Warhammer 40K Tabletop Thread XXXVII: Highlighting the Contrasts

[LansXero]

...Basically, just create Battlescribe without the rules. 'Cause you gotta sell those hard copies, amirite?

"Do you guys not have phones!?"

Your old is showing. What GW should actually do is buy the app as is, make it pay-for (like 5$ to unlock your faction; 50$ to unlock all of them), have it keep a searchable database of terms and you can click on a link on a unit entry and it brings up the rule's text (like it already does for the digital apple version of codices). Then whales and oldies can keep on overpaying for their physical relics, and normal people can have the quick, easy and reliable access to rules they deserve.



Yeah. But then the Apocalypse release would compete with CA'19 and the Sororitas Codex, and we need our customers spending money every single month. If we release too much stuff at the same time, people will only buy one thing.


After the insult that is releasing a unique model sister with rules as a GENERIC FKIN SUPERIOR I dont think they're banking too much on the SoB's release. Even if the noise marine, imperial marine or the female commissar had sucky rules, they at least HAD rules.

[Cheesegear]

Your old is showing. What GW should actually do is buy the app as is

Nah. Because then you'd be using your phone to produce rules.
Battlescribe would be awesome...If it didn't work on phones. :smallwink:

All's I want is Battlescribe to be a Calculator. I do not want it used as a Codex.


make it pay-for (like 5$ to unlock your faction; 50$ to unlock all of them)

Not with New GW, you wont.


have it keep a searchable database of terms and you can click on a link on a unit entry and it brings up the rule's text

If my opponent is using a device to show me - or a judge - full rules text, it had better not be on a phone.

What I really don't understand is why everyone has such an aversion to printed rules.

If I acquire a digital Codex - legally or otherwise - and I print out the rules on a physical page. Rather than bringing my entire ~100-page Codex (or three, plus Chapter Approved), or my valuable device that I do not want to lose or break (or have it lose charge in the middle of a game)... I bring the 15 pages or so that are relevant to my army - plus Datacards - ...Full size and everything! Why is that bad?

EDIT: ...Well, yeah. It's the '...or otherwise'.

[LansXero]

Nah. Because then you'd be using your phone to produce rules.
Battlescribe would be awesome...If it didn't work on phones. :smallwink:

All's I want is Battlescribe to be a Calculator. I do not want it used as a Codex.



Not with New GW, you wont.



If my opponent is using a device to show me - or a judge - full rules text, it had better not be on a phone.

What I really don't understand is why everyone has such an aversion to printed rules.

If I acquire a digital Codex - legally or otherwise - and I print out the rules on a physical page. Rather than bringing my entire ~100-page Codex (or three, plus Chapter Approved), or my valuable device that I do not want to lose or break (or have it lose charge in the middle of a game)... I bring the 15 pages or so that are relevant to my army - plus Datacards - ...Full size and everything! Why is that bad?

EDIT: ...Well, yeah. It's the '...or otherwise'.

Why are you under the impression that BattleScribe lists cant be printed out? Or that their formatting is more confusing than 'here is 12 assorted pages for you to fiddle with back and forth, that I copied off my codex'. I get the phone complaint, thats what tablets are for. Or PC (did you know BS works there as well? serious, maybe you didnt) which means I can print out a much more neatly formatted list and its very customizable. Of course, if it was a paid app Id expect I can print it wirelessly from my phone and the formatting to be improved.

[Avaris]

Ok, I probably should have been more specific. Certain parts of Apocalypse are insanely lazy. Like Pl. PL is stupid, straight up no arguments. It's dumb. Its dumb, because points exist and it takes a tiny bit more math to come up with an army that uses points and will be fairer than one who used solely PL, because PL is insanely easy to break on accident.
I’ll argue that :smalltongue:

Power level, as implemented, is dumb. However the principle of having a way of quickly adding up an army without having to go to points per model feels sound. The problem is that they’ve gone from too granular for a large game (points) to not granular enough (power level). Because they have entire units costing 1 or 2 power level they have no room in the system for things like differentiating between types of heavy weapon. If power levels were set such that a unit of Space Marines, currently 4 PL, were 10 PL or so, it would have room for this sort of granularity without being as complex as points.


Putting everything in a solid unit. That's fine, lots of games do this. What isn't fine is that 1 unit pretty much equals 1 attack. There's a reason that Mantic has the normal amount of attacks be 8 or so (discounting Individuals), its so that you can get a proper number of dice to get a solid average.
This is Apocalypse’s big misstep, and it’s actually the same problem as Power Level: they’ve gone too far down the path away from granularity.


Damage being resolved at the end of the phase. This simply sounds like a poor idea to me. You already have alternating activations, so I don't know why it's not resolved immediately.
I think this is an interesting innovation to try. It very much changes the dynamic of how you use units: you can’t rely on a single alpha strike to remove a powerful enemy, so you need to work around it more. It wouldn’t suit every game, but I think it will work here. Caveat: it would again be better if more dice were rolled, so you could be more certain of hitting the bell curve of results. I like uncertainty over whether you’ve suceeded, but there is too much when it is reduced to a single die roll.


Individuals in general. I don't like how they're being used as little more than a a giant command bubble. Kings of War does this, but Kings of War isn't heroic space fantasy. It's a game where you have giant bricks of dudes fight other giant bricks of dues. In 40k I expect a Terminator Captain to beat the tar out a squad of Guardsmen, so why can't he?
Inclined to agree here. Again it comes down to granularity: when even Gullimann has 2 wounds and 2 attacks, there isn’t room for smaller heroes to stand out.


Really this looks like early AoS to me. A game that really should have been run through the tester a few more times.
I don’t think it’s quite so bad as that, with its ‘use wounds instead of points’! I feel it has been tested a lot as a base system, but due to the sheer number of datasheets to produce wasn’t so tested on a unit by unit basis. So they ended up with a system that succeeds on its own terms by creating a very streamlined experience, but didn’t stop and think whether the difficulties they presumably had in differentiating units meant it was TOO streamlined.

Personally, I think it still sounds like a good game. A lot of the decisions make sense to me, and I think it will prove at least as enjoyable as 40k. Butit definitely has issues, all of them down to the level of granularity chosen, which has gone too farinto the small numbers camp, so leaves limited space for variation in units.

Edit: thinking about it, I suspect they designed the game and playtested it extensively... with a small number of units. Primaris marines, Imperial Knights, basic guard etc. With a small selection of units it works well, they can be internally balanced against each other while still being differentiated, so they can focus on making it as streamlined as possible. But then once the rules and numbers are finalised they needto fit the other 1000 units in as well. Ah.

I don’t think this is a thing that would have been solved by more playtesting, but rather it needed someone with the skill and experience to raise their head above the detail of the ruleset and think ‘will this work at scale’? I think GW tends towards a very narrow focus in its design: you get a thing as good at being a thing as it can be, without thinking so much about the wider environment you’re creating.

[Cheesegear]

I think this is an interesting innovation to try.

Isn't that what play-testing is for?
Oh wait, GW only does the bare minimum of play-testing.


It very much changes the dynamic of how you use units: you can’t rely on a single alpha strike to remove a powerful enemy, so you need to work around it more.

That's not what it's for. It's so 12 year-old Timmy doesn't get his favourite unit killed before he gets to use it.

At a competitive level, it makes it so the game now plays as Rocket Tag. Whoever has the best Turn 1, pretty much wins*, because neither of you do damage until the end of Turn 1, and when you do do (heh, do do) damage, it happens at the same time. Which means who has what, left standing, at the start of Turn 2, has a massive advantage, because they just snowball every turn after.
It's...Bad.

The whole point of alternate activation is to interrupt your opponent's turn. If you don't do damage and prevent your opponent from Doing the Things, then what's the point of alternating activation?
Again, see Kill Team doing it right.

Here's hoping that Reserves aren't totally gimped in Apoc.

*While this can happen in 40K, at the competitive level, it doesn't, not really. Because you've built your army to not die (that's why T'au armies bring ~40 Shield Drones). But, in Apocalypse? Everything only has one or two wounds. Things dying is really easy. Oh noes. Out of Command Range? Pop. But you can't die on Turn 1, if you're using alternate activations because...Oh wait. Apoc is doing that wrong. Not sure what the point of introducing it was, really.


Caveat: it would again be better if more dice were rolled, so you could be more certain of hitting the bell curve of results.

Just spam low-PR units with Heavy weapons. :smallwink:


I like uncertainty over whether you’ve suceeded

I don't understand why you don't like knowing the effects of your actions.
Or is it more that you don't like your opponent knowing the effects of their actions?


I think GW tends towards a very narrow focus in its design: you get a thing as good at being a thing as it can be, without thinking so much about the wider environment you’re creating.

I think GW does play-testing with studio armies, not real armies.

[Avaris]

That's not what it's for. It's so 12 year-old Timmy doesn't get his favourite unit killed before he gets to use it.
I’m not entirely sure why you think wanting to actually get to use the model you’ve spent considerable time and money on is a thing to be mocked.



At a competitive level, it makes it so the game now plays as Rocket Tag. Whoever has the best Turn 1, pretty much wins*, because neither of you do damage until the end of Turn 1, and when you do do (heh, do do) damage, it happens at the same time. Which means who has what, left standing, at the start of Turn 2, has a massive advantage, because they just snowball every turn after.
It's...Bad.
Potentially, certainly. Though it depends how much damage a side is able to throw out vs how much it can survive. If each army has sufficient firepower that with average luck they can eliminate half the enemy, then sure, it’s rocket tag. If they can only destroy 1/6 even with good luck, it’s not so swingy, and stuff like WHICH units are destroyed matters more. I haven’t done the maths, but I suspect Apocslypse is somewhere between these two extremes.


The whole point of alternate activation is to interrupt your opponent's turn. If you don't do damage and prevent your opponent from Doing the Things, then what's the point of alternating activation?

That’s one interpretation certainly, but I see the point of alternate activation as being more to ensure both players are actively playing the game. Without alternate activation there are parts of the game where I don’t really need to care for quite a while, for example when my opponent is moving a horde of Tyranids towards me. I need to watch, sure, but I’m not engaged: that is not good game play.



I don't understand why you don't like knowing the effects of your actions.
Or is it more that you don't like your opponent knowing the effects of their actions?

Fundamentally, it’s because I like players having to commit to an uncertain choice and not immediately knowing the result. From a simulationist perspective it makes more sense: theoretically everything in the turn is happening at roughly the same time. Your unit of heavy weapons doesn’t get the luxury of waiting and seeing how much damage is dealt by the rest of the army before committing to what they’re going to shoot. This is also why the orders system is a good feature: you have to commit based on limited information.

Now, the important thing is that the unknown becomes known at a set point. You’re not going on no information, it’s just incomplete. It would be bad if, for example, you had to commit to all your targets before rolling anything to hit. I feel knowing the level of damage, with some uncertainty over the final outcome, is the right balance. Although continuing caveat that a bit more certainty would be good, like that which is available from the bell curve of dice results. The order of operations here isn’t a problem, the number of dice rolled and resulting level of uncertainty IS.



I think GW does play-testing with studio armies, not real armies.
No disagreement here!

[Cheesegear]

That’s one interpretation certainly, but I see the point of alternate activation as being more to ensure both players are actively playing the game.

You mean like Kill Team?


Without alternate activation there are parts of the game where I don’t really need to care for quite a while...

I am not against alternating activations. I am against alternating activations without consequences, of which I see few, if any.

Shunting damage armour saves to the end of turn removes almost all tactics on Turn 1. On Turn 2, you'll have to make decisions based on what you have left.
But Turn 1 will almost always be Rocket Tag, and lead to snowballing due to how simple weapon profiles are and how entire units only count as a single 'model'. Whoever makes the most armour saves, wins. Except you don't know what to put more armour saves on because you don't have the information you need to not be gambling, and by the time you do, it's too late.


Fundamentally, it’s because I like players having to commit to an uncertain choice and not immediately knowing the result.

Just out of curiosity, do you buy loot boxes? 'Cause that's what that is.
Did you buy a whole bunch of Space Marine Heroes blind-buys loot boxes?


From a simulationist perspective it makes more sense: theoretically everything in the turn is happening at roughly the same time.

Good narrative. Not good gameplay. We're on the same page.


This is also why the orders system is a good feature: you have to commit based on limited information.

Yep. It's X-Wing. I'm fine with it. Especially given that Detachments have to castle around Characters. So deciding what to do with your Detachment - and knowing with fair certainty what your opponent will do with theirs - is easy. 90% of the time it will be formulaic, but occasionally there will be clutch plays that you didn't expect. Not often. But sometimes.

[Avaris]

I am not against alternating activations. I am against alternating activations without consequences, of which I see few, if any.

Shunting damage armour saves to the end of turn removes almost all tactics on Turn 1. On Turn 2, you'll have to make decisions based on what you have left.
But Turn 1 will almost always be Rocket Tag, and lead to snowballing due to how simple weapon profiles are and how entire units only count as a single 'model'. Whoever makes the most armour saves, wins. Except you don't know what to put more armour saves on because you don't have the information you need to not be gambling, and by the time you do, it's too late.
I think we’re almost in agreement here: it’s just a difference in opinion on the level of information available. Having determined how many blast counters are on a unit, and particularly how many large and small there are, gives you some information. Get two largd blast markers on a marine unit, you can be almost certain of destroying it, given it’s only a 6+ save on a d6. And there are routes to modify their save as well through command assets. That’s enough information for me to go on and make an educated guess. The big problem is it’s a total reliance on one or two dice, so the impact of individual variability is much higher.



Just out of curiosity, do you buy loot boxes? 'Cause that's what that is.
Did you buy a whole bunch of Space Marine Heroes blind-buys loot boxes?
Nope, never bought SM heroes, and not a fan of the concept, as it’s A) completely random and B) once the randomness is resolved, there is no way to respond to it beyond taking the same action again. It only affects my choice in terms of a binary ‘did I get what I want?’ This second part is crucial, and I’d actually argue that the standard turn structure is more like loot boxes in this regard. You take your action, be it shooting or buying a lootbox, and then if you didn’t get what you want you just do the same action again until you run out of resources. Whereas with saves at end of turn, you’ve committed to a decision and thrn make do with what you have.

The other important difference to loot boxes is that you can control the randomness. As said, large blast markers are different to small, and you can modify saves in other ways. So the decision is over whether you are certain enough, not a complete random chance.




Good narrative. Not good gameplay. We're on the same page.
Different gameplay certainly. I’m not convinced it’s worse than what we have in 40k.

[LeSwordfish]

At a competitive level,

then dont play at a competitive level

[Avaris]

then dont play at a competitive level

Remember, every game is competitive if you’re trying to win :smalltongue:

Though this brings me to another I feel fundamental problem in GW’s design processes. They haven’t yet learned the lesson (often stressed by Mark Rosewater in his podcasts on Magic) that it’s not enough to design what’s fun, you have to ensure that what is fun is what wins you the game.

I feel GW focuses on making fun ways to play an army/game. They design things which are cool to do, and match what they want the experience for that army to be. But in doing so, they don’t think about how it relates to what is necessary to win the game. So people who want to win, particularly at tournaments, are required to make the ‘unfun’ choice the the designers haven’t considered.

[Cheesegear]

then dont play at a competitive level

If I run a Battle Company, it is 100% low(er) PR Infantry units. It's also a Battle Company in Apocalypse. Is this allowed?

You tell me where the line is. Because I don't know where the line is. Because the line constantly moves depending on who I'm playing against (which means having a line at all is pretty silly). And since you're making bolded, italicised comments, I assume you have some thoughts on where the line should be.

So...Battle Company. Yay or Nay?


that it’s not enough to design what’s fun, you have to ensure that what is fun is what wins you the game.

I say this all the time. GW fails constantly when What You Like != What Is Good. However, there's also a whole bunch of times where - seemingly by accident - there are a whole bunch of models that are really cool, and good on the table (I brought this up all the time in 7th Ed., especially with Formations which were literally designed around fluff and particular play-styles). This is actually why I don't like Specialist Detachments. On the one hand, you aren't forced into taking specific units to get the bonuses you want. On the other hand, if you aren't forced into doing anything, it lets people cherry pick the models that get the bonuses, and then take whatever they were going to take anyway, as well.

(e.g; The Loyal 32. But if you pay a CP, you can chuck a Wyvern and Basilisk in there, too, for zero downsides. Why wouldn't you do that? It doesn't make sense not to.)

If you build a good list, with models you like, and you have fun playing a good list with models you like...It doesn't matter, because all's anyone will see is a good list.
Also, if you're trying win, you're definitely not having fun - this one always bugs me.
Playing by the rules, gets you ostracised. It's weird. Hell, I'm guilty of it too.

There's what I said yesterday...


My other favourite is everyone who gets on [Unit] 'wagon after it gets buffed. See, they liked the model, but couldn't justify the purchase. But now that it's buffed and/or good, they can justify the purchase.
No, wrong. You have to buy it when it's bad and a potential waste of money. Otherwise you aren't OG, even if you do genuinely like the models.

"You're a jerk 'cause your army list is good!"
...But I like my army. :smallfrown:

Happens all the time. I've refused to play against a bunch of people - especially Eldar players in 7th Ed. And people have refused to play me - especially in 7th Ed. 'cause I had a Gladius (that I rarely used outside of tournaments). Feels bad, man. Like I said, I've called out people for having good lists, and people have called me out. It's a weird practice that I'm trying not to do anymore. The solution to not playing someone because their list is good...Is for me to get a better list. That's just...How it is. I shouldn't be allowed to tell my opponents what they can and can't play. That's not up to me. Just like it's not up to my opponents to tell me what I'm 'allowed' to have. It doesn't make sense. If I compromise the effectiveness of my list, it's because I choose to. But if I choose not to, I'm bad?

Eventually you realise that:
"I want to have fun.", and
"I want to have fun...But also win 50% or more of my games."
...aren't compatible statements for a whole bunch of people because they happened to like the wrong Faction or particular units by accident - or they can't afford to make their list better, and what they have is what they're gonna have for a while.

[Thragka]

Just out of curiosity, do you buy loot boxes? 'Cause that's what that is.
What? Loot boxes are gambling on the level of pulling the lever of a slot machine: there's a single random variable which you may know the statistics of, but have no way of modifying. There's no tactics to a slot machine. Surely you don't go into GW and buy models because that model simply has a positive expectation of winning games devoid of your tactical input. Otherwise, you may as well simply turn up at the table, compare armies with your opponent, determine the probability that you win, generate a single random number to tell you who wins, and walk away without playing the game at all.

On some level you seem to understand that the mechanic of committing resources based on incomplete information creates tactical depth, since you say:


Yep. It's X-Wing. I'm fine with it
... but immediately beforehand you're not fine with it and think that committing resources based on limited information and tactical awareness is "narrative, not gameplay"?

[Cheesegear]

... but immediately beforehand you're not fine with it and think that committing resources based on limited information and tactical awareness is "narrative, not gameplay"?

No. 'Orders', like X-Wing's and Apoc's, are fairly straightforward. You know what your Detachment can do - generally - and you also know what your opponent's can do - generally. 90% of the time what Orders you give your Detachment wont even take your opponent into account, because what your Detachment can do, will be limited. I can tell you that my 'Gunline Detachment' wont move a whole lot, and my 'Assault Detachment', will (and it would be the same almost every turn, every game, regardless of my opponent), and I can make those same predictions about my opponent's Detachments.
More importantly, making those decisions, involves no dice. What I choose to happen, will happen.

[Avaris]

Eventually you realise that:
"I want to have fun.", and
"I want to have fun...But also win 50% or more of my games."
...aren't compatible statements for a whole bunch of people because they happened to like the wrong Faction or particular units by accident - or they can't afford to make their list better, and what they have is what they're gonna have for a while.

Amen. This is the core reason why I don’t think of 40k as a good tournament game. The way it is designed fundamentally doesn’t produce an experience that will be satisfactory for a lot of players if they have mismatched expectations.

The approach I take is to not care about winning, and play in the spirit of how the thing was designed. This requires that I don’t put too much weight on what is good or bad: I can develop that understanding, but I don’t let it dictate what or how I play. And I also assess games or units on the expectation that this was how they were designed: to maximise the thing they aim to be and the game’s understanding of ‘fun’.

I believe GW is improving though, which is why I tend to look at the positives and not be weighed down by the negatives in their design.

[LeSwordfish]

I'm not going to do a purity check on your army list but my general point is that trying to break the game misses the point, and to then call the game bad because of that point you missed is just clueless. (Is every "solved" game automatically bad? Tic-Tac-Toe is broken, bad game, sucks forever.)

A battle company is more or less the example I was going to give of a good thing, though - as in, wouldn't it be way more satisfying to take the Imperial Fists battle company you've spent years building up than to mathhammer out the best thing and spam that? If you tell me that the satisfying thing for you to run also happens to be super good then so be it (remember when I was running Saim-Hann?) but I think it matters a lot about whether you choose it because it's satisfying or because its good. Ultimately that's between you and your sealclubbing concience. And your friends and whether they'll play you or not.

I know I want to run a Tank Company. Is that good or not? Who cares! I've always wanted a full organisation chart of leman russes.

[Cheesegear]

This requires that I don’t put too much weight on what is good or bad: I can develop that understanding, but I don’t let it dictate what or how I play.

That's what a lot of people say. But, I've found that instead, they dictate who they play, or what they play against.
"I can play what I want. But you can't play what you want."

Like I said, unfortunately, I'm not above doing it either. And that's made me feel ****ty the last couple of times I've done - especially if the guy doesn't get a game in the next five minutes after I've rejected him.

"You can't play with me, 'cause you're too good at the game." ...That's really how it comes off.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BbQ3SrVCMAEThoG.jpg

Yes. Yes I am. My list isn't as good as my opponent's and that makes me feel sad.
How 'bout I get better at the game, or get better units, instead of being jelly?


And I also assess games or units on the expectation that this was how they were designed

Some units were designed to be bad? :smalltongue:


I believe GW is improving though...

Oh, absolutely. But you can still be close with no cigar. 'Improving' doesn't mean 'Good', it means, 'Not good yet.' or 'Will be good, soon.'


I know I want to run a Tank Company. Is that good or not? Who cares! I've always wanted a full organisation chart of leman russes.

Lots of people don't care if it's bad. Play what you want.
However, a lot of other people, will have a problem with you flooding the board with T8 (in normal 40K), because it isn't bad. In fact it would totally negate a whole stack of army builds. By spamming Leman Russes, you're being unfair to a lot of players. Right?

[LeSwordfish]

We're not really talking about normal 40k right now. But yeah, if the list i'm enthusiastic about turns out to be really really good, i'll try and play against either people who are also running really really good lists, or people who are running something they're enthusiastic about and don't really care if they win or not. An important thing to me is that I chose what I was enthusiastic about first, and then moderated my behaviour so my opponent and I both had a fun game.

[Cheesegear]

Ultramarines, Spearhead
Pri-Marneus Calgar - 200 Points
Chief Librarian Tigurius - 115 Points

(W) Primaris Ancient; Standard of the Emperor Ascendant, Storm of Fire - 69 Points
Sternguard (x10); Special Issue Boltguns (x9), SIB & Chainsword - 160 Points

Devastators (x5); Heavy Bolter, Missile Launcher, Lascannons (x2), Armorium Cherub - 150 Points
Devastators (x5); Heavy Bolter, Missile Launcher, Lascannons (x2), Armorium Cherub - 150 Points
Thunderfire Cannon; Flamer, Plasma Cutter - 92 Points

Blood Angels, Battalion
Captain with Jump Pack; Thunder Hammer, Storm Shield, Angel's Wing, Death Visions - 124 Points
Lemartes - 100 Points

Scouts (x5); Combat Blades, Storm Bolter & Chainsword - 57 Points
Scouts (x5); Combat Blades, Storm Bolter & Chainsword - 57 Points
Scouts (x5); Combat Blades, Storm Bolter & Chainsword - 57 Points

Death Company with Jump Packs (x13); Boltgun & Chainsword (x7), Thunder Hammers (x6) - 356 Points

Armoury of Baal
Death Visions of Sanguinius

Graia, Battalion
Tech-Priest Enginseer; Power Axe - 35 Points
Tech-Priest Enginseer; Power Axe - 35 Points

Skitarii Rangers (x5); Transuranic Arquebus, Omnispex - 57 Points
Skitarii Rangers (x5); Transuranic Arquebus - 50 Points
Skitarii Rangers (x5); Transuranic Arquebus - 50 Points

Reinforcements - 85 Points

Total: 1999 Points | 10 CPs

Now, I like every model in this list. My Ultramarines look like Deathwatch, my Tigurius is a converted Sevrin Loth, as an (ex-)Fists' player I love my Devastators and Thunderfire Cannon. PriMarneus looks like a beast. If I can't have yellow Space Marines, I can certainly have yellow Blood Angels. The Lamenters are a real Chapter! My Death Company look solid black against the yellow-and-white scouts, and I converted all my Death Co. to have one-handed Boltguns with a Chainsword in the other, my converted Captain looks dope with his Custodes' shield and converted Sanguinary Guard Hammer. The Skitarii have dope yellow longcoats and look sick. The Servo-Arms on my Thunderfire Gunner broke off, so I converted him to have dual Power Fists with underslung Plasma Pistol and Flamer (like Marneus has) which I've had numerous complements on...

However, it's also very clear to anyone that this list has the **** min-maxed out of it. Including the ability to tailor Assassins to my opponent. Lemartes hands out re-rolls to Charge on Turn 2, including either the Death Company or Captain making a Charge on 3d6 with a re-roll. Lemartes also hands out full re-rolls to hit so the negs on the Thunder Hammer are mitigated. The Skitarii Rangers are like Scouts, but cost less and have an Invulnerable with Ignore Wounds (6+). Pri-Marneus gives the Hellfire Shells and Flakk Missiles re-rolls to hit. Tigurius chucks out a -1 and occasionally does Mortal Wounds, or throws a Veil of Time or Might of Heroes onto the Blood Angels' Captain or Lemartes (both of them are <Astartes>, amirite?).

Did I take my models 'cause I like them? Or did I take my models 'cause they're good?
...Yes.

[9mm]

However, a lot of other people, will have a problem with you flooding the board with T8 (in normal 40K), because it isn't bad. In fact it would totally negate a whole stack of army builds. By spamming Leman Russes, you're being unfair to a lot of players. Right?

as the proud owner of 9 leman russes, no I'm not being unfair to other players when I put them all down on the table. I am putting a puzzle you'll need to know how to solve on the table though. Its no different when I put 30 Ratlings down on the table either.

[Turalisj]

When I see 9 LR across the table, I say GG and go grab my magic deck. Not even going to bother playing against that, maybe that's fun for someone else but not me.

[Blackhawk748]

I was like that when 7th started. Orks sucked majorly and Soni wanted to start the Iyanden army i had always wanted. And then they were broken as hell and I refused to do it on principle.


as the proud owner of 9 leman russes, no I'm not being unfair to other players when I put them all down on the table. I am putting a puzzle you'll need to know how to solve on the table though. Its no different when I put 30 Ratlings down on the table either.

Except some armies can't deal with 9 Leman Russe's. Hell, i don't have the models to deal with that, even if I heavily tailored, which I would have to do to deal with that.

That's like telling me to solve a rubics cube while wearing Chinese finger traps. I'm sure someone cane, but I can't and it won't be fun to try

[Lord Torath]

Regarding alternate unit activation and resolving wounds at the end of the turn:

To me, this strikes me as being an attempt to model simultaneous resolution of both players' turns. Each unit gets a chance to act. In a real battle, turns don't exist, and units from the same and different armies can act at the same time. This mechanic allows the same thing on the tabletop. It forces you to step away from the I-Go-You-GO mentality toward a simultaneous We-Go mentality. It doesn't eliminate tactics; just changes the kinds of tactics that are effective.

[9mm]

Except some armies can't deal with 9 Leman Russe's. Hell, i don't have the models to deal with that, even if I heavily tailored, which I would have to do to deal with that.
I don't even know what you have, but I assure you, you do have the models to deal with that. Why? because it is pathetically easy to render those tanks irrellevent.

Here's a hint: you don't need to do a single wound to remove them from the game.

[LeSwordfish]

Did I take my models 'cause I like them? Or did I take my models 'cause they're good?
...Yes.

I said I wasn't going to purity check your list, and I said we weren't really talking about 40k, and I didn't say there was an either/or dichtomy.


I'll reiterate my original point: Some games aren't designed to be robust against attempts to break them: their defense against that is the cultural expectation that people won't be trying hard to optimise their lists for competitive play. Once you design around that expectation, you can set other priorities, such as "should allow you to take all your models at once" or "should stop Timmy getting his favourite model killed before it gets to do anything". To keep my tic-tac-toe example: it's trivially easy to break, but the design assumption is that you're not tryharding, and the design priorities are "so simple a four-year-old can play it" and "needs only a scrap of paper and a pen to play."

(A counterexample is Nightvault, for instance: godawful for narrative play, but they intended it to be, because "a sharply balanced matched play game" was their priority. You can argue about whether they achieved their goal of that or not, but to say "it sucks because i can't tell a story with it" is simply showing how much you missed the point.)

[JNAProductions]

Lemartes also hands out full re-rolls to hit so the negs on the Thunder Hammer are mitigated.

Rerolls BEFORE modifiers, Cheesegear. Unless Lemartes says "You may reroll hit rolls" and not "You may reroll failed hit rolls" you can't reroll a 2 on a Captain with a Thunder Hammer.

Now, he might say that-I don't own the BA Codex. But I was pretty sure only Cawl and Abaddon had that.

[Turalisj]

I don't even know what you have, but I assure you, you do have the models to deal with that. Why? because it is pathetically easy to render those tanks irrellevent.

Here's a hint: you don't need to do a single wound to remove them from the game.

If you table your opponent before they can score, they can't score.

[LansXero]

I'll reiterate my original point: Some games aren't designed to be robust against attempts to break them: their defense against that is the cultural expectation that people won't be trying hard to optimise their lists for competitive play.

Your privilege is showing. Most places dont have the population of Apocalypse players to choose, you play who there is or you waste money on yet another alternative ruleset that you never use (hello, Arena!). There is no "cultural expectation" when its the same 4 guys and they already have what they have and wont get more just to play this alternative mode. And if one of them happens to break the game on accident? you just gutted your player base by 25%. And made him resentful about whatever new specialist thing GW puts out next. Because of lazy uninspired mechanics.


That's what a lot of people say. But, I've found that instead, they dictate who they play, or what they play against.
"I can play what I want. But you can't play what you want."

Like I said, unfortunately, I'm not above doing it either. And that's made me feel ****ty the last couple of times I've done - especially if the guy doesn't get a game in the next five minutes after I've rejected him.

"You can't play with me, 'cause you're too good at the game." ...That's really how it comes off.

Spoiler: You Jel?
Show


Yes. Yes I am. My list isn't as good as my opponent's and that makes me feel sad.
How 'bout I get better at the game, or get better units, instead of being jelly?

