Game Stability, Balance, and Health Over Time

[DemonGSides]

26 minutes ago, The Unseen said:

How are flamers better? Most of them lost all AP, and do a random d6 hits at slightly longer range than the old flamer template. Or way less range than any of the really good flamers with torrent used to have.
Flamers, other than the detachments that can make them do mortals, have been trash for like 4 editions running now.

It *USED* to be that if you got a flamer in close range to chaff infantry, you could evaporate a ton of models, it hit everything under the template, wounded chaff infantry on 3's just like now, ignored cover saves, and had AP5, meaning guardsmen/ gaunts/ ork boys didn't get saves. Now it'll be lucky to kill more than a single guardsmen.
(D6 hits average 3.5, wounds on a 3+, 5+ save, killing an average of a whopping 1.6 guardsmen)

 

Flamers are pretty good in overwatch in the current game.

Also LR Flamers are pretty gnarly, as are predator flamers.  The Death Guard have some pretty good torrents as well.

Templates were pretty busted, I agree, but flamers are okay right now.

[Noserenda]

53 minutes ago, The Unseen said:

How are flamers better?

Yeah if you got the extremely rare perfect shot off they were great, but most of the time between opponents spreading out and the practicalities of placing multiple templates you only got a few hits, and they were typically on some kind of space marines where your AP was always completely irrelevant.

Now at least i get a fairly consistent 10d6 hits at slightly longer range (And some morale pointlessness) with essentially the same profile.

I think its important to point out that "better" is not the same word as "powerful" :D Flamers have always been worse/more situational than their special weapon peers, always! 

[Interrogator Stobz]

I love scatter dice, they still work fantastically in AT and LI.

If people can't read the direction, that's  a them problem.

Blast in 40k sucks so hard. Only hitting one unit with an explosion and almost never even being able to hit a whole unit is stupid bad.

The Basilisk example is a good one, it should be able to wipe an unarmoured Infantry Squad with good dice rolling.

Worse: A Warhound Inferno Gun worth nearly half an army will kill about 4.5 MEQ on average, that's pathetic. The Plasma Blast Gun only averages about the same, pathetic.

And if there's a mix of units or characters in the same area all but one is magically safe... 

Big guns should be dangerous again, but scatter when appropriate.

[MaximusTL]

As someone who's vaguely in the middle of the old grognards and the young, primaris-era 40k fans (i got into it right at the tail end of 6th; i remember the first knights being shown off, the release of the centurions/hunter/stalker, etc) i think theres merits to both sides. I absolutely think GW is putting too much focus on the tournament scene, to the extent that it's watering down the overall game. While i do think outrageous combos being toned down is a good thing, i also remember when Daemons had to roll for the winds of chaos, impacting the battlefield, and the multitude of tables that orks had to roll on. Not only were such things flavorful, but they also added some unpredictability to the game.

Someone way up in the thread compared modern 40k to DoTA/LoL, and i have to say, it's on point. Aside from the steady drip of balance updates (which, to be clear, i think are good; i think all rules should be free online and updated in real time), the emphasis on symmetrical, clearly game-y maps with clear lanes, simple terrain with clear rules and purpose, really echo the kind of maps used in MOBAs. there's a clear artificiality to it that's really jarring. sometimes i watch Striking Scorpion 82's beautiful tables to remind myself that 40k works on tables that a asymmetrical, scenario-based, and immersive. 

I  very much feel that 40k needs to lean back towards its roleplay/wargame roots. Put more emphasis on Your Dudes, on Scenarios, on campaigns. give us mission rules that's aren't another iteration of 'two armies walking at each other', but rules for attacking a convoy, or clearing a landing zone. Give us a mission where the attacker is trying to recover a Prisoner/Relic that they can't afford to destroy. Or a mission where a smaller force has to hold an advantageous position for a few turns while the larger force needs to clear them out before their reinforcements arrive. How about spicing up the tired objective game by setting up 6 objectives markers, but only one of them is the real objective - the rest are duds, and you need to take an action to find out if it's real or not. Give us missions that make us change our strategy mid game. 

