So you dislike Unbound?

[boreas]

GML: you are wrong... You're idea of WH40k is competitive. But not GW's. And this directly from people at GW (my best friend is working on Eternal Crusade and communicates directly with people at GW on a weekly basis). They want WH40k to be some interactive-cooperative-fluff-driven-battle-game.

[DinoDoc]

FFG did that better than them then.

[Gentlemanloser]

 

GML: you are wrong... You're idea of WH40k is competitive. But not GW's. And this directly from people at GW (my best friend is working on Eternal Crusade and communicates directly with people at GW on a weekly basis). They want WH40k to be some interactive-cooperative-fluff-driven-battle-game.

 

:)

 

GW might think I'm wrong, but they are sadly mistaken. ;)

[boreas]

I bow to your wisdom ;)

[Reclusiarch Darius]

I was gonna do another long-form response post, but GML (in rare form :P) is actually doing the Emperor's work for me. 

 

Suffice to say, Thade I echo GML's sentiments about 'do things your way, all power to you, but that's not the actual game most people play'. If people wanna do roleplay (where the GM and players work together to have fun, and its much more abstract and random), FFG has done an amazing job with a bunch of 40k RPG's (Deathwatch in particular is fun as hell, I recommend it even to complete newbies). 

 

40k is at it's heart a skirmish game, which functions best between 1500 and 3000 points. Once you get larger than 3k, 40k breaks down a lot as a game, a lot of its mechanics fail to function because at that point people are ignoring so much meta is absurd (hence Apoc is usually narrative-based with themed scenarios, and is less about victory and more about hilarity and insane things happening constantly). Below 1500, and the absurd codex imbalances become too prominent to ignore or mitigate effectively. 1850 is kinda the sweet spot for the game, IMO. 

 

So, for people trying to play 40k non-competitively, please try something else. Not only is an RPG or maybe a vidya gaem more suitable, its probably more fun (for that purpose). 40k the tabletop game is about throwing down with an army you like, and seeing if you can beat your opponent. Maybe its about objectives, maybe its about just killing, maybe something else. But victory is first and foremost in everyone's mind during a match, and pretending otherwise is ludicrous. Worse, it sends the wrong message to newcomers, who will never learn how to be a better general. 

[Happy-inquisitor]

So the reason I have been thinking so hard about what is competitive play is that I have been helping with a schools league team.

 

When they played in the qualifier or are having a practice match they fit every definition of competitive, they take the list that they think can win and focus on VP. After the game they want post-match analysis of how to do better in the next one. All very familiar from my chess playing at a similar age.

 

Then on the weekend they had a big casual session, suddenly out came the land raiders and super-expensive characters that they love. Sometimes in casual games I have seen them declare unofficial objectives that they care about more than the VP - "kill papa smurf" was one that lasted a few games. They are still playing the game, still trying to achieve objectives on the table, just kicking back and having fun whilst doing it.

 

The thing about a competitive game is that it is both a game and a competitive activity - and the players can choose for themselves what the balance is depending on the circumstances and their mood. If you try to eliminate either aspect I do not think it really works but there is a wide range between those extremes where 40k functions pretty well.

[Reclusiarch Darius]

So the reason I have been thinking so hard about what is competitive play is that I have been helping with a schools league team.
 

When they played in the qualifier or are having a practice match they fit every definition of competitive, they take the list that they think can win and focus on VP. After the game they want post-match analysis of how to do better in the next one. All very familiar from my chess playing at a similar age.

Then on the weekend they had a big casual session, suddenly out came the land raiders and super-expensive characters that they love. Sometimes in casual games I have seen them declare unofficial objectives that they care about more than the VP - "kill papa smurf" was one that lasted a few games. They are still playing the game, still trying to achieve objectives on the table, just kicking back and having fun whilst doing it. 

The thing about a competitive game is that it is both a game and a competitive activity - and the players can choose for themselves what the balance is depending on the circumstances and their mood. If you try to eliminate either aspect I do not think it really works but there is a wide range between those extremes where 40k functions pretty well. 

 

Yeah and that all sounds great dude. Thats precisely how to get people interested and committed to playing. And I'm definitely not suggesting my way is the only or best way. However, people will bust out power lists one day or another wherever you play, and you need to adjust if they do. It's getting to the point now where some xenos armies have no B list (barring something really obscure that most wouldn't have the models for...like I dunno Gun Drone spam or Guardian blobs etc). 

