Game design, "balance", "fun" and how they interact

[crimsondave]

1 hour ago, Karhedron said:

 

What is about GW's approach to balance that spoils this edition for you? Personally I like the approach of quarterly MFMs to keep points fair because it means if something shoots to the top of the meta, you know if will be reeled in before too long. I remember the 8th edition SM 2.0 codex where Iron Hands dominated the meta for over a year which I don't think was fun for anyone.

 

Just the rules.  Deleted datasheets.  Power level.  I don't want to beat a dead horse.  I don't play meta so I don't care about what's at the top of it.  I've said it before but I really wish there were two different games.  It's ok though.  While I have no interest in actually playing my, enjoyment of the hobby is at an all time high just collecting and painting miniatures.

[HeadlessCross]

1 hour ago, crimsondave said:

 

Just the rules.  Deleted datasheets.  Power level.  I don't want to beat a dead horse.  I don't play meta so I don't care about what's at the top of it.  I've said it before but I really wish there were two different games.  It's ok though.  While I have no interest in actually playing my, enjoyment of the hobby is at an all time high just collecting and painting miniatures.

Datasheets being deleted has nothing to do with balance though. 

[crimsondave]

3 hours ago, HeadlessCross said:

Datasheets being deleted has nothing to do with balance though. 

It’s easier to balance less data sheets.

[Rain]

5 hours ago, Karhedron said:

 

You have hit the nail squarely on the head but you have also illustrated why the sort of balance you are after cannot be part of the game design. How do you create rules for etiquette?

 

In ye olden days certain characters were explicitly only allowed in games that were X number of points + (usually 2,000) or "with opponent's permission" only. So, if you didn't want to fight against Abaddon in your 750 point skirmish, you didn't have to. Nowadays, the big chunks of plastic are probably very high margin boxes for GW, so those days are long gone. Realistically, you just have to play with people that are of a similar mind. This can be easier said than done for some, of course. The current scheme makes pickup games against randoms a pain for multiple reasons. Broken skew builds, "gotcha" strats, each unit having special rules, the same weapon having different profiles across armies, etc. all of which makes it difficult to know what your opponent's units even do unless they are a regular opponent, or you are a competitive player with hundreds of hours to devote to learning what each unit in each army does, plus strats, etc.

 

That said, it's fun for casual games with people you know. Units having thematic special rules is fun once you learn them, your buddy isn't likely to just suddenly drop a whole new army for you to learn out of the blue; so when he tries out that new squad that does this or that, it's fun to see it do its thing, and then learn to counter it. I'm happy with my casual beer and pretzels games, taking what units I think are fun/I like the aesthetics of, and cranking The Trooper by Iron Maiden through my phone as my dudes charge into overwatch. 

[HeadlessCross]

2 hours ago, crimsondave said:

It’s easier to balance less data sheets.

But that's not why those random datasheets are being deleted...

[ZeroWolf]

30 minutes ago, HeadlessCross said:

But that's not why those random datasheets are being deleted...

Could be more meaning what we see with the EC codex (but oddly not WE or DG) 

 

Normally however, datasheets are removed because GW are no longer selling the model (the no model/no rule rule)

[ThaneOfTas]

9 hours ago, crimsondave said:

I've said it before but I really wish there were two different games.

Fully agreed on this especially. A full on Competitive rules set with limited numbers of units and balanced profiles for each faction focused on competitive players. Rotate the allowed units as new releases hit to keep the meta from getting stale. And then have a narrative focused game with access to all of the units and loadout options with far less of a focus on if any unit or weapon will be wildly unbalanced in a niche tournament list that 90% of players wouldn't even consider trying in a real game.

[Gillyfish]

I think it is possible to have a fun game with alternating turns rather than activations. There are games such as Hail Caesar and Black Powder which do that and perfectly enjoyable. In fact the Warlord stable (given it has a lot of ex-GW employees) is a good example of how some rulesets can be created which are fun to play and work well. You can also have different mechanisms for activation rather alternate activations (as in Titanicus, LI). There is a game called Blucher which has a concept called 'Momentum' which your opponent rolls for at the beginning of your turn and is kept secret. That is the amount of units you can move before your opponent reacts (everyone in range and who has charged resolves that before the turn switches round). It is a very flavourful mechanic and fits the way Napoleonic battlefields worked with one side reacting to another, sometimes more quickly or slowly.

