PDA

View Full Version : Is too much expectation ruining 40k gaming?



Herkamer63
19-11-2014, 21:37
I have been wondering about why there are so many doomsayers out for awhile now, and I, along with other people in our community I think, had come up with a possible reason other than trolling on here: is there too much expectation? For example: When Chaos Space Marines came out 2 years ago as the 1st army for 6th ed, I happen to remember the hype and hope people had for this army (before it came out). When it finally came and people actually starting using it, there was quite a bit of disappointment. Now, to those who are continuing to play CSM and finding a lot of success with them may or may not feel the same way, I think people (at least some) were looking for a super charged codex like 3.5. Instead, the results seemed to be more balanced, and to some people felt pretty flat army. I'm not saying that's how I feel and other members I'm sure feel the same way I do, but for those who were hoping to 3.5 rear it's head again, it just never happened.

I don't need to explain Tyranids much since everyone is up to speed on that, but I remember the expectations had for this army when they were released. The units that came out recently definitely gave them a big boost, but prior to that the community was hoping to some changes. Some reasonable, others not so much. Someone in my group was hoping to spam Toughness 7 and 8 MCs everywhere before they came out (to this day he still does). With it getting an update, however, that never came to be. Some of us were hoping for an option to run a genestealer cult army at (least in a supplement), but did not happen. There were so many possibilities that GW have could done, but decided not to. So at this point we just have to make with what we have, which is not a bad thing with these new releases.

Finally, as a last example, the current core codices and their supplements. Before supplements, some armies you could really come up with some interesting setups inside the codex i.e. changing FOC on some units. The introduction of the codex supplement was a bonus because it opened up even more ways to complete the army you wanted (the Farsight Enclaves is still, IMO, the best supplement out there). Today, however, with the new edition, now we have a basic codex and the only way to change the FOC or statlines with the new codices is to use the supplements. The supplements themselves, which I do like, however, are primarily fluff and little in terms of rules. You can still forge a neat army from one of them because of some of the unique rules set up inside them, but it does not let anyone wander too far off from the core codex. Price of a codex and it's supplement is also a bit of an issue, but that's a debate for another time.

Bottom line is from what I have seen and observed, I think it's some of the expectations that we establish for ourselves that let's us down and why we get angry. I understand some of those expectations are reasonable, like rules and such, but others are too far off. At times within our community we expect too much rather than see and accept the reality that we have. I'm considering Blood Angels later on as my next army. I'm hoping that Gabriel Seth's rules change so he's better and I can start a Flesh Tearers army. I hope there will be a FT supplement so it feels more like that army. If this happens and he is better than what he is now, I expect the points to go up. If he stays the same pt wise, I can see some changes to his rules and wargear. I wan to try to base it off of what 7th ed has brought us so far, but I don't know if expectations are too high or not. So I don't want to ruin the experience for myself, and I think that's what it ultimately comes down to: the player.

I think in order for us to enjoy the game, we need to stop putting the expectations so high that enjoyment will never get there. That's the reason why we're playing this game because it's fun and it's a nice escape from what we do in our everyday lives. Anyway, that's my take on it. Anyone else think we have too much expectation or is it something else?Have at it.

ColShaw
19-11-2014, 21:47
I'm going to agree, but only halfway.

Expectation is the one necessary prerequisite for disappointment. Without expectation, there quite literally cannot be disappointment. And I think that specific expectations in 40K can certainly wreck people's hopes. For example: I used to collect Chaos for 40K. I had a World Eaters army, extremely fluffy (squads in multiples of 8, Dreadnoughts as the only heavy support, no non-Mark of Khorne units). This army was fun. It was also fairly powerful; these were the 3.5 Chaos Codex days. Then the 4th Ed Chaos 'dex came out. I was disappointed, not because of the power level (honestly, it was so early in the 'dex's life, I didn't KNOW what the power level was going to be), but because it was so bland. All the little characterful touches that had distinguished my lovingly-converted army seemed to have vanished. The options were gone.

My World Eaters have been sitting in a box since 2007. I can't bear to sell them, but I just can't make them work the way I want them to with current Chaos.

My current expectations have nothing whatever to do with powerful options, or even options. My current expectations are that GW will produce a well-written, high-quality game. Hence my current disappointment.

Ozendorph
19-11-2014, 22:07
My current expectations have nothing whatever to do with powerful options, or even options. My current expectations are that GW will produce a well-written, high-quality game. Hence my current disappointment.

Agreed. I have a bunch of armies - some very powerful, others not so much. I don't generally care about winning or losing. What I do care about is playing an enjoyable game in a reasonable amount of time, with clear rules, quick setup, and clean mechanics. Thus, the grim view of the current game.

Of course I only state this to clear up any misunderstanding. We've had this discussion here and elsewhere a thousand times with the net results any sane person would anticipate.

Vaktathi
19-11-2014, 22:12
Nobody expected another 3.5E CSM book really, in fact, the vast majority of Chaos players still around have never used that book, but nobody expected them to do just a relatively minimal tweaking after the previous outcry. To many, the "salt in the wound" is that the Codex: Space Marines a year later basically got everything CSM players wanted, simple and functional traits, and excellent internal balance.

druchii
19-11-2014, 23:13
The same is happening to a lot of things. TV shows, video games (look what happened with Halo 4 and Destiny!), comics, etc. are all being adversely affected by expectations. That used to be something companies used to draw customers in (using my previous example, people expected halo NOT to be call of duty, but when halo 4 dropped it had adopted a TON of stuff included in the COD series, which turned a great many people off of the game), and is kinda backfiring now when they adjust those expectations to stay relevant.

The big difference here is that a new video game, or a comic book, a movie or a TV show cost relatively little (both cash wise and time wise) where a 40k army runs you many hours painting, assembling, and around 600$ (models alone, if you're lucky). So I think 40k fans, uniquely, get really invested of an idea of how a codex should play, or how they feel things should change. Not to mention that everyone is naturally self-oriented so anything, even if it's a fair change, is usually perceived as a negative.

That and GW loves to actually ruin good things for no reason. Take the 'Nid and CSM books, they've been on a downward spin of decreasing coolness, power level and diversity since 3rd/3.5.

d

Kakapo42
20-11-2014, 00:40
I agree to an extent. I also think, however, that a lot of it comes down to the simple truth that you can't please everyone. Every single person is ultimately unique, and so every single person ultimately has unique tastes, although there'll usually be enough overlap that multiple people can come to agreements on what they all like.

The inevitable result of having all these differing tastes, however, is that what one person or group of people likes, another person or group of people won't like, so I think it's an inescapable result that any change to something, whether it's a tabletop wargame or a film series, will have a number of people that like said change, and at least one or two people that don't. For example, over in Warhammer Fantasy two recent big changes have been the 8th edition Wood Elf army book and the End Times series. Both changes have been well-received by a large number of Warhammer enthusiasts, but I myself have nothing but unhappiness about them since they both seriously damaged what I enjoyed about Warhammer Fantasy (my vision of my favourite faction in it and the extensive narrative back-story I had written about it myself respectively). Admittedly I managed to work around the first one, and it did eventually lead to a really interesting story arc - a faction of Wood Elves in Athel Loren opposed to the main ruling bodies there that still follow the description of the previous book despite everywhere else changing to the current one, and the political tensions this causes - but the second one, the End Times series, has destroyed my enthusiasm for Warhammer Fantasy to the point where I'm currently in a state of Watching Troy Burn (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WatchingTroyBurn) with it, because the End Times series has permamently, irrevocably, changed the setting in a way I don't like and didn't want. As mentioned before however, many others are thrilled with these changes, though I am not. Differing tastes and interests means that some people (a lot in this case) like a given change, some people (not many in this case) don't.

A similar thing can be seen with a lot of things in 40k. Some people liked the freedom and options of the 3.5 Chaos codex, others prefer the moderation of the current ones. Some people liked the comparative stability of 3rd through to 5th edition, others prefer the open-ended nature of 6th, 7th and 2nd edition. Ultimately both groups are right and wrong, since their tastes are different from each other, and when a given change favours one group of people you will inevitably hear complaints from another group of people that it didn't cater to. A lot of people like the current aesthetic trend of semi-organic Chaos Space Marine units (Chosen, Hellbrutes and to a lesser extent the 'fiends), but I for one greatly prefer the 'evil Space Marine with spikes' and twisted machinery of the previous aesthetic trend for Chaos Space Marine units. When they get around to changing the basic Chaos Space Marine kit there will probably be a lot of people praising it, but if it is anything more than an extremely subtle update a la the 6th edition Space Marine kit, then I will be highly unhappy. What works for some doesn't for others.

I think at the end of the day a great many of the complaints you see on here are simply from a group of people who, due to their own tastes, are alienated by whatever change is being discussed. An exciting new development for one person is the straw that breaks the camel's back for another.

And that's why I don't think it's ever going to go away. Complaining, complaining never changes.

Just Tony
20-11-2014, 03:45
That and GW loves to actually ruin good things for no reason. Take the 'Nid and CSM books, they've been on a downward spin of decreasing coolness, power level and diversity since 3rd/3.5.

d

Is it possible that they aren't in a downward spiral of coolness from those versions rather than an attempt to reel back the imbalance of those books?

Scribe of Khorne
20-11-2014, 04:57
Since the holy of holies was mentioned in this thread I had to come in, and lo...


Is it possible that they aren't in a downward spiral of coolness from those versions rather than an attempt to reel back the imbalance of those books?

Answer: No. Ref. Chapter Tactics, Space Marines, 6th Edition.

Losing Command
20-11-2014, 05:05
Is it possible that they aren't in a downward spiral of coolness from those versions rather than an attempt to reel back the imbalance of those books?

Probably, but while doing so the number of effective armies you can make with them also took a nosedive. You can still make legion/warband/chaos god specific armylists with the current CSM codex, but some things appear a bit off (Having the same Mark of chaos does not make Havocs/Chosen/Terminators/etc. the same legion as cult trops) and the effectiveness of said army is also rather low.
Can't speak for Tyranids, but it appears there the knee-jerk nerfs also happend. Keep in mind that most people don't actually want their army to be as broken as the current cheese, but just to be able to build a cool themed army, with units they like, that has a reasonable chance on a game table and not get massacred at turn 3 every game.

Just Tony
20-11-2014, 05:12
Since the holy of holies was mentioned in this thread I had to come in, and lo...



Answer: No. Ref. Chapter Tactics, Space Marines, 6th Edition.

Didn't say they couldn't make the same mistake on another codex, in fact they have a history replete with that EXACT problem.


Probably, but while doing so the number of effective armies you can make with them also took a nosedive. You can still make legion/warband/chaos god specific armylists with the current CSM codex, but some things appear a bit off (Having the same Mark of chaos does not make Havocs/Chosen/Terminators/etc. the same legion as cult trops) and the effectiveness of said army is also rather low.
Can't speak for Tyranids, but it appears there the knee-jerk nerfs also happend. Keep in mind that most people don't actually want their army to be as broken as the current cheese, but just to be able to build a cool themed army, with units they like, that has a reasonable chance on a game table and not get massacred at turn 3 every game.

Was the attempt successful? Insofar as reining in the other codices? Yes. Insofar as keeping them competitive with other codices? Severely debatable.

Scribe of Khorne
20-11-2014, 05:19
Well, my wife beckons so I'll just have to leave this for now at the precipice. We can go into this abyss together tomorrow as that other threads about burned out... :D

Denny
20-11-2014, 10:10
Well, my wife beckons so I'll just have to leave this for now at the precipice. We can go into this abyss together tomorrow as that other threads about burned out... :D

Don't say that. I hope to one day show that thread to my grandchildren . . .

On topic: I think unreasonable expectations are a part of modern life, and 40K is no better or worse in this regard than anything else. I suppose it has much to do with entitlement culture, and people feeling like they somehow have a right to good things because our lives are so easy in so many ways and we don’t have enough real things to worry about on a day-to-day bases.

