|
Roller Coast Guard posted:I'm curious to see just how wild things are going to get with the different detachments. They seem determined to stick with the "all the detachment stuff on one sheet" thing for now. I suppose throughout the edition we might see what they wanna do with that change though.
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2023 21:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 11:07 |
|
|
I was missing a pair of Field Ordnance guns for my IG Combat Patrol. I'm not a huge fan of the patrol's wargear selections, so both guns are modular and can be armed with any of the options. I decided to keep the crew posed neutrally enough to work with any of the options, though I'm not particularly happy about it.       I just realized I've forgotten to add battery insignia on the crew patches, I'll fix that later. They'll join my small existing artillery platoon formation, I'm going to kit bash a few new models to re-equip the infantry to the Combat Patrol specification. I guess I'll have to scratch build a Sentinel plasma cannon too. I'm too bad at this game to add non-wysiwyg models to the whole mess.  
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2023 21:33
|
|
|
I love seeing IG artillery and crew like that, don't know if I'll ever do an army of IG myself but *chefs kiss*
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2023 21:38
|
|
|
Decorus posted:I was missing a pair of Field Ordnance guns for my IG Combat Patrol. I'm not a huge fan of the patrol's wargear selections, so both guns are modular and can be armed with any of the options. I decided to keep the crew posed neutrally enough to work with any of the options, though I'm not particularly happy about it. I also clipped out the gun seat! I love how they are looking. I'm building my rocket launcher in a firing position, with everyone clear the backblast. I was worried it would look too open behind it, but yours looks great! That green also looks so good, especially on the earthshakers! Good job! I also agree that the loadouts CP makes you build really suck.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2023 22:33
|
|
|
Roller Coast Guard posted:On the other hand, without the balancing tool of points values there's only one configuration that matters, the dataslates for your Crisis Suits may as well just say they come with triple ions, shield generators and shield drones, and every other option be erased from the options list. So I guess I'm rolling back to this but I do not think that endlessly tweaking points values actually helps. I've observed a weird thing where you can jack points values up or down and people will still consider it the optimal loadout. Obviously it's graded more on a curve and points efficiency is a thing. But if it's the best gun to put on the suits then people will do it and adjust the list elsewhere, as Ions are just that good. Ask an Eldar player right now what their limit on how much a Wraithknight costs would be! Also, and this is just a personal thing. I can't imagine making each Ion blaster worth 20 points a pop or whatever the limit is is a satisfying way to balance things. I would rather make the other guns have something going on, especially with Tau in the state it is right now where we have a dearth of all of these fun weapon keywords. Make burst cannons have Sustained, tweak Missile Pod AP, whatever it takes. Hell, maybe represent the actual situation of the weapons on the sprue and limit each suit to one Ion. They did the same for the dreadful Airburst Frag Launcher! Decorus posted:I was missing a pair of Field Ordnance guns for my IG Combat Patrol. I'm not a huge fan of the patrol's wargear selections, so both guns are modular and can be armed with any of the options. I decided to keep the crew posed neutrally enough to work with any of the options, though I'm not particularly happy about it. Not an IG guy but these look excellent, good job.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2023 23:08
|
|
|
I'm building the base for a DKoK Heavy stubber team. I decided to leave their backpacks and lasguns off the two crewmen using the gun since I wanted to let those suspenders shine, and I figured they deserved a rest from the heavy backpacks. I've glued a pack and lasgun against a dirt berm on the base, but only one. Does that mean if they get engaged at close range then they'll legally only be able to shoot a single lasgun? Are people that anal about WYSWYG
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2023 23:48
|
|
|
The Deleter posted:Also, and this is just a personal thing. I can't imagine making each Ion blaster worth 20 points a pop or whatever the limit is is a satisfying way to balance things. I would rather make the other guns have something going on, especially with Tau in the state it is right now where we have a dearth of all of these fun weapon keywords. Make burst cannons have Sustained, tweak Missile Pod AP, whatever it takes. Hell, maybe represent the actual situation of the weapons on the sprue and limit each suit to one Ion. They did the same for the dreadful Airburst Frag Launcher! All guns costing the same thing (i.e 0) would be cool if they could manage to make each gun actually about as good, but at different things. In some cases this would be fairly easy (i.e this is the anti big thing gun, this is the anti lots of small things gun), but for models with just a silly amount of options that would be extremely difficult.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2023 23:57
|
|
|
Decorus posted:I was missing a pair of Field Ordnance guns for my IG Combat Patrol. I'm not a huge fan of the patrol's wargear selections, so both guns are modular and can be armed with any of the options. I decided to keep the crew posed neutrally enough to work with any of the options, though I'm not particularly happy about it. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2023 00:23
|
|
|
