10th edition wishlisting/"How do we fix this mess?" thread

[Scribe]

5 minutes ago, Sothalor said:

No, I think he's arguing that the normalization of things like Knights and super-heavies has a cascading effect on the design space, as things like the nominal survivability of a Knight Paladin tend to skew design of things like weapon lethality so that armies have solutions for things like a super-heavy showing up in a random pick-up game.

 

That has long-tail effects on things like the survivability of conventional vehicles, elite infantry, characters, etc.

 

Basically, GW is trying to make a game framework that accommodates "basic" units as wildly disparate as an Imperial Guardsman and a Knight Armiger. The perception is, there's much more of a potential delta in army composition now than there was in the days of basic 4th or 5th edition, both in variation of Force Organization charts and in what types of units are "likely" to show up. How do you make an army capable of taking on, say, 150 Grots vs 3 Knights or whatever?

 

Exactly this.

 

26 minutes ago, Valkyrion said:

I don't disagree with you, @Scribe, in general, I think 40k would be better off without the big toys. I think it'd be better without Primarchs and Supreme Commanders too. But there's no way that GW are going to stop people using Knights or the Silent King or Wraithknights or Guilliman, and the big toys are here to stay and I think mourning their inclusion is a Sisyphean task and a waste of your hobby time because they are here to stay. 

 

Then the Long War will continue. ;)

[Inquisitor Eisenhorn]

29 minutes ago, Sothalor said:

No, I think he's arguing that the normalization of things like Knights and super-heavies has a cascading effect on the design space, as things like the nominal survivability of a Knight Paladin tend to skew design of things like weapon lethality so that armies have solutions for things like a super-heavy showing up in a random pick-up game.

 

That has long-tail effects on things like the survivability of conventional vehicles, elite infantry, characters, etc.

 

Basically, GW is trying to make a game framework that accommodates "basic" units as wildly disparate as an Imperial Guardsman and a Knight Armiger. The perception is, there's much more of a potential delta in army composition now than there was in the days of basic 4th or 5th edition, both in variation of Force Organization charts and in what types of units are "likely" to show up. How do you make an army capable of taking on, say, 150 Grots vs 3 Knights or whatever?

The problem here isn't really heavies though, it's dialing the design to mainly accommodate random pick-up games.  That's why making the game totally cater to narrative play at the total expense of competitive balanced play is my wishlist for 10th.  This whole discussion to me shows that the "it can be balanced, and it can be narrative" position is not really tenable. 

Edited October 19, 2022 by Inquisitor Eisenhorn

[Scribe]

1 minute ago, Inquisitor Eisenhorn said:

This whole discussion to me shows that I am correct that the "it can be balanced, and it can be narrative" position is not really tenable. 

 

I hope you understand that I'm not trolling, and I respect your view points here, but I cannot fathom how this is the conclusion.

 

Is Crusade Narrative? I would argue it is. Is there ANY reason Crusade (or some other Narrative system) could not be included/built upon, in a system which is more balanced around a game that is Infantry focused, instead of one which blindly attempts to 'include everything'?

[Valkyrion]

27 minutes ago, Sothalor said:

No, I think he's arguing that the normalization of things like Knights and super-heavies has a cascading effect on the design space, as things like the nominal survivability of a Knight Paladin tend to skew design of things like weapon lethality so that armies have solutions for things like a super-heavy showing up in a random pick-up game.

 

That has long-tail effects on things like the survivability of conventional vehicles, elite infantry, characters, etc.

 

Basically, GW is trying to make a game framework that accommodates "basic" units as wildly disparate as an Imperial Guardsman and a Knight Armiger. The perception is, there's much more of a potential delta in army composition now than there was in the days of basic 4th or 5th edition, both in variation of Force Organization charts and in what types of units are "likely" to show up. How do you make an army capable of taking on, say, 150 Grots vs 3 Knights or whatever?

 

 

I think this is great and harks back to what I said a page or two ago about the lasguns wounding on 6+ thing.  

Because Chaos Knights exist, lasguns need to be able to kill them, because someone might pick an army that only has lasguns, because that's allowed by GW's own army building rules. 

In 30k (AoD) substitute those lasguns for Bolters and you get an army that literally cannot kill a tank or dreadnought heavy army, both of which are perfectly legal and even encouraged.  You field your 120 tactical marines with bolters, my tanks laugh in the face of your S4 weapons fire. 

 

.....

 

 

[Inquisitor Eisenhorn]

1 hour ago, Scribe said:

 

I hope you understand that I'm not trolling, and I respect your view points here, but I cannot fathom how this is the conclusion.