(Not knocking anyone who is currently going through some bad stuff but, in general, we in western world are an insanely lucky generation)

Plus it’s the internet. If a cure for cancer was announced online tomorrow I would expect the second comment to be ‘Why haven’t you cured AIDS yet?’
(The first comment would be ‘First’)

Lord Damocles
20-11-2014, 10:13
That and GW loves to actually ruin good things for no reason. Take the 'Nid and CSM books, they've been on a downward spin of decreasing coolness, power level and diversity since 3rd/3.5.
One person's 'no good reason' is another person's 'very good reason'.

Slowpoke
20-11-2014, 10:52
Well, you know what they say: Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment. :chrome:


I used to have a CSM army and the previous codex was a real letdown. When the 6th edition codex was looming over the horizon, I took a risk and sold my CSM army. As it turned out, the new codex wasn't what I hoped for so I didn't have any regrets selling my army. It was better than the previous codex but it had some glaring issues and those issues have been discussed in the various threads that keep popping up so I won't drag them here.

I was eagerly waiting for the new Ork codex and I had very high hopes for a new warbuggy model and a Speed Freak supplement. I was let down on both fronts and instead of updating the warbuggy they released the Orka-*******'-naut. I absolutely hate it. But they did fix the points costs and gave some new nifty special rules so I was happy with the overall release.

So in conclusion, expectations do ruin 40k gaming if/when those expectations are mistaken for rumours or as confirmed info.

Just Tony
20-11-2014, 13:17
I think expectation also gets tainted by unreasonable examples. Not every WFB release is gonna be Daemons from 7th. Not every 40K codex is gonna be Chaos 3.5 or whatever the next big oops was. If someone starts out with one of the amped codices, their expectations will always be on that level. Take all the people who started out with Chaos 3.5, they expect that level at all times and are disappointed if it doesn't hit that level. I started an Iron Warriors army before the Index Astartes had even come out. I was absolutely horrified when I saw what they were doing to the codex. My expectations from that moment on was that Chaos anything was going to be overpowered because BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD!!!!1!! It was refreshing to see they didn't maintain that sort of momentum, but disheartening to see them send it towards a different book instead.

totgeboren
20-11-2014, 15:06
But many expectations are not unreasonable at all. Considering the hate the 4ed CSM got, and the almost public apology by Gav Thorpe that the streamlining went too far, it wasn't unreasonable to expect to get more love/customization back than what we got. I mean, this was in light of many of the perceived 'op' thing from 3.5 being handed over to the SM codex instead. +2 S powerweapons, AV13 Dreads, veteran skills for example.
With the current codex many were hoping for fairly reasonable things, like Legion traits and being able to theme your army around a specific legion. This time we got almost nothing of what people wanted when it came to rules (well, model-wise people did want cultists and daemon engines in many threads/polls, so GW might actually have listen to the forums).

But I remember for example theDarkGeneral posting stuff like 'the codex will be split in five book!' and other such extravagant stuff which was pretty absurd, but many seemed to fall for it and thus got extremely disappointed. Fake rumours like that sure can ruin your w40k experience.
But legion rules for example isn't unreasonable, nor is ok internal balance, and multiple way of playing/deploying your army. In the CSM case SM got legion rules a few months after (despite them all following the Codex Astartes, so they should be much more homogeneous than chaos marine warbands), they also got good internal balance and they can be played in lots of different ways.

The same thing goes for the Nid book. There were so many things wrong with the previous codex that were easy to fix after what can only be seen as a few years of playtesting and feedback (the lifetime of the previous codex). People want to be able to play little critters, big critters or a mix. That's it. Since the army is fairly one-dimensional, the players instead really want good internal balance, to be able to vary their army that way instead. The codex they got fell so short of the target that is was almost comedic. Easy fixes like giving Tyranid Warriors a reasonable cost, and a reasonable cost for upgrades isn't being wanting the moon.

Expecting an ok product (like the SM codex is) can't by definition be 'too much expectation'. I mean, especially with their new approach of more or less doing a copy-paste of the old codex while adding a big kit, they have no excuse whatsoever for not fixing rules for older models that don't work as they should on the tabletop.

GoodCarl
20-11-2014, 16:19
The 3.5E codex still exists to be played with though. All you need is a willing opponent. Heck, I'd let you.

And yes, there is too much expectation from the players. People expect GW to have all the answers, to have all the truths like some omnipotent wargaming god. There is no 'Thou shalt not spam wave serpents'. How the players respond to the suggested rules is in the hands of the players. GW might inadvertantly provide a means of abuse but it is the choice of the player to use that advantage or not.

The 40k community needs higher expectations of each other.

druchii
20-11-2014, 16:31
One person's 'no good reason' is another person's 'very good reason'.

Truisms don't help all that much in discussions like this. Good for post counts, though.


Is it possible that they aren't in a downward spiral of coolness from those versions rather than an attempt to reel back the imbalance of those books?

It is a possibility, I'll admit that. Incredibly doubtful as it may be. Why take an underpowered codex and continue to core out more flavor and uniqueness? I don't think 'Nids have been overpowered since the carnifex spam days, which was, what, two codeci ago? I think we can all see that GW is finally seeing the light with the new releases for 'nids, which will bump their codex up a good bit, add a lot of variety to the book, and bring back some of the cool factor.

d

Vaktathi
20-11-2014, 22:14
The 3.5E codex still exists to be played with though. All you need is a willing opponent. Heck, I'd let you.

And yes, there is too much expectation from the players. People expect GW to have all the answers, to have all the truths like some omnipotent wargaming god. There is no 'Thou shalt not spam wave serpents'. How the players respond to the suggested rules is in the hands of the players. GW might inadvertantly provide a means of abuse but it is the choice of the player to use that advantage or not.

The 40k community needs higher expectations of each other.The problem here is that there's simply too much that should never have made it to print. There are quite often things that make it to books which are plain to everyone on a first read-through that are way too good or total crap. They're plainly obvious. Everyone notices them right away and they turn out to be big issues. And yet, they make it through to the final published product. The Wave Serpent is one of those things. It's also something that, by its very nature, *should* be expected to be taken in numbers, because its a dedicated transport for an army of relatively squishy infantry. That's not an issue that should be up to players to police.

Spiney Norman
20-11-2014, 22:37
I don't really have any expectation of GW any more, I hoped that when 7th edition was announced that they would use the opportunity to fix the myriad problems with 6th, but instead most of the biggest issues were exaggerated and made worse. Psychic powers became more powerful and harder to resist at the same time, army construction restrictions, instead of being made tighter, was completely abolished allowing maximum abuse of the game's many imbalances.

They might come out with a decent 8th edition, and if they do I might start buying again, until then I might play a few games with what I already have if I find someone as dissatisfied with the min-max culture of 7th edition as me, but I'm focussing on other stuff right now.

Herkamer63
21-11-2014, 14:32
The 3.5E codex still exists to be played with though. All you need is a willing opponent. Heck, I'd let you.

And yes, there is too much expectation from the players. People expect GW to have all the answers, to have all the truths like some omnipotent wargaming god. There is no 'Thou shalt not spam wave serpents'. How the players respond to the suggested rules is in the hands of the players. GW might inadvertantly provide a means of abuse but it is the choice of the player to use that advantage or not.

The 40k community needs higher expectations of each other.
I believe that's the source right there: the player. GW can only do so much, and yes I realize they won't please everyone. In the end, however, the experience still comes down to the community, no matter what GW puts out. I read the post on here about how too much freedom in the game is ruining it. That, I think, is a classic example of why many players set the bar too high. They wanted freedom to do what they want, now they can play what they want. They want balance, they now have balance. If they're not happy about it, fine. If they rather play Chaos 3.5, then play it. It ultimately comes down to the player, NOT GW.

I played 4th ed Tau for the longest time before the 6th ed codex came out. Tough to use, but I wanted to use them because I liked them and didn't complain about it. Then when the new codex came out, GW fixed a lot of the problems, IMO, that Tau had. When 7th ed hit, I and other Tau players were given the option to spam riptides. Tempting and pretty cool, but I'm not doing it because I don't want to. I want to play what I want to use. That and I saw some downsides to it, list and money wise.

GW heard us and gave us what we had wanted: more choices. Now it's up to us to decide what do with those choices and choices of others.

Charistoph
21-11-2014, 15:48
I think expectation also gets tainted by unreasonable examples. Not every WFB release is gonna be Daemons from 7th. Not every 40K codex is gonna be Chaos 3.5 or whatever the next big oops was. If someone starts out with one of the amped codices, their expectations will always be on that level. Take all the people who started out with Chaos 3.5, they expect that level at all times and are disappointed if it doesn't hit that level. I started an Iron Warriors army before the Index Astartes had even come out. I was absolutely horrified when I saw what they were doing to the codex. My expectations from that moment on was that Chaos anything was going to be overpowered because BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD!!!!1!! It was refreshing to see they didn't maintain that sort of momentum, but disheartening to see them send it towards a different book instead.

Yes, true on this. However, there should have been an expectation to do the same things with the other armies as well. And it doesn't help that the big bads of the galaxy are looking like lions at a distance (fluff) but just tawny house cats when they come close (codex rules).

Or as another way it could be said, Chaos 3.5 could stay broken, so long as everyone else was equally broken. Then they broke it.

The (salt mine) rumor of Necron Dynasties shows promise, and a good direction for the company to take codices in the future, and restore the options of Chaos 3.5.

Inquisitor Kallus
21-11-2014, 15:48
I believe that's the source right there: the player. GW can only do so much, and yes I realize they won't please everyone. In the end, however, the experience still comes down to the community, no matter what GW puts out. I read the post on here about how too much freedom in the game is ruining it. That, I think, is a classic example of why many players set the bar too high. They wanted freedom to do what they want, now they can play what they want. They want balance, they now have balance. If they're not happy about it, fine. If they rather play Chaos 3.5, then play it. It ultimately comes down to the player, NOT GW.

I played 4th ed Tau for the longest time before the 6th ed codex came out. Tough to use, but I wanted to use them because I liked them and didn't complain about it. Then when the new codex came out, GW fixed a lot of the problems, IMO, that Tau had. When 7th ed hit, I and other Tau players were given the option to spam riptides. Tempting and pretty cool, but I'm not doing it because I don't want to. I want to play what I want to use. That and I saw some downsides to it, list and money wise.

GW heard us and gave us what we had wanted: more choices. Now it's up to us to decide what do with those choices and choices of others.

THIS! words for the word god

Just Tony
21-11-2014, 16:59
Yes, true on this. However, there should have been an expectation to do the same things with the other armies as well. And it doesn't help that the big bads of the galaxy are looking like lions at a distance (fluff) but just tawny house cats when they come close (codex rules).

Or as another way it could be said, Chaos 3.5 could stay broken, so long as everyone else was equally broken. Then they broke it.


The (salt mine) rumor of Necron Dynasties shows promise, and a good direction for the company to take codices in the future, and restore the options of Chaos 3.5.

Yeah, that's the EXACT OPPOSITE of what I think should have been done. If a book comes out that breaks the system, replace that one book, not the entire system. Honestly, replacing about four of the codices in 3rd and adopting the trial assault rules and trial vehicle rules (support weapons and the like) would have steered the game in the right direction. Instead they changed the game to accommodate a select few books, and dialed some OVER what the others were OP to, and the arms race has run ever since.

Chem-Dog
22-11-2014, 17:23
While I do believe that unrealistic expectations are part of the problem I also think that GW's inability to recognise and satisfy fairly reasonable expectations is a more salient point.
With specific reference to that poor, oft beaten, dead nag - The Chaos Space Marines.
We're looking at a bunch of additions nobody wanted or needed, a raft of option that were liked got dropped or remained absent (any satisfactory way to round out a cult list) and a whole catalogue of potential cool additions were incredibly absent.

Were CSM players crying out for Warp Talons, or Mutilators? Were they satisfied with sub-par Chosen? Was a mechanical jet-fighter/magical dragon the most demanded addition to the range?

I'm not looking at C:CSM 3.5 with rosy tinted magnoculars either, the thing was an ungainly behemoth that allowed you to have your cake, eat it and then eat everyone else's cake too (Mmmm, tastes like misery. And souls). But every chaos bland-dex since has been an unequivocal failure at balancing the meta game with expectations of those subscribed to the factions within.

