40K Editiorial: You Don’t Know Better

[Lucidum]

Lucidum here, pitching a small editorial here on behalf of my blog: By the Brass Balls of Khorne (http://khornesbrassballs.blogspot.com)

You Don’t Know Better
I know I’m going to catch flak for this, but before we get into my plans for a new army (coming soon, i promise), we need to discuss one thing: Warhammer 40,000 itself.

Now, as an Imperial Knight player, I am more than accustomed to hearing “oh Knights are so OP!” and “spamming super-heavies is ridiculous!” from my opponents. And this is where I know most players are going to hate me, because to all the naysayers and rabble-rousers, I say this: Quit Your *****ing.

Warhammer 40,000 is in its 7th Edition now, the game has experienced a steady power creep for nigh on twenty years now, steadily increasing in the size of armies, doing away with 0-1 Force Organization choices, and yes, now even allowing super-heavies and gargantuan creatures into the normal game. **** gets real with the latest edition, fortifications are doable, unbound army lists make for some serious spam-worthy choices, and yes, super-heavy vehicles are troublesome. But the key thing to remember is: YOU DON’T MAKE THIS GAME.

- Read the rest Here (http://khornesbrassballs.blogspot.com/2015/03/you-dont-know-better.html)

[DrBored]

Part of me agrees with you, part of me doesn't. I read the full article and I like it for what it is: an opinion and editorial, and I think you make some good points.

Yes, 40k is a game. I think the more we compare it to Magic the Gathering, the more we'll see that the two are quite similar. New editions, packs, rules come out and players must adapt to that. You can't play with the same army you've had for 10 years and expect the game to be exactly the same, unless you use the same rules and only battle the same other guy that's just as backwards as you are. For the rest of us, we adapt, we add to our armies.

For veterans, the number of models they've gone through, bought, built, and sold on e-bay, to keep up with the meta, is probably quite similar to the process that Magic card game players go through when they go through decks.

Honestly, a lot of the complaints against Wizards of the Coast are very similar to complaints that GW gets. How could they make a card so broken? My deck was dominating a month ago, but now it's getting trashed! This combo that I spent hundreds of dollars to build became totally ineffective with the new competitive meta! Curse you Wizards of the Coast! In both situations, the players very much do it to themselves.

It's the game. We may not have been wise to it when we started. Just like in any game, you don't know all the rules and nuances before you play your first (hundred) game(s). Whether you stick with it or not is your choice.

The trouble, and the reason people get so heated, is that so much money and time is involved, and people hate to think that their desperately earned money or their dwindling time were wasted on something. I bought and built a Land Raider Redeemer, and instead of magnetizing like a smart person, I built it that way and painted it all up, only to find out it's probably the worst of the three variants. That's a fat 80 dollars that is sitting on a shelf that won't see as much play, and because of it, I have to invest more money to fill that hole that the Land Raider and it's squad's 500 points took up before it. That means that if I want to continue playing the game with a different army, my collection must grow, I must spend more money to make it do that, and I must learn new strategies to incorporate into the new list to make it better.

To people averted to change, those things are terrifying. To people with smaller wallets, those things are terrifying. To people that aren't so good at strategy, those things are terrifying.

But there are people that LIKE to go through that process, and, ironically, it's these people that GW is catering to: the collectors. It's one thing to make your Magic deck and then sell it at the end of the season, but it's another thing to build a 40k army, and when you want/need to move on to a different list or army, you have the option of keeping what you crafted. Sure, you could sell it, but if you built it yourself, painted it yourself, why wouldn't you keep it? After all, with how the game changes by the month, those older models might become useful again. Maybe in the future, my Land Raider Redeemer will gain the Torrent rule for its Flamestorm cannons and become the new hotness. Then I'll be glad I got it, and I'll be able to take it off the shelf and play with it again.

That's the benefit of sticking around with the game. Typically, stuff comes full circle.

[Mr Mystery]

Every game has their little cash traps.

MtG? The Singles Market. Not a market I involve myself in. Instead I buy s booster box and fat pack, as I consider this the most economical way. Means I'm usually short of having every card I want, but more than enough variety to put together a few unusual decks.

Star Wars X-Wing? How the upgrade cards are distributed. Oh this is a cunning one! At £10 a model, ready to play it looks cheap to play. Then you really get into it. And you know one particular upgrade could make your fleet filth.....and that card is only available through a ship you don't want to field....and you may want multiples of them....

40k? Just like the previous two, it's not the manufacturer driving the cash trap. It's us. A player who follows the meta and wants to do well in all their games (not win all their games, just not get reliably stomped every time) will try to keep pace. Sometimes that's buying up the newly released kits, sometimes it's going round the bits sellers to swap out all your examples of Weapon A for Weapon Z, because Weapon Z fits the meta better.

Now, in all three of the above examples, the drive behind the cash trap is the determination to keep on succeeding. None of the games require that level of investment. In each one the big spend is part of chasing the meta.

I make no judgement nor comment upon that, other than its not my approach :) I'm one for going with what I think is fun. Sometimes that sees me do well, as it happens to work well against those who do the meta, other times quite the opposite. Wouldn't say its necessarily cheaper in all cases.

MtG, £100 tops per block. X-Wing? I buy loads! GW? Been a while since I last committed to an army, but that hasn't stopped me buying the random kits I like the look of...which happen to be the pricier ones!

But to kind of echo OP's sentiments - each to their own. My experience is my experience. Your experience is yours. We all play the same games, but in our own unique manner. Don't talk in absolutes, try to steer clear of sweeping statements, and let each enjoy their thing!

[Reldane]

"GET OVER IT. ‘nuff said. Warhammer 40,000 is constantly growing and evolving" -quote from Lucidum's blog post

Okay so first of all your post looks more like you are trying to justify your choice of army rather than making any real comment on the state of the game. Like it or not super heavy's are a thing, multiple force organisations and even unbound are all part of the game and we as gamers need to consider this when writing our lists, there is a meta (which will depend on area).