 

Is Crusade Narrative? I would argue it is. Is there ANY reason Crusade (or some other Narrative system) could not be included/built upon, in a system which is more balanced around a game that is Infantry focused, instead of one which blindly attempts to 'include everything'?

@scribe, I totally respect your position too here, I enjoy having this debate because I think that we're coming from very very different perspectives and it's interesting to sort of talk through them. 

 

Crusade is absolutely narrative, yes!  But I would like the entire framework of the game to allow for a lot more freedom of list building and scenarios, and that includes the possibility of using Primarchs, superheavies, etc.

Edited October 19, 2022 by Inquisitor Eisenhorn

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

1 hour ago, Valkyrion said:

Forget the army building rules for a moment;

 

Would a single Lord of Skulls (575 points) win or lose more Combat Patrol games against players that were trying to field all comers?  - Substitute Lord of Skulls for a Stompa or Wraithknight or Baneblade or whatever, I just know that a LoS is 575 and don't have the other books to hand.

 

Would 2 of them win more 1000 point games?

Would 3 of them win more 1500 point games?

Would 4 of them win more 2000 point games?

 

If the answer is something like 'the Lord of Skulls would win except...' then it's possibly balanced? The Lord of Skulls is too powerful to be defeated but cannot hope to claim the objectives, so therefore cannot win unless it kills everything and also claims an objective - the opponent merely has to survive enough units to claim more objectives. 

 

Does it get easier or harder for the Lord of Skulls to win at higher points values? No tailored lists, just a random X point army. 

 

IK and CK have been internally balanced by taking 3 x 150 point ObSecFive units for every 1 x 450 point unit (or thereabouts). I'm talking just pure big super heavies, no help from the little guys. 

 Is ‘merely surviving’ a way anyone wants to play?

it’s not all about winning or losing. If winning isn’t fun people won’t want to play. If losing feels bad no one will want to play. If losing is fun and engaging most people won’t mind losing. 
 

that’s also part of how the game gets broken.

[DesuVult]

4 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

 Is ‘merely surviving’ a way anyone wants to play?

it’s not all about winning or losing. If winning isn’t fun people won’t want to play. If losing feels bad no one will want to play. If losing is fun and engaging most people won’t mind losing. 
 

that’s also part of how the game gets broken.

This is the necron problem currently.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

The real problem is this.

LoWs make GW money. As long as GW is making money they don’t really care about the health of the game.

as long as it’s just healthy enough to keep people buying models, then they don’t care.

[Evil Eye]

The fact that the game has to be balanced around the existence of units specifically designed as incredibly rare weapons of last resort is IMO one of the main arguments for why this edition is such a mess (and also why LoWs should have greater restrictions placed on them).

 

No amount of mass lasgun fire should be able to bring down a Hierophant. No amount of fleshborers should be able to wreck a Baneblade. If you expect to be facing LoWs, then the solution should be to bring dedicated anti-superheavy weapons, just as if you expect to be facing a lot of tanks you should bring plenty of meltas, and if you're going to be facing a horde then maybe swap them out for flamers.

 

Superheavies absolutely have a place (though myself I maintain the Warlord and the like should really exist as display models with "for the sake of it" rules stamped with big red letters saying "For use with both players' consent only" on them) but that place is in very large battles, not in average, medium sized games.

 

 

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Knights have some weaknesses like no invulnerable save in melee - that’s when they can take a lot of damage quickly. I can understand though why people don’t like them in normal games.

[Slave to Darkness]

1 hour ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

 Is ‘merely surviving’ a way anyone wants to play?

it’s not all about winning or losing. If winning isn’t fun people won’t want to play. If losing feels bad no one will want to play. If losing is fun and engaging most people won’t mind losing. 
 

that’s also part of how the game gets broken.

I dont mind loosing as long as the game was fun and the loss was a close one, some of the best games I ever had I lost, but damn they were battles that would make the Vikings jealous.  When Im loosing units in one turn faster than Im loosing my hair then there is a problem with the game.

Hiding behind a wall hoping the Superheavys dont see me isnt a fun game. 

 

I dont think the issue is power creep, its the core rules for allowing it in the first place, Im leaning towards the 'rewrite the rules' camp instead of the 'just tidy up the codex books' camp. 

[Wulf Vengis]

I like the idea of SHs and LoWs in regular games but i have to agree they need some form of equalizer. I hate to say this but perhaps the "opponents permission" tag-line should accompany them. Either that or simply allow for only one in a list without further consent.

 

IDK. This is a tough debate to solve. I feel GWs pain on this one.

 

For those of you who would happily field nothing but:

If they nerfed SH and LoW to be more in line with normal units would you still play them?

