FAQs are up!

[scottshoemaker]

I think it's all perspective.  What bugs me is the dollars to satisfaction ratio that seems to keep coming up.  I'd suggest shopping around to price out our hobby as compared to others (golf, photography, hunting, cars) and understand how much mileage we get from our models.  Also understand that GW is trying to differentiate themselves from the Infinities and Bolt Actions out there.

[fluger]

I don't hate losing to a person who outplayed me.  

 

Again, the maelstrom missions are easy to ignore, but it is yet another thing to discuss pre-game.  

 

I'm certain most people I deal with are reasonable, but it's easy to have an opinion on things that are irreconcilable that can then make one party uninterested in playing from the OUTSET.  

 

For instance, I have a friend that doesn't want to play 7th edition because Lords of War are part of the regular FOC now.  

[Burk]

those that have not played maelstrom yet, play a few games.  i think you will find it is not as "un-balanced" as you may think.

[fluger]

Even better than I, Reece from Frontline Gaming lays it out even better:  

 

http://www.frontlinegaming.org/2014/05/28/is-7th-ed-40k-a-new-beginning-or-the-beginning-of-the-end/

 

 

If you come to the table to just play a game, and your opponent did the same, you both bring with you all of the pre-conceived notions as to what a game of 40k should be. That varies wildly from person to person. For some, it means recreating a narrative from one of the many GW books. Their army represents a part of the fiction of the gaming universe and their objective is to see that come to life on the tabletop. They are “Forging the Narrative” so to speak and find enjoyment in seeing a cooperatively told story unfold before them.

For other gamers, the objective is to have a competition wherein the objective is to try to defeat your opponent through clever list building, intelligent tactics and luck. This player sees the game as a tactical exercise and builds an army for maximum advantage. They find enjoyment in pushing the limit of their skill against a like-minded opponent in a tough, close game.

This division between gamer mentalities is something none of us are unfamiliar with. We often use the pejoratives WAAC (Win At All Costs) and FAAC (Fluff At All Costs) or sometimes Fluff Bunny to describe one another (which really, we shouldn’t as the terms are insulting and only further divide us). All you have to do to see an example of it is to scroll down to the comments below to see my point illustrated.

At any rate, when these two different types of gamers come to the same table, it can cause conflict because they are both seeking essentially different types of games and feel let down or frustrated when they don’t get that. 7th ed simultaneously allows both types of players to get the exact type of game they want while also having an even wider gap between them than before. It is a mixed blessing.

[AbusePuppy]

People strangely try to impose a competitive and predictable dynamic on a structure never designed for such a thing. Go play chess. Go compete in a sport.

 

Intrinzic already said this better, but to reiterate: this is an incredibly rude thing to say to someone. "You're not wanted in our hobby, go away" is a great way to further divide a limited player base and increase tensions that shouldn't even exist in the first place. I could just as easily tell you to "go back to playing Chutes and Ladders or baccarat," but I don't think that would be at all helpful. Whatever GW may or may not have designed the game for- and let's remember, several members of the GW design staff do believe that tournaments are a worthwhile part of the game and that competitive play can be interesting and fun- a very significant chunk of the 40K population plays the game that way.

 

[Lord Hanaur]

I don't hate losing to a person who outplayed me.  

 

Again, the maelstrom missions are easy to ignore, but it is yet another thing to discuss pre-game.  

 

I'm certain most people I deal with are reasonable, but it's easy to have an opinion on things that are irreconcilable that can then make one party uninterested in playing from the OUTSET.  

 

For instance, I have a friend that doesn't want to play 7th edition because Lords of War are part of the regular FOC now.  

so just dont play with Lords of War when you play him and it'll be fine.

[dashneeb]

According to the actual financials as reported in the Las Vegas Journal, you know what kept the casino industry afloat through the recession?  It wasn't poker.  It was baccarat  - a game with absolutely zero player input.   

 

I think that there was a bit of a movement for the government to bail out Las Vegas Casino's as well. :)

[scottshoemaker]

This is a complicated game.  It's social.  Part of being social is talking to the other person.  That's interaction.  Decide the kind of game you both want to play before you start playing.  If you want a purely homogenous experience pick up a controller.

[Guest Mr. Bigglesworth]

those that have not played maelstrom yet, play a few games. i think you will find it is not as "un-balanced" as you may think.

+1. Most complaints about cards are from folks who have not tried them yet. It doesn't seem they add much more than first blood to swaying the game turn 1. Now there is at least a chance to have a more favorable first turn objective that can score vp. Only concern I see with cards is the variable return portions. Rolling a d3 for how many vp I earned seems bad for balance.