[Gentlemanloser]

I was gonna do another long-form response post, but GML (in rare form ) is actually doing the Emperor's work for me.

Only in death does duty end, brother. :)

Sometimes in casual games I have seen them declare unofficial objectives that they care about more than the VP - "kill papa smurf" was one that lasted a few games.

And that's a competitive objective. ;)

Heck, my group did the same. Towards the end of 5th, my opponents only had a single goal when they played me. "Kill the :cuss NDK".

That was it.

But they competed their hardest to do so!

[Reclusiarch Darius]

Only in death does duty end, brother.

Speaking of duty, has the Chief Librarian reported you fit for duty yet? I requested he instruct you to consult a key tome from our collection ;)

[Gentlemanloser]

The machine Spirit has been acting up.  Having to consult the chapters techmarines.

 

Sacred unguents and prayer have been applied.

[thade]

So, for people trying to play 40k non-competitively, please try something else.

This game works pretty well for me in precisely the way I've described, so...I'll stick around. You all don't get to kick me out of 40k, I'm sorry. <3

The fact that there's no end-state for a 40k match that doesn't come about from competition doesn't mean it's the only thing the game has to offer; the game gets worse and worse for fairly competitive play as it adds more and more power creep and more and more random tables to roll on. Eschewing some of this stuff (e.g. "Let's just pick powers and Warlord traits instead of rolling") alleviates the randomness but runs us headlong into the issue it's meant as a bandaid for: some powers are way better than others, and they should come with different point costs...but instead, you roll. Some games you're slightly more OP and you can't predict that. Or, you know, sometimes your opponent is fielding only teleporter-pack toting DKs.

How do we deal with this?

Raise your glasses and have a good laugh when your librarian goes down having tied up that Dreadknight for three turns in melee.

That's what the game is about for me.

[Gentlemanloser]

Hear, hear!

 

/salute

[thade]

haha I think that's as much of an accord as we're going to reach here. Thanks for sharing your perspectives and vetting mine. <3

[Reclusiarch Darius]

This game works pretty well for me in precisely the way I've described, so...I'll stick around. You all don't get to kick me out of 40k, I'm sorry. <3

Haha, like I said, power to you if you get enjoyment out of it. I would recommend playing the 40k RPG's out there anyway, regardless of how you 40k. They're fun as hell and the Rogue Trader one is especially hilarious depending on character choices.

The fact that there's no end-state for a 40k match that doesn't come about from competition doesn't mean it's the only thing the game has to offer; the game gets worse and worse for fairly competitive play as it adds more and more power creep and more and more random tables to roll on. Eschewing some of this stuff (e.g. "Let's just pick powers and Warlord traits instead of rolling") alleviates the randomness but runs us headlong into the issue it's meant as a bandaid for: some powers are way better than others, and they should come with different point costs...but instead, you roll. Some games you're slightly more OP and you can't predict that. Or, you know, sometimes your opponent is fielding only teleporter-pack toting DKs.

Warlord Traits shouldn't exist. Seriously. They often make absolutely no difference to a game, or they're game-breakingly good (Princeps of Deceit, lololol infiltrate 3 units for free). GW should've just made them either linked to characters, or linked to unique detachments. Cleaner design, and they can more easily put in taxes or meaningful drawbacks to mitigate the 'I always roll on Strategic' phenomenon.

Rolling randomly for Psychic powers is dumb as well. It removes all player agency and makes psykers an unreliable asset. Again, it also makes one Discipline amazing (Divination) and the others mediocre unless you can roll deep on the table, or have some way of re-rolling bad ones/choosing your powers. Bring back paying points for powers, and suddenly people have to make meaningful choices. Do I want 'Gate' for +30pts, or would I rather 'Cleansing Flame' for +10? Etc.

That's an example of what I mean by poor design that unbalances the game (and has nothing to do with mathematics per say). Loth would be a whole lot less obnoxious if A: he was properly costed and B: other psykers could choose their powers in a similar way. The reason he's broken is if you want a Biomancy or Telepathy psyker, he's better than Eldar or even Daemons at it.

How do we deal with this?

Raise your glasses and have a good laugh when your librarian goes down having tied up that Dreadknight for three turns in melee.

That's what the game is about for me.

