|
Post by bob on Mar 24, 2014 10:32:40 GMT -5
|
|
captainecho
Full Member
Web-Team Editor/Writer and Usurper
Posts: 1,901
|
Post by captainecho on Mar 24, 2014 16:33:31 GMT -5
This was an interesting read. After a few years of sporadically putting together my space marines, and competing in a tournament, I found I don't have much of a taste for 40k as a game. I love the models, and I enjoy hearing people pontificate over what lists are best. I enjoy seeing all the cool things Tim is up too, but 40k remains low on my list of priorities for painting. I think I am a little dissuaded by seeing just how complex Bob, Brian and Sean's musings over stats and tactics are. Even though I realize this is banter from some of the best 40k players I'm ever going to meet. I still remember when the new rules came out 2 years ago, and we were all there to watch the fireworks. Brian, Sean and Bob were talking through the version change like crazy. It was like listening to another language. And while I learn a lot, one thing has become clear, it seems like there is a steep learning curve between a beginning player and someone playing this on a competitive level. More so than in another game system.
I am not the most competitive guy, but I do want to do well. In a game like FOW or Warmachine, I feel like I have a chance, and can steadily improve. Given I've played a LOT of FOW games over the last 3 years, but even with Warmachine, I managed to come in 3rd in a beginner's tournament with only a rudimentary grasp of the rules. (Most of that was seal clubbing and a lucky draw I know) In 40k, I have fun, but usually go into a game knowing I'm going to get squashed. I am lucky in that People like Bob or Brian, or anyone else is more than willing to patiently show me the ropes, but its been hard for me to motivate myself to rehabing my fire damaged army for 40k. More than any other game system, 40k seems to have the biggest disparity between the top tier players and the bottom. In FOW, I feel like certain matchups, certain missions, anyone has a chance to win with a decent list. in 40k list construction is really everything. And there are so many special rules and synergies to figure out, I am intimidated.
The cost isn't lost on me either.
My Warmachine hobby has cost me around 200 dollars, that covers cards, warroom, a 35 pt army, and some other accessories. Fow....well.....I know that I have spent more than many, but my first starter army was assembled and painted for around 200 dollars as well. But fielding a 2000 pt 40k army? That would run me a bit more. And the very high model count at 28mm, which necessitates a lot of detail work for me to be satisfied with, well, I'm not put off completely, but it gives me pause.
|
|
sionnach19
Full Member
Web-Team Editor/Writer
Posts: 2,709
|
Post by sionnach19 on Mar 24, 2014 20:42:56 GMT -5
This article is quite insightful, and Mike hits some really smart points here. The parallel between the "older" style geek-games like D&D as a social group is an excellent one, and really captures what we've seen the game move towards (with so many expansions/supplements/dataslates, it's way easier to think about all the 40k books just like D&D supplements). I really dig the analogy. Still, I have some reservations -- Mike is kind of writing from the place of the ultimate "insider", w/r/t 40k as a social group. I don't think the tournament scene is as inclusive/social for everyone (or even the majority of folks) as he paints it to be; I think it can be for the folks who run the circuit and are involved with the broader 40k social scene. It's hardly a social group for people who don't know names like Neil Gilstrap or Mike Brandt, though; and it's not a particularly flexible social group with the overwhelming emphasis being on cut-throat competition (so if that's not how you want to play, prepare to be rofl-stomped a few times over the course of the weekend). I also disagree that the way to "fix" 40k is just to play it in tournaments or within the context of a social gaming group -- that certainly can make it more enjoyable, but that doesn't "fix" the actual game itself. I understand that the constant harping on 40k is frustrating to people who play it/enjoy it/want to enjoy it; but it's equally frustrating that the serious 40k scene in the country is trying to tweak the meta, the scenarios, the player base, the gaming environment, and everything but the actual game itself. Again, there are different goals here -- I think Mike's spot on that being involved with a thriving social group and taking advantage of the numerous tournaments is one of the best ways to enjoy 40k at this point in time. But I don't think that "fixes" the problems of the game itself. No disrespect of course, I think it's an insightful post and well-needed to combat the polarizing negativity from most of the 40k community. I'm talking from a weird position on the fence -- one foot in the serious 40k scene, and the other foot trying to desperately run away from it I think Mullane's points are really insightful too -- much of the 40k "conversation" comes from vets established in the game/company for 5+ years. I think that colors a lot of our perspective, and we have a harder time understanding the game from the point of view of folks who are trying to pick it up/come back to it after two editions/etc. The barrier to entry in 40k is monstrous.