 

The point with the above is that the design decisions are not either/or, but they can definitely serve a purpose in giving a game 'feel'. The Blucher example makes sense in the context of 19th century warfare where not every component of an army was always engaged, but that might not make sense for the smaller scale warfare depicted in 40k, for example.

 

I do get the impression that some of the gamers who don't like 10th don't like it due to 'feel'. I have only played one game of 10th and my main criticism was the number of unit level special rules to remember which seemed distinct to each unit. Now, I can see the potential for creating powerful combos and so on and the need to then spend time creating optimal unit combinations, but it then feels (to me) more about the special rules of the units than it used to. For me, the 'feel' is different to the one I got from the game in the earlier editions, even though core mechanics are broadly similar.

 

Now, my impression is probably unfair. After all, in third-fourth edition you still used jump-pack chaplains and their special rules to attach to assault squads and make a potent attacking combination. So 40k has always had some element of this. However, the sense I got of being presented with all the datacards was one of being overwhelmed with special rules and combinations rather than there being, say, a common set of special abilities with, perhaps, a few army specific additions.

 

It's worth noting that I did enjoy my game of 10th, but probably not enough to make me want to make the investment necessary to bring my army out of Legends territory (and nearly all the models I used were Legends!).

 

I do think it would be possible to create flavourful rules for the game which had some common special rules/abilities and then add in some army special rules. However, that might quickly mean that units don't feel sufficiently 'special' to a lot of people compared to how they do now. For them, the current 'feel' of the game might change.

 

So, the question to ask is: what game does 40k want to be? What should it feel like to play? Should it reward army selection and/or play? What about movement, use of cover, etc. Should there be a suppression mechanic? What about command and control, etc., etc.?

[gideon stargreave]

I would like to bring up as relevant to this discussion the two most fun games GW ever made

 

1. Space Hulk

2. Blood Bowl

 

 

Both of these games are extremely unbalanced, in fact, deliberately so. Or perhaps rather, they are extremely assymetric, and so we might as well assume they are unbalanced, as a small differential in skill / experience will compund.

They are also both extrememly fun to play, both very exciting regardless of result, and both easy to play.
 

 

[Dark Legionnare]

4 hours ago, gideon stargreave said:

I would like to bring up as relevant to this discussion the two most fun games GW ever made

 

1. Space Hulk

2. Blood Bowl

 

 

Both of these games are extremely unbalanced, in fact, deliberately so. Or perhaps rather, they are extremely assymetric, and so we might as well assume they are unbalanced, as a small differential in skill / experience will compund.

They are also both extrememly fun to play, both very exciting regardless of result, and both easy to play.
 

 

Agreed, and I would also put Adeptus Titanicus on this list.

We never, ever, ever have a bad game, even if somebody gets absolutely clobbered by bad luck. It's Gorka-Morka-lite levels of fun silliness.

Our last game, friend's warhound double-heat two turns back to back with not a single reactor-cooling roll, immediately reactor critical'd and detonated the heat-check after the second double heat (hurting nobody else, but just being a mushroom cloud on one flank for no reason)

We made a terrain crater piece in honor of it, with a billboard on the edge that says "Don't forget reactor coolant"

Edited April 29 by Dark Legionnare

[HeadlessCross]

18 hours ago, ZeroWolf said:

Could be more meaning what we see with the EC codex (but oddly not WE or DG) 

 

Normally however, datasheets are removed because GW are no longer selling the model (the no model/no rule rule)

WE and DG are basically only lucky in regards to their vehicles. 

 

Look at it this way: GW doesn't sell a DG Sorcerer in Terminator armor. Now they don't have one in their new codex. WE don't have Possessed, despite having TWO unit entries for an equivalent of them. 

 

Is this because of balance reasons?

[crimsondave]

6 hours ago, HeadlessCross said:

WE and DG are basically only lucky in regards to their vehicles. 

 

Look at it this way: GW doesn't sell a DG Sorcerer in Terminator armor. Now they don't have one in their new codex. WE don't have Possessed, despite having TWO unit entries for an equivalent of them. 

 

Is this because of balance reasons?

And the predator and helbrute were removed from EC because?

 

Maybe it’s random or they forgot.  Balance or not it’s annoying to lose units.

Edited April 29 by crimsondave

[TheTrans]

I just get the distinct feeling that all the people that could actually write rules, or people in managment that were happy to let these people 'cook', have all left GW for greener pastures. 

