PDA

View Full Version : History Repeats itself: Daemons Broke 7th... Again



Pages : [1] 2

dooms33ker
25-05-2014, 09:07
So before anyone cries foul murder and calls on the gentry to take up pitch forks and torches I'll say that the following isn't 100% gospel, just observations of a few early battle reports and netlists.

Daemons broke 7th edition 40k like they did 7th edition fantasy. According to a few reports on Dakka Dakka, and reports from local gamers, some daemon players are taking 20+ warp dice and summoning 3-6 units per turn, making for some very one sided games.

If this sounds familiar that's because something similar happened in 7th edition fantasy, where daemons could farm 20+ power dice and dominate the magic phase. In all, I'm thinking GW needs to errata the psychic rules to limit the warp charge pool, a la 8th edition Fantasy, and/or make brootherhood of psykers go poof upon a bad perils.

The good thing is that powers for everyone else aren't quite as bad, the bad is having to play against such a list.

Captain Idaho
25-05-2014, 09:13
1) Always make up your own opinion rather than listen to the hate.

2) Summoning loads of units means doing nothing else. This means trying to summon units to replace the kicking any opponent should be giving you.

Captain Idaho
25-05-2014, 09:14
1) Always make up your own opinion rather than listen to the hate.

2) Summoning loads of units means doing nothing else. This means trying to summon units to replace the kicking any opponent should be giving you.

dooms33ker
25-05-2014, 09:33
1) Always make up your own opinion rather than listen to the hate.

2) Summoning loads of units means doing nothing else. This means trying to summon units to replace the kicking any opponent should be giving you.

I don't know too many armies capable of taking out 3 newly summoned units per turn, let alone the rest of the army doing the summoning. You likely also have a screamerstar to deal with. It's a massively uphill battle for most, any way you cut it.

wanderingblade
25-05-2014, 10:14
One can form an opinion based on other people's data. The 40K Daemons blog was reporting a similar problem, both from his experiences and Frontline Gaming's experiences.

ihavetoomuchminis
25-05-2014, 10:55
It was crystal clear. Daemons (i play them) can pack up to 24 warp charges by fielding a lord of change, 4 tzeentch heralds and 3 lvl 3 daemon princes. That before factoring horrors and new summoned units. I would like to say that daemon players should not take all daemonology lists and be nice taking other options.....but i know it wont happen...so unfortunately it needs to be faqed. Warp charges should be capped at 12 just like in fantasy.

Edit: i would like to know if those summoning that many units have the proper models. The part of the rule that says to not field the unit if you dont have the models should be reinforced in this case.

Killgore
25-05-2014, 10:59
Kill the Psykers and the problem goes away...

Target priority to defeat these types of lists. Then you need to factor in the chances of these armies killing themselves with all the perils and coming across Sanctic power users.


You could always use a unit or two of Grey Knights as allies :P

ihavetoomuchminis
25-05-2014, 11:08
Kill the Psykers and the problem goes away...

Target priority to defeat these types of lists. Then you need to factor in the chances of these armies killing themselves with all the perils and coming across Sanctic power users.


You could always use a unit or two of Grey Knights as allies :P

Or you could just ally any army out there with a daemons allied detachment with a LoC and 2 large horror squads (giving you 9 warp charges) with daemonology and play the same game.

I'd like to insist in the fact that, IMO, proper models have to be fielded. I have a HUGE daemon army and i'll be able to summon several units, but i'm sure many people don't, and will pretend to summon empty bases, IG or gaunt squads Count as daemon troops...and so on. It happens with zombies in fantasy, and i hate it. THe "don't field the models if you don't have them" is not only a rule for selling more models, is a balancing rule.

Sqallum
25-05-2014, 11:09
Ha, I remember 7th ed fantasy. Daemons were so broken they literally required a 're write. Oh, and Vampire Counts, the stupid around of power dice they got.

I'd wait a few months before making judgement.

Killgore
25-05-2014, 11:11
Or you could just ally any army out there with a daemons allied detachment with a LoC and 2 large horror squads (giving you 9 warp charges) with daemonology and play the same game.





What ever happened to forging a narrative?

I'd rather not play against people who act like you describe.


BTW, I can do a Daemon force you mentioned and was going to test something similar for my next game :P

Sanai
25-05-2014, 11:11
If Unbound does what I think it does (i.e. removes all force org restrictions) then guard, eldar, tyranids, etc can all spam psykers just as well as Daemons can.

I for one have been considering the idea of an unbound guard army, entirely made up of Wyrdwane Squads and Primaris Psykers, to represent a cabal of rogue psykers fleeing the black ships.

The only real advantage daemons get from having psyker troops in this case is that they can hold objectives better.... and of course the warp storm table, but that has very little to do with the psychic phase.

edit: in fact, all of this demon summoning spam will probably hurt actual Daemon armies, because everyone will start tailoring their lists to deal with daemons, via Sanctic Daemonology & Gray Knight Allies.

ihavetoomuchminis
25-05-2014, 11:19
What ever happened to forging a narrative?

I'd rather not play against people who act like you describe.


BTW, I can do a Daemon force you mentioned and was going to test something similar for my next game :P

Not saying i like the idea of everybody taking allied daemons, but i've seen people's behaviour.

PD: Can be a fun list to play against a GK army. Ala Daemonic invasion.

Kijamon
25-05-2014, 11:29
Won't be broken for me. If I play someone who does this I'll just make a mental note to never play them again.

Luckily the gaming scene where I am has lots of people to choose from. Sucks if you're in a club of two and one of the people does this sort of nastiness but eventually if you chase off your only opponents then you've only got yourself to blame.

Mauler
25-05-2014, 11:46
It was crystal clear. Daemons (i play them) can pack up to 24 warp charges by fielding a lord of change, 4 tzeentch heralds and 3 lvl 3 daemon princes. That before factoring horrors and new summoned units. I would like to say that daemon players should not take all daemonology lists and be nice taking other options.....but i know it wont happen...so unfortunately it needs to be faqed. Warp charges should be capped at 12 just like in fantasy.

Edit: i would like to know if those summoning that many units have the proper models. The part of the rule that says to not field the unit if you dont have the models should be reinforced in this case.

That looks like an Unbound force? That has to be agreed beforehand, if you're OK with playing an Unbound army then you know full well that you can end up facing a list like that.

It's not broken, it's something the players accept before playing.

Shadeseraph
25-05-2014, 11:51
That looks like an Unbound force? That has to be agreed beforehand, if you're OK with playing an Unbound army then you know full well that you can end up facing a list like that.

It's not broken, it's something the players accept before playing.

I may be wrong, but from what I remember, Daemon Princes can be moved to HS, the Lord of Change is HQ, and the Heralds are the typical HQ selection that don't take a slot. So it is a battleforged army, and not an uncommon one even before 7th was a thing.

Splen
25-05-2014, 11:53
That looks like an Unbound force? That has to be agreed beforehand, if you're OK with playing an Unbound army then you know full well that you can end up facing a list like that.

It's not broken, it's something the players accept before playing.

I'm pretty sure that would be battle forged (as long s there were enough troops choices in there too).

4 Heralds count as a single HQ Choice
Lord of change as the other HQ
3 Daemon princes as Heavy support as long as they are Tzeentch (unlocked by the Lord of Change)

Like I said, as long as there are enough troops in there too this seems perfectly legal.

Malagor
25-05-2014, 11:53
That is correct, a lord of change/Keeper of Secret/Great Unclean One makes all DPs heavy support and you can have 4 heralds take 1 HQ slot.

Splen
25-05-2014, 12:06
As a Daemon player I must admit that I was worried about the fact that pretty much all my shooting attacks can now potentially be blocked by my opponent in the Psychic phase, and if I just throw enough dice at the attacks so that they can't reliably be blocked I put myself under significant risk of perils. To be honest I am looking forward to the new challenges of 7th, but I think us daemon players are going to notice way more of a difference in this edition than many others.

Malagor
25-05-2014, 12:24
Well I did a test with a lvl 3 KoS, 4 Lvl 2 HoS, 10x2 squads of daemonettes and 3 lvl 3 DPs of Slaanesh and indeed, you can fit that into a 1500pts list without any gifts and you got 30pts to spare.

Poseidal
25-05-2014, 12:29
The days of 7th ed Fantasy, ah~!

Scammel
25-05-2014, 12:31
It's not broken, it's something the players accept before playing.

Recognition and acceptance of the fact that some elements are ridiculous doesn't negate the fact that they are, indeed, ridiculous. Requiring an opponent's permission should not be a cop-out for awfulness.

Mauler
25-05-2014, 12:33
I may be wrong, but from what I remember, Daemon Princes can be moved to HS, the Lord of Change is HQ, and the Heralds are the typical HQ selection that don't take a slot. So it is a battleforged army, and not an uncommon one even before 7th was a thing.


I'm pretty sure that would be battle forged (as long s there were enough troops choices in there too).

4 Heralds count as a single HQ Choice
Lord of change as the other HQ
3 Daemon princes as Heavy support as long as they are Tzeentch (unlocked by the Lord of Change)

Like I said, as long as there are enough troops in there too this seems perfectly legal.


That is correct, a lord of change/Keeper of Secret/Great Unclean One makes all DPs heavy support and you can have 4 heralds take 1 HQ slot.

Righto, gotcha! I play against daemons a fair bit but I'm not overly familiar with the nuances of their FOC.

That lot and two Troops choices must be 1,200pts at least?



Recognition and acceptance of the fact that some elements are ridiculous doesn't negate the fact that they are, indeed, ridiculous. Requiring an opponent's permission should not be a cop-out for awfulness.

I was referring to an Unbound list. The refusal of a cheese OD is the right of all living things.

hobojebus
25-05-2014, 12:41
That looks like an Unbound force? That has to be agreed beforehand, if you're OK with playing an Unbound army then you know full well that you can end up facing a list like that.

It's not broken, it's something the players accept before playing.

No just because someone is ignorant of how many power dice demons get and agrees to play them does not mean it's not broken it just means the poor guy has no clue what he's about to face.

Once again it's proof that gw does no real planning for these changes.

Malagor
25-05-2014, 12:45
At lot and two Troops choices must be 1,000pts at least?

1470pts without any gifts, atleast if you go the Slaanesh path.
So a 1500pts game? no problem. 1750pts? You can buy even more toys or give them gifts.
Hell they can just summon more daemons so just stock up on gifts.

Zustiur
25-05-2014, 12:57
There's already a batrep on Youtube where they managed to summon 2000 pts of daemons over a few turns.

ihavetoomuchminis
25-05-2014, 13:00
Time to buy some more daemons! Just joking....i like to use some other disciplines.

My main hope is GW to release Plastic greater daemons that look....you know....greater.

Mauler
25-05-2014, 13:10
No just because someone is ignorant of how many power dice demons get and agrees to play them does not mean it's not broken it just means the poor guy has no clue what he's about to face.

Once again it's proof that gw does no real planning for these changes.

Yes, I'm sure nothing was tested at all and no daemon models were even touched while the developers were getting hammered on schnapps while trying to write a new psychic phase. /sarcasm

I'm sure that Banishment and an abundance of firepower will help erasing daemons with a 6++ save. Beyond that and the obvious fact that more dice rolling means failing more perils, I've kinda got nothing as I've not played any games vs them with the new book yet.

Killgore
25-05-2014, 13:15
The basic stats on Daemons is not that great either, those newly summoned units won't be benefiting from Herald upgrades, at least on the turn they arrive. Killing a unit of 10 won't be that hard.

ihavetoomuchminis
25-05-2014, 13:18
Mauler, i've just realized that Cursed Earth improves the inv. save of all the daemons in 12" from the psyker while banishment only affects 1 unit. And it's a malediction, so it's easier to dispell, even more by daemons who tend to be psykers or have adamantium will and will have plenty of warp charges. Cursed Earth >>>> Banishment.

KR3LL
25-05-2014, 14:01
Kill the Psykers and the problem goes away...

I play mono Nurgle and I say this...

Try killing Iron Arm/Endurance tweaked GUO and Shrouded Daemon Princes. Cheap heralds burried in large PB squads.


If Unbound does what I think it does (i.e. removes all force org restrictions) then guard, eldar, tyranids, etc can all spam psykers just as well as Daemons can.

I for one have been considering the idea of an unbound guard army, entirely made up of Wyrdwane Squads and Primaris Psykers, to represent a cabal of rogue psykers fleeing the black ships.

The only real advantage daemons get from having psyker troops in this case is that they can hold objectives better.... and of course the warp storm table, but that has very little to do with the psychic phase.

edit: in fact, all of this demon summoning spam will probably hurt actual Daemon armies, because everyone will start tailoring their lists to deal with daemons, via Sanctic Daemonology & Gray Knight Allies.

Daemons can really lay down the psychic powers in numbers, and on really hard to kill units. And they can do it battle forged. With Unbound it becomes even more nasty.


That looks like an Unbound force? That has to be agreed beforehand, if you're OK with playing an Unbound army then you know full well that you can end up facing a list like that.

It's not broken, it's something the players accept before playing.

What he listed was not an unbound force.


Time to buy some more daemons! Just joking....i like to use some other disciplines.

My main hope is GW to release Plastic greater daemons that look....you know....greater.

Agree, the current blood thirster and GUO models are a joke. (thats why I have the FW ones)

Mauler
25-05-2014, 14:13
Mauler, i've just realized that Cursed Earth improves the inv. save of all the daemons in 12" from the psyker while banishment only affects 1 unit. And it's a malediction, so it's easier to dispell, even more by daemons who tend to be psykers or have adamantium will and will have plenty of warp charges. Cursed Earth >>>> Banishment.

Aye, it's a decent spell but then it should be because it's randomly selected and thus more rewarding than Banishment which is a primaris power and freely handed out or just chosen. Cursed Earth is a bit blimmin' useful though!

Just Tony
25-05-2014, 14:16
Yes, I'm sure nothing was tested at all and no daemon models were even touched while the developers were getting hammered on schnapps while trying to write a new psychic phase. /sarcasm

I'm sure that Banishment and an abundance of firepower will help erasing daemons with a 6++ save. Beyond that and the obvious fact that more dice rolling means failing more perils, I've kinda got nothing as I've not played any games vs them with the new book yet.

I remember during a campaign way back in either 3rd or 4th edition we had an Eldar player that was rocking a Swooping Hawk Exarch with Sustained Assault and the Web of Skulls. This model strolled into combat with his squad against a close combat armed Veteran Space Marines squad with Terminator Honors. The results should have been rather predictable, right? The guy rolled 29 hits with his Exarch. 29. Those 6-sided buffoons that we bring to battle with us can pull pretty much anything out of their hat at any time, mathhammer will only get you so far. With daemons having this capability, I lean towards either not enough playtesting (which given the release rate, sounds about right) or not giving a **** if Chaos is overpowered (again)


The basic stats on Daemons is not that great either, those newly summoned units won't be benefiting from Herald upgrades, at least on the turn they arrive. Killing a unit of 10 won't be that hard.

In a WD article on Dark Eldar tactics, Gav Thorpe said "Fighting Imperial Guard is like wrestling jelly, no matter how much you pull off there is always some left." That applies to Daemons as well. Killing a unit of 10 isn't hard, but what about the 2-3 OTHER units of 10 that came in the same turn?

I wonder what it'll take for the GW white knights to see the state of things...

Mauler
25-05-2014, 14:20
I play mono Nurgle and I say this...

Try killing Iron Arm/Endurance tweaked GUO and Shrouded Daemon Princes. Cheap heralds burried in large PB squads.


What he listed was not an unbound force.

Aye man, the Battle-forged bit was already pointed out!

My main opponent regularly fields Nurgle daemons and they are absolute gits to put down. I'm with you 100%, 10+ 'Bearers with shrouded and also FNP...damn annoying. I've had an Iron Arm GUO with Soul Eater roll up an entire flank gaining wounds. It mulched two Marine combat squads and 5 Terminators in assault, by the time it was chasing my Scorpions it was up to 10 wounds. Nightmare.

ihavetoomuchminis
25-05-2014, 14:24
Anyway.....i prefer DPs with either nurgle or tzeentch (weapon swap for either balesword or +2s staff) mark and full biomancy.

Zombie P
25-05-2014, 14:29
Mauler, i've just realized that Cursed Earth improves the inv. save of all the daemons in 12" from the psyker while banishment only affects 1 unit. And it's a malediction, so it's easier to dispell, even more by daemons who tend to be psykers or have adamantium will and will have plenty of warp charges. Cursed Earth >>>> Banishment.

Just putting it out there that banishment is not a hard counter to cursed earth. As Mauler says its the primaris. This also means they cant make it too good because if you were ever in the situation where you were facing deamons and they didnt take deamonology you could make them disappear in a puff of small arms fire. I know its a weird thing to think of but thats probably something that come up in the design studio. (I would hope :shifty:)

ZP

DoctorTom
25-05-2014, 17:47
I don't know too many armies capable of taking out 3 newly summoned units per turn, let alone the rest of the army doing the summoning. You likely also have a screamerstar to deal with. It's a massively uphill battle for most, any way you cut it.

Armoured company might have a chance.

duffybear1988
25-05-2014, 18:53
I really don't see why banishment requires 3 warp charges. It's not that good.

NemoSD
25-05-2014, 19:01
I really don't see why banishment requires 3 warp charges. It's not that good.

Because it doesn't?

Voss
25-05-2014, 19:06
What ever happened to forging a narrative?

Nothing. Its a stupid catchphrase GW just invented to excuse their lazy design failures. It has no weight or hold over people.

gitburna
25-05-2014, 19:25
This seems like a powerful tactic but *with a bit of practice* surely defeating it becomes like generic end-of-level boss tactics? Ignore the spawned units as much as possible and concentrate on taking out the breeders? Take out 3 power dice rather than one every time. Dont bother trying to dispel a 3-charge summoning, save your dice for the level 1 powers where you'll have more success. Don't daemons generally struggle against vehicles too, except in assault?

After reading the rules for Sanctic powers, unless i was a Grey Knight i wouldn't bother with them either, they seem too risky

leopard
25-05-2014, 19:29
Daft thing is GW already have a very good magic system, which could have been ported into 40k reasonably easily.

The system from LotR/Hobbit

AngryAngel
25-05-2014, 19:33
Here's the thing, some saw this issue coming and were shouted down time and time again. Now, I hope it comes to pass to see how it will be justified, you can't say demons summoning demons isn't fluffy, because it is. However for those saying, kill the psykers, sure, but how soon will all that happen ? Can you kill off enough of their psykers before they've grown their army by 3, 6, 9 new units ? The longer it takes, the more units you'll be facing, while your numbers just decrease to their attempts as they'll be coming after you as well. Don't worry though, it isn't broken, its just fluff driven fun.

Losing Command
25-05-2014, 19:35
This daemons summoning daemons army sounds very gimmicky to me. What happens when you don't get first turn and suffer casualties before you could summon reinforcements ? And is your opponent really going to be generous enough to let you ignore him while you do nothing but summon more units ? And how will you find the room to place the summonend units against a Ork green tide ? Can it deal with lots and lots of perils of the warp results ?

And what about Rune priests with runic staves ?

AngryAngel
25-05-2014, 19:38
I really don't see why banishment requires 3 warp charges. It's not that good.

Ah I see you've seen the psychic cards, yes on the cards for banishment is says its warp charge 3, however in the book, it says its warp charge 1, which is the typo ?


Because it doesn't?

It says its warp charge 3 on the psyhic cards, but in the book it says banishment is warp charge 1, duffy bear isn't wrong, GW is just awful at proof reading. So the question is, which one is false ? If you say for sure the card is, the book has other issues in it and scriers gaze is costed at 2 warp charges, so you can't say use makes it reasonable to assume it only costs 1.

Edit: to Demons summoning demons, you have this thing called cover ? You use it, as well as natural invulns, sit back and summon, it'll take at least a couple turns before you can get there, by then you've summoned chaff to fight with, while you keep working on summoning. As well, you'll still have CC capable units, unless your saying the opponent will cross the board, crush his foes by turn 2, which sounds a bit like dreaming.

duffybear1988
25-05-2014, 20:05
AngryAngel beat me to it.

NemoSD
25-05-2014, 20:38
Ah I see you've seen the psychic cards, yes on the cards for banishment is says its warp charge 3, however in the book, it says its warp charge 1, which is the typo ?



It says its warp charge 3 on the psyhic cards, but in the book it says banishment is warp charge 1, duffy bear isn't wrong, GW is just awful at proof reading. So the question is, which one is false ? If you say for sure the card is, the book has other issues in it and scriers gaze is costed at 2 warp charges, so you can't say use makes it reasonable to assume it only costs 1.

Edit: to Demons summoning demons, you have this thing called cover ? You use it, as well as natural invulns, sit back and summon, it'll take at least a couple turns before you can get there, by then you've summoned chaff to fight with, while you keep working on summoning. As well, you'll still have CC capable units, unless your saying the opponent will cross the board, crush his foes by turn 2, which sounds a bit like dreaming.

Until FAQed, book trumps card.

AngryAngel
25-05-2014, 20:43
Is that a rule somewhere that book trumps card ? Or just what your saying ?

hobojebus
25-05-2014, 21:25
Is that a rule somewhere that book trumps card ? Or just what your saying ?

Is that like codex trumps rule book? please provide a reference for angry and myself.

NemoSD
25-05-2014, 21:39
It is common sense. The book is The Rule Book. The cards are a game aide. The rule is logically, reasonably, and obviously, the central authority. The cards are meant to be a short cut, not a replacement of content in the book. It baffles me that this level of common sense is not apparent.

AngryAngel
25-05-2014, 21:45
Brilliant, except little GW does is logical, reasonable and obvious, besides their greed. So unless your quoting a rule, which it seems your not, this matter is up for debate, thanks for clarifying.

wanderingblade
25-05-2014, 21:46
Edit: to Demons summoning demons, you have this thing called cover ? You use it, as well as natural invulns, sit back and summon, it'll take at least a couple turns before you can get there, by then you've summoned chaff to fight with, while you keep working on summoning. As well, you'll still have CC capable units, unless your saying the opponent will cross the board, crush his foes by turn 2, which sounds a bit like dreaming.

I imagine a lot of Daemon players will cheerfully chuck a unit of Screamers or Flesh Hounds across the table to tie things up. Stick Invisibility or a Grimoire on the unit and you have a very quick unit that is very difficult to kill with shooting that can either block off assault armies or maul shooting armies - all at a relatively low price that allows plenty of Warp generating units.

And when you kill the Flesh Hounds, more get summoned!

