PDA

View Full Version : The Thrill Is Gone?



Pages : 1 [2]

nosebiter
21-09-2012, 13:58
I have never understood why Narative, mini selling and elegant rules where mutually exclusive.

Should be feasible for them to do it if they really wanted it.

IcedCrow
21-09-2012, 13:59
I've never understood what "elegant rules" were.

Delicious Ron
21-09-2012, 14:02
I have never understood why Narative, mini selling and elegant rules where mutually exclusive.

Should be feasible for them to do it if they really wanted it.

I was gonna make a post to the same effect. I have been getting into Kings of War lately and I don't understand the attitude that messy rules are inherently are more narrative friendly?


I've never understood what "elegant rules" were.

Well I'm no game designer but what was so refreshing to me when I started to play KoW was that I hadn't had to flick through the rulebook every other minute or consults charts instead of playing the game.

IcedCrow
21-09-2012, 14:09
That I can understand. I'd prefer rules that are lighter as well.

I don't really hear people complaining about that so much though (well they do but they have been complaining about GW's cluttered rules since the 90s when I started) when they talk about how the game is garbage. They are referring to the random stuff and the challenges, etc... things that took the game away from being focused 100% on tactical movements and being shifted to strategical risk management and mitigation.

ColShaw
21-09-2012, 14:17
Those are all pretty popular alternatives. You could spend your time on those sites discussing why you love those games instead of spending hours here telling us why the game is horrible. I guess since the game was released in early June, hearing the same negative things being parroted over and over again get old. When I took a three year break from warhammer and 40k because i really didn't like 7th ed fantasy or 4th ed 40k, I stopped coming onto warhammer related sites since they no longer interested me. I don't see the point in repeatedly visiting a site of a game you can't stand to tell everyone you can't stand it after several months of doing so.

We get it. It's time to move on.

...And you are spending your time here, parroting the same arguments back at the folks with whom you disagree. Why, exactly, do you bother to read topics like these, if you're so tired of them?

We get it. It's time to move on.

IcedCrow
21-09-2012, 14:22
...And you are spending your time here, parroting the same arguments back at the folks with whom you disagree. Why, exactly, do you bother to read topics like these, if you're so tired of them?

We get it. It's time to move on.

Oh you nitpicking nitpicker you.

Because it goes against my self interests to read the rage posts and not say anything as it shrinks my available pool of players and also removes players from conversations as they will quit without giving the game a try because they read the rage about how the game was horrible, and instead of giving it a chance or research the rules / gameplay themselves, they just dismiss it outright. Its the same principal for how politics work.

In short: for most people raging the goal of raging seems to be that:

*either they will somehow make the GW Design studio realize the errors of their ways and that by screaming loud and long that this will make the design studio think that the majority of people hate their edition and that it makes good business sense to go ahead and release a version 7 next year that goes back to being tactical/tournament oriented, and that by screaming and driving people away they will get their way by using that as a tactic to drive down sales so that their way is then written back in

*OR it is to steer other people away from the game because at our heart we like it when other people agree with us.

This has a negative impact for those that enjoy the game because it removes players and contributors to the hobby who are less inclined to research something on their own (I'd say the bulk of humanity falls into this category).

In short, average joe logs in to warseer to research 40k because he likes Space Marine the xbox game and heard the tabletop game was fun and reads a thread where five or six guys are jumping up and down screaming about how the game is horrible and that inept monkeys can spank vets with no thought or skill, and that its candyland for adults and average joe immediately thinks to himself "this game sucks" and moves on without giving it a second chance or really even glancing at the rules and understanding how it works.

Much like how politics works.

Delicious Ron
21-09-2012, 14:31
That I can understand. I'd prefer rules that are lighter as well.

I might have mistaken you for someone else in this thread, but I thought you stood behind the reasoning that lighter/elegant/simple rules cant be as narrative as GWs brand of rules?, which are none of the mentioned.


I don't really hear people complaining about that so much though (well they do but they have been complaining about GW's cluttered rules since the 90s when I started) when they talk about how the game is garbage. They are referring to the random stuff and the challenges, etc... things that took the game away from being focused 100% on tactical movements and being shifted to strategical risk management and mitigation.

Well I think we are quite a few who would like to see more elegant rules, but most people in this thread are just upset over the edition change, which is what happens in almost every edition change. I haven't read the 6th edition rules to be honest but I don't see it being such a big change as people claim it is, Warhammer never was a tactical chess type of game to beign with.

IcedCrow
21-09-2012, 14:43
I might have mistaken you for someone else in this thread, but I thought you stood behind the reasoning that lighter/elegant/simple rules cant be as narrative as GWs brand of rules?, which are none of the mentioned.



Well I think we are quite a few who would like to see more elegant rules, but most people in this thread are just upset over the edition change, which is what happens in almost every edition change. I haven't read the 6th edition rules to be honest but I don't see it being such a big change as people claim it is, Warhammer never was a tactical chess type of game to beign with.

Oh no, lighter rules can be narrative. Narrative simply means to tell a story. To be a ruleset that enforces the story or fluff. To me, a narrative ruleset is a ruleset that plays out like the book or movie would play out using forces that would be read about in a book or movie. They could be light or cluttered and clunky.

As to the people complaining, yes see above. It is mainly not a complaint over the rules being cluttered, rather that their playstyle is no longer the focus of the rules. When 8th ed fantasy hit, the fantasy boards were mirrors of this exact thing for the exact same reasons.

ColShaw
21-09-2012, 16:01
Oh you nitpicking nitpicker you.

Because it goes against my self interests to read the rage posts and not say anything as it shrinks my available pool of players and also removes players from conversations as they will quit without giving the game a try because they read the rage about how the game was horrible, and instead of giving it a chance or research the rules / gameplay themselves, they just dismiss it outright. Its the same principal for how politics work.

And yet, I (and many others of those you describe as "raging") also make many positive and constructive posts on this site. To be told to be quiet and choose another game for a while, when we air genuine issues about the state of the game many of us have known and loved for years, can come across as condescending, or as just irritating. This is a forum for discussion of all aspects of the hobby, bad as well as good. I think you mistake the intentions of myself, at least, in posting to topics like this.

I have no delusions that I can convince GW to change the direction of their company.

I am not trying to get people to stop playing.

What I am doing is wanting to discuss what I see as some worrying directions the company has taken, and the fact that I, personally, have a strong dislike of 8th Edition WFB as opposed to 7th, and 6th Edition 40K as opposed to 5th. This is a legitimate opinion. I continue to assemble and paint models. I haven't played a game in a while, for several reasons, only some of which are GW's fault (my own life has altered somewhat).

You used the example of politics. Allow me to use a different example: marriage (my anniversary is Sunday, so it's on my mind lately).

It's possible to have a good marriage, or a marriage which is free of all conflict, but not both. There are things about my wife which sometimes drive me absolutely crazy. I can choose to either step further away, or talk about the issues. Even if I'm talking to someone outside the marriage (say, one of my good friends), it helps me to calm down and decompress, and makes me more able to get perspective on that which I still love and admire.

I'm sure you wouldn't want to take that away.

IcedCrow
21-09-2012, 16:41
No I don't want to take that away. I want you to enjoy your free time.

I don't think it's constructive or healthy to spend months on a site bad mouthing or defaming or bashing a game you don't like.

While you may be offering constructive critique, the vast majority that I encounter is not constructive. It's condescending critique, wherein anyone that likes the new rules are obvious latex monkeys with the brainpower of a walnut seal-clapping for their beloved GW masters for offering them a game that they can finally play and do well at because it's so easy that even the seal-clapping cretins can grasp it.

So talk about the issue yes that's cool and constructive and offers a point of debate that is what forums should be about. But most of the negative comments on here aren't that. They are the above which is not constructive and only leads to people talking at each other.

big squig
21-09-2012, 17:45
I've never understood what "elegant rules" were.

Elegant rules would be ones that are just as complex as 40k, but were maybe 20 pages top in length.

Schismotive
21-09-2012, 19:39
I feel bad being on the "complainers" side, I really do. I've loved to game through 5th, and 6th I really do like as an edition in itself, but what I'm struggling to cope with is how the switch to 6th ed rules are too far ahead of the codices; the armies haven't caught up yet... I want GW to release updates faster, so that armies will actually HAVE some of the special rules in the book, and be able to interact with the core rules. I'm excited for whatever release is coming next, (chaos i think?) but it's just NOT going to do it for me.

The worst part about this is, I don't see the problem going away for a long time; by the time we get the updates we need (for 5 or 6 codices) 6th ed will be over... it's just not fun playing a new edition with no way to play the new edition. I still do old 5h ed builds, not because I'm unable to think of new strategies, but there aren't enough units in my codex to do anything different. I don't have psykers, so the awesome psyker chart is out, I only have one crappy troop choice, no skyfire units, my mandatory HQ isn't allowed to be a warlord, i don't have sergeants...

Basically I want to feel like im actually playing 6th, instead of just getting abused by all the random crap that I have no interaction with

IcedCrow
21-09-2012, 20:16
Now that is a complaint that has also been around forever and I agree with you. Codex creep and playing with outdated army lists has been around forever.

In fantasy there are several armies that are ancient that haven't had a new book since late 6th edition and we're almost midway through 8th now...

It would be nice if the army lists were all brought up to speed.

The reason they aren't is very obviously a business decision to maximize profits. I do wish they would stop that from a gamer's standpoint though I understand why it is from a business standpoint.

ColShaw
21-09-2012, 20:57
In fantasy there are several armies that are ancient that haven't had a new book since late 6th edition and we're almost midway through 8th now...

I hear this. I remember taking my Bretonnians to the 2007 Chicago GT.

It wasn't a brand-new army book at the time... and here, 5 years later, it's the same book.

Inquisitor Shego
21-09-2012, 21:34
On the codex creep issue, I'm very curious to see how Chaos turn out. Will they gasp and say "we've gone too far!!!" and Chaos will be hit with a nerf bat? Will they then say "Oh no, we went too far in weakening chaos?" and then the Dark Angels, another Imperial Army suddenly go Super Saiyan? Time will tell.

Will Chaos be the scariest thing to crawl onto the board since Adrian Wood's belly as he reached over for a tape measure? :o (no offence Adrian, you and your hair squigs are awesome).

But like Heroclix, if the creep gets obscene, I'll be nowhere to be see. And ideal to your wishes Icedcrow I won't be one of those GW naysayers who haunts boards talking of the good old days. No, I'll be busy with my new hobby, whatever it is. Probably women. I've always wanted to try that. It just never looked appealing compared to GW. Not that I hope for this to happen; I'd hate to abandon such a passion.

On a side note, I have.... 1,2,3,4,5 friends I call close. All of them I met through GW. Hobojebus and Warlordbob are two of them. Had it not been for the hobby I'd have a very small social circle. Its why the prices never bothered me until recently (33% on terrain was a slap in the face). GW is a great social networking tool. I've met some legends and mental cases thanks to the hobby that had a great impact on me. I feel dropping out of the hobby would deprive me of a great bonding experience more than a great hobby. Anybody else get this?

Ventus
21-09-2012, 21:57
I have found that a lot of people like editions for various reasons. For example some like 6th because they like the core rules and the direction GW has taken which is fine - we all have different viewpoints. Some also like 6th, even if they dislike some things about it because their army is still relatively intact (might not need to get many new models if any) and the army is strong and/or can be made strong with some Allies. I do find some of these people (not all) think 6th is good because their army is still good and don't look at the overall - that is all armies and most units/wargear should be decent options IMO to call the game good.

Emperor's Grace
21-09-2012, 22:17
On the codex creep issue, I'm very curious to see how Chaos turn out. Will they gasp and say "we've gone too far!!!" and Chaos will be hit with a nerf bat? Will they then say "Oh no, we went too far in weakening chaos?" and then the Dark Angels, another Imperial Army suddenly go Super Saiyan? Time will tell.

Wouldn't it be more likely that Chaos wll be over powered, then they'll go "we've gone too far!!!" and Dark Angels will be hit with a nerf bat?

You know, ... sort of like last time?

Ozendorph
21-09-2012, 22:48
That would be consistent with history. BACK TO BASICS, RELEASE THE JERVIS

From what I've seen of the new CSM book thus far, there's no magical fix for 6th's clumsy mechanics. More random tables, more markers and effects from turn to turn, mandatory challenges (because challenges ROCK), etc. Provided no one cares who wins or loses and there are no limits on anyone's time, it should play like butter :)

IcedCrow
21-09-2012, 22:49
I think Dark Angels have been hit with the nerf bat since their first codex on.

Caitsidhe
21-09-2012, 22:52
That would be consistent with history. BACK TO BASICS, RELEASE THE JERVIS

From what I've seen of the new CSM book thus far, there's no magical fix for 6th's clumsy mechanics. More random tables, more markers and effects from turn to turn, mandatory challenges (because challenges ROCK), etc. Provided no one cares who wins or loses and there are no limits on anyone's time, it should play like butter :)

I was laughing so hard I teared up. Totally on the mark and hilarious.

IcedCrow
22-09-2012, 01:17
From what I've seen of the new CSM book thus far, there's no magical fix for 6th's clumsy mechanics. More random tables, more markers and effects from turn to turn, mandatory challenges (because challenges ROCK), etc. Provided no one cares who wins or loses and there are no limits on anyone's time, it should play like butter

It's like we're playing two totally different games

Schismotive
22-09-2012, 02:14
I can also attest, playing 40k made me a lot of friend! I don't plan to stop playing, honestly. I'm just not as into it as I used to be; plus with school starting up (I'm away from home) I don't have the same kind of time.

But as for codex releases, I'm stoked for chaos! I might actually play a 'counts as' army with black templar as chaos. Even though it's against my beliefs as a gamer, 6th ed seems to lend itself to that kind of play and I'm willing to try something new...

Rainbow Dash
22-09-2012, 02:20
On the codex creep issue, I'm very curious to see how Chaos turn out. Will they gasp and say "we've gone too far!!!" and Chaos will be hit with a nerf bat? Will they then say "Oh no, we went too far in weakening chaos?" and then the Dark Angels, another Imperial Army suddenly go Super Saiyan? Time will tell. Will Chaos be the scariest thing to crawl onto the board since Adrian Wood's belly as he reached over for a tape measure? :o (no offence Adrian, you and your hair squigs are awesome). But like Heroclix, if the creep gets obscene, I'll be nowhere to be see. And ideal to your wishes Icedcrow I won't be one of those GW naysayers who haunts boards talking of the good old days. No, I'll be busy with my new hobby, whatever it is. Probably women. I've always wanted to try that. It just never looked appealing compared to GW. Not that I hope for this to happen; I'd hate to abandon such a passion. On a side note, I have.... 1,2,3,4,5 friends I call close. All of them I met through GW. Hobojebus and Warlordbob are two of them. Had it not been for the hobby I'd have a very small social circle. Its why the prices never bothered me until recently (33% on terrain was a slap in the face). GW is a great social networking tool. I've met some legends and mental cases thanks to the hobby that had a great impact on me. I feel dropping out of the hobby would deprive me of a great bonding experience more than a great hobby. Anybody else get this? GW is more like dragonball GT nowadays so it would be super saiyan 4

Gonefishing
22-09-2012, 02:24
Personally I dont think there is a right or wrong answer in this thread, I am sure there are plenty of people out there who love 6th, just as there are plenty of people who hate it and a broad percentage of people who are utterly ambivilent about it!

What I do support whole heartedly however is the right to talk about it (good or bad), it's all very well to say that people should only express dislike/disappointment with the game when it was first realeased - for me (personally) thats entirely the wrong time to complain about the new ruleset. When I first got the rulebook back in June (I was sad enough to turn up at the shop at midnight to buy it) I was excited at the prospect of a new edition. I sat down with my highlighter pen and post-it's and started to read....I did not like it much, but at that point I had not played a single game, so I could not really comment on how the game played or if the new rules worked. Now I have played quite a few games and my initial dislike for the core rules has grown, I feel far better able to comment on what I dislike about the game and the direction GW have taken. Good or bad, people have an opinion and every right to express that opinion.

I also dont buy the argument that by talking about peoples perceptions of the game, we are unfairly putting off new players. 40K costs alot of money, if I was considering starting it now I would read the forums to see what people think about the game - I know what type of gamer I am, I know what type of games I enjoy, I would rather read peoples unbiased opinions on the product before spending lots of money for something which I would not use. If I go on holiday and book a hotel, I read the reviews before I book, if I buy a new PC I read the reviews before I get my wallet out - I would rather read an honest review and not get that product then read pages of "Its great", because the people who did not like the product dont want to say so for fear of upsetting people.

I play other games (Firestorm Armada, Infinity, Necromunda, and dark heresey) and enjoy them (especially Firestorm Armada which I would recomend heavily to anyone here - excellent and simple rules, but also a surprisingly tactical and strategic, and the star cards add some really FUN random events), but I have not been playing them for 8 or 9 years and spent thousands of pound on models - If the rules were changed on these games and I did not like them it would be very easy to "walk away" - I have been playing 40K for 8 - 9 years, and spent alot of time, money and effort on the game, it isnt easy to just walk away from that (maybe it was for you, but its not for me) , and as a result I am still in the place where I want to "Talk" about it, and see if other people are feeling the same way.

For me (and again I can only give my personal opinion) my dislike for the new rules has nothing to do with disliking change, or my Codexes interaction with the rules (and the only real complaint about the randomness they have introduced is the fact they have put it in but have not made it fun). Its the core rules themselves that I really dont enjoy, and respectfully, I do reserve the right to talk about that if I want to - at least until i manage to successfuly walk away.

.

Straken's_Fist
22-09-2012, 03:37
Sure 6th isn't perfect, no edition ever was.

Yep, that is basically it.

I remember when 2nd edition ended and 3rd came about. It was a massive change, because amongst other things it introduced AP instead of the incredibly complex save modifiers that turned every battle into a maths class. The game mechanics changed tremendously. As such, there were a lot of people who were threatening to boycott the new rules, but ultimately as time went on everyone accepted it and moved on, and realised that actually it was a massive improvement. Perfect? By no means. But it eradicated a lot of the huge problems in the previous edition and - most importantly - prevented things from getting stale.

I am not saying that 6th is a massive improvement as it's far too soon to tell and tbh i've only got a handful of games in so far. But we needed a rule change, as everyone had sussed out 5th to the point it was melta/mech-centric and got rather boring in my opinion.
There are a lot of problems with 6th and undeniably a lot of the rules were created with the sole object of shifting more models and increasing profit margins at the detriment of the actual game play. But there is a lot that is really very VERY welcome: Despite flyers being a bit OP, at least now there is some realism injected into flyers with the movemnet restrictions and the fact they are impossible to assault now (unless in hover mode)! Having a vendetta assaulted by ork boyz just didn't feel 'real'...And now that vehicles are easier to kill we might see the end of bland mech dominated lists and much more balanced fluffy lists, which for me is a huge positive.
Yeah, challenges are dumb (just an attempt to synergise fantasy with 40k and expand both markets together), wound allocation and look out sir are a bit complicated and can slow the game down (despite it sorting out the wound allocation abuse in 5th, which is welcome), allies could be abused but it remains to be seen if this will really happen or is really possible with the restrictions on allies FOC (unlike 2nd edition lol)..........But ultimately it's a double edged sword.