CSM should be SM+1 in every respect, ancient wargear should be better than "modern" stuff even before it is warp tainted. The Warriors (at least the elite) should be intrinsically better above and beyond an innate ability to carry a sword, pistol and rifle - even if they are less inclined to hang about when things go pear-shaped.
But instead we get hobbled sub-Astartes who are incapable of being anything but a band of disparate reavers in a game that lets you represent the peculiarities of individual companies of loyalists.

But it's not just CSM, the current IG book is a let down, it manages to remove what soul its predecessor had and replace it with a bunch of options that are questionable at best (Taurox and Bullgryn spring immediately to mind) whilst failing to give even a sliver of recognition to even predominantly inconsequential requests from invested players - officers/sarges with lasgun option, sarge/vox options for HWS' and all those other niggly issues that would be well received without any significant effort on the Writers' part.

This might qualify as a rant, but it's galling to have some pretty small fixes glossed over time and time again without so much as an explanation why, especially when so much is in flux purely to suit the possible expansion of a concept in the future.

Charistoph
22-11-2014, 17:42
Yeah, that's the EXACT OPPOSITE of what I think should have been done. If a book comes out that breaks the system, replace that one book, not the entire system. Honestly, replacing about four of the codices in 3rd and adopting the trial assault rules and trial vehicle rules (support weapons and the like) would have steered the game in the right direction. Instead they changed the game to accommodate a select few books, and dialed some OVER what the others were OP to, and the arms race has run ever since.

The real issue is inconsistency. If everyone is overpowered, then is anyone really?

What we have had, and continue to have is a roller coaster of power levels in codices. Both from codex to codex and army to army.

The problem with Chaos 3.5 wasn't the amount of options that it had, it is what a couple of those options DID while others (both options and codices) could not.

But instead of creating similar level of options for all codices, only a couple had them. That was the biggest problem with the imbalance. Few, if any, even could pretend to have the option of a counter-build, they had just the base list of options in the codex.

Just Tony
22-11-2014, 17:57
The real issue is inconsistency. If everyone is overpowered, then is anyone really?

What we have had, and continue to have is a roller coaster of power levels in codices. Both from codex to codex and army to army.

The problem with Chaos 3.5 wasn't the amount of options that it had, it is what a couple of those options DID while others (both options and codices) could not.

But instead of creating similar level of options for all codices, only a couple had them. That was the biggest problem with the imbalance. Few, if any, even could pretend to have the option of a counter-build, they had just the base list of options in the codex.

I will agree on the inconsistency part, but I will state that I personally think that you dial something OP back rather than crank up the volume on everything else. Invariably someone will get overcranked and it escalates from there. Besides, isn't it easier to pull one or two books back into the baseline rather than redoing 9-12 books?

Ssilmath
22-11-2014, 18:05
I will agree on the inconsistency part, but I will state that I personally think that you dial something OP back rather than crank up the volume on everything else. Invariably someone will get overcranked and it escalates from there. Besides, isn't it easier to pull one or two books back into the baseline rather than redoing 9-12 books?

Yes, it is. If everybody is overpowered, then the problem only gets worse until the game is more or less decided by who goes first. It's a better balanced game when both sides constantly have 25% of their forces on the table at the end of the game rather than both sides having >5% of their forces left, even if the end result is still more or less even between both sides. Far better to pull back on the stuff that is stupid stick.

Inquisitor Shego
22-11-2014, 18:37
I'm not going to talk about the CSM codex because quite frankly, it's all we ever seem to talk about with such frequency. It's like going to church and talking about catholocism. For once I'd just like them to shake it up and talk about Hinduism for a day, and throw everyone off in a swerve before next week going back to the teachings of the vatican.

On the idea of Expectation I'll talk about the last thing I bought for myself, and likely the last thing for a while, the Dark Eldar codex. I had no expectations with this book, and frankly didn't want it because I was happy with the 5th Ed one. When I read the book a few things caught my eye or affected me. I don't play Coven so...

Wyches needlessly nerfed to uselessness
Lack of AP2 Melee on the Archon is woeful
Reavers have to assault to use their Bladevanes and Clusters/Grav Talons
There's a mysterious knocking in Commorragh that we'll never fully explain or implement but you guys have got it here on your lap to get you talking and distracted
Ravagers can only move 12 and fire 2 Lances at full BS, and Dark Lances have gone up in price across the board
Formation exists to sell one of everything again
Hellions aren't worth jack because Sathonyx is gone

Bikes and Scourges got cheaper
Beastmasters got more flexible, but my razorflocks were nerfed to hell
Webway Portal is amazing
Mandrakes buffed
Trueborn cheaper
Razorwing fighters now in FA

Like dancing the time warp, it was a step to the left and a jump to the right. I didn't feel particularly wowed and the nerfs irritated more than enraged me. The Fluff was endless pages of self serving bravado about how the Kabal of Vect's Gonads dropped from nowhere to beat up Ponyville and overcome the power of Friendship, before returning home to go "yeeah we're amazing" akin to self insert fanfiction found on geoscape pages. By its conclusion I was left thinking.... "I paid 30 quid for this?"

Now the obvious question I asked myself is, "what did you expect?" and after thinking long and hard, I didn't expect much. I don't care. Dark Eldar are my favourite army, and when the releases came and went, I felt nought but apathy. I have never had a release before that left me feeling so empty. I don't hate this book. I only hate that I feel nothing for it. Then I realised I'm 31 years old, almost 32. Maybe I'm the one who has changed.

Scribe of Khorne
22-11-2014, 19:23
As we are the same age (I think, I'd have to ask my wife how old I am) I dont think its you. I've been stunned at the lack of 'WOW' coming out of 40K for so long, I literally had no clue things like Planetstrike or Sanctus had even come out! Its not so much the product, as it is the presentation, the production value, and GW's seeming inability to make us feel for 40K right now.

Just compare the 2 books, and the feel is just off, its too sterile. Its just not 40K-esque.

I wait with trepidation for the BA update as I'm in the same boat as you I believe. I started, in the late 90's with Chaos and Blood Angels. The 3.5 Chaos book was the high point (with the Eye of Terror) for me, but I've still got my 3rd Angels book staring over at me, and I'm gluing Death Company right now.

I'm not looking forward to the next update, more so dreading how bad they can make it, and thats not a fun place to be.

Spiney Norman
22-11-2014, 19:33
As we are the same age (I think, I'd have to ask my wife how old I am) I dont think its you. I've been stunned at the lack of 'WOW' coming out of 40K for so long, I literally had no clue things like Planetstrike or Sanctus had even come out! Its not so much the product, as it is the presentation, the production value, and GW's seeming inability to make us feel for 40K right now.

Just compare the 2 books, and the feel is just off, its too sterile. Its just not 40K-esque.

I wait with trepidation for the BA update as I'm in the same boat as you I believe. I started, in the late 90's with Chaos and Blood Angels. The 3.5 Chaos book was the high point (with the Eye of Terror) for me, but I've still got my 3rd Angels book staring over at me, and I'm gluing Death Company right now.

I'm not looking forward to the next update, more so dreading how bad they can make it, and thats not a fun place to be.

To be fair it has generally been a pattern of 40k that each edition starts slowly with a succession of 'meh' codexes, with 6th it was Chaos marines and dark Angels that felt like the creative juices had gone on holiday, later on when the edition has hit its stride you get the power creepers like Eldar and tau. This seems to be how 7th is going too, it remains to be seen whether we have already had enough codexes to get over the 'meh' hump and into the golden fields of power gaming.

It's kind of sad that the designers usually combine the 'WOW' models with overpowered rules, but that most definitely was the case last edition with the wraithknight, riptide and imperial knight all getting the celebrity rules treatment.

Ssilmath
22-11-2014, 19:34
As we are the same age (I think, I'd have to ask my wife how old I am) I dont think its you. I've been stunned at the lack of 'WOW' coming out of 40K for so long, I literally had no clue things like Planetstrike or Sanctus had even come out! Its not so much the product, as it is the presentation, the production value, and GW's seeming inability to make us feel for 40K right now.

And I'm the same age and have the exact opposite feeling as you. Maybe it's just the attitude each of us is holding that is coloring our perceptions?

Scribe of Khorne
22-11-2014, 19:43
You can honestly put the 5th DE codex beside 7th DE codex and feel 7th is a better, more evocative work?

druchii
22-11-2014, 19:46
And I'm the same age and have the exact opposite feeling as you. Maybe it's just the attitude each of us is holding that is coloring our perceptions?

I'm with you. I keep going "damn, wow, all this new stuff is so cool!". In mind 40k has been getting cooler as time goes on. Wraithknights? Cool. Imperial Knights? Totally cool. New tyranid monster? Pretty cool. Shield of Baal? Incredibly cool. I could fill up an entire paragraph of stuff that I think is cool in 40k, and every time I open up a new book I find myself literally saying wow at least twice. Twice.

d

Ssilmath
22-11-2014, 19:47
You can honestly put the 5th DE codex beside 7th DE codex and feel 7th is a better, more evocative work?

Don't have them both at hand, but tentatively yes. When it comes to rules, that goes to a yes. When it comes to background, I find that as I go back in time the fluff gets more sophomoric and ridiculous. But that's just me.

Scribe of Khorne
22-11-2014, 19:49
I'll save you the effort, the 7th edition fluff is 6th, just with the word count lowered. ;)

I have no issue with the codex rules frankly, its not rules from GW that pushes me to buy things though (beyond having the unit well balanced and usable), its the fluff, and presentation, and artwork.

If I wanted to look at pictures of models, I'd go to their webstore.

Spiney Norman
22-11-2014, 19:52
You can honestly put the 5th DE codex beside 7th DE codex and feel 7th is a better, more evocative work?

I think it depends what you mean by 'better', balance-wise the 5th edition wins hands down, almost every balance correction they made in the 7th edition book went in the wrong direction, with the possible exception of mandrakes. Wyches were bad and got worse, Hellions were bad and got much worse, Reavers were good and got better, Grotesques were really good and got better, Incubi were good and got cheaper.

In terms of the fluff I still think the 5th edition book has the edge, that story about Urien Rakarth's 'cultural exchange' with the tau was sheer genius. But in fairness I think that is the difference between a complete reboot and a half-hearted rehash, 5th was bursting with creativity because they literally we're re-writing the army concept from the ground up.

In terms of the functionality of the rules themselves I think is the only place where 7th edition made gains. IMO the new power from pain rule makes much more sense that as the general level of anguish and horror rises as the battle progresses the entire army benefits from it, rather than rushing key units over to rip the face off a vulnerable enemy unit to give it a quick boost. It always seemed odd that a DE unit could be standing next to an enemy character who was being tortured to death by my Archon and completely ignore the delicious pain being unleashed next to them. The new rule makes the pain harvest a much more communal experience for my dark Eldar, which IMO it always should have been.

Scribe of Khorne
22-11-2014, 19:55
Thats the thing though. I feel its the same for Wolves as well. 7th isnt creating, its a reprint with adjustments. Santa and his Skimmer Sleigh arent working for me either, but Wolves seem to get the 'wtf' units. :p

Spiney Norman
22-11-2014, 20:03
Thats the thing though. I feel its the same for Wolves as well. 7th isnt creating, its a reprint with adjustments. Santa and his Skimmer Sleigh arent working for me either, but Wolves seem to get the 'wtf' units. :p

It's a shame really, Id go so far as to say that dark Eldar were the best balanced codex in the game during the entire tenure of their 5th edition book, they stayed solidly competitive and with one exception in the mandrakes, almost everything in their Book was usable and nothing was a superstar. Now the new book has basically polarised into the never-takes on one side (wyches, hellions, void raven) and the superstars on the other (grotesques, Razorwing, Reavers, Incubi) with everything else sort of milling around aimlessly in the middle.

Ssilmath
22-11-2014, 20:23
Yup, that went about where I expected it to. A whole bunch of subjectiveness put forward as fact and used as ammunition for soapboxing. Oh well.

Scribe of Khorne
22-11-2014, 20:25
Have no fear, Spiney was able to explain my feeling. 5th was a creative effort, 7th was a re-balance effort, it should be a given that 5th would be more inspiring. I'm at peace with that.

