Spring FAQ is out and it's bad news

[Bremon]

My problem with this whole thing is that you guys are conjuring up this boogeyman of an opponent and using that to explain/justify why you need this and why you need that. On one hand you say "well, the boogeyman has 150+ infantry models and then he can just expand up the board and block off half of it...I need to DS turn 1!" and then a Stormraven is suggested and then you say "well the boogeyman can bunch up his models and prevent it from landing!" so which one is it? Is he expanding so you can't deep strike properly on Turn 2, or is he bunching up so you can't fit your Stormraven? And what are you doing on Turn 1...not shooting at the 150 infantry flooding the board?

a model on a 25mm base deployed within unit coherency controls 7 square inches of the board. 150 of said models control 1059 square inches of the board. An average deployment zone on a 6x4 table is 864 square inches. That’s calculating a 1” bubble around each model to keep them within 2” of each other. Adding 8” to the bubble of the front for deep strike denial adds another 576 square inches of denial into no man’s land, after thoroughly denying any foothold in their zone. Add a first turn or moving, and you can see how, because they have overwhelming manpower in their own zone they can easily move into no man’s land, and still deny a storm raven enough room for its base. For these players the question isn’t “should I hold more ground or deny room for large bases between my units?” It’s “why not both?” As stupid as this sounds, it’s worth saying; the boogeyman is real. The worst part is for many armies those 150 models are quite a bit less than half the points in their list. Then to top it off, against AM if you are killing the chaff you are getting smashed on by tanks that shoot twice. If you play against nids almost all these things are fearless for an amount of time. You play chaos and all sorts of garbage can happen, like feel no pain or regenerating models. Obviously the 150 models get shot at first turn, but with a solid chunk of our army in reserve we aren’t winning any shooting battles. If the solution is to take more shooting then we’ve already lost; we can’t out-gun a large amount of armies. The crux of the issue with this is the real problem for elite armies in this game is that morale doesn’t clear out hordes like its meant to; there are too many ways to negate it. So instead of being able to focus fire and clear big holes for our goodies, we need to dump firepower into way more models than we should have to. Add on top of that, marine players are not given incentives to take vehicles because we are what, the only faction that doesn’t have Chapter tactics/army traits on our vehicles, while enemies get tanks that have better versions of Killshot, auspex scan, or can shoot twice, and I’m sure even you can see that there are problems with marines and that people are correct to feel slighted when one of the only sharp tools in our shed is dulled a bit. I’m ecstatic for you that you don’t encounter anything like this and that the beta rules don’t have much of an effect on your play style or meta, but other people aren’t just whining pointing out how adversely effected they might be by the change. Telling people to adjust is more or less a smug “deal with it, bro” and just rings hollow when the suggested alternative isn’t really a fix.

[Deathwalker]

Just a thought for the old fart BA players.

Would a suggestion like giving all BA vehicles Lucifer pattern engines (Baal pred equivalent) as standard rather than a once per turn stratagem sole some of our perceived problems?

Or Automatic black rage back in the day when you moved D6 inches towards the closest enemy before movement?

[Bremon]

Just a thought for the old fart BA players.

Would a suggestion like giving all BA vehicles Lucifer pattern engines (Baal pred equivalent) as standard rather than a once per turn stratagem sole some of our perceived problems?

Or Automatic black rage back in the day when you moved D6 inches towards the closest enemy before movement?

Overcharged engines would be pretty cool for our transports. Especially since it does very little for our (overpriced) Baal Predators since our tanks don’t run assault weapons.

[MeltaRange]

Seems I've worn out my welcome, which is fair.  Looks like I'm basically the only voice in here arguing this, so I see how it appears that I'm trolling.  I'll leave you with this:

• I'm happy about the changes because I'm thinking about how they affect the game as a whole, not just in the context of BA Jump Troops.
  
• I feel for you if you're not happy about it, but just remember that there are a lot of armies out there where YOU are/were their "boogeyman"
  
• These are beta rules, so perhaps with your good feedback we'll find a middle ground that's best for everyone.  In the meantime, I encourage you to try some other things and see how they go.
  