IcedCrow
22-09-2012, 14:34
also dont buy the argument that by talking about peoples perceptions of the game, we are unfairly putting off new players. 40K costs alot of money, if I was considering starting it now I would read the forums to see what people think about the game - I know what type of gamer I am, I know what type of games I enjoy, I would rather read peoples unbiased opinions on the product before spending lots of money for something which I would not use. If I go on holiday and book a hotel, I read the reviews before I book, if I buy a new PC I read the reviews before I get my wallet out - I would rather read an honest review and not get that product then read pages of "Its great", because the people who did not like the product dont want to say so for fear of upsetting people.

Thing is you aren't reading an "honest review". You're reading this:

* 40k is adult candyland, any simpleton can play it now and trounce a tactical veteran (false)

* 40k is so random that tactics mean nothing now. It's just a dice fest where retards seal clap at each other because now they can beat people that know how to use tactics (false)

* 40k is such a mess. Its in such a bad state. I'm going to play warmachine which is much better (opinion with no basis backing up why. While it may be a valid opinion (as opinions can't be invalid if its how someone feels) as a review it is **** poor because it doesn't explain anything, so to a person that doesn't know the game or system all they read is that its a mess, and then seeing the other wall of rages around, just move on. Guy from work did just that. He and his buddies played space marine on xbox and were investigating the game and the deathwatch RPG and came across several sites of people jumping up and down slagging 40k for being broken and ruined, so he figured something was wrong. We discussed and I counter pointed and he snagged a copy of the small rulebook and made the decision that it wasn't nearly as bad as what the internet said it was (go figure, that's a meme slogan after all)

* 40k went the way of fantasy with its stupid rules like challenges and random movement. It's a horrible game now. (why is that a **** poor review? It doesn't explain why they feel challenges or dumb, nor do they really explain random movement other than as a descriptor synonymous with "horrible". They also fail to mention past games used a lot of random movement ie cover which in most of my games was a determining factor and used quite often, as a point of comparison.

* 40k took assault armies and make them worthless. It's all about shooting now with the new rhino rules make assault impossible. Also things like dreadnoughts are WORTHLESS now because of hull points. Tanks die in one round of bolter fire! That's gay!!!

So much false about this, but something I see several times a day on a blog or down at the shop, but which is (intentionally or not) masterfully hyperboled which to the common person who doesn't want to do research will just take as the rules are broken and gay because this guy says they are.

Is it easier to kill vehicles now? Depending on the army, yes. Against necrons, forget about it, but necrons were gauss popping tanks in 4th and 5th too, and the vehicles today seem to be living on average as long as they were living back in May so there's nothing hugely different here other than probability tables have moved to different numbers. Rhinos being nerfed down are real but that doesn't make assault armies worthless... that makes your hail mary pass every game where you streaked your rhinos across the table as a non viable tactic anymore and you have to come up with new tactics for your assault army, which you don't want to have to do (and which has been said many times on here, bols, dakka, my shop, etc) "I don't want to have to relearn the game again, I learned how to do well before and now I have to relearn again and I don't have time for that"

So assault armies worthless? lmao. No. Your old tactics worthless? yes I can buy that. Can that be annoying? Depending on the person sure. Does that make 40k a horrible game because you have to learn new assault tactics? No.

So really in short a good 95% of the flaming here has had no basis to back it up with other than opinion, and opinion is great but without quantifying the opinion somehow doesn't make for a good review for someone who doesnt know anything about the game past or present because they have nothing to draw comparisons to or have any real mechanism for them to judge other than "it's bad... just take my word for it... I dno't like it because my style is not supported anymore so its bad"

I suspect if you put the game up to a ratings review site you'd get an entire mixed bag where one post loves it and the next calls it the worst possible game ever.

Case in point, I'm a big football fan and happen to love this year's madden release for the xbox/ps3. However, there is a metric TON of flaming going on about it that if I trusted reviews straight up I would have avoided it, and most of the flaming points that I've read have been wholly false, much like what I've talked about above.

Here's a valid review for 40k: past editions were more tactical. This edition the absolute tactics were removed and a risk mitigation system was put in its place. If you are a fan of games like chess and want your wargame to reflect a game like chess where absolute tactics work all the time, you probably won't like 40k. If you like risk mitigation and strategical management of resources you will like the game more.

They are two wholly different design philosophies, and one of the game devs for DUST discussed 40k's new direction and what risk mitigation philosophy vs absolute tactic philosophy was. I highly recommend you search youtube for it. It was on BOLS a month or so ago.

Schismotive
22-09-2012, 19:55
All the bad reviews about 40k now have merit, I'd say. Most people I talk to agree that the brainpower's been taken out of the game. Assault armies are pretty inferior, and strategy has taken a big hit. 5th ed already had risk mitigation and playing to the odds; strategy was already not very prominent, making up maybe a fourth of overall gameplay. Now there is just so much less; old things like positioning, risk taking and overall strategy feel gone in a way...

Not only this but I personally wouldn't recommend 40k to people right now; GW's recent price increase is just insane, and it's almost not worth it anymore :(

I play much more warmachine now because it still feels like a balanced game to me. With 40k now, whenever I play I feel like my army is made up of the worthless mobs in a dungeon crawler that the shiny heroes get to spit on all day...

Grimbad
22-09-2012, 21:42
...it introduced AP instead of the incredibly complex save modifiers that turned every battle into a maths class.

Subtracting one-digit numbers, the horror.
Not that second edition is perfect, either, it certainly doesn't work for the same purpose 6th edition is attempting, but really, 2e is not that complicated if you're using a reasonable army.

Ail-Shan
23-09-2012, 01:24
I haven't played a game of 6th (that's not me trying to sound important, just a fact). Of course I have 2 very good reasons for that: I'm at school without my army, and I play Eldar. That's really my main gripe with 6th, is that not much (if anything at all) was done to bring up old books to be even remotely on part with newer ones. But I shouldn't take that out on the edition. That's just codex creep, changes in design philosophies, whatever (although I can't imagine anyone suggesting that there be as few options as possible in a book...that's just ridiculous)

But there are some pretty objective complaints I have about 6th:

1) There is almost no reason to have an assault weapon. In general, a pistol will be about as capable (and gets you the extra attack with a paired weapon), and rapid fire is in general better at longer range (and a lot of armies seem to have access to both). This is emphasized because I play Eldar. The ability to fire effectively at medium range on the move used to be the bonus, but now that rapid fire weapons can keep shooting at full range there isn't much reason beyond being able to assault afterwards (which a pistol works for). Really the only exception is the storm bolter, but that's because it's as long of range as a bolter but with the 2 shots. And even then, why should an assault weapon be MORE effective than a rapid fire weapon at longer range? That seems ironic.

2) All vehicles hit on a 3 at worst. Really my problem with this is it's a blanket mechanic, which are pretty terrible to have. It makes the turn based function of the game more identifiable too, but that was always a problem really ("Well your skimmer landed and so I can hit it in close combat" Why can't my skimmer be flying in the middle of your turn?). Actually, this is only really a problem because of hull points. It makes grenades extremely effective against vehicles, which they shouldn't be. They should be average at best. As it is, I don't know why you'd ever take a meltabomb when krak grenades are just fine against almost everything. More importantly, this makes haywires extremely effective at killing vehicles. Despite hawks appreciating the slight buff, I liked it better when haywires simply shut down vehicles, rather than destroying everything. It felt a little more accurate to what they are.

3) Disembarking at 6" max. Again, a blanket mechanic that doesn't deal with the fact that skimmers should be better at delivering troops (if I recall, open topped vehicles are also restricted by this, which they really shouldn't be with how easy they should be to pile out of).

4) Reserves. I feel like this entire aspect of the game was hit pretty hard, which limits the ways in which an army can play the game. Anything that limits unnecessarily isn't good for the game. The change also seems a bit attributed to the rules for flyers (must start in reserves but rolls start at turn 1 now, don't they? I haven't read the rules enough times and my book is in another state).

5) Psychic tables. I do like that they were added...mostly. It seems like they were divided up rather arbitrarily, almost as if to give the illusion that different armies are unique in their studying of psychic abilities. Eldar having such a restricted access was also annoying. But the main part is how you roll on the tables. It's rather obvious that the concept of a universal set of psychic powers was ported from Fantasy, but why didn't they just take the whole thing? Why do you have to roll for a power, then choose if you want to swap it for the primaris, and then roll the next, rerolling a duplicate? Why can't you simply roll all the powers and swap one for the primaris (you can even have it be reroll a duplicate rather than choose a power like fantasy has). It just feels really clunky, and like it's designed to make it as easy for your power selection to be unhelpful to your army.

Then there are the simple complaints: Pinning still isn't a worthwhile rule to even have in the book. ATSKNF is absolutely ridiculous now that marines can't be escorted off the table (combined with combat tactics they can fall back from a combat they barely lost and shoot the target with the whole army for no real loss). Movement is too quick while redeployment is too slow (this is actually a pretty big thing. It seems so easy to cross a table quickly in a transport, but once you're there it takes somewhere around 3 turns to get somewhere else in your transport, by which time the game is over. Small arms also are not all that effective because they lack range compared to movement). Walkers are abysmal in close combat. Challenges seem like a clunky, unnecessary and unfitting addition. I also don't really like that forward members of units are killed first, if only because I hate losing specially equipped models to shooting (odd since I don't get any other than Exarchs). I think 5th did such allocation best. Yes, you could los snipe, but really that was an abuse of the mechanics that you can't get around without the other side complaining that hidden models are getting shot. If you did cover based on how much of the unit was visible, rather than a blanket "at least half, you get a 5+" it would also mostly eliminate such sniping.

But really, a lot boils down to having such an old book. I'd say I had gone to a new game, but I just changed to fantasy so...yea. I like how customizable commanders (even unit champions) are, and how simply changing your magic lore can change the way your army plays. There's also a lot more to be done with movement despite it being relatively slow since units can't simply attack in any direction like in 40k (that isn't to say such a thing is bad for 40k. Really it's actually good, since it fits the idea of more free form units and the whole shooting aspect). Oh, and armor modifiers. Armor modifiers are cool (and meshes well with being able to take armor and ward saves together).

Gonefishing
23-09-2012, 02:48
Thing is you aren't reading an "honest review". You're reading this:

* 40k is adult candyland, any simpleton can play it now and trounce a tactical veteran (false)



On the first point I agree with you, an experienced gamer will still generally beat a simpleton 99 times out of 100 because even when the dice gods have deserted you a skilled player will still play for the mission and a simpleton will play a less organised game.




* 40k is so random that tactics mean nothing now. It's just a dice fest where retards seal clap at each other because now they can beat people that know how to use tactics (false)



I dont really have a problem with the random movement on its own, when they introduced premeasuring they had to bring in random charges, otherwise a skilled player would rarely be in charge range. Plus 40K has always had random movement of some sort (Run / Difficult Terrain etc). On the whole I have no problem with random events in any game, the starcards and event cards in Firestorm Armada and Necromunda are great fun, and really add to the gameplay. The main problem's I have with the randomness in 6th?

1. There is just too much randomness, you roll for your Warlord and Psychic powers - they may or may not be any use at all, you roll your movement, your reserves, you roll your objectives, you roll your terrain, gamelength, etc etc. It now seems like every single part of the game calls for you to roll a dice, and anyone of those rolls can screw you over completely.

2. Its not fun, as above there is to much randomness, and everytime you roll that dice you are doing something to yourself not your opponent. In Necro and Firestorm (during the game) the random events you draw effect you positively, your opponent negatively - Or they cancel the effect of your opponents event. You can have a great laugh with these events, and they can very much swing battles, also, despite the randomness they seem somehow balanced. The randomness in 40K now seems different to this, everytime you roll one of the dice you are rolling to see if you screw yourself over, and that just makes it annoying, not fun.

Yes, the argument can be made that everytime you roll a dice to hit etc in 40k you run the same risk, but it isnt the same - My brave lads screwing up there shooting is funny, I can shake my fist at them dramatically and curse there shortsightedness, the "designed" random effects dont offer that element of fun - its more "I walk into the woodland cover, hurrah, half my unit is dead" - great, there goes that plan. I think the point is that the inherent randomness of a dice rolling game is countered by the fact that when you fail to hit, wound or save you are at least doing something, randomness in 6th seems more about stopping you doing that action in the first place.

3. The randomness can effect the game to much - we have all had games where we lose to the roll of one dice, even if its just the game ending on turn 5 with you 1 inch out of claim range on an objective. And this is fine, its the game and it happens - snatching defeat from the jaws of victory is part of the game. 6th however takes this to new levels, with all the random elements having a massive effect on the game, be it by failing that last minute charge distance or rolling a crap warlord talent for the mission or any of the other devices we hear about now. Randomness now does have a much much higher impact on the game then it used to, and I think this is why some people believe that it has also lessened the tactical elements of the game - personally I agree with them here.

4. Randomness has made the end result of the game less predictable, but the game as a whole has become far more predictable - you can no longer effectively trap or ambush your opponent, between premeasuring and the changes to flanking, Transports, assulats and reserve rules etc etc, it is now virtually impossible to "get the drop" on your opponent, or pull an unexpected move on your opponent. Your opponent always now seems to have a turn to counter your trap, because the core rules no longer let you spring it without waiting a turn. Shooting has also become more powerful in the new rules set, and shooty armies are appearing all over the place, but the game has developed so far into a more "move and Shoot" based mechanic - so you know whats coming.

Its amazing as GW have manged to produce a game that is random and predictable at the same time, turn by turn you can predict your opponents moves and you cant be ambushed by them anymore, the end of the game however seems to be far more random. Personally I dont like the Random Predictability.




* 40k is such a mess. Its in such a bad state. I'm going to play warmachine which is much better (opinion with no basis backing up why. While it may be a valid opinion (as opinions can't be invalid if its how someone feels) as a review it is **** poor because it doesn't explain anything, so to a person that doesn't know the game or system all they read is that its a mess, and then seeing the other wall of rages around, just move on. Guy from work did just that. He and his buddies played space marine on xbox and were investigating the game and the deathwatch RPG and came across several sites of people jumping up and down slagging 40k for being broken and ruined, so he figured something was wrong. We discussed and I counter pointed and he snagged a copy of the small rulebook and made the decision that it wasn't nearly as bad as what the internet said it was (go figure, that's a meme slogan after all)



The same is equally true vice versa however, the positive comments on 6th edition are just as light as some of the negative ones, make the same type of sweeping genralisations you are complaining about here, and in some cases are (just as you say about the negative comments above) - " (opinion with no basis backing up why (as opinions can't be invalid if its how someone feels) as a review it is **** poor because it doesn't explain anything)"[/I] Are you telling the positive people to stop posting too? Because their viewpoint is every but as biased as the negatives (by your logic).

As I said before, I would rather read what people genuinely think of the game - positive and negative, and then make up my own mind as to wehther I want to spend lots and lots of money. If the disagreement is about giving people a bad "Perception" of game by talking about it badly, I think it is equally wrong to give them just the candy pill version and a give them an equally skewed perspective on the game play.




* 40k went the way of fantasy with its stupid rules like challenges and random movement. It's a horrible game now. (why is that a **** poor review? It doesn't explain why they feel challenges or dumb, nor do they really explain random movement other than as a descriptor synonymous with "horrible". They also fail to mention past games used a lot of random movement ie cover which in most of my games was a determining factor and used quite often, as a point of comparison.



"40K went the way of fantasy, I love the new challenges rules, and random movement is sweet - I love this game!" - This is equally a pisspoor review, it does not explain why they like the rules, why they like challenges or not, nor do they explain random movement other than as a descriptor synonymous with "sweet". Yet its ok for this sort of review to be out there? Is that because it is being positive or beacause you agree with the point?

Incidently - I do thing challenges are dumb, I think they are unfluffy for every army that is not Marines or Chaos - A Tau Commander is more like to plasma gun you in the face then accept a challenge he already knows he cant win. I think its an unwieldy fantasy "herohammer" device that does not fit into the 40K game well. I also think its is extremely unbalanced, as all the characters are far from the same levels of combat ability and is massively open to abuse. Finally, alot of people in my experience, aren't using challenges because they are "Cinematic" or "Drive the narrative", they are using them to tarpit units, kill weaker special characters and abuse various combos - tactically thats fine, but I dont think its what the Games Designers "intended" for that rule and immersion breaking.




* 40k took assault armies and make them worthless. It's all about shooting now with the new rhino rules make assault impossible. Also things like dreadnoughts are WORTHLESS now because of hull points. Tanks die in one round of bolter fire! That's gay!!!

So much false about this, but something I see several times a day on a blog or down at the shop, but which is (intentionally or not) masterfully hyperboled which to the common person who doesn't want to do research will just take as the rules are broken and gay because this guy says they are.

Is it easier to kill vehicles now? Depending on the army, yes. Against necrons, forget about it, but necrons were gauss popping tanks in 4th and 5th too, and the vehicles today seem to be living on average as long as they were living back in May so there's nothing hugely different here other than probability tables have moved to different numbers. Rhinos being nerfed down are real but that doesn't make assault armies worthless... that makes your hail mary pass every game where you streaked your rhinos across the table as a non viable tactic anymore and you have to come up with new tactics for your assault army, which you don't want to have to do (and which has been said many times on here, bols, dakka, my shop, etc) "I don't want to have to relearn the game again, I learned how to do well before and now I have to relearn again and I don't have time for that"



Personally I think hullpoints are a ridiculous mechanic, I have no problem with the idea of vehicles being nerfed slightly, they needed to be - but GW went far to far on this one. Necrons, Tau, and Imperial Guard can now just point at vehicles and say "I choose you!" - The next sound you hear is "Boooooooooom", be it to shooting or close combat. 10 Orks charge a vehicle, 40 attacks on the charge, 27 hits (no matter how fast the vehicle moved) - 4 or 5 glancing hits statistically - boom.

I actually supported a nerf on vehicles, a nerf that would have put Mech / Foot and Hybrid lists on equal footing, it would have been great fun watching tank colums fighting horde armies with the results in the balance - instead GW turned vehicles into coffins with engines, every armies "AT" has risen exponentially and every armies fire power has increased, at the same time tanks have been subjected to a massive downgrade in survivability. So vehicles are now facing more shots, that they are less likely to survive, and if an opponent gets into CC range its almost certain boom.

I told a friend how weak vehicles were in 6th and he did not believe me, we played a game and he brought some mech - by turn 2 his 7 vehicles (the Majority of which were in 4+ cover) were dead - and thats not a statistical anomoly, vehicle now die fast - cheap transports are still worth it, as they can still do there job (move across the table) for little points cost. Expensive main battletanks? - Not so good.

Saying all that I think the worst point about vehicles now is the fact that can no longer "Deny" objectives, not HP's. I can understand not being able to score with troops inside a transport, but why not be able to contest? Essentially now vehicles are less survivable, and have no viable end game use - but thats fine as they will all be dead by the end of the game anyway ;).




So assault armies worthless? lmao. No. Your old tactics worthless? yes I can buy that. Can that be annoying? Depending on the person sure. Does that make 40k a horrible game because you have to learn new assault tactics? No.



I agree here, assualt armies are not "Worthless", they are at a disadvantage now to shooty armies, but they are far from worthless. To be fair however I am not the most qualified player to discuss the assualt phase as I play Tau lol. People can genuinely dislike he assualt rules for being bad however, not because they effect there old tactics or because they have to learn a new way to play - they can dislike them just because they genuinely believe that they are badly written and the bias for success has moved over to fully to shooting however.