I told you this 2 years ago. Glad to see you're coming around to realizing shunning people for being good at things while they break no rules is just ****ty behavior. But when I entered this thread it was all "gentlemans agreement" this and "shame eldars" that, which has never made sense to me.

[lord_khaine]

"shame eldars" that, which has never made sense to me.

That bit did always annoy me.
In part since i had played Eldars from 2nd to 7th edition.

[Forum Explorer]

as the proud owner of 9 leman russes, no I'm not being unfair to other players when I put them all down on the table. I am putting a puzzle you'll need to know how to solve on the table though. Its no different when I put 30 Ratlings down on the table either.

Those specialized armies are often very binary. Like you throw down 9 Leman Russes at me and the game becomes 'did I bring enough of 'anti-tank unit? Yes? Then I win. No? Then I lose.'

Which can be fun. And is a lot more manageable now in 8th, rather than 7th when you might legitimately be unable to hurt your opponent. And you are right, it is very much a puzzle in a way. The problem is that you don't know what you're facing, so you might not have the tools to solve the puzzle in the first place.


If you table your opponent before they can score, they can't score.

All you have to do is get into melee with them and they become useless. Doesn't matter what charges them, so long as one model pokes them. Even a gretchin would do. Most melee armies have a way to get in Turn 1, or failing that, a way to protect themselves til Turn 2.

If you are running a gunline, well then it's a shoot fest. I say that's fair game.

[Turalisj]

Unless they use the strat to leave combat and shoot of course. Next?

[9mm]

If you table your opponent before they can score, they can't score.

If you let me table you with that list, its your fault, not the models, not mine, yours. It is literally one of the weakest lists I have access to.


Unless they use the strat to leave combat and shoot of course. Next?

that's not a strat. thats an order that can only be given to guardsmen,

[Avaris]

Your privilege is showing. Most places dont have the population of Apocalypse players to choose, you play who there is or you waste money on yet another alternative ruleset that you never use (hello, Arena!). There is no "cultural expectation" when its the same 4 guys and they already have what they have and wont get more just to play this alternative mode. And if one of them happens to break the game on accident? you just gutted your player base by 25%. And made him resentful about whatever new specialist thing GW puts out next. Because of lazy uninspired mechanics.



Ok, so you absolutely have a point about the problem of needing to invest into another game system with a small gaming population, but calling Apocalypse lazy and uninspired is just ridiculous. The use of d12s alongside d6s, using the same stat, is something I’ve never seen before, and there is a lot of inventive stuff going on with use of detachments as the basic ‘unit’.

Yes, there are potential problems with ‘balance’, but with so many units available and needing rules I don’t think it would ever be possible to have a system that is strong in this regard, particularly when designing it alongside all the work on base 40k. Apocalypse is designed with a specific goal in mind, streamlined larger games, and it looks to achieve this extremely well, perhaps to the detriment of its ability to deliver an unbreakable game, but that isn’t what it aimed for.

Previous editions of Apocalypse, which simply upscaled already creaking 40k rules, were lazy and uninspired. This absolutely is not.

[LansXero]

Ok, so you absolutely have a point about the problem of needing to invest into another game system with a small gaming population, but calling Apocalypse lazy and uninspired is just ridiculous. The use of d12s alongside d6s, using the same stat, is something I’ve never seen before, and there is a lot of inventive stuff going on with use of detachments as the basic ‘unit’.

Yes, there are potential problems with ‘balance’, but with so many units available and needing rules I don’t think it would ever be possible to have a system that is strong in this regard, particularly when designing it alongside all the work on base 40k. Apocalypse is designed with a specific goal in mind, streamlined larger games, and it looks to achieve this extremely well, perhaps to the detriment of its ability to deliver an unbreakable game, but that isn’t what it aimed for.

Previous editions of Apocalypse, which simply upscaled already creaking 40k rules, were lazy and uninspired. This absolutely is not.

But I didnt. I called the breakable design, namely, reduced number of shots, power rating not accounting for wargear and units being reduced to 1 wound so their durability not mattering enough, lazy and uninspired. Which it is, and its this reductionist nature which enables the "cheaper is better, dialed to 11" that Apocalypse is bound to become. Worse if you tack WYSIWYG as a hard rule to a system that does a crappy job at balancing wargear AND thats not focused on individual models anyways.

As for your thought on Apoc as whole, I've read them, and I disagree. You and I have too different backgrounds to see eye to eye and I accept that, but I'd suggest not stating things as facts. Your own preferences are not the same as objective quality in a system, and what triggers these long back and forths are people trying to prove that.

[LansXero]

If you let me table you with that list, its your fault, not the models, not mine, yours. It is literally one of the weakest lists I have access to.
that's not a strat. thats an order that can only be given to guardsmen,

What are you playing on, a featureless plain? You can play keep-away with terrain for a long time, keeping all the tanks tied up in melee is as much of a pipe dream as the tabling on T1 is. Even if it WAS a featureless plain, you can probably use 5 of them to make a ring for the others to shoot from inside, thus still staying functional. Now, if you are Mordian one of them had OW on 4s, so thats not nothing, or if you're tallarn your tank commanders can move and shoot or shoot and move while keeping grinding advance. Oh and your warlord trait lets you fall back and charge, which is probably useless but its there.

Or you can use the strat that lets you crush stuff in melee, and tie up the incoming hordes of S4 AP0 hits. Because fall back and charge is more infrequent than fall back and shoot, and they arent figthing their way out of 12 T8 wounds anytime soon. Next turn it falls back and you scythe them down like wheat

[Requizen]

Getting in some Kill Team tonight. Still only have my Necrons, though I'm picking up some Marines (and something else like Nids or AdMech, perhaps?) this weekend. I'm not sure which "format" they play in, I'm pretty sure everyone uses Elites, and Arena seems relatively common? So I'll build with that in mind:

Dynasty: Mephrit

Deathmark [Leader]

Deathmark [Sniper]
Immortal [Gauss, Comms]
Flayed One [Combat]
Lychguard [Warscythe, Zealot]
Lychguard [Warscythe, Combat]
Praetorian [Rod, Zealot]

Warrior
Warrior
Warrior
Flayed One
Flayed One
Flayed One
Immortal [Gauss]
Immortal [Gauss]
Immortal [Tesla]
Immortal [Tesla]
Lychguard [Sword and Shield]
Praetorian [Rod]
Lychguard [Warscythe]

20 Models. There's not a lot of variety in the Necron lists, so it was really just a couple models of everything so I could increase flexibility a little bit.


Dynasty: Mephrit

Deathmark [Leader]

Deathmark [Sniper]
Immortal [Gauss, Comms]
Flayed One [Combat]

Immortal [Gauss]
Immortal [Gauss]
Flayed One

98/100


Dynasty: Mephrit

Deathmark [Leader]

Deathmark [Sniper]
Praetorian [Rod, Zealot] OR Lychguard [Warscythe, Zealot]
Flayed One [Combat]

Warrior
Warrior
Flayed One

100/100


If they're using Commander, drop an Immortal for an Overlord, but I don't think anyone runs Commander rulesets/missions. Necron Rosters aren't exactly complex, it's mostly "how many of each unit do you want?". I would like to try out a Praetorian or Lychguard to see if they're worth the points, but I guess it'll depend on what I play against.



Will likely pick up some Intercessors and Reivers soon as well (already getting the Imperial half of Shadowspear from someone) - what are the best weapon loadouts for them? Obviously need a couple Aux Grenade Launchers for the Intercessors, but is there a reason to swap their basic Bolt Rifle? Stalker looks like it could have some use on straight away corridors, and the Auto has some extra mobility, but the regular Rifle seems the most flexible.

For the Reivers, the Knife doesn't seem worth dropping the Carbine for imo, maybe if it had any AP. The Grapnel doesn't seem to have as much impact in Arena, though it does let them charge over the scatter terrain with impunity, which is nice. I guess it depends on how much 1 point wiggle room comes up.

[Forum Explorer]

Unless they use the strat to leave combat and shoot of course. Next?

If someone pulled that on you, they are cheating. The Imperial Guard do not have access to that stratagem, and they don't have any other way for their tanks to fall back and shoot.

On that note, Crush Them! only works on the charge now. I still see people make that mistake.


As for what Lans is saying, I find terrain is more in the favor of the army facing Leman Russes. Most variants don't have that much AP, so the cover save actually makes a big difference, Leman Russes can't move through ruins, (well walls) so there are limited paths they can move and they are easier to completely surround. And most importantly, terrain blocks LoS so you can avoid their shots altogether. Particularly if you are playing with the ITC 'ruins block first floor LoS entirely.'

[Avaris]

But I didnt. I called the breakable design, namely, reduced number of shots, power rating not accounting for wargear and units being reduced to 1 wound so their durability not mattering enough, lazy and uninspired. Which it is, and its this reductionist nature which enables the "cheaper is better, dialed to 11" that Apocalypse is bound to become. Worse if you tack WYSIWYG as a hard rule to a system that does a crappy job at balancing wargear AND thats not focused on individual models anyways.
Apologies: you didn't specify which bits you were criticising, so I took it as criticism of the system as a whole. I agree that all of those points could be better, though I still don't think 'lazy and uninspired' is the right way to think about it. It's certainly a case of not recognising or paying enough attention to these particular bits of the system, though I don't think it's laziness so much as not seeing the woods for the trees. Laziness would be identifying a thing necessary and thinking 'that'll do', whereas I genuinely think this is a blindspot in GW design - it simply didn't occur to them to care about this sort of thing. Naive, not lazy and uninspired.


As for your thought on Apoc as whole, I've read them, and I disagree. You and I have too different backgrounds to see eye to eye and I accept that, but I'd suggest not stating things as facts. Your own preferences are not the same as objective quality in a system, and what triggers these long back and forths are people trying to prove that.
For what it's worth, your past comments about the vastly different gaming experiences and backgrounds really struck a chord with me, because you're absolutely right. I am in an extremely privileged gaming position, with sufficient disposable income to support multiple systems. It's absolutely right that your metric for what is worth playing is higher than mine. GW's distribution models really frustrate me from this perspective: Apocalypse at least has unit stats freely available, but the base rules should be too, as then there would be no real cost to entry into the game, which would make it a viable option for any gaming community (Command asset cards perhaps, but a group can club together for a single set, or proxy them simply). But GW's distribution methods leave a lot to be desired.

Also, "Your own preferences are not the same as objective quality in a system" is a mantra we should all try to remember. I'll admit that when told something is bad I tend to counter with why it is good without specifying it as my opinion, but I'll try to be better at that.

[Mystic Muse]

The only time I'll ask people not to play something is if I asked for a friendly game, and they had a vastly different interpretation of friendly.

Like when a guy asked for a game, and he brought a mostly fluffy Salamanders list, and his opponent brought Magnus, and a Knight Atrapos.

Otherwise, there are specific people I won't play, but that's because they're jerks.

[LansXero]

The only time I'll ask people not to play something is if I asked for a friendly game, and they had a vastly different interpretation of friendly.

Like when a guy asked for a game, and he brought a mostly fluffy Salamanders list, and his opponent brought Magnus, and a Knight Atrapos.

Otherwise, there are specific people I won't play, but that's because they're jerks.

We have this friend that loves his marines and his Custodes and his FW stuff. Tons of money spent, lukewarm results to show.

So one day he brings his fully painted just-received FW Custodes army. We had like an hour before Kill Team league would start. He says: "hit me as hard as you can, I want to know what to fix".

Seal clubbing doesnt cut it. He had like 20 models total, and I went all craftworld gunline and planes. It was more seal-rocketing or something. Even with BS2, he is out of range to kill anything, dark reapers + jinx evaporate terminators, doom on his grav-tanks make guardians lethal (go figure) and he cant pin me down in melee because Eldar. It was over with enough time left to set up terrain for the KT league.

He then bought me chicken for lunch. Because its a game, and people being better than you will happen in ANY game, and getting salty that the other guy didnt 'do it right' by whatever arbitrary metric you set up is just being a sore loser. Yes, he put love and care and money into his models, but the rules dont say "the best hobbyist" wins.

Now, of course, had he asked me to pull the punches I wouldve ran with beta sisters and gotten properly wiped, but thats under the admission of 'yes, this doesnt perform at the top bracket, lets see where it fits'.

[Renegade Paladin]

I know I want to run a Tank Company. Is that good or not? Who cares! I've always wanted a full organisation chart of leman russes.
It's fantastic right up until the Orks are in your grill, and then you're gonna have a bad time. :P

[LeSwordfish]

It's fantastic right up until the Orks are in your grill, and then you're gonna have a bad time. :P

I actually played tanks+allied marines vs Speed Freek Orks at Throne Of Skulls a few weeks back. The Orks were up in our grill turn one, but we won because of one Infantry Sargeant on an objective, cowering between several primaris characters and being so small and un-noticed that our opponents wasted all their firepower killing models that weren't Objective Secured and left him alive by accident to hold the point and win us the game.

[LansXero]

Tanks that move - shoot - move are hard to pin down. Not everything is Cadian :D

[LeSwordfish]

I actually played tanks+allied marines vs Speed Freek Orks at Throne Of Skulls a few weeks back. The Orks were up in our grill turn one, but we won because of one Infantry Sargeant on an objective, cowering between several primaris characters and being so small and un-noticed that our opponents wasted all their firepower killing models that weren't Objective Secured and left him alive by accident to hold the point and win us the game.

Oh this was also the game where my Thunderbolt blew up a battlewagon, and the chain reaction blew up a chimera. Between them, the two explosions took out a second battlewagon, a few buggies, two warbosses, Marneus Calgar, and most of a squad of Boyz.

[Forum Explorer]

Tanks that move - shoot - move are hard to pin down. Not everything is Cadian :D

Correct me if I'm wrong, but even Tallern Leman Russes still lose their Grinding Advances if they go over 6 inches, right? Though maybe my expectations are really different. I feel that if my melee units can't get a charge in by Turn 2, then they are basically useless. The good ones can pretty much charge nearly anywhere turn 1. The exception to this rule is Talos, which have proven to just be so insanely tough that they can spend all game getting in range if need be, once they do they'll wreck face regardless.

Hmm, overall I'm used to playing very fast armies. That might color my perceptions quite a bit.

[JNAProductions]

I'm gonna be participating in a narrative campaign, and I want my big dude to be Ku'Gath Plaguefather. So I wrote rules for him, found here (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1EkuAG_XBkl5hNZQIr-1LEjW63JrD-nUbOR4afg_l9EU/edit?usp=sharing).

Can I get a sanity check on these?

Also, the reason he's got move like he does is that I'm gonna be basing on top of Defiler legs, as a way to show his mobile alchemy lab.

[LansXero]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but even Tallern Leman Russes still lose their Grinding Advances if they go over 6 inches, right? Though maybe my expectations are really different. I feel that if my melee units can't get a charge in by Turn 2, then they are basically useless. The good ones can pretty much charge nearly anywhere turn 1. The exception to this rule is Talos, which have proven to just be so insanely tough that they can spend all game getting in range if need be, once they do they'll wreck face regardless.

Hmm, overall I'm used to playing very fast armies. That might color my perceptions quite a bit.

Oh, the list is beatable allright. But the claim 'its super easy, just solve the puzzle by charging your gunline into them, then they r dead' is completely deceiving.


TALLARN - Get Around Behind Them! (Tank Order): The ordered unit can move up to 6" before or after firing, and this does not count against the range calculation for Grinding Advance (turret firing twice)

So you can peek 6" into LoS, pop the order, shoot the turret twice then move back out of LoS / charge range. Leave something with a lot of shots for OW as lane blockers, so it gets ties up, then it backs away and the rest of them shoot. Its tricky, but having a ton of melee incoming isnt as insta-lose as they wanna make it out to be.

Now, if you're facing alaitoc planes and dark reapers with IG ballistic skill, you might as well pack and go home. But Eldar being TAC without trying is old news :V

[Forum Explorer]

Oh, the list is beatable allright. But the claim 'its super easy, just solve the puzzle by charging your gunline into them, then they r dead' is completely deceiving.



So you can peek 6" into LoS, pop the order, shoot the turret twice then move back out of LoS / charge range. Leave something with a lot of shots for OW as lane blockers, so it gets ties up, then it backs away and the rest of them shoot. Its tricky, but having a ton of melee incoming isnt as insta-lose as they wanna make it out to be.

Now, if you're facing alaitoc planes and dark reapers with IG ballistic skill, you might as well pack and go home. But Eldar being TAC without trying is old news :V

Yeah, I've got a heavy bias towards fast, melee armies. Or fast at least. I hate running gunlines.

[Avaris]

Regarding the discussion of what is ‘acceptable’ to play, it occurs to me that a lot of the reason this is so important is the time commitment necessary to play a game with someone. By setting up on the battlefield, you commit to spending probably 2 hours of your time with this, so you have a higher bar for what you’re willing to play against than, for example, Magic, where if a game is unenjoyable you can move on to a new opponent relatively quickly. Not sure if this is particularly useful as an insight, just an observation.

For my part, I am fairly strongly against trying to dictate what is available to play to my opponents, though I suspect this is because I don’t actually play all that often so don’t face specific lists often enough to feel worn down by them. In my experience though a lot of players fear whatever the current boogyman is without understanding what makes it a problem in the game. In my local meta someone was running an escalation campaign and wanted to ban all super-heavies, especially knights, because they didn’t want to have to tailor their list to facing them. In practice though, their list was perfectly capable of dealing with them: it was fear of what they represented that was the problem.

Going back to the Magic comparison, it’s interesting to note that my favoured styles of play there are limited formats, particularly Sealed, rather than Constructed. Having a more limited pool of options available to players prevents degeneracy in deck building: everyone turning up has roughly the same power level of cards available. Obviously the nature of 40k makes this impossible to replicate, but I wonder if anyone can think of a way to achieve a similar result?

[LansXero]

Avaris musing on 40k related to MTG

Out of curiosity, how do you feel about Draft? Sealed is super swingy and warped around either bombs or value, depending on the format. There is very little skill involved, as what you'll pull is a crapshoot and your ability to influence both deck building and drawing is non-existant. So it pairs very well with what I think new!Apocalypse is, because even if you wanted to leverage Command Assets as a balancing factor, they too are random.

On the other hand, Draft is a very complex spin on the idea of 'you dont need to build a deck, come sit down and we'll just play Magic'. Except that you need to know the expansion, read the picks, read whats being passed and build as you go on your head. Store manuals say to keep this format away from casuals, because of the huge potential for 'feels bad' when they end up with an unplayable mess of situationally cool cards that dont go together. But it stands to competitive play, allows for emergent strategy and counterplay and depending on the expansion is very, very rewarding to solve.

As for the time comitment issue, it depends a lot on what you want out of the game. For our community, we've all realized the pecking order long ago and dont particularly mind it. Yes, some compositions lose to some others, yes some of us dont have 3000 points of stuff acquired over 10 years to pick from, yes some of what we like isnt the best. But its a conscious choice: Do you work towards getting 'better'? Do you do what you can with what you've got? Do you just bring what you have, come what may? Because in the end, we wont blame the game, or the rules, or complexity, or it being confusing or any other excuses. We've all read the rules, and we decided to go in, so if anyone is to blame is ourselves. I really dont understand the 'feels bad' issue with games most people express here, because its something you get over as a kid. Take soccer for example: for every athletic kid there are 9 other mediocre ones and a chubby boy who gets stuck as a goalie. Do you not play? You know you'll suck, you know older kids will kick you in the shins and some will run laps around you. So what? You run and you sweat and you try and you have a great time, because its a game and the only real way you'll be a loser is if you stay outside watching because 'its not fair'.

[Avaris]

Out of curiosity, how do you feel about Draft? Sealed is super swingy and warped around either bombs or value, depending on the format. There is very little skill involved, as what you'll pull is a crapshoot and your ability to influence both deck building and drawing is non-existant. So it pairs very well with what I think new!Apocalypse is, because even if you wanted to leverage Command Assets as a balancing factor, they too are random.

On the other hand, Draft is a very complex spin on the idea of 'you dont need to build a deck, come sit down and we'll just play Magic'. Except that you need to know the expansion, read the picks, read whats being passed and build as you go on your head. Store manuals say to keep this format away from casuals, because of the huge potential for 'feels bad' when they end up with an unplayable mess of situationally cool cards that dont go together. But it stands to competitive play, allows for emergent strategy and counterplay and depending on the expansion is very, very rewarding to solve.
I like both draft and sealed. I disagree that there is very little skill in sealed, in a well designed set at least. I spent a while going to medium sized Sealed events (50 or 60 players), and generally speaking 6 of the top 8 were drawn from a pool of about 12 really good players. So there is some possibility of a less experienced player breaking into the top of the pile, and of the top players having a bad draw, but it can’t be the case that they all had the bombs etc to swing it. The skill is dealing with what you’ve been given and making the best of it.

Going back to Apocalypse, the Command Assets at least have an opportunity to build a deck of 30, and it is possible to draw through them fairly quickly. Right now though there are a lot of unknowns about them: how many can you play a turn, do you reshuffle the deck after drawing all the way through it, how variable are they in power? They could end up being really swingy if designed poorly, or if relatively balanced against each other there might be an interesting thing groups can do by drafting them at the start of a game session.

The thing that strikes me actually from the way you describe draft as being told ‘not for casuals’ is that Magic has the advantage of quite tightly defined types of game: you know what sort of setting you are going into, so it’s easy to tailor what your playing to match the experience everyone is expecting. 40k doesn’t have that so much: the conversations here are demonstrating that everyone has a different measure of what is ‘acceptable’ in every day play, and it is up to people to self police. Some people, like Cheesegear, clearly put a lot of thought into trying to pick the right army for the experience their opponent is bringing to the table, but not everyone will have the skill and experience necessary to do so. This is kind of what the ‘three ways to play’ is intended to do, but it doesn’t work well at that. I don’t have solutions to this, just observations!


As for the time comitment issue, it depends a lot on what you want out of the game. For our community, we've all realized the pecking order long ago and dont particularly mind it. Yes, some compositions lose to some others, yes some of us dont have 3000 points of stuff acquired over 10 years to pick from, yes some of what we like isnt the best. But its a conscious choice: Do you work towards getting 'better'? Do you do what you can with what you've got? Do you just bring what you have, come what may? Because in the end, we wont blame the game, or the rules, or complexity, or it being confusing or any other excuses. We've all read the rules, and we decided to go in, so if anyone is to blame is ourselves. I really dont understand the 'feels bad' issue with games most people express here, because its something you get over as a kid. Take soccer for example: for every athletic kid there are 9 other mediocre ones and a chubby boy who gets stuck as a goalie. Do you not play? You know you'll suck, you know older kids will kick you in the shins and some will run laps around you. So what? You run and you sweat and you try and you have a great time, because its a game and the only real way you'll be a loser is if you stay outside watching because 'its not fair'.

As the somewhat chubby boy, I absolutely hated football, so didn’t play. But I didn’t feel like a loser doing so, as I had other things I enjoyed to do instead. So the ‘feels bad’ aspect served to drive me away entirely. It’s a similar risk with gaming hobbies: a bad experience risks someone deciding to go and use their time doing something else. Which is a loss for the community, as it’s one less person to play against. So there is somewhat of an imperative on (sensible) players to ensure their opponent has a good time as well, rather than just slaughtering them. Of course, the extent to which this is an issue depends on the availability of other games and hobbies to the player, and the amount they’ve had to invest to get to a game relative to available time and income: if the cost is relatively high sunk cost starts to come into it.

[bluntpencil]

Today I learned that Fiends need to die early, or my tanks are getting stuck in a Slaaneshi quagmire. Sad times.

[Cheesegear]

as the proud owner of 9 leman russes [...] I am putting a puzzle you'll need to know how to solve on the table though.

That's fine. If you tell me before our game that you're putting down x9 Leman Russes before I even show up, that's fine. I'll bring something that can compete with that.

However, I'd be willing to put down that 90% of the games I play are PUGs. What I bring with me, is what I have, and in no way am I prepared to bring more than...I dunno...3K points (?) in the boot of my car.

If you show up with x9 Leman Russes...And that's not a puzzle I can solve with what I have? ...Do you tip your fedora and call me a scrub?

More often than not, you're not getting a game with me today. I'm totally willing to play against 9 Leman Russes, but not with what I've brought with me. With what I've brought with me today you've already won the game because you have no need to play the Mission.


Rerolls BEFORE modifiers, Cheesegear. Unless Lemartes says "You may reroll hit rolls" and not "You may reroll failed hit rolls" you can't reroll a 2 on a Captain with a Thunder Hammer.

Captain doesn't need Lemartes, he already re-rolls 1s and can't re-roll 2s.
Lemartes is for the Death Company who get twice as many re-rolls to hit now.


But when I entered this thread it was all "gentlemans agreement" this and "shame eldars" that, which has never made sense to me.

Yes and no.
As in the above example, the only units I have available to me are the ones I bring with me. It doesn't matter that I have a total of about 35K in my collection - I can't bring it all.

I only have what I've brought with me.
I've absolutely given up on ostracising players with good lists. But, I've started to refuse games based on what I think will make a good game. I have no interest in clubbing seals. If a 14 year-old comes up to me and asks me for a game and maybe he can learn something...Did I bring with me, today, a list that would be suitable to play against someone who has two KNF boxes and a unit of Reivers (14 year-olds love Reivers)? If I don't...That kid's probably not getting a game...Today.

Same as the above, I have no problem with playing against x9 Leman Russes...Providing I feel like I can make a game out of it.

So, yeah.

I've moved away from "I'm not going to play you so long as you have two or more Wraithknights.", to
"...Can you come back on [day]? I'll give you a game then."

I have no problem with playing against two KNF boxes and Reivers. Provided I have the models in my boot to make it work.

I guess the 'social contract' is still there, though...That I don't club seals.


Those specialized armies are often very binary. Like you throw down 9 Leman Russes at me and the game becomes 'did I bring enough of 'anti-tank unit? Yes? Then I win. No? Then I lose.'

Pretty much.


Out of curiosity, how do you feel about Draft? Sealed is super swingy and warped around either bombs or value, depending on the format.

Sealed is total ****.
Draft is super-competitive and almost 100% reliant on people's ability to read pre-release materials and learn the set before it's even come out, and build a deck in their head before they've even shown up depending on colour availability.
Draft then swings back when you realise that someone is building the same colours as you at the same table and oh ****, you better switch it up before you hamstring yourself.

Draft is a perfect example of something that is luck-based that also involves massive amounts of tactics.

Sealed is almost pure chance, and is lame. I'd rather just buy six loot boxes boosters off the shelf and go home.

[LeSwordfish]

Yeah, I definitely wouldn't drop ten russes (what do y'all mean "nine", you can fit 10 and a loyal 32 in 2kpts, iirc) on someone by surprise, but i'd love to play it against a similarly edge-of-the-bell curve list - I had tremendous fun running 6 russes and troops in chimerae against a Knight list. Similarly, I wouldn't expect everyone to enjoy the "puzzle" of fighting it, as it was so eloquently put - but I might give it a go myself. A interesting tactical challenge can be way more fun than just bumping meta lists together.

[bluntpencil]

Yeah, I definitely wouldn't drop ten russes (what do y'all mean "nine", you can fit 10 and a loyal 32 in 2kpts, iirc) on someone by surprise, but i'd love to play it against a similarly edge-of-the-bell curve list - I had tremendous fun running 6 russes and troops in chimerae against a Knight list. Similarly, I wouldn't expect everyone to enjoy the "puzzle" of fighting it, as it was so eloquently put - but I might give it a go myself. A interesting tactical challenge can be way more fun than just bumping meta lists together.

Hey, a Guard Tank Company is what I run, and that's three squadrons of three, plus a Tank Commander. Along with them, I take Rough Riders and a Tech Priest, for my Tallarn Armoured Company.

It's okay, not great, but I enjoy it. If people don't want to play my tanks, I run Deathwatch infantry and dreads. Both of my armies were built to theme, and fun, as opposed to being powerful. I enjoy it, even if it is on hard mode.

[Renegade Paladin]

Yeah, I definitely wouldn't drop ten russes (what do y'all mean "nine", you can fit 10 and a loyal 32 in 2kpts, iirc) on someone by surprise, but i'd love to play it against a similarly edge-of-the-bell curve list - I had tremendous fun running 6 russes and troops in chimerae against a Knight list. Similarly, I wouldn't expect everyone to enjoy the "puzzle" of fighting it, as it was so eloquently put - but I might give it a go myself. A interesting tactical challenge can be way more fun than just bumping meta lists together.
You can fit twelve and the Loyal 32 into 2k points if you're willing to just run Executioners. And three of them are even tank commanders to comply with the Rule of Three. :smalltongue: Get another squad of infantry or sprinkle special weapons to taste (splurging on a battle cannon TC so you can have the Hammer of Sunderance isn't the worst idea) with the extra 50 points and there you go.

[Avaris]

So I got a chance to flick through the Apocalypse rulebook today. Things I picked up:

The detachments are slightly different to base 40k, and generally don’t require a HQ. There are 3 basic detachments, each requiring at least 3 units of a type: troops, fast attack, or heavy support. For each of these detachments you take you can have up to 3 other detachments, which generally only have a single required unit.
The only units to get ‘objective secured’ are troops taken in a battalion, which is one of the basic detachments. So if you want to use objective secured to claim an objective you have to do so with a detachment of at least three units.
Detachments don’t need to have a character: the detachment commander is the unit, character or otherwise, with the highest LD,
If a detachment commander is killed, command passes to the unit with the next highest Ld. So you can’t take out Detachments by sniping their leaders.
this means the main purpose of characters seems to be generating and using command assets? You draw a command asset for each commander who is a character. Characters can be targetted by shooting, but are obscured (-1 to hit) unless they’re the closest target
When you draw through your deck of 30 command assets you just reshuffle and carry on. So if your force is able to draw through them rapidly you can use them more than once.
Units are either ‘light’, ‘heavy’ or ‘super-heavy’. Only light units use SAP, everything else uses SAT
Rapid fire is double number of shots when at half range. I don’t think it specified when not moving, but not 100% sure
Inferno means you hit automatically
Overcharge means you add 1 to wound rolls, but if you roll a 1 (to hit? Can’t recall) the unit gains a blast marker
deep strike works as in base 40k, with setting up 9” away, though not sure when it occurs
There are both set missions and randomised missions. For randomised missions you randomly generate deployment and objectives (d12 I think). Then the attacker rolls a ‘twist’ (d12 table) and the defender a ‘ruse’ (d6). The Defender may also get a ‘Sudden Death’ benefit if there is a large difference in power level


Edit: also, the store manager said he’s spoken to one of GW’s designers, who said they’ve tested it at 1000 pts equivalent, and it works fine even for small games like that.

[LansXero]

Yes and no.
As in the above example, the only units I have available to me are the ones I bring with me. It doesn't matter that I have a total of about 35K in my collection - I can't bring it all.

I only have what I've brought with me.
I've absolutely given up on ostracising players with good lists. But, I've started to refuse games based on what I think will make a good game. I have no interest in clubbing seals. If a 14 year-old comes up to me and asks me for a game and maybe he can learn something...Did I bring with me, today, a list that would be suitable to play against someone who has two KNF boxes and a unit of Reivers (14 year-olds love Reivers)? If I don't...That kid's probably not getting a game...Today.