There are phenomenal rules systems out there, that just don't seem to feel as bad when playing, even with some levels of imbalance. 

GW's point-changes are a very inelegant solution to so many balance fixes also which is a shame. I love 40k, I want to play with my Nids and Tau etc and not just be stuck playing HH2.0 (which has all its own issues, much like ToW as well...which leads me to belive GW can't write decent rules anymore). 

But at the same time, GW want to sell models, what they've built from late 7th onwards, is a lean, mean churn creating machine which nets them more money... so why would they actually change?

Not too mention, so much of current 40k is just you trying to wipe your opponent off the board in a shooting phase.. like.. I've tried to watch a couple of games over the course of a couple of editions, and the second it gets anymore serious than mates rolling dice at each other, games just turn into, what may as well be a bot-stomp for a turn, then the other opponent gets to bot stomp (with whats left) for a turn, so on and hence forth. It just feels like wargaming-masturbation in all honesty, you don't really need the other person there for so much of it.

The only 40k I play nowadays is 3rd ed and we luckily have a couple of 3rd edition events a year down here (I run one of them) and honestly, its a blast, there are some skews that can be a bit dicey, even back in the watered down codex days, but outside of maybe disintegrator/blaster spam dark eldar have I ever felt in fear of being shot off the board before I can do anything. Not only that turns are quick and too the point and require some level of interaciton with your opponent. I love 3rd, I love the 'feel' of the universe back then, I love that most armies have a good selection of units, with stuff like the VDR out there and living, its just great! But that is entirely subjective.

But at the same time, I've been playing a lot of Trench Crusade recently, and dear god, the mechanics in that game are phenomenal. When I first looked into the rules, I sort of tilted my nosed and sniffed at the 'simplistic'2D6 system.. but dear god, after playing.. just wow. You then have other mechanics involved (namely blood markers) that keep you involved the entire time. Put in alternating activations, and for a short skirmish game (generally an hour, if not less per game, and probably 15 minutes campaign mechanics on top) you are actively engaged, making decisions and talking :cuss: with your opponent the entire time. 

Unlike (espcially current) 40k, if you didn't have to make armour rolls or throw out a few stratgems, you could just walk off for 30-45 minutes each game turn..as you're really not needed there. You just acting like a dice-rolling flesh-light for your opponent... 

But hey, if thats your jam, have at it! ;) 

[Rain]

I liked 3rd - 5th, but that era was less interactive during your opponent’s turn, not more. Nowadays there are strats and various special abilities that can be activated in response to your opponent’s actions that allow for some, albeit limited, input.

Back then, you really did just roll dice and remove models during your opponent’s turn. I remember some armies deploying nothing and relying entirely on reserves to ensure they got the first shots off, even when going second, because whoever got the alpha strike off could kill 10-25% of the other army before the other guy could do anything at all. The current objective system really disincentivizes such play, though it has faults of its own.

 

In the end, I think it comes down to the players. The kinds of people that want to play old editions are usually more easygoing and into fluff and feel of the game, which makes the games more enjoyable.

Edited April 30 by Rain

[TheTrans]

5 minutes ago, Rain said:

I liked 3rd - 5th, but that era was less interactive during your opponent’s turn, not more. Nowadays there are strats and various special abilities that can be activated in response to your opponent’s actions that allow for some, albeit limited, input.

Back then, you really did just roll dice and remove models during your opponent’s turn. I remember some armies deploying nothing and relying entirely on reserves to ensure they got the first shots off, even when going second, because whoever got the alpha strike off could kill 10-25% of the other army before the other guy could do anything at all. The current objective system really disincentivizes such play, though it has faults of its own.

 

In the end, I think it comes down to the players. The kinds of people that want to play old editions are usually more easygoing and into fluff and feel of the game, which makes the games more enjoyable.

Hey mate, yeah 100% there was less interaction than there is now. I've just found the rounds are quicker, due to not everything being able to shoot multiple shots every turn sort of thing. Actually Assault phase actual requires talking to your opponent due to staggered initiatives etc.. unlike 'this unit attacks and wipes that unit..now your unit attacks and wipes X unit etc". So turns are quick, casualties are generally lower etc, not to mention games I play are 1500 points and are generally fewer models, so while there is in fact less interaction while its not your turn, generally the time not playing is much much shorter. 