[Deathwalker]

 

My problem with this whole thing is that you guys are conjuring up this boogeyman of an opponent and using that to explain/justify why you need this and why you need that. On one hand you say "well, the boogeyman has 150+ infantry models and then he can just expand up the board and block off half of it...I need to DS turn 1!" and then a Stormraven is suggested and then you say "well the boogeyman can bunch up his models and prevent it from landing!" so which one is it? Is he expanding so you can't deep strike properly on Turn 2, or is he bunching up so you can't fit your Stormraven? And what are you doing on Turn 1...not shooting at the 150 infantry flooding the board?

The boogie man is a regular opponent of mine. He can bring flyers, tons of bodies, tons of tanks. Before he had to set up and at least plan for a possible deep strike turn one. Now? LOL. He doesn't worry about anything.

 

And our gaming group is what I consider probably the vast majority of gamers are like: we play competitively, with armies we love, with no spammed unit lists, with a theme. We play to win, but we are not tournament players.

 

Tournament players and the cottage industry of event organizers etc. have warped the game. They should just have tournament rules, and regular rules.

 

 

I disagree.

By using the notion of a "living rulebook", you absolutely need the gaming wonks to "break" the rules as hard as possible, not to dominate a tournament, but to provide real feedback about where the rules go seriously wrong. Not playing cheese is not a rules issue, it's a player issue, and no game can cater for specific players. Playing cheese points out to GW exactly where they went wrong, but as always GW uses a thunderhammer when they should be using a combat knife. X is not broken, X + Y is broken, you cut out the Y, and X is no longer broken.

People trying to "break" the rules are the best at providing that kind of feedback.

[Deathwalker]

 

Just a thought for the old fart BA players.

Would a suggestion like giving all BA vehicles Lucifer pattern engines (Baal pred equivalent) as standard rather than a once per turn stratagem sole some of our perceived problems?

Or Automatic black rage back in the day when you moved D6 inches towards the closest enemy before movement?

Overcharged engines would be pretty cool for our transports. Especially since it does very little for our (overpriced) Baal Predators since our tanks don’t run assault weapons.

 

 

We can run an all flamer Ball pred, so you can do it. I use all flamer baal preds and use the Baal pred standard turrets on my razorbacks.

[Chaplain Gunzhard]

<p>

 

Seems I've worn out my welcome, which is fair. Looks like I'm basically the only voice in here arguing this, so I see how it appears that I'm trolling. I'll leave you with this:

• I'm happy about the changes because I'm thinking about how they affect the game as a whole, not just in the context of BA Jump Troops.
• I feel for you if you're not happy about it, but just remember that there are a lot of armies out there where YOU are/were their "boogeyman"
• These are beta rules, so perhaps with your good feedback we'll find a middle ground that's best for everyone. In the meantime, I encourage you to try some other things and see how they go.

Why you keep coming up short - The Blood Angels weren't anybody's boogieman, except perhaps a new player who could say the same about any opponent. Soup with alpha strike elements (often containing BA) may have been the boogieman but that's not what folks here are most interested in.

 

Data just doesn't support your claims.

[Deathwalker]

 

Seems I've worn out my welcome, which is fair.  Looks like I'm basically the only voice in here arguing this, so I see how it appears that I'm trolling.  I'll leave you with this:

• I'm happy about the changes because I'm thinking about how they affect the game as a whole, not just in the context of BA Jump Troops.
• I feel for you if you're not happy about it, but just remember that there are a lot of armies out there where YOU are/were their "boogeyman"
• These are beta rules, so perhaps with your good feedback we'll find a middle ground that's best for everyone.  In the meantime, I encourage you to try some other things and see how they go.

 

I don't think you are trolling, I just think you are failing to understand the core issues behind the gripes, and making the lamenters quip was really ill-advised.

Yes we still have options, you are right in that regard, what we are faced with is a nerf, on top of a nerf because of something BA players were not doing.

We want to hear the screams of people dying to chainswords in vengeance for Sanguinious, not methodically drop in 9 inches away and blast you with plasma fire because it's in range of double tapping you with plasma guns.

BA are collateral damage here, and quite frankly there is a bit of black rage floating about because of that.

[Dont-Be-Haten]

If I came across that way it was not my intention. I was simply stating my experience so far, and feel that they do not align with your remarks. I have been moving towards imperial knights since the change, but I'm really hoping for more from them with the codex. nothing is worse than losing 2 24 wound models turn 1 accounting for >60% of your army. But I digress. At least now I have a turn before DS takes them out.