Same as the above, I have no problem with playing against x9 Leman Russes...Providing I feel like I can make a game out of it.

So, yeah.

I've moved away from "I'm not going to play you so long as you have two or more Wraithknights.", to
"...Can you come back on [day]? I'll give you a game then."

I have no problem with playing against two KNF boxes and Reivers. Provided I have the models in my boot to make it work.

I guess the 'social contract' is still there, though...That I don't club seals.



But why? Dont you people have phones?. I mean, thats not on you, thats a failing on your TO / Store manager. I get that you cant predict what people will bring out of the blue, but you CAN ask on a social media that you are all connected to "who is dropping by later today?" "who is up for a game of X", "Im bringing so and so, lmk if you wanna play", etc. Sure, there will always be the odd rando, but I bet those KNF kids got their boxes at the store, so why isnt he bringing the community together in a manner that is conducive to more games being played, not less?

Also, our prefered taste of seal clubbing is 2 vs 1. Or 2 vs 2 with expert 'mentors' helping their respective seals. No balance whatsoever but it feels less like a curbstomp, more like a friendly shoot the breeze thing.

[Selpharia]

So the Apocalypse initiative rules are bananas; it depends on the amount of real world time you can deploy in. Like, I have a disability that makes it hard to hold and move lots of things significant distance, making setup take longer. Sooooo glad that matters in-game now.

[Cheesegear]

The only units to get ‘objective secured’ are troops taken in a battalion

That's very handy to know, as it means that just like base 40K, spamming cheap Troops will be a requirement for good lists... Which I definitely expected and called.


this means the main purpose of characters seems to be generating and using command assets?

Given that they only have one attack - same as everything else - ...Yes.


Rapid fire is double number of shots when at half range. I don’t think it specified when not moving, but not 100% sure
Inferno means you hit automatically
Overcharge means you add 1 to hit rolls, but if you roll a 1 (to hit? Can’t recall) the unit gains a blast marker

Overcharge seems wrong. You sure it isn't +1 to wound?


GW’s designers, who said they’ve tested it at 1000 pts equivalent

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
I wouldn't have been able to even make that up.

EDIT: Did you get a handle on what size table Apocalypse is designed for? Normal 6x4'? Or we looking at 12x8'?

[Avaris]

That's very handy to know, as it means that just like base 40K, spamming cheap Troops will be a requirement for good lists... Which I definitely expected and called.
Feels better than base 40k though? Realistically, each Detachment of three units can only hold one objective, so you need to really commit to that strategy to be able to use objective secured on all objectives.


Overcharge seems wrong. You sure it isn't +1 to wound?

Yes, sorry, typo! Was trying to remember if the penalty applied on the rolling to hit or rolling to wound, but the benefit is definitely to wound.



HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
I wouldn't have been able to even make that up.
:smallconfused:
Not sure what’s so funny about that? Wasn’t saying that’s the only level they tested it at, or that it is the focus, just that they gave it a go in that level in spare time. That they were successful supports what I’ve been suspecting about it being functional at that level: how well it compares to 40k is another matter, but it’s functional!

Edit: smallest size mentioned in book is 300 power level, 6 foot by 6 foot table (which is odd dimensions, but I think that’s what it said. It might have been 6*8 though, only briefly looked at that chart)

[Cheesegear]

Realistically, each Detachment of three units can only hold one objective, so you need to really commit to that strategy to be able to use objective secured on all objectives.

I don't understand the problem. Why wouldn't I - or anyone else - commit to that strategy if it's what it takes to win the game?
I see people run 100-150 model armies in regular 40K. Why wouldn't they do it in Apoc? :smallconfused:


Edit: smallest size mentioned in book is 300 power level, 6 foot by 6 foot table

Oh good. Saying 'it works at 1000/50 PR' doesn't really matter if the book guidelines you to play around 5000 Points on a big table.

[Avaris]

I don't understand the problem. Why wouldn't I - or anyone else - commit to that strategy if it's what it takes to win the game?
I see people run 100-150 model armies in regular 40K. Why wouldn't they do it in Apoc? :smallconfused:
I think the difference comes in for the people who have non horde armies as basic: if you have a lot of guard for your normal 40k force you absolutely can go all in on this strategy, but if your main force is marines each Detachment you want objective secured on needs 3 units of at least 5 marines, which quickly exceeds the numbers most people have available. I imagine most people will be able to construct a force capable of getting two objective secured detachments, so can hold two objectives with them, but will have a harder time elsewhere.



Oh good. Saying 'it works at 1000/50 PR' doesn't really matter if the book guidelines you to play around 5000 Points on a big table.

Yeah: I’m going to try it at that level, but it’s certainly not what it’s aiming at. I suspect what I’ll try is about 100-150 PL, with 4 detachments (1 core, 3 specialist) for each player. So building on the above conversation, each player will only have the one detachment with objective secured.

[Cheesegear]

I think the difference comes in for the people who have non horde armies as basic: if you have a lot of guard for your normal 40k force you absolutely can go all in on this strategy, but if your main force is marines each Detachment you want objective secured on needs 3 units of at least 5 marines, which quickly exceeds the numbers most people have available.

Which is why Marines are terrible in 40K, and they're not better in Apoc. :smallwink:
If cheap Troops win the game, then, by definition, Factions without cheap Troops, wont win the game.

Also, Scouts. If there's anyone left still playing Marines in 8th Ed., they have Scouts.


Yeah: I’m going to try it at that level, but it’s certainly not what it’s aiming at.

If that's the guideline in the book, that's what it's aiming at.


I suspect what I’ll try is about 100-150 PL, with 4 detachments (1 core, 3 specialist) for each player.

If you're playing 2v2, one player takes 4 Core Detachments with the cheapest Troops he can. The other player does the things.

For example, this is what a doubles list should look like...

Necrons, Outrider
Cryptek; Cloak
Destroyers (x6)
Destroyers (x5)
Wraiths (x6)

Total: 1000 Points

Black Legion, Battalion
Abaddon
Daemon Prince with Wings

Cultists (x30)
Cultists (x30)
Cultists (x30)

Thousand Sons, Auxiliary
Ahriman on Disc

Total: 1000 Points

Total: 2000 Points

You play an army with a ****-ton of Troops. I'll play an army with good Heavy or Fast but has terrible Troops (so I wont take any).
Together, we'll fight crime.

...Speaking of doubles, I should get working on my list for the next one which is in...Two months?

[Avaris]

If that's the guideline in the book, that's what it's aiming at.

If you're playing 2v2, one player takes 4 Core Detachments with the cheapest Troops he can. The other player does the things.



I think you misunderstand: I’m keen to try Apocalypse in 1vs1 games of 100-150 PL, which is explicitly not what it’s deaigned for, and not mentioned in the book! I’m also going to try for larger games of course!

The main thing I’m interested in atm is whether specifying the number of ‘core’ detachments a player can take will help with controlling objective secured spam. I don’t know if there are guidelines in the book, but one could easily introduce a guideline of the number of core detachments a player can take, this controlling the number of objective secured units they have.

[LansXero]

It also means 10-man marines are worthless. And you need more warmasters on the field to cycle through the deck faster, so spamming batallions is the way to go.

Im not sure why this is touted as 'superior to base 40k' when so many caveats and allowances have to be made for it to function. The whole point of BUYING a ruleset is not having to do that work yourself.

[LeSwordfish]

Was there anything in the book about how long they expect a game to take to play? I'm curious because i'm running a game for friends at WHW (booked the fancy big table and all) and wondering if we can all take everything and still be done in a day.

[Cheesegear]

It also means 10-man marines are worthless.

PR 4 for five models.
PR 9 for ten models.
Buying two 5-man units costs 1 less PR for the same amount of wounds, same amount of shots, your opponent is forced to divide their fire, and you fill your Detachments faster.

Then, it's +1 for the Heavy weapon.

Scouts are PR4, with a Heavy Weapon. :smallsigh:


And you need more warmasters on the field to cycle through the deck faster

Didn't even think of this. It's totally true, though.

[Renegade Paladin]

So the Apocalypse initiative rules are bananas; it depends on the amount of real world time you can deploy in. Like, I have a disability that makes it hard to hold and move lots of things significant distance, making setup take longer. Sooooo glad that matters in-game now.
This isn't new. Apocalypse has done that since the original release in 4th edition 40k; first turn was determined by the sides bidding how much time they would take to set up, lowest bidder deployed and went first (with the time limit they'd bid enforced).

[LeSwordfish]

This isn't new. Apocalypse has done that since the original release in 4th edition 40k; first turn was determined by the sides bidding how much time they would take to set up, lowest bidder deployed and went first (with the time limit they'd bid enforced).
I admit, I'd never thought of the accessibility issue it caused though. Perhaps some kind of a handicap for your opponents would be appropriate, like you get two minutes head start or something.

[Turalisj]

All this seems like GWs big Warhammer day releases and DOA. The skorpius is overpriced junk, the repulsor eliminator is bad, and Apoc doesn't work as promised. Seems like an apt summary of 8e.

[Drasius]

I shouldn't be allowed to tell my opponents what they can and can't play. That's not up to me. Just like it's not up to my opponents to tell me what I'm 'allowed' to have. It doesn't make sense. If I compromise the effectiveness of my list, it's because I choose to. But if I choose not to, I'm bad?

Eventually you realise that:
"I want to have fun.", and
"I want to have fun...But also win 50% or more of my games."
...aren't compatible statements for a whole bunch of people because they happened to like the wrong Faction or particular units by accident - or they can't afford to make their list better, and what they have is what they're gonna have for a while.

The problem comes when you have match ups like 7th Eldar vs anything not battle company or 8th (pre-nerf)Ynnari vs GK or Crons. Your opponent is effectively dictating that you bring a different army because there's no way in hell outside of loaded dice or sudden massive brain aneurysm that you're winning that match. Your opponent has effectively said, "No, you cannot play [low tier army]" without saying a word. They've invalidated your army choice before you've even accepted the game. Is that acceptable?

It's why power-lists get mocked, because they invalidate a multitude of lists just by existing and you get to the point of escalation, because if you want to have a chance at winning 50% of your matches, if someone is bringing the latest NOVA/12th Co./BAO etc netlist, then you're going to have to ditch whatever you were playing and bring a power list of your own, even if you hate the models it needs, otherise you lose and there's basically nothing you can do about it.

[Cheesegear]

Your opponent has effectively said, "No, you cannot play [low tier army]" without saying a word. They've invalidated your army choice before you've even accepted the game. Is that acceptable?

Yes. They're playing by the rules. Anything they do that isn't directly cheating, is acceptable.
It's acceptable that they wont get games due to nobody being able to have a good game, or have a Fun game, with them bringing that list.

What's not acceptable is:
Calling them an a*hole because they have a good list,
Telling them that they don't actually like their models,
Saying that they don't play to have fun.

There's no way you can know if any of that is true.

It's also not acceptable, that the guy with the list, goes around clubbing seals.

Either you play a fair game, or you don't play. If it's not fair, what's the point? Isn't there better things you could do with your time?

Then, whose responsibility is it to make it a fair game? GW's, obviously.
The players.

If I can modify my list, then I do so.
If I can't...Hopefully my opponent, can.

If neither of us can modify our lists, and with the existing lists we have, the game would be clearly lop-sided...Then we don't play each other.

[LansXero]

But it IS GW's fault. 40$ for a bunch of paper means the content therein must be worth something, so why am I making it up on my own? Now, if this was a free ruleset perhaps there is something to the 'cant afford playtesting' spiel, and the community would rightfully have to step up. But its a very expensive game and many of the products are JUST. RULES. So if you have to make up rules yourself, what exactly are you paying for? And I do mean you, because BattleScribe is free :v.

Back to my original issue with this discourse; why are there random loose seals to begin with? Why arent people community-building to get them better before they show up to the table? Sure, some match ups are very steep and lopsided but A LOT is just hearsay / 5% diff. on optimization / manageable to a degree.

Take last month for example, I ran that jetbike+planes army I saw here against a friend. Top 2 of a GT, should've been a roflstomp, right? Well, my Imperial friend threw custodes at me. Oh joy, I wound on 2s! they save on 2+ and I have no AP. Oh, my planes have such high AP! Custodes have 3++ and wont die. Also, Eldar planes are made of tissue-paper and -x to be hit matters little when the oponent has BS2 RR1s. Worse if a jetbike comes charging, its pretty much game over. I still won, but it was a hard fought affair, because I stated on our FB chat what I wanted to play, and we went back and forth on what, out of his collection, would better stand up, tempered with what he likes to play. Thats what a community is for, to manage expectations until you find a common ground that is inclusive and welcoming to players of all skill levels, not due to some "unwritten arrangement" but out of a mutual consensus towards a good experience.

Yes, sometimes people will be discouraged from some purchases or led into others. Sometimes you'll see SW models as 'wolves of ultramar' or something due to rules being better; sometimes the guy who got their GKs will be playing KT where they are good instead of 40k where they are Custodes / BAs count-as, etc. But thats how it works and why players shouldnt settle for "heh lets just houserule it lolx" or "clearly you arent ubercasual and think too hard about this, the game is fine so long as nobody tries too hard, what a joy paying 140$ for a box full of cardboard and worthless content that needs to be fixed by the user to be used"

[JNAProductions]

Cheese, LansXero, other experienced 40kers: Do you mind if I PM you for assistance on the workings of a narrative campaign?

[Cheesegear]

Back to my original issue with this discourse; why are there random loose seals to begin with?

Catch 'em early. :smallamused:
There is no benefit to clubbing them so hard that they don't come back.

But, above all, I've learned that,
"I don't play against scrubs, heh. :smallamused:", and
"I don't play against net-listers. :smallmad:"

...Amounts to the same thing. The end result is that both players lose, as you've both spent money on a game you're not playing. Choosing not to play someone in your meta, is a loss. Not a win.

There's only one person in my meta (of about 30), who doesn't get games, and that's because of his poor sportsmanship, not his army lists.

[LansXero]

Cheese, LansXero, other experienced 40kers: Do you mind if I PM you for assistance on the workings of a narrative campaign?

I can share what we have going on, or proofread what you have in mind, no problem. How fluent is your spanish? xD.


But, above all, I've learned that,
"I don't play against scrubs, heh. ", and
"I don't play against net-listers. "

...Amounts to the same thing. The end result is that both players lose, as you've both spent money on a game you're not playing. Choosing not to play someone in your meta, is a loss. Not a win.

So circling back on topic, whats the drive of Apocalypse as a system that requires you to scrub out or it breaks? (under the assumption that it does, its still not in the wild so perhaps it wont). I know you're not a fan of 28mm Epic, but for different reasons than me (as mentioned, we do have the niche benefit of having a strong interest in team vs team multiplayer and this fits right into that), but how do broken alterna-modes fit in the balancing act of keeping a community bound together? How many wedges are one too many so people start resenting others for never wanting to try the fun things they spend good money on?

[Cheesegear]

whats the drive of Apocalypse as a system that requires you to scrub out or it breaks?

I'm sure this is a question for someone else. Because scrubbing out should be a choice.


but how do broken alterna-modes fit in the balancing act of keeping a community bound together?

It doesn't. Hence my repeated musings on how GW producing more games, destroys local metas...And leads to scuttling Specialist Games.


How many wedges are one too many so people start resenting others...

This is why I always say build to your meta.

If 90% of your meta is playing competitively to win, and you don't want to...Tough ****.
If 90% of your meta is poor people barely scraping by on SC! sets and eBay trash (people wouldn't sell it if it was good, right?), but you have a decent-paying job and no kids to divide your money to...Tough ****.

You don't get to decide what your opponents play or want. You don't get to resent people for not making the same choices that you did.

Either you play to your meta, or you bust out your social skills and try to convince people to play in a way that they don't want to - sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. But it should work, 'cause everyone wants to play games, right?

Or, you don't play. But, considering that you've spent money on the product...Not playing, is the worst result.

[bluntpencil]

I'm sure this is a question for someone else. Because scrubbing out should be a choice.



It doesn't. Hence my repeated musings on how GW producing more games, destroys local metas...And leads to scuttling Specialist Games.



This is why I always say build to your meta.

If 90% of your meta is playing competitively to win, and you don't want to...Tough ****.
If 90% of your meta is poor people barely scraping by on SC! sets and eBay trash (people wouldn't sell it if it was good, right?), but you have a decent-paying job and no kids to divide your money to...Tough ****.

You don't get to decide what your opponents play or want. You don't get to resent people for not making the same choices that you did.

Either you play to your meta, or you bust out your social skills and try to convince people to play in a way that they don't want to - sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. But it should work, 'cause everyone wants to play games, right?

Or, you don't play. But, considering that you've spent money on the product...Not playing, is the worst result.

You can also decide that your thematic or poor man's army is playing on Hard Mode, and accept that you're going to lose most of the time. If you do this graciously, you tend to make plenty friends, and it is awesome when your themed army finally does their thing well and beat someone's more competitive list.

[Avaris]

Was there anything in the book about how long they expect a game to take to play? I'm curious because i'm running a game for friends at WHW (booked the fancy big table and all) and wondering if we can all take everything and still be done in a day.

I didn’t read that section, but indications so far are that even large games are intended to take just a few hours. I don’t think you’ll have a problem finishing in a day.



Im not sure why this is touted as 'superior to base 40k' when so many caveats and allowances have to be made for it to function. The whole point of BUYING a ruleset is not having to do that work yourself.
To be clear, it is my opinion that it is superior to base 40k, as it changes a lot of things that frustrate me about 40k (though adds new things, like treatment of characters). Because of this, I’m going to experiment withit as an alternative, which may involve adjustments to make it function.

But I’ve not seen any indication that it won’t be fully functional for what it is designed for, large multiplayer games. My opinion is that it’s inarguably better than base 40k in that scenario, as it’s much quicker and doesn’t feature the problems of I go you go, where one team is sitting doing nothing for large periods of time.


So the Apocalypse initiative rules are bananas; it depends on the amount of real world time you can deploy in. Like, I have a disability that makes it hard to hold and move lots of things significant distance, making setup take longer. Sooooo glad that matters in-game now.

I’m not sure that’s true for new Apocalypse? The rule is that each turn the players roll off on a d12 for initiative. It might be different for the first turn only, but it’s certainly not like old Apocalypse where deployment speed set who had the first turn and that applied throughout the game.


But it IS GW's fault. 40$ for a bunch of paper means the content therein must be worth something, so why am I making it up on my own? Now, if this was a free ruleset perhaps there is something to the 'cant afford playtesting' spiel, and the community would rightfully have to step up. But its a very expensive game and many of the products are JUST. RULES. So if you have to make up rules yourself, what exactly are you paying for? And I do mean you, because BattleScribe is free :v.

I was going to write a long response here discussing the ins and outs of GW’s business model, but decided that would just lead to an argument when it shouldn’t do, because fundamentally I agree with you (Edit: hey look, I did anyway! Sorry. Major thing to emphasise though: I agree with you, the model is a problem, I’m not saying anything GW is doing here is right). The rules GW produces are too expensive. Apocalypse is at a higher price point than I am comfortable with, though at least the pdfs are available for free. I’m lucky in that I can afford to buy into new rulesets even if I think they’re overpriced, but not everyone can, and that is a massive problem with GW’s business model.

The problem is that GW’s approach to selling rules is at odds with the priorities of the rest of its business. They are led by the models, with the rules being essentially an added extra. So although they have enough rules resources to make a fun experience they don’t have enough to make it a truly deep and balanced one. Yet the rules sold are promoted as a premium product in their own right, so there are high expectations of them.

My personal opinion is that GW should release more rules for free and focus on the models themselves as their source of revenue, perhaps with printed books as a luxury offering. The alternative route would be for them to invest more in refinement of a smaller number of games systems to make them really deep and balanced and truly worth the price paid, but that is at odds with the rest of the business, as it would restrict the models that can be released.

My opinion is also that because of what we know about GW’s design approach and priorities, it is unhelpful to evaluate the games against a desire for a deep, balanced game. They’re not intended to be that: perhaps they SHOULD be, but it’s not the design intent. If you go in with the mindset of ‘every choice I make will be optimised to win’, or talking about things being broken or skrub choices you are, IMO, missing the point of what GW is trying to do with its rules, and you’ll end up frustrated at the design.

By way of example, Apocalypse’s design goals are something along the lines of 1) allow players to use their entire collections, 2) using a ruleset that keeps all players engaged, 3) and with games complete in a reasonable space of time. Making a game that can’t be broken doesn’t come into it. If you try and break it, you will. The ‘balance’ comes from people not trying to do so: you will accidentally end up with things that do, but if you haven’t optimised towards that part of the game it will be balanced out by the things that aren’t so broken.

Again though, these are games that a cost premium is being paid for, so it’s not unreasonable to be frustrated by this approach from GW. Their marketting model encourages people to jump on the hype train and invest in a new product which may not be encouraged or supported for long. If you can afford to keep up, or don’t mind having things that you only play once in a while, it’s great! But it’s bad if you don’t match these characteristics, and GW should adapt to that. Which is why the rules should be free and clearly signposted as to the niche experience they are designed for.

Which brings me to a question actually: what is base 40k’s niche experience? What should it be designing to? Apocalypse is large, streamlined games playable in a reasonable space of time, Kill Team is small skirmish games playable in an hour, Necromunda is narrative led campaigns, Underworlds is tight competitive games etc. What is 40k? I suspect the answer will vary massively person to person, which is why it’s so difficult to gauge what an ‘acceptable’ style of list is!

[Cheesegear]

though at least the pdfs are available for free.

But they're useless! This is a huge problem.
I - like most people - thought that when GW said they'd be releasing Apocalypse units for free, they meant it. Unit rules and everything. Just like AoS. But it's not like AoS at all. They gave fans what they asked for - USRs. Except that they didn't give you USRs. They gave you abilities with no text. If you want the USRs, you have to buy them. GW gave you nothing useful at all.

Apocalypse isn't playable unless you buy the rules - it just isn't. I don't know why people are pretending that the .pdfs are anything that an attempt to sell you on a game that you otherwise shouldn't buy. Hell, the Datasheets they are selling are $40 a pop. JEEZUS!

Even 40K and AoS have their free rule-sets, and with newer unit stats coming in the box now, you can play with your unit, just having bought your unit.
Now, given that that's basically Open Play. Fair enough. But both 40K and AoS have their versions of Open War which you don't need a rulebook for.
And just...Even if you did want to play with points...Battlescribe is free. :smalltongue:


So although they have enough rules resources to make a fun experience they don’t have enough to make it a truly deep and balanced one.

They absolutely have the resources to make a balanced game. They choose not to. Because that's not how their release schedule or business model works.
They claim they're a model company. But they aren't. They're a game company (in 2019, more than ever), and rules sell models.


My personal opinion is that GW should release more rules for free and focus on the models themselves as their source of revenue...

Which dies a massive fiery death once 3D printers become household items. Which should happen within the decade.
As will most textile-based industries. :smallfrown:


it is unhelpful to evaluate the games against a desire for a deep, balanced game.

Then GW shouldn't have introduced Matched Play at all.
They shouldn't be releasing Erratas.
They shouldn't be releasing massive FAQs that fundamentally change how the game is played.

If GW doesn't want us playing the game that way, they would ignore us.

Why hasn't Power Rating been touched? Ever? Either:
a) It's working as intended (lol, no), or
b) No-one cares.

But Matched Play is tweaked constantly, because that's what people care about, which means it's what makes GW the money.


If you go in with the mindset of ‘every choice I make will be optimised to win’, or talking about things being broken or skrub choices you are, IMO, missing the point of what GW is trying to do with its rules

40K is the best it's ever been. I have no idea what you're talking about. The consumers demanding a better game is what got us this far. I don't care what GW wants to do. I want GW to sell me what I ask for. If they can do that, fantastic. And so far, they've given me no indication at all that they can't deliver what I ask for. They just choose not to. And it's only by complaining - loudly and often - that anything gets changed.


By way of example, Apocalypse’s design goals are something along the lines of 1) allow players to use their entire collections, 2) using a ruleset that keeps all players engaged, 3) and with games complete in a reasonable space of time.

Guess what? If that doesn't sell units, they'll either ****-can the game entirely, or they'll change it.
New GW has no interest in keeping things the way they are, if the way they are, doesn't sell units.


If you try and break it, you will.

And if GW's on the ball, they'll Errata or FAQ out every broken combo in the game.
Unless the thing that is allegedly broken, is as intended (e.g; "Guardsmen are 4 Points, and <Imperium> armies should run Allies. Get used to it." - GW, paraphrased).


Their marketting model encourages people to jump on the hype train and invest in a new product which may not be encouraged or supported for long.

So you are aware that the hype train exists?


what is base 40k’s niche experience? What should it be designing to?

It should be designed for people who like playing games within the narrative of the 40K 'verse. 750 Points, 1500 Points. 2000 Points. It doesn't matter at all. If you like the aesthetic of 40K, then '40K: The Game' is for you.


Apocalypse is large, streamlined games playable in a reasonable space of time

Apocalypse is for games of 3000+ Points that are designed for players with huge collections. This is problematic because players with 3000+ Points, and, more importantly, players with 3000+ Points of stuff that's actually worth putting on the table are usually pretty difficult to come by. Especially if they play those mono-Factions like T'au or Orks. Once you have your 2000 Points and change, it's time to start a new army, 'cause there's nowhere else for your Faction to go.

Meanwhile, <Imperium> and <Chaos> players have fully functional 3000+ Point armies like...All the time.


Kill Team is small skirmish games playable in an hour

Kill Team exists because 40K is totally broken when played under 750 Points. Even 500 Points. Kill Team gives people the option of playing small, quick games in their lunch break.
However, as GW releases Commanders and Elites, they are slowly eroding the balance (what little of it there is) in the game, and they are making it larger and larger, which will progressively switch people to playing 500 Point games of 40K.


What is 40k?

"It's like Chess."

[Avaris]

But they're useless! This is a huge problem.
I - like most people - thought that when GW said they'd be releasing Apocalypse units for free, they meant it. Unit rules and everything. Just like AoS. But it's not like AoS at all. They gave fans what they asked for - USRs. Except that they didn't give you USRs. They gave you abilities with no text. If you want the USRs, you have to buy them. GW gave you nothing useful at all.

Apocalypse isn't playable unless you buy the rules - it just isn't. I don't know why people are pretending that the .pdfs are anything that an attempt to sell you on a game that you otherwise shouldn't buy. Hell, the Datasheets they are selling are $40 a pop. JEEZUS!

Even 40K and AoS have their free rule-sets, and with newer unit stats coming in the box now, you can play with your unit, just having bought your unit.
Now, given that that's basically Open Play. Fair enough. But both 40K and AoS have their versions of Open War which you don't need a rulebook for.
And just...Even if you did want to play with points...Battlescribe is free. :smalltongue:


No disagreement here! The pdfs are a start, but I absolutely agree that the full rules, including niche stuff like the command assets, should be freely available online.



They absolutely have the resources to make a balanced game. They choose not to. Because that's not how their release schedule or business model works.
They claim they're a model company. But they aren't. They're a game company (in 2019, more than ever), and rules sell models.

If they say they are a model company, they are a model company. Their release scheme or business model is designed on that basis. Whether they SHOULD be or not is another matter entirely, but I think it’s helpful to view them through the lense of what they believe themselves to be, and assess their actions on that basis.


Which dies a massive fiery death once 3D printers become household items. Which should happen within the decade.
As will most textile-based industries. :smallfrown:
So what should they sell? Clearly not rules: those are already trivial to pirate. I’ll wager that people will find pirating models on a 3d printer more morally difficult than they currently do pirating the rules.

What GW needs to do is adapt in advance rather than once a problem becomes clear. The internet exists, people pirate rules. They therefore cannot guarantee making money through the rules any more. So they would do well to get people bought into the idea that the models are worth paying for in their own right, regardless of rules, so that people don’t feel so comfortable pirating them when it becomes easier to pirate models. I’m not sure how they do this, but stopping charging for the basic rules would be a good start.




Then GW shouldn't have introduced Matched Play at all.
They shouldn't be releasing Erratas.
They shouldn't be releasing massive FAQs that fundamentally change how the game is played.

If GW doesn't want us playing the game that way, they would ignore us.

Why hasn't Power Rating been touched? Ever? Either:
a) It's working as intended (lol, no), or
b) No-one cares.

But Matched Play is tweaked constantly, because that's what people care about, which means it's what makes GW the money.
There’s a difference between matched play and the high end breaking the game style play though. You can tweak matched play in ways that support enjoyment at the friendly pick up gain level, but the game will still end up breaking under the strain at the really high end level.



40K is the best it's ever been. I have no idea what you're talking about. The consumers demanding a better game is what got us this far. I don't care what GW wants to do. I want GW to sell me what I ask for. If they can do that, fantastic. And so far, they've given me no indication at all that they can't deliver what I ask for. They just choose not to. And it's only by complaining - loudly and often - that anything gets changed.

The problem is, from most of what is said online, I definitely don’t get the impression that people think it’s the best it’s ever been. I’m honestly surprised to hear you think that given the tone of the comments that tend to go on around here. If you believe that, fantastic! That’s great to hear! But it’s certainly not the impression I get.

Which is the problem with complaining loudly and often. It creates such a negative atmosphere around things that it’s difficult to see when people belive things are working. You are absolutely right that making views known improves things, but I personally would prefer a tone that led with ‘this is overall a good thing, here are the things to improve’ rather than ‘this is absolutely broken and GW are terrible, lazy hacks.’ (Paraphrasing, I know you do include nuanced commentry, but the latter is definitely the general tone in the wider community).





So you are aware that the hype train exists?
Yes? And it’s a problem: GW is very much geared up on pushing the latest release on people asap. I hate that. I’ve argued in the past that they should announce the upcoming line up much further in advance, I said as much in the customer survey and directly to members of the studio at Warhammer World. This is a premium product requiring extensive investment: people should be able to make a buying decision about what is best for their meta this year, rather than what is the hotness this month. Right now Apocalypse is being pushed, with Warcry on the horizon. We know nothing about how Warcry will play, so people can’t make an informed decision as to which to invest in: if they think Warcry might suit them better but then later realise they’d prefer Apocalypse, they’ve missed the boat.

That said, given the current release model, I will still allow myself to get excited about upcoming releases. The hypetrain shouldn’t exist, it doesn’t serve the needs of the hobby well, but while it does I’m going to try and use the drip feed of info to evaluate if a game suits me as best I can.



It should be designed for people who like playing games within the narrative of the 40K 'verse. 750 Points, 1500 Points. 2000 Points. It doesn't matter at all. If you like the aesthetic of 40K, then '40K: The Game' is for you.
But what type of game? Points values are meaningless outside the context of the game. I’m told to design 40k so it works at 1000pts, so I design a single model game and set all points values at 1000 pts. Have I succeeded at creating 40k? Clearly not. So what is 40k as a game designed to be, without using the language of the game itself? What parameters of success should be set for the games designer? What experience should people take away from it?