>true story time intensifies

No joke, this was back in 5th edition. Destroyer Lord with usual gubbins kept charging my Dreadknight. Dreadknight would slap him down before he could swing. Start of Necron turn, he'd reanimate, move+charge me again. Never did a single wound to my DK, but kept me from charging anything else for 4 turns straight. I passed all but my last Mindshackle rolls as well. Last turn, Destroyer Lord shackles my DK and finally gets to swing at him...and promptly rolls 1's and 2's to hit. We both looked at the dice and lost it.

[Gentlemanloser]

Oh hell no.

Deathwatch is more unbalanced than 40k. Let's assume you don't allow any mortal psykers from Inquisitor into the game (as a single power makes everyone immortal), Librarians are just (like many other badly designed RPGs with Magic) head and Sholders above everyone else.

Dark Angels get a Shield that makes you immune to damage.

Space Wolves get two wolves that can kill anyone, anywhere at anytime.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

It's a shame, apart from that (and the solo/squad mode nonsense) it's not too bad.

Needs better healing though. Apothecaries don't cut it.

Rolling randomly for Psychic powers is dumb as well.

Nah mate, ranDUMB is F. U. N. FUN!!

GW sais so.

[thade]

To their credit, table top RPGs don't have nearly the issues with game balance that table-top wargames do: any GM worth their salt will just roll with it. Doesn't matter one lick how powerful each PC is as long as each PC gets their due and has moments to shine. (I.E. not every combat should be The Whole Party vs. One Target.)

 

But that's a bit out of bounds for us here, haha.

 

The random thing really bugs me, but it's easy to manage: just say "Hey, let's skip Warlord Traits this time, yea?" or "Let's pick them instead of rolling." Silly rolling.

[Reclusiarch Darius]

Oh hell no.

 

Deathwatch is more unbalanced than 40k.  Let's assume you don't allow any mortal psykers from Inquisitor into the game (as a single power makes everyone immortal), Librarians are just (like many other badly designed RPGs with Magic) head and Sholders above everyone else.

 

Dark Angels get a Shield that makes you immune to damage.

 

Space Wolves get two wolves that can kill anyone, anywhere at anytime.

 

And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

 

It's a shame, apart from that (and the solo/squad mode nonsense) it's not too bad.

 

Needs better healing though.  Apothecaries don't cut it.

 

Eh, a competent GM can up the ante though. Deathwatch has some really nasty opponents, including stuff that's not even part of mainstream xenos factions. But yeah, like any RPG you can make unkillable dudes haha. But it is the type of game that people do for fun and to build characters they like. The DA shield is kinda retarded though haha, I remember reading it and going 'well my dude is a DA character, but I'm not doing that because I want a challenge. Also, my headcanon is my Captain doesn't roll with a shield, he's all offense. So, plasma pistol, relic sword, combi-flamer'. 

 

Agreed about Apothecaries. I suppose the reason they make healing so weaksauce is to tone down Marines haha. Deathwatch are pretty strong, even in the setting (in Inquisitor they'd be broken as hell, Marines kinda are there and they're made a rare encounter for a reason). I do like the mission where you need to win over the natives by shedding your weapons and wargear, and hunt down a carnosaur with your bare hands haha. 

To their credit, table top RPGs don't have nearly the issues with game balance that table-top wargames do: any GM worth their salt will just roll with it. Doesn't matter one lick how powerful each PC is as long as each PC gets their due and has moments to shine. (I.E. not every combat should be The Whole Party vs. One Target.)

 

But that's a bit out of bounds for us here, haha.

 

The random thing really bugs me, but it's easy to manage: just say "Hey, let's skip Warlord Traits this time, yea?" or "Let's pick them instead of rolling." Silly rolling.

 

Yeah, and I suspect a lot of groups do that. However, if you can choose, people still just pick Princeps of Deceit haha. Free Infiltrate on anything is just flat out insane. I've faced Obliterators with it...not fun. 

[Quozzo]

I absolutely hate randumb and love that coined phrase. It's the equivalent of randomly rolling for wargear, but getting a heavy bolter in a squad of assault terminators. Randomly rolling for additive bonuses either makes them useless, or combining the right ones becomes overpowered. Psyker previously could only have and fire the number of powers equal to their mastery level, except Grey Knights. We could buy additional powers but still only fire two or three, which might be useless as you can't fire all of them if you bought more than one, or it could be useful depending on the situation. It was brilliant. The Blood Angels can now get a relic to roll again on the strategic table. it only costs 10 points for a warlord trait.