|
|
captainecho
Full Member
Web-Team Editor/Writer and Usurper
Posts: 1,901
|
Post by captainecho on Mar 24, 2014 21:20:30 GMT -5
but it's equally frustrating that the serious 40k scene in the country is trying to tweak the meta, the scenarios, the player base, the gaming environment, and everything but the actual game itself. Again, there are different goals here -- I think Mike's spot on that being involved with a thriving social group and taking advantage of the numerous tournaments is one of the best ways to enjoy 40k at this point in time. But I don't think that "fixes" the problems of the game itself. are you referring to the house rules he cites? like how to tweak certain rules, or outlawing certain combos etc? Help educate an outsider, what are the biggest "problems" with the game as you see it? Aside from Tim and Vince playing a game or two, I haven't seen a lot of people playing 40k in the store recently. Is that because you guys are off at tourneys? did a lot of people head over to gamer's gambit? I've gotten a lot of painting done, but it's been a little less animated the past couple of weekends.
|
|
sionnach19
Full Member
Web-Team Editor/Writer
Posts: 2,709
|
Post by sionnach19 on Mar 24, 2014 23:24:45 GMT -5
A lot of the serious-40k-gamer-tournament-scene guys (I'm not at all being derogatory) are trying different fixes to improve the state of the game. However, instead of tweaking the game itself (so unit stats/points cost, model abilities, rules combinations, etc.) they are tweaking exterior elements of the game -- different missions types, varying levels of terrain density, ways of scoring tournaments, and which dataslates/supplement books are allowed. This article advocates that another way to improve 40k is by altering the environment it is played in -- 40k becomes more fun in a social-group/tournament setting, rather than a pick-up game at Hobbytown setting. There is merit to all of these fixes, but it rubs me the wrong way because it seems to dance around the core problems of the game (imbalance in points/rules, min-maxing, pay-to-win, single-faction collectors at a disadvantage, high saturation of "optional" supplements). Different people are frustrated with the game for different reasons, and I don't think there's a catch-all problem (in fact, some folks love the game as it stands and see no problems with it -- that's legitimate, too). The power curve of the game should be relatively tight, to keep all units viable; but instead it seems to be incredibly vast. Some units are flat out terrible -- even a new player like yourself could take one look at them and say "This sucks." Other units are insanely good, to a point where they're no-brainers if you want to play competitively. This vast degree of imbalance is what really frustrates me. Some factions, with old books or bad updates, are just left in the dust and subpar for years at a time. Some of my favorite things in the fluff are garbage, same with some of my favorite models. The really good, winning combinations often wind up being really expensive -- if they aren't models you're lucky to already own, you're dropping hundreds of dollars on a brand new faction (or updating an old one) to get on board with the new hotness to compete. Many folks don't have the money or spare time to get on board the Taudar pain-train that's become really popular (especially knowing that in a year or so, something else will have replaced it). Long story short, the imbalance makes it hard for the majority of gamers who want to enjoy 40k able to seriously compete. Now, the game has always lacked balance. Part of the change has also been the community, which has outpaced the game. The rise of the indy-GT circuit (since Games Workshop doesn't run their own tournaments anymore) and the 40k internet blogosphere have largely homogenized the game, and really pushed it in one very specific direction which emphasizes on competition -- building the strongest list possible to win as many games as possible. Lots of people get the majority of their gaming in at tournaments, which helps encourage this, and it's so saturated the 40k blogosphere that even folks in the middle of nowhere who never attend a tournament are inadvertently shaped by this philosophy if they follow anything about 40k online. Generally, people don't play with what they want to play anymore -- they play with what they think can win. That's true for me (I'd love to put my Black Templars on the table, but I'd also like to not get roflstomped), and I think (with varying degrees) for most other players too. People may play the factions they like, but