella mentioned earlier and use a sci-fi conversion of Bolt Action. Or the ready-made sci-fi conversion of another WWII game I mentioned - Victory Decision: Future Combat. Or Warpath. Or Stargrunt. Or 5150. And so on.

And read Yabbadabba's sig again.

Zenithfleet
27-04-2014, 13:28
That's pretty much the same objection I have to all those games, unfortunately 40k where it is now is just a terrible game which is a chore to play most of the time.

I've found Star Trek attack wing is pretty entertaining to play and is keeping me busy while I'm waiting for GW to clear up the train-wreck that 40k has become and get it back on the rails. I fully intend on breaking out my 40k armies again when they've sorted out the mess they've made of 6th edition.

You know, it seems to me that this is exactly the sort of thing yabbadabba was talking about.

I used to look at things this way. 'Aw jeez, GW is screwing up 40K again. Guess I better keep away and wait for them to fix it. If they ever do. I don't like what they're doing, but what can I do?'

Then one day I glanced at all those supposedly obsolete rulebooks and codexes from 2nd and 3rd and 4th ed on my shelf, and thought: Hang on a minute...

So, how about playing an earlier edition of 40K? One that you preferred?

For instance, play early 4th ed if you liked that. Or play 2nd ed. Or even play 3rd ed using just the rulebook starter army lists - it might not be perfect, but hey, you only need one book that's like $5 on eBay.

OK, so it's awkward if you want to play random strangers, but if you know the person you're arranging a game with, you ought to be able to find some kind of compromise. It's not like the Arbites will bust down your door and arrest you for playing an earlier edition. Well, probably not. :shifty:

Metal Handkerchief
27-04-2014, 14:36
My local group is using a blend of 5th and 6th edition, with Rules of Engagement objective/mission rules taken from a 4th-edition era White Dwarf.

Shooting from 5th
Combat from 6th
Flyers from 6th
Psyker rules from 6th
FoC/ Allies from 6th
Vehicle rules from 5th
Terrain rules from 5th
Missions from 4th (White Dwarf 296 or 7 I believe)

And a small smattering of house rules.

It's great fun. We will probably never even buy a 7th or beyond rule book. Our stance from now on is, any BRB that isn't free is a BRB that doesn't exist.

BFalcon
27-04-2014, 16:07
It's not like the Arbites will bust down your door and arrest you for playing an earlier edition. Well, probably not. :shifty:

Hehe I'm not so sure about that...

True though - just because you have an old version, no reason why you shouldn't play it.

Spiney Norman
27-04-2014, 19:09
You know, it seems to me that this is exactly the sort of thing yabbadabba was talking about.

I used to look at things this way. 'Aw jeez, GW is screwing up 40K again. Guess I better keep away and wait for them to fix it. If they ever do. I don't like what they're doing, but what can I do?'

Then one day I glanced at all those supposedly obsolete rulebooks and codexes from 2nd and 3rd and 4th ed on my shelf, and thought: Hang on a minute...

So, how about playing an earlier edition of 40K? One that you preferred?

For instance, play early 4th ed if you liked that. Or play 2nd ed. Or even play 3rd ed using just the rulebook starter army lists - it might not be perfect, but hey, you only need one book that's like $5 on eBay.

OK, so it's awkward if you want to play random strangers, but if you know the person you're arranging a game with, you ought to be able to find some kind of compromise. It's not like the Arbites will bust down your door and arrest you for playing an earlier edition. Well, probably not. :shifty:

Because playing any edition of 40k by yourself never worked out so well for me, and trying to convert other players to my own personal rules set has never worked out.

And in any case I don't particularly want to play a previous edition anyway, where half the units in my (necron) army didn't exist. I've spent a whole lot of money on my ghost arks, Deathmarks and triarch stalker, I don't want to play an edition where I can't use them.

Scaryscarymushroom
27-04-2014, 20:23
Because playing any edition of 40k by yourself never worked out so well for me, and trying to convert other players to my own personal rules set has never worked out.

And in any case I don't particularly want to play a previous edition anyway, where half the units in my (necron) army didn't exist. I've spent a whole lot of money on my ghost arks, Deathmarks and triarch stalker, I don't want to play an edition where I can't use them.

I count myself lucky. All my gaming friends long ago decided that gw was a racket. They have no desire to keep up with the latest edition, or buy new models. Since no one cares about the rules, they let me experiment.