So really in short a good 95% of the flaming here has had no basis to back it up with other than opinion, and opinion is great but without quantifying the opinion somehow doesn't make for a good review for someone who doesnt know anything about the game past or present because they have nothing to draw comparisons to or have any real mechanism for them to judge other than "it's bad... just take my word for it... I dno't like it because my style is not supported anymore so its bad"



The same argument could be made for all the positive comments about 6th, I could say that 95% of the people who say nice things about 6th have nothing to back it up but there opinion, and as you say, that does not make it a good positive review either. "Its Great, take my word for it...I love it because I no longer have to fight those nasty mech armies anymore so its great."

All of this is opinion, no matter how many reasons someone puts forward as evidence, it is still just an opinion - its a subjective tabletop wargame game not a scientific thereom, so no matter what someone says and what evidence he provides behind his thinking, there will always be someone who disagrees with him. Thats fine though, as both people are entitled to there opinion and both are more than entitled to express there opinion.




Case in point, I'm a big football fan and happen to love this year's madden release for the xbox/ps3. However, there is a metric TON of flaming going on about it that if I trusted reviews straight up I would have avoided it, and most of the flaming points that I've read have been wholly false, much like what I've talked about above.


In your opinion.

I am not saying you are wrong or right - but I am saying that that is your opinion, and the evidence you presented is no more compelling than the evidence I have seen coming from the otherside. Personally I disagree with you for the reasons quoted above and thats my opinion. Neither of us is right or wrong, but then neither of us will ever admit that the other is catergorically right or wrong either - because we both have a different opinion and we can both back those opinions with reasons why we feel that way.




Here's a valid review for 40k: past editions were more tactical. This edition the absolute tactics were removed and a risk mitigation system was put in its place. If you are a fan of games like chess and want your wargame to reflect a game like chess where absolute tactics work all the time, you probably won't like 40k. If you like risk mitigation and strategical management of resources you will like the game more.


And I would disagree with that review, past editions were certainly more tactical, but risk mitigation has always been a heavy part of 40K - its not been put in place of tactics, it's something any decent player learns. It may have become more apparent in this edition, but only because the inclusion of additional "Randomness" that has made it more apparent / necessary. 5th edition was more focused on what you call "absolute" tactics, but it is far from true that things worked in a set way everytime as in chess. Things could (and did go wrong) following the old maxim that no plan of battle survives first contact with the enemy, random movement (we both agree) existed in 5th, your brave lads could charge into CC and roll 1's across the board - nothing is certain, and 40K has never been a true "Absolute" game, although it has contained elements of it, So Tactics and Risk mitigation still exist, and have done throughout the editions.

At the end of the day people have every right to say they dislike the game and talk about it, just as they have every right to praise the game to the high heavens, and I dont think its fair to essentially tell people "I disagree with you, just shut up and move on". As far as I am concerned every one has the right to express there opinion Those out there who like 6th - well I am genuinely happy for you and I hope you enjoy the next 4 years of gaming until the next edition, those who dont like it - well I am one of you and cosmiserate with you.

Fithos
23-09-2012, 17:19
* 40k is such a mess. Its in such a bad state. I'm going to play warmachine which is much better (opinion with no basis backing up why. While it may be a valid opinion (as opinions can't be invalid if its how someone feels) as a review it is **** poor because it doesn't explain anything, so to a person that doesn't know the game or system all they read is that its a mess, and then seeing the other wall of rages around, just move on. Guy from work did just that. He and his buddies played space marine on xbox and were investigating the game and the deathwatch RPG and came across several sites of people jumping up and down slagging 40k for being broken and ruined, so he figured something was wrong. We discussed and I counter pointed and he snagged a copy of the small rulebook and made the decision that it wasn't nearly as bad as what the internet said it was (go figure, that's a meme slogan after all)


There is a great quote for the box art.


"Warhammer 40k. Not really as bad as the internet says!"


the bad reviews about 40k now have merit, I'd say.{...} strategy was already not very prominent, making up maybe a fourth of overall gameplay. Now there is just so much less; old things like positioning{...}

Wouldn't it be great if they made positioning more important like maybe, I don't know, making it so that you could hit certain parts of the squad based on what direction you were shooting at them from...:shifty:

In all seriousness I agree with IcedCrow that it is a good game if it is the kind of game you are looking for. BUt I also agree that I would not recommend new people start it because GW is charging through the roof for their stuff. I will probably only ever buy new cedicii's again because I can't afford $50+ every time I want a new hunk of plastic.

lanrak
23-09-2012, 17:50
Here is what the 40k box should say...

... In a grimdark future there is no time for elegant game mechanics.
There is no room for intuitive resolution methods.
There is no space for tactical acumen.
There is only rolling lots and lots of dice!:D

If you want a well defined elegant wargame ,with rewarding tactical gameplay .
You will not like 40k 6th ed.

If you like rolling lots of dice, and buying /collecting lots of GW plc product.
40k 6th ed will be perfect for you.

IcedCrow
23-09-2012, 19:50
That's great except that the twenty or so people I interact with that play 40k don't prefer rolling lots of dice and buying a ton of GW product. In fact I dont' know of anyone even on the magical internet that said they love 40k because it allows them to roll a lot of dice. There's plenty of "tactical gameplay" present, as much as there always has been. The tactics not being absolute is not an absence of tactical gameplay

mughi3
24-09-2012, 04:26
Personally I dont think there is a right or wrong answer in this thread, I am sure there are plenty of people out there who love 6th, just as there are plenty of people who hate it and a broad percentage of people who are utterly ambivilent about it!

What I do support whole heartedly however is the right to talk about it (good or bad), it's all very well to say that people should only express dislike/disappointment with the game when it was first realeased - for me (personally) thats entirely the wrong time to complain about the new ruleset. When I first got the rulebook back in June (I was sad enough to turn up at the shop at midnight to buy it) I was excited at the prospect of a new edition. I sat down with my highlighter pen and post-it's and started to read....I did not like it much, but at that point I had not played a single game, so I could not really comment on how the game played or if the new rules worked. Now I have played quite a few games and my initial dislike for the core rules has grown, I feel far better able to comment on what I dislike about the game and the direction GW have taken. Good or bad, people have an opinion and every right to express that opinion.

I also dont buy the argument that by talking about peoples perceptions of the game, we are unfairly putting off new players. 40K costs alot of money, if I was considering starting it now I would read the forums to see what people think about the game - I know what type of gamer I am, I know what type of games I enjoy, I would rather read peoples unbiased opinions on the product before spending lots of money for something which I would not use. If I go on holiday and book a hotel, I read the reviews before I book, if I buy a new PC I read the reviews before I get my wallet out - I would rather read an honest review and not get that product then read pages of "Its great", because the people who did not like the product dont want to say so for fear of upsetting people.

I play other games (Firestorm Armada, Infinity, Necromunda, and dark heresey) and enjoy them (especially Firestorm Armada which I would recomend heavily to anyone here - excellent and simple rules, but also a surprisingly tactical and strategic, and the star cards add some really FUN random events), but I have not been playing them for 8 or 9 years and spent thousands of pound on models - If the rules were changed on these games and I did not like them it would be very easy to "walk away" - I have been playing 40K for 8 - 9 years, and spent alot of time, money and effort on the game, it isnt easy to just walk away from that (maybe it was for you, but its not for me) , and as a result I am still in the place where I want to "Talk" about it, and see if other people are feeling the same way.

For me (and again I can only give my personal opinion) my dislike for the new rules has nothing to do with disliking change, or my Codexes interaction with the rules (and the only real complaint about the randomness they have introduced is the fact they have put it in but have not made it fun). Its the core rules themselves that I really dont enjoy, and respectfully, I do reserve the right to talk about that if I want to - at least until i manage to successfuly walk away.

.

Pretty much had the same experience. i play ALOT of other systems and i have never seen any other game company hamstring their customers in the way GW does. i should have learned my lesson when they slapped my dark angels around with the pathetic 4th ed book that made most of my fluff built armies illegal to use.

I think the problem is that with 6th ed, while it has some great mechanic changes like snapfire, overwatch, flyers(yes i do love seeing them brought into the core game) and rapid fire move+shoot mechanics, they tossed away many of the good rules that made ALL legal army builds viable.

I used to have a great bit of fun and good battles that could have swung either way in 3rd/4th/5th ed using a very similar army list. however if i put that same list into 6th i am pretty much giving my opponant a free win. after this many months of playing 6th(and i have the opportunity to play multiple games every weekend) i have only been able to eek out a few successful hard fought battles when i tooled a list out specifically to counter all of 6th eds bad rules changes(and even then it sometimes didnt work), when i put my favorite army on the table i am pretty much getting tabled every time. which almost never happened before, even in games that went badly for me.

It's gotten to he point now where we almost never play 40K at the local game store because of 6th, yesterday i educated people about classic battletech and then got to have a refresher course on how to play heavy gear blitz. the majority of the 20+ people there were either playing RPGs or card games(magic and L5R).

nosebiter
24-09-2012, 05:08
Here's a question. What would it take for GW to win those of you back who are still on the fence?

Hurry up the codex releases. I dont care if there is a handfull of new units without minis for 6 or so months, i can proxy or convert. The Codexes are just all over the place and is the main issue i have with the game.

More consistent faqs and rules updates. Nothing wrong with faqing a core rule if it has proven itself to be worse than anticipated.

Throw finecast under the bus, go all plastic.

Clone Jes Goodwin.

GIve me an eldar codex, like now.

And no more marine codexes

Magpie_Oz
24-09-2012, 06:12
I suppose it's out of the question for those guys who hate 6th ed so much to just keep playing 5th ?

Ail-Shan
24-09-2012, 13:52
Eh....you could. Of course that's an agreement between you and whoever you're playing with. 6th is the...expectation. If you go to a gaming group/store, it's expected that everyone is playing with the most recent rules.

It's a house rule really. They can work just fine among your friends, but the moment you want to play with someone outside that tight group it becomes conflicting.

Badbones777
24-09-2012, 13:53
I've yet to play a game of 6th edition, but have liked most of what I've seen, but then what you like on paper doesn't necessarily translate over so I cannot judge either way yet.

However, regardless of wording in the actual book, in the D6 generation podcast interview when 5th ed first came out, Alessio explicitly stated that the intent was for it to be more cinematic in feel
than previous editions, so that combined with the more narrative approach/intent (similar with 8th ed WFB in that regard) could just indicate that 6th ed is following a change of tack in general toward
how they design the games.

In any case, as is true of any change in edition, of you aren't enjoying it, your old books and dex's aren't going anywhere-you can still play the old versions if you prefer them.

Machinehead
24-09-2012, 16:35
I suppose it's out of the question for those guys who hate 6th ed so much to just keep playing 5th ?

In any case, as is true of any change in edition, of you aren't enjoying it, your old books and dex's aren't going anywhere-you can still play the old versions if you prefer them.Among friends, sure. As soon as you go out to get a pick up game, or go to an event it's going to be 6th. That's the assumption, that the newest version will be used, and not house ruled so everyone is on the same page.

IcedCrow
24-09-2012, 16:38
Well it's not that difficult to find a group that hates 6th and just plays 5th and does 5th-only events. If your only outlet to play 40k are pick up games and not in any club or what not, form your own =) that's what I've had to do. I am not a fan of random pickup games anyway.

gazukull
24-09-2012, 23:01
I think I am in the real minority here. I liked 2nd Edition best. No really.

-G

PostinDirty
24-09-2012, 23:36
no you're not; another warseer meme is to regularly have people (including myself) whine and moan about how great 2nd ed used to be

Omniassiah
25-09-2012, 01:04
I suppose it's out of the question for those guys who hate 6th ed so much to just keep playing 5th ?

Playing 5th wouldn't be too much of an issue if it wasn't for GWs problem of never getting all the Codexes out during one edition. That means even if you wanted to you would still have to deal with codexes from at least 2 editions.

Badbones777
26-09-2012, 15:04
Among friends, sure. As soon as you go out to get a pick up game, or go to an event it's going to be 6th. That's the assumption, that the newest version will be used, and not house ruled so everyone is on the same page.

That's certainly a fair point (I never play anything but games against friends, all of whom live nearby and I know not everyone has that luxury-easy to forget!). However I would be surprised if someone out there wasn't running a 5th (or even earlier) tourney/club scene in much the same way that there must surely be someone doing a 6th or 7th ed tourney for WFB, especially as I think it's been more or less implied by GW that the current rule sets are not as tourney/competitive friendly as previous editions. Good luck anyhow mate!

Hicks
26-09-2012, 19:16
For me the thrill is definitely gone and I think the only reason why I'm keeping some armies is the fact that I poured so much time painting and converting them. 40K has been getting worse and worse for a while IMO. In fact, looking back to it, even if I could find a hundred flaws with 4th edition, it's still the one I liked the best.

I don't even have the 6th rulebook and I don't think I'll get it any time soon. It's just too damn gimmicky now and there is absolutely no balance in that game. I really prefer spending my time and money on other games now.

Ereshkigal
26-09-2012, 19:45
After playing 5-6 games in sixth ed i decided to switch over to warmachine and wait for the codices to come out... i thought Warmahordes would have been only a brief pause but now i really fear i can't come back to wh40k anymore... i don't know, i wanted 6th to be really good but facing 9 fliers is no fun.

IcedCrow
27-09-2012, 00:44
I'm so thankful that I have never faced 9 flyers and don't play against people that do that kind of thing. :cheese:

PostinDirty
27-09-2012, 00:55
After playing 5-6 games in sixth ed i decided to switch over to warmachine and wait for the codices to come out... i thought Warmahordes would have been only a brief pause but now i really fear i can't come back to wh40k anymore... i don't know, i wanted 6th to be really good but facing 9 fliers is no fun.

I've found warmahordes to be a breath of fresh air and so much more of a pleasure to play.

RandomThoughts
27-09-2012, 11:03
I feel the same way. I was really thrilled with a lot of the new rules at first: Allies. Casualty removal. New focus on infantry.

But somehow for every single new rule that improved the game, another one made it worse. :(

In the end, I stopped playing 40K entirely without even noticing it at first. I do still play Warmachine once every other week or so, but that's been pretty much it for tabletop related activities since August.

All considered, I think 40K has an awesome premise, but they screwed up mightly in the execution.

Just one thing I have to get off my chest, though: Adding random/narrative elements like weird terrain to the game doesn't make it more narration-friendly. All it does is force a narration on games, thereby denying players the ability to form their own narration. For months before 6th hit, we made up background stories for our battles, bending and tweaking the rules so that we could play beachheads, sieges, night raids, surprise attacks, etc. using the standard scenarios. Mission Objectives became retreat routes for the assaulted army, spots with clear radio reception for a surrounded force, etc.

The kind of narrative focus I would have wanted is one in which small arms fire can kill unarmed models riding on top of open topped vehicles (Ork Buggies, Dark Eldar Barges), not one in which my warlord, my representative on the battlefield, ends up with a random ability that often goes outright against the persona I created for him/her in my mind.

Essentially, what I was hoping for were a few more intuitive rules, less WTF moments when the rules openly contradict the inherrent sense of what should happen inside the game world, a better balance between armies and playstyles. Better scalability with percentages would have also been good, making 500-points skirmishes as playable as 3000-points epic escalations. Then of course, I do resent the way the game takes more and more control out of the players' hands by making them random. Random reserves. Random movements. Random this. Random that. Compared to Warmachine, 40K always feels like drunk driving. I can steer my "car" into the general direction I want, but without any fine motorics, without real control.

I think I'll also keep my Eldar shelved for the foreseeable future and enjoy my occasional Warmachine skirmishes.

Ereshkigal
27-09-2012, 15:36
The problem is not randomness, is the lack of depth. While on Warmahordes i have to think a lot about the list (and you could really try to outsmart your opponent there) and then another lot on how i move my pieces and what i should do with them. The order of activation is really important, the ability and spell i use are crucial and what target i need to remove fast and which pieces i am willing to trade...

On warhammer i always feel one or two things are important: which one goes first and how i field my army. Then the army literally plays by itself... i won several tournaments just on the first turn with my dark eldar and lost games against imperial guards just at the first dice roll when deciding the side where to field... it's not acceptable to me. Not anymore.

Caitsidhe
27-09-2012, 16:03
Dead, cremated, ashes spread, and gone.

IcedCrow
27-09-2012, 16:05
Warmachine plays very much like magic: the gathering only with miniatures instead of cards. Its about combos and figuring out what combo to rip off at the right time. It's a pretty solid game, especially if you like absolute-tactical driven games and combo games.

big squig
27-09-2012, 17:56
Warmachine plays very much like magic: the gathering only with miniatures instead of cards. Its about combos and figuring out what combo to rip off at the right time. It's a pretty solid game, especially if you like absolute-tactical driven games and combo games.

That's exactly why I can't stand warmachine/hordes. There are no battlefield tactics. It's just rules twisting and combos. Then again I also think the minis are hideous and the fiction sucks.

Then again I don't like 6th ed 40k either.

Dark Aly
27-09-2012, 18:02
I suppose it's out of the question for those guys who hate 6th ed so much to just keep playing 5th ?

I didn't like that much either. I've not enjoyed 40k since 2nd but the new toys are great for necromunda. My mates still like it and so I get roped in quite a bit.

Schismotive
27-09-2012, 18:14
I personally feel privateer press models are far superior to many GW models. They look more detailed, are reasonable priced, and there's no "crapcast." Also, warmahordes has plenty of strategy... positioning and movement mean so much more, keeping troops in cover actually keeps them alive, and heroes can still die in a single blow to an enemy. The game is actually, wait a minute, balanced?

And in my local group the warmahordes players are way more fun to play with

big squig
27-09-2012, 18:46
I personally feel privateer press models are far superior to many GW models. They look more detailed, are reasonable priced, and there's no "crapcast." Also, warmahordes has plenty of strategy... positioning and movement mean so much more, keeping troops in cover actually keeps them alive, and heroes can still die in a single blow to an enemy. The game is actually, wait a minute, balanced?

And in my local group the warmahordes players are way more fun to play with

All the warmahoreds players in my area are giant rules lawyering power gaming dicks. None of them paint or even glue their minis together because they don't like miniatures, they just want a game. I get the impression that if warmachine had pictures of the models on the bases instead of minis and if all terrain was 2d, warmachine players would be more happy.

Omniassiah
27-09-2012, 20:15
I think you should have phrased it as "Those warmachine players" and in all fairness I could say the same thing to quite a few GW players.

Hicks
27-09-2012, 20:24
I think you should have phrased it as "Those warmachine players" and in all fairness I could say the same thing to quite a few GW players.

Exactly. Also, I swear that warmahordes is even more about what you do with your tactics than how you make your list. You don't just push a bunch of models around, you really have to think about where you need to place them. Relying only on a combo getting off is very rock-paper-scisorish and a wise opponent can always work to disable parts of the combo if it's threatening, however, I find that a balanced list will always do ok, if you play well.

Also, the first turn is pretty much always for setting up your battle plan and moving your troops to the right spot. You very rarely see something like a mega alpha strike that totally cripples someone, before they could even play their first turn à la 40K

Schismotive
28-09-2012, 01:05
All the warmahoreds players in my area are giant rules lawyering power gaming dicks. None of them paint or even glue their minis together because they don't like miniatures, they just want a game. I get the impression that if warmachine had pictures of the models on the bases instead of minis and if all terrain was 2d, warmachine players would be more happy.