[Scribe]

1 hour ago, Inquisitor Eisenhorn said:

@scribe, I totally respect your position too here, I enjoy having this debate because I think that we're coming from very very different perspectives and it's interesting to sort of talk through them. 

 

Crusade is absolutely narrative, yes!  But I would like the entire framework of the game to allow for a lot more freedom of list building and scenarios, and that includes the possibility of using Primarchs, superheavies, etc.

 

OK, then in the spirit of complete transparency, as I would actually love for a complete understanding to be achieved here.

 

1. I am not a 'gamer elitist'.

2. I do not (did not) play 40K to be a competitive gamer but I have played in Tournaments, and even won one (normally I got smashed and would end up with a 'Sportsmanship' prize lol)

3. I AM a competitive player of other games, or have been at various points.

4. I have been a gamer essentially since as early as I can remember, when it was rules like 'when you die, its your brothers turn' so I said 'fine I'll just get good and not die'.

5. I've played most factions, most 'deck archetypes' and most types of FPS, and raided at a 'competitive' level, across multiple game types, genres, and systems from again FPS in the Quake 2/3 days, to RPG (D&D/Pathfinder), MTG (Modern was the best competitive format, before Wizards ruined it and I'll die on that hill) and MMOs.

 

This is not a flex, not bragging, this is to establish a context of where I am coming from. I've been gaming for like...over 30 years, and 'breaking' games for most of them.

 

I've been in the hobby since 3rd or very very late 2nd. I've had many different armies, I dont even want to think about 'total investment' and as noted, I had a Knight Army, the most 'I bought my toys and I'm going to use them' army of the edition when it was new.

 

A: I put my toys away or sold them, because they were not good for the games balance, or how I feel 40K is best played and enjoyed.

 

B: I've had multiple 'expensive' decks for MTG. I played at a competitive level, won far far more than I lost, and I couldn't have cared less if my opponents enjoyed the game. MTG was a competitive outlet.

 

C: I've played in D&D campaigns, and just been happy to be there, rolling dice, while a GM runs the campaign, and we participate and tell a story.

 

40K is a poor example of a competitive game. The investment, is simply too great from buying the models ($1000s), paints (hundreds) and time investment (Days if not Weeks of building/Painting, and well over an hour in playing the game, and then clean up/pack up.

 

MTG? Buy some cards, shuffle up, play a game. Shake hands anywhere from 10 to 30 minutes later and do it again.

 

----

 

That said? Balance matters. It matters from a competitive stand point for sure, but it also matters for casual play where you just want your stuff to be good enough to not let you down. The higher the investment (money/time) the MORE balance matters.

 

Formats like Crusade, still benefit from balance, formats like Match play, require balance, and formats like Apocalypse are for just letting it roll. 40K as a setting, as a 'core' can handle all 3, but its simply not appropriate to bring elements that do not match from one 'format' into another because it ruins the experience.

 

If you wanted a narrative game, and brought a fluffy list, while someone else rolled up with the most tightly tuned hardcore netlist from the latest abomination of a release GW put out, would your investment feel good? Would you feel your time was respected by the company you are giving 1000's, if not 10's of thousands of dollars to? Your free time, limited as it may be for us poor adults, burned up while someone smugly trampled all over you or it took you more time to deploy, and then clean up, than you actually played because the 'lists are legal' but grossly outmatched?

 

Thats a poor experience. Its like me taking a $1500 MTG deck, against a store bought $12 dollar deck, and saying 'yeah gg man' after I win on Turn 2 or 3.

 

Balance matters, and its proven now at this point, that what GW is doing in 9th, is not working from a balance perspective.

 

They have nerfed the latest codex, before its even widely available.

 

I am not saying we should not have a narrative mode like Crusade. Heck, add in another one with a GM for your scenario driven experience. Zero harm in that. However balance does not HARM your experience. Balance does not prevent you from creating a narrative scenario, in any way at all.

 

I am also not saying we shouldnt have SH units, because again, I had em, I built them. My Knight's were probably the pride of my collection, hell I think I even have printed photo's of them! :D

 

Meanwhile, the experience of matched play has absolutely been harmed, by the naked capitalism on display by GW, and the "I got mine." attitude of forcing units that have historically been in their own format, into the main 'competitive' format of the game.

 

I honest to god want what is best for 40K, from a lore perspective, from a setting perspective, from a game play perspective as I truly care for the setting WAY MORE than I as a grown ass man should.

• Remove Super Heavies from Matched Play.
• Remove Stratagems from Matched Play.
• FAQ the Weapons Systems and Unit Profiles back into a semblance of sanity balanced around the Intercessor unit.
• Reimplement USRs.
• Re-release Apocalypse
• Support Crusade (Narrative), Matched (1500-1750 Competitive/Pickup Standard) and Apocalypse (Super Heavies, Formations, Stragagems).

