|
Gyro Zeppeli posted:Oh, yeah, it definitely needs a good dose of "Don't be a prick for the sake of being a prick". Somewhere out there, there is a guy trying to convince his friends to let him use a Wraithknight in kill team.
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 00:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 20:39 |
|
|
Proletariat Beowulf posted:Thoughts? Trying to rebalance/"fix" 7e sounds like a losing prospect. They'd have better luck trying to do the same thing to 3e/4e, as they wouldn't have to rewrite huge chunks of the basic rulebook, nor account for all the insane poo poo that 7th produced.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 00:12
|
|
|
Slimnoid posted:Trying to rebalance/"fix" 7e sounds like a losing prospect. They'd have better luck trying to do the same thing to 3e/4e, as they wouldn't have to rewrite huge chunks of the basic rulebook, nor account for all the insane poo poo that 7th produced. I didn't play any other editions. If anyone could summarize what the real differences are from 3/4th to 6/7th, I'd appreciate it. I do know it was the last time that Tyranids and Orks were loving awesome.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 00:26
|
|
|
Proletariat Beowulf posted:I didn't play any other editions. If anyone could summarize what the real differences are from 3/4th to 6/7th, I'd appreciate it. I do know it was the last time that Tyranids and Orks were loving awesome. Understanding 3e requires understanding the state of the game before then, which is to say that 2e was a giant loving mess. Every vehicle had their own reference chart, everything had their own movement value, combat required that you roll for each mode individually, and the wargear section had bonker poo poo like virus bombs that could kill your opponent's army on turn 1 with no recourse. Games took all day to play purely because of all the minutae the system had, and there was no sense of balance attempted at all. 3e was the answer to that. It was a clean slate and a reboot system-wise, that made the game play four times as fast and sacrificed fidelity for ease-of-use. Everything you know system-wise was borne from 3e: standardized movement per unit type, rapid fire weapons, AP, assault, force org chart, the works. The game played much more fluidly as a result, and while the game balance was still off, it at least didn't take an entire day to play through. Each edition after that has built upon the framework of 3rd, and if you shave off enough layers you'd come back to the basics that made 3e work as well as it did. Ironically, the state of the game now is at a very similar point 2e was at the end of its lifespan, and it really needs a similar reboot.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 00:48
|
|
|
I think at some point this week I'm going to break down how movement, shooting and assault worked in 2nd ed with examples like the current rule book. People forget the horror of it or didn't ever play it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 00:50
|
|
|
No Luck Needed posted:
Try it and make up your own mind. I thoroughly enjoyed the two games I played yesterday. Personally I think it makes a really good stepping stone for a new player. From Kill Team to Combat Patrol, then the full game. Each step allowing for more units and complexity as you learn the rules and paint your mans. TTerrible posted:I think at some point this week I'm going to break down how movement, shooting and assault worked in 2nd ed with examples like the current rule book. People forget the horror of it or didn't ever play it. I didn't play second edition, but everyone I know who did says those elements were bollocks compared to the modern systems. I have played Necromunda which maintains a lot of stuff from second edition 40k, and while it works wonderfully in that game, I can see how scaling up would become a nightmare. Lovely Joe Stalin fucked around with this message at 00:58 on Jan 9, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 00:56
|
|
|
Lovely Joe Stalin posted:Try it and make up your own mind. I thoroughly enjoyed the two games I played yesterday. Necromunda was a straight port of the mechanics. Remove ammo rolls and you're playing 2nd edition with two guard squads fighting.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 00:58
|
|
|
Yeah, I wouldn't want to do that for an army then.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 01:00
|
|
|
Armies were a lot smaller but it was still crazy. Vehicles, psychic powers, wargear, etc added a lot of nonsense on top. Flying high swooping hawks. Pop up attacks from skimmers. WARP SPIDERS. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 01:02
|
|
|
Classic Overwatch alone would cripple the modern game.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 01:03
|
|
|
Shuriken catapults deleted marines. ...can we just go back to 2nd? I take it all back. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 01:05
|
|
|
Speaking of kill team what's a decent and not ridiculous kill team to make out of the Space Wolves start collecting box?
