Battleground Games Forum
Games Workshop => Warhammer 40K => Topic started by: Mike_k on February 26, 2014, 01:55:52 PM
-
Hello BG 40k'ers.
Working on some potential comp/rules fixes to tune 40k and spread the balance out some. Have some initial ideas targeted at the really difficult to handle things like 2+ rerollable saves and super mega deathstars.
We are aware that the 1 IC change will hurt IG/sisters and would probably make an exemptions list for armies/units/IC's excluded from this list.
Tell us what this list of changes breaks or hinders into non play-ability or even just makes worse than it already is.
Also some armies have plenty of ways to get rerolls to shooting/hits and some armies dont. Some units with lots of twin linking like missilesides instantly invalidate units like ork boys. Looking to tune twin linking, prescience etc to dial that back some.
Reroll saves:
2+ = 2+ 5+ on the 2nd roll
3+ = 3+ 4+ on the 2nd roll
Unit/army changes:
1 IC per unit (will adjust for IG, sisters and anything else that this breaks)
Battle Brothers cant join allied units
IC's can never carry the relic ever
Any reroll to hit is only reroll of 1's whether Twin linked, prescienced, etc
-
Could you provide some reasoning behind each decisions? What you thought was the problem (list examples), other possible solutions, and why this was the best one? A lot of these don't really make sense to me.
-
So you can nitpick every little thing, Rob?
I've come about to thinking there should be no re-rolls of invo saves ever. A lot of trouble comes about from psychic powers, and more specifically, fortune. A lot of the rest comes from buff commanders.
On another board, we came up with this 4 point statement that I think solved 90% of the problems:
Fortune is a 4+ FNP, Grimoire only goes to 3++, No Joining Riptides, and you can't use both multispectrum and C&C at the same time
Seriously, that's 4 simple things, and it solves most problems.
-
Hello BG 40k'ers.
Working on some potential comp/rules fixes to tune 40k and spread the balance out some. Have some initial ideas targeted at the really difficult to handle things like 2+ rerollable saves and super mega deathstars.
We are aware that the 1 IC change will hurt IG/sisters and would probably make an exemptions list for armies/units/IC's excluded from this list.
Tell us what this list of changes breaks or hinders into non play-ability or even just makes worse than it already is.
Also some armies have plenty of ways to get rerolls to shooting/hits and some armies dont. Some units with lots of twin linking like missilesides instantly invalidate units like ork boys. Looking to tune twin linking, prescience etc to dial that back some.
Reroll saves:
2+ = 2+ 5+ on the 2nd roll
3+ = 3+ 4+ on the 2nd roll
Unit/army changes:
1 IC per unit (will adjust for IG, sisters and anything else that this breaks)
Battle Brothers cant join allied units
IC's can never carry the relic ever
Any reroll to hit is only reroll of 1's whether Twin linked, prescienced, etc
these proposed comp changes seem very one sided to me...
minor nerf to re-rollable saves and a huge nerf to re-rollable to hit? even if you hit you still have to wound. I think it's too much of a nerf to armies with crappy BS that rely on TL such as Tau and IG
i can see logic in the Relic thing
1 IC per unit will probably negate some death stars
disallowing battle brothers to join units is a huge step though... i know 40k is pretty broken right now but thats a big change
-
So you can nitpick every little thing, Rob?
I've come about to thinking there should be no re-rolls of invo saves ever. A lot of trouble comes about from psychic powers, and more specifically, fortune. A lot of the rest comes from buff commanders.
On another board, we came up with this 4 point statement that I think solved 90% of the problems:
Fortune is a 4+ FNP, Grimoire only goes to 3++, No Joining Riptides, and you can't use both multispectrum and C&C at the same time
Seriously, that's 4 simple things, and it solves most problems.
Everyone agrees the Grimoire gimmick is OP, and nobody likes joined riptides but there are a lot more problems with this game, and two nerfs to Tau and one nerf to Eldar and Daemons are not going to fix 90% of the problems.
as much as i hate to say it because i LOVE allies the only thing that might fix 90% of the problems are to get rid of allies
-
So you can nitpick every little thing, Rob?
Seriously dude? Do we have to do this in every thread? With any proposed set of changes or komp, the reasons should be very straightforward for what those changes are designed to target. I don't know why you would only allow 1 ic to join a unit if you're saying battle brothers can no longer join each others units, so I'd like to know what that's about. Same with pretty much every other change he proposed. He also didn't mentioned stronghold assault or escalation, so I'm assuming they're allowed unless he says his comp excludes them. I think the 4 things you posted seem reasonable, and they're easy to understand because they target 4 specific things without making sweeping changes all over.
Isn't it weird how we need to discuss things to have a discussion?
-
i personally think this is a step back from something like swedish komp or the fantasy etc. i think what you want to do is address the problem units instead of making blanket rules changes that have collateral damage on all sorts of things that were never an issue. for example: with these rules, if i have a twin-linked big shoota (fired by an ork, so bs2), i'm rerolling 75% less shots, whereas if i have a twin-linked heavy bolter (fired by a marine so bs4) i'm only rerolling 50% less shots. why are low bs units with twin linked getting the largest nerf despite not being an issue?
i think we need to figure out what the problem units/items/combos are and target those specifically instead of making blanket rules changes where the consequences are a lot more wide ranging and hard to see. bennett's proposed fixes are exactly the right kind, they target the units that are a problem and cause little to no collateral damage to units/armies that aren't an issue.
-
you have an intriguing idea here. I wouldn't mind being a wall to bounce ideas off of.
-
So you can nitpick every little thing, Rob?
I've come about to thinking there should be no re-rolls of invo saves ever. A lot of trouble comes about from psychic powers, and more specifically, fortune. A lot of the rest comes from buff commanders.
On another board, we came up with this 4 point statement that I think solved 90% of the problems:
Fortune is a 4+ FNP, Grimoire only goes to 3++, No Joining Riptides, and you can't use both multispectrum and C&C at the same time
Seriously, that's 4 simple things, and it solves most problems.
Everyone agrees the Grimoire gimmick is OP, and nobody likes joined riptides but there are a lot more problems with this game, and two nerfs to Tau and one nerf to Eldar and Daemons are not going to fix 90% of the problems.
as much as i hate to say it because i LOVE allies the only thing that might fix 90% of the problems are to get rid of allies
Well, the real problem (currently) is death stars. Getting rid of allies solves beast pack, and the lesser known centurion star, but it only partially nerfs seer council, O'Vesa star is still possible (but much more expensive) and it does nothing at all about screamerstar, which sorta started this whole thing.
Conversely, those 4 changes kill off ALL the deathstars.
Let me put it this way: What current problems do you see that those 4 changes don't solve?
-
Giving 4+ fnp to any unit eldar are battle brothers with could create new problems. I would look into that one a little more, but the other 3 seem pretty straightforward.
Like goblin said, targeted removal is better than blanket comp that doesn't really effect problematic things. Matt posted 4 targeted removal things that help deal with stuff that leaves a bad taste in a lot of peoples mouthes after games. It doesn't really do anything for the ignores cover issues or help out armies with lackluster (if any) battle brother options, but its a start.
-
Giving 4+ fnp to any unit eldar are battle brothers with could create new problems.
I can't think of any? Certainly not more so than rerolling the save.
It doesn't really do anything for the ignores cover issues
Saying C&C OR multispectrum does a lot to nerf Tau cover save ignoring problem. Markerlights have the natural weakness in that they are usually easy to kill.
-
So you can nitpick every little thing
Pot, meet kettle. ;)
Seriously dude? Do we have to do this in every thread?
Yes, it is crystal clear to everyone that's been to the boards once in the last 3 months that you DO have to do this in every thread.
-
My issue with this is it's not very fair to daemons. Our grimoire is very important in keeping fateweaver alive, and for our screamers. If we lose the ability of our grimoire, I vote wave serpents be limited to 3 per army, and riptides be limited to 2.
-
My issue with this is it's not very fair to daemons. Our grimoire is very important in keeping fateweaver alive, and for our screamers. If we lose the ability of our grimoire, I vote wave serpents be limited to 3 per army, and riptides be limited to 2.
...So you're in favor of 2+ rerollable invul saves? The proposal right now is to limit it so it can't improve a save better than 3+, which seems pretty reasonable.
-
So you can nitpick every little thing, Rob?
I've come about to thinking there should be no re-rolls of invo saves ever. A lot of trouble comes about from psychic powers, and more specifically, fortune. A lot of the rest comes from buff commanders.
On another board, we came up with this 4 point statement that I think solved 90% of the problems:
Fortune is a 4+ FNP, Grimoire only goes to 3++, No Joining Riptides, and you can't use both multispectrum and C&C at the same time
Seriously, that's 4 simple things, and it solves most problems.
Everyone agrees the Grimoire gimmick is OP, and nobody likes joined riptides but there are a lot more problems with this game, and two nerfs to Tau and one nerf to Eldar and Daemons are not going to fix 90% of the problems.
as much as i hate to say it because i LOVE allies the only thing that might fix 90% of the problems are to get rid of allies
Well, the real problem (currently) is death stars. Getting rid of allies solves beast pack, and the lesser known centurion star, but it only partially nerfs seer council, O'Vesa star is still possible (but much more expensive) and it does nothing at all about screamerstar, which sorta started this whole thing.
Conversely, those 4 changes kill off ALL the deathstars.
Let me put it this way: What current problems do you see that those 4 changes don't solve?
i agree it solves some problems,
-3++ is still pretty durable (i've seen the mathhammer before on it i just cant reference it right now)
-no more Ov'esa star but the effects can still be done by putting more marker lights in your army
-not really knowledgeable enough on jetstar to speak intelligently on that
there's other issues like the aforementioned wave serpant spam (which blanket "comp" like daboyz attempted to combat but that is really a lazy mans version of comp). Flying circus same thing, but now with more things skyfiring you see less and less of that
then there's the whole can of worms about escalation and stronghold assault, is it legal? should it be legal?
then GW realized "hey, nobody's using escalation! ok release the kraken!... i mean codex knight titans aka escalation light")
i wish i had the answers on how to fix 40k but i dont, like i said before the simplest way to solve some of the issues is to disallow allies which sucks because allies are awesome, fun, and helps stores like BG by everyone buying more models because they want to add this and that and those detachments to their armies.
i think this Komp event BG is doing is a new interesting way of attempting to bring some order to 40k, but good players will find new comp legal good lists and honestly if you're a good enough player you can win with anything anyway
-
My issue with this is it's not very fair to daemons. Our grimoire is very important in keeping fateweaver alive, and for our screamers. If we lose the ability of our grimoire, I vote wave serpents be limited to 3 per army, and riptides be limited to 2.
...So you're in favor of 2+ rerollable invul saves? The proposal right now is to limit it so it can't improve a save better than 3+, which seems pretty reasonable.
As a daemon player in a world of triptide and serpent spam, I'm all for having my 2++ rerollable.