I get that people want to look for solutions rather than just kvetch. But people are more likely to find solutions if they don't dismiss it out of hand and consider the full potential of it. People talk about ignoring the other units to go after the Summoners. Daemons have a lot of very good choices for putting their opposition under pressure very early and excellent choices for protecting units (luck depending) which can either be the Summoners that people so desperately want to kill, or the Pressure units.

And so on.

AngryAngel
25-05-2014, 21:59
Exactly the issue, and what if this is just bad game balance once more ? Solutions can only go so far. The first part of dealing with a problem, is admitting there is one.

Scribe of Khorne
25-05-2014, 22:14
If its really that easy to abuse, then yeah GG to this. I'll just get my group into 30K completely.

Gungo
25-05-2014, 22:16
The same people crying on this board now were saying everyone was going to be using Malefic to summon demons. That just is not the case. Those people have no idea what they were talking about. As many people told them perils, allies matrix and the amount of warp dice needed to cast ML3 make it too risky and the only army who is reliable at summoning is demons. Honestly the Malefic chart just needs errata,

summoning an unupgraded greater demon and sacrificing the psyker isn't even that bad.
Summoning a herald with 30 points of upgrades and sacrificing a model is a bit daft. There is no reason it should have 30 points of upgrades.
But The most broken ability is the primaris power that summons a unit of models and costs a single wound. That's just plain dumb. This ability should target and resummons a unit just like the endless swarm ability or the old send in the next wave conscript ability, and kill the psyker, That's it.

I do like 7th I think it fixes a lot of issues and the new psychic phase and unbound are fine and not even issues. The ease at which demons summon units is ridiculous. You can create a straight anti demon grey knight army with a malleus inquisitor built to kill demons and still get steamrolled. That primaris power needs to be fixed.

AngryAngel
25-05-2014, 22:29
Your right, we had no idea what we were talking about, except we did. As for how others aside from demons end up using it, we haven't seen that yet. However, it is easy to see how it'll be on demons. As for GW giving an errata to fix what they broke, don't you think they should have figured that out before they released it ? I mean they did give us battle reports from play testing, I assume that's what they were doing.

@ Surgency, yes it says you need the rule book, for the same reason you need the rule book and a codex for using the models in the game. Unless the game of warhammer has changed to just Psychic phase, the game. So way to not disprove the point.

hobojebus
25-05-2014, 22:34
...GW prints both brb and the cards they both come from the same source.

Gungo
25-05-2014, 22:41
Your right, we had no idea what we were talking about, except we did. As for how others aside from demons end up using it, we haven't seen that yet. However, it is easy to see how it'll be on demons. As for GW giving an errata to fix what they broke, don't you think they should have figured that out before they released it ? I mean they did give us battle reports from play testing, I assume that's what they were doing.

so you think you were right except no one it's really doing it and you haven't seen it yet? Do you know what being right means?
seriously every other Amy has to deal with pretty much automatic perils, desperate allies issues and conjuroring is the same as coming from reserves so I'm not even sure how they can deploy within 12in of come the apocolypse units. But even ignoring that few armies (as in 1 maybe 2) even come close to generating the amount if warp dice needed to reliably use multiple ML3 spells. People have been telling you this for weeks and you still think your right? Most of what you been complaint about for the last two weeks was wrong.

and the main issue isn't even the greater demon ability you were mostly complaining about it's the primaris power. That's honestly what needs to be fixed. Although I also think the 30 points of extras on a herald is overboard, but that primaris power is truly the issue.

frikandel speciaal
25-05-2014, 23:12
Wow, just wow. Your hatred of GW is so much, that you would muddy an issue, that has been common sense for ages... follows a logical process, because you want there to be a problem that can not be resolved?

Look, the Cards are a reference. They are NOT a rule book. They reference a rule book. In this case they reference the psychic powers section of the Core 7th Edition Rule Book. If the reference, IE the cards, do not match, the failure is not on the book, but the cards. If at a later date the book is changed to match the card, then the card becomes accurate. Until such time, the book is the primary source, and thus most accurate.

Or, without your hated enemy involved:

A student writes a paper, and references a birthday of a war hero. The book said it was 12/6 he said it was 12/12. Now who is correct? That is right, the source of the reference. That is the nature of references and sources. Sources are accurate, unless otherwise corrected, and references should accurately reflect the source material.

If you can not see why your argument lacks any scope of human reason or logic after the above explanation, then there is truly no help for you.

You're talking nonsense.

Surgency
25-05-2014, 23:18
Just like he who goes to ad hominem's instead of presenting opposing points admits defeat?

I don't think you quite understand what an ad hominem actually is

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

endless
25-05-2014, 23:23
On Dakkadakka the sky is always falling...

Surgency
25-05-2014, 23:27
Warseer is giving Dakka a run for its money lately :p

T10
25-05-2014, 23:34
If Unbound does what I think it does (i.e. removes all force org restrictions) then guard, eldar, tyranids, etc can all spam psykers just as well as Daemons can.

Indeed. Any army with access to Psykers can take these by the score. A basic Librarian is only 65 points and is reasonably durable to boot. But that's academic. In practice I don't see myself fielding an All-Psyker army that spends each battle summoning daemons in a neck-to-neck race with my opponent. I'll be fielding stuff I want to use, and hopefully not commit to playing a game against an army like that.

-T10

NemoSD
25-05-2014, 23:46
You're talking nonsense.

Really? I am beginning to think you and other other guy blindly supporting Angel are actually the same dude, and hoping volume level wins over reason.

I will humor you, if what I am saying is nonsense, deconstruct it and present a counter argument in which a logical progression is followed that excludes my point, provides an option for a second equally viable option, or disproves my conclusion.

AngryAngel
25-05-2014, 23:50
I gave a logical assessment to which you didn't respond.

Voss
26-05-2014, 00:01
The Rulebook is, well... The rules. It is required for play. A codex is required for play. The cards are not required for play. Hence the cards are a reference source, and not the source of the actual rules.

That doesn't mean either is immune to typos. One is wrong. Since we have no further information, there is no way to know which is wrong. Blah blah trumps blah blah is meaningless, because it isn't a matter of precedence, just a mistake.

NemoSD
26-05-2014, 00:06
I gave a logical assessment to which you didn't respond.

Because Surgancy already deconstructed your argument. Me doing it again would be redundant and pointless. I mean if his argument didn't convince you that you are fabricating a problem for the sake of I honestly don't, then me doing it again is pointless.

But, since you seem to want it.

You stated that my example is not applicable here due to the nature of two different parties being involved.

Ok.

You make a valid point towards a premise. I will for now ignore the fact that the number of parties is actually irrelevant when discussing the differences between reference material and source, and give you a one party example.

A math book is published. At the same time this book is published, the same company publishes study flash cards. In this study flash card set, it makes reference to a formula in the main book, and then reprints the formula. Due to a simple typo, the formula is A+2b=c, when in the book it is 2a+2b=c. Do you have reasonable expectation of the flash cards being correct? Yes, of course, they are after all meant to help you get the right answer. However, if you turn your homework in, having used only the cards, or having checked the book, and the cards, and then decided the card is correct, are you in the end going to have the right answer? No, of course not, because you would of done the math wrong because you used an incorrect formula.

There is no text in the book or cards that says when in doubt, use the text book as the primary source, because it is an accepted rule that the source material of a reference is always the more correct source of information. It does not need to be stated.


That doesn't mean either is immune to typos. One is wrong. Since we have no further information, there is no way to know which is wrong. Blah blah trumps blah blah is meaningless, because it isn't a matter of precedence, just a mistake.

Angel started the argument when he stated that it is impossible for us to know which one is more accurate at this time. Which is where I mentioned that the rule book is the most accurate at this time until an FAQ changes this. Unless you are perfectually willing to let people who use the book play it as 1 charge, and the card people play it as 3. If the latter is true, then you are right, there is no need for one to trump another.

Surgency
26-05-2014, 00:12
That doesn't mean either is immune to typos. One is wrong. Since we have no further information, there is no way to know which is wrong. Blah blah trumps blah blah is meaningless, because it isn't a matter of precedence, just a mistake.

If thats the case, then you would use the ORIGINATING reference material (ie: the items that are REQUIRED for play) as the correct information, and the game aides as having a typo.

I seriously can't believe that you would argue with a straight face that a reference aide would be more correct than the book that those reference materials aide you in using?

Minsc
26-05-2014, 00:13
Even if the (reference)-cards are right as in what they say is what GW originally intended to be right and the BRB is wrong, you can bet your money on that GW will Errata the cards and not the BRB.

Why? Because it's alot cheaper to reprint, restock (and replace) 6 cards than a 200+ page book.

Voss
26-05-2014, 00:18
If thats the case, then you would use the ORIGINATING reference material (ie: the items that are REQUIRED for play) as the correct information, and the game aides as having a typo.
I seriously can't believe that you would argue with a straight face that a reference aide would be more correct than the book that those reference materials aide you in using?

No. Seriously, just no. For one, I'm not arguing either. I am saying flat out that you have two contradictory data points as a result of a typo. You have no idea which is correct. You don't assume one, as they are equally likely to be correct, because typos are not biased to supplementary reference material.

Nemo's (and your) little examples hinges on something that isn't true: that books are somehow immune to typos. They aren't.
Neither is there a rule that source material is always more correct. Speaking as historian and an archivist, anyone trying to sell that sort of nonsense would be laughed out of the profession.
People lie. People make mistakes. Assuming one is correct over another is bad scholarship and, in fact, actively stupid (or intentionally doctoring the information). The correct response is: do some work and find out which is accurate.

i.e., get in touch GW or wait for a FAQ.



Even if the (reference)-cards are right as in what they say is what GW originally intended to be right and the BRB is wrong, you can bet your money on that GW will Errata the cards and not the BRB.

Why? Because it's alot cheaper to reprint, restock (and replace) 6 cards than a 200+ page book.
Irrelevant. Given past practice, they aren't likely to reprint the cards anyway- traditionally those vanish off into the ether once they go out of stock. But if they seriously make game decisions based on most cost-effective printing errors, the company is even worse at rules then I assumed.

By that logic, I'd hate to see any typos in core rules areas: 'Oops. The to wound chart says S3 wounds t6 on a 4+. Well, its in the book, can't fix that!'

AngryAngel
26-05-2014, 00:24
I would have to agree with Minsc, if they errata it, it would be cheaper to errata the cards over the book. However, the examples given are, while entertaining, still not really being completely helpful. More to the point would be like. I wrote a book, and gave out flash cards. In one area, I say I had 2 armies ( the book ) in the other it says I have 4 armies. Even if I have 4 armies, and they printed 2, I would only have 2 then ? Is what is being said ?

As it is just as valid a view that they made the rule book powers, and towards the end of design, when sending the information for the cards, had decided to change the ability to 3 warp charges, and just forgotten to amend it on the book as it was already done. Unless you believe they made the cards first, then the rule book. Either way it isn't a cut and dry case unless you know what they were thinking and when in the process both were made and what the final stand was.

edit @ Voss, what he said is pretty right on, thank you Voss.

Surgency
26-05-2014, 00:26
No. Seriously, just no. For one, I'm not arguing either. I am saying flat out that you have two contradictory data points as a result of a typo. You have no idea which is correct. You don't assume one.

If that is the case, you use the originating material as the "correct" material. How is this hard to understand? The rulebook, until stated otherwise, is the originating material, because it is the item that is required for play.


Nemo's (and your) little examples hinges on something that isn't true: that books are somehow immune to typos. They aren't.
Neither is there a rule that source material is always more correct. Speaking as historian and an archivist, anyone trying to sell that sort of nonsense would be laughed out of the profession.
People lie. People make mistakes. Assuming one is correct over another is bad scholarship and, in fact, actively stupid (or intentionally doctoring the information). The correct response is: do some work and find out which is accurate.

No, our point does not hinge on the book being immune to typos. If the rulebook is in error, then the book will be corrected in an Errata. Until GW says the book is in error, you MUST play that the book is correct because the rulebook is the ONLY common requirement of all games. If the cards were a REQUIRED item for gameplay, then your argument would be completely valid. Otherwise, how would you handle a situation where one player had the rulebook and the cards, while his opponent has just the rulebook?

As it stands, the cards are an aide only, they are meant to ease your gameplay by providing a handy reference to the MAIN rules. They are not the rules in and of themselves. You're being completely asinine by even suggesting that the cards somehow outweigh the main rulebook without a FAQ or Errata to say that they do.

Minsc
26-05-2014, 00:30
Irrelevant. [...]

By that logic, I'd hate to see any typos in core rules areas: 'Oops. The to wound chart says S3 wounds t6 on a 4+. Well, its in the book, can't fix that!'

Not trying to sound rude, but the only thing irrelevant here is your comparison, which really had nothing to do with the topic being discussed.

Fixing an obvious typo which is quite gamebreaking and where no other sources can be found saying something different is one thing
Fixing a typo (that will rarely make a difference) where we have two differing sources is another thing entirely.

As for the whole "what trumps what, BRB or Cards"-debate, I'll side with the "BRB trumps" side, but I can see why the other side is arguing.

AngryAngel
26-05-2014, 00:31
Any typo, in the right context and at the right time, could be game breaking.

Gungo
26-05-2014, 00:34
While I believe the book is most likely correct arguing which is cheaper to errata is a dumb argument. Reissuing 6 cards is not the cheapest anyway. Pushing out a PDF on the black library site is by far. Voss is also correct we can't be certain it's either number however most will likely follow the brb.

But back on topic the only issue with malefic is the primaris which IMHO should work like endless swarm not summoning and entire unit for 1 wound unless the 1 wound is on the psyker and In addition to replacing target unit. I don't like the 30 points of upgrades on the herald either but I can live with a spell that's slightly Overpowered especially since it's random.

Minsc
26-05-2014, 00:35
Any typo, in the right context and at the right time, could be game breaking.

That was a bit tryhardy, don't you think? ;)

Voss
26-05-2014, 01:40
Not trying to sound rude, but the only thing irrelevant here is your comparison, which really had nothing to do with the topic being discussed.

Of course it does. When presented with contradictory or obviously wrong information, the obligation isn't to 'pick a side' or assume the correct answer, but to find out what is correct. Waiting 4-6 months for a new printing (which was your example) isn't practical, assuming it happens at all (in the case of psychic cards, generally doesn't).


Until GW says the book is in error, you MUST play that the book is correct because the rulebook is the ONLY common requirement of all games. If the cards were a REQUIRED item for gameplay, then your argument would be completely valid. Otherwise, how would you handle a situation where one player had the rulebook and the cards, while his opponent has just the rulebook?

As it stands, the cards are an aide only, they are meant to ease your gameplay by providing a handy reference to the MAIN rules. They are not the rules in and of themselves. You're being completely asinine by even suggesting that the cards somehow outweigh the main rulebook without a FAQ or Errata to say that they do.
Nope. I'm saying that the rules are completely unknown. There is no 'more correct' answer, because each answer is equally likely to be incorrect. There is no MUST here. I can find dozens of misprints and errors throughout GW's books, I have no obligation to play with any of them just because they are in the main rules. This means finding out what the answer actually is, or in the meantime coming to an agreement with individual opponents as to what the correct answer most likely is (based on the context, not simply what is in the book), and how to play it if it comes up at all.

SpanielBear
26-05-2014, 01:51
Of course it does. When presented with contradictory or obviously wrong information, the obligation isn't to 'pick a side' or assume the correct answer, but to find out what is correct. Waiting 4-6 months for a new printing (which was your example) isn't practical, assuming it happens at all (in the case of psychic cards, generally doesn't).


Nope. I'm saying that the rules are completely unknown. There is no 'more correct' answer, because each answer is equally likely to be incorrect. There is no MUST here. I can find dozens of misprints and errors throughout GW's books, I have no obligation to play with any of them just because they are in the main rules. This means finding out what the answer actually is, or in the meantime coming to an agreement with individual opponents as to what the correct answer most likely is (based on the context, not simply what is in the book), and how to play it if it comes up at all.

Thankfully, it is a lot easier for people to come to a friendly agreement face to face than on a forum...

If this kind of arguing occurred when we played, it would be four hours before a model was even deployed!

So one side says 3, and the other says 1? Fine. That's fine. You know what, I'm gonna go all Solomon on this debates' ass:

"The cost of the power is 2 warp charges"

There. Now neither side wins.

This is why we can't have nice things...

Voss
26-05-2014, 01:54
Thankfully, it is a lot easier for people to come to a friendly agreement face to face than on a forum...

If this kind of arguing occurred when we played, it would be four hours before a model was even deployed!

So one side says 3, and the other says 1? Fine. That's fine. You know what, I'm gonna go all Solomon on this debates' ass:

"The cost of the power is 2 warp charges"

There. Now neither side wins.

This is why we can't have nice things...

I'm fine with that. It works for a getting on with playing an actual game while waiting for whatever the correct answer is.
I'm not fine with the idea that 2+2=5 because that might be printed in a book while 2+2=4 is 'only' printed on the flash cards.

Splen
26-05-2014, 02:21
This thread started out so well too. I step away from the keyboard for a couple of hours and everyone goes mental.

Nonalyth
26-05-2014, 02:25
As far as I can tell, no one is saying the BRB is absolutely correct and the cards are inevitably wrong. It’s simply that given two contradictory pieces of information, one from the core rules and one from a separate game aide, until there is official clarification it makes more sense to play using the core rules than the aide. Hell, they might both be wrong for all we know, but until we get an FAQ it’s obvious that the core rules take precedence. Not because it’s “more right” or “less wrong” but because it’s the core book.

Now stop being childish, all of you.

Surgency
26-05-2014, 02:54
but until we get an FAQ it’s obvious that the core rules take precedence. Not because it’s “more right” or “less wrong” but because it’s the core book.

It makes perfect sense! And is better worded than I put it. But basically, yes.

Core rules > gaming aides

DoctorTom
26-05-2014, 04:11
Or, argue that since we don't know what the cost is, there's a "GW screwed up" sale on the power and it doesn't cost anything to cast. Yup, it automatically goes off until GW sees fit to FAQ it. That would cut into seeing daemonic summoning around if that happened.

I would like to believe that they got it right in the main book, but the cynic in me says that after sending the book out to the printers they realized it might hurt the sales of daemons too much if they can be taken care of too easily, so they decided with the cards to set the value at 3. They then planned to have it FAQ'd quickly, but forgot to have the FAQ ready in time for the bank holiday weekend (oops). It's not like we haven't seen mistakes in their books before (Nob bikers being one example).

AngryAngel
26-05-2014, 04:18
Time will tell, which part is right. So I suppose we'll see, whenever they decide to hand out FAQS from on high.

wanderingblade
26-05-2014, 04:33
People, please refrain from the personal insults and return to the topic. I would suggest any further debate on the primacy of rule book or reference cards belongs in the Rules Forum.

Thankyou
The Warseer Inquisition

EvilAnagram
26-05-2014, 04:43
If Unbound does what I think it does (i.e. removes all force org restrictions) then guard, eldar, tyranids, etc can all spam psykers just as well as Daemons can.

I for one have been considering the idea of an unbound guard army, entirely made up of Wyrdwane Squads and Primaris Psykers, to represent a cabal of rogue psykers fleeing the black ships.

The only real advantage daemons get from having psyker troops in this case is that they can hold objectives better.... and of course the warp storm table, but that has very little to do with the psychic phase.

edit: in fact, all of this demon summoning spam will probably hurt actual Daemon armies, because everyone will start tailoring their lists to deal with daemons, via Sanctic Daemonology & Gray Knight Allies.

I just saw the daemon summon spam used against Eldar. In two turns the daemon player brought in 200 extra points of daemons, most of which were also psykers. It was insanity, and the eldar player, who had brought a decent amount of psykers, could do nothing against it. Unless you want to bring ten warlocks, Eldrad, and a few farseers, you won't be able to come close to that number of warp charges. Even if you do, you're now stuck with 800 points of units that are only good at psyker powers. Meanwhile, the daemons will be tearing you apart with a much more well-rounded army that still has an insane amount of warp charges.

Hendarion
26-05-2014, 05:55
Wait, since when is there an FAQ for the Codex: Daemons which allows them to actually take the Daemonology powers? Because last time I checked the Codex, it stated which psyker can take which powers from where. I know the Rulebook says they can, but it doesn't say who exactly, does it? So... Codex trumps rulebook. That actually means currently they can't have it. Just saying. And by the way, that is the case for many Codices out there. They need an FAQ before they actually can take Daemonology powers at all. Or we suddenly hand out these powers to anyone in the Codex? So also Warlocks, Hemlocks and Shadowseers (who are all locked on very specific powers) can summon daemons? Seriously doubt it.

Nonalyth
26-05-2014, 06:35
Rulebook specifically says any psyker can take daemonology powers (apart from the Grey Knight/Malefic and Daemon/Sanctic restrictions) so yes, Eldar psykers could summon daemons, or banish them for that matter. They run a greater risk of perils though when attempting either.

Sanai
26-05-2014, 06:41
On Dakkadakka the sky is always falling...

They are Daemons, horrific entities from a realm of madness beyond our own frail, limited physical plane. When they turn up, the sky is supposed to fall.

wanderingblade
26-05-2014, 06:46
Wait, since when is there an FAQ for the Codex: Daemons which allows them to actually take the Daemonology powers? Because last time I checked the Codex, it stated which psyker can take which powers from where. I know the Rulebook says they can, but it doesn't say who exactly, does it? So... Codex trumps rulebook. That actually means currently they can't have it. Just saying. And by the way, that is the case for many Codices out there. They need an FAQ before they actually can take Daemonology powers at all. Or we suddenly hand out these powers to anyone in the Codex? So also Warlocks, Hemlocks and Shadowseers (who are all locked on very specific powers) can summon daemons? Seriously doubt it.

Some will agree with you, others will disagree with you - the intent seems to be that Warlocks at least could summon Daemons as well and my take would be that any Psyker who does not come with powers automatically generated can take it - certainly the subject needs to be FAQ'ed.

I think hoping for a FAQ that Codex: Daemons psykers won't be able to take Daemonology is hoping against hope. I know that ruling and guessing on intent is dodgy ground but I seriously doubt that GW went out of their way to invent a whole new psychic discipline to not give it to people. They've written a rule suggesting that they want lots of factions to take it. When they get around to clarifying the ambiguity they've created, I would put a lot of money on Malefic Daemonology being available to Chaos Daemons.

Nonalyth
26-05-2014, 07:03
Considering there's a specific rule about how daemon psykers use Malefic powers, and outside of Chaos Daemons there are exactly 2 psykers with the daemon rule (Daemon Prince and a Sorcerer with the relic from Crimson Slaughter) I think it's a pretty safe bet they can use it.