use the more optimal units (or leave out their favorites in place of better options). Some folks seem to play factions just because they're good, to hell with the models/fluff... but I think that's me being bitter, as it's an incredibly unfair judgment to make of someone! So basically, one particular "type" of 40k has become the majority embraced by the community, and this type is dissonant with the game that Games Workshop is actually making. The disjunction between the two is what causes much of the frustration, in my opinion. There's no easy fix -- at this point, I get my serious gaming itch taken care of with WM/H; and play 40k more for fun (check out the batrep that Tim is posting soon!). I enjoy the models and the fiction, and I'll never have the time or money to seriously compete at a GT. The real hurdle to overcome is getting to a place where I can still enjoy going to tournaments and playing the game, knowing that my chances of competition are severely limited because of my army choice... that's what I'm trying to work out for myself, at least. As far as a community wide fix, I think the 40k scene either needs to do GW's job for them and fix the rules imbalance (change points costs, rewrite rules, fix broken units, give outdated armies extra points as a handi-cap, etc), which is difficult because nobody will ever agree on the best set of fixes; or find a way to integrate systems into the gaming environment that don't punish people for not playing the top-tier armies. Or at least enable folks to play subpar lists and have a blast doing it, without making them get their face kicked in half their games by army lists that they could never hope to beat. As for why nobody plays at Hobbytown, mostly real-life stuff it seems. I'm away at school 8-months out of the year, and other folks have similar commitments I'm sure. 40kers looking for tournament practice are better off trekking down to Battle For Salvation, and Gamer's Gambit has a much better Warmachine/Hordes community. I think there is potential for a good 40k crowd at Hobbytown (especially since GG isn't carrying the product), but that buzz has to be built first. We've lost a lot of momentum for events (used to have more tournaments, the painting competition last year, and some fun game nights of the sort), which is part of the reason why there is less excitement for folks as well. Less excitement means less investment, less people show up, etc. Many of the old 40k players have moved on, due to real life or just for other games (WM/H, Magic, X-wing); but as you noted before the huge barrier to entry makes it harder for new players to come into the game too. I wish I was closer, I'd love to play more at the store but being at school all the time (and dealing with the 1.5 hours car ride there-and-back) makes it hard to get out there, especially when pick-up games are so hit or miss. I miss Hobbytown! I can talk forever about the state of the game, but I'm hardly qualified and not convinced I know what I'm talking about anymore
|
|
|
Post by breng77 on Mar 25, 2014 12:29:19 GMT -5
There are several issues with a "Rules Change" from the community, especially as an organizer.
1.) Player Buy in. As the guy changing the rules I need for other people to buy into the changes I'm making, that they "improve the game" and that people want to play them, instead of "40k".
2.) Other event Buy in. Changing the rules for my local store/area (i.e. Hobby Town or Gaming ETC) Might be possible, because we could all talk it out (much like a social group) and decide that in our area X is too strong and we should adjust it to Y. But if we are the only ones that do it, anyone wanting to play outside the area is eventually going to want to play with standard rules to test their ideas. So unless most events buy into the same ideas there will be issues with player buy in because what we are doing no longer translates to say NOVA or Adepticon etc, so they lack practice for their larger events that they want.
3.) Common ground: If you look at any number of forums you will get different people espousing what is broken/OP. So what do you fix? Everything, and then some new army rises to the top and they need fixing.
Which brings us to... 4.) It is a monumental task, if you want full rebalancing you are talking about constant playtesting feedback etc, and most areas don't play enough 40k games/have a full spread of armies to really get that, and player ability will also skew things in smaller player bases. I.e. Whatever Sean decides to play in an Ordo tournament is likely going to be viewd as OP, just because he is a great player.
