Jump to content

40K 9th ed


KennyD76

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Lyraeus said:

So it seems a Crusade player can play people who are not in the Crusade... interesting.

 

Yup, the non-Crusade player gets extra Command Points in exchange. Seems pretty fair to me.

This is the same mechanism used to balance Crusade games between two Crusade players who have different levels of experience for their forces. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Ish said:

Yup, the non-Crusade player gets extra Command Points in exchange. Seems pretty fair to me.

This is the same mechanism used to balance Crusade games between two Crusade players who have different levels of experience for their forces. 

I like it. I will give it a go. Since you can do this along the lines of a mass faction I can do Ork Primaris one week and the next week do Grot Guard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looking forward to it, but I have one main concern: Power Level. Power Level is fine and dandy if you just want to throw down a quick game with a buddy, but unless they change it completely in 9th and offer a lot more granularity (at which point why not just use the points system?) then it remains hopelessly unbalanced. With PL, there is literally no reason not to take the best upgrades and wargear on every single unit you take, because it doesn't cost you anything extra. If they're adding the granularity to change that, that's fine, but like I said, why not just use the matched play points system that they've been using for, what, 25+ years now? I don't really get it. PL is fine for super friendly casual stuff, but all it takes is one try-hard in the league to ruin it for everyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lord Hanaur said:

Nope.  I didnt ADDRESS that because it wasnt really the point, but we're not disagreeing.  You're splitting hairs.

That just isn't true. Your post was quoting a player specifically talking about attacking heroically intervening units.

There wasn't a non-heroic intervention related point in the sentence you quoted.

He asked if you could attack a non-character unit that heroically intervened. Your reply looks identical to someone saying "no, you can't, because you didn't declare a charge against them."

If you did mean something else, it certainly wasn't relevant to the sentence you quoted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can we table the Heroic Intervention argument until we have the complete rulebook in hand?

It’s quite possible that this is addressed in the full rules and was simply left out of the slimmed down basic rules PDF as a space saver. It’s also possible it’s not mentioned in the rulebook at all (it’s very rare for non-characters to be able to make Heroic Interventions) but will be addressed in one of the FAQs, Errata, or other such supplement.

At the moment, you two are just kinda arguing about what each you said, what you thought the other person said, what you meant when you said it, and what the other person really meant when they said it... and if I wanted to be part of that sort of conversation, I’d go talk to my husband about which of us was supposed to put the trash out for garbage day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Ish said:

Can we table the Heroic Intervention argument until we have the complete rulebook in hand?

It’s quite possible that this is addressed in the full rules and was simply left out of the slimmed down basic rules PDF as a space saver. It’s also possible it’s not mentioned in the rulebook at all (it’s very rare for non-characters to be able to make Heroic Interventions) but will be addressed in one of the FAQs, Errata, or other such supplement.

At the moment, you two are just kinda arguing about what each you said, what you thought the other person said, what you meant when you said it, and what the other person really meant when they said it... and if I wanted to be part of that sort of conversation, I’d go talk to my husband about which of us was supposed to put the trash out for garbage day.

The rules and what was said are clear. We're just helping a gaslighter keep his head on straight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Sgt. Rock said:

Looking forward to it, but I have one main concern: Power Level. Power Level is fine and dandy if you just want to throw down a quick game with a buddy, but unless they change it completely in 9th and offer a lot more granularity (at which point why not just use the points system?) then it remains hopelessly unbalanced. With PL, there is literally no reason not to take the best upgrades and wargear on every single unit you take, because it doesn't cost you anything extra. If they're adding the granularity to change that, that's fine, but like I said, why not just use the matched play points system that they've been using for, what, 25+ years now? I don't really get it. PL is fine for super friendly casual stuff, but all it takes is one try-hard in the league to ruin it for everyone.

Yes and no. The base is 50 PL and while sure you could stack your list with the best wargear, they dont really give you a TON of options per data sheet these days.

 

Options are great, take a Death Guard Plague Marine. Whats the best load out for that unit? Well it will depends on if you want to take them as melee or ranged then you have limited options from there.