 

Im not saying to do away with matched play. Alot of people, myself included, may have difficulty getting games on a regular basis. But, while i recognize that i don't speak for the entire community on this, I feel confident saying that alot of people stick with this expensive, messy hobby because we love the setting. I love my Blood Angels, and the eternal struggle between bestial violence and noble ideals, and it's so satisfying to see them rip through filthy xenos and chaos worshippers. When im able to get a game, i want to play a game that feels fluffy and impactful. I want the events of the game to impact future games.

I kinda got off topic and rambly with what i love about the hobby, but to summarize: I think that the current way GW supports 40k makes for a sterile, clean, and impersonal game. I like 10th's core mechanics as a whole, but i also feel that it's disingenuous to the spirit of warhammer to clean out the grimy, personal chaos of older editions.

Edited July 4 by MaximusTL

[Karhedron]

3 hours ago, The Unseen said:

How are flamers better? Most of them lost all AP, and do a random d6 hits at slightly longer range than the old flamer template. Or way less range than any of the really good flamers with torrent used to have.

 

Most flamers would be less effective in 10th edition than they were back in 7th because so many units are now on larger bases. Even if we still had the old templates, they would be hitting fewer models in many cases.

[phandaal]

6 hours ago, MaximusTL said:

Put more emphasis on Your Dudes, on Scenarios, on campaigns. give us mission rules that's aren't another iteration of 'two armies walking at each other', but rules for attacking a convoy, or clearing a landing zone. Give us a mission where the attacker is trying to recover a Prisoner/Relic that they can't afford to destroy. Or a mission where a smaller force has to hold an advantageous position for a few turns while the larger force needs to clear them out before their reinforcements arrive. How about spicing up the tired objective game by setting up 6 objectives markers, but only one of them is the real objective - the rest are duds, and you need to take an action to find out if it's real or not.

 

Just want to comment on this part. GW actually does make these kinds of missions. They are in the crusade mission packs.

 

Amidst the Ashes is my favorite example of this because all of the missions are super cool and flavorful. Pariah Nexus is another great example. The missions even go all the way from small skirmishes to massive battles, and can be played as normal games without any crusade campaign requirements.

 

Thing is, those missions are just buried and forgotten. They are "locked" to a game mode that most people glance over and forget about, and the Matched Play missions are the big dog that everyone talks about, around which the entire game is balanced. It is a shame, because they really are some of the most characterful missions.

 

Check out "Fatberg Clearance" if you want to see what I mean. 

Edited July 4 by phandaal

[DemonGSides]

2 hours ago, phandaal said:

Thing is, those missions are just buried and forgotten. They are "locked" to a game mode that most people glance over and forget about, and the Matched Play missions are the big dog that everyone talks about, around which the entire game is balanced. It is a shame, because they really are some of the most characterful missions.

 

Community differences.  My local place has constant Crusade leagues going that start at 500 points and ramp up.  There just has to be some up front effort by someone to organize things, and we all know how easy it is to say "oh well someone else can do that."

Eventually, someone has to step up. Thankfully we've got some local guys who want that narrative style but with the consistency of games that a more competitive style brings.  There's definitely room for both, just takes some effort.

 

[phandaal]

6 minutes ago, DemonGSides said:

 

Community differences.  My local place has constant Crusade leagues going that start at 500 points and ramp up.  There just has to be some up front effort by someone to organize things, and we all know how easy it is to say "oh well someone else can do that."

Eventually, someone has to step up. Thankfully we've got some local guys who want that narrative style but with the consistency of games that a more competitive style brings.  There's definitely room for both, just takes some effort.

 

For sure. In my area, it was like pulling teeth to get people to play anything besides the absolute most current version of the latest edition of 40k. And God forbid they played and didn't win, because that was just more confirmation that they never should have left their comfort zone.