Also as you said, generally people playing dead editions are very happy to be playing them and sort of want to 'savour' the experience and joy of playing something older, with hopefully an either well loved army from that edition, or something fun or exciting they got to build due to playing and older version of the game (you know..with a force org :P). As opposed to I feel (and my feel is, of course very subjective haha) the almost transactional entitlement of gaming in a current edition. Pick up game, ok well I'm tournament practicing and these are the current rules you have to abide by, now sit there and take it while I pummel you with my legal list. 

Old editions, thankfully, don't have that anywhere near as bad (it does still exist, don't get me wrong!), so and again as you said, probably attract a broadly different sub-set of player than people going for 'current edition pickup games' at the local for tournament practive. 

 

[ThePenitentOne]

1 hour ago, TheTrans said:

I just get the distinct feeling that all the people that could actually write rules, or people in managment that were happy to let these people 'cook', have all left GW for greener pastures. 

There are phenomenal rules systems out there, that just don't seem to feel as bad when playing, even with some levels of imbalance. 

GW's point-changes are a very inelegant solution to so many balance fixes also which is a shame. I love 40k, I want to play with my Nids and Tau etc and not just be stuck playing HH2.0 (which has all its own issues, much like ToW as well...which leads me to belive GW can't write decent rules anymore). 

But at the same time, GW want to sell models, what they've built from late 7th onwards, is a lean, mean churn creating machine which nets them more money... so why would they actually change?

Not too mention, so much of current 40k is just you trying to wipe your opponent off the board in a shooting phase.. like.. I've tried to watch a couple of games over the course of a couple of editions, and the second it gets anymore serious than mates rolling dice at each other, games just turn into, what may as well be a bot-stomp for a turn, then the other opponent gets to bot stomp (with whats left) for a turn, so on and hence forth. It just feels like wargaming-masturbation in all honesty, you don't really need the other person there for so much of it.

The only 40k I play nowadays is 3rd ed and we luckily have a couple of 3rd edition events a year down here (I run one of them) and honestly, its a blast, there are some skews that can be a bit dicey, even back in the watered down codex days, but outside of maybe disintegrator/blaster spam dark eldar have I ever felt in fear of being shot off the board before I can do anything. Not only that turns are quick and too the point and require some level of interaciton with your opponent. I love 3rd, I love the 'feel' of the universe back then, I love that most armies have a good selection of units, with stuff like the VDR out there and living, its just great! But that is entirely subjective.

But at the same time, I've been playing a lot of Trench Crusade recently, and dear god, the mechanics in that game are phenomenal. When I first looked into the rules, I sort of tilted my nosed and sniffed at the 'simplistic'2D6 system.. but dear god, after playing.. just wow. You then have other mechanics involved (namely blood markers) that keep you involved the entire time. Put in alternating activations, and for a short skirmish game (generally an hour, if not less per game, and probably 15 minutes campaign mechanics on top) you are actively engaged, making decisions and talking with your opponent the entire time. 

Unlike (espcially current) 40k, if you didn't have to make armour rolls or throw out a few stratgems, you could just walk off for 30-45 minutes each game turn..as you're really not needed there. You just acting like a dice-rolling flesh-light for your opponent... 

But hey, if thats your jam, have at it! ;) 

 

Trench crusade is a great example. I took a look at the number of factions, discovered it was pure infantry and apeeared to be mostly human from my cursory examination... And it could have the best rules in the world and it wouldn't matter. I WANT giant battlemechs, insect and tentacle aliens and psychics and tanks and daemons... And any game that doesn't have them sucks compared to 40k no matter how excellent it's rules are. I'm just not up for fewer than 10 factions of pure infantry that appeared to be mostly human. But hey, if that's your jam, have at it! ;)

 

As for players playing optimized lists designed to delete each other and aggressively pursuing only that end, yes, it is unfortunate that admittedly weak rules writing facilitates that kind of play.... However it must be acknowledged that this at least partially a player problem an not a game problem. I mean, it IS a game problem- I'm not absolving GW of responsibility, but it is really easy to just choose not to play 2k matched against a stranger on a pick-up night.

 

I play 500-1k Crusade exclusively, and my game experience has never been remotely like what you describe in your post.