Now in MY area, it's quite the opposite... but to be fair I understand what you're saying. Most players I meet don't have painted armies, for BOTH warmahordes and 40k. I'm a player who always paints his models, and likes to play in a casual way. Warmachine also involves A LOT less rules-lawering no matter how you look at it

TrangleC
28-09-2012, 01:27
Where I live (South Germany) Warmachine/Hordes is the No.1 tabletop game. 40k has dropped to the 3rd or 4th place, after Gears Of War and perhaps Warhammer Fantasy.
The shop/club where I play is an especially extreme example, because 4 or 5 out of Europe's Top 10 W/H players play there, the shop owner being one of them. Those guys are very competitive. They don't really play, they train and exercise every week. Still, all of them are very nice, even though some of those Top 10 players and some of the many other guys who want to be one aren't really happy about wasting valuable training time on playing a noob, I think.

I still started playing W/H too, even though I never had played another tabletop game than 40k, but it is hard for somebody who doesn't play that often to really get into it. Another reason why I didn't give up on 40k even though I am pretty unhappy with 6th edition all in all, was that I'd be missing the feeling of fielding a real army. Even bigger W/H games still feel more like one big meele brawl than like a battle between big armies. What I like about 40k is that you got so many units on the table that can act separately of each other and are not forced to stay close to each other. You usually have several different hot spots scattered over the gaming table.

I still think W/H is overall the better and most of all better balanced system, but it has its drawbacks and I think the two systems go well together because there is little overlap and they are different enough to provide very different gaming experiences, even though I feel 40k came a little closer to W/H with 6th edition (due to stuff like challenges, overwatch and a stronger focus on what single models within a unit do) than it was before.

Tempest Six Two
28-09-2012, 04:39
Ive only had two games of 6th thus far and I love it. Yes, its taking longer to play a game as a lot of it is relatively new, but I cant say im crying rivers about all the 'nerfed' things that 'GW got wrong'. A good example would be the AP of Power Weapons, which I now personally feel work as they should- the head of an axe should have more ability to penetrate armour than a length of swordblade, when swung by the same user and with both weapons being a relative size for that user. Whilst the initiative drop when using certain weapons has received a lot of bad press I just see that models with changed weapon profiles are not 'nerfed', but are now meant to be used to tackle different opponents and acheive different goals.

In a lot of cases I get the impression that at a base level people are annoyed because their minis/army lists arent geared to do what they did before in 5th... Oh and regarding wound allocation- havent found much of an issue where the armour and toughness are the same for a unit, much preferable to the 'allocate wounds around until everyone has one, then start allocating any left over again' etc etc.

To be honest im having the hardest time just remembering to roll a seperate D6 for my Sgt/ ICs for their precision shots- i never remember. Overall, its been good fun thus far.

The_Klobb_Maniac
28-09-2012, 05:31
I think you need multiple game systems anyway. I'm a big fan of 6th ed, but I still take the occasional days and just play MTG with a plethora of decks and friends. If W/H is what fills that need then awesome. For me games like that fill a different need/itch.

Ronin_eX
28-09-2012, 06:53
I think you need multiple game systems anyway. I'm a big fan of 6th ed, but I still take the occasional days and just play MTG with a plethora of decks and friends. If W/H is what fills that need then awesome. For me games like that fill a different need/itch.

This is my general thought. No game exists that will keep me 100% interested all of the time. Lately I've been on an Infinity kick while I wait for the DA codex and I've been designing some TO&Es for Tomorrow's War while I plan on picking up some 15mm stuff for it. I play Warmahordes every now and then and even have a few OOP games that get pulled out from time to time. If I'm feeling in the mood for something slow and meaty then I break out my hex-maps and get everyone together for some Battletech. And some nights we get together for RPGs, magic or even just plain old boardgames. I find all the tribalism a little bit tiring because of this. You either like a game or you don't (and sometimes a third one that is a mix of both). Never saw a reason to constantly try to measure which game is objectively more enjoyable. Warmahordes scratches a Rube Goldberg-esque itch to design a force with insane synergies so that you can stroke your chin and flip your opponent the bird as you apply your awesome Xanatos Gambit. 40k (6th Edition or 2nd for me) is great when I want to throw down a horde of minis and weave an epic tale of grimdarkness where it is, not only your commandership, that wins the day, but also your ability to deal with the fog of war (i.e. the random cruft the game likes to throw at you in both editions). Every game has its strengths and weaknesses and everyone has their preferences. I think the best way to enjoy the hobby is to branch out a bit and find what your's are rather than gather in to tribes and beat the war drums. ;)

mughi3
28-09-2012, 12:46
That's exactly why I can't stand warmachine/hordes. There are no battlefield tactics. It's just rules twisting and combos. Then again I also think the minis are hideous and the fiction sucks.

Then again I don't like 6th ed 40k either.
Im kinda the same way in warmahordes which is why i went to infinity where even the basic line trooper can save the day if you get him to the rghit spot at the right time with the right equipment.

its very much about tactice, firelanes and movement not which combo your trying to pull off.

i am also getting a heavy gear force up and running for a bit of a mix of the styles of gameplay.

Emeraldw
28-09-2012, 13:32
I very much have to disagree with this sentiment about Warmachine not being about tactics or placement. If anything, placement is more important due to the power of failed positioning.

It is somewhat high stress with the very high potential damage out-put, but at the same time, the winner isn't obvious till the game is done. I have seen many 40k games which were clearly over due to sheer math, in WM, I have seen many games turn around due to something taking out the enemy warcaster.

Their just very different games and having multiple systems is ideal for a lot of gamers so we can try out different types of tactics.

Dark Aly
28-09-2012, 14:30
I have only played a few games but AE bounty seems good fun. TBH though necromunda is all the sci-fi skirmish I need. Now if only I could get titan legions and space marine and loads of models for cheap- then I'd have the big battles covered too.

big squig
28-09-2012, 17:41
Im kinda the same way in warmahordes which is why i went to infinity where even the basic line trooper can save the day if you get him to the rghit spot at the right time with the right equipment.

its very much about tactice, firelanes and movement not which combo your trying to pull off.

i am also getting a heavy gear force up and running for a bit of a mix of the styles of gameplay.

That's why I love infinity. I get really tired of both warmachines and 40k's need to shove in one special rule after another. Warmachine's special rules determine way to much of the game, and 40k's are so over the top, poorly designed, and often contradictory. At least warachine special rules are clearly written, I jus't don't want to play MTG with minis.

That's why games like infinity or kings of war are great. There's so few special rules. It's all about how you move your units and what actions you do with them.

IcedCrow
28-09-2012, 17:56
if i could convince others around me to try infinity and kow I would.

Bubble Ghost
28-09-2012, 18:01
Likewise - I've been dying to try Kings of War for ages, but no one at my club wants to know, even though, as WFB players, they already have armies for it.

RanaldLoec
28-09-2012, 18:44
I really have lost any interest in competitive play styles and I look for like minded opponents.

When games against one regular opponent just became a who has the bigger deathstar, I invested time in finding people who don't look for the new Easter egg in the rules.

Or the latest spam list that will conquer all before it. I have left behind the hunt for list perfection the greatest unit combo and the glories of emulating a table top napoleon.

Now I put together my lists not on what works best but what looks best what feels right and looks like an ,n tv I make decisions based on what would the hero which isn't always what will win me the game.

I do aim to win but I'm relaxed about losing. It's a game I play it because its fun, far too many times in the past have games devolved into rules disputes and that just isn't fun.

The thrill has returned to my hobby.

IcedCrow
28-09-2012, 18:48
I really have lost any interest competitive play styles and I look for like minded opponents.

When games against one regular opponent just became a who has the bigger deathstar I invested time in finding people who don't look for the new Easter egg in the rules.

Or the latest spam list that will conquer all before it. I have left behind the hunt for list perfection the greatest unit combo and the glories of emulating a table top napoleon.

Now I put together a my lists not on what works best but what looks best. I make decisions based on what would the hero which isn't always what will win me the game.

I do aim to win but I'm relaxed about losing. It's a game I play it because its fun, far too many times in the past have games devolved into rules disputes and that just isn't fun.

The thrill has returned to my hobby.

"LIKE"

Yes. I got burned out on tournament / power gaming and rules exploiting after a good seven years of doing nothing but. I prefer narrative campaigns now.

big squig
28-09-2012, 19:06
I really have lost any interest in competitive play styles and I look for like minded opponents.

When games against one regular opponent just became a who has the bigger deathstar, I invested time in finding people who don't look for the new Easter egg in the rules.

Or the latest spam list that will conquer all before it. I have left behind the hunt for list perfection the greatest unit combo and the glories of emulating a table top napoleon.

Now I put together my lists not on what works best but what looks best what feels right and looks like an ,n tv I make decisions based on what would the hero which isn't always what will win me the game.

I do aim to win but I'm relaxed about losing. It's a game I play it because its fun, far too many times in the past have games devolved into rules disputes and that just isn't fun.

The thrill has returned to my hobby.

Totally. At my local game shop we stopped doing 40k tournaments entirely and instead do one-day campaigns. They're a series of linked games, each one affecting the next. Players bring two lists, one for attacking, one for defending, and all the missions are like sabotage, rearguard, blitz, bunker assault, and so forth. They are often not balanced, but their so cool no one cares. There;s no entry fee and there's no prize, so no one gets too competitive.

It's just gotten to the point that I feel mini games just aren't a good fit for competitive play. There's too much 'fuzziness' around the edges for anything to be exact.

Gerod253
28-09-2012, 21:02
I'm honestly just tired of having to paint dozens of models just to be able to have a beginner level force in a new army, no matter the system. I love painting, but don't have a lot of time for it these days, and I'm looking for ways to use what I've already got. I still love the 40K setting. Yet I'm looking for ways to use my figures to play smaller skirmish level games. Going to try and teach my local group how to play Flying Lead by Ganesha Games. It scratches that itch while also being a game that you can teach to new players in about an hour or less, while playing the game.

I tried WarmaHordes before, and while I liked working with my own army list I found that in order to be competitive, or even win any games at my local store at all, I had to not only memorize my own stuff, but memorize my opponents stuff, and learn what their combos were so that i could be able to see them fast enough to counter them. That's too much like work for me and killed the fun of the game. 40k is going the same way.

Battletech looks like an option, as long as I can get the group to agree to not field custom mechs. The official ones are bad enough. :) Still, so far our games have been over quickly enough that even if one feels too one sided it is over quickly and on to the next game.

in the end, the thrill of large battle games is gone for me. Too many better ways to spend an afternoon than on one game.

Scammel
28-09-2012, 21:51
Totally. At my local game shop we stopped doing 40k tournaments entirely and instead do one-day campaigns. They're a series of linked games, each one affecting the next. Players bring two lists, one for attacking, one for defending, and all the missions are like sabotage, rearguard, blitz, bunker assault, and so forth. They are often not balanced, but their so cool no one cares. There;s no entry fee and there's no prize, so no one gets too competitive.

It's odd, it's almost as if GW encourage this kind of non-competitive, narrative play in virtually every publication they ever create! :p

Amnar
29-09-2012, 00:52
I personally hate warmahordes, however your experience is likely linked to the store you play in. My flgs only allows painted minis, the warmahordes players there are good people in general and play other games too. I went to another store recently where painting is optional and lo and behold it was war machine day. After two minutes in there store I wanted to pull my hair out, whiny, lawyering **********...

Same with 40k to be honest. Unpainted armies brings a different crowd

Omniassiah
29-09-2012, 01:01
I really have lost any interest in competitive play styles and I look for like minded opponents.

When games against one regular opponent just became a who has the bigger deathstar, I invested time in finding people who don't look for the new Easter egg in the rules.

Or the latest spam list that will conquer all before it. I have left behind the hunt for list perfection the greatest unit combo and the glories of emulating a table top napoleon.

Now I put together my lists not on what works best but what looks best what feels right and looks like an ,n tv I make decisions based on what would the hero which isn't always what will win me the game.

I do aim to win but I'm relaxed about losing. It's a game I play it because its fun, far too many times in the past have games devolved into rules disputes and that just isn't fun.

The thrill has returned to my hobby.

The only problem with that is with the poorly balanced codexes that GW produce you can often have your not broken army suddenly become an unstoppable power house. It happened with me and my Mech IG that I based off of my last unit in the military. It went from being a very expensive pts wise army with about 8 vehicles with restricted firing choices to suddenly being cheap underpriced spam army of the month of 14 tanks. The problem is that in casual gaming you can have someone pick that ridiculous army and it had nothing to do with them picking it, this is something that really shouldn't happen if the ruleset/codexes were updated and balanced more frequently. Sure tournament players will still find the most cost effective units but hopefully it is because they are 1-2 points too cheap as opposed to the 15-30 that some are now. Frankly I'm tired of having to change my armies to handicap myself for fair games every time a new codex or rulebook comes out.

Amnar
29-09-2012, 01:01
I'm a huge infinity fan, but really, few special rules? Infinity has more special rules than any game I know.... Camo lvl 1, 2, 3 etc.

RanaldLoec
29-09-2012, 01:10
The only problem with that is with the poorly balanced codexes that GW produce you can often have your not broken army suddenly become an unstoppable power house. It happened with me and my Mech IG that I based off of my last unit in the military. It went from being a very expensive pts wise army with about 8 vehicles with restricted firing choices to suddenly being cheap underpriced spam army of the month of 14 tanks. The problem is that in casual gaming you can have someone pick that ridiculous army and it had nothing to do with them picking it, this is something that really shouldn't happen if the ruleset/codexes were updated and balanced more frequently. Sure tournament players will still find the most cost effective units but hopefully it is because they are 1-2 points too cheap as opposed to the 15-30 that some are now. Frankly I'm tired of having to change my armies to handicap myself for fair games every time a new codex or rulebook comes out.


I'm 30 married no kids no mortgage and a large disposable income. One of everything minimum is my army philosophy.

Collection not lists.

I stop caring about perceived codex power levels and I accept each army as it is.

I don't handicap my self or anything else I simple no longer have an interest in what I should or shouldn't take o simple choose a list I like with models I like and play with it.

My two new additions are a FW vulture with twin linked punisher cannons and an avenger strike fighter.

A thunderbolt would be far more effective in game terms I just prefere the look of the avenger. Same with the punisher cannon the vulture has far better weapon load outs but the massive gatling guns just look cooooooool.

I'm not telling anyone how to collect or play I'm just sharing my attitude towards the hobby in general and how I found the fun in it again.

Ronin_eX
29-09-2012, 05:24
I'm a huge infinity fan, but really, few special rules? Infinity has more special rules than any game I know.... Camo lvl 1, 2, 3 etc.

I concur, Infinity is my favourite wargame at the moment, but it has loads of special rules (around 40-ish pages between the two books, and that is just the skills and equipment) and loads of complex interactions and exceptions. It is a pretty complex wargame and has a hefty difficulty curve getting in to it. It is a great game, but simple and concise it isn't. If you want simple with a small amount of special rules then Mantic are more up that alley (though I haven't checked out Warpath recently, so that may have changed as well).

Gorbad Ironclaw
29-09-2012, 05:58
I got to play a game of 40k last week when I meet up with friends I haven't seen in a while. It was fun but more for seeing friends than because of the game. (Playing Settlers and Small Worlds with the family required more thinking/planning) I've come to the conclusion that 40k is fine if I don't have to supply my own army (or can use bits of my old DA army), played at small points values and with friends. Probably because then its just a thing to do while seeing friends rather than the thing we do, if that makes sense. Still, there was expressed some interest in Malifaux and I just got starter forces for me and the missus so hopefully next time I see them we can play that (or Infinity, but that's rather more demanding to learn/play).

Aluinn
29-09-2012, 08:44
I'm honestly just tired of having to paint dozens of models just to be able to have a beginner level force in a new army, no matter the system. I love painting, but don't have a lot of time for it these days, and I'm looking for ways to use what I've already got. I still love the 40K setting. Yet I'm looking for ways to use my figures to play smaller skirmish level games. Going to try and teach my local group how to play Flying Lead by Ganesha Games. It scratches that itch while also being a game that you can teach to new players in about an hour or less, while playing the game.

I tried WarmaHordes before, and while I liked working with my own army list I found that in order to be competitive, or even win any games at my local store at all, I had to not only memorize my own stuff, but memorize my opponents stuff, and learn what their combos were so that i could be able to see them fast enough to counter them. That's too much like work for me and killed the fun of the game. 40k is going the same way.

Battletech looks like an option, as long as I can get the group to agree to not field custom mechs. The official ones are bad enough. :) Still, so far our games have been over quickly enough that even if one feels too one sided it is over quickly and on to the next game.

in the end, the thrill of large battle games is gone for me. Too many better ways to spend an afternoon than on one game.

Just use the 500-point mission in the back of the BRB. You may eventually get bored and want to make up new ones, but it is certainly a way to play skirmish-level 40K, and there's nothing overtly wrong with it that I can see.

EDIT: You could also use Combat Patrol if you want to go even smaller, but 500 points results in pretty small armies unless someone spams Gaunts or Ork Boyz. I'd caution that it may seem boring until you realize that you can take really small units and they won't instantly die; 5 Marines are about as tough in 500 points as 15 Marines in 1,500, for example.

Omniassiah
29-09-2012, 13:46
I'm 30 married no kids no mortgage and a large disposable income. One of everything minimum is my army philosophy.
Collection not lists.
I stop caring about perceived codex power levels and I accept each army as it is.
I don't handicap my self or anything else I simple no longer have an interest in what I should or shouldn't take o simple choose a list I like with models I like and play with it.
My two new additions are a FW vulture with twin linked punisher cannons and an avenger strike fighter.
A thunderbolt would be far more effective in game terms I just prefere the look of the avenger. Same with the punisher cannon the vulture has far better weapon load outs but the massive gatling guns just look cooooooool.
I'm not telling anyone how to collect or play I'm just sharing my attitude towards the hobby in general and how I found the fun in it again.

Oh I have some pretty ridiculous collections, my 4th edition IG list totaled some 20k points in a single force org from Mechanized Infantry doctrine. The issue comes where in a lot of cases people are saying that they wouldn't play me if I would have dropped that army using the current codex because I would be "That Guy" playing the power-gamer/net list. With the poor balancing done during codex creation and nothing done to update the balance when a new edition comes out, anyone could end up getting stuck as now playing a that guy list. Sure you could have a large collection or whatever and change, but why should you now be a pariah because you are playing a list that you picked for whatever the reason. If someone doesn't want to play someone because the player themselves are a pain, that's fine. Besides that the list should not matter, as any problems with it being overpowered should never be put on the player but the developer.

nosebiter
29-09-2012, 15:56
All the warmahoreds players in my area are giant rules lawyering power gaming dicks. None of them paint or even glue their minis together because they don't like miniatures, they just want a game. I get the impression that if warmachine had pictures of the models on the bases instead of minis and if all terrain was 2d, warmachine players would be more happy.



What a load og crap! Trashing an entire community of players is really childish. You can find just as many dedicated hoobists amongst warmahordes players as amongst 40k players. Just as rules wranglers, mathhammer geeks and waacers exist in the 40k hobby.

As if no 40k player magnetises everything because having a powermaul is 0.000005% more effective against army X. Or tried to convince you that his bombsquigs can attack flyers.

I understand the OP, 40k feels off atm. I play it and while it is ok, it has a large number of flaws. Warmahordes just feels more elegant and better atm.

Warmahordes feels like an Audi to me. Nice to look at, great build quality and all round great.