[brother_b]

 

 

My problem with this whole thing is that you guys are conjuring up this boogeyman of an opponent and using that to explain/justify why you need this and why you need that. On one hand you say "well, the boogeyman has 150+ infantry models and then he can just expand up the board and block off half of it...I need to DS turn 1!" and then a Stormraven is suggested and then you say "well the boogeyman can bunch up his models and prevent it from landing!" so which one is it? Is he expanding so you can't deep strike properly on Turn 2, or is he bunching up so you can't fit your Stormraven? And what are you doing on Turn 1...not shooting at the 150 infantry flooding the board?

The boogie man is a regular opponent of mine. He can bring flyers, tons of bodies, tons of tanks. Before he had to set up and at least plan for a possible deep strike turn one. Now? LOL. He doesn't worry about anything.

 

And our gaming group is what I consider probably the vast majority of gamers are like: we play competitively, with armies we love, with no spammed unit lists, with a theme. We play to win, but we are not tournament players.

 

Tournament players and the cottage industry of event organizers etc. have warped the game. They should just have tournament rules, and regular rules.

 

 

I disagree.

By using the notion of a "living rulebook", you absolutely need the gaming wonks to "break" the rules as hard as possible, not to dominate a tournament, but to provide real feedback about where the rules go seriously wrong. Not playing cheese is not a rules issue, it's a player issue, and no game can cater for specific players. Playing cheese points out to GW exactly where they went wrong, but as always GW uses a thunderhammer when they should be using a combat knife. X is not broken, X + Y is broken, you cut out the Y, and X is no longer broken.

People trying to "break" the rules are the best at providing that kind of feedback.

 

 

I think we do agree with each other.

 

You put it perfectly, they use a thunderhammer where they should be more surgical. And unfortunately the thunderhammer approach bones the regular player, because they take their feedback from the "tournament scene". 

 

Tournament lists are a great way to break the game, because these lists are designed to break the game and take advantage of poorly written rules. I mean, come on, if someone showed up to the local gaming group with 6 flyrants, or 6 storm ravens + dante, I'm pretty sure they would not have had many opportunities to play. At tournaments, though, it's de rigueur to come in with a WAAC list that's been developed for the tournament.

 

So with that in mind why do the sweeping changes look so poorly thought out? And BETA rules these are not, they'll be incorporated into every "tournament", and therefore will find their way into regular games as well.

 

So yeah, the game is being broken and then thunderhammered. That's why it negatively affects us a players. Great post, and I hope our feedback changes the BETA rules to more reflect the majority of gamers experience.

[Bremon]

 

 

 

Just a thought for the old fart BA players.

Would a suggestion like giving all BA vehicles Lucifer pattern engines (Baal pred equivalent) as standard rather than a once per turn stratagem sole some of our perceived problems?

Or Automatic black rage back in the day when you moved D6 inches towards the closest enemy before movement?

Overcharged engines would be pretty cool for our transports. Especially since it does very little for our (overpriced) Baal Predators since our tanks don’t run assault weapons.

We can run an all flamer Ball pred, so you can do it. I use all flamer baal preds and use the Baal pred standard turrets on my razorbacks.

Am I missing something about Baal Pred Flamestorm and Heavy Flamer that makes them assault weapons on Baal Preds? Otherwise I don’t see synergy with OC engines or Lucifer Strat outside of advancing and popping smoke and crossing fingers.

[Deathwalker]

 

 

 

My problem with this whole thing is that you guys are conjuring up this boogeyman of an opponent and using that to explain/justify why you need this and why you need that. On one hand you say "well, the boogeyman has 150+ infantry models and then he can just expand up the board and block off half of it...I need to DS turn 1!" and then a Stormraven is suggested and then you say "well the boogeyman can bunch up his models and prevent it from landing!" so which one is it? Is he expanding so you can't deep strike properly on Turn 2, or is he bunching up so you can't fit your Stormraven? And what are you doing on Turn 1...not shooting at the 150 infantry flooding the board?

The boogie man is a regular opponent of mine. He can bring flyers, tons of bodies, tons of tanks. Before he had to set up and at least plan for a possible deep strike turn one. Now? LOL. He doesn't worry about anything.