I swear 40K would be better for it.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

7 hours ago, Slave to Darkness said:

I dont mind loosing as long as the game was fun and the loss was a close one, some of the best games I ever had I lost, but damn they were battles that would make the Vikings jealous.  When Im loosing units in one turn faster than Im loosing my hair then there is a problem with the game.

Hiding behind a wall hoping the Superheavys dont see me isnt a fun game. 

 

I dont think the issue is power creep, its the core rules for allowing it in the first place, Im leaning towards the 'rewrite the rules' camp instead of the 'just tidy up the codex books' camp. 

Exactly!

a well fought battle that you lose is sooo much more fun than a win thats just. “No i will not move off of any objectives and out of this LOS blocking terrain this turn or any other turn.”

6 hours ago, Wulf Vengis said:

I like the idea of SHs and LoWs in regular games but i have to agree they need some form of equalizer. I hate to say this but perhaps the "opponents permission" tag-line should accompany them. Either that or simply allow for only one in a list without further consent.

 

IDK. This is a tough debate to solve. I feel GWs pain on this one.

 

For those of you who would happily field nothing but:

If they nerfed SH and LoW to be more in line with normal units would you still play them?

I don’t understand why apocalypse is such a controversial answer to using LoWs.

 

6 hours ago, Scribe said:

 

OK, then in the spirit of complete transparency, as I would actually love for a complete understanding to be achieved here.

 

1. I am not a 'gamer elitist'.

2. I do not (did not) play 40K to be a competitive gamer but I have played in Tournaments, and even won one (normally I got smashed and would end up with a 'Sportsmanship' prize lol)

3. I AM a competitive player of other games, or have been at various points.

4. I have been a gamer essentially since as early as I can remember, when it was rules like 'when you die, its your brothers turn' so I said 'fine I'll just get good and not die'.

5. I've played most factions, most 'deck archetypes' and most types of FPS, and raided at a 'competitive' level, across multiple game types, genres, and systems from again FPS in the Quake 2/3 days, to RPG (D&D/Pathfinder), MTG (Modern was the best competitive format, before Wizards ruined it and I'll die on that hill) and MMOs.

 

This is not a flex, not bragging, this is to establish a context of where I am coming from. I've been gaming for like...over 30 years, and 'breaking' games for most of them.

 

I've been in the hobby since 3rd or very very late 2nd. I've had many different armies, I dont even want to think about 'total investment' and as noted, I had a Knight Army, the most 'I bought my toys and I'm going to use them' army of the edition when it was new.

 

A: I put my toys away or sold them, because they were not good for the games balance, or how I feel 40K is best played and enjoyed.

 

B: I've had multiple 'expensive' decks for MTG. I played at a competitive level, won far far more than I lost, and I couldn't have cared less if my opponents enjoyed the game. MTG was a competitive outlet.

 

C: I've played in D&D campaigns, and just been happy to be there, rolling dice, while a GM runs the campaign, and we participate and tell a story.

 

40K is a poor example of a competitive game. The investment, is simply too great from buying the models ($1000s), paints (hundreds) and time investment (Days if not Weeks of building/Painting, and well over an hour in playing the game, and then clean up/pack up.

 

MTG? Buy some cards, shuffle up, play a game. Shake hands anywhere from 10 to 30 minutes later and do it again.

 

----

 

That said? Balance matters. It matters from a competitive stand point for sure, but it also matters for casual play where you just want your stuff to be good enough to not let you down. The higher the investment (money/time) the MORE balance matters.

 

Formats like Crusade, still benefit from balance, formats like Match play, require balance, and formats like Apocalypse are for just letting it roll. 40K as a setting, as a 'core' can handle all 3, but its simply not appropriate to bring elements that do not match from one 'format' into another because it ruins the experience.

 

If you wanted a narrative game, and brought a fluffy list, while someone else rolled up with the most tightly tuned hardcore netlist from the latest abomination of a release GW put out, would your investment feel good? Would you feel your time was respected by the company you are giving 1000's, if not 10's of thousands of dollars to? Your free time, limited as it may be for us poor adults, burned up while someone smugly trampled all over you or it took you more time to deploy, and then clean up, than you actually played because the 'lists are legal' but grossly outmatched?

 

Thats a poor experience. Its like me taking a $1500 MTG deck, against a store bought $12 dollar deck, and saying 'yeah gg man' after I win on Turn 2 or 3.

 

Balance matters, and its proven now at this point, that what GW is doing in 9th, is not working from a balance perspective.

 

They have nerfed the latest codex, before its even widely available.