Geisladisk posted:All guns costing the same thing (i.e 0) would be cool if they could manage to make each gun actually about as good, but at different things. In some cases this would be fairly easy (i.e this is the anti big thing gun, this is the anti lots of small things gun), but for models with just a silly amount of options that would be extremely difficult. the solution there is just to condense the profiles to something like "heirloom weapons" or "defensive weapon array" or a choice between "anti-tank" and "anti-infantry" weapons (or firing modes) that encompass multiple different options which they did in some cases, but not consistently or aggressively enough probably are still some situations where you'd want the granularity and an appreciable power difference, but its still historically usually been "low power/cheap" vs. "the good option" so imo you can probably just add an extra unit(s) (i.e. "Unit X" vs. "Unit X Vehicle Eliminators") and (if it's a concern) then either use datasheet rules/keywords to have them count as the same unit for rule-of-three reasons I can sort off see an argument for a half-step thing where you pay a flat cost to unlock a different tier of gear, but I think that just starts pointing you back towards individual option pricing
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2023 00:30
|
|
|
Geisladisk posted:All guns costing the same thing (i.e 0) would be cool if they could manage to make each gun actually about as good, but at different things. In some cases this would be fairly easy (i.e this is the anti big thing gun, this is the anti lots of small things gun), but for models with just a silly amount of options that would be extremely difficult. I should be asleep but instead I'm doing this;
So realistically you could condense four guns to two on that list before you start going hog wild or just restarting from scratch. Funnily enough they condensed all the support systems to "fall back and shoot", "ignore to hit penalties on guns" and shield generators. So it's not infeasible they just chose not to I guess
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2023 01:42
|
|
|
Kitchner posted:Alternatively when your lost is 20 points short and there's literally nothing in your army that costs 20 points what do you do? nothing. the idea that 20 points makes any difference is an illusion compared to the wild variance in unit value-per-point even in the rare case where 40K is extremely well-balanced spend the 20 points on space blow Kitchner posted:On top of that, I don't really buy that the game feels more simplified, admittedly I've not actually played a game yet, but I've watched a fair few and nothing strikes me as simplified. On top of that the daft idea to basically turn points into power level throws up some weird quirks, and I'm not fully convinced they will stick with it and free Wargear for the entire of 10th. oh, come on, man. there's a lot to criticize about 10th but please at least preface all of your remarks with stuff like this, or consider whether other people are speaking with the weight of experience you still lack. Kaal posted:As a total outsider to the game, it certainly seems like one of the big reasons that GW is having such serious balance issues is that they jettisoned the unit slots and weapon costs which had previously been critical balancing features. By removing those elements, they gave themselves a massive and perhaps impossible job of balancing everything based purely on a single number that is supposed to be equally valuable across all factions and detachments. they did not serve in any meaningful way as balancing features except when wargear costs made one datasheet into effectively multiple different units with wildly divergent costs and roles. people are right to be annoyed in some cases where this has resulted in old options being flattened out of the game, but the org charts and wargear costs were not load-bearing parts of the overall game balance among armies. the game is not especially balanced and is worse than it usually is balance-wise atm, but 40K on a good day is not a particularly balanced game. Goons posted:complexity stuff why are people arguing that more opponent options that you need to account for in the meta doesn't make the game more complex? it's pretty obvious that it does, and "too complex" is just a matter of taste.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2023 01:51
|
|
|
it would probably be good if 40K had some sort of system like many other wargames do, where being down points from max is a "bid" on some minor benefit (like early initiative or something) but 1950 pts of your best units for this plan is not at a meaningful disadvantage against 2000 pts.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2023 02:01
|
|
|
Kaal posted:As a total outsider to the game, it certainly seems like one of the big reasons that GW is having such serious balance issues is that they jettisoned the unit slots and weapon costs which had previously been critical balancing features. By removing those elements, they gave themselves a massive and perhaps impossible job of balancing everything based purely on a single number that is supposed to be equally valuable across all factions and detachments. I just want to point out that while the current balance situation is Not Good, GW has had a rich history of being completely unable to balance the game even when they had all the factors of force selection slots and point variations at their disposal. Having a huge roster of weapon points so that you are paying one point to give your sergeant a laspistol or 3 points to give him a lasgun wasn't really helpful in any way besides satisfying an entirely unrelated habit of complex list building. This isn't a situation where GW had well-balanced methods and has disrupted them by changing the way they develop lists, they've always struggled with it. Editions tend to get better over time as they get a better grasp on things and updated codices are released. Right now it's pretty jarring because everyone got hit at once, but they are also updating things much more frequently so things will hopefully iron out. I also want to say that GW has had a kind of insane granularity compared to most other games, if you are short 20 points in a 2000 point list, that's literally just 1% and the amount of variation created by game balance, player skill, and sheer luck is probably an order of magnitude higher for each one. No one is losing or winning based on that 50 point swing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2023 02:38
|
|
|
Diving into 10th edition, I hear people talk about missions and cards and stuff that I don't see in the core rules PDF (it's just got "Only War" in the back). Am I missing something?