-
there's other issues like the aforementioned wave serpant spam (which blanket "comp" like daboyz attempted to combat but that is really a lazy mans version of comp). Flying circus same thing, but now with more things skyfiring you see less and less of that
no reason we couldn't follow the same pattern on serpent spam or flying circus. we say, 'is this a problem?' then 'why is it a problem?' and then figure out a way to target that specific thing we think is bad for the game. the why is the most important thing. are serpents bad simply because you can have a lot of them? are they too fast? are they too hard to kill? are their weapons too good? if we can key in on exactly what makes these broken lists so broken, we can fix them in such a way that people can still play the models they want, without completely dominating the game while also not accidentally gimping armies that aren't an issue.
-
My issue with this is it's not very fair to daemons. Our grimoire is very important in keeping fateweaver alive, and for our screamers. If we lose the ability of our grimoire, I vote wave serpents be limited to 3 per army, and riptides be limited to 2.
...So you're in favor of 2+ rerollable invul saves? The proposal right now is to limit it so it can't improve a save better than 3+, which seems pretty reasonable.
As a daemon player in a world of triptide and serpent spam, I'm all for having my 2++ rerollable.
As a necron player living in the same world, I'm all for being able to run my super heavies. However, a portion of the community are fairly interested in scaling 40k power levels down to a 5th ed equivalent (I think that's a good way to think of it), and everybody will have to give some things up to see if it can happen.
-
My issue with this is it's not very fair to daemons. Our grimoire is very important in keeping fateweaver alive, and for our screamers. If we lose the ability of our grimoire, I vote wave serpents be limited to 3 per army, and riptides be limited to 2.
...So you're in favor of 2+ rerollable invul saves? The proposal right now is to limit it so it can't improve a save better than 3+, which seems pretty reasonable.
As a daemon player in a world of triptide and serpent spam, I'm all for having my 2++ rerollable.
OK, so you seem to be calling a 2++ rerollable an inalienable right, and I'm going to call that ........strange, at the very least.
i agree it solves some problems,
-3++ is still pretty durable (i've seen the mathhammer before on it i just cant reference it right now)
-no more Ov'esa star but the effects can still be done by putting more marker lights in your army
-not really knowledgeable enough on jetstar to speak intelligently on that
Not sure what the mathhammer is, 3++ leads to you taking 1/3 the wounds that come in. Regardless, 3++ has been with us for a long time, and sure, it's durable.....I think that should be the upper limit on how durable anything can be. (limited exceptions like shadowfields and NFW staffs are ok)
Yeah, markerlights are a thing. You should probably kill the markerlights.
With Jetseer, what it means is at most you're getting a 2+ armor/cover, or a 4++ invo, then a second 4+ FNP. The good thing here is that armor, cover, and FNP all have ways to negate them. Same thing with Beast packs.
there's other issues like the aforementioned wave serpant spam (which blanket "comp" like daboyz attempted to combat but that is really a lazy mans version of comp). Flying circus same thing, but now with more things skyfiring you see less and less of that
As you said, FMCs are not exactly unstoppable. Wave serpents are definitely overpowered, but I don't think they're outright broken the way some of these deathstars are.
then there's the whole can of worms about escalation and stronghold assault, is it legal? should it be legal?
I think that's really a separate question, to which personally, my answer is "just no".
then GW realized "hey, nobody's using escalation! ok release the kraken!... i mean codex knight titans aka escalation light")
i wish i had the answers on how to fix 40k but i dont, like i said before the simplest way to solve some of the issues is to disallow allies which sucks because allies are awesome, fun, and helps stores like BG by everyone buying more models because they want to add this and that and those detachments to their armies.
Like I said, I see a lot of things banning allies does nothing to prevent.
i think this Komp event BG is doing is a new interesting way of attempting to bring some order to 40k, but good players will find new comp legal good lists and honestly if you're a good enough player you can win with anything anyway
I like the Komp system, but I feel it also is a separate matter. It penalizes you for a lot of things people have no problems with, while still allowing through some of the crazy things.
-
Here's what I've come up with so far.
No 2+ cover or 2+ invulnerable saves. Just say no! Cap them at 3+.
ICs do not share their Special Rules with an attached squad. Solves the other half of Deathstar problems.
Helldrakes can't put templates wherever they like.
A unit disembarking from a transport that has not moved may declare an assault that same turn. Honestly, personal preference, just overturning a needless change in 6th while I'm here.
-
Instead of 2/4 or 3/3 any rerollable save is 2 worse.
Also, Battle Brothers may not join each other's units.
Problem solved.
-
Almost forgot. No Strength D. No one like taking their models off the board.
-
Almost forgot. No Strength D. No one like taking their models off the board.
+1
-
Almost forgot. No Strength D. No one like taking their models off the board.
You mean sarcasti40k? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlv6BrrxD_4)
-
Here's what I've come up with so far.
No 2+ cover or 2+ invulnerable saves. Just say no! Cap them at 3+.
ICs do not share their Special Rules with an attached squad. Solves the other half of Deathstar problems.
Helldrakes can't put templates wherever they like.
A unit disembarking from a transport that has not moved may declare an assault that same turn. Honestly, personal preference, just overturning a needless change in 6th while I'm here.
Eh, cover saves aren't the same kind of problem, cuz there are ways around it.
-
No 2+ cover or 2+ invulnerable saves. Just say no! Cap them at 3+.
again, not a huge fan of the blanket rules. poor ghazghkull getting a nerf because demons are too good ;)
-
Poor Ghazghkull is already nerfed having to take Orks. And not having Eternal Warrior.
-
Pretty sure does have eternal warrior?
-
Cover saves.:
I think they should be a ballistic skill modifier not additional save. Shooting a target in cover should make it harder to hit not a bonus save. Target with cover would infer a penalty on the shooting units Ballistic skill.
Stealth or light cover would be -1bs to the shooting unit.(6+cover)
Shrouded or medium cover (or stealth and light cover)= -2bs (5+cover)
Heavy cover= -3bs(4+cover)
The penalties are cumulative but never lower a bs below bs1.
-
There was a mechanic in that Heretic's rules version that popped up between 5th and 6th, in which BS was resisted by another statistic meant to account for the target's natural Dexterity. Like, it'd be harder to hit Daemonettes, because they can dance and skitter around.
I've got to dig that thing up, because players were legitimately excited to play that version.
-
My thoughts is a group from both BG locations should sit down and goth rough every codex and we house rule things. We play test he crap out of it and share with the rest of the comunnity. Instead of nit picking and complaining and looking for that "silver bullet" that will fix all the problems.
-
Bring back Squats will fix everything.
-
It's very difficult to have an open discussion about this sort of thing. So many people play the game at different levels, in different ways, and for different reasons. Everyone is under the impression that they probably have the right idea and are probably considering most things. Everyone has a voice, everyone wants to be heard. blah blah blah.
I'm a fan of top down design. Small groups of people playing and thinking about the game at the highest level doing lots of math, looking at tons of data, tweaking, changing, and inventing things that will "tickle down" to the rest of the players, customers, and/or community.
Almost every game that I can think of that is played competitively by lots of people has this sort of thing in place. We even see shades of it in the 40k community where the TOs behind some of the larger GTs work with their people / clubs to design rules for their events.
It's plainly obvious at this point that 40k 6th Edition is... Not that game anymore. It's fun and cool to play when you're playing with someone who's on the same page (HEY THERE THURSDAY 40K), but it's probably not the best game in the world right now from a competitive standpoint.
Times are changing. The competitive circles will figure out what's best for them. I think the models are still the best in the business. The story that surrounds the game is awesome. Most people can still have fun playing it for the exact reasons they did when they first got involved. For the people that need a tabletop miniatures game that prioritizes high level competition, there are other options out there and I'd be happy to talk about them somewhere else (email, in store, or whatever).
-
Thanks for not ever discussing the actual topic and derailing everything.
Reroll saves:
2+ = 2+ 5+ on the 2nd roll this makes the reroll equivalent to an always on feel no pain even against double strength. It turns a 1/36 probability into durable but much more manageable save
3+ = 3+ 4+ on the 2nd roll If you didnt alter 3+ rerolls they would be better than 2+ and if you have run into crusaders with rerolls a 3+ reroll is shocking durable, obnoxiuos and unfun to deal with
Unit/army changes:
1 IC per unit (will adjust for IG, sisters and anything else that this breaks) Fixes screamer, flamer, drone, pack, DCA bombs, council, cent star, ovessa star. Helps make standard HQ+ units a bit more viable
Battle Brothers cant join allied units Further fixes retarded deathstar combos, units getting buffs they shouldn't have etc
IC's can never carry the relic ever Ovessa grabbing the relic, CM's with the relic etc. Its just not a smart thing to allow
Any reroll to hit is only reroll of 1's whether Twin linked, prescienced, etc. Too many armies have access to twin linking methods and several have little to none. When you shoot 24 TL shots at BS 3 on average you will end up with 19-22 hits (i believe).
-
I appreciate what you're trying to do here, but I do disagree on the specifics. Generally speaking, I'd like to keep any changes simple -- making a rule, like the IC one, that you then have to carve exemptions for is complicated. There's also a lot of units in which it's perfectly fine to have multiple ICs in one unit, and things like the farsight "the 8" (which is not at all broken, but cool as hell) practically demand it.
Similarly, your re-roll rules become a little hard to remember. It seems better to just say "no rerolling invo saves" or something like I suggested, where fortune is altered, since that's where most of the re-rolls come from.
I also don't know that ICs grabbing relics is a big problem. O'Vesa star is a problem, but it's a problem whether it can grab the objective or not (also, O'Vesa usually isn't scoring, anyway).
-
Speaking strictly as an outsider, here is what this thread (and all discussions like it) look like to me:
"[Thing that is hard to beat for my army] would be much better if it were [significantly worse in a way benefiting my army]. Everyone knows [Things that is hard to beat for my army] is the problem!"
Ironically, Strength D actually solves a lot of these problems (Wave Serpents, Riptides, 2++ Daemons, etc.).
I think it is important to look at what the game is as a whole. Is there a problem with 2++ re-rollables everywhere? Is it even that much of a problem (it is, after all, for one unit on one turn). Until you establish the standard you can't establish the limitations, after all.
-
This thread is exhibit A of why it's challenging for community-driven change to take root :) It's much easier for a dictator with implied authority (like, GW) to do it. Don't give up Mike & friends!!! I definitely like the adjustments you posted. I think a lot more needs to be done (especially in the vein of CLARIFICATIONS of rules, not just rebalancing) but in and of themselves these changes seem good.
-
Actually, I want to amend my last statement...
