Loss of sub faction support?

[Helias_Tancred]

Moving some appropriate stratagems back to unit specific rules would help lighten the sub-faction bloat. It would help retain a specific sub-faction feel with certain units, especially ones that are unique for specific marine chapters. 

 

Killing two birds with one stone. 

 

 

Edited March 21, 2023 by Eilio Tiberius

[Scribe]

10 minutes ago, ThePenitentOne said:

For the record, I think it would be just awesome if GW took the thing they currently call Matched play and reduce it to what you and all the other minimalist, balance-at-all-costs types want it to be, and left the big messy sandbox that is Crusade to the rest of us. And that includes all of the strats that are "useless" to tournament players, but are gold for campaign play and mission building, where story-hooks disconnected from the simple binary of win/loss may influence the use of strats- for example, in Urban Conquest, certain territories conferred the ability to use particular strats based on objective control.

 

Oh and to be clear, I'd absolutely be fine with strats all being pushed into Crusade, and keeping Crusade supported.

 

Sub Factions? No problem at all. Warlord Traits? Love it. Thats about as far as it needs to go to get that 'rpg-lite' feel into the main competitive game.

 

Secondaries that are faction specific are a terrible idea for balance, the constant 'balance pass' is a joke when books are designed under completely different views on the game (CSM sub factions what?) and I firmly believe that for the core game system, strats are beyond a waste of time.

 

List

Standard (sane!) Force Org

Warlord Trait

Sub Faction

 

Roll dice. Thats it.

 

Crusade can be the wild narrative sandbox that some want, and let the rest of us get on with just showing up for a pick up game, setting up and getting out of there in an hour and a half.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

12 minutes ago, Scribe said:

I highly doubt GW has any clue what its playerbase looks like.

 

Wizards of the Coast actively engages its players. It polls them. It surveys them.

 

GW? No.

And yet WotC still screws everything up

[Scribe]

Just now, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

And yet WotC still screws everything up

 

Well thats a topic that wouldn't survive this board's moderation, but yes indeed they do. :D

[Cpt_Reaper]

22 minutes ago, Scribe said:

Standard (sane!) Force Org

Yep. Battalion, Spearhead, Vanguard and Outrider. Nice and sane, without being slaved to the notion that "troops are important".

[Scribe]

1 minute ago, Cpt_Reaper said:

Yep. Battalion, Spearhead, Vanguard and Outrider. Nice and sane, without being slaved to the notion that "troops are important".

 

Thats a negative sir. ;)

 

Minimum

1 HQ

2 Troops

 

Options

1 HQ

4 Troop

3 Elites

3 HS

3 FA

 

As Khorne intended.

 

[Special Officer Doofy]

2 hours ago, ThePenitentOne said:

Crusade was the best part of 9th

 

That's just your opinion. Alot of us didn't care for it at all and it's definately not the main way the game is played.

[Cpt_Reaper]

1 hour ago, Scribe said:

 

Thats a negative sir. ;)

 

Minimum

1 HQ

2 Troops

 

Options

1 HQ

4 Troop

3 Elites

3 HS

3 FA

 

As Khorne intended.

 

And what options do you offer those of us who want something else? That don't involve running a character to make Elites count as troops for example.

Because now I've had the option to run a purely Elites army, or a purely Heavy Support army...I am not going back to the old ways.

[spafe]

3 hours ago, Cpt_Reaper said:

And what options do you offer those of us who want something else?

narrative play?

 

Rather than try and make all these extreme builds 'balanced' for matched play, just... dont. Keep matched play as a much more limited toolbox that is easier for them to manage, then maybe leave the 'suggested' alt force org charts for narrative setup (or a halfway house where its narrative play with 'some' guidelines but not fully matched 'balanced' games.

Edited March 21, 2023 by spafe

[Cpt_Reaper]

3 minutes ago, spafe said:

narrative play?

 

Rather than try and make all these extreme builds 'balanced' for matched play, just... dont. Keep matched play as a much more limited toolbox that is easier for them to manage, then maybe leave the 'suggested' alt force org charts for narrative setup (or a halfway house where its narrative play with 'some' guidelines but not fully matched 'balanced' games.

Or...leave it where it is and not split the playerbase? I don't give even the whisper of a care for balance. I will run something that is objectively bad if it is cool.

[spafe]

5 minutes ago, Cpt_Reaper said:

I don't give even the whisper of a care for balance. I will run something that is objectively bad if it is cool.

Sooo... whats wrong with narrative play for you? Like, I am curious why playing narrative is wrong?

 

And surely crusade forces would be another way as a 'narrative light' option? I've played crusade and really enjoyed it, because I was going into it with a mind of narrative light'. Wherase I've not enjoyed standard 40k games, because it was still a massive anything goes effectively, and was not fun when I wanted a more balanced game (relatively more balanced, rather than actually balanced, its still a gw game after all). And that wasnt because I got trounced, almsot all the games were one sided, but about half half for win/lose, it just wasnt enjoyable because it was such a mish mash of forces rather than a recogniseable army.