Hendarion
26-05-2014, 07:06
Sure Daemons will get it. But we can't tell if any psycher unit in the Daemons codex will or just very specific ones - like say Greater Daemons.

ihavetoomuchminis
26-05-2014, 07:10
Oh that woul be ace! Ezekiel summoning daemons but a tzeentch herald not.

mongoosedog300
26-05-2014, 07:11
I just saw the daemon summon spam used against Eldar. In two turns the daemon player brought in 200 extra points of daemons, most of which were also psykers. It was insanity, and the eldar player, who had brought a decent amount of psykers, could do nothing against it. Unless you want to bring ten warlocks, Eldrad, and a few farseers, you won't be able to come close to that number of warp charges. Even if you do, you're now stuck with 800 points of units that are only good at psyker powers. Meanwhile, the daemons will be tearing you apart with a much more well-rounded army that still has an insane amount of warp charges.

Having played against a deamon summoning deamon army over the past few days with eldar, what the hell is the rest of the army doing? You shoot the crap out of the everything while staying out of range and being mobile. Yes deamons win the psykic phase....but they don't shoot and can't get into assault until turn 3 and the new deamon's deep strike so can't move or charge til their next turn (and most of them don't shoot). If you're not killing 200 points worth of stuff a turn and staying out of range of them, then quite frankly you're not playing your army right.

Hendarion
26-05-2014, 07:30
Unless you play 1500 or 1750 points and the other guy summons 400-800 points of Daemons a turn ;)

Dkoz
26-05-2014, 08:03
I have to agree with the propel that believe you defer to the CRB IMNSHO.

ihavetoomuchminis
26-05-2014, 08:36
What???? Cbr imnsho??

HammerofThunor
26-05-2014, 09:34
Or, argue that since we don't know what the cost is, there's a "GW screwed up" sale on the power and it doesn't cost anything to cast. Yup, it automatically goes off until GW sees fit to FAQ it. That would cut into seeing daemonic summoning around if that happened.

I would like to believe that they got it right in the main book, but the cynic in me says that after sending the book out to the printers they realized it might hurt the sales of daemons too much if they can be taken care of too easily, so they decided with the cards to set the value at 3. They then planned to have it FAQ'd quickly, but forgot to have the FAQ ready in time for the bank holiday weekend (oops). It's not like we haven't seen mistakes in their books before (Nob bikers being one example).

It's WC1 in the interactive version of the rule book (both places I've found it). If they deliberately changed it for the cards it would make no sense not to have it in the electronic version.

Reverend Green
26-05-2014, 10:58
a better comparison for rules v reference would be a codex (rules) vs it's back page reference (reference cards) which I believe has, from prior FAQs, gone in favour of the rules

as for the topic I'd suggest a whack with the rulebook (a lesser offence these days) for those that repeatedly do counts as daemons.
For a proper daemon force just look at it as a fluffy desperate stand against the unstoppable tide as daemons overwhelm you... then hit them with the background book if they're just doing it to win.

edit: ... which is probably why they split the rulebook in 3, it's the perfect counter to dodgy unbound lists
... and actually means for counts as you hit them with the modelling book, not the rules

HereComesTomorrow
26-05-2014, 11:29
Sure Daemons will get it. But we can't tell if any psycher unit in the Daemons codex will or just very specific ones - like say Greater Daemons.

Book says units with the Daemon rule can use, so step by step:

1: Does the model have the Daemon rule, if yes go to 2, if no stop here.

2: Does the model have Mastery Levels, if yes go to 3, if no stop here.

3: The model can cast Maelfic powers.

Its literally as simple as that.

Also, the aforementioned video of a daemon army starting at 1850pts and summoning up to 4000.

http://youtu.be/ryMAAP6HWfw

Commissar_42
26-05-2014, 12:24
Unless you play 1500 or 1750 points and the other guy summons 400-800 points of Daemons a turn ;)
A lot of assaulty armies probably could actually. I've had that many points destroyed in a single turn before, I'm sure most people have.

Loopstah
26-05-2014, 12:45
If your trying to out psyker the Daemons then you're doing it wrong. You should just be blowing the **** out of everything with overwhelming firepower.

Razhem
26-05-2014, 12:59
Book says units with the Daemon rule can use, so step by step:

1: Does the model have the Daemon rule, if yes go to 2, if no stop here.

2: Does the model have Mastery Levels, if yes go to 3, if no stop here.

3: The model can cast Maelfic powers.

Its literally as simple as that.

Also, the aforementioned video of a daemon army starting at 1850pts and summoning up to 4000.

http://youtu.be/ryMAAP6HWfw

From what I saw, even more absurd is the random objectives thing still letting his opponent win even when getting trashed by the demon player thanks to being lucky when drawing objective cards.

HereComesTomorrow
26-05-2014, 13:02
From what I saw, even more absurd is the random objectives thing still letting his opponent win even when getting trashed by the demon player thanks to being lucky when drawing objective cards.

Yeah, but thats an issue for another thread.

Loopstah
26-05-2014, 15:21
From what I saw, even more absurd is the random objectives thing still letting his opponent win even when getting trashed by the demon player thanks to being lucky when drawing objective cards.

So they summoned over 2000pts of extra Daemons and still lost due to objectives?

So why exactly is Daemon summoning broken then?

Gonefishing
26-05-2014, 15:43
So they summoned over 2000pts of extra Daemons and still lost due to objectives?

So why exactly is Daemon summoning broken then?

I thought they drew in the end?

I think the point would be, the Imp player got quite a lucky draw (or an extremely lucky win) because the game ended on turn 5 and he had lucked into some very good random objective cards. That said, by the end he had virtually nothing left - while the daemons still had pretty much what they started with (another turn and I think he would have been tabled). In the video itself they state if he had not had the knight he would have been utterly steamrollered.

Having watched the video - it is pretty broken (it also fully legal, and in its own way - kinda fluffy). It may not be auto win (with ever changing random scoring I don't think anything is now), but its 99% of the time win material - especially when the technique gets even more refined.

HereComesTomorrow
26-05-2014, 15:52
I posted this in the warp charge cap thread but I'll post it here since the discussion of card is going on here as well.

http://daemons40k.blogspot.ie/2014/05/the-early-returns-are-not-good.html?m=1

Tl;dr Game is called on turn 3 due to the daemon factory's card putting him 8-1 up and the IG player is losing the game of attrition badly.

NemoSD
26-05-2014, 16:03
So they summoned over 2000pts of extra Daemons and still lost due to objectives?

So why exactly is Daemon summoning broken then?

It also flows with fluff. Think of it this way. Each of the 'objective cards' was leading to assembly of some archeotech, or placing emitters, etc... the purpose of which was to serve as a form of banishment to the warp, or setting up the targeting of a Macro-Cannon in orbit. The Marines won, because they got there mission complete, heroically facing down an unyielding tide of horrors. Hell, they may of even known it was a suicide mission, understanding their sacrifice would stop the demon incursion.

(Not directed at the quoted) People, you can not complain on one hand how certain powers or unfluffy, then ignore the fluff when it comes to actual play. When you make even the lightest effort to consider the story of how the events unfold, it makes the game that much more engaging.

duffybear1988
26-05-2014, 16:16
So basically delude yourself with a story of why you lost rather than just accept the rules are bad?

NemoSD
26-05-2014, 16:23
So basically delude yourself with a story of why you lost rather than just accept the rules are bad?

The rules being bad are your opinion.

Thrax
26-05-2014, 16:41
At least his opinion seems educated, well-reasoned, informed and based on extensive experience.

Ssilmath
26-05-2014, 16:42
At least his opinion seems educated, well-reasoned, informed and based on extensive experience.

And ours aren't?

NemoSD
26-05-2014, 16:48
And ours aren't?

Nope, because it is apparently the greatest of stupidities to like something of this magnitude of "suck", and since we do not conform to their versions of enjoyment and fulfillment, we are obviously unreasonable flawed people. This is exactly why I stopped wasting time arguing with them. Because they don't accept our position as even worthy of consideration. No mutual respect at all.

duffybear1988
26-05-2014, 16:56
Nope, because it is apparently the greatest of stupidities to like something of this magnitude of "suck", and since we do not conform to their versions of enjoyment and fulfillment, we are obviously unreasonable flawed people. This is exactly why I stopped wasting time arguing with them. Because they don't accept our position as even worthy of consideration. No mutual respect at all.

And we could turn that argument right back at you. We're just as sick of hearing how GW can do no wrong, being told that we're playing it wrong, that somehow we aren't the target audience so we should just accept our lot in life without questioning GW.

When people are saying this new edition is great and then with the same breath announcing all the house rules they are going to be using I'm left wondering what planet I'm living on. I can't fathom that thinking at all. It's so great that you are going to fix it? That's like buying a car and then finding out you have to assemble and tune it yourself. This is supposed to be a finished product.

hobojebus
26-05-2014, 17:06
Nope, because it is apparently the greatest of stupidities to like something of this magnitude of "suck", and since we do not conform to their versions of enjoyment and fulfillment, we are obviously unreasonable flawed people. This is exactly why I stopped wasting time arguing with them. Because they don't accept our position as even worthy of consideration. No mutual respect at all.

Pretty rich given that our side is always being accused of being WaaC players and malcontents, you have to give respect if you want to get it back it's a two way street.

NemoSD
26-05-2014, 17:12
And we could turn that argument right back at you. We're just as sick of hearing how GW can do no wrong, being told that we're playing it wrong, that somehow we aren't the target audience so we should just accept our lot in life without questioning GW.

When people are saying this new edition is great and then with the same breath announcing all the house rules they are going to be using I'm left wondering what planet I'm living on. I can't fathom that thinking at all. It's so great that you are going to fix it? That's like buying a car and then finding out you have to assemble and tune it yourself. This is supposed to be a finished product.

Dude, I do not think GW is great. I am more then annoyed that I have not gotten my monies worth out of 6th. I felt the same way about 3rd DnD and the shift to 3.5. I barely had time to settle into 3.0, but once I did shift, I quickly got over it because I realized I was enjoying the system more. 7th is 6.5, and it has streamlined and fixed many of its features. Now I loved 6th over 5th. Sure I miss my near immortal holofielded Eldar tanks, and Guard Russes, but people no longer grown when I pull out a bunch of tanks, because they have a reasonable chance against them. I dislike the fact that the old tried and true BC/PC/LC Russ build is now pointless, but I have now experimented and found other designs I like.

I have heard no one, at all, say that GW can do no wrong. Only one side of the argument who has stated that recently GW can do no right, accusing those of us who disagree with white knighting GW. I am critical of what I buy, and 40k and WFB keep passing my muster of being entertaining. GW Models, when you consider most are sold in groups, average out to the same prices, sometimes cheaper, then most of the competition who create an illusion of savings through pricing models individually or in pairs.

Could the prices be lower. Yes. Could the books receive more editing, gods yes. Is 7th edition bad? In my opinion, no. Yours does not have to conform to mine, and were me and many others are getting annoyed at your side of the argument, is the flippant disrespect given to our enjoyment. According to your posts, and many others who share your opinion, those who have the gall to like this game are delusional fanboys who don't know any better.

So turn the arguments around as much as you want. The fact is, I am personally not saying there is anything wrong with what you like or dislike, I do openly disdain the attitude that you and your fellows have taken, and I am beyond being polite about that fact. Any hopes of me being civil with your unreasonable stance that those who like this game are wrong for reasons, neverminding the fact that they are under no obligation to conform to your worldview on any point, is gone, dashed, out of here.

AlTzeentch
26-05-2014, 17:13
This proves GW is just living off of their Intellectual Property and doesn't actually play-test any rules they just release pretty looking stuff/books for extra sales.
Can't wait for them to get a reality check. (I hope it happens in my lifetime).


Here is the video of the Battle Report with the broken Daemons.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryMAAP6HWfw

Gonefishing
26-05-2014, 17:16
Back on topic, out of curiosity - what's the maximum amount of heralds you can take in a battle forged list? Its 4 for a single HQ choice, but did I read somewhere that in 7th everyone can ally with themselves? (meaning 1 HQ from each detachment would give you 8?)

Commotionpotion
26-05-2014, 17:18
It's been clear for a while that GW have been intent on recycling a lot of older ideas from previous editions back into the game, but apparently they really have gone full circle. History is repeating itself in that, rather like Rogue Trader, a game now seems to need a minimum of three participants; two players and a gamesmaster (GM).

The GM was required because RT was designed to be a fusion of wargame and RPG elements, with a depth that wouldn't be seen again until Inquisitor. The problem is that having to have an impartial GM is actually quite inconvenient for a lot of gaming, which is why they moved to a self-regulating ruleset and army lists from 2ed onwards.

Now this model seems to be being abandoned, and this will have large, and probably negative consequences for gameplay. The thing is, having an umpire for every game is pretty much impractical, and players will always be partisan - which is why you need a solid, coherent set of rules in the first place.

An incoherent melange of rules for a game, that leaves everyone feeling frustrated for some reason, is an objectively bad situation. No one benefits.

NemoSD
26-05-2014, 17:18
Back on topic, out of curiosity - what's the maximum amount of heralds you can take in a battle forged list? Its 4 for a single HQ choice, but did I read somewhere that in 7th everyone can ally with themselves? (meaning 1 HQ from each detachment would give you 8?)

You can have an unlimited number (theoretically, they still do have requirements that will limit them via feasibility and point cost.) of combined arms detachments, which are the traditionally FOC. The more you have though, the more bloated your troops choices are, which rules out elites, fast attack, and heavy if you use to many detachments.

NemoSD
26-05-2014, 17:21
It's been clear for a while that GW have been intent on recycling a lot of older ideas from previous editions back into the game, but apparently they really have gone full circle. History is repeating itself in that, rather like Rogue Trader, a game now seems to need a minimum of three participants; two players and a gamesmaster (GM).

The GM was required because RT was designed to be a fusion of wargame and RPG elements, with a depth that wouldn't be seen again until Inquisitor. The problem is that having to have an impartial GM is actually quite inconvenient for a lot of gaming, which is why they moved to a self-regulating ruleset and army lists from 2ed onwards.

Now this model seems to be being abandoned, and this will have large, and probably negative consequences for gameplay. The thing is, having an umpire for every game is pretty much impractical, and players will always be partisan - which is why you need a solid, coherent set of rules in the first place.

An incoherent melange of rules for a game, that leaves everyone feeling frustrated for some reason, is an objectively bad situation. No one benefits.

I can personally tell you the only frustrating I am feeling in relation to 7th edition is other people who don't like 7th, telling me I should not like it because reasons.

By the way, no where do I see the need, call, or expression of a requirement for a GM. I do believe you are implanting that idea to help make it seem more negative.

Thrax
26-05-2014, 17:33
And ours aren't?

In all honesty, no.

There is often this over-generalization of two camps of thought, where one is formed mainly by "apologists" and the other is composed of "haters." What is so commonly misunderstood is that the so-called haters are actually huge fans of the game, and desperately want it be as great a game experience as possible. Generally they aren't simply being critical for it's own sake, but they address specific issues that concern them personally. Sometimes those issues may seem petty or obscure, but they usually are focused on specifics that can be listed (at times the list grows fairly large).

The apologists however defend nearly every change, regardless of its merit. On one hand it may be a fine attitude to be upbeat and look at what positives can be gleaned from a particular situation, but the constant excuse for approving every turn of the wheel seems disingenuous and less constructive. The rush to defend a new position is no better or worse than the rush to attack one, but it seems more like an automatic response to criticism than a genuine attempt at insight into a problem.

Everyone wants to enjoy their hobby, and those very passionate about it can come off badly and often step on each others toes. I think most of us want essentially the same...a great game we all can enjoy. Marginalizing legitimate concerns isn't helpful.

Gonefishing
26-05-2014, 17:36
You can have an unlimited number (theoretically, they still do have requirements that will limit them via feasibility and point cost.) of combined arms detachments, which are the traditionally FOC. The more you have though, the more bloated your troops choices are, which rules out elites, fast attack, and heavy if you use to many detachments.

So theoretically with minimal effort you could have a battleforged version of the Tzeentchian Clown Car tactic on Daka and end up with 29 Heralds and 21 Pink Horrors, 80 Mastery Levels worth of Warp Dice and by the end of turn 1, then convert that into - Turn 2, 6 Bloodthirsters and even more Heralds and Pink Horrors.

ouch.

Commotionpotion
26-05-2014, 17:39
I can personally tell you the only frustrating I am feeling in relation to 7th edition is other people who don't like 7th, telling me I should not like it because reasons.

By the way, no where do I see the need, call, or expression of a requirement for a GM. I do believe you are implanting that idea to help make it seem more negative.

So, you don't see the validity of their point of view, and will not be convinced of their arguments, and yet you keep arguing back - presumably knowing full well that they will be just as stubborn in holding onto their own views? Surely this is a waste of effort and energy?

On the subject of the game now needing a GM - that is my opinion. It is based on what I have read concerning the strange gameplay related outliers that seem to have started cropping up - of which Matryoshka-doll daemon summoning seems to be the most egregious. In Rogue Trader, the GM would often not only adjudicate impartially during the game, but was also often intended to write the scenarios and the army lists in order to ensure that there would be some structure and coherence and that all players would feel engaged and have a positive experience.

From what I have read of the bizarre things it seems to be possible to do now, it seems to me that games now need an impartial GM to adjudicate to stop things getting out of hand. I find this rather ironic, given GW's apparent disdain for tournaments.

HereComesTomorrow
26-05-2014, 17:43
I can personally tell you the only frustrating I am feeling in relation to 7th edition is other people who don't like 7th, telling me I should not like it because reasons.

By the way, no where do I see the need, call, or expression of a requirement for a GM. I do believe you are implanting that idea to help make it seem more negative.

Actually in several games of 6th I acted as GM for the purposes of keeping track of random stuff(objectives, terrain) or looking up rules we weren't 100% sure of to avoid disputes slowing the game.

NemoSD
26-05-2014, 17:47
So, you don't see the validity of their point of view, and will not be convinced of their arguments, and yet you keep arguing back - presumably knowing full well that they will be just as stubborn in holding onto their own views? Surely this is a waste of effort and energy?

On the subject of the game now needing a GM - that is my opinion. It is based on what I have read concerning the strange gameplay related outliers that seem to have started cropping up - of which Matryoshka-doll daemon summoning seems to be the most egregious. In Rogue Trader, the GM would often not only adjudicate impartially during the game, but was also often intended to write the scenarios and the army lists in order to ensure that there would be some structure and coherence and that all players would feel engaged and have a positive experience.

From what I have read of the bizarre things it seems to be possible to do now, it seems to me that games now need an impartial GM to adjudicate to stop things getting out of hand. I find this rather ironic, given GW's apparent disdain for tournaments.

I respect there opinion. And that right there is the difference that many seem to be misunderstanding. I do not agree with it, but I respect. What I dislike, and what is pissing me off, is the idea that my opinion is inherrently flawed because I have the audacity to enjoy this game. I have particpated and discussed in the various merits and demerits of the current system, but far to often, those discussions end when one of a handful of people, soon followed by the rest, interjects and starts to claim, and I paraphrase "It is bad because GW can do no right."

frikandel speciaal
26-05-2014, 18:16
In all honesty, no.

There is often this over-generalization of two camps of thought, where one is formed mainly by "apologists" and the other is composed of "haters." What is so commonly misunderstood is that the so-called haters are actually huge fans of the game, and desperately want it be as great a game experience as possible. Generally they aren't simply being critical for it's own sake, but they address specific issues that concern them personally. Sometimes those issues may seem petty or obscure, but they usually are focused on specifics that can be listed (at times the list grows fairly large).

The apologists however defend nearly every change, regardless of its merit. On one hand it may be a fine attitude to be upbeat and look at what positives can be gleaned from a particular situation, but the constant excuse for approving every turn of the wheel seems disingenuous and less constructive. The rush to defend a new position is no better or worse than the rush to attack one, but it seems more like an automatic response to criticism than a genuine attempt at insight into a problem.

Everyone wants to enjoy their hobby, and those very passionate about it can come off badly and often step on each others toes. I think most of us want essentially the same...a great game we all can enjoy. Marginalizing legitimate concerns isn't helpful.


Very well said!

Surgency
26-05-2014, 18:17
The apologists however defend nearly every change, regardless of its merit. On one hand it may be a fine attitude to be upbeat and look at what positives can be gleaned from a particular situation, but the constant excuse for approving every turn of the wheel seems disingenuous and less constructive. The rush to defend a new position is no better or worse than the rush to attack one, but it seems more like an automatic response to criticism than a genuine attempt at insight into a problem.

You know, it can easily be said that the haters attack every change, regardless of merit. They look for every excuse to disparage and tear down GW, and often are disingenuous and less constructive, rarely coming up with ideas of their own. Rather, they follow the "its bad because reasons" approach of parroting previous posts without critically thinking about what it is they are parroting. It seems that often times there is nothing but a rush to attack GW for changes, rather than to meaningfully discuss the problem and possible solutions.


I respect there opinion. And that right there is the difference that many seem to be misunderstanding. I do not agree with it, but I respect. What I dislike, and what is pissing me off, is the idea that my opinion is inherrently flawed because I have the audacity to enjoy this game. I have particpated and discussed in the various merits and demerits of the current system, but far to often, those discussions end when one of a handful of people, soon followed by the rest, interjects and starts to claim, and I paraphrase "It is bad because GW can do no right."

Not only do they make those claims, but then they act condescending and insulting to those of us who tend to look for the more enjoyable parts of the system or who generally disagree with the "it's bad because reasons" attitude that is so prevalent

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

frikandel speciaal
26-05-2014, 18:20
Nope, because it is apparently the greatest of stupidities to like something of this magnitude of "suck", and since we do not conform to their versions of enjoyment and fulfillment, we are obviously unreasonable flawed people. This is exactly why I stopped wasting time arguing with them. Because they don't accept our position as even worthy of consideration. No mutual respect at all.

As if you accept others opinion. What a joke.

frikandel speciaal
26-05-2014, 18:21
Not only do they make those claims, but then they act condescending and insulting to those of us who tend to look for the more enjoyable parts of the system or who generally disagree with the "it's bad because reasons" attitude that is so prevalent

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

What a joke. You guys really should check yourself.

Sounds like the leftists. We are left, so the rest must be wrong. We are good, so the rest must be evil.

All i can say is, the apologist side shows no respect whatsoever. If you think i'm wrong, no, i'm right.

NemoSD
26-05-2014, 18:24
As if you accept others opinion. What a joke.

I don't accept others opinion. That is 100% fact. I take information, mix it with my own beliefs and preferences and come to my own. I however respect your right to your opinion, I just don't share it, and resent your effort to force on me and others.


What a joke. You guys really should check yourself.

Threats, classy.

Surgency
26-05-2014, 18:24
What a joke. You guys really should check yourself.