I don't think that the change to twin-linking is necessary. Re-rolling saves is a problem because it can divide the amount of damage you take by 6... when that's applied to a unit which was ALREADY only taking 1 in 6 wounds, it leads to an unkillable unit, which just isn't fun. On the other hand, twin linking a gun can never even double the output of the gun (and it only even approaches doubling when you're twin-linking snap shots, which were not hitting much anyway). Your change to twin-linking only affects BS4 shots by like 10%. Rerolling hits just doesn't have anywhere near as much of an impact on the game as re-rolling saves does, so there's no need to nerf it.
-
"[Thing that is hard to beat for my army] would be much better if it were [significantly worse in a way benefiting my army]. Everyone knows [Things that is hard to beat for my army] is the problem!"
Yes, that is a thing that happens, sure. But it's pretty clear that there is an actual problem going on here, where if you want to really want to compete at the top tables at GT's you really need to bring some sort of crazy unkillable deathstar. The only guy I've seen do well lately without one is Todd Silbur.
I think it is important to look at what the game is as a whole. Is there a problem with 2++ re-rollables everywhere?
Yes, absolutely. Or more generally, 2+ armor & cover saves rerolled and invo saves of any kind. Even beast pack with a simple 4++ rerolled has proven nearly unbeatable.
Ironically, Strength D actually solves a lot of these problems (Wave Serpents, Riptides, 2++ Daemons, etc.).
Sure. But it also makes any kind of elite unit completely unplayable. It also removes a great deal of the tactical nature of the game, because cover no longer matters, range and positioning very often no longer matter. You're just picking entire units up off the board. That's not fun.
Actually, I want to amend my last statement...
I don't think that the change to twin-linking is necessary. Re-rolling saves is a problem because it can divide the amount of damage you take by 6... when that's applied to a unit which was ALREADY only taking 1 in 6 wounds, it leads to an unkillable unit, which just isn't fun. On the other hand, twin linking a gun can never even double the output of the gun (and it only even approaches doubling when you're twin-linking snap shots, which were not hitting much anyway). Your change to twin-linking only affects BS4 shots by like 10%. Rerolling hits just doesn't have anywhere near as much of an impact on the game as re-rolling saves does, so there's no need to nerf it.
I concur.
-
I like the reroll for invul. I think however the 2++ 4++ is the way to go. It should be strong but not over bearing.
The IC rule I dont think is needed for the most part. Getting rid of BB or allies in general would go a long way into fixing these issues.
And I agree with Andulucian on the twin linked rules they dont need changing for the most part.
Overall though I agree fixes need to be made but I agree with Mike that we should be buffing armies not nerfing others.
-
Sure. But it also makes any kind of elite unit completely unplayable. It also removes a great deal of the tactical nature of the game, because cover no longer matters, range and positioning very often no longer matter. You're just picking entire units up off the board. That's not fun.
I agree that it's not fun for the reasons mentioned. Unfortunately, if GW considers these things part of the core game, there will only be more insane stuff that only levels off when confronted with Strength D.
On the bright side, for all we know, the 7th edition update is going to fix all of this with one sentence in the rules for applying modifiers to things, saying something like "Any save of 2+ may not be re-rolled for any reason." Or perhaps, god willing, there will be a way to reduce saves rather than just trying to spam-overwhelm them into rolling 1s.
As for the current proposals, it really won't be hard to just say on a per event basis,
"All re-rolled cover or invulnerable saves during this event suffer a -2 modifier"
"Any Battle Brother allies count as allies of convenience for this event."
You could even give a little fluffy name to each of these rules and make them a standard.
-
Hello BG 40k'ers.
Working on some potential comp/rules fixes to tune 40k and spread the balance out some. Have some initial ideas targeted at the really difficult to handle things like 2+ rerollable saves and super mega deathstars.
We are aware that the 1 IC change will hurt IG/sisters and would probably make an exemptions list for armies/units/IC's excluded from this list.
Tell us what this list of changes breaks or hinders into non play-ability or even just makes worse than it already is.
Also some armies have plenty of ways to get rerolls to shooting/hits and some armies dont. Some units with lots of twin linking like missilesides instantly invalidate units like ork boys. Looking to tune twin linking, prescience etc to dial that back some.
Reroll saves:
2+ = 2+ 5+ on the 2nd roll
3+ = 3+ 4+ on the 2nd roll
Unit/army changes:
1 IC per unit (will adjust for IG, sisters and anything else that this breaks)
Battle Brothers cant join allied units
IC's can never carry the relic ever
Any reroll to hit is only reroll of 1's whether Twin linked, prescienced, etc
My opinions are based off an assumption that escalation and stronghold are not allowed with these rules. I think 2+ rerollable is moot with D weapons around so I'm only going to get into what I feel is appropriate for competitive play that disallows what I consider to be silly/fun books.
I like the proposed rule change for re-roll to armor saves as they are specific in value, which is why I do not like the suggested re-roll to twin linked hits. As has already been pointed out, armies that are already good at shooting take a minor hit, while those with lower BS take a much bigger percentage hit...poor poor orcsies!
I disagree with the # of IC in a unit restriction as well. Small combos are great and fun and not overpowered. Not unreasonable having a chaplain and a captain in the same unit and as noted for some armies it can ruin the flavor. I think not allowing them to connect across detachments is a better idea. I think this is trying to fix the whole multiple riptide commander bomb thing. I think this is an example where things should be addressed specifically rather than through changing the mechanics of the game. Make it so that Riptides are (insert classification that allows for limited attaching of IC's or none at all here). I still don't understand the rule perfectly enough to suggest an exact loophole free alternative.
I very much like that this is a very specific conversation about some very specific rules and hope we can keep that focus. I thinks this is really productive for us as a community to get a feel for where this should be going for competitive play.
-
Hi my name is Rick James. I currently own/play necrons and demons. I used to be at almost every event that BG put on, but have been slowly disliking the game and no longer attend much of anything sans doubles events. The "comp" system Mike has thrown together might "nerf" armies of some of the regulars on the boards, but it's intention is to balance out the game for everyone. We ALL have seen what this game has turned into and instead of bickering like children (looking at Matt and Rob here guys) how about we start assessing topics like this with the idea that we are doing it for the the health of the game?
-
Personally i think most of the imbalances could be fixed in the core rule book. Like changing furious charge back to what it was in 5th edition +1S & +1I. A change like this gives a boost to assault armies with out screwing over any other armies.
-
We ALL have seen what this game has turned into and instead of bickering like children (looking at Matt and Rob here guys)
Thanks, buddy. I really appreciate how you were going out of your way to avoid starting any fights, there.
-
Reading the first few posts of a thread and hitting reply FTW.
-
Reading the first few posts of a thread and hitting reply FTW.
To his credit, it only took the first few posts...
:-\
-
Let's get back on topic guys. Please...
Fleet, ATSKNF, Heavy vehicles, and FNP (more stuff ignored FNP, not the 4+ part.5+ is better) all more balanced. in 5th edition.
Small rule changes can give some life to unplayed units and armies with out hurting existing units and armies.
-
Guys while the spirit is appreciated the entire point of this thread and the request is being missed ( not by everyone plenty of the feedback is great). This is not a thread looking for you approval, your buy in, willingness to try, your version, or anything of that nature. We simply want to gather additional input as to what negatives these changes have on armies and units that are already weak.
Without changing rules or writing many new ones it is VERY hard to raise very weak books to the level of Tau, SM, Daemons. Without nerfs you cannot dial the broken stuff like 2++ rerollables down into balance. We are starting with examining some general rules changes that effect what is making the game unbalanced and separates the top armies from the bottom feeders.
This is also not MY comp its a group of us who discuss this daily. We see friends no longer playing or having fun while playing. We see our store that used to have to cap events at 40+ players getting many many fewer attendees. We see the same 3 or 4 units and the same 3 or 4 armies always winning every tournament. Thursday 40k and Saturdays used to be packed and thriving hubs for fun, meaningful, and spirited games. Prepping for tournaments and to stay in the hunt for the invitational etc.
We dont want to fix 40k and we dont want to change 40k. We only want to keep the competitive tournament scene balanced and fun for all armies and all participants. If you want super heavies there is a place for that, if you want broken rules there is also a place for that. If you want to play shenanigan combos of Godstars there is a place for that. That place is not in a balanced competitive environment.
These changes may seem to hurt some armies more than others and thats the point when 1 army is broken, and a few others are significantly better than everything else. These changes are not solid or set in stone or even in use anywhere other than theory and testing. We are not asking for debates or your version of comp or even your overall opinion at this time.
We are simply looking at how these changes will hurt armies that are already weak and if the net gains to balance are worth that trade.
Feel free to participate and provide that feedback or not but please respect the topic and the request being made. Keep your petty personal bickering out of our thread please. We are only trying to help and we are not trying to dictate how YOU chose to play the game. We will be releasing a full write up of all the modifications our research indicates "fix" tournament army composition and rules imbalance. That is when the debating and testing and name calling can begin =).
-
So you don't want to fix the game. You just want to nerf a few units and codexes and call that Balanced. Sorry I wasted our time.
-
It seemed obvious to me that was the case, since the original suggested rules were just a big F-U to Tau and Daemons.
As for the actual rules themselves, they are very broad. 40k has hundreds of combos of abilities and units, and this game is the sort that changing something even slightly can have HUGE implications. Playing with fire to change core rules, in other words. The twin-linking thing, for example, is going to cripple some ork armies, and makes some expensive weapons start to be very much not worth their costs. Also, most notably, the twin-linked anti air weapon of choice on most Aegis Lines would be affected, making a primary way of dealing with flyers not work as well.
Still. I see the same examples being referenced all over this board as being the "issue" with 40k (Riptides, Wave Serpents, 2++ re-rollable daemons, etc.). Why deal with the whole game when there are only a handful of things you lot seem to feel are the problem?
My opinion, honestly, is that no change to the rules are going to make a lick of difference here. These are problems with community, not mechanics. But if you are going to institute something, implement it with conviction. Leaderless hordes of players with no sense of community rarely if ever will come to a consensus.
-
I am in favor of writing some overarching rules to rebalance things, preferably the simpler the better.
I am not in favor of these specific changes suggested, no.
-
So you don't want to fix the game. You just want to nerf a few units and codexes and call that Balanced. Sorry I wasted our time.
+1.
Here's the problem with 40k competitively. The most effective options currently either offer no resistance (Strength D) or near-infinite resistance (2++ re-rollable). There is no give-and-take.
I've been thinking the current approach toward comp is incorrect..... Rather than scale things back, we start small and work our way up. Allow just the print codices for awhile, see how that goes. No allies, until we understand the issues in the core books fully. Feed in supplements incrementally after that, and so on. You know, we can realize that 6th Edition has been out less than 18 months and undergone changes so quickly and radically, that stripping the game to its core is the only place to logically start. And that's pretty much all I'll say about that, because no one will listen anyhow.
-
Drop the default point value from 1850.
With unit price deflation 1850 in 6e is more like 5e 2200.
Make the default tournament 1500.
This Ends The Common Sense Point; please return to your regularly scheduled whining.