Inquisitor Shego
22-11-2014, 20:26
Whether one is slightly better or slightly worse, I can't decide. I can decide it wasn't worth the wait or forking out another £30. Just my perspective mind you. It's not a blanket law for all

Scribe of Khorne
22-11-2014, 20:30
Whether one is slightly better or slightly worse, I can't decide. I can decide it wasn't worth the wait or forking out another £30. Just my perspective mind you. It's not a blanket law for all

You need to work on your sweeping generalizations friend. ;)

Charistoph
22-11-2014, 20:52
I will agree on the inconsistency part, but I will state that I personally think that you dial something OP back rather than crank up the volume on everything else. Invariably someone will get overcranked and it escalates from there. Besides, isn't it easier to pull one or two books back into the baseline rather than redoing 9-12 books?

The interesting thing about the Chaos 3.5 codex is that it was fully within the scope of the game to pull back Iron Warriors a little, and keep the options in play. Also, it was well within scope to introduce similar factors to allow them to be up to speed.

They choose not to, though.

ismeno
23-11-2014, 05:54
This is what 40K should be like;
I open a Codex. I choose an army to a set point value, using the models I think are the coolest. My opponent does the same thing.
We play a game of 40K and it is balanced. Skill and/or luck of the dice decides who is the winner.
End of discussion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Spiney Norman
23-11-2014, 06:49
This is what 40K should be like;
I open a Codex. I choose an army to a set point value, using the models I think are the coolest. My opponent does the same thing.
We play a game of 40K and it is balanced. Skill and/or luck of the dice decides who is the winner.
End of discussion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

In fairness, 40k has never, ever been like that, but it is now farther from that ideal than any time in the last four editions of the game. 7th is all about combining broken elements from as many codexes as you can with crazy results.

Scribe of Khorne
23-11-2014, 06:54
This is what 40K should be like;
I open a Codex. I choose an army to a set point value, using the models I think are the coolest. My opponent does the same thing.
We play a game of 40K and it is balanced. Skill and/or luck of the dice decides who is the winner.
End of discussion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah, this is beyond even my expectations, lofty as they seemingly are.

ismeno
23-11-2014, 07:07
Well, there are other games out there, far closer to this gamer's Nirvana than 40K. If other companies can do it, so can GW......


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ironbone
23-11-2014, 15:40
One problem with expectations is it's hard to cross the line between "resonable" and "unresonable" ones. For example from my point of view, it's perfeclty resonable to expect Company founded and runned by, well adoult and educated men acting at least decently fair to the consumer, testing and constantly improving offerd product and not asking extrawagantly high price for it. From company blindsided by money rush, with "MOAR!" mentality, very same thing may sound very unresonable.


The Fluff was endless pages of self serving bravado about how the Kabal of Vect's Gonads dropped from nowhere to beat up Ponyville and overcome the power of Friendship, before returning home to go "yeeah we're amazing"
This, Sir, was amazing :), i lol'd har of that. And actually, I remeber at least one MLP fanfic involving DE raid into equestria :p.

Spiney Norman
23-11-2014, 17:33
Well, there are other games out there, far closer to this gamer's Nirvana than 40K. If other companies can do it, so can GW......


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm not sure that is true really, I've tried a few other games like kings of war, hail caesar and warmachine. I didn't really enjoy the game play of the first two, and none of those three have supporting models anywhere near the quality of the GW ranges (about the only thing that GW does do consistently well). I have more recently invested in Star Trek Attack Wing (Star trek version of x wing) and while I do enjoy the game it does have balance issues almost as gaping as 40k, they're just less of a problem because the game is orders of magnitude less complex than 40k.

I think probably the best tabletop game that I have found for models, game balance and setting is, ironically enough, GWs own LotR SBG.

HelloKitty
23-11-2014, 17:48
Lotr is indeed a solid system

Spiney Norman
23-11-2014, 17:57
Lotr is indeed a solid system

It's a pity that they're gearing up to drop it like a hot rock.

Though on the other hand it does mean it won't recieve a *desperately pushing model sales* ovehaul of the rules like 40k 7th

Commissar Davis
23-11-2014, 18:15
GW have always been a bit hit and miss, you know what they say about good intentions.

Spiney Norman
23-11-2014, 18:17
GW have always been a bit hit and miss, you know what they say about good intentions.

Hmm what do they say about good intentions? Presumably that they are completely unknown at GW HQ.

Commissar Davis
23-11-2014, 18:41
Hmm what do they say about good intentions? Presumably that they are completely unknown at GW HQ.

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions" GW keep trying to deliver (this is quite evident in some of the codices and background) but can't keep everyone happy, and shoots wide of the goal.

What would be good is if GW could managed to keep the rudder of its game design set for at least one edition. I keep hoping, but don't expect this to happen.

Vaktathi
23-11-2014, 18:54
Part of the problem is that their execution is consistently terrible. They started coming out with codex books at a reasonable pace. Great. They doubled their cost, not so great. Then they started expanding the scope of the game and their sales/rules channels. In some ways, that's great, but GW's basically gone over to throwing everything and the kitchen sink out there as fast as possible with very little (if any) playtesting, along with vastly increased costs in trying to stay up with the rules as most of it is treated like videogame DLC instead of simply uploaded as a PDF to their website (a couple of the new Tyranid models being the big exceptions) like every other gaming company does. They still somehow also have not yet seemed to want to release Chaos Legion sub-books which would basically be licenses to print money, but they'll make sub-books for sub-books (e.g. Champions of Fenris).

So we get vastly increased cost in along with an increasingly disorganized game paradigm, still lacking a lot of what people were looking for and instead getting a lot of stuff people never really asked for in the first place. :p

AngryAngel
23-11-2014, 20:11
Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment.

Edit: As always , I think there a lot of good points for peoples dislike of the GW design. The company is still a dinosaur that desperately needs to evolve to an actual, good company one day.

Spiney Norman
23-11-2014, 22:20
They still somehow also have not yet seemed to want to release Chaos Legion sub-books which would basically be licenses to print money, but they'll make sub-books for sub-books (e.g. Champions of Fenris).

So we get vastly increased cost in along with an increasingly disorganized game paradigm, still lacking a lot of what people were looking for and instead getting a lot of stuff people never really asked for in the first place. :p

Not that I want to interrupt your chaos-fueled rant, but CSM is the only 40k codex other than space marines that has two supplements to its name, I'd say they're doing pretty well, besides GW main and forgeworld have always been pretty careful to avoid treading on each other's toes, I would guess they might consider rules for chaos Legions impinging on Horus Heresy territory, especially since only a couple of the chaos Legions still function as cohesive legions rather than disparate warbands in the 41st millennium.

Vaktathi
23-11-2014, 23:22
Not that I want to interrupt your chaos-fueled rant, but CSM is the only 40k codex other than space marines that has two supplements to its name, I'd say they're doing pretty well, besides GW main and forgeworld have always been pretty careful to avoid treading on each other's toes, I would guess they might consider rules for chaos Legions impinging on Horus Heresy territory, especially since only a couple of the chaos Legions still function as cohesive legions rather than disparate warbands in the 41st millennium.Where was I ranting, and where was my point primarily about Chaos in general?

Besides that, neither book was really something most anyone was after, nor do they really add all that much. The Black Legion supplement was largely viewed as something of a duplication of effort, given that the Black Legion served as the core basis for 3.5 CSM book, the 4E CSM book and the 6E CSM book, while the Crimson Slaughter book seemed to generate largely zero interest or lasting use.

It's possible they may not be wanting to tread into that for fear of stepping on FW's toes, but that would very definitely be a first, and with books for things like the 3rd Company of the Imperial Fists, an individual Clan codex for Iron Hands, and a "Heroes" codex for SW's, an army already built around "Heroes", the choice of subjects for sub-books is often very mystifying.

Ironbone
24-11-2014, 00:56
while the Crimson Slaughter book seemed to generate largely zero interest or lasting use.
I woudn't be so sure about that. CS offered something that no other GW book make in years - actually add something at least bit new to fluff, and expand still mosty underdeveloped area of renegade chapters. Rulewise, I see CS detachments pop up from time to time in army lists. Mostly cherrypickings (Drazzanit chosen, Divination Sorc ), but is that diffrent from other armies :p ?

HelloKitty
24-11-2014, 00:58
We have a couple of players that use crimson slaughter so I wouldn't say that there is zero interest.

Voss
24-11-2014, 01:00
Have no fear, Spiney was able to explain my feeling. 5th was a creative effort, 7th was a re-balance effort, it should be a given that 5th would be more inspiring. I'm at peace with that.
Eh? 3.75 was just another tweak of 3rd, same as 3.5 edition (published under the name 4th). I'm not clear what the 6th edition errata was intended to 'rebalance,' except for the push for me cheese.

Creative efforts have been off the table since 3rd.

Grndhog89
24-11-2014, 01:47
Since the holy of holies was mentioned in this thread I had to come in, and lo...



Answer: No. Ref. Chapter Tactics, Space Marines, 6th Edition.

Little late to the party but it is my sacred duty to combat you and your CSM whining ilk wherever I find you. The legions can be perfectly well represented as is in the current book. Sure, it doesn't fit this rigid, negative freedom style you wanted. Nonetheless it does allow you the positive freedoms to mold your legion of choice as you see fit and even maybe make them the head/elite of newer turncoat marines.

Vaktathi
24-11-2014, 02:13
Note that I didn't say that literally nobody picked up the CS book, you can find examples of any army in the army list section, but, given the reference to the army list section, a search tbere turns up a grand total of 9 submissions for the Crimson Slaughter, most of which are doing, as noted, cherry picking one or two of its options.

Either way, not quite exactly my original point.



Little late to the party but it is my sacred duty to combat you and your CSM whining ilk wherever I find you. The legions can be perfectly well represented as is in the current book. Sure, it doesn't fit this rigid, negative freedom style you wanted. Nonetheless it does allow you the positive freedoms to mold your legion of choice as you see fit and even maybe make them the head/elite of newer turncoat marines.And yet GW has shown they are both capable and willing to do better with the loyalist marine book.

Inquisitor Shego
24-11-2014, 02:45
Oh feth, they're onto us. This was a Chaos Whining Thread in disguise all along. Someone must have snitched!

*kicks over a table for cover and whips out a heavy bolter before spraying fire at Grndhog* GET SOME!

Seriously on the idea of supplements, I don't view this as a good thing. Black Legion and Crimson Slaughter were 2 x £30 taxes to try and make the CSM more fiesable. The fact we got two made me cynically wonder if GW realised how off the mark they were. The first one fixed next to nothing, but had the odd tasty artifact inside. The second one had some great artifacts, but was predominantly "Pleeeease buy our possessed! How will we feed our little ones come Christmas."

One thing I will add though, was CS and BL had some amazing fluff in them, and were great to read. Worth £30? Not in my mind. Did they keep the Titanic afloat with their duct tape solutions? Hardly.

Kakapo42
24-11-2014, 03:23
Little late to the party but it is my sacred duty to combat you and your CSM whining ilk wherever I find you.


Oh feth, they're onto us. This was a Chaos Whining Thread in disguise all along. Someone must have snitched!

*kicks over a table for cover and whips out a heavy bolter before spraying fire at Grndhog* GET SOME!

Man forget the Horus Heresy, what Forgeworld needs to make is a 40k expansion series on the Chaos Space Marine codex debate instead. :p

Scribe of Khorne
24-11-2014, 03:25
Little late to the party but it is my sacred duty to combat you and your CSM whining ilk wherever I find you. The legions can be perfectly well represented as is in the current book. Sure, it doesn't fit this rigid, negative freedom style you wanted. Nonetheless it does allow you the positive freedoms to mold your legion of choice as you see fit and even maybe make them the head/elite of newer turncoat marines.

Because there is a bigger difference between the 3rd Company of the Imperial Fist and the 2nd, than there is between Night Lords and Word Bearers.

Yep, makes perfect sense.