[Cpt_Reaper]

I have played crusade, in that I have attempted to play Crusade like 3 times. I beg and plead my group to do it, we have 1 or two games then it gets scrapped because regular pick up games are just easier. No tracking Exp. points and levels and jank, just run your Warlord Trait, a relic or two and your custom traits and off you go.

I am not a "good" player by any stretch of the definition. I had a 10 year losing streak (which may have been due to less than honourable opponents but as I cannot prove that I wear the losses). However in my experience Meta chasers will always chase the Meta. If you take away all of the options for us that don't chase said Meta and lock them in a game mode that requires so much effort just to play two games then it fades away, you don't take anything from them. Just us, who would be missing out on playing fun, thematic armies in pick up games. That is why I will always argue against the removal of sub-factions and especially custom traits thereof.

[Special Officer Doofy]

1 hour ago, Cpt_Reaper said:

I have played crusade, in that I have attempted to play Crusade like 3 times. I beg and plead my group to do it, we have 1 or two games then it gets scrapped because regular pick up games are just easier. No tracking Exp. points and levels and jank, just run your Warlord Trait, a relic or two and your custom traits and off you go.

I am not a "good" player by any stretch of the definition. I had a 10 year losing streak (which may have been due to less than honourable opponents but as I cannot prove that I wear the losses). However in my experience Meta chasers will always chase the Meta. If you take away all of the options for us that don't chase said Meta and lock them in a game mode that requires so much effort just to play two games then it fades away, you don't take anything from them. Just us, who would be missing out on playing fun, thematic armies in pick up games. That is why I will always argue against the removal of sub-factions and especially custom traits thereof.

 

People that want a balanced game are not all meta chasers. In fact if the game is balanced then there is no meta to chase if codexes didn't come out trying to out do the last one. The idea that there is this large amount of the player base throwing $500+ on a 2k point army and somehow gets it all painted in a week or two and does this with multiple codexes every edition is just silly. There are some, sure, but I'm willing to bet it's a very small single digit %. You would think the person who has lost 10 years in a row would want the game to be a little more fair.

 

GW can't even balance point costs and basic unit rules half the time. The more mono bonuses, Secondary mono bonuses, faction and subfaction traits, custom traits, relics, warlord traits, strats, spells and faction specific secondaries they add just makes the situation that much worse.

[spafe]

Yeah, I'm not sure how you can say that crusade adds too much complexity to the game but want all the subfaction extra rules, more layers of bonueses, force org stuff and the rest.

 

But hey, if thats the granuanity you like then fair enough. each to their own :)

[Scribe]

6 hours ago, Cpt_Reaper said:

And what options do you offer those of us who want something else? That don't involve running a character to make Elites count as troops for example.

Because now I've had the option to run a purely Elites army, or a purely Heavy Support army...I am not going back to the old ways.

Narrative play and/or optional rules.

[Cpt_Reaper]

You can have your balanced game. 2-3 traits are good, the other 10 are terrible. But I will choose two of the 10 terrible traits to accurately portray my army on the tabletop. It will be an uphill struggle against the army using the 2-3 meta traits, and I do not care, nor will I ever care. If those terrible but flavourful traits are torn out, or locked behind narrative play guess what...I don't get to use them ever. Simply because nobody plays the narrative rules. I have tried time and again to get people to play them and every time it fizzles out after 1 game, 2 if I am lucky.

 

So again. Do not take my subfactions or custom traits. They are fine right where they are, doing no harm. But moving them does nothing but harm. If you insist on taking away a mechanic that enhances my enjoyment, I must ask what will you offer to replace them in the standard non-narrative game mode? Something of equal value, that allows me to play my army in a pleasing way without caring about it's power. No tax units, no extra costs.

[spafe]

1 minute ago, Cpt_Reaper said:

I must ask what will you offer to replace them in the standard non-narrative game mode? Something of equal value, that allows me to play my army in a pleasing way without caring about it's power. No tax units, no extra costs.

You are describing narrative play.

 

And honestly, as I say, you are fine to like the system how it is. But please accept that it has killed 40k amongst my friends, because we come to the game, get overwhelmed by the layers of choice, of stacking bonuses, of traits and other things.... some of which are traps, so when we have a casual pick up game... it isnt fun, because we dont know what are the best ones, so inevitably someone picks a bad set of stuff, and the other person picks stuff that combos well, and boom, one sided games that are no fun... when we want a balanced game. Not a meta chasing tournie scene game, but a casual pick up game that could go either way. We dont really play 40k much (at all really) these days becuase that is how it is. 

 

Unless we chose to play a crusade/narrative thing that we go into knowing it will create fun stories but not be balanced and we can fudge stuff on the fly without caring.

[Cpt_Reaper]

3 minutes ago, spafe said:

You are describing narrative play.