-
At the 1000 Attacker/Defender event, I still ran into two Librarians (one SM and one DA) attached to three Centurions with a grav-amp behind an Aegis line. So they had a 4++, re-rolls to hit and wound, on (IIRC) 12 AP 2 shots.
There is one upside to lower point values that can't be overlooked. Shorter games often means more games, and more games better determines the best general, which is what competitive players are after.
-
I dont have alot of experience with other armies and so on. But as for the IC rule.
This would hinder SW armies since they have the ability to get 4 HQ choices. The book is designed to have these HQ choices rolling together. There isnt a combo in the SW that makes having more then 1 IC over powering so I dont see this rule change helping them.
SW in general are not an over powered army so this change would indeed nerf them.
Twin linking and Preferred enemy are similar mechanics but different for a reason. Changing twin linking to reroll only 1's would hinder a wide variety of lower end armies. Orcs come to mind with their 2 BS hell SM razorbacks and anti air guns would be severely hindered. Which in turn would bring about the return of the unstoppable flyers. While this would bring Tau back to earth I think the negatives accross the other armies would make it a negative.
As for the rerolls on Invul saves. I think you have the right idea but as a blanket rule I think it should always be +2 to the reroll. So a 2++ becomes a 4++ and a 3++ becomes a 5++ this way it has a set number and still has the potential to be powerful. because there should be powerful stuff just not god mode stuff.
-
As for the rerolls on Invul saves. I think you have the right idea but as a blanket rule I think it should always be +2 to the reroll. So a 2++ becomes a 4++ and a 3++ becomes a 5++ this way it has a set number and still has the potential to be powerful. because there should be powerful stuff just not god mode stuff.
What becomes of a re-rollable 5++ or 6++?
-
Oh, the twin linking adjustment was about Tau? I will admit that 6e appears to be all about twinlinking and bikes.
But Tau don't really need your twinlinking, if they want, they can just make their missilesides BS 5.
-
As for the rerolls on Invul saves. I think you have the right idea but as a blanket rule I think it should always be +2 to the reroll. So a 2++ becomes a 4++ and a 3++ becomes a 5++ this way it has a set number and still has the potential to be powerful. because there should be powerful stuff just not god mode stuff.
What becomes of a re-rollable 5++ or 6++?
5++ to 6++
6++ to 6++
Common sense since no roll can go over a 6.
Matt you just proved the point about twin linking. Tau have ways to get around it. Add in twin linking and it makes it that much more broken. However I think the blanket reduction in turning it to basically preferred enemy hurts to many other armies.
-
The independet character restriction also affects Blood Angels poorly (or any other codex that has independents in non-HQ slots). Not allowing for a sanguinary priest to join the same unit an HQ does, pretty much ruins one of the major bonus of Blood Angels.
-
I think nerfing twinlinking would hurt Space marines and grey knights more than anyone else.
-
So you don't want to fix the game. You just want to nerf a few units and codexes and call that Balanced. Sorry I wasted our time.
Or you can look at it as an attempt to restore viability to the armies that get crushed the majority of the time and have no chance in competitive formats and there is NOTHING they can do about it other than play Eldar, Taur, Daemons, or SM. Again this is just some theory ideas of ways to alter core rules that have created an imbalance with the goal of achieving a "net gain" in balance. Maybe none of the changes we mentioned in this thread even get used or considered. They where some ideas we have been discussing and wanted to see all the angels of how they impact the armies we hope get raised up.
Regarding the understanding of how we are viewing balance. You can view many definitions of the word but in its most relevant definition balance should equate to some form of an even distribution. Never will there be an exact distribution of army power between all currently available codex armies. The hope and expectation should be that in a competitive format winning percentages for all armies should fall between the 45-55% range. We also believe that is slightly unrealistic but it should the target and expectation of a competitive format.
A great article that identifies some of the holes in the current balance of the game from the guys at torrent of fire.
http://www.torrentoffire.com/2309/lets-go-data-mining-do-you-need-to-buy-the-latest-book
The second graph is the frightening one:
(http://www.torrentoffire.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Kirby2.jpg)
This indicates that against the 4 armies with the highest win % overall most of the remaining armies available to players fall WELL below a 40% with orks as low as 17%. Yes several armies need a new book but of the 15 available armies to have 10 well below a balanced winning % that would indicate there is a clear balance issue.
Maybe by the end of 2014 when most armies have new books things level out and fall more in line with an acceptable range of balanced win %'s. I know most people dont want to wait that long to play competitively or to continue to play in tournaments where they have little to no chance.
-
Oh, the twin linking adjustment was about Tau? I will admit that 6e appears to be all about twinlinking and bikes.
But Tau don't really need your twinlinking, if they want, they can just make their missilesides BS 5.
Twin linking was not just about tau it was about 4-5 armies that have it everywhere and many armies that have little to none of it. You have several armies that have twinlinked almost everything and the ability o prescience and then you have armies that have a few twin linked options or can get prescience by taking a specific unit or 2. So yes this may hurt ork bikes but it also makes volume shoooting which is a strength of orks a bit more balanced.
Again just a possible idea most likely not going to remain on the table at this point.
-
The independet character restriction also affects Blood Angels poorly (or any other codex that has independents in non-HQ slots). Not allowing for a sanguinary priest to join the same unit an HQ does, pretty much ruins one of the major bonus of Blood Angels.
Very true good point Tharcil.
-
We ALL have seen what this game has turned into and instead of bickering like children (looking at Matt and Rob here guys) how about we start assessing topics like this with the idea that we are doing it for the the health of the game?
I like how you did the thing you accused me and Matt of doing in your post. Cool story bro.
I asked a question earlier that I think was reasonable - a detailed rationale behind these changes. Mike provided one, and thanks to him for doing that.
Maybe before we come up with fixes, we should agree on what the problems are? Some people in this thread have gone waaaay off the original topic, which was to discuss the things in Mike's first post. Let's list the things we think are the biggest problems (we can go codex specific because targeted player errata is better than sweeping changes). For the purposes of that discussion, we can put Escalation, Stronghold Assault, Dataslate Formations, and Knights (since I haven't seen the book yet) on the shelf for now.
Problems we generally agree on -
-The Grimoire can relatively easily allow units to get a 2+ invul save. Obviously a 2++ is good, but is it the reroll that makes it over the top or the fact that its easy to get? Making it so the max it can bring a save to 3++ could work, but that does nothing about the Tzaeentch reroll (rerolling 1s on a 3+ still gives you pretty much a 2++ on the first roll) and are there other things we could look at. What if we changed Daemons of Tzeentch to let you reroll failed psychic/instability tests? Would that still be useful and allow grimoire to do its thing (get you a 2++ on like 1-2 models unless you're super lucky on the warp storm chart, which I would guess GW pictured as the only way to get 2++ on a unit).
-Battle Brothers allow for some crazy combos/deathstars/force multipliers. Bringing a farseer in a Tau army for 2 free twinlinks and possibly fortune always seemed over the top to me, and running the baron in the seer council gets ridiculous. If you changed it so battle brothers were basically allies of convenience but counted as friendly (for things like AOE stuff that pings enemy units, so you won't kill your allies), would that help? It sort of incentivizes allying in death stars/cheap and fast scoring units since your allies have to be self contained, but it means you can't cherry pick pieces to buff the rest of your army. But I guess that forces us to ask ourselves what the role of allies in the game should be?
-Psychic spells. Some are super good, some are meh, and it's impossible to stop someone from buffing their own dudes all game unless you've allied space wolves in. I've played against flying demon prince armies where they were T8 the whole game. There wasn't much I could do and I can't said it was very fun, but it's in the rules so what can you do. I don't think giving everyone rune priest weapons is the way to go (in fact I expect those to be out of the next SW book, they've gotten rid of all the other similar psychic defense). I think the tables in the book were poorly thought out and hope they get rewritten in 6.5/7. Nobody ever takes pyromancy, telepathy is amazing, biomancy is good 1/3 the time, etc. I don't know what a good solution is beyond rewriting the tables to be more balanced or making you pay 25 points per table to be able to roll on it or something (which still wouldn't really fix it). This one I'm drawing blanks on.
So, do those 3 things seem like big problem areas that we agree on? It doesn't matter if you like or agree with my analysis, it's just do we think those 3 things are big problems?
-
Black templar are part of space marines, now? How old is that graph?
-
Black templar are part of space marines, now? How old is that graph?
Not sure exactly how old that version of the graph is, but it's a summary of all games EVER recorded with Torrent of Fire.
-
big response here
It seems that you all (at least on this board) concur what the problems are. I don't know why these things don't just get a special rule written that BG can require be in use at all your tournaments that changes these specific elements slightly. The best part is you then get people used to the idea, and can have that rule change as the game changes to keep up with the times.
This happens because you have no centralized way of making a definitive decision as a group, I suspect. The closest thing you all have to a central point of authority is the stores themselves and they have already made it clear they are not interest/qualified/prepared to implement this stuff and it is up to the community. But to go forward with that, you need to accept three things:
1.) You have to be prepared to lose a few people. Some people just aren't gonna like the idea and see it as "some dude changed the game so I'd lose more!" In the long run the better folks you will attract level it off.
2.) Committing to a policy with conviction is pretty much almost always more effective than communal debate. You all agree there is a need for this sort of thing, but if you discuss and discuss there will never be 100% acceptance and there will always be camps looking for a perfect solution that doesn't exist. I'm not saying don't talk about it at all, but keep in mind that at some point the time for talking about the problem is over.
3.) Keep it simple and focused. Rob has the right of it here -- you have identified the problems, don't change 14 armies if the problem is only with 3 of them. You're just be making it harder on yourselves!
-
big response here
It seems that you all (at least on this board) concur what the problems are. I don't know why these things don't just get a special rule written that BG can require be in use at all your tournaments that changes these specific elements slightly. The best part is you then get people used to the idea, and can have that rule change as the game changes to keep up with the times.
I think we agree on some things, but the first 3 pages in this thread have all kinds of things listed as problems I hadn't heard of yet. For example, is twinlinking the problem, or is it people allying in a farseer to get 2 twinlinks for units that didn't already have it the problem? If we agree it's allies, then we don't need to try changing how twinlink mechanics work as a whole. If we agree it's the psychic powers, then maybe we can look into those instead of messing with allies or rerolls to hit. See what I'm getting at?
If we can boil things down as tight as we can to what causes these things to be problems, we can make effective changes. We just have to agree on what needs to be changed before we start changing stuff.
-
These inquires are not about BG and their tournies 100% this is an effort to bring this full scale. Major issue here as I see it. Is you have people from 3 different camps trying to fix the game.
The main focus of this discussion was ONLY the 3 fixes and how they effect all armies.
-
Adepticon is the next big one right? They Talked About Their Plans For Comp Yet?
-
These inquires are not about BG and their tournies 100% this is an effort to bring this full scale. Major issue here as I see it. Is you have people from 3 different camps trying to fix the game.