Except for other people, there's no reason you can't use your Deathmarks in an earlier edition of the game. Or in a different game entirely. The codex isn't written for the "official" rulebook anyway. Applying it to 4th or 3rd makes about as much sense as applying it to 6th.

yabbadabba
27-04-2014, 20:26
That is another part of GW Syndrome - the fashion race. Only the latest will do, no matter how much it costs or how much it makes you moan. I could never understand why people dropped everything they had slaved over the chase the latest rainbow from GW, until I looked really carefully at my customers.

Scaryscarymushroom
27-04-2014, 20:29
That is another part of GW Syndrome - the fashion race. Only the latest will do, no matter how much it costs or how much it makes you moan. I could never understand why people dropped everything they had slaved over the chase the latest rainbow from GW, until I looked really carefully at my customers.

And saw what?

shelfunit.
27-04-2014, 20:37
And saw what?

Probably that the term "customers" could easily be interchanged with "believers"

yabbadabba
27-04-2014, 21:10
Probably that the term "customers" could easily be interchanged with "believers" I'd say followers. Even when you said to them "look you don't need this" they would still buy it.

Spiney Norman
27-04-2014, 21:12
I count myself lucky. All my gaming friends long ago decided that gw was a racket. They have no desire to keep up with the latest edition, or buy new models. Since no one cares about the rules, they let me experiment.

Except for other people, there's no reason you can't use your Deathmarks in an earlier edition of the game. Or in a different game entirely. The codex isn't written for the "official" rulebook anyway. Applying it to 4th or 3rd makes about as much sense as applying it to 6th.

I'm not particularly bothered about 'keeping up', I buy the models I like and want to paint, I typically don't buy everything from every release for all of my armies, but I like the ghost ark so I buy it, and i want to use it in a game. Also, there are no 3rd edition rules for the ghost ark, maybe I could convince my opponent (supposing I could find someone willing to play a defunct edition) to let me use the ark in an edition it wasn't designed for, but how exactly would you translate a unit like a night scythe or storm talon into 3rd edition? You'd end up with a vehicle that literally nothing in the game could hit (unless you randomly give out Skyfire, which didn't exist then).

I guess the main reason why I usually play the most recent edition is its far easier to find opponents for that game than trying to whip up support for a set of rules that is years out of date.

shelfunit.
27-04-2014, 21:47
I'd say followers. Even when you said to them "look you don't need this" they would still buy it.

That was my "b" option ;)

Spiney Norman
27-04-2014, 22:39
My local group is using a blend of 5th and 6th edition, with Rules of Engagement objective/mission rules taken from a 4th-edition era White Dwarf.

Shooting from 5th
Combat from 6th
Flyers from 6th
Psyker rules from 6th
FoC/ Allies from 6th
Vehicle rules from 5th
Terrain rules from 5th
Missions from 4th (White Dwarf 296 or 7 I believe)

And a small smattering of house rules.

It's great fun. We will probably never even buy a 7th or beyond rule book. Our stance from now on is, any BRB that isn't free is a BRB that doesn't exist.

Wow, and I thought finding an answer to rules queries was a pain when you only had to trawl one brb for answers, let alone three different editions. Trying to integrate a single cohesive rules set from three different editions is rather more complicated and time-intensive than our groups is prepared to commit, I guess we just don't take the game that seriously.

Wishing
27-04-2014, 22:40
I guess the main reason why I usually play the most recent edition is its far easier to find opponents for that game than trying to whip up support for a set of rules that is years out of date.

I can certainly understand that. I'm personally dedicated to the baroque GW approach, playing a strange house ruled mix of different editions and homebrews, but this approach relies entirely on having a set of friends available as opponents that are happy to either write the house rules with you, or freely accept the stuff you come up with. If you don't have that, and you have to actually fight in order to convince your available opponents to play something that isn't the current published standard, then getting to play with your homemade preference of rules can be insurmountably difficult.

"You don't have to play what GW tells you to play" is a fantastic mantra. But it isn't enough for one person to follow that mantra - there has to be enough people following it that they can play each other, and then these have to agree on what it is that should be played differently from the current standard.

"Just find a group of opponents who feel the same way as you and want to play exactly the way you want to play" is easier said than done.

