What should 11th look like?

[Cenobite Terminator]

33 minutes ago, Scribe said:

 

No, not at all, and we used to incorporate a top of turn 4 "smoke" break.

 

5th just allowed for that all to be done sub 2 hours. Set up, play, pack up.

 

5 to 6 hours for a single game? Miss me lol.

I remember a game versus guard in 5th edition… took close to eight hours because my opponent had lots of tanks dropping templates. It was a league game and I was glad when it was over so I could finally go to a pub.

[DemonGSides]

16 minutes ago, Scribe said:

The fact the 'tournament' game is twice as long as it used to be, is brutal. That's not to anyone's benefit, and GW has bloated the game to push plastic.

 

Play smaller game sizes, idk. I like big armies. We can enjoy different things.

[Scribe]

9 minutes ago, Cenobite Terminator said:

I remember a game versus guard in 5th edition… took close to eight hours because my opponent had lots of tanks dropping templates. It was a league game and I was glad when it was over so I could finally go to a pub.

 

Was that when you were posting to your site with the Dark Eldar army?

 

5 minutes ago, DemonGSides said:

Play smaller game sizes, idk. I like big armies. We can enjoy different things.

 

Whats the recommended size for a tournament game in 10th? In 5th it was 1750 around here, and that took 1.5 hours tops unless someone was stalling to be a pain.

 

This isnt a discussion about enjoying different things, we used to have different formats to play in, and people who wanted that 6 hour experience could go play Apocalypse.

 

As I've been saying for years, GW ruined 40K by turning it into Apoc-Lite.

[DemonGSides]

19 minutes ago, Scribe said:

Whats the recommended size for a tournament game in 10th? In 5th it was 1750 around here, and that took 1.5 hours tops unless someone was stalling to be a pain.

 

This isnt a discussion about enjoying different things, we used to have different formats to play in, and people who wanted that 6 hour experience could go play Apocalypse.

 

As I've been saying for years, GW ruined 40K by turning it into Apoc-Lite.

 

I don't play tournaments, I would guess it's the same 2000 point limit it's been for a decade.

 

This has absolutely turned into a discussion about what we like, because half of the suggestions for 11th here are just "I like 5th (or 3rd, or 4th, or 3.5th or whatever), it should just be 5th" and the other half are people with actual suggestions, who are just being responded to "Well that's not what I want, so you're wrong."

 

We know what your feelings are.  You make them very well known, multiple times, in every thread that comes up about 10th ed.  We know.

 

Edited July 12 by DemonGSides

[Scribe]

And we know you like 10th, and that Cenobite is BBF.

 

Its still not about what we like though, its about what makes for a good game, and 10th aint it. ;)

[DuskRaider]

32 minutes ago, DemonGSides said:

 

I don't play tournaments, I would guess it's the same 2000 point limit it's been for a decade.

 

This has absolutely turned into a discussion about what we like, because half of the suggestions for 11th here are just "I like 5th (or 3rd, or 4th, or 3.5th or whatever), it should just be 5th" and the other half are people with actual suggestions, who are just being responded to "Well that's not what I want, so you're wrong."

 

We know what your feelings are.  You make them very well known, multiple times, in every thread that comes up about 10th ed.  We know.

 

Saying we want things like AV, facing, terrain interactions and templates back is making suggestions, though… you just don’t like them so you brush them off. That’s fine if you don’t like the old Editions, but to discount others’ opinions because you disagree with them is counterproductive to the discussion. 
 

I will say this: big games like 2,000 points and up can be a lot of fun and have their place in a weekend game or campaign. I had so much fun back in the day dropping down 3,000+ points and just going to town for a couple days… play for like 5 hours, come back to it the next day and keep going. 

Edited July 12 by DuskRaider

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

5 hours ago, DemonGSides said:

Anyone finishing a 10th Ed game in an hour and a half had my curiosity piqued. I've played pretty much all points levels at this time and have never gotten that slim. That's like speed playing; you even putting models on the board at that point?  Go play a video game.

 

Meanwhile I'm over here playing 5-6 hour games, because I'm a human having fun with my friends.

It’s normally 4 hours at 2k for me, so I bet at 750 my game could probably be over in about an hour and a half.

[phandaal]

1 hour ago, Scribe said:

 

Oh the social aspect is great, we had a ton of laughs and good times, its not like we rushed.

 

The fact the 'tournament' game is twice as long as it used to be, is brutal. That's not to anyone's benefit, and GW has bloated the game to push plastic.

 

Couple of years back, I had a basic 2k point game of 9th that took more than 4 hours, and that was with us mostly just rolling dice and minimal side tracking. By the end we were both just tired and glad we were done. Think that was around the time I started mostly doing 1k points.

 

Back to what supposedly was going to happen with 10th - streamlined games... Did we get that? Honestly, I don't know because I am using other rulesets, having a great time playing games that come in at or under 2 hours even with a lot of goofing off and bull:cuss:ting.