[TheTrans]

35 minutes ago, ThePenitentOne said:

 

Trench crusade is a great example. I took a look at the number of factions, discovered it was pure infantry and apeeared to be mostly human from my cursory examination... And it could have the best rules in the world and it wouldn't matter. I WANT giant battlemechs, insect and tentacle aliens and psychics and tanks and daemons... And any game that doesn't have them sucks compared to 40k no matter how excellent it's rules are. I'm just not up for fewer than 10 factions of pure infantry that appeared to be mostly human. But hey, if that's your jam, have at it! ;)

 

As for players playing optimized lists designed to delete each other and aggressively pursuing only that end, yes, it is unfortunate that admittedly weak rules writing facilitates that kind of play.... However it must be acknowledged that this at least partially a player problem an not a game problem. I mean, it IS a game problem- I'm not absolving GW of responsibility, but it is really easy to just choose not to play 2k matched against a stranger on a pick-up night.

 

I play 500-1k Crusade exclusively, and my game experience has never been remotely like what you describe in your post.

Ah so you missed the rules for the literal Demons and the Church-Dreadnoughts then? Got to lift that reading ante mate ;).

Again, we all get our Jams locally from our own play group and generally play what we enjoy (you, crusade, me TC or 3rd ed) many people do not have that option from lack of local big scenes or larger friendship circles that aren't into those games, so copping some flog bag at a pick-up night may be the only option. 

Saying it is a player problem is the same strawman argument that people always fall back on. People suck, people do dumb, terrible stuff etc.. thats why society has laws to at least try and stifle the worst of what humanity will try on. If we really narrow that field over to wargaming, the rules are there to limit people being dick-bags.. If the rules don't do anything to limit it, guess what, many people (espcially prevalent in wargaming communities it seems) have no ability to self-regulate or self reflect on what may be unfun for their opponent.. as who cares if the dice-light doesn't enjoy its job?

So again, the issue resides with GW. Hell even 25 years ago when GW was very 'yeah bro, the rules are a guide, have fun, change stuff, you do you and enjoy it' the issue still occured, just now GW is very  'you can't use your toys how you want unless you use them in the rules for tournaments' so their mentality has changed for the worse without even fixing the inherent issue already seen across all their games. And please don't be like 'You're welcome to use your legend models in crusade/older editions/in friendlys blah blah blah' as highlighted above, its an unfair argument for a great swathe of the wargaming community that relies on the 'standard'which much to many of our lament is the 'Tournament Legal' rules. 

[Rain]

I’m not sure I follow your point. GW explicitly trying to balance the game, and actually tracking winrates is what led to the removal of a lot of the flavor things that people are lamenting. There’s always going to be a tradeoff between customization/flavor and balance. The more freedom GW provides, the greater the chance that players so inclined will break the game.

 

You bring up the example of real life laws, but to take that argument further, a lot of crime could be prevented by increasing the powers of law enforcement. Remove warrant requirements for search and seizure. Lower the evidentiary standard for prosecution and conviction. Allow police to use lethal force in more cases. All of these things would reduce crime, but they come with very real tradeoffs in personal liberty.

 

Ultimately it comes down to each of us to curate the company we keep, and I think that ultimately resolves the majority of such issues.

[TheTrans]

26 minutes ago, Rain said:

Ultimately it comes down to each of us to curate the company we keep, and I think that ultimately resolves the majority of such issues.

Well yes and no. If you're just a loner in a wider community (Based on location, game choice, etc etc) and they only play 'the standard' which for better or worse (I feel worse, much much worse) is the Tournament Legal Game, you really only have limited options in what to play in that scenario. For whatever reason, many people that are into GW games gnash their teeth something fierce when you talk about comp/fan rules/an ability for self restraint. Thats across many GW systems as well. 

My core gaming group are great for all of the above and I enjoy all the games we paly. But again, its a moot point as its just my group of guys (that I'm lucky to have) as opposed to the wider community. 

So if your next reply is 'get better friends' or 'find better people to play with' just don't bother, as its a strawman argument that some people don't have the luxury of. 

[Rain]

I don’t think that you are using the term “strawman” correctly. A strawman is when someone argues against an intentionally misconstrued version of another argument which is mis-stated to make it easy to argue against. I am not doing that; and stating that it’s a good idea to find like minded people to play with is not a strawman.

 

Anyway, I understand that for some people store pickups are the only option. I was in that position myself for a while, and it led me to a period of just painting and collecting. I eventually found people to play with that are on a similar wavelength, and it’s worked out. Hence my perspective on this. GW can’t police game etiquette effectively, it’s really up to us.

Edited April 30 by Rain

[TheTrans]

Hmmm...

