Time to Embrace the Horror II [Archive] - BoLS Lounge : Wargames, Warhammer & Miniatures Forum

Kazzigum

08-19-2015, 02:01 AM

So a couple weeks back I laid out my prophetic vision regarding the future of Warhammer 40,000. In particular, I explained that I believed that it would soon be AoSed. I still do. More than ever, in fact, and perhaps even sooner than I had originally prophesied. I won't go over the same ground entirely again, but if you're interested, you can find it here http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?57790-Time-to-Embrace-the-Horror That thread seemed to spark a lively conversation and I'd like to use this thread to follow-up on what I originally proposed -- namely fixing 7th edition 40k so that we can have something worth playing after GW blows it all up. So, in this thread, I'll offer one proposal to fix 7th. But before I do, I'd like to reiterate and expand upon my basic philosophy regarding this overall fixing of the game. Close your eyes, wiggle your fingers before your face and let me take you all the way back to two weeks ago...

When 7th edition 40k hit the scene, I'll be honest, I thought it was clearly the best edition of the game that has ever been -- and I've played them all. In fact, it felt like 3.5 edition D&D. Pretty much perfect. Oh, don't get me wrong. There were (and are) things I didn't like about it, but hey, nobody is gonna like everything in a game this complex and just because I didn't like something, doesn't mean someone else wouldn't like it. Anyway, it pretty much took 6th edition (which I liked) and fixed/cleaned up the things that weren't working. Fixed chariots, added tactical objectives and created cooler battles that I could still win even if the other guy's army was just "better" than mine, altered the psychic power rules to better reflect the background and not be so predictable (they should not be in my opinion) and plenty more. There were a few mechanic issues I wasn't totally happy with, yet could live with, but the really ominous stuff was the obvious melding of the game with Apocalypse by adding Super Heavies and Gigantic Creatures to the game. In retrospect, the inclusion of new formations/detachments should have been ominous too, but they snuck up on me.

Anyway, I thought it was good. And I still do. But of course, GW had decided to ruin this great framework by not just power-creep thru codexes as we'd all come to expect (in fact, this did not happen at all initially, and many of us began to believe they intended to roughly 'balance' them all at a more restrained power level for 8-10 months there), but by amping up the power levels wildly by way of detachments and formations that just give you crazy powerful bonuses or let you bring either 'free' units or multiple units that should not be allowed in multiples. But I digress, this was discussed thoroughly in the last thread. The point I'm trying to get at is that 7th edition itself was not bad or broken initially. In fact, it was better than ever. But the things they've dumped on it willy-nilly since its initial release have made it much worse. So, having said that, I'm not advocating that we build a new game from scratch. We should just return it to its original state, more or less, and then tweak a few things here and there. Then, maybe, tweak a few of the codexes we all know are broken (though this depends a bit on the 'current' codexes we have when GW blows it all up). However, I believe that most of the problems we have with current codexes go away, or at least become far more manageable, once we go back to the beginning, and perhaps implement a few tweaks to the core rules, in particular, the one I intend to offer in this thread.

So, what change do I think we should implement that would help fix 7th edition 40k? Well, there's several actually, but the one that I believe has the most impact and fixes the most is ... we remove all formations and specialized detachments except CAD and the Allied detachment. Ban them all. Everyone returns to CAD and just builds their army using this and the simple Allied detachment. Let it sink in. Almost all the stupid shenanigans and obvious 'we just really want you to buy a whole bunch more models and we don't give a damn what it does to game balance' ploys go away. No more Ad Mech get 500-600 free points of upgrades, no more space marines get 500-600 points of free transports, no more multiple super heavies/gigantic creatures, and blah blah blah. Let's face it, my initial instincts about this was right, all these formations/altered detachments have gotten us to play Apocalypse at 28mm scale without many of us really knowing we're doing it. Really, it's no wonder the game is not even close to balanced with all this, Apocalypse was never meant to be.

I'll be honest, this still allows a limited number of super heavies in a game, as the CAD allows one Lord of War, and I'm not a fan of that. I don't believe they belong in 40k at all, but as I said before, I don't have to like everything. I can deal with one Super Heavy, even with my lowly CSMs, as I managed before. I know that there are some out there that have a bunch of wraith knights or knights or whatever, and this might not sit well with them. But you know what? If you want to run them, call it an Apocalypse game, and run the full formations/detachments whatever. But don't pretend it's not Apocalypse, because it is. Personally, I think these games should be over 2,000 points and be labeled as such. Honestly, the way it is now, there is so much shoved into the game, layered on top of the game, and it's such a mess, it amazes me I didn't see it sooner. It's because we ARE playing Apocalypse and not 40k. GW totally pulled that one over on us, or at least me. I've been reflecting on all this since I originally posted a couple weeks ago, and it really makes sense. No wonder I couldn't see it as sustainable. And this is why many are having difficulties with the time limits at some of the big tournaments. When the point limit is 1,850, but you're really playing 2,400 points, it just takes straight up too long to play the game in that 2.5 hours any more.

Oh, and I know, I hear some of you thinking, "What about Harlequins or the couple other armies that don't have access to CAD?" Well, I think we address these exceptions separately on a case by case basis. I think these can be adjusted, fixed with little effort, but I think the principal is sound. Stick with CADs for all and most of the problems, particularly the recent ones, just go away.

So, what do you think? Am I crazy? Would it feel too 'old school' for you? Did YOU realize you were playing Apocalypse?

daboarder

08-19-2015, 04:58 AM

Charon

08-19-2015, 06:40 AM

Erik Setzer

08-19-2015, 07:59 AM

I knew I was playing Apoc 28mm a while back. Been calling it that for a while.

You can't put all the genies back in the bottle. And you're punishing some armies like Orks and even Space Wolves for the most part, for what's in the newer books. Orks have a detachment that they basically need to function in the way they're meant to by the fluff (lots of mobs of Boyz) with an extra HQ slot because you need the HQs to buff all those Boyz. Space Wolves don't have a crazy detachment. Heck, the basic detachment for Skitarii isn't that bad until you realize there's no rule against using Scout on a fortification.

If it's in the game, people will use it. It's a lot of effort to tell people that the many pages of their books dedicated to formations and detachments and all are moot.

The only way to really fix the balance issue is to have a complete do-over. We might be headed to that point sooner than expected, not because GW wants to AoS-ify 40K, but because 40K's last year of releases prior to AoS's arrival took the game and exploded the balance and turned it into a free for all mess. You can't even rely on people being kind players. There's a local guy who bought the Eldar Wraith army box when he was getting into the game, had no idea they'd make all of those guys so much better with the next codex. What is he supposed to do, just not play with the majority of his army? He's not thrilled they ROLFstomp people, but his only other option is to not play until he spends hundreds on a new army.

CAD might be a quick fix, but it'd still open up issues of its own, and leave some armies as clear winners and some as clear losers.

Unfortunately, the only real fix would be to burn down the current crop of codices and completely redo them with a mind to balance them against each other. I don't see that happening any time soon.

40kGamer

08-19-2015, 08:32 AM

I knew I was playing Apoc 28mm a while back. Been calling it that for a while.

I think of it more as a *******ized 28mm Epic 40k but that's quibbling over details. :p

The game is so out of sorts at the moment that I think the best way to play is with all the rules layered in. For example, Eldar are just so nasty in this incarnation that I feel bad playing them at all, even though that has been my army of choice since they were released way back in the day. Some armies can only compete with Eldar through their own formations.

So to second, third or fourth the others, CAD is also awful. I'm excited to go play at a local event this fall that let's you bring a 1750 army with a sidebar force that you can swap out for different games. This will let me build a soft list for when I come up against a fluff bunny and a slap to the face list for the more competitive players. This is an option I've wanted to have for years. :)

Defenestratus

08-19-2015, 09:09 AM

No NO NO NONOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!

Formations are some of the best things to happen to the game.

There's no reason why an Eldar army should have the same structure as an Imperial Guard army.

As for 7th being the best. Nay, 2nd was the best.

(I also find it hilarious that you're just fine with Allies. Considering they're the source of most of the breaking of the game)

Kazzigum

08-19-2015, 09:31 AM

Kazzigum

08-19-2015, 10:07 AM

I like the idea, but that does leave Ad mech, Harlies and others completely out of the loop.

You can no longer run many common forces WITHOUT running a formation of some sort. It sucks and its done purely to force acceptance of design changes on the community and combat its rejection of gross imbalance, but that is the nature of the company.

For example While I love hte idea of toning the stupid down I would really prefer not to institute a house rule like that which would make my mates Deathwing non existant

I gotcha. And I understand, to a degree. But the greater good must be served. And, honestly, I don't think there really are as many specific forces that could not be done without CAD as you might think. The last year and GW's hypnotism have just made you believe there is. At the end of the day, you those few that really cannot conform to CAD, we make exceptions and tweak them so that they no longer get the 'bonus' that makes them stupid.

Kazzigum

08-19-2015, 10:28 AM

Sticking to CAD solves nothing.
I really like the formations and decurions as you can apply a balancing (and cash grabbing) element. You want that cool bonus? Then take that crappy unit!
This unit is crappy? How about it gets these special rules?

CAD is not very different from formations. If you happen to have excellent Troop choices and HQs you will love CAD. If you have crappy Troops and all your good units sit in Fast attack, CAD becomes a pain in the ***.
Not much difference to formations.

I disagree. CAD solves a lot. I really liked formations and specialized detachments (this not so much, as it became just blatant at this point) at first too. They were sold to us as being more thematic, and as you say, giving a little power bump to those units that could really use it. But this is a lie, they really don't. Instead, they provide the bump to the units that really DON'T need it, because in most cases, that's what the player will choose. And that was the beginning, the slippery slope is a near free fall at this point. At this point, why not just open it up to Unbound across the board? Seriously, why do tournaments not just allow Unbound? Functionally, there is no difference. With a little thought, and a formation here and there, you can literally do anything people feared when they saw Unbound for the first time. Want 5 flying hive tyrants? No problem. Wanna run an army of all daemonic monstrous creatures? Again, not a problem. All super heavies? Five wraith knights? All psykers? On and on it goes. If you believe otherwise, you are fooling yourself. Formations and these detachments make this Apocalypse, period. Perhaps that's okay with you, and if so, that's fine. To me, it explains the shrinking player base. Apocalypse, while cool and fun for some, was always a hot mess for those who just wanted to throw all their toys on the table a slug it out. Hmmm...does that sound familiar to anyone else? The problem is, only those with big collections or deep pockets could really get involved. And that's where we are now.

And once again, though I play a lot of things, CSMs are my army of choice. A return to CAD will leave me at the lower end of the power curve. I am aware of it and am good to go. Again, the basic rules of the game, especially stuff like tactical objectives, means that it is still far better for me than it currently is. When 7th first launched, almost anyone could win if they played the mission, as though the power curve (as it has always been) was skewed towards some armies (and not mine), the gap was not enough to trump the missions completely. I firmly believe this is just not so anymore.

Defenestratus

08-19-2015, 10:44 AM

I disagree. CAD solves a lot. I really liked formations and specialized detachments (this not so much, as it became just blatant at this point) at first too. They were sold to us as being more thematic, and as you say, giving a little power bump to those units that could really use it. But this is a lie, they really don't. Instead, they provide the bump to the units that really DON'T need it, because in most cases, that's what the player will choose. And that was the beginning, the slippery slope is a near free fall at this point. At this point, why not just open it up to Unbound across the board? Seriously, why do tournaments not just allow Unbound? Functionally, there is no difference. With a little thought, and a formation here and there, you can literally do anything people feared when they saw Unbound for the first time. Want 5 flying hive tyrants? No problem. Wanna run an army of all daemonic monstrous creatures? Again, not a problem. All super heavies? Five wraith knights? All psykers? On and on it goes. If you believe otherwise, you are fooling yourself. Formations and these detachments make this Apocalypse, period. Perhaps that's okay with you, and if so, that's fine. To me, it explains the shrinking player base. Apocalypse, while cool and fun for some, was always a hot mess for those who just wanted to throw all their toys on the table a slug it out. Hmmm...does that sound familiar to anyone else? The problem is, only those with big collections or deep pockets could really get involved. And that's where we are now.