 

Eventually though, I did find a handful of guys who were also looking to branch out, and now the group has grown to something like 50 people who do all kinds of games, from pick up casual stuff to escalation leagues.

[Noserenda]

I think they are swamping players with scenarios these days too, like, all over the place constantly, each white dwarf has at least half a dozen on top of all the campaign packs, matched play guides and what not. Its a wonder anyone ever gets to play one twice to really experience them and thats leaving off just playing 12" deployment and simple objectives/kill points that make up most of our games now scenarios are so dense :D 

[Scribe]

Where are the posts in the OP from?

 

EDIT: Nevermind, I see now.

 

LMAO at this game, what a disaster, and it was being called out week 1.

 

Go back to 5th GW, you blew it.

Edited July 4 by Scribe

[ThePenitentOne]

On 7/4/2024 at 1:26 AM, Interrogator Stobz said:

Blast in 40k sucks so hard. Only hitting one unit with an explosion and almost never even being able to hit a whole unit is stupid bad.

 

 

I'd say scattering and hitting no one, or worse, scattering and hitting your own dudes are way worse, and those are two thing that CANNOT happen with the current rules.

 

Firing a flame thrower at a unit and hitting nothing in said unit sucked so hard and was so stupid bad that they changed it, and good riddance. 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

1 hour ago, ThePenitentOne said:

 

I'd say scattering and hitting no one, or worse, scattering and hitting your own dudes are way worse, and those are two thing that CANNOT happen with the current rules.

 

Firing a flame thrower at a unit and hitting nothing in said unit sucked so hard and was so stupid bad that they changed it, and good riddance. 

Don’t fire artillery danger close and you won’t hit your own dudes, and you can still miss with artillery. In fact you’ll probably miss half the time now.

 

at least the old way there was the possibilities for different degrees of hits/misses.

[Emurian]

On 6/20/2024 at 5:56 PM, Evil Eye said:

This is exactly how I feel; I've been collecting the various material needed for 4th Edition 40K because, with the right mix of 3.5 and 4th ed Codexes, it's up there as one of the best rulesets 40K ever had, at least IMO. Modern 40K feels too much like a "tabletop E-sport" with all the games-as-a-service nonsense you'd expect out of an EA product.

Thank God I'm not the only one that has this idea of reverting back to 4th edition.

 

I LOVED playing 4th as a 16 year old. 5th codexes where also ok but I always preferred the 4th cover rules because they where so easy, fast to conclude and did not cause arguments like the true LOS that was implemented in 5th.

 

I've played roughly a 80-100 games of 9th. I enjoyed the single game of 4th I played more then any of my 9th games.

 

For me the main thing is that every codex feels viable. Units have a very clear role in their codex and almost no overlap. Also less units in total makes it feasible to collect all the options of said army and then ya know.. you buy another one. 4th SM where viable to collect, every options X3, don't see that happen with the current SM range.

 

As a new player, I can't imagine opening a 130+ datasheet codex and NOT feel overwhelmed by all these choices.

 

So you go online, ask around, buy the meta unit, spend painting for 50 hours and then.. balance slate FU go buy X instead. Eindscore: invested time painting is higher then the play time of the models.

 

The way they balance is not balancing at all in my eyes. Balancing means more then just bumping or decreasing points. Some units just need an overhaul to be made viable (looking at you primaries Reivers) the way I perceive these balance slates is that they nerf the meta unit so hard that its not even mediocre viable. Then we get a bone thrown out way of decreasing some points of a unit that hardly sees play but not enough to make it viable if you play competitively.

 

After being in this hobby for 20 years I can say one quote I often see float around on FB groups ring true; your a true fan of the hobby when your at the point of hating GW but loving the franchise.