But with your point, etiquette isn't necasirly at fault here. You could have both players rocking up with a similar mindset. They've both brought the best things their codex has to win with, with the full intention of winning, in a polite manner. One gets stomped by the other due to the power disparity in their chosen armies. 

So even though both of these players are playing with the exact same mindset or even on the same wavelength... the rules still fail them, not etiquette, or disparity in their 'wants' from the system.

So etiquette, or hell even playing with the same mindset isn't at fault here, its the lack GW's proper ability to balance... 

Balance issue discussion:
"It's the gamers etiquette at fault" - >  "Get a better Community" 

You've shifted the argument point to something not at fault for the issue at hand, then argue the point of the shifted argument, saying the solution is to do something that an actual fix for the original problem.. is almost the definition of a strawman argument mate haha. 

 

But we digress. Balance is an issue and should't be offloaded onto the foot of the players. 

When balance is whack to the point that the power disparity between likeminded people makes the game unfun, is a problem. 

[Karhedron]

2 hours ago, TheTrans said:

But with your point, etiquette isn't necasirly at fault here. You could have both players rocking up with a similar mindset. They've both brought the best things their codex has to win with, with the full intention of winning, in a polite manner. One gets stomped by the other due to the power disparity in their chosen armies. 

So even though both of these players are playing with the exact same mindset or even on the same wavelength... the rules still fail them, not etiquette, or disparity in their 'wants' from the system.

So etiquette, or hell even playing with the same mindset isn't at fault here, its the lack GW's proper ability to balance... 

 

The point is that I think that is less likely in 10th edition that it was back in 8th for example. GW's use of point adjustments to balance codices may not be perfect but it is a lot better than leaving stuff broken for years at a time. I remember the way Iron Hand dominated the meta from Marines 8.2 codex all the way into 9th edition. That was broken and not fun for anyone because they could sit in the Devastator Doctrine and keep all the bonuses they cared about active for the entire game.

 

Balance was wonky at the start of 10th with Eldar and Knight dominating everything but GW reigned it in quite quickly and I think the current balance is the best I have every known it. Granted there may be days when the dice hate you or you bring an army of Rocks while your opponent it spamming Paper but on the whole, I no longer get a sinking feeling when my opponent puts down Army X on the table.

[Rain]

I think the confusion is caused by my use of the term “etiquette.” I don’t just mean being polite to your opponent at the table, I also mean not fielding broken things, or intentionally making builds that you know your buddy can’t counter. Or, if you do, at least telling him first that you want to try something that might be broken, and seeing if he also thinks it would be fun.

 

If both players are in a “hardcore” mindset, then all’s fair in love and war(hammer) other than cheating, of course. Part of playing competitively is unfortunately probably owning several armies and meta chasing to a degree. While yes, it’s GW’s job to balance the game, the game *is* relatively balanced in 10th. That’s also a major source of the problem, as the costs of a balance first mindset have been flavor and customization.

 

To be perfectly honest, I am not really sure what you are arguing. A game with 20+ factions each with 25 to whatever marines have different units is always going to have power disparities and broken builds. 10th is pretty good comparatively, but it’s not chess, nor should it be. Being mad at GW can be cathartic (I play World Eaters I am a pro at being mad at GW), but it ultimately achieves nothing. The only meaningful question is what you as an individual are going to do in the hobby to make it fun for *you*.

[Karhedron]

4 minutes ago, Rain said:

I think the confusion is caused by my use of the term “etiquette.” I don’t just mean being polite to your opponent at the table, I also mean not fielding broken things, or intentionally making builds that you know your buddy can’t counter. Or, if you do, at least telling him first that you want to try something that might be broken, and seeing if he also thinks it would be fun.

 

I think that this is what a lot of people are sore about in 10th. The demise of the FOC and introduction of factions like Knights means that it is much easier to run skew lists (in fact, it is almost impossible to not run skew lists with Knights). Infantry hordes have always been thematic for Orks, Nids and some flavours of IG. Simmilarly, Knights are only slightly harder to crack than IG armoured companies.

[Rain]

Fair enough. I actually agree that having the FOC back in some capacity would be good. The rule of 3 is a step in that direction, which is better than a free for all, but I like thematic list restrictions in general.

 

Also, Knights should never have been added to the game, or made their own army, as they warped the rest of the game around themselves. They should have their own Knight/Titan based game to stomp on each other, but GW wants to sell big high margin kits in their biggest selling game. It is what it is.