And once again, though I play a lot of things, CSMs are my army of choice. A return to CAD will leave me at the lower end of the power curve. I am aware of it and am good to go. Again, the basic rules of the game, especially stuff like tactical objectives, means that it is still far better for me than it currently is. When 7th first launched, almost anyone could win if they played the mission, as though the power curve (as it has always been) was skewed towards some armies (and not mine), the gap was not enough to trump the missions completely. I firmly believe this is just not so anymore.

I'm genuinely pleased that this nonsense, just like every other nonsense effort to "fix" 40k will go no further than a bunch of digital bloviating online.

Lexington

08-19-2015, 11:12 AM

Just disallow any special rules from applying to formations. They're a different way to select troops, that's it.

Alaric

08-19-2015, 11:41 AM

I think your most relevant portion was where you talk aboot how the game is too complex to ever balance properly and I totally agree with that. As for the current state, I like it, tons of variety and builds. I always liked apocalypse so I got no beef with that. I started in 5th and have not been disappointed yet my only real problem with the game is that our dollar is so poor I cant buy fw anymore :(

Path Walker

08-19-2015, 11:43 AM

Age of Sigmar shows you how much balance is important for GW, it isn't, a cool fight between friends is infinitely preferable, talk to your opponents, agree what you think is fair or unfair and just play the game. Yes thats not suitable for tournaments but, really, who cares about tournaments that much?

40kGamer

08-19-2015, 11:58 AM

I do agree that GW doesn't appear to care about balance at all. I also think that their new (and it is new) view that the gaming world is made up of cute and fuzzy bunnies that require no balancing mechanism at all is flirting with disaster. We live in a time when even historical game systems are including balancing mechanics to court new players... older games where you 'played the scenario or narrative' had a difficult time gaining a large following and were more of a niche of a niche of a niche. Who knows, maybe they really will evolve into the Tamiya of wargaming models since that appears to be what they want.

Sine the 40k points system is so poorly balanced, I'm on the side of just letting everyone play unbound. The game's completely FUBARed anyhow.

VarianceHammer

08-19-2015, 01:28 PM

I wrote a post about exactly this, 'The CAD Will Not Save You': http://variancehammer.com/2015/06/02/the-cad-will-not-save-you/

There's plenty of abuse to be had with just a CAD, and all this does is change who the winners and losers are - not that there are winners and losers.

spiralingcadaver

08-19-2015, 01:53 PM

who cares about tournaments that much?
Anyone making a balanced system?

Seriously, good competitive balance never hurt casual balance. Rules tight enough for competitive play never hurt casual players with questions.

I'm not a fan of playing in tournaments- I think they don't ever give you enough time and can bring out the worst players. I think Warmachine is boring and repetitive in its scenario design/caster mechanic- I eventually got completely fed up with the system after quite some years playing. My favorite games are narrative. But, that doesn't mean that sound rules (not direction, just rules) are somehow anathema to casual gaming.

Tight competitive rules will make the game playable for people who like competition, and run more smoothly for those who don't.

40kGamer

08-19-2015, 02:37 PM

Anyone making a balanced system?

Seriously, good competitive balance never hurt casual balance. Rules tight enough for competitive play never hurt casual players with questions.

I'm not a fan of playing in tournaments- I think they don't ever give you enough time and can bring out the worst players. I think Warmachine is boring and repetitive in its scenario design/caster mechanic- I eventually got completely fed up with the system after quite some years playing. My favorite games are narrative. But, that doesn't mean that sound rules (not direction, just rules) are somehow anathema to casual gaming.

Tight competitive rules will make the game playable for people who like competition, and run more smoothly for those who don't.

I'm not a fan of hard boyz type tournaments but even with casual basement play I find games with good balancing mechanics to be more enjoyable. One sided games can be entertaining once in a rare while but close fought battles are simply more exciting. So why is it anathema to the casual crowd to have a mechanism that encourages close games? This 'new and improved' system seriously reminds me of the youth soccer games where everyone runs around the field for a few hours but no one keeps score... just seems pointless. No pun intended.

Rev. Tiberius Jackhammer

08-19-2015, 03:44 PM

Yeah, while plenty of people are saying "You don't need a points system if you're a good person!", all of my friendly games in 40k have been improved by the fact we can make roughly equal armies without having to worry about, say, how Ogres measure up to Chaos Warriors - the professional game designers already gave us a guideline!

Path Walker

08-20-2015, 04:16 AM

The idea that strict balancing never hurt casual play is quite simply bollocks, parroted by people who want to win until everyone thinks it's true. Narrative scenarios, asymmetrical or mismatched games aren't played when the rules state that each side has the same "points", competitive players need a points system so they can abuse it to break the game and get an advantage, that's the only benefit they like from balancing systems, abusing them. They never lead to more even games as any quick look over a forum for any game (including infinity and x wing to head of da boarders inevitable and tedious example) will show you that.

Putting balance in the hands of you and your opponents and not giving anyone an excuse is the best way to ensure even and fair battles, wave serpent spam was fine in 40k given the points, in AoS similar spam won't happen because it's more explicit in telling you to be a decent human being.

People talk about balancing like suddenly the arseholes of the world can't be arseholes, nonsense, these mechanics just give them an excuse to be an arsehole.

Rev. Tiberius Jackhammer

08-20-2015, 05:56 AM

Mr Mystery

08-20-2015, 06:32 AM

It's all in the intention of the game.

I know it's hackneyed, but please forgive it's further use - Page 5 of Warmachine. It's a statement of the designer's intent, that the game is about bringing your best and giving your opponent six-nowt.

Compare to AoS - which in intent is more about just spending an evening playing a game against a friend, within mutually agreed boundaries.

Each game has it's own intent. Nothing wrong with either.

And to back up PW's statement, although in less..erm...emphatic words....

Systems are there to be broken. If someone is hell-bent on winning the game over any other consideration, any other balancing mechanisms (however flawed, however perfect) fall by the way side. They'll have that win by hook or by crook.

Let me take you back to 6th Edition Warhammer. Ready?

Diddly-do, diddly-do, diddly do (adjust vertical hold now, and fix after three seconds for desired affect).

I'm playing a game. My Dark Elves (with their 'rubbish' book) against Dwarfs. I've taken my usual army - 36 Repeater Crossbows, Black Dragon, Manticore, 4 Cold One Chariots and 2 Hydras (before they became War Hydras, when they weren't hideous death monsters). My opponent? Gunline. Nothing but Dwarf Handguns, Rangers with Great Weapons and Crossbows, Cannons, Cannons, Organ Guns with a side order of Cannons.

Now, I know this is going to be a tough game. But I also know I'm more than competent enough a general to smash my opponent to bits and carry the day. HURRAH! YAY ME! WOOT! Etc.

I was late getting to the shop because of traffic, so my opponent had kindly set up the terrain. And guess what? Each far corner? A hill. Press up against the middle of each long board edge? A hill. Centre completely open, desultory terrain on the middle of each flank..............in short, a gunline's dream deployment zone, regardless of who got which side.

Now, armies aside, this shows very poor sportsmanship from the get go. The table was stacked in my opponents favour. There was nowhere for my Monsters to hide. No cover for my Chariots and Hydras to take advantage of as the cross the board into combat.

In the end, I managed to win the game by a decent margin. Turns out my opponent couldn't guess range for toffee. He also failed to realise that you can't really block a Flyers charge, because the rules clearly states Monsters can see over intervening units, allowing me to declare charges over enemy units. Went straight up either flank in a classic pincer movement, and ripped him a new one.

So, not only had my opponent fielded an army which reduced his tactics to 'sit on a hill and shoot', but also reduced my own tactics to 'get across the board as fast as I can and hope I have enough left to do the necessary damage, but he'd also set up the terrain completely to his advantage.

And when I spanked him like a red-headed stepchild? Proceeded to whinge. And to moan. And claimed my army was broken and beardy, that I'd 'rules lawyered' him. That the Dark Elf book was just better.

Not a fun game. And not the only game of that type I've played.

So, if we take away the relative balance or lack thereof, depending on your own view, I'm still left with an opponent who shows no actual sportsmanship. If he'd won, he'd have done his usual 'tactical genius' routine, despite having not actually employed any, so not only a poor sportsman and a bad loser, he's also a bad winner.

No amount of points perfection or list restrictions would change that. Despite playing really, really well (create opportunities, capitalise on opponent's mistakes) I didn't enjoy that game at all.

And all because my opponent was a Richard.

So as I was saying - it doesn't matter how perfectly balanced a game is, or if there's no points and no real guide - someone determined to be an idiot is going to be an idiot.

Charon

08-20-2015, 06:36 AM

No points games rely heavily on both people havin a ton of experience. And even if you are experienced there is always a little bias left in both players.
So debating about armies if you do not know **** about your opponents army (In have absolutely no Idea about most mechanicum units) talking each other into a balanced game is time consuming, boring and tedious.
It kinda works with AoS because the most of the units just look different but on principle it is like playing Space Marines against Space Marines every time.

Mr Mystery

08-20-2015, 06:42 AM

Yeah.....it's really not.

But otherwise, it is all in the experience of the gamers.

Right now, pretty much nobody has fully figured out AoS.

Me? I'm able to judge what looks about right with my Ogres, but beyond that it remains largely unproven.

Thing is, I'm really enjoying this process. The experience of others is of course going to vary, but I've found the whole process has helped me to develop my rapport with my opponent.

Perhaps the difference is when you go into a game knowing it's not necessarily 100% balanced, and there's no pretence either way, you just sort of accept it? Well. I say 'you', should really put 'I'. As I've said before, with 'stop when you think that's plenty', those who want to win at all costs are easier to spot.

Auticus

08-20-2015, 07:18 AM

To be honest, I got kind of burned out on GW's crooked balance. There have always been books that were clearly better and builds that were clearly better that made a mockery out of the point system, because those items are typically vastly undercost for what they do.

Moving away from points back to where I started in the 80s with historicals that had no points doesn't bother me at all because I have no faith in 40k or classic WHFB's crooked point costs.

40kGamer

08-20-2015, 07:34 AM

Don't know about your experiences, but I've played my fair share of asymmetrical games in a points system game. We've never needed a wargame rulebook's help to fix a social issue, seems pretty backwards to be.

Agreed. In fact, it is easier for us to set up asymmetrical games WITH points as it gave us a rough idea of just how different we were setting the lists. No balancing mechanic at all is just lazy and doesn't solve any social issues anyhow. The competitive crowd will still find a way to set up face pounding AoS events if they think it's worth the time... personally I don't think it's even worth the time of casual play until it develops more.

Erik Setzer

08-20-2015, 07:51 AM

No idea what else PW said, but I did catch above the quoted, "Who cares about tournaments?"

Well, a LOT of people do. And it's all thanks to Games Workshop.

I know the young'uns won't remember (and the trolls will ignore history), but GW promoted major tournaments with the Grand Tournaments originally. Demand for them grew, GW couldn't be in all the places people wanted them, independent tourneys popped up to fill that void (titled "IndyGTs", an homage to GW's tournaments), and eventually GW felt it was fine to save money and let the community run the circuit.

They also created the Rogue Trader Tournament system, named for the title they gave to independent retailers at the time (Rogue Traders), and meant to give a set of rules and scenarios (quite fun ones, too!) for running tournaments for local players. It was a popular system, and is the reason the local crowd, who aren't uber-competitive sorts, became so interested in tournaments.