Edit: to answer my own question, I don’t think there is a singular vision of what 40k is that is being designed for. It is trying to be all things to all people, and that is a massive problem. We each bring our own metrics of what it should be to our assessment of the game, and the designers try to cater to all of them, which means no-one is happy.

What they should do, IMO, is discard ‘base’ 40k entirely and instead have different games explicitly catering for different audiences. They could be based on the same basic system, but they each should have one or two key things they are trying to emphasise, which win out over all other considerations.

HOWEVER they can only do so if they A) release all rules freely online and B) are explicit about the design goals of each game. These two things together will allow people to work out which game is best suited to them/their group, without having to invest into expensive rulesets. Trying to have different games for different audiences doesn’t work well with the current model, as there is an entry cost to each new game and people will find it difficult to switch between, causing gaming groups to fracture on systems lines, which is bad.

[Cheesegear]

If they say they are a model company, they are a model company.

They can say anything they want. Their actions and business model, say different.


So what should they sell? Clearly not rules: those are already trivial to pirate. I’ll wager that people will find pirating models on a 3d printer more morally difficult than they currently do pirating the rules.

...My guess is that sooner or later they begin trading on their IP even harder than they already are. Models and rules will eventually become non-profitable and that's when they go hard into the digital space.


So they would do well to get people bought into the idea that the models are worth paying for in their own right

The problem is, that are their price point, it's just not true. Lots of miniature companies are producing fantastic models for a fraction of the price point. The problem is that they don't have the popularity that Games Workshop does, and now that GW is putting their foot down, and entering back into the tournament - and more importantly, sponsorship - scene, 3rd Party miniatures are getting hard phased out of peoples' collections.

This is why Forge World East is a massive industry.


There’s a difference between matched play and the high end breaking the game style play though.

The 'high end breaking the game' is whatever the designers allow it to be.
From Haarkon Worldbreaker, we know explicitly that GW can change the rules on anything within 24 hours. The consumers - many consumers - outline a problem. It can be fixed. If GW is going to throw out digital Erratas and digital FAQs, there is no reason that they can't change anything within a day. They choose not to.


You can tweak matched play in ways that support enjoyment at the friendly pick up gain level

If a game is balanced, it's balanced all the way down.


but the game will still end up breaking under the strain at the really high end level.

Negative.


The problem is, from most of what is said online, I definitely don’t get the impression that people think it’s the best it’s ever been.

From the tournament scene, there are more unique Factions in Top 8s and Top 16s than ever before.


I’m honestly surprised to hear you think that given the tone of the comments that tend to go on around here.

Because I - and a lot of people - play Space Marines as our primary faction, and that makes us butthurt.
If you play anything other than Space Marines 'small and elite armies', you should be having fun in 8th Ed.

Also, a lot of people refuse to buy into Allies. Just...Outright refuse.

If you accept that 'hordes sell more units/boxes and that's the way GW wants it', then 40K is good.


but I personally would prefer a tone that led with ‘this is overall a good thing, here are the things to improve’

I prefer a tone that is led with; This is overall a bad thing. Here are the things you need to improve.


But what type of game?
So what is 40k as a game designed to be

GW doesn't do tactical games anymore. Every game is played as a Skirmish game where each model or unit more-or-less acts independently with 360 LoS regardless of unit facing.
The only difference is size.


What parameters of success should be set for the games designer?

That it's balanced at all levels of play. There shouldn't be a difference between 'casual' and 'competitive' players because in a properly balanced the game, all players are equal.

[Avaris]

They can say anything they want. Their actions and business model, say different.
:smallconfused: Their business model has rules releases entirely guided by what is put out of the miniatures studio. They prioritise newer models for cool and interesting rules. They put some resources into games development, which they have chosen to use to provide continual support through faq etc, but if there is a disagreement between miniatures design and the needs of the game the miniatures win. They are a company that produces games, but they are certainly not led by it. A rules first company would have a very different approach. (Again, not saying they shouldn’t be more games led, but this is the reality).




The problem is, that are their price point, it's just not true. Lots of miniature companies are producing fantastic models for a fraction of the price point. The problem is that they don't have the popularity that Games Workshop does, and now that GW is putting their foot down, and entering back into the tournament - and more importantly, sponsorship - scene, 3rd Party miniatures are getting hard phased out of peoples' collections.
No disagreement here about the price point being high, though I often feel there is a fundamental misunderstanding from the community about the costs of miniature production. People only see the per unit cost, and feel entitled to the product at that price. But GW has massive overheads to cover as well: designing a model takes resources, and I’d wager things like the GW moulds are much more expensive than smaller companies due to the amount of use out of them.



I prefer a tone that is led with; This is overall a bad thing. Here are the things you need to improve.

I think this creates an unduly negative atmosphere around a thing that is intended to be for fun, and overall contributes to a toxic atmosphere in the community (not accusing you of this, it’s an overall trend), but each to their own.


That it's balanced at all levels of play. There shouldn't be a difference between 'casual' and 'competitive' players because in a properly balanced the game, all players are equal.

Ok! That’s a starting point, but even then there are different interpretations of what that means. Do you mean that in the hands of equally skilled players, any army put on the table should have an equal chance of winning? Or do you mean that, regardless of army choice and skill level, either player should have an equal chance? Is balance set so that it doesn’t matter what you’ve purchased?

Both players roll a d6, highest score wins. To one reading, that is a properly balanced game. We both know that would be a terrible game, and isn’t what you’re asking for, so we need more parameters than just ‘balanced at all levels of play’.

In my opinion, a perfectly balanced game is impossible in the context of what GW is trying with 40k, which is that anyone, regardless of skill level, can pick up their army and play a game. There are too many variables, there will always be units that are better or worse and strategies that are more effective. No amount of ‘try harder at design’ will change that, it’ll just change what those optimal moves are.

If GW wanted to make 40k a perfectly balanced game, they’d need to start making sacrifices elsewhere. I think one of the big things they could do to balance 40k would be to drastically reduce the units available to each list, so you only have a few variables to manage. Then the wider range can be used either as proxies, or in games such as Apocalypse. It’s nit going to happen, but it’s one way of getting a balanced game that works at all levels. You need parameters like that within which to balance.

[LansXero]

:smallconfused: Their business model has rules releases entirely guided by what is put out of the miniatures studio. They prioritise newer models for cool and interesting rules. They put some resources into games development, which they have chosen to use to provide continual support through faq etc, but if there is a disagreement between miniatures design and the needs of the game the miniatures win. They are a company that produces games, but they are certainly not led by it. A rules first company would have a very different approach. (Again, not saying they shouldn’t be more games led, but this is the reality).

And thats suicide. 'Forge World East', as Cheese puts it, is taking an increasingly larger bite out of GW's pie. If you arent "in" on the joke, this means recasters from China. There is no "when models start getting pirated", they've been for a long, long time, the end result is nearly identical once painted (except for stuff that only exists as metal / resin, obviously) and the cost is a fraction of what GW asks for their models.


No disagreement here about the price point being high, though I often feel there is a fundamental misunderstanding from the community about the costs of miniature production. People only see the per unit cost, and feel entitled to the product at that price. But GW has massive overheads to cover as well: designing a model takes resources, and I’d wager things like the GW moulds are much more expensive than smaller companies due to the amount of use out of them.

Their overhead is overbloated and huge. They burn through sales reps in the US worse than your local McDonalds goes through dead-eyed teens. Their prices are nowhere near reasonable though, even with those costs included. If Chinese recasters wanted to they could drop THEIR prices by half and still make a killing.

What keeps people from printing their own MTG cards for use at their house? The fact that they cant show up to a store / tournament with them. The quality of balance and the rules mean that pick up games are easy and common, and the support of organized play means there is value to the premium you are paying. This is the future, working off the intangible worth of a community, a third place space beyong players' homes. Catering to the "i play once every 3 months on my apartment with the same few friends over and over" will result on them dying a fiery death. Letting their design studio lead the way is moronic, they need something to keep people with disposable time hooked, they need balance so people dont just go 'screw it, most of my 40$ book is covered in post its and notes, might as well just download this trash the next time, for how long it will remain usable. What was the link to that free app again?"


I think this creates an unduly negative atmosphere around a thing that is intended to be for fun, and overall contributes to a toxic atmosphere in the community (not accusing you of this, it’s an overall trend), but each to their own.

You know, the opposite will never exist. People dont like praising stuff, or well, the majority don't. They like to complain and bemoan and find the flaws in what they love. The opposite is silence, when its so bad nobody cares to complain and they just leave it be because they moved on.


Ok! That’s a starting point, but even then there are different interpretations of what that means. Do you mean that in the hands of equally skilled players, any army put on the table should have an equal chance of winning? Or do you mean that, regardless of army choice and skill level, either player should have an equal chance? Is balance set so that it doesn’t matter what you’ve purchased?

S8 low ROF beats T8 low model count, gets wrecked by T3 high model count, which gets wrecked by S4 high ROF. There will always be a counter to the counter of a counter. Balance means that those options exist within your faction, up to including Allies. It means that, with enough time and resources any player can make a list thats on par with any other player's; that while there may be trap / niche units, there are no trap / niche ARMIES (or Codices). and all things being equal (list building, access to models, mission) who wins out of any 2 players should be down to skill and well the dice gods.


Both players roll a d6, highest score wins. To one reading, that is a properly balanced game. We both know that would be a terrible game, and isn’t what you’re asking for, so we need more parameters than just ‘balanced at all levels of play’.

Thats random, not balanced at all. Also, dice rolls can tricked, never had a friend who is a magician, have you?


In my opinion, a perfectly balanced game is impossible in the context of what GW is trying with 40k, which is that anyone, regardless of skill level, can pick up their army and play a game. There are too many variables, there will always be units that are better or worse and strategies that are more effective. No amount of ‘try harder at design’ will change that, it’ll just change what those optimal moves are.


Perfect balance may be unattainable due to the number of moving pieces, thats fair. Now look at SoB beta rules and tell me with a straight face this is quality work from a quality company and the only reason its in the state it is is because of unavoidable constraints and that no amount of "trying harder at design" could've improved this dismal result of an alleged full year of work. Do also remember that these rules were SOLD, despite being a beta, so there is no concession being made to fans or lack of resources to support it.


If GW wanted to make 40k a perfectly balanced game, they’d need to start making sacrifices elsewhere. I think one of the big things they could do to balance 40k would be to drastically reduce the units available to each list, so you only have a few variables to manage. Then the wider range can be used either as proxies, or in games such as Apocalypse. It’s nit going to happen, but it’s one way of getting a balanced game that works at all levels. You need parameters like that within which to balance.

I dont mind there being hobbyist models. The new sister, the noise marine, the female comissar, those are hobby projects more than anything, so they have their niche. I dont mind there being trap units that are worthless. Otherwise list building stops being a relevant part of the game. I'd much prefer if instead of being useless they were super situational though, as niche models do get used every now and then as the meta shifts.

"anyone can play" shouldnt be "anyone can win". Army building should matter, knowing your faction and your rules should matter and things being better than others depending on context is a good thing. THe issue isnt with 8th's base design, its with where its tuned at.

As for your older question of: what should 40k be, I'd love it if it were just Dawn of War 1 with miniatures.

[Avaris]

And thats suicide. 'Forge World East', as Cheese puts it, is taking an increasingly larger bite out of GW's pie. If you arent "in" on the joke, this means recasters from China. There is no "when models start getting pirated", they've been for a long, long time, the end result is nearly identical once painted (except for stuff that only exists as metal / resin, obviously) and the cost is a fraction of what GW asks for their models.
Yup: as I say, I’m not supporting their current model! Forge World East is the small end of the wedge: some people use it, but it’s not as prevalent as it would be with the rise of at home 3d printers. GW needs to adapt.



What keeps people from printing their own MTG cards for use at their house? The fact that they cant show up to a store / tournament with them. The quality of balance and the rules mean that pick up games are easy and common, and the support of organized play means there is value to the premium you are paying. This is the future, working off the intangible worth of a community, a third place space beyong players' homes. Catering to the "i play once every 3 months on my apartment with the same few friends over and over" will result on them dying a fiery death. Letting their design studio lead the way is moronic, they need something to keep people with disposable time hooked, they need balance so people dont just go 'screw it, most of my 40$ book is covered in post its and notes, might as well just download this trash the next time, for how long it will remain usable. What was the link to that free app again?"
I don’t disagree! For this to happen I feel they really need to focus in on what the game wants to be: it can’t be all things to all people if they want to deliver that quality experience.



You know, the opposite will never exist. People dont like praising stuff, or well, the majority don't. They like to complain and bemoan and find the flaws in what they love. The opposite is silence, when its so bad nobody cares to complain and they just leave it be because they moved on.
It’ll never happen if we don’t try to encourage it! Criticise the problems by all means, but also recognise the good!





Thats random, not balanced at all. Also, dice rolls can tricked, never had a friend who is a magician, have you?
That’s my point: simply saying ‘I want a balanced game’ is meaningless as a guiding principle for game design, you need to say ‘I want a balanced game that delivers A, B and C’. The problem is, there is a whole alphabet of what different people want out of 40k, it’s not focussed enough on what it’s trying to be.



Perfect balance may be unattainable due to the number of moving pieces, thats fair. Now look at SoB beta rules and tell me with a straight face this is quality work from a quality company and the only reason its in the state it is is because of unavoidable constraints and that no amount of "trying harder at design" could've improved this dismal result of an alleged full year of work. Do also remember that these rules were SOLD, despite being a beta, so there is no concession being made to fans or lack of resources to support it.
Again, I don’t disagree: the rules should have been free. Though there is no way it was a year of work: if I remember timescales correctly, the Sisters being in the beta codex was announced in March 2018 as a response to the results of the customer survey (December 2017). So the earliest they could have really started was Feb 2018, and we know GW has stupid printing schedules, so they maybe had 6 months at most, on top of everything else they were already doing.




I dont mind there being hobbyist models. The new sister, the noise marine, the female comissar, those are hobby projects more than anything, so they have their niche. I dont mind there being trap units that are worthless. Otherwise list building stops being a relevant part of the game. I'd much prefer if instead of being useless they were super situational though, as niche models do get used every now and then as the meta shifts.
Hear hear. Super situational stuff would be a good approach.



As for your older question of: what should 40k be, I'd love it if it were just Dawn of War 1 with miniatures.

Any particular aspects? My first recollection was the base building, which could be fascinating as a mechanic linked to taking objectives...

[LansXero]

Any particular aspects? My first recollection was the base building, which could be fascinating as a mechanic linked to taking objectives...

The pop cap meant it was a small affair between a few squads and their armored support elements. Much like a 2k points list, except perhaps with an emphasis on armor. The balance wasnt rock-paper-scissors, but more nuanced, and the number of models were small enough to make commanders and special units shine. Hordes didnt auto-outclass elite armies, positioning was key, terrain was very significant and you had plenty of way to out-think and out-play your opponent.

I also loved that most factions didn't have a cookie cutter build that was always best. Take IG for example: you could early rush guard squads with grenades and comissars, bunker down with weapon teams, play the contesting objectives BS with sentinels or try and field basilisks right away and shatter the sky. Pop cap meant you couldnt do ALL of it, as well as the investment on the tech upgrades, so depending on what you were facing some options would be better than others. No point in rushing guardsmen if firewarriors will tear you to pieces before you get in range. No point rushing basilisks if your target cant be blown away or jumps straight into your face. Cant rush too hard because then a Necron Lord or Chaos Lord hammers your face in. So it was balance due to how the many moving parts interlocked, not because of carbon copy (chess) or random chance (Apoc)

[Avaris]

The pop cap meant it was a small affair between a few squads and their armored support elements. Much like a 2k points list, except perhaps with an emphasis on armor. The balance wasnt rock-paper-scissors, but more nuanced, and the number of models were small enough to make commanders and special units shine. Hordes didnt auto-outclass elite armies, positioning was key, terrain was very significant and you had plenty of way to out-think and out-play your opponent.

I also loved that most factions didn't have a cookie cutter build that was always best. Take IG for example: you could early rush guard squads with grenades and comissars, bunker down with weapon teams, play the contesting objectives BS with sentinels or try and field basilisks right away and shatter the sky. Pop cap meant you couldnt do ALL of it, as well as the investment on the tech upgrades, so depending on what you were facing some options would be better than others. No point in rushing guardsmen if firewarriors will tear you to pieces before you get in range. No point rushing basilisks if your target cant be blown away or jumps straight into your face. Cant rush too hard because then a Necron Lord or Chaos Lord hammers your face in. So it was balance due to how the many moving parts interlocked, not because of carbon copy (chess) or random chance (Apoc)

Yeah, I’d love to see a tabletop wargame that managed that! I think the most interesting things to try there would be the ability to adapt on the fly to what your opponent has and the choice between getting less effective units quickly or more effective units slowly. Not having all your big guns on the field on turn 1 would definitely mix things up: I’m sure there are scenarios that do this, but applying it throughout the game would be interesting.

In fact, isn’t AoS trying something like this? Where you have to assign units to vanguard, main force or rearguard? Be interesting to see how well that works out.

[Requizen]

Yeah, I’d love to see a tabletop wargame that managed that! I think the most interesting things to try there would be the ability to adapt on the fly to what your opponent has and the choice between getting less effective units quickly or more effective units slowly. Not having all your big guns on the field on turn 1 would definitely mix things up: I’m sure there are scenarios that do this, but applying it throughout the game would be interesting.

In fact, isn’t AoS trying something like this? Where you have to assign units to vanguard, main force or rearguard? Be interesting to see how well that works out.

Meeting Engagements is what you're thinking of, and it effectively replaces 1000 point games while 2000 point games are unchanged (points being similar to 40k, where 2000 is the "standard list").

With further restrictions like when Behemoths (big monsters) and War Machines (cannons, etc) can arrive, and preventing units from being taken at larger than double their base size (so as to prevent some of the cheesier horde units or things like 15 Evocators), there's an attempt to limit these smaller games while still allowing people to bring their big toys. I find it quite interesting, as it will create a completely different meta (or at least, once FEC and Skaven get nerfed coming up) and works to create a game that isn't just "your 2000 point list, trimmed down to 1000 points".

Whether this format would work at 2000 points for AoS or 40k, I'm not sure. I think forced reserves and forced unit restrictions would indeed create a completely different game - it is, after all, another dial to adjust in the "balance machine" - but whether it would be better or worse than currently, well it's not so clear. I would for sure be interested in trying it, as I think both games could use a bit more depth in list building and early game positioning/setup.

[Avaris]

:smallconfused:

Y’know, for all my arguments that Apocalypse should be fine for Tournament style play, I’m really surprised that GW has announced an Apocalypse Grand Tournament prior to the game even being released. I’d assumed that any play of that type would start off with people trying it out themselves at small scale, so to see it pushed like this is really surprising.

I guess we’ll be able to find out how well Apocalypse works in a tournament setting at least. I wonder what size games and other rules they’ll put around army selection?

[LeSwordfish]

Meeting Engagements is what you're thinking of, and it effectively replaces 1000 point games while 2000 point games are unchanged (points being similar to 40k, where 2000 is the "standard list").

With further restrictions like when Behemoths (big monsters) and War Machines (cannons, etc) can arrive, and preventing units from being taken at larger than double their base size (so as to prevent some of the cheesier horde units or things like 15 Evocators), there's an attempt to limit these smaller games while still allowing people to bring their big toys. I find it quite interesting, as it will create a completely different meta (or at least, once FEC and Skaven get nerfed coming up) and works to create a game that isn't just "your 2000 point list, trimmed down to 1000 points".

Whether this format would work at 2000 points for AoS or 40k, I'm not sure. I think forced reserves and forced unit restrictions would indeed create a completely different game - it is, after all, another dial to adjust in the "balance machine" - but whether it would be better or worse than currently, well it's not so clear. I would for sure be interested in trying it, as I think both games could use a bit more depth in list building and early game positioning/setup.

I think AOS is a little more suited for it because of higher movement and less shooting, generally: with 40k, so often the core of your army is a castle that works perfectly well just stepping onto the back of the board turn 2, but AOS really wants you to throw things into the midfield, which makes a turn's delay a much more relevant concern.

If you wanted to go full Dawn of War, I'd suggest something like 750pts to start with, and then add any 500pts you want per turn, perhaps never going over 1500pts on the board at the time. So you can still be very flexible with what you bring - but losing models fast means you get to replace them fast too.

[LansXero]

In amusing news, GW has just announced price increases in a ton of products for their trade range, including stars like '25$ plastic pear to hold your minis" and "bits of fluff for bases that Army Painter already sells for 2/3rds of the price". I mean, we love to work with them, but sometimes I worry they'll kill the hen that lays the golden eggs out of pure greed.

[Avaris]

Linked to the price rise and recent discussions about 3d printing, a 3d printed Custodes army has just won a tournament. I have quite complicated feelings on whether 3d printing is acceptable or not, which boil down to ‘it depends’.

For me, personally, 3d printing of full models is not morally defensible. I can afford to buy models at full price, therefore I should do so. If I and others like me don’t we won’t have a hobby to persue at all, and I believe that the effort that has gone into designing the models should be recognised.

I am, however, willing to buy individual 3d printed components where they improve my experience. For example, chain cannon conversion kits. The model for distribution of these is unreasonable, so provided I’ve bought the base set I’m ok with it.

I also believe every player has the right to make the moral judgement for themselves, based on their own economic situation. If the only way you can afford to play is 3d printing, 3d print. The hobby is expensive, and I’d far rather people play than be priced out. The space I have a problem is people who could afford to pay full price but choose to take the pirating option: it feels like entitlement, and is harmful to the hobby as a whole.

Ideally GW pricing will adjust so that more people can afford to play without hunting out cheaper options, but until that point it would be wrong to have a blanket policy on 3d printing.

[Cheesegear]

I also believe every player has the right to make the moral judgement for themselves, based on their own economic situation.

As LansXero said earlier. The only reason that people don't print out their own M:tG cards, is because you can't bring them to an official tournament, and the establishment that runs the tournament, will boot you out. If people could pirate their own M:tG cards, they would.
There are entire YouTube channels dedicated to making, faking, and catching fake cards. But, at the end of the day, they just have to pass the inspection of your basic idiot at your FLGS. If your printer can pump out the dpi with the quality to match where you wont be caught...Then that's game.

Which is how it's running along in the current scene; Once your Forge World East models have been at least undercoated, no-one can tell the difference between that and the real thing. You can pretty easily tell by weight. But I'll let you just go up to some rando and start picking up his models. See how that works out.


If the only way you can afford to play is 3d printing, 3d print.

Nope. If 3D printing is cheaper, then it's cheaper. GW should start selling their CAD files for a tenner, and get on board the train. Music couldn't stop piracy. So they invented iTunes. Movies couldn't stop piracy. So out comes Netflix.

You will never win an argument in defense of capitalism, playing to the consumers' morals. Everyone wants everything cheaper. All the time. No exceptions. The only way you get consumers buying what they could otherwise get for free, is by lowering your prices.

At the moment, most 3D printers aren't that good. The trouble it takes to 3D your own miniatures is far more trouble than it's worth.
But, there are designers and engineers who exist who have access to high-quality 3D printers and scanners. There aren't many of 'em. But they do exist, and they are doing the thing. Just like people doing extremely high quality fake M:tG cards. They aren't everywhere, and it does take a bit of work. But people are doing it.

Like I said, with GW's current business model, Games Workshop, as we know them, is dead within the decade - and they know it, too.

1. Get a model's sprue - you might have even paid full price!
2. Scan it using your 3D printer.
3. Make 20 sprues for a few dollars.

This what GW has to compete with, and soon.

[Wraith]

I also believe every player has the right to make the moral judgement for themselves, based on their own economic situation. If the only way you can afford to play is 3d printing, 3d print. The hobby is expensive, and I’d far rather people play than be priced out.

While I agree with the rest of your conversation so far, this is the first part where I've had to take a step back and disagree.

3D printing replicas of GW's models is copyright infringement. This isn't really something to contest, they own the rights to the name and physical forms of their minis, so unless you are going to freehand sculpt your own models and avoid any logos - like the Imperial Aquila or the Blood Angels' winged teardrop and the likes - then replicating them is a form of theft.

"Make a moral judgement" on whether or not you should steal, in a nutshell. I'm highly sympathetic to anyone who can't afford GW's prices - God knows how long I had to scrimp and save for my first metal dreadnought, and how birthdays and Christmases were long and complicated lists of bizarrely named toy soldiers that my family dutifully tried to decipher - but it shouldn't be dressed up as something else because there is no moral grey-area to judge, really.

Don't get me wrong, I've "made use of eBay" for some of my models when it's been called for and have "previewed" a few codices to see if I liked them. Like Cheesegear said though; don't expect to be allowed to get away with it if you get caught in a store or formal event, and pray there isn't a lawyer nearby. :smalltongue:

[Cheesegear]

Like Cheesegear said though; don't expect to be allowed to get away with it if you get caught in a store or formal event, and pray there isn't a lawyer nearby. :smalltongue:

1. If you're playing 'Beer & Pretzels' in your friends' basement, you're already destroying the hobby anyway. So just go ahead and 3D print whatever you want.

2. If you go to a tournament, and more specifically, one that has a specific ban against proxies, then you're going to get caught - at least at this stage. I think Avaris forgot to mention that over the weekend, the tournament in question didn't have a policy against proxies, and so officially, there was no actual problem - some players were just butthurt. You could've brought giant anime dolls to represent Knights, and you would've been fine. 3D printed models that more-or-less look like the real thing should be the least of your worries when you go to a 'Proxies allowed' event.

My actual point, however, was that 3D printing is fast reaching the point whey they don't look like the seventh circle of Hell. With a decent paint job, no-one will able to tell the difference, and then how do you even enforce 'No 3D printing'? You can't enforce that kind of policy, once 3D printing gets to the stage it needs to be.

[LeSwordfish]

1. If you're playing 'Beer & Pretzels' in your friends' basement, you're already destroying the hobby anyway.


...

......

...what?

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

You’re gonna have to defend that statement, and not in a way that boils down to “I like playing competitively and people playing casually buying things makes it harder for me to do that”, because that just means “my style of play is objectively right and other play styles should be discouraged”

[Requizen]

Pretty sure that was just smarminess tbh.

[Wraith]

1. If you're playing 'Beer & Pretzels' in your friends' basement, you're already destroying the hobby anyway. So just go ahead and 3D print whatever you want.

At least from the point of view of enforcement you're right - whatever happens in your man-cave/basement or at the back of a non-Corporate owned FLGS is pretty irrelevant to what GW wants people to have at Warhammer World and in public view at the GTs.

In principle, however, I disagree. I'm a big proponent of supporting a medium, and I always *try* to buy if I can help it. Same with music, comics and the rest - the big companies can weather the losses, but rampant piracy drives the smaller guys out of business and the last thing I want is for my hobby to be run exclusively by Hasbro and FFG without local competition.

Worst case scenario, fear-mongering, etc, etc, I know. It has to start somewhere though, even if in this case it's defending the bottom line of multi-million dollar company like GW.


I think Avaris forgot to mention that over the weekend, the tournament in question didn't have a policy against proxies, and so officially, there was no actual problem - some players were just butthurt.

Evidently that's the part that I missed, so yes indeed - screw those guys, they might as well be complaining that they don't like the colour that an army has been painted.

I stand by my comments with regards to official/professional/sanctioned/whatever tournaments, though I now doubt that was what we disagreed over.


My actual point, however, was that 3D printing is fast reaching the point whey they don't look like the seventh circle of Hell. With a decent paint job, no-one will able to tell the difference, and then how do you even enforce 'No 3D printing'? You can't enforce that kind of policy, once 3D printing gets to the stage it needs to be.

Honour, is what you do in the dark. Like I said above, I believe in supporting the industry. I don't begrudge anyone who can't afford to buy new and chooses to look for a cheaper option, I really hope we can get a game together some time and have some fun.

Even so, I predict that there will be an "arms race", just as there was between video games and DRM, or the music industry and Napster. As 3D printers get better, one of two things will happen: Either someone will find a way of detecting forgeries and it'll become common practice to "test" random armies at events, or - and probably more likely - GW will just start blanket-banning any model that looks converted or vaguely non-legit, just to be on the safe side.

[Avaris]

Honour, is what you do in the dark. Like I said above, I believe in supporting the industry. I don't begrudge anyone who can't afford to buy new and chooses to look for a cheaper option, I really hope we can get a game together some time and have some fun.



This is basically what I was getting at with the bit of my post you disagreed with: I believe we should support the industry, but if someone seeks a cheaper option because that is what they can afford I won’t criticise them for that in and of itself. What I will criticise, and hope to convince them of, is why it’s important their money goes to supporting the creators rather than those who steal from them.

It’s carrot and stick. I could argue with people pirating stuff by accusing them of theft and taking a blanket ‘that’s not acceptable’ stance, but I don’t think that’s likely to be as effective as getting them to understand why it is reasonable to pay the price asked.

(It would be helpful in this regard if GW had greater transparency over the cost base of model production and their pricing decisions, but that’s not likely to happen)

[LansXero]

The only reason that people don't print out their own M:tG cards, is because you can't bring them to an official tournament, and the establishment that runs the tournament, will boot you out. If people could pirate their own M:tG cards, they would.

This is also why eternal formats suck (among other reasons). Old money cards are crap for quality control, there is a reason why most chinese counterfeits are of power nine and chase commander cards; faking current standard cards to the point where its undistinguishable is very expensive and problematic.


There are entire YouTube channels dedicated to making, faking, and catching fake cards. But, at the end of the day, they just have to pass the inspection of your basic idiot at your FLGS. If your printer can pump out the dpi with the quality to match where you wont be caught...Then that's game.

Dont you wish this was true? All the DPI in the world wont help you find the right cardstock, finish or thickness. Real-looking counterfeits arent that common. Of course, some morons will buy cards without taking them out of sleeves, but then thats not your basic idiot, thats an advanced idiot move.


Which is how it's running along in the current scene; Once your Forge World East models have been at least undercoated, no-one can tell the difference between that and the real thing. You can pretty easily tell by weight. But I'll let you just go up to some rando and start picking up his models. See how that works out.

Weight is a VERY niche metric though; it varies greatly with each individual re-caster, to the point where there is no noticeable difference unless you use a specialty scale, and none at all once bases get decorated. Some models are more perfect than others, but in the end plastic injection and chinese people dont giving a **** about tax statements or shipping costs has been a thing for a long, long time.


Nope. If 3D printing is cheaper, then it's cheaper. GW should start selling their CAD files for a tenner, and get on board the train. Music couldn't stop piracy. So they invented iTunes. Movies couldn't stop piracy. So out comes Netflix.

What 3D printing isnt is convenient. Sure, for the kind of geek that would hang out at a forum devoted to a webcomic about D&D 3.5 it may seem like the easiest thing in the world, but its not, despite reduction in price. Take laser cut terrain for example, its trivially easy to make straight lines into software and have them cut on wood / acryllic. Yet people will still pay a premium on laser-craft terrain because they cant be arsed to do that.