 

What about Orks. Oh I could take 3 Rokkits for my Boyz squad each time sure no issues there but is that a good idea? Maybe, maybe not. (Orks actually love PL...we really do)

 

There is an objective best loadout for each situation. The thing is in this is that you cant change that loadout once you pick it. 

 

If I have 26 shoota boys, 3 rokkits, 3 tank busta bombs, and a Nob with Power Klaw and Kombi Rokkit, I cant change them later in the Crusade to Choppa boys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Ish said:

Can we table the Heroic Intervention argument until we have the complete rulebook in hand?

It’s quite possible that this is addressed in the full rules and was simply left out of the slimmed down basic rules PDF as a space saver. It’s also possible it’s not mentioned in the rulebook at all (it’s very rare for non-characters to be able to make Heroic Interventions) but will be addressed in one of the FAQs, Errata, or other such supplement.

At the moment, you two are just kinda arguing about what each you said, what you thought the other person said, what you meant when you said it, and what the other person really meant when they said it... and if I wanted to be part of that sort of conversation, I’d go talk to my husband about which of us was supposed to put the trash out for garbage day.

We have the rules. The only thing we are missing is an FAQ which all gw books need day 1, the missions, the crusade rules (which are supposedly laid out terribly but the video I shared helps), and the secondaries

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Lyraeus said:

Yes and no. The base is 50 PL and while sure you could stack your list with the best wargear, they dont really give you a TON of options per data sheet these days.

 

Options are great, take a Death Guard Plague Marine. Whats the best load out for that unit? Well it will depends on if you want to take them as melee or ranged then you have limited options from there.

 

What about Orks. Oh I could take 3 Rokkits for my Boyz squad each time sure no issues there but is that a good idea? Maybe, maybe not. (Orks actually love PL...we really do)

 

There is an objective best loadout for each situation. The thing is in this is that you cant change that loadout once you pick it. 

 

If I have 26 shoota boys, 3 rokkits, 3 tank busta bombs, and a Nob with Power Klaw and Kombi Rokkit, I cant change them later in the Crusade to Choppa boys.

As a marine player, I can tell you all about how busted PL is. Maybe it will work better with the battle roster thingy, but I know that in a straight up game, the differences in what you can get for PL vs. points is very, very stark. It removes the consideration of opportunity cost from list building. Perfect example, take a tactical squad. A basic 10 man tac squad with bolters is 7 PL and 120 points. Now, let's add some upgrades. We won't go too nutty, let's say we give the sarge a plasma pistol and power sword, and then add a plasma gun and a missile launcher. Not too out of hand at all, right? In matched play, that brings the cost up to 151 points from 120. But it's still 7 PL for an objectively better unit. That extra 31 points in matched play is something you have to add up and consider. In narrative using power level, you don't. For some armies where most of their stuff doesn't have a lot of upgrade options, it's fine, but when you throw in factions like Marines or Guard or even Orks where there are a million ways to tinker with your units, it becomes pretty unbalanced very quickly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Sgt. Rock said:

As a marine player, I can tell you all about how busted PL is. Maybe it will work better with the battle roster thingy, but I know that in a straight up game, the differences in what you can get for PL vs. points is very, very stark. It removes the consideration of opportunity cost from list building. Perfect example, take a tactical squad. A basic 10 man tac squad with bolters is 7 PL and 120 points. Now, let's add some upgrades. We won't go too nutty, let's say we give the sarge a plasma pistol and power sword, and then add a plasma gun and a missile launcher. Not too out of hand at all, right? In matched play, that brings the cost up to 151 points from 120. But it's still 7 PL for an objectively better unit. That extra 31 points in matched play is something you have to add up and consider. In narrative using power level, you don't. For some armies where most of their stuff doesn't have a lot of upgrade options, it's fine, but when you throw in factions like Marines or Guard or even Orks where there are a million ways to tinker with your units, it becomes pretty unbalanced very quickly.

no doubt. Its 11 PL for that ork unit I described and its really 271 points currently. 

 

Its fine to have those things though and when you start taking scars and such then things can get good and bad.

 

Overall I am going to counter your argument with one point. 