You can't promote that kind of thing and spread it across the gaming community and then decide it was a bad idea and you want to put it back in a box and throw everyone under the bus for enjoying something you pushed... but that's what GW tried to do, and that's what the trolls love to run with. It wasn't until 'Ard Boyz that tournaments got bad, but most of us understood the problem with 'Ard Boyz.

Do a tournament like the original GTs or RTTs, and I think the anti-tournament people would like it. You weren't just judged on winning, you were also scored on painting, army comp, and sportsmanship. The tournaments promoted being a good player, bringing an army that wasn't built to stomp someone's face, being a nice person, and painting and modeling skills: a true celebration of the hobby.

Instead, we now have people considering "tournament" to be a dirty word because GW screwed up the 'Ard Boyz mess and it's a crutch to insult players rather than admit that even outside tournaments there are issues with game balance that not even "being a nice guy" can clear up.

Captain Bubonicus

08-20-2015, 01:14 PM

Do a tournament like the original GTs or RTTs, and I think the anti-tournament people would like it. You weren't just judged on winning, you were also scored on painting, army comp, and sportsmanship. The tournaments promoted being a good player, bringing an army that wasn't built to stomp someone's face, being a nice person, and painting and modeling skills: a true celebration of the hobby.

Word. I remember those days - they actually ran a pretty cool tournament system before people started complaining about the "soft" parts of the scores and GW rolled out the 'Ard Boyz nastiness...

40kGamer

08-20-2015, 03:40 PM

Word. I remember those days - they actually ran a pretty cool tournament system before people started complaining about the "soft" parts of the scores and GW rolled out the 'Ard Boyz nastiness...

It was a different time... back when sportsmanship and painting mattered more than simply beating your opponent to death.

Kazzigum

08-20-2015, 11:46 PM

I'm genuinely pleased that this nonsense, just like every other nonsense effort to "fix" 40k will go no further than a bunch of digital bloviating online.

I honestly don't understand your reaction. I believe that 40K will be AoSed. You don't, or perhaps you believe that if it does so, that's a good thing. We disagree. I fail to see why you feel the need to hurl insults my way. I think 40k is gonna be AoSed and I think that's a bad thing. If I'm right, I intend to keep playing 7th edition and am positing to the community that perhaps we could try to fix the problems with the system, as I see them, since we will be staying with said edition far longer than we had done so in the past. It's a theoretical exercise. If you don't like it, or think we're (or perhaps just me) wasting our time, then, uhh ... don't participate?

- - - Updated - - -

Just disallow any special rules from applying to formations. They're a different way to select troops, that's it.

I had initially considered this, but it really doesn't address the problems with special detachments with all their 'free' stuff and allowing multiple lords of war shenanigans.

- - - Updated - - -

I wrote a post about exactly this, 'The CAD Will Not Save You': http://variancehammer.com/2015/06/02/the-cad-will-not-save-you/

There's plenty of abuse to be had with just a CAD, and all this does is change who the winners and losers are - not that there are winners and losers.

While I will admit this is true to a degree, as we've been complaining about game balance for like 25 years now, I contend that it is much worse now. What's more, with just CAD, at least the balance issues are not so pronounced. All these new formations and special detachments push the system into being just a disguised version of Apocalypse, where the Winners dominate the losers to an exponential degree.

Kazzigum

08-21-2015, 12:04 AM

grimmas

08-21-2015, 01:35 AM

Well I was playing Apocalypse 20 years ago or 2nd ed as some of you like to call it 😊

Nothing wrong with tournaments, GW still runs them at Warhammer World and based on what we see on the front page there's plenty of Indy tournaments run across the USA. 40K (or any GW game ) isn't the best system for any really serious competition but to be fair it does have to be a lot of things to a lot of people.

Nothing wrong with a bit of extra comp either. It should be noted that although GW do get shirty with people over models they have quite explicitly stated you can do what you like with the rules no one is going to stop you (unless you're in one of their shops but fair enough).

I'd say though how sure are you that people want to go that way? I remember seeing the exit poll from the LVO on the front page and that showed people wanted Super Heavies. Comp is divisive and has split the groups who attend these events. I remember some customers being very upset over which Index Astrates rules were allowed in a British tournament back in 2002. They were particularly scathing about the TO's thought process. Get it wrong and people won't turn up. The variety of 40K is one of its big draws take that away what does it have? WM does serious competition very well there's going to be a point when you've comp'd 40K so much you'd be better off just playing WM. I suppose the question is how sure are you that this is what people want? 40K has never been particularly balanced but it has always been popular, is massive balance really what the wider Base want?

Of course what you do in your own event is your business but I'd make sure that I'd gauged what the people attending want.

daboarder

08-21-2015, 02:52 AM

Thank you for this. This is exactly why I proposed the whole exercise in the first place. As I've said, my brother and I are not particularly competitive guys, but we both attended two of the GW GTs back in the day. We both scored firmly in the middle of the pack, if we were lucky, but it was a great time. Those were the good old days. I enjoyed the hell out of those. They were not perfect, like the game balance will never be perfect, but what's wrong with tweaking the system a bit in the ever-elusive attempt at perfection?

Like I said initially mate, I think limiting the ridiculousness of the current game is an admirable idea. but I dont think banning things in such a way as to make peoples collections redundant is the right way to go. Even that player running a Knight army has put time and effort into collecting it, and for all we know it may be his fluff inspired magnus opus. Thats why I prefer comp systems that dont outright ban units and formations but instead modify ones over all standing, or those that award a second points system in order to ensure that you can't take ONLY the super smash face combo's.

as for the other bloke, well, you'll just have to excuse pathwalker

He has difficulty understanding that other want to play the game differently. seems to think its an inherently bad thing.

- - - Updated - - -

It was a different time... back when sportsmanship and painting mattered more than simply beating your opponent to death.

To be fair, sportsmanship was often a gamed system (Shout out to balck blow fly and the 40k wrecking crew, thanks for breaking it :rolleyes:) and professional paint services were not nearly as prolific. So those particular scoring methods are less likely to work these days.

Personally I prefer the softer "positive reinforcement" approach where sportsmanship and painting dont necessarily contribute directly to rankings, but have additional prize support that is equal to that of the actual game winners.

Throw in another category "background/short story" and ensure that one person cant walk away with all the prizes and it should go a long way to limiting the crazy builds, even the most hard core players typically are enamored with the games background and like "narrative games"

- - - Updated - - -

Anyone making a balanced system?

Seriously, good competitive balance never hurt casual balance. Rules tight enough for competitive play never hurt casual players with questions.

I'm not a fan of playing in tournaments- I think they don't ever give you enough time and can bring out the worst players. I think Warmachine is boring and repetitive in its scenario design/caster mechanic- I eventually got completely fed up with the system after quite some years playing. My favorite games are narrative. But, that doesn't mean that sound rules (not direction, just rules) are somehow anathema to casual gaming.

Tight competitive rules will make the game playable for people who like competition, and run more smoothly for those who don't.

well said, can I copy and paste this when the usual lot start up again? I'll quote you properly of course

Mr Mystery

08-21-2015, 05:02 AM

daboarder

08-21-2015, 05:04 AM

Mr Mystery

08-21-2015, 05:09 AM

Yet if they're not aiming for that, and have never intended it....why change now?

If 40k had a 'page 5' equivalent type statement about how perfect balance is important etc, then fair enough - they've certainly choked.

But given the big cheese of the Design Studio isn't a fan of restricting what people can and can't take - isn't this simply wishful thinking? If a game isn't designed for perfect balance and competitive play, is it any surprise it takes quite a bit of end user tinkering to get it half way suitable?

daboarder

08-21-2015, 05:11 AM

Yet if they're not aiming for that, and have never intended it....

There's that historical change, good call Erik, On the money mate.

I know the young'uns won't remember (and the trolls will ignore history), but GW promoted major tournaments with the Grand Tournaments originally. Demand for them grew, GW couldn't be in all the places people wanted them, independent tourneys popped up to fill that void (titled "IndyGTs", an homage to GW's tournaments), and eventually GW felt it was fine to save money and let the community run the circuit.

They also created the Rogue Trader Tournament system, named for the title they gave to independent retailers at the time (Rogue Traders), and meant to give a set of rules and scenarios (quite fun ones, too!) for running tournaments for local players. It was a popular system, and is the reason the local crowd, who aren't uber-competitive sorts, became so interested in tournaments.

just for the others, think about it, why would a company "that isn't trying to make a competitive game" start and support multiple tournament formats?

answer: They WERE making a competitive wargame, rendering Mr Mystery's statement historically innacurate

Mr Mystery

08-21-2015, 05:24 AM

daboarder

08-21-2015, 05:27 AM

Except the scoring for those tournaments included more than just 'how badly did you thump your opponent'.

Were they intended for competitive play, or a way to get fellow hobbyists together, giving them an excuse to show off and most importantly, buy more stuff.

Ford produces cars with Rally modifications. Does that make all Ford cars suitable for Rally Driving?

For those still tuned in to the logic hoops channel

The old GW tournaments did indeed have painting and sportsmanship scoring and prizes in a number of formats, but the biggest prize and recognition (White dwarf articles and trophies etc) were always for the "best general" awards whose make up was determined by how many games you won (at least predominantly)

HEY WOULD YOU LOOK AT THAT
http://web.archive.org/web/20060503184319/http://uk.games-workshop.com/tournaments/wh-2005-06/1/
More "non-competitive" competitions
http://battlereporter.blogspot.com.au/2008/10/games-workshop-chicago-grand-tournament.html

stay tuned for the next episode of "changing history with Mystery";)

Mr Mystery

08-21-2015, 05:31 AM

If a tournaments sole purpose is to find 'the best player ever' - then you'd have a point.

But they're not. Yes, every single one will have a champion. But the old GW style rewarded more than just defeating all comers.

And promoting tournaments, which make you money from the ticket entry, raise your profile, brings your players together and gives them a reason/excuse to tinker with their army, necessitating further purchases does not indicate that is the game's 'native environment'.

Tell me, which came first? The game, or the tournament? The demand for competitive play and perfect rules, or the tournament? Which one drove the other?

Here's a hint - 20 years later, and GW have made a pretty bold statement with AoS, which doesn't really support a 'we endeavour to make balance absolutely perfect so games are determined purely by player skill'.

Now, whatever you think of that attitude from GW - it is what it is.

daboarder

08-21-2015, 05:35 AM

well, Mystery, allow me to brush of one off your favourite chestnuts, given I've shown your logic hoops and historical re-writes for what they are.

If you do not like balanced play, why bother posting in this thread?

Mr Mystery

08-21-2015, 05:41 AM

daboarder

08-21-2015, 05:52 AM

And it's the 'but....I know, and have always known the game isn't perfectly balanced' that I'm driving at. This is the game GW have chosen to produce. They've never been especially bothered about achieving perfect balance, preferring to go with a plethora of options for their customers to pick and choose from. So a criticism the game isn't perfectly balanced just seems kind of pointless to me. I don't see how it can be a failing if it wasn't their objective?

Honestly, if that was your actual point you wouldnt have been as belligerent, aggressive, dismissive and intolerant of these conversations as you have historically been. You dont think GW is making a balanced game? Well done join the club, most probably agree, maybe try not constantly attacking and dismissing those who either propose methods to "fix" said balance, lament the lack of said balance or hell, even just explain why said balance is important?

And you know what, none of that answers the question of why, if those are your actual thoughts on the matter, are you, as you so often put it, still here? given the OP is all about fixing the balance.

Mr Mystery

08-21-2015, 05:57 AM

I don't knock attempts to balance things.

And I wouldn't say I'm particularly aggressive. I mean, it's not as if I drop into thread about a game I claim to despise on a regular basis in childish attempts to troll people and drown out criticism.

There's various threads about how one might judge if a game of AoS is about right before you actually play it. And good on them - that's a part of the hobby too.

