Jump to content

New 40k edition


pretre

Recommended Posts

Well the thing is i suspect Formations and Detachments that are published will still be useable while the base units themselves will see the changes.necessary to make them consistent with the new edition.  whether or not they will use that opportunity to add 100 points to the WraithKnight is another matter of course.  But i suppose some kind of change there is inevitable.  I really am leary of the rollout part of it.  Reason is, Flames of War rolled their new edition out and its by and large similar to the old one.  There are differences, and one of them is the way the unit stats are more granular.  Now they require these cards (think War scrolls) for each unit to express that except there is no obvious way to get all of the ones you need.  So I pretty much cant play a lot of my units until their cards come out and theres no clear direction on when that is or how it will be.  I hope this roll out is a little more cohesive.  Looks like Flames of War V4 is going to be good but GW can learn some things from the rollout side from this. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Sugarlessllama said:

It is matches like these that make me happy that we are getting a new edition. I am really hoping that some of this stuff is really going to be toned down going forward.

I'm sorry that you had a lame match Pax.

Thanks. And the issue was also on my end. I had a very soft list, even for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, paxmiles said:

Thanks. And the issue was also on my end. I had a very soft list, even for me.

Well I suppose that depends on why you play 40K. If you play 40K to have the "hardest" list in the hopes of winning a tournament. Then yes, this is something to take into account when facing off against an opponent. However, that is not why I play 40K. I play 40K because I think it is one of the better systems out there to play narrative battles and campaigns. The ability to make your own factions, characters, and lore really gives me the ability to tell a story on the table.

Where I think the problem really arises is when narrative and tournament players mix. If one players comes to the table with their fluff based army with named characters and units, and sets down across from a tournament player with their Strength D-Palooza-jink jank-frankenarmy, designed to murder everything on turn 2.... well someone is going to be having a bad time.

I know I have experienced this myself, which is why I am so careful about the venues I choose to play now (it has been well over a year since I stepped into GG). I value my time too much to have a lame match.

Will the new edition help rein in some of this insanity? I don't know. I hope so. Maybe if allies rules are revisited, or army construction, or any number of things that would make the game less... breakable(?) than maybe the game will become way more fun. At least that is what hope for.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No edition is going to solve the problem between "fluffy" and "tournament " players, ever. There will always be better units than others. All we can hope from 8th is maybe there will be closer gap between those two players. It shouldn't matter anyways because communication between players should make it so both players avoid being unhappy as a result of the armies played regardless of what edition.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Spaceork said:

No edition is going to solve the problem between "fluffy" and "tournament " players, ever. There will always be better units than others. All we can hope from 8th is maybe there will be closer gap between those two players. It shouldn't matter anyways because communication between players should make it so both players avoid being unhappy as a result of the armies played regardless of what edition.

Well said. Although I will add that sometimes that communication is between a TO and his players, to make sure they know what to expect at an event.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, pretre said:

Well said. Although I will add that sometimes that communication is between a TO and his players, to make sure they know what to expect at an event.

Well if you are a lore oriented player going to a tournament, well then you should expect a kick in the groin. But when at an open play night at your FLGS, that should be very different.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I can unlurk... well with the mess at the end of the previous edition and then this edition out so quickly I had a real bad feeling about the game overall then add in the cost of the current books and I haven't played since.

This at least interests me. Looks like it could easily scale things from small to large. I dunno about save modifiers again. It was neat but was also one of those things that dragged the game down in 2nd but I am willing to deal with it.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Sugarlessllama said:

Well if you are a lore oriented player going to a tournament, well then you should expect a kick in the groin. But when at an open play night at your FLGS, that should be very different.

I dunno bout that...  Lol.  It is true sometimes though i guess.  I think everyone would agree that the ideal is kind of what the Traitor Legions books attempted to do:  make all the Factions "real" and usable.  I think the Traitor Legions book was a really cool way to do fluff with competition in mind and it elevated the base codex for sure so that you could do more combinations in an effective way rather than being as limited in what you could make use of.  More useful stuff in the codex is never a loss.

 

As 8th Edition approaches, here's a question:  Psyker phase gone?  Would anyone cry bout that?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Lord Hanaur said:

As 8th Edition approaches, here's a question:  Psyker phase gone?  Would anyone cry bout that?