Everyone wants everything cheaper. All the time. No exceptions. The only way you get consumers buying what they could otherwise get for free, is by lowering your prices.


Well yes, but actually, no. Game stores who are currently crapping their pants in fear of Amazon made up this term, Unique Value Proposition, to describe why they haven't closed down yet, but it applies to manufacturers as well as retailers. Whats Game Workshop's UVP? Whats the intangible, proprietary virtue of the game that can't be 3Dprinted or sourced to china?

There is a reason why MTG is now focusing so hard on Arena and e-sports, and its not the chase of microtransaction money that people stupidly assigns them. What Arena makes is chump change for Hasbro. But the hype, the media talk, the organized play, the community building, the 'play the game, see the world' dream, those are all things that you can't counterfeit, that cant be had at distribution cost through mass drop and that WotC can control much more tightly than the aftermarker price of their game or how many chinese people break through their protection measures.


1. Get a model's sprue - you might have even paid full price!
2. Scan it using your 3D printer.
3. Make 20 sprues for a few dollars.

This what GW has to compete with, and soon.

1. Get a model's sprue on blue-tac or a higher quality mold
2. Make a metal mold
3. Inject 20 20 000 sprues for cents.

This what GW has to compete with, and NOW.


This is basically what I was getting at with the bit of my post you disagreed with: I believe we should support the industry, but if someone seeks a cheaper option because that is what they can afford I won’t criticise them for that in and of itself. What I will criticise, and hope to convince them of, is why it’s important their money goes to supporting the creators rather than those who steal from them.

There are workarounds currently, both legal and otherwise. But the key point is that what they can duplicate is just the models and the printed rules; while piracy is impossible to curtail, a lot of prevention comes from goodwill, social pressure and value beyond the copied parts.

Whats better for GW: a physical copy that can be scanned with technology from the 90s just to please grognards, or an app thats both convenient and they can paywall access to, thats required for OP and which allows you to keep up with constant errata and quality control fixes? Sure, it destroys the old player's expectations and paradigms, but you cant have it all.


It’s carrot and stick. I could argue with people pirating stuff by accusing them of theft and taking a blanket ‘that’s not acceptable’ stance, but I don’t think that’s likely to be as effective as getting them to understand why it is reasonable to pay the price asked.


Nobody cares about reasonable. People understand EV: Is the time and effort it will take me to bypass this obstacle (payment) worth it, or would I be better off just paying?. Sure, people with means never realize this because the obstacle (money) never registers as such, so much like every succesful businessman origin story ever, confirmation bias lets them take the high road and pontificate on others about things.

Piracy is perceived as a victimless crime, not because think there is no victim, but because people know there is no victim that they care about. The only way you can realistically fight it is by either adding value to originals (which is why more and more games move to subscription or service based models) or making it so impractical that there is very little benefit.


(It would be helpful in this regard if GW had greater transparency over the cost base of model production and their pricing decisions, but that’s not likely to happen)

It costs peanuts, and the pricing is what the market will bear, off the backs of both independent stockists who are too invested to quit, and addicts fans who will keep working their PR and marketing for them for free.

[Avaris]

There are workarounds currently, both legal and otherwise. But the key point is that what they can duplicate is just the models and the printed rules; while piracy is impossible to curtail, a lot of prevention comes from goodwill, social pressure and value beyond the copied parts.

Whats better for GW: a physical copy that can be scanned with technology from the 90s just to please grognards, or an app thats both convenient and they can paywall access to, thats required for OP and which allows you to keep up with constant errata and quality control fixes? Sure, it destroys the old player's expectations and paradigms, but you cant have it all.
Yup, evolve or die. The current model for selling rules has been frustratingly obsolete for years.



It costs peanuts, and the pricing is what the market will bear, off the backs of both independent stockists who are too invested to quit, and addicts fans who will keep working their PR and marketing for them for free.

Not quite; the cost of an individual sprue is minimal, what I’m talking about is the much more complicated calculation of how much you need to charge to cover the sunk costs of production. If you can predict you’ll sell 2000 units, and it cost you £200,000 to design the model and make the mould, you need to charge at least £100 for the model, even if it costs you almost nothing to produce the sprue itself. (Figures illustrative only: mould costs and sales predictions are the sort of thing I doubt GW will ever reveal)

[LansXero]

Yup, evolve or die. The current model for selling rules has been frustratingly obsolete for years.

Not quite; the cost of an individual sprue is minimal, what I’m talking about is the much more complicated calculation of how much you need to charge to cover the sunk costs of production. If you can predict you’ll sell 2000 units, and it cost you £200,000 to design the model and make the mould, you need to charge at least £100 for the model, even if it costs you almost nothing to produce the sprue itself. (Figures illustrative only: mould costs and sales predictions are the sort of thing I doubt GW will ever reveal)

Do you feel there is something intrinsecally proprietary to GW's processes other than the quality of the IP / talent of the people in charge of the sculpts? Because there isn't, their process is the same as that of many companies who dont charge such a premium, and then less due to large scale and production overseas.

Its a very profitable business, and it would be even more if they didnt have this ridiculous need to invest on dead SKUs to linger at warehouses for years.

[Avaris]

Do you feel there is something intrinsecally proprietary to GW's processes other than the quality of the IP / talent of the people in charge of the sculpts? Because there isn't, their process is the same as that of many companies who dont charge such a premium, and then less due to large scale and production overseas.

Its a very profitable business, and it would be even more if they didnt have this ridiculous need to invest on dead SKUs to linger at warehouses for years.

Considerations around scale of production mostly: while there are economies of scale the basic cost of doing business is also higher. Their moulds have to be harder wearing, they need to be more certain of getting quality right every time because they don’t have the capacity to check every single sprue that goes out. They also have lots of things such as costs of Eavy Metal for box art, large scale distribution concerns, warehousing etc. And of course their own stores. It adds up.

But yes, it is very profitable. But we don’t know where the margins are. It’s a common refrain that GW is overpriced, and it probably is, but not to the level people seem to think it is when comparing to the rest of the market. It’s comparing apples and oranges. We can’t take the costs seen in over companies as fully reflective of what GW costs. Any attempt to work it out is pure speculation.

[Wraith]

(Figures illustrative only: mould costs and sales predictions are the sort of thing I doubt GW will ever reveal)

I've heard it slipped that GW likes to tell people that they spend £3-5000 per mould which is, in the opinion of some people I know who have worked in a similar industry, plausible but WAY above average.

GW also tend to low-ball the amount of uses they get out of each mould before it needs to be replaced. That could be a quality issue - possibly replacing them early, rather than risk one or two runs being anything less than perfect - but again, the opinion is that they're either being less than truthful or that they REALLY treat their equipment like **** and ruin it quickly. Which is frankly quite impressive for metre-long blocks of stainless steel getting "worn out".

[Renegade Paladin]

I've heard it slipped that GW likes to tell people that they spend £3-5000 per mould which is, in the opinion of some people I know who have worked in a similar industry, plausible but WAY above average.
I've worked in industrial plastic injection molding. It's been about eight years since, but back then the largest precision injection molds we had cost slightly north of $100,000 USD. Mind, those were gigantic blocks of steel that we had to use a propane driven forklift to hoist into the machines because they were heavy enough to tip the electric ones, but none of them were what you would call cheap. They had higher precision tolerances than are necessary for hobby models (you REALLY don't want loose tolerances on aircraft parts), but I'm not at all surprised at that claimed cost and wouldn't blink if they said it was higher.

[LansXero]

I mean, if you assume all models are made in the UK with the corresponding manufacturing costs, then perhaps it would make sense...

https://spikeybits.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/sector_imperialis_sprues-2.jpg

In the dice industry there is so much rampant backstabbing and design copying its not even funny; there were several new brands launched in the US this year which are just fancy repackages of chinese dice off Alibaba. Those are Huang Da dice, which another chinese company stole from (literally went into their plant and downloaded the designs), and who itself was for a while using another companies machines and stock to fulfill their own orders. Its madness, but no matter how many hands it goes through it still makes money, because americans are silly and pay 12$ for sets of 50 cents dice if it comes in a pretty clamshell or has a LED display.

If you've actually seen GOOD recaster work, you'd know GW's standard isnt that far above the rest, likely due to being manufactured in the same place under the same procedures. Much like sleeves, dice, heroclix, etc. which are copied way over what their 'official' owner needs or wants, Im sure whatever GW does is easily imitated by them, who dont have the reach and marketing power though, nor the time to worry about silly plastic men when they can sell a few other million christmas ornaments instead.

Even the 'made in the UK' label could refer not to the sprues, but to the boxed product. Slipping transfers inside and sealing the box might count as 'made' as far as I know, with the sprues having come loose from overseas.

[Avaris]

My understanding is that the main sprues are made in the UK factory, though some things are not (realm of battle boards for one, I wouldn’t be surprised if things like scenary and bases were another. Also packaging, maybe). Source: I’ve seen the factory, from the outside at least, and had what is manufactured there explained to me.

The article here (http://www.fightingtigersofveda.com/roarseconomics.html), though over a decade old, gives quite a good analysis of the sort of costs I’m thinking about. No idea how accurate it is, but Tl:dr, net profit to GW on a sale of a $55 product is perhaps in the region of $4 - $6. And some of that profit will be needed for further capital investment.

Edit: further information from the GW anual report: in 2017-18 they ‘invested’ £8.9m in the studio (invest implies one off costs, so software upgrade etc?) and £3.1m on tooling for new plastic models. Which feels like a lot!

[LansXero]

Tl:dr, net profit to GW on a sale of a $55 product is perhaps in the region of $4 - $6.

That makes no sense, for a very, very simple reason:

Lets say, Marneus Calgar. MSRP: 55.00$

Calgar costs me, an independent stockist, 30.00$.

So, scenario 1:
- Making a Calgar costs 24.00$. They make 6.00$ when they sell to me, and 31$ when they sell to the public through their own store. Even if you add 20% to the base cost in overhead, shipping or taxes (which you shouldnt,as all those are already present when selling to stockists, so whatever) thats a 30.00$ cost and 25.00$ profit on 1 Marneus Calgar.

scenario 2:
- Making a Calgar costs 49.00$. So they make 6.00$ when they sell through their webstore, and lose 19.00$ every time they sell to an independent stockist. Even if you apply the same reduction as before, they still lose 13.00$ on every sell to a store.

Then consider that GW sells to Distributors, not just stores, and they quite likely get a lower price than me and what you stated makes no sense at all.

[Blackhawk748]

That makes no sense, for a very, very simple reason:

Lets say, Marneus Calgar. MSRP: 55.00$

Calgar costs me, an independent stockist, 30.00$.

So, scenario 1:
- Making a Calgar costs 24.00$. They make 6.00$ when they sell to me, and 31$ when they sell to the public through their own store. Even if you add 20% to the base cost in overhead, shipping or taxes (which you shouldnt,as all those are already present when selling to stockists, so whatever) thats a 30.00$ cost and 25.00$ profit on 1 Marneus Calgar.

scenario 2:
- Making a Calgar costs 49.00$. So they make 6.00$ when they sell through their webstore, and lose 19.00$ every time they sell to an independent stockist. Even if you apply the same reduction as before, they still lose 13.00$ on every sell to a store.

Then consider that GW sells to Distributors, not just stores, and they quite likely get a lower price than me and what you stated makes no sense at all.

GW's markup is crazy. I talked to some of the Mantic guys and they said that it costs them something like 1/4 of what they charge when its all said a done. Except for characters. Characters make them an insane amount of money

[LeSwordfish]

I mean correct me if I'm wrong but basically everything these days is priced based on "what people are willing to pay" rather than any calculation of actual costs - see the various companies kept aloft entirely by outside funding because their core model isn't making any money, like Uber.

[LansXero]

I mean correct me if I'm wrong but basically everything these days is priced based on "what people are willing to pay" rather than any calculation of actual costs - see the various companies kept aloft entirely by outside funding because their core model isn't making any money, like Uber.

Yes and no. On a vacuum perhaps, but people nowadays are VERY irresponsible with their money. Sustained growth requires that you show restraint in the milking of your cash cow and keep a steady flow of goodwill and hype, otherwise they'll wake up, realize they are trading work-hours for nicely shaped plastic and cash out. If it becomes widespread your cow dies and your 'profit' becomes 0. Negative even, as growth requires investment ahead of time and if the demand isnt there anymore then its a lost of wasted machines and burdensome salaries gutting you.

Ruthless capitalism is only preached by those at the middle of it. Those at the top and the bottom know that its screwed up, and will either try and mask it or will actively oppose it (yes, rich men are calling for subsidies and taxes all the time, and the poorest of the poor will bleed for the status quo, go figure).

[Blackhawk748]

LansXero has it right. If you want to survive in today's gaming economy you need the goodwill of your fan base. This is why Mantic, Flying Frog and Cool Mini Or Not are doing pretty well. The fans directly support them and want what they make, its why they take direct advantage of Kickstarter. We, the fans, are their investors, not someone who is unattached and is just trying to make money.

[Cheesegear]

Dont you wish this was true? All the DPI in the world wont help you find the right cardstock, finish or thickness.

Like I said, there are whole channels dedicated to not just detecting, but making fakes. It's not that hard.

But let's go to a current example;

It's like making movement wound trays for Apocalypse.
First, you need a hot glue gun and a sheet of 3mm foam core, a sheet of a few mm cardcstock, a - preferably metal - ruler, and a knife. If you have a drill, you may even want to buy a holesaw. It's way more difficult without a holesaw, but you don't need one. If you're going crazy, you may even invest in some brass rod, so you can pick up the entire tray using a handle.
All of this will set you back $50-100 (AUD), depending on the quality of your materials.

Now? The rest is time. Once you've smashed out your first movement wound tray, you'll quite easily smash out the rest, once you've done the tutorial.

The upfront cost is pretty big. But it's not really bigger than the upfront cost of buying off the shelf.
Except unlike the off-the-shelf, I can make many different sizes of wound tray, and I can make way more than GW will sell me for the same cost.

What else am I gonna do on a Sunday? May as well just smash out a load of movement trays. Some 32mm for my Marines, and some 25mm for my AdMech and Guard.
Easy.

But...If I go to my local GW on Apocalypse Day, will my Blackshirt cuss me out for not only not buying from him, but also showing other people that they too, don't need to buy from him either? But the total cost of making my own movement trays, is roughly the same as buying off the shelf. Except by making them myself, I make ****-loads more, and, the way I want them with a mix of sizes. Isn't that just capitalism and my entrepreneurial spirit?

Then, my Blackshirt goes to something that isn't really capitalism at all...
"If I don't approve of what you've done or made, you can't bring it."

There is a chance I may be forced to buy movement trays, not because they're the best product, not because they're the best value-for-money, not because I want to buy them. But, if I don't...I can't play with my toys.

'No Proxies!' ...Why not? ...Because if you use proxies, you have no need to buy models anymore.
'No 3D printing!' ...Why not? ...Because if you do, you have no need to buy models anymore.

That's not capitalism. I don't remember the name of it. But it's not capitalism.


Real-looking counterfeits arent that common.

They don't have to be common. One dude just has to do it, well. Once he shows the people in the meta that it can be done, either other people start getting on the train with him, or he starts selling his services to his local base.


What 3D printing isnt is convenient.

Not right now. Like I said, once home printers are affordable, which will happen within the decade, a whole bunch of textile industries go out of business. Why buy cutlery, plates or glasses, when you can just print 'em?

Not now. But definitely within the decade.


Nobody cares about reasonable. People understand EV: Is the time and effort it will take me to bypass this obstacle (payment) worth it, or would I be better off just paying?

QFT.

[Avaris]

That makes no sense, for a very, very simple reason:

Lets say, Marneus Calgar. MSRP: 55.00$

Calgar costs me, an independent stockist, 30.00$.

So, scenario 1:
- Making a Calgar costs 24.00$. They make 6.00$ when they sell to me, and 31$ when they sell to the public through their own store. Even if you add 20% to the base cost in overhead, shipping or taxes (which you shouldnt,as all those are already present when selling to stockists, so whatever) thats a 30.00$ cost and 25.00$ profit on 1 Marneus Calgar.

scenario 2:
- Making a Calgar costs 49.00$. So they make 6.00$ when they sell through their webstore, and lose 19.00$ every time they sell to an independent stockist. Even if you apply the same reduction as before, they still lose 13.00$ on every sell to a store.

Then consider that GW sells to Distributors, not just stores, and they quite likely get a lower price than me and what you stated makes no sense at all.

Very good point. I suspect the way it works in theory is that models sold to distributors are priced to cover costs of production, whereas those sold through GW’s own channels are priced to cover store costs etc as well, which obviously will be roughly the same as the store costs faced by independent retailers. I imagine there is a complex formula behind this, though also with a heavy element of ‘what can consumers support’ as suggested by others. Most likely, such a formula comes into it when deciding if it’s economically viable to make a product, starting with the price, rather than pricing it once it has been produced.


LansXero has it right. If you want to survive in today's gaming economy you need the goodwill of your fan base. This is why Mantic, Flying Frog and Cool Mini Or Not are doing pretty well. The fans directly support them and want what they make, its why they take direct advantage of Kickstarter. We, the fans, are their investors, not someone who is unattached and is just trying to make money.

Yup, this is the crux of it. Until a few years ago GW had the arrogance to simply believe it was dominant enough that it didn’t need to engage with its consumers all that much. But their recent building up of the community site is a clear shift in thinking there, which is a good thing. The problem they’ve got is that there is a lot of negative feeling and cynicism built up in the community, which will take time to break down (especially as to some extent the cynics are right: they ARE just doing this to make money. But this is a luxury hobby in a capitalist society, so that’s not exactly a profound insight).

Good example actually of GW trying to engage with their community and improve goodwill is the recent videos mocking themselves for the sheer numbers of Primaris Lieutenants they release. This was a frustration in the community, so GW has built on that rather than dismissing it.

[Wraith]

It's like making movement wound trays for Apocalypse.
First, you need a hot glue gun and a sheet of 3mm foam core, a sheet of a few mm cardcstock, a - preferably metal - ruler, and a knife. If you have a drill, you may even want to buy a holesaw. It's way more difficult without a holesaw, but you don't need one. If you're going crazy, you may even invest in some brass rod, so you can pick up the entire tray using a handle.
All of this will set you back $50-100 (AUD), depending on the quality of your materials.

A guy I used to LARP with has been experimenting, and from what I've seen I believe that all you need is a piece of plastic - a serving tray or a children's plate bought for pennies each, just so long as it's the "hard" plastic that, when heated, goes soft rather than smoulders - and a (preferably electric) oven. The hardest part is to find a piece of metal or wood the same size as a 40mm base that you can use to press into the hot plastic and make an indent, then trim the thing to size. Or don't bother with that last step, if you have 30 Grots spaced 2" apart, of course. :smalltongue:


'No Proxies!' ...Why not? ...Because if you use proxies, you have no need to buy models anymore.
'No 3D printing!' ...Why not? ...Because if you do, you have no need to buy models anymore.

That's not capitalism. I don't remember the name of it. But it's not capitalism.

A coersive monopoly - using 'executive power' to guarantee a single supplier of a product or service - I think? It's one of the many unpleasant things that happen as a free-market capitalism turns into corporate capitalism. The good news is that once that happens, real-life Cyberpunk is only a short time away and that would be awesome. :smalltongue:

==========

In unrelated news, I still have it in my head to work on an updated Guide to the Grey Knights. I've done some research, army lists and podcasts and things, and I'm convinced that there's a way to build them that isn't burning failure, so long as you're prepared to go all-in on a massive alpha-strike. Unfortunately the whole thing revolves around three types of units, so I'm trying to figure out what you'd do with the other ~14 available in the codex (if anything).

Grey Knights can work. I'm sure of it.You just... need to ignore all the stuff that makes them cool and special, spam their 2 best units like crazy and be prepared to give up in turn 2 a lot. I'll keep working on it. :smallconfused:

[Cheesegear]

A coersive monopoly - using 'executive power' to guarantee a single supplier of a product or service - I think?

You can buy anything you want! ...As long as it's from us.

[LansXero]

Very good point. I suspect the way it works in theory is that models sold to distributors are priced to cover costs of production, whereas those sold through GW’s own channels are priced to cover store costs etc as well, which obviously will be roughly the same as the store costs faced by independent retailers. I imagine there is a complex formula behind this, though also with a heavy element of ‘what can consumers support’ as suggested by others. Most likely, such a formula comes into it when deciding if it’s economically viable to make a product, starting with the price, rather than pricing it once it has been produced.

Except that those are three different channels and I very much doubt either is allowed to operate at-cost. My initial example already included costs of handling, and its not like there are no such costs included in the prices for stockists / distributors, so the 45% increase in markup is still there. No matter how you slice it, its unreasonable to consider GW makes paper thin margins or operates at cost and is struggling to get by.

Also, GW doesnt research ****. Why else do you think Carrion Empire and Looncurse were criminally under-produced and everything is now allocated until our orders do their research for them and they can ship a new batch from China?


Yup, this is the crux of it. Until a few years ago GW had the arrogance to simply believe it was dominant enough that it didn’t need to engage with its consumers all that much. But their recent building up of the community site is a clear shift in thinking there, which is a good thing. The problem they’ve got is that there is a lot of negative feeling and cynicism built up in the community, which will take time to break down (especially as to some extent the cynics are right: they ARE just doing this to make money. But this is a luxury hobby in a capitalist society, so that’s not exactly a profound insight).

Nobody resents them making money (nobody sane at least). What people resent is their decisions not being based on long term health of the hobby / product line, but instead short-sighted cash grabs to pad out numbers on finance reports. Sure, we are not privy to a lot of information that they are probably taking into account, but GW wont be the first nor last company to go under because of too many pats in its own back and failing to see the forest because the trees got in the way.


Good example actually of GW trying to engage with their community and improve goodwill is the recent videos mocking themselves for the sheer numbers of Primaris Lieutenants they release. This was a frustration in the community, so GW has built on that rather than dismissing it.


There is a lot that they do right. And then they **** on all of it by arbitrarily rising prices inconsistently across the board. They throw away all the hard work the sales reps and stockists have done since 8th came out, for what? Its not like they targetted their strongest / more popular models either, plenty of unsellable junk got hit with a price hike. This is right after they sink a ton of money on larger pots for Air paints nobody asked for and drained stores of cashflow forcing them to upgrade to get Contrast. Asinine moves that show that departments arent talking to each other.


Like I said, there are whole channels dedicated to not just detecting, but making fakes. It's not that hard.

Look, I get what you are saying. A passable proxy so long as it stays double-sleeved under normal crappy clubhouse lighting? absolutely. But thats no more valid than writing 'mox jet' with sharpie on a basic land. Actual counterfeits, the kind that can fetch hundreds of $ online and will pass most of the common authenticity tests? no, it IS pretty hard. And its certainly not doable off regular inkjet printers either.


ut let's go to a current example;

It's like making movement wound trays for Apocalypse.
First, you need a hot glue gun and a sheet of 3mm foam core, a sheet of a few mm cardcstock, a - preferably metal - ruler, and a knife. If you have a drill, you may even want to buy a holesaw. It's way more difficult without a holesaw, but you don't need one. If you're going crazy, you may even invest in some brass rod, so you can pick up the entire tray using a handle.
All of this will set you back $50-100 (AUD), depending on the quality of your materials.

Now? The rest is time. Once you've smashed out your first movement wound tray, you'll quite easily smash out the rest, once you've done the tutorial.

But why?

grab a thin piece of mdf. grab a thicker piece of mdf and laser-cut circles in it, in a pattern of your choosing. It should be less than an hour at most services. glue the resulting thick rings on top of the thin 'base'. Voilà, mov. trays with no investment other than maybe learning to design. We actually have those somewhere, a friend did it but the 'base' is metal so the magnets on its minis bases can lock on for ease of transport.

[LeSwordfish]

1. If you're playing 'Beer & Pretzels' in your friends' basement, you're already destroying the hobby anyway.

No, seriously, what on earth does this mean?

[Avaris]

Asinine moves that show that departments arent talking to each other.

This. This, right here, is the biggest problem GW has. They are changing their attitude as a company, but not all parts of the company or business model have got with the programme yet.

[Cheesegear]

No, seriously, what on earth does this mean?

For a hobby that is driven by the community, removing yourself from your meta, destroys the meta.
If everyone in the entire hobby decided that from now on, they would only ever play one opponent from that point forward. The hobby would crash and burn. Especially if you're going to play in a garage, where you can't interact with your community and drive ideas forwards in what people should or shouldn't do in certain situations.

Diversity and vibrancy of your local meta, is what drives the meta. The more people playing in it, the better. The more people who see you play it, the better.

(Again, going back to my previous stance that refusing games is only ever a bad thing. Sure, you can do bad things for good reasons. But you're still not playing games.)

Playing games on your store's tables is also free publicity for the store (and the hobby). Basically, as before, if people know you play games there, they'll play games there.

[LeSwordfish]

For a hobby that is driven by the community, removing yourself from your meta, destroys the meta.

**** the meta.


(Again, going back to my previous stance that refusing games is only ever a bad thing. Sure, you can do bad things for good reasons. But you're still not playing games.)

I don't have to engage in fun things if they won't be fun. Nobody's paying me to do this.


If everyone in the entire hobby decided that from now on, they would only ever play one opponent from that point forward. The hobby would crash and burn.

...no it wouldn't? This whole post seems dedicated to confusing the way you play with the only way anyone plays (and confusing beer-and-pretzels play with "only playing one person". Which is dumb but also doesn't matter because I can play only one person if I want.)

[Avaris]

There may be a case that ‘playing in a garage’ doesn’t bring new people into the hobby (though even that is quite suspect, as it’s perfectly possible to invite people to join in if you think they’re interested), but that in no way equates to ‘destroying’ the hobby!

[Cheesegear]

**** the meta.

You are okay with your community not having you in it.
Rad.


I don't have to engage in fun things if they won't be fun.

Nobody is saying you have to.
But if you're not playing or engaging with other people, who cares what you do with your own time? If you don't care about your local community, then keep playing in your house.
You do you, dude. Nobody is stopping you from playing in your own house if that's what's fun for you.


but that in no way equates to ‘destroying’ the hobby!

Yes it does. By removing yourself from your community, you make your community smaller.
For a community-based game, that is only a bad thing.

Rather than ostracizing other people, you're ostracizing yourself. You are choosing not to play games with other people. That is only bad.

Scenario:
Someone wants to play with you.
You don't want to play with them.

Do you play the game, or don't you? Who gets their feelings hurt?

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

Yeah, that ignores SO MANY REASONS why people may not want to join larger groups.
1. Not being able to afford to play in a more competitive meta.
2. Not willing to play in a more competitive meta.
3. Not wanting to play with total strangers and risk having an unfun game.
4. Preference for narrative or open play where matched play dominates the meta.
5. Not being able to afford a full army where metas usually play higher points.
6. Simply not liking the people in the community.

There are legitimate reasons not to play in whatever the local meta may be. And many of those reasons serve to SHIFT the meta. If all the meta does is hyper-competitive, then you could suck it up and play hyper-competitive (if you can afford to), or you can create a second meta that you actually LIKE, and slowly build it up from scratch to try to shift the meta.

I never played in stores until recently because I couldn't afford a full army (and still can't afford a competitive one, but luckily there's a good casual meta in my city). My best friend who I played with still doesn't play in stores because he doesn't enjoy matched play, and mostly plays narrative. I guess we apologize for ruining your fun by not playing in stores? :smallannoyed:

edit: and yeah, you don't play with them. Why would I play with someone I don't like, or play a game I don't like? So that a group of other people I don't like can continue to play another game I don't like better? Nah. Some metas are toxic and should die. Others should be shifted away from toxicity. You shouldn't support a meta for it's own sake.

[LansXero]

Anecdotal evidence, but until we picked up the game with the launch of 8th, our country's community was a bunch of old ones hybernating getting maybe 1 game going every couple of months. Inactivity and isolationism kill the hobby, even if they are rightfully what some people might prefer, for the simple reason that any community not growing is decaying (since people will inevitably move on) and is only in borrowed time until it mplodes

[Cheesegear]

1. Not being able to afford to play in a more competitive meta.

Talk to people.


Not willing to play in a more competitive meta.

Talk to people.


Not wanting to play with total strangers and risk having an unfun game.

Nobody in your community should be a total stranger, because you talk to them.


Preference for narrative or open play where matched play dominates the meta.

Talk to people.


Not being able to afford a full army where metas usually play higher points.

Talk to people.


Simply not liking the people in the community.

If everyone in your local community sucks, either you're the problem, or, you don't actually have a community, and what you have is, instead, a bunch of a*holes. Then yeah. That's ****.
My condolences.

In my experience, 100% of issues can be solved by talking to people. And my meta is the toxic one, remember? Because everyone should be always wanting to play games.


Inactivity and isolationism kill the hobby even if they are rightfully what some people might prefer, for the simple reason that any community not growing is decaying (since people will inevitably move on) and is only in borrowed time until it implodes

Even if you want to play at home, don't.

Perfectly said.

[Avaris]

I think the conflict here is that Cheesegear is saying ‘playing at home is bad’, when what they mean is ‘ONLY playing at home is bad’?

Though there is also a question of how one defines a hobby community. I consider myself to be part of several to varying degrees, and the extent to which I engage with each is different. Thinking of ‘the community’ as a monolithic entity, even in a local area, is too simplistic. It’s more like different bubbles of community, or a venn diagram.

[Cheesegear]

I think the conflict here is that Cheesegear is saying ‘playing at home is bad’, when what they mean is ‘ONLY playing at home is bad’?

Any time, in which you play at home, where you could instead play at a store, is bad.
So...Obviously, your local store probably isn't open on a Tuesday night. Don't play then.
But why not Saturday?


Though there is also a question of how one defines a hobby community.

Bunch of people in the same physical location doing the same thing.

[LeSwordfish]

You are okay with your community not having you in it.
Rad.


I just choose a different community. And if the community I choose is like two other people and we play what we want on someone's dinner table with beers, how absolutely dare you say we're killing the game. Why does a "community" have to be a big group? And why do you then conflate that community of people with the metagame? (i know why, because you can't imagine people playing for any other reason than to win the best). It's not my responsibility to keep my local store or club going if I don't want to play there. I'm the customer in this case, it's their job to "sell" the community to me.


Scenario:
Someone wants to play with you.
You don't want to play with them.

Do you play the game, or don't you? Who gets their feelings hurt?

I don't. I don't owe them anything. They can find another game. Or maybe they can't: that's not my problem. I'm not going to set out to hurt anyone's feelings but if they're upset by the nicest way I can phrase "I don't think playing with you would be fun, i'm going home instead" then that's their problem.

Someone wants to date you.
You don't want to date them.

Do you go on the date with them? Of course you don't, duh.

[Wraith]

I think it also possible that Cheesegear is saying all of this as if from *Games Workshop's perspective*, in a somewhat sarcastic fashion.

GW want everyone to come into their store and give them all of the money, and to them paint everything in GW paints using GW brushes so that they can pla GW games on GW tables. They should then take lots of photos of everyone having a wonderful time at GW and then post them to social media, so that everyone who is NOT playing GW games thinks that they SHOULD go and play GW games.