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2023 02:44
|
|
|
coelomate posted:Diving into 10th edition, I hear people talk about missions and cards and stuff that I don't see in the core rules PDF (it's just got "Only War" in the back). Am I missing something? There's a mission deck to add a lot of depth to your games, but it's only in the Leviathan box right now.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2023 02:56
|
|
|
smug jeebus posted:There's a mission deck to add a lot of depth to your games, but it's only in the Leviathan box right now. They were available standalone but they were pulled because of some sort of misprinting. I bought the cards but I haven't gone looking for whatever the misprint is (something about the card backs, I guess?) and it hasn't jumped out at me.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2023 04:13
|
|
|
Wrr posted:I'm building the base for a DKoK Heavy stubber team. I decided to leave their backpacks and lasguns off the two crewmen using the gun since I wanted to let those suspenders shine, and I figured they deserved a rest from the heavy backpacks. Every scene is different, but if I walked into a place this hung up on WYSWYG, I'd laugh at them and walk back out. Not the type of folks that are interested in fun games My scene really doesn't care, especially about a basic loadout weapon like a lasgun. For special weapons, we just care that it's easy to remember what's what. A Plasma can sub for a Melta, but a basic Lasgun can't, for example.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2023 04:16
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:nothing. the idea that 20 points makes any difference is an illusion compared to the wild variance in unit value-per-point even in the rare case where 40K is extremely well-balanced Certain enhancements are definitely worth it. But you probably already bought those enhancements so.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2023 04:28
|
|
|
Virtual Russian posted:I also clipped out the gun seat! I love how they are looking. I'm building my rocket launcher in a firing position, with everyone clear the backblast. I was worried it would look too open behind it, but yours looks great! Thanks! If I were to ever build more of these, I would move the guns just a bit further back. I did the positioning with just the carriage part, and combined with leaving the back empty to account for backblast the bases look just a little bit unbalanced. Another loader and some spent casings or something would fix it for the gun options, but the rocket launcher doesn't cooperate in this matter at all. Having to build elevated mounting brackets for the rocket pods so they fit above the gun mount was a bit annoying too, even though I like the result. The green is Yellow Olive (Vallejo Game Color) with a coat of Agrax Earthshade. I mixed Buff (Vallejo Model Color) in for the highlights. The infantry have Camouflage Green armour, also Vallejo Game Color.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2023 04:48
|
|
|
Roller Coast Guard posted:I'm curious to see just how wild things are going to get with the different detachments. I predict we will see at least one codex, probably late in the edition, where they obviously go too far on varying up stuff based on detachments, likely by manipulating at least one or two of the things you mention here. I don't think it'll be a habit. It'll be like one army that's stuck with the Weird Detachment Spread.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2023 04:52
|
|
|
rantmo posted:They were available standalone but they were pulled because of some sort of misprinting. I bought the cards but I haven't gone looking for whatever the misprint is (something about the card backs, I guess?) and it hasn't jumped out at me. the secondary objective decks have an objective with the wrong card back, so it's essentially marked. that's a problem because the secondary obj decks are meant to be played as a deck you draw from randomly and don't know what's coming next turn. Decorus posted:I mixed Buff (Vallejo Model Color) in for the highlights. VMC yellow-browns are absolute loving magic, everyone should have one. sand yellow is my favorite but they're all good
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2023 04:59
|
|
|
Wrr posted:I'm building the base for a DKoK Heavy stubber team. I decided to leave their backpacks and lasguns off the two crewmen using the gun since I wanted to let those suspenders shine, and I figured they deserved a rest from the heavy backpacks. Soldiers don't fight with their packs if they can help it, so the pack being off is reasonable.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2023 06:45