Well I guess it would depend on what it was replaced with. Personally I would love it if they replaced it with the AoS Hero Phase. Each wizard gets to cast X number of spells, and each spell has a casting value of X, and you can only attempt each spell once. It would also be awesome if you could pick your spells rather than roll for them. After playing so much AoS, I am so done with random command/warlord traits and spells. I really don't think that making them random does anything positive for the game.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lets divorce ourselves from this idea that balanced games are somehow the delight of fluff bunnies and not tournament players.  EVERYONE benefits from balanced rules.  EVERYONE wants close and fun games.  Plasma pistols being 15 pts doesnt help anyone.   Better balance would encourage more diversity.  Plain and simple.  

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Lord Hanaur said:

I dunno bout that...  Lol.  It is true sometimes though i guess.  I think everyone would agree that the ideal is kind of what the Traitor Legions books attempted to do:  make all the Factions "real" and usable.  I think the Traitor Legions book was a really cool way to do fluff with competition in mind and it elevated the base codex for sure so that you could do more combinations in an effective way rather than being as limited in what you could make use of.  More useful stuff in the codex is never a loss.

 

As 8th Edition approaches, here's a question:  Psyker phase gone?  Would anyone cry bout that?

 I really liked the whfb magic phase,,and it felt a bit...hollow for a while getting used to the more simple AoS system.But now that newer battletomes are out with army specific spells and abilities im really groovin on magic in the game again:)

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, fluger said:

Lets divorce ourselves from this idea that balanced games are somehow the delight of fluff bunnies and not tournament players.  EVERYONE benefits from balanced rules.  EVERYONE wants close and fun games.  Plasma pistols being 15 pts doesnt help anyone.   Better balance would encourage more diversity.  Plain and simple.  

I am not saying that tournament players don't like balanced games. I played in Warmachine tournaments for about 10 years, and I loved the balance of the game. I am just not 100% convinced that the 40K tournament crowd would accept a balanced game at this point. And I understand that this train of thought is completely a result of my own decision making process.

When I got into Wargaming I knew I wanted to play in tournament style events, and I wanted to be on even footing regardless of the army I picked. So I researched all the games I knew about at the time and decided upon Warmachine. I decided this because the game met all the criteria I was looking for: active community, aggressive play, balanced and tight rules, models I thought looked cool.

And in time my criteria changed; and Warmachine no longer fit those criteria. Did I complain on the internet about how bad the game was because it didn't work the way it did? Nope. I just packed my army up on a padded box and put it in storage. I moved on to a different game that met my criteria.

So when I see 40K players kavetch about the balance of the game, or how it isn't good for tournaments it blows my mind. Of course it doesn't work well in tournaments; that isn't the goal of the game. And if tournaments are your goal, then why don't you play a game designed with tournaments in mind? To me, it is like saying "This wrench sucks at hammering in these finishing nails. Why did Snap-On make such a crappy wrench?" Well, I don't think that they made crappy wrench. You just need a hammer.

But if Games Workshop made something that was both a hammer and a wrench, I don't think it would do well. Because what if the allure of 40K at this point in time is that it is a bad tournament game that gets played in tournaments? That the balance of the game is so off, that all the average schmoe has to do in order to do well is field the latest codex. That power creep means that you don't have to be super great at the game to get wins? That simply having a "super friends" new hotness will face roll your way to victory. Maybe you won't win the national title, but it will put you in the running on your local circuit. And based on how often I see tournament players swap armies based on what the new hotness is, I think I might be on to something. I mean sure, there are always going to be die hard players for their "weak" faction that are going to do well (Will Pagani I am looking at you). But they are notable because they are the exception to the rule. Nobody remembers the latest guy to win an event with 50 scatterbikes; but everyone will talk about the guy that won with Orks. But that doesn't mean that there aren't way more people excited at the prospect of fielding 50 scatterbikes than there are about Orks.

But that is just my two cents.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMO, 40k has been kind of a junk tournament game for close to a decade now. 4th edition was probably the most balanced and easy to run game. 5th wasn't a huge step down, but that's when they introduced random game length and a few other mechanics that really don't jive with a tournament structure.

6th and 7th seem intended to punish tournament players by making the game so random that people would give up on trying to play tournaments. It's an odd business strategy to intentionally disenfranchise tournament players, but then only other explanation is a complete misunderstanding of cause and effect. As a small example, the flamers burning units inside transports. This rule makes sense on an intuitive level but it really hurts Orks and DE, while nobody else really notices. It takes very little thought to realize this is a terrible rule for game balance. So the question is, did they throw it in because they don't care about balance and it "seemed cool", or because they didn't understand how arbitrarily punitive a rule it is? I don't know what the answer is, and it doesn't really matter, because either way it doesn't instill much faith that they'll somehow produce a more balanced, better tournament game.