 

And our gaming group is what I consider probably the vast majority of gamers are like: we play competitively, with armies we love, with no spammed unit lists, with a theme. We play to win, but we are not tournament players.

 

Tournament players and the cottage industry of event organizers etc. have warped the game. They should just have tournament rules, and regular rules.

 

 

I disagree.

By using the notion of a "living rulebook", you absolutely need the gaming wonks to "break" the rules as hard as possible, not to dominate a tournament, but to provide real feedback about where the rules go seriously wrong. Not playing cheese is not a rules issue, it's a player issue, and no game can cater for specific players. Playing cheese points out to GW exactly where they went wrong, but as always GW uses a thunderhammer when they should be using a combat knife. X is not broken, X + Y is broken, you cut out the Y, and X is no longer broken.

People trying to "break" the rules are the best at providing that kind of feedback.

 

 

I think we do agree with each other.

 

You put it perfectly, they use a thunderhammer where they should be more surgical. And unfortunately the thunderhammer approach bones the regular player, because they take their feedback from the "tournament scene". 

 

Tournament lists are a great way to break the game, because these lists are designed to break the game and take advantage of poorly written rules. I mean, come on, if someone showed up to the local gaming group with 6 flyrants, or 6 storm ravens + dante, I'm pretty sure they would not have had many opportunities to play. At tournaments, though, it's de rigueur to come in with a WAAC list that's been developed for the tournament.

 

So with that in mind why do the sweeping changes look so poorly thought out? And BETA rules these are not, they'll be incorporated into every "tournament", and therefore will find their way into regular games as well.

 

So yeah, the game is being broken and then thunderhammered. That's why it negatively affects us a players. Great post, and I hope our feedback changes the BETA rules to more reflect the majority of gamers experience.

 

 

 

 

 

Just a thought for the old fart BA players.

Would a suggestion like giving all BA vehicles Lucifer pattern engines (Baal pred equivalent) as standard rather than a once per turn stratagem sole some of our perceived problems?

Or Automatic black rage back in the day when you moved D6 inches towards the closest enemy before movement?

Overcharged engines would be pretty cool for our transports. Especially since it does very little for our (overpriced) Baal Predators since our tanks don’t run assault weapons.

We can run an all flamer Ball pred, so you can do it. I use all flamer baal preds and use the Baal pred standard turrets on my razorbacks.

Am I missing something about Baal Pred Flamestorm and Heavy Flamer that makes them assault weapons on Baal Preds? Otherwise I don’t see synergy with OC engines or Lucifer Strat outside of advancing and popping smoke and crossing fingers.

 

 

Standard move, +6 +D6 from Lucifer generally puts you into auto-hit range from a baal flamer tank. It's not technically an Assault weapon according to rules, but it might as well be.

I should have been clearer.

[Bremon]

Ah, gotcha Deathwalker. Realistically Lucifer engines are another reason we need a codex FAQ. It’s one of several areas where people disagree on RAW, vs RAI. Lucifer pattern engines especially is written like a mess.

[Panzer]

 

 

 

 

Just a thought for the old fart BA players.

Would a suggestion like giving all BA vehicles Lucifer pattern engines (Baal pred equivalent) as standard rather than a once per turn stratagem sole some of our perceived problems?

Or Automatic black rage back in the day when you moved D6 inches towards the closest enemy before movement?

Overcharged engines would be pretty cool for our transports. Especially since it does very little for our (overpriced) Baal Predators since our tanks don’t run assault weapons.

We can run an all flamer Ball pred, so you can do it. I use all flamer baal preds and use the Baal pred standard turrets on my razorbacks.

Am I missing something about Baal Pred Flamestorm and Heavy Flamer that makes them assault weapons on Baal Preds? Otherwise I don’t see synergy with OC engines or Lucifer Strat outside of advancing and popping smoke and crossing fingers.

 

 

Standard move, +6 +D6 from Lucifer generally puts you into auto-hit range from a baal flamer tank. It's not technically an Assault weapon according to rules, but it might as well be.

I should have been clearer.

 

 

Yeah but the Stratagem requires you to advance so you can't shoot the Heavy Flamers or Flamestorm Cannon the turn you use the Stratagem either. "Before Advancing" implies that there has to be some advancing to be done after using the Stratagem.