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 01:50
|
|
|
TTerrible posted:Shuriken catapults deleted marines. Guardians were... good? Bring back 2nd. In other news I'm about to go play some HoR Kill Team like I do every week. It's a good game but still has to have the obligatory "the game isn't balanced" gentlemen's agreement where that one guy doesn't just run his army of Tau suits that jump in and out of cover. I loving hate those things.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 01:53
|
|
|
Slimnoid posted:Understanding 3e requires understanding the state of the game before then, which is to say that 2e was a giant loving mess. Every vehicle had their own reference chart, everything had their own movement value, combat required that you roll for each mode individually, and the wargear section had bonker poo poo like virus bombs that could kill your opponent's army on turn 1 with no recourse. Games took all day to play purely because of all the minutae the system had, and there was no sense of balance attempted at all. Yeah they've been slowly reviving (bad) concepts from 2nd edition in 6th and 7th, such as the psychic phase, random warp charge amounts, nullifying powers, overwatch (albeit in a different form), allies, etc. It hasn't been a net positive. I still maintain that the current framework can be reworked into something stronger, if not altogether amazing, primarily by moving to shared turns with alternating unit activations each phase. I've said many times that consolidating turns solves a *ton* of the games problems, such as assaulting from reserves/Deep Strike, the problems of winning a combat the turn you charge, and standing around for an hour while your opponent does their turn, and having tested it with buddies, I think there's a lot there to like.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 02:16
|
|
|
2nd edition was a mess, but it was also a glorious mess. The thing with Warhammer is that the setting is kinda teen bait, yet is so earnestly ridiculous that you don't feel that bad for still having a soft spot for it years after you were a teenager. So there is a rational reason to be invested in the product. In many respects, it is kinda like Tolkien where the setting is just such a fantastical departure from reality, and with so much detail, you can't help but appreciate it. Yet the rules are just so loving bad for no reason that makes any amount of sense. So it creates this mental tug of war, where you want to like it but you also want to hate it. They have this great IP, a massive catalog of miniatures, a huge base of people invested in the product (even if some of them haven't bought anything for years), and they just will not walk the football that last yard into the end zone by writing some decent rules. Maybe, just maybe, they'll actually do it this time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 02:37
|
|
|
TheChirurgeon posted:I still maintain that the current framework can be reworked into something stronger, if not altogether amazing, primarily by moving to shared turns with alternating unit activations each phase. I've said many times that consolidating turns solves a *ton* of the games problems, such as assaulting from reserves/Deep Strike, the problems of winning a combat the turn you charge, and standing around for an hour while your opponent does their turn, and having tested it with buddies, I think there's a lot there to like. Maybe at smaller points (500-1000) alternating unit activation could work, but I don't think anything larger than that would really alleviate a lot of the terrible issues with the system. You still have S:D weaponry, superheavies/gargantuan creatures, the psychic phase, formations giving free upgrades, allies, massive codex imbalance, flyers, the sheer size of the game--these are all really big issues in the system.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 04:09
|
|
|
Cyclomatic posted:2nd edition was a mess, but it was also a glorious mess. In all fairness, that last yard is a pretty rocky one, seeing as most factions have a metric shitload of specialized units and you'll lose a lot of goodwill just obsoleting them. And then customizable wargear on top of those specialized units (although wargear is a lot easier to remove). They tried to break down to simple rules with simple units with AoS, and predictably people got really mad about all their incredibly expensive miniatures no longer being usable in that edition.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 04:13
|
|
|
I also like regular Kill Team.TKIY posted:Speaking of kill team what's a decent and not ridiculous kill team to make out of the Space Wolves start collecting box? Here's what I'm working on: 7x Grey Hunters -145 -Wolf Guard Pack Leader -6x extra close combat weapons -power axe -flamer -melta bombs Lone Wolf -55 -Wolf Claw, Storm Shield (counts-as) I'm not actually sure there's a flamer in the Start Collecting box, but you get the idea.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 05:55
|
|
|
JesusIsTehCool posted:If three hours is too long for you, then yes 40k isn't a good game for you. I have played a lot of the popular "wargames" (X-wing, Warmahordes, Frostgrave, just started infinity) and I still enjoy 40k the most. I get that 40k isn't for everyone, but if it isn't for you then why care about it? As far as I can tell the game has always taken forever to play and has never been balanced for competitive play, not like that changed or anything. And while the fluff is cool, the rules so rarely bear it out; Tyranid horde lists should be terrifying, but they're mostly junk. Khorne Berzerkers should be better in melee than Space Wolves. Tau are supposed to be super-mobile combined-arms forces, but mostly just devolve to static gun lines. The Dark Eldar as supposed to appear out of nowhere and gently caress your poo poo up, but they're awful at pretty much everything. And Orks go back and forth between being super-nasty CC monsters and ridiculous comic relief that are more of a danger to themselves than to anyone else.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 07:33