 

Otherwise being a poker player I enjoy this element and dry drawing I feel I can create lists that integrate the odds well in my favor. Trying looking at this as another element in list building does that change your perspective? I know it did mine.

[fluger]

so just dont play with Lords of War when you play him and it'll be fine.

Sure, but...again, it's something I have to consider before I even try and get a game in.  

[pretre]

Nm

[AbusePuppy]

so just dont play with Lords of War when you play him and it'll be fine.

 

Also keep in mind that a lot of people don't have the luxury of being super-picky about what they play against- they may have a limited schedule (due to work or other factors), they may live in an area where they don't have many different opponents to play against, etc, but the reality is that Warhammer is not a huge hobby and for a lot of people the name of the game is "play the handful of local folks or don't play at all." And I've seen plenty of groups- and players- that have insanely restrictive views on what is "acceptable" to bring to the table, to the point where some entire factions simply aren't fieldable.

 

The reason we have a universal ruleset, set out by the BRB, is so that (in theory) you can sit down with anyone else who plays 40K and have a game with them and you'll both already know the rules and how the game is played. It's why other games (like chess) and sports (most especially sports organizations, like the NBA, NFL, etc) have codified and unified rules; you can hardly hope to play a game against someone if the two of you can't even agree how to play. In reducing the game to "well these elements don't work and/or people don't like them, so don't use them if you don't want to" the universality of the game is broken, which makes it harder for people to play together.

 

Certainly in casual games especially there should be at least some element of negotiation and compromise in terms of what each person is bringing to the table, but that's more an issue of courtesy than rules. No one wants to sit down to the table with their army only to discover on turn 3 that "Oh our group plays it so that you aren't allowed to do that" or "Didn't you know, around here we cap psychic powers at four dice." It's not fun for anyone and it's bad for the hobby.

[Mr.MoreTanks]

yes, sometimes the journey is more important the finish.

 

I play games to play the game, not to win the game.

 

P.S.  Also the highest points you can get in from the cards in turn 1 is 6 IIRC.

 

I'm all about the journey being more important than the finish.  And the journey is really [big bad swear word]ty when it ends in turn one.  

 

I play to play and I play to win.  Just because I like to win doesn't mean that I don't want the game to be fun and simply relaxed and enjoyable.  I don't throw a fit when I lose (except for that one time... )  

 

And pretty sure between the secondaries and Malestorm objectives you can get more than six in a turn, but I may be wrong there. 

[AbusePuppy]

And pretty sure between the secondaries and Malestorm objectives you can get more than six in a turn, but I may be wrong there. 

 

It would depend on how many cards you started with and other factors, but in theory with three cards (which is a fairly standard number to have) you could easily score nine points, as many of the tactical cards are worth d3 VP each, and in theory you could get as many as twelve (as one of the cards yields d3+3.)

 

Even "just" scoring six points on the first turn means you now have a HUGE lead on the enemy and are getting to look at three new cards for your next turn, putting you in a very, very good position.

[Threejacks]

    Need a clarification please..

 

  It appears now that the change in the Escalation faq has removed the first three paragraphs on pag 34 LoW Dataslates..especially the one that connected LoW players with the two Escalation special rules ,,one being giving the VP`s for every 3 hull points taken off a LoW and the other was the +1 seize bonus.

 

 the new replacement wording implies that those previous rules are now only used or "may be used" in the Alter of War escalation missions found in that book.Also it appears that you can only roll on the Escalation warlord traits table if you are playing a AoW Escalation battle.

 

 Finally they have removed the Force org chart in the Escalation book and instead LoW choices are now part of the Combined arms detatchement in the new book.

 

 So do LoW no longer give up VP`s per 3 HP`s taken off them in non escalation AoW missions?

[Lord Hanaur]

Sure, but...again, it's something I have to consider before I even try and get a game in.  

Not often enough to brand the whole thing with a broad brush 

 

Also keep in mind that a lot of people don't have the luxury of being super-picky about what they play against- they may have a limited schedule (due to work or other factors), they may live in an area where they don't have many different opponents to play against, etc, but the reality is that Warhammer is not a huge hobby and for a lot of people the name of the game is "play the handful of local folks or don't play at all." And I've seen plenty of groups- and players- that have insanely restrictive views on what is "acceptable" to bring to the table, to the point where some entire factions simply aren't fieldable.