|
|
|
The Deleter posted:Also, and this is just a personal thing. I can't imagine making each Ion blaster worth 20 points a pop or whatever the limit is is a satisfying way to balance things. I would rather make the other guns have something going on, especially with Tau in the state it is right now where we have a dearth of all of these fun weapon keywords. Make burst cannons have Sustained, tweak Missile Pod AP, whatever it takes. Hell, maybe represent the actual situation of the weapons on the sprue and limit each suit to one Ion. They did the same for the dreadful Airburst Frag Launcher! Weirdly, Crisis Suits weapon options would have been much better balanced in a 10th Ed zero-cost wargear environment if half of them hadn't simultaneously had an axe taken to their profile - the 9th Ed codex had 6-shot burst cannons, D6+2 hits on flamers, S4 -1AP airfrags, and 18" fusion blasters. All of those things would make for a more viable set of weapon choices next to the current cyclic ions. So yes, you can absolutely stat-tweak one gun against another gun to get some approximation of balance (whether GW will do a good job of this is a different question). But unless things start to get really bizarre you can't really balance one gun against no gun. A Leman Russ with sponson heavy bolters, a hunter killer and a pintle stubber is always going to outperform a Leman Russ with none of those things. A unit of 6 crisis suits is always going to outperform a unit of 4 crisis suits. We had this zero-cost wargear system in 9th, it was called power levels and 99% of the players rejected it and used points values for everything.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2023 08:17
|
|
|
GW will never succeed in making me glue sponsons on my Leman Russes. I've accepted that they'll always be sub-optimal. Sadly, in this edition I feel especially punished for preferring the big flat sides. I think they should balance the main guns and combine the datasheets to two: LR with sonsons and LR without sponsons. I'm sure this change wouldn't have any unpleasant side effects.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2023 08:31
|
|
|
Decorus posted:GW will never succeed in making me glue sponsons on my Leman Russes. I've accepted that they'll always be sub-optimal. Sadly, in this edition I feel especially punished for preferring the big flat sides. you know, you can put the sponson guns somewhere else. there's no law that they have to be on the sponsons. coax with the main gun. put them on a pintle mount. give your russes tail gunners. just have some dudes on the hull with guns on swivels. assembling a kit the way GW tells you to is admitting defeat.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2023 08:36
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:you know, you can put the sponson guns somewhere else. there's no law that they have to be on the sponsons. coax with the main gun. put them on a pintle mount. give your russes tail gunners. just have some dudes on the hull with guns on swivels. I've tried some of those, but hvy bolters are just too big to really fit anywhere. And back in the day there was the whole firing arc thing to worry about. A single rear facing gun might fit on the larger turrets that I built, I never thought to try that. I'll have to try that out at some point.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2023 08:46
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:it would probably be good if 40K had some sort of system like many other wargames do, where being down points from max is a "bid" on some minor benefit (like early initiative or something) but 1950 pts of your best units for this plan is not at a meaningful disadvantage against 2000 pts. They even figured this out already with Age of Sigmar. The player with less points gets a free Triumph, which lets you choose a once per game ability:  So you don't really care if you are 50 points under or something, since you'll get something in return.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2023 08:47
|
|
|
Geisladisk posted:They even figured this out already with Age of Sigmar. The player with less points gets a free Triumph, which lets you choose a once per game ability: it's also the most forgotten rule in the entire game so "figured out" might be a bit generous
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2023 08:57
|
|
|
Finished the final section of the OP, I added a section about points to the previous section, let me know if there's anything you want me to change or add that's missing or simply complain about me not having something already in there several weeks from now lol. now to move on to painting and kicking butt!
