Is diversity of game experience in 40k in decline?

[AgentP]

The last Guardian Cup has put me to musing.  Jeremy (who is an excellent player and this post in no way takes anything away from him) won with his Skitarii in drop pod army.  Now, one of the critical weaknesses of the Skitarii is their lack of transports, and the fragility of their troops, so by placing them in transports, you've overcome that.  Combining them with a Flesh Tearer formation that allows 6 drop pods makes that even better.

 

This list certainly is not the first to re-write an army's weaknesses by creating, in essence, a new army frankensteined from pieces of various armies.  Taudar was another classic example.  Take an army with no psychic phase and rewrite them to include one of the game's best psychic phases.  6th and 7th edition greatly increased the ability to do just that - to build custom mini codexes and create your own army...a rule from here, a unit from there, a vehicle over here, etc.  And tournament play has certainly seen this become the norm.  Filling gaps in armies with allies is the standard tournament list.

 

Now, this list customization ability has many consequences which weight on my mind, but I won't go into here.  But suffice it say that I wonder if every army can shore up weaknesses are we simply just engaging in a race towards homogenization?  And are we collectively dumbing down our ability to compensate for weakness through generalship on the table, and style of play, as opposed to list building in the living room?

 

Those are all questions worthy of discussion, but for this post what I've been wondering is if, while our ability to crate diversity in lists has grown exponentially, has our actual diversity of game experience diminished?  In the old days, armies had a way they played.  You had a certain experience playing against Imperial Guard that was vastly different from the experience playing against tyranids.  Playing against Eldar felt completely different to playing against marines.  The matchups created a diversity of game experience.  But I wonder if that is in decline.  I honestly don't know.  Maybe it isn't.   I'd be curious to hear people's thoughts.  Do folks find that games are starting to feel similar?

 

My musings.....take with a grain of salt.

[Threejacks]

Good topic:)

 

Though Ive not played the game long enough to be much help in my opinions.But one thing I can say that I think applies here,is that 40k,being such a vast game with a huge following is in dire need of more varied play formats for the competitive circuit.Highlander is a small step in that direction but I think it needs to go further along the lines of actual themed events..with the theme not being so much a change in game/scenario rules as more a change in the forces that can be used.Examples being certain alliances not allowed due to current planet/system treaty disputes,environmental conditions restricting the use of certain unit classes..things along those lines.

[Chapel]

As a long time Tyranid player, I can echo the sentiment being felt by Agent P. We don't get allies (and for this I'm thankful as it keeps us unique), but it does feel that in a lot of the games I played at the Guardian Cup, and on the table in 7th edition as a whole, they start to feel very similar. Opponents are shoring up weaknesses, with mix n' match abilities from other armies to create more mega armies. Now don't get me wrong, a lot of those games are fun, but you start to face the same, or very similar rules, not armies. I feel the identity of armies is starting to disappear. It's starting to feel like Unbound.

 

You have basically lost all identity of an army and it's specialties. Now don't get me wrong, in certain combo's it makes for a very fluffy (read this as my opinion of fluffy) combinations. Like Adeptus Mechanicus, coupled with Imperial Knights, Chaos Marines running with Daemons, Or the Adaptus Militarum being shored up with a couple units of Ultramarines, and vice versa.

 

The resetting of the allies matrix was good in the change over, but I think it could go a bit further. Unbound is one thing, bring all the models you want from whatever faction, it's a free for all and you get all the best of the best from whatever you like. But there was something special when facing an opponent playing full Ultramarines or Blood Angels, felt unique. Very few players have identity in their armies anymore, not like the older days. Guys had tricked out Ultramarines Dice because they were full on defenders of Macragge and they had identity. Ork players had their chosen warboss and his clans, most had names, and you'd see very customize battle wagons and trucks in honor of that warboss. And you had chaos marines longing for a game against the loyalists so they could reap their souls and take out 1000's of years of pent up aggression on their former battle brothers.