It's free advertising. Anything less is "ruining it"; ie, not making the GW brand look absolutely spiffing to everyone who does and doesn't already buy GW products.

If you're sat at home, fudging rules for your decade-old models hastily Counts As'd into something vaguely playable and never sharing how much fun your having outside of the tiny little group who you're already having fun with, you're "killing the game" by not shilling it to new suckers "helping the community to grow". :smalltongue:

At least, such is how I was reading that statement.


Though there is also a question of how one defines a hobby community. I consider myself to be part of several to varying degrees, and the extent to which I engage with each is different. Thinking of ‘the community’ as a monolithic entity, even in a local area, is too simplistic. It’s more like different bubbles of community, or a venn diagram.

Exactly.

*WE* are a community, the GitP/40k thread, for example. But in the same breath: Screw those guys over in Forums/Role-Playing Games/D&D 4e, the hell do they know about having fun? And don't even get me started on those jerks on DakkaDakka/40k, they're DEFINITELY doing it wrong! :smallwink:

[LansXero]

I just choose a different community. And if the community I choose is like two other people and we play what we want on someone's dinner table with beers, how absolutely dare you say we're killing the game. Why does a "community" have to be a big group? And why do you then conflate that community of people with the metagame? (i know why, because you can't imagine people playing for any other reason than to win the best). It's not my responsibility to keep my local store or club going if I don't want to play there. I'm the customer in this case, it's their job to "sell" the community to me.

But you are. Im sorry if it feels like an attack, and I assume you are not actively setting out to do it nor much care if you do, but that doesnt change the end result: with more isolation / people mangling the rules and playing their own frankenstein of narrative / open play, frequency of games and new player acquisition drops or stops completely. Since people WILL drop the hobby over time, this means the game dies in that area after a while, as a direct effect of 'screw the community'. If this is an outcome you're comfortable with then great, but its no less killing the game because of that acceptance.

You are right though in that its not your duty to show up or try to keep it going; that onus is on the TO / Owner, but you could try to meet them halfway, to voice your doubts, concerns and suggestions and they should provide a listening ear. Not everything will be tailored to your exact specifications, but many times finding a common ground is just a matter of speaking up.


I don't. I don't owe them anything. They can find another game. Or maybe they can't: that's not my problem. I'm not going to set out to hurt anyone's feelings but if they're upset by the nicest way I can phrase "I don't think playing with you would be fun, i'm going home instead" then that's their problem.

Someone wants to date you.
You don't want to date them.

Do you go on the date with them? Of course you don't, duh.

And thus we have Japan's birth rate. Nobody can force them, of course. Doesnt mean the country isnt filling up with old people and inmigrants.

[Cheesegear]

how absolutely dare you say we're killing the game.

You're not killing my game. I don't care what you do.
And I have to imagine that you're not killing your game. You keep doing whatever you want.

You're killing whoever plays in that store's, game. Which, as has been pointed out, you don't care about.


And why do you then conflate that community of people with the metagame?

The metagame, and your metagame, is different.
Your meta, is the one with you, and the people you play against, in it. If no-one you know, runs Guard Brigades with a Knight Valiant, you don't have to build a list against that, do you?
But that's the meta! Sure. But it's not your meta.

My meta, contains no Ork or T'au players. Because no-one I know, plays Orks or T'au.
If someone comes along, who plays Orks or T'au, you bet I want to play games with them.


(i know why, because you can't imagine people playing for any other reason than to win the best).

It's because local metas gonna local, and can be anything, and your metagame, and your community, are the same thing.


Someone wants to date you.
You don't want to date them.

Do you go on the date with them? Of course you don't, duh.

Do you equate toy soldiers to your personal life all the time? :smallconfused:

[Requizen]

I find this conversation super interesting, btw.

As... brusque as we all know Cheese can be, I mostly agree with him here. Subdividing communities is the death of communities. I've seen it over and over again across multiple games and what not. While obviously Warhammer has been going (relatively) strong for quite some time, local communities and larger organizations/cultures have crashed and burned over this exact thing.

Now obviously it's not one's own responsibility to make all their decisions for the greater good of the community - it's just a hobby, not a job or some important cornerstone of life. But, if you want to continue having a place to go play games, trying to make that community better is the #1 thing you can do with your hobby time. When you make a decision that erodes at that community, not only are you making it harder for yourself to be involved with those people, you're also alienating one or both sides from prospective new players.

Now if one is ok just playing in the garage with a small group of friends, great! My issue comes when those groups go outside their microcosm and start to try to shift larger groups (stores or internet) over the way they want the game to be played. If one chooses to restrict or even dissociate themselves from the community at large, they should accept that they no longer have influence on that group.

This is why I find it very annoying when people come asking for advice on how to beat a list, and then get annoyed when they're told to buy new things because what they have doesn't cut it. "But I don't want to buy anything or change what I have! They rules shouldn't work that way!", they say. And this is part of the reason "meta" is such a dirty word sometimes. But at the end of the day, in my opinion at least, the way a game grows and changes is if the people involved are also willing to grow and change, and with a hobby like Warhammer, that means buying new things or shelving favorite units that just don't work no matter how hard you try. And we want the hobby to grow and change. Stagnation bores people, and you lose a lot more people to being bored than to rules changes and model releases in my experience.

Cheese is very right in one thing: communication makes the community better. You can't always talk someone out of running a teeth-kick ITC list against a new player. Sometimes people are just like that. But to not even try is essentially saying, "I don't care if this community has issues". Which is, of course, one's prerogative if they wish it to be, but then I believe that person can not complain about the direction the community takes if they don't try to make it better.

</ramble>

[LeSwordfish]

You're not killing my game. I don't care what you do.
And I have to imagine that you're not killing your game. You keep doing whatever you want.

You're killing whoever plays in that store's, game.

A) No i'm not? I can't imagine why my presence or absence would matter, and B) That's their problem.


Yes. But why don't you want to play there?
What can your local manager do better?
What can your local meta, do better?
What is that you're missing? Have you told people? Have you asked people?

It's not my job to make a group of people I don't hang out with cater to me. If they start doing it by themselves then perhaps I'll come along and join in: if they don't, I shan't, with no particular hard feelings. If they're as worried about individuals playing the game at home as you seem to be, then the outreach is on them, not me.

For example, I played loads of games at the Peterborough GW back when I lived there, because it was the only group I had, and because they regularly ran fun events. Now I live nearer the Cambridge one, which doesn't really do event days, so even though it's more convenient, I mostly hang out at clubs or go to big meetups. If they asked "what would get you into the store to play games more", I'd say "I like event games like apocalypse or mini-tournaments". I don't care enough (or feel entitled enough) to go up to the manager and go "hey, do a big gameday."

(Given the amount I spend in his shop, I can't imagine the manager minds very much if I'm in there physically playing.)


Why wouldn't playing with them be fun? Could they do something to change and make it fun?
More importantly, why should they change? Why don't you?

I'm not asking them to change. Sometimes me and another person just have different philosophies on the game. Neither is necessarily wrong, but I don't see the point of spending a couple of hours with those philosophies clashing if it's not going to be enjoyable.


Do you equate toy soldiers to your personal life all the time? :smallconfused:

oh now it's just toy soldiers

(My hobby time and how I spend it is also my personal life! A bad date or bad game of 40k is equally a rubbish evening, and i'm not going to be guilted into either.)

[Cheesegear]

I think it also possible that Cheesegear is saying all of this as if from *Games Workshop's perspective*, in a somewhat sarcastic fashion.

I'm saying from your local community's perspective.


GW Your Local Store wants everyone to come into their store and give them all of the money...

That way they don't close down. That way their gaming space, with all the tables, with all the terrain, and with the common ground that almost everyone in the local area can get to, can come and have games in. The more people who walk through those doors, the better.

Your local gaming club, is the same. Until such point as they are at capacity for the venue that they're in, they get more dues out of their members. That means more tournaments (i.e; prize support), it means more events. It means more tables. It means...The club is better, because it has more members it.

The community's metagame is also better. Because not everyone has the same playstyles, same armies, plays at the same points limits, etc. The more diverse types of games people play - because of the community that they're in - the better they will become at the game.

Someone wants to play 1000 Points. Cool. Do I have 1000 Points? Well it's very different from 2000 Points. Guess I have to switch up my thinking. Someone wants to play 2v2 or 3v3? Great. This requires very different thinking to what I'm used to. Hell, someone wants to play Apocalypse. Sweet. Let's organise it. How many players can we get? This'll be different.

The more people you have in your meta/community, the more diverse and vibrant it will (or rather, should) be.
Unless your community is a toxic hellhole that's declared that there's only one right way to play, with one set of models, at one points limit, and nobody in the whole venue refuses to budge. In that case you'll have 30-50 basically identical players, which is ****, and it's why a whole bunch of people don't like going to tournaments.


and to them paint everything in GW paints using GW brushes so that they can pla GW games on GW tables.

**** no. :smallannoyed:


They should then take lots of photos of everyone having a wonderful time at GW and then post them to social media, so that everyone who is NOT playing GW games thinks that they SHOULD go and play GW games.

lol. This absolutely isn't what I meant.
But I can see the logic.


For example, I played loads of games at the Peterborough GW back when I lived there, because it was the only group I had, and because they regularly ran fun events. Now I live nearer the Cambridge one, which doesn't really do event days, so even though it's more convenient, I mostly hang out at clubs or go to big meetups. If they asked "what would get you into the store to play games more", I'd say "I like event games like apocalypse or mini-tournaments".

If they asked... And I guess the implication is that they haven't.
Which actually is ****ty on their part, and I agree with you.


I don't care enough (or feel entitled enough) to go up to the manager and go "hey, do a big gameday."

I do. It works. :smalltongue:
If you're a regular, he'll probably gauge interest at the very least.


oh now it's just toy soldiers

It always has been.


(My hobby time and how I spend it is also my personal life! A bad date or bad game of 40k is equally a rubbish evening, and i'm not going to be guilted into either.)

Oh. I thought more along the lines of "Spend the next 3-6 months with this person two or three times a week, for anywhere between 2 hours or an overnight at a time... Even though you don't even like them."

[Avaris]

As... brusque as we all know Cheese can be, I mostly agree with him here. Subdividing communities is the death of communities. I've seen it over and over again across multiple games and what not. While obviously Warhammer has been going (relatively) strong for quite some time, local communities and larger organizations/cultures have crashed and burned over this exact thing.
I’m mostly just observing for a similar reason. Lansxero puts it very well: people will drift away from a community over time, so people need to participate in it so that it can remain sustainable. Cheesegear is also absolutely right that talking to people in your community is vital.

I object to the suggestion that the importance of maintaining the community means that you should only be playing at home if your wider community space is not available, as different spaces suit me at different times. But the general principle is sound.

[LeSwordfish]

If they asked... And I guess the implication is that they haven't.
Which actually is ****ty on their part, and I agree with you.

I don't really feel it's ****ty of them, to be honest. They're doing fine without me. I'm doing fine without them. You could perhaps make the argument that it's poor community management, but as I understand it, the Cambridge GW is one of the ones doing best in the country so it seems to be working for them.

[LCP]

It's interesting to see three different people straining to come up with reasonable interpretations of what Cheesegear is saying when the simple explanation is he's just getting his weekly dose of finding a way to tell people that they're wrong.

Also, here's a corollary to Cheese's point: if your definition of your hobby requires you to tell people enjoying themselves in their own homes that they are 'killing' it and should feel bad, your hobby deserves to die.

[LeSwordfish]

Also, the hobby in general seems to be doing fine. Perhaps this is a tragedy of the commons issue and if everyone behaved the way i'm advocating we'd be in trouble, but GW is, by some standards, the company doing the best in the entire UK. Every "community" i'm in for 40k or AOS - both online and IRL - is booming right now, and some of those live entirely on basement games, or games organised at stores/venues that we aren't part of the "community" for.*

(Except this one. Where people seem to keep leaving. I couldn't say why.)

*A genuine question - if me and a friend arrange a game between ourselves, why is it different if we play it at home than if we turn up to a club or independent store, nod hello to the storekeeper, play our game, and then leave? I find it hard to imagine that weight of numbers alone is that important.

[Cheesegear]

It's interesting to see three different people straining to come up with reasonable interpretations of what Cheesegear is saying when the simple explanation is he's just getting his weekly dose of finding a way to tell people that they're wrong.

1. More people in a community is better than less.
2. More diversity in a community is better than less.
3. More games played is better than less games played.

I don't know you would disagree with that. But okay.

[LeSwordfish]

1. More people in a community is better than less.
2. More diversity in a community is better than less.
3. More games played is better than less games played.

I don't know you would disagree with that. But okay.

You need to explain these things though. My favourite communities are small and close-knit. I won't disagree with diversity in principle but I can't imagine you'll get any particularly useful diversity by forcing small communities together: you'll have a plenty "diverse" playerbase if you make my play-whatever-you-have-painted-in-open-play friends merge with GT winners but I can't imagine the average amount of fun people have will go up. And to return to an old adage of D&D, no game is better than bad game.

[Cheesegear]

Also, the hobby in general seems to be doing fine.

Disagree...But I'm living in AU...


the company doing the best in the entire UK.

...Which I think is the major difference between us. And I'm pretty sure I see where you're coming from, now. Pretty sure I could probably go back and delete all my posts because we've been coming at it from fundamentally different viewpoints.

Me and LansXero already went through this with Avaris. A viewpoint coming from the UK is vastly different from mine, down here in Aus.

Say no more.
I get it. My view will always be fundamentally different to anyone's from the UK.

I really need to check people's locations if they've got it turned on.
I'm mad at myself, if it helps (I know it doesn't) :smallmad:

[Requizen]

And to return to an old adage of D&D, no game is better than bad game.

Is it though? No game means that the store is empty. A new player walking in buying stuff has no one to talk to, no learning games to play, no discussion to be had. No game means that the games that do get played start getting very same-y and stagnant (this is the meta speaking). No game means that people decide to go play other games, and the armies you used to play against are now on eBay.

Bad games give learning experiences, allow you to see where the weaknesses in your army are, let you and your opponent discuss the game. If the person is a **** and just wants to roll dice and laugh when you take off models... that's a bad person, not a bad game, and that's a completely different discussion.

[LCP]

1. More people in a community is better than less.
2. More diversity in a community is better than less.
3. More games played is better than less games played.

Even taken for granted, none of those things make it true that someone not participating is hurting the enjoyment of others.

It's trivially true that if everyone stays home and plays with mates then clubs etc. go under. The point that's clearly untrue (and also, insane) is the idea that people owe their communities every second of their gaming time and are actively hurting them if they withhold any of it. That's not a hobby club, that's a cult.

Whatever community you're trying to build, people don't owe you their time unless you're paying them a wage. It doesn't matter if the hobby in question is toy soldiers or music or competitive basket-weaving, people's time is their own, and the onus is on the community to be a place that people want to spend their time. That's a simple fact, it's much more important than any wittering about 'metas', and it's the obvious reason (not regional differences or any such convenient get-out) that your post is attracting objection and ridicule.

[LeSwordfish]

Is it though? No game means that the store is empty.

I feel like I'm repeating this to the point of coming across a bit selfish, but that's the store's problem, not mine. And not necessarily: the only condition in which that's true is when there's only two players in the store, with differing philosophies, and nobody else at all. You could make the equal argument that GW should only ever make one game because what if one of the people in the shop only plays AOS and one only plays 40k?

(This has illuminated me a bit on why some people here are so vehemently against the smaller games like Apocalypse, Kill Team, etc. If people only play those, and only play those outside the shop, then I see why it might cause a split in the community. I just don't really think "people only play one game and never anything else" comes up very much. Not many people around here play Kill Team, but I really enjoy having it as a tool to take out of the box for smaller games.)

[LansXero]

Also, the hobby in general seems to be doing fine. Perhaps this is a tragedy of the commons issue and if everyone behaved the way i'm advocating we'd be in trouble, but GW is, by some standards, the company doing the best in the entire UK. Every "community" i'm in for 40k or AOS - both online and IRL - is booming right now, and some of those live entirely on basement games, or games organised at stores/venues that we aren't part of the "community" for.*

Maybe its a cultural thing. D&D here for example is 'dead', in so far as if you just find out about it there is nobody to play it with. Its all closed cliques and home groups, and store games always devolve into 'I cant make next session, can we play at my place during the weekend?'. Sure, they have no obligation to 'keep it alive', but its no less dead because of the lack of guilt.


*A genuine question - if me and a friend arrange a game between ourselves, why is it different if we play it at home than if we turn up to a club or independent store, nod hello to the storekeeper, play our game, and then leave? I find it hard to imagine that weight of numbers alone is that important.

Non-gamers dont believe anyone would spend so much time, money and effort on this junk. They find the concept of it alien, until they see people enjoying themselves over cool terrain with nice models. You might not think much of it, but we've had people from Magic, Board Games or just passerbys join in and try the game due to watching others play. Considering where we are, thats huge.


Whatever community you're trying to build, people don't owe you their time unless you're paying them a wage. It doesn't matter if the hobby in question is toy soldiers or music or competitive basket-weaving, people's time is their own, and the onus is on the community to be a place that people want to spend their time. That's a simple fact, it's much more important than any wittering about 'metas', and it's the obvious reason (not regional differences or any such convenient get-out) that your post is attracting objection and ridicule.

I dont know about Cheese, and nobody probably cares about my opinion, but what Im advocating is that self-exiled players give their local communities a chance. They of course have no obligation to do so and their local offerings might all suck, but plenty of store owners are not malicious or greedy, just completely clueless. Its both surprising and a little insulting to me how people with stores 4 or 6 times larger than mine and a monthly spending power that equals my yearly budget still dont know pretty basic things or fail at simple challenges. Almost nobody who opens a game store does it with any business background or finantial preparation, half of them do it out of willingness to serve their community, the others because they cant keep a normal job and would rather have their addiction feed them instead of them keeping it fed. So they probably can do better, but I feel everyone would be better served if those currently unatracted by whats on offer would come out and say why.

Its very sad to see genuinely well intentioned initiatives die stillbirthed due to people's preconceived notions of stores as their enemies.

[Cheesegear]

Even taken for granted, none of those things make it true that someone not participating is hurting the enjoyment of others.

It has the potential to. Depending on what, when and how you play. If someone wants to play you, or what you have. You deciding not to play them definitely could hurt their enjoyment. Which is the question I posed earlier.


The point that's clearly untrue (and also, insane) is the idea that people owe their communities every second of their gaming time

If it can stay alive without their participation? Then who cares what they do. They can do what they want to do.

Just realised that I still haven't written that Chaos Daemons Guide. :smallmad:

[LCP]

If it can stay alive without their participation? Then who cares what they do. They can do what they want to do.

And if it can't, that's not their fault. They don't owe it to you or to anyone else to make your club work. Your club dies out, turns out there wasn't enough interest. Bad luck. Move on. Blaming, guilting or shaming people for not spending their precious free time supporting the thing that you like is toxic and abusive behaviour. It's fine to want a community to grow and thrive - you should make that happen by making it a cool place to be, not by bullying people into attendance.

"They can do what they want to do" isn't conditionally true, it's the starting point for any healthy interaction with another human being.

[Thragka]

It's not the player's obligation to keep the game alive at all, just as it's not the consumer's obligation to keep the industry alive.

Also, you're the very person who said choosing not to play someone shouldn't be seen as a personal insult. But now it is?

[Destro_Yersul]

The problem for me is that the closest store I could play at is probably 45 minutes away at best. Actually going out is a serious time investment with no guarantee anyone to play will be there, because my schedule precludes my going out on weekends.

[Cheesegear]

And if it can't, that's not their fault. They don't owe it to you or to anyone else to make your club work. Your club dies out, turns out there wasn't enough interest.

And that's ****ty.


Blaming, guilting or shaming people for not spending their precious free time supporting the thing that you like is toxic and abusive behaviour.

Why would I do that? It's toy soliders. Do whatever you want.


It's fine to want a community to grow and thrive - you should make that happen by making it a cool place to be, not by bullying people into attendance.

Why would I bully anyone? As I already explained, the best way to give people what they want, is to know what they want, is to talk to them.


Also, you're the very person who said choosing not to play someone shouldn't be seen as a personal insult.

Depends why. If you don't play someone because you don't like them as a person, outside of the game (and you tell them that's why you're not playing) it absolutely is a personal insult.


The problem for me is that the closest store I could play at is probably 45 minutes away at best. Actually going out is a serious time investment with no guarantee anyone to play will be there, because my schedule precludes my going out on weekends.

In which case, playing somewhere other than your house isn't an option, in which case this conversation was never about you.

[LCP]

Why would I do that? It's toy soliders. Do whatever you want.

https://comb.io/apA96u.gif


Even if you want to play at home, don't.

Any time, in which you play at home, where you could instead play at a store, is bad.

You're killing whoever plays in that store's, game. Which, as has been pointed out, you don't care about.

If you're playing 'Beer & Pretzels' in your friends' basement, you're already destroying the hobby anyway.

[Cheesegear]

.gif

So, I guess asking someone to play games and be a part of their community, because it's better for the community, Is guilting or shaming?

Man, your bar is low.

[Avaris]

So, I guess asking someone to play games and be a part of their community, because it's better for the community, Is guilting or shaming?

Man, your bar is low.

It’s fine to tell someone it is good to play as part of their community. You’re right: it’s important to the health of the hobby.

The guilting and shaming comes when you’re saying that by not doing so they’re ‘destroying’ the hobby or any of the other things you’ve said.

Build up. Tell them why it’s important. Don’t tear down.

Edit: clearly, you don’t say that in person. But this is ALSO a community. And you’re saying it here.

[Thragka]

Depends why. If you don't play someone because you don't like them as a person, outside of the game (and you tell them that's why you're not playing) it absolutely is a personal insult.

This is laughably irrelevant to your attempted substantiation of the claim that someone not participating is hurting the enjoyment of others.

[LCP]

Telling people that they're 'destroying the hobby', that they don't care about their local communities, and that their actions are simply 'bad' is quite clearly those things. It took me a minute to dig up the quotes but I've edited them into the previous post.

Of course, you will now say that you didn't mean all those guilting/shaming statements in a negative way, you were just expressing some kind of abstract sentiment of generalised oh-no-ness as a neutral observer. To which I say, pull the other one, it's got bells on. And I think that concludes another fun Cheesegear adventure.

[Cheesegear]

"Hey man, you and your brother play at your house? How often do you play? Cool. Hey, on Saturday, you should see if your brother can come here and we'll throw down a few games, and we'll get you to meet a few people, and you'll get a bunch of games in, and it should be fun. The more games you play, the better it'll be as you get to know everyone. You should make friends pretty fast."

So guilted.

OH NO WAIT. I'M A ROBOT AND NOT A PERSON. AND OTHER PEOPLE, ARE ALSO NOT PEOPLE. I FORGOT.

"Hey! You. Play games with us on Saturday or you're a bad person 'cause you definitely want our community to die and for the space to close down and everyone's games to be ruined. Yep. That's you. All because you play in your house."

"Hey man, you and your brother play at your house? How often do you play? Cool. Hey, on Saturday, you should see if your brother can come here and we'll throw down a few games, and we'll get you to meet a few people, and you'll get a bunch of games in, and it should be fun. The more games you play, the better it'll be as you get to know everyone. You should make friends pretty fast."

So guilted.

OH NO WAIT. I'M A ROBOT AND NOT A PERSON. AND OTHER PEOPLE, ARE ALSO NOT PEOPLE. I FORGOT.

"Hey! You. Play games with us on Saturday or you're a bad person 'cause you definitely want our community to die and for the space to close down and everyone's games to be ruined. Yep. That's you. All because you play in your house."

"Hey man, you and your brother play at your house? How often do you play? Cool. Hey, on Saturday, you should see if your brother can come here and we'll throw down a few games, and we'll get you to meet a few people, and you'll get a bunch of games in, and it should be fun. The more games you play, the better it'll be as you get to know everyone. You should make friends pretty fast."

So guilted.

OH NO WAIT. I'M A ROBOT AND NOT A PERSON. AND OTHER PEOPLE, ARE ALSO NOT PEOPLE. I FORGOT.

"Hey! You. Play games with us on Saturday or you're a bad person 'cause you definitely want our community to die and for the space to close down and everyone's games to be ruined. Yep. That's you. All because you play in your house."

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

Ok, but you DID say "if you play at home you're destroying the hobby." Here. This is real life. We're real people on the other side of these monitors that you're accusing of playing so wrong that we're ruining Warhammer. We got justifiably upset at that accusation. Don't pretend like it doesn't count because if it were in person you'd dress it up nicely, that just means that you feel free to a be a **** to us because you don't have to see our faces.

Edit: also re: the "if you want to play, buy new models" stuff, where people come in with a list of models and ask what they can do with it: I can't often afford to buy new models. What I have is what I CAN get, so if your only response is "buy new models or don't bother", you're basically just telling me "you should quit the hobby, rich people only." How about when someone says "this is what I got, how do I make it work the best I can within these restraints?" you actually work within the question? That response always got me so mad, because it's so blindered by classism.

[LeSwordfish]

Either you're constantly moderating your statements after people call you out on them, in which case you are being a ****, or you consistently state your moderate beliefs on the most obnoxious way possible for no reason. I remember once a while ago you proudly announced that you punched someone in the head over a game of warhammer, and then when people called you out you PM'd me with a much more reasonable reason to hit someone. (In as much as such a thing exists.) What is your investment in presenting the worst side of yourself?

(Also choosing not to hang out with someone you dislike isnt a personal insult. That's just a sensible way to live your life.)

[Forum Explorer]

Even taken for granted, none of those things make it true that someone not participating is hurting the enjoyment of others.

It's trivially true that if everyone stays home and plays with mates then clubs etc. go under. The point that's clearly untrue (and also, insane) is the idea that people owe their communities every second of their gaming time and are actively hurting them if they withhold any of it. That's not a hobby club, that's a cult.

Whatever community you're trying to build, people don't owe you their time unless you're paying them a wage. It doesn't matter if the hobby in question is toy soldiers or music or competitive basket-weaving, people's time is their own, and the onus is on the community to be a place that people want to spend their time. That's a simple fact, it's much more important than any wittering about 'metas', and it's the obvious reason (not regional differences or any such convenient get-out) that your post is attracting objection and ridicule.

This is a great way to put it. The gamestore closest to me (an actual GW) is awful. They've legitimately stopped me from playing there because my models weren't fully painted. Or I wasn't 100% WYSIWYG. Or whatever BS reason they came up with that day. And because I spend the majority of my money on used stuff, they are actively insulting towards me. So now I never go there. I want that store to fail. And I'm fully willing to drive an extra 15 minutes to go to a different (non-GW) gamestore. Which has such a better community that I actually go out of my way to buy stuff from their store if I need it, even if I could get it (slightly) cheaper elsewhere.


Ok, but you DID say "if you play at home you're destroying the hobby." Here. This is real life. We're real people on the other side of these monitors that you're accusing of playing so wrong that we're ruining Warhammer. We got justifiably upset at that accusation. Don't pretend like it doesn't count because if it were in person you'd dress it up nicely, that just means that you feel free to a be a **** to us because you don't have to see our faces.

Edit: also re: the "if you want to play, buy new models" stuff, where people come in with a list of models and ask what they can do with it: I can't often afford to buy new models. What I have is what I CAN get, so if your only response is "buy new models or don't bother", you're basically just telling me "you should quit the hobby, rich people only." How about when someone says "this is what I got, how do I make it work the best I can within these restraints?" you actually work within the question? That response always got me so mad, because it's so blindered by classism.

Very much this. This is a community, and we are all human beings on the other side of the screen. It is very possible to insult and offend us by, well saying stuff like 'you are destroying your community by not playing at the local gamestore.' Acting surprised when someone is insulted after you insult them is just silly.

That being said, I partially disagree. My cousin and I are both very active members of the local meta. If we take a day to go play at one of our houses instead, the community will be just fine. A regular missing a single day isn't going to make a difference, not statistically anyways. But that's because we are regulars. If you almost never come out to play, then you aren't really supporting the community, leading to a weaker community as a result.

That being said though, if you don't like the local community, finding it unpleasant or what not, than **** them. You aren't obligated to support something you don't like.

[Cheesegear]

Edit: also re: the "if you want to play, buy new models"

No. If you want to win, buy new models. If what you have, in your existing meta, isn't winning games, then you do have to buy new models.
If you want to just play, run whatever you want. If you ask about a Themed List, I can show you how to to that whilst also being good.

If you want to win games, and you aren't, with what you already have? ...****. I honestly don't know how I can help you, and I'm sorry if you're in a meta where people just dunk on you, where they know you can't change your list, and they could/can, and don't. That must be terrible. That's one of the times where you leave them.


Either you're constantly moderating your statements after people call you out on them, in which case you are being a ****

Absolutely. Because I frequently talk in absolutes, when I don't mean to.


or you consistently state your moderate beliefs on the most obnoxious way possible for no reason.

That is absolutely the case. Pretty much every time.


What is your investment in presenting the worst side of yourself?

Because it's not intentional. Because unlike an actual conversation, there is no-one to interrupt me immediately when I say something dumb. Or, perhaps more accurately, none of you actually know who I am in person, and half the dumb **** I say isn't what I actually mean. And it takes a full conversation to get to that point. Unfortunately, on a forum, especially on topics as...Fast...As this one. Editing and Deleting posts becomes a nightmare. So it's really difficult to fix the stupid **** I write before someone has seen it, and already reacted to it.

...And, this has happened before, and almost certainly will again.
It'll take me half a day. But eventually I'll get to the point I actually meant.

(And, in fact, I already have...It's just that people are still bringing up what I said before the post where I came to the conclusion I wanted. Which means I have to keep talking about the things where the meaning isn't clear - and is in fact, insulting to a few people without intending to be)


Of course, you will now say that you didn't mean all those guilting/shaming statements in a negative way

I absolutely did mean them as negative. What I didn't mean, was that they were absolute. Which I then clarified say, 'Beer & Preztels is killing the hobby' - that is 100% a negative and I meant it as such - and similar over a number of posts to three easy points:

1. More people in a community is good.
2. More diversity in a community is good.
3. More games played is better.

Conversely,

Less people is bad. Less diversity of army lists, game types and points limits is bad. Less games plays is bad.

Removing yourself from your community, is bad for your community.
However, it's totally possible, and very reasonable, that removing yourself from the community, is a positive, for you, personally.
Which is a thing I didn't take into account because it didn't really occur to me that some people, IRL are pieces of ****, despite the fact that everyone is dealing in a hobby that they supposedly like. Like I said, it no longer makes sense to me, to refuse games. Don't I like playing games? I do! Don't I like interacting with people? I do! Why would I ever refuse a game?

It doesn't make sense to me, that removing yourself from a community is a choice, because your community is ****.
In my experience, people who remove themselves from the community do so by burning every single bridge on the way out. It's insane.
I was wrong. Rad.