However to link back to your blog it seems pretty clear that the game you played was very one sided, and it is understandable that your opponent would be unlikely to enjoy that game. As DrBored comments we generally invest a lot of time into our hobby : building, converting and painting can stretch into tens or even hundreds of hours per model, a fully assembled and painted army can and should be something of pride.

in the case of knights, they are as a whole a very strong choice and very efficiently costed for their output and durability, but come with a couple of weaknesses, namely being out maneuvered and ap1 (and a lesser extent ap2) hits. In order to deal will a knight you need multiple units to threaten it in multiple arcs and in doing so mitigating the 4/3++ which is possibly rerollable. Some armies do suffer greatly in this regard; either designed before super heavies needed an answer or just because someone decided that was the way it should be. for example tyrnaids have very little (excepting forgeworld LoW) ranged firepower that can threaten a knight and for the most part too low an Initiative to engage the str D knight.

I have seen a lot of comments about how flyers counter knights, however non interaction isn't a counter. If the flyer doesn't pose a threat to the knight then it doesn't matter if the flyer can avoid the knights attacks, to expand on the earlier example a winged hive tyrant can avoid a knights attacks, but with only str 6 shooting it can't touch front armour, glances on a 6 vs side and rear factor in the 4++ and the knight can weather 6 turns of firepower quite happily.

Moving back to your blog post. You argue that "before you jump down my throat for spamming Imperial Knights... know that my opponent was a regular to the league, he’s played often and he should know by now that the meta" however as DrBored says it leads to a situation where you expect other players to jump onto whatever bandwaggon Games workshop has just released rather than playing the army they feel most attached too.

on other notes; the redeemer is my preferred land raider, it has just enough transport capacity unlike the standard pattern, and still has a reasonable shooting presence at least close up. that said I think all the land raider variants need to come down by 50points to make them even close to competitive

[Erik Setzer]

Hmm. "I beat your face in with a nasty army full of expensive models that are over the top when there's just one in an army, but obnoxious with a whole army of them. But don't hate the playa, hate the game. Even though the playa knows damn well he's gaming the system for the biggest advantage and doesn't give a damn what his opponent thinks."

You know, that's also the kind of defense banks use when they screw people out of their money. What they're doing is perfectly legal, so that makes it moral and okay, and since the people don't make the rules, they can't complain, right?

WRONG.


Oh, and "flyers counter Knights" might have been true with just the two basic Knight kits, but they've released more Knights since, and if you're playing a Knight army, it's likely you have one or two of those FW Knights.

- - - Updated - - -


in the case of knights, they are as a whole a very strong choice and very efficiently costed for their output and durability, but come with a couple of weaknesses, namely being out maneuvered and ap1 (and a lesser extent ap2) hits. In order to deal will a knight you need multiple units to threaten it in multiple arcs and in doing so mitigating the 4/3++ which is possibly rerollable. Some armies do suffer greatly in this regard; either designed before super heavies needed an answer or just because someone decided that was the way it should be. for example tyrnaids have very little (excepting forgeworld LoW) ranged firepower that can threaten a knight and for the most part too low an Initiative to engage the str D knight.

Knights have a weakness in maneuverability? Seriously? Are you aware they have 12" move and Move Through Cover (with it corrected via FAQ to be double the top roll)? I can get a Knight anywhere on the table fast.

And when you have multiple Knights, it becomes hard to get around them to get into multiple arcs, because you need to try to focus fire on one Knight, and a Knight army can position itself so that when you do that, you make your units vulnerable to the other Knights. If a Knight isn't destroyed quickly but its destruction is imminent, you can throw it into the middle of the enemy army to either cause a mess when it blows up, or panic your opponent into repositioning units to avoid the explosion.

[Reldane]

Knights have a weakness in maneuverability? Seriously? Are you aware they have 12" move and Move Through Cover (with it corrected via FAQ to be double the top roll)? I can get a Knight anywhere on the table fast.


I never said it was a big weakness, but being able to shoot it from multiple arcs helps make them slightly more manageable

[40kGamer]

I've never been happy with the gradual move to turn old school EPIC into 40k. They were distinctly different for good reasons, not the least of which being you can't accurately represent and at the same time balance a titan in the 40k gamescale. They never fully managed to do this in epic.

Now we have the fabulous disaster that is 7th and the level of abstraction for 40k has reach epic proportions. :p

What has been added to the game with 6th-7th?

> Groundscale and Timescale are virtually meaningless.
> The probability of one sided games has increased exponentially.
> Rules complexity has increased with no corresponding payoff in enjoyment.
> Randomness has been inserted everywhere to compensate for poor design.

Knights/Superheavies are just a symptom, not the problem. Games now take longer and require more preplanning to be enjoyable. As long as everyone knows the tone of the game ahead of time it's all good. However it is not cool to bring 5 knights to random pickup games.

[Captain Bubonicus]

However it is not cool to bring 5 knights to random pickup games.

This. And no amount of passive-aggressive blogging will change that fact.

[Lucidum]

This. And no amount of passive-aggressive blogging will change that fact.

For the record, i only use 3 Knights, all the standard Paladin and Errant models because my local store doesn’t allow Forge World.

[Auticus]

Sounds like you are trying to write a page 5 for 40k. (warmachine reference)

[Lucidum]

Sounds like you are trying to write a page 5 for 40k. (warmachine reference) You’re not wrong

[Auticus]

If only 40k were designed to be a cut throat ball breaking competitive game designed to rub your opponents face in his own feces and vomit, and its army lists not totally devoid of any balance to make that an entertaining endeavor.

As it stands, rock/paper/scissors doesn't make for an exceptionally strong ultimate fighting championship with little men and thats what 40k is designed to be.

[40kGamer]

As it stands, rock/paper/scissors doesn't make for an exceptionally strong ultimate fighting championship with little men and thats what 40k is designed to be.

You forgot to add Lizard, Spock. They crept into the mix for 6-7th. :p

[jeffersonian000]

I read the article and agree with the author. The vocal minority will always *****, and the ones that ***** this time around will not necessarily be the ones *****ing the next time. Sure, people need to pull their big boy pants up and either vote with their wallet or go find some other hobby, which the silent majority does as seen in falling GW profits. Yet, the *****ers are going to *****, because the anonymity of the net gives them e-courage.

My opinion is, just play. Play what you want, how you want, with those you want, and don't get all self-righteous when people ask you to conform to their needs (but don't just conform, there needs to be some give and take). This is a social game, a community where the weakest piece is each of us. So either quit being a problem and play, or go away.