 

Games are still fun facing opponents with a lot of different armies around, but it feels like these days you are facing whatever latest rules combinations are out, instead of an army.

[AbusePuppy]

Now, this list customization ability has many consequences which weight on my mind, but I won't go into here.  But suffice it say that I wonder if every army can shore up weaknesses are we simply just engaging in a race towards homogenization?  And are we collectively dumbing down our ability to compensate for weakness through generalship on the table, and style of play, as opposed to list building in the living room?

 

Covering weaknesses of a list in the army-building stage has always been a major part of competitive play; obviously the potential to do that has expanded vastly since the return of allies as a mechanic, but it's certainly not anything new to the game.

 

However, shoring up weaknesses shouldn't be taken to be the same as homogenization- the way a Tyranid list deals with anti-flyer tech is not going to be the same way that Orks or Space Wolves do so. The kinds of solutions that are available, feasible, and compatible with the list's plan will be wildly different- hence the lists will be different and playing against them will be different.

 

The danger of homogenization in 7E is for a handful of overly-strong units to come to dominate the field against all sorts of competitors and to become universal in lists, I think, not for all lists to become the same because they need to solve the same problems. If a unit is too good of a solution, it will come to be shared in many different armies- Eldar are the biggest threat here, but there are certainly others to consider as well. However, I don't think we've reached that point- there are lots of lists out there that can mix in Eldar that simply don't for very valid reasons.

 

One other thing to consider: the availability of solutions to all armies is not necessarily a bad thing, because it reduces the rock/paper/scissors factor of the game. Previously, if you were playing Tau, you had NO solutions to a psychic deathstar other than "do exactly what you usually do and hope that works." Similarly, Tyranids coming up against a Dark Eldar army could essentially kiss their a** goodbye because there simply wasn't anything in the codex that gave them a chance against it. Allowing people to take allies, however, opens the possibility of bringing in solutions to these problematic matchups rather than just taking it as a given that they will lose them. In that sense, at least, the game is more interactive and more diverse.

[indytims]

In my opinion, allowing allies is simply a way for some armies to find a 'crutch' for their weaknesses - and for GW to encourage you to buy more figs. Allowing armies to fill-in their weaknesses does, in my mind, give some sense of homogenization where the armies can start to feel the same, except the figs look different.

 

While I am all-for 'allies' in a friendly thematic game once in awhile, I've always been of the opinion that allies should not be allowed in tournaments, and the 'allies table' in the current edition of the game should be torn from the book and burned in effigy. Some of the alliances don't even make any sense at all, despite GW's attempts to make them all sound 'legit'. Reading about these various alliances in tournament play just adds another reason why I have avoided such events in the past.

 

I've only recently returned to the game, but I definitely remember this topic coming up in groups I've played with. In some cases, players were wanting to try combos and thought it was a cool idea... until someone dropped a combo on them that made them want to pull their hair out. As such, I don't use allies myself and never will. I might lose all the time because of that, and that's totally cool with me.

 

-Tim

[WestRider]

I really haven't found that to be my experience at all. To just take Jeremy's list as an example again, the differences in basic statlines make a big difference in how I would play against that compared to how I would play against a MEq Drop List. For instance, I'll Charge Skitarii Vanguard with pretty much anything, while Charging Grey Hunters or Sternguard is a very different proposition.

 

There are also a couple of Armies (Dark Angels, Dark Eldar, and all varieties of Chaos come to mind here) that I feel like I would see much less often if Allies weren't a thing, either because they have some particularly striking lack, or because they've got some handy stuff to drop into other Armies. Seeing those around makes it worth any shenanigans that might be going down to me.

 

And honestly, I have to say, I really haven't personally seen much of anything that I consider to be particularly horrible abuse of the system.

[Lord Hanaur]

This thread makes me think of why I started the Elvensword Ambassadorial Tournament. I think six drop pods for six vanguard is like six raiders for six striking scorpion squads. Awesome but terrifying and given GW's stated narrative bent, a bit cooky

[Guest]

Not sure if on topic, but I did think the types of lists at the GG cup were few. More like archetypes, rather than codex. I did think there was some codex diversity.