[Deathwalker]

 

 

 

My problem with this whole thing is that you guys are conjuring up this boogeyman of an opponent and using that to explain/justify why you need this and why you need that. On one hand you say "well, the boogeyman has 150+ infantry models and then he can just expand up the board and block off half of it...I need to DS turn 1!" and then a Stormraven is suggested and then you say "well the boogeyman can bunch up his models and prevent it from landing!" so which one is it? Is he expanding so you can't deep strike properly on Turn 2, or is he bunching up so you can't fit your Stormraven? And what are you doing on Turn 1...not shooting at the 150 infantry flooding the board?

The boogie man is a regular opponent of mine. He can bring flyers, tons of bodies, tons of tanks. Before he had to set up and at least plan for a possible deep strike turn one. Now? LOL. He doesn't worry about anything.

 

And our gaming group is what I consider probably the vast majority of gamers are like: we play competitively, with armies we love, with no spammed unit lists, with a theme. We play to win, but we are not tournament players.

 

Tournament players and the cottage industry of event organizers etc. have warped the game. They should just have tournament rules, and regular rules.

 

 

I disagree.

By using the notion of a "living rulebook", you absolutely need the gaming wonks to "break" the rules as hard as possible, not to dominate a tournament, but to provide real feedback about where the rules go seriously wrong. Not playing cheese is not a rules issue, it's a player issue, and no game can cater for specific players. Playing cheese points out to GW exactly where they went wrong, but as always GW uses a thunderhammer when they should be using a combat knife. X is not broken, X + Y is broken, you cut out the Y, and X is no longer broken.

People trying to "break" the rules are the best at providing that kind of feedback.

 

 

I think we do agree with each other.

 

You put it perfectly, they use a thunderhammer where they should be more surgical. And unfortunately the thunderhammer approach bones the regular player, because they take their feedback from the "tournament scene". 

 

Tournament lists are a great way to break the game, because these lists are designed to break the game and take advantage of poorly written rules. I mean, come on, if someone showed up to the local gaming group with 6 flyrants, or 6 storm ravens + dante, I'm pretty sure they would not have had many opportunities to play. At tournaments, though, it's de rigueur to come in with a WAAC list that's been developed for the tournament.

 

So with that in mind why do the sweeping changes look so poorly thought out? And BETA rules these are not, they'll be incorporated into every "tournament", and therefore will find their way into regular games as well.

 

So yeah, the game is being broken and then thunderhammered. That's why it negatively affects us a players. Great post, and I hope our feedback changes the BETA rules to more reflect the majority of gamers experience.

 

 

Actually, we really don't agree.

 

Someone CAN show up at your FLGS and smash you stupid with flyrant lists and without the exposure of a tournament scene, well sucks to be you at your FLGS because that change will NEVER happen, that will always be legal. People not wanting to play against that person DOES NOT CHANGE THE RULES, it just hides a problem.

 

What we DO agree on is that the rules get poorly written, without enough oversight or playtesting,

So, you look to the competative side that micro manages and squeaks every last point out of a list to provide that playtesting BECAUSE they are trying to break things. Friendly games simply don't challenge the rules in the way competitions do, and if you never see what is broken, it will never be fixed..

I hear what you are saying Brother B, I'm not hat'in on what you have said, it's just that there is a fundamental difference on who's voices get heard, and WHY they are heard.

Put another way

Would you trust the advice of a practicing lawyer, or a casual law student? 

[Deathwalker]

 

 

 

 

 

Just a thought for the old fart BA players.

Would a suggestion like giving all BA vehicles Lucifer pattern engines (Baal pred equivalent) as standard rather than a once per turn stratagem sole some of our perceived problems?

Or Automatic black rage back in the day when you moved D6 inches towards the closest enemy before movement?

Overcharged engines would be pretty cool for our transports. Especially since it does very little for our (overpriced) Baal Predators since our tanks don’t run assault weapons.

We can run an all flamer Ball pred, so you can do it. I use all flamer baal preds and use the Baal pred standard turrets on my razorbacks.

Am I missing something about Baal Pred Flamestorm and Heavy Flamer that makes them assault weapons on Baal Preds? Otherwise I don’t see synergy with OC engines or Lucifer Strat outside of advancing and popping smoke and crossing fingers.