The main focus of this discussion was ONLY the 3 fixes and how they effect all armies.
I see what Mike's trying to do with this post and appreciate the point. I think the problem with this approach is that many people disagree with the fundamental approach we're being asked to evaluate. Which as I see it is, adjust the rules to fix specific problems, rather than just adjust the specific problems. This seems backwards to me.
-
Actually its exactly what some of you have been asking for. Some say the community cant do this because of differing opinions and so on. Were not asking the community what they think are the problems what we are doing here or what Mike is doing here for that matter is looking for feedback on things he or we haven't thought about.
The problems with the game have already been discussed in our inner circle what we are trying to do is put together fixes. Then take those fixes and see if people thought of something we didn't and why they are bad or good etc.
The idea here is not to debate what the issues are but to debate how a POTENTIAL fix effects others armies etc. Or to find out if a POTENTIAL fix causes more problems then it helps.
-
Actually its exactly what some of you have been asking for. Some say the community cant do this because of differing opinions and so on. Were not asking the community what they think are the problems what we are doing here or what Mike is doing here for that matter is looking for feedback on things he or we haven't thought about.
The problems with the game have already been discussed in our inner circle what we are trying to do is put together fixes. Then take those fixes and see if people thought of something we didn't and why they are bad or good etc.
The idea here is not to debate what the issues are but to debate how a POTENTIAL fix effects others armies etc. Or to find out if a POTENTIAL fix causes more problems then it helps.
This is a nice clarification. We're being brought in on the process part way through which I think is not intuitive and a bit confusing. With that out of the way I'll try and add more constructively to where you guys are going with this.
-
Actually its exactly what some of you have been asking for. Some say the community cant do this because of differing opinions and so on. Were not asking the community what they think are the problems what we are doing here or what Mike is doing here for that matter is looking for feedback on things he or we haven't thought about.
The problems with the game have already been discussed in our inner circle what we are trying to do is put together fixes. Then take those fixes and see if people thought of something we didn't and why they are bad or good etc.
The idea here is not to debate what the issues are but to debate how a POTENTIAL fix effects others armies etc. Or to find out if a POTENTIAL fix causes more problems then it helps.
I think the reason the discussion isn't going the way you guys may have expected it to is because your process isn't entirely open. Your "inner circle" may have discussed it but its seems a little dictatorial to privately decide what the problems with the game are, determine solutions, and then ask the community at large to jump in the process without getting to participate in the entirety.
I think you'd get better results sharing a complete draft of fixes or going 100% community based. Half and half seems like worst of both worlds.
-
1) 1500 points is the new default.
2) Rerolls incur a -2 penalty but do not exceed 6+
3) Battle Brothers may not join each other's units.
*Drops Mic*
You're welcome.
-
1) 1500 points is the new default.
2) Rerolls incur a -2 penalty but do not exceed 6+
3) Battle Brothers may not join each other's units.
*Drops Mic*
You're welcome.
So Escalation, Stronghold Assault, Forge World units/armies, Dataslate characters/formations, etc are all fine too?\, we just play 1500 points now?
-
I think the opposite approach of allowing more things would balance out the broken units. we wouldn't see so many deathstars relying on a rerollable save if units that didn't allow them to save in the first place would exist in the game(D weapons). picking and choosing what to nerf causes unbalance in other units that gain power by nerfing their weaknesses.
my 2 cents; allow more FW or escalation or create missions to compensate.
-
1) 1500 points is the new default.
2) Rerolls incur a -2 penalty but do not exceed 6+
3) Battle Brothers may not join each other's units.
*Drops Mic*
You're welcome.
So Escalation, Stronghold Assault, Forge World units/armies, Dataslate characters/formations, etc are all fine too?\, we just play 1500 points now?
You realize most people just assume those are banned, right?
I think the opposite approach of allowing more things would balance out the broken units. we wouldn't see so many deathstars relying on a rerollable save if units that didn't allow them to save in the first place would exist in the game(D weapons). picking and choosing what to nerf causes unbalance in other units that gain power by nerfing their weaknesses.
my 2 cents; allow more FW or escalation or create missions to compensate.
I really don't think the path is allow more broken things. The game needs to reigned in, significantly, at the point. No, that doesn't just mean different things are broken. I mean, it may, but the "magnitude" how much an OP thing is dominant compared to a more moderate thing matters a great deal.
Also, str D is a pretty horrible thing, for reasons that have been stated previously.
-
Actually its exactly what some of you have been asking for. Some say the community cant do this because of differing opinions and so on. Were not asking the community what they think are the problems what we are doing here or what Mike is doing here for that matter is looking for feedback on things he or we haven't thought about.
The problems with the game have already been discussed in our inner circle what we are trying to do is put together fixes. Then take those fixes and see if people thought of something we didn't and why they are bad or good etc.
The idea here is not to debate what the issues are but to debate how a POTENTIAL fix effects others armies etc. Or to find out if a POTENTIAL fix causes more problems then it helps.
I think the reason the discussion isn't going the way you guys may have expected it to is because your process isn't entirely open. Your "inner circle" may have discussed it but its seems a little dictatorial to privately decide what the problems with the game are, determine solutions, and then ask the community at large to jump in the process without getting to participate in the entirety.
I think you'd get better results sharing a complete draft of fixes or going 100% community based. Half and half seems like worst of both worlds.
Ian while I do appreciate your view on this no way will that happen. This community has already proven what a shit show it is trying do this . Our goal here is to just get opinions on the 3 changes mentioned. No way would we want to open that can of worms. When things are hashed out sure but overall people dont know what is good for the game from a COMPETITIVE stand point.
-
Actually its exactly what some of you have been asking for. Some say the community cant do this because of differing opinions and so on. Were not asking the community what they think are the problems what we are doing here or what Mike is doing here for that matter is looking for feedback on things he or we haven't thought about.
The problems with the game have already been discussed in our inner circle what we are trying to do is put together fixes. Then take those fixes and see if people thought of something we didn't and why they are bad or good etc.
The idea here is not to debate what the issues are but to debate how a POTENTIAL fix effects others armies etc. Or to find out if a POTENTIAL fix causes more problems then it helps.
I think the reason the discussion isn't going the way you guys may have expected it to is because your process isn't entirely open. Your "inner circle" may have discussed it but its seems a little dictatorial to privately decide what the problems with the game are, determine solutions, and then ask the community at large to jump in the process without getting to participate in the entirety.
I think you'd get better results sharing a complete draft of fixes or going 100% community based. Half and half seems like worst of both worlds.
Ian while I do appreciate your view on this no way will that happen. This community has already proven what a shit show it is trying do this . Our goal here is to just get opinions on the 3 changes mentioned. No way would we want to open that can of worms. When things are hashed out sure but overall people dont know what is good for the game from a COMPETITIVE stand point.
Troy, what you guys are trying to do is great, but there are a lot of other competitive people in this community that care about the direction your taking this, who aren't going to like anything you guys come up with just on the basis they'll feel like they didn't have a say in it. There has been a lot of discussion in the forums that I agree have been a total cluster F, but there has not been an attempt by anyone to organize it here. I'll take that challenge. I made another thread about compiling what we think is wrong. From there I'm hoping we can pick the top topics to discuss further and go from there.
You guys have already taken the first few steps so by all means share with the rest of us what the pain points are and how you got to proposing these rule changes openly. Will my experiment fail, probably, after two replies I'll wager it will be off topic and pointless, but at least there will have been an attempt at a total BG organized conversation before we look for an alternate route. If we don't attempt at least to do this together now club or outside model is likely to succeed.
-
Considering all Rob and Prometheus could quibble about was Escalation/Stronghold I must be right.
So Amended:
1) 1500 points is the new default.
2) Rerolls incur a -2 penalty but do not exceed 6+
3) Battle Brothers may not join each other's units.
4) Escalation/Stronghold are banned
@Sir_Pro if you think 40K needs a giant rewrite or major tweaks, do it. Draft it, present it, and show the community.
-
Seriously,
"Fortune is a 4+ FNP, Grimoire only goes to 3++, No Joining Riptides, and you can't use both multispectrum and C&C at the same time",
that's my prescription.
Simplest is best, I think. That doesn't solve everything but it solves A LOT of it, and it's short and sweet.
Banning mixing ICs does solve a lot of things, too, but it also sorta rips out the heart of the whole allies idea, I'd rather not do that if it wasn't required.
-
Actually its exactly what some of you have been asking for. Some say the community cant do this because of differing opinions and so on. Were not asking the community what they think are the problems what we are doing here or what Mike is doing here for that matter is looking for feedback on things he or we haven't thought about.
The problems with the game have already been discussed in our inner circle what we are trying to do is put together fixes. Then take those fixes and see if people thought of something we didn't and why they are bad or good etc.
The idea here is not to debate what the issues are but to debate how a POTENTIAL fix effects others armies etc. Or to find out if a POTENTIAL fix causes more problems then it helps.
I think the reason the discussion isn't going the way you guys may have expected it to is because your process isn't entirely open. Your "inner circle" may have discussed it but its seems a little dictatorial to privately decide what the problems with the game are, determine solutions, and then ask the community at large to jump in the process without getting to participate in the entirety.
I think you'd get better results sharing a complete draft of fixes or going 100% community based. Half and half seems like worst of both worlds.
This, x1000.
Also, I mean, I don't want to sound pedantic here (I know half you guys don't like me in the first place), but...how did you decide these fixes if you aren't even sure how they affect the vast majority of the game? That seems to me like it would be a red flag for a lot of these seasoned players here that you would alter something as fundamental as twin linking and then confess you have no idea how widespread the change is.
I know you wanted a narrow focus but it was obvious from this thread that many people feel that, unsurprisignly, changing independent character rules affects people who want to run multiple ICs, and changing twin linking affects all the units in the game which carry twin linked weapons and are costed appropriately (for example...wow, Centurions, ruined by that one bit...Razorbacks and Land Raider Crusaders also pretty ruined by it, none of which are known for their game-breaking awesomeness).
I mean, it's not rocket science to figure out that the changes posted here are going to affect WAY more than just the most powerful/common issues that people keep complaining about. I agree with the others who say this should be simple and highly targeted at the particular issues.
-
IC's can never carry the relic ever
Please explain the reasoning behind this rule.
-
Actually its exactly what some of you have been asking for. Some say the community cant do this because of differing opinions and so on. Were not asking the community what they think are the problems what we are doing here or what Mike is doing here for that matter is looking for feedback on things he or we haven't thought about.
The problems with the game have already been discussed in our inner circle what we are trying to do is put together fixes. Then take those fixes and see if people thought of something we didn't and why they are bad or good etc.
The idea here is not to debate what the issues are but to debate how a POTENTIAL fix effects others armies etc. Or to find out if a POTENTIAL fix causes more problems then it helps.