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2023 09:11
|
|
|
Decorus posted:A single rear facing gun might fit on the larger turrets that I built, I never thought to try that. I'll have to try that out at some point. consider: an additional turret on top of that turret. or sponsons for the turret.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2023 09:12
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:nothing. the idea that 20 points makes any difference is an illusion compared to the wild variance in unit value-per-point even in the rare case where 40K is extremely well-balanced I mean you're right, but I've been in a position where the list is nearly 100 points off and if it wasn't for the fact Agents of the Imperium existed I wouldn't be able to slot anything in. That's nearly a 5% difference in points total. Now, maybe that's a deliberate design choice that they knew lists would be hard to round out to 2K so have made sure everyone has a cheap unit to throw in there, but to me it is more frustrating writing lists, even if it hypothetically didn't effect game balance (which I'm not sure it doesn't). Cease to Hope posted:oh, come on, man. there's a lot to criticize about 10th but please at least preface all of your remarks with stuff like this, or consider whether other people are speaking with the weight of experience you still lack. I mean I did literally say it in that post because you quoted me, and I also said seperately I'm completely open to the idea that I could be totally wrong. I'm not really sure what else you could expect from me, other than "no 10e game yet? = no opinion allowed". Bear in mind 10e launched in June and it's now nearly September. You're talking to someone who played the game very regularly until he moved house in the last 3 months. You're acting like I'm some guy that hasn't picked up a bag of dice in ten years and yet writes essays on how 3rd edition really got it right. I'm not that, I'm someone who is very familiar with the vast majority of how the core rules and mission deck works because really they've not changed a lot from 9th. The balance for 10e is clearly out of whack, Eldar win rate is mid 60s which is as bad as it ever got in 9th, and what's worse if you use 40K stat check you can see all the A tier armies have a 60%+ win rate when you strip out Eldar. If I was playing in the latest season of my tournament league, I'm sure all three of my armies (GK, AM, CSM) would effectively be beaten at the list building stage as maybe 7 out of ten people I play would actually run one of those meta lists. Maybe I'm wrong and I'd be in that 30-40% that beats those lists but the players I play against are pretty good. My guess (and we are all guessing because no one has actually played an opponent with 6 different detachments they could bring) is that if all the detachments really do see play, people will feel there's "too much to learn" all over again. For example, a lot of strats have been replaced by units getting special rules instead. Now maybe that's easier to learn for people because of how it's laid out even though the amount of information is the same. For anyone though who felt there were too many strats though because they didn't know, say, my Paladins had a stratagem so they could change psychic powers mid game, I'm guessing when every faction has 6 detachments with 6 strats each they are going to feel the same way again. To be clear, I personally never thought 9th was "too complicated" because you didn't actually need to learn everything and anything you didn't learn you can learn at the start of the match. I'm guessing that by the time codexes are fully rolled out, we will hear the same comments from the same group in the hobby, which would mean GW didn't actually change anything. If you want to dismiss those points because while I've played loads of 40K recently in a very similar rule set, I've not managed to get a game of 10e in during the 3 months since launch... Well I can't really stop you.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2023 09:22
|
|
|
Wow this video with john blanche is awesome:- https://youtu.be/NCOSao1KEQo?si=4sA18lbDZls1PLDp The famous 3rd edition box art took him three months to make!! Wow!
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2023 09:25
|
|
|
Kitchner posted:I mean you're right, but I've been in a position where the list is nearly 100 points off and if it wasn't for the fact Agents of the Imperium existed I wouldn't be able to slot anything in. That's nearly a 5% difference in points total. agents and demons are meant to round out some of the armies that are missing basic tools, yes. it's a nice balance between soup and demons and imperial weirdos riding the bench so often in some editions. the gaps are generally much smaller unless your collection is very small, and both of the free agent lists have some obvious gimme filler dudes that are worth owning. (callidus, eversor, any of the 35-40pt imp weirdos, changeling, flamers, nurglings) the rest is a lot of defensive dissembling that isn't really necessary. like, i get it, RL happens, but it's always good to think about whether what you have to say is interesting or informative or funny. everyone is quite aware the meta sucks. GK and CSM can hold their own but obviously it's rough. right now, you can generally fit all of your detachment rules and strats and enhancements on two double-sided pieces of paper, maybe a bit less. that's little enough that you can just give it out as handouts when you play people. that's a big difference from 9th, and it won't change with the codex. it would be hard to say how much more complex it would make the meta because right now you generally do not think about tyranids at all.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2023 10:12
|
|
|
I was pretty surprised all the Sororitas weirdos stayed in Sororitas (preachers, death cult, crusaders etc). The fact that spamming these weirdos as much as possible to do objectives is the most competitive way to play them is hilarious to me.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2023 10:52