 

Maybe games of 10th edition do clock in around that amount of time at the standard points value. If not, and we are wishlisting for what 11th could be, then they really should.

[DemonGSides]

16 minutes ago, DuskRaider said:

Saying we want things like AV, facing, terrain interactions and templates back is making suggestions, though… you just don’t like them so you brush them off. That’s fine if you don’t like the old Editions, but to discount others’ opinions because you disagree with them is counterproductive to the discussion.

 

47 minutes ago, DemonGSides said:

the other half are people with actual suggestions, who are just being responded to "Well that's not what I want, so you're wrong."

 

I'm confused?  Pretty sure I'm accounting for actual suggestions right here.  I'm not ignoring or discounting anyone's opinions, I'm saying if you REALLY love 5th, GO PLAY 5th!  The game for a lot of people is a lot more fun WITHOUT those things, so saying "make the game exactly like a game that already exists" is more counter productive, in my opinion.
 

18 minutes ago, DuskRaider said:

I will say this: big games like 2,000 points and up can be a lot of fun and have their place in a weekend game or campaign. I had so much fun back in the day dropping down 3,000+ points and just going to town for a couple days… play for like 5 hours, come back to it the next day and keep going. 

 

I'd say the majority of games I've played since the beginning of 7th have been above 1500 points, and of those, most of those are 2000 on the dot.

3000 points shouldn't take days, which seems to fly in the face of what Scribe was describing as their 5th experience.  So I'm a little confused on all of that.  But whatever, it's all subjective anyways, because the game that is completed in 2 hours start to finish including prep and play is a wholly different game than what we have now, and as such, wanting to force everyone else into that older game because "I like it that way" is just as annoying as the people who feel that 10th has ruined warhammer probably feel about people who like warhammer currently.

So we can just stop doing these stupid types of threads, there'd be less fighting, and everyone could discuss the hobby in ways that are constructive, such as the painting and the modelling and the lore.  Instead we butt heads over stupid :cuss: like this.

[phandaal]

1 minute ago, DemonGSides said:

So we can just stop doing these stupid types of threads, there'd be less fighting, and everyone could discuss the hobby in ways that are constructive, such as the painting and the modelling and the lore.  Instead we butt heads over stupid like this.

 

We already have subsections of the forums for that though, with lots of posts. Other subsections are for other things, like having important arguments about game rules. People like to argue about stuff... It's what nerds do. You know this. 

[Scribe]

5 minutes ago, DemonGSides said:

So we can just stop doing these stupid types of threads, there'd be less fighting, and everyone could discuss the hobby in ways that are constructive, such as the painting and the modelling and the lore.  Instead we butt heads over stupid like this.

 

Brother, you dont have to participate in a thread, nobody has a gun to your head.

 

As much as my 'man it was better when' annoys you, the 'what do you mean, 10th is great' is laughable to me. Thats fine. We can continue the dance or you can bow out at any time. No harm, no foul.

 

I did enjoy the quote you posted about how the game sucks and the balance team should be fired however, I thought you had finally come around to the correct conclusion. ;)

 

Edited July 12 by Scribe

[Jolemai]

Folks, keep the discussion constructive please.

[Kallas]

1 hour ago, DemonGSides said:

Play smaller game sizes, idk. I like big armies. We can enjoy different things.

Not dis/agreeing in general, but just to point out that the standard game size used to be 1500, then slowly went up to 2000pts, and then since that became the standard point costs for units have dropped meaning we need to field more units to hit what used to be. The game has scaled up just by shrinking point costs to 'allow' (or 'force', depending on how generous one wants to be) more units to be taken in a "standard" army.

 

Regardless of one's opinion about larger armies, the game/GW has pushed to grow the scale of the game. Games of the same points as 15-20 years ago now actually have more models, so they will take longer - of course, you can shrink game size yourself, that's certainly an option, but it can't be ignored that GW have themselves pushed the scale creep for better or worse.

[Scribe]

4 minutes ago, Kallas said:

Not dis/agreeing in general, but just to point out that the standard game size used to be 1500, then slowly went up to 2000pts, and then since that became the standard point costs for units have dropped meaning we need to field more units to hit what used to be. The game has scaled up just by shrinking point costs to 'allow' (or 'force', depending on how generous one wants to be) more units to be taken in a "standard" army.

 

Regardless of one's opinion about larger armies, the game/GW has pushed to grow the scale of the game. Games of the same points as 15-20 years ago now actually have more models, so they will take longer - of course, you can shrink game size yourself, that's certainly an option, but it can't be ignored that GW have themselves pushed the scale creep for better or worse.

 

And of course its nakedly obvious as to why. $$$

[phandaal]

18 minutes ago, Scribe said:

 

And of course its nakedly obvious as to why. $$$

 

This is a big reason why I doubt we will see any kind of reduction in scale for 11th or any other future edition, unless the retail price of models goes up to compensate and GW would rather not just sell more models at a higher price.