I think you prove my (and nemo's) point quite nicely. Nowhere has Nemo or I said that your opinion is invalid, and yet you seem to think its okay to call out our opinion as being "incorrect"

AngryAngel
26-05-2014, 18:32
And we could turn that argument right back at you. We're just as sick of hearing how GW can do no wrong, being told that we're playing it wrong, that somehow we aren't the target audience so we should just accept our lot in life without questioning GW.

When people are saying this new edition is great and then with the same breath announcing all the house rules they are going to be using I'm left wondering what planet I'm living on. I can't fathom that thinking at all. It's so great that you are going to fix it? That's like buying a car and then finding out you have to assemble and tune it yourself. This is supposed to be a finished product.

I just think it is right to point out, I agree here.


Pretty rich given that our side is always being accused of being WaaC players and malcontents, you have to give respect if you want to get it back it's a two way street.

Exactly so, some people assume they should get it and have to give non in return.


I can personally tell you the only frustrating I am feeling in relation to 7th edition is other people who don't like 7th, telling me I should not like it because reasons.

By the way, no where do I see the need, call, or expression of a requirement for a GM. I do believe you are implanting that idea to help make it seem more negative.

I don't recall us saying you can't enjoy it. We are saying what we find as negative with it, to which most on the other side then tell us we're wrong. It leads to a round and round discussion where it leaves that frustration you speak of. In fact in our argument in this thread, I just disagreed with your view with what the truth obviously was, and that was enough to get you being rude over it. I didn't ever say you shouldn't enjoy the game or even can't, I just said it wasn't a clear cut issue to everyone, apparently that was enough to ruin your enjoyment ? I think its more that any disagreement is a battle that must be waged and obviously an attack on personal honor, which it isn't.


In all honesty, no.

There is often this over-generalization of two camps of thought, where one is formed mainly by "apologists" and the other is composed of "haters." What is so commonly misunderstood is that the so-called haters are actually huge fans of the game, and desperately want it be as great a game experience as possible. Generally they aren't simply being critical for it's own sake, but they address specific issues that concern them personally. Sometimes those issues may seem petty or obscure, but they usually are focused on specifics that can be listed (at times the list grows fairly large).

The apologists however defend nearly every change, regardless of its merit. On one hand it may be a fine attitude to be upbeat and look at what positives can be gleaned from a particular situation, but the constant excuse for approving every turn of the wheel seems disingenuous and less constructive. The rush to defend a new position is no better or worse than the rush to attack one, but it seems more like an automatic response to criticism than a genuine attempt at insight into a problem.

Everyone wants to enjoy their hobby, and those very passionate about it can come off badly and often step on each others toes. I think most of us want essentially the same...a great game we all can enjoy. Marginalizing legitimate concerns isn't helpful.

More sense spoken, well said.


You know, it can easily be said that the haters attack every change, regardless of merit. They look for every excuse to disparage and tear down GW, and often are disingenuous and less constructive, rarely coming up with ideas of their own. Rather, they follow the "its bad because reasons" approach of parroting previous posts without critically thinking about what it is they are parroting. It seems that often times there is nothing but a rush to attack GW for changes, rather than to meaningfully discuss the problem and possible solutions.



Not only do they make those claims, but then they act condescending and insulting to those of us who tend to look for the more enjoyable parts of the system or who generally disagree with the "it's bad because reasons" attitude that is so prevalent

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

As a matter of fact the haters don't pick on every change, just the ones that are negative for seemingly no real reason or that lead to a negative outcome, by our individual opinion. You, just seem to be insulted by it. However, coming from the one who's final statement to why to nerf snipers was " Because GW said so, nuff said " I can see you love throwing your own stones in that glass house.

That all said, we're really getting off topic with all this so I'll bow out of here, aside from people directly speaking to me.

Speaking to topic, It's clear the summoning is having some sweeping changes for demons, how it runs with other armies, time will tell. As for what trumps what, based on the electronic rule book, and I book version I believe I heard also having the cost at 1 warp charge I would take weight of evidence to show that as the proper cost, there, that wasn't hard at all.

DoctorTom
26-05-2014, 18:43
Rulebook specifically says any psyker can take daemonology powers (apart from the Grey Knight/Malefic and Daemon/Sanctic restrictions) so yes, Eldar psykers could summon daemons, or banish them for that matter. They run a greater risk of perils though when attempting either.

Well, that's a different way for a Hemlock Wraithfighter to Terrify an opponent - drop a unit of daemons in his lap.

Surgency
26-05-2014, 18:44
As a matter of fact the haters don't pick on every change, just the ones that are negative for seemingly no real reason or that lead to a negative outcome, by our individual opinion. You, just seem to be insulted by it. However, coming from the one who's final statement to why to nerf snipers was " Because GW said so, nuff said " I can see you love throwing your own stones in that glass house.

You asked for logical reasons. I gave you logical reasons. You claimed those reasons weren't logical enough, passive-aggressively called anyone who disagreed with you an idiot, and then went back to "GW is bad because reasons." It was quite clear in that post, and in every 7th ed post that you join, that you have no desire to reasonably discuss the merits or flaws of the edition, and instead want to criticize GW for everything in 7th edition. When logic and actual discussion is thrown out the window, the only thing that is left is "because they said so"

Wayshuba
26-05-2014, 18:49
Here's the thing, some saw this issue coming and were shouted down time and time again. Now, I hope it comes to pass to see how it will be justified, you can't say demons summoning demons isn't fluffy, because it is. However for those saying, kill the psykers, sure, but how soon will all that happen ? Can you kill off enough of their psykers before they've grown their army by 3, 6, 9 new units ? The longer it takes, the more units you'll be facing, while your numbers just decrease to their attempts as they'll be coming after you as well. Don't worry though, it isn't broken, its just fluff driven fun.

Yup. I was one of them. Get shot at pretty hard too. Especially when I was on another popular forum being called a "hater" because you could see this one coming a mile away (although I didn't think it would be as bad as it is actually turning out. I thought 600-1,800 points the whole battle - not 2,000 points extra by turn 3).

GW doesn't want this balanced, they want it to be intentionally overpowering. This needs to be this way to sell a ton of model kits.....

Now that we are seeing this silliness starting to come in from early battle reports, I will reiterate just what I said before 7th launched - this edition is jumping the shark for GW and this silliness is, my bet, going to have the complete opposite effect on 40k than GW wants. Could already see that one coming too with what they did with FoCs and Unbound.

Wayshuba
26-05-2014, 18:52
I really don't see why banishment requires 3 warp charges. It's not that good.

Probably because it originally banished summoned daemons at one point but Kirby came walking by while they were playing with the new rules one day, saw someone banish a unit and open his eyes in horror.

"We can't have that, they should be able to keep 30-40 extra units on the table. We NEED to sell lots and lots of daemon kits. We won't if they are able to recycle them because we allow them to take them off the table. No. No. No. No. No. Jervis, fix it. Add lots of units is good. No taking units off the table, that is bad."

AngryAngel
26-05-2014, 18:59
You asked for logical reasons. I gave you logical reasons. You claimed those reasons weren't logical enough, passive-aggressively called me an idiot, and then went back to "GW is bad because reasons." It was quite clear in that post, and in every 7th ed post that you join, that you have no desire to reasonably discuss the merits or flaws of the edition, and instead want to criticize GW for everything in 7th edition. When logic and actual discussion is thrown out the window, the only thing that is left is "because they said so"

You gave logic, I gave logic, others aside from me went against your own, and of course you had your supporters. So because I won't give up the debate I'm calling you names ? Are people who disagree with you supposed to just fold up like a wet nap ? If someone is intentional or otherwise with rudeness in posts, it has been you and I know I'm not the only one who see's it. If you debate someone, you have to be aware they may not agree. I know I've come to that conclusion. The question would be, what changes happen that GW does, do you not agree with ? Just out of curiosity from last to current edition.

As others are citing their demon summing troubles, yet it was supposed to be a non issue, granted this is the very first use and months will show the absolute truth, it shows there was some reason to be concerned for such in game.

@Wayshuba, you will always be judged a hater for voicing concern. It's the love it or leave it attitude of some players. I'm sorry your already seeing the demon summoning issues.

hobojebus
26-05-2014, 18:59
You asked for logical reasons. I gave you logical reasons. You claimed those reasons weren't logical enough, passive-aggressively called me an idiot, and then went back to "GW is bad because reasons." It was quite clear in that post, and in every 7th ed post that you join, that you have no desire to reasonably discuss the merits or flaws of the edition, and instead want to criticize GW for everything in 7th edition. When logic and actual discussion is thrown out the window, the only thing that is left is "because they said so"

How can we reasonably discuss it if you never admit there are issues, saying all is well when it's very clearly not isn't going to save the situation quite the opposite it only ensures things will get worse.

People don't complain because they don't care, us "haters" want to cut out the rot and get the game to be really good again, people are not playing GW games as much as they used to and most I've personally asked have said it's the constant rule changes and cost that drove them away.

We don't want 40k gone but we fear that's what will happen if GW stays the course.

Surgency
26-05-2014, 19:03
How can we reasonably discuss it if you never admit there are issues, saying all is well when it's very clearly not isn't going to save the situation quite the opposite it only ensures things will get worse.

I admit there are potentially issues with the book. Have I run into any? As of now, I have not. In fact, outside of a couple very minor gripes, I'm rather happy with the new edition. Have I seen people try to break the edition in an effort to prove how terrible it is? Only on youtube. However, I get the feeling that these people would try to break the game regardless, until GW gave them what THEY and they alone wanted. So why is my opinion of the edition being a good edition so much more invalid than your opinion of the edition being terrible? I'll tell you why: Because I'm not vocal about what I don't like, and instead have been vocal about what I do like.


People don't complain because they don't care, us "haters" want to cut out the rot and get the game to be really good again, people are not playing GW games as much as they used to and most I've personally asked have said it's the constant rule changes and cost that drove them away.

There is a point that cutting to the rot becomes "telling someone they're playing it wrong." GW is obviously taking a new tack with their system. They are moving away from hyper-competitive players, and moving towards casual gamers. What you see as rot, many people may see as a good and necessary change. So who's in the right?

I'll draw a comparison here to the Blizzard forums. That place is a seething cesspool of negativity, so much so that it makes Dakka seem like sunshine and rainbows. Everything Blizzard does is wrong, and when Blizzard changes tack and gives the players what they ask for, its still wrong. Over there, people also "just want to cut out the rot" but what the small (very) vocal minority doesn't realize is that what they want to call rot is what Blizzard is pushing for. Does that make their opinion wrong? Not necessarily, it just means that their goals aren't lining up with Blizzards goals.

Are your opinions wrong? Not necessarily, but maybe your opinions aren't lining up with what GW is currently looking for?



You gave logic, I gave logic, others aside from me went against your own, and of course you had your supporters. So because I won't give up the debate I'm calling you names ? Are people who disagree with you supposed to just fold up like a wet nap ? If someone is intentional or otherwise with rudeness in posts, it has been you and I know I'm not the only one who see's it.

You call me rude, when you have been called out multiple times in multiple threads for being rude, confrontational, and insulting to anyone who disagrees with you? Its not about "giving up debates" and its not about winning debates. Its about using logic and reasoning, and understanding why the change took place. Feel free to house rule things however you want, but GW ruled a specific way, and those are the rules that we must live by in the book. I tried to give logical reasons why the rules were changed. You called me an idiot, and an apologist, and then attacked everyone who agreed with me despite being in the minority. So when it was apparent that logic wasn't desired, I went back to the old addage of "thems the rules"


Probably because it originally banished summoned daemons at one point but Kirby came walking by while they were playing with the new rules one day, saw someone banish a unit and open his eyes in horror.

Or because it originally banished ALL daemons, including those bought base from the codex :p

DoctorTom
26-05-2014, 19:04
I'm tempted to open a concession stand to sell peanuts, popcorn, hot dogs and soda to the people coming in to watch this fight.:p

htsmithium
26-05-2014, 19:09
I'm tempted to open a concession stand to sell peanuts, popcorn, hot dogs and soda to the people coming in to watch this fight.:p
two dogs and a coke please

Sephillion
26-05-2014, 19:10
I’ll have a virgin Cuba Libre, please.

Wayshuba
26-05-2014, 19:34
This is a good review (http://daemons40k.blogspot.com/2014/05/the-early-returns-are-not-good.html). However, one of the comments is even better:

Here's Reece's take after they played a lot more than two turns.

"So after about 5 games and seeing how the new mechanics play out my overall impression of the game is that we will have to rewrite a big chunk of the game in order to play it in tournaments. The game as it is right out of the book is borderline unplayable. They fixed a lot of the little problems, but the new problems they made break the game without some changes. For example, unbound armies, multiple primary FoC, using the mission cards without restrictions, etc. are not conducive to a fair game.

Some changes that will probably me needed: limits on FoC. Taking an army with one daemons, one grey knight and one Tyranid detachment is incredibly stupid. Beyond creating crazy combos, itís just not fun. Or, more mundane, but equally fun killing, an army of all daemons heralds that summon thousands of points of daemons in one turn. Also stupid. Limits on warp charge. Unlimitted warp charge creates comically unbalanced situations wherein one player has over 30 warp charge and the other has 5 or so. It means one player essentially has no psychic phase. The mission cards on their own are incredible unbalanced. You often end up with situations where one player draws a good hand and the other doesnít, and then the game is already decided.

We will also have to limit some of the powers possibly. Limiting warp.charge may solve it, but the malefic powers are crazy.

Invisibility is nutso. That and the fact that the 2+ reroll save didnít go away means deathstars are better than ever in many ways. Again, we have to limit warp charge to begin to stop this or the game is going to degenerate into combo units again.

More play testing is needed but so far the game as is, is about 100 times worse than it was for tournament play. With limitations on the crazy stuff, the are tighter in many ways."


7th edition is a complete and utter train wreck. First battle reports are already proving it. This is only going to get worse. Gotta love people paying a massive premium of $85+ for a game the community is going to have to fix because it is so broken..... biggest rip off in wargame history!

hobojebus
26-05-2014, 19:38
There is a point that cutting to the rot becomes "telling someone they're playing it wrong." GW is obviously taking a new tack with their system. They are moving away from hyper-competitive players, and moving towards casual gamers. What you see as rot, many people may see as a good and necessary change. So who's in the right?

And here we have yet another very thinly veiled accusation that anyone who disagree's with you must be a power gamer, I dont play in tournaments, i dont run net lists, i have a IW army with 0 heldrakes and 0 bike squads, my necrons most expensive unit is a 7 man squad of triarch praetorians i run because i like the models and plenty have called me nuts for not using more wraith's.

I dont use allies because i think its too open to abuse, i dont use escalation because i dont think D weapons belong in a small game of 40k, i am a casual gamer when it comes to 40k and actively build non cheese lists because winning before you've even set up is boring.

I played 40k every week almost for the first year using 4 different armies and after trying alot of different things but none of them work for me, the game has stopped being fun and become a chore, i didnt change the game did and not for the better from my perspective.

Kijamon
26-05-2014, 19:38
7th edition is a complete and utter train wreck. First battle reports are already proving it. This is only going to get worse. Gotta love people paying a massive premium of $85+ for a game the community is going to have to fix because it is so broken..... biggest rip off in wargame history!

For the tournament scene it is.

For those of us who just enjoy making our models go pew pew and having a carry on with friends, it's amazing.

DoctorTom
26-05-2014, 19:45
7th edition is a complete and utter train wreck. First battle reports are already proving it. This is only going to get worse. Gotta love people paying a massive premium of $85+ for a game the community is going to have to fix because it is so broken..... biggest rip off in wargame history!

Of course it's a train wreck, how else can they sell 8th edition next year? (EDIT: Or a 40k Competition supplement) :shifty:

NemoSD
26-05-2014, 19:49
This is a good review (http://daemons40k.blogspot.com/2014/05/the-early-returns-are-not-good.html). However, one of the comments is even better:

Here's Reece's take after they played a lot more than two turns.

"So after about 5 games and seeing how the new mechanics play out my overall impression of the game is that we will have to rewrite a big chunk of the game in order to play it in tournaments. The game as it is right out of the book is borderline unplayable. They fixed a lot of the little problems, but the new problems they made break the game without some changes. For example, unbound armies, multiple primary FoC, using the mission cards without restrictions, etc. are not conducive to a fair game.

Some changes that will probably me needed: limits on FoC. Taking an army with one daemons, one grey knight and one Tyranid detachment is incredibly stupid. Beyond creating crazy combos, it’s just not fun. Or, more mundane, but equally fun killing, an army of all daemons heralds that summon thousands of points of daemons in one turn. Also stupid. Limits on warp charge. Unlimitted warp charge creates comically unbalanced situations wherein one player has over 30 warp charge and the other has 5 or so. It means one player essentially has no psychic phase. The mission cards on their own are incredible unbalanced. You often end up with situations where one player draws a good hand and the other doesn’t, and then the game is already decided.

We will also have to limit some of the powers possibly. Limiting warp.charge may solve it, but the malefic powers are crazy.

Invisibility is nutso. That and the fact that the 2+ reroll save didn’t go away means deathstars are better than ever in many ways. Again, we have to limit warp charge to begin to stop this or the game is going to degenerate into combo units again.

More play testing is needed but so far the game as is, is about 100 times worse than it was for tournament play. With limitations on the crazy stuff, the are tighter in many ways."


7th edition is a complete and utter train wreck. First battle reports are already proving it. This is only going to get worse. Gotta love people paying a massive premium of $85+ for a game the community is going to have to fix because it is so broken..... biggest rip off in wargame history!

You scoured the internet to find someone who agrees with you. Good job. You had plenty of that here though. As was pointed out though, the tournement scene is being forced to reassess itself. Of course, maelstrom is optional, if you prefer more set in stone missions, you have the six from 6th still... the book does not come with a dude with a gun saying play maelstrom missions or else the puppy gets it.

Yes some crazy combos are possible, but I would personally rather have crazy combos be possible, and allow for creative list building. I already have an awesome idea, in my opinion, for an unbound army in the works. Due to a warp storm an Eldar War Party, and a Imperial Guard regiment were isolated on a planet where a battle over a webway was supposed to have happened. Of course the web way was a trap, and a daemon incursion began. The three have since banded together, forming a loose single, unified force. Neither have the ability to organize the way they used to, and both are collection of grizzled survivors more then any organized army.

Yes, someone else can create an army of Grey Knights, Demons, and Bugs, but I'd rather have the ability to create my own armies in interesting and unique ways, and occasionally deal with the occasional guy who just does the math and decides what is best.

Drasanil
26-05-2014, 19:51
For the tournament scene it is.

..and for casual pick up games and for just about everything that doesn't involve having a solid regular club.


For those of us who just enjoy making our models go pew pew and having a carry on with friends, it's amazing.

Every edition was amazing for that, heck you don't even need the rules for that you can scream pew pew with your friends and have a gay ole time regardless of what that big mean rulebook says about things :p

Wayshuba
26-05-2014, 19:51
For the tournament scene it is.

For those of us who just enjoy making our models go pew pew and having a carry on with friends, it's amazing.

Not just the tournament scene. While he references that, the same sort of frustrating things mentioned also will happen in the pick up scene (you know the LARGEST portion of the GW customer base). Nobody wants to play a game that has just gone to complete silly. Nor a game that needs extensive house ruling before you can even begin to decide to play.

And this is just in the days since release. Even 6th edition wasn't this bad (nor any other edition before it). Sure, they had there certain broken areas, but not people saying that the edition was on borderline unplayable and would require extensive house ruling and rules rewriting just to have a playable game.

That is not "Forging a Narrative", it is "Become a Game Designer".

Ssilmath
26-05-2014, 19:53
Not just the tournament scene. While he references that, the same sort of frustrating things mentioned also will happen in the pick up scene (you know the LARGEST portion of the GW customer base). Nobody wants to play a game that has just gone to complete silly. Nor a game that needs extensive house ruling before you can even begin to decide to play.

Got something to back up that assertion? Or is that opinion?

Wayshuba
26-05-2014, 19:56
You scoured the internet to find someone who agrees with you. Good job. You had plenty of that here though. As was pointed out though, the tournement scene is being forced to reassess itself. Of course, maelstrom is optional, if you prefer more set in stone missions, you have the six from 6th still... the book does not come with a dude with a gun saying play maelstrom missions or else the puppy gets it.

Yes some crazy combos are possible, but I would personally rather have crazy combos be possible, and allow for creative list building. I already have an awesome idea, in my opinion, for an unbound army in the works. Due to a warp storm an Eldar War Party, and a Imperial Guard regiment were isolated on a planet where a battle over a webway was supposed to have happened. Of course the web way was a trap, and a daemon incursion began. The three have since banded together, forming a loose single, unified force. Neither have the ability to organize the way they used to, and both are collection of grizzled survivors more then any organized army.

Yes, someone else can create an army of Grey Knights, Demons, and Bugs, but I'd rather have the ability to create my own armies in interesting and unique ways, and occasionally deal with the occasional guy who just does the math and decides what is best.

Your going around with blinders on and dismissing the obvious. It is okay, GW needs to keep a few customers around that will accept whatever they do and cover it under the guise of "Forging a Narrative". I will no longer be one of those with the current state of the game. There are plenty on the internet that are saying this, not just one. And the review linked is from someone who generally DEFENDS GW. This is a turn, even for the writer of that blog. So, if someone that enthusiastic is saying it, you should be concerned since it means GW is even starting to lose many of their staunch supporters in defending what is an obvious piece of expensive trash for an edition of the game.

Wayshuba
26-05-2014, 19:57
Got something to back up that assertion? Or is that opinion?

Yes, here - http://investor.games-workshop.com/2014/01/16/half-year-results-2013-2014/

Surgency
26-05-2014, 19:57
Not just the tournament scene. While he references that, the same sort of frustrating things mentioned also will happen in the pick up scene (you know the LARGEST portion of the GW customer base). Nobody wants to play a game that has just gone to complete silly. Nor a game that needs extensive house ruling before you can even begin to decide to play.

This is entirely subjective. I played a game yesterday that was not silly (outside of horrible rolls on my part), nor did it need extensive house rules to play. The same goes for the guys on the table beside us. Only one person in the store tried to claim that the edition was broken, using many of the same arguments I see here on warseer on a daily basis, but his opinion was absolutely in the minority.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

AngryAngel
26-05-2014, 19:57
@Surgency, I never once called you an idiot. You may believe I feel that however, I have never in fact said that to you. Perhaps its your own personal feelings bleeding in to other peoples words ? If your an apologist or not, I think that can be seen by anyone who reads your posts. GW, for you, does no real wrong, just minor things, which is fine for you but don't assume everyone has those same colored shades on. You have personally attacked me at least once I do recall. Oddly enough it was over my saying we should believe the rumors of the new edition, which, low and behold, it is here. You claim to focus on the good, but your more full of anger then I ever will be my friend.