|
|
|
How good is Gdub with replacement bits? One of my sprues has a damaged head bit.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 08:10
|
|
|
Alokgen posted:How good is Gdub with replacement bits? One of my sprues has a damaged head bit. GW customer support has always been excellent. Email them and include a picture.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 08:16
|
|
|
Ilor posted:It's not a matter of "not balanced for competitive play," it's a matter of "not balanced at all." There have always been poo poo-tier armies in 40K. Which ones were righteous and which ones were garbage changed with codex edition. And 3 hours is easy to do - if neither player brings Orks or Tyranids. Any time you have more than about 50 models on your side, just the movement phase can take forever, let alone shooting. And that says nothing of all the USRs that allow you to re-roll basically every loving step of shooting or close combat (twin linked, preferred enemy, feel no pain, etc). There are just too many inconsequential rolls. I played a game yesterday with my tyranids, had well over 100 models on the table, and we finished in 3 and a half hours not counting the lunch break we took. Once you get familiar with your army it doesn't take that long to move your guys around. I used three hours because thats the shortest amount of time I think you can reasonably play a 40k game, if you use low point values and are disciplined, if you can't handle the bare minimum it will take to play a game, you shouldn't be playing 40k in my opinion. You should play a skirmish level game which can be played in an hour, of which there are a ton. Fluff not meeting in game quality while often sad and disappointing (looking at you terminators) I think might just be ultimatly impossible to manifest. Like no game with Dark Eldar would be fun if they actually showed up at of nowhere and hosed poo poo up. I agree the codexes need to be better balanced but I often find people engaging in hyperbolic claims like the game is unplayable. I have played enjoyable games against Dark Eldar and Orks and lost, so I know it is possible, I have also won very enjoyable games with my Tyranids horde army. I feel like I know my army pretty well and my friends know there's, it isn't difficult for us to make lists that result in fair and fun fights. I am not arguing that the codexes are balanced, but it is hardly an unbearable experience to play the game, in fact a lot of us actually enjoy playing it, for some it is even our favorite game. 40k has a lot going for it besides the fluff. I have yet to see another solid war game that is at the scale of 40k (50-150 models + vehicles per side) and while some people don't care for the aesthetic, it is iconic and for many people (myself included) contains the coolest models on the market. Finally as a "hobby" person the large amount of quality plastic kits really allows you to kit bash in a way that I just was never able to in Warmahordes and I suspect I won't with infinity as all their models appear to be metal (have only built like 4 models from my starter set so I could be wrong about this). While for some people these things don't matter for enjoying the game, they matter to a lot of people even as much as the rules of the game and they are often neglected when talking about why 40k is a good/bad game.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 09:05
|
|
|
JesusIsTehCool posted:If three hours is too long for you, then yes 40k isn't a good game for you. I have played a lot of the popular "wargames" (X-wing, Warmahordes, Frostgrave, just started infinity) and I still enjoy 40k the most. I get that 40k isn't for everyone, but if it isn't for you then why care about it? As far as I can tell the game has always taken forever to play and has never been balanced for competitive play, not like that changed or anything. Would you object to the rules for 40K being better? Because really, unless someone is an Imperial citizen spouting catechism like an open mind is like a fortress with its gates wide open, the idea of a product potentially being changed for the better should be a pretty reasonable thing to be suggested. It is fine for people to enjoy 40K as it currently exists. However, it would be pretty grimdark brain-washy to deny that 40K could be a better product and operate on a binary loyal/disloyal view where people either love it or leave it. Every work can be improved upon or refined. There is just a whole lot of extremely low hanging fruit in a lot of people's estimation when it comes to the rules for 40K.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 09:33
|
|
|
Cyclomatic posted:Would you object to the rules for 40K being better? Of course I would like the rules to be better and the game to be more balanced. I just don't think the game is unplayable or devoid of enjoyment like many people suggest it is. Specificly I think shortening the game length would not be an improvement. I think it would be difficult if not impossible to pull off the scale of 40k (50+ models per side) in under 3 hours, and would likely require over simplifying the game to achieve. Thus I think if playing a 3+ hour game is too much for you, then this isn't the best game for you, neither is Axis and Allies, or any of those big box board games that take several hours to play. The value of game length is very subjective, it is neither objectively good nor bad that some games are long, it is good for some and bad for others. If you dislike long games you shouldn't play them, it doesn't make them bad games.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 10:32
|
|
|