Putty
24-11-2014, 03:48
I have been wondering about why there are so many doomsayers out for awhile now, and I, along with other people in our community I think, had come up with a possible reason other than trolling on here: is there too much expectation? For example: When Chaos Space Marines came out 2 years ago as the 1st army for 6th ed, I happen to remember the hype and hope people had for this army (before it came out). When it finally came and people actually starting using it, there was quite a bit of disappointment. Now, to those who are continuing to play CSM and finding a lot of success with them may or may not feel the same way, I think people (at least some) were looking for a super charged codex like 3.5. Instead, the results seemed to be more balanced, and to some people felt pretty flat army. I'm not saying that's how I feel and other members I'm sure feel the same way I do, but for those who were hoping to 3.5 rear it's head again, it just never happened.

I don't need to explain Tyranids much since everyone is up to speed on that, but I remember the expectations had for this army when they were released. The units that came out recently definitely gave them a big boost, but prior to that the community was hoping to some changes. Some reasonable, others not so much. Someone in my group was hoping to spam Toughness 7 and 8 MCs everywhere before they came out (to this day he still does). With it getting an update, however, that never came to be. Some of us were hoping for an option to run a genestealer cult army at (least in a supplement), but did not happen. There were so many possibilities that GW have could done, but decided not to. So at this point we just have to make with what we have, which is not a bad thing with these new releases.

Finally, as a last example, the current core codices and their supplements. Before supplements, some armies you could really come up with some interesting setups inside the codex i.e. changing FOC on some units. The introduction of the codex supplement was a bonus because it opened up even more ways to complete the army you wanted (the Farsight Enclaves is still, IMO, the best supplement out there). Today, however, with the new edition, now we have a basic codex and the only way to change the FOC or statlines with the new codices is to use the supplements. The supplements themselves, which I do like, however, are primarily fluff and little in terms of rules. You can still forge a neat army from one of them because of some of the unique rules set up inside them, but it does not let anyone wander too far off from the core codex. Price of a codex and it's supplement is also a bit of an issue, but that's a debate for another time.

Bottom line is from what I have seen and observed, I think it's some of the expectations that we establish for ourselves that let's us down and why we get angry. I understand some of those expectations are reasonable, like rules and such, but others are too far off. At times within our community we expect too much rather than see and accept the reality that we have. I'm considering Blood Angels later on as my next army. I'm hoping that Gabriel Seth's rules change so he's better and I can start a Flesh Tearers army. I hope there will be a FT supplement so it feels more like that army. If this happens and he is better than what he is now, I expect the points to go up. If he stays the same pt wise, I can see some changes to his rules and wargear. I wan to try to base it off of what 7th ed has brought us so far, but I don't know if expectations are too high or not. So I don't want to ruin the experience for myself, and I think that's what it ultimately comes down to: the player.

I think in order for us to enjoy the game, we need to stop putting the expectations so high that enjoyment will never get there. That's the reason why we're playing this game because it's fun and it's a nice escape from what we do in our everyday lives. Anyway, that's my take on it. Anyone else think we have too much expectation or is it something else?Have at it.

I do not think the general expectation for GW 40k in the past few years (especially with regards to CSM) have been too high if at all.

Majority of CSM players want Legions. They want to build Legion specific armies WITH the rules in the basic codex. Not Forgeworld. Main 40k.

The codex hit and MOST CSM players were disappointed. The most important things to them were not inside. They were however fed with a flying duck, a bunch of meh walkers/MCs and infantry that were pretty much the same from the previous book abid with slightly shuffled stats. Supplements were bland to say the least.

I know SOME people will go "Wow! Crimson Slaughter! Wow! Dinobots!"

Well, you are probably GW fanboys and to you, they will do no wrong (you probably lapped up Finecast thinking its the best thing since sliced bread).

Pro tip guys (you probably won't give a dog's ******** to what I said or am going to say anyways but I'll still say it anyways):

Take the GW hobby and leave THE GAME behind.

Painting and building miniatures is immense fun. The game... from a game design perspective is terrible. THE GAME is used to SELL MODELS.

GW isn't selling you a game per say, they are just using the game as a platform to sell their models. Once you take THE GAME hook line and sinker, you WILL fall into the rabbit hole of the endless hamster wheel of arms race.

GW models are good (only good. not fantastic)... the sprue designs have countless epic fails that many times ruin the good work the art and sculpting department do.

HelloKitty
24-11-2014, 04:25
I would like to point out there is no way to accurately know what the majority of chaos players want.

Charistoph
24-11-2014, 04:29
The legions can be perfectly well represented as is in the current book. Sure, it doesn't fit this rigid, negative freedom style you wanted. Nonetheless it does allow you the positive freedoms to mold your legion of choice as you see fit and even maybe make them the head/elite of newer turncoat marines.

Ummm, not without some serious House-Ruling, it doesn't. Sure, you can pull off Black Legion, that's the baseline for Chaos Marines. Word Bearers can also be done pretty well, but again, they are rather a baseline for the Chaos Marines.

You might be able to pull off a look-a-like for Iron Warriors, Alpha Legion, or Night Lords, but the flavor just isn't quite right, it would be like using Ultramarines to portray Black Templars or Dark Angels. The models are there, but something else is missing.

Then we get to the Big Cult Four: Death Guard, World Eaters, Emperor's Children, and Thousand Sons. For them, there are just the Troops. That's it. No Teeth of Khorne or Rubric Terminators. Sonic Hellbrutes? What are you? Crazy? Plague Bikers? What are those?

No, the current codex does not allow one to "perfectly represent the legions". It focuses on one, gives a handshake to another, nods at a few more, and then barely acknowledges when the Cults come to the party.

Forgeworld could probably do it, but they seem to have a love affair with Nurgle and Khorne.

Inquisitor Shego
24-11-2014, 04:46
I would like to point out there is no way to accurately know what the majority of chaos players want.

Asking the player base + Market Research + Looking at sales trends on the current release would be a good start

Scribe of Khorne
24-11-2014, 05:16
I would like to point out there is no way to accurately know what the majority of chaos players want.

Frankly, you are probably right. After the great debate going on in the 'too much freedom' thread, I took it to my group and tried to set some seemingly basic guidelines and restrictions.

Within the 3rd post it was 'well I want to bring a Titan, its part of 7th and I dont care if its at 1500 points'.
Within the 10th post it was 'well I want to source my army from 6 different detachments, its part of 7th, and is the only way MY army can work.'

I also had some talking about how Unbound was the best thing ever, 2 players decrying the state of the game and the death of 'real' armies, 1 saying 30K was all that real 40K players should be playing now, and a few asking why it was bad to set a limit (25%) on Super Heavies.

I've had some Chaos players actually argue FOR watered down Warbands, with no regard for the rich history of the Traitor Legions. :o

I too, was dismayed.

I cannot imagine actually trying to wring a consensus out of this mewling pack of degenerates we refer to collectively as gamers. ;)

ColShaw
24-11-2014, 13:10
I would like to point out there is no way to accurately know what the majority of chaos players want.

That's an easy one: Death to the false Emperor. ;)

HelloKitty
24-11-2014, 13:14
I cannot imagine actually trying to wring a consensus out of this mewling pack of degenerates we refer to collectively as gamers.

Point -set - match.

Grndhog89
24-11-2014, 17:57
And yet GW has shown they are both capable and willing to do better with the loyalist marine book.


Oh feth, they're onto us. This was a Chaos Whining Thread in disguise all along. Someone must have snitched!

*kicks over a table for cover and whips out a heavy bolter before spraying fire at Grndhog* GET SOME!

One thing I will add though, was CS and BL had some amazing fluff in them, and were great to read. Worth £30? Not in my mind. Did they keep the Titanic afloat with their duct tape solutions? Hardly.

So, I am convinced there is a fundamental disconnect between the CSM player base's idea of Chaos Marines and GW's vision of Chaos and the Chaos Marines who follow it. The book is a reflection of that notion of CSM touted by GW. They view Chaos Space Marines as flexible individuals who readily change allegiance when it behooves them. They [Chaos Marines] no longer adhere to this rigid idea of being a monolithic fighting force characterized by siege tactics or what have you. There may be one Night Lord who is your stereotypical heresy-era, jump-pack flying, terror inducing glutton whereas another Night Lord has drifted towards the worship of Khorne for example and become no more than a berserker. The thrust here is that GW envisions Chaos Marines as disparate individuals not as a unified fighting force. This is why pointing and saying "well they did it with 6th edition Space Marines" means nothing to me. Consider this; SM are a great foil to CSM. SM are rigid, monolithic, and unified under a greater identity than themselves. CSM are the total opposite and I actually applaud the stressing of the individualistic and opportunistic behavior of the Chaos Marines.

As for the supplements pricing I agree that GW pricing is out of hand but this is not a pricing thread. The supplements were also totally made to push unwanted product. Of that I have no doubt. However, I think GW went the wrong direction releasing a BL and CS supplement. They should've never done that because now its spawned people saying "I want my Alpha Legion supplement!" What they should've done was release fresh and new supplements like the oft rumored "Book of Tzeentch" where its a supplement that talks about Tzeentch and his followers. Gives expanded options for C:CSM and Daemons to interact. Aside from the obvious 4 gods supplements they should've also put out like a "Mortal Followers of Chaos" supplement. This shows that instead of pumping out supplements focused even more on marines they are being increasingly inclusive of everything that comprises Chaos and remaining consistent with the paradigm of Chaos that they're pushing in the CSM codex.

Yeah sure, certain mechanics of the CSM book need to be fixed like Champion of Chaos. Make it optional so NL players don't have to have their cowardly champion jump out and fight. But leave it in for legions like World Eaters who most definitely would challenge. While there are mechanical issues that I will concede on/agree on, I think the larger idea that GW is trying to articulate (however poorly) they might be doing it is a good one.

Scribe of Khorne
24-11-2014, 18:38
If you think a Legion Tactics rule, with an option for 'Warband of Make up your Own' would be too much, then clearly we just cannot coexist.

Spiney Norman
24-11-2014, 18:43
If you think a Legion Tactics rule, with an option for 'Warband of Make up your Own' would be too much, then clearly we just cannot coexist.

Other than word bearers and possibly Alpha Legion it was my understanding that most of the other legions had broken apart into warbands by the 41st millennium (which is what the current CSM codex is designed to represent). IMO anything representing a unified legion of emperors children/Deathguard/world eaters is way out of its time and probable stepping on Forgeworlds toes.

Charistoph
24-11-2014, 18:50
If you think a Legion Tactics rule, with an option for 'Warband of Make up your Own' would be too much, then clearly we just cannot coexist.

Ooh, ooh, let's also add 3 supplements acting like full-sized codices while we're at it. Two of them will just be minor tweaks to the CSM, while the third will turn expectations on their HEAD, like Marines possessing Daemons and Daemons riding on Humans!

Scribe of Khorne
24-11-2014, 19:06
Other than word bearers and possibly Alpha Legion it was my understanding that most of the other legions had broken apart into warbands by the 41st millennium (which is what the current CSM codex is designed to represent). IMO anything representing a unified legion of emperors children/Deathguard/world eaters is way out of its time and probable stepping on Forgeworlds toes.

So not a single warband exists, that is composed 100% of Marines from Deathguard, or World Eaters, or Emperor's Children.

Not even 100 Marines (go go Imperial Fists 3rd Company) exist in a warband that was based on one of those legions.

Not even possible for such a thing.

Thats what your saying.

Ok.

Vaktathi
24-11-2014, 19:37
So, I am convinced there is a fundamental disconnect between the CSM player base's idea of Chaos Marines and GW's vision of Chaos and the Chaos Marines who follow it. The book is a reflection of that notion of CSM touted by GW. They view Chaos Space Marines as flexible individuals who readily change allegiance when it behooves them. They [Chaos Marines] no longer adhere to this rigid idea of being a monolithic fighting force characterized by siege tactics or what have you. There may be one Night Lord who is your stereotypical heresy-era, jump-pack flying, terror inducing glutton whereas another Night Lord has drifted towards the worship of Khorne for example and become no more than a berserker. The thrust here is that GW envisions Chaos Marines as disparate individuals not as a unified fighting force. This is why pointing and saying "well they did it with 6th edition Space Marines" means nothing to me. Consider this; SM are a great foil to CSM. SM are rigid, monolithic, and unified under a greater identity than themselves. CSM are the total opposite and I actually applaud the stressing of the individualistic and opportunistic behavior of the Chaos Marines. Except the SM are anything but rigid and monolithic and unified. They have a far greater array of unique army builds, particularly effective ones. CSM's can FoC swap basically the Cult tactical equivalents. SM's can FoC swap dreads and bikes (making for much more varied lists) and have HQ's and Chapter Tactics that give unique benefits both army-wide and unit-specific, with a greater array of effective wargear combinations and customizations for HQ's, on top of simply having far more functional tactical choices such as deep striking with pods or reinforced infantry gunlines or all biker armies, etc.