As an aside, debate is confrontation. Your confronting an opposing party with your thoughts, views opinions and when you have them fact. If you don't think debate is confrontation, check out any politics, theory debate, etc, etc. When there are sides to a subject to be debated, and people are passionate about it, it can be confrontational.

Ssilmath
26-05-2014, 19:59
Yes, here - http://investor.games-workshop.com/2014/01/16/half-year-results-2013-2014/

That has absolutely nothing to do with saying that pickup gamers make up the majority of the playerbase, nor that the majority of pickup gamers are going to be adversely affected.

NemoSD
26-05-2014, 20:02
Not just the tournament scene. While he references that, the same sort of frustrating things mentioned also will happen in the pick up scene (you know the LARGEST portion of the GW customer base). Nobody wants to play a game that has just gone to complete silly. Nor a game that needs extensive house ruling before you can even begin to decide to play.

And this is just in the days since release. Even 6th edition wasn't this bad (nor any other edition before it). Sure, they had there certain broken areas, but not people saying that the edition was on borderline unplayable and would require extensive house ruling and rules rewriting just to have a playable game.

That is not "Forging a Narrative", it is "Become a Game Designer".

I honestly do not understand how 7th is unplayable. I have played two games already, and had no issues what so ever. Well I had some Wyrdvane insist and popping themselves without once summoning a single demon in one game, but that was just funny. Do you know how unlikely it is to roll 6 ones twice in a row? Not as unlikely as I thought.

There were no problems regarding rules interaction. It was funny to watch my opponent to use Malafic Demonology to buff the Avatar of Khaine, the second game was funnier because we went back and forth with cursed earth and banishment until Yarrick went toe to toe with the Avatar and won.

In short, I had a blast, my opponent had a blast. Now this is subjective and experience of two players, but I honestly do not see where the reams of house rules are needed?


Your going around with blinders on and dismissing the obvious. It is okay, GW needs to keep a few customers around that will accept whatever they do and cover it under the guise of "Forging a Narrative". I will no longer be one of those with the current state of the game. There are plenty on the internet that are saying this, not just one. And the review linked is from someone who generally DEFENDS GW. This is a turn, even for the writer of that blog. So, if someone that enthusiastic is saying it, you should be concerned since it means GW is even starting to lose many of their staunch supporters in defending what is an obvious piece of expensive trash for an edition of the game.

Again, I do not base my opinions on another's. I take what they have to say, and then compare it to my personal experience. Sometimes I agree, other times I don't. We all look for different things, and perhaps this new edition did not deliver what he wanted, but it does deliver something for me. I am thus predisposed to liking it. I work through the downsides, like my Russ's are still snap firing their sponsons (which is fixed now with a 40 point model now.) when I fire a battle cannon. Except now that the Nova is a dirt cheap gun, and is very effective against anything not space marine AND not ordinance, freeing up sponsons, it is taking a spot as my main gun.

So yeah there are short comings, but the game is playable, and for me enjoyable. For my fellow players, enjoyable. This is exactly what I am talking about in my other posts. Despite the fact that I have pointed out my opinion is mine, based on my interactions with the material, I keep getting told I am wrong because SOMEONE ELSE does not agree.

Wayshuba
26-05-2014, 20:04
That has absolutely nothing to do with saying that pickup gamers make up the majority of the playerbase, nor that the majority of pickup gamers are going to be adversely affected.

Pickup gamers do make up the majority. There is plenty of evidence to support that around the internet, on YouTube, and from many players. Clubs are a minority and mainly in the UK area.

Personally, as someone who has lived in many different cities in the US, Europe and Tokyo and can tell you from my experience being in many different areas, this is in fact how most people play 40k (or a lot of other wargames for that matter). Show up at their local FLGS with their armies and if their are other players with armies strike up a game.

Since GW has moved away from this target, their revenue has been declining. So I think this is pretty strong evidence that it is likely case.

Brother-Captain Endymion
26-05-2014, 20:08
In all honesty, no.

There is often this over-generalization of two camps of thought, where one is formed mainly by "apologists" and the other is composed of "haters." What is so commonly misunderstood is that the so-called haters are actually huge fans of the game, and desperately want it be as great a game experience as possible. Generally they aren't simply being critical for it's own sake, but they address specific issues that concern them personally. Sometimes those issues may seem petty or obscure, but they usually are focused on specifics that can be listed (at times the list grows fairly large).

The apologists however defend nearly every change, regardless of its merit. On one hand it may be a fine attitude to be upbeat and look at what positives can be gleaned from a particular situation, but the constant excuse for approving every turn of the wheel seems disingenuous and less constructive. The rush to defend a new position is no better or worse than the rush to attack one, but it seems more like an automatic response to criticism than a genuine attempt at insight into a problem.

Everyone wants to enjoy their hobby, and those very passionate about it can come off badly and often step on each others toes. I think most of us want essentially the same...a great game we all can enjoy. Marginalizing legitimate concerns isn't helpful.

I could care less for the pointless (and childish) arguing permeating this thread. But I'd just like to respond to this post in particular.

I find it comical that you make a very valid point on "haters" yet dismiss "apologists" out of hand. One would think that it would only be fair to legitimize both sides. Haters often have a bad reputation for serious amounts of whinge. It's true. But it's equally true, as you say, that they perhaps love the game more than most casual players. Indeed, they are loathe to see it in such a state of chaos. And I'm fine with this assessment, because it's true. However, stating that apologists defend every change, regardless of merit, is rather silly. Most players on that side of the spectrum are merely being optimistic or, more than likely, are using their experience(s) and gaming group(s) to refute that the sky is falling.

In our bricks-and-mortar store where I play (because I don't feel like driving an hour and a half to play at a "local" game store), there are no broken lists. Sure, there are tough lists. A netlist or two, but that's hardly gamebreaking. Granted, I haven't played a game of 7th yet, so I cannot say that there won't be someone trying out SummonSpam. But what I can say, with a degree of certainty, is that an overwhelming number of my gaming friends will not participate in any of the "broken" facets of 7th edition. That's the end of it for me. Call me selfish. I could give two craps less about what everyone else is going through except mine and my own friends - we still have fun with it.

It has been my experience that the two extremists, both haters and apologists, rarely exist outside of an internet forum (if they can be said to exist at all). In fact, this is why if I must side with one of the ridiculous labels, I would throw my lot in with the apologists. It's not that I love all the changes to the game. I don't. But at the end of the day, I'm not going to jump on a forum and cry about it. I don't play in tournaments outside of the local GW store. I play campaigns with friends and house-ruled fun games on weekends. A majority of my games ARE pick-up games in the store.

Maybe the lot of you need to find like-minded gamers. If the idea of multiple FOC slots and Unbound armies bother you, don't play against people who use them. And before someone tries to fan the flames of idiocy, I'm not saying that those two things aren't a fault of the game. They are. Let's just get over that.

This whole discussion reminds me of an argument over tea I heard the other day. A health food friend said that tea is terrible because most people drink it with too much sugar. And as we all know, sugar is bad. A different friend noted that you don't even have to drink tea with sugar. I mentioned that I love sweet tea (being from Texas), but that I drink it in moderation. It's like playing 40k, to be honest. Negative Nancies: 7th Ed. 40k is suckballs because you can break it. Positive Pollies: You don't have to break it. Average 40kers IRL: Make something you would play against and lets have fun.

AngryAngel
26-05-2014, 20:08
As nicely heated as this is, might I suggest if this battle will continue, we move to the 7th edition thread ? Or make up another one ? As if this will continue, its mostly, wildly off topic at this point into a pro vs con, 7th edition throw down.

Ssilmath
26-05-2014, 20:10
So no, you don't have evidence. You have anecdote and correlation. You assume that every person who plays pickup games will be affected in the way you predict. Hell, you assume that the majority of pickup gamers won't just continue as they have been. You assume that there are no other factors for diminished sales other than that a subgroup of gamers are dissatisfied. You ignore that they've seen these kind of financials before, and are still fine. And you ignore that they are recovering again. That's a lot of assumptions and correlation to derive so concrete a position from.

Kijamon
26-05-2014, 20:15
Ah yes the old "if you want to just put models on the table and have fun, you don't need rules" argument. I do need rules, I need 7th edition. Cause it ticks every box for me and how I want to play the game.

Tournament players are not superior in any shape in form to non tournament players and vice versa. If GW want to release an edition that is all about stories and giant collections, that's up to them. Likewise it's up to you to fix it if you deem it needs fixed.

To say that the game needs substantial house ruling or that the pick up scene is somehow only for the competitive players is ridiculous and wrong. For you maybe but not for every one.

You or that link do not speak for me and quite frankly it seems to me that the people who play the game to breaking point only have themselves to blame for 7th edition to come around so soon and for the game to be heading down this path.

Warhammer 40,000 was never balanced, nor was it ever a tournament gameset. It's always been about making stories and having a carry on with your mates. The internet death lists brought this wrath upon us and I welcome the rapture.

DoctorTom
26-05-2014, 20:18
Actually, Ssilmath, my experience has been the vast majority of games have been pickup games or tournaments. Do you happen to have any evidence to dispute what he said? You also seem to be making a lot of assumptions about what he is assuming.

AngryAngel
26-05-2014, 20:20
You don't need evidence at hand when you have love in your heart, Doctor Tom.

Sephillion
26-05-2014, 20:22
For the tournament scene it is.

For those of us who just enjoy making our models go pew pew and having a carry on with friends, it's amazing.

But how is it more amazing than was 6th? Unbound? I’m surprised by how many players found the FOC *soooooooooooo* constraining that it killed the fun because it prevented them from fielding their special snowflake army…

NemoSD
26-05-2014, 20:26
But how is it more amazing than was 6th? Unbound? I’m surprised by how many players found the FOC *soooooooooooo* constraining that it killed the fun because it prevented them from fielding their special snowflake army…

Because it did. As you have established, most games are pick up games. Nothing quite as annoying as having to go to a place, ask if you can field an army that is often times subpar due to it being built to a theme instead of mathematical certitude, and be told no because the other player was not interested in playing something outside of the box, but when you asked him not to field three Imperial Knights, he was all like, "Well the book says I can, so neener neener."

Well now the book says I can field my "special snowflake army." (Great subtle we of demeaning those of us on the otherside by the way. Want to make sure you knew, I noticed. I know it will help your self-esteem. Yes, this is the same thing but more direct. I would use more colorful language, but rules and all.)

Of course, God forbid this game encourages conversions and creativity... its not like it has NEVER done that in the past, not at all.

Ssilmath
26-05-2014, 20:36
Actually, Ssilmath, my experience has been the vast majority of games have been pickup games or tournaments. Do you happen to have any evidence to dispute what he said? You also seem to be making a lot of assumptions about what he is assuming.

Sorry, I should have specified that by pickup game, I meant "Nobody discusses the game beforehand". And of course I don't have evidence, the evidence doesn't exist. There is no representative poll, there is no hard data. There is only anecdotal evidence, often ignoring the reported experiences of "the other side" that is used to justify sweeping positions that are presented as cold, hard fact.

Sephillion
26-05-2014, 20:37
If GW want to release an edition that is all about stories and giant collections, that's up to them. Likewise it's up to you to fix it if you deem it needs fixed.


If they want to ignore a part of their player base and lose money, they are on the right path. And if they communicated better their intentions, maybe they would get less flakk. As it stands, they have fans – of the models, of the universe – that want a game that is PUG-friendly. They have fans who like to play competitively. They have fans who like to face a decent challenge when they play. Right now, those fans are being ignored, the game moves further from them, and the white knights tell them they are playing wrong. Super.



You or that link do not speak for me and quite frankly it seems to me that the people who play the game to breaking point only have themselves to blame for 7th edition to come around so soon and for the game to be heading down this path.

If that were true, there would be less possibilities of abuse. Instead, for every door to abuse they closed, they opened two more.




Warhammer 40,000 was never balanced, nor was it ever a tournament gameset. It's always been about making stories and having a carry on with your mates. The internet death lists brought this wrath upon us and I welcome the rapture.

Again ignoring a good segment of the player base. Warhammer is a wargame. People who play wargames have certain expectations, and GW goes counter to them. And a good balance is not, in any way, an obstacle to tell stories or have fun with friends.

And netlists will still exist, some may have been reined in, some have gotten worse, some new ones will appear.

AngryAngel
26-05-2014, 20:39
I don't see how 7th changed the not being allowed to field what you want. It simply made the horizon wider for what you'd need to say no to. As well as including even more over the top things, that while book allowable, would turn many people off of playing the game. It made multiple Force orgs not only easy, but manageable without constraint of points, multiples of multiples in fact. Unbound, super heavies that aren't even considered escalation ( so no talk of it being a supplement, when it wasn't to begin with but an add on to core ). Fortification and ever more increasing formations for near everything. As well as all the old problems that people still had and were banning in some groups up to not to long ago ( flyers, for instance ) So how has 7th fixed any of that, exactly ?

Drasanil
26-05-2014, 20:44
Ah yes the old "if you want to just put models on the table and have fun, you don't need rules" argument. I do need rules, I need 7th edition. Cause it ticks every box for me and how I want to play the game.

Clearly it was the right argument given that is just about what 7th is saying :p


Tournament players are not superior in any shape in form to non tournament players and vice versa. If GW want to release an edition that is all about stories and giant collections, that's up to them. Likewise it's up to you to fix it if you deem it needs fixed.

To say that the game needs substantial house ruling or that the pick up scene is somehow only for the competitive players is ridiculous and wrong. For you maybe but not for every one.

You or that link do not speak for me and quite frankly it seems to me that the people who play the game to breaking point only have themselves to blame for 7th edition to come around so soon and for the game to be heading down this path.

Notice how I brought up pick up games in counter to your tournaments? There might be a bit of a shock short term but tournaments likely won't care in the long run, because tournaments can easily impose what ever rules/restrictions they want for their events. The problem lies in what just happens to be my area's preferred type of play casual/pick up games. The rules exist for a reason, to create a universal baseline everyone recognises and implicitly accepts. 7th edition pretty much threw that out the window and that is the problem. Now you have unbound, unlimited detachments, dataslates, basically making pick up games all that more of a dicey prospect as you have absolutely no idea what type of gaming you're showing up for and that is a problem.


Warhammer 40,000 was never balanced, nor was it ever a tournament gameset. It's always been about making stories and having a carry on with your mates. The internet death lists brought this wrath upon us and I welcome the rapture.

40k was never perfectly balanced and given the amount of variables it can never be perfectly, but that is no reason not to expect that some effort be put towards maintaining a rough semblance of balance or at least strive for it, doubly so given the amount GW charges for a rulebook. A well balanced game works well for every environment casual, WAAC, tourneys, an unbalanced one doesn't. So don't pretend GW not giving a damn is somehow a great blessing to friendly games it's not, it just means strong friendly local clubs can more easily adapt to the fallout, the quality therein is entirely on the club's part and has nothing to do with GW.

Dark Primus
26-05-2014, 20:48
Can be solved rather easily. Only one psyker per army can summon Daemons.

Sephillion
26-05-2014, 20:58
Because it did. As you have established, most games are pick up games. Nothing quite as annoying as having to go to a place, ask if you can field an army that is often times subpar due to it being built to a theme instead of mathematical certitude, and be told no because the other player was not interested in playing something outside of the box, but when you asked him not to field three Imperial Knights, he was all like, "Well the book says I can, so neener neener."

Well now the book says I can field my "special snowflake army." (Great subtle we of demeaning those of us on the otherside by the way. Want to make sure you knew, I noticed. I know it will help your self-esteem. Yes, this is the same thing but more direct. I would use more colorful language, but rules and all.)

Of course, God forbid this game encourages conversions and creativity... its not like it has NEVER done that in the past, not at all.

I’m not sure how to ask you this, but why should you expect to bring a non-standard army at a pick-up game and expect the other guy to accept it? In your example, you say your army is subpar. How can I, as a player, know that? I don’t know every codices, I don’t know every units, so for all I know, your army is actually extremely optimized and disguised as a theme list, or has a combo I cannot see unless I delve deeper into your army list/Codex. As for Imperial Knights, I think it’s a bad decision of GW to include them in standard 40K armies to begin with anyway.

The game has a structure that is required to facilitate games with strangers at PUGs or with irregulars. Unbound, and other changes, undermine that structure. So it’s OK if GW opens Pandora’s box to allow creativity, even if it creates issues?

I’m sorry to tell you that, but I really feel “special snowflakes armies” do not belong in PUG play. Not that I would refuse a game against someone who brought a really cool army, in all honesty. I just don’t think GW allowing such nonstandard armies at the cost of balance and structure is a good idea at all, and am convinced weirder armies belong in games with friends or like-minded groups.

Also, I can’t help but wonder, just how much GW will push in that direction? Removing “barriers” to those armies that you cannot field now? What other barriers can they remove? Maybe next edition they’ll allow whole tactical squads to bring plasma guns? I mean, my dream army is one where every guy wields a plasma gun. GW, please, I cannot field such an army at a PUG, do something!

Voss
26-05-2014, 20:59
Warhammer 40,000 was never balanced, nor was it ever a tournament gameset. It's always been about making stories and having a carry on with your mates. The internet death lists brought this wrath upon us and I welcome the rapture.
Enjoy even more 'internet death lists' because 7th encourages them more than any rule-set to date.

Gonefishing
26-05-2014, 21:03
Without wanting to really get into this whole argument - my tuppence worth.

Whatever edition of 40K you played, there was always the capacity to house rule, to sit down with friends before the game and say - "Hey, I fancy doing narrative X, is that ok?" and by and large - it was fine and fun and pew pew was had by all. Equally however, you could walk into any shop, or go to a tourney etc and you would be playing the standard 40K rules out of the book. My objection to 6th (and 7th seems to have gone even further in that direction), is that stability went away. The Tourneys had to house rule the bejusus out of it to make it playable competitively - and even then each tourney seemed to have a different definition of this, and most local groups / stores had their own house rules in place covering everything from terrain, objectives to basic fundamentals of the game, such as wound allocation and saving throws. 7th edition has polarised this even more because now even the FOC is up for debate, FW is legal and standard 40k has to all extents become apocalypse with psychic wazzards (a system I always hated). Given how potentially broken some of the things are (outside of the box), I don't think this was play tested in any detail.

Now GW's approach nowadays is - "we have provided a rules framework, make of it what you will, there is no lamp", which is fine, but IMO half-assed. The rule book used to be fine to play standard games of 40k pretty much anywhere, and if you were playing as part of a club or with regular friends you could chop and change where you liked, play FW etc - if you all agreed. The rulebook is now two complicated, diversified and filled with genuine flaws from a games design perspective to do that nowadays (imo) and get an enjoyable balanced(ish) game, now its the norm to chop and change the rules depending where you play, and "unbound" is just going to tear that hole even wider. Nowadays, it seems hard to get a nice fun straightforward game just out of the book/rules - at least that's what the last two players still persevering with 40k from my old Gaming group say - 7th edition seems to have made this worse.

(It also seems to have fixed issues that weren't issues - for example, its now harder to one shot vehicles - great! But the issue with vehicles in 40K at the moment is that they die to glancing hits more often than not, not someone getting lucky on the Pen table. If you actually examine what the "Fix" has done, it made it harder to kill fliers (already the hardest to kill vehicles in the game), and harder to kill super heavies and knights etc etc (which were already harder to kill),but walkers and AV13 and down are just as screwed as they have ever been - what should have been overhauled is the hull points system.

To me it seems like a freaking big mess requiring you to agree the basic parameters of your game before you even think about your list, rather than just being able to rock up anywhere - put your models on the table - and play a game of 40k.

Do I hate GW, nope, I'm passed that and I am out of the hobby for good - do I remain utterly confused as to why they are so determined to disenfranchise huge swathes of their player base? Yes. It makes no sense to me. One thing I have noticed, in ten years I have been browsing the forums, I have never seen so much genuine "Anti GW" feeling as I do nowadays - That has to come from somewhere, and I don't think its fair to lay it all at the feet of Disgruntled WACCERS and Power gamers, GW is rapidly alienating (and polarising) its own customer base - I don't think that's a good idea for a business, especially a business that makes a niche product.

AlTzeentch
26-05-2014, 21:09
This is a good review (http://daemons40k.blogspot.com/2014/05/the-early-returns-are-not-good.html). However, one of the comments is even better:

Here's Reece's take after they played a lot more than two turns.

"So after about 5 games and seeing how the new mechanics play out my overall impression of the game is that we will have to rewrite a big chunk of the game in order to play it in tournaments. The game as it is right out of the book is borderline unplayable. They fixed a lot of the little problems, but the new problems they made break the game without some changes. For example, unbound armies, multiple primary FoC, using the mission cards without restrictions, etc. are not conducive to a fair game.

Some changes that will probably me needed: limits on FoC. Taking an army with one daemons, one grey knight and one Tyranid detachment is incredibly stupid. Beyond creating crazy combos, itís just not fun. Or, more mundane, but equally fun killing, an army of all daemons heralds that summon thousands of points of daemons in one turn. Also stupid. Limits on warp charge. Unlimitted warp charge creates comically unbalanced situations wherein one player has over 30 warp charge and the other has 5 or so. It means one player essentially has no psychic phase. The mission cards on their own are incredible unbalanced. You often end up with situations where one player draws a good hand and the other doesnít, and then the game is already decided.

We will also have to limit some of the powers possibly. Limiting warp.charge may solve it, but the malefic powers are crazy.

Invisibility is nutso. That and the fact that the 2+ reroll save didnít go away means deathstars are better than ever in many ways. Again, we have to limit warp charge to begin to stop this or the game is going to degenerate into combo units again.

More play testing is needed but so far the game as is, is about 100 times worse than it was for tournament play. With limitations on the crazy stuff, the are tighter in many ways."


7th edition is a complete and utter train wreck. First battle reports are already proving it. This is only going to get worse. Gotta love people paying a massive premium of $85+ for a game the community is going to have to fix because it is so broken..... biggest rip off in wargame history!

100% Agree, the fact they charge so much for a broken game (and using the word "Broken" has even been used by my friend who just decided to come back to the game after over 12 years off and was a die-hard GW Fanboy before seeing these changes)

sooo.ya.....We need to (as a community) say screw GW and their Intellectual Property and just make an Open-Source complete version of their rules that are actually Balanced and can accept Real-Time changes (similar to Wikipedia).

Brother-Captain Endymion
26-05-2014, 21:10
I disagree with you, Gonefishing, though I can certainly see your point.