[dashneeb]

Well, you couldn't do that in sixth actually, because you couldn't mount troops allied troops.  Of course, I haven't read the mechanicus, don't like their models, so not very interested.

 

Also, I think I have about three games of 7th under my belt.  But, I did see some of that in 6th, as far as using allies to shore up weaknesses, however, I figure that since they seem to be wanting to make almost everything unbound it doesn't really matter.

[fluger]

The one unit I keep seeing over and over again as an ally for armies that can do it is Centurions in a pod.  

 

I'm interested to see how the new Space Marine dex effects this. 

[AbusePuppy]

Not sure if on topic, but I did think the types of lists at the GG cup were few. More like archetypes, rather than codex. I did think there was some codex diversity.

 

Really? Because my takeaway from it was rather different- only the Tyranid lists looked particularly "same-y" to each other, and apart from them there was a pretty broad range of different types of lists. Even the boogeymen of the current edition were relatively quiescent- Drop Pod allies were not all that common (Jeremy's list aside) and Eldar, though they scored quite well where they did show, were only middling in their total numbers. Though the absence of Chaos Daemons was a bit surprising, with most of their ally possibilities banned and Daemonkin taking their place for many people, I think we ended up with a strong showing from most all of the factions.

 

 

The one unit I keep seeing over and over again as an ally for armies that can do it is Centurions in a pod.  

 

I'm interested to see how the new Space Marine dex effects this. 

 

It definitely shows up more than occasionally, but I don't think there were actually that many of them at the tournament as a whole; I can think of two offhand, and probably there were one or two others I missed.

 

Hopefully they are leaving most stuff the same in terms of points/options in the new SM book, although Razorbacks, ASM, and Terminators could all use a point drop- though I doubt any of them will get it.

[fluger]

It definitely shows up more than occasionally, but I don't think there were actually that many of them at the tournament as a whole; I can think of two offhand, and probably there were one or two others I missed.

 

I was also thinking of LVO with both CaptainA's list and IIRC Nick Rose's SM+BA list.  Maybe Captain A's weren't in a pod though now that I think about it.  I also just faced it with WestRider's SW+SM list at the RTT I went to.  Now, I'm not a tourney regular anymore, I was just going off of my perception. 

[WestRider]

CaptainA doesn't use Pods, he Gates his around with Draigo. He also takes 4-5 of them and has Sevrin Loth (and I think a GK Libby) in there too, so they wouldn't fit in a Pod.

 

I don't get out that much, but I don't think I've actually personally seen anyone other than me Podding Cents in.

 

Amusingly, last OFCC was actually the least diverse round of matchups for me in the past year or so. 3 Marines, Orks, and Eldar. The last two Tournaments I've been in, I faced 6 different Dexes in 6 Games, and if you add in the one other (leaving out the Elvensword Ambassador Tournament, because that format would skew the numbers) that I've been to since 7th dropped, it's 7 different Dexes out of 9 Games, and the two Games against Daemons were completely different Lists.

[fluger]

Fair enough.

[Guest Mr. Bigglesworth]

Good thread indeed.

 

I see a point it is not that we are not seeing more codex diversity, as it seems we are, but more certain archetypes, like focused deep strike, or speed board control lists, or 2++ focus. Those archetypes are now blending more and more which is in a way homgenization.

 

I don't think it is making it more boring but I think this is a natural occurrence of tournament setting. With the current rule set it has crossed into a new level, where hard counter lists are less common.

 

The big thing that is keeping it fresh is codex release schedule, the speed prevents stagnation.

[fluger]

Let's be honest, 5th edition was mostly mechanized lists and was about as homogenous as I can remember.  Only a few builds stood out from that pack.  Nothing new going on here, folks, move along.