The SM codex is far more individualistic, customizable, and flexible than the CSM's are.



Other than word bearers and possibly Alpha Legion it was my understanding that most of the other legions had broken apart into warbands by the 41st millennium (which is what the current CSM codex is designed to represent). IMO anything representing a unified legion of emperors children/Deathguard/world eaters is way out of its time and probable stepping on Forgeworlds toes.Several Legions still operate in very large groups. The Iron Warriors still operate in Grand Companies, often chapter sized or larger, and many from the daemon world Medrengarde. Same with the Word Bearers. The Thousand Sons and Deathguard also aren't shattered and splintered, the Tsons have effectively Ahriman's coven and then the remaining contingent that didn't take part in the Rubric who still operate largely from a single world but often do their own thing. The Deathguard similarly have Typhus's splinter group and then still have huge numbers operating from Mortarion's daemon-world. Abaddon has largely re-unified the Black Legion and most of their warbands operate under his authority. Only the World Eaters and Emperor's Children were well and truly shattered, but they still may operate together in groups of roughly company size.

All of these are plenty to still retain their unique methods of operation, equipment, and tactical functionality.

Grndhog89
24-11-2014, 20:45
Except the SM are anything but rigid and monolithic and unified. They have a far greater array of unique army builds, particularly effective ones. CSM's can FoC swap basically the Cult tactical equivalents. SM's can FoC swap dreads and bikes (making for much more varied lists) and have HQ's and Chapter Tactics that give unique benefits both army-wide and unit-specific, with a greater array of effective wargear combinations and customizations for HQ's, on top of simply having far more functional tactical choices such as deep striking with pods or reinforced infantry gunlines or all biker armies, etc.

The SM codex is far more individualistic, customizable, and flexible than the CSM's are.


Here you are referring to codex mechanics and various chapter tactics making them diverse, etc. Except for the fact that those chapter tactics are very much so monolithic within the context of the respective chapter they are trying to represent. Not to mention that you can't mix and match chapter tactics. If I wanted to show that my CSM warband is a bunch of glory hounds who are only serving this particular lord right now I can do that via marks. So for example there is an undivided lord who has marshalled a lot of Khornate and Tzeentchian followers in the same warband. By giving CSM squad A MoK and CSM Squad B MoT I can show how maybe squad A were a gang of marines who are in it just for the opportunity to test their strength. And maybe squad B joined for their own nefarious reasons that this lord's crusade just so happens to further.

I can derive a whole lot more uniqueness to my Chaos Marines rather than my Space Marines who are either all Imperial Fists and use that tactic, or are Raven Guard and all use that tactic, and so on. So in that I disagree that C:SM is far more flexible and individualistic. The wargear and customization options for HQs are there for CSM Lords. Maybe not to a satisfactory level but they're there and it still forwards the overall design paradigm I think (I have no clue how accurate I am or am not) that Phil Kelly had in mind when writing this.

Vaktathi
24-11-2014, 21:15
Here you are referring to codex mechanics and various chapter tactics making them diverse, etc. Except for the fact that those chapter tactics are very much so monolithic within the context of the respective chapter they are trying to represent. Most can find effective use in just about any army build. Even Imperial Fists with the emphasis on Dev's can find use with just about every unit in the book for Bolter Drill. Iron Hands are extremely universal applying to every model you'd have. Ultramarines offers benefits for every non-vehicle unit in the army. Salamanders aren't quite as "always useful" but can still be applied to just about every unit in the book. Ravenwing's "stealth on turn 1" can be huge even if Hit and Run isn't. Pretty much only White Scars are particularly restricted in what they're good for.


Not to mention that you can't mix and match chapter tactics. Sure you can, take a 2nd CAD or allies, the book can ally with itself.


If I wanted to show that my CSM warband is a bunch of glory hounds who are only serving this particular lord right now I can do that via marks. So for example there is an undivided lord who has marshalled a lot of Khornate and Tzeentchian followers in the same warband. By giving CSM squad A MoK and CSM Squad B MoT I can show how maybe squad A were a gang of marines who are in it just for the opportunity to test their strength. And maybe squad B joined for their own nefarious reasons that this lord's crusade just so happens to further. Yes, but if you wanted a Rubric coven or Berzerker cadre, that neither functions terribly well nor is well represented. The mechanics of the Cult units only exist in the Tac equivalents and nowhere else. Marks are not the same thing. GW has made a clear distinction both in terms of Fluff and game mechanics. CSM's with a Mark of Nurgle are not Plague Marines, they are two different things, but there exists no equivalent for say, Lords or Terminators. Same thing for each of the other Cult Legions. If you wanted to do a sneaky Alpha Legion army, well, you either better hope to get that one Warlord trait or take a very non-Alpha Legion Special Character.


I can derive a whole lot more uniqueness to my Chaos Marines rather than my Space Marines who are either all Imperial Fists and use that tactic, or are Raven Guard and all use that tactic, and so on. Again, as shown above, through the large universality of Chapter Tactics, plus SC benefits and allies/multiple detachements, I would disagree.


So in that I disagree that C:SM is far more flexible and individualistic. The wargear and customization options for HQs are there for CSM Lords. And are largely either lesser than for C:SM or less effective.


Maybe not to a satisfactory level but they're there and it still forwards the overall design paradigm I think (I have no clue how accurate I am or am not) that Phil Kelly had in mind when writing this.He basically just took the previous book that completely redesigned CSM's by Alessio Cavatore and Gav Thorpe and tweaked it and included the Fantasy challenge mechanic, which, as explained elsewhere, is much less appropriate in 40k.

Ssilmath
24-11-2014, 23:28
Oooh, it's a Chaos whine thread! Time for some action!

<Pulls out Lasgun>

You know, I always feel outgunned in these things.

<Ties white flag to Lasgun and waves it in surrender>

In all seriousness, this isn't something I can really defend much longer. I'm in agreement with Vaktathi and Scribe now, there's no reason in the world not to have Legion rules with where the game has gone. Even the fractured warband feel can be represented by combining two CAD with different Legion rules, or by having a "Chaos Inclusive" tactic that allows for Legion units without HQ's, maybe be the Black Legion specific tactic. I dunno, but at this point I just hope that when Chaos rolls around again, it gets the detail it deserves.

Grndhog89
24-11-2014, 23:40
Oh feth, they're onto us. This was a Chaos Whining Thread in disguise all along. Someone must have snitched!

*kicks over a table for cover and whips out a heavy bolter before spraying fire at Grndhog* GET SOME!


On a lighter note; Shego this excerpt tells me you'd be a riot to play Dark Heresy with.

Inquisitor Shego
25-11-2014, 03:58
One time I played a game of Black Crusade where it was myself and 4 other regular humans. We were:

Renegade - Cryan, former Arbities who saw a lesser demon eat his patrol. Swore himself to Khorne after killing the thing, knowing the Emperor was weak
Renegade - Furyus, dark skinned necromunda gangster who talks ghetto. Also known as "The Black Delaque" considers himself more Khorne than Cryan
Heretek - Routine tech priest gone evil, whose unique feature is his epic escape mechanism (more on that later)
Apostate (me) - Seress, essentially the Baroness from GI Joe, with experience in seduction, guile, lying, and espionage and terrorism. May or may not be Alpha Legion
Psyker - Relashone, rogue psyker who is bound to Slaanesh and orgasms whenever his powers are used. The presence of other psykers makes him blissful.

We get hired/abducted by a Night Lord legionare from our various hovels/homes who says the Dark Gods have chosen us for a mission. It's to board a space hulk that lurks at the edge of the system that is forbidden by Imperial Law to be explored, and retrieve a deadly relic, a sword once wielded by Konrad Kurse's chief executioner. We all arrive in our little craft, and are relieved to find the section we're attacking has breathable air. There are no signs of life and the Night Lord waits on the ship.

Things go awry 3 floors down and 300 yards from the airlock when the psyker starts to feel displeasure and the lack of bliss. He commands the other four to start fornicating. When they don't comply he tries to mind control them into having sex after failing a willpower check to restrain himself. The arbities loses patience and ignites him with the flamer, before kicking him down a corridor that had twisted down vertically like a mile long elevator shaft.

Next we come to a large room, formerly a sparring cage for 30k Night Lords. We consider looting it before we find a Genestealer leaning over with its back to us, eating a dead rodent the size of a dog. None of us have ever seen a Genestealer before. We all fail Int rolls to know what it is. Furyus throws his coat on the floor, whips out a crowbar, and says "the BLEEP you want you bald purple mother BLEEP? You think you for real? The Black Delaque is on yo back, punk BLEEP BLEEP" he hits the genestealer with the crowbar, and the stealer looks at him with a nanosecond of disbelief before ripping his arms and legs off.

"AAAAAAAAAAAH. HELP ME! PLEEEEEEEASE. NOOOOOOOOO. HELP ME KHORNE. MAMA. NOOOOOOOOOO. AAAAAAAAAAH. AAAAAAARRRRRRGGGGGGH. UUUUUGH. UUUUUUGH MUUUH... UUUGUH... UUUGH AAAHA AAAAAAH NOOOO NOOOOO NAAAH NAAAH AH DON'T WANNA DIE. I DON'T WANNA DIE. PLEASE. PLEEEEEEEEEEYZZZZZZ. KILL IT. KILL IT. KIIAAHHHHHGHH..."

Seress casually closes the door and the Heretek watches it whilst all three peek curiously through the window port, watching the Genestealer effectively become a playa hater. Blood finally sprays over the tiny door window and we move on. Three rooms on, they then find the location the sword is meant to be at. It is not there, but there's forty or so genestealers heading toward us. The arbites guy flamers the corridor, keeping them at bay. A stealer bursts from a vent above, lands on the arbites guy, and pulls his head off. Seress shoots the flamer tanks, engulfing the room. The Heretek catches fire, but quickly uses his escape plan. Using ancient lore, he sucks his brain out of his body, into a glass jar, fires it via an ejection mechanism, and the jar blasts 30 feet across the room, before deploying a parachute. Seress picks it up and runs back to the airlock.

Seress puts the jar on the side of a console and then goes to the bridge. The Night Lord explains they were bait whilst he got the sword from its proper location. The daemonic blade then demands a sacrifice, cuts Seress clean in two, and drinks her soul. Before the Night Lord can kill the brain in the jar it's mechandrite plugs into the console, and smashes the little vessel straight into the space hulk. The jar breaks, the Night Lord flies through a tear in the hull, and a dozen genestealers brave the vacuum to rip him to pieces.

And this is why I serve the dark gods!

totgeboren
25-11-2014, 07:32
Other than word bearers and possibly Alpha Legion it was my understanding that most of the other legions had broken apart into warbands by the 41st millennium (which is what the current CSM codex is designed to represent). IMO anything representing a unified legion of emperors children/Deathguard/world eaters is way out of its time and probable stepping on Forgeworlds toes.

But we know that all loyalist legions (except the DA and the SW) haven broken up into thousands of Chapters, who all follow the Codex Astartes instead of using their w30k tactics. Sure, the World Eaters have broken as a legion, but most WE warbands are still bigger than what you could fit in a 1500 pts army, and these guys have never been forced to change their approach to warfare like the loyalists. How can the Chapters be deserving of 'legion' rules when the legions who have not adopted the unifying Codex Astartes do not?