The huge swath of disenfranchised gamers bit is what confuses me. I know that feelings seem to be polarised on the internet. But this has never been an issue in the store I play at. Surely with such a large number of malcontent players (used in the original, adjective sense of the word - ie, not a pejorative for "haters") I would see some of the backlash at my local store? There are, of course, people who disagree with the direction that GW has been taking the game, but they all mention it very politely as they set up their armies.

Then again, as I've said elsewhere, I (nor the people I play with) have never had any problems discussing the basic parameters of our games before we even think about lists, to use your own words. I guess we just aren't strapped enough that 5-10m ruins our day. We either agree on what is acceptable or choose to just let fly with whatever. Either way, if we aren't in agreement, there are plenty of other gamers waiting for a game in the store.

BCE.

NemoSD
26-05-2014, 21:12
I’m not sure how to ask you this, but why should you expect to bring a non-standard army at a pick-up game and expect the other guy to accept it? In your example, you say your army is subpar. How can I, as a player, know that? I don’t know every codices, I don’t know every units, so for all I know, your army is actually extremely optimized and disguised as a theme list, or has a combo I cannot see unless I delve deeper into your army list/Codex. As for Imperial Knights, I think it’s a bad decision of GW to include them in standard 40K armies to begin with anyway.

The game has a structure that is required to facilitate games with strangers at PUGs or with irregulars. Unbound, and other changes, undermine that structure. So it’s OK if GW opens Pandora’s box to allow creativity, even if it creates issues?

I’m sorry to tell you that, but I really feel “special snowflakes armies” do not belong in PUG play. Not that I would refuse a game against someone who brought a really cool army, in all honesty. I just don’t think GW allowing such nonstandard armies at the cost of balance and structure is a good idea at all, and am convinced weirder armies belong in games with friends or like-minded groups.

Also, I can’t help but wonder, just how much GW will push in that direction? Removing “barriers” to those armies that you cannot field now? What other barriers can they remove? Maybe next edition they’ll allow whole tactical squads to bring plasma guns? I mean, my dream army is one where every guy wields a plasma gun. GW, please, I cannot field such an army at a PUG, do something!

You missed the point and quite frankly I am done trying.

wanderingblade
26-05-2014, 21:18
I've probably typed and deleted three responses to this thread trying to think of a good way of expressing the argument of people who want balance, for whatever of the many possible reasons to do so, and why Malefic Daemonology + Daemons' huge Warp Charge pools = bad news for them.

But I haven't got one because its all been said before and everyone has hardened their opinions. Both sides, I feel, have internalised a certain disregard for each other's arguments and now its just the way you view the game and GW's strategy, because they're very clearly not trying to support what everyone wants. For me, the biggest disregard comes from those who take the stance that, since their way of playing the game is alright, then the problems that other people report are either them being difficult and/or irrelevant. "I'm alright Jack". As long as it remains that way, there's no point to the argument.

Spider-pope
26-05-2014, 21:24
And we could turn that argument right back at you. We're just as sick of hearing how GW can do no wrong, being told that we're playing it wrong, that somehow we aren't the target audience so we should just accept our lot in life without questioning GW.

I'm sorry but is there another version of Warseer you're reading?



When people are saying this new edition is great and then with the same breath announcing all the house rules they are going to be using I'm left wondering what planet I'm living on. I can't fathom that thinking at all. It's so great that you are going to fix it? That's like buying a car and then finding out you have to assemble and tune it yourself. This is supposed to be a finished product.

I've yet to see anyone suggest a house rule outside of the Warp charge snafu on the cards. Declaring an edition is bad when it's been out for 48 hours seems rather premature.


I don't see how 7th changed the not being allowed to field what you want. It simply made the horizon wider for what you'd need to say no to. As well as including even more over the top things, that while book allowable, would turn many people off of playing the game. It made multiple Force orgs not only easy, but manageable without constraint of points, multiples of multiples in fact. Unbound, super heavies that aren't even considered escalation ( so no talk of it being a supplement, when it wasn't to begin with but an add on to core ). Fortification and ever more increasing formations for near everything. As well as all the old problems that people still had and were banning in some groups up to not to long ago ( flyers, for instance ) So how has 7th fixed any of that, exactly ?

Because it lets people at least entertain the possibility. As i've said before, there are some players who absolutely will not ever do anything at all without GW's official stamp of approval. So they do require GW to provide a rule that ironically allows them to ignore the rules.

Now will it make much difference to the whole? Doubtful. Those that were ignoring the FOC already will keep ignoring it, those who follow it will likely keep following it. But at least the option is there for those who haven't been able to make the step into making the ruleset work better for them.

Gonefishing
26-05-2014, 21:29
The huge swath of disenfranchised gamers bit is what confuses me. I know that feelings seem to be polarised on the internet. But this has never been an issue in the store I play at. Surely with such a large number of malcontent players (used in the original, adjective sense of the word - ie, not a pejorative for "haters") I would see some of the backlash at my local store? There are, of course, people who disagree with the direction that GW has been taking the game, but they all mention it very politely as they set up their armies.


I think it depends where you play mate, I know in my local area there was a regular group of 10 gamers, that has now shrunk to an increasingly disillusioned 2 players, the local GW has been through 2 managers recently and is pretty much empty most days. From my (personal) perspective I know that I feel disenfranchised as a gamer, because GW have made it very clear that they are no longer a games company, and as I am not a "collector", or a "hobbyist" they no longer want my custom, so looking at my local area, gaming friends, and the level of GW hate out there on the internet (not to mention the sales figures and 7th ed rush job)- I think its a fair assessment - but glad your local scene is still looking good and your experience is different to mine.

If anyone still derives pleasure from the game all power to them - I don't anymore but perfectly willing to see other peoples points of view.

Spider-pope
26-05-2014, 21:37
I think it depends where you play mate, I know in my local area there was a regular group of 10 gamers, that has now shrunk to an increasingly disillusioned 2 players, the local GW has been through 2 managers recently and is pretty much empty most days. From my (personal) perspective I know that I feel disenfranchised as a gamer, because GW have made it very clear that they are no longer a games company, and as I am not a "collector", or a "hobbyist" they no longer want my custom, so looking at my local area, gaming friends, and the level of GW hate out there on the internet (not to mention the sales figures and 7th ed rush job)- I think its a fair assessment - but glad your local scene is still looking good and your experience is different to mine.

If anyone still derives pleasure from the game all power to them - I don't anymore but perfectly willing to see other peoples points of view.

I wouldn't take the Internet hate seriously at all. Because it's the internet, everyone hates everything on the internet. And i would certainly not class your statement as part of that. Because there's a difference between expressing a legitimate criticism of something - like your dissatisfaction with how you are being treated as a customer and no longer being catered for - and the usual "GW are evil" spiel.

It's a shame that you've been "pushed out", is there no chance of finding anyone who'd play earlier editions that you enjoyed? Or is it just dead in your area?

Brother-Captain Endymion
26-05-2014, 21:39
Thank you for your polite and pleasant response.

I would agree that each locale differs to a degree, but my main thought was that if the internet is anything to go by then I should certainly have at least a few disenfranchised players around here. Just based off of statistics. Perhaps it's not so much my area but the make-up of gamers around here? We tend to be a little bit older (say late 20s - early 40s). In fact, the younger players seem to be children of most of the older gamers which would lead me to assume that they would obviously share the same mindset of their parent(s).

Either way, you have a legitimate complaint about the direction of the hobby. And I am very sorry to hear that it has ruined your enjoyment of the game. Indeed, if this shift would have happened right after 4th Edition, I would be right on that side with you. Alas, as fate would have it, I've shifted more to the hobby aspect of 40k in my later years.

AngryAngel
26-05-2014, 21:40
I've probably typed and deleted three responses to this thread trying to think of a good way of expressing the argument of people who want balance, for whatever of the many possible reasons to do so, and why Malefic Daemonology + Daemons' huge Warp Charge pools = bad news for them.

But I haven't got one because its all been said before and everyone has hardened their opinions. Both sides, I feel, have internalised a certain disregard for each other's arguments and now its just the way you view the game and GW's strategy, because they're very clearly not trying to support what everyone wants. For me, the biggest disregard comes from those who take the stance that, since their way of playing the game is alright, then the problems that other people report are either them being difficult and/or irrelevant. "I'm alright Jack". As long as it remains that way, there's no point to the argument.

I would say these words are accurate and pretty spot on.

Sephillion
26-05-2014, 21:41
I've probably typed and deleted three responses to this thread trying to think of a good way of expressing the argument of people who want balance, for whatever of the many possible reasons to do so, and why Malefic Daemonology + Daemons' huge Warp Charge pools = bad news for them.

But I haven't got one because its all been said before and everyone has hardened their opinions. Both sides, I feel, have internalised a certain disregard for each other's arguments and now its just the way you view the game and GW's strategy, because they're very clearly not trying to support what everyone wants. For me, the biggest disregard comes from those who take the stance that, since their way of playing the game is alright, then the problems that other people report are either them being difficult and/or irrelevant. "I'm alright Jack". As long as it remains that way, there's no point to the argument.

My opinion was probably shaped when I heard of 7th edition. I felt like it needed to be a really huge improvement over 6th for its very existence to be justified. It turns out, some things are improved a little, some things are worse, some changes are just baffling, not in any way a huge improvement – so why are we here already? Had it been 4, 5 years since 6th, my perspective might have been different. I really, really want to be wrong, but try as I may, I cannot see much in the way of silver linings.

Spider-pope
26-05-2014, 21:44
My opinion was probably shaped when I heard of 7th edition. I felt like it needed to be a really huge improvement over 6th for its very existence to be justified. It turns out, some things are improved a little, some things are worse, some changes are just baffling, not in any way a huge improvement Ė so why are we here already?

Because GW need a cash boost to improve their yearly sales figures after the half year results showed a drop in profits and negatively impacted their share prices.

Whether one is considered a "fanboy", "hater" or neither or both, i don't think anyone fails to recognize why this edition has arrived a mere two years after the last. To add anecdotal evidence: Sunday's beginners at GW Liverpool yesterday was packed to bursting with around 20 kids. All buying a set of the new rules. That's quite a cash boost.

Brother-Captain Endymion
26-05-2014, 21:47
I fear Spider-pope is correct, even though I would prefer to believe that GW was itching to implement a new psychic phase in order to bring 40k more in line with Fantasy. Same phases, etc. Basically the same game in a different setting. I can see that, in GW's warped mind, that translating to more revenue. Let's get the Fantasy players involved in 40k! and vice versa.

Deep down, however, I just know that it isn't the case.

Gonefishing
26-05-2014, 21:49
I wouldn't take the Internet hate seriously at all. Because it's the internet, everyone hates everything on the internet. And i would certainly not class your statement as part of that. Because there's a difference between expressing a legitimate criticism of something - like your dissatisfaction with how you are being treated as a customer and no longer being catered for - and the usual "GW are evil" spiel.

It's a shame that you've been "pushed out", is there no chance of finding anyone who'd play earlier editions that you enjoyed? Or is it just dead in your area?


Utterly dead since about 6 months into 6th edition.

Agree on the everyone hates everything on the internet comment, but don't you think that's become increasingly common over the last year? to me the levels of dislike show just how polarised our community has become, in the old days it just used to be the casuals and the competitive tearing strips out of each other - now forums (and pretty much every thread) degenerate into a "state of the game" debate (this one being a case in point), there's no smoke without a fire.

On the record, GW are not evil - but I do have to question their competence.

Spider-pope
26-05-2014, 21:54
Utterly dead since about 6 months into 6th edition.

Agree on the everyone hates everything on the internet comment, but don't you think that's become increasingly common over the last year? to me the levels of dislike show just how polarised our community has become, in the old days it just used to be the casuals and the competitive tearing strips out of each other - now forums (and pretty much every thread) degenerate into a "state of the game" debate (this one being a case in point), there's no smoke without a fire.

On the record, GW are not evil - but I do have to question their competence.

Not really. I've been hearing the same complaints and same doom mongering since the days of Portent, about everything from a new edition of the game, to the impending release of Ogre Kingdoms threatening to destroy Fantasy Battle.

The real complaints to take seriously are the ones you hear in person, in your area. Because ultimately those are the complaints that will impact your playing, as unfortunately they already have for you.

Brother-Captain Endymion
26-05-2014, 21:54
Agree on the everyone hates everything on the internet comment, but don't you think that's become increasingly common over the last year? to me the levels of dislike show just how polarised our community has become, in the old days it just used to be the casuals and the competitive tearing strips out of each other - now forums (and pretty much every thread) degenerate into a "state of the game" debate (this one being a case in point), [...]


I don't know. Seems to me that internet forums have always had this much hate on them. Especially around new edition/codex time. Hell, I remember people complaining that the 6th Edition Eldar codex was weak. It could have been sooo much better, they said. We all know how these things turn out.


there's no smoke without a fire.

What about dry ice and fog machines?!

Wayshuba
26-05-2014, 21:56
Because GW need a cash boost to improve their yearly sales figures after the half year results showed a drop in profits and negatively impacted their share prices.

Whether one is considered a "fanboy", "hater" or neither or both, i don't think anyone fails to recognize why this edition has arrived a mere two years after the last. To add anecdotal evidence: Sunday's beginners at GW Liverpool yesterday was packed to bursting with around 20 kids. All buying a set of the new rules. That's quite a cash boost.

And early street reports are saying that things are much, much worse than we believe. Many of the stores have reported not even reaching 50% of sales targets. I think this period is going to be worse for GW than any of us even could have thought of.

Spider-pope
26-05-2014, 22:01
And early street reports are saying that things are much, much worse than we believe. Many of the stores have reported not even reaching 50% of sales targets. I think this period is going to be worse for GW than any of us even could have thought of.

Sorry but i don't engage in speculation and hearsay when it comes to financials - especially when it's GW, which the internet has been claiming is on the verge of collapse since forever. I'll wait until i see what's published before i start panicking.

AngryAngel
26-05-2014, 22:06
I wouldn't start panicking even when/if the worst gets known, it does no good. Just because people, other people, have claimed doom before doesn't mean it won't ever happen. There comes a point denying what is wrong, and denying what happens becomes more damaging then railing against it. If another report comes out and shows further decline in the company, will those supporting their every move concede their point ? I doubt it. Same as if they rally and have improved I doubt we'll see people stop claiming their demise. However, some who dislike their direction and their aim, didn't claim they would perish away from it, me included. Most of the defenders did claim nothing is wrong, I am interested to see what the new financials show, when they are released.

Killgore
26-05-2014, 22:08
Utterly dead since about 6 months into 6th edition.

Agree on the everyone hates everything on the internet comment, but don't you think that's become increasingly common over the last year? to me the levels of dislike show just how polarised our community has become, in the old days it just used to be the casuals and the competitive tearing strips out of each other - now forums (and pretty much every thread) degenerate into a "state of the game" debate (this one being a case in point), there's no smoke without a fire.

On the record, GW are not evil - but I do have to question their competence.

I blame the fall of the great Warseer General Discussion wall. Those topics normally kept cooped up in there have leaked all over the General 40k board.


I recommend the tactics/ battle report and painting areas before they get tainted as well.

Spider-pope
26-05-2014, 22:11
I wouldn't start panicking even when/if the worst gets known, it does no good. Just because people, other people, have claimed doom before doesn't mean it won't ever happen.

True enough, but when it's the same people declaring impending doom who have declared it before, it does tend to lose it's impact.



If another report comes out and shows further decline in the company, will those supporting their every move concede their point ? I doubt it. Same as if they rally and have improved I doubt we'll see people stop claiming their demise. However, some who dislike their direction and their aim, didn't claim they would perish away from it, me included. Most of the defenders did claim nothing is wrong, I am interested to see what the new financials show, when they are released.

I've yet to encounter anyone who has ever said GW can do no wrong. I don't think you will see anyone conceding because i don't believe such people exist to concede.Perhaps instead of seeing those who disagree with you as "defenders" you could just see them as people who disagree with you?

Zywus
26-05-2014, 22:14
Without wanting to really get into this whole argument - my tuppence worth.

Whatever edition of 40K you played, there was always the capacity to house rule, to sit down with friends before the game and say - "Hey, I fancy doing narrative X, is that ok?" and by and large - it was fine and fun and pew pew was had by all. Equally however, you could walk into any shop, or go to a tourney etc and you would be playing the standard 40K rules out of the book. My objection to 6th (and 7th seems to have gone even further in that direction), is that stability went away. The Tourneys had to house rule the bejusus out of it to make it playable competitively - and even then each tourney seemed to have a different definition of this, and most local groups / stores had their own house rules in place covering everything from terrain, objectives to basic fundamentals of the game, such as wound allocation and saving throws. 7th edition has polarised this even more because now even the FOC is up for debate, FW is legal and standard 40k has to all extents become apocalypse with psychic wazzards (a system I always hated). Given how potentially broken some of the things are (outside of the box), I don't think this was play tested in any detail.

Now GW's approach nowadays is - "we have provided a rules framework, make of it what you will, there is no lamp", which is fine, but IMO half-assed. The rule book used to be fine to play standard games of 40k pretty much anywhere, and if you were playing as part of a club or with regular friends you could chop and change where you liked, play FW etc - if you all agreed. The rulebook is now two complicated, diversified and filled with genuine flaws from a games design perspective to do that nowadays (imo) and get an enjoyable balanced(ish) game, now its the norm to chop and change the rules depending where you play, and "unbound" is just going to tear that hole even wider. Nowadays, it seems hard to get a nice fun straightforward game just out of the book/rules - at least that's what the last two players still persevering with 40k from my old Gaming group say - 7th edition seems to have made this worse.

(It also seems to have fixed issues that weren't issues - for example, its now harder to one shot vehicles - great! But the issue with vehicles in 40K at the moment is that they die to glancing hits more often than not, not someone getting lucky on the Pen table. If you actually examine what the "Fix" has done, it made it harder to kill fliers (already the hardest to kill vehicles in the game), and harder to kill super heavies and knights etc etc (which were already harder to kill),but walkers and AV13 and down are just as screwed as they have ever been - what should have been overhauled is the hull points system.

To me it seems like a freaking big mess requiring you to agree the basic parameters of your game before you even think about your list, rather than just being able to rock up anywhere - put your models on the table - and play a game of 40k.

Do I hate GW, nope, I'm passed that and I am out of the hobby for good - do I remain utterly confused as to why they are so determined to disenfranchise huge swathes of their player base? Yes. It makes no sense to me. One thing I have noticed, in ten years I have been browsing the forums, I have never seen so much genuine "Anti GW" feeling as I do nowadays - That has to come from somewhere, and I don't think its fair to lay it all at the feet of Disgruntled WACCERS and Power gamers, GW is rapidly alienating (and polarising) its own customer base - I don't think that's a good idea for a business, especially a business that makes a niche product.
I wholeheartedly agree.
The most important function of having a set of official rules is precisely to provide a neutral baseline that two strangers (or acquaintances) can use as a shared starting point.
When gaming in a group of friends, of course any rules can be ignored in favor for some homemade scenario or similar. I'm sure we have all done it and it often produce the best games. But a game system that is to fuzzy and unauthoritative loses it's very function.

You could draw a comparison to various standard agreements used in for example the construction sector. Instead of constructing a new agreement every project (which would be prohibitly time-consuming), the parties uses standard agreements that are meant to be reasonably balanced, even though they can of course be free to make adjustment. The agreement cover various minutuia such as liability in the case of delays.
It these standard contracts were too loose and provided no real structure and required the parties to essentially police themselves then the whole point of the standard contract would be lost.
I'm afraid that when it comes to list building; 7th edition is approaching the state where it provides so little guidance and requires the players to essentially regulate themselves in such a high degree that it is beginning to lack the basic function of a game system. Being a shared baseline that the community can use as their base.

Spider-pope
26-05-2014, 22:20
I wholeheartedly agree.
The most important function of having a set of official rules is precisely to provide a neutral baseline that two strangers can use as a shared starting point.
When gaming in a group of friends, of course any rules can be ignored in favor for some homemade scenario or similar. I'm sure we have all done it and it often produce the best games. But a game system that is to loose it looses it's function.

Except GW's focus has always been on the latter. 40k was never intended to be a competitive ruleset, and has never been treated as such by GW themselves.



You could draw a comparison to various standard agreements used in for example the construction sector. Instead of constructing a new agreement every project (which would be prohibitly time-consuming), the parties uses standard agreements that are meant to be reasonably balanced, even though they can of course be free to make adjustment. The agreement cover various minutuia such as liability in the case of delays.
It these standard contracts were too loose and provided no real structure and required the parties to essentially police themselves then the whole point of the standard contract would be lost.

Except that is not an apt analogy. Such agreements are to save time and therefore money. There is no financial stake at risk when planning to play a game of 40k.



I'm afraid that when it comes to list building; 7th edition is approaching the state where it provides so little guidance and requires the players to essentially regulate themselves in such a high degree that it is beginning to lack the basic function of a game system. Being a shared baseline that the community can use as their base.

Again your perception of the rules purpose doesn't match GW's. They've always said the rules are the start, not the end, of how to play their games. Players should be regulating themselves, because it's the best way to make the game what you want it to be. If you find the 7th edition rules on list composition lacking, change them.

Zywus
26-05-2014, 22:36
Except GW's focus has always been on the latter. 40k was never intended to be a competitive ruleset, and has never been treated as such by GW themselves.
Still. It has been sufficiently balanced for people to not generally feel that they need to modify the rules, even if many did so in order to improve the game.



Except that is not an apt analogy. Such agreements are to save time and therefore money. There is no financial stake at risk when planning to play a game of 40k. The analogy is apt enough. While there are no financial stakes in a game of 40K there is a incentive to save time. No one wants to precede every pick-up game by haggling over and figuring out each others notion of how much volontary restrictions to impose on the selection of units. Or precede every tournament by more or less relearn the rules of the game or adjust to some intricate comp-system.




Again your perception of the rules purpose doesn't match GW's. They've always said the rules are the start, not the end, of how to play their games. Players should be regulating themselves, because it's the best way to make the game what you want it to be. If you find the 7th edition rules on list composition lacking, change them.Indeed. Tweeking and changing the rules are what houserules are for. My gamegroup played the whole 5th to 7th Fantasy edition that units movement were not halved by woods and so on.

But if the rules as a starting-point are so unauthoritative concerning how to construct the army that one feels one have to in order to achieve balance, then there isn't really any point in using the system at all since I'm basically creating by own rules-system.

Gonefishing
26-05-2014, 22:38
Except GW's focus has always been on the latter. 40k was never intended to be a competitive ruleset, and has never been treated as such by GW themselves.

I don't think he is talking about the competitive angle there, just the standard baseline of the game (where I am in full agreement).



Again your perception of the rules purpose doesn't match GW's. They've always said the rules are the start, not the end, of how to play their games. Players should be regulating themselves, because it's the best way to make the game what you want it to be. If you find the 7th edition rules on list composition lacking, change them.