[pretre]

I like to skew things by playing sisters a lot. Of course, I'm messing that up at annihilation, but oh well.

[Guest]

I don't get out that much, but I don't think I've actually personally seen anyone other than me Podding Cents in.

Pretty sure BA are the only route to do this, as, at present, none of the other chapters have non-dedicated pod access. BA aren't exactly common, aside from their formations (the SR one and the pod one). Plus BA lack centurions, so you need 2 books for this.

 

I think you'll see it more often if you get centurions and non-dedicated pods in the same codex.

[pretre]

Pretty sure BA are the only route to do this, as, at present, none of the other chapters have non-dedicated pod access. BA aren't exactly common, aside from their formations (the SR one and the pod one). Plus BA lack centurions, so you need 2 books for this.

 

I think you'll see it more often if you get centurions and non-dedicated pods in the same codex.

Space Wolves. I do it all the time with them.

[Guest]

Let's be honest, 5th edition was mostly mechanized lists and was about as homogenous as I can remember.  Only a few builds stood out from that pack.  Nothing new going on here, folks, move along.

5th ed tournaments were about honing your army to a fine point, while having an all-comers list. 7th is about honing your army is to an impossibly sharp, incredibly brittle blade. In a nutshell, 7th has allowed the already specialized armies in a tournament scene to become unreasonably more specialized. The only counter for this seems to be having another, impossibly specialized army.

 

Unfortunately, there are really only a few viable ways to be so specialized, hence the lack of army archetypes. You've bike armies, FMC armies, super heavy walker armies, pod armies, skimmer armies, and flyer armies. The factions themselves play little role, as 7th is about spamming a specialized rule/unit type, not about playing any codex army.

[pretre]

I strongly disagree with this. I still make TAC lists that represent my codexes well and I do fairly well (if I do say so myself) against most opponents.

[Guest]

I strongly disagree with this. I still make TAC lists that represent my codexes well and I do fairly well (if I do say so myself) against most opponents.

Sisters don't count. I'm sorry, but they don't count when talking about 7th edition GW codex armies. Sisters need a codex to be included in my above statement.

 

I do think the Sisters PDF is one of the few that is able to be used in a TAC capacity and is fielded as such. Granted, this is related to GW not updating their model line since 3rd or 4th, so the very much OOP sisters are still viable in the capacity of a 3rd or 4th edition army.

 

And I did forget to mention the Cavalry/Beast specialized armies. At no point is a TWC deathstar army considered a TAC army. A deathstar army and a TAC list are different things entirely.

[AbusePuppy]

Pax, pretty much all of the high-level tournament players disagree with you on this one: TAC is not dead. TAC is how you win tournaments, because you can't know in advance what armies you're going to play against, so you need to be prepared to face lots of different things.

[pretre]

Sisters don't count. I'm sorry, but they don't count when talking about 7th edition GW codex armies. Sisters need a codex to be included in my above statement.

 

I do think the Sisters PDF is one of the few that is able to be used in a TAC capacity and is fielded as such. Granted, this is related to GW not updating their model line since 3rd or 4th, so the very much OOP sisters are still viable in the capacity of a 3rd or 4th edition army.

 

And I did forget to mention the Cavalry/Beast specialized armies. At no point is a TWC deathstar army considered a TAC army. A deathstar army and a TAC list are different things entirely.

Sisters have a codex. Just because it is digital, doesn't make it any less a codex.

 

As for my point, I'm not just talking Sisters. My army for the Annihilation is pure SW and is very much a TAC army. It has Cavalry but is not a TWC Deathstar army. Also, a Deathstar army can be a TAC if it can handle all comers. 

[pretre]

Pax, pretty much all of the high-level tournament players disagree with you on this one: TAC is not dead. TAC is how you win tournaments, because you can't know in advance what armies you're going to play against, so you need to be prepared to face lots of different things.

Exactly this.

 

Although, I might amend TAC (Take All Comers) to TMC (Take Most Comers), but that's always been somewhat true.