 

Lowering the standard game size would lower the number of models people buy to play their games. (Or, if my facebook bitz bazaar groups are anything to go by - the number of models people buy, assemble, think real hard about maybe possibly using, and then sell to other people at a big discount.)

 

Edit:

 

Black Blow Fly - the Man with Two Bans - agreeing that we need to keep this discussion constructive did get an honest chuckle out of me. If nothing else, we must be kind to one another. For "Cenobite Terminator"'s sake. 

Edited July 12 by phandaal

[DuskRaider]

30 minutes ago, DemonGSides said:

3000 points shouldn't take days, which seems to fly in the face of what Scribe was describing as their 5th experience.  So I'm a little confused on all of that.  But whatever, it's all subjective anyways, because the game that is completed in 2 hours start to finish including prep and play is a wholly different game than what we have now, and as such, wanting to force everyone else into that older game because "I like it that way" is just as annoying as the people who feel that 10th has ruined warhammer probably feel about people who like warhammer currently.

So we can just stop doing these stupid types of threads, there'd be less fighting, and everyone could discuss the hobby in ways that are constructive, such as the painting and the modelling and the lore.  Instead we butt heads over stupid like this.

I did say 3,000+ some of which involved multiple players and when Orks and Tyranids are on the table it can take somewhere around a century for them to move everything, especially when both players are playing horde armies. These were the days of Assault on Black Reach when you could buy 20 Boyz from that box set for like $5. Even fielding things like Stompaz didn’t mitigate the time it took to push 300+ Boyz and ‘Gants around the table. We also played entire campaigns which included both Kill Teams and Battlefleet Gothic, sometime simultaneously and having each separate game affect the other ones. 
 

I’m envious of your enthusiasm for 10th, I really am and I am happy that you are enjoying it and having fun, but a lot of people aren’t. I will say that I preferred 4th to 5th or anything that came after it (especially when it came to Chaos, 3.5 was the best codex ever written). 
 

Like Mohawk said, those of us in the demographic can’t even find an escape with HH anymore since GW took that over and began injecting post-8th rules into that either. Some of us feel homeless at this point when it comes to 40K and that’s a big bummer. 

[The Praetorian of Inwit]

I like the scale of the game now and personally would like points to be dropped further. 

 

The more things I can get on the tabletop the better. 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

1 hour ago, The Praetorian of Inwit said:

I like the scale of the game now and personally would like points to be dropped further. 

 

The more things I can get on the tabletop the better. 

Nice try GW, nice try.

[Xenith]

On 7/11/2024 at 10:59 AM, Jings said:

I get the sense that they don't think the new blood in the hobby can work out the more complicated rulesets of the past, and the focus on the competitive scene also adds to that. 

 

What's weird is that in their attempt to make the rules more simple, they've actually made playing the game more complex than ever. 

[Emperor Ming]

1 hour ago, Xenith said:

 

What's weird is that in their attempt to make the rules more simple, they've actually made playing the game more complex than ever. 

Its so true!

 

The rule book errata is something like 40+ pages, then the card faqs. 

 

I noticed they combined the rules commentary and rulebook faq, I wonder if that was to make it look like less faq

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

1 hour ago, Emperor Ming said:

Its so true!

 

The rule book errata is something like 40+ pages, then the card faqs. 

 

I noticed they combined the rules commentary and rulebook faq, I wonder if that was to make it look like less faq

It’s not even that.

at it’s core the game is more rules dense between literally every unit having a special ability, and in many cases weargear abilities, how they all interact, plus strats, and how all of those interact.

 

[phandaal]

1 hour ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

It’s not even that.

at it’s core the game is more rules dense between literally every unit having a special ability, and in many cases weargear abilities, how they all interact, plus strats, and how all of those interact.

 

 

Don't forget multiple different damage types, different save types, damage that bypasses some saves but not others, etc.

 

There are just so many layers in all kinds of places, all written in legalese that still leaves enough questions for an errata longer than many games' full rulesets.

 

That was what we were supposedly getting rid of in 10th.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

1 hour ago, phandaal said:

 

Don't forget multiple different damage types, different save types, damage that bypasses some saves but not others, etc.

 

There are just so many layers in all kinds of places, all written in legalese that still leaves enough questions for an errata longer than many games' full rulesets.

 

That was what we were supposedly getting rid of in 10th.

Oh, we forgot faction rules and detachment rules! Can’t forget those and the interactions they have!

 

 

[phandaal]

9 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

Oh, we forgot faction rules and detachment rules! Can’t forget those and the interactions they have!

 

 

 

Yeah, we didn't realize how much GW was going to lean on the "not simple" part of "simplified but not simple" marketing for 10th. 

[Harrowmaster]

I would like to see some sort of subfaction rules, either 8th edition style or 4th edition type doctrines/chapter tactics.