SJ

[Lucidum]

I read the article and agree with the author. The vocal minority will always *****, and the ones that ***** this time around will not necessarily be the ones *****ing the next time. Sure, people need to pull their big boy pants up and either vote with their wallet or go find some other hobby, which the silent majority does as seen in falling GW profits. Yet, the *****ers are going to *****, because the anonymity of the net gives them e-courage.

My opinion is, just play. Play what you want, how you want, with those you want, and don't get all self-righteous when people ask you to conform to their needs (but don't just conform, there needs to be some give and take). This is a social game, a community where the weakest piece is each of us. So either quit being a problem and play, or go away.

SJ

Amen to that. This guy gets it.

[Deadlift]

Yeah I agree with some of the points. Except this

however, game design is an incredibly complex process, and requires frequent trial and error- else the very first edition of Rogue Trader would be the end-all, be-all of the game, and we wouldn’t have grown and evolved with frequent updates and new editions over the past decades
This implies GW bring out new editions to improve the game, maybe once upon a time. But not now. New editions especially the rushed out 7th are introduced to make money. I've no problem with that. The more profitable the company the better it is for us. But new editions are for making money not improving the game.

[Path Walker]

If you want a game like war machine, play war machine, take the misogynistic page 5 ****e and go play to win. 40k isn't and hasn't ever been that game.

[Erik Setzer]

Yet, the *****ers are going to *****, because the anonymity of the net gives them e-courage.

As one of the people I'm sure you refer to as a "*****er," I will gladly point out that the Internet gives me no "e-courage," and I say everything I say online to people in-person, and the only reason I don't say much of this in the local GW store is because I respect the manager and don't want to do anything negative in his store that potential customers might overhear and be driven off by. (He does, however, know my stance, and it's shared by multiple customers. Still, poor guy can't do much in his position to fix the issues we have, and he does his best to give us a nice environment to enjoy the games, so no one's about to take it out on him.)



So either quit being a problem and play, or go away.

So your attitude is "If you don't agree with me, shut up and stop playing, and throw aside all the money you've spent."

Well, I might be a "*****er," but at least I'm not an ***hole.

Given that the OP agrees with someone being a total jerkwad, I guess that helps explain the tone of, "I should be able to beat your face in and play like a jerk because the game's rules don't prevent me from doing so."

[40kGamer]

Absolutely people can play what they want. But it is a social game and now requires an upfront understanding as to what each person is bringing to the table. The days when I would just pop into the game store and say 'hey who wants to play 40k at 2000 pts' are gone.

Why? Because I don't want to toss a Revenant titan backed up by serpents, jetbikes and a spirit council (almost guaranteed invisibility) on the table if my opponent is playing some fun fluffy list. It's a waste of everyone's time and there's absolutely no point. However it is interesting to run this list vs 3-5 knights.

On another note, excluding 40k Forgeworld items at this point is pretty stupid. Is it even possible to upset the balance when no balance exists?

[Lucidum]

Absolutely people can play what they want. But it is a social game and now requires an upfront understanding as to what each person is bringing to the table. The days when I would just pop into the game store and say 'hey who wants to play 40k at 2000 pts' are gone.

Why? Because I don't want to toss a Revenant titan backed up by serpents, jetbikes and a spirit council (almost guaranteed invisibility) on the table if my opponent is playing some fun fluffy list. It's a waste of everyone's time and there's absolutely no point. However it is interesting to run this list vs 3-5 knights.

On another note, excluding 40k Forgeworld items at this point is pretty stupid. Is it even possible to upset the balance when no balance exists?

I agree with you in general, for a friendly game yeah, bringing a hyper-competitive army is somewhat uncouth. But for a league, a tournament, or any other competitive event, not expecting other people to play competitively is just outright stupid (or suicidally optimistic).

As for ForgeWorld, at my game store at least it has something to do with the fact that the store can’t get wholesale ForgeWorld product to sell, so they feel that not every player has access to the product.

[Mr Mystery]

Yeah I agree with some of the points. Except this

This implies GW bring out new editions to improve the game, maybe once upon a time. But not now. New editions especially the rushed out 7th are introduced to make money. I've no problem with that. The more profitable the company the better it is for us. But new editions are for making money not improving the game.

I dunno dude.

If we count from 3rd onward, as it's been a fairly static base set of rules since then, I'd say the game has improved. Each edition has been a refinement of the previous.

But then, I do agree they're not especially interested in perfecting it. There's munneh to be made after all from constant tinkering.

[40kGamer]

I agree with you in general, for a friendly game yeah, bringing a hyper-competitive army is somewhat uncouth. But for a league, a tournament, or any other competitive event, not expecting other people to play competitively is just outright stupid (or suicidally optimistic).

As for ForgeWorld, at my game store at least it has something to do with the fact that the store can’t get wholesale ForgeWorld product to sell, so they feel that not every player has access to the product.

Quite true! The venue determines a lot. My area has events that range from fluffy to hyper competitive and only a newb would show up for the latter with anything other than a min-maxed list. There are tourney's that are distinctly geared toward fluffy hobby generalists where paint & sports account for 60-70% of your overall. Bringing a competitive list to those is as good as saying 'please rank me as your worst game of the day'. :)

[Auticus]

I agree with you in general, for a friendly game yeah, bringing a hyper-competitive army is somewhat uncouth. But for a league, a tournament, or any other competitive event, not expecting other people to play competitively is just outright stupid (or suicidally optimistic).

As for ForgeWorld, at my game store at least it has something to do with the fact that the store can’t get wholesale ForgeWorld product to sell, so they feel that not every player has access to the product.

If someone goes to a competitive event and whines that the armies are too hard, then in my eyes they are very much in the wrong.

However, often what I see is not that. I see people complaining armies are too hard in general because there is a divide amongst people where one side will only bring those overbearing min/max lists to whatever they do *outside* of tournaments, leagues, etc...

Unfortunately you can't just rock up to a game of 40k and expect your 2000 points to have a chance against your opponents 2000 points and few people enjoy playing games that are foregone conclusions before they start, as much as many people don't want to have to play one of the few power lists to have a good game.

[DrBored]

If someone goes to a competitive event and whines that the armies are too hard, then in my eyes they are very much in the wrong.