40k feels like an old rusty Honda, lovered with spinner rims, 14 fake exhausts, orange paint, neon lights, an enormous useless turbo, nox system and a pointless spoiler. Just a mess and head shake inducing.

Ereshkigal
29-09-2012, 19:58
And btw rule lawyering on warmahorde? That game is played by RAW everytime, so you can't lawyer anything... rules are rules and they are clear. On W/H you can't argue about rules or the meaning of them as you have to apply the rules as they are written.

Emeraldw
29-09-2012, 20:12
Guys, don't let his statement about W/H drive you attack another game.

Comparing them is pointless anyway as they are vastly different games with nothing in common beyond being a TT wargame. Its like comparing Starfleet Commander to Warhammer fantasty, different games, different playstyles, different ideas.

I actually think 40k is getting better. I walked away from the game, but with the return to some ridiculousness, seemingly better balanced codex's and very pretty models. 40k is looking like a fun game to me again.

Admittedly it helps that Legions are coming out and I am a Horus fanboy but that is not important!

Schismotive
30-09-2012, 05:29
Yeah I have to admit the warmahordes rules are pretty hard to mix up, the game is really well built. 40k has always been a great game too, but since I play black templars, and also since my local 40k scene hasn't rebooted yet after the switch to 6th, I'm simply taking a break from it. I'll still play and talk turkey if you will, but warmahordes is definitely my main game right now. It's balanced, and my army doesn't suck ass!

mughi3
30-09-2012, 14:04
Just did a game of 6th ed today as an experiment. i did the meta 6th ed airshows over stadiums list-2 storm eagles, 32 marines on the ground, 2 drop pods and 2 techies with servitors keeping the eagles flying. i eaked out a victory against a tought eldar corsair list (IA11) by 1 kill point.

I think it kinda sucks GW is driving me to play a certain type of list by making what i want to play so easy to kill it is laughable.

lordbeefy
30-09-2012, 15:05
I'm 30 married no kids no mortgage and a large disposable income. One of everything minimum is my army philosophy.

Collection not lists.

I stop caring about perceived codex power levels and I accept each army as it is.

I don't handicap my self or anything else I simple no longer have an interest in what I should or shouldn't take o simple choose a list I like with models I like and play with it.

My two new additions are a FW vulture with twin linked punisher cannons and an avenger strike fighter.

A thunderbolt would be far more effective in game terms I just prefere the look of the avenger. Same with the punisher cannon the vulture has far better weapon load outs but the massive gatling guns just look cooooooool.

I'm not telling anyone how to collect or play I'm just sharing my attitude towards the hobby in general and how I found the fun in it again.

Same here. I am a collector and painter first.

My collection is based on what i like, not what makes a list.

I do play games with friends and try to win, I will try to field effective units, but on my terms.

GW is pushing fliers...fin, they are fun. I have a couple and they are part of my collection.

The only people who are 'forced' to field a certain army are those whose focus is primarily on the win. Dont get me wrong, I am not critical of this, its just not how i play.

Gerod253
30-09-2012, 20:30
Just use the 500-point mission in the back of the BRB. You may eventually get bored and want to make up new ones, but it is certainly a way to play skirmish-level 40K, and there's nothing overtly wrong with it that I can see.

EDIT: You could also use Combat Patrol if you want to go even smaller, but 500 points results in pretty small armies unless someone spams Gaunts or Ork Boyz. I'd caution that it may seem boring until you realize that you can take really small units and they won't instantly die; 5 Marines are about as tough in 500 points as 15 Marines in 1,500, for example.

Thank you for the thoughtful suggestions. I have actually been playing a good amount of kill team games recently. They are a lot of fun and really offer the chance to use your figures as individuals. Right now though I am having a very hard time finding people to play that don't actively try to break every system and game we play. No interest in campaigns or special scenarios it seems. Its really killing gaming for me. Still love collecting and painting though.

IcedCrow
30-09-2012, 20:58
Start up a campaign group. That's what I had to do. You'll be surprised with how many people would love a campaign if only someone would run one.

Gorbad Ironclaw
01-10-2012, 06:14
In my experience most people are at least interested in the idea of a campaign if someone else is willing to run it. The real difficulty is finding/designing a good system and sustaining that interest. But it also very much depends on what you want out of the campaign.

Learn2Eel
01-10-2012, 06:33
I really have lost any interest in competitive play styles and I look for like minded opponents.

When games against one regular opponent just became a who has the bigger deathstar, I invested time in finding people who don't look for the new Easter egg in the rules.

Or the latest spam list that will conquer all before it. I have left behind the hunt for list perfection the greatest unit combo and the glories of emulating a table top napoleon.

Now I put together my lists not on what works best but what looks best what feels right and looks like an ,n tv I make decisions based on what would the hero which isn't always what will win me the game.

I do aim to win but I'm relaxed about losing. It's a game I play it because its fun, far too many times in the past have games devolved into rules disputes and that just isn't fun.

The thrill has returned to my hobby.

There needs to be a clap smilie for this! Great post. I recently came to the same conclusion as you; I no longer really play to win and am much more focused on having fun and playing themed lists. Sometimes though, even themed lists get you in trouble with your opponent.
When 6th came out, my Thousand Sons danced with joy that they could ally with Tzeentch Daemons. I had even bought a Lord of Change in preparation for said event, and gave him the second head option to make him a pseudo-Fateweaver. When I noticed that Fateweaver affected my allies, I was all over it. I started running Thousand Sons on foot and advancing them up the field in a phalanx formation, backed by a Defiler and two Vindicators (commonly). I also had two Tzeentch Daemon Princes running around and being nasty flanking units with the new flyer rules. Now, some of my opponents decried my list as cheese. They complained that Fateweaver was OP and that I was abusing him. It ticked me off, mostly because I wasn't even really abusing it; Thousand Sons on foot are still Thousand Sons on foot, you can cause a LOT of saves. They are also slow. I wasn't running Tzeentch Terminators like some people were. And even then, a lot of the time Fateweaver would cruise off and cause havoc with the Daemon Princes and leave the Thousand Sons alone. In that sense, though it was themed (save for having two Daemon Princes), it stirred complaints from my opponents.

When Fateweaver was FAQed, they were quite happy. At least, until I still put up a fight with themed Thousand Sons lists.
In that sense, 6th Edition has been great for me. There are more rules to memorize, but I don't feel like I am being forced into mech-heavy armies like I used to, and this is why I think I will be trying out more infantry-heavy armies in the future. I think it is more fun, definitely.

duffybear1988
01-10-2012, 13:04
Just been flicking through some old 3rd edition codecii and the rulebook and have to say that they are better than the newer editions. Yes they were thin and lacking depth, but that was half the fun... those were the days when space marines went to was AS space marines and not nipple marines or marines riding giant wolves.

You didn't need flyers, random terrain special rules, thousands of silly USR's, random charge ranges, random psychic power charts, random General special buff charts, random randomness etc.

Basically like 5th edition was the mech edition, 6th is turning into random randomness edition.

3rd edition was basic, had plenty of options and was above all fun. I do wonder whether many of the people who claim 6th edition is fun actually played anything before the end of 4th edition/beginning of 5th.

So if you are like me, why not join the veterans revolution and go back to 3rd edition?

IcedCrow
01-10-2012, 13:22
I started with 3rd edition. 3rd edition suffered from the same things that 4th and 5th do. They got stale and the absolute tactics meant that it was fairly easy to figure out who was going to win the game after deployment was done. 3rd edition was the first edition of warhammer or 40k that I learned how to game a system and game a meta and it was the first system I won my first tournament with (eldar, featuring 14 star cannons because 9 out of 10 players were marines) as well as my first top placing in a large scale tournament (again... eldar featuring 14 star cannons because 9 out of 10 players played marines)

In short, after leaving the hobby during the height of warhammer fantasy 7th and 40k 4/5th ed transition, I would give up the hobby again if the system went back to dry, absolute-tactics where you can figure out who wins before turn 1 starts. There are other games more suited for that. I'm happy with where fantasy and 40k have gone. The games are more fun and less a sporting event. And as I have had great tournament success with 40k 3rd and 4th ed, as well as fantasy 5th and 6th ed, no its not because I couldn't figure out how to beat people and that I need random to beat better players (a popular lol comment I see quite often about people who like random). Its because once you've learned the handful of cheap tricks that made up winning in those editions so successful, the game quickly got boring.

Haravikk
01-10-2012, 13:46
3rd edition was basic, had plenty of options and was above all fun. I do wonder whether many of the people who claim 6th edition is fun actually played anything before the end of 4th edition/beginning of 5th.
I started playing in 2nd edition, the change to 3rd edition was crap. I completely understood why GW wanted a simpler ruleset, as 2nd edition was a huge pain to learn, more painful to master, and even worse to actually remain good at (any down time and you forgot half the rules ;)), but 3rd was too much the polar opposite. That said, codexes at £8 is some pretty heady nostalgia right now!

Still, I would have much preferred 3rd edition being more like 6th edition is now, as it has a bit more of that mixture of simplicity and depth. Is it perfect? Absolutely not, but I think it's the best edition we've had yet out of the 3rd edition revamp. That said, a lot is riding on the quality of the new codexes, as 5th edition could have been fine if not for the wave of terrible space marine codexes (blood angels, space wolves and grey knights). Codex: Chaos Space Marines looks promising, but it's always good policy to remain pessimistic for the time being; but if other codexes can be developed that are much closer in balance and fun then we could have a great edition. It'd be nice to see less marines players to really shake things up, but I think it would take more than a refinement edition to do that ;)

duffybear1988
01-10-2012, 15:42
See for me randomness doesn't make it fun. Having quite bad OCD and other issues, I like things to be regimented, ordered and working the way it should. I actually feel physically ill now when I'm playing 6th edition games because I can't handle the pointless randomness. It sounds silly but it's honestly true.

I haven't enjoyed one game of 6th edition so far and it isn't because I am losing (I am about 50/50 for wins/loss). It just doesn't work, and even my gaming buddies who I always enjoyed playing before can't make it bearable.

I liked 3rd and 4th editions, and to some extent I enjoyed early 5th edition.

IcedCrow
01-10-2012, 15:52
If you are a person that likes everything to be absolute I can understand where you are coming from.

Just realize the randomness isn't pointless, its there for a reason. There are chapters of game design theory written around it (as there are also written about absolute-tactical games).

big squig
01-10-2012, 23:15
I started with 3rd edition. 3rd edition suffered from the same things that 4th and 5th do. They got stale and the absolute tactics meant that it was fairly easy to figure out who was going to win the game after deployment was done. 3rd edition was the first edition of warhammer or 40k that I learned how to game a system and game a meta and it was the first system I won my first tournament with (eldar, featuring 14 star cannons because 9 out of 10 players were marines) as well as my first top placing in a large scale tournament (again... eldar featuring 14 star cannons because 9 out of 10 players played marines)

In short, after leaving the hobby during the height of warhammer fantasy 7th and 40k 4/5th ed transition, I would give up the hobby again if the system went back to dry, absolute-tactics where you can figure out who wins before turn 1 starts. There are other games more suited for that. I'm happy with where fantasy and 40k have gone. The games are more fun and less a sporting event. And as I have had great tournament success with 40k 3rd and 4th ed, as well as fantasy 5th and 6th ed, no its not because I couldn't figure out how to beat people and that I need random to beat better players (a popular lol comment I see quite often about people who like random). Its because once you've learned the handful of cheap tricks that made up winning in those editions so successful, the game quickly got boring.

3rd was certainty basic, but I feel that GW could make a simple easy game like 3rd and remove most if not all the abuses from it. I would love to see a 20-30 page complete rule book and 8-10 page army lists all in one book.

RanaldLoec
02-10-2012, 00:45
The age of dark millennium and 3+ terminator armour saves taken on 2d6 them was the high days those where the best days.

Still 6th edition is pretty sweet in my books.

And I'm a vet too.

RandomThoughts
02-10-2012, 11:06
All the warmahoreds players in my area are giant rules lawyering power gaming dicks. None of them paint or even glue their minis together because they don't like miniatures, they just want a game. I get the impression that if warmachine had pictures of the models on the bases instead of minis and if all terrain was 2d, warmachine players would be more happy.

Please don't lump all of us together. And please don't judge the game based on a random group of players you're familiar with.

My personal Warmachine (Warmachine, not Warmahordes, mind you) group is me and two friends, we mostly play at my place, I'm the only one in our group who even reads tabletop forums, and I still stay away from netlists and mostly play armies that I find appealing visually and conceptually. The guy that started Warmachine last already surpassed the rest of us in painting up his army, and he's already asking us to bring mainted models ourselves. He is actually a close friend I brought to 40K two years ago, and he was the hardest to convince to even try a second game. What drove him over was the actual game play. Unbalanced armies and units, and tons of WTF moments with counter-intuitive rules that contradict common sense, but mostly the feeling that he didn't win or loose games based on his own mistakes but mostly on the outcome of dice-rolls. The one thing he likes best about Warmachine so far is the feeling that the outcome of the game is actually in his own hands.

Obviously, we'd all be screwed in a Warmahordes tournament or a tournament-like environment, but the same thing happens anytime one of us plays a tournament player in 40K.


I started with 3rd edition. 3rd edition suffered from the same things that 4th and 5th do. They got stale and the absolute tactics meant that it was fairly easy to figure out who was going to win the game after deployment was done. 3rd edition was the first edition of warhammer or 40k that I learned how to game a system and game a meta and it was the first system I won my first tournament with (eldar, featuring 14 star cannons because 9 out of 10 players were marines) as well as my first top placing in a large scale tournament (again... eldar featuring 14 star cannons because 9 out of 10 players played marines)

In short, after leaving the hobby during the height of warhammer fantasy 7th and 40k 4/5th ed transition, I would give up the hobby again if the system went back to dry, absolute-tactics where you can figure out who wins before turn 1 starts. There are other games more suited for that. I'm happy with where fantasy and 40k have gone. The games are more fun and less a sporting event. And as I have had great tournament success with 40k 3rd and 4th ed, as well as fantasy 5th and 6th ed, no its not because I couldn't figure out how to beat people and that I need random to beat better players (a popular lol comment I see quite often about people who like random). Its because once you've learned the handful of cheap tricks that made up winning in those editions so successful, the game quickly got boring.

Sorry, but I don't think that's really the problem of absolute tactics and more the issue with unbalanced army lists and to a certain degree an unbalanced meta (imagine a game of rock paper scissors, in which 80% of players bring rock because Rock is so much cooler than paer and scissors).

I don't really see absolute tactics as a big issue, as long as armies are balanced with those in mind. I think the real issue lies with tactics (absolute or otherwise) that can't be countered. The most frustrating losses I had in 40K were when I came up against unstoppable offensive Deathstar units, either Ork Nobs or deep striking Blood Angel Deathcompany with attached characters. I used to play colorful armies of widely diverse Eldar units, and there was nothing I could do to stop them. They ate everything they touched in melee asking for more, and shooting them before they reached my lines and munched my army was impossible with all their layers of Feel no Pain and Cover and Wound Allocations and whatnot. I hated playing against them, because it made for boring games.

Sure, sometimes they lost. Once a Deathstar unit disappeared into the Warp after an unlucky scatter roll, and we ended up with an equally boring game - my army mopping up a few survivors, but the inherent risk in this non-absolute tactic had robbed us of an enjoyable game even harder than the boring slaughterfest of a successful application would have.

Personally, I prefer my absolute tactics to be countered by counter-tactics, not by unlucky dice rolls. In Warmachine, this works pretty well for our group so far. Sure, some armies are just bad matchups for each other, but there are a lot of counters in the game. I've seen games with nearly identical armies on both sides turn into slaughterfests for either side, depending on positioning, tactics, and sometimes (I admit it) just a bit of luck at the right moment.


If you are a person that likes everything to be absolute I can understand where you are coming from.

Just realize the randomness isn't pointless, its there for a reason. There are chapters of game design theory written around it (as there are also written about absolute-tactical games).

Could you link me a few good articles or a few good books on that, I'm certainly intrigued.

Personally I still believe that a game that relies on tactics and countertactics is more enjoyable (to me, at least) than a game that relies on unreliable tactics that may or may not get off. But then again, I've always thought that decisions made by players should have more impact than random dice rolls.

Haravikk
02-10-2012, 11:15
Just realize the randomness isn't pointless, its there for a reason.
This; the randomness means you can't simply build a list with all the most powerful units you can put in, as you need to build a list with units that work well together, can back each other up and, most importantly, can help you deal with a bad situation when the roll of the dice doesn't go your way. The randomness can be annoying when you get a really unlucky streak, at which point no amount of tactics may save you, but in general the fun is in how you deal with the bad rolls by having plans and backup plans.

The failed charge is the most common example, since you can now have your prized combat unit charge 2". It is perhaps a tad extreme, especially compared to fantasy where Movement is involved too and gives you a more reliable minimum distance, but it represents a bunch of different things that could go wrong with a charge into combat, and means that Fleet is in some ways more valuable than before. This is why you should have backup chargers instead of putting all your focus onto single units that could fail you when you most need them.

Tokamak
02-10-2012, 11:18
Beginners don't care about the rules. They take them as gospel truth. It's only veterans who know how to do things better.

Beginners get into the game because of the miniatures and whether or not they enjoy painting them. I think GW is making a mistake here. They're now selling their game to adults with a disposable income and that did indeed result in profits. What they forget is that these adults were once teenagers that bought their miniatures when they were relatively affordable for teenagers. I'm not saying teenagers don't have a disposable income now (what with all those iPhones and everything) but the fact remains that GW did raise the bar for younger players.

I think GW are now poisoning their own well. They're killing of the roots to their hobby. Less teenagers means less adults later on and adults themselves are hard to get into the hobby if they aren't familiar with wargaming as a kid.

Cheeslord
02-10-2012, 11:57
And yet there always seem to be plenty of young kids whenever I go into a GW store... maybe its because the prices for everything else that teenagers want are going up too...

Mark.

IcedCrow
02-10-2012, 13:05
Please don't lump all of us together. And please don't judge the game based on a random group of players you're familiar with.

My personal Warmachine (Warmachine, not Warmahordes, mind you) group is me and two friends, we mostly play at my place, I'm the only one in our group who even reads tabletop forums, and I still stay away from netlists and mostly play armies that I find appealing visually and conceptually. The guy that started Warmachine last already surpassed the rest of us in painting up his army, and he's already asking us to bring mainted models ourselves. He is actually a close friend I brought to 40K two years ago, and he was the hardest to convince to even try a second game. What drove him over was the actual game play. Unbalanced armies and units, and tons of WTF moments with counter-intuitive rules that contradict common sense, but mostly the feeling that he didn't win or loose games based on his own mistakes but mostly on the outcome of dice-rolls. The one thing he likes best about Warmachine so far is the feeling that the outcome of the game is actually in his own hands.

Obviously, we'd all be screwed in a Warmahordes tournament or a tournament-like environment, but the same thing happens anytime one of us plays a tournament player in 40K.



Sorry, but I don't think that's really the problem of absolute tactics and more the issue with unbalanced army lists and to a certain degree an unbalanced meta (imagine a game of rock paper scissors, in which 80% of players bring rock because Rock is so much cooler than paer and scissors).