People are generally more accepting of different missions/terrain etc than changing rules because of how labor intesive army design is. If I have say a screamerstar army that I spent time assembling and painting, and you ban the grimoir, now I likely need a redesign of my whole army etc...so it is hard again to get buy in.
All that said I have compiled a number of rules changes I think would improve the game on the whole...but have no desire to risk losing money running events just to test them out.
|
|
sionnach19
Full Member
Web-Team Editor/Writer
Posts: 2,709
|
Post by sionnach19 on Mar 25, 2014 19:37:37 GMT -5
I totally agree with your points Brendan -- it's easy for me to chime in from the outside with no stakes in running large 40k events but I get that making "hard" changes to the game system itself is an enormous (and likely fruitless) task for any event organizers -- and I do think there is merit to the changes in missions/terrain that folks have been working on lately. Still, I don't think any of these changes can "fix" the core imbalance with the system itself, and as you say the community can't effectively fix the problems with the system either. And then I get cranky because I feel like I'm stuck playing a flawed game in a way it clearly isn't designed to be played. I don't envy you guys... reconciling what the community wants out of the game, with the imbalanced product GW puts out, is a daunting task.
|
|
|
Post by bob on Mar 26, 2014 8:21:46 GMT -5
...And then I get cranky because I feel like I'm stuck playing a flawed game in a way it clearly isn't designed to be played... Not only that, but there's a few other layers of bitterness thrown in: -The comment in Mike's post about GW's rules prices not really jiving with the "we're a model company" line...another point there is their competitor, mantic, who also bills themselves as a model company above a game company...they GIVE THEIR RULES AWAY. They're free. You download them. They're updated. They have community involvement and fix problems. Who does GW think they're fooling? -Community separation: i've been bashed for going to a tournament taking a 'hard list'. I'm apparently a bad person because I don't refuse to bring the army that I think will give me the greatest chance to win at a tournament. Go read Dakka or Warseer, you'll see what I mean. It's insulting and demotivating and makes me want to at the same time both not play at all and crush the shit out of baby seals and make them cry harder. -Perception Perception Perception. He thinks this is broken. I think that is broken. She thinks this and that are broken. Everyone argues about which is more broken. Tired of it. It's all broken. The game is STUPID. The rules are BAD. None of the bandaids do anything other than shift what's broken. Tom, it's interesting to read your perception about synergies and special rules interactions being more prevalent/important in 40k than other games...I kind of think the opposite. 40k's rules and interactions are all 'on the tin'. WM/H to me is far worse as interactions are very often unit/model specific and different combinations do different things. As for biggest problem in 40k, its bad rules. Every high-end army I see is trying to find some way to break the most rules and do things that the designers didn't consider. From 2+ rerollable to packing in combinations of units and ICs with as many USRs as they can get, that's what the game has become and I think it's super boring.
|
|
|
Post by breng77 on Mar 26, 2014 10:46:57 GMT -5
I largely Agree Bob...what pains me is largely how easy (if accepted) it is to come up with some reasonable changes that help a lot. If I had my Druthers right off the top I would go with these 10.
1.) Grimoir = 3+ max. removes 2++ re-roll, but still helps durability, you could still get 2+ cover re-roll with invisibility.
2.) Fortune = 4+ Feel NO Pain, Keeps seer council strong, but High Strength Shooting now eliminates the "re-roll", so high strength in Close combat hurts them a lot. Same with Beaststar, largely the same against low strength attacks, but high strength hurt it bad.
3.)Serpent Shield = One use. You have a shield, that you can shoot once per game, at which point the shield goes away.
4.) Markerlights = -1 Cover save per light, and cannot be used during overwatch.
5.) A unit can only be effected by one signature system at a time.
6.) All battle brothers are treated like Daemons and CSM, powers can effect but no joining units.
7.)Units with Move through cover strike at initiative when charging through cover.