 

 

Standard move, +6 +D6 from Lucifer generally puts you into auto-hit range from a baal flamer tank. It's not technically an Assault weapon according to rules, but it might as well be.

I should have been clearer.

 

 

Yeah but the Stratagem requires you to advance so you can't shoot the Heavy Flamers or Flamestorm Cannon the turn you use the Stratagem either. "Before Advancing" implies that there has to be some advancing to be done after using the Stratagem.

 

Well, don't I now feel sheepish for screwing up royally, I honestly thought flamers were assault weapons.

BAD DEATHWALKER BAD!!

[Panzer]

Flamer are ... Heavy Flamer and Flamestorm Cannons are not. :P

If they were Assault weapons the Baal Pred would probably one of my favorite units in the codex lol

[Bremon]

Seriously; if overcharged engines meant “treat all weapons as assault weapons when advancing” instead of “roll 2 dice, discard the lowest” I’d be gleeful.

[Deathwalker]

Flamer are ... Heavy Flamer and Flamestorm Cannons are not.

If they were Assault weapons the Baal Pred would probably one of my favorite units in the codex lol

FINE!!!

I want Baal preds with Twin linked frag cannons and frag cannon sponsons!!!!

:P

Please tell me it's not just me who thinks that the 9" DS exclusion bubble was not thought of with 8" range of flamers in mind.

[Deathwalker]

 

 

 

 

 

Just a thought for the old fart BA players.

Would a suggestion like giving all BA vehicles Lucifer pattern engines (Baal pred equivalent) as standard rather than a once per turn stratagem sole some of our perceived problems?

Or Automatic black rage back in the day when you moved D6 inches towards the closest enemy before movement?

Overcharged engines would be pretty cool for our transports. Especially since it does very little for our (overpriced) Baal Predators since our tanks don’t run assault weapons.

We can run an all flamer Ball pred, so you can do it. I use all flamer baal preds and use the Baal pred standard turrets on my razorbacks.

Am I missing something about Baal Pred Flamestorm and Heavy Flamer that makes them assault weapons on Baal Preds? Otherwise I don’t see synergy with OC engines or Lucifer Strat outside of advancing and popping smoke and crossing fingers.

 

 

Standard move, +6 +D6 from Lucifer generally puts you into auto-hit range from a baal flamer tank. It's not technically an Assault weapon according to rules, but it might as well be.

I should have been clearer.

 

 

Yeah but the Stratagem requires you to advance so you can't shoot the Heavy Flamers or Flamestorm Cannon the turn you use the Stratagem either. "Before Advancing" implies that there has to be some advancing to be done after using the Stratagem.

 

Thought about this for a few minutes, and I wonder if the result of your view of the wording is actually right.

Movement is broken down in to movement, and all it's penalties, and advancing, and all it's penalties.

You add the word Phase to "before advancing" and you shift lucifer engines into the movement part of the phase. Before Advancing does not have to mean that you must do something, it implies before you can do something.

I'm not sold on this argument, but given the ruling on AWoF being usable in first turn as it is a "separate phase" in the sequence, I wonder if that was the intent??

[Bremon]

This is why we need an FAQ for our codex Deathwalker.

 

I’ve seen the following arguments for LPE:

1) it replaces the Advance and counts as an Advance.

2) it replaces the Advance, but doesn’t count as an Advance.

3) it is an additional move, not an Advance, and you can still advance in addition to the Strat.

 

To my mind it’s intended to be #1. Up to this point I just haven’t used it, but if I do I’ll treat it as #1. Can just pop smoke anyway.

[Deathwalker]

This is why we need an FAQ for our codex Deathwalker.

 

I’ve seen the following arguments for LPE:

1) it replaces the Advance and counts as an Advance.

2) it replaces the Advance, but doesn’t count as an Advance.

3) it is an additional move, not an Advance, and you can still advance in addition to the Strat.

 

To my mind it’s intended to be #1. Up to this point I just haven’t used it, but if I do I’ll treat it as #1. Can just pop smoke anyway.

I wholeheartedly agree we need a FAQ Bremon, but not just for BA, but the whole turn sequencing. So much stuff is now about at what point in time in the phase X happens and how it impacts on something else (or doesn't).