However, often what I see is not that. I see people complaining armies are too hard in general because there is a divide amongst people where one side will only bring those overbearing min/max lists to whatever they do *outside* of tournaments, leagues, etc...

Unfortunately you can't just rock up to a game of 40k and expect your 2000 points to have a chance against your opponents 2000 points and few people enjoy playing games that are foregone conclusions before they start, as much as many people don't want to have to play one of the few power lists to have a good game.

This just kinda boils it down. It's the difference between casual players and competitive players. Competitive players have more fun facing other competitive players and casual players have more fun against other casual players.

If you're a casual player and the only option is to face competitive players, you either don't play or you become competitive, and the same is true the other way around.

I'm fortunate in that I have one FLGS that's all competitive players and one that's mostly casual players :P

[Erik Setzer]

I dunno dude.

If we count from 3rd onward, as it's been a fairly static base set of rules since then, I'd say the game has improved. Each edition has been a refinement of the previous.

As an Ork player, I heavily disagree. 3rd wasn't bad, 4th was pretty solid with assault, 5th was "okay," and from 6th on assault has just been a bag of turds since I can't bring something as over-the-top as Thunderwolf Cavalry. While some of the changes did come in the Ork codex (removal of choppa rule, dropping burnas from practically every unit except an overpriced dedicated unit that dies like nothing, removal of invulnerable saves in combat, etc.), there's been changes to make assault less useful in the core rules as well. As a result, I've had to build an entirely new Ork army because my 3rd/4th edition army doesn't work any more. So yeah, I'd say the game has changed a lot, and since I find gunlines to be boring, I don't think it's been improving.

[Cutter]

Lucidum here, pitching a small editorial here on behalf of my blog: By the Brass Balls of Khorne (http://khornesbrassballs.blogspot.com)

You Don’t Know Better
I know I’m going to catch flak for this, but before we get into my plans for a new army (coming soon, i promise), we need to discuss one thing: Warhammer 40,000 itself.

Now, as an Imperial Knight player, I am more than accustomed to hearing “oh Knights are so OP!” and “spamming super-heavies is ridiculous!” from my opponents. And this is where I know most players are going to hate me, because to all the naysayers and rabble-rousers, I say this: Quit Your *****ing.

Warhammer 40,000 is in its 7th Edition now, the game has experienced a steady power creep for nigh on twenty years now, steadily increasing in the size of armies, doing away with 0-1 Force Organization choices, and yes, now even allowing super-heavies and gargantuan creatures into the normal game. **** gets real with the latest edition, fortifications are doable, unbound army lists make for some serious spam-worthy choices, and yes, super-heavy vehicles are troublesome. But the key thing to remember is: YOU DON’T MAKE THIS GAME.

- Read the rest Here (http://khornesbrassballs.blogspot.com/2015/03/you-dont-know-better.html)

I don't understand the title. I don't know better than who/what? And what's this Page 5 nonsense?

Explain it to the old man who doesn't play Warmachine.

[Arkhan Land]

Yeah I like the article title is a little weird, I feel like maybe just a little too hostile a tone? then again this is a game simualting the most brutal of combat...

either way I definetly agree that you kind of always prep yourself for whatever happens when you go to a game store, easy wins, easy losses, and dead draws are how it goes when you are willing to meet and play new opponents

[Erik Setzer]

I don't understand the title. I don't know better than who/what? And what's this Page 5 nonsense?

Explain it to the old man who doesn't play Warmachine.

IIRC, Page 5 is where the Warmachine rulebook explains the game's "Play like you've got a pair" mentality. In other words, it's all fair game as long as it's legal, try to beat your opponent's army like crazy, but don't be a jerk about it, and expect the same from your opponent.

Kind of like GW's 'Ard Boyz tournament, only with a nicer attitude.

[Cutter]

IIRC, Page 5 is where the Warmachine rulebook explains the game's "Play like you've got a pair" mentality. In other words, it's all fair game as long as it's legal, try to beat your opponent's army like crazy, but don't be a jerk about it, and expect the same from your opponent.

Kind of like GW's 'Ard Boyz tournament, only with a nicer attitude.

Oh right, Southpark rules.

[Lucidum]

The title is to point out the fact that you as a player (or vocal person who complains about every aspect of the hobby and company behind it), don’t know better than other people, and don’t know better than Games Workshop.

I thought I’d made that clear with the explanation of how hard games design was and my defense of Games Workshop putting out new editions to improve the game.

[40kGamer]

I thought I’d made that clear with the explanation of how hard games design was and my defense of Games Workshop putting out new editions to improve the game.

While I agree Games Design is 'hard' the fact that they obviously have no meaningful probability model behind the system is pretty sad. It's far from impossible to build a computer algorithm that links relevant probability matrices as a way to validate points values relative to abilities. After all we're only dealing with a 10 scale attribute system and d6's. Plus the core model only has to be built one time. Play testing would essentially be used to validate the model.

The fact that it isn't done speaks to them not having any interest if things have any relative balance at all. Probably because imbalance is more profitable then true balance. It's also pretty telling that in lieu of addressing real issues the current design philosophy appears to be 'add increasing layers of randomness' to offset any inherently poor design elements.

[Arkhan Land]

It's also pretty telling that in lieu of addressing real issues the current design philosophy appears to be 'add increasing layers of randomness' to offset any inherently poor design elements.

sometimes i feel like were in the middle of the cold war, endless military spending to try and win a war of who-has-the-best-stuff
they discuss that millions of dollars spent a second thing with nukes, if the little war ends, will I feel as dumb?

[40kGamer]

sometimes i feel like were in the middle of the cold war, endless military spending to try and win a war of who-has-the-best-stuff
they discuss that millions of dollars spent a second thing with nukes, if the little war ends, will I feel as dumb?

If it ends I'll feel pretty dumb. :)

[Lexington]

Sure I do.

/end

[Cutter]

The title is to point out the fact that you as a player (or vocal person who complains about every aspect of the hobby and company behind it), don’t know better than other people, and don’t know better than Games Workshop.

I thought I’d made that clear with the explanation of how hard games design was and my defense of Games Workshop putting out new editions to improve the game.

Don't know better than other people or Games Workshop in what regard?

I certainly know better than anyone which aspects of the hobby appeal to me and which don't.

Wallet Warriors don't appeal, nor does game design driven by accountants.

Good luck with the blog(s).