 

I am not saying we should not have a narrative mode like Crusade. Heck, add in another one with a GM for your scenario driven experience. Zero harm in that. However balance does not HARM your experience. Balance does not prevent you from creating a narrative scenario, in any way at all.

 

I am also not saying we shouldnt have SH units, because again, I had em, I built them. My Knight's were probably the pride of my collection, hell I think I even have printed photo's of them! :D

 

Meanwhile, the experience of matched play has absolutely been harmed, by the naked capitalism on display by GW, and the "I got mine." attitude of forcing units that have historically been in their own format, into the main 'competitive' format of the game.

 

I honest to god want what is best for 40K, from a lore perspective, from a setting perspective, from a game play perspective as I truly care for the setting WAY MORE than I as a grown ass man should.

• Remove Super Heavies from Matched Play.
• Remove Stratagems from Matched Play.
• FAQ the Weapons Systems and Unit Profiles back into a semblance of sanity balanced around the Intercessor unit.
• Reimplement USRs.
• Re-release Apocalypse
• Support Crusade (Narrative), Matched (1500-1750 Competitive/Pickup Standard) and Apocalypse (Super Heavies, Formations, Stragagems).

I swear 40K would be better for it.

I feel you on that bit about caring for this game way more than a grown ass man should.

even when I wasn’t involved I still understood the effect BA had on my development and my understanding of what a vampire was like.

 

7 hours ago, BLACK BLΠFLY said:

Knights have some weaknesses like no invulnerable save in melee - that’s when they can take a lot of damage quickly. I can understand though why people don’t like them in normal games.

9 S3 bayonets hitting on 4s and a PF hitting on a 5s isn’t likely to ever kill a knight though, invuln or not.

[Wulf Vengis]

38 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

I don’t understand why apocalypse is such a controversial answer to using LoWs.

Oh I'm all for bringing back apocalypse. You want to run knights (plural), than yes definitely better suited to Apocalypse.

I however also feel for those who want to drop a knight or baneblade etc into a regular game. In the good ole days of 5th my wolves took on Nids with the Heiro. I couldn't kill it so I locked it with Bjorn whilst the rest of my army dealt with the smaller bugs. It was a lot of fun trapping the Heiro in a position it could only go forward from and thus letting it and Bjorn duke it out. By the end of the final turn it killed Bjorn with only 1 or 2 of its own wounds remaining. Good times.

Now I know that was then and now would probably be a different story, but i get it. You want to play with your big toys some times, and I am all for that.

 

Edit: I'm all for that, where appropriate.

Edited October 20, 2022 by Wulf Vengis

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

6 minutes ago, Wulf Vengis said:

Oh I'm all for bringing back apocalypse. You want to run knights (plural), than yes definitely better suited to Apocalypse.

I however also feel for those who want to drop a knight or baneblade etc into a regular game. In the good ole days of 5th my wolves took on Nids with the Heiro. I couldn't kill it so I locked it with Bjorn whilst the rest of my army dealt with the smaller bugs. It was a lot of fun trapping the Heiro in a position it could only go forward from and thus letting it and Bjorn duke it out. By the end of the final turn it killed Bjorn with only 1 or 2 of its own wounds remaining. Good times.

Now I know that was then and now would probably be a different story, but i get it. You want to play with your big toys some times, and I am all for that.

 

Edit: I'm all for that, where appropriate.

Like the smaller armiger knights sure they’re just a super sentinel.

[Slave to Darkness]

1 hour ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

9 S3 bayonets hitting on 4s and a PF hitting on a 5s isn’t likely to ever kill a knight though, invuln or not.

Would be hilarious if it did kill the Knight though.

Reminds me of 5th ed, I tied up a max sized unit of Bloodletters with a single Dreadnought because they couldnt damage it. He still won even though his monster unit did nothing, good game and good laughs doing it.

 

The next game we had he took more maxed out units as his army gotten bigger, for a laugh I just took more dreads and did the same thing, wasnt as much fun second time around, even I was bored. Only thing thats changed over the years is the robots have gotten bigger. 

 

 

Edited October 20, 2022 by Slave to Darkness

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

4 hours ago, Slave to Darkness said:

Would be hilarious if it did kill the Knight though.

Reminds me of 5th ed, I tied up a max sized unit of Bloodletters with a single Dreadnought because they couldnt damage it. He still won even though his monster unit did nothing, good game and good laughs doing it.

 

The next game we had he took more maxed out units as his army gotten bigger, for a laugh I just took more dreads and did the same thing, wasnt as much fun second time around, even I was bored. Only thing thats changed over the years is the robots have gotten bigger. 

Would be hilarious if it did kill the Knight though.