That's kind of the point though, there used to be a more solid baseline to the rules, but if you wanted to change them you could. Now that baseline is gone. I can only speak personally but I always wanted it to be the game in the rulebook, and until 6th came along it pretty much was.

Wayshuba
26-05-2014, 22:39
Again your perception of the rules purpose doesn't match GW's. They've always said the rules are the start, not the end, of how to play their games. Players should be regulating themselves, because it's the best way to make the game what you want it to be. If you find the 7th edition rules on list composition lacking, change them.

This is where I will politely disagree and why GW is starting to fail in a BIG way. They are a business. As a business you deliver what your customers perceive as a good value product, not what you self-inflated self-worth of Nottingham we know better than anyone sense of worth that GW has. And this is why they have lost their way. They think it is your "privilege" to play their games, when the reality is it is their "privilege" that so many have put up with their incompetent s*** for so long. But the times they are a changing. July is going to be a very interesting month for GW.

Brother-Captain Endymion
26-05-2014, 23:01
This is where I will politely disagree and why GW is starting to fail in a BIG way. They are a business. As a business you deliver what your customers perceive as a good value product, not what you self-inflated self-worth of Nottingham we know better than anyone sense of worth that GW has. And this is why they have lost their way. They think it is your "privilege" to play their games, when the reality is it is their "privilege" that so many have put up with their incompetent s*** for so long. But the times they are a changing. July is going to be a very interesting month for GW.

Capitalism at it's finest, no? If enough people hate the game the way it is, they will either sink or (attempt to) rectify the problem.

Voss
26-05-2014, 23:09
Again your perception of the rules purpose doesn't match GW's. They've always said the rules are the start, not the end, of how to play their games. Players should be regulating themselves, because it's the best way to make the game what you want it to be. If you find the 7th edition rules on list composition lacking, change them.
And if the people you're playing don't want to change them? No, far better to start with usable rules.

And time is a big issue when it comes to games. Everywhere I've been for the last decade, 40k night was a weeknight, which generally meant with people coming from work, games happened between 6-10. If you were really lucky (and played at a reasonable point value) you could get two games in. Adding more nonsense just to get a game started rather than showing up with a list at the normal points value decreases the likelihood of getting more than one game in.

NemoSD
26-05-2014, 23:13
And if the people you're playing don't want to change them? No, far better to start with usable rules.

And time is a big issue when it comes to games. Everywhere I've been for the last decade, 40k night was a weeknight, which generally meant with people coming from work, games happened between 6-10. If you were really lucky (and played at a reasonable point value) you could get two games in. Adding more nonsense just to get a game started rather than showing up with a list at the normal points value decreases the likelihood of getting more than one game in.

Honestly, I'd rather get one game in at 2000-2500 points then get two. Although recently I have been favoring 1500 points because I lack the cash to payout to defend against escalation+ stuff, and find that lower points keep that stuff out without me have to say please don't bring it.

Surgency
26-05-2014, 23:13
Except GW's focus has always been on the latter. 40k was never intended to be a competitive ruleset, and has never been treated as such by GW themselves.

Part of the problem is that GW created a tournament-type mentality through the use of RTT and GTs around the country (at least here in the US). It seems that a lot of people "came up" in that era, where there was a lot of emphasis on building the next GT list, and placing in whatever tournament was coming up in the next month. The internet helped exasperate this phenomenon, where we were able to see in near real time what lists were winning, what lists were dominant, and how different lists could handle different builds around the country. Suddenly I (as a player) didn't need to try out different things for myself, I had almost instant access to builds that worked for other people, and that was way easier than trying to determine for myself what worked well and what didn't. We still this this quite frequently, with people talking about competitive lists, and building for the next tournament over in the Army Build threads, where most army critiques would essentially turn each army into a photocopy of XXXX list that won at tournament 15.

Along came Warmachine, with its "all that matters is the win" type mentality that caters to a specific segment of the population, but people still admittedly love the 40k setting. Around the time that Warmachine was gaining popularity, GW started to roll back their competitive side, trying to take it back to just gaming, but the 40k internet community decided to entrench themselves in tournaments. It seems as if the more vocal of the internet crowd want a mix of the two systems, where they want the rules from Warmachine with the background from 40k, but they refuse to accept that GW isn't moving in that direction.

I almost want to compare it to automobile manufacturers in the early 80s, when they went from making popular muscle cars that looked good, to fuel efficient, economical family cars that were more sensible. Many people decried those manufacturers for the business choices they made, calling them out for dumping classic cars like the Camaro, and replacing them with cars like the Corsica. But that was the direction that Chevy was taking at that time (there were also other extenuating circumstances - increased gas costs, new regulations, increased labour costs, etc).

Brother-Captain Endymion
26-05-2014, 23:16
With respect, Voss, I think you're overstating the amount of time needed to agree on the specifics of a game.

Is unbound acceptable? Did you take an unreasonable or truly eccentric list, ie. SummonSpam or multi-Heldrakes? I think just a few questions would be enough to do it.

Sephillion
26-05-2014, 23:20
Again your perception of the rules purpose doesn't match GW's. They've always said the rules are the start, not the end, of how to play their games. Players should be regulating themselves, because it's the best way to make the game what you want it to be. If you find the 7th edition rules on list composition lacking, change them.

And that's a stupid perception - no offense meant to anyone except GW and its designers - because their new starting point is terrible if you want to play the game in a more structured way - for PUGs, or tournaments. It's easier to start from a solid ruleset and loosen it up as a group than the other way around. People can easily modify rulesets to incorporate different elements, and "optional ways" to play the game (such as Apocalypse, and how Escalation was treated not that long ago, but also campaigns, games that are closer to an RPG, or just simply loosening of restrictions) could even lead to new expansions/books. Playing with weird army comps or in a different ways always existed and always were possible, but PUG play and tournaments were easy, "straight out of the box" affairs.

Now GW seems to impose its vision to players. They - and the players who agree with that vision - shouldn't be surprised if players who disagree are upset. They shouldn't be surprised if some refuse to buy their products.

NemoSD
26-05-2014, 23:25
And that's a stupid perception - no offense meant to anyone except GW and its designers - because their new starting point is terrible if you want to play the game in a more structured way - for PUGs, or tournaments. It's easier to start from a solid ruleset and loosen it up as a group than the other way around. People can easily modify rulesets to incorporate different elements, and "optional ways" to play the game (such as Apocalypse, and how Escalation was treated not that long ago, but also campaigns, games that are closer to an RPG, or just simply loosening of restrictions) could even lead to new expansions/books. Playing with weird army comps or in a different ways always existed and always were possible, but PUG play and tournaments were easy, "straight out of the box" affairs.

Now GW seems to impose its vision to players. They - and the players who agree with that vision - shouldn't be surprised if players who disagree are upset. They shouldn't be surprised if some refuse to buy their products.

Both games I played were easy to set up: Point Limit? 1500, and 2000 for the second, check. Maelstrom or the other rules? Maelstrom, check. Lets kick ass.

AngryAngel
26-05-2014, 23:39
I would have to ask, and what if they showed up with a super heavy ? Or flyer spam ? How did you not know those would be issues ? What if they were trying summons spam, easily done at that point level.

Bugaboo
26-05-2014, 23:46
Nappa: "Vegeta, what's the post count on whining over 7th edition."

Vegeta: "It's over 9000!!!!"

Adui Askari
26-05-2014, 23:50
It's only broken... if you break it.

I'm comfortable with the new rules. I might meet the odd crazy maxed out demon summoning army- it'll be a challenge, I'll probably lose, but all the more glory if I win or acquit myself well. It'll be fun as long as I don't take it too seriously, and I'll probably see much the same armies as I always have, not wall to wall demons. But the odd endless demonic incursion sounds pretty cool- it'll be like CoD Zombies...

I appreciate that people are upset because they deeply love the game and take it pretty seriously, and they see it as a more competitive test of skill. But I think that history shows that people always break the game- no matter the edition, the ingenuity of the players will always defeat the best intentions of the designers. There are things I miss about 4th... but mostly I think things have got better as everything has matured.

I like this direction from GW- they're not even trying to make the game fit for competitive play, they're leaving that up to players to organise. And why not? They sell cool models with rules so we can play with them. The rules are what they are- I don't quite understand the belief that GW owes us balanced rules fit for competitive play just because we buy models from them. That's not what they're selling, and I don't think it ever has been.

Sephillion
26-05-2014, 23:58
Both games I played were easy to set up: Point Limit? 1500, and 2000 for the second, check. Maelstrom or the other rules? Maelstrom, check. Lets kick ass.

...the setting of the game isn't the only issue with GW's vision. Allowing everyone and their mother to summon daemons, allowing armies to ally with themselves, unbound, allies sharing transport, incorporating superheavy and expansion rules, allowing CtA alliances, those are all tings that GW added in order to further their "vision" of how we should play and yet *potentially* introduce problems into the game. Saying *we* should regulate ourselves is stupid for any kind of PUG game - something that GW seemingly favors given their own stores facilitate that kind of game!

Sephillion
27-05-2014, 00:01
It's only broken... if you break it.

I'm comfortable with the new rules. I might meet the odd crazy maxed out demon summoning army- it'll be a challenge, I'll probably lose, but all the more glory if I win or acquit myself well. It'll be fun as long as I don't take it too seriously, and I'll probably see much the same armies as I always have, not wall to wall demons. But the odd endless demonic incursion sounds pretty cool- it'll be like CoD Zombies...

I appreciate that people are upset because they deeply love the game and take it pretty seriously, and they see it as a more competitive test of skill. But I think that history shows that people always break the game- no matter the edition, the ingenuity of the players will always defeat the best intentions of the designers. There are things I miss about 4th... but mostly I think things have got better as everything has matured.

I like this direction from GW- they're not even trying to make the game fit for competitive play, they're leaving that up to players to organise. And why not? They sell cool models with rules so we can play with them. The rules are what they are- I don't quite understand the belief that GW owes us balanced rules fit for competitive play just because we buy models from them. That's not what they're selling, and I don't think it ever has been.

So because the rules were never perfectly tuned for tournament/competitive play means they shouldn't care about that scene? *facewall*

The only part I agree with is when you say they're not even trying.

Spider-pope
27-05-2014, 00:12
...the setting of the game isn't the only issue with GW's vision. Allowing everyone and their mother to summon daemons, allowing armies to ally with themselves, unbound, allies sharing transport, incorporating superheavy and expansion rules, allowing CtA alliances, those are all tings that GW added in order to further their "vision" of how we should play and yet *potentially* introduce problems into the game. Saying *we* should regulate ourselves is stupid for any kind of PUG game - something that GW seemingly favors given their own stores facilitate that kind of game!

Yes it's ludicrous to expect people to decide how they play their own games. Clearly they should have officially regulation of all games played, perhaps a legally binding contract to obey the rules for 8th edition?

So because the rules were never perfectly tuned for tournament/competitive play means they shouldn't care about that scene? *facewall*

The only part I agree with is when you say they're not even trying.

They never have tried. It's down to individual tournaments to set their own rules, not GW.

Hellebore
27-05-2014, 00:15
Balance is either required or it's not. You can't have a 'bit' of balance.

Ergo, if you're comfortable with an unbalanced 7th ed, you cannot complain if I just tweak the points costs of my favourite units down, or change the stats of things. Because the balance doesn't matter right?

Apologists no matter the colours are hilarious. It boils down to applying your own subjective view point to the topic and expecting everyone to agree with that.

And that's why rules exist, to provide a commonality of position for people to agree on to remove personal subjectivity.

if balance is irrelevant, then so is the rulebook. So why would you need the 40k book to play again? Nothing in it matters.

Hellebore

NemoSD
27-05-2014, 00:15
I would have to ask, and what if they showed up with a super heavy ? Or flyer spam ? How did you not know those would be issues ? What if they were trying summons spam, easily done at that point level.

I'd play it. If they can fit it in at the agreed upon points level, then they can field it. That is the risk I took agreeing to that point level. I tend to trust my opponent to not be horrible though, and for almost all of my pick up games, I have been reminded that humans in general tend to be decent human beings. Have I had the occasional bad experience? Of course.


...the setting of the game isn't the only issue with GW's vision. Allowing everyone and their mother to summon daemons, allowing armies to ally with themselves, unbound, allies sharing transport, incorporating superheavy and expansion rules, allowing CtA alliances, those are all tings that GW added in order to further their "vision" of how we should play and yet *potentially* introduce problems into the game. Saying *we* should regulate ourselves is stupid for any kind of PUG game - something that GW seemingly favors given their own stores facilitate that kind of game!


You're moving the goal post. The question I was answering was in regards to initial set up. If I agree to points total, then if you want to run unbound, 12 detachments, etc... fine as long as it fits under the point total, AND you have the models for it. I normally only let someone proxy if they use the words "I want to test this before buying," and that normally only lasts a couple of games. (I don't care if they are painted or not, but at least have the right model.) The points and model count do a good job of regulating in my opinion.

Hellebore
27-05-2014, 00:18
Everyone should definitely buy the book. It's got exclusive content that explains why you shouldn't buy the book.

Hellebore

Spider-pope
27-05-2014, 00:19
Balance is either required or it's not. You can't have a 'bit' of balance.

Ergo, if you're comfortable with an unbalanced 7th ed, you cannot complain if I just tweak the points costs of my favourite units down, or change the stats of things. Because the balance doesn't matter right?

If both players agree, go ahead.



Apologists no matter the colours are hilarious. It boils down to applying your own subjective view point to the topic and expecting everyone to agree with that.

:rolleyes: I am curious why the Mods continue to allow posters to insult others with terms like "apologist".



And that's why rules exist, to provide a commonality of position for people to agree on to remove personal subjectivity.

if balance is irrelevant, then so is the rulebook. So why would you need the 40k book to play again? Nothing in it matters.


Nice attempt at the old slippery slope.

Adui Askari
27-05-2014, 00:25
So because the rules were never perfectly tuned for tournament/competitive play means they shouldn't care about that scene? *facewall*

The only part I agree with is when you say they're not even trying.

Well, yeah. YOU care about 'that scene'. THEY care about selling models.

I hope the tourney scene thrives, but I don't expect GW to write rules for it, or to playtest for it. They'll never make everyone happy, and as I said, no matter their best intentions players always find a way to exploit the rules for maximum gain, even at the expense of other 'casual' players enjoyment.

I'm happy if they carry on doing what they're good at, making models and developing an awesome background, with rules that I can play with. I don't feel entitled to rules fit for competitive play because that's not what they're selling or advertising. In fact, it seems the opposite... There's plenty of Comp out there already, which I know is controversial, but it looks like GW really isn't catering for the kind of play that you want, so YOU might have to change, rather than them.

Hellebore
27-05-2014, 00:25
If both players agree, go ahead.


Then you've negated the need for a rulebook at all. Both players should just play toy soldiers however they want and GW doesn't need to sell them a rulebook.



:rolleyes: I am curious why the Mods continue to allow posters to insult others with terms like "apologist".


Apologist is a descriptive term for the behaviours evinced.



Nice attempt at the old slippery slope.

Hahaha! This is funny. Your entire argument CREATES a slipper slope. Whatever the players want goes. Well that's pure slope there because it's UTTERLY SUBJECTIVE. Which is why rulebooks exist, to remove personal subjectivity.

Balance isn't a gradient. It's a binary either/or thing. You can't have a bit of balance.

If you decided balance isn't important and the onus is entirely on the players, then you negate the need for rulebooks entirely. You don't need a book that tells you how you don't need a book.



Hellebore

Wayshuba
27-05-2014, 00:32
Part of the problem is that GW created a tournament-type mentality through the use of RTT and GTs around the country (at least here in the US). It seems that a lot of people "came up" in that era, where there was a lot of emphasis on building the next GT list, and placing in whatever tournament was coming up in the next month. The internet helped exasperate this phenomenon, where we were able to see in near real time what lists were winning, what lists were dominant, and how different lists could handle different builds around the country. Suddenly I (as a player) didn't need to try out different things for myself, I had almost instant access to builds that worked for other people, and that was way easier than trying to determine for myself what worked well and what didn't. We still this this quite frequently, with people talking about competitive lists, and building for the next tournament over in the Army Build threads, where most army critiques would essentially turn each army into a photocopy of XXXX list that won at tournament 15.

Along came Warmachine, with its "all that matters is the win" type mentality that caters to a specific segment of the population, but people still admittedly love the 40k setting. Around the time that Warmachine was gaining popularity, GW started to roll back their competitive side, trying to take it back to just gaming, but the 40k internet community decided to entrench themselves in tournaments. It seems as if the more vocal of the internet crowd want a mix of the two systems, where they want the rules from Warmachine with the background from 40k, but they refuse to accept that GW isn't moving in that direction.

I almost want to compare it to automobile manufacturers in the early 80s, when they went from making popular muscle cars that looked good, to fuel efficient, economical family cars that were more sensible. Many people decried those manufacturers for the business choices they made, calling them out for dumping classic cars like the Camaro, and replacing them with cars like the Corsica. But that was the direction that Chevy was taking at that time (there were also other extenuating circumstances - increased gas costs, new regulations, increased labour costs, etc).

Great analogy, made me think of this:

http://www.remarkablecars.com/main/shelby/shelby-mustang-021-1.jpg

and turning into this:

http://specialmustang.com/mustang/1974/1974_00017_01.jpg

Great analogy because most wargamers are looking for the former while GW insists on delivering the later. The only difference is, GW wants to deliver that later at the price of this:

http://srv2.betterparts.org/images/aston-martin-db9-13.jpg

Spider-pope
27-05-2014, 00:32
Then you've negated the need for a rulebook at all. Both players should just play toy soldiers however they want and GW doesn't need to sell them a rulebook.


And they can. You do know it's not compulsory to use 40k rules to play with your 40k toy soldiers right?



Apologist is a descriptive term for the behaviours evinced.


No it's a deliberately weighted term to belittle the opinions of others. It is as valid a descriptive term as "hater" i.e Not at all.



Hahaha! This is funny. Your entire argument CREATES a slipper slope. Whatever the players want goes. Well that's pure slope there because it's UTTERLY SUBJECTIVE. Which is why rulebooks exist, to remove personal subjectivity.

Balance isn't a gradient. It's a binary either/or thing. You can't have a bit of balance.


Like i said, nice attempt. It falls down however because choosing to use a particular ruleset in the first place is subjective, let alone the fact there is no such thing as a perfect, objective ruleset. Even Chess requires a houserule.



If you decided balance isn't important and the onus is entirely on the players, then you negate the need for rulebooks entirely. You don't need a book that tells you how you don't need a book.


Except there are plenty of people that do require such a ruling, because ironically they won't change the rules unless they have outright permission to change the rules.

All the changes of 7th edition have done is provide more options on how to play the game. It's down to players to decide for themselves how they wish to use those options, just like it always has been.

Sephillion
27-05-2014, 00:36
Well, yeah. YOU care about 'that scene'. THEY care about selling models.

I hope the tourney scene thrives, but I don't expect GW to write rules for it, or to playtest for it. They'll never make everyone happy, and as I said, no matter their best intentions players always find a way to exploit the rules for maximum gain, even at the expense of other 'casual' players enjoyment.

I'm happy if they carry on doing what they're good at, making models and developing an awesome background, with rules that I can play with. I don't feel entitled to rules fit for competitive play because that's not what they're selling or advertising. In fact, it seems the opposite... There's plenty of Comp out there already, which I know is controversial, but it looks like GW really isn't catering for the kind of play that you want, so YOU might have to change, rather than them.

Entitled? Wow... For the price, I should expect some freaking quality. Good for you if you're content to pay so much for half-assed rules.

You know, I'm ****** tired of being told I'm playing wrong. The way I qwas playing in 5th was fine; in 6th it was fine, it devolved a bit with expansions, but they were that, expansions. Now GW is moving further away in a particular direction, and suddenly I'm the one who's playing wrong?

Wow.

One thing I assure you - they're not getting money for models from me. Not for the foreseeable future anyway.

Adui Askari
27-05-2014, 00:37
Balance isn't a gradient. It's a binary either/or thing. You can't have a bit of balance.

Hellebore[/QUOTE]

That's not really true though, is it? Things can become 'more' or 'less' balanced, it's not binary at all. It is indeed a gradient- lots of small incremental changes affect the overall balance. If it was binary, then one change would tip it from unbalanced to balanced, and that's patently not true.

Wayshuba
27-05-2014, 00:38
Except GW's focus has always been on the latter. 40k was never intended to be a competitive ruleset, and has never been treated as such by GW themselves.


That is patently false. GW themselves were the ones in the 80s and 90s that started, sponsored and supported the RTT and GT. So, no, they were they ones who pushed the tournament scene. Heck, White Dwarf used to have constant ads and articles on what was going on with the RTT and GT.

However, as GW has lost all their actual talent and ended up with on yes-men/women, they have pretended they never did it so they have an excuse for p***-poor game design and rules. Rules only designed to sell models don't make for very good tournaments.

Drasanil
27-05-2014, 00:39
Everyone should definitely buy the book. It's got exclusive content that explains why you shouldn't buy the book.

Hellebore

I loled :)

Spider-pope
27-05-2014, 00:39
Entitled? Wow... For the price, I should expect some freaking quality. Good for you if you're content to pay so much for half-assed rules.

You know, I'm ****** tired of being told I'm playing wrong. The way I qwas playing in 5th was fine; in 6th it was fine, it devolved a bit with expansions, but they were that, expansions. Now GW is moving further away in a particular direction, and suddenly I'm the one who's playing wrong?

Wow.

One thing I assure you - they're not getting money for models from me. Not for the foreseeable future anyway.

Then keep playing how you were playing. Unless you're in a GW store, there is nothing at all to stop you playing 5th or 6th forever.

Inquisitor Shego
27-05-2014, 00:40
I loled :)

And I sig'd

NemoSD
27-05-2014, 00:44
Entitled? Wow... For the price, I should expect some freaking quality. Good for you if you're content to pay so much for half-assed rules.

You know, I'm ****** tired of being told I'm playing wrong. The way I qwas playing in 5th was fine; in 6th it was fine, it devolved a bit with expansions, but they were that, expansions. Now GW is moving further away in a particular direction, and suddenly I'm the one who's playing wrong?

Wow.

One thing I assure you - they're not getting money for models from me. Not for the foreseeable future anyway.

Wait... it is ok for you to get mad because people are telling you you are doing it wrong.* Because you were one of the ones who told us we all were making a big deal out of nothing, paraphrased of course, when we got tired of being told we play wrong and the such. (We being those who disagree with you.)