But I guess it's easier to just throw around buzzwords like apologist (used incorrectly) white knight, fanboi etc than to engage and discuss.

Houghten

08-21-2015, 06:40 AM

belligerent, aggressive, dismissive and intolerant

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTSA_sWGM44
Goodbye forever.

Defenestratus

08-21-2015, 07:45 AM

I honestly don't understand your reaction. I believe that 40K will be AoSed. You don't, or perhaps you believe that if it does so, that's a good thing. We disagree. I fail to see why you feel the need to hurl insults my way. I think 40k is gonna be AoSed and I think that's a bad thing. If I'm right, I intend to keep playing 7th edition and am positing to the community that perhaps we could try to fix the problems with the system, as I see them, since we will be staying with said edition far longer than we had done so in the past. It's a theoretical exercise. If you don't like it, or think we're (or perhaps just me) wasting our time, then, uhh ... don't participate?

... its a theoretical exercise that's been tried a hundred times over by a thousand different wargamers all of it being posted here on the internet. In the end, we all play the rules as printed in the books by GW unless a tournament organizer decides to change them. Mr. Lexington right there has sullied my Google Drive space with his "Warhammer 40,000 7th: Veterans Edition" ruleset which looks like it hasn't been touched since April and isn't complete. He's one of my best friends and I think he's on a fool's mission despite being a very intelligent dude.

If there is a balance problem - it's because two presumably grown adults can't agree between themselves to have a good time and not be jerks. Any attempt by some random guys on the internet to "balance" things is just going to imbalance the game in other ways. Whatever you change will just lead to other broken things. Nerf Wraithknights? Fine. For it. But don't be surprised when your rule set creates a new boogeyman that exploits your retooled rules and you're just back to the drawing board all over again. The only solution to this is for players to not be jerks because you'll never perfectly balance this game. Ever.

If you feel 40k is going to be AoS'd (which is a ridiculous idea on its face - GW would be goring it's sacred cow) then you can always keep playing RT/2nd/3rd/4th/5th/6th/7th edition. Heck, if it weren't for the fact hat I was dealing with moving across the country earlier this month, I would have been playing at the Oldhammer event in PA where it was a giant RT and 2nd edition festival.

Erik Setzer

08-21-2015, 08:13 AM

Kazzigum raised an interesting point - people have been wanting a properly balanced game for years.

Yet, it's not happened. And I'm not particularly convinced GW have ever promised their games are entirely balanced.

I do have empathy for those whose Tournament experience is ruined by Billy No-Mates and his cheesey list of beardoom. But....for better or worse, GW just aren't all that interested in writing a completely water tight, perfectly balanced game.

The fact they've not done this despite calls for it over a couple of decades is pretty obvious, no?

It's very hard to find "perfect balance," so I won't entirely expect that. But right now the game feels so much like rock-paper-scissors. If you don't have the right units - and sometimes, if you bring the wrong faction - you're going to get rolled over, no chance, just a bleak, awful game. And it's not because people are being jerks. It's because some armies are just designed to be really powerful, while others are designed to... Well, honestly, I can't explain the design of some armies (hello, Orks and Dark Eldar!). I've never felt as much in the past as I do now that every game is predetermined. Worse, they swung the pendulum hard in less than a year's time with codices being all over the place.

And then they just add the icing on top of the cake with the webstore exclusives. Some of the stuff in the newer books was bad enough, but telling people that if they buy repackaged Assault Squads, Devastators, and Drop Pods they'll get the rules to ignore limitations on Deep Striking, it's pretty blatant that balance became totally unimportant and money is more important than customer enjoyment (which is really, really stupid, because pissing off customers is a good way to have them become ex-customers and not recommend your products). That formation was the true "jumping the shark" moment for me. The Battle Company was bad enough, even worse than the formation in WD where you get all kinds of bonuses just for being a good customer and buying all the new toys. But a formation whose special rules are all basically, "Hey, you know those limitations to keep Deep Striking from being too powerful, just ignore them as our way of saying thanks for your money, chum!"? Yeah, bit too much, that.

In the past, they did make an attempt at balance and keeping things as good as they could. They redid the Dark Eldar and Dark Angels books in 3rd edition because both had issues. They completely remade the Chaos Marines book before 3rd edition was over. These updates didn't coincide with a bunch of new releases (and you could just download errata or FAQ to update your existing book instead of buying a new one). They were just there to try to fix balance issues.

But that was when GW admitted they were a games workshop, and still had guys like Andy, Alessio, and Tuomas on board. Now, the games are fair game for the board to abuse in an attempt to sell more toys.

- - - Updated - - -

But given the big cheese of the Design Studio isn't a fan of restricting what people can and can't take - isn't this simply wishful thinking? If a game isn't designed for perfect balance and competitive play, is it any surprise it takes quite a bit of end user tinkering to get it half way suitable?

If your game requires heavy work on the end of the players to actually be able to play it, then you have no business charging $85 for the core rules and $50-$60 for most of the army books.

And seriously, guys, balance isn't just for "competitive play." It's so you can meet Johnny Wants-to-Have-Friends and play a nice game with him and feel like you're in the same ballpark of balanced armies without having to spend an hour with someone you just met trying to hash out an agreement on what the two of you think is fair. It's necessary for casual play. If you don't care about balance or anything like that, then why bother with the rules as they are? Why buy those expensive books? Why not make up your own rules, mix in stuff from other games? Why even have rules? Rules are designed to provide a balanced framework, but since balance is a dirty word only meant for tournaments, then when you're not in a tournament you can just play without rules, right? Lay out your collection, debate who would win, pack them back up, and call it a day.

Hey, it works for Superfight. Granted, Superfight is ridiculously cheap, too.

40kGamer

08-21-2015, 08:18 AM

To be fair, sportsmanship was often a gamed system (Shout out to balck blow fly and the 40k wrecking crew, thanks for breaking it ) and professional paint services were not nearly as prolific. So those particular scoring methods are less likely to work these days.

Personally I prefer the softer "positive reinforcement" approach where sportsmanship and painting dont necessarily contribute directly to rankings, but have additional prize support that is equal to that of the actual game winners.

Throw in another category "background/short story" and ensure that one person cant walk away with all the prizes and it should go a long way to limiting the crazy builds, even the most hard core players typically are enamored with the games background and like "narrative games"

Sigh... so true. The Sports system I like locally gives you 'medals to hand out' If it's a 3 game event you get 1 gold, 3 silver and 1 bronze. If you have a great game at the event they get a gold, a not fun game a bronze and just regular ok games get silvers. Players get enough silver medals that they don't have to give out the gold or bronze if they don't want to. Still room for abuse between mates but it works better than the other sports systems I've seen.

As for paint... ugh... I always forget about the proliferation of painting services. I did go to one larger event where I later found out that the army I picked for best appearance was professionally painted. Really irked me as I think the paint skill is just as important an aspect of the overall hobby as winning games.

Back onto improving the game balance... I still believe it would have to be addressed with a mathematical/statistical model to compare unit effectiveness across all factions. No one is going to invest the time in this since GW changes their entire army design philosophy on a dime which could invalidate the entire system... for those who don't believe they change their design philosophy on a dime look at the codex cycles for the last 20 years, they have NEVER finished a full codex update cycle without changing the design philosophy 1 or more times in the process.

At some point they will *******ize the game to the point that it is no longer 40k (a matter of when not if), so then someone interested enough could do it. Formations that award free models would have to be tossed and formations that award special rules to the units would have to be assigned a points value under any sensible mechanic. Seriously... The formations they've rolled out simply prove that even they know their points system is a bad joke.

Erik Setzer

08-21-2015, 08:25 AM

Here's a hint - 20 years later, and GW have made a pretty bold statement with AoS, which doesn't really support a 'we endeavour to make balance absolutely perfect so games are determined purely by player skill'.

Now, whatever you think of that attitude from GW - it is what it is.

AoS is, to be blunt, the barest effort they could make to still have a game in which to place their toys, because they still think people buy their toys first and then decide to buy the game to have something to do with their toys. The reality that people buy GW's toys to play the games seems to have escaped them right now. The lack of effort they put into the games resulted in WFB's demise. The irony is that, while they continue to claim their premium toys are the big draw and ignore mentioning games wherever possible, the replacement of WFB with AoS to try to restart sales of their fantasy line of toys shows that somewhere in their minds they *do* recognize that the games are the main draw for selling the toys, not the other way around. If they replaced a game in order to sell toys that weren't selling and still can't figure out that the games are what drive their sales, then they might all be blind, deaf lobotomy patients.

In the past, they knew that games were what drove their business. Sure, the main money came off the toys, but you can't sell the toys as well without a reason for people to buy them, because there's a lot of competition for toys, but Warhammer and 40K had built themselves into the biggest games around. People bought GW's toys rather than, say, Reaper or Heartbreaker (well, some of us bought both) because they wanted to play GW's games. There've always been better toys out there, but you couldn't play GW games with them.

So as they throw out all the old design team, leaving just one guy left who rages about the tournaments he created and watching as one of the creators of the game that got them started helps promote a competing game, they've lost sight of all that. And I doubt anyone left wants to tell them they're going down the wrong path, and constantly trying to reduce costs to keep profit while sales shrink is not going to work long-term, especially if they keep abusing the games that drive the sales of their toys. If they get 40K too much more broken, it could potentially hit the point WFB did, where it's too expensive to get into (already there) and, once you're in, it's just rock-paper-scissors and you could be spending three hours at a time (and hundreds of dollars) just watching the inevitable play out because you didn't pick the right army or units and need to spend hundreds more dollars for the right ones. At that point, the players aren't going to keep dropping hundreds of dollars on something that they have to fix themselves, they're going to move on to other games, and 40K will start shedding players like WFB did.

Personally, I'd prefer to avoid that, but hey, people who are glad to help burn the whole thing down are enjoying themselves, I guess.

grimmas

08-21-2015, 08:43 AM

I actually think the OP is on the right track. Changes to the force organisation in a tournament pack could really be the way to provide better balance for tournaments where people wanted it. I'm not sure if I'd restrict people to just using CAD but that might work. I might also try putting limits of the number of non troops choices it might help with some of the worst offences. It's a shame GW have produced a good selection of formations for every faction yet requiring people to choose one may have helped.

I don't think it would be possible to completely balance 40K as there are just to many variations to choose from many of which depend on the situation as to how effective they are but you could make it suit your needs better. I certainly wouldn't get rid of the choices they are very much part of the 40K appeal.

I would remind people that GW did and still does apply some form of extra comp for their own tournaments so it would be logical that any TO should do to.

Captain Bubonicus

08-21-2015, 09:06 AM

If you feel 40k is going to be AoS'd (which is a ridiculous idea on its face - GW would be goring it's sacred cow) then you can always keep playing RT/2nd/3rd/4th/5th/6th/7th edition. Heck, if it weren't for the fact hat I was dealing with moving across the country earlier this month, I would have been playing at the Oldhammer event in PA where it was a giant RT and 2nd edition festival.

I wouldn't put it past them. How many times in the past have we said - "no, GW couldn't POSSIBLY be that stupid," only to be proven wrong?

Defenestratus

08-21-2015, 09:28 AM

I wouldn't put it past them. How many times in the past have we said - "no, GW couldn't POSSIBLY be that stupid," only to be proven wrong?

As player and customers we might think that GW'd decisions are stupid on a day to day basis. All of them originate from a centralized motivation though... making money.

40k is what is making GW money. More than anything else they've ever sold. It's how they pay their bills and 40k sales would really need to drop into the sewer for them to do something drastic like they did with WFB. While GW sales have been terrible for a few years, 40k is the only bright spot. AoS was a recognition that the Fantasy was in the sewer, and they basically are throwing a hail mary to see if it works.

