Game Stability, Balance, and Health Over Time

[Tyran]

It wasn't strictly necessary to completely remove them, and their total removal did dumb down the game somewhat, but their implementation was a mess and there were countless debates in how to fix them before GW threw them away.

 

Except TLoS. TLoS is cancer and even now it isn't abstracted enough.

 

But also 3rd-7th rules were also dumbed down from 2nd rules. The truth is that the community has always wanted bigger games, but bigger scope will always come with bigger abstractions.

[DuskRaider]

There were certainly ways to fix some of the issues with the old rules without salting the earth and starting over again. TLoS could potentially slow the game down at times, but it also prevented things like “well over 50% of the unit is in cover so the whole unit gets a cover save”. 
 

I don’t know. A lot of the complaints I’ve heard about the older Editions are problems I’ve never really experienced before. We had a couple people who could be more WAAC than the rest of us, but generally they were pretty chill as well and if anything they would just play with each other if they wanted to throw down any meta garbage. Nowadays, that’s the target audience for GW and anyone who wants to play narrative and have custom armies and variety is SOL. 

[Cenobite Terminator]

Now that the toughness of vehicles has been adjusted to make them more durable I prefer wounds. The old way vehicles could be one shotted and things like Riptides and Wraithknights as had a distinct advantage.

Edited July 18 by Cenobite Terminator
Spelling correction

[Karhedron]

28 minutes ago, DuskRaider said:

I don’t think I could disagree anymore and it sounds like more of a problem with your gaming group than the rules.

 

I can't comment on other gaming groups but if you are trying to implement a system that might be played competitively then you absolutely want to remove anything that is a possible source of argument. You don't want scenarios where 2 players can look at the same situation and reach different conclusions. Terrain, vehicle facings and scatter templates all fell into that category.

[DuskRaider]

Those are all pretty simple to decipher, it’s literally written in the BRB how to figure things like facing and scatter. Hell, they even had a diagram with an Eldar Tank to show how it’s facing works since it can be seen as abstract due to the shape. 
 

Scatter was another rather simple concept to get a grip on and it’s still used in some specialty games with little to no issue. You roll your D6 or 2D6 or whatever plus the directional dice and you determine where it drops. If it covers some of the unit, you get that many hits. If it partially covers a model like a tank, you get take a hit but its damage is lessened, etc. I’m sure there were some cases where it could be confusing when terrain and whatnot is accounted for, but it’s pretty straightforward for the most part. 
 

Part of the fun and the challenge was finding ways to make use of terrain and strategy to get the best chance of success against something like a Predator, where the front arc was pretty tough to crack but the sides or rear were softer. Sure, there’s always a chance someone could one shot your Land Raider, but that took some serious luck with the dice rolls and it wasn’t all that common. Otherwise yeah, tanks should be shocked of stunned depending on how hard they’re hit. Treating my Land Raider like a Carnifex on treads is dumb. 

[Tyran]

33 minutes ago, Cenobite Terminator said:

Now that the toughness of vehicles has been adjusted to make them more durable I prefer wounds. The old way vehicles could be one shotted and things like Riptides and Wraithknights as had a distinct advantage.

I prefer toughness/wounds/save because the old way had the issue of creating weird spots in the weapon roster that were good against vehicles but bad against MC or viceversa.

 

High strenght weapons with mediocre AP or low strenght with good AP had such weird interactions. I also found weird how AP was often irrelevant against vehicles.

 

EDIT:

18 minutes ago, DuskRaider said:

Part of the fun and the challenge was finding ways to make use of terrain and strategy to get the best chance of success against something like a Predator, where the front arc was pretty tough to crack but the sides or rear were softer. Sure, there’s always a chance someone could one shot your Land Raider, but that took some serious luck with the dice rolls and it wasn’t all that common. Otherwise yeah, tanks should be shocked of stunned depending on how hard they’re hit. Treating my Land Raider like a Carnifex on treads is dumb. 

It does show the other side of the problem, that Monstrous Creature rules were comparatively shallow and prone to breaking when paired with good saves, high toughness and/or good ranged weapons (Riptides, Wraithknights and Dreadknights).