I need to remember that people in the UK pretty much have the hobby at the best that they've ever had it. And what they say, absolutely doesn't reflect what's going down in GW-land, vis-a-vis Australia.
e.g; It doesn't occur to me that some communities are so robust that they don't actually need more people, where you can play at home and your local space does just fine without a constant influx of traffic.

Easy.
And all's it took was me saying something stupid and having people attack me for it. Which allows me to clarify my ideas. 'Cause that's how forums work. Yay!

[LeSwordfish]

Can I make the recommendation that you work on developing a mental filter then, rather than requiring the rest of us to do it for you?

[LCP]

Or, perhaps more accurately, none of you actually know who I am in person,

I think we all have a pretty good idea of the kind of person you are in this thread, which is the only version of you that has any relevance to the people here.


It'll take me half a day. But eventually I'll get to the point I actually meant.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DlzBohbX0AMnSGl.png

[LansXero]

What I find funny is how many people feel personally attacked and jump to defend their choice just as beligerantly as they accuse Cheese of pushing his own.

Everyone wants validation, but when someone else's clashes with their own they bare their fangs too. If you dont care about your community, why do you take issue to the notion that you are hurting it by not participating? Yes, you are killing it, because everything adds up and while you have no obligation whatsoever to help it, if more and more people do the same it stops existing. Should your local offerings improve then? Sure, I dont know them but there are always things to do better. More outreach, more inclusiveness, moderating the offending regulars, etc. And this is important because without this community, without the officialness of it, why are you paying a premium for plastic men?

Whats the difference between a GW Model and a 3d printed mini, or a recasted mini, or a piece of paper with 'ork boy' on it? Entering those tournaments you werent going to enter anyways? Playing with those people who care about WYSIWYG that you werent going to play with anyways? The organized play you dont use? The in-store activities you dont attend? Why are you paying the extra, to not use any of it?

[Blackhawk748]

Cheese being his overly hyperbolic self aside, I get what he's saying. My local meta died once 7th hit. They hated it. I wasn't really a part of it anyway, just a guy who dropped in super randomly and mostly just to talk.

Would it still be around if I was there? Well, I was mostly playing Heralds of Ruin Kill Team at the time, so its possible that I would have brought other people in. Hell, I know I would have brought at least my two immediate friends in. Would that have been enough to have it survive 7th? I don't know and we never will, because I wasn't part of it

[Saambell]

I think we all have a pretty good idea of the kind of person you are in this thread, which is the only version of you that has any relevance to the people here.

Cheesegear is a casual.
He by choice plays one of the worst armies in the game. He looks at tournament winning lists and dismisses them as "un fun" or "boring to play". He would rather not beat a person with no contest and would rather a fair game both people can win instead of him simply crushing a beginner. He refuses to play factions or add certain things to his army cause he doesnt like them even if they would let him with a lot easier.
He is not a tryhard.

However. He is in a community with actual tryhards who will jump ship as soon as a new powerlist appears. When theres a for fun narrative event their idea of for fun is simply the second best option in the best codexes in the game. Meanwhile Cheesegear brings a black templar list with a lot of poor options.
In a lot of places, theres not the option to drive for a few more minutes and find another place. Where i am its 50km to find a single place. I would imagine its the same for Cheesegear. Its play to your meta or dont play.
But he has the issue of people even more casual then him ruining things for him. The Robute nerfs being the prime example. Something that was holding an entire codex out of the garbage bin being nerfed due to people crying about it when it was not that big an issue. People who would rather cry online then change their list. And games workshop listened to public opinion when people who knew the game knew it was the wrong move. When people who avoid communities have the power to ruin things for others on the other side of the world, thats how garage players are hurting the game.

[LansXero]

Cheesegear is a casual.

He is also a dork who plays narrative campaigns as written in the rulebook, and writes Let's Reads of BL books.

Truly, that such a mild individual is touted as some scary tryhard powergamer is kinda amusing. It shows nobody has been in an actually toxic community. Which is a great thing, but does color perceptions.

[houlio]

Cheese being his overly hyperbolic self aside, I get what he's saying. My local meta died once 7th hit. They hated it. I wasn't really a part of it anyway, just a guy who dropped in super randomly and mostly just to talk.

Would it still be around if I was there? Well, I was mostly playing Heralds of Ruin Kill Team at the time, so its possible that I would have brought other people in. Hell, I know I would have brought at least my two immediate friends in. Would that have been enough to have it survive 7th? I don't know and we never will, because I wasn't part of it

I find this conversation interesting, because I find myself also agreeing with Cheese and LansXero on this. A big reason a ton of the other mini games out there like Malifuax or Infinity have very little presence is that there aren't communities to join and get started in a lot of places. X-Wing having active communities all over the place for a time was huge in its success and popularity (maybe it's still huge, haven't been in a place with a tabletop community for 2 years now).

Essentially, the public store/club scene is what keeps the tabletop industry growing (and thus existing). Otherwise, you end up with a stagnant playerbase that slowly shrinks away from attrition. I remember in the first season of Guildball, a friend and I basically started our local scene because we went to and played at our preferred store. I really don't think we would have gotten anyone else interested by playing in private and just talking it up to friends or whatever.

[Renegade Paladin]

I will just say this: My own local 40k meta utterly collapsed in late 6th edition and has never really come back. I know for a fact at least some of them still play, but they do it at home with a bastardized version of 5th edition and have no interest in coming to the store anymore. I've been busting my tail trying to get it back, and I finally have some prospects, but it's a lot of work. I run what's turned out to be a really popular tournament format - to the point the store has had to raise the admission price just to try to get attendance and costs under control; our January doubles tournament was over capacity and we had to move stock racks and rent tables to seat everyone - but it's all out of towners who only come out here once a quarter for our tournaments; I almost never get to actually play. It would be a LOT easier if I could get our old players to come back and try 8th, but odds of that are slim at this point. Breaking up and playing at home does wreck the overall community, and I have a case study right here.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

But isn't that just... the community changing venues but keeping an old game, while you're changing games but not venues? I feel for you for sure, but that seems more like the issue is you wanted to continue playing new editions, while the community didn't, rather than the issue being the community playing in the wrong venue. Do you think it would be different if they continued playing bastardized 5th but in stores instead?

[Blackhawk748]

But isn't that just... the community changing venues but keeping an old game, while you're changing games but not venues? I feel for you for sure, but that seems more like the issue is you wanted to continue playing new editions, while the community didn't, rather than the issue being the community playing in the wrong venue. Do you think it would be different if they continued playing bastardized 5th but in stores instead?

It's entirely possible. The Kill Team I play isn't GWs but if I ran a league at the FLGS they'd probably be using GW minis and people would see and maybe want in. So even if we aren't playing the newest edition we could still get people into the hobby and buying minis, even if it's to play something else.

[Renegade Paladin]

But isn't that just... the community changing venues but keeping an old game, while you're changing games but not venues? I feel for you for sure, but that seems more like the issue is you wanted to continue playing new editions, while the community didn't, rather than the issue being the community playing in the wrong venue. Do you think it would be different if they continued playing bastardized 5th but in stores instead?
Yeah, but it's not all one group that went off to play at one guy's house; there's a bunch of them who split off in different directions, and so far as I know most of them wound up eventually quitting. I didn't give the complete picture; there's a family unit that kept playing a bastardized version of 5th, a few people who moved, a couple who outright quit, two who only do beer and pretzels games anymore (including after hours at the shop when one of the owners feels like it), and a couple of collectors who I've seen play like once each who both say they want to but never seem to make it out. There are a couple of people who've moved in looking for a place to play, and I think we're disappointing them because it's just me and somehow the two families who moved in wanting to play about the same time never seem to cross paths at the store at the same time - except once, when they all turned up at a Kill Team learn to play and I couldn't teach everyone at once, which I think frustrated people. I haven't given up on them yet, though, so we'll see. I've been trying to start an Urban Conquest league, but GW is jerking us around failing to deliver orders for six months straight, so that doesn't help either.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

Ah yeah, that's just a brutal fall-apart of the community, fair fair.

[Cheesegear]

In case nobody knows, here's what's being price hiked over the weekend (https://imgur.com/a/3MLY4hk) (in $USD).
...The only Factions not hit, appear to be Dark Angels and Space Wolves (at least the DA/SW-specific stuff) and Custodes.

Why?
'To bring it in line with newer kits.'*

Not because there's more plastic. Not because they're being re-boxed.
But because they are charging more for newer kits, that means just...Raise the price on old kits. Because obviously.

If new stuff costs more, old stuff should cost more too.

*Because nobody buys the new kits because they're more expensive, so if we gouge you on old stuff, it's almost like you're forced to buy the new stuff!

Time to start re-doing BoaBs.

[Blackhawk748]

In case nobody knows, here's what's being price hiked over the weekend (https://imgur.com/a/3MLY4hk) (in $USD).
...The only Factions not hit, appear to be Dark Angels and Space Wolves (at least the DA/SW-specific stuff) and Custodes.

Why?
'To bring it in line with newer kits.'*

Not because there's more plastic. Not because they're being re-boxed.
But because they are charging more for newer kits, that means just...Raise the price on old kits. Because obviously.

If new stuff costs more, old stuff should cost more too.

*Because nobody buys the new kits because they're more expensive, so if we gouge you on old stuff, it's almost like you're forced to buy the new stuff!

Time to start re-doing BoaBs.

Oh joy. Get less stuff for more money! Thanks GW! This won't piss anyone off

[Destro_Yersul]

Well, good thing I've already bought all the minis I need, I guess? Looks like AoS is mostly safe, too, so my wife's elves won't have any problems.

[LeSwordfish]

Oh joy. Get less stuff for more money! Thanks GW! This won't piss anyone off

What do you mean "less stuff"?

I'm also not sure if these hikes apply outside the US. I'm sure I saw a thing about them being region locked (which is why nobody's seen a leak for any other currency.) But either way, at this stage in the game, complaining GW stuff is expensive for no reason seems like rather a lost battle.

[Cheesegear]

Also, I've found how to paint armour using Contrast Paints - as opposed to cloth and skin.
You use Contrast Paints over silver paint, not white paint.

I've used Glazes in the past - especially for Deathwatch and Grey Knights, to get blue steel.
But Contrasts are actually way better for the job.

[Blackhawk748]

What do you mean "less stuff"?

I'm also not sure if these hikes apply outside the US. I'm sure I saw a thing about them being region locked (which is why nobody's seen a leak for any other currency.) But either way, at this stage in the game, complaining GW stuff is expensive for no reason seems like rather a lost battle.

You get less stuff in comparison to the new kits, which these are being priced similarly too. So you get less stuff for more money.

And really? Why? The US prices have always seemed to be similar to the UK prices once changed for exchange rate

Maybe it's lost but dear lord man I'm a Sisters player. I'm used to screaming into a hurricane

[LeSwordfish]

You get less stuff in comparison to the new kits, which these are being priced similarly too. So, less stuff for the same amount of money.

[Yaktan]

Yeah, a guy at my FLGS used constrasts to get metalic pink for the new Sister of Battle. Though he used the gold retributor armor spray rather than silver.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

Contrasts look to do well on cloth, skin, and to get coloured or lacquered metallics, from what I’ve seen. I got a pot to help me with my skin tones, especially for faces, which I’ve really struggled with.

[LansXero]

Also, I've found how to paint armour using Contrast Paints - as opposed to cloth and skin.
You use Contrast Paints over silver paint, not white paint.

Wait, wasnt this in the warhammer community preview, and the demo video, and pretty obvious from the start? Not to criticize you, but Im sure Ive known this for a while and I wasnt particularly looking for it.

As for the price increase, its likely global. No more leaks because even stores themselves know very little, my rep is pretty awesome and keeps me informed but not all of GW's sales reps are like that

[LeSwordfish]

The main problem i'm having with Contrast right now is that it goes on very poorly over a painted-on basecoat as opposed to a sprayed one. As such, what I was hoping to use it for (skin on, say, blood warriors), requires spraying in Contrast and then painting everything else over that, rather than the leadbelcher base I'd rather use. That said, I've found Wraithbone to be a really solid white spray (I did an entire army over a Corax White base, and it nigh on killed me. You couldn't pay me to do that again.)

I tried the contrast-on-silver trick for some Alpha Legion, and loved it so much that i'm considering changing my little burgeoning force of primaris marines from Dark Angels into something I can paint in metallic colors. A little recess Nuln Oil wash and drybrushed highlight, before the Contrast goes on, works miracles apparently.

[Cheesegear]

Yeah, a guy at my FLGS used constrasts to get metalic pink for the new Sister of Battle. Though he used the gold retributor armor spray rather than silver.

You would have to use gold for red shades, since shades of red rather infamously don't go so well over whites. :smallwink:


Wait, wasnt this in the warhammer community preview, and the demo video, and pretty obvious from the start?

I never saw that. :smallamused:
I was painting with glazes just today, and someone said 'Why not Contrast?', I thought that was a really good idea, and it worked.

Turns out he just stole an idea from a video that's publicly and apparently widely known.

[LansXero]

I never saw that. :smallamused:
I was painting with glazes just today, and someone said 'Why not Contrast?', I thought that was a really good idea, and it worked.

Turns out he just stole an idea from a video that's publicly and apparently widely known.

Endless Possibilities
Contrast is an incredibly powerful paint range. While we’d recommend getting started painting purely with Contrast using the Contrast Method, you’ll be able to accomplish some remarkable effects by mixing it with our existing range. Warhammer Community’s Chris Peach has found that Contrast colours applied over Leadbelcher or Retributor Armour make for eye-catching coloured metallics.

Thats from the very first article telling us what Contrast was, way back in May:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2019/05/23/contrast-meet-the-rangegw-homepage-post-2fw-homepage-post-2/

[Avaris]

Also, I've found how to paint armour using Contrast Paints - as opposed to cloth and skin.
You use Contrast Paints over silver paint, not white paint.

I've used Glazes in the past - especially for Deathwatch and Grey Knights, to get blue steel.
But Contrasts are actually way better for the job.

I’d love to see an example of this if anyone can share a photo. I currently paint Death Guard with green shades over a Leadbelcher base, so curious to see how contrast paints work in this regard!

[Cheesegear]

Thats from the very first article telling us what Contrast was, way back in May:

Come on, man. You know for a fact I barely skim anything from Warhammer Community, and that's if I read it at all. :smalltongue:

[Wraith]

I played another game last night. Twice in three weeks, can you believe that? :smalltongue:

I won't bore with a battle report as I did a whole bunch of things wrong, including forgetting to use Psychic Powers, forgetting how Rapid Fire works and generally being a newbie all over the place. That being said, the game left me with a solid feeling that Grey Knights can work, at least as a mono-build.

Spam Grand Masters in Dreadknights, Interceptors and Heavy-slot Dreadknights, then Teleport Shunt everything into your opponents' face in Turn 1, Rapid Fire with Psybolt Ammo like a crazy person to score Linebreaker, First Blood, Slay the Warlord, Kingslayer, Assassinate and whatever other Tactical Cards you have in hand; if you don't have 3+2d3 kill points by the morale phase, you've gone horrible wrong somewhere.

I lost the game, but only by a margin much smaller than you might have expected thanks to hyper-aggressive pursuit of his warlord and characters.

It's a very thematic list. Grey Knights aren't supposed to be the sort of army that masses on a battlefield and engages in attrition warfare, they instead appear out of nowhere, strike like thunderbolts and then leave before anyone realises what happened, and this list does that.
The problem with this is, you're up to ~1500 points for ~30 miniatures and ~4 Walkers, so not only do you have no Troop choices and no CP's because you aren't battleforged, but you also have no plans for Turn 2. If you don't have a huge head-start in Victory Points or you flubbed some rolls and there's a pile of Leman Russes still standing in front of you, you might as well just concede :smalltongue:

Supreme Command/Outrider detachments are probably the way forward, and even then you're gambling on the biggest alpha-strike since Drop pods were a thing... But it should work.


In case nobody knows, here's what's being price hiked over the weekend (https://imgur.com/a/3MLY4hk) (in $USD).
...The only Factions not hit, appear to be Dark Angels and Space Wolves (at least the DA/SW-specific stuff) and Custodes.

I was discussing a similar topic with my opponent from last night. He was discussing 30k and how in the near future he thought that GW would update the rules to 8th edition, because having two rulesets is killing demand for Heresy-era stuff and that can't be allowed to happen while the Siege of Terra books are being launched.
He believes that the upcoming price increases are a part of that - old 40k lines are being made comparable to 30k lines, so that the two can share a rulebook and thus 30k can piggyback off of 40k's popularity, which will only work if the two cost the same. He cited the lack of interest in the most recent releases as his evidence for that - "Blood Angels came and went and no one seemed to care" which was a sad waste of some nice models that no one would ever use.

Anecdotally, I had to point out to him that the Dark Angels Terminators announced in May were the newest 30k releases. 30k is so disinteresting that he hadn't even noticed an entire release, so he might well be on to something :smalltongue:

[Cheesegear]

The problem with this is, you're up to ~1500 points for ~30 miniatures and ~4 Walkers, so not only do you have no Troop choices and no CP's

If your <Imperium> army is only 2 Detachments and comes to 1800 Points (or less), and you're struggling for warm bodies and CPs...You know what to do. :smallwink:

[Wraith]

If your <Imperium> army is only 2 Detachments and comes to 1800 Points (or less), and you're struggling for warm bodies and CPs...You know what to do. :smallwink:

Black Templars Servitors! OF COURSE! :smallbiggrin:

[Avaris]

I was discussing a similar topic with my opponent from last night. He was discussing 30k and how in the near future he thought that GW would update the rules to 8th edition, because having two rulesets is killing demand for Heresy-era stuff and that can't be allowed to happen while the Siege of Terra books are being launched.
He believes that the upcoming price increases are a part of that - old 40k lines are being made comparable to 30k lines, so that the two can share a rulebook and thus 30k can piggyback off of 40k's popularity, which will only work if the two cost the same. He sited the lack of interest in the most recent releases as his evidence for that - "Blood Angels came and went and no one seemed to care" which was a sad waste of some nice models that no one would ever use.

Anecdotally,I had to point out to him that the Dark Angels Terminators announced in May were the newest 30k releases. 30k is so disinteresting that he hadn't even noticed an entire release, so he might well be on to something :smalltongue:

I’d be surprised by this, as the impression I get is that there is a small but dedicated following for 30k, and the Forge World studio is entirely seperate to the main 40k one. Plus the players who have invested have invested heavily in expensive books, which GW wants to carry on selling.

You’re not wrong though that they will want to push this stuff given the finale to the Horus Heresy rules, so we might start to see rules like they did with the Custodes so they can be used in 40k.

And, of course, when did anything GW does make sense?

[Wraith]

...there is a small but dedicated following for 30k, and the Forge World studio is entirely separate to the main 40k one. Plus the players who have invested have invested heavily in expensive books, which GW wants to carry on selling.

"Small" is the key word there, I think. Why would they want one small following when they could change the rulebooks to 8th edition and have two BIG followings? Especially if it means they could start selling Forge World stock to even more 40k players? :smalltongue:

It's not like they're shy about making books redundant every few years and making people buy new ones, and besides; You're free to carry on playing 30k rules of you want to, just like people were free to keep playing 7th Edition when they hated 8th edition, or how they were free to continue playing WHFB when AoS came out....

Like I said, it was just a suspicion that could be on the table, nothing has confirmed or even directly suggested it. I'd just be surprised if GW haven't already thought about it, as what else can they do with the Heresy era Legions after the Horus Heresy cycle has been completed? Then again, I asked the same question about Lord of the Rings after the last Hobbit movie came out, so who really know...?

[Renegade Paladin]

Ah yeah, that's just a brutal fall-apart of the community, fair fair.
What's even better? I think all the work I've put in has done more to kickstart the metas in neighboring cities rather than our own. We get high tournament attendance because we're midway between three major cities and fairly easily reachable from several others, so I've spent about two years getting big turnout from those places. But lately I find that suddenly there are tournaments scheduled across from me or the week before in two of them every single quarter. I schedule ours basically as soon as the previous one ends, so we're on the calendar for over two months, but like clockwork, about three weeks to a month before a tournament will get scheduled across from us in one or both and everyone will go to the one in their backyards instead. I can't blame them for that, but this didn't used to happen.

[LansXero]

Then do what they did and drive your community there, or get in touch with their TOs and make a whole thing out of it. Yeah, small LGS owners can be petty as hell, I despise my own local colleagues because half of them are crooks and the other half are incompetent, but it doesnt always have to be that way, plenty of large areas have TOs coordinating with each other.

Take Santiago de Chile for example, hugely populated, over 24 stores, they all have a FB group to not overlap on important MTG tournaments.

[Requizen]

....They got me. They freaking got me.

Oh, I'll just get the SM half of Shadowspear, some Reivers, and some Intercessors. Just enough for Kill Team.

Man, those Aggressors and Inceptors look cool. Can't use em in Kill Team? Oh well, will be nice to paint at least. Eventually they'll put em in KT anyways.

And now here I sit, thinking some vehicles would look dope next to these. A Redemptor Dread and Executioner would make the whole thing feel like a nice set piece. And at that point, well, why not just make it a 40k army?

I'm the sucker that they design for. And I chomped hard on that bait.

[9mm]

....They got me. They freaking got me.

Oh, I'll just get the SM half of Shadowspear, some Reivers, and some Intercessors. Just enough for Kill Team.

Man, those Aggressors and Inceptors look cool. Can't use em in Kill Team? Oh well, will be nice to paint at least. Eventually they'll put em in KT anyways.

And now here I sit, thinking some vehicles would look dope next to these. A Redemptor Dread and Executioner would make the whole thing feel like a nice set piece. And at that point, well, why not just make it a 40k army?

I'm the sucker that they design for. And I chomped hard on that bait.

I know that feel. I'm 1 hq from having a full on battalion of Primaris; just in time for Apocalypse too. All it took to get me started was the free 30th anniversary Sgt and sniper scout from nova last year.

[LeSwordfish]

I found a place in London thats still selling some of the Batallion boxes from last christmas and I resisted... until someone pointed out how easy Necrons would be with Contrast, and then I failed to resist.

(What I did manage not to do was to also buy their apocalypse box and Start Collecting.)

[druid91]

So, Recommendations for minimum size for the battles in Apocalypse is 300 power a side. So roughly 6000 points.

[Avaris]

Have now picked up Apocalypse, if anyone has any questions about the rules. A couple more things of note:
- objectives are claimed by whoever has most units in 6”. Objective Secured means you control it if your opponent hasn’t got any ObSec units in range
- Infiltrate allows units to be deployed within 24” of their Detachment commander, rather than 12, including outside deployment zone. They can then stay 24” away throughout the battle, rather than 12”. They also get an automatic 5+ save when garrisoning a building
- in order to move into a building you garrison it. You don’t need to stay in unit coherency when in a building, and the building can fit as many models as it can fit. If garrisonning you get benefit of concealment (-1 to hit) and also benefits when assaulted

[LeSwordfish]

Does Deep Striking do anything similar to infiltrating?

(Today's impulse/apocalypse purchases:)https://i.imgur.com/mGpIVuZ.jpg

(I had a tax rebate and some overtime and I sold my GSC and Tzeentch stuff so... its cool. It's okay, don't worry about it.)

[Avaris]

Does Deep Striking do anything similar to infiltrating?



Deep Strike is just the standard appear more than 9” from enemy. Notably though, it occurs in the Command phase, before orders are given but after it has been checked if units are in range of their commander. So you don’t suffer from being too far away in the turn they appear, and they also get a full, normal turn at the point they appear. So any deepstriking unit with a basic move of 5” or more can immediately get into combat if desired (as the assault order allows you to move twice; note you don’t roll a charge distance for assaulting)

[Mystic Muse]

Don't ever run Belisarius Cawl in an Ad Mech army.

That way you don't have to paint him.

Save yourselves!

[9mm]

Does Deep Striking do anything similar to infiltrating?

(Today's impulse/apocalypse purchases:)https://i.imgur.com/mGpIVuZ.jpg

(I had a tax rebate and some overtime and I sold my GSC and Tzeentch stuff so... its cool. It's okay, don't worry about it.)

I just got the super heavy box and the apocalypse rules... and some termies for kill team... and yet another box of skeletons.... and ordered another Battlefoam bag... Did I mention its also M20's prerelease weekend?

[LeSwordfish]

I just got the super heavy box and the apocalypse rules... and some termies for kill team... and yet another box of skeletons.... and ordered another Battlefoam bag... Did I mention its also M20's prerelease weekend?

The superheavy box as in the big carry case? How big *is* that, as compared to the others? All the ads tout it as huge but it looks like it has eight trays like my current one. Are the trays bigger?

[9mm]

The superheavy box as in the big carry case? How big *is* that, as compared to the others? All the ads tout it as huge but it looks like it has eight trays like my current one. Are the trays bigger?

no just the castallen and helvrins. I didn't see the citidel XL.

[Mystic Muse]

We don't have anything to compare it to really (we have no other GW cases), but I'm getting the XL.

What would you like me to do for a size comparison?

[LeSwordfish]

We don't have anything to compare it to really (we have no other GW cases), but I'm getting the XL.

What would you like me to do for a size comparison?

How many foam trays are there, and if it's eight (four sets of two, how big are they? Thanks!

[Avaris]

Thing I’ve realised on a closer read of Apocalypse: when it recommends that a game of 300-450 power level be played on a 6x6 table, it means 300-450 between both players, not each!

[druid91]

Y'know. It annoys the heck out of me that GW insists on calling their rulesets Bespoke. Unless of course they are trying to advertise that they are tailor made for one person in particular. Which would certainly explain why several rules make no sense to me.

[Cheesegear]

New Space Wolves SC! box... Total trash.
Thousand Sons SC! box... Okay? I guess.

[Hootman]

If your <Imperium> army is only 2 Detachments and comes to 1800 Points (or less), and you're struggling for warm bodies and CPs...You know what to do. :smallwink:


Black Templars Servitors! OF COURSE! :smallbiggrin:

That totally got me. Disturbed my roommates with all my cackling on the couch. Well played.

Moving on, I had a game against Guard yesterday that was...interesting? No, that's the wrong word.


Battalion, Evil Suns
HQ
Big Mek Krookkracka
Big Mek in Mega Armor
-PK, Kustom Shoota
+Relic: Gitstoppa Shells

Weirdboy
+Warphead: Da Jump, Warpath (-1cp)

TROOPS
Choppa Boyz 30
-PK Nob

Shoota Boyz 20
-Shoota Nob

Shoota Boyz 20
-Shoota Nob

Outrider, Evil Suns
HQ
Warboss on Warbike (W)
-Big Choppa, Shoota, Attack Squig
+Relic: Headwhoppa's Killchoppa (-1cp)
+Trait: Might is Right (+1S to S9, +1 Attack)

FAST ATTACK
Stormboyz 27
-PK Nob

Warbikers 6
-PK Nob

Warbikers 6
-PK Nob

Spearhead, Freebooterz
HQ
Kaptin Badrukk

HEAVY SUPPORT
Flash Gitz 5

Battlewagon
-4 Big Shootas

Morkanaut
-Kustom Force Field

And my opponent's list looked a lot like this:


Battalion, Catachan
HQ
Company Commander (W)
+Kurov's Aquila
+Trait: Grand Strategist

Command Squad
-Veteran Lascannon Team

TROOPS
Infantry Squad
Infantry Squad
-Lascannon Team
Tempestus Scions

HEAVY SUPPORT
Leman Russ Battle Tank
-Lascannon

Leman Russ Battle Tank
-Lascannon

Leman Russ Eradicator
-Nova Cannon, Lascannon

Battalion, Catachan
HQ
Sly Marbo

Lord Commissar

TROOPS
Infantry Squad
Infantry Squad
-Lascannon Team
Tempestus Scions

ELITES
Master of Ordinance

DEDICATED TRANSPORT
Chimera
-Multilaser, Heavy Flamer

Taurox Prime
-GatlingTurret, Autocannons?

FLYER
Valkyrie Gunship
-Heavy Bolters, Missile Pods, Lascannons

HEAVY SUPPORT
Leman Russ Battle Tank
-Lascannon

Leman Russ Battle Tank
-Lascannon

Leman Russ Eradicator
-Nova Cannon, Lascannon

Wyvern
-Heavy Flamer

Super Heavy Auxiliary, Imperial Knights
Armiger Warglaive
-Thermal Spear, Big Chainsaw Arm

So we pull out our models, prep them in the staging area, and give an overview of our lists. Whoops, I didn't expect to be facing down 11 vehicles. I didn't bring any Tankbustas, even though I knew I'd be facing Guard. Guess I'll just have to hope I can go first and charge...uh...everything? God, thats a terrible plan...

He picks deployment type. The old Spearhead deployment, my worst match up, since he can make me slog over a 40 inch No-Man's-Land and gun me down a ton before I get into combat no matter who goes first. Sweet.

We deploy. I deploy all my units pushing my zone, like how Orks do. Weirdboy is ready to throw the Choppa Squad, and everything else will charge with the Warboss. My opponent...deploys all of his tanks on the deployment line, or as close as the trees let him. Wyvern in the back alone, Valkyrie and Armiger in between, with men spread around holding areas of cover/objectives.

Huh. I guess I have a plan, then.

I finish deploying first, and roll a 6 (+1=7) to go first. Rad. He fails to seize. Double-rad. He tries to launch an Orbital Bombardment stratagem at me, only managing to put a wound on Krookkracka and literally nothing else. Triple-rad. Time to play.

Everything fast advances, covering 18" at the slowest. My Stormboyz got the full 20", rolling a 6 for their advance like champs. Shoota Boyz advance toward objectives in the midfield, Morkanaut takes the objective I need to Defend this turn, and the Freeboota Battleshipwagon moves up to try to chain-kill some wimpy stuff. Weirdboy casts both his powers on 12+, immediately exploding, but dumps the Choppas on the Wyvern, so whatever. Shooting phase is unimpressive, with the Mork mostly out of range, and a wall of T8 blocking all my shots. I scratch some paint.

I charge with everything that can, locking up 6 vehicles with everyone multicharging to tie things down better. I lose maybe 6 models to Overwatch, and a rip about 25 or 30 wounds off the tanks, destroying none of them. Pass turn.

My opponent finally realizes that his deployment was aggressively terrible, because his tanks are not only locked in combat from the front, but also pinned against trees and rocks on the back side. There's nowhere to fall back to. Two mauled tanks flee, exposing only 1 biker squad, and his shooting is wasted primarily bouncing off the Morkanaut and Battlewagon. I lose maybe 10 infantry and 2 bikers, 5 of them Stormboyz killed by the counter-charging Armiger. He charges the bikers with the guys from the Chimera, but...they're Guardsmen. S4 Guardsmen, sure, but Bikers are T5. They throw themselves on our swords, and die to morale. And my Boyz finish killing the Wyvern. Neat.

Turn 2, I kill 90% of his Infantry, including every character I can reach. The Morkanaut pumps up the Freebootaz by sniping a lone Sergeant with his Twin Big Shoota, then whiffs everything at the Valk. My Shoota Boyz and Big Mek take like 5 wounds off it through sheer weight of bullets, though. Five tanks bite the dust, and I'm not even quite done with my combat phase when he concedes. Yeah, ok.