 

DW is unbalanced too. Librarians can fire avenger (a heavy flamer) without any repercussions, firing smite can do damage up to 20d10+19 depending if you push it and rank. I'm only rank 2 in a campaign and I'm rolling 80+ to hit and doing 20+ damage per hit, not including RF. All using the errated rules.

[Reclusiarch Darius]

DW is unbalanced too. Librarians can fire avenger (a heavy flamer) without any repercussions, firing smite can do damage up to 20d10+19 depending if you push it and rank. I'm only rank 2 in a campaign and I'm rolling 80+ to hit and doing 20+ damage per hit, not including RF. All using the errated rules.

 

Yeah Librarians are a big misstep. Without the drawbacks of 40k as sharply defined (any Perils can nuke you potentially), they get out of hand fast. It's why like a lot of stuff to with RPG's, you need good players and a good GM who will create a fun campaign. Breaking RPG's is actually easier than breaking 40k or other systems, I would say. 

I absolutely hate randumb and love that coined phrase. It's the equivalent of randomly rolling for wargear, but getting a heavy bolter in a squad of assault terminators. Randomly rolling for additive bonuses either makes them useless, or combining the right ones becomes overpowered. Psyker previously could only have and fire the number of powers equal to their mastery level, except Grey Knights. We could buy additional powers but still only fire two or three, which might be useless as you can't fire all of them if you bought more than one, or it could be useful depending on the situation. It was brilliant. The Blood Angels can now get a relic to roll again on the strategic table. it only costs 10 points for a warlord trait.

 

The other thing it let GW do was create army-specific powers that made sense and were relevant. Divination is just head and shoulders above other lores, its absurd. Also, forcing people to buy and commit to certain powers on a roster let both player and opponent have a clearer grasp of what to expect. Warlord traits and random psychic powers means both you and your opponent have largely no idea how it'll play out. It also means any psyker with fixed powers (like our army, or named characters) is instantly better, as they reliably have those powers available every game without fail. 

[Gentlemanloser]

Have you guys seen (I think this is the name) Mend Wounds from Inquisitor?

 

If you include a mortal psyker in a DW game (and built correctly no Psyker in the PRGs fear Perils), then every turn, they can heal you.  Regardless of the restirtion about only healing damage once (which is an artificially imposed burden).

 

5th Edition DnD made a nice step towards non-cleric sterotyping for healing by giving all classes personal healing based on thier hit dice.

 

SM should have had something similar.  A function of one of the gene enchanced super organs, or something. ;)

 

 

 

To their credit, table top RPGs don't have nearly the issues with game balance that table-top wargames do: any GM worth their salt will just roll with it. Doesn't matter one lick how powerful each PC is as long as each PC gets their due and has moments to shine. (I.E. not every combat should be The Whole Party vs. One Target.)

 

Totally.

 

But there's a massive problem with no resouce 'magic'.  When the Wizard gets powerful enough to drop room annihalting bombs, every turn, without fail, theat melt everything.

 

Then no one else can shine.

 

If the Wizard can also bypass social challenges, sneak, heal, etc, and can do everything (like 3.5 edition Wizards/Druids/Clerics) then not only do no one else shine, but no one else is even necessary.

 

It sucks to be reduced to nothing more than comic relief in games. ;)

 

I used to *love* an RPG called SLA Industries.  Loved the setting, everything about it.

 

It quickly became apparant that the mechanics were shot to hell though.  And the 'wizards' were not only better at everything, but had the only viable XP progress to everyone else (you could only increase stats and skills.  Once you were full on those, and that wasn't hard, you had nothing else.  While the Ebons/Brain Wasters had 20 odd magical abilities with 20 levels each.  Oh and could 'evolve' into uber powerful Necanthropes.).

 

Combat was weird, as wepaons had an Armour Penetration and Damage Value.  AP lowered opponents armour, and damage did damage.

 

Problem was an AP10 / Damage 10 weapon was *always* worse than a Damage 20 weapon.

 

Say you faced an armour of 5.  The first weapon removd that and did 10 damage.  The second did 15.

 

If you faced an armour of 15, the first wepaon did 5 damage, the second weapon did 5 damage.

 

As long as you had the Damage, AP was pointless.

 

/sigh

 

Sorry for the rank.  Loved that game.  But it was so flawed mechanically.

 

Oh, just like 40k? ;)

[Quozzo]

Lol. I was about to ask if you were talking about the AP in DW as that is exactly how it works except the Penetration of weapons is far less than the damge so it is largely ignored. Then i seen your last line.