 

GW is not out to balance things. If they wanted to they could approach this a lot better. Simply release ALL codexes DAY 1. Let it be :cuss:show for 3-6 months and once ppl figure out optimal lists THATS the moment you look what units are dominating the meta to the point that its surpressing other armies, tactics or.unitanthat are considered some of the top tier ones.

 

The way they do it's insanity. The new codex release is a power creep on itself. They act to fast trying to balance things again. Instead of nerfing things within a month they should make a mental note about which units are problematic and then first wait to see what the next codex will do in terms of causing ripples. Nerfing stuff to soon and then going power creep.codex creates a skewed image of how OP the new codex units truly are. It might actually flatten out by itself once your 2 codexes further down the line.

 

They are also to focussed on those % from tournaments. Some armies have a harder learning curve but once you master them they will perform better then a noob friendly army (using Eldar versus Marines in multiple editions as an example)

 

If top players are picking up such a faction they will skew the data as the average "pleb" won't pull off the same results. (Maybe after some time once they got the day experience but overall they won't nail it within a month of the codex release.

 

But whatever by now I'm pretty apathic towards GW. I grasp every chance to pay for models in a way that it does not end in the pockets of GW. Outside some of the large boxes (like the kroot one recently) I simply stopped buying single unit boxes and completely gave up.

 

I rather dabble with 4th and tweak some rules if desired by our group then go with the flow of their latest edition. Ty GW but I prefer to have a clear end point when I'm done collecting that army and move on to the next.

[Orion]

2 hours ago, ThePenitentOne said:

scattering and hitting your own dudes are way worse, and those are two thing that CANNOT happen with the current rules.

"No fun allowed."

[No Foes Remain]

32 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

Don’t fire artillery danger close and you won’t hit your own dudes, and you can still miss with artillery. In fact you’ll probably miss half the time now.

 

at least the old way there was the possibilities for different degrees of hits/misses.

I remember in 5th ed (I think it was a planetstrike game?), my devastator squad fired it's weapons at a large necron warrior squad with two missiles and two plasma cannons. One of each hit the warriors, the others went 180 behind them and blew up another guy's Imperial Guard command squad and platoon command squad. It was funny but also annoying, at the same time I feel that blast weapons in 40k now don't really mean much.

[gaurdian31]

I've played since 3rd and I am glad that scatter and templates are gone. Having to space out your dudes just right for moving, arguments over if they are partial or wholly under the template, the partial going form just getting hit to possibly getting hit, all of that made games take way longer than needed in my opinion. I don't think GW came up with the most elegant solution but I prefer it to templates. 

[HeadlessCross]

1 hour ago, Emurian said:

For me the main thing is that every codex feels viable.

That's 100% nostalgia clouding judgment if I've ever seen it. 

[Interrogator Stobz]

1 hour ago, No Foes Remain said:

I remember in 5th ed (I think it was a planetstrike game?), my devastator squad fired it's weapons at a large necron warrior squad with two missiles and two plasma cannons. One of each hit the warriors, the others went 180 behind them and blew up another guy's Imperial Guard command squad and platoon command squad. It was funny but also annoying, at the same time I feel that blast weapons in 40k now don't really mean much.

And you remember it because it was fun and unexpected. 

Now try remembering "rolled some dice, missed some, wounded some, failed some saves, removed some minis.  Oh that's right,  booooring!!

 

4 hours ago, ThePenitentOne said:

 

I'd say scattering and hitting no one, or worse, scattering and hitting your own dudes are way worse, and those are two thing that CANNOT happen with the current rules.

 

Firing a flame thrower at a unit and hitting nothing in said unit sucked so hard and was so stupid bad that they changed it, and good riddance. 

Because that cannot happen they fail to act like Artillery. They act like..yawn...  everything else. 

 

How in hell did you miss with a flame thrower? You hit everything under the template. 

 

[MaximusTL]

On 7/4/2024 at 9:07 AM, phandaal said:

 

Just want to comment on this part. GW actually does make these kinds of missions. They are in the crusade mission packs.