JesusIsTehCool posted:Of course I would like the rules to be better and the game to be more balanced. I just don't think the game is unplayable or devoid of enjoyment like many people suggest it is. Interestingly - and I don't think a straight port works for 40k - Fantasy ranked battle games have a very good illustration of shortening game length and complexity. WHFB and Kings of War are similar in scope and scale, with regiments of troops still manoeuvring and flanking each other and stuff. But I believe games of KOW can be done in 60-90 minutes whereas Fantasy takes at least double that. In addition, the ways in which KOW streamlined things to make it work make for, in my opinion, a better game where each of your jewel-like objects of magic and wonder are not just incredibly expensive wound tokens for a regiment but instead remain on the table as a cohesive part of their unit until definitively destroyed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 11:10
|
|
|
JesusIsTehCool posted:I played a game yesterday with my tyranids, had well over 100 models on the table, and we finished in 3 and a half hours not counting the lunch break we took. Once you get familiar with your army it doesn't take that long to move your guys around. I used three hours because thats the shortest amount of time I think you can reasonably play a 40k game, if you use low point values and are disciplined, if you can't handle the bare minimum it will take to play a game, you shouldn't be playing 40k in my opinion. You should play a skirmish level game which can be played in an hour, of which there are a ton. For my money, 4th Edition was probably the best constructed in terms of rules. There were actual missions that didn't feel all samey and didn't rely on lovely random objectives to try to give some illusion of balance. Yeah, there was stuff that was still broken, but Formations were still a long way off and for the most part the armies's play-style fit the overall character of their fluff. But the game has always suffered from the "Chapter Approved" effect where knowing the rules was a moving target. The profusion of Detachments and Formations (and worse, Detachments of Formations) has accelerated that bloat to unmanageable levels.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 13:19
|
|
|
We'll be letting go of that bloat by scrapping the FoC and building lists only by formations.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 13:30
|
|
|
Formations give players something to work towards when starting a new army (the 1K sons formations are a good example). Formations do have issues, but they provide a goal for people to work towards. The Psychic phase is a fun addition. I like the mechanic of wondering whether to deny this one, or wait to see what your opponent will cast next.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 14:06
|
|
|
Not sure how well these Facebook links are working for you guys, but I got put my Ultramarines against a Soul Drinkers Battle Company in cities of death. Battle!
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 15:44
|
|
|
Milotic posted:Formations give players something to work towards when starting a new army (the 1K sons formations are a good example). Formations do have issues, but they provide a goal for people to work towards. That minor upside isn't worth adding another phase to a game that already takes too long to play, though
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 15:46
|
|
|
Ugh, GW is releasing way too much that appeals to me lately. I'm starting my Thousand Sons army that I always wanted, but at the same time it is looking like there will be a pretty awesome Crusade campaign coming up with SOB, Black Templars, and Scions going into the eye, which would probably make a pretty decent army composition if we get a Crusade Force detatchment.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 15:56
|
|
|
ineptmule posted:Interestingly - and I don't think a straight port works for 40k - Fantasy ranked battle games have a very good illustration of shortening game length and complexity. WHFB and Kings of War are similar in scope and scale, with regiments of troops still manoeuvring and flanking each other and stuff. But I believe games of KOW can be done in 60-90 minutes whereas Fantasy takes at least double that. Holy poo poo, this would rock face, but GW (Even "CheekW") would never do it, because it involves selling less in way of models.* One of the things that really slowed down games was having to count how many models were left in a unit if you ever lost count. Granted, only a few armies ever had to deal with that since "outnumbering" isn't a thing anymore, and even then Orks got shafted into rolling on a table and having to look up the results to kill themselves and gently caress YOU CRUDDACE I'm convinced it was him. It has his same lazy, busted, self-harm signature for an army he either dislikes or doesn't care about. Oh, so, yeah...Pushing around just 10 Hormagaunts and like 2d10 behind them would be way easier than 30 Hormagaunts. *Yes, I am aware that paints and accessories make up most of their revenue, but come on.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 16:43
|
|
|
It definitely works better for Fantasy/KoW where you have ranked units. 40k isn't really set up the same way, with no movement trays that make for easy abstraction and the use of true LOS
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 16:57
|
|
|