Alaric

08-21-2015, 09:43 AM

[QUOTE=daboarder;510173]well, Mystery, allow me to brush of one off your favourite chestnuts, given I've shown your logic hoops and historical re

If you aren't gonna be civil, why post here? Seriously you got a major chip on your shoulder. Pathetic. Condescending prick ftw right?

Kazzigum

08-21-2015, 09:49 AM

Kazzigum

08-21-2015, 10:10 AM

Oh I enjoy the odd tournament. Most of the opponent's I've encountered have been fun to play against, and were absolutely no different to the spods I usually play in my area. That there always seems to be the odd one out who is the room's fun extractor is neither here nor there.

But I go into those Tournaments and gaming meets knowing the game I've chosen to play isn't perfectly balanced, and that as a result some of my games may be an uphill struggle - but I enjoy them all the same. Again, the minority who ruin the experience will ruin it regardless of what they're actually fielding just through being a poor sport.

And it's the 'but....I know, and have always known the game isn't perfectly balanced' that I'm driving at. This is the game GW have chosen to produce. They've never been especially bothered about achieving perfect balance, preferring to go with a plethora of options for their customers to pick and choose from. So a criticism the game isn't perfectly balanced just seems kind of pointless to me. I don't see how it can be a failing if it wasn't their objective?

They may not have ever been too concerned with balance, but they have made various half-hearted attempts. Aside from updating the odd codex, as has already been mentioned, consider the fact that they've released numerous FAQs in the past. And if no one is, or should be, embracing of this fact, then why did this site (and others) get in such a tizzy every time such a FAQ was released? Looking on, it always seemed that the fan base, at least those rabid enough to be here, always anticipated, debated, appreciated and were overall excited when they came out. Many believed they never went far enough or were simply asinine. Honestly, and you'll have to forgive me here as I'm apparently slow, I've realized that this is ultimately what I'm really advocating. Not fixing 7th edition so much as FAQing it. Since I believe that 7th will be the end of the road for those of us who like the game in the roughly complex format it is, I'm saying that I think it might be a good idea for those of us still here after the End to come together and agree on a FAQ. And the primary difference I see between this effort and most of those in the past, is that I think it is wasted effort as long as the game itself keeps evolving in its roughly similar format by adding new editions. I'm saying here that I think it's about to be burned down and replaced and I firmly believe that will not be pleasing to most of the current 40k fans. Time will tell if I'm right, but I don't think this is really being a Chicken Little given the signs and recent events.

Kazzigum

08-21-2015, 10:22 AM

...because you'll never perfectly balance this game. Ever.

If you feel 40k is going to be AoS'd (which is a ridiculous idea on its face - GW would be goring it's sacred cow) then you can always keep playing RT/2nd/3rd/4th/5th/6th/7th edition. Heck, if it weren't for the fact hat I was dealing with moving across the country earlier this month, I would have been playing at the Oldhammer event in PA where it was a giant RT and 2nd edition festival.

I have said we cannot truly balance the game. I am certain we can make it exponentially MORE balanced than it currently is however. As for GW AoSing 40k being "ridiculous," well, that's what plenty of guys like you said last year about Warhammer when the original rumors started to roll out. As for the rest ... ??? That's what I'm saying. I DO intend to keep playing 7th edition. I DO believe many others will also. That is the whole point of what I've been saying from the beginning.

Why do I get the feeling you read nothing of what I've said beyond the thread title?

Caitsidhe

08-21-2015, 11:02 AM

Mr Mystery

08-21-2015, 12:14 PM

I think they were for All the Above. To me, the old GTs were a celebration of all those aspects of the hobby and much more. I still remember fondly participating in team GW Trivia events held by GW staffers after hours at some of them. A lot of fun.

Exactly.

A well run tournament, where the majority, if not all participants are there to just indulge in the Hobby, do their best in each area and generally have a good time is a thing of beauty, and a ridiculous amount of fun.

It just so happens that that spirit is what GW have aimed for with their rules.

But once a tournament becomes about winning the thing by hook or by crook? GW's approach of rule of cool approach to rules becomes a liability to those who draw their own arbitrary line as to where the challenge should end (for me, it's a challenge just to get my army painted to a basic board ready standard. Doesn't help I accidentally knacked my brushes about a year ago....)

To demand a high level of competition and balance a game is fine and dandy. But to complain when such a game and experience wasn't the focus of those who designed the game, I just don't see the point. Hence my (crude) comparison to Rally Cars.

For your following post, I think they observed that no matter what tweaks they make to the rules, including tournament specific restrictions, other TO's will come up with their own. Again - that's all part of the hobby, and something GW themselves have said - their rules are but a framework. The intention has ever been 'but season to taste' to use yet another shonky analogy.

So if the wider community is going to tweak and modify and restrict to its own taste (and other than 'we all play 40k, the wider community isn't all that cohesive), it seems GW have just gone back to their earlier principle of 'do what you fancy'. For those like myself who just enjoy playing the game, and aren't massively fussed about the outcome as long as getting there was a laugh, this is great. The reduced restrictions (from Unbound in 40k, to 'whatevs' in AoS) mean I can put together a army out of pretty much anything. To those wanting a better balanced affair, well keep on keeping on as you've ever done.

- - - Updated - - -

Of course they are going to do it. I'm not even sure why there is a debate about it. An AOS success will allow them to justify it. A failure in AOS will just cause them to refuse to admit the mistake and double down again as they have done time and time before. The entire point is to invalidate older materials.

AoS - something released because its predecessor apparently wasn't selling all that well. Oddly enough, I saw a friend of mine say on FB today it accounted for just 7% of GW's sales, though his source is unknown.

40k. The biggest selling table top hobby war game ever. EVER.

Now, if we take Big Si's 7% figure as accurate.....that means 40k and its odds and sods makes GW millions upon millions of pounds of profit each and every year.

And as it remains the biggest Tabletop Hobby Wargame the world has ever seen.....well, you just don't **** with that. Nobody would. Big change comes when big change is needed. Like evolution. You don't shoot the Golden Goose just because the Silver Ferret is putting on some weight.

Erik Setzer

08-21-2015, 02:10 PM

The tourneys *were* for "all of the above." Though yes, winning games did get you more "glory." And that's okay. You were having to try to win games with lists that wouldn't sabotage your other scores, less likely to bring a death star list or something like that at that point.

But I still don't think balance is just something needed in tournaments, and certainly not something the beatstick players are wanting more than others. Beatstick players would prefer a system where they can choose the nastiest army at the time and win with less effort.

Those of us who prefer pickup games, who love to meet and play against new players, want balance so that we can meet, say, "Hey, wanna do 1500 points?", and then have a match that should be enjoyable for both players, without having to spend an hour figuring out what limitations we want to throw on ourselves or anything. Balance is nice so a new player doesn't grab an army and then find out it's a ROFLstomp army that's boring to play and might end up with him having no one playing him until he drops a load of money on new models.

Mr Mystery

08-21-2015, 02:31 PM

See, with that.....it's all in the player.

Player A may field an 'optimum' army because that's what appealed to them.

Player B may field an 'optimum' because Teh Intaewebz insists its ded 'ard and win and ace and nothing could possibly go wrong.

The difference is in their approach. Player A will be fun to play against, and a good sport. Should they crush your force, they'll offer compliments and feedback on what went well for you, possibly issuing (potentially patronising) advice on what you might do differently next time

Player B? Well. They'll just chalk all up to TACTICAL GENIUSES rather than a clearly beardy list.

Now, the examples a of course grossly simplified for the purposes of demonstration, and are intended purely as best and worst case scenarios. Any potential variation between can and will exist.

But it all boils down to (again possibly patronising) the player being the biggest issue. Yes the system is wonky - but it takes a special someone to knowingly abuse it, and it's my experience that you can spot such a person fairly easily.

spiralingcadaver

08-21-2015, 02:49 PM

Those of us who prefer pickup games, who love to meet and play against new players, want balance so that we can meet, say, "Hey, wanna do 1500 points?", and then have a match that should be enjoyable for both players, without having to spend an hour figuring out what limitations we want to throw on ourselves or anything. Balance is nice so a new player doesn't grab an army and then find out it's a ROFLstomp army that's boring to play and might end up with him having no one playing him until he drops a load of money on new models.
+1.

Unfortunately, GW doesn't do well with points balancing, so the ROFLstomp comment wouldn't be fixed in their case, but there are a lot of systems where there's a standard points system, and I'll tend to bring two lists: one that's a throw down no-holds-barred competitive list (if that's the point and they're ready for a harder game) and one that's a softer and/or trying something new list (still bring my a-game once it's started, but starting at something that probably won't stomp someone's lighter list), and just ask my opponent which he wants. That's it. Takes maybe a couple minutes of talking if we're both indecisive, but there's no debate on how to limit ourselves.

Denzark

08-21-2015, 03:51 PM

Of course they are going to do it. I'm not even sure why there is a debate about it. An AOS success will allow them to justify it. A failure in AOS will just cause them to refuse to admit the mistake and double down again as they have done time and time before. The entire point is to invalidate older materials.

They do invalidate older stuff, for sure. But not convinced AOSing 40K is how to achieve this. Given that AOS took the unprecedented step (for GW) of releasing a lot of warscrolls to cover existing armies - so all they invalidated was rules - which they claim thy don't care about.

They would want to invalidate the minis if the aim of the exercise was invalidation.

40kGamer

08-21-2015, 04:36 PM

One of my mates that works in the industry put forward an interesting theory that I had not come across before.

AOS - Intro / simple game system
Horus Heresy - Intermediate 'bridge' system
40k - Fully realized complex game system

Also, I finally picked up the new marine codex and holy freaking crap... a formation with the double Gladius + support is just wrong on so many levels! Can you really get 12 free tooled up razorbacks by doing this?!? That's 900 points of free tanks if you go with the TLAC or LC+TLPG option. What are they thinking!

daboarder

08-21-2015, 04:38 PM

Welcome to 40k. Where certain armies get up to 25% more points than others.

You should see what admech can do

40kGamer

08-21-2015, 04:44 PM

Holy crap! Take a few months off from the game and they reset the whole design philosophy again! My Dark Eldar are feeling pretty irritated that their 7th edition book sucks so bad compared to the latest ones. :mad:

Well it looks like I can effectively take a 2650 point force to a 1750 event. If I get creative maybe I can even bolt one of the new Skyhammer Annihilation Forces onto it as well to achieve a whole new level of madness!

daboarder

08-21-2015, 09:02 PM

Lexington

08-22-2015, 01:26 AM

And as it remains the biggest Tabletop Hobby Wargame the world has ever seen.....well, you just don't **** with that. Nobody would. Big change comes when big change is needed. Like evolution. You don't shoot the Golden Goose just because the Silver Ferret is putting on some weight.
You do if the golden goose isn't shining so much anymore - which is the real issue with GW right now. Fantasy died a quick, loud and easily-recognized death. 40K is dying a slower death, but it's a death none the less. Think of the heaps of new things released for 40K this past half-year - including completely new, long-awaited, and up-priced products like Harlequins and the twin AdMech releases - and remember that GW's sales were, again, lower than the previous half-year's. That's, I believe, four financial reports in a row with compound decreases in sales and revenue. That can't all chalked up to Fantasy's decline, especially since the same period saw the End Times, with some of WHFB's highest sales in ages. 40K's going downhill, just on a more gradual decline.

So, yes, I think they will **** with that. We're already getting a pretty decent look at their wider strategy (http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?58592-Games-Workshop-to-open-new-stores-Re-brand-as-Warhammer-and-*gasp*-work-with-LGS). GW's methods are going to look pretty different in the not-too-far future, I think.