I think the reason the discussion isn't going the way you guys may have expected it to is because your process isn't entirely open. Your "inner circle" may have discussed it but its seems a little dictatorial to privately decide what the problems with the game are, determine solutions, and then ask the community at large to jump in the process without getting to participate in the entirety.
I think you'd get better results sharing a complete draft of fixes or going 100% community based. Half and half seems like worst of both worlds.
This is why we vote for people in office and not just have the entire population show up and speak their mind. =) This is simply a few rules modification concepts put out to increase the volume of feedback. Take one look at the thread and see why it is almost certainly a requirement to privately decide on criteria, set goals, find pain points etc.
Then we get some feedback on ideas we have compiled and go back to the drawing board.
You can't please all of the people all of the time. To get something you have to give something. Too many cooks in the kitchen. Insert random cliche v0.4....
This is why we are defining things within a set and confined group with criteria and focus. Yet we also know that community feedback is needed and we can't account for every aspect, every situation, and every variable. So we come up with a few things we are still debating and decide "hey lets ask the BG guys".
Also you can't have a purely open forum and expect as a group to get to the finish line. Its why since early in humanities history we formed tribes, structure, hierarchy, organization, etc. We decided to set out and work on a system we believe and hope will benefit those who play 40k competitively. We are taking that step and investing our time and we are setting the boundaries we believe give us the best chance to accomplish that goal. We haven't even asked or included 75% of our own club because we know those discussions get derailed.
Our ideas and system may totally bomb, never see the light of day, suck, blow, ruin the game even more etc yada etc. We also know we wont even get to that point if we do not set a goal, define our work space, and assemble a dedicated team with clearly defined criteria.
Many of the responses in this thread are precisely reasons to confine those involved at the core to a limited group. Discussing army balance and changes the majority of peoples instincts turn to "how does this effect me" and thus prompts a response of I don't like this because it hurts me. We are trying to take a strictly high level approach to restore balance and remove all personal bias. To do this a few of us decided to keep a small group of people with diverse play styles and preferences.
-
IC's can never carry the relic ever
Please explain the reasoning behind this rule.
Too easy to stick a super durable IC with a unit and take the relic and hold it. Certain armies in relic missions this is almost an auto win for them and incredibly difficult for other armies to do anything about it. Goes along with the goal of needing balance so people dont lose/win in army builder or simply off who goes first.
-
IC's can never carry the relic ever
Please explain the reasoning behind this rule.
Too easy to stick a super durable IC with a unit and take the relic and hold it. Certain armies in relic missions this is almost an auto win for them and incredibly difficult for other armies to do anything about it. Goes along with the goal of needing balance so people dont lose/win in army builder or simply off who goes first.
How about saying single model units can't grab the relic? It's silly when a Wraithknight is somebody's warlord and becomes scoring.
-
I stand corrected. My idealism has smacked me in the face. Doing anything open here is not the way to go and not worth tithe effort. I hope you guys figure it out and continue To come up with some other new ideas to change the competitive scene.
-
Yeah, definitely sounds like you guys might want to finish this up in your club, then.
-
My blood boils when I read this self righteous crap. A loud group of whiners want to change rules that they loose to. Then I pay the price. Escalation and Stronghold are core rules, I buy both books 70ish dollars and no one allows them so flush. I build and convert a beautiful eldar army and my 2+ armor save reroll gets the nerf bat so 300ish dollars flush. I am in the middle of painting up farsight enclave and now 1 IC per unit is a potential nerf, let's flush another 300ish. Get rid of allies, IG value 400ish flush, Salamander marines value 200ish flush. Forge world is core rules but is only sometimes allowed so partial flush of 600 dollars. Now a Swedish comp that makes every army I have played in 6th edition all unplayable at a 3comp point limit. At least the moronic comp system effects all army's not just one or two. I made a sarcastic comment about a month ago about limiting commanders to 150points, requiring 2 full troop choices, not allowing more elite heavy and fast attack choices combined then total troop choices. Seems that is where we are headed. Let's make it so we all just play vanilla lists and fool ourselves into thinking that if all is equal the best tactics win. Tactics help but luck with dice will always be the true game decider. Just stop whining and moaning and play the game, weak army's get a new codex and become strong so the imbalance will fix itself as 6th edition progresses. Even better GW is releasing a new core rule book this summer(supposedly) that will address many balance issues.
-
My blood boils when I read this self righteous crap. A loud group of whiners want to change rules that they loose to. Then I pay the price. Escalation and Stronghold are core rules, I buy both books 70ish dollars and no one allows them so flush. I build and convert a beautiful eldar army and my 2+ armor save reroll gets the nerf bat so 300ish dollars flush. I am in the middle of painting up farsight enclave and now 1 IC per unit is a potential nerf, let's flush another 300ish. Get rid of allies, IG value 400ish flush, Salamander marines value 200ish flush. Forge world is core rules but is only sometimes allowed so partial flush of 600 dollars. Now a Swedish comp that makes every army I have played in 6th edition all unplayable at a 3comp point limit. At least the moronic comp system effects all army's not just one or two. I made a sarcastic comment about a month ago about limiting commanders to 150points, requiring 2 full troop choices, not allowing more elite heavy and fast attack choices combined then total troop choices. Seems that is where we are headed. Let's make it so we all just play vanilla lists and fool ourselves into thinking that if all is equal the best tactics win. Tactics help but luck with dice will always be the true game decider. Just stop whining and moaning and play the game, weak army's get a new codex and become strong so the imbalance will fix itself as 6th edition progresses. Even better GW is releasing a new core rule book this summer(supposedly) that will address many balance issues.
So you're complaining because every time something new and over powered comes out you run out and get it and now that people are trying to come out with a system that attempts to combat these over powered combos you don't like it?
You talk of forgeworld being "core rules" when it's decidedly not, at best the books are supplements full of units that more often than not are even more broken than some of the normal units (ie thudd guns, ravarna before the nerf, etc)
You call the people on these forums self righteous because of there attempt to fix a broken system and to bring more people and fun back to the tournament scene. Look in a mirror buddy, because you're basicly saying your opinion is the only one that matters because "gw came out with these books, we must use them all!!!"
If you want to use all your toys, apocalypse units, and forgeworld battlegrounds has such events, they also have the apocalypse event, but the tournament community here and at GTs everywhere seem to be going to some form of comp, and nobody is allowing escalation or stronghold. Accept that and become part of the solution or stay out of the way.
I'd apologize to chris for leading this thread even further off the rails but that train left the station awhile ago with all the other nonsense going on here.
-
So you don't like my opinion and tell me to go away and if you knew me at all You would know that I have never run the "power army of the month" I have only once in 3 years taken a top table and that was when most of the perennial winners were at a national tournament. The forge world argument aside for now my point is the I come up with an army concept that is 100% within the rules, I spend 2-5 months of my disposable income purchasing models and 100s of hours painting them. Then someone decides warlock council and screamer star are so broken they need a nerf. My Wraith Blade army gets whacked as a side effect. In my opinion a 2+ armor save on a foot slogging squad is nothing like a 2+ invul/cover save on a unit that can cross the entire table in one turn. Allies are fun, I bought IG to give my SW army air power which for now they are lacking. I painted up Salamanders to use with my BA because there chapter tactics compliment a drop army perfectly. I bought Tau for 2 reasons, firstly to give my Eldar much needed range and secondly Tau/SM fighting side by side against the tyranids is a fun concept. I have skipped 3 months of tournament play trying to let things settle down. It hasnt, people who loose want to nerf people who win. Any army that they loose to is now over powered. Grow up and let people who spend there money on legal models use them.
-
Mike D's sentiments here are why GW really needs to put a lot of effort into coming out with rules that make people actually want to play with & against all of their models, ASAP. "Flushing money down the toilet" is not the way you want your customers to perceive having bought their products.
I guess you could say the fault lies with GW's customers and not GW itself? I'm not sure what that even means though.
-
It hasnt, people who loose want to nerf people who win.
That's just not the case, some of the biggest proponents of comp, sweedish komp, or the ban/change of certain rules for 40k on these forums ARE the guys who consistently win or place highly in tournaments. These guys who attend multiple GTs a year see firsthand more than the guys who just play locally that there are MANY things broken with 40k right now and something needs to be done to fix it.
Grow up and let people who spend there money on legal models use them.
what you don't seem to realize is GW does not give a damn about tournament play, they haven't for a long time. They care about making models and they do make some beautiful ones, but ever since 6th edition hit it has progressively gotten worse rules wise with every codex, supplement, dataslate and anything else they try to cram down our throats.
your definition of "legal" seems to be anything GW sells, and while that is fine for casual play it doesn't work for tournaments, in 5th edition we had cities of death and all those supplements and they were only ever used for campaigns and such.
Mike D's sentiments here are why GW really needs to put a lot of effort into coming out with rules that make people actually want to play with & against all of their models, ASAP. "Flushing money down the toilet" is not the way you want your customers to perceive having bought their products.
I guess you could say the fault lies with GW's customers and not GW itself? I'm not sure what that even means though.
I get that Matt, i own half a dozen super-heavies myself that get out once a year but i just don't think they are appropriate for regular tournament play. Like i just said above, GW makes fantastic models... but their rules seem to be made up by a room full of 12yr olds.
As i said before Battlegrounds DOES have events where they let in "everything but the kitchen sink", without going back and looking i can tell you there were probably 5 or 6 last year that allowed Forgeworld. They even had the Escalation/Stronghold Assault one in Abington two months ago that unfortunately only brought in 11 people.
People can yell and stomp their feet as much as they want, BG and local tournaments in general tend to follow how things are done at the big GTs. It's abundantly clear that the major GTs will not be allowing Escalation and Stronghold Assault. Forgeworld? sure, some have been allowing Forgeworld in certain events for years.
Comp is coming, it's the only way the 40k tournament scene is going to survive. Mike D, you've had exactly 6 posts on these forums and you're off to a really negative start. If you are serious about fixing what is broke i would urge you to become a positive and constructive presence here instead of a negative one complaining about people who are searching for a way to fix 40k.
-
I did say forge world was allowed about 50% of the time. It is true that I don't post much. I don't like the drama. That should tell you all how much the nerf bat bothers me. Any rules change will upset someone. I hate the nerf to the 2+ reroll, I get it, I just don't like it. So I start to build any army less effected by it. Reducing points to 1500 will hurt more then help. Death Stars will be harder to kill with less firepower on the table. My one tournament win is at the 1500 point level. Altering battle brothers will nerf some army's that need them to be competitive just to reign in one or two overpowered combinations. Getting rid of allies all together gets rid of a lot of perceived problems while creating others. Limiting IC's to one per unit will once again get rid of a couple nasty combinations at the expense of breaking 4 of the existing codex's. BA, SW, SM, IG. I understand that the intent is full of good intentions but so is the road to hell. I have one suggestion, make army comp score as graded by someone's opponent be worth a third or even half the points a person can earn and have the army's graded before deployment to prevent sour grapes. Allow 5min before deployment for this. Someone brings a dirtbag army the community punishes them without restricting there choice on what legal combinations to play.