[thanoson]

For the record, i only use 3 Knights, all the standard Paladin and Errant models because my local store doesn’t allow Forge World.

Lol. Dude, you brought 3 knights to a 1250 point game against me. Explain to me how that was going to be a fun and balanced game.

[Reldane]

While I agree Games Design is 'hard' the fact that they obviously have no meaningful probability model behind the system is pretty sad. It's far from impossible to build a computer algorithm that links relevant probability matrices as a way to validate points values relative to abilities. After all we're only dealing with a 10 scale attribute system and d6's. Plus the core model only has to be built one time. Play testing would essentially be used to validate the model.

The fact that it isn't done speaks to them not having any interest if things have any relative balance at all. Probably because imbalance is more profitable then true balance. It's also pretty telling that in lieu of addressing real issues the current design philosophy appears to be 'add increasing layers of randomness' to offset any inherently poor design elements.

with 40k as it stands at the moment, this is actually impossible. with nearly every unit having its own list of special rules and its own role it becomes too much of a mess to accurately price things though algorithms (although the hobbit/Lord of the rings game is priced that way).

example 1) if a tactical marine lost 3 points of ws, people wouldn't notice, if a unit of khorne bersekers lost 3 points of ws they become utterly untakeable.

Example 2) grey knight strike squad have a force weapon and a storm bolter, costing a marrine, a powersword and a storm bolter comes in at 34pts a model, plus an extra 25/5 for the brotherhood of psykers mastery 1, so 39points per grey knight. a price increase of nearly 100% on a unit that already struggles to compete with the terminators in the same slot.

that having been said, it is not impossible that 40k could get to a position where such balancing could be achieved: a decrease in special rules, costings of weapons by unit rather than a combined armoury and maybe we could see the system becoming balanced at a troops level rather than trying to balance it at an army level.

[Larabic]

This is what drove me away from 40k, not the game the players. The "Sorry i abuse the rules, but it's legal" so is shooting and intruder in your house, but it shouldn't be your first option and you will probably be charged with murder... or in this case being a cheese ball. In pick up games your opponent should always feel free to walk away if it wont be fun, no sense wasting 3 hours of your life not having fun. Change your list up every once and a while, play a "for fun list". The 40K community should be tar and feathering people like this, and making it nigh impossible for them to get a game against any one.

[Orkimedes1000]

The title is to point out the fact that you as a player (or vocal person who complains about every aspect of the hobby and company behind it), don’t know better than other people, and don’t know better than Games Workshop.

I thought I’d made that clear with the explanation of how hard games design was and my defense of Games Workshop putting out new editions to improve the game.

you are right i don't know better. there is no better there is only what there is and a whole lot of posturing. in other words a whole lot of talking but not many if any have a clue, especially GW.

explaining this as: GW don't seem to know their product or their target market as current playerbase/consumer base seem at odds with them no matter what they do.
the players themselves don't know what they want out of the hobby even if they might claim otherwise. some people are fluffy others aren't...when can this so called community get over this insignificant fact and enjoy the game and hobby overall. because as you said i don't know and the fun fact of today is: no one does.

[zerorunner]

Was he forced to play you because of a campaign or something?

[Lucidum]

Was he forced to play you because of a campaign or something?Warhammer 40,000 League, tournament-style competition with each opponent pretty much randomly assigned each game.

[Auticus]

I can see why that would annoy him.

But on the same token if things like that are going to annoy him, he should not play in tournament-style events.

[thanoson]

Well, it's that or don't play. Semi hard to get a game some times as they seem to have limited space because of tourny's and stuff. It's ok, I've played him since, but he knows my views on this. I just feel self restraint should also be a part of list making. Everyone can make a min/max uber list and win with it. My challenge is, can people win without using meta deathstar list?

[silashand]

This. And no amount of passive-aggressive blogging will change that fact.

Yep. And for the record, I know many players who probably *do* know better what is appropriate to a fun game. Certainly moreso than designers who are paid to write rules designed to sell models first and foremost.


Sure I do.

/end

Yup. I know what I find fun and showing up to face 5 knights in a casual pick up game ain't it regardless how much self-indulgent whining someone puts into a blog to justify what they want to play.

[Auticus]

Well, it's that or don't play. Semi hard to get a game some times as they seem to have limited space because of tourny's and stuff. It's ok, I've played him since, but he knows my views on this. I just feel self restraint should also be a part of list making. Everyone can make a min/max uber list and win with it. My challenge is, can people win without using meta deathstar list?

Can people win without using meta deathstar list? - Yes they can, but it takes more effort and is a lot harder to do when the easier list will give you the same results for a tenth of the effort.

I understand your frustration. I lived through a time where that was my area as well - you were either playing in tournament mode or you didn't get a game. Thats why I started running campaign events. You may be surprised how many people in your area would be interested in that kind of thing, where barring tournament style lists and playing with more "normal" lists is something people want to do.

It just takes someone to start that up.

[Charon]

Yes they can, but it takes more effort and is a lot harder to do when the easier list will give you the same results for a tenth of the effort.

As if that makes a difference.
People WILL find a way to complain how your composition was unfair because of reasons.


Everyone can make a min/max uber list and win with it.

Obviously this is not the case, as not everyone finishes in first place despite bringing min/max tournament lists.


I just feel self restraint should also be a part of list making.

Self restraint is subjective. Also fun is subjective.
Some people play units and styles because they LIKE them.
Also this opens up another can of worms.
"Do not use Serpents, they are OP!" "Oh I would really love to use my other dedicated transport... oh wait... "
And I honestly had games where people complained that Warwalkers are broken...


playing with more "normal" lists

And who decides what is "normal"? What happens when one army has inherently stronger "normal" lists than another? What do you think the players will complain about next when they find out that one armys "fluff army" is able to table other "fluff armies" by turn 2?

[Auticus]

As if that makes a difference.
People WILL find a way to complain how your composition was unfair because of reasons.


Right. But I wasn't commenting on people complaining about comp. I was answering a question "can people win without resorting to creating a meta powerlist". To which my answer is yes, but why would you when you can create a list that is 10x easier to use. Playing on "easy mode" is more desirable unless you are actively looking for a challenge - which as told by most tournament roster sheets that are put on display for the public eye is a very small percentage of the competitive community.