*(He didn't by the way, he merely pointed out your style of play is not GWs target audience without once making judgment on how you play. He did say if you want to continue to be the target audience of GW, then yeah, you need to change. It happens. It happened to me with DnD, they changed how they wanted the game to play to capture a new audience, I didn't like the change, so I moved on to a new system.)

Wayshuba
27-05-2014, 00:46
Well, yeah. YOU care about 'that scene'. THEY care about selling models.

I hope the tourney scene thrives, but I don't expect GW to write rules for it, or to playtest for it. They'll never make everyone happy, and as I said, no matter their best intentions players always find a way to exploit the rules for maximum gain, even at the expense of other 'casual' players enjoyment.

I'm happy if they carry on doing what they're good at, making models and developing an awesome background, with rules that I can play with. I don't feel entitled to rules fit for competitive play because that's not what they're selling or advertising. In fact, it seems the opposite... There's plenty of Comp out there already, which I know is controversial, but it looks like GW really isn't catering for the kind of play that you want, so YOU might have to change, rather than them.

and thus the will continue to alienate more of their customer base, losing more and more revenue and eventually they won't have enough revenue to survive - so everyone loses.

Business 101 - you build what caters to the broadest customer base than offer extras (supplements) that tailor to different segments. Every single successful business does this. To not is just showing incompetence, stupidity and inviting yourself to go out of business.

Adui Askari
27-05-2014, 00:47
Entitled? Wow... For the price, I should expect some freaking quality. Good for you if you're content to pay so much for half-assed rules.

You know, I'm ****** tired of being told I'm playing wrong. The way I qwas playing in 5th was fine; in 6th it was fine, it devolved a bit with expansions, but they were that, expansions. Now GW is moving further away in a particular direction, and suddenly I'm the one who's playing wrong?

Wow.

One thing I assure you - they're not getting money for models from me. Not for the foreseeable future anyway.

That's entirely your choice, if you're not happy with their product. The price is what it is. I never said that you were 'playing wrong'. You just want to play in a different way than GW appear to want to write rules for and promote, hence your frustration. However you decide to play is the right way for you. If you think the rules are 'half-assed' then change them. Personally, I'm pretty happy with GW's 'freaking quality' at the moment, but that's just me. If lots of people share your opinion and stop buying models, maybe things will change to something you like.

Wayshuba
27-05-2014, 00:51
It happened to me with DnD, they changed how they wanted the game to play to capture a new audience, I didn't like the change, so I moved on to a new system.)

Yeah, and look how well that turned out for WotC. Pathfinder overtook DnD. What did WotC say was the reason, many times for it happening - that they didn't listen to their customers and thought the customer base would want to play the game they wanted instead of designing a game their customers wanted. Thus the massive focus on involving customers in D&D Next because they missed their market by a million miles with that attitude. Sounds very, very similar to GW with 7th doesn't it? Perhaps it will have the same effect that 4th edition D&D did for WotC.

NemoSD
27-05-2014, 01:01
Yeah, and look how well that turned out for WotC. Pathfinder overtook DnD. What did WotC say was the reason, many times for it happening - that they didn't listen to their customers and thought the customer base would want to play the game they wanted instead of designing a game their customers wanted. Thus the massive focus on involving customers in D&D Next because they missed their market by a million miles with that attitude. Sounds very, very similar to GW with 7th doesn't it? Perhaps it will have the same effect that 4th edition D&D did for WotC.

I didn't say good things were going to happen for GW, I am not a psyker with divination. What I know is that this direction I am happy on. I get your frustration at the direction things are going, because I have been there.

When I was there, I had a few choices: Attempt to enjoy the new system. Find a new system. Continue with 4th, and bitch and moan, or just bitch and moan.

The first choice may of been fun, or not. It does not contribute to world suck.

Find a new system. Worked beautifully, I like pathfinder, world of darkness, etc... it opened me up to entirely new styles of Tabletop RPG games.

Keep on playing, but bitching and moaning about why it isn't the way I like it. This contributes to world suck. It annoys the people who do like it, and alienates me from those I am around, preventing us from finding common ground in other areas. It is also self-fueling anger, the more you play, the more frustrated you get, and the more angry you get.

Just bitch and moan, same as above, I would of contributed to world suck.


What you are doing right now is contributing to world suck. You are not discussing the short fallings of the system, you are complaining that the system did not consult you, and make sure it fit your view of where it should go. For whatever reason, the design study made a decision, will it work out for them? Who knows. However, you have a choice. Move on, give the rules a chance, or contribute to world suck.

By the way, we are day three since they released. None of us have given the rules a chance. We have not had time to. So please, choose to contribute to world suck, or find a happy place. If you choose world suck, please let me know so I can ignore you.

Wolf Lord Balrog
27-05-2014, 01:06
No it's a deliberately weighted term to belittle the opinions of others. It is as valid a descriptive term as "hater" i.e Not at all.

'Apologist', from apology, which is from the Greek 'apologia', 'to defend with rhetoric'. There are all manner of apologists, and most are proud to be labeled such. Why aren't you proud to be a GW apologist if you think they've done a good job?

'Hater' isn't even remotely in the same category of pejorative emotional loading.

Razhem
27-05-2014, 01:07
I'll just restate the obvious, Warhammer isn't cheap enough to have the luxury of having **** balance.

Here is a detailed post where I explain why

http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?394203-What-does-balanced-really-mean&p=7154888&viewfull=1#post7154888

That some people have grown so used to the abuse and show no sensitivity to it doesn't mean that the product still isn't badly designed.

This does not mean you cannot have fun with it. I've had my fun with a good number of games that were pretty busted, but lets not pretend that you don't mind it that the issue doesn't exist.

A big number of the local 40K players have recently shifted into Malifaux and seem to be loving it. So at least what I'm seeing is GW games shrinking in my area, not growing.

Ssilmath
27-05-2014, 01:09
That some people have grown so used to the abuse and show no sensitivity to it doesn't mean that the product still isn't badly designed.

That some people are hypersensitive to elements they don't like, and call it abuse, doesn't mean that the product is badly designed either.

Wolf Lord Balrog
27-05-2014, 01:19
That some people are hypersensitive to elements they don't like, and call it abuse, doesn't mean that the product is badly designed either.

Do you have an example of something you think is well-designed that other people are negatively over-reacting to?

Razhem
27-05-2014, 01:26
That some people are hypersensitive to elements they don't like, and call it abuse, doesn't mean that the product is badly designed either.

Seeing the price range on where said product is moving and seeing what the competition is producing I'd dare say it's a given that it's a badly designed product.

Again, here I go into great detail into why http://www.warseer.com/forums/showth...=1#post7154888

That you happen to be able to accept the bad design because you can have fun with it because of the background for example (I love the 40K background), than good for you. One thing doesn't change another. That if you want to start to play Warhammer you have to blow an absurd amount of money (from hundreds to thousands) only to play a game that demands active negotiation between players and even after negotiating, it may still give a meh experience, then that is pretty much the text book definition of why it's a bad game.

That I can blow 50$, get a full Malifaux crew which lets me play at a good level and without needing to negotiate anything with my opponent just makes it even more evident how behind the curve GW is in game design, trying to be the most expensive RPG in the world while having only a sliver of the potential found in an RPG just so they don't have to bother to actually write a tight ruleset.

Ssilmath
27-05-2014, 01:29
Do you have an example of something you think is well-designed that other people are negatively over-reacting to?

Personally, I think that the change to sniper weapons is justified and fits them in better with the role such weapons should have. I approve of Smash being relegated to a single attack, as I feel it provides the person with a choice rather than the no brainer that smashing was before. I feel that the change to jink accomplishes much the same thing. The addition of Daemonology makes sense to me, and I think that people are greatly exaggerating the effects of a daemon army designed around it. The way the psychic phase works now seems far more interesting to me than the old system, while feeling less over the top and broken. I like the new vehicle damage chart and feel that it does indeed make vehicles more survivable, particularly the AV12 walkers that I've always liked to run.

These are all personal opinion, of course. Does everybody need to agree with me? Hell no. But I'd like it if they didn't characterize my approving of these features as being so used to being abused that I accept them or giving GW a free pass because I'm an "apologist". I recognize that I argue with the people who don't approve of the state of the game right now, but honestly a lot of that is in response to the way a few certain people make their personal opinions into absolutist statements.

AngryAngel
27-05-2014, 03:12
Well I'm sure we'll all have plenty of time to spend with one another, running over this issue very much as the days, weeks and months go by.

Which is alright by me, most of you guys are pretty swell.

Wolf Lord Balrog
27-05-2014, 03:14
Personally, I think that the change to sniper weapons is justified and fits them in better with the role such weapons should have. I approve of Smash being relegated to a single attack, as I feel it provides the person with a choice rather than the no brainer that smashing was before. I feel that the change to jink accomplishes much the same thing. The addition of Daemonology makes sense to me, and I think that people are greatly exaggerating the effects of a daemon army designed around it. The way the psychic phase works now seems far more interesting to me than the old system, while feeling less over the top and broken. I like the new vehicle damage chart and feel that it does indeed make vehicles more survivable, particularly the AV12 walkers that I've always liked to run.

These are all personal opinion, of course. Does everybody need to agree with me? Hell no. But I'd like it if they didn't characterize my approving of these features as being so used to being abused that I accept them or giving GW a free pass because I'm an "apologist". I recognize that I argue with the people who don't approve of the state of the game right now, but honestly a lot of that is in response to the way a few certain people make their personal opinions into absolutist statements.

Sniper nerf - Disagree. Nerf was stupid, because it was totally unnecessary.

Smash nerf - Agree. Hadn't been a huge issue for me, but an improvement nonetheless.

Jink - Agree. Jink was too much of a no-brainer move.

Daemonology - Disagree. Far too many factions have access, the summoning powers are far too good, and Sanctic is kinda weak.

Psychic phase - Disagree. Another unnecessary change. There wasn't anything wrong with the 6th Ed Psyker system, except for random power assignment and uneven Discipline access. One of which wasn't fixed at all, and the other one went too far in the other direction; both could have been fixed without the massive changes introduced in 7th.

New Vehicle Damage Chart - Disagree. It will make very little difference to vehicle survivability, as Glance-kills are still by far the easiest way to take down almost any vehicle.

So there is some agreement there, though we still disagree much more often. I think the heat comes into the debate when one side presents evidence for its views and the other side seems to dismiss it as either not actual evidence, or irrelevant. When you present strong evidence and the other side doesn't address it, it can be very frustrating.

Ssilmath
27-05-2014, 03:24
So there is some agreement there, though we still disagree much more often. I think the heat comes into the debate when one side presents evidence for its views and the other side seems to dismiss it as either not actual evidence, or irrelevant. When you present strong evidence and the other side doesn't address it, it can be very frustrating.

So who is right? That's the issue, your experiences, values and perceptions differ from mine. I rarely if ever see vehicles glanced to death, it almost always comes from single hard hits. I also have a very hard time believing people when they speak of games where multiple AV12 vehicles with cover saves are hullpointed to death per turn by Str 6 and 7 weapons. I don't doubt it can happen, but I do doubt that it happens as regularly as people say. The strong evidence that you present may not be addressed simply because it doesn't fit into the realm of possibility/probability for the people on the receiving end. Nor does it help that many times that evidence is based on either a "what if" scenario or a "I think" opinion, and thus is not really evidence anyways.

So I ask you, who is correct?

Brother-Captain Endymion
27-05-2014, 03:35
The obvious answer is that both of you are correct. It's a matter of your meta.

Wolf Lord Balrog
27-05-2014, 03:47
So who is right? That's the issue, your experiences, values and perceptions differ from mine. I rarely if ever see vehicles glanced to death, it almost always comes from single hard hits. I also have a very hard time believing people when they speak of games where multiple AV12 vehicles with cover saves are hullpointed to death per turn by Str 6 and 7 weapons. I don't doubt it can happen, but I do doubt that it happens as regularly as people say.
Its just statistics. If you are seeing vehicles being one-shotted far more often than they are Glance-killed, you either have had a whole lot of anomalous dice-rolling, or, more likely, you are having a recognition-bias problem. Here are the numbers for an AV12 vehicle with 3 HPs in 5+ Cover:

BS4 Autocannon (2/3)x(1/3)x(2/3) = 14.8% chance to Glance ~ 20-21 shots to Glance-kill
BS4 Autocannon, Explode-kill not possible.

BS4 Lascannon (2/3)x(2/3)x(2/3) = 29.6% chance to Glance ~ 10-11 shots to Glance-kill
BS4 Lascannon (2/3)x(1/2)x(2/3) = 22.2% chance to Penetrate ~ 27 shots to Explode-kill

That's math. Its not subject to vagueries of perception. Anomalies can happen in the short-run, but the average always comes out over time.


The strong evidence that you present may not be addressed simply because it doesn't fit into the realm of possibility/probability for the people on the receiving end. Nor does it help that many times that evidence is based on either a "what if" scenario or a "I think" opinion, and thus is not really evidence anyways.

So I ask you, who is correct?

The person that presents the strongest evidence is right, until he is proven wrong by yet-stronger evidence. And when confronted by a difficulty that seems to arise from a difference in perception and experience, don't throw your hands up and say 'Who can say?', find a way to find out what the real data is.

Icarus81
27-05-2014, 03:51
The problem with haters :

- Full fledged complaints roll in before all the information is known.
- Specious comments that GW did things to sell models, because all they want to sell is daemons now? Let's be realistic. They're in it to make money, but arguing that this is anything other than a tremendous goof is silly.

The problem with white knights :

- You need to recognize that tournaments are a valid mode of enjoying the game and by making it more difficult to regulate that environment it lessens the enjoyment of the game for those people.

So, i'm a GW white knight for the tournament end, but unless the FAQs provide some impossible fixes that we never saw coming this edition is going to be really difficult to enjoy in the fashion that I like. Don't get me wrong - i'll keep playing and I love a challenge, but clubs could suffer greatly.

Gungo
27-05-2014, 03:53
Personally, I think that the change to sniper weapons is justified and fits them in better with the role such weapons should have. I approve of Smash being relegated to a single attack, as I feel it provides the person with a choice rather than the no brainer that smashing was before. I feel that the change to jink accomplishes much the same thing. The addition of Daemonology makes sense to me, and I think that people are greatly exaggerating the effects of a daemon army designed around it. The way the psychic phase works now seems far more interesting to me than the old system, while feeling less over the top and broken. I like the new vehicle damage chart and feel that it does indeed make vehicles more survivable, particularly the AV12 walkers that I've always liked to run.

These are all personal opinion, of course. Does everybody need to agree with me? Hell no. But I'd like it if they didn't characterize my approving of these features as being so used to being abused that I accept them or giving GW a free pass because I'm an "apologist". I recognize that I argue with the people who don't approve of the state of the game right now, but honestly a lot of that is in response to the way a few certain people make their personal opinions into absolutist statements.
I also agree with what you said even though I think gw could of made certain rules better. However I do feel the primaris power of summoning an entire unit at the cost of a wound on any model is broken. This should of worked like endless swarm ability and replace a unit with a new unit and cost a wound on the psyker. The rest of the malefic powers are not even an issue. People were flipping out over the unbuffed greater demon and it isn't Even A problem.

Ssilmath
27-05-2014, 03:56
Its just statistics. If you are seeing vehicles being one-shotted far more often than they are Glance-killed, you either have had a whole lot of anomalous dice-rolling, or, more likely, you are having a recognition-bias problem. Here are the numbers for an AV12 vehicle with 3 HPs in 5+ Cover:

BS4 Autocannon (2/3)x(1/3)x(2/3) = 14.8% chance to Glance ~ 20-21 shots to Glance-kill
BS4 Autocannon, Explode-kill not possible.

BS4 Lascannon (2/3)x(2/3)x(2/3) = 29.6% chance to Glance ~ 10-11 shots to Glance-kill
BS4 Lascannon (2/3)x(1/2)x(2/3) = 22.2% chance to Penetrate ~ 27 shots to Explode-kill

That's math. Its not subject to vagueries of perception. Anomalies can happen in the short-run, but the average always comes out over time.

And yet your math does not account for what is locally favored/played, how the terrain is set up, what kind of targets are available, or any number of other variables. And don't forget that confirmation bias affects both sides. Under the old rules, Autocannons could still pen-kill. They can't anymore, relying entirely on hull points. That's an increase in survivability, no matter how you look at it. Mathhammer can only ever give you an idea of what should happen, under average dice rolls, in purely vacuous environments.


The person that presents the strongest evidence is right, until he is proven wrong by yet-stronger evidence. And when confronted by a difficulty that seems to arise from a difference in perception and experience, don't throw your hands up and say 'Who can say?', find a way to find out what the real data is.

Except the evidence is often not evidence at all, or the counter evidence is simply dismissed as not strong enough and victory is claimed. For starters, in many cases there is no evidence at all, and no possible way to get it. How many metas truly field the number of Str 6 required to consistently sand 6 AV12 hull points in cover in a single turn? There's no way to know, but for some reason the person with that anecdote is given more weight than the person who reports said vehicles lasting entire games. What gives the first person "stronger" evidence than the other? Mathhammer?

AngryAngel
27-05-2014, 03:57
It isn't a problem yet, time will tell if it is a problem later. That ability to summon a greater demon also was believed to be worse without knowing flying MC's need to be easy to shoot for a turn before they can launch an assault as well as the change to smash. Though we were also told there would be no issue and all would be balanced, which it wasn't.

Ssilmath
27-05-2014, 03:58
Though we were also told there would be no issue and all would be balanced, which it wasn't.

Told by whom?

NemoSD
27-05-2014, 04:02
Its just statistics. If you are seeing vehicles being one-shotted far more often than they are Glance-killed, you either have had a whole lot of anomalous dice-rolling, or, more likely, you are having a recognition-bias problem. Here are the numbers for an AV12 vehicle with 3 HPs in 5+ Cover:

BS4 Autocannon (2/3)x(1/3)x(2/3) = 14.8% chance to Glance ~ 20-21 shots to Glance-kill
BS4 Autocannon, Explode-kill not possible.

BS4 Lascannon (2/3)x(2/3)x(2/3) = 29.6% chance to Glance ~ 10-11 shots to Glance-kill
BS4 Lascannon (2/3)x(1/2)x(2/3) = 22.2% chance to Penetrate ~ 27 shots to Explode-kill

That's math. Its not subject to vagueries of perception. Anomalies can happen in the short-run, but the average always comes out over time.



The person that presents the strongest evidence is right, until he is proven wrong by yet-stronger evidence. And when confronted by a difficulty that seems to arise from a difference in perception and experience, don't throw your hands up and say 'Who can say?', find a way to find out what the real data is.

An autocannon fires 2 times per turn, a las cannon once.

So one auto cannon will take, by your math 10 turns to kill an AV12 with 5+ cover.

A las cannon will also take 10, or 11, turns to kill the AV12 with 5+ cover with a 22.2% chance each time to kill it on one try....

High Strength is still better.

AngryAngel
27-05-2014, 04:13
Told by whom?

I seem to recall you and Theo saying it would be balanced and sorted out by GW on release and we just didn't have the information. Now if I'm wrong and you didn't also say that, please feel free to correct me.


Edit: Let me also add to the math talk, your not taking into account that you can get about 2 or 3 auto cannons for 1 lascannon. Factor that in and I think it comes out a bit more of what you see, usually.

Wolf Lord Balrog
27-05-2014, 04:15
And yet your math does not account for what is locally favored/played, how the terrain is set up, what kind of targets are available, or any number of other variables. And don't forget that confirmation bias affects both sides. Under the old rules, Autocannons could still pen-kill. They can't anymore, relying entirely on hull points. That's an increase in survivability, no matter how you look at it. Mathhammer can only ever give you an idea of what should happen, under average dice rolls, in purely vacuous environments.
Ok, the numbers under the old rules, again AV12 vehicle with 3 HPs in 5+ Cover:
BS4 Autocannon (2/3)x(1/3)x(2/3) = 14.8% chance to Glance ~ 20-21 shots to Glance-kill
BS4 Autocannon (2/3)x(1/6)x(2/3) = 7.4% chance to Penetrate ~ 121-122 shots to Wreck/Explode-kill
Its not a significant increase in survivability, because under either system you are far, far more likely to Glance-kill the target than to Pen-kill it.
And yes, games present you with a wide variety of additional factors to consider, but it doesn't change the relative frequency of rolling one die result as opposed to another. I said that anomalous results can occur in the short-term. But you made a long-term claim:

I rarely if ever see vehicles glanced to death, it almost always comes from single hard hits.
Such a trend persisting over a large data set just isn't possible without either loaded dice, or a loaded memory.



Except the evidence is often not evidence at all, or the counter evidence is simply dismissed as not strong enough and victory is claimed. For starters, in many cases there is no evidence at all, and no possible way to get it. How many metas truly field the number of Str 6 required to consistently sand 6 AV12 hull points in cover in a single turn? There's no way to know, but for some reason the person with that anecdote is given more weight than the person who reports said vehicles lasting entire games. What gives the first person "stronger" evidence than the other? Mathhammer?
As I showed above, it only takes about 41-42 Autocannon shots to erase 2 Dreads in 5+ Cover. You can get that with 21 Autocannon in a BS4 army, or 28 in a BS3 army. And that's assuming average results, if the Autocannons perform like they apparently do in your games, achieving Pen-kills at something like 9-12 times the rate they should, it would only take 3-4 Autocannons to make Dreads an endangered species.


An autocannon fires 2 times per turn, a las cannon once.

So one auto cannon will take, by your math 10 turns to kill an AV12 with 5+ cover.

A las cannon will also take 10, or 11, turns to kill the AV12 with 5+ cover with a 22.2% chance each time to kill it on one try....

High Strength is still better.

You misread my information. 22.2% is the chance to get a Penetrating Hit for the Lascannon. You still have to roll a 6 to get a Destroyed result. Hence ~ 27 shots for a Pen-kill.

Ssilmath
27-05-2014, 04:24
I seem to recall you and Theo saying it would be balanced and sorted out by GW on release and we just didn't have the information. Now if I'm wrong and you didn't also say that, please feel free to correct me.

I don't recall saying it was going to be all balanced out, though I did say that we didn't have all of the information at hand yet. I also don't recall saying there wouldn't be any issues. I do recall telling people that it wasn't likely that all armies were going to be tossing summoning spells around willy nilly, and with the high likelihood of Perils and the stronger perils chart, I feel justified in that. Somehow I feel a quote is going to be forthcoming though, likely out of context...

I do think that things are being overblown and over-exaggerated when it comes to the Daemon summoning loops thing though. I'm kind of flabbergasted at the idea that people are having difficulty removing Horrors or Tzeentch Heralds from the table, especially if the Daemon player is putting all of those dice into trying to summon and not attacking or buffing.