I don't really see absolute tactics as a big issue, as long as armies are balanced with those in mind. I think the real issue lies with tactics (absolute or otherwise) that can't be countered. The most frustrating losses I had in 40K were when I came up against unstoppable offensive Deathstar units, either Ork Nobs or deep striking Blood Angel Deathcompany with attached characters. I used to play colorful armies of widely diverse Eldar units, and there was nothing I could do to stop them. They ate everything they touched in melee asking for more, and shooting them before they reached my lines and munched my army was impossible with all their layers of Feel no Pain and Cover and Wound Allocations and whatnot. I hated playing against them, because it made for boring games.

Sure, sometimes they lost. Once a Deathstar unit disappeared into the Warp after an unlucky scatter roll, and we ended up with an equally boring game - my army mopping up a few survivors, but the inherent risk in this non-absolute tactic had robbed us of an enjoyable game even harder than the boring slaughterfest of a successful application would have.

Personally, I prefer my absolute tactics to be countered by counter-tactics, not by unlucky dice rolls. In Warmachine, this works pretty well for our group so far. Sure, some armies are just bad matchups for each other, but there are a lot of counters in the game. I've seen games with nearly identical armies on both sides turn into slaughterfests for either side, depending on positioning, tactics, and sometimes (I admit it) just a bit of luck at the right moment.



Could you link me a few good articles or a few good books on that, I'm certainly intrigued.

Personally I still believe that a game that relies on tactics and countertactics is more enjoyable (to me, at least) than a game that relies on unreliable tactics that may or may not get off. But then again, I've always thought that decisions made by players should have more impact than random dice rolls.

It's all a matter of your own likes and dislikes. Logic - minded people tend to be more interested in absolute-tactics games. I can give you 100 reasons why I find them boring and you can shoot back with 100 reasons why you think I'm wrong and vice/versa. I am a very logic-oriented person that ten years ago would have hated the current edition because my absolute tactics, mathematical probability predicting, and gaming the system were how I won games and the thought of losing the game because I rolled poorly even though my plan was the genius voice of my generation would have insulted and angered me. Ten year ago me was a gaming super genius (or so he thought) but after a long time of tournament after tournament, the luster started wearing off. (I can laugh at it now but I took my gaming VERY seriously in my 20s and I can hear and see my responses to these threads only from the other side, how I hate random and that trained gorrilas could win now. When this site was portent.net in 2002 I'm sure that some of my posts were just that)

I don't think it has anything to do with unbalanced army lists (though unbalanced armies are a problem), it's that with absolute tactics, after the deployment phase I can pretty much tell you how the game is going to go and who is going to win based off of probabilities. That's where its boring and dry for me. It doesn't matter if both armies were identically the same (and therefore, perfectly balanced), once deployment is finished, a heavy majority of games from past editions played themselves out like a movie script.

I don't like warmachine, not because it's absolute-tactics, but because it's combo-driven and I don't really get into games that are dependent on pulling off combos. That's why I don't enjoy Magic: The Gathering. It's not that they aren't great games, it's that I get absolutely zero out of them. I played a lot of warmachine in the beginning of the game, when the words "Skarre Bomb" was a dirty phrase, and I did pretty well at it, but after a little under a year I shelved my cryx models because I was not interested in the slightest. I gave it a good year or so of trying to like it.

I like that decisions can be thwarted by random elements because I served in the military and was an extensive student of military history and tactics, and know that the best laid plans can fail to unforseen events; in a game-environment, absolute tactics cannot ever replicate this because absolute tactics mean that the tactic will always work. I prefer having to react and have my plans change on the go. It uses more brainpower to me then knowing my plans will never fail. Or maybe its just a different side of my brain. I have to build plans that have counter plans in case I fail. In the past, I didn't really have to do that.

As to links on books, google Game Design or Game Design Theory. Also youtube should have the DUST TACTICS designer giving a class on game design talking about Absolute Tactics vs Random Reactive based systems (which is what fantasy and 40k would be closer considered to now) which I found to be pretty cool. In essence, one is more tactical while the other is more strategic. As an amateur game designer (i write video games), I have taken classes and seminars on game design theory and its one thing I struggle with in my games... which route to take. In the end I write games that I would enjoy playing and that works out best for me, and I think that's what GW finally has done with their games.

IcedCrow
02-10-2012, 13:15
Beginners don't care about the rules. They take them as gospel truth. It's only veterans who know how to do things better.

Beginners get into the game because of the miniatures and whether or not they enjoy painting them. I think GW is making a mistake here. They're now selling their game to adults with a disposable income and that did indeed result in profits. What they forget is that these adults were once teenagers that bought their miniatures when they were relatively affordable for teenagers. I'm not saying teenagers don't have a disposable income now (what with all those iPhones and everything) but the fact remains that GW did raise the bar for younger players.

I think GW are now poisoning their own well. They're killing of the roots to their hobby. Less teenagers means less adults later on and adults themselves are hard to get into the hobby if they aren't familiar with wargaming as a kid.

Thing is, most teenagers I know spend a ton of money on their hobbies as it is. I know, I have two of them myself. Video games are now cresting the $70 range for some. Five xbox titles on average is $300. That's a good chunk of army. Go into a teen's video collection and see how many xbox games they have... ;) that doesn't count things like iphones, mp3 players, and all of the other electronic gadgetry that is so prevalent in our society today.

Warhammer *is* expensive but when I put it next to other hobbies like video gaming I'm finding that people spend roughly the same.

lanrak
02-10-2012, 18:47
Hi all.
Just a slight correctoin, from 3rd ed to 5th ed 40k had abslute STRATAGY , it had very little in the way of actual tactics.(Tactical interaction is what makes a game interesting.)
Eg more about the list you bring, than in game decision making.

Now 6th ed has replaced the absolute strategy (and few of the remaining tactics,) with risk managment.

Which is fine for those that like it .

But in 14 years where is the rule set for the 'actual gamer?'
The well defined intuitive , tacticaly rich wargame , that has 40 pages of well written rules and 12 pages of well balanced army lists...

Oh I forgot, GW plc belive thier prime demoghraphic are 'colletors' not 'gamers'.
And the state of the 6th ed rules sort of back this up, doesnt it?

IcedCrow
02-10-2012, 19:06
I've never heard it called absolute strategy.

A tactic is an implement used in achieving a strategy.

An absolute tactic is fixed charge distances. Meaning in previous edition my charge was always 6". If I was within 6" I could always charge absolutely barring difficult terrain rolls.

Risk management is a layer of strategical game play where you have to have varying scenarios run and back up plans as opposed to absolute tactical game play in which you know that in turn 1 you will move 6" to point A, turn 2 you will move another 6" to point A + 6, and then in turn 3 you will be able to charge 6". Or in other words, bishop always takes queen if queen is on the diagonal of the bishop, pawn always moves forward the same way, etc... (tactics vs strategy in chess, google that phrase)

An example of absolute strategy would be applicable to both 5th and 6th edition, where an absolute strategy would be "i will rhino rush and try to assault by turn 2 to nullify your shooting and my entire plan revolves around rhino rushing you". The effectiveness of the strategy are very different from edition though.

Indeed it is also an absolute tactic in that example as the tactic is "push rhino as far forward as you can, then regurgitate contents on opponent's face before he blows them up". Along the way you may deploy sub-tactics such as "take cover behind building to grant cover save".

The tactic of assault which came next is where the absolute tactic stops being an absolute tactic (and the point of contention and rage).

The assault tactic in 5th always worked if you were within 8" of the rhino (2" for deploy, 6" for assault)

The assault tactic in 6th now changes to deploy troops, wait a turn while being shot at (making it "less optimal") and then ATTEMPT to charge (deploying the strategy of charge as soon as possible with the tactic of charge, which now may fail even if you are within 6" where before it didnt')

5th ed
Strategy -> assault my opponent as fast as possible to neutralize shooting
Tactic 1 -> move rhino as far as possible turn 1
Tactic 2 -> if within 8" deploy unit and assault. Odds of victory = probability calculation of the units engaged.
Tactic 2b -> if unit not within 8", move forward as far as possible to get within 8".
Tactic 3 -> (if neccessary) - charge opponent. Strategy successful

6th ed
Strategy -> Assault my opponent as fast as possible to neutralize shooting
Tactic 1 - Move rhino as far as possible turn 1
Tactic 2 - Calculate odds of success of deployment in turn 3 where success == successful charge. Odds < what I find acceptable, move as far forward as possible
Tactic 2b - If odds match my acceptability threshold and no cover exists, determine odds of troops surviving shots. If < what I find acceptable, move as far forward as possible
Tactic 2c - If odds match my acceptability threshold and odds of troop survival match my acceptability threshold - deploy troops
Tactic 3 - Attempt to assault enemy unit. Calculate risk matrix. Probability of successful charge calculated above. If success then charge success - strategy achieved.
Tactic 3b - If successful charge fails, engage backup strategy to mitigate failure (starts new logic loop)

In 5th ed, there was no need for backup strategy. Your assault would always work. You knew that that assault would go down and you probably knew exactly what turn it would go down. You coordinated your shapes across the field to work well with what you knew 100% would go down.

In 6th ed... you cannot do that anymore because your tactic may fail. Even though the tactic is the same (move forward as far as possible, attempt to assault as soon as possible), in 5th ed it worked 100%, in 6th ed, the odds depend on how you roll combined with the distance you are at. The closer you are to the enemy, the greater the % of success. In 5th ed, it was either "you succeed you are within 6" or it was "you are outside of 6", you fail"

Schismotive
02-10-2012, 19:33
I find it funny how this 'absolute tactics' keeps coming up... 40k was never even close to chess. It's really no different now; you still roll dice, your men still trip over their shoelaces every two seconds and missile launchers are nothing more than 'anti-space marine bullets.'

Warmachine doesn't have it either; you also still roll dice... strategy here is just more possible

IcedCrow
02-10-2012, 21:39
Just because you roll dice does not mean you are not employing "absolute tactics".

And how is warmachine "more strategic" than 40k? WM's strategy is about popping combos off at the right time and target-priority. 40ks strategy is wrapped in a risk-mitigation strategem and target-priority. There is nothing more strategic about warmachine, it's just a different set of thinking and strategies.

Gonefishing
02-10-2012, 23:47
The assault tactic in 6th now changes to deploy troops, wait a turn while being shot at (making it "less optimal") and then ATTEMPT to charge (deploying the strategy of charge as soon as possible with the tactic of charge, which now may fail even if you are within 6" where before it didnt')

5th ed

Strategy -> assault my opponent as fast as possible to neutralize shooting
Tactic 1 -> move rhino as far as possible turn 1
Tactic 2 -> if within 8" deploy unit and assault. Odds of victory = probability calculation of the units engaged.
Tactic 2b -> if unit not within 8", move forward as far as possible to get within 8".
Tactic 3 -> (if neccessary) - charge opponent. Strategy successful

6th ed
Strategy -> Assault my opponent as fast as possible to neutralize shooting
Tactic 1 - Move rhino as far as possible turn 1
Tactic 2 - Calculate odds of success of deployment in turn 3 where success == successful charge. Odds < what I find acceptable, move as far forward as possible
Tactic 2b - If odds match my acceptability threshold and no cover exists, determine odds of troops surviving shots. If < what I find acceptable, move as far forward as possible
Tactic 2c - If odds match my acceptability threshold and odds of troop survival match my acceptability threshold - deploy troops
Tactic 3 - Attempt to assault enemy unit. Calculate risk matrix. Probability of successful charge calculated above. If success then charge success - strategy achieved.
Tactic 3b - If successful charge fails, engage backup strategy to mitigate failure (starts new logic loop)





You are presupposing a lot of absolutes there, yes, in 5th there was a lot more "Certainty" of action, but I hesitate to call it absolute. You add in the External Factors based on probability/chance for the 6th edition section very well, but don’t offer the 5th edition section any mitigating factors as it is an "Absolute" – the problem is, it wasn’t ever an absolute except under a certain set of circumstances (IE. being caught in the open with your pants down).

5th tactic 2 for example - If within 8 is correct, you can get out and assault (If your opponent is not in any sort of cover - at which point you would have a 1 in 6 chance of making the assault at the maximum 8" starting point). The other more significant mitagator however is range - no pre-measuring in 5th - If you are out of the 8" sweet spot you don’t get to assault, and that is not a guaranteed factor.





In 5th ed, there was no need for backup strategy. Your assault would always work. You knew that that assault would go down and you probably knew exactly what turn it would go down. You coordinated your shapes across the field to work well with what you knew 100% would go down.

In 6th ed... you cannot do that anymore because your tactic may fail. Even though the tactic is the same (move forward as far as possible, attempt to assault as soon as possible), in 5th ed it worked 100%, in 6th ed, the odds depend on how you roll combined with the distance you are at. The closer you are to the enemy, the greater the % of success. In 5th ed, it was either "you succeed you are within 6" or it was "you are outside of 6", you fail"

the 5th Mechanic was never as chess like or "absolute" as that, yes, you could run a rhino assault list in 5th and if playing that sort of list the general strategy is to move as close to the opponent as possible and assault / close range shoot [Sisters for example] as much as possible. But whether that strategy is at all viable depends on many different factors.

Yes, you knew in 5th that if you got to within 6" (or 8" including 2" deploy from the vehicle) of your opponent on open ground you would get to charge. - But getting to that 6/8" sweet spot is far from an absolute.

In 6th you have different mitagators, but you also get to pre-measure so you can know for definite that you are in a position where you can potentially charge. Some of those mitagators have more negative connotations than 5th, for example you cannot get out of the vehicle and assault (even if it has not moved) and some are more positive (such as the potential for a 12" charge).

This for me is mostly irrelevant however, as soon as GW decided to bring in pre-measuring, they had to introduce a random charge - and not really as a play marker for "Absolute" or "Risk management" tactics. The simple fact is that a fixed 6" charge would be useless in a game with pre-measuring, it would be far to easy for a competent player to manoeuvre his forces to remain 12.1" away from the enemy. In order to keep CC viable in the game they had to introduce a random charge length to offset the pre-measuring.

40k has never been absolute, has always been random and using risk mitigation/backup plans is nothing new for an experience player. The difference between 5th and 6th is not based solely around these factors; it’s about the degrees of these factors. 6th has massively increased the “random” factors of the game, the absolutes are still there, but have been downgraded. You practiced risk mitigation in 5th all the time, the difference was you were primarily mitigating the risk of your opponents actions and using supportive tactics and strategy to mitigate the chances of your own forces failing. In 6th it seems you are primarily mitigating the risk of your own forces rather than that of your opponent’s actions – because it is almost impossible for your opponent to “Surprise” you anymore.

In 6th virtually everything is random, almost every action you undertake is random, as above I don’t have a problem with the random assault move, and it had to exist when pre-measuring was brought in. The problem I have with the randomness in 6th is that it’s no fun (at least for me), you seem to be constantly rolling not to screw yourself over and the whole thing just ends up as a hodgepodge of annoyance.

The other factor for me is that I find the game infinitely more predictable in 6th despite that randomness. The changes to the reserve rules / outflank etc, the downgrade in CC effectiveness, vehicle rules (etc. etc.) mean that the game plays out very differently now. You know what’s coming and when it arrives it has to stand around for a turn before it does anything – you have plenty of time to counter and its impossible to “surprise” or trap your opponent now. In 5th I used to spend my time working out how to get the drop on an opponent, in 6th I am just waiting for him to screw up his dice roll.

Absolute and risk management tactics have always been present in 40K, the difference now is the focus. Personally I dislike the new direction.

Badbones777
03-10-2012, 01:22
.
Warhammer *is* expensive but when I put it next to other hobbies like video gaming I'm finding that people spend roughly the same.

I can certainly agree with this to a large extent-as the uber-geek I am, when looked at subjectively I suppose that between the various wargames, RPG's, video games
and comic books I buy, I do spend what to others seems like a lot of money. However in relative terms it's really only the same as everyone else. For example, what I spend on the above over a year is
probably more or less similar to what someone (of an equivalent disposable income and circumstances-kids, car etc) with a football (or soccer if you prefer) season ticket spends
on their "hobby" once travel/petrol, food and so on are factored in-it's all much the same by and large.

Omniassiah
03-10-2012, 01:31
This for me is mostly irrelevant however, as soon as GW decided to bring in pre-measuring, they had to introduce a random charge - and not really as a play marker for "Absolute" or "Risk management" tactics. The simple fact is that a fixed 6" charge would be useless in a game with pre-measuring, it would be far to easy for a competent player to manoeuvre his forces to remain 12.1" away from the enemy. In order to keep CC viable in the game they had to introduce a random charge length to offset the pre-measuring.

You really have no need for the random charge range because of pre-measuring. The only thing that forced that was the complete removal of any real disadvantage from moving a unit. FoW has Pre-measuring and a fixed charge range over basic movement but you have none of the problems you say there would be. First, because moving away from a unit that is trying to charge you in an objective game is just handing them the objective. Second, moving period severely reduces your effective firepower. Now in 40k you still have the first being true, the second not so much.

scapegoatboy69
03-10-2012, 01:43
And how is warmachine "more strategic" than 40k? WM's strategy is about popping combos off at the right time and target-priority. 40ks strategy is wrapped in a risk-mitigation strategem and target-priority. There is nothing more strategic about warmachine, it's just a different set of thinking and strategies.

In 40k, you have between five and seven moves with each piece, and parts of your plan are subject to being exploded at random from as soon as turn 1. You can almost never influence the result of the dice through gameplay decisions.

In Warmachine, there is a large amount of safe space which lets you organize your forces accordingly. You will almost never lose a unit on turn 1 and rarely on turn 2. There are also many, many ways to tweak the dice in your favor-- by backstabbing, taking cover, charging, by spending resources or generating risk, etc. There often isn't a set turn number, so games can go on longer.

In 40k you have blobs of troops who occupy a rough area. In warmachine, each individual's position matters and the looser coherency rules (anywhere within LD stat of the squad leader in inches) allow for formations-- like two lines of shieldmen, or spreading out to avoid AoE raep.

In 40k, the game ends based on mission only and there's no such thing as taking a victory from behind. In Warmachine, you can win by killing 1 model and only 1 model the entire game.


I'd argue that the game which has more options and more possible outcomes has more strategic depth. In Warmachine missions you often have two or three ways you can go about winning the game or fouling the opponent's plan. In 40k, it's always a case of play the mission and the win condition is always "stand in place x" or "kill baddies."


As for "Warmachine is only about combos..." there are different kinds of players who like different styles. Some will take individually good pieces, some will take expendable waves of dudes, and some will bring their 3 to 5 piece combos. Most factions can be played in many different ways, and there are much fewer "must take" or "never use" units than in 40k.

Addressing "List building is the only thing that matters..." Most wargames have this to some degree, but I bet you money that an experienced player in Warmachine with a bad list will beat out a noobie with a top tier list. Balanced game is balanced.


As for 6th edition and making it better, it needs more of that element of surprise, imo. I think the Ambush markers in City of Death missions would be a great addition to the main game in a few missions.

RandomThoughts
03-10-2012, 11:49
Iced Crow, I appreciate the discussion with you, it is mostly very pleasant, but one thing I find a bit annoying: The moment I bring up arguments against 40K, you tell me we can agree to disagree, then you turn around and attack others opinions regarding Warmachine.

Going further, I still don't see why you put so much weight on "absolute tactics".