Wishing
27-04-2014, 22:43
Wow, and I thought finding an answer to rules queries was a pain when you only had to trawl one brb for answers, let alone three different editions. Trying to integrate a single cohesive rules set from three different editions is rather more complicated and time-intensive than our groups is prepared to commit, I guess we just don't take the game that seriously.

Maybe look at it from a different perspective - if you feel that it would be so time-intensive, maybe you take it too seriously instead. In my games of weird edition mash-up, the rules aren't fixed, but fluid - if something seems like it doesn't work, we just make up a solution on the spot and keep playing.

Zenithfleet
28-04-2014, 13:10
@yabbadabba: I think another aspect of the 'fashion race' is the deep-seated feeling that anything old is outdated and inferior. If something gets updated, that means the previous version must have been flawed, so it must be ditched.

I suspect it's a teenager thing. It happened to me with video games too. "Wait, they have crude 3D graphics now? Time to get rid of this old Super Nintendo - it's clearly ancient and worthless. Never mind this library of stone-cold classic games I've painstakingly collected, games which will stay in the Top 100 lists for decades to come, and get ported and emulated to every device under the sun - get out of my house, stone age machine!"

Then the pendulum starts swinging the other way when you get old(er) - cue the switch to Luddite mode, aka 'everything was better when I was wittle'... :angel:


I'm not particularly bothered about 'keeping up', I buy the models I like and want to paint, I typically don't buy everything from every release for all of my armies, but I like the ghost ark so I buy it, and i want to use it in a game. Also, there are no 3rd edition rules for the ghost ark, maybe I could convince my opponent (supposing I could find someone willing to play a defunct edition) to let me use the ark in an edition it wasn't designed for, but how exactly would you translate a unit like a night scythe or storm talon into 3rd edition? You'd end up with a vehicle that literally nothing in the game could hit (unless you randomly give out Skyfire, which didn't exist then).

I guess the main reason why I usually play the most recent edition is its far easier to find opponents for that game than trying to whip up support for a set of rules that is years out of date.

Hmm... you could try the Vehicle Design Rules from 3rd ed White Dwarf / Chapter Approved annuals to create some stats for your modern Necrons. They had rules for flyers too, so everyone could use their spiffy Forgeworld models. Although as I recall, most of them zoomed onto the board, blasted stuff and flew off into the wild grimdark yonder in the same turn. (Much more realistic IMO, but never mind).

Another option is 'counts as a Monolith' with certain vehicle upgrades, or what have you. Less interesting, but you could still use the models.

You're right that it's generally much easier to find opponents for the current edition. But again, this goes back to yabbadabba's GW Syndrome points - most wargames require you to put in a lot of effort to find opponents and drum up enthusiasm. (This is true even of many of GW's older games nowadays. I'm indebted to one local guy who spent yonks patiently working up enthusiasm for Battlefleet Gothic until it finally hit critical mass and is now a semi-regular game at the local club for the second year running.)

GW is the exception because it basically does everything for you when it comes to game locations, a big playerbase and so on - and good on them for it. But it does mean you grow up used to being dependent on the services they provide... which then leads to resentment when you don't like their decisions but feel powerless to do anything about it.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that if you're not playing the current edition of 40K anyway, but are still happily modelling and painting, what have you got to lose by mucking about with backward-compatible stats for the Ghost Ark or dreaming up your perfect wishlist mishmash of 40K editions? It's a fun diversion if nothing else. And if you suggest playing something not current, the worst anybody can say is 'nah'. In which case, you're no worse off.

yabbadabba
01-05-2014, 18:57
@yabbadabba: I think another aspect of the 'fashion race' is the deep-seated feeling that anything old is outdated and inferior. If something gets updated, that means the previous version must have been flawed, so it must be ditched.

I suspect it's a teenager thing. It happened to me with video games too. "Wait, they have crude 3D graphics now? Time to get rid of this old Super Nintendo - it's clearly ancient and worthless. Never mind this library of stone-cold classic games I've painstakingly collected, games which will stay in the Top 100 lists for decades to come, and get ported and emulated to every device under the sun - get out of my house, stone age machine!"

Then the pendulum starts swinging the other way when you get old(er) - cue the switch to Luddite mode, aka 'everything was better when I was wittle'... :angel: Absolutely, this site is riddled with such behaviours. Add into that the rude but invigorating exposure to the real wargaming world after years of being cuddled and stroked in the warm but surreal arms of GW, and it's no surprise that people exhibit all sorts of odd behaviours around here.