Codex creep is a separate issue, but one that has been plaguing them since I've been playing. They'll release a new edition and the first codex or few will be pretty bland and often overly conservative. Once they get their feet under them and understand how the edition plays, the books get whackier and whackier towards the end of the edition. 5th they did pretty well with for the most part. Blood Angels started to get pretty silly but then GK and necrons took the edition completely off the rails, and they've never really righted the ship ever since.

I'm certainly curious about the new edition, but mostly I'm just hoping they come up with a system that plays faster than the current edition. The current wound allocation system, for instance, is atrocious and should be burned down, buried, and never spoken of again. When you start the attack with 40+ dice but end up rolling dice one at a time, and re-measuring to see who the next closest model is after each casualty, and then re-determining if the next closest model has a cover save, and then roll saves one at a time again. It is such a tedious system. I hope they bring back 5th ed allocation. It was the most open to wound cheesing but all systems can be manipulated, and I'll gladly take a greater degree of manipulation for the sake of fast allocation.

Otherwise, I've had a much better relationship with 40K ever since I learned to stop caring so much about it. If you care, you'll just get hurt. It's a [big bad swear word] buddy, not relationship material for me. It's the only way I can still enjoy my beloved DE without developing tournament PTSD.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/14/2017 at 3:03 PM, Sugarlessllama said:

But if Games Workshop made something that was both a hammer and a wrench, I don't think it would do well.

But look at Age of Sigmar.  That's a a perfect example.  40k points are basically irrespective of actual game value and can be more or less ignored in friendly games. (ie, if I want a close game of Eldar vs Orks, maybe 2.5k of Orks vs 2k of Eldar would be fair)  Fluffy gamers don't/shouldn't care about points so throw them out if you want to play 100% narrative.  But if you want to play close/fun/balanced games, come up with good point levels.  LET the invisible hand of tournament results adjust points and the folks who don't care don't need to pay attention.

Because what if the allure of 40K at this point in time is that it is a bad tournament game that gets played in tournaments? That the balance of the game is so off, that all the average schmoe has to do in order to do well is field the latest codex.

The only thing I'll say about Codex Creep is that GW doesn't have a [big bad swear word]ing clue.  For every scatterbike there's a Nephilim fighter.  There's plenty of new codexes that come out that are worse than old ones.  GW just sucks at balance: full stop.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/14/2017 at 3:03 PM, Sugarlessllama said:

I am just not 100% convinced that the 40K tournament crowd would accept a balanced game at this point.

I truly cannot understand why you WOULD say that.  Who doesn't like it when they can play any of their armies and get a good game? 40K players are doing what any intelligent person does when they wield an imbalance:  they wield it to maximum effect.  Of course.  

Tournament players dont WANT it to be true.  They would welcome balance with open arms, unanimously.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, fluger said:

But look at Age of Sigmar.  That's a a perfect example.  40k points are basically irrespective of actual game value and can be more or less ignored in friendly games. (ie, if I want a close game of Eldar vs Orks, maybe 2.5k of Orks vs 2k of Eldar would be fair)  Fluffy gamers don't/shouldn't care about points so throw them out if you want to play 100% narrative.  But if you want to play close/fun/balanced games, come up with good point levels.  LET the invisible hand of tournament results adjust points and the folks who don't care don't need to pay attention.

 

 

The only thing I'll say about Codex Creep is that GW doesn't have a [big bad swear word]ing clue.  For every scatterbike there's a Nephilim fighter.  There's plenty of new codexes that come out that are worse than old ones.  GW just sucks at balance: full stop.

  They have certainly gone off the rails with the 40k system over the years..but from what I see of AoS,they are putting alot of effort into keeping the power levels amongst armies inline.The most recent Flying Duardin release is very interesting,yet rather mild in power level.

  Perhaps GW is learning how to balance a game,,or is it "make a balanced game"

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This isn't a recent phenomenon.   As sugarless made mention, GW has never even tried to balance their games because they don't view their games the way lots of people play them.

2nd edition was the LEAST balanced edition and every edition has had several REALLY broken units/coders.

AoS does give me hope though.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, fluger said:

2nd edition was the LEAST balanced edition and every edition has had several REALLY broken units/coders.

Pretty much every special character to my recall was broken in one way or another. Oh and assault that really really was a chore.

While I miss some of the silliness of it I don't miss the gameplay at all. I think I really liked 3rd and 4th the best.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...