40kGamer

08-22-2015, 06:45 AM

Wont tjat be aeesome fun and narrative forging though

Maybe if the narrative is out cheesing your opponent... :p

Captain Bubonicus

08-22-2015, 09:10 AM

You do if the golden goose isn't shining so much anymore - which is the real issue with GW right now. Fantasy died a quick, loud and easily-recognized death. 40K is dying a slower death, but it's a death none the less. Think of the heaps of new things released for 40K this past half-year - including completely new, long-awaited, and up-priced products like Harlequins and the twin AdMech releases - and remember that GW's sales were, again, lower than the previous half-year's. That's, I believe, four financial reports in a row with compound decreases in sales and revenue. That can't all chalked up to Fantasy's decline, especially since the same period saw the End Times, with some of WHFB's highest sales in ages. 40K's going downhill, just on a more gradual decline.

So, yes, I think they will **** with that. We're already getting a pretty decent look at their wider strategy (http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?58592-Games-Workshop-to-open-new-stores-Re-brand-as-Warhammer-and-*gasp*-work-with-LGS). GW's methods are going to look pretty different in the not-too-far future, I think.

I think I'm gonna cry.

Caitsidhe

08-22-2015, 09:45 AM

They do invalidate older stuff, for sure. But not convinced AOSing 40K is how to achieve this. Given that AOS took the unprecedented step (for GW) of releasing a lot of warscrolls to cover existing armies - so all they invalidated was rules - which they claim thy don't care about.

They would want to invalidate the minis if the aim of the exercise was invalidation.

And in a way they do. The newer minis have better rules. They are also somewhat larger. If you make the previous minis irrelevant (or mock them) with the rules, you will discourage their use.

daboarder

08-22-2015, 02:31 PM

Maybe if the narrative is out spending your opponent... :p

Fixed it for you mate

40kGamer

08-22-2015, 03:27 PM

Fixed it for you mate

That really is better! Thanks!

Caitsidhe

08-23-2015, 10:59 AM

AoS - something released because its predecessor apparently wasn't selling all that well. Oddly enough, I saw a friend of mine say on FB today it accounted for just 7% of GW's sales, though his source is unknown.

Unknown sources are always a toss up; agreed. However, we should probably delve into the fact that Warhammer Fantasy wasn't selling. I recall everyone (you included) saying how the last edition was the best thing since baked bread. In fact, most of the nice things people say about AOS right now are the SAME things they said about the last edition of Warhammer Fantasy. In fact, many of them are even being said by the SAME people. My question pertains to what you guys said about the last edition, why the heck did it fail so miserably if it was so great. More to the point, if this new one is so great, wouldn't it be more credible if it weren't the same people who praised the failure singing psalms?

Now, if we take Big Si's 7% figure as accurate.....that means 40k and its odds and sods makes GW millions upon millions of pounds of profit each and every year.

And as it remains the biggest Tabletop Hobby Wargame the world has ever seen.....well, you just don't **** with that. Nobody would. Big change comes when big change is needed. Like evolution. You don't shoot the Golden Goose just because the Silver Ferret is putting on some weight.

I would agree with you if we were talking about a logical company. :D I also happen to think it is just plain stupid to kill the goose that laid the golden egg. I don't think anyone in their right mind would do it. That being said, I feel that GW is most certainly going to make changes to 40K and that they will be along the same lines (although not as draconian) as what they did in AOS. It isn't rational, but they will do it. They have their own internal logic. They hire people not for talent but rather for being able to adjust to their internal community. They have their own plan and vision and to deviate from it is to admit previous failures. They don't do that.

Katharon

08-23-2015, 11:23 AM

The fun thing about this game, this hobby that we do (as it's both), is that I don't have to "embrace the horror." I can sit and enjoy any edition of Warhammer 40,000 I want to. I've already decided to do the same for Fantasy, way back before the release and reveal of AoS (see thread: "Sticking With 8th" (http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?56201-Sticking-With-8th)).

If Warhammer 40K somehow got the same treatment that Fantasy received (which I doubt), it's OK. I've got 7th. If they completely change the game to where it is no longer the same game -- that's fine! It won't have any effect on me or those who I know enjoy WH40K for what it is now, or for what it was before.

Embrace the horror? Nah. I'll embrace my freedom of choice instead.

Caitsidhe

08-23-2015, 05:48 PM

I just thought I would add this link, a little blast from the past, just to set all our orientation. It bears on my response to Mr. Mystery above:

http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2013/10/in-defense-of-warhammer-fantasy-8th-edition.html

As I recall, I did not share your opinion at the time. I felt that 8th Edition was just another step toward a big, random mess. My view then (as now) is that further you get away from balance the worse the game gets and the the worse long term effects it will have on sales. My view then (as now) is that the hobby is just as much about the game as it is the modeling and painting aspect. My opinion was blasted then too. I was called a Troll. I was told that I just hated Games Workshop. I was told that my prediction that 8th Edition would be the nail in the coffin for the the game was just a bunch of nonsense. In fact, it sounded a lot like what some people (many of them the same people) are saying to me now about my opinions of AOS and my predictions in regards to 40K.

I posted this link because I am truly curious if your opinion has evolved. If, as the article linked above states, Warhammer Fantasy 8th edition was... "So time for a ‘hit back’ at 8th Edition’s detractors. It’s not only better, but the best edition of the game EVER...." why did it tank so badly that they had to blow up the world? Moreover, if we have different people who make predictions that do not pan out and people whose predictions do pan out, whose future predictions should be given more weight? Ultimately, the failure of 8th Edition must be laid at someone's feet. The popular "spin" I hear these days is that it is that minority bad element (me I guess) bad mouthing the game. While I would love to think I'm that important, we all know that is hogwash. The buck stops with the company that designed and sold the product that failed to earn sales. It was a big random mess. And the more random the game got the less it sold. That is a rather important lesson which we must consider as we look to the future of 40K.

daboarder

08-23-2015, 09:30 PM

Champion Cait, good way of illustrating the moving goalposts. Stop chasing after them and use an unchanging reference point

Erik Setzer

08-24-2015, 09:03 AM

But it all boils down to (again possibly patronising) the player being the biggest issue. Yes the system is wonky - but it takes a special someone to knowingly abuse it, and it's my experience that you can spot such a person fairly easily.

No. It's not the players. Stop blaming the players. Jeez, man, I get that you love GW, but that is going too far, when it's clearly not accurate.

Yeah, jerk players are bad. But I've played nice players who try an army because they like it, and then it's a ROFLstomp affair, and it's NOT fun. It doesn't matter that they're nice. It doesn't matter how friendly they are, how many compliments they give, anything like that. Being stomped because of a major lack of balance in the rules is not a fun experience.

And that lack of balance is the fault of the game, and the people who make the game. Sure, there are jerk players, but you don't hand them an axe and then pretend you have no responsibility for what they do with the axe. Sure, they bear some responsibility, and they could probably do bad things without the axe, but you're not helping matters when you enable someone like that.

- - - Updated - - -

They do invalidate older stuff, for sure. But not convinced AOSing 40K is how to achieve this. Given that AOS took the unprecedented step (for GW) of releasing a lot of warscrolls to cover existing armies - so all they invalidated was rules - which they claim thy don't care about.

They would want to invalidate the minis if the aim of the exercise was invalidation.

They've gotten stupid lately, but not suicidally so. Releasing AoS without all of that would have left AoS with just two factions to try to build off of. You'd have much fewer people playing it, and they couldn't sell all the stock they still had on shelves in stores and the warehouse.

As it is, they can slowly phase out armies and models as they bring in more, and they get to be the "good guys" because they made sure people could play the game (even though such a move was necessary for the game to even have a chance to get going).

Honestly, the existence of AoS is an admission that rules are most important and drive their sales. If they really sold the best models in the world and people only bought the games to have something to do with their models, then WFB's failure would mean that people didn't believe their models were such premium bits of amazingness. As it is, there's no way to deny that it showed the games drive the model sales, not the other way around. People buy the toy soldiers to play the games. They can avoid admitting that all they want, but AoS is proof that it works the way every intelligent person knows it works, not the way GW (and the most adamant GW defenders) claim it works.

40kGamer

08-24-2015, 09:12 AM

Ultimately, the failure of 8th Edition must be laid at someone's feet. The popular "spin" I hear these days is that it is that minority bad element (me I guess) bad mouthing the game. While I would love to think I'm that important, we all know that is hogwash. The buck stops with the company that designed and sold the product that failed to earn sales. It was a big random mess. And the more random the game got the less it sold. That is a rather important lesson which we must consider as we look to the future of 40K.

If the vocal minority is enough to tank a game then I hate to think what's in store for 40k.

I spend over 80% of my game time modeling and painting but I completely agree that the game needs good balance to function well. In some ways balance is far MORE important for someone like me who just wants to play a game every now and again. I will spend an entire year prepping a themed 'event' army, play around a dozen games with it, and then shelf it while I start prepping the next one. In the current game environment you can imagine how well this 'doesn't' work out. So for 'casual hobby' people like me the screwed up balance is complete hell and ultimately discourages future projects. I'm not looking for perfect balance as that's an illusion, however it would be nice if they at least pretended to give a crap about their own game system.

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah, jerk players are bad. But I've played nice players who try an army because they like it, and then it's a ROFLstomp affair, and it's NOT fun. It doesn't matter that they're nice. It doesn't matter how friendly they are, how many compliments they give, anything like that. Being stomped because of a major lack of balance in the rules is not a fun experience.

Spot on. One of my mates built an Iyaden themed army as soon as the supplement came out. The new Eldar Codex drops and although he does nothing different, he's suddenly labeled a WAAC cheese player. So we need to stop saying it's the fault of people playing the game. I've only ran across a couple true butthead's over a decade of gaming, with the majority of games at local events. It's the company that has turned the game into a complete farce through their mismatched design elements.

Deathmage

08-24-2015, 12:47 PM

Dirty bomb got it right, 4 words - Don't be a dick. If you can't both agree to not be a dick then you are proabably not going to get on

Path Walker

08-24-2015, 01:00 PM

Dirty bomb got it right, 4 words - Don't be a dick. If you can't both agree to not be a dick then you are proabably not going to get on

That relies on both parties having the ability to work out that trying to pound your casual opponent into the ground is a dick move. That's why some people seem to struggle with the concept, they can't comprehend that winning a game isn't the most important thing in the world.

Erik Setzer

08-24-2015, 02:45 PM

Spot on. One of my mates built an Iyaden themed army as soon as the supplement came out. The new Eldar Codex drops and although he does nothing different, he's suddenly labeled a WAAC cheese player. So we need to stop saying it's the fault of people playing the game. I've only ran across a couple true butthead's over a decade of gaming, with the majority of games at local events. It's the company that has turned the game into a complete farce through their mismatched design elements.

Sort of a similar story locally. A guy saw the game, liked it, the Wraith army box had just appeared on shelves, so he bought it to get into the game, and expanded an Iyanden army just because he liked how it looks. Not he can't play it much in basic games because he feels like it's too powerful for casual use. Luckily, he's gotten a second army... Dark Eldar. (Yeah, kind of swings from one end of the pendulum to the other.)

spiralingcadaver

08-24-2015, 02:51 PM

They do invalidate older stuff, for sure. But not convinced AOSing 40K is how to achieve this. Given that AOS took the unprecedented step (for GW) of releasing a lot of warscrolls to cover existing armies - so all they invalidated was rules - which they claim thy don't care about.

They would want to invalidate the minis if the aim of the exercise was invalidation.At least the third time they've done that. 3rd edition 40k was a reset, and 5th-ish ed WHFB got a mini-book with completely new lists.

Erik Setzer

08-25-2015, 10:21 AM

At least the third time they've done that. 3rd edition 40k was a reset, and 5th-ish ed WHFB got a mini-book with completely new lists.

6th edition WFB. It changed the format for how armies were selected, as well as magic items, and they likely needed to do some rebalancing work.