Reminds me of 5th ed, I tied up a max sized unit of Bloodletters with a single Dreadnought because they couldnt damage it. He still won even though his monster unit did nothing, good game and good laughs doing it.

 

The next game we had he took more maxed out units as his army gotten bigger, for a laugh I just took more dreads and did the same thing, wasnt as much fun second time around, even I was bored. Only thing thats changed over the years is the robots have gotten bigger. 

Yeah, sure it would be amusing the first time it happened, but after that it would be boring old news.

 

One idea, a mix of the release all ‘dexes at once and what we have now.

 

release in common clumps, so for example

 

xenos

imperial PA

chaos

imperial nPA

LoV

[Slave to Darkness]

11 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

Yeah, sure it would be amusing the first time it happened, but after that it would be boring old news.

We ended up house ruling that a natural roll of a 6 to wound would get you a glancing hit, so at least if it happens in the future those on the receiving end of it can actually do something. Shouldnt have to do that though, if people have to keep house ruling things then the games broken. 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

17 minutes ago, Slave to Darkness said:

We ended up house ruling that a natural roll of a 6 to wound would get you a glancing hit, so at least if it happens in the future those on the receiving end of it can actually do something. Shouldnt have to do that though, if people have to keep house ruling things then the games broken. 

Exactly.

and all the people saying “just house rule X out of the game if you don’t like it!”

don’t understand that.

[Inquisitor Eisenhorn]

@Scribe there’s a lot to take in from your post but I’ll just address balance; I said this on the “points” thread but balance only matters if you want equal possible outcomes for all players, and that’s hardly the way narrative games are run.  Where does the balancing stop? Perfectly symmetrical terrain? What happens to armies who exist to hard-counter other units like Sisters of Silence and psykers?  Your point about superheavies skewing the power of other units is also a result of trying to balance their inclusion, and your case for their exclusion in matched play.  

Saying “balance matters” sounds good but it just doesn’t really mean much in the end when you’re talking about a game with as many variables as 40k, and ultimately there will be elements that aren’t symmetrical or balanced, so where is the line?  

All balancing efforts ultimately lead to restrictions that work against the freedom to create narratives.  
 

The scenario where a net-lister rolls up and crushes me would never happen, because I wouldn’t play against them to begin with.  If someone only wants to play strangers or doesn’t have a group to play with, that either their choice or their bad luck. Either way it’s not a reason to disallow or restrict certain things in the rules.
 

Im not against people trying to play that way if that’s what they want, but I don’t think it results in anything good when GW tries to do it by cutting the baby in half and having the rules support matched play AND narrative play.  They keep trying to take out points from their games and people complain so they put them back in, but GW has been trying to tell us their games don’t balance and don’t need to if we play them as GW intends, and I’ve only finally started to understand what people like Jervis were saying for so long.  We don’t need points, and balance is up to you and your fellow gamers.

 

 

 

 

[Scribe]

21 minutes ago, Inquisitor Eisenhorn said:

I said this on the “points” thread but balance only matters if you want equal possible outcomes for all players, and that’s hardly the way narrative games are run.

 

Exactly, so balance can never harm you. It doesnt matter if the game is balanced for a Narrative scenario, because the scenario dictates the engagement more than '2 lists at 1500 points each.' ever will. Deployment options, different points allowance, different FOC allowance, heck maybe its 10 Primaris, against an endless tide of Orks, how many can you get before the Primaris die.

 

In that regard, Narrative play, especially scenarios, will never be harmed by balance, because its not particularly relevant to what you are doing.

 

21 minutes ago, Inquisitor Eisenhorn said:

Where does the balancing stop? Perfectly symmetrical terrain? What happens to armies who exist to hard-counter other units like Sisters of Silence and psykers?  Your point about superheavies skewing the power of other units is also a result of trying to balance their inclusion, and your case for their exclusion in matched play.  

 

Indeed, so where does it stop? When the inclusion of a Unit Type, so badly tilts the field that vast allowances need to be made. I'm not against hard counter type behavior, thats part of game design, but thats exactly not what GW has done. Instead of the 'hard counter' they have gone for 'everyone can do damage to it, and some weapons can do MASSIVE damage' which...is why 9th is such a disaster. Those SoS/GK examples against Psykers or Daemons? Well they should have to pay for that as part of their cost. Should it make them extremely effective at some things? Yes. Should they be slightly over priced against say...Guard? Also yes.

 

21 minutes ago, Inquisitor Eisenhorn said:

Saying “balance matters” sounds good but it just doesn’t really mean much in the end when you’re talking about a game with as many variables as 40k, and ultimately there will be elements that aren’t symmetrical or balanced, so where is the line?  