I'll raise my hand here and say when I was tournament gaming I sought after easy-mode too.

[thanoson]

When your troop choices are 2 muculoid spores, I think that falls into "not normal" list.

[Erik Setzer]

Yup. I know what I find fun and showing up to face 5 knights in a casual pick up game ain't it regardless how much self-indulgent whining someone puts into a blog to justify what they want to play.

Nope. I bring one, and it's bad enough for people to complain, so I don't use it as often as I'd prefer to use a $140 model that I put a good bit of effort into. If I bring more than one, people just won't play. Heck, bring a Knight and pack of Thunderwolf Cavalry in the same game, and people start getting antsy. but at least TWC might fall to the weight of hundreds of bolter or shoota rounds. Each Knight takes a good bit of dedicated anti-tank weaponry to take out (and then you hope it's not in the middle of your army when it goes nova). There's not that many armies out there that people have sitting around with that kind of anti-tank weaponry.

[Charon]

Right. But I wasn't commenting on people complaining about comp. I was answering a question "can people win without resorting to creating a meta powerlist". To which my answer is yes, but why would you when you can create a list that is 10x easier to use. Playing on "easy mode" is more desirable unless you are actively looking for a challenge - which as told by most tournament roster sheets that are put on display for the public eye is a very small percentage of the competitive community.



That changes absolutely nothing.
"can people win without resorting to creating a meta powerlist" sure they can. If the other guy is either a complete beginner or he is not using a power list himself.
That still brings you down to the same basics. And without even wanting to do it, you create a new meta with new (but different) powerlists and another codex powerlevel.

I still do not know where your attitude that bringing a powerlist to fight other powerlists is easy mode comes from. Thats like saying "a powerlist is an easy way to top 5" when you see that place 6 - 30 are also powerlists.

[Path Walker]

No you're right Charon, lets just all play the same boring abusive cookie cutter armies, thats what 40K is all about and so long as people are doing that, tournaments are playing 40k as intended.

[Darren Richardson]

Now, in all three of the above examples, the drive behind the cash trap is the determination to keep on succeeding. None of the games require that level of investment. In each one the big spend is part of chasing the meta.

I know what you mean Mystery, many free to play games, such as World of Tanks, Duel of Champions and Hearthstone are all geared that way to, if you want to win almost all the time, they force you to spend money to get the items which will win you your games fast.....

Me personally, I don't play these games to win, but to have fun, and lately, I've given up on two of those because I'm just not having fun.

As for WH40k, what minatures I buy, I buy them because I like them and will paint them, I never really have played 40K to be honest, I was always into WH Fantasy and Hero Quest/Space Crusade :p

[Auticus]

That changes absolutely nothing.
"can people win without resorting to creating a meta powerlist" sure they can. If the other guy is either a complete beginner or he is not using a power list himself.
That still brings you down to the same basics. And without even wanting to do it, you create a new meta with new (but different) powerlists and another codex powerlevel.

I still do not know where your attitude that bringing a powerlist to fight other powerlists is easy mode comes from. Thats like saying "a powerlist is an easy way to top 5" when you see that place 6 - 30 are also powerlists.

Because powerlists are easy to operate. That is a far cry from saying "if you run a powerlist you are guaranteed to win". Because everyone is running on easy mode and exploiting bad balance and there's only X number of slots - of course only X number of slots are going to make it to that position.

That doesn't make the lists more or less easy to use.

Winning with a powerlist is vastly easier than trying to win without resorting to crutches. AKA - playing the game on "easy".

[Darren Richardson]

you know, there are a lot of valid points being brought up on both sides, but let's take a step back and look at it with cool detachment.

Competative Players: What do they bring to the hobby?

well first off, let's take a real look at their armies, especially those who attend the top tourneys, yes we see a lot of repettion at times, but look at how amazing some of those figures are and how well converted or painted they are, the tourney players brought into the hobby the desire to improve our armies and figures, to improve upon that simple metal or plastic figure and to make it stand out.

For me, the tournament armies of the 90's was what really amazed me during the Dwarf's heyday, it made me look at my figures and think, I want a figure or army like that, it inspired me, and to be honest it still does to this day, and to me, that is the compative tournament players main contruibtion to our hobby is (and let's remember, IT IS a hobby!).

Casual Players: what do they bring to the game?

They are the very lifeblood of the hobby, it's them coming into a store and looking at the figures that amazes them that will make the more unusual purchases on a whim, those sales are the ones which help the companies to thrive, not the tourney players purchases, why?

Because once a tourney player has a unit and has played it, he's unlikely to ever buy those figures again if they don't deliver on his battlefields, whereas the casual player is more likely to buy more BECAUSE he enjoyed making them and painting them and has decided he really wants that horde of Skaven slaves which he's read about which to him looks so cool.

Casual players are also the very lifeblood of tournaments, because some of them will decide they went to improve their gameplay and modelling skills, so they will enter the lower levels of the tourney scenes, and the top players need them to keep their tournies alive as they filter through up the rank's.

The Problem: and what could we do about it?

Now I feel the real main problem here on both sides for pick up games is a simple one......

There is a lack of places to routinely play games now, during the 90's anbd very early 00's there were hundreds, if not thousands of stores all across the world, some may have just had two tables, like Jade's in Hastings back in the 90's where I went to boarding school, but that small store catered for my RPG, Table Top and CCG needs, now days, many such shops are gone, and with GW closing more stores in their cost cutting exercises, there's even less tables now.

Also during that period, the social clubs and the like were far more prevailent then they are now days, like minded people could boook a small club room or village hall, and play games once a week or sometime more if they were lucky, where are these social clubs now? underneth modern developments that's where, many were no longer able to stay open due to increased running costs, and so the land was sold off, as a result, it's very difficult for small clubs to form for young gamers (and by that I mean teens and twenty odds).

Both of those have had detremental effects on our hobby, killing off the ability for Casual pick up gaming on a mass scale, as a result, what little space is available is now being fiercely competed over for Tournament players to practice on.

Sadly there is no real answer to this problem as money becomes tighter and housing needs takes priority, the ability to recreate these clubs on a large scale which both sides of the hobby needs is becoming very hard to address.

[Popsical]

A lot of what you say there is right Darren.
The growing gap between casual and competitive gamers can also stop many gamers travelling for pick up games.
This cant help group longevity, when people rightly wont spend time and money on wasted journeys.