|
|
|
i’m generally a fan of simplification but the fundamental problem with 9th was that there was a huge amount of false complexity that was not well communicated to players. Like in reality you could have fit every relevant army rule on a single index card, because there were only about a half dozen stratagems and 1-2 subfactions that ever saw use, but there was nothing marked in the books to distinguish the useless options that existed for fluff purposes from the ones that you were likely to see. You would have to know enough about the faction to write that index card. The question with 10th is whether we’re going to see that problem repeat on a detachment scale. Like if, say, Crusher is the only viable Tyranid detachment, there will be five detachments and 30 stratagems (and 20 enhancements) that technically exist but are only there to provide false complexity. Players who know the faction well enough will be able to pick the right index card and only have to memorize that, but players who don’t will look at all the rules and say something like “ok, so I have to be prepared for any of your units to shoot indirectly?” only to be told “no, that stratagem is part of the bad detachment nobody takes.” (I am just making up a potential stratagem at random). The one big difference I see is that GW is going to manufacture a product that you can hand to a less experienced opponent that serves the purpose of that index card. Which is a good change, and one I’m all for! I just don’t think there’s as much of a difference here as people are acting. My bigger beef with 10th, having played it, is that it’s almost as bad as balance has ever been in the modern history of the game, to the point where you need to either happen to have friends with armies in the same bracket as you or extensive houseruling just to make it functional. My local area had two AOS players who decided to make the jump to 40K with tenth. One liked Death Guard and one liked Leagues of Votann. They each played about 3-4 games (after their initial learning games) and then went back to AOS and haven’t mentioned 40K since.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2023 11:46
|
|
|
Al-Saqr posted:Wow this video with john blanche is awesome:- I really enjoyed this, touches on some great influential artworks, plus a ton of insight on his creative process and how he shaped 40k.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2023 12:18
|
|
|
DAD LOST MY IPOD posted:i’m generally a fan of simplification but the fundamental problem with 9th was that there was a huge amount of false complexity that was not well communicated to players. Like in reality you could have fit every relevant army rule on a single index card, because there were only about a half dozen stratagems and 1-2 subfactions that ever saw use, but there was nothing marked in the books to distinguish the useless options that existed for fluff purposes from the ones that you were likely to see. You would have to know enough about the faction to write that index card. In the TTRPG world we call this Ivory Tower game design, where the game is effectively won by gaining system mastery without ever actually doing anything on the table. It's bad design, and 40K is rife with it. 9E was especially egregious, as the person who could learn all the combos and keep them in their head had a distinct advantage over those who couldn't. Feels real bad to basically know you've lost before the game starts because you brought a decent army of units you like, but your opponent is setting down the Wombo Combo of Doom.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2023 12:56
|
|
|
Devorum posted:In the TTRPG world we call this Ivory Tower game design, where the game is effectively won by gaining system mastery without ever actually doing anything on the table. It's bad design, and 40K is rife with it. Isn't that kind of just the difference between competitive gaming versus just enjoying the game casually? I'd assume there's always going to be a best composition for any given faction that has the best set of synergy between units/load outs/whatever. I guess it might vary depending on what you're expecting to find in a particular competition, but that's more a meta call thing Like in mtg, someone who comes with a properly designed and tested deck is always going to do better than someone who's built an effective deck out of their favorite cards or something
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2023 13:06
|
|
|
A lot of the problem comes from trying to alter a chill game where you and your friend hang out and move toy soldiers around a table into something competitive. Honestly, of all the competitive nerd hobbies out there, 40k is the one I would tell people not to get into. Learn street fighter or guilty gear or mtg.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2023 13:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 11:07 |
|
|
DAD LOST MY IPOD posted:i’m generally a fan of simplification but the fundamental problem with 9th was that there was a huge amount of false complexity that was not well communicated to players. Like in reality you could have fit every relevant army rule on a single index card, because there were only about a half dozen stratagems and 1-2 subfactions that ever saw use, but there was nothing marked in the books to distinguish the useless options that existed for fluff purposes from the ones that you were likely to see. You would have to know enough about the faction to write that index card. I think here you've summarised my point far better than I have. Until the meta settles down at least I don't think I'll be picking up competitive play while I have so much stuff to do at home, but I don't really think anything is really making me feel like I'm missing out. Honestly doesn't look too different to 9th when it had atrocious balance. KT on the other hand I've not managed to play any of the new edition but looks mega fun and balanced.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2023 13:16
|
|