 

Addressed above, but also there really dont need to be that many variables. If you played enough of 5th or 6th, you could very much get a handle on the flow, and see where a game was likely to end up after 2 turns, in many cases even if that meant 'its going to come down to turn 5'.

 

21 minutes ago, Inquisitor Eisenhorn said:

All balancing efforts ultimately lead to restrictions that work against the freedom to create narratives.  

 

This is I believe the pivot point of the discussion between us. This is not true, because while the Matched Play would be a restrictive format for trying to bring some competitive balance to a game as wide as 40K, a Narrative format, specific scenarios, or your own desires at the table in that moment, can simply disregard them. You dont need to follow restrictions when you are simply trying to craft a narrative encounter, unless you choose to put some into that particular scenario.

 

Pick up games do not have that luxury as they must share an assumed and understood rule set. If I say 'we are going to play X's and O's' most people here know exactly what that entails.

 

21 minutes ago, Inquisitor Eisenhorn said:

Im not against people trying to play that way if that’s what they want, but I don’t think it results in anything good when GW tries to do it by cutting the baby in half and having the rules support matched play AND narrative play.

 

It quite literally can though.

 

What is it about matched play that could possibly prevent a narrative game for you, at your table?

 

21 minutes ago, Inquisitor Eisenhorn said:

They keep trying to take out points from their games and people complain so they put them back in, but GW has been trying to tell us their games don’t balance and don’t need to if we play them as GW intends, and I’ve only finally started to understand what people like Jervis were saying for so long.  We don’t need points, and balance is up to you and your fellow gamers.

 

Frankly, hes wrong, or he dramatically misunderstands a very large, highly invested segment of GW's customer base.

 

They balance well enough. They balance well enough to the point where former designers have admitted to undercosting models when sales asked them to push them. They balance well enough get within spitting distance, and let variables like dice rolling, get within an acceptable range. They tell us that they dont balance well, because they dont want to do the work needed to get us there anymore. Its more important for someone to drop $200 on a Super Heavy.

 

GW keeps trying to pull out points, because they dont want to make a functional game for people to just pick up and play against each other with an expectation that both players have an equal chance at victory. They just want to provide a vehicle to push plastic at massive mark up.

 

I mean man come on. GW, released AoS V1. It is a tribute to GW's position within the Table Top space, that that 'game' didnt sink them, and make them a laughing stock.

 

EDIT: You brought up MTG (I think) earlier. Its like this.

 

Kitchen Table.

Standard.

Modern.

EDH/Commander.

 

All are "MTG", but all have slightly different restrictions, or build rules, while all follow the basic 'rules' of Magic the Gathering.

 

Therefore: Crusade, Matched, Apocalypse, are all 40K, with different restrictions or build rules, while all follow the basic 'rules' of 40K.

Edited October 20, 2022 by Scribe
MTG Example.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

16 minutes ago, Inquisitor Eisenhorn said:

@Scribe there’s a lot to take in from your post but I’ll just address balance; I said this on the “points” thread but balance only matters if you want equal possible outcomes for all players, and that’s hardly the way narrative games are run.  Where does the balancing stop? Perfectly symmetrical terrain? What happens to armies who exist to hard-counter other units like Sisters of Silence and psykers?  Your point about superheavies skewing the power of other units is also a result of trying to balance their inclusion, and your case for their exclusion in matched play.  

Saying “balance matters” sounds good but it just doesn’t really mean much in the end when you’re talking about a game with as many variables as 40k, and ultimately there will be elements that aren’t symmetrical or balanced, so where is the line?  

All balancing efforts ultimately lead to restrictions that work against the freedom to create narratives.  
 

The scenario where a net-lister rolls up and crushes me would never happen, because I wouldn’t play against them to begin with.  If someone only wants to play strangers or doesn’t have a group to play with, that either their choice or their bad luck. Either way it’s not a reason to disallow or restrict certain things in the rules.
 

Im not against people trying to play that way if that’s what they want, but I don’t think it results in anything good when GW tries to do it by cutting the baby in half and having the rules support matched play AND narrative play.  They keep trying to take out points from their games and people complain so they put them back in, but GW has been trying to tell us their games don’t balance and don’t need to if we play them as GW intends, and I’ve only finally started to understand what people like Jervis were saying for so long.  We don’t need points, and balance is up to you and your fellow gamers.

 

 

 

 

Outside of a few scenarios that will be once or twice a year, who wants to play a narrative game that doesn’t have relatively equal chance of victory?