 

The reason we have a universal ruleset, set out by the BRB, is so that (in theory) you can sit down with anyone else who plays 40K and have a game with them and you'll both already know the rules and how the game is played. It's why other games (like chess) and sports (most especially sports organizations, like the NBA, NFL, etc) have codified and unified rules; you can hardly hope to play a game against someone if the two of you can't even agree how to play. In reducing the game to "well these elements don't work and/or people don't like them, so don't use them if you don't want to" the universality of the game is broken, which makes it harder for people to play together.

 

Certainly in casual games especially there should be at least some element of negotiation and compromise in terms of what each person is bringing to the table, but that's more an issue of courtesy than rules. No one wants to sit down to the table with their army only to discover on turn 3 that "Oh our group plays it so that you aren't allowed to do that" or "Didn't you know, around here we cap psychic powers at four dice." It's not fun for anyone and it's bad for the hobby.

I think we're going far afield here though.  The base ruleset and the codex...  that is the basic building block, the one everyone can agree on.  If it says Codex or it's the main rule book, you use it and its understood.  

 

House rules and rules supplements are two different things.  Now I come from the role playing background since 1984, only played Warhammer since like 2004.  So for me, I'm used to rules supplements and am used to choosing which ones to use or not use.  They're called supplements because they're NOT core and understood to be NOT necessarily part of the game.  Just fun things you can add in if the DM allows it.

 

In this case you play the roles of Co-DM's.  So between the two of you you say we both agree to the core.  And then we will both need to agree on anything outside it.  Thats basically it.  Cities of Death is addressed DIRECTLY in several codex's.  Does everyone then have to use Strategems?  Nope.  Cities of Death is supplemental.  So we just negotiate that between us.

 

I see this as different than the house rules you're suggesting which are non-game related rules mods or restrictions.  those have nothing to do with 7E or GW.  That's on the players.

 

In tournaments the TO is the DM so there's nothing to discuss.  It's decided.  You know.  Come prepared.

 

So if the tournament makes the discussion moot, and the NON-tournament effort-towards-fun makes the discussion short and cordial...  Wheres the problem?  Is it just an academic argument then?  I feel it kind of is.  

 

This literally only ever comes up when someone is outta town, and playing in a non tournament game and the other player doesn't know you and doesn't care if you live or die and you cross your arms also.  In that game, maybe.  That's a lot of and's though!

[galahad911]

BA tanks are fast again this morning.

[Jayne_Cobbb]

Zoom zoom!

[intrizic]

drive fast today, for tomorrow they shall all be 'heavy' vehicles ;)

[Guest Mr. Bigglesworth]

It would depend on how many cards you started with and other factors, but in theory with three cards (which is a fairly standard number to have) you could easily score nine points, as many of the tactical cards are worth d3 VP each, and in theory you could get as many as twelve (as one of the cards yields d3+3.)

 

Even "just" scoring six points on the first turn means you now have a HUGE lead on the enemy and are getting to look at three new cards for your next turn, putting you in a very, very good position.

And can't you do that turn 2, 3,...

 

A simple fix is agree to max points allowed to score per cards. I see no imbalance issues, most cards require you to be mid game to max. A lot of the cards are positional or take forward planning.

 

If someone lets a first run lead beat that is not a flaw in game design but a flaw in attitude. With the way the cards work you can have deficit of 6 points on turn 3 and still win. The game with cards are higher scoring now so it's just a change in mentality. I haven't had the chance to test like many but I remain optimistic.

 

All this talk of turn 1 huge point gap doesn't seem to relay the game should've played to turn 4 or higher.

 

What you should b concerned about turn 1 is the absolutely brutal alpha strikes some armies have or bad deployment, these are things that will cost you the game quicker than the cards. The only complaint I see is this is now another turn 1 variable we have to take into account which does bring up the learning curve by a lot.

 

I will remain optimistic for now until I get 4 games in. So far my dry runs have not given me room to doubt.

 

Back to FAQ they are doing great giving minor updates. I'm glad fast on ba vehicles was an oversight. With how they handled FAQ with 6th early on and how they are handling now I like the new expectations they are setting. Please don't counter with they had a dry spell FAQ for over 6 months. We can chalk that to edition change on the horiZon and that is excusable.

[spagunk]

Blood angel faq update. Crisis averted, situation normal. Was just a slight weapons malfunction.

We're all fine, we're fine now, thank you. How are you?

[fluger]

Boring conversation anyway...

[Justjokin]

LUKE, WE'RE GONNA HAVE COMPANY!

[Steel Angel]

Don't get cocky.

[Lord Hanaur]

Hehehe. Sqirrel.