From 6th to 8th, the core rules stayed similar enough that, aside from perhaps some rules tweaking, you could use army lists done for 6th even in 8th edition (which is really the only way all those Dogs of War players could still use their armies, not to mention Kislev, Middenheim, the Dwarf Slayer army, and a few others).

grimmas

08-25-2015, 12:14 PM

daboarder

08-25-2015, 04:07 PM

to be fair, there is a difference between a reset of the mechanics and throwing the background in the trash. I know that 40k got "serious" when 3rd came along, but they didnt blow up the unniverse to get there

Erik Setzer

08-26-2015, 08:13 AM

4th was a reset as well, they changed the profiles for a start also 1st through 3 rd 40K were resets. Back in the old days they didn't mess around with tweeks they gave us a while new product and I rather enjoyed it. All the prating around with which defensive weapons a vehicle can fire is getting just as tedious as the minute changes to combat resolution did.

Yeah, but 3rd edition WFB didn't really have the line of army books that later editions had, just some basic add-ons with lists (which were quite good enough for gaming, really).

As for 40K, it started as some strange sort-of-RPG game, but people wanted more of a skirmish battle game, so they kept evolving the rules and then had to release 2nd edition to clean up the all-over-the-place rules they had. Then they decided simpler rules could lead to larger, more fluid battles, which wasn't a bad idea, except initially they well overdid the simplicity and, as they corrected that, they also took the time to remove the rules for playing the game at a smaller level and focused on pushing ever-larger battles, such that, like WFB, 40K now typically requires a massive number of models to play.

You can pretty much tell when the board got seriously involved by watching the optional stuff get shed out of the rulebooks, the games push for larger battles, and lack of new options appearing in WD (the sort-of-"Cities of Death" thing in WD was a nice nod back to the old days, but since it was on shelves for two weeks with the cards needed split into limited run magazines, I can't find anyone else with the cards to play it).

But back away from the topic of the board being game-wrecking monkeys... I think 40K is bound for another "reset" in the not too distant future. The first two editions were "reset" because of rule bloat. With the recent edition having rules all over the place, including supplements on store shelves that have had outdated rules for over a year (which they refuse to correct because it might eat into their profits to reprint books that have 50% useless content), formations all over the place (in books, supplements, White Dwarf, online), and just so much bloat being added to the game. That's about the point that RT and 2nd edition got the big ol' reset button.

40kGamer

08-26-2015, 08:18 AM

I think 40K is bound for another "reset" in the not too distant future. The first two editions were "reset" because of rule bloat. With the recent edition having rules all over the place, including supplements on store shelves that have had outdated rules for over a year (which they refuse to correct because it might eat into their profits to reprint books that have 50% useless content), formations all over the place (in books, supplements, White Dwarf, online), and just so much bloat being added to the game. That's about the point that RT and 2nd edition got the big ol' reset button.

I'll be surprised if we don't see some kind of reset soon. Local 40k is starting down the same path that WFB did before it was nuked into oblivion.

Caitsidhe

08-26-2015, 08:33 AM

I'll be surprised if we don't see some kind of reset soon. Local 40k is starting down the same path that WFB did before it was nuked into oblivion.

Yup. I've seen this all over the United States. It is a big, hot random mess. The further they threw away the balance the faster games declined. In the United States, where adults make up 99.9% of the players, people like to feel their personal input has more impact on the game than the random factor or their opponent's wallet. I firmly believe we are in for the same kind of reset they did with AOS. It won't solve the problem, but they will insist they have to do it. They will throw out all the rules but keep the random. They are firm in their belief that their games are for children and since they want all the children to win some games, they like random. It is like that spinner in Candy Land. If the outcome of games is not determined by the participants than anyone can win. The "thrill" of victory will move around more or less equally. If a few people win more games because they buy more, that sends a message (that Games Workshop approves of) that doing likewise will help. In any event, at this point it won't make much difference whether they have a complicated, random mess or a version designed for eight year old children (still all random). I've already started seeing the conversions and use of 40K models from gamer's old armies making a strong appearance in other games. The herd is starting to move on.

Erik Setzer

08-26-2015, 08:41 AM

They are firm in their belief that their games are for children and since they want all the children to win some games, they like random.

Not entirely accurate... They want to sell miniatures. Random isn't going to do that. The powerful formations aren't random at all, they're very calculated, and calculated to direct you to want to buy the new stuff. And since GW is pricing their stuff as "premium" products, because they think they make stuff that only the most discerning buyer would want (way to paint yourselves into more of a niche, guys!), kids aren't really on the list of targets. It becomes more obvious with kits that increasingly take more effort, without much in the way of "starter" kits to help not just kids but also new hobbyists who haven't assembled many models (much less miniatures) before.

A faction like the Stormcast Eternals, with the blurbs they put around that, does seem geared more toward kids who'll be wowed by "immortal unstoppable warriors", but simplicity and even randomness doesn't have to be for kids only. I have a lot of board games and card games I love, they're nice and simple. Granted, they're also just $20-$40 for everything you need to play (sometimes even less). And I like a bit of random with my Orks, as long as it doesn't affect the game *too* much. So random can be a good thing, done right. I'm not sure there's that much "random" in the game right now, though. I think it's very calculated, to make sure people are directed to the right products.

40kGamer

08-26-2015, 08:54 AM

Yup. I've seen this all over the United States. It is a big, hot random mess. The further they threw away the balance the faster games declined. In the United States, where adults make up 99.9% of the players, people like to feel their personal input has more impact on the game than the random factor or their opponent's wallet. I firmly believe we are in for the same kind of reset they did with AOS.

Not surprising! I deal with a 3 state area and interest in 40k has dropped dramatically from 5th to 7th edition. The tournament crowd died first... one event went from 60 players down to 12 over a 4 year span. Another super popular hobby event that focuses more on soft scores than winning used to sell out in 2 weeks, now it's only 50% full after two months of registration being open.

Even worse for me is the casual crowd are leaving the game in droves as well. And these same people are aggressively recruiting 40k players for games like Malifaux, Infinity, KoW, X-Wing, etc etc. Some of these people are even ex GW staffers that have a deep love for the company as it was, but not as it is today. The modern market has expanded to offer a tremendous variety of products.

I wonder if they are stupid enough to give 40k the AoS treatment? It's hard to be excited about playing a game that is the equivalent of running around the soccer field all day while not keeping score so that everyone gets a ribbon.

In any event, at this point it won't make much difference whether they have a complicated, random mess or a version designed for eight year old children (still all random). I've already started seeing the conversions and use of 40K models from gamer's old armies making a strong appearance in other games. The herd is starting to move on.

What games offer the best conversion possibilities of 40k to their systems? Might as well start looking around now since I've seen nothing but across the board declining game quality since 6th edition 40k dropped. :(

Caitsidhe

08-26-2015, 08:58 AM

Not entirely accurate... They want to sell miniatures. Random isn't going to do that. The powerful formations aren't random at all, they're very calculated, and calculated to direct you to want to buy the new stuff. And since GW is pricing their stuff as "premium" products, because they think they make stuff that only the most discerning buyer would want (way to paint yourselves into more of a niche, guys!), kids aren't really on the list of targets. It becomes more obvious with kits that increasingly take more effort, without much in the way of "starter" kits to help not just kids but also new hobbyists who haven't assembled many models (much less miniatures) before.

Remember, you cannot use real logic to try and understand Games Workshop logic. I agree with everything you said about the pricing and that kids realistically aren't really good targets for their product. However, that isn't how Games Workshop sees it. :D They believe that premium product with all the demands of the hobby are exactly what kids want. In some Bizarro World way, they think this makes perfect sense. Thus, they want rules which allow all the kids who pony up their cash to win a few. They think that if kids play and lose all the time that they will go to other games. While you and I understand that very few kids will ever play the games in the first place with their pricing and modeling barrier, Games Workshop is more concerned about the gaming side being dominated by older, more skilled players (who in their opinion won't need to buy as much). The solution is to make the games random wherein newbie or veteran is just as likely to win. The only variable in that is what you put on the table, i.e. what your wallet can buy. To further throw things to the newbies (or so GW logic goes) they make the Formations/Warscrolls better for just the new stuff. Bear in mind I'm extrapolating from AOS to demonstrate the process.

A faction like the Stormcast Eternals, with the blurbs they put around that, does seem geared more toward kids who'll be wowed by "immortal unstoppable warriors", but simplicity and even randomness doesn't have to be for kids only. I have a lot of board games and card games I love, they're nice and simple. Granted, they're also just $20-$40 for everything you need to play (sometimes even less). And I like a bit of random with my Orks, as long as it doesn't affect the game *too* much. So random can be a good thing, done right. I'm not sure there's that much "random" in the game right now, though. I think it's very calculated, to make sure people are directed to the right products.

All the new stuff is geared towards kids. There is no deep end of the pool anymore. The depth of the premise (of AOS) is little different from He-Man or the Thundercats. The main characters (so far) are about as two-dimensional as they come. They are drawn in broad strokes and filled in with primary colors because they are (for whatever Games Workshop logic reason) aiming everything at kids. Random outcomes means everyone wins now and then, or at least enough to keep them playing.

Haighus

08-26-2015, 12:38 PM

What games offer the best conversion possibilities of 40k to their systems? Might as well start looking around now since I've seen nothing but across the board declining game quality since 6th edition 40k dropped. :(
Afterlife would probably work ok- it is intended for relatively realistic combat in the near future though, so has little in the way of melee, which cuts out a good chunk of 40k. Ruleset also is still in closed beta effectively. I'm not sure in what way melee will feature in the first rule edition (but should feature in some way as melee does still happen in modern combat occasionally). Ruleset should be released soon (I have access to an early version through the Kickstarter).

Maelstrom's Edge perhaps? Also a futuristic 28mm skirmish game. Don't know what the rules are like for that one.

Kazzigum

08-26-2015, 02:57 PM

Haighus

08-26-2015, 03:06 PM

grimmas

08-27-2015, 04:06 AM

Or, you know, we can just play 40k and practice some restraint. We don't have to play Apocalypse just because GW wants us to. For example, setting aside my CAD argument, I think that Kill Team is pretty tight and fair. It just needs some updated scenarios, particularly accounting for Tactical Objectives, since it was written in 6th.

This is the way. The thing is 40K can be played at many levels if one just applies a bit of sense. 40K has only ever been a skirmish game if modified via extra rules or scenarios. Also it's never been balanced if you play unlimited. I think you are right in that you've got stop thinking about what GW wants because it isn't a person it doesn't think it's just a vehicle to make money.

All you need are some like minded people and away you go. The beauty of GW games has always been the choice and customisation available. I for one am glad they've got Apocalypse style stuff back in because that's how I played with my peers back I the nineties, big armies, big guns and carnage by that's what I like. 40K is so big and it has so many players it can be what you want.

Have a look at the Victroy is Vengence campaign in HH3 is brilliant small sides play.

Charon

08-27-2015, 05:07 AM

The reason why I never liked extremely big battles and apocalypse is the player turns. If (for example) 6k points shoot at another 6k points this has a snowball effect in favor of who shot first (clearly Han!). This is somewhat mitigated in smaller games but in very big battles a good first turn is perfectly capable of deciding the game.

grimmas

08-27-2015, 05:41 AM

That can certainly be the case. I've always found that getting plenty of scenery on the board mitigates that problem. In fact I've found that having plenty of scenery solves a lot of the issues with 40K. Of course having Necromunda back in the day certainly helped with this. But it isn't hard to get lots of scenery made. Though it's a bit of a lost art since GW started selling stuff and stopped doing a tutorial or two. God bless RT it really honed your scratch building skills.

Filthy Casual

08-27-2015, 05:55 AM

So many games you see these days have far too little in the way of terrain, I think it should be difficult to draw more than 24" LOS and aim to set my boards up so that is the case more often than not. This helps distort the idea of what's "powerful" in the game because units have more freedom to move and shoot than intended.