 

like sure the occasional last stand, or sudden invasion scenario game where things are clearly lopsided, can be fun now and then, but you will never convince me that there’s a large population of players who are regularly having games like this.

even in those scenarios points balance gives each player an idea of how much of an up hill fight one player will face.
 

all of your arguments fall flat.

in a game that’s well balanced over all we can choose to play unbalanced games if we want. The inverse is not true though. A game that’s not generally well balanced cannot be played in any manner with balance.(at least not without the community doing a LOT of math hammer and experimenting on their own to create a balanced points system)

[Inquisitor Eisenhorn]

6 minutes ago, Scribe said:

 

Exactly, so balance can never harm you. It doesnt matter if the game is balanced for a Narrative scenario, because the scenario dictates the engagement more than '2 lists at 1500 points each.' ever will. Deployment options, different points allowance, different FOC allowance, heck maybe its 10 Primaris, against an endless tide of Orks, how many can you get before the Primaris die.

 

In that regard, Narrative play, especially scenarios, will never be harmed by balance, because its not particularly relevant to what you are doing.

 

 

Indeed, so where does it stop? When the inclusion of a Unit Type, so badly tilts the field that vast allowances need to be made. I'm not against hard counter type behavior, thats part of game design, but thats exactly not what GW has done. Instead of the 'hard counter' they have gone for 'everyone can do damage to it, and some weapons can do MASSIVE damage' which...is why 9th is such a disaster. Those SoS/GK examples against Psykers or Daemons? Well they should have to pay for that as part of their cost. Should it make them extremely effective at some things? Yes. Should they be slightly over priced against say...Guard? Also yes.

 

 

Addressed above, but also there really dont need to be that many variables. If you played enough of 5th or 6th, you could very much get a handle on the flow, and see where a game was likely to end up after 2 turns, in many cases even if that meant 'its going to come down to turn 5'.

 

 

This is I believe the pivot point of the discussion between us. This is not true, because while the Matched Play would be a restrictive format for trying to bring some competitive balance to a game as wide as 40K, a Narrative format, specific scenarios, or your own desires at the table in that moment, can simply disregard them. You dont need to follow restrictions when you are simply trying to craft a narrative encounter, unless you choose to put some into that particular scenario.

 

Pick up games do not have that luxury as they must share an assumed and understood rule set. If I say 'we are going to play X's and O's' most people here know exactly what that entails.

 

 

It quite literally can though.

 

What is it about matched play that could possibly prevent a narrative game for you, at your table?

 

 

Frankly, hes wrong, or he dramatically misunderstands a very large, highly invested segment of GW's customer base.

 

They balance well enough. They balance well enough to the point where former designers have admitted to undercosting models when sales asked them to push them. They balance well enough get within spitting distance, and let variables like dice rolling, get within an acceptable range. They tell us that they dont balance well, because they dont want to do the work needed to get us there anymore. Its more important for someone to drop $200 on a Super Heavy.

 

GW keeps trying to pull out points, because they dont want to make a functional game for people to just pick up and play against each other with an expectation that both players have an equal chance at victory. They just want to provide a vehicle to push plastic at massive mark up.

 

I mean man come on. GW, released AoS V1. It is a tribute to GW's position within the Table Top space, that that 'game' didnt sink them, and make them a laughing stock.

 

EDIT: You brought up MTG (I think) earlier. Its like this.

 

Kitchen Table.

Standard.

Modern.

EDH/Commander.

 

All are "MTG", but all have slightly different restrictions, or build rules, while all follow the basic 'rules' of Magic the Gathering.

 

Therefore: Crusade, Matched, Apocalypse, are all 40K, with different restrictions or build rules, while all follow the basic 'rules' of 40K.

Scribe, it just seems like we’re playing two entirely different games in entirely different social circumstances.  I just don’t care what happens to pick up games, sorry.  None of the things you argue really matter to me because I’m not in it to win, just have a nice time trying out a scenario and seeing what happens.  So if they take out certain units from the game in the name of balance, that’s a bummer for me and not something that I can ignore, to follow up with your suggestion I just ignore the points.  Plus it has an effect on how annoying the way they word rules are, it has an effect on how much space they dedicate to list building when they could focus on other things.  The rules are so bloated and change so often chasing something I’m not sure ($$$) that it seems like a nightmare to expect a balanced experience from the game, and if I wanted one, I’d just play something else.  

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

Here’s an example.

me and my brother can agree next time he’s in town he brings his DE, and I’ll use my guard, and create fun narrative of all day play of DE ‘raiding parties’ where I don’t remove killed models, just lay them on their side, and to take them as slaves he had to get a vehicle within 1” of the model, and we can agree on each game i get I get increase my points allowance to represent the PDF getting their response together.

 

a well balanced game for competitive purposes doesn’t stop that, but I cannot go to a store and expect someone to have that same scenario in mind let alone want to play such a scenario