In the laudable goal to have an easy rules system, GW has boned the basics by using poor language to express the rules, hence needing FAQ after FAQ on the basics.

Is it offensive to say to a UK company to learn English?

[BluejayJunior]

 

 

 

My problem with this whole thing is that you guys are conjuring up this boogeyman of an opponent and using that to explain/justify why you need this and why you need that. On one hand you say "well, the boogeyman has 150+ infantry models and then he can just expand up the board and block off half of it...I need to DS turn 1!" and then a Stormraven is suggested and then you say "well the boogeyman can bunch up his models and prevent it from landing!" so which one is it? Is he expanding so you can't deep strike properly on Turn 2, or is he bunching up so you can't fit your Stormraven? And what are you doing on Turn 1...not shooting at the 150 infantry flooding the board?

The boogie man is a regular opponent of mine. He can bring flyers, tons of bodies, tons of tanks. Before he had to set up and at least plan for a possible deep strike turn one. Now? LOL. He doesn't worry about anything.

 

And our gaming group is what I consider probably the vast majority of gamers are like: we play competitively, with armies we love, with no spammed unit lists, with a theme. We play to win, but we are not tournament players.

 

Tournament players and the cottage industry of event organizers etc. have warped the game. They should just have tournament rules, and regular rules.

 

 

I disagree.

By using the notion of a "living rulebook", you absolutely need the gaming wonks to "break" the rules as hard as possible, not to dominate a tournament, but to provide real feedback about where the rules go seriously wrong. Not playing cheese is not a rules issue, it's a player issue, and no game can cater for specific players. Playing cheese points out to GW exactly where they went wrong, but as always GW uses a thunderhammer when they should be using a combat knife. X is not broken, X + Y is broken, you cut out the Y, and X is no longer broken.

People trying to "break" the rules are the best at providing that kind of feedback.

 

 

I think we do agree with each other.

 

You put it perfectly, they use a thunderhammer where they should be more surgical. And unfortunately the thunderhammer approach bones the regular player, because they take their feedback from the "tournament scene". 

 

Tournament lists are a great way to break the game, because these lists are designed to break the game and take advantage of poorly written rules. I mean, come on, if someone showed up to the local gaming group with 6 flyrants, or 6 storm ravens + dante, I'm pretty sure they would not have had many opportunities to play. At tournaments, though, it's de rigueur to come in with a WAAC list that's been developed for the tournament.

 

So with that in mind why do the sweeping changes look so poorly thought out? And BETA rules these are not, they'll be incorporated into every "tournament", and therefore will find their way into regular games as well.

 

So yeah, the game is being broken and then thunderhammered. That's why it negatively affects us a players. Great post, and I hope our feedback changes the BETA rules to more reflect the majority of gamers experience.

 

You mentioned there should be tournament rules and non-tournament rules and regular rules, but they do somewhat already exist (or at least that is the intent). Open/Narrative vs. Matched Play. The problem I think comes from GW underestimating the number of people that use Matched Play for more casual games. All of my casual games have been Matched Play. I think they assume that most pick up games are using Open Play rules, so changing the Matched Play rules won't have an effect on those games. When in actuallity, it does. Matched Play strives much more to be balanced than Open Play, and prepares players for tournaments and events, so it sees much more play time. Unless you have a good group to set up an expectation of "we're using open play, but adding these matched play rules to keep things more balanced", Matched Play will always be used more because it gives people more of an idea of what to expect. 

[Paladin777]

Not only that, using points vs power levels has been a thing for 30 years. That kind of legacy is not going to be readily supplanted.

[brother_b]

 

 

Actually, we really don't agree.

 

Someone CAN show up at your FLGS and smash you stupid with flyrant lists and without the exposure of a tournament scene, well sucks to be you at your FLGS because that change will NEVER happen, that will always be legal. People not wanting to play against that person DOES NOT CHANGE THE RULES, it just hides a problem.

 

What we DO agree on is that the rules get poorly written, without enough oversight or playtesting,

So, you look to the competative side that micro manages and squeaks every last point out of a list to provide that playtesting BECAUSE they are trying to break things. Friendly games simply don't challenge the rules in the way competitions do, and if you never see what is broken, it will never be fixed..