[Arkhan Land]

A lot of what you say there is right Darren.
The growing gap between casual and competitive gamers can also stop many gamers travelling for pick up games.
This cant help group longevity, when people rightly wont spend time and money on wasted journeys.

amen

[Charon]

Because powerlists are easy to operate.

As a lot of powerlist nowadays depend on synergies and movement I disagree.
I guess you are still stuck in a time where your imperial army just had to roll dice and skip every phase except shooting to collect a round 2 victory.

Actually winning with most "point at the enemy and roll dice " lists in a non-competitive environment is way simpler. Cause that is the environment where "skip all phases except the one you are good in" still works.

[daboarder]

A lot of what you say there is right Darren.
The growing gap between casual and competitive gamers can also stop many gamers travelling for pick up games.
This cant help group longevity, when people rightly wont spend time and money on wasted journeys.

And its kinda the ground that we cover roughly at least once a week here, we all recognize the problem (and most of us even agree on how to fix it) but that really wont be a thing till GW shows a willingness to change what they do.

[Popsical]

In the meantime, the two groups will just have to moan about the other groups lack of co-operation.
"Ne'er the twain shall meet."

[eosgreen]

the size of superheavys are aesthetically unappealing imo. you have these "large models like wraithlord and landraider" but now all the sudden..... this comes from a guy who played 40k 9 years ago. the rules dont bother me as much as the size of these new models....

[Auticus]

As a lot of powerlist nowadays depend on synergies and movement I disagree.
I guess you are still stuck in a time where your imperial army just had to roll dice and skip every phase except shooting to collect a round 2 victory.

Actually winning with most "point at the enemy and roll dice " lists in a non-competitive environment is way simpler. Cause that is the environment where "skip all phases except the one you are good in" still works.

You mean like summon armies? Those armies that depend on rolling a ton of dice and overwhelming you and objectives with free points? Yes - that is the upper limit of tactics and synergy right there. The synergy being the spammed casters rolling a lot of dice and the new units appearing. I'm sure before one could get good at that they'd have to study volumes of tactical knowledge and skill before even attempting.

Or how about those centurion star biker grav armies with the psykers whose synergy is about getting invisibility and casting it and then rolling a bucket of dice from the grav weapons? Again - taxing tactics right there - only a pro could do that.

What about those "flying circuses"? Again - tough tactics there. So long as you are kn ow what target priority is, you're golden.

Advanced tactics lol. You're right - that's *totally* different from how it used to be. The game is so vastly different today than it was five years ago. The bucket of dice you roll is just a coincidence ;)

There's not much difference to me. Its about target priority, and overloading a phase of the game in your favor going for whatever is the easiest tool to get the job done. Same as in 1998. Same as in 2005. Same as today.

[Path Walker]

There are almost no tactics involved in tournament 40k, all the "synergy" is done at the list building stage (which would be strategy), which is fine but it gets copied and pasted by every other player. The only tactical decision is which unit to wipe out with your abusive and overpowered [whatever]-Star

[Charon]

You mean like summon armies? Those armies that depend on rolling a ton of dice and overwhelming you and objectives with free points? Yes - that is the upper limit of tactics and synergy right there. The synergy being the spammed casters rolling a lot of dice and the new units appearing. I'm sure before one could get good at that they'd have to study volumes of tactical knowledge and skill before even attempting.

Or how about those centurion star biker grav armies with the psykers whose synergy is about getting invisibility and casting it and then rolling a bucket of dice from the grav weapons? Again - taxing tactics right there - only a pro could do that.

What about those "flying circuses"? Again - tough tactics there. So long as you are kn ow what target priority is, you're golden.

Advanced tactics lol. You're right - that's *totally* different from how it used to be. The game is so vastly different today than it was five years ago. The bucket of dice you roll is just a coincidence ;)

There's not much difference to me. Its about target priority, and overloading a phase of the game in your favor going for whatever is the easiest tool to get the job done. Same as in 1998. Same as in 2005. Same as today.

Again. You make the mistake of not considering the opposing army to be also a power army.
Cent Star did not do well against a lot of armies at LVO.. despite of "easy mode".

Multiple dirt cheap small units vs Centstar? Oh ****... suddenly you can just go in smash a big and powerful unit to control the table. Suddenly you have to think about your moves.

A lot of the armies you mentioned will take a bit of experience to use properly or just lose to a more experienced opponent.
I am curious who you deem the pinnacle of a tactical army here as all the "tough tactics" you mention are also true for toned down armies.
Give an abolute beginner an well-rounded IG army and the other one a CSM army and in 9 out of 10 IG will win with stand and shoot only. Yeah... toning down army lists is furthering tactics very well.

[Auticus]

Again. You make the mistake of not considering the opposing army to be also a power army.
Cent Star did not do well against a lot of armies at LVO.. despite of "easy mode".

Multiple dirt cheap small units vs Centstar? Oh ****... suddenly you can just go in smash a big and powerful unit to control the table. Suddenly you have to think about your moves.

A lot of the armies you mentioned will take a bit of experience to use properly or just lose to a more experienced opponent.
I am curious who you deem the pinnacle of a tactical army here as all the "tough tactics" you mention are also true for toned down armies.
Give an abolute beginner an well-rounded IG army and the other one a CSM army and in 9 out of 10 IG will win with stand and shoot only. Yeah... toning down army lists is furthering tactics very well.

I'm not making the mistake of not considering that everyone has a power list.

I fielded power lists against other tournament power lists. It was still easy to play. Easy to play does not mean I'm always going to win. Easy to play means that the effort to be successful is largely minimal in that I don't really have to think too much about what I need to do.

There is a large difference in difficulty in playing with a power list and the difficulty in showing up with a well rounded list that isn't based around exploiting an unbalanced gimmick. One is vastly easier than the other and requires a lot less effort. Throw two powerlists together you haven't changed the difficulty. Both players are playing on easy mode at that point.


Give an abolute beginner an well-rounded IG army and the other one a CSM army and in 9 out of 10 IG will win with stand and shoot only. Yeah... toning down army lists is furthering tactics very well.

I know this is false because this very situation has happened many times in my group's area. There are several newbie IG players and several newbie CSM players and the IG players don't rick roll the newbie CSM players 9 out of 10 times. Its' more 5 out of 10 times and the other 5 times they are losing.