-
I did say forge world was allowed about 50% of the time. It is true that I don't post much. I don't like the drama. That should tell you all how much the nerf bat bothers me. Any rules change will upset someone. I hate the nerf to the 2+ reroll, I get it, I just don't like it. So I start to build any army less effected by it. Reducing points to 1500 will hurt more then help. Death Stars will be harder to kill with less firepower on the table. My one tournament win is at the 1500 point level. Altering battle brothers will nerf some army's that need them to be competitive just to reign in one or two overpowered combinations. Getting rid of allies all together gets rid of a lot of perceived problems while creating others. Limiting IC's to one per unit will once again get rid of a couple nasty combinations at the expense of breaking 4 of the existing codex's. BA, SW, SM, IG. I understand that the intent is full of good intentions but so is the road to hell. I have one suggestion, make army comp score as graded by someone's opponent be worth a third or even half the points a person can earn and have the army's graded before deployment to prevent sour grapes. Allow 5min before deployment for this. Someone brings a dirtbag army the community punishes them without restricting there choice on what legal combinations to play.
I completely agree about the 1500 point thing. I'm a fan of large point values, you lower things too much and it feels more like a skirmish game.
And your right about the multiple ICs, it would just cause more harm than good. If you want to limit "power combos" outlawing battle brother ICs joining units is may be the way to go. I love allies and using them allows you to "fill the holes" in your codex. Sure they are part of the power combo problem but 40k has a lot of problems right now. It's too bad the cheese combos of battle brother allies are so much better than the fluffy combos lol
-
As an outsider, I still have a hard time figuring what all this uproar is, frankly.
We posted a list of things that is Core and a list of things that are considered Expanded (http://www.evildice40k.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=58&t=1530), and allow them all but tell people to ask the other guy first before using the Expanded stuff. I don't know why, with the community you have of players at both BGs with such differing opinions, you wouldn't just do something similar and be done with it, and leave it up to individual players to decide what they want in their games.
-
...leave it up to individual players to decide what they want in their games.
This is exactly what happens on Thursdays.
When we're hosting an event, this sort of thing isn't really an option... so we have to do it beforehand. We set rules for what's allows and people decide if they want to play or not.
Unfortunately, not a lot of people seem to want to play 40k in a competitive setting lately. This is probably because of what they've heard on the internet, experienced at GTs, seen by running the numbers, heard stories from friends / other players, or heard / read about what GW seems to be doing with the game.
I still think 8 or 9 of every 10 games that gets played at BG are just as fun as they've been for the life of 6th edition, but maybe I'm wrong.
-
Happy to report that Thursday 40ks are still as fun as they've ever been.
-
My blood boils when I read this self righteous crap. A loud group of whiners want to change rules that they loose to. Then I pay the price.
This has 0% to do with why people want to change the game. The game right now is bad, and it is getting worse. People who enjoy a tactical wargame don't want "yatzee" mechanics or single expensive models to dominate the game. If I want to create a narrative and fight a "boss" enemy once in a while, cool! Every game forever, Hell No!
People like to have a hard fought game where generally the person who makes the least mistakes(or gets a few lucky rolls) wins the game. Not when a single model just runs right the fuck through everything in less time than it took to deploy my troops. Also, guess what, to me, neither side(winning or losing) seems fun in the slightest.
People like you are the worst. Always assume that people want change because they can't "win" as if winning is the only thing. All I want is a reasonable chance of winning, GW says NO! So I say Fuck GW, keep making sweet models, and put out novels about said models, leave the rule writing to adults.
Go read the Draigo fluff, it is basically a nine year old describing his fantasy about being a power ranger set in GW fluff. Do you really want these people writing your rules?
-
Happy to report that Thursday 40ks are still as fun as they've ever been.
I have no doubt that the game is plenty fun in a "lets play a game" settings.
In any sort of competitive setting. I would rather play sarcastiball.
-
My blood boils when I read this self righteous crap. A loud group of whiners want to change rules that they loose to. Then I pay the price. Escalation and Stronghold are core rules, I buy both books 70ish dollars and no one allows them so flush. I build and convert a beautiful eldar army and my 2+ armor save reroll gets the nerf bat so 300ish dollars flush. I am in the middle of painting up farsight enclave and now 1 IC per unit is a potential nerf, let's flush another 300ish. Get rid of allies, IG value 400ish flush, Salamander marines value 200ish flush. Forge world is core rules but is only sometimes allowed so partial flush of 600 dollars. Now a Swedish comp that makes every army I have played in 6th edition all unplayable at a 3comp point limit. At least the moronic comp system effects all army's not just one or two. I made a sarcastic comment about a month ago about limiting commanders to 150points, requiring 2 full troop choices, not allowing more elite heavy and fast attack choices combined then total troop choices. Seems that is where we are headed. Let's make it so we all just play vanilla lists and fool ourselves into thinking that if all is equal the best tactics win. Tactics help but luck with dice will always be the true game decider. Just stop whining and moaning and play the game, weak army's get a new codex and become strong so the imbalance will fix itself as 6th edition progresses. Even better GW is releasing a new core rule book this summer(supposedly) that will address many balance issues.
Mike for one this response is uncalled for, needlessly insulting, and way off base. First these are simply some concept rules tweaks to fix some clearly blatant balance holes. These are NOT the rules that are in place anywhere, house rules, forcing you to play with etc just some ideas. So my first response is dial it back a notch, calm the hell down and relax, step off the ledge, and save the insults it is not necessary. Lastly read the actual thread and the responses before you spout off in a rage infusing a thread needlessly with more angst and derailment than it has already had. Your response is driving more wedges in the BG community that it doesn't need.
Lets do a comparative approach for your argument of time and money spent and put the shoe on the other foot. I spent several hundred dollars building a Ravenwing army. It is fun to play, I like the models, the concept, and the fast and mobile style it plays. Is it fair to have my model(s), units, or entire army invalidated because GW has made some clearly imbalanced rules? Living in your world my only solution as build power unit "X" if I want to play at tournaments? So how is that fair, or fun, or smart in a community driven game?
Unfortunately and as expected (since its "your" investment) the natural reaction is always revolved around a "how does this effect me" directly mentality. Have you tried thinking about it when the shoes on the other foot? Since you "haven't" played a power of the month army ever you should know that when your forced to face nothing but the power armies with no chance of winning it sucks. It is not what competition is about, its not good for the game, the hobby, the community, or the store.
Yet if that is what you want then I am sure you can establish a group to play under those circumstances. Clearly though the majority of this stores tournament community want some form of balance restored to the game.
I really hope that you can start to see that we are doing this because we care about the state of the competitive scene. If you think this is because we can't win that is both a very funny joke, and a sad and needless insult. This is also not a Dark Star endeavor. Those of us trying to find a working comp system, while supported by our brothers in geek warfare, is something the few of us decided to do of our own intent.
-
I did say forge world was allowed about 50% of the time. It is true that I don't post much. I don't like the drama. That should tell you all how much the nerf bat bothers me. Any rules change will upset someone. I hate the nerf to the 2+ reroll, I get it, I just don't like it. So I start to build any army less effected by it. Reducing points to 1500 will hurt more then help. Death Stars will be harder to kill with less firepower on the table. My one tournament win is at the 1500 point level. Altering battle brothers will nerf some army's that need them to be competitive just to reign in one or two overpowered combinations. Getting rid of allies all together gets rid of a lot of perceived problems while creating others. Limiting IC's to one per unit will once again get rid of a couple nasty combinations at the expense of breaking 4 of the existing codex's. BA, SW, SM, IG. I understand that the intent is full of good intentions but so is the road to hell. I have one suggestion, make army comp score as graded by someone's opponent be worth a third or even half the points a person can earn and have the army's graded before deployment to prevent sour grapes. Allow 5min before deployment for this. Someone brings a dirtbag army the community punishes them without restricting there choice on what legal combinations to play.
Clearly the multiple IC thing has hindrances that is why we STATED earlier maybe it is targeted at a few codex's, or there is an exemption list. Again its JUST A CONCEPT idea with the goal of a NET GAIN in balance across the entire game.
I dont think any comp system will disallow allies and ours surely won't. Altering BB rules is probably a must though to maintain consistency and limit blatant shenanigans.
Relying on players to comp each other fairly and honestly will never work. You need a controlled logical method to eliminate personal emotion. No matter when you do it people will influence their score with personal opinion, anger, emotion, frustration etc.
I know I like 40k because of the scale of the armies, lots of models/bodies. Cutting points you start to tread closer to more skirmish based games and start to cut down some of the "epic" nature of the warhammer systems.
-
...leave it up to individual players to decide what they want in their games.
This is exactly what happens on Thursdays.
When we're hosting an event, this sort of thing isn't really an option... so we have to do it beforehand. We set rules for what's allows and people decide if they want to play or not.
Unfortunately, not a lot of people seem to want to play 40k in a competitive setting lately. This is probably because of what they've heard on the internet, experienced at GTs, seen by running the numbers, heard stories from friends / other players, or heard / read about what GW seems to be doing with the game.
I still think 8 or 9 of every 10 games that gets played at BG are just as fun as they've been for the life of 6th edition, but maybe I'm wrong.
I tried to give some perspective on this in that Swedish Komp thread and got lynched for it, so I won't bother to go into it again. But I still think there are simpler solutions from the game side, and some important community-building solutions from the player side. BG events don't have lower attendance because the game is somehow worsening.
I think you could be using this to be more creative with your events, rather than trying to blandify them down, but that is just me. A player once said to me, "When 40k gives us lemons, we make Lemon Titans."
-
BG events don't have lower attendance because the game is somehow worsening.
Yes, it does, I can speak to this directly as it is why I no longer play.
-
This has 0% to do with why people want to change the game. The game right now is bad, and it is getting worse. People who enjoy a tactical wargame don't want "yatzee" mechanics or single expensive models to dominate the game. If I want to create a narrative and fight a "boss" enemy once in a while, cool! Every game forever, Hell No!
If you're referring to the Imperial Knight, if it misses with it's super melta.. then it's basically flushing 350 points down the toilet for that turn. So it's really not as scary as people think. You might as well take your dice to Foxwoods
-
BG events don't have lower attendance because the game is somehow worsening.
Yes, it does, I can speak to this directly as it is why I no longer play.
You =/= everyone who ever played a tournament.
-
^^ Plus the 40k Campaign last summer was very successful.
-
BG events don't have lower attendance because the game is somehow worsening.
Yes, it does, I can speak to this directly as it is why I no longer play.
I second this. It's directly related to why all of my gaming time and money has gone into Warmachine.
-
I second this. It's directly related to why all of my gaming time and money has gone into Warmachine.
Not everyone is going to play the same game system, that's pretty normal.
-
Okay, that's two. So BG I guess loses 2 40k players?