TheChirurgeon posted:It definitely works better for Fantasy/KoW where you have ranked units. 40k isn't really set up the same way, with no movement trays that make for easy abstraction and the use of true LOS TLOS was such a bad addition. I believe it came into the game in 5th ed? Most of my playing days were in 4th/5h ed. Life got a little busier and I didn't play as much during the very brief 6th edition and then 7th edition convinced me to pack up my stuff and play another game. I really hated the cover mechanism for 40K, especially area terrain with TLOS. "I can see one guardsman through that window, I'm going to shoot a flamer through it and hit the thirty guys on the floors above and below him. You get no save. You're shooting back at me with your tank shells? Your shot has a chance to scatter, a chance not to wound, I'm in cover, and can reroll my armour save and then roll to save my failed armour save." Like gently caress man, that's just tiresome. I started playing in 3rd ed, but I was a kid and didn't pick up all the changes between that and 2nd. But from what I remember it was essentially translating a lot of the mechanics from WHFB to 40K, and it worked well because both games became similar enough to cross promote the systems. And the games were small enough that one having movement trays and the other not wasn't a big deal. I don't play 40K anymore, but I still have friends who do. They also run a podcast, youtube batreps, and Twitch batreps. Whenever I watch a game I notice that the armies are considerably smaller (though gigantic models) and made up of more elite units. It's a far cry from how I used to enjoy playing with my sprawling guard horde backed up by tanks and (useless) artillery. These guys know their rules, and the ITC addendums inside and out. It is still always such a slog to even watch (in the background while I paint). I think the game could use a lot of pairing down to get to a tighter core. I think they should probably get rid of opponents rolling dice during each others turns (i.e. only one player rolls all the dice during their turn). They could stand to introduce movement values (Space marines and eldar move 6, humans and tau move 4, etc) and adjust points costs to reflect the utility of units (a space marine with a plasma pistol is much more useful than a guardsman with a plasma pistol). I'm very curious about the direction that 8th edition will go, because I still have my rose-tinted glasses on for 4th/5th edition. But the game is not the same one that I used to play, and is moving away from that. So now it's more like checking in on an old friend after you've left town for me. I hope the new edition is better and people have lots of fun games about it. But for me I've moved on to what I consider much more dynamic and fun games, and am more interested in the design choices they make now. RIP in peace Cadia, it was fun while it lasted! Sir Teabag fucked around with this message at 17:46 on Jan 9, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 17:43
|
|
|
Ilor posted:Yeah, for us it was usually somewhere between 3 and 4 hours to play 5-7 turns. But the time is only part of the word "slog." The other part is that so many games felt...unfulfilling. Don't get me wrong, some were super cool and I've played lots of memorable games over the years (I started playing back in the Rogue Trader days). But almost all of those were either "Forge your Narrative" kinds of games where we were doing something interesting outside the basic game (like doing a house-made campaign) or where some crazy, incongruous, statistically unlikely thing happened (like when our friend's Great Unclean One - affectionately dubbed "Big Poppa" - made 3x 5+ invulnerable saves against a Wraithlord, any one of which would have killed him, and struck back, killing the Wraithlord and winning the game on points). But in retrospect, that was a relative rarity given the number of games played. A lot of it felt like the sci-fi equivalent of the giant 3+/4+ or 4+/3+ mosh pit people complain about in AoS, only with gun-lines. Yea I am not trying to say every game is a winner, but in some ways that is the nature of games in general. Sometimes you get really unlucky turn one and you are so far behind you aren't going to catch up. Personally I think it's totally ok to concede after turn 3 in 40k and on the rare occasion earlier. For games without catch up mechanics I just feel like that's part of the game, knowing your beat. I also agree that 40k is similar to RPGs in that the more players put into the game (house-made campaign, character storylines, narratives) the better and richer the game becomes I enjoy the look of the models on the table to much for me to consider most 40k games a slog. It's like an awesome sci fi diamorma that's constantly changing. There are times when you can't catch a break, or you play someone new and they lay out their army and you know you're about to get stomped but don't want to be confrontational with someone you just met. These times are infrequent enough not to bother me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 19:14
|
|
|
Sir Teabag posted:RIP in peace Cadia, it was fun while it lasted!
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 19:19
|
|
|
Proletariat Beowulf posted:Holy poo poo, this would rock face, but GW (Even "CheekW") would never do it, because it involves selling less in way of models.* If a scifi game with that sort of movement tray deal gets you going, you could always take a look at the new Mantic Warpath rules - infantry units are built from multibased/trayed teams of 5, and casualty removal is done by team rather than by individual; it's basically streamlined Apocalypse, more or less anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 19:24
|
|
|
So I got a unit of Mk3 marines to mix into my CSM. God this kit is so loving good. It just makes me want a revamped CSM box even more.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 19:28
|
|
|
Genghis Cohen posted:Rest In Peace in peace? The Internet is a stupid place, and we make fun of it here. "Lol," friend.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 19:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 20:39 |
|
|
Gyro Zeppeli posted:So I got a unit of Mk3 marines to mix into my CSM. God this kit is so loving good. It just makes me want a revamped CSM box even more. I love the Mk3 marines from BoP. I haven't started on them yet because they're so sexy I want an airbrush first.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 19:30
|
|