 

Amidst the Ashes is my favorite example of this because all of the missions are super cool and flavorful. Pariah Nexus is another great example. The missions even go all the way from small skirmishes to massive battles, and can be played as normal games without any crusade campaign requirements.

 

Thing is, those missions are just buried and forgotten. They are "locked" to a game mode that most people glance over and forget about, and the Matched Play missions are the big dog that everyone talks about, around which the entire game is balanced. It is a shame, because they really are some of the most characterful missions.

 

Check out "Fatberg Clearance" if you want to see what I mean. 

 

Yeah, like you said, those missions are tucked out of the way where people won't find them, and more imortantly, locked behind another paywall. 

[No Foes Remain]

12 minutes ago, Interrogator Stobz said:

And you remember it because it was fun and unexpected. 

Now try remembering "rolled some dice, missed some, wounded some, failed some saves, removed some minis.  Oh that's right,  booooring!!

 

 

I did, at Warhammer World when my SoH plasma jetbikes missed some termies. Though made some dents in some custodians before they got into close combat with my infantry and I had fun doing it.

 

Not sure what point you are trying to make.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

2 hours ago, No Foes Remain said:

I remember in 5th ed (I think it was a planetstrike game?), my devastator squad fired it's weapons at a large necron warrior squad with two missiles and two plasma cannons. One of each hit the warriors, the others went 180 behind them and blew up another guy's Imperial Guard command squad and platoon command squad. It was funny but also annoying, at the same time I feel that blast weapons in 40k now don't really mean much.

I might have left by 5th but I don’t recall plasma cannons and missile launchers using a scatter die at any point.

[No Foes Remain]

3 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

I might have left by 5th but I don’t recall plasma cannons and missile launchers using a scatter die at any point.

They were both blast weapons (standard for plasma cannon and for ML if you used the frag missiles), all blast weapons used the scatter die.

[gaurdian31]

25 minutes ago, Interrogator Stobz said:

And you remember it because it was fun and unexpected. 

Now try remembering "rolled some dice, missed some, wounded some, failed some saves, removed some minis.  Oh that's right,  booooring!!

 

So every time a melee happens? I remember killing 4 terminators with necron warriors in melee in 4th edition. I rolled some dice, missed some, wounded with some and then my friend failed some saves and removed some models. It was fun and not boring. I mean I remember losing a bunch of Tactical Marines in assault to gretchin in 3rd. The whole games is roll daice, missed some, wounded some, failed saves and picking up minis. Even templates do that with the scatter dice or do you just set those down and not roll them?

[Emurian]

1 hour ago, HeadlessCross said:

That's 100% nostalgia clouding judgment if I've ever seen it. 

Name an army outside grey knights in 4th that was not viable?

 

I played Dark Eldar, Eldar, SM, CSM, IG, Crons, Tau and GK. Only faction I had near zero experience with was Witch hunters and overall little experience with orks (but not vs) outside that Dex I knew every codex statline out of my head. Things where not perfectly balanced but compared to the latest editions 4th felt like the best balanced edition. I easily played over a 1000 games of 4th, including participating on tournaments. I'm pretty sure that I have seen the majority of the lists. Every army was viable outside GK due to their AT being limited to dreads and landraiders. (Which is why most ppl splashed GK with inquisitor + servitors with HB and a GK terminator unit as a hammer. The assassin's where also an easy addon for any imperial army. 95 pts for an eversor out of my head, that thing killed easily 120 pts on average before dying) 

Edited July 5 by Emurian

[phandaal]

45 minutes ago, MaximusTL said:

 

Yeah, like you said, those missions are tucked out of the way where people won't find them, and more imortantly, locked behind another paywall. 

 

Thanks to the Russian "waha" site, they are available for free now. Those missions do prove that GW can still make fun missions with a lot of character, but unfortunately the focus nowadays is on Matched Play and video game-like balance patches.

 

Definitely recommend people check out those crusade missions though!