Let's be realistic here -- the game getting "worse" is hardly logical. The game has more options and flexibility than it ever has before and new things come out for it at speeds we used to only dream about in 4th and 5th.
I think what you mean by "worse" is "different." In my experiences as a club leader there has been no greater detriment to this game than people who can't deal with change.
-
Okay, that's two. So BG I guess loses 2 40k players?
Let's be realistic here -- the game getting "worse" is hardly logical. The game has more options and flexibility than it ever has before and new things come out for it at speeds we used to only dream about in 4th and 5th.
I think what you mean by "worse" is "different." In my experiences as a club leader there has been no greater detriment to this game than people who can't deal with change.
2? I have a whole list of former 40k players because the game became worse.
Good thing your club is an island. If you look at other clubs, you will see similar things happening as they are here.
-
Count me as three... semi official now as I have really gotten "the bug" for warmachine
-
Let's be realistic here -- the game getting "worse" is hardly logical. The game has more options and flexibility than it ever has before and new things come out for it at speeds we used to only dream about in 4th and 5th.
Options and flexibility are not always good. For example, the best way to add more options and flexibility would be to eliminate all points costs and make all units battle brothers with all other units. That would mean more flexibility but a worse game.
Also, things coming out faster is also not always good. In general, I would prefer that GW take the time to extensively playtest their stuff before coming out with it, even if it meant a much slower release schedule. Also, I would prefer they take the time to add content to their releases before releasing codexes (a codex consisting of one pre-existing unit? seriously?) Actually, I wish they would take the time to proofread their stuff, let alone playtest or add content. Actually, i wish they would take the time to think for 5 minutes about their stuff before publishing it, let alone proofread or add content or playtest.
-
The trooper and such have hit the nail on the head. Astrates while you see the game as great me and my competitive brethren who travel the country to go to GT's and such see the game getting worse. This has nothing to due with "change" in the context you are putting it. It has everything to do with the current rule-set and the fact that 90% of armies cant be played in a competitive environment because of the imbalances and so on.
-
BG events don't have lower attendance because the game is somehow worsening.
Yes, it does, I can speak to this directly as it is why I no longer play.
You =/= everyone who ever played a tournament.
I am one less player at every BG event, unless they've been filling to capacity lately. So I can state EXACTLY that BG has lower attendance because the game is worsening BECAUSE I COULD GO.
I wasn't putting extra importance on myself. I was simply doing math.
-
This has 0% to do with why people want to change the game. The game right now is bad, and it is getting worse. People who enjoy a tactical wargame don't want "yatzee" mechanics or single expensive models to dominate the game. If I want to create a narrative and fight a "boss" enemy once in a while, cool! Every game forever, Hell No!
If you're referring to the Imperial Knight, if it misses with it's super melta.. then it's basically flushing 350 points down the toilet for that turn. So it's really not as scary as people think. You might as well take your dice to Foxwoods
I was not.
-
Keep it classy BG forums.
-
The trooper and such have hit the nail on the head. Astrates while you see the game as great me and my competitive brethren who travel the country to go to GT's and such see the game getting worse. This has nothing to due with "change" in the context you are putting it. It has everything to do with the current rule-set and the fact that 90% of armies cant be played in a competitive environment because of the imbalances and so on.
Well 5th ed wasn't exactly competitive, I would say less so then 6th. Almost all the Imperial factions were light years better then any of the xeno armies, and vehicles were almost impossible to kill( remember IG mech spam?) There is a whole big world out there beyond the BG community, and I still think 6th is a lot better then 5th.
-
The trooper and such have hit the nail on the head. Astrates while you see the game as great me and my competitive brethren who travel the country to go to GT's and such see the game getting worse. This has nothing to due with "change" in the context you are putting it. It has everything to do with the current rule-set and the fact that 90% of armies cant be played in a competitive environment because of the imbalances and so on.
Well 5th ed wasn't exactly competitive, I would say less so then 6th. Almost all the Imperial factions were light years better then any of the xeno armies, and vehicles were almost impossible to kill( remember IG mech spam?) There is a whole big world out there beyond the BG community, and I still think 6th is a lot better then 5th.
Then I would say you haven't played competitive 40K yet on the large scale. Please remember that a large portion of us commenting in this thread have gone to MANY large 40K events travel to many different stores. 5th was good until GK and Necrons. Before that maybe 2-3 codexs weren't able to compete. Instead of now where is it only 2-3 codexs which can compete.
-
Before that maybe 2-3 codexs weren't able to compete. Instead of now where is it only 2-3 codexs which can compete.
Really? Which 10 armies can't compete now?
-
I can say for sure that attendance has fallen off considerably. It's impossible to say exactly why everyone has stopped coming out, but here's 10 possible reasons that I believe have had an impact:
1) Burn out. Tournaments at BG are not new. Potential players know that there will probably be one (or more) events each month. They've played in a bunch and can play again whenever they'd like.
2) Time. Tournaments are an ALL DAY affair. 10am - 7 or 8 or 9pm before you're home. It's grueling.
3) People. For every 10, 20, or 30 people that are enjoyable to play with and against, there's a "bad seed" that you might not like to play against. Hard to invest an entire day off on an event which may pair you up with someone you've decided you don't like playing.
4) 6th Edition / GW in general. Some people don't like / didn't adapt to the new edition. Some people really dislike GW in terms of... everything.
5) The direction in which the game seems to be going. Not everyone thinks GW is making the right choices and they'd rather not invest their time and or money into paying / playing in an event in which options they don't like are allowed.
6) The rate at which content is coming out. Some players like to feel they have a solid shot at winning an event. Some of those people don't feel as though they aren't as well equipped as they might like to be because they don't have time to keep up with all the content GW is putting out. Their response is to stay at home on tournament day.
7) The overall balance of the game. Some people do not feel like the game is balanced at all and they'd rather not get paired up and "auto-lose" or invest in the flavor of the month army / option.
8. The perceived cost to keep current. Similar to 6 and 7, some people just aren't willing to pay to keep updated / "competitive."
9) The inconsistency in "kinds of" events in the area. For better or worse, not all events in the area or at the two BGs are run under one consistent or predictable rule set. It's hard for some players to feel good about coming to an "odd" event because they do not know what to expect / they don't feel it furthers them as a player.
10) They're sick of all the negativity on the BG forums and would rather shelve 40k for a while and do other things / play other games.
-
Before that maybe 2-3 codexs weren't able to compete. Instead of now where is it only 2-3 codexs which can compete.
Really? Which 10 armies can't compete now?
Basically Eldar, Tau, Daemons, Space Marines win at a much higher and more consistent pace than all other armies. This is based purely on the numbers compiled thus far by ToF but the rough break is you essentially have 25% of the armies winning 75% of the time.
Personal experience has been very similar as well.
-
Mike k and Keith b. thank you for the direct personal attacks. I never once attacked either of you directly. I never once insulted you or your opinions. I disagree with what you are proposing and feel that in an open forum I should be able to state my opinion. I never mentioned dark star at all. Yes I posted from a "me" prospective because it was my opinion. I don't speak for others or want to. Look at the top tables(3-5). It is usually the same 6-10 players with an occasional dark horse in the mix. Are any of them proposing these rule changes? Do any of them support the rules changes? If most of them do then my comment about losers wanting to change things is off base and I will apologize. If not then I will stand by my statement. Part of a discussion about changing rules should be the possibility of leaving them be. BG events are great I love coming to them. I have been absent to let things settle and see what I want to do for an army. One last thing, this is a game, a game we all have a lot invested in, I am sorry my opinions have angered some of you.
-
I would love to know how I attacked you in anyway? By suggesting you calm down and stop insulting people? Hoping maybe you will stay on and respect the topic? Seriously take a chill pill and stop insulting me and the people I am working with. Regardless if you like it or not we are trying to do something we feel benefits the community.
Keep your mud slinging to yourself and post meaningful critiques. If you cannot refrain from that then please start your own topic and rant away.
-
Mike K your post at 11:17am was a solid stab at my opinion and attempted to make me sound like an unreasonable and irrational person. I am passionate about this game and have strong views. That being said I can admit my posts threw some broad brush stokes at certain members of the gaming community without individually pointing a finger. I am more than willing to engage you in a reasonable and rational debate about every one of your proposed rule changes. So pick one. Make your points and I will counter. This will be my last post tonight however as work starts early
-
Mike K your post at 11:17am was a solid stab at my opinion and attempted to make me sound like an unreasonable and irrational person. I am passionate about this game and have strong views. That being said I can admit my posts threw some broad brush stokes at certain members of the gaming community without individually pointing a finger. I am more than willing to engage you in a reasonable and rational debate about every one of your proposed rule changes. So pick one. Make your points and I will counter. This will be my last post tonight however as work starts early
Mike your statement about "blood boils" did all of that not me or my response. Sorry if you felt it did but it was not the intent. I am not going to state points for you to counter either as that is not what this thread is for and the reasoning has been explained repeatedly. This thread is simply a request to get additional feedback about some rules tweaks and how they impacted the already "weak" armies.
-
Mike k and Keith b. thank you for the direct personal attacks.
No problem, I stated exactly why what you said bothered me and countered your direct argument, I also stated that people who do what you did are "the worst". Please explain how that is a personal attack.
I never once attacked either of you directly. I never once insulted you or your opinions.
FALSE. You called Mike and other people who are pro comp "whiners" who seek to change the game because they can't win otherwise. You insulted us, and cast incorrect assumptions on why we are doing what we are doing. Maybe you don't realize you did this, but as you said, your blood was "boiling", so maybe you just shouldn't post when you are in that state?
I disagree with what you are proposing and feel that in an open forum I should be able to state my opinion. I never mentioned dark star at all. Yes I posted from a "me" prospective because it was my opinion. I don't speak for others or want to.
You are totally free to disagree with what mike or anyone on this forum. However, you are not free to do so in any manner you choose. I've already pointed out above why your earlier post was not cool.
Look at the top tables(3-5). It is usually the same 6-10 players with an occasional dark horse in the mix. Are any of them proposing these rule changes? Do any of them support the rules changes? If most of them do then my comment about losers wanting to change things is off base and I will apologize. If not then I will stand by my statement.
Lol, you brought this up, so sure. I was always on the top tables when I played. I stopped because the game was getting very shitty. I 100% support changes. Many other do too. Certainly not everyone, but a sizeable portion do.
Also, you should apologize, because it is generally poor form to assume you know why people say/think the things they do.
Part of a discussion about changing rules should be the possibility of leaving them be. BG events are great I love coming to them. I have been absent to let things settle and see what I want to do for an army. One last thing, this is a game, a game we all have a lot invested in, I am sorry my opinions have angered some of you.
You are free to feel whatever you want. Your Opinion does not upset me, it doesn't even effect me. What pissed me off was how you stated your opinion.
-
Let's turn it down a little.
-
Just to go on record, I like these changes and think they would have a good effect on the game and more importantly make it more enjoyable for all.