So that was a thing. Charging five T8 tanks with S4 Orks kind of sucks, but that's why Power Klaws are still a thing, and quantity is a quality of its own. I just realized I missed about 20 attacks from my Choppas having 20+ models in the unit too. Twice. Oh well, it all worked out. It wasn't super-duper fun, though, since the guy was (understandably) demoralized by how things went.

I played Kill Team too, against my buddy's Deathwatch. My luck was great, his was atrocious, and he was nearly wiped on Turn 2. He never got within a foot of my Leader (it was that Kill The Guy In Charge mission), not that he didn't try. Another game that ended early with a demoralized opponent. Dice can be real jerks sometimes.

Still, I moved up the tourney board. Going to see if I can get several Kill Team games in next week, to catch up with the rest of the players. Custodes is currently leading, as I understand it. Any suggestions for how to fight them?

[Avaris]

New Space Wolves SC! box... Total trash.
Thousand Sons SC! box... Okay? I guess.

I’m really amused that the Space Wolves get a Primaris based SC box before normal Marines do. It’s decent value if you want those specific units I guess? Not exactly inspiring though.

And I’m surprised the Thousand Sons one gets Ahriman as the character. Like, sure, but discourages buying it as an expansion to an existing army or buying two of them...

[LansXero]

I’m really amused that the Space Wolves get a Primaris based SC box before normal Marines do. It’s decent value if you want those specific units I guess? Not exactly inspiring though.

And I’m surprised the Thousand Sons one gets Ahriman as the character. Like, sure, but discourages buying it as an expansion to an existing army or buying two of them...

Ahriman can easily make Sorcerer-on-Disk #1 through #3 though with a bit of work. Also, it lets them pump up the points to focus on the 'savings' angle. Still, a great starting place. Now if Daemon Princes werent so stupid expensive.

[Cheesegear]

It’s decent value if you want those specific units I guess?

For normal Marines, they might be okay when you drop Guilliman on top.
But they are arguably the worst units for Space Wolves. Space Wolves - much like Blood Angels - hate Primaris Marines because GW hasn't got around to making Primaris models with Melee weapons that aren't totally terrible. It didn't work for Tooth & Claw, and it's not going to work now.

...Which, incidentally leads me to a game I had on the weekend; My opponent had SecObX and 'Charge a unit'. Instead of playing to the Objectives, my opponent played to his units and did the 'sensible' thing of shooting my unit off of the Objective - because Intercessors have Bolt Rifles, not Chainswords, dur! - and it's garbage mistakes like that caused the game to end up being 15-8.
Also, I've not seen anyone spend 3CPs on the Chapter Master Stratagem for a long, long time. Because the only Space Marine armies I ever play against only ever play Chapters with Chapter Masters - the current reigning bully champ in my meta is even running Crimson Fists. :smallwink:


Like, sure, but discourages buying it as an expansion to an existing army or buying two of them...

At the very least, you get a Disc of Tzeentch, so you can pick up an Exalted Sorcerer.

[JNAProductions]

Any news on the Chaos Knights Dex?

Any idea if it'll be worth getting?

[Cheesegear]

Any idea if [Chaos Knights]'ll be worth getting?

If you play <Chaos>, almost guaranteed.

[JNAProductions]

If you play <Chaos>, almost guaranteed.

Any ideas yet as to WHICH Knight would be best?

I run Nurgle, mostly, Plaguebearer and Nurglging heavy.

[Cheesegear]

Any ideas yet as to WHICH Knight would be best?

If you're anything like me; One with magnets. :smallwink:

<Chaos> - like <Imperium> - is a pretty big Faction and there really isn't one way to play it. There are some very strong melee and shooty archetypes in the Faction and having such a large centerpiece model that you can switch the loadout on means you probably wont ever have a non-social reason to not include a Knight in your list.

[9mm]

New Space Wolves SC! box... Total trash.


That's... the entire Space Wolf halve of tooth and claw without the dreadnought. LoL.


If you're anything like me; One with magnets. :smallwink:


handy guide for that (http://www.brookhammer.com/2016/06/magnetizing-an-imperial-knight/)

[Cheesegear]

That's... the entire Space Wolf halve of tooth and claw without the dreadnought. LoL.

Replace the Dreadnought with five more Intercessors. So it's arguably more useful than Tooth & Claw. But they're still Space Wolves, and Primaris Marines - for Space Wolves - are still terrible.

[druid91]

I mean.... Honestly is there anything making those Primaris space wolves aside from the paint scheme? I figured it was just a way to associate the box of Primaris with the release for the Thousand Sons so they could make it look like it was a special thing.

Despite the Space Wolves lore wise apparently despising Guilliman and Primaris.

[JNAProductions]

I mean.... Honestly is there anything making those Primaris space wolves aside from the paint scheme? I figured it was just a way to associate the box of Primaris with the release for the Thousand Sons so they could make it look like it was a special thing.

Despite the Space Wolves lore wise apparently despising Guilliman and Primaris.

Pretty sure it'd include some Space Wolves upgrade sprues too. But that's about it.

[Cheesegear]

I mean.... Honestly is there anything making those Primaris space wolves aside from the paint scheme?

One, count 'em, one, Space Wolf Upgrade sprue.

[JNAProductions]

One, count 'em, one, Space Wolf Upgrade sprue.

Just one? That's... That's kinda low, ain't it?

[Cheesegear]

Just one? That's... That's kinda low, ain't it?

Come to think of it, you'd probably get two, because there are ten Intercessors.

[Forum Explorer]

That totally got me. Disturbed my roommates with all my cackling on the couch. Well played.

Moving on, I had a game against Guard yesterday that was...interesting? No, that's the wrong word.


Battalion, Evil Suns
HQ
Big Mek Krookkracka
Big Mek in Mega Armor
-PK, Kustom Shoota
+Relic: Gitstoppa Shells

Weirdboy
+Warphead: Da Jump, Warpath (-1cp)

TROOPS
Choppa Boyz 30
-PK Nob

Shoota Boyz 20
-Shoota Nob

Shoota Boyz 20
-Shoota Nob

Outrider, Evil Suns
HQ
Warboss on Warbike (W)
-Big Choppa, Shoota, Attack Squig
+Relic: Headwhoppa's Killchoppa (-1cp)
+Trait: Might is Right (+1S to S9, +1 Attack)

FAST ATTACK
Stormboyz 27
-PK Nob

Warbikers 6
-PK Nob

Warbikers 6
-PK Nob

Spearhead, Freebooterz
HQ
Kaptin Badrukk

HEAVY SUPPORT
Flash Gitz 5

Battlewagon
-4 Big Shootas

Morkanaut
-Kustom Force Field

And my opponent's list looked a lot like this:


Battalion, Catachan
HQ
Company Commander (W)
+Kurov's Aquila
+Trait: Grand Strategist

Command Squad
-Veteran Lascannon Team

TROOPS
Infantry Squad
Infantry Squad
-Lascannon Team
Tempestus Scions

HEAVY SUPPORT
Leman Russ Battle Tank
-Lascannon

Leman Russ Battle Tank
-Lascannon

Leman Russ Eradicator
-Nova Cannon, Lascannon

Battalion, Catachan
HQ
Sly Marbo

Lord Commissar

TROOPS
Infantry Squad
Infantry Squad
-Lascannon Team
Tempestus Scions

ELITES
Master of Ordinance

DEDICATED TRANSPORT
Chimera
-Multilaser, Heavy Flamer

Taurox Prime
-GatlingTurret, Autocannons?

FLYER
Valkyrie Gunship
-Heavy Bolters, Missile Pods, Lascannons

HEAVY SUPPORT
Leman Russ Battle Tank
-Lascannon

Leman Russ Battle Tank
-Lascannon

Leman Russ Eradicator
-Nova Cannon, Lascannon

Wyvern
-Heavy Flamer

Super Heavy Auxiliary, Imperial Knights
Armiger Warglaive
-Thermal Spear, Big Chainsaw Arm

So we pull out our models, prep them in the staging area, and give an overview of our lists. Whoops, I didn't expect to be facing down 11 vehicles. I didn't bring any Tankbustas, even though I knew I'd be facing Guard. Guess I'll just have to hope I can go first and charge...uh...everything? God, thats a terrible plan...

He picks deployment type. The old Spearhead deployment, my worst match up, since he can make me slog over a 40 inch No-Man's-Land and gun me down a ton before I get into combat no matter who goes first. Sweet.

We deploy. I deploy all my units pushing my zone, like how Orks do. Weirdboy is ready to throw the Choppa Squad, and everything else will charge with the Warboss. My opponent...deploys all of his tanks on the deployment line, or as close as the trees let him. Wyvern in the back alone, Valkyrie and Armiger in between, with men spread around holding areas of cover/objectives.

Huh. I guess I have a plan, then.

I finish deploying first, and roll a 6 (+1=7) to go first. Rad. He fails to seize. Double-rad. He tries to launch an Orbital Bombardment stratagem at me, only managing to put a wound on Krookkracka and literally nothing else. Triple-rad. Time to play.

Everything fast advances, covering 18" at the slowest. My Stormboyz got the full 20", rolling a 6 for their advance like champs. Shoota Boyz advance toward objectives in the midfield, Morkanaut takes the objective I need to Defend this turn, and the Freeboota Battleshipwagon moves up to try to chain-kill some wimpy stuff. Weirdboy casts both his powers on 12+, immediately exploding, but dumps the Choppas on the Wyvern, so whatever. Shooting phase is unimpressive, with the Mork mostly out of range, and a wall of T8 blocking all my shots. I scratch some paint.

I charge with everything that can, locking up 6 vehicles with everyone multicharging to tie things down better. I lose maybe 6 models to Overwatch, and a rip about 25 or 30 wounds off the tanks, destroying none of them. Pass turn.

My opponent finally realizes that his deployment was aggressively terrible, because his tanks are not only locked in combat from the front, but also pinned against trees and rocks on the back side. There's nowhere to fall back to. Two mauled tanks flee, exposing only 1 biker squad, and his shooting is wasted primarily bouncing off the Morkanaut and Battlewagon. I lose maybe 10 infantry and 2 bikers, 5 of them Stormboyz killed by the counter-charging Armiger. He charges the bikers with the guys from the Chimera, but...they're Guardsmen. S4 Guardsmen, sure, but Bikers are T5. They throw themselves on our swords, and die to morale. And my Boyz finish killing the Wyvern. Neat.

Turn 2, I kill 90% of his Infantry, including every character I can reach. The Morkanaut pumps up the Freebootaz by sniping a lone Sergeant with his Twin Big Shoota, then whiffs everything at the Valk. My Shoota Boyz and Big Mek take like 5 wounds off it through sheer weight of bullets, though. Five tanks bite the dust, and I'm not even quite done with my combat phase when he concedes. Yeah, ok.

So that was a thing. Charging five T8 tanks with S4 Orks kind of sucks, but that's why Power Klaws are still a thing, and quantity is a quality of its own. I just realized I missed about 20 attacks from my Choppas having 20+ models in the unit too. Twice. Oh well, it all worked out. It wasn't super-duper fun, though, since the guy was (understandably) demoralized by how things went.

I played Kill Team too, against my buddy's Deathwatch. My luck was great, his was atrocious, and he was nearly wiped on Turn 2. He never got within a foot of my Leader (it was that Kill The Guy In Charge mission), not that he didn't try. Another game that ended early with a demoralized opponent. Dice can be real jerks sometimes.

Still, I moved up the tourney board. Going to see if I can get several Kill Team games in next week, to catch up with the rest of the players. Custodes is currently leading, as I understand it. Any suggestions for how to fight them?

That's hilarious. But hey, that's what happens when you don't know how to play your army properly. You get beaten up by a horde of angry mushrooms.

[Mystic Muse]

Okay, measurement time.

There are 2 foam trays at the top. They are 8.5 inches wide, 10 inches long, and 2 inches deep. 7 channels each.

The next 2 are the same length and with, but about 3.5 inches deep roughly. 5 channels each.

Next 2 are back back to 2 inches deep.7 channels each again.

And the last layer is about 3.5 inches deep again, 10 inches long and 17 inches wide instead of being 2 trays. There are 11 channels.

The case itself is 20 inches at its widest point, almost a foot tall, and 14 inches long. In addition to the hand on top, there's one on each side. The plastic seems decent enough, and the case claps shut.

[LeSwordfish]

Ah okay - looks like its the previous largest size case but with an extra tray. I might pick one up then, that should hold my Guard nicely.

[Avaris]

Strange rules formatting thing I wondered if people might have insight on. Some melee weapons have attacks listed as *2 or *3, meaning you get a multiple of the user’s base attacks. Others, like Knight’s Titanic Feet, get ‘roll 3 dice for each attack’ written out as an ability. Is there any practical difference between these?

Edit: saying that, typing here makes me think I’ve worked it out. With *3 you can allocate attacks freely between target units, whereas with the ability written out in text you have to do so in groups of 3. Seems niche...

[Wraith]

Still, I moved up the tourney board. Going to see if I can get several Kill Team games in next week, to catch up with the rest of the players. Custodes is currently leading, as I understand it. Any suggestions for how to fight them?

Count how many models are in the opposing warband (I'm going to guess 3-5 or so) then multiply that number by at least 4. That's how many models you should have in YOUR warband. :smallsmile:

I realise I've written that to sound like a joke, but it's meant to be genuine, too. Drown them in bodies with spares left over to cap the objectives, and there simply won't be enough of them to fight their way through your guys before the end of the game, if you simply stand 3" away from them and in the middle of a corridor.


And I’m surprised the Thousand Sons one gets Ahriman as the character. Like, sure, but discourages buying it as an expansion to an existing army or buying two of them...

Me too, to be honest. Not because it's Ahriman, he really is the best choice in the book to get "free", but because all of the other Start Collecting boxes (apart from Skitarii) have a generic HQ choice that can pull double-duty as a second HQ choice without comment.

While a named character like Ahriman can Count As, or be used to build, a lesser choice like an Exalted Sorcerer, its still a slight hurdle for new players who are STARTing to COLLECT the hobby and don't have the spare bits or experience to pull of such a thing, and an inconvenience to those who have some models but want more of the fundamentals. Had I not already bought my 1k Sons army quite recently, I could easily see myself having bought 3 boxes of a Get Started that had 1 Exalted Sorcerer/10 Rubric/10 Tzaangors and then a single Ahriman; less so, 3 Ahriman, 2 of which I have to otherwise deal with.

[LeSwordfish]

There's no other single Thousand Sons HQ choice in the range, is the short answer. I don't know how the Exalted Sorceror sprues split up but I guess you can't just throw one in. The alternative would be a SC box of ten rubrics and the three exalted sorcerors.

Also, I'm not sure GW wants you to buy lots of Start Collecting boxes - once you're hooked, they want you spending as much as you can afford.

[Requizen]

The 1kSons box is also quite nice for Kill Team, since they really only get Tzaangors and Rubrics anyways, and just tell everyone Ahriman is slumming it as an Exalted Sorcerer if you're playing Commanders. Snag a box of Termies for Elite options.

[Wraith]

There's no other single Thousand Sons HQ choice in the range, is the short answer.

That's a really good point that I hadn't even considered. They could *possibly* have included a Daemon Prince, but given how popular and how expensive they are I can't imagine that GW would want to "water them down" by making them part of a deal. There's not even a Kill Team Elite/Commander that could be co-opted.

...I should have known this, I've already had a rant about how bad the Thousand Sons are for getting value out of their boxes! :smalltongue:


Also, I'm not sure GW wants you to buy lots of Start Collecting boxes - once you're hooked, they want you spending as much as you can afford.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but that strikes me as unusually picky, for GW. I want to buy three $95 boxed sets from them; are they really that worried about which boxed sets I want?

More to the point; what they're trying to do is make me buy three boxed sets and then buy a fourth in order to "round out" the army... in which case, they're taking sales out of their own pocket.
I'm put off buying 3 boxes and being stuck with two models I don't need which therefore loses them sales. Similarly, if I do buy those boxes then I'm probably going to put those models on eBay which is two less sales from GW directly. Ahriman is $40USD each, and there's no one box I can buy that would realistically fit into such an army AND make that money back for GW.
It's just... really badly thought out. Or GW thinks that it will cost them more money to take an existing model and make a new (singular) sprue for it, than they will make from selling Start Collecting boxes and as a Kill Team Elite/Commander... which I suppose is possible given how much various people in this thread have speculated a new mould would cost.

[LansXero]

In the case of Ahriman its not so much adding stuff as taking stuff away. Most of the Ahriman-ish stuff is on separate pieces, so you can pick up extra stuff from the rubric seargeant or scarab box or wtv.

[Lord Torath]

I'm not seeing a Thousand Sons Start Collecting box on GW's website (https://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Warhammer-40-000?N=2562756967+2917003483&Nr=AND(sku.siteId%3AUS_gw%2Cproduct.locale%3Aen_US _gw)&Nrs=collection()%2Frecord[product.startDate+%3C%3D+1562663700000+and+product .endDate+%3E%3D+1562663700000). Is this not available yet?

[LeSwordfish]

It was sunday's pre-order preview: it'll go up for preorder on saturday.

[Selpharia]

So, um, how bad an idea is it to get the T’au apoc bix and use it as the basis of a Farsight Enclaves list centered on a big bunch of crisis suits dropping in with Drop-zone clear and 18 Cyclic Ion Blasters?

[Yaktan]

If you want crisis suits, it is good. Riptides are good too, and you can always use commanders, unless you have lots already.

If you do drop in with a big ion squad, I would recommend having a commander to drop in with them, to use Command and Control node. (Farsight is a good choice, he does not give up much shooting, and can get his meele mojo on afterwards) If you get full markerlights on your target, 4 triple ion suits with all the buffs will average a dead knight.

[Cheesegear]

So, tried an experiment today.

Grey Knights, Brigade
Grand Master Voldus - 153 Points | 10
Brother-Captain; Storm Bolter, Nemesis Daemon Hammer, First to the Fray, Destroyer of Crys'ilix - 125 Points | 9
Techmarine; Boltgun, Flamer, Plasma Cutter, Power Axe - 71 Points | 7

Strike Squad (x5); Psilencer, Storm Bolters (x4), Nemesis Falchions (Pairs; x4) - 107 Points | 7
Strike Squad (x5); Psilencer, Storm Bolters (x4), Nemesis Falchions (Pairs; x4) - 107 Points | 7
Strike Squad (x5); Psilencer, Storm Bolters (x4), Nemesis Falchions (Pairs; x4) - 107 Points | 7
Strike Squad (x5); Psilencer, Storm Bolters (x4), Nemesis Falchions (Pairs; x4) - 107 Points | 7
Strike Squad (x5); Psilencer, Storm Bolters (x4), Nemesis Falchions (Pairs; x4) - 107 Points | 7
Strike Squad (x5); Psilencer, Storm Bolters (x4), Nemesis Falchions (Pairs; x4) - 107 Points | 7

Venerable Dreadnought; Missile Launcher, Twin Lascannon - 145 Points | 8
Venerable Dreadnought; Missile Launcher, Twin Lascannon - 145 Points | 8
Servitors (x4) - 20 Points | 3

Interceptor Squad (x5); Psilencer, Storm Bolters (x4), Nemesis Halberds (x2), Nemesis Falchions (Pairs; x2) - 117 Points | 8
Interceptor Squad (x5); Psilencer, Storm Bolters (x4), Nemesis Halberds (x2), Nemesis Falchions (Pairs; x2) - 117 Points | 8
Interceptor Squad (x5); Psilencer, Storm Bolters (x4), Nemesis Halberds (x2), Nemesis Falchions (Pairs; x2) - 117 Points | 8

Purgation Squad (x5); Psycannons (x3), Storm Bolters (x2), Nemesis Falchions (Pair) - 120 Points | 7
Purgation Squad (x5); Psycannons (x3), Storm Bolters (x2), Nemesis Falchions (Pair) - 120 Points | 7
Purgation Squad (x5); Storm Bolters (x5), Nemesis Falchions (Pairs; x5) - 105 Points | 7

Total: 1997 Points | PR 132

Stuff in Reserve
Brother-Captain - 125 | 9
Strike Squads (x6) - 642 | 42
Total: 38% | 39%

The list went...Surprisingly well. Turn 1 the Purgation Squads hold my home Objectives, whilst the Interceptors shunt to wherever they need to be. Rack a bunch of Objectives. Turn 2 the Brother-Captain and all his friends drop down. Voldus Gates to the middle of the board and tries to hit all the Strike Knights with re-roll 1s. Then the entire army should Charge on Turn 2, if they haven't already been charged first.

The Venerables are basically dead weight if I go second. Hopefully they don't die in three seconds, and if they're not dead on Turn 1, at least the cheap Techmarine actually serves a purpose. But, if my opponent at least recognises that it's Infantry that win the game, then my Venerables don't get shot at, and at least I strip a few wounds off a Knight so it doesn't drop nerds. However, with the Brigade, if I'm going second, I have more than enough CPs to drop a Cover Save for my entire army.

However, I really feel like I'm missing out not having a unit of 10 somewhere in my army to make full use of Psybolt Ammo. But, given how expensive GKs are, I can't even fit in a unit of 10 anywhere.

My biggest issue is that Sororitas can do almost this exact same army except cheaper (and thus have more in it), and Deathwatch do it better for roughly the same cost.

There are still a few proxies peppered around the army (less than you'd think), and I'm struggling to know if I should even bother rounding out the army.

[Wraith]

However, I really feel like I'm missing out not having a unit of 10 somewhere in my army to make full use of Psybolt Ammo. But, given how expensive GKs are, I can't even fit in a unit of 10 anywhere.

Very similar to what I found, when I played GK's last week. I would possibly suggest that two of the 5x Strike Squads could be a single 10x Strike Squad. You don't lose out on the Psilencer as they're 2-per-5, and since you're not taking Warding Staves then you're not missing out on that either.
It also gives you a plausible target for Gate of Infinity once Voldus has done his thing; not hugely important given how many Interceptors you have, but being able to Teleport Strike 10 guys in one turn, Rapid Fire/Psybolt Ammo a unit to death and then immediately GoI them elsewhere to do the same thing again thereafter has lots of promise.

Two Dreadnoughts are probably better than 1 Dreadknight. It's a necessary evil, you've got to have SOME s8 weapons even if its a gamble on them ever using them.


There are still a few proxies peppered around the army (less than you'd think), and I'm struggling to know if I should even bother rounding out the army.

If you're mono-dex'ing Grey Knights, I don't think there's even much more you could do. Your battle-plan is to alpha-strike like a crazy person and hope that enough of your guys survive in order to allow a decent beta-strike in turn 2.
*Maybe* swap the 'Naught's for a Dreadknight, and add his reliability to your turn 1 shunt just to really, really hammer that point down? I feel that's what I should be recommending, but at the same time I also feel that it would be nice to be able to wound something bigger than a Space Marine on less than 5's or even 6's every once in a while.

[Cheesegear]

Very similar to what I found, when I played GK's last week. I would possibly suggest that two of the 5x Strike Squads could be a single 10x Strike Squad. You don't lose out on the Psilencer as they're 2-per-5, and since you're not taking Warding Staves then you're not missing out on that either.

But then I would lose out on the Brigade. :smallannoyed:

If you're not going to have a Brigade, you might as well start taking out models for Guard/AdMech/Sisters Detachments, and once you start doing that, why are you even playing GKs? Like I said, Sisters are cheaper and Deathwatch are better.

The point is what do GKs do better than (almost) any other Codex? ObSec'd Deep Strikers, and some very silly mobilisation options.
While Guard have Scions, in my experience, they don't have the mobilisation to redeploy like GKs and Deathwatch do - Teleportation Boost is so good.


It also gives you a plausible target for Gate of Infinity once Voldus has done his thing

Lots of my units have Gate. Voldus only uses it on Turn 2 to hand out rr1s.


but being able to Teleport Strike 10 guys in one turn, Rapid Fire/Psybolt Ammo a unit to death and then immediately GoI them elsewhere

Immediately? But Psychic phase is before Shooting? :smallconfused:
My experience is unloading 40 Psybolt shots on your opponent, and them, in their turn saying "Yeah, I'm not letting you do that again." and then the unit getting blasted - provided that you also failed the Charge.


Two Dreadnoughts are probably better than 1 Dreadknight.

Given how big Wyverns/Basilisks are in the meta*, I figure a Dreadnought with Astral Aim is basically mandatory. If you can hide your own AA-Dreads behind LoS, you're laughing. However, you also run the very real risk of failing to manifest AA and then your Dread is a brick for a turn.

*I just haven't played a Guard army...Yet. But I suspect I will on the weekend.


*Maybe* swap the 'Naught's for a Dreadknight, and add his reliability to your turn 1 shunt just to really

You know a Dreadknight's Teleporter has different rules to Interceptors', right?
(i.e; Dreadknight Teleporters have sucked for over a year)

[LansXero]

But then I would lose out on the Brigade. :smallannoyed:

If you're not going to have a Brigade, you might as well start taking out models for Guard/AdMech/Sisters Detachments, and once you start doing that, why are you even playing GKs? Like I said, Sisters are cheaper and Deathwatch are better.

How do you feel about 2x batallions though?


My experience is unloading 40 Psybolt shots on your opponent, and them, in their turn saying "Yeah, I'm not letting you do that again." and then the unit getting blasted - provided that you also failed the Charge.


It should be "Yeah, I'm not letting you do that even once, eat Dark Reaper / Crimson Hunter fire through Forewarned, thanks for playing".


Given how big Wyverns/Basilisks are in the meta*, I figure a Dreadnought with Astral Aim is basically mandatory. If you can hide your own AA-Dreads behind LoS, you're laughing. However, you also run the very real risk of failing to manifest AA and then your Dread is a brick for a turn.

Can Dreads go into buildings? I feel like they should, wouldnt be surprised if they cant though.

[JNAProductions]

Can Dreads go into buildings? I feel like they should, wouldnt be surprised if they cant though.

First floor only. (Unless they can Fly.) But yes.

[Wraith]

Lots of my units have Gate. Voldus only uses it on Turn 2 to hand out rr1s.

Fair enough. You didn't say what else he was doing with his other powers, I just think it's handy to have a decent target for it in turn 3, if you're fortunate enough to have rolled well and wiped out the nearby threat/target.


Immediately? But Psychic phase is before Shooting? :smallconfused:

Immediately as in, "the next viable thing you do with them". I didn't think I implied anything else, sorry for the confusion.


My experience is unloading 40 Psybolt shots on your opponent, and them, in their turn saying "Yeah, I'm not letting you do that again." and then the unit getting blasted - provided that you also failed the Charge.

I gave my guys Sanctuary and screened with two Dreadknights so it didn't come up. Then again, I admit I was fortunate to have an opponent who became tunnel-visioned on a Distraction Carnifexknight. *shrug*


You know a Dreadknight's Teleporter has different rules to Interceptors', right?

Derp, I meant Teleport Strike, not Shunt. He comes down in turn 2 to annihilate something with two Gatling Psilencers (not necessarily optimal, but I like rolling fistfuls of dice all at once), and to also draw fire away from the guys who took casualties in the previous turn, to try and get an extra turn out of them before they're wiped out.


How do you feel about 2x batallions though?

Pretty much what I was thinking of. Not sure what you'd drop/change to get that 4th HQ choice though - maybe the Servitors and a couple of Psilencers, maybe? And what HQ would you take? Another Techmarine seems redundant, Librarian and Brotherhood Ancient are quite costly.... Brotherhood Champion? Ew.

[Cheesegear]

How do you feel about 2x batallions though?

GKs have nothing interesting in their entire Codex except their Troops, and Inceptors.

If you have anything other than this...

Grey Knights, Battalion
Grand Master Voldus - 153 Points
Brother-Captain; Storm Bolter, Falchions/Halberd/Stave - 125 Points

Strike Squad (x5); Psilencer, Storm Bolters (x4), Nemesis Falchions (Pairs; x4) - 107 Points
Strike Squad (x5); Psilencer, Storm Bolters (x4), Nemesis Falchions (Pairs; x4) - 107 Points
Strike Squad (x5); Psilencer, Storm Bolters (x4), Nemesis Falchions (Pairs; x4) - 107 Points

Interceptor Squad (x5); Psilencer, Storm Bolters (x4), Falchions/Halberds - 117 Points
Interceptor Squad (x5); Psilencer, Storm Bolters (x4), Falchions/Halberds - 117 Points
Interceptor Squad (x5); Psilencer, Storm Bolters (x4), Falchions/Halberds - 117 Points

Total: 950 Points
Plus ~110 for another 5 models to make a 10-man for Psybolt Ammo.

Basically, if your army includes more than 1000 Points or so of GKs, you're probably doing something wrong. The Power and Points works out that all your Troops and Captain can start the game in Reserve. And, in fact, if you're willing to spend another 1000 Points on any other Faction, you may as well go ahead and drop the Interceptors, too. The only useful thing in the entire GK book (that can't be done better and/or cheaper elsewhere in the <Imperium>) is the Deep Striking ObSec'd units with Storm Bolters. Sure, Deathwatch can do it...But they only get two units and it costs 3 CPs.

But, point is, if you're playing solo-GKs, you can't just flood the army list with Troops, because half your army has to be on the board, and ideally, that half should be borderline useful. Not too long ago, when it was only 'half units on the board, that was fun'...Dreadknights in Reserve and Servitors on the board. That's fair, right? ...Of course, that was back when you could Deep Strike on Turn 1 and GKs were one of the best armies in the game because of it.

Successive nerfs to Deep Strike has directly meant successive nerfs to GKs main schtick.


It should be "Yeah, I'm not letting you do that even once, eat Dark Reaper / Crimson Hunter fire through Forewarned, thanks for playing".

In which case you'd see that, Combat Squad up during deployment and just flood your opponent's midfield with identical units so it doesn't matter which one they shoot.


Immediately as in, "the next viable thing you do with them".

I guess my issue is that you can't do anything viable with them after they've done the thing, because your opponent is going to shut you down.


Derp, I meant Teleport Strike, not Shunt. He comes down in turn 2 to annihilate something with two Gatling Psilencers

REEEEEEEEE.
Try reading the unit entry again. You think people take Psycannon and Psilencer because they want to? :smallwink:


(not necessarily optimal, but I like rolling fistfuls of dice all at once)

Are you kidding? Double Psilencers would be the greatest thing ever. That's why it's not allowed.

[Meatgrinder]

Have you tried to fit a 10-man block of Paladins into the list? Someone using pure GK won a GT in Australia a while back, and those were a key component of his list. (That, and 2 Land Raiders, but let's not talk about that.)

[Cheesegear]

Someone using pure GK won a GT in Australia a while back, and those were a key component of his list.

As an Australian myself...Why am I only learning this now? :smallsigh:
Do you remember what the GT was called?

[Drasius]

As an Australian myself...Why am I only learning this now? :smallsigh:
Do you remember what the GT was called?

https://lmgtfy.com/?q=40k%20gt%20australia%20grey%20knights&s=g