 

This is a Narrative Set up for YOUR armies narrative. Not my narrative of your army, not Ish's Narrative of your Army. YOUR Narrative. Kit it out how you want to build that narrative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Lyraeus said:

no doubt. Its 11 PL for that ork unit I described and its really 271 points currently. 

 

Its fine to have those things though and when you start taking scars and such then things can get good and bad.

 

Overall I am going to counter your argument with one point. 

 

This is a Narrative Set up for YOUR armies narrative. Not my narrative of your army, not Ish's Narrative of your Army. YOUR Narrative. Kit it out how you want to build that narrative.

The Crusade system in a nutshell:

1BoYcvH.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Lyraeus said:

This is a Narrative Set up for YOUR armies narrative. Not my narrative of your army, not Ish's Narrative of your Army. YOUR Narrative. Kit it out how you want to build that narrative.

That's a perfectly valid point, and I would agree whole-heartedly... except that if I'm being perfectly honest, 40k players can't be trusted. No matter how much emphasis a club or LGS might place on casual, narrative fun for a league, there's always going to be one or two players who are going to take that as an opportunity to bust out their WAAC list. There is a LOT of variation in the seriousness with which players take this game. Other games you have a better idea of what to expect; WarmaHordes players are cutthroat WAAC hardasses, Infinity players tend to be very friendly, sportsmanlike, and professional, etc. 40k is the old box of chocolates; you never know what you're going to get. I'm a very beer and pretzels player, and I would totally go for it that way. But I know a lot of players who would simply kit out all their stuff for optimal performance every single time, narrative be damned, just for the sake of winning. That's how a lot of players have fun, and that's fine. If that's your game, and that's all you know how to play, then go for it. But it doesn't jive with the narrative power level system. If you have enough control over your player base to weed people like that out, it's one thing, but it's otherwise impossible to police that, and 40k players are so inconsistent in what you get out of them that you just never know what to expect. At least with matched play, the granularity of the points makes it semi-balanced. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Sgt. Rock said:

That's a perfectly valid point, and I would agree whole-heartedly... except that if I'm being perfectly honest, 40k players can't be trusted. No matter how much emphasis a club or LGS might place on casual, narrative fun for a league, there's always going to be one or two players who are going to take that as an opportunity to bust out their WAAC list. There is a LOT of variation in the seriousness with which players take this game. Other games you have a better idea of what to expect; WarmaHordes players are cutthroat WAAC hardasses, Infinity players tend to be very friendly, sportsmanlike, and professional, etc. 40k is the old box of chocolates; you never know what you're going to get. I'm a very beer and pretzels player, and I would totally go for it that way. But I know a lot of players who would simply kit out all their stuff for optimal performance every single time, narrative be damned, just for the sake of winning. That's how a lot of players have fun, and that's fine. If that's your game, and that's all you know how to play, then go for it. But it doesn't jive with the narrative power level system. If you have enough control over your player base to weed people like that out, it's one thing, but it's otherwise impossible to police that, and 40k players are so inconsistent in what you get out of them that you just never know what to expect. At least with matched play, the granularity of the points makes it semi-balanced. 

Its your game, if you want to go that way you go that way. I remember playing against you in the 2019 campaign and I get it, hell we all were learning and it can be frustrating but play the game you want to play. 

With how 9th seems to be turning its going to be harder to play and a more technical game which is going to be fine by me.

There is no right or wrong way to play or conduct your narrative. Its not about weeding people out. People play this game for various reasons and if you cut them off for wanting to play to win then thats on you. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Sgt. Rock said:

As a marine player, I can tell you all about how busted PL is. Maybe it will work better with the battle roster thingy, but I know that in a straight up game, the differences in what you can get for PL vs. points is very, very stark. It removes the consideration of opportunity cost from list building. Perfect example, take a tactical squad. A basic 10 man tac squad with bolters is 7 PL and 120 points. Now, let's add some upgrades. We won't go too nutty, let's say we give the sarge a plasma pistol and power sword, and then add a plasma gun and a missile launcher. Not too out of hand at all, right? In matched play, that brings the cost up to 151 points from 120. But it's still 7 PL for an objectively better unit. That extra 31 points in matched play is something you have to add up and consider. In narrative using power level, you don't. For some armies where most of their stuff doesn't have a lot of upgrade options, it's fine, but when you throw in factions like Marines or Guard or even Orks where there are a million ways to tinker with your units, it becomes pretty unbalanced very quickly.