Edited July 18 by Tyran

[Karhedron]

4 hours ago, DuskRaider said:

Those are all pretty simple to decipher, it’s literally written in the BRB how to figure things like facing and scatter. Hell, they even had a diagram with an Eldar Tank to show how it’s facing works since it can be seen as abstract due to the shape. 

 

Simple to decipher but hard to agree on. I have lost count of the number of games where moving the angle of the tape measure during the scatter would result in more or fewer models being clipped by the template. It is not that the concept is hard, it is that 2 people could look at the same dice, move the same template and come up with different answers. The point is that it was subjective and created arguments that are thankfully avoided from 8th onwards.

[DuskRaider]

Yes, we got rid of templates and now it’s so simplified it’s ridiculous. A definite downgrade. 

[The Praetorian of Inwit]

It definitely feels like the game was more enjoyed in the days prior to 9th/10th. I don't know if it was healthy or not overall but I remember it being more of a good time amongst friends than the competition and tournament arms race we see now. 

[Tyran]

That has way more to do with how the community has evolved, which in turn has been heavily affected by the growth of social media.

 

 

[Cenobite Terminator]

9 hours ago, Tyran said:

I prefer toughness/wounds/save because the old way had the issue of creating weird spots in the weapon roster that were good against vehicles but bad against MC or viceversa.

 

High strenght weapons with mediocre AP or low strenght with good AP had such weird interactions. I also found weird how AP was often irrelevant against vehicles.

 

EDIT:

It does show the other side of the problem, that Monstrous Creature rules were comparatively shallow and prone to breaking when paired with good saves, high toughness and/or good ranged weapons (Riptides, Wraithknights and Dreadknights).

SM grav weapons used to shred Riptides and Wraightknights.

[Scribe]

10 minutes ago, Tyran said:

That has way more to do with how the community has evolved, which in turn has been heavily affected by the growth of social media.

 

 

 

Excuse me Brother, a typo. The community has devolved, due to social media. ;)

[Tyran]

12 hours ago, Cenobite Terminator said:

SM grav weapons used to shred Riptides and Wraightknights.

They used to shred everything, absurdly unbalanced mess of a weapon.

[DemonGSides]

16 hours ago, The Praetorian of Inwit said:

It definitely feels like the game was more enjoyed in the days prior to 9th/10th. I don't know if it was healthy or not overall but I remember it being more of a good time amongst friends than the competition and tournament arms race we see now. 

 

Find more fun people to play with.

 

All problems with the 40k experience can be solved by finding people who jive better with your own wants. If someone wants 40k 5th ed, go find that group (or organize it yourself).  If someone wants narrative 10th crusade, go find that group.

 

I'm having more fun right now in 10th than I ever did in 7th. 9th at the end was more fun than 10th at the beginning but right now, I'm feeling the same fun levels as 9th, which I enjoyed.

 

Fun is always gonna be subjective.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

1 hour ago, DemonGSides said:

 

Find more fun people to play with.

 

All problems with the 40k experience can be solved by finding people who jive better with your own wants. If someone wants 40k 5th ed, go find that group (or organize it yourself).  If someone wants narrative 10th crusade, go find that group.

 

I'm having more fun right now in 10th than I ever did in 7th. 9th at the end was more fun than 10th at the beginning but right now, I'm feeling the same fun levels as 9th, which I enjoyed.

 

Fun is always gonna be subjective.

All much easier said than done.

are people just supposed to magic these opponents up out of the warp?

[HeadlessCross]

1 hour ago, Tyran said:

They used to shred everything, absurdly unbalanced mess of a weapon.

Yep. You were even able to use them on Orks and Daemons just because of the sheer amount of shots you got and, if that wasn't fine, your bike's Bolters would do something for once. 

[SkimaskMohawk]

Grav guns on bikes were definitely not the boogeyman unit with high rate of fire lol. You got like, 2 shots a gun and one gun per unit? Per 3 bikes? Needing 6s to wound on a few shots was nothing and that was also what you needed to glance vehicles.