Age of Sigmar is the same and its why GW have really been pushing out Scenery Kits, it really benefits from a lot more terrain than people are used to having in a game of Warhammer. This is why you get the "pile up in the middle", people aren't putting scenery down on the table as per the rules, the suggest at least one and, using the random table, more often two, pieces per 2 foot square.

- - - Updated - - -

On the note of terrain, if you can find a copy of "How to Make Wargames Terrain" by Nigel Stillman its an invaluable tome for the scenery scratch builder. The 2006 David Cross one is good too, but I'm very attached to my copy of the original.

Charon

08-27-2015, 07:28 AM

While I agree that having plenty of scenery is nice, there is a huge disconnect between what you as a player feel about the amount, what the BRB says and what the enemy feels about it.

Let us go for a quick battle between a Hound and Maulerfiend heavy Khorne Daemonkin List and a Imperial guard list. So... what is the correct amount? While the Khorne player will want as much as possible the guard player will argue the opposite. The middle way is using the rules from the BRB.
It is as easy to "cheese" with terrain as it is with an army list.

40kGamer

08-27-2015, 07:53 AM

I will continue to play 40k :) I was just answering 40Kgamer's question to the best of my knowledge. I will be playing Afterlife with the Afterlife models anyway (and probably 40k with the Afterlife models too).

Kill team is fun. I want to try the tactical strike rules in the FW HH books too, they look fun.

Thanks for the options! I'll still be playing 40k but want to branch out in case they do a complete makeover that I end up hating. :)

Erik Setzer

08-27-2015, 08:28 AM

40K has only ever been a skirmish game if modified via extra rules or scenarios.

Sure, sure... if you ignore the first two entire editions of the game. Even if we skip Rogue Trader, 2nd edition was a skirmish-level game. The army points were the same as they are now, but a Tactical Squad, for example, would start at 300 points, before adding options. You might get a character, three squads, a walker, and a vehicle into a 2000 point army. Possibly a fourth squad if you squeezed your points!

It was when 3rd edition came out that things started changing, with the rules being simplified a lot for faster game play, and Space Marines dropping 50% in points (pretty much everything dropped in points, but that was the most noticeable drop). They still had Kill Team and Combat Patrol in the rules to allow for smaller games that weren't over way too fast. Over time, they've removed KT and CP from the rules, making KT a separate digital purchase (so over $100 to get all the rules, as opposed to the old $45 rulebook), and Space Marines have even shed another point, while 7th edition just straight up added super-heavies and fortifications to the core rules as a standard part of every game of 40K. So the game went from skirmish, to larger but still not that bad, to where it's standard to have mega models and fortresses in a game, and you can put a whole company of Marines on the table in a basic game.

I'd much prefer to send 40K back to its skirmish roots and bring Space Marine/Titan Legions back (and pretend Epic 40K never happened).

Filthy Casual

08-27-2015, 08:35 AM

I am not sure how old you are and if you actually played 2nd edition but the reason they changed from a skirmish level game, (which it wasn't actually, it was company level, non Space Marine armies, especially Orks and Imperial Guard would typically have 80-100 odd models) to bigger forces was because thats what people wanted and that's how people were playing it.

People weren't complaining that the game was too small and they wanted to use more models, they were using the models anyway and complaining the game took too long to play. They wanted to use their collections, to make massive, impressive armies and use them on the tabletop and they wanted to game to support that aim.

GW didn't betray the roots of 40k, they did exactly what the players wanted.

grimmas

08-27-2015, 09:02 AM

Come on Erik, the points are an abstract we just played more points in RT and 2nd there's never been a required points point. RT was a direct lift of WFB which was the mother of all Battle games you might have played small but it wasn't a skirmish game. Also it was pretty easy to go big 3 Rhinos and 30-35 troops for £10 2 Landraiders £12. 2nd was no less a battle game the weapons were too destructive for anything else. The shooting phase makes Apocalypse look tame. A heavy bolter could get 7hits for one successful Hit roll and that's before I get into 2-3" template, heavy flamers and vortex grenades. The close combat was involved but a skirmish game doesn't have character models regularly kill entire squads (or more) each turn. It was also adapted from Space Marine. The psychic powers were also massively destructive. You didn't even get the rules in one set either you had to by Dark Millennium to get all the game rules.

Skirmish roots? No way. I'd concede that RT at the very beginning was scenario based, for about ten minutes before the Army lists came out. I'd also concede that 2nd took awhile to play at decent size. But those rules aren't anything but "battle".

edit. I wouldn't have even bothered with anything less than 3000pts in 2nd.

nsc

08-27-2015, 09:34 AM

Most people don't play apocalypse, I wouldn't say that in general people prefer large battles.

Instead I would say that miniature wargaming is a very diverse hobby and it is very easy for people to find what they enjoy within this wonderful hobby. Grimm can fill up a table with plastic soliders while other people play on small tables with only a handful of troops.

I would like a stronger presence for skirmishing in 40k, with kill-teams being more popular or smaller games of 40k being more viable, however I don't want to lose the larger games that other people enjoy. If 40k could be scaled down to a skirmish game in the core rules that would be awesome, but I don't think it will come to that.

Filthy Casual

08-27-2015, 09:40 AM

I find 40k generally scales pretty well, from 600 points to 3000 but you have to be sensible, a person could break the game at any of those points values but as long as you have a cool group, Hero a couple of squads and a tank works great

Charon

08-27-2015, 10:07 AM

The close combat was involved but a skirmish game doesn't have character models regularly kill entire squads (or more) each turn.

That was no issue in 2nd. This is the situation NOW where you can comfortably ride your Thunderwolf into a unit and kill it off in one round of combat.

As you got +1 WS and +1 A for each goon after the first in combat range (and you could only kill models in combat range) you quickly came to a point where even a gaunt had WS6 and 4A.

grimmas

08-27-2015, 10:48 AM

That was no issue in 2nd. This is the situation NOW where you can comfortably ride your Thunderwolf into a unit and kill it off in one round of combat.

As you got +1 WS and +1 A for each goon after the first in combat range (and you could only kill models in combat range) you quickly came to a point where even a gaunt had WS6 and 4A.

True but don't forget an extra attack just allowed you one extra dice to choose from choosing your best and characters with WS in the 7-10 range weren't exactly rare and all had bleeding swords to parry with.

That said I do agree that you can do similar now, that's kind of my point it was a battle game then and it's a battle game now.

I wouldn't dig someone out for wanting to play Skirmishes but you do have to make adjustments to allow for that style of play.

Actually (and this isn't in direct response to you Charon)now I really think about it AoS is actually more true to 40K's scenario driven beginnings than any other game GW has made.

Erik Setzer

08-28-2015, 08:13 AM

Are you just under the assumption that "skirmish" means 10-12 models with no vehicles?

If not, then you're wrong. 40K2 was a "skirmish" level game. And the shooting phase wasn't that bad, even for someone like me with Orks (and I had all the different types of weapons). I've also never seen 40K2 (or much of anything else) devolve into the mess Apoc matches can become, especially in the shooting phase.

And I kind of lost my appetite for Apoc after the last match. The one guy bouncing all over the table with units everywhere was bad enough (and some of the shenanigans he was pulling)... but that's just that guy and I've learned to avoid him. No, for me the moment it lost its shine was when an entire Space Marine company, with supporting vehicles, was wiped out, then a card was used to bring it all back onto the table in a different location... and in the very next turn the entire lot of them were wiped out again. A whole Space Marine company, with Thunderhawk, supporting vehicles, etc., just snuffed out in a turn. At that point, I knew that Space Marine (the game) would have been a much better way to play out these large battles with Titans on both sides, because that kind of stuff at 28mm is ridiculously expensive and watching thousands of dollars picked up off the board each turn is just really sad.

nsc

08-28-2015, 09:47 AM

I know many gamers who refuse to call 40k a wargame because the units don't rank up.

I've never really been into apocalypse Erik, since in the clubs I've been to all the apoc players are guys who can't get through a 1850 point 6 turn game in 2 and a half hours. The GW 6mm games are pretty snazzy though.

Katharon

08-28-2015, 11:29 AM

I know many gamers who refuse to call 40k a wargame because the units don't rank up.

Do these many gamers know how high-velocity ballistic weapons, explosions, shrapnel, and other modern implements and weaponry of modern war work? There is a reason why the American Civil War was one of the last conflicts to involve men marching in ranks towards each other to unload volleys. If you want "ranks" then go play any of the nice Pike & Shot games running around or Warhammer Fantasy (people *do* still play like, myself among them).

Erik Setzer

08-28-2015, 12:10 PM

I know many gamers who refuse to call 40k a wargame because the units don't rank up.

I'm sorry to be blunt, but... those people are idiots. In any modern warfare game (WWI and upward, some prior to that), the units don't rank up. That would mean that any game about WWI, WWII, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, the multiple invasions of Iran, Korea, etc. could not be called wargames.

Ask them about that. If they still insist such games can't be wargames, you should call them an idiot and/or slap them with a copy of Warhammer 40,000: Apocalypse.

nsc

08-28-2015, 01:13 PM

6mm (and smaller) WW2 models infantry in ranks :P

Grand Master Raziel

08-30-2015, 08:22 AM

The following works for my group. We have tight games, and our winningest player plays Sisters of Battle. Presented with explanations.

1: Armies should be 40% Troops. So a 1000pt army should have 400pts in troops, a 1500pt army should have 600pts in Troops, and so on....

If you REALLY want to fix 40K, this is a good start. Troops are better balanced against each other than anything else in the game, and it prevents issues of playing against an army that invalidates large swathes of what you have in yours. Plus, it makes armies more thematically appropriate.

Flipside - this does generate issues with detachments that don't have Troops slots. The resolution is to pick a unit that should be the "Troops" of the formation - for instance, Ravenwing Bike Squadrons for the Ravenwing Strike Force.

2: Allies / Detachments / Formations

Armies must be comprised of at least one Battle Forged Primary Detachment. Army lists may not include Allies from Codices representing fully fleshed out factions. Army lists may include Allies from Dataslates, as long as they do not draw units from Codices representing fully fleshed out factions. Army lists may include Formations, which may be fielded as additional Detachments as necessary.

The Allies rules break the game more than anything, and in the first version of our house rules, they were out entirely. Then, I wanted people to be able to use Cypher, so an allowance was made - hence the stuff about fully fleshed out factions.

3: Flyers rules

We're going to handle flyers a little differently than what's in the rules. People with flyers, don't include them in your lists. However, at game time, you can tell your opponent you'd like to include a flyer. If your opponent agrees, you can include the flyer without altering your list. Your opponent then has the opportunity to add an equal number of points to his/her list. They can take any combination of flyer of their own, a unit with Skyfire, and/or a fortification with an anti-air upgrade, up to the amount of points the flyer you are using. No more than 1 flyer may be used per list.

We've got this because the distribution of flyers and anti-air is uneven, so a player doesn't have to cripple his/her army to have flyer defense just in case. Works pretty well.

4: Super heavy vehicles / Gargantuan Creatures

As with Flyers, do not include them in your main list. At game time, you can tell your opponent you would like to include one of these. If your opponent agrees, you can include the unit in question without altering your list. Your opponent then has the opportunity to ad an equal number of points to his/her list. This unit takes up your Lord of War slot on the FOC.

Same reasoning as the flyers, but as none of us own any super heavies/gmcs, it's been a moot point. Eventually, one of the Eldar players will buy a Wraithknight though, and it'll be on.

5: A player may only use the power dice from one psyker at a time for casting powers or for making dispel attempts. Dice from multiple psykers may never be combined for a single roll.

This does two things. One, it prevents a lot of the shenanigans the psychic phase currently allows. Two, it makes having a single psyker relevant against a psychic-heavy army - the single psyker still has a reasonable chance of being able to cast powers.