I hear what you are saying Brother B, I'm not hat'in on what you have said, it's just that there is a fundamental difference on who's voices get heard, and WHY they are heard.

Put another way

Would you trust the advice of a practicing lawyer, or a casual law student? 

 

 

I get where you're coming from now, and I think our desired end-result is the same: a well balanced game for everybody.

 

 

 

 

 

My problem with this whole thing is that you guys are conjuring up this boogeyman of an opponent and using that to explain/justify why you need this and why you need that. On one hand you say "well, the boogeyman has 150+ infantry models and then he can just expand up the board and block off half of it...I need to DS turn 1!" and then a Stormraven is suggested and then you say "well the boogeyman can bunch up his models and prevent it from landing!" so which one is it? Is he expanding so you can't deep strike properly on Turn 2, or is he bunching up so you can't fit your Stormraven? And what are you doing on Turn 1...not shooting at the 150 infantry flooding the board?

The boogie man is a regular opponent of mine. He can bring flyers, tons of bodies, tons of tanks. Before he had to set up and at least plan for a possible deep strike turn one. Now? LOL. He doesn't worry about anything.

 

And our gaming group is what I consider probably the vast majority of gamers are like: we play competitively, with armies we love, with no spammed unit lists, with a theme. We play to win, but we are not tournament players.

 

Tournament players and the cottage industry of event organizers etc. have warped the game. They should just have tournament rules, and regular rules.

 

 

I disagree.

By using the notion of a "living rulebook", you absolutely need the gaming wonks to "break" the rules as hard as possible, not to dominate a tournament, but to provide real feedback about where the rules go seriously wrong. Not playing cheese is not a rules issue, it's a player issue, and no game can cater for specific players. Playing cheese points out to GW exactly where they went wrong, but as always GW uses a thunderhammer when they should be using a combat knife. X is not broken, X + Y is broken, you cut out the Y, and X is no longer broken.

People trying to "break" the rules are the best at providing that kind of feedback.

 

 

I think we do agree with each other.

 

You put it perfectly, they use a thunderhammer where they should be more surgical. And unfortunately the thunderhammer approach bones the regular player, because they take their feedback from the "tournament scene". 

 

Tournament lists are a great way to break the game, because these lists are designed to break the game and take advantage of poorly written rules. I mean, come on, if someone showed up to the local gaming group with 6 flyrants, or 6 storm ravens + dante, I'm pretty sure they would not have had many opportunities to play. At tournaments, though, it's de rigueur to come in with a WAAC list that's been developed for the tournament.

 

So with that in mind why do the sweeping changes look so poorly thought out? And BETA rules these are not, they'll be incorporated into every "tournament", and therefore will find their way into regular games as well.

 

So yeah, the game is being broken and then thunderhammered. That's why it negatively affects us a players. Great post, and I hope our feedback changes the BETA rules to more reflect the majority of gamers experience.

 

You mentioned there should be tournament rules and non-tournament rules and regular rules, but they do somewhat already exist (or at least that is the intent). Open/Narrative vs. Matched Play. The problem I think comes from GW underestimating the number of people that use Matched Play for more casual games. All of my casual games have been Matched Play. I think they assume that most pick up games are using Open Play rules, so changing the Matched Play rules won't have an effect on those games. When in actuallity, it does. Matched Play strives much more to be balanced than Open Play, and prepares players for tournaments and events, so it sees much more play time. Unless you have a good group to set up an expectation of "we're using open play, but adding these matched play rules to keep things more balanced", Matched Play will always be used more because it gives people more of an idea of what to expect. 

 

 

Yeah, I think you've got it right there. Whenever we play amongst our group we use PL. Whenever we play against pick-up games we use points because it's a standard that everybody can adhere too. I have yet to play "open/narrative" as a pick up game. In fact, we played one narrative game for the beginning of our campaign and it was still PL based.

 

I guess the bottom line for me is that tournament gamers are deciding the fate of the game as a whole, and I'm not sure it's helping ​ALL​ gamers. Because even though Deathwalker pointed out that the 6 flyrant local game player may crush all his opponents, and the actual poor design will never get fixed at that level, at least it will be a self-correcting issue in the long run.

 

Nobody will play with that guy until he tones down his list.