I certainly agree with you on the example you give for Rhino rush; as you explain very well, there is not much decision making involved, just follow a limited fixed set of rules and see how it turns out. I would argue that this is not the fault of absolute tactics, however. To me that is mostly a question of imbalance between active and reactive play. In my ideal game, every time a player relies on a single strategy (in this case pushing forward a melee horde in transports as fast as possible), there should be counter-measures by which that simplistic strategy can be countered. Which would mean mixed/balanced armies are more powerful than spam armies, because they have a toolbox of options including counters to the most basic strategies like spam-rush. Which in turn means combined arms. In Warmachine that works pretty well for us. If my pal rushes my position with his melee units, my Gunmages will shoot them down before he reaches my lines. So he brings artillery which ponds my Gunmages before he rushes forward, or drowns me in bodies, or does something else that negates the impact of my Gunmages. In return I bring other units that support my Gun Mages, shield them, complement them, whatever.
I always tried to do the same thing in 40K: Use varied armies with a multitue of different units working together. A different tool for every job, if you will. If you do that, there is far more decision making involved than with the Rhino Spam example you give. Do I rush forward now and expose the Rhinos, or do I hold them back for a while longer and pound away at his antitank with my own artillery first, etc. That's how 40K should work in my opinion, but all to often I see Deathstars that can't be stopped with shooting nor melee nor any tactics I know off, Gunlines that blast everything away no matter where they are and what they do and spam armies that rely on the principle that some units are so strong, they even dominate enemy units that should be the appropriate counter to them. Again, in Warmachine there's about two spam builds I heard about, one relying on nothing but Doom Reavers and another relying on nothing but Bane Thralls, I believe, but there are still counters to each one and they do not automatically dominate balanced/mixed lists.

So, you claim absolute tactics destroy the game for you because everything becomes predictable. I'd agree that predictable games are boring games, but my answer to that would be that good games shouldn't prevent predictability by throwing in random elements, but by setting up complex situations which give both players options, which force players to make hard decisions and to live and die by their errors. Sure, I don't mind a certain degree of random, this is a dice game after all, not go or chess, but the more random elements you throw in, the less meaningful each decision made by the players become.

And I stand by my opinion, that a game that favors mixed forces over spam is more enjoyable in that regard, because with multiple different game elements interacting in multiple ways, there are far less easy or obvious situations with a no-brainer resolution.

Now, regarding Warmachine, I understand your critizism in parts, and I also feel that there might be a combo-nature to the game that we won't enjoy that much once it becomes obvious. It hasn't so far in over a year of gaming, positioning and tactics are still far more important in our games than popping this or that super-combo. Perhaps it's a question of attitude and mind-set, but so far Warmachine is the better wargame for our group, with focus on war and less on game.

Don't ask me why, but I just enjoy the game more when cover makes a unit harder to hit, instead of granting extra saves, when putting another unit in your opponent's ways actually slows them down instead of giving them a speed burst (charge move plus follow-up movement after they wipe the unit out > run move), when you can order your artillery to fire brutally into an enemy unit tied up in melee by a throwaway unit of your own, when your S3 bullets don't miraculously bounce off the unarmored Orks riding an open topped buggy because of weird vehicle rules, when heavily armored infantry (terminators) doesn't go down way faster to small arms fire than to dedicated antitank weapons (Krak Missiles, for instance) - good luck shooting Warmachine Man-O-Wars with normal guns; even with volume of fire you won't match the impact of ordnance weapons. So yeah, my personal experience is that 40K suffers massively from bad rules, making it neither a good immersive/narrative game nor a good tactical game. I think it's a sad state of things when the game that is supposed to be geared more towards competitive gamers is also mre satisfying for players looking for a simulation instead of a "gamey" game.

But like I said, that's probably because we play Warmachine in our isolated little group the same way we used to play 40K.

I do hope to branch out towards Infinity a bit before Warmachine gets stale - I actually would have already, except I don't really find a lot of their models very appealing. And their ackground seems a bit bland. :(


This; the randomness means you can't simply build a list with all the most powerful units you can put in, as you need to build a list with units that work well together, can back each other up and, most importantly, can help you deal with a bad situation when the roll of the dice doesn't go your way. The randomness can be annoying when you get a really unlucky streak, at which point no amount of tactics may save you, but in general the fun is in how you deal with the bad rolls by having plans and backup plans.

Sadly that's not how 40K plays out in my experience. More randomness still means you're better off with more of the strongest units (i.e. spam), since the chances of any of them succeeding is still higher than the chances of weaker units helping out a smaller number of them in a significant way.


I don't like warmachine, not because it's absolute-tactics, but because it's combo-driven and I don't really get into games that are dependent on pulling off combos. That's why I don't enjoy Magic: The Gathering. It's not that they aren't great games, it's that I get absolutely zero out of them. I played a lot of warmachine in the beginning of the game, when the words "Skarre Bomb" was a dirty phrase, and I did pretty well at it, but after a little under a year I shelved my cryx models because I was not interested in the slightest. I gave it a good year or so of trying to like it.

Like I said above, that's not how we play the game. We play it the same way we play 40K in our small group, as a game of little men running around, taking cover, shooting each other. There are very little gamey aspects to the game the way we play it.


I like that decisions can be thwarted by random elements because I served in the military and was an extensive student of military history and tactics, and know that the best laid plans can fail to unforseen events; in a game-environment, absolute tactics cannot ever replicate this because absolute tactics mean that the tactic will always work.

I understand that and I respect that.


I prefer having to react and have my plans change on the go. It uses more brainpower to me then knowing my plans will never fail. Or maybe its just a different side of my brain. I have to build plans that have counter plans in case I fail. In the past, I didn't really have to do that.

I think we're more alike in that regard as you might believe. Unforseen situations and having to think on the fly (and actually winning or loosing games based on it) appeals quite a bit to me. I just don't think that having to roll for everything is the solution. Because it creates challenging situations, but it also limits your ability to react to them. In Warmachine, I face difficult situations quite a bit as well, often because of positioning and enemy formations. How to break through a certain formation, having to make a decision on whether to make a move for one of the opponent's supporting pieces, judging the impact of the model versus the cost and the risk involved, etc. There is no guaranteed success either; a bold move to take out one of the supporting pieces, often healers or buffers that are a pain in the ass, can easily fail with one or two bad to hit rolls, and then you exposed part of your army and find yourself in a bad position, too.


As to links on books, google Game Design or Game Design Theory. Also youtube should have the DUST TACTICS designer giving a class on game design talking about Absolute Tactics vs Random Reactive based systems (which is what fantasy and 40k would be closer considered to now) which I found to be pretty cool. In essence, one is more tactical while the other is more strategic. As an amateur game designer (i write video games), I have taken classes and seminars on game design theory and its one thing I struggle with in my games... which route to take. In the end I write games that I would enjoy playing and that works out best for me, and I think that's what GW finally has done with their games.

I ws hoping for a few recommendations. When someone asks me about japanese history or other stuff I know significantly more about than the person asking, I generally have a few pointers beyond "just google it", mostly because I know how to seperate good literature on the topic from bad literature in a way he as a beginner doesn't. Sorry to bother you with this, though... :blush:


Hi all.
Just a slight correctoin, from 3rd ed to 5th ed 40k had abslute STRATAGY , it had very little in the way of actual tactics.(Tactical interaction is what makes a game interesting.)
Eg more about the list you bring, than in game decision making.

I'd agree that 40K is actually more about list building than about what you do with your men on the field, pushing it from tactics into the realm of strategy and perhaps even beyond into areas like grand strategy and logistics. ;)


And how is warmachine "more strategic" than 40k? WM's strategy is about popping combos off at the right time and target-priority. 40ks strategy is wrapped in a risk-mitigation strategem and target-priority. There is nothing more strategic about warmachine, it's just a different set of thinking and strategies.

As I said, popping combos has very little impact on our games. Mostly it's about positioning, formations, resource-management (mana / Focus), choosing which targets to attack in what strength and how much you're willing to expose yourself doing it.

IcedCrow
03-10-2012, 13:02
Iced Crow, I appreciate the discussion with you, it is mostly very pleasant, but one thing I find a bit annoying: The moment I bring up arguments against 40K, you tell me we can agree to disagree, then you turn around and attack others opinions regarding Warmachine.

I've never once attacked anyone on Warmachine. What I have challenged (and challenging is not attacking) is the notion that it is more strategically and tactically deeper without any effort in quantifying the statement. It just is. I think I've in my life read three actual statements in my life trying to explain how Warmachine is a deeper game, and while I don't agree with everything those statements make, I at least appreciate the effort to go further then "it just is because I said so".


Going further, I still don't see why you put so much weight on "absolute tactics".

Because people have their diapers twisted in a rage about random charges and terrain and that word is a focal point about what it is that many of them really desire (being able to call out an action and knowing it will always work, and when I say always work I don't mean always succeed I mean always execute as they want it to). It allows a point of discussion identifying the premise of their annoyance and in some posters' cases, their rage.

My rhino rush example was just one of the easiest that I could break down to show the differences in the editions (as I am writing software that lets me play 40k or games like it, I have to write an AI, and I am familiar with the decision making structures that are involved and laid it out on text form). I can certainly provide more of those examples but I didn't want to write a 20 page paper on it lol. It was to highlight the decision making that differ from 5th to 6th (and to counter the notion that 6th has no tactical or strategic depth, when in almost every instance it would seem 6th has *more* because you have to account for more, which opens up the decision making tree to more possibilities one has to account for, which is one thing that I enjoy about the new edition)


So, you claim absolute tactics destroy the game for you because everything becomes predictable. I'd agree that predictable games are boring games, but my answer to that would be that good games shouldn't prevent predictability by throwing in random elements, but by setting up complex situations which give both players options, which force players to make hard decisions and to live and die by their errors. Sure, I don't mind a certain degree of random, this is a dice game after all, not go or chess, but the more random elements you throw in, the less meaningful each decision made by the players become.

And I stand by my opinion, that a game that favors mixed forces over spam is more enjoyable in that regard, because with multiple different game elements interacting in multiple ways, there are far less easy or obvious situations with a no-brainer resolution.

I have not seen a game of 6th where decisions were less meaningful. In fact I feel it is quite the opposite. Your decisions have great impact over which decision element is more likely to happen.

What has really changed in terms of random elements? When you read the internet or hear the optimizers down at the shop who hate 40k now talk, it would seem that everything you do is random. If you want to move it would seem that you roll scatter dice and let the dice pick which direction you move, and then you move in a random direction. When you want to shoot the internet is basically saying you randomly select a target, then randomly roll on some weather table to see if it affects you randomly this turn, and then you roll on a random event chart to see if a random monster pops out of the sand and randomly eats one of your guys, which then randomly fires its weapon off as its dying, randomly killing another guy, and then a random airstrike comes in and randomly bombs a piece of terrain which randomly rolls on a chart. You get my point. It gets a bit ridiculous reading internet hyperbole about how 6th edition is entirely random and your choices mean nothing.

So what was added thats random?

Random assault distance - the big point of contention, the one most people are frothing at the mouth about. How much of an impact on the game does this have? For me, negligible because in past editions I used cover a lot and we didn't run on naked tables so quite often my opponents were rolling random charge distances on me anyway. What this did do was blunt the all-assault army, which I'm glad, because I found its use very boring both for and facing against.

What does it do: It adds two things to my decision making structures. First: risk mitigation. Failure. What happens if I fail to reach my target? Do I have a back up plan? Before that wasn't really an issue unless my opponent was in cover. Now its always an issue.

Second: it means that one dimensional assault armies will struggle more and encourages support elements, much like real war. Why do I like this better? Because it's more realistic to me about how a real army would fight.

What's next that's random? Random terrain. Always used random terrain charts to generate tables since the 90s so no change for me here. Random terrain that has random effects. Game's been out since June, so far I've seen no games where this cost someone the game. It adds a level of, again, risk vs reward. Some effects are good, others harmful. Because one cannot optimize this, one can get cranky. I find that predominantly the ones that hate random terrain and random charge distance the most are the ones that heavily optimize their army and when you get to the core of the issue, it is a game element that has consequences that they cannot optimize for. In essence, it's socialism for tabletop gaming because its an equalizer. No matter how badass your army list is, that forest will affect you the same as your opponent.

Is this universally true? I would be a complete and utter fool to try to be speaking for 100% of the population that hates random terrain and charges, but I will say that in my anecdotal world, that the above covers much of the majority of people that don't like it.

What's third? They added random warlord traits. Ok. This seems to be fairly benign.

Fourth - random psyker powers. As a longtime fantasy player, this is something that has existed for me forever so again its impact on me is negligible. It is something that doesn't make sense from a "realist" standpoint (oh look the wizard came to the battle, what spells did he randomly learn today) but I understand its gaming point. If you let people buy spells and powers, that mechanic only works if the spells and powers are balanced and all useful. Sadly, that has never been the case, and what you end up with is everyone always taking the same power no matter its cost if it is the most optimal choice.

I am on the fence with this one. On one hand it makes little sense realistically, on the other hand it curbs optimizing, which I feel is a detriment to the hobby as a whole because it leads to burnout and loss of players when you have to face the same type of list over and over again.

Maybe I missed a fifth element that was added that was random but those above for the most part except for item #1 have little effect on the overall game and #1 was always in my games in previous editions due to maximizing cover, so this is why I'm not seeing how the game is randomly rolling random effects which cause random happiness and sadness to randomly appear randomly everywhere (and why I don't believe timmy the power gaming vet will lose to the trained orangutuan because of dice like people like to propose and I've yet to see a newb pwn a vet because your choices still matter quite a bit, otherwise we would be seeing more of clueless people toppling former great players because of dice... it's just not happening with any regularity that "choices with no impact" would imply they should be happening)

As to warmachine - it is a great game. I judge its value as a great game based on the number of people that like it. HOwever, it is a great game that bores me or holds no interest for me, because after having played it for a year I found it to be a game that centers around popping two or three combos off at the right time to win. Still a great game, still doesn't speak to me. As far as tactically and strategically deeper, no I never found it to be deeper than 40k. I find them both to be very shallow in terms of strategy and tactics needed to win. I find that if you are good at magic the gathering you will also be very good at Warmachine barring bad luck rolling dice.

Yes in warmachine there is positioning, formations, etc... but after a year of playing it it seemed to be about who got the most devastating chain of combos off first would win. Granted there were times when that wasn't always the case but that was in the minority and as such it lost its appeal to me. I spent a good $400 or so on the game and I wanted to like it because one of our guys loved it but it is just not something that I enjoyed much.

I akin warmachine to a subset of a chess match. In chess you are trying to get a series of moves off to put your opponent in check mate. Warmachine is one of those series of moves, you are trying to fork-combo or skewer-combo your opponent so that you can unleash nuke-combo and end the game. It does require thinking, prediction, and pattern matching and it does so in a different way than 40k does, and that may be better to you because you like it more, but that does not make it deeper, just more satisfying for you.

The "deeper" games tend to lie in the 10/15mm range. Unfortunately around here those are hard to find players for.


I ws hoping for a few recommendations. When someone asks me about japanese history or other stuff I know significantly more about than the person asking, I generally have a few pointers beyond "just google it", mostly because I know how to seperate good literature on the topic from bad literature in a way he as a beginner doesn't. Sorry to bother you with this, though... :blush:

A good majority of my research has come either from college or from attending seminars so I don't have any real good book to recommend to you. I know if you pull up AI articles for gaming they will often discuss an absolute tactical AI and what random elements do for you.

RandomThoughts
03-10-2012, 14:46
Again, I want to thank you for the honest, respectful discussion. It's really refreshing and not to common on these boards.


I've never once attacked anyone on Warmachine. What I have challenged (and challenging is not attacking) is the notion that it is more strategically and tactically deeper without any effort in quantifying the statement. It just is. I think I've in my life read three actual statements in my life trying to explain how Warmachine is a deeper game, and while I don't agree with everything those statements make, I at least appreciate the effort to go further then "it just is because I said so".

Accepted. If I can, I'll try to do make an honest effort of my own to explain it later.


Because people have their diapers twisted in a rage about random charges and terrain and that word is a focal point about what it is that many of them really desire (being able to call out an action and knowing it will always work, and when I say always work I don't mean always succeed I mean always execute as they want it to). It allows a point of discussion identifying the premise of their annoyance and in some posters' cases, their rage.

Just to be clear: Do you argue that unreliable tactics are better than reliable (or absolute) tactics or do you merely disagree with the stated opinion of others that unreliable tactics are inferior to reliabe tactics?

Important difference.


My rhino rush example was just one of the easiest that I could break down to show the differences in the editions (as I am writing software that lets me play 40k or games like it, I have to write an AI, and I am familiar with the decision making structures that are involved and laid it out on text form). I can certainly provide more of those examples but I didn't want to write a 20 page paper on it lol. It was to highlight the decision making that differ from 5th to 6th (and to counter the notion that 6th has no tactical or strategic depth, when in almost every instance it would seem 6th has *more* because you have to account for more, which opens up the decision making tree to more possibilities one has to account for, which is one thing that I enjoy about the new edition)

I understand the nature of algorythms, and I thought it was clear that you intended to point out that 6th had more instances of actual decisions (if-clauses, if you want) than the straightforward Rhino rush of the previous edition. If I understand you correctly that was in direct reaction to the point that the game became less tactical, which would mean that players had to think and decide less.

However, the message I got from your post is that we agree on a few basic premises ("Selbstverständlichkeiten" in German) regarding what makes an interesting wargame. We both seem to think that thinking and (on the spot) decission-making is desireable, and the more the game rewards it, the better. Do you agree so far?


I have not seen a game of 6th where decisions were less meaningful. In fact I feel it is quite the opposite. Your decisions have great impact over which decision element is more likely to happen.

To be honest, I haven't played enough 6th to really compare or judge the editions. I think wound allocation is good, because careful placement (i.e. a player decision) has replaced a purely random mechanism with the potential to abuse it in a gamey way with wound groups. For me personally it didn't go far enough, Look Out Sir really compromised the elegant approach in my personal opinion. If you don't want your Captain shot, put him in the back of the unit, not at the very front. If the enemy manages to get a unit around you and shoot you in the back and kill the captain regardless - that's what wargames should be about in my opinion.

My real beef, I think, is that I was already unhappy with 5th and I was hoping for major improvements from 6th. When those didn't come, it got hard further suspending my frustration. As I said above, 40k feels for me, compared to Warmachine and the two or three games of Infinity I layed so far, like drunk driving. Neither you nor your opponent has any real control over his car, all you can do is hit the accelerator, cling to the steering wheel and hope for the best. That might be okay for you, you already explained how it feels like the Fog of War in real combat, for me it is a major point of criticism.


What has really changed in terms of random elements? When you read the internet or hear the optimizers down at the shop who hate 40k now talk, it would seem that everything you do is random. If you want to move it would seem that you roll scatter dice and let the dice pick which direction you move, and then you move in a random direction. When you want to shoot the internet is basically saying you randomly select a target, then randomly roll on some weather table to see if it affects you randomly this turn, and then you roll on a random event chart to see if a random monster pops out of the sand and randomly eats one of your guys, which then randomly fires its weapon off as its dying, randomly killing another guy, and then a random airstrike comes in and randomly bombs a piece of terrain which randomly rolls on a chart. You get my point. It gets a bit ridiculous reading internet hyperbole about how 6th edition is entirely random and your choices mean nothing.