Yeah, the way it affects different Factions differently is a big part of why it has issues. Wolf Guard Terminators are a prime example, ranging from 163 to 305 points for a Squad of 5, but they're PL13 either way. 12.5-23.5 Points per PL is a massive swing.

I would note, tho, that for people who are relatively new to the game, who are just building Units with the options in the box rather than seeking out specific bits to equip everyone with the best options, it works a lot better. Further, it works much better for newer Units, which tend to have far fewer options than those from 5th ed or earlier. A Squad of 5 Intercessors, by comparison, varies in cost only from 85 to 100 points, so PL5 is a pretty reasonable approximation (17-20 Points per PL), regardless of loadout. As time goes by, and more and more of the older Units are discontinued, Power Level will probably become more and more usable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Lyraeus said:

Its your game, if you want to go that way you go that way. I remember playing against you in the 2019 campaign and I get it, hell we all were learning and it can be frustrating but play the game you want to play. 

With how 9th seems to be turning its going to be harder to play and a more technical game which is going to be fine by me.

There is no right or wrong way to play or conduct your narrative. Its not about weeding people out. People play this game for various reasons and if you cut them off for wanting to play to win then thats on you. 

I get that, and it's fine and good, but like I said, it only takes one or two guys to come in and dominate a league/campaign and sour fun for other people. If a game is balanced, that happens less, and unfortunately, GW games have always been, and probably always will be, imbalanced to one degree or another. The army book system shoulders a lot of blame for that. 

Games between competitive and casual players can be very one-sided in the fun department. If I bring a fluffy bunny list expecting to just goof off and toss some dice, and my opponent trots out his ITC winning netlist of doom and wipes me off the table in two turns, he may have enjoyed himself, but I sure didn't. And I feel like PL opens itself up to way too much opportunity for that kind of abuse. 

As you said, people should play the game the way they want to play it, but they also need to be prepared for their opponent to not have fun if they stomp their dick into the dirt because they were expecting a different type of game. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Sgt. Rock said:

I get that, and it's fine and good, but like I said, it only takes one or two guys to come in and dominate a league/campaign and sour fun for other people. If a game is balanced, that happens less, and unfortunately, GW games have always been, and probably always will be, imbalanced to one degree or another. The army book system shoulders a lot of blame for that. 

Games between competitive and casual players can be very one-sided in the fun department. If I bring a fluffy bunny list expecting to just goof off and toss some dice, and my opponent trots out his ITC winning netlist of doom and wipes me off the table in two turns, he may have enjoyed himself, but I sure didn't. And I feel like PL opens itself up to way too much opportunity for that kind of abuse. 

As you said, people should play the game the way they want to play it, but they also need to be prepared for their opponent to not have fun if they stomp their dick into the dirt because they were expecting a different type of game. 

Which is why you should always have "the talk" with your opponent beforehand. The level of doom and gloom you're bringing to this discussion is impressive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bear in mind as well that a unit listed on your Crusade’s Order of Battle has their unit size and equipment load-out fixed in place unless you spend additional Resource Points on it.

If the pool of players is diverse enough, you’re eventually going to run into scenarios where your squad that’s been fine tuned for MEQ killing is going to get drowned in a sea of ‘gaunts or stepped on by a Knight.

The best way to optimize a Crusade force seems to be to lean into “Take All Comers” and not “WAAC.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Sgt. Rock said:

Games between competitive and casual players can be very one-sided in the fun department. If I bring a fluffy bunny list expecting to just goof off and toss some dice, and my opponent trots out his ITC winning netlist of doom and wipes me off the table in two turns, he may have enjoyed himself, but I sure didn't. 

And that’s why I play 40k at Ordo and not at Guardian Games.

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...