I mean, seriously. On one side we have a bunch of legions that were forcibly split into 1000-man strong chapters, and all are forced to follow the tactics laid down by Guilliman.
On the other side we have a bunch of legions where some have shattered (into groups that are still larger than what you would field even in Apoc-type battles), many still have their Primarch around, and they have never been forced into adopting someone elses tactics. How can it make sense that this second group get no 'legion' tactics while the first group does?

I just don't follow. Or, I just can't follow why anyone would defend this? Saying 'Get over it, life isn't fair' I understand, buy trying to justify it as if it somehow reflects the background of w40k just boggles my mind.

Spiney Norman
25-11-2014, 10:53
I just don't follow. Or, I just can't follow why anyone would defend this? Saying 'Get over it, life isn't fair' I understand, buy trying to justify it as if it somehow reflects the background of w40k just boggles my mind.

Oh I'm not suggesting for one moment that it reflects the background, that's not the issue, but the whole argument is essentially faction envy because CSM players want to be the special snowflake that loyalist marines have always been. Eldar should probably get Craftworld traits, dark Eldar should get Kabal traits, Necrons: dynasty traits, CSM: Legion traits, etc etc, I'm sure every army could make a case for getting traits of some description but none of them do because they're not Loyalist Space Marines.

Folomo
25-11-2014, 13:04
I think one of the factors that have affected the expectations of the game are the high amount of balanced games that are being played out there.
While before there was no other reasonable option (so it was either take or don't play any wargame), now you have the option of actually playing other games.
So people that are complaining are those that have already invested in 40K but see that their investment will bring them less "fun" than the alternatives, but their already spended so much in 40K that expect it to bring a similar fun game.
Yeah, expectations are the problem.

Spiney Norman
25-11-2014, 13:40
I think one of the factors that have affected the expectations of the game are the high amount of balanced games that are being played out there.
While before there was no other reasonable option (so it was either take or don't play any wargame), now you have the option of actually playing other games.
So people that are complaining are those that have already invested in 40K but see that their investment will bring them less "fun" than the alternatives, but their already spended so much in 40K that expect it to bring a similar fun game.
Yeah, expectations are the problem.

Because expecting a veteran games company that has been designing games for almost 40 years to be able to design a game on a par with one put out by a company 1/4 it's age and experience is totally unrealistic...

Ironbone
25-11-2014, 14:41
Using ancient lore, he sucks his brain out of his body, into a glass jar, fires it via an ejection mechanism, and the jar blasts 30 feet across the room, before deploying a parachute. Seress picks it up and runs back to the airlock.
Shego, you know you should put some kind of warning before posting stuff like this. I laughed so hard, that my lungs hurt :p.

Firaxin
25-11-2014, 23:09
CSM power levels aside, what makes 40k distinct from other sci-fi settings?

After 15 years I'm disappointed there's no Adeptus Mechanicus (or Dark Mechanicus) army. No Lost and the Damned army. That Chaos Marines are only a pale shadow of what they could be. Dinobots instead of daemon engines. Etc.

--This coming from an IG/Tyranid player.

Vaktathi
25-11-2014, 23:17
Well, FW did just release a pretty awesome Renegades and Heretics (read: lost and the damned) army list in IA13, and is doing AdMech for the Horus Heresy series.

But I totally feel what you're saying ;)

Firaxin
25-11-2014, 23:44
Unfortunately Forgeworld's prices are even more outrageous than GW's, not even considering trans-Atlantic shipping...

Plus (in my area, at least) it's still fairly common for pubbies to disallow FW rules, as the price bar limits exposure to FW products and consequently the uneducated will distrustfully pre-judge them as Pay-to-win.

Spiney Norman
26-11-2014, 11:18
Unfortunately Forgeworld's prices are even more outrageous than GW's, not even considering trans-Atlantic shipping...

Plus (in my area, at least) it's still fairly common for pubbies to disallow FW rules, as the price bar limits exposure to FW products and consequently the uneducated will distrustfully pre-judge them as Pay-to-win.

Apologies for my ignorance, but 'pubbies' are what exactly?
I still come against a certain amount of resistance to forgeworld units, (ironically it is usually the same people who enjoy abusing 7th edition to the max with their combined codex unbound armies of face-wreckage) but then some of the older players I know still nurse a grudge against special characters so what can you do?

On the other hand there is a small group of gamers at our club who will only play age of darkness battles against other 30k armies because they consider it to be far better balanced than the 7th edition cesspool (which I agree with), so opinions vary.

The reality is that most gamers I know form their opinions on what is 'too powerful' based on two factors;
1. Their history, they have a biased view of armies or units that have caused them particular trouble in the past
2. Their perception of armies/units that are or should be strong against their particular gimmick.

It should be noted that of my own gaming group I am probably the only player who really engages with the Internet forums, so the presumed standardised Warseer perception of what is overpowered or 'dominating' doesn't hold sway nearly as much, and individual players' opinions of these things are largely formed by the games they have played, not what someone on the Internet has told them.

Lusall
26-11-2014, 14:41
The problem has been that, while they do a good job of "balancing" a book or two (Dark Angels and Chaos are, in my opinion, quite balanced) they go and eff it up with a book like Tau, Eldar, or Space Marines. Now, it's likely just the "good'ol days syndrom" but I felt like the original 3rd edition Chaos Marine book had more flavor than the 4th edition (and to a certain extint the 6th edition) Chaos Marine codex. *shrug* Is there expectation? Yeah, there almost has to be. But disapointment is the currency of GW these days.

ObiWayneKenobi
26-11-2014, 14:45
Apologies for my ignorance, but 'pubbies' are what exactly?
I still come against a certain amount of resistance to forgeworld units, (ironically it is usually the same people who enjoy abusing 7th edition to the max with their combined codex unbound armies of face-wreckage) but then some of the older players I know still nurse a grudge against special characters so what can you do?

On the other hand there is a small group of gamers at our club who will only play age of darkness battles against other 30k armies because they consider it to be far better balanced than the 7th edition cesspool (which I agree with), so opinions vary.

The reality is that most gamers I know form their opinions on what is 'too powerful' based on two factors;
1. Their history, they have a biased view of armies or units that have caused them particular trouble in the past
2. Their perception of armies/units that are or should be strong against their particular gimmick.

It should be noted that of my own gaming group I am probably the only player who really engages with the Internet forums, so the presumed standardised Warseer perception of what is overpowered or 'dominating' doesn't hold sway nearly as much, and individual players' opinions of these things are largely formed by the games they have played, not what someone on the Internet has told them.

I've seen the term "pubbies" before to mean like random strangers you play with (I saw it in the context of WoW's Dungeon Finder though, so that might have been an altered version). I'd assume the term is some sort of connotation to random blokes in a pub.

My biggest issue with 40k is that, while I can accept the fact it's not meant for cutthroat tournaments, it's not meant for casual games either. The "collector" is the person most likely to field whatever they want based on looks, and shoddy rules are most likely to hurt that person because they have a good chance of fielding subpar things. 40k is best suited to campaign or league style games with a story behind it rather than "I'm going to be at the shop at 6pm if anyone wants a game" type of situations in part because you then need to decide on what sort of game you want with that specific opponent and your enjoyment is almost 100% related to what that person is using and the type of player they are. A collector vs. someone who plays only to win is going to end very badly and neither party is going to have much fun, even if the competitive person tones down their list.

HelloKitty
26-11-2014, 15:07
40k is best suited to campaign or league style games with a story behind it rather than "I'm going to be at the shop at 6pm if anyone wants a game" type of situations in part because you then need to decide on what sort of game you want with that specific opponent and your enjoyment is almost 100% related to what that person is using and the type of player they are.

I can definitely get behind this and agree with this.

csm
26-11-2014, 15:50
I have been wondering about why there are so many doomsayers out for awhile now, and I, along with other people in our community I think, had come up with a possible reason other than trolling on here: is there too much expectation? For example: When Chaos Space Marines came out 2 years ago as the 1st army for 6th ed, I happen to remember the hype and hope people had for this army (before it came out). When it finally came and people actually starting using it, there was quite a bit of disappointment. Now, to those who are continuing to play CSM and finding a lot of success with them may or may not feel the same way, I think people (at least some) were looking for a super charged codex like 3.5. Instead, the results seemed to be more balanced, and to some people felt pretty flat army. I'm not saying that's how I feel and other members I'm sure feel the same way I do, but for those who were hoping to 3.5 rear it's head again, it just never happened.

I don't need to explain Tyranids much since everyone is up to speed on that, but I remember the expectations had for this army when they were released. The units that came out recently definitely gave them a big boost, but prior to that the community was hoping to some changes. Some reasonable, others not so much. Someone in my group was hoping to spam Toughness 7 and 8 MCs everywhere before they came out (to this day he still does). With it getting an update, however, that never came to be. Some of us were hoping for an option to run a genestealer cult army at (least in a supplement), but did not happen. There were so many possibilities that GW have could done, but decided not to. So at this point we just have to make with what we have, which is not a bad thing with these new releases.

Finally, as a last example, the current core codices and their supplements. Before supplements, some armies you could really come up with some interesting setups inside the codex i.e. changing FOC on some units. The introduction of the codex supplement was a bonus because it opened up even more ways to complete the army you wanted (the Farsight Enclaves is still, IMO, the best supplement out there). Today, however, with the new edition, now we have a basic codex and the only way to change the FOC or statlines with the new codices is to use the supplements. The supplements themselves, which I do like, however, are primarily fluff and little in terms of rules. You can still forge a neat army from one of them because of some of the unique rules set up inside them, but it does not let anyone wander too far off from the core codex. Price of a codex and it's supplement is also a bit of an issue, but that's a debate for another time.

Bottom line is from what I have seen and observed, I think it's some of the expectations that we establish for ourselves that let's us down and why we get angry. I understand some of those expectations are reasonable, like rules and such, but others are too far off. At times within our community we expect too much rather than see and accept the reality that we have. I'm considering Blood Angels later on as my next army. I'm hoping that Gabriel Seth's rules change so he's better and I can start a Flesh Tearers army. I hope there will be a FT supplement so it feels more like that army. If this happens and he is better than what he is now, I expect the points to go up. If he stays the same pt wise, I can see some changes to his rules and wargear. I wan to try to base it off of what 7th ed has brought us so far, but I don't know if expectations are too high or not. So I don't want to ruin the experience for myself, and I think that's what it ultimately comes down to: the player.

I think in order for us to enjoy the game, we need to stop putting the expectations so high that enjoyment will never get there. That's the reason why we're playing this game because it's fun and it's a nice escape from what we do in our everyday lives. Anyway, that's my take on it. Anyone else think we have too much expectation or is it something else?Have at it.

____No____

Xerkics
27-11-2014, 13:53
Pick up battles for pub? As in random opponents you met?

Haravikk
27-11-2014, 17:46
Nobody expected another 3.5E CSM book really, in fact, the vast majority of Chaos players still around have never used that book, but nobody expected them to do just a relatively minimal tweaking after the previous outcry. To many, the "salt in the wound" is that the Codex: Space Marines a year later basically got everything CSM players wanted, simple and functional traits, and excellent internal balance.
This. While there were definitely some people were setting themselves up for disappointment by craving huge cult elements to the army list, the current CSM codex is definitely bland in many areas, which is shocking for a chaos book. The supplements have also been a bit underwhelming; it's not to say the list is rubbish, I think it's still very playable, but as you say, Codex: Space Marines has everything that Codex: Chaos Space Marines should have had in terms of the ease with which you can tailor your list to a particular chapter.

It's not even as if they had to wait that long; Codex: Dark Angels has significantly better marines overall compared to the CSM book, and it came out right after! CSM at least got some nasty daemon engines, whereas Dark Angels have fairly lacklustre flyers. In fact, Dark Angels players are in a similar boat as we didn't get a number of vanilla units that should have been fine to include (personally I'd hoped for Ironclads and the scout land speeder) plus they got even more new stuff, and some of it better. The Storm Talon for example is a good flyer, and probably better than the Nephilim Jet Fighter for taking down other flyers, same with the Storm Raven; I like the Dark Angels flyer kit (I have a Dark Talon that does well) but it felt like Codex: Space Marines just one-upped both starter set armies, especially when you consider all the bonuses White Scars get for free while Ravenwing pay through the nose for worse.