 

It was the cannons with 5 shots a model and amps allowing rerolls that was stupid. First on the grav Centurions in 6th when the rockets carried the wounds past the 24" weapon range and you combod them with Tiggy, then the devs with the sky hammer annihilation force and white scars relics/psychic powers. 

Edited July 19 by SkimaskMohawk

[DemonGSides]

3 hours ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

All much easier said than done.

are people just supposed to magic these opponents up out of the warp?

 

Effort is worth it, I promise.  

[Karhedron]

2 hours ago, SkimaskMohawk said:

Grav guns on bikes were definitely not the boogeyman unit with high rate of fire lol. You got like, 2 shots a gun and one gun per unit? Per 3 bikes? Needing 6s to wound on a few shots was nothing and that was also what you needed to glance vehicles.

 

It was 3 shots at close range, you could take 2 in a 3-man squad and a combi-grav on the Serg. That was 9 shots in a fast, durable unit that could effectively bring those guns into range. It wasn't vehicles that they scared, it was any high toughness models because you wounded if you exceed the armour save which meant they wounded most MCs on a 3+.

[Cenobite Terminator]

That’s back when SM were really strong.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

1 hour ago, DemonGSides said:

 

Effort is worth it, I promise.  

And what does someone do when there’s no one who wants to play those other ways?

 

this deflection of the issues in the game is so stupid.

[Deus_Ex_Machina]

7 hours ago, DemonGSides said:

 

Find more fun people to play with.

 

All problems with the 40k experience can be solved by finding people who jive better with your own wants. If someone wants 40k 5th ed, go find that group (or organize it yourself).  If someone wants narrative 10th crusade, go find that group.

 

I'm having more fun right now in 10th than I ever did in 7th. 9th at the end was more fun than 10th at the beginning but right now, I'm feeling the same fun levels as 9th, which I enjoyed.

 

Fun is always gonna be subjective.

I have watched dozens of "Hobby Nightmare stories" from the former GW employee on Youtube. Listeners send in their horrible experiences to him and he reads them aloud in his videos. The culprit of these bad experiences almost always stands at the other side of the table which is your opponent. Since I regularly play solo missions in all kinds of tabletop games the hobby has increased it´s appeal to such a high degree which it never had before.

[Deus_Ex_Machina]

On 7/18/2024 at 6:41 PM, Tyran said:

I prefer toughness/wounds/save because the old way had the issue of creating weird spots in the weapon roster that were good against vehicles but bad against MC or viceversa.

 

High strenght weapons with mediocre AP or low strenght with good AP had such weird interactions. I also found weird how AP was often irrelevant against vehicles.

 

EDIT:

It does show the other side of the problem, that Monstrous Creature rules were comparatively shallow and prone to breaking when paired with good saves, high toughness and/or good ranged weapons (Riptides, Wraithknights and Dreadknights).

Certain vehicles became monsters in 3rd 40K and remained in that way just to make them tougher and more appealing to be included in a specific faction. Notable example was the Eldar Dreadnought. It was one of the dumbest decision made in 40k.

[SkimaskMohawk]

2 hours ago, Karhedron said:

 

It was 3 shots at close range, you could take 2 in a 3-man squad and a combi-grav on the Serg. That was 9 shots in a fast, durable unit that could effectively bring those guns into range. It wasn't vehicles that they scared, it was any high toughness models because you wounded if you exceed the armour save which meant they wounded most MCs on a 3+.

 

Ah it was salvo 2/3. So normally 2 if you moved, but bikes had relentless and would get 3 shots. 

 

But still. The post i was referring to claimed they were so good theyd threaten daemons and orks, and that's just not true. You wouldn't feel good burning your combi grav for 9 grav shots into boys or daemons, where you averaged a single wound. They'd absolutely trounce elite things, no question, but gravs notable weakness was into horde. And I seem to remember void shield generator greentide existing lol.

[DuskRaider]

2 hours ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

And what does someone do when there’s no one who wants to play those other ways?

 

this deflection of the issues in the game is so stupid.

This is a result of blindly shilling for a company.