Spring FAQ is out and it's bad news

[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.

 

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. 

 

Outside of learning games in GW stores, I know of no-one who engages in open play, and few who favour matched play formats.

Warhammer -period- has been Points based before 40K even existed, the whole notion of PL is a mystery to me. It makes the math a little easier, sure, but my 6 intercessors having the same PL as 10??

Yeah, not buying it, and it goes back to my cynical comments about PL being about sales for GW, not about the actual game. I don't really like saying it, but I can find little else justification for it.

[Indefragable]

I'd love to do a B&C wide poll: who actually plays Narrative/Open play and how often (or % of your games) do you play it?

[Paladin777]

Hear hear!

[Kallas]

I'd like a poll, of who likes a bajillion pyramid quotes

[Ahistorian]

I like the idea of Power Levels personally. It works for Saga, and with a little more thought from GW would be ace as a replacement. Being older and sicker than I was during 3e, I don't have the time or energy for the cross-referencing required by the new set-up of points costs (although I have now downloaded Battlescribe to take the pressure off). Power levels, CPs, Stratagems and Relics are just fine for how I'd prefer to play.

[Happy-inquisitor]

 

 

 

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.

 

 

Matched play is designed for tournament players, it will be tweaked to make tournament play work. I think that much was obvious from the moment we saw the previews ahead of 8th dropping. It is not surprising that less than a year into the new edition a lot of old habits are hanging on and players are sticking to their familiar points in all sorts of games outside of tournaments. This is not what GW are telling us to do, it is what we are doing from some combination of habit and opinion. 

 

It will be interesting over time whether non-tournament players actually tire of having to keep up with matched play changes aimed at tournament players and change that habit. GW have ring-fenced the changes away from the styles of play that they are encouraging non-tournament players to use so they do not have to be affected by changes and beta rules designed for competitive matched play. 

 

As for the whole balance thing - unless you set out to abuse it PL is good enough for most individual games. The imbalances that come from particular match-ups are usually larger than the differences in balance between PL and points anyway. A game can swing on a choice of Chapter/Craftworld/whatever trait in terms of balance just because of a particular match-up and that is not accounted for points at all. Believe me when I say that if you are running a full-assault army and your opponent *happens* to be using T'au sept then the vast increase in overwatch efficiency will matter to you more than the difference in balance between it being a point list or a PL list. A couple of the places I play have gravitated towards PL and what I notice there is a fairly strong social contract that the units are kinda "what's in the kit" rather than "all the most expensive options I could grab on ebay and kitbash together". I have not noticed the games there being any less balanced than in the places where everyone sticks to points and the latest matched play rules. PL would not work in tournaments because the ebay/kitbash thing is exactly what tournament players would do but in a more social setting it works quite well.

 

As for open play, I have played the open play cards both as pick up games and against regular opponents. Fantastic way to hone your skills in the game even if - perhaps because - they sometimes throw up unbalanced situations that push you right outside your comfort zone.

[The Unseen]

Power Level is perfectly fine for most pick-up games, though I personally have some issues with its method when applied to certain units.

BA especially are hit really really hard when you use power level rather than points, as a lot of our units are heavily over costed if you run them with any reasonable loadout.

DC are the worst offenders, as your paying a heavily inflated PL just because every single model can buy an inferno pistol and power fist, even though my units stick to 1 thunderhammer per 5 guys.

 

I've asked my local players who like power level, and none of them mind when I personally use points that correspond to the equivalent power level for myself, once I explained the issue.

 

On the other hand, a CONSISTENTLY WELL BALANCED tournament ruleset is just as good, if not better, for casual players as it is for competitive.

Competitive gamers will keep up with the meta, "netlist", etc despite any balance issues.

Casual gamers will just get sick of the problems and either houserule them away or just quit entirely.

Please note what words I emphasized there very deliberately.

 

Cobsistently well balanced doesn't mean "heavy handed knee jerk respones to abusive lists with tons of consequences and collateral damage".

[Indefragable]

<snip>

Nevermind. Meltarange gracefully showed himself the door.

 

 

 

<snip>

 

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.
 

 

<snip>

And I don't enjoy the word or term casual gamer, I've invested thousands of dollars and thousands of hours in my hobby. I am serious about this game. I just don't play it in a tournament or win at all costs style. I play with friends who enjoy the same hobby like I do.

 

 

 

 

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?

 

If Chapter Tactic equivalents were extended to vehicles, I think BA's would have to be the following:

Ground vehicles (non Dreadnoughts): can shoot and advance at the same time OR no penalty to moving + shooting

Flyers: can pivot a second time after moving

 

 

<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.

 

 

What Gunzhard said.

 

We are thinking about the game as a whole as well...we just happen to be one of the Factions hardest hit by those changes. I feel 100 times worse for Grey Knights. I am advocating for them as much as for BA.

 

And that brings up the common theme: there is a difference between "pure" mono-Faction lists and WAAC Baskin Robbins 32-flavors lists.

They are creating "fixes" for the latter that disproportionately hurt the former.

[Morticon]

Going to let this cool off for a few days. Not happy with the tone of posts and Jol has warned in thread a few times.

I'm as annoyed/bleak about it as any solid BA player, but we will not be taking that out on fellow frater.

Additionally, If you have a problem with the tone or content of another person's posts, you hit the report button and file a report and let the mods deal with it.

Closing this for now, as its generating more divisiveness and unpleasant environment than anything else.