So I don't think expectation is necessarily the problem; GW is clearly still very much at fault for doing a poor job balancing their rules. Not that that's anything new, but even the more realistic expectations aren't always being met, and for such expensive books it doesn't seem a lot to ask that they be of roughly the same value as each other.

Charistoph
27-11-2014, 18:50
So I don't think expectation is necessarily the problem; GW is clearly still very much at fault for doing a poor job balancing their rules. Not that that's anything new, but even the more realistic expectations aren't always being met, and for such expensive books it doesn't seem a lot to ask that they be of roughly the same value as each other.

The Chapterhouse case results didn't help matters, either.

Before they would make models and expect people to convert the models they need.

Now, in order to have Cult units, models have to be made, even if they are upgrade kits like Thousand Sons and Noise Marines. So the situation is no model means no rules.

Spiney Norman
27-11-2014, 21:51
The Chapterhouse case results didn't help matters, either.

Before they would make models and expect people to convert the models they need.

Now, in order to have Cult units, models have to be made, even if they are upgrade kits like Thousand Sons and Noise Marines. So the situation is no model means no rules.

I don't accept that, it would be really easy to establish a precedent in the gallery section that a nurgle cult terminator was a chaos terminator painted green, there are no models for Kabalite Trueborn either, but every dark Eldar player knows that you just buy some kabalite warriors and give them a particularly swanky paint job (not to mention a lot more Blasters than normal) and hey presto! trueborn.

Charistoph
27-11-2014, 22:40
I don't accept that, it would be really easy to establish a precedent in the gallery section that a nurgle cult terminator was a chaos terminator painted green, there are no models for Kabalite Trueborn either, but every dark Eldar player knows that you just buy some kabalite warriors and give them a particularly swanky paint job (not to mention a lot more Blasters than normal) and hey presto! trueborn.

It's not us who have that problem, nor is it the artists. It's the suits that have the problem.

It is nothing new that they've been cagey since the first decision came down, after all.

Firaxin
28-11-2014, 07:57
I'd assume the term is some sort of connotation to random blokes in a pub.
You're correct.


My biggest issue with 40k is that, while I can accept the fact it's not meant for cutthroat tournaments, it's not meant for casual games either. The "collector" is the person most likely to field whatever they want based on looks, and shoddy rules are most likely to hurt that person because they have a good chance of fielding subpar things. 40k is best suited to campaign or league style games with a story behind it rather than "I'm going to be at the shop at 6pm if anyone wants a game" type of situations in part because you then need to decide on what sort of game you want with that specific opponent and your enjoyment is almost 100% related to what that person is using and the type of player they are. A collector vs. someone who plays only to win is going to end very badly and neither party is going to have much fun, even if the competitive person tones down their list.
100% agree. It's hard to meet enough other true "collectors" to run a thematic campaign. I've been running Dark Heresy /Rogue Trader /etc campaigns by e-mail for the past few years for that reason.

williamsond
28-11-2014, 08:56
my only expectation was that with the release of 7th they would address the gapping issues with the game, however they decided they wanted to sell toys instead. With the codexs the current stint of releasing a codwx then tacking on the DLC is very anoying, take the nids new stuff is great but why wasn't it in the codex I doubt the models weren't ready as it's well documented that sculpts are done years in advance.

Charistoph
28-11-2014, 12:35
my only expectation was that with the release of 7th they would address the gapping issues with the game, however they decided they wanted to sell toys instead. With the codexs the current stint of releasing a codwx then tacking on the DLC is very anoying, take the nids new stuff is great but why wasn't it in the codex I doubt the models weren't ready as it's well documented that sculpts are done years in advance.

Sculpts may have been ready, but the kits may have not been ready for distribution. There is a possibility that the molds were not created until earlier this year. The Suits have a little too much control, and may have delayed the expense of mold creation till "appropriate".

Xerkics
28-11-2014, 12:58
Sculpts may have been ready, but the kits may have not been ready for distribution. There is a possibility that the molds were not created until earlier this year. The Suits have a little too much control, and may have delayed the expense of mold creation till "appropriate".

Your making it sound like a corporate conspiracy now :) bit silly , no?

The_Real_Chris
28-11-2014, 13:16
I think with how 40k is today it is impossible not to upset people. There is a disconnect between what people expect when list building and playing. You could argue that a long time ago the little choices made when list building mattered more. Now for a host of reasons, rules changes, model count, new units, etc, they matter far less. Indeed list creation is as fiddle as ever in some codexs but the net effect on the tabletop is minimal, other than in time wasted. Various paths to go from here - scale back model count, keep fiddlyness, have it effect the gameplay (not going to happen), go down the route of many games (like KoW) where the list building is simple but the game tactical, or end up like gratuitious space battles where list building is nearly everything and game play is more about starting positions! Can't see a way of keeping the same level of chrome, with big armies, and have it make a real difference rather than be a hassle.

Muad'Dib
28-11-2014, 13:49
Your making it sound like a corporate conspiracy now :) bit silly , no?
What it is that is silly about corporate conspiracies?
203779

Sculpts may have been ready, but the kits may have not been ready for distribution. There is a possibility that the molds were not created until earlier this year. The Suits have a little too much control, and may have delayed the expense of mold creation till "appropriate".
Interesting idea. I was wandering many times exactly how it is that GW (or the ominous Suits :D) keeps retarding the quality of the rules & army lists; and you give a good example of how it could be done in practice, while not seeming too overt/evil to other people at the company.

Charistoph
28-11-2014, 15:43
Interesting idea. I was wondering many times exactly how it is that GW (or the ominous Suits :D) keeps retarding the quality of the rules & army lists; and you give a good example of how it could be done in practice, while not seeming too overt/evil to other people at the company.

Appropriate is a standard that means different things to different people.

Plastic molds are expensive compared to Finecast, resin or metal. The cost may not have been justifiable to those who worry about paying the bills when they released the last Tyranid codex.

Also to consider is glutting the market. Too many models for an established line can cause some new lines not to be picked up. Not everyone gets paid on a weekly basis (and too many get paid on a weakly basis). This can lead to a kit "failing" on launch.

Though to be honest, if I had to choose between the Haruspex/Exocrine model and the Drop Pod from a gamer perspective, the drop pod wins hands down.

This ties in to the rumors for a Sororitas line in two years. The best way to do that is to introduce the base plastic Sisters box like these 'Nids in an off cycle and use them to gauge the market reaction. They already have rules, even if digital. They can then introduce the standard parts of the line so that when codex time comes around, they don't strangle their own sales like what happened with Dark Eldar in 5th.

Dkoz
28-11-2014, 18:10
I doubt the suits mess with the rule writers, most likely the suits just tell the rules developers or only guideline is that we want rules that will make people want to buy models.

Charistoph
28-11-2014, 20:08
I doubt the suits mess with the rule writers, most likely the suits just tell the rules developers or only guideline is that we want rules that will make people want to buy models.

They did for CSM 4th, from what I understand. Also, the dataslate concept allows each codex to quickly adjusted before print.

However, if the suits are only willing to risk making so many plastic molds a year, what the authors and sculptors produce will be limited in reaching our hands.

That is something that we as consumers often have a hard time incorporating in our paradigm. Much as most of those suits can have a hard time seeing OUR paradigms.

Hicks
29-11-2014, 07:11
My expectations were that I could have a close fun game by fielding a Commander, 2x Tactical squads, a Dread, a small group of Termies and a Devastator squad. Seems like my expectations were too high.

ObiWayneKenobi
29-11-2014, 14:09
For me the problem is that I like to have themed/fluffy armies. Something like doing an all Terminator army to represent an elite strike force dispatched to achieve a key objective, or a Tau army with a core of Fire Warriors backed up by Crisis suits, or like a Wytch Cult army with all Wytches because they're cool. And, too often, these fluffy/themed armies are total garbage because the 40k rules are so over the place with very little thought given to inter-army balance. If it was dirt cheap to buy, then this wouldn't be such a huge deal but when it's as expensive as it is, careful consideration has to be given for virtually every purchase to avoid spending a lot of money on an inefficient force because the rules won't allow it to be good. Nobody likes to play a game and always lose, doubly so when they aren't losing through their own fault but because the cool fluffy army they want is just hampered by bad rules.

ismeno
29-11-2014, 15:40
For me the problem is that I like to have themed/fluffy armies. Something like doing an all Terminator army to represent an elite strike force dispatched to achieve a key objective, or a Tau army with a core of Fire Warriors backed up by Crisis suits, or like a Wytch Cult army with all Wytches because they're cool. And, too often, these fluffy/themed armies are total garbage because the 40k rules are so over the place with very little thought given to inter-army balance. If it was dirt cheap to buy, then this wouldn't be such a huge deal but when it's as expensive as it is, careful consideration has to be given for virtually every purchase to avoid spending a lot of money on an inefficient force because the rules won't allow it to be good. Nobody likes to play a game and always lose, doubly so when they aren't losing through their own fault but because the cool fluffy army they want is just hampered by bad rules.

The force is strong with this one!
QFT


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Muad'Dib
29-11-2014, 15:54
If it was dirt cheap to buy, then this wouldn't be such a huge deal
...
Of course it would be a huge deal. An imbalanced game is a crippled/incomplete game. It stems creativity, interactivity and one's development as a player/tactician. It also doesn't have a naturally evolving metagame - just a couple of clear tier 1 builds.
If you want to see what a joy it is to play a balanced game, check out board game like Chaos in the Old World, Cthulhu Wars; or Warcraft 3 tactics/strategy mods. All of them blow 40k out of the water games-wise.

ObiWayneKenobi
29-11-2014, 16:45
...
Of course it would be a huge deal. An imbalanced game is a crippled/incomplete game. It stems creativity, interactivity and one's development as a player/tactician. It also doesn't have a naturally evolving metagame - just a couple of clear tier 1 builds.
If you want to see what a joy it is to play a balanced game, check out board game like Chaos in the Old World, Cthulhu Wars; or Warcraft 3 tactics/strategy mods. All of them blow 40k out of the water games-wise.

Well it would be a big deal inasmuch as playing an unbalanced game, but it wouldn't feel like such a bad blow if you didn't have to spend a lot of money and hope that you bought the right things (and that they subsequently weren't nerfed in a later edition to make you buy the other stuff you didn't buy this time)

Inquisitor Kallus
29-11-2014, 16:53
For me the problem is that I like to have themed/fluffy armies. Something like doing an all Terminator army to represent an elite strike force dispatched to achieve a key objective, or a Tau army with a core of Fire Warriors backed up by Crisis suits, or like a Wytch Cult army with all Wytches because they're cool. And, too often, these fluffy/themed armies are total garbage because the 40k rules are so over the place with very little thought given to inter-army balance. If it was dirt cheap to buy, then this wouldn't be such a huge deal but when it's as expensive as it is, careful consideration has to be given for virtually every purchase to avoid spending a lot of money on an inefficient force because the rules won't allow it to be good. Nobody likes to play a game and always lose, doubly so when they aren't losing through their own fault but because the cool fluffy army they want is just hampered by bad rules.


You still can, its a case of playing with like minded people.

Grndhog89
29-11-2014, 18:17
...
If you want to see what a joy it is to play a balanced game, check out board game like Chaos in the Old World, Cthulhu Wars; or Warcraft 3 tactics/strategy mods. All of them blow 40k out of the water games-wise.

This man knows his board games. Quality choices my good sir. Might I also shamelessly sneak in Power Grid into that line up?

Scribe of Khorne
29-11-2014, 18:48
Well it would be a big deal inasmuch as playing an unbalanced game, but it wouldn't feel like such a bad blow if you didn't have to spend a lot of money and hope that you bought the right things (and that they subsequently weren't nerfed in a later edition to make you buy the other stuff you didn't buy this time)

Very true, and a big reason I expect more out of 40K and my opponent. The investment is huge. In money, in time preparing, in setup, in transport, and in the game time itself.

Its not like MTG which literally can take minutes, to buy a preset deck, sit down, and start shuffling.

Do we expect too much? Maybe, but I'm going to keep holding GW to a higher standard (meaning I will bitch) if they dont give me THEIR best effort.