 

And honestly, as I say, you are fine to like the system how it is. But please accept that it has killed 40k amongst my friends, because we come to the game, get overwhelmed by the layers of choice, of stacking bonuses, of traits and other things.... some of which are traps, so when we have a casual pick up game... it isnt fun, because we dont know what are the best ones, so inevitably someone picks a bad set of stuff, and the other person picks stuff that combos well, and boom, one sided games that are no fun... when we want a balanced game. Not a meta chasing tournie scene game, but a casual pick up game that could go either way. We dont really play 40k much (at all really) these days becuase that is how it is. 

 

Unless we chose to play a crusade/narrative thing that we go into knowing it will create fun stories but not be balanced and we can fudge stuff on the fly without caring.

 

So you want a balanced game, then say you don't want a balanced game because narrative? Then why should I lose my thematic rules in pick up games if it changes nothing about non-narrative for you, but everything for me?

[spafe]

erm, no. I didnt say that at all. I'm saying when we do a pick up matched play game, it isnt balanced, so isnt fun (because we expect to be able to pick up a fun balanced (ish) game). 

 

When we actually play crusade of a narrative game, we find it fun, and we've gone into it knowing it isnt going to be a perfectly balanced game but thats our expectation, hence, still enjoy it.

 

So I'm saying strip matched play back to a smaller set of more balanced options, and leave the narrative with all the weird and wonderful excessive layers of traits, force orgs, bonuses, etc etc etc as options because narrative isnt needing to be balanced. Some of them can be crazy strong, other weaker, it doesnt matter, but it leaves the matched play options 'more' balanced than it currently is.

 

Edited March 21, 2023 by spafe

[Scribe]

Again, keep some traits/warlord traits.

 

It's strats and secondary objectives, that are my real issue with the game.

[spafe]

19 minutes ago, Cpt_Reaper said:

I must ask what will you offer to replace them

And I'm saying all of that as a 'what I would prefer/like', I dont influence the game design, and me voicing my opinion on what I would like doesnt mean I owe you anything, so me saying I want the game to go back to one original force org chart... is jsut that, what I would want. I don't mind if the more varied charts are completly eradicated and you lose all your options, makes no odds to me. But I was suggesting how it could work with them in narrative as a 'what might give us both a way to play how we would want'

[spafe]

3 minutes ago, Scribe said:

Again, keep some traits/warlord traits.

 

It's strats and secondary objectives, that are my real issue with the game.

thats fair. I'm not attached to any one option, but as a whole I want there to be less, so keeping traits would be fine, or keeping a primary and secondary objective would be fine, I just dont like the everything stacking on each other as its too much.

[Cpt_Reaper]

 

Just now, spafe said:

erm, no. I didnt say that at all. I'm saying when we do a pick up matched play game, it isnt balanced, so isnt fun (because we expect to be able to pick up a fun balanced (ish) game). 

Yeah, you did

12 minutes ago, spafe said:

...when we want a balanced game. Not a meta chasing tournie scene game, but a casual pick up game that could go either way. We dont really play 40k much (at all really) these days becuase that is how it is. 

 

Unless we chose to play a crusade/narrative thing that we go into knowing it will create fun stories but not be balanced and we can fudge stuff on the fly without caring.

Right there. You want a balanced game, but choose to play narrative knowing it isn't balanced. Exactly what I do, but I don't play an entirely different set of rules that has zero support.

 

5 minutes ago, spafe said:

When we actually play crusade of a narrative game, we find it fun, and we've gone into it knowing it isnt going to be a perfectly balanced game but thats our expectation, hence, still enjoy it.

 

So I'm saying strip matched play back to a smaller set of more balanced options, and leave the narrative with all the weird and wonderful excessive layers of traits, force orgs, bonuses, etc etc etc as options because narrative isnt needing to be balanced. Some of them can be crazy strong, other weaker, it doesnt matter, but it leaves the matched play options 'more' balanced than it currently is.

 

Again, and again, and every time these threads come up with arguments to strip back rules from matched play and locked them in narrative I will deny them. Because taking them out of matched play harms the experience of those of us who can only play matched play. It is the default mode for 40k play, narrative is not. It may well never be anything more than a gimmick that only the extremely lucky get to enjoy.

[spafe]

I can't work out if you are intentionally trolling/strawmaning me, so I'm just going to say I disagree with you and leave it there.

[Cpt_Reaper]

I am neither trolling, nor strawmaning. I am frustrated.

 

I am frustrated that time and again the community wants custom traits thrown out or locked in a gamemode that I've tried to play and only get to read about.

 

I am frustrated that when I try to say that I do not want them to change, I am called a troll and every post I make gets that accursed  emoji.

 

I am frustrated that no matter how much I try to articulate that taking away the rules I begged for for several editions only hurts players like me and doesn't help make the game more or less balanced, I am told to "go play optional rules" even though that isn't an option.

 

So no, I will never agree to lose those rules I waited so long to have. Theoretical scenarios on new editions or not.