How well would those that win with gimmicks do if they were not allowed to use their gimmicks and had to instead rely on actually playing the game and coordinate and synergize without something that breaks the math of the game?

[Charon]

I don't really have to think too much about what I need to do.

Which is basically every single army. If you dont wat to put much thinking into it you wont win.


How well would those that win with gimmicks do if they were not allowed to use their gimmicks and had to instead rely on actually playing the game and coordinate and synergize without something that breaks the math of the game?

Depends on the player.
Yes, there are players who get a net list, think it is easy mode, collect a few wins against low power lists and still lose in the end cause they can not handle it properly.
On the other hand there seem to be people who know that they are doing and how they handle their stuff and to be honest there are quite a few people who will give you a hard time no matter which army/list they are playing.

This still does not mean it is harder without "gimmicks" as if you take away these "gimmicks" there will be instantly other "gimmicks" to take their place.

[Auticus]

Which is basically every single army. If you dont wat to put much thinking into it you wont win.

Not really no. I placed high at several GW GTs, and I can tell you that the amount of thinking I put into my games was minimal because my gimmicks played for me. I just had to breathe. There wasn't much thinking involved in pointing a bunch of starcannons at a line of marines running at me on standard barren tournament tables (no cover).


Yes, there are players who get a net list, think it is easy mode, collect a few wins against low power lists and still lose in the end cause they can not handle it properly.

Absolutely.


On the other hand there seem to be people who know that they are doing and how they handle their stuff and to be honest there are quite a few people who will give you a hard time no matter which army/list they are playing.

Also very true. It took an eye opening encounter with such a player at a tournament who tabled me with a crud list not once but twice. He was an exceptional player, and he never took powerlists to tournaments and still placed fairly high. That was the day I realized that I wasn't as good as I thought, and that my gimmicks had carried me for years.

And without my gimmicks, I have only been average ever since.


This still does not mean it is harder without "gimmicks" as if you take away these "gimmicks" there will be instantly other "gimmicks" to take their place.

If you are replacing one gimmick for another, you are in essence floating between one power list to another. If you take away the gimmicks and instead play a list that has no gimmick, that will be the real test of skill, particularly going up against lists that are centered around firing their gimmick off.

[Charon]

There wasn't much thinking involved in pointing a bunch of starcannons at a line of marines running at me on standard barren tournament tables (no cover).

Which is vastly outdated if you look at the tables nowadys. Also I do not consider the GT a very competetive setting.


If you take away the gimmicks and instead play a list that has no gimmick, that will be the real test of skill, particularly going up against lists that are centered around firing their gimmick off.

There is no list that has no gimmick. Not a single one. If you form your meta around banning all current gimmicks you will just be shifting codex and unit powerlevels around.
Gw made such a poor product ruleswise that there will ALWAYS be a clearly better unit unless you strip armies down to 1 choice per slot.

[somerandomidiot]

Also very true. It took an eye opening encounter with such a player at a tournament who tabled me with a crud list not once but twice. He was an exceptional player, and he never took powerlists to tournaments and still placed fairly high. That was the day I realized that I wasn't as good as I thought, and that my gimmicks had carried me for years.

And without my gimmicks, I have only been average ever since.

As one of those players who enjoys taking weak armies to large GT level events (I usually play a Thousand Sons CSM army, I'd expect most tournament players on the West Coast know me) and does quite well with them, I think it's important to clarify something here. Not everyone who takes a powerful list to a tournament is using it as a crutch, as you seem to be implying. The people who end up at the top of a large GT aren't just using good lists, they're also incredible players. Taking a powerful, optimized list isn't mutually exclusive with being a great tactician, and to imply otherwise is disingenuous.

[Auticus]

As one of those players who enjoys taking weak armies to large GT level events (I usually play a Thousand Sons CSM army, I'd expect most tournament players on the West Coast know me) and does quite well with them, I think it's important to clarify something here. Not everyone who takes a powerful list to a tournament is using it as a crutch, as you seem to be implying. The people who end up at the top of a large GT aren't just using good lists, they're also incredible players. Taking a powerful, optimized list isn't mutually exclusive with being a great tactician, and to imply otherwise is disingenuous.

There are good players that use broken lists yes, and it shouldn't be stated that I'm trying to say a great tactician is exclusive from also fielding intentionally broken lists.

What I am lamenting - and wishing for - is a system where lists weren't as heavy handed so that you could actually see who the good players were from those that were getting lucky using broken lists (as in my experience a lot of us couldn't win much without our broken list which to me implies that we weren't good players)


There is no list that has no gimmick. Not a single one.

Thats also to me very much not true. If I take a combined arms marine army based around tacticals and some armor support, I don't have a gimmick.

Maybe to me gimmick means something different than what it means to you.

To me a gimmick is an army centered around being able to summon double its point value in two turns. Or an army that can't be hit by anything other than anti-air. Or an army that relies on invisibility to make my already-hard-to-hurt units nigh invincible. Or an army that relies on an alpha strike with as many spammed high strength weapons as I can get my hands on.

Those are gimmicks to me. There are many armies that can be created that don't rely on a gimmick.


Which is vastly outdated if you look at the tables nowadys. Also I do not consider the GT a very competetive setting.

Not really. This very topic was addressed a couple months ago where people were posting pictures of their latest tournaments and nearly all of them were barren or had little terrain (which led to the discussion about how TO's cant be expected to properly terrain 20 or more tables and thats not realistic)

The LVO was the first set of pictures I saw at a tournament in pretty much forever that didn't have a bunch of barren tables. I haven't seen adepticon tables yet but heard from some that were there that they were standard tournament tables.

[Orkimedes1000]

Wow, thats a whole lot of made up nonsense there Charon. You know you're a dick when you take those abusive lists, you know it goes against the spirit of the game and the hobby, if people continue to play like that, they're dicks. Accept it.


wrong. there is no spirit of the game upon where spamming (a unit/s) something is against the rules or against said spirit of game. it's not a popular thing to do sure it won't win friends (if you write lists like that), but it is game legal, and the spirit of the game mentions nothing about it being wrong. also there is no such thing as "Spirit of the hobby". "game" yes, "hobby" no.