[...]

it's just not happening with any regularity that "choices with no impact" would imply they should be happening)

Accepted. And just let me stress again, that I'm not basing 6th compared to 5th based on more random. It's more that I'm frustrated that another chance was wasted to put more control back into the players' hands. And this is not just about random elements either. What bothers me probably even more are a lot of compulsory rules. Stuff like basic infantry throwing their guns away and rushing into a brawl they're guaranteed to loose the moment a single enemy model makes it into base contact with a single guy from their unit. Eve worse when it is, say, Fire Dragons being charged by Terminators, because they would mope the floor with them if they hadn't thrown away their guns for no conceivable reason. Or say a unit charged by a Dreadnought or a Wraithlord it can't even wound. Sure, they put extra rules in for some of those cases in 6th, but why do we need these clunky special rules that only apply in certain cases when there are other games systems that get the job done just wit their basic rules. There's other stuff to that always gets me raging, like Landspeeders and Vypers being able to leavy melee at will, while Eldar Jetbikers will stay put and let themselves be slaughtered even if they survived the initial assault somehow.
Then there are the rules preventing firing into melee. Eldar Fire Dragons would be perfect trailing after their Avatar, with guns he's invulnerable to, covering him in cover fire, shooting everything that dares stand up to him. Think about Walkers and Wraithlords, surrounded by hordes of puny infantry - what better time to fire up their flamers than in the middle of melee? Think about imperial arillery, aiming at a platoon of conscripts, placed at the exact spot where they want the enemy Ork horde to be. All of that would make sense inside the game world and would make for nasty, vicious grinning during our games. Instead we got what we got.

Random stuff is just another element that I feel limits players' control over their armies and their game.


Second: it means that one dimensional assault armies will struggle more and encourages support elements, much like real war. Why do I like this better? Because it's more realistic to me about how a real army would fight.

While agree with the desired result, I just wanted to add that Warmachine accomplishes the same thing without random movements. Some melee units my opponents throw at me are easily shot down by gunmages, others will wade through gunmage fire unblinking, so I need other units as well o deal with those.


As to warmachine - it is a great game. I judge its value as a great game based on the number of people that like it. HOwever, it is a great game that bores me or holds no interest for me, because after having played it for a year I found it to be a game that centers around popping two or three combos off at the right time to win. Still a great game, still doesn't speak to me. As far as tactically and strategically deeper, no I never found it to be deeper than 40k. I find them both to be very shallow in terms of strategy and tactics needed to win. I find that if you are good at magic the gathering you will also be very good at Warmachine barring bad luck rolling dice.

Yes in warmachine there is positioning, formations, etc... but after a year of playing it it seemed to be about who got the most devastating chain of combos off first would win. Granted there were times when that wasn't always the case but that was in the minority and as such it lost its appeal to me. I spent a good $400 or so on the game and I wanted to like it because one of our guys loved it but it is just not something that I enjoyed much.

I akin warmachine to a subset of a chess match. In chess you are trying to get a series of moves off to put your opponent in check mate. Warmachine is one of those series of moves, you are trying to fork-combo or skewer-combo your opponent so that you can unleash nuke-combo and end the game. It does require thinking, prediction, and pattern matching and it does so in a different way than 40k does, and that may be better to you because you like it more, but that does not make it deeper, just more satisfying for you.

Accepted. My personal experience is different, but there is nothing that can be done about that.

As I said, combos have very little to no impact on our games, but that might be because we play it mostly with a tabletop mindset and not with a combo mindset, because we play it in a closed group, and because non of us really cares about competitive play.

For me personally, Warmachine does what I want 40K to be, both in gameplay (more control in the hands of the players) and in the way it plays out (cover affects to hit rolls, running over open ground is faster than when you have to cut down enemies standing in your way, etc.). That is why I consider Warmachine a better game than 40k.

Should the combo-play you keep bringing up ever become an issue in our group, that would certainly lead to quite some disenchantment from all of us.


The "deeper" games tend to lie in the 10/15mm range. Unfortunately around here those are hard to find players for.

I'm actually prepared to believe that on your words only. I used to play Epic Space Marine about 20 years ago (god, where have the years gone!), and I'd certainly be open to play some more 10/15mm range battles in the 40K universe.


A good majority of my research has come either from college or from attending seminars so I don't have any real good book to recommend to you. I know if you pull up AI articles for gaming they will often discuss an absolute tactical AI and what random elements do for you.

I guess I'll have to accept that, then. If you still got some book recommendations from your college and seminar teachers lying around somewhere, please let me know. ^^

Regards
RT

IcedCrow
03-10-2012, 14:58
Just to be clear: Do you argue that unreliable tactics are better than reliable (or absolute) tactics or do you merely disagree with the stated opinion of others that unreliable tactics are inferior to reliabe tactics?

It depends on how are you are defining the term better.

In terms of absolutes then of course reliable tactics are superior to inferior tactics. So unreliable tactics are *not* "better". What unreliable tactics *do* add to the game is a more realistic exercise of military tactics & strategies as in a real exercise (I'm speaking from actually having had served in the military) all generals, field commanders, and officers no matter what level they are on must have a contingency plan, and the unreliable tactics better simulate that need and as such I am happier that the rules better simulate that need as opposed to my tactics always working reliably, which while very good from a gamist point of view is not close at all to an actual military exercise.


I understand the nature of algorythms, and I thought it was clear that you intended to point out that 6th had more instances of actual decisions (if-clauses, if you want) than the straightforward Rhino rush of the previous edition. If I understand you correctly that was in direct reaction to the point that the game became less tactical, which would mean that players had to think and decide less.

However, the message I got from your post is that we agree on a few basic premises ("Selbstverständlichkeiten" in German) regarding what makes an interesting wargame. We both seem to think that thinking and (on the spot) decission-making is desireable, and the more the game rewards it, the better. Do you agree so far?

Yes what I was demonstrating was the quantifying of the decision making structures in both games, laying them out on paper to demonstrate visually how 6th edition is *not* less tactical or less strategic. Yes I also agree that on the spot thinking and decision making is more desireable in a game that I invest my time in.


My real beef, I think, is that I was already unhappy with 5th and I was hoping for major improvements from 6th. When those didn't come, it got hard further suspending my frustration. As I said above, 40k feels for me, compared to Warmachine and the two or three games of Infinity I layed so far, like drunk driving. Neither you nor your opponent has any real control over his car, all you can do is hit the accelerator, cling to the steering wheel and hope for the best. That might be okay for you, you already explained how it feels like the Fog of War in real combat, for me it is a major point of criticism.

You can't argue with how a game feels and I won't try to argue here. 40k is still in no way reflective of an actual military exercise. The closest I've played to that is Squad Leader and some EPIC.


Accepted. And just let me stress again, that I'm not basing 6th compared to 5th based on more random. It's more that I'm frustrated that another chance was wasted to put more control back into the players' hands. And this is not just about random elements either. What bothers me probably even more are a lot of compulsory rules. Stuff like basic infantry throwing their guns away and rushing into a brawl they're guaranteed to loose the moment a single enemy model makes it into base contact with a single guy from their unit. Eve worse when it is, say, Fire Dragons being charged by Terminators, because they would mope the floor with them if they hadn't thrown away their guns for no conceivable reason. Or say a unit charged by a Dreadnought or a Wraithlord it can't even wound. Sure, they put extra rules in for some of those cases in 6th, but why do we need these clunky special rules that only apply in certain cases when there are other games systems that get the job done just wit their basic rules. There's other stuff to that always gets me raging, like Landspeeders and Vypers being able to leavy melee at will, while Eldar Jetbikers will stay put and let themselves be slaughtered even if they survived the initial assault somehow.
Then there are the rules preventing firing into melee. Eldar Fire Dragons would be perfect trailing after their Avatar, with guns he's invulnerable to, covering him in cover fire, shooting everything that dares stand up to him. Think about Walkers and Wraithlords, surrounded by hordes of puny infantry - what better time to fire up their flamers than in the middle of melee? Think about imperial arillery, aiming at a platoon of conscripts, placed at the exact spot where they want the enemy Ork horde to be. All of that would make sense inside the game world and would make for nasty, vicious grinning during our games. Instead we got what we got.

Random stuff is just another element that I feel limits players' control over their armies and their game.

To a point yes. GW never made a realistic gameset and a lot of times during a game we "lol" at some of the absurdity. I would love for unengaged models to be able to fire into melee. I would love for the game of 40k to divorce itself totally from close combat except for the most dire of circumstances, where an assault unit would be a support unit. We got that to a point with overwatch.


As I said, combos have very little to no impact on our games, but that might be because we play it mostly with a tabletop mindset and not with a combo mindset, because we play it in a closed group, and because non of us really cares about competitive play.

The group I was in was very tournament / competitive oriented so I can see how different groups and playstyles lead to different experiences. I am largely not a competitive tournament gamer anymore, because I got burnt out on it years ago. Perhaps had my experience with warmachine been with a more casual standpoint as opposed to the "grind your balls into the table and sodomize your skull gently while I pwn you" mindset, I may think about it more differently today.

Certainly I know there's a giant difference in environment between casual / campaign 40k and tournament "i will kill you and steal your wife and daughters" 40k.

If I come across any game design titles I find are good I'll be sure to post. It's a fun field to get into, even just as a hobby (and let's face it most game designers are hobbyists)

Ereshkigal
03-10-2012, 16:02
Comboes on WM/HD are a problem only if you play against a less skilled opponent, on equal skill the game is about disrupting the opponent plan while trying to accomplish yours (because you know what combo your opponent can use, and you have to prevent that by careful planning, movement, skill and spell usage and so on).

Example, against Khador i always target the dogs first...

IcedCrow
03-10-2012, 16:05
Comboes on WM/HD are a problem only if you play against a less skilled opponent, on equal skill the game is about disrupting the opponent plan while trying to accomplish yours (because you know what combo your opponent can use, and you have to prevent that by careful planning, movement, skill and spell usage and so on).

Example, against Khador i always target the dogs first...

Some of the guys we played with have consistently placed tops at larger tournaments, so I'm going to have to go out on a limb and say that the less-skilled opponent rebuttal is not so accurate here. Especially since not only are they consistently placing high in tournaments, but the tactics discussions that they hold often involve combos, what combos to look for, and what combos to fire off when and how with various factions.

Ereshkigal
03-10-2012, 16:22
Placing high doesn't mean anything on how those games were played. Combos are crucial BUT the game on the table isn't about combos but is about mind gaming with your opponent, outplaying him and seize victory. Combos per se don't win you any game with an equally skilled opponent.

Let's think about this: Saeryn has a feat to become immune to melee attacks along with her's battlegroup (the beasts) for a turn. Well you can combo that with the angelius which pushes his enemies away and win by taking an objective without the possibility to being pushed back from it or being easily killed by ranged attacks because saeryn can dodge almost all shots. It's a nice combo, but what if your opponent decide to pick up and throw at saeryn one of his own model to knock her down (and you don't have to roll to hit saeryn with that) and then procede to kill her by ranged because she can't dodge anything anymore?

You can combo all you want, but if your opponent is smart the game isn't about combos anymore, but it's a game about clashing wits.

IcedCrow
03-10-2012, 17:00
I can't agree with you. If a person consistently over years of playing a game places high and puts weight on those combos, then placing high consistenly means that they are able to beat out a large majority of players through the use of knowing when to execute combos, which is the same principal in magic: the gathering (though in a card game you are constrained by luck of the draw, wherein a game of dice you are constrained by what you roll).

Had they only placed high against the same pool of people I'd agree with you but some of these guys are "professional gamers" and travel to tournaments everywhere and they consistently place high there as well and they accredit it to combo use and when to use it. For players of that level to be called unskilled or to say that the vast majority of players that they have played over the years are unskilled is a bit much.

Certainly "clashing wits" is a part of the game, but so too is that a part of playing 40k.

Ereshkigal
03-10-2012, 17:12
You didn't understand what i said. I didn't say that their opponent are unskilled or that combos aren't present. The problem is your perception on what they say. They perform combos while their opponent try to stop them from doing it, and vice versa. And the best player wins, not because that combo is present but because he knew how to create the opportunity to use it without being stopped by the other player.

In short, the strategy involved in the game made one player win over the other.

In wh40k it doesn't happen. And tbh i'm one of those player who travel to play tournament and i win a lot (last tourney i won without losing any single game)... on wh40k you win with the list and the first turn, mostly. If not it's because you were lucky/unlucky. Once in a while you can lose because of a bad engagement, but that's it... usually armies tend to play by themselves once they are placed on the table.

IcedCrow
03-10-2012, 17:34
Yes, that's what I've been saying the whole time though. The point of Warmachine is combos and knowing when to use them and in what order. Just like M:TG is. I have also said that's fine if you like that. Its a great game. A lot of people like it. I don't like games that center around combos. Even if you have to jockey for position to use the combo.


In wh40k it doesn't happen. And tbh i'm one of those player who travel to play tournament and i win a lot (last tourney i won without losing any single game)... on wh40k you win with the list and the first turn, mostly. If not it's because you were lucky/unlucky. Once in a while you can lose because of a bad engagement, but that's it... usually armies tend to play by themselves once they are placed on the table.

To a point. In a tournament enviornment where everyone is out to break the system with their grey knights or space wolves, the list is very much a big part of the equation. So to that, Warmachine is superior in that the viable builds aren't limited to a tiny handful. However if you are not playing in a hardcore tournament enviornment, that factor is not really significant.

I encourage pretty much every hard core competitive player I know to go to warmachine because its rules are tighter and, again like M:TG, more suited to competitive tournament play.

Ereshkigal
03-10-2012, 17:39
Yes and that's why i switched to WM... even if i am winning in warhammer with my dark eldar...

IcedCrow
03-10-2012, 17:42
If I were a hardcore tournament player I would also switch to Warmachine. Not because I felt warmachine was strategically or tactically superior, but because the ruleset leaves less jockeying for rules-lawyers, and because not everyone fields the same couple of faction and builds in WM, which is a plus (I get burnt out on spam and repetitive games that feature the same builds easily)

Ereshkigal
03-10-2012, 17:52
to be honest i find wm tactically superior because ranges matters more (having a range of 36" in a 48" field is a bit weird in my eyes, it removes the purpose of the movement). On WM movement and threat range are the two most important things in the game, so tactics (how to move your troops on the field) is vastly superior than wh40k. Strategy (how you try to achieve a result) is superior because of combos, you have to think on how to beat your opponent in a clever way. A lot more than you do on warhammer (where 90% of the games are won in the first turn).

IcedCrow
03-10-2012, 18:46
Ranges do matter more, you are right. If I have a range that pretty much covers the entire table, the focus shifts from range being an issue (movement) to cover and strongholds that can provide the best cover.

I think that if we were to shorten 40k ranges to reflect WM, that 40k would not "feel right" though. In a game that focuses on guns, I think ranged weaponry should be the dominating force on the table.

Movement has increased in importance with 6th ed due to casualty allocation.

When I analyze it in my brain, WM feels more like 7th ed fantasy did for me, where everyone circled the ranges and danced trying to be the first one to get into range. Of course, 7th ed fantasy did have a weighty importance on movement, so to be fair that does require a level of tactics etc...

I do agree that in competitive 40k, the first turn is king, mainly because of how lists are constructed, which is sad. That again goes back to me agreeing that 40k is ill-suited for competitive gaming.

Razhem
03-10-2012, 19:14
Have you thought that maybe your mates consistently place top at warmachine because they are damn good at adapting to the flow of the match? One of the most important aspects of the game is being able to bounce back when things go sour, god knows you will get rubber lance syndrome a couple of times and when it counts. Being able to have a contingency or 3 is crucial in warmachine. Being able to always be on the lookout for a chance to hunt the enemy caster/warlock is also a big part of it all. If you simple LOL all the way home using the same combo, you become an open book and will pay heavily for playing without actual thought.

One of the tip top players of warmachine consistently places top dog while playing a variety of factions and more importantly, casters and warlocks that are considered to be on the lower end of the scale. Warmachine is a game where skill is very bloody important, the whole "King" dynamic makes sure of that. Every single time you decide to cast one more spell, or move a bit more forward can be your death sentence while every time you decide to retreat instead of pressing a percieved advantage (here, baiting through percieved loss is a very real tactic and one that gets people completely off guard, specially the new ones that let themselves be swooped by the bloodshed and leave their king exposed) can save the game then and there. Hell, I've baited and been baited by people exposing their casters/locks with the right amount of buffs to make a kill possible but it being hard enough to make it anything but automatic, sometimes it works like a charm, other times it blows in your face.

Basically, warmachine has a huge depth to it after the forces have been deployed, but it's a game that requires commitment, if you never bother to know the other guys tricks, I assure you everything will equal "buah, combos" to you since all those combos work at their best when people aren't alert to them. Being able to hamper said combos while keeping your own in motion is plain crucial and being able to force your enemy through objectives to force his hand or assuming that your hand is going to be forced, coping with the loss and punching through it all is another core aspect of it.

Anyway, I find it a lot more entertaining a game that I can still get a chance of winning even if my forces are decimated than a game that by turn 3 I can pretty much already shake hands because the enemy got a good first turn shooting round. Hell, I've had some pretty damn crazy rebounds be it by bad positioning by my opponent or by simply deciding to throw caution to the wind and bet it all on a crazy blitz. Another huge part of the game may be minimizing randomness, but there is still a certain Blood Bowl feel to doing mad dashes that have low chances but huge benefits.

scapegoatboy69
03-10-2012, 19:57
On Combos:
1. The vast majority of them are slight buffs, and deciding where to put those +2's or +3-1's to do the best work. High Def infantry given more def?
2. The result of most combos is to throw a slightly harder punch or have a slightly better defense. None of them read "lol, I wun gaem."
3. It's an easier way to discuss the game and kind of a lexical shortcut. Synergy would probably be more applicable.

On strategy:
The Steamroller 2012 rules really add a lot to the game.

...wait...

On 40k:
How many of this game's problems do you guys think could be solved by writing new missions with off the wall rules? Well, not necessarily off the wall. Perhaps ripping off a great deal of Flames of War or Warmachine mission types and special rules? What would you guys think of the option of bringing two or three lists?

Ereshkigal
03-10-2012, 20:15
Two or Three list works on warmachine thanks to the plethora of casters in each faction. On warhammer this won't work...

IcedCrow
03-10-2012, 20:43
You can have a lot of decent builds work in 40k it just requires not using the super builds to break everything.

That's the problem with 40k.

Haravikk
03-10-2012, 22:33
Sadly that's not how 40K plays out in my experience. More randomness still means you're better off with more of the strongest units (i.e. spam), since the chances of any of them succeeding is still higher than the chances of weaker units helping out a smaller number of them in a significant way.
This is why I went on to say that it's still very much up to the army books to decide things either way as lists that enable too much spam will of course confound things unfortunately.


On the issue of tactics; part of the problem with 40k is that the normal game length is too short to give you much of a chance to manoeuvre and counter-manoeuvre; falling back to a better position wastes far too much time and shooting to be effective for example, when you're better off getting as much shooting in as possible, regardless of losses. So strategy is always going to play the bigger part of the game in list building and deployment, but there is still a fair amount that you can do, with unit and model positioning now playing a bigger role thanks to the new Wound allocation. Playing games of 40k that are twice as long, with more penalties for losing units can allow more of a chance to play tactically; as tactics in a game require you to predict what your opponent is trying to do, which in 40k you don't get as there are too few turns for feints and distractions etc.
Absolute tactics implies that there is never a choice, in which case there would be no tactics at all, but I don't feel that that's the case either; instead we have a lot of decisions that are gambles, as you can either go for the "safe" high probability option, or instead opt for riskier, but potentially rewarding, gambles instead. These are what make the game most interesting, and what allow the (relatively) shorter, high-damage game format to be fun and interesting.