8.) All S D weapons are S 10, AP 1 ignore all saves.
9.)Stomp = D3 Small Blasts S6 AP4
10.)Witch Fire powers are not subject to deny the witch.
Those would be the changes I would make and I think the balance out a lot of things. They don't fix everything, and I would love to individually tweak units to balance things but that is a bit much.
|
|
|
Post by Ben on Mar 26, 2014 10:51:52 GMT -5
I think when a game is as broken as 40k, it really comes down to what you as the player are willing to do. You can quit, you can hop on the broken tournament winning train or you can make the best of it and just have a group that doesn't use all the broken shit.
I like the third option. I've had a few games with Vince recently and they've been fun. I try to stay away from taking all the really good things, mix my army up by taking models I like and Vince sticks to his space wolves which are not quite equal to my Necrons in power levels, so we have a fun, fairly balanced game. Not to mention neither of us are really 40k power games nor own enough models to take all the nasty stuff.
So I think 40k can still be a fun drop in game, just as long as it's in a club setting like ours where both players are just there to have a fun game and both understand the power level of the lists they are using.
The tournament scene is a whole different story though. I've never been big on taking 40k tournament lists so I wouldn't last long, nor would I want to be playing a game where my opponent is taking all these broken units.
In the end though no matter what changes about 40k, it's still going to be a secondary game to me. I just enjoy games in a medieval/ancient era like fantasy and Hail Caesar more than futuristic ones.
|
|
|
Post by breng77 on Mar 26, 2014 11:14:51 GMT -5
The issue with the drop in thing is exactly what you say though. I need to know what type of list my opponent is running, I need to purposefully not use models, we both need to understand how powerful things actually are etc. If we don't we end up with a bad game. It also helps if you are in a club and set the game up ahead of time, droping in on an open gaming night, with your list is superhard.
|
|
|
Post by Ben on Mar 26, 2014 13:51:14 GMT -5
Ya I think that's what the article was getting at, 40k is not a great game where you just drop in to a gaming store where you don't know anyone and are looking for a game. You need an established club where both sides know that to bring to the table so you don't end up with an insanely unbalanced game which isn't fun for anyone.
|
|
|
Post by breng77 on Mar 26, 2014 14:19:21 GMT -5
Yup, and the issue I have with that is that it limits what you can use. Say I play Tau and really love my Riptides or whatever, now I cannot run them regularly because I stomp face so I self nerf to play other models....Really not ideal. But generally speaking 2 people that enter the game with similar expectations can have a fun game. I play fun games all the time at tournaments, and what not...but there are also one sided games that are really not all that much fun. I also think that the more things that get added and the more Rock Paper scissors the game gets the fewer fun games there are at events because someone is always running into a hard counter.
|
|
|
Post by bob on Mar 26, 2014 15:48:40 GMT -5
So then I have a problem with that too...and it's back to the core bad game written by GW...why do I have to purposely NOT bring things I want to bring? Why do I have to purposely choose to bring things that reduce my chance of winning? Don't give me "winning isn't important it's just for fun" thing, I get that...but if you're telling me you're not playing to win I'll call you a liar. It's a competitive "me versus you" game and while playing a fun game is of course its own reward, we are both trying to win. So why is this game so broken that for it to be "fair" we have to limit our choices of what we bring? You can't say it's a 'beer and pretzels' game that isn't meant to be 'balanced' either...cuz after the 100th time of my Mech DE getting their teeth kicked in my Brendan's "I Love Gundum!" Tau army, I'd skip the gaming and just go straight to the beer!
|
|
|
Post by apothecarybob on Mar 26, 2014 17:06:19 GMT -5
I like my friend John's perspective on the game. He views it how it originally was meant to be played, as a beer and pretzels game, which I get behind because by taking the seriousness away from it, and forging a narrative for why two factions are fighting on a battlefield makes the game more enjoyable. While yes, he has his complaints (just like